1950-09-06

Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce that tomorrow evening at eight o'clock I propose to move that we go into committee of ways and means in order that I may make certain budgetary proposals.



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY TABLING OF CORRESPONDENCE WITH NOVA SCOTIA

Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Resources and Development):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table correspondence between the federal government and the government of Nova Scotia respecting the trans-Canada highway.


Mr. P. C. Black (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to ask the minister what the . developments have been in signing the agreements with Nova Scotia and Quebec, to which reference is made in the folder now being tabled concerning the building of the trans-Canada highway in those provinces. If the agreement with Nova Scotia has not been signed, can the minister say why it is being delayed so long?


Robert Henry Winters: The agreement has not yet been signed by Nova Scotia and Quebec. As to the reasons, I would suggest that the provinces in question are in a better position to provide the information.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Coldwell:: 1.	How many investigations under the Combines Investigation Act were under way on January 1, 1950, and what is the present status of each of them?
2.	How many investigations have been commenced since that date?
3.	Have any reports been made to the minister under section 10(e) of the Combines Investigation Act?


Mr. Garson:: 1.	Two inquiries leading to formal investigation were under way on January 1, 1950, and one of these is now at the hearings stage and the other is at the stage of giving the parties opportunity to be heard before reaching conclusions.
2.	One inquiry leading to formal investigation has been commenced since January 1, 1950, .and is now at the hearings stage.
1 and 2. In addition to the foregoing, there are a large number of matters in various preliminary stages of inquiry, but it is not known at their present stages how many of them may lead to formal investigation.
3.	No.



FISHERIES


Mr. Browne (Si. John's West):: 1.	How many cold storage bait depots have been authorized for construction in Newfoundland during the current fiscal year?
2.	How many of these have been erected or are in the process of erection?
3.	Where are they located or to be located, and what is the cost of each?


Mr. Mayhew:: 1.	Construction of cold storage bait depots has not as yet been authorized. Provision is made for construction of three bait depots in the 1950-51 estimates. Plans and specifications are in process of completion.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Plans call for one depot at La Scie (in the northeast coast area), one at Winterton, Trinity Bay, and a third is planned for a site on the northwest coast area. Cost of each depot is estimated at $60,000.



U.S. TARIFF ON COPPER

Mr. Catherwood:: 1.	Is the two cents per pound tariff on copper exported to the United States still in effect?
2.	If so, have representations been made to the government of the United States with a view to having this tariff removed?


Mr. Pearson:: 1.	Yes. Tax had been suspended from April 30, 1947 to June 30, 1950. Bill to have suspension extended now before congress. Tax came into effect July 1, 1950.
2.	No official representations have been made.

Questions



KOREAN CAMPAIGN


Mr. Wright:: 1.	Have any requests been received by Canada for participation by the Canadian ground forces in the Korean campaign?
2.	If so, how many troops were requested?
3.	From whom were such requests received?
4.	On what dates were such requests received?
5.	What reply was made to each?
6.	Was there any consultation with (a) the United Nations; (b) the United States government before the destroyers and air transport squadrons were made available to the United Nations forces in Korea?


Mr. Pearson:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Not specified.
3.	Communications requesting the participation of Canadian forces in the Korean campaign were received from the Secretary General of the United Nations, dated June 29 (forwarding the resolution of the security council of June 27) and July 14.
In addition, the Canadian government, as well as other governments who had supported the security council's resolution of June 27 was approached on August 12 by the U.S. government, on behalf of the unified command, to determine whether it would be possible for Canadian ground forces to take part in the Korean campaign with the United Nations forces.
4.	Answered by No. 3.
5.	In reply to the secretary general's communication of June 29, he was informed in a communication of July 12 that the Canadian government were making available three destroyers for service with the unified command. (See the Department of External Affairs white paper, "Canada and the Korean Crisis," appendix 12). To the secretary general's communication of July 14, the government replied on July 21, forwarding a copy of the Prime Minister's broadcast of July 19, in which he announced the willingness of the government to send a squadron of transport aircraft. A further reply was forwarded to the secretary general on August 14 with the text of the Prime Minister's broadcast of August 7, announcing that a brigade, to be called the Canadian army special force, would be recruited in order to be available to meet Canadian obligations under the United Nations charter and the North Atlantic treaty. Finally, the secretary general was informed on August 11 that the government had decided, with the co-operation of the Canadian Pacific Air Lines, to make available to the United Nations the passenger facilities of the regular Canadian Pacific Air Lines service
(Mr. Pearson.]
between Vancouver and Tokyo. These documents are given in appendices 14, 15, 18, 20 and 21 of the white paper.
In reply to their approach to the Canadian government on August 12, the U.S. government were informed that the participation of Canadian ground forces in Korea had been covered by the Prime Minister's broadcast of August 7, in which he announced that a Canadian army special force would be recruited.
6.	(a) Yes. (b) Yes. There have from the first been consultations with the United States, and indeed with other governments, as to what air, sea, and ground forces the Canadian government might be able to make available for service with the United Nations forces in Korea.



KOREAN SERVICE FORCE

Mr. Jones:: 1.	What are the rates of pay for each grade or rank In the special Korean service force?
2.	Do these rates differ from those being paid members of the regular Canadian forces?
3.	If so, in what respects?
4.	Are Canadian servicemen in the regular forces allowed to volunteer for the Korean force?
5.	Have any arrangements been made with volunteer organizations such as the Canadian Legion, the Salvation Army, the Y.M.C.A., etc., for recreational facilities for Canadians serving in the Korean force?
6.	If so, what arrangements have been made, and with what organizations?


Mr. Blanchette:: 1.	Rates of pay for the Canadian army special force are the same as those for the Canadian army (active force). A chart showing the rates of pay and allowances for members of the Canadian army (active force) appears on opposite page.
2 and 3. Although the rates of pay and allowances for the Canadian army special force do not differ from those being paid to the regular Canadian force, the members of the Canadian army special force are not subject to deductions for pension purposes.
4.	The navy and air force are not granting free discharges to personnel for the purpose of joining the Canadian army special force. In the case of the army, the question of volunteering does not arise as men of the Canadian army (active force) have already undertaken to serve anywhere. Any required in the special force are posted to it.
5.	No.
6.	Provision is being made in various establishments of the Canadian army special force for military welfare officers and substaffs. This personnel will be able to provide comforts, amenities and other welfare services for this force in service installations in Canada and all required welfare services for the force should it proceed outside of Canada.



TABLE SHOWING -NORMAL PAY AND ALLOWANCES PAYABLE AND CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH ISSUED IN RESPECT OF THE CANADIAN ARMY ACTIVE FORCE (POST WAR PERMANENT ARMY) MONTHLY RATES OF STANDARD PAY AND ALLOWANCES

[Stage Direction]
Pat or Rank	Group Pay	Subsistence allowance	Quarters allowance	Separated family's allowanceRank	Basic	Group 1	Group 2	Group 3	Group 4	allowance	$747	$102	$72	$20	$87660	100	70	20	85 83 79 73 68 58578	98	68	20 20 20	434	94	64	323	NO!	APPLICABLE TO OFFICERS	88	58	278	83	53	20 20	213	73	43	Lieutenant (commissioned from	203	73	43	20	58 58 40 55 50 50 45 39 39 39 39181	73	43	20 20	153	55	25	146	$4	$12	$20	$28	70	40	20 20	131	4	12	20	28 .	65	35	116	4	12	20	28	65	35	20 20 20 20 20 20	101	4	12	20	28	60	30	88	4	12	20	28	54	24	79	4	12	20	28	54	24	72	4	12	20	28	54	24	68	NOT APPLICABLE TO PRIVATE (Basic)	54	24	
Questions
[Stage Direction]
Questions

Mr. Fair:: 1.	How many individuals purchased bonds during each of the nine victory loan campaigns covering world war II?
2.	What was the total value of bonds purchased by (a) individuals; (b) banks, during each campaign?
3.	What is the value of above bonds now held by (a) individuals; (b) banks?


Mr. Sinclair:: 1.	Number of applications received through the general sales canvass and payroll savings
canvass:
First victory loan (1)	 959,030
Second victory loan	 1,673,480
Third victory loan	 2,024,718
Fourth victory loan	 2,661,068
Fifth victory loan (1)	  3,025,357
Sixth victory loan	 3,070,601
Seventh victory loan (1)	 3,320,580
Eighth victory loan	 3,172,575
Ninth victory loan	 2,941,560
(1) Includes conversion applications.
2.	(a) Par value of bonds purchased through general sales canvass and payroll savings
canvass:
First victory loan (1)	$	313,983,650
Second victory loan	 335,638,200
Third victory loan	 374,613,950
Fourth victory loan	 529,500,000
Fifth victory loan (1)	 641,865,500
Sixth victory loan	 641,460,900
Seventh victory loan Cl) ....	801,765,850
Eighth victory loan	 831,920,800
Ninth victory loan	 1,226,354,550
(b) Par value of bonds purchased for own account:	Bank
of Canada (2)
3.	Not of government record. The returns of the Bank of Canada and the chartered banks show holdings of all government bonds and government guaranteed bonds.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Fair:: 1.	What quantity of wheat was delivered undel the British wheat agreement during the crop year 1949-50?
2.	At what price per bushel was this wheat sold?
3.	During the same period, what quantity of class II wheat was sold?
4.	What was the average price per bushel obtained?
5.	How many bushels were supplied to millers for Canadian consumption as flour during the same period?
6.	At what price per bushel was such wheat sold?



INCOME TAX


Mr. Diefenbaker:: How many prosecutions have been taken concerning alleged offences under the Income Tax Act, by provinces, against farmers, since the first of January, 1950, and of those, how many convictions were secured?



GOVERNMENT OR C.N.R. PURCHASES FROM VARIOUS COMPANIES

Mr. Knowles:: Has any department of the government or the Canadian National Railways made any purchases during the past three years from (a) the Northwestern Brass company; (b) the Dominion Wheel and Foundries, Limited; (c) T. McAvity and Sons; (d) the Montreal Locomotive Works; (e) the Canadian Locomotive Company; (f) the Canadian Car and Foundry Company; (g) the Bird-Archer Company?
First victory loan (1)	$	7,000,000
Second victory loan	 1,700,000
Third victory loan	 -
Fourth victory loan	 -
Fifth victory loan (1)	 72,000,000
Sixth victory loan	 -
Seventh victory loan (1)	....	42,500,000
Eighth victory loan	 -
Ninth victory loan	 -
Chartered Banks First victory loan (1) .... $ 42,200,000 (2)
Second victory loan	 115,800,000
Third victory loan	 500,000
Fourth victory loan	 500,000
Fifth victory loan (1)	....	67,700,000	(2)
Sixth victory loan	 -
Seventh victory loan	(1)	.	38,700,000	(2)
Eighth victory loan		-
Ninth victory loan	 -
(1)	Includes conversion applications.
(2)	All conversion applications, no cash applications.



POST OFFICE-&quot;COMPANY TOWN&quot;

Mr. Benidickson:: 1.	For post office purposes, what is the definition of a ''company town"?
2.	On the basis of such definition, which communities in Canada are designated by the Post Office Department as a "company town"?
3.	Which of these communities, if any, receive such postal services as transport of mails, postal premises and staff at any cost to the Post Office Department?
4.	Did the Post Office Department impose a condition that citizens residing at "company towns" cannot be provided with postal services unless it is without cost to the Post Office Department? If so, when?
5.	Since such a condition was imposed, have any exceptions been permitted, and at what places?
6.	Is the authority for imposing such a condition based on (a) statute; (b) postal regulations (c) order in council?



DELIVERIES, SALES AND PRICES, 1949-50

Mr. Ross (Souris):: 1. How many bushels of wheat were delivered by producers to Canadian wheat board between August 1, 1949, and July 31, 1950?

2.	How many bushels of wheat were sold by Canadian wheat board between August 1, 1949 and July 31, 1950?
3.	What was the average price per bushel for such wheat sold during that period?



MOTION FOR PAPERS

[Stage Direction]
"wages and employment in the

Stanley Howard Knowles: For a copy of the memorandum entitled "Wages and Employment in the Transportation Industry" prepared by the economics and research branch of the Department of Labour under date of October 26, 1949, and also for a copy of any later memoranda in the possession of the Department of Labour dealing with the same matter.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
PROCEDURE on going into committee of the WHOLE

Mr. Speaker:: Before calling the orders of the day I should like to make a brief statement. It has come to my attention, and I notice from yesterday's Hansard, a copy of which has just been handed to me, that the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) raised the question yesterday afternoon that when I left the chair at that time for the house to resolve itself into committee of the whole on a certain resolution now before the committee a number of hon. members on both sides of the house did not hear me when I put the usual question, "Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?" The reason may have been that there was a certain amount of commotion in the house which did not wholly cease when I rose to put the question. This conduct is contrary to standing order 12(2), which reads as follows:
When Mr. Speaker is putting a question, no member shall walk out of or across the house, or make any noise or disturbance.
Had it been brought to my attention at that time that the question put was not fully heard, I would have put it a second time. In future I would ask all hon. members to remain quiet when any question is being put from the chair, and I would also ask any hon. member who does not hear what is being said from the chair to so indicate at the time. I am sure I shall have the full co-operation of all hon. members in this regard.



STRAIT OF CANSO


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Percy Chapman Black: I should like to ask the Minister of Transport when tenders
Inquiries of the Ministry will be called for the bridge over the strait of Canso, and why there has been so much delay?


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: Perhaps I could answer that question in this way. The plans being prepared by the engineer selected by the government have just about been completed. They have been placed in the hands of the Canadian National Railways and the province of Nova Scotia for comment and examination. Until that is forthcoming I shall not be in position to say when tenders will be called.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. W. Mayhew (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Goode) asked if I would make a statement with respect to sockeye salmon fishing on the Fraser river in British Columbia.
This season was the cycle year for the return of the run of sockeye salmon spawned in 1946. One of the races in this cycle year, known as the Adams river run, was expected to return to the Fraser river system in large volume following excellent escapement to the spawning grounds in 1946. Unfortunately the run has not materialized in the volume expected, and in fact is estimated to be less than 20 per cent of either of the cycle years 1942 or 1946.
The international Pacific salmon fisheries commission is the joint agency responsible, under the treaty between Canada and the United States, for the preservation and rehabilitation of the Fraser river sockeye runs. The commission has been watching the situation most closely to see that there is escapement to the spawning grounds to ensure a return of this race of fish in 1954. The international salmon commission took action to assure sufficient escapement and to provide opportunity for Canadian fishermen to catch their share of the available sockeye salmon on a parity with United States fishermen by closing the waters of Puget sound to fishing by the United States fleet. This closure became effective at nine p.m. on August 30, until September 6, when the sockeye will have passed through American waters.
Because of the disappointing volume of this particular run of fish-the Adams river run- and in the interests of conservation, information reached the department on Tuesday afternoon that the commission has announced that effective at eight a.m. on Thursday, September 7, until October 2, the Fraser river, including
320	HOUSE OF
Defence Appropriation Act the gulf of Georgia, will be closed to fishing, except that during this period nets with a mesh size of eight inches or greater may be used.
Canadian fishing operations can still continue in the straits of Juan de Fuca and in that portion of the gulf of Georgia known as area 18-Pender island. It is not likely any sockeye will be caught in the areas remaining open to fishing, since the Adams river run has passed through these waters. Fishing here will be conducted for species other than sockeye.
It is not possible to reach any conclusions concerning the causes of the serious failure of the 1950 Adams river sockeye run until an analysis can be made of the catch and escapement statistics. It is reported to the department that escapement to the spawning grounds of the earlier runs of sockeye to the Fraser river system this season has been good, and reports indicate the grounds are adequately seeded.
Up until August 30 the United States fishermen had caught 1,191,000 sockeye from the runs to the Fraser river system. The Canadian catch up to September 4 was 736,000 fish. It is hoped this difference of 455,000 fish will to some extent be reduced when Canadian sockeye fishing operations are resumed on October 2.



DEFENCE APPROPRIATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, September 5, 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. Pearkes:: Mr. Chairman, when the committee rose last evening I had mentioned that there were some questions that I wished to direct to the Minister of National Defence with regard to the money to be provided for future commitments in connection with the defence forces and which might be incurred during the present year.
According to the resolution these commitments for the navy, army and air force amount to $409,257,821, with $5,310,000 for research-a sum of huge proportions. This idea of asking for money for which detailed estimates are not presented to parliament is something which has been introduced only in recent years. Normally it is the custom to present detailed estimates of the money to be expended. During the last session of parliament $144 million was asked for in the way of future commitments, and in the year previous to that $145 million odd was asked
[Mr. Mayhew.l

for. We have had no accounting to date as to how that $290 million, in round figures, has been expended. We have had no information as to whether any portion of that amount has been spent, whether it is all gone or whether it is still available. I submit that the Minister of National Defence should explain to the house how he has spent that $290 million which was given to him in the form of a blank cheque before he comes back and asks the house for another blank cheque for over $400 million. I hope the minister will not only be able to give us an account of what has been spent up to date of the blank cheques which he has received already, but will also indicate, so far as he can, how he intends to spend this vast amount of over $400 million for which he is now asking.
The people of this country are concerned about the tremendous expenditures which have been made on national defence. They have been disturbed by the events of recent months which seem to indicate that even with the expenditure of this money we have not a force which is capable of answering the call made upon this country, even though that call may not have been foreseen. There are doubts as to whether the force which we now have is even competent of carrying out the task that has been assigned to it.
During this session I have questioned whether the airborne brigade has reached the standard of efficiency which the people of this country believed it had, based upon the statements made in the house by the Minister of National Defence and supporters of the government. I picked up a paper today which contains a statement by Brigadier Rockingham, made only yesterday, with regard to the efficiency of this airborne brigade. Remember that the airborne brigade is the only force we have in Canada that is considered capable of being able to act immediately in the event of acts of aggression against Canada. I am not talking about acts of aggression outside of Canada. We were told it could not be sent out of Canada because it was the only force in Canada which was ready to resist an act of aggression, even a diversionary raid. Dealing with the Royal 22nd regiment, the regiment from the province of Quebec now in the active army, Brigadier Rockingham, the commander of the special Korean force, is reported in today's Montreal Gazette to have said in Quebec city yesterday:
The first battalion-	.
That is the regular battalion.
-of the 22nd has been concentrated as a battalion for the first time in some years at Valcartier.

This is a battalion of the airborne brigade force which is expected to be able to engage the enemy immediately. It is now being concentrated, for the first time in a number of years, for battalion training at Valcartier. Then Brigadier Rockingham goes on to say, referring to troops of that battalion:
Troops at Rivers, Man., undergoing parachute training, and the detachment at St. Johns, Que., have been recalled. Reason for the move is that the parent unit-
The Royal 22nd regiment of the active force.
-will be responsible for the training of the reinforcement stream for the special force battalion.
I made the statement yesterday, repeating what I had said last week, that the airborne brigade is not ready to act immediately as a formation in the defence of Canada. I said that their men might be poured into battle piecemeal, but they could not fight as a coherent organized unit because they had never been trained together and were unable to work as a team, inasmuch as they had had no formation training. I pointed out that certain elements of the brigade were still lacking. The statement made by Brigadier Rockingham confirms my statements, and in fact hasi emphasized them by pointing out that one of the battalions has not even received unit training, let alone working as a unit within a brigade.
It is therefore quite obvious that before the airborne brigade could fight as a brigade it would require a further period of training. I now ask the Minister of National Defence if he will tell us how long it will take, in his opinion and in the opinion of his military advisers, before the airborne brigade will be in a position to fight as a brigade, and not merely piecemeal as separate units. I would ask him also what steps are being taken to accelerate that further training. The remarks made by Brigadier Rockingham only underline the remarks I made last night, in which I pointed out the extreme difficulty that exists when you give a dual role to one body of troops, the dual role being to be ready to protect our northern frontier, and at the same time to provide for the expansion of our reserve army forces.
It is obvious that the training of the Royal 22nd regiment to carry out what is considered to be their primary role, that of acting in co-operation with other units of the airborne brigade, has been disrupted in order that they may be withdrawn to carry out the secondary role of providing for the expansion of the second battalion of the Royal 22nd regiment, their share of the special service force now being organized for Korea.
Defence Appropriation Act
I asked a number of questions during the debate last night. To summarize them briefly, so far as the navy is concerned, the people of Canada want to know when the nine or ten new ships now under construction will be available. They want to know when the new anti-submarine vessels will be available for the defence of Canada to replace the ships of the Royal Canadian Navy which have now gone to Far Eastern waters. They want to know when the reconditioning of ten destroyers will be completed, and when trained men will be made available to man these vessels.
So far as the army is concerned, the question I ask is when will the airborne brigade be ready as a brigade, as a formation and not as small detachments, to be able to fight in the defence of Canada if need be. I have asked when the personnel of the reserve army will be ready to provide not only expanded forces for the defence of this country, but also the overseas forces which may be required if we are asked in the near future to carry out any operations in accordance with the wishes of the United Nations or our agreements under the North Atlantic treaty. What steps are being taken to bring the reserve forces up to a standard of readiness which will enable them to be placed in the field in a reasonably short time, either before or after an emergency has actually developed? The minister said that he had it all taped down to the last man as to how many men would be required for the navy, army and air force. The people of Canada want to be reassured and told that they will be ready and available within a reasonably short time, or they want to be told that the plans which have been in effect up to the present are not providing such training and such means of equipping and mobilizing the force as will enable reserve formations to be ready shortly. If that should be the case, then they want to know what steps are being taken by this government to correct those deficiencies. It is no use making the statement that a recruiting drive is to be undertaken for the reserve army. It is true that there are some excellent units in the reserve, but the training of a great many units is deficient, and many are short in manpower. They do not have enough men today to bring their strength up to a quarter of their effective establishment. I know the difficulties in connection with recruiting forces. Let the minister tell us what steps are being taken, and the exact position of the reserve army.
With respect to the air force, we have been told that we are getting certain new planes- the CF-100, the F-86, the Mustangs, and air-
322

Defence Appropriation Act craft for our carrier Magnificent. We want to know when those will be ready and available. We want to know when those aircraft will be actually provided to the various squadrons of the R.C.A.F., or placed on the Magnificent. We want to know when it is estimated there will be a sufficient number of trained pilots to operate these various aircraft.
I have tried to summarize some of the questions to which I think hon. members must have the answers before they can carry out the instructions given by the Prime Minister, examine and decide for themselves whether the steps being taken by this government are sufficiently speedy and adequate. I know there will be people in this country and members of this house who will say that if this information is given to the house, published in the press and made available to the people of Canada, the result will be to break security and to give information which may be of value to an enemy, should that enemy not have the information in his possession already. We have suggested two possible solutions. My leader has asked time and again for a committee, in which such information could be given. The government has turned down that suggestion. Then my leader made the only other practical suggestion I can think of which would enable hon. members to obtain the information it is their bounden duty to obtain-that is, that we have a secret sitting of this house, from which the public would be excluded, in which the Minister of National Defence could answer all questions without fear of any leak in the essential security arrangements of the country.


Mr. Claxton:: I will deal as quickly as possible with some of the points raised by the hon. member for Nanaimo. It would partly meet his request, and also have the information at one place in Hansard, if I gave in the briefest possible manner a summary of the actual work being done to accelerate the development of our armed forces. This information has been given before. Perhaps I should have given it again yesterday during the course of my statement, but I thought it was not necessary. In view of the remarks of my hon. friend, however, I believe I should do so at this time. Dealing briefly with the three services I shall give such information as can be made available, and then deal with some of the other points.
Dealing first with the Royal Canadian Navy:
1. Manpower. The ceiling of 9,600 officers and men has been increased by 40 per cent to a total of 13,440 all ranks. Recruiting to this total will be carried on at the rate of 240 or more per month, which is a planned figure based upon increased training facilities.

2.	When the program for the commissioning of ships has been completed, the total of 13,440
will be divided half and half between those at sea and those on shore, which is considered everywhere to be a desirable division.
3.	Ships. We already have under construction one icebreaker, three anti-submarine vessels, four minesweepers and a gate vessel. We will add to those a number of additional anti-submarine vessels, minesweepers and gate vessels. The number has been recommended by the Department of National Defence to the maritime commission and the Canadian Commercial Corporation, which are now examining the possibilities of placing orders and getting this work under way immediately. It is not possible to give the planned rate of production. That information must be based first on the development of plans of new vessels, and second on the speed with which yards can tool up and get going on complicated types. That is being pressed on, but obviously the vessels will only begin to come into production in 1951, and successively from then on as they are built.


Percy Chapman Black: I wonder if the minister would state, now or a little later-


Brooke Claxton: I should like, if I may, to complete this summary statement.


Percy Chapman Black: -where these vessels are being constructed.


Brooke Claxton: I can give that information now. The new anti-submarine vessels are being constructed at Halifax shipyards, Canadian Vickers and Burrard Dry Dock Company. The minesweepers are being constructed by the Saint John Dry Dock Company, New Brunswick; Davie Shipbuilding and Repairing Company at Levis; Port Arthur Shipbuilding Company, and one at Victoria Machinery Depot on the west coast. The gate vessel is also being constructed by George T. Davie and Sons at Lauzon. These ships will be built as rapidly as possible, and the planned rate of intake of crew is calculated to man the ships as they are ready.
The remaining ships in reserve in the Canadian navy, two destroyers, a frigate and four minesweepers will be commissioned, as well as possibly the additional cruiser, making the total of ships in commission: an aircraft carrier, one or two cruisers, ten destroyers, five frigates, seven minesweepers and an icebreaker.


Mr. Harkness:: Can the minister tell us when these ships will be commissioned and in operation?


Brooke Claxton: No, I cannot give that
information.

Defence Appropriation Act
4.	Equipment. All the ten destroyers will be fitted with the latest type of guns and armament, the three-inch fifty-calibre and anti-submarine weapons. In addition to the number of ships that will be in commission when the program is completed, there will be the new ships I mentioned. This is the program now worked out, but it does not mean it will stay like this in the future. There will be further developments and increases.
Then, the Canadian army:
1.	Manpower. The present establishment of 23,034 has been increased by forty per cent to 30,800, and will soon be increased again owing to making provision for reinforcements for the Canadian army special force. The increased ceiling will permit the following to be carried out: The active force brigade group will be brought up to strength; we shall have two additional anti-aircraft batteries, and the Canadian special force will be supplied with a year's reinforcements.
2.	Equipment. There will be a modernization of anti-aircraft equipment, purchase of additional spares for-


Mr. Ferguson:: May I ask the minister one question?


Brooke Claxton: I want to get through this now. The hon. member can ask his question later.
In so far as equipment is concerned, there will be a modernization of anti-aircraft equipment, purchase of additional spares for armoured fighting vehicles, tooling up for production in Canada of United States pattern vehicles, purchase of armament stores, particularly anti-aircraft fire control equipment, signal and wireless equipment and clothing and personal equipment.
The Royal Canadian Air Force:
1.	Manpower. The establishment has been increased from 18,278 by forty per cent to a total of 24,950. We plan on the intake for aircrew of 150 every six weeks, and we also hope to get 450 groundcrew per month. The figures under the old program were 100 groundcrew and 40 aircrew per month.
2.	Air defence. The original plan for the number of interceptor squadrons has been increased threefold. We also propose to build the squadrons up to full fighting strength of aircraft and men, rather than at fifty per cent or two-thirds fighting strength.
3.	Maritime operations. Squadrons of Lancasters are being or have been converted to maritime operations and will be built up to full fighting strength. The long-range transportation squadron is being increased from eight to twelve North Stars. The squadrons for
medium range transportation will be increased to add six Dakotas to each, and a further squadron later to be equipped we hope with United States aircraft.
4.	Training. Facilities are being increased to provide for the training of more than three times as many aircrew for Canada, but this is in addition to the one hundred for the North Atlantic treaty nations and two hundred for the United Kingdom.
5.	Equipment. Construction of F-86 planes by Canadair Limited at a greatly accelerated rate, and of the CF-100 as well as Orenda engines. In addition we have purchased and will be taking delivery of the 100 Mustangs as an interim measure.
These facts and figures have been before-hon. members, but 1 thought it desirable that they should be put before them again. Against this background may I take up one or two-of the points raised by some hon. members opposite, and go just as far as I can in. dealing with them.
The hon. member for Broadview made a suggestion, put forward reasonably and seriously, for a new type of formation in Canada. As I understood his plan, it was that we-recruit either an armoured division or an; infantry division plus an armoured brigade: All the recruits would serve full time long enough to make them fully trained soldiers. They would then be returned to their positions in civil life. On their return to civil life they would form a special reserve in the army, the officers of which would be paid a retaining fee of $30 per month and other ranks $20 per month. In the time at his disposal the hon. member was not able fully to develop his plans for this force.
The first thing to consider is whether or not such a force would be desirable, even if it could be achieved, and what it would accomplish. In that connection hon. members know that the strength of an infantry division under our system is at present about 20,000 officers and men. It is estimated that to train a formation of that kind, or any other considerable body of troops, requires one trainer to look after training and administration for each trainee. That proportion was usual during the war, and it is usual in our own and other services. Sometimes we here can reduce the number, but ordinarily that is about what it works out to be. To provide a training establishment, therefore, for these 20,000 would! require about 10,000 more men, which would! mean we would have some 30,000 personnel; involved in the actual work of training and' administration of these troops as well or in; the division itself. These 30,000 would nodoubt have to be in addition to the headquarters staff, the ordnance, the R.C.E.M.E., and1 the other services necessary to maintain the
324	HOUSE OF
Defence Appropriation Act other forces we have in Canada. I do not think it is suggested for a moment that this division would be all the forces we would have. To a substantial degree they would be in addition to the armed forces that we have today. That is a very large program, and we estimate that the additional cost-it is difficult to estimate because there are so many imponderables-would be about $50 million or $60 million per year.
One difficulty we see in the plan is this: what do you do for officers, N.C.O.'s and tradesmen, the training of whom ordinarily takes more than a year? It does not in wartime, it is true. Are these men to form part of the division and be trained with it and then returned to civil life? Then we come to the question: what would the division be for? With that, I come to the consideration of what kind of defence forces we need in Canada for the defence of Canada. This has been dealt with a great number of times, but again I would be glad to go over it briefly.
The hon. member for Broadview spoke as if he envisaged large scale amphibious landings on the northwest coast of North America. Everything can be envisaged, and everything is possible in modern war at some date or another. In the immediate future I can assure him and assure the house, without a breach of security, that that is not envisaged at all. References to plans that have appeared in United States publications and an examination of the kind of defences that the United States themselves think desirable in Alaska would indicate that they have the same appreciation; Obviously they do not think an invasion on that scale likely. Certainly we do not. It is difficult enough to launch a considerable amphibious operation across the narrow waters of the bay of Biscay and the English channel, with a build-up over a couple of years even though it was supported by overwhelming air power. But to envisage such an operation being carried out by the only possible aggressor with such surface and other vessels as we know him to have, is, we think, at the present time extremely unlikely.
The scale of attack that might be made on this continent must of course change with time, and it is changing. Where the risk of even a diversionary raid or a diversionary attack was slight indeed three years ago, it is an actual possibility today; but the scale still is not expected to be anything other than that required to lead us to keep on the North American continent more forces than we should otherwise keep here. In other words, it is not envisaged as a possibility at the present time that the only possible aggressor should carry out an operation of attack and landing, either across the water or by
IMr. Claxton.I	I

air, on a scale sufficient to hold any considerable portion of this continent for any considerable length of time.
I should make it perfectly clear, as I have done again and again, that, given the conditions of modern warfare, there is no way on earth in which a country of three and a half million square miles can be made impregnable against attack. It could not be done, with all the resources of the United Kingdom, during the second world war. In spite of a radar screen, interceptors and gallant aircrew, still a considerable proportion of German aircraft got across; and the reverse was true also. It is therefore quite impossible, quite unthinkable, and it would be militarily wrong, for us to plan to have the kind of defences that would prevent any and every attack by air. That is not possible. 1 have indicated that a dozen times.
But what we can do is to make it just as difficult as we can, and that means having radar protection extending over the approaches-radar stations backed up by interceptor squadrons. Those are being developed. One of the things that an enemy wants to know more than anything else is the location of radar stations. As hon. members know, radar at the present time operates only to the physical horizon. You therefore cannot have a radar screen, or grid really, over the whole North American continent. We have to spot these stations at important and vulnerable points. Then it becomes extremely important that their exact location should not be given officially, and we have never announced their locations. Some announcements have appeared in the press, and I have indicated why it is desirable that these announcements should not be made in the press giving their exact locations.
Everyone knows that some kind of construction is going on in some localities; that fact cannot be kept secret. But that is quite a different thing from giving officially the exact location; because giving a thing in that way not only gives the information to the only possible enemy, but enables him- and this is extremely important-to check the efficiency of his own intelligence and to verify which of his possible sources are accurate and which are not. We are therefore not giving the locations of such sites, but they are being pressed forward.
While the great area of North America makes it difficult to prevent a raid, on the other hand it gives us great possibilities of defence in depth; and we can see the advantage of that from what the twenty miles of the English channel meant during the darkest days of the war. Here at all points, except over the Bering strait, there are


hundreds of miles, or even thousands of miles of distance; so that if enemy aircraft are detected, the chances of their being brought down are considerable-much greater than in the shorter distances in Europe-provided that there is a system of detection and interception. That system is being worked on and pressed forward. But as I indicated last year, let nobody think that we have more than a beginning of this type of defence.


Mr. Brooks:: May 1 ask the minister a question? Is Canada taking full responsibility for radar defence in Canada?


Brooke Claxton: So far, any radar defence that has been established in Canada has been established and is being established by us. It is obvious that any radar defences that we have in Canada would be just as much for the defence of the United States as of Canada, and that they have a real and vital interest in that work. It may be that we shall work together on the establishment of some stations in Canada, by joint effort, with possibly joint operation. That only makes sense. The Americans have in their own defence at least as great an interest as we have. They have as great an interest in their defence being effective in Canada as they have in its being effective in the United States.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: May I ask the minister a question?


Brooke Claxton: Yes, please do.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: The army is being increased to 30,000. Is that right?


Brooke Claxton: Its establishment has been increased to 30,000, but in order to take care of these additions, the special force and the reinforcements for the special force, we expect to be increasing the establishment again shortly.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: But so far the figure is 30,000?


Brooke Claxton: That is right.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: And a division is 20,000?


Brooke Claxton: Yes.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: So this would mean that you would have one division. Is that right?


Brooke Claxton: Oh, no.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: One complete division?


Brooke Claxton: No, no. Hon. members all know the role that has been declared time and again for the Canadian army, that is to provide the force which is estimated to be capable of dealing with the kind of attack that we can expect at any given time; and then to provide the training and administrative organization to build up the greatest possible potential for the total war effort.
Defence Appropriation Act


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: That is what I was getting at. You have a division there, a complete division of 20,000; and you have 10,000, I presume, as a nucleus for further divisions. Is that right?


Brooke Claxton: No. We have not a division at all.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: You have 30,000 in the army?


Brooke Claxton: Yes.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I do not know much about the army. I want to find out something about it. For a division, 20,000 are required. Is the 10,000 over and above the complete division to be used as personnel for the building up of a further division if necessary? I presume that is what the 10,000 over and above the division is.


Brooke Claxton: It is not anything like that. The position is-


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: You have not a division.


Brooke Claxton: Of course we have not a division, but-


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I am asking you. You said you have not even a division. I want an answer.


Brooke Claxton: And I have been trying to answer. If the hon. member will sit down, I shall be glad to answer.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Correct me then.


Brooke Claxton: Hon. members know that a division is a fighting formation of troops organized under a single command, equipped and trained to fight as a major unit in a field' of battle. Everyone knows that the number' of divisions we had in action at any time during the second world war stood at six. We had back of those divisions, which, if they were at full strength, would total 120,000 men, some 500,000 or 600,000 men at one time or another. A division consists of so many infantry battalions, artillery, signals, engineers and all the rest of them.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I know what a division is composed of. It is approximately 30,000, all ranks.


Brooke Claxton: Twenty thousand.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Twenty thousand, yes.


Brooke Claxton: And in Canada at the present time we have not a division. We never have aimed at having a division in peacetime, and I have given the reasons why I do not believe it is necessary for the defence of Canada itself or possible for us to have a division of that kind at the present time, in peacetime.

Defence Appropriation Act
Perhaps I might go on and deal with another point arising out of the suggestion of the hon. member for Broadview. The division suggested by the hon. member would consist of some 20,000 men, who, at the end of their training period, which certainly would be more than seven months, would return to civilian life. They no longer would remain a division in being. They would be a division nearly in being, and how nearly in being they would be would depend upon how long it was since they had trained as a division. Their readiness for battle as a division would diminish as time went by. I presume it would be the hon. member's view that there should be further groups trained successively as divisions, which would make the cost a cumulative one, and also use far more manpower than have so far been available in Canada for any such purpose.
With regard to the other possibility, a division for use abroad, of course we would like to have a division in being for use abroad, if that were possible; but I have not the resources to do all that, and I do not know that at the present time it is possible to achieve that result in Canada. However we are working along fairly rapidly in that direction, because we have in the brigade group three infantry battalions, and other formations to constitute a good fighting force. We have in the special force a rather large brigade group, and then in addition we will have in the special force a group of reinforcements of almost sixty per cent. These, taken together with other elements of the active force-artillery, signals, engineers and so on-would constitute a group of men who could be iput together very quickly and then trained as a formation. In that group at the present time there would be three-quarters of the strength of a division.
As I have said, we do not consider it necessary at the present time to have a division in being in Canada for the defence of Canada.


John George Diefenbaker: What did the minister mean when he said he did not have the resources available at the present time to do it?


Brooke Claxton: It would take very much more money and a very much greater flow of recruits; and also it would take-


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Does the minister consider it necessary to have a division for the defence of Canada or to fulfil the obligations of this country to the United Nations? That is an honest question; I am not asking questions about which I am not serious. Does he consider it necessary to have a division for the


defence of Canada? He said no. Does he consider that we should have a division, a solid, complete fighting unit to fulfil obligations, considering world conditions? Does he consider that we should have such a division to fulfil obligations as a member of the United Nations?


Brooke Claxton: Here we are getting into a field difficult to deal with, because it involves other countries. But the hon. member-


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: No, this country.


Brooke Claxton: Of course it involves this country, but it also involves other countries. If we are to have a division to fight abroad, then it involves other countries. But the question is how we can use the resources we have at our disposal for assistance to North Atlantic treaty nations in the best possible way. If they have forces in being in their countries, but lacking equipment which we have over here, then it makes sense for us to make our contribution at this moment by sending them the equipment to arm the men they have who lack that equipment. That is one of the reasons we are seeking this vote of $300 million.
For us to have a division in being, located in Europe, would involve a drain on this people that the House of Commons can only estimate, because it would involve a pipeline for supplies, a pipeline for reinforcements, and methods of retirement, exchange, leave and the like.
The United States, the most powerful nation on the face of the earth, with all its resources, at the present time has not many divisions in Europe. It would be out of all proportion, having regard to Canada's contribution, and having in mind the best way in which we can make our contribution, for us to have an army and equip a division in being in Europe at the present time.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I did not suggest it would have to be in Europe. I said it would be available in Canada as a complete fighting force to be shipped anywhere so as to live up to our obligations, if necessary. Does the minister consider that would be advisable?


Brooke Claxton: I think anything would be advisable which would strengthen our forces and our defences against the enemy. But what is advisable must also be possible and desirable, having regard to other possible uses of our resources, our men and our money.
I suggest that at the present time it would be much better for us to get on with the job of developing an air force in being, arming it, equipping it and training it, than to have a

division in being located in Canada and staying there. Also it must be obvious to hon. members that a division of the type envisaged by the hon. member for Broadview, an armoured division of the kind he mentioned, would involve a tremendous amount of equipment. It has been stated in the United States that to equip an armoured division of the type they have, which is generally similar to the type we have, equipped with the latest weapons, would cost over $500 million. I am informed that to equip an infantry division would cost $100 million. As I indicated to the committee yesterday, we have considerable quantities of equipment available. The question is under discussion whether that equipment could not better be used for the defence of Canada as well as for the defence of the north Atlantic free nations and freedom everywhere, if it were in the hands of countries in Europe rather than in our mobilization stores. That would mean that we would be without equipment pending its replacement by equipment still to be made in Canada or purchased from other countries.
The hon. member for Nanaimo referred, in very suitable terms, I think, to the quality of the men in the brigade groups. He said that they have never trained together as a formation. That is perfectly correct. I must say at the present time it is not considered that it would operate in Canada as a brigade group, as a single functioning formation. That will become desirable in the future, and consequently that training will be proceeded with.
Of course it has a headquarters staff. Some members have suggested that it only had the one battalion that was in good shape, but I suggest that they tell that to the Royal Canadian regiment and the 22nd! While the Princess Pats were the first to be trained as paratroopers, the other regiments are progressively being put through training and they are doing well.


Mr. Green:: Is there a group commander?


Brooke Claxton: Yes, Brigadier Hitching. He
is being replaced immediately by Brigadier Gibson. It has a brigade staff.
The hon. member for Nanaimo referred to Brigadier Rockingham having been reported as saying that the 22nd has been concentrated for the first time for some years in Valcartier. Everyone knows that the 22nd has been located partly at Valcartier, partly at Quebec and partly at St. Johns. Various platoons and companies have been undergoing training at Churchill and Rivers and in the United States, but it has been at Valcartier as a battalion during the summer.
Defence Appropriation Act However, the reason for Brigadier Rockingham making that remark is that we are moving the company of the 22nd from St. Johns to Valcartier and are planning to locate the whole unit there and at Quebec. This was planned some time ago and it will get the whole unit together. But for some time there has been training at Valcartier.
Some reference was also made to the training of the reserve forces. I do not think the leader of the opposition or any other hon. member has regarded the work done on the reserve forces as being wasted in any sense. However, that implication might have been drawn from their remarks. I do not think it can be denied by anyone that the quality of the training of the reserve army is quite different from what was being done before the war. The time spent in camp is much more effectively spent because all administrative and housekeeping duties are performed for the reserve forces and their time is spent entirely on training.
The numbers taking training have increased materially, just as have the numbers of men in the reserve forces, as I indicated yesterday. The number taking training in 1947 and 1948 at the camps was 4,538, while this year the number reported is just under 12,000. That represents a very considerable portion of the reserve army. That number consists to a large degree of officers, N.C.O.'s, and tradesmen, which is our prime object in training at the present time.	[DOT]
Hon. members have suggested that the number should be larger. No one would be more pleased to see it larger than I. We have made every effort to make it larger, and the result is that the number has almost trebled in the last three years. But we want it still larger. Everything that we know of is being done to secure the attendance of men at the camps. They like the camps, but they find it difficult to leave their families to take their holidays at camp. We have approached all employers in Canada personally in order to secure their co-operation, and I must say that with hardly a single exception that co-operation is being given. As a result of this approach to the employers the number of men attending the camps has increased from 4,530 to just under 12,000 this year. We want a further increase.
We want to maintain the rate of recruiting for all three services, and that will require the co-operation of all people. I ask particularly for the co-operation of all hon. members. It is not going to be easy to maintain a flow of aircrew of 150 every six weeks of the quality and type and standard we require. It will require very intense recruiting and a
328	HOUSE OF
Defence Appropriation Act continuous emphasis on the importance of building up our air force made necessary by the seriousness of the situation. In this connection I must say that it has not been too helpful to have had some of the comments that have been made about things that have occurred in the past, or to see headlines in the newspapers such as we saw yesterday. We believe that, by and large, hon. members, members of the active forces, members of the reserve army and public spirited citizens are trying to see that we get men, and I am sure that with that kind of co-operation we shall get the men we want.


Mr. Gillis:: Mr. Chairman, I think the procedure we are following is most unfortunate; the result is that most of this morning has been practically wasted. We have before us two sets of estimates that tell us nothing, or at least nothing that can be discussed specifically. The first one is the cash program, which totals some $142,200,200. I assume that that represents the immediate requirements, what the minister wants right away. The next deals with future years' program, totalling $414,567,821. I assume that this is necessary in order to plan for war in the future.
The discussion this morning clearly indicates the necessity of setting -up a defence committee. I do not think the discussion we have carried on this morning has provided much information, and it has definitely tended to create confusion in the country. You cannot sit down in this House of Commons and discuss these estimates and plan the defence of the country with the minister across the floor except on a partisan basis. Whether or not you like it, that is exactly how it will be discussed here. The minister feels that anything said by members on this side is criticism of government policy. On the other hand the opposition feel that it is their duty to pick as many holes as they possibly can.
A year ago, and at the present session, it was suggested from this side of the house that a defence committee should be set up. I think the matters we are trying to discuss now, such as army personnel, requirements, and so on, should be left to a defence committee, because the discussion can go on here forever and you will never arrive at a conclusion. At the last session a defence bill was introduced that would have occupied much of the time of the house if it had not been sent first to a committee. It went to a defence committee and the committee did an excellent job. They boiled down the discussion and arrived at conclusions. The important thing was that men from the army, navy and air force, who knew what they were talking about, were called before the committee. The present situation is not fair to the minister, and he is not fair to himself. It does not do any 

good to come into the house and carry on the kind of discussion that has been taking place this morning. I am more confused now than I was when the house opened as to whether we have a navy, army, or air force at all.
There are a lot of questions that I should like to ask, but I do not want to ask the minister on the floor of the house because I do not think it would be fair. I should like to ask people from the navy, army and air force whose responsibility it is to do certain things with respect to defence and offence. I suggest that we should set up such a committee.
The second point I have in mind is that all the money we are appropriating under these estimates is going to be spent by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. While we are voting money for the navy, army and air force, since the Minister of Trade and Commerce has been designated as the defence purchasing authority it is going to be spent by his department. Most of the questions we should be asking should be directed to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I want to say a few words on that aspect of the situation. Providing the money is an easy thing, because the money is there; but we are not going to fight a war in Korea or anywhere else just by passing estimates. Something has to be done with the money.
For a minute or two I think we should take inventory of our own actions since 1945. I have always felt we were rather foolish in dismantling the equipment we had when the last war was supposed to be terminated. That war has never terminated. The shooting has never stopped. It is just a matter of changing enemies. The war has still been going on. In the face of that situation we were in a great hurry to scrap our merchant marine, tear up our air force, let barracks go by the board and get rid of what we called surplus war materials. We threw away hundreds of millions of dollars worth of war equipment that we could very well be using now, and the price we received represented only about ten per cent of the value of the equipment when we threw it away. It is gone. Everybody was in such a hurry to get back to what was called a free economy. We did so, and now we are starting in where we started in 1939 to try to put the nation on a war footing.
Why do we not merely pass an order in council handing over the future defence of the institutions of this country to the system of free enterprise and those who are running it? Let them fight the next war, plan it themselves, and see where we wind up. With all the talk against planning and socialism, it

is now being demonstrated that we must plan, and, whether or not governments like it, they are going to have to interfere more and more in the economic processes of the country. That is the kind of world that is developing. We are starting all over again now. We are going to take the economy of Canada and establish certain controls in order to put it on a war footing.
I suggest that first of all we should take the discussion of the mechanics of the navy, army and air force, and the planning for defence or offence, off the floor of the House of Commons and out of the realm of politics. We should set up a committee where we can call the heads of the different departments and talk over these matters with the men who are specifically charged with responsibility. If we do that I think we will get away from politics.
Then there is a suggestion I have for the Minister of Trade and Commerce when he begins to provide new buildings, ships, and so forth. We scrapped our merchant marine right after the last war. They did a good job. They were the supply line from this continent to the battlefields of the world. As soon as the war was over we got rid of the merchant marine. The merchant navy did not receive very good treatment, but we are going to need them again. They are going to be just as important in the next conflict as they were in the last. We are starting to build ships. We should not have given away the ones we had at the conclusion of the last war. We should have at least put them in mothballs for a few years.
With the lessons of the past so fresh in the memories of those whom we may want to sail our ships, one of the first things that should be done is to tell prospective merchant service personnel that we are going to treat them in the same way as the armed forces. We should tell them that we are going to bring them under the veterans charter, and that they are to have all the rights and privileges that veterans of the last war enjoy. That is one of the first things that should be done, because the merchant marine is a most important arm of our services.
In planning the production of the country I think we made the mistake in the last war -and I am saying this for the benefit of the Minister of Trade and Commerce-of overdeveloping plant and equipment in the central provinces. Such a procedure does not strike a good balance in the economy in peacetime, and it is definitely not good policy to have too great a centralization of war plants at any one point where they can be knocked out very easily. As we are going to build our war 69262-22
Defence Appropriation Act machine all over again, I think this time we should consider decentralization. I should like to remind the minister about the plate mill at Sydney, Nova Scotia, which was dismantled on the termination of the last war. It did an excellent job in providing plate for shipbuilding purposes, ninety per cent of which we import from the United States. The guts are gone from the plate mill. During my lifetime we have equipped it twice. During the last war it was equipped with modern up-to-date machinery, six hundred men were employed, and it did a good job. My information is that it was sold to the government of Czechoslovakia and is now behind the iron curtain. The frame of the building is there, however, and the government might consider re-equipping it.
Then I wanted to say something that should interest both trade and commerce and transport. During the last war we discussed in this house time and again the bottleneck at the strait of Canso; the hon. member for Cumberland raised that question again this morning. We were told that as soon as the war was over something would be done about it. We definitely remember the difficulties we had getting coal up the St. Lawrence, because of that bottleneck. We also remember that we spent enough money building auxiliary services for Point du Chene to complete that project, because submarines were in the St. Lawrence. Personally I believe that should be considered a war project. One-third of Canada's basic steel is produced on the island of Cape Breton, and a large percentage of our coal is there as well. Those two commodities are essential at all times, and particularly in wartime; therefore I believe we should take immediate steps to improve transportation facilities there so that we can make use of those materials, and get at them in a hurry.
This morning the minister tabled correspondence between the province of Nova Scotia and the federal government with regard to the trans-Canada highway. We have not seen it; I do not know what it is, but in any case the agreement has been too long delayed. The trans-Canada highway was part of that Canso project which was held up by the provincial government, in fact, because they wanted it to conform to the width of the trans-Canada highway. If agreement has now been reached, in view of the importance of that project if and when we get into difficulties I believe steps should be taken immediately to complete the bridge project. People say: Oh, it will take three years, or five years-but you know we are the greatest procrastinators in the world. I remember that in 1942, during the last war,

Defence Appropriation Act I was arguing for this very thing. I was told then that it would take five years, that it would cost $56 million, and all that sort of thing. I picked up a survey of that project made in 1906 by the Waddell-Hardesty Company of New York. At the time I was discussing it, during the war, that company sent an eminent engineer, Mr. W. J. Kemp, who spent a few days with me revising the plans and bringing the estimate of cost up to date. He told me at that time that if their company were given a contract to bridge the strait of Canso they could do it in six months. Further they said they could get priority on steel in the United States because the Americans were in Newfoundland at the time, and they wanted those facilities improved. Now, with Newfoundland linked up with us and with the stimulation of trade between the mainland and that island, there is a definite need for the best possible transportation facilities in that part of the country to move the large amount of steel and coal that is necessary to the general economy of the country. This project should be considered as part of the construction necessary for war.


Mr. Blackmore:: Before the hon. member leaves that point, may I ask what Mr. Kemp estimated would be the cost of the Canso project?


Clarence Gillis: His estimate of cost at that time was around $20 million. The final figure arrived at by the government was $13,500,000, so he was not far out in his rough estimate.
I should like to say to the Minister of National Defence that the organization and treatment of the reserve army leaves much to be desired, as has always been the case. I have always looked upon the reserve army as the base for the army of the future if and when it should become necessary to have one. In the part of the country I come from, where I think the percentage of enlistments in the last two wars compares favourably with that in any other part of Canada, the reserve army does not even have a place to drill. You appoint a few officers; they pick up some personnel, and then they are left to themselves. In Sydney, Glace Bay and various other towns I have been spoken to many times by reserve army officers who want to know if they could not get a building to which they could take the boys on drill nights and at least have some cover and some room to manoeuvre while they were taking instruction. There is nothing at all.
Considering the position in which the average man is placed in the reserve army, I often wonder how you get any men at all. You take in a man and make him a captain. He is paid $280 a year, I think, and has to buy his own uniform. Then you put him in

charge of equipment worth $50,000 or $60,000, and make him responsible for it. He must pay income tax on his $280, which often puts him in a higher tax bracket. As I say, I often wonder why a man gets into the reserve army at all on that basis, because it will cost him at least $1,000 a year, and in addition he has to accept responsibility and give up his leisure time. I believe someone should take a good look at the arrangements now in effect and revise them very considerably. If the reserve army had been properly handled, properly set up and properly looked after, you could have raised your Korean force from the reserve army overnight, trained and ready to go. I suggest to the minister that these arrangements should be overhauled immediately.
My main plea, however, is to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, that in spending all this money, erecting these plants, buying equipment, and doing all the things he did in the last war, he will see to it that this is not all centralized in one area where it might be knocked out overnight by one plane if it happened to get through. I do not look at this situation any longer in terms of what is going on in Korea; I think we are too late for that. It does not look so good; for out of Korea something else is likely to come. I believe the planning we do now should not be of a temporary nature, and I do not think we should be too complacent about it. It should be permanent; it should be the best, and it should not be measured in terms of money.
I would point out to the Minister of National Defence something else that is not helping recruiting. Already I have had letters from the parents of boys who have gone into the service, telling me that the barrack conditions under which they are starting to serve are terrible. The food is bad; there is not enough of it; the barracks are dirty and a complete mess. When a kid will write home and tell his parents that sort of thing it must be pretty bad. I suggest that the minister take a look at the conditions under which this force is living, at least in district No. 6, since that is where my complaints came from. It is the little things, mind you, that stick. Generally I find that if you look after the little things the big things will look after themselves.
We had an incident at Petawawa a few days ago which will not help voluntary recruiting, either. What must have been the reaction of a father or mother with a young son who may be going into the service, on picking up a newspaper and reading that five or six boys were injured or lost their

lives in training at that camp? My first reaction was that the instructors were too young; two kids, twenty-one years of age, given raw recruits. But I think another instance of sheer neglect was the training with live ammunition, particularly heavy mortar bombs with detonators, placed in the hands of kids who knew nothing about them. I believe somebody should be rapped over the knuckles for neglect. Such things do not help recruiting, because parents are reluctant to send their boys when they read of things like that. Old seasoned veterans should be the instructors, men whose stability and mentality has been tested for the job, and not children such as were involved in that particular incident.
I am going to suggest strongly that we can get as much money as we like, we can organize a good army, and we may be one hundred per cent competent in that field, but in the final analysis the machinery of production in the country is just as necessary as any other phase of our military operations. Unless that is up to date and functioning perfectly, we are not going to get very far. I would suggest to the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Trade and Commerce-it is no one's particular job; it is everyone's job-that one of the first things that should be done is to bring the basic industries of this country under the national labour code. We had to do it during the last war, and we should do it again. The enemy is communism, and its agents are in this country. I never believed that the communists could hurt us in any sector of our society except the basic industries. If they get in there and sabotage them overnight, as they have in France and other countries, there is not much the government can do about it.
I believe that coal, steel, the railways are under it now; shipping, the packinghouse workers and auto workers should be brought under the national labour code. I also believe the government should take immediate steps to form industrial councils in those industries. There is such a council now in the building industry, and it functions well. The representatives from the unions, the employers, and the government could sit down now, when production is being planned, and help plan that production. In that way you send back to the unions, and the workers in the plant, liaison workers who can tell the people exactly what is taking place. You have an advocate on the inside. It is suspicion and fear that breed most of the unrest. Boards of directors trust their representatives, and the unions trust their representatives. If the representative of a union can return and say that this has been done and that has been done, and this is why it has 69262-22J
Defence Appropriation Act been done, it is a great help. You are making them partners in this plan to fight communism. In my opinion that is one of the best things that can be done-to get the basic industries tied up to the Department of Labour in planning this whole affair now so that the workers will have a share of the responsibility.
I do not believe it would be hard to do this. It is not a new idea, because the pattern was set by the federal Department of Labour during the last war, and even before that so far as the building trades are concerned. The building trades have their council, and they go to the Minister of Labour or his officials and work out their problems. As a result one seldom hears of any difficulty in that particular industry. I believe that should be done while this planning is being carried out. Through letters and discussion with the people who are affected, I know the people want that sort of thing. I do not want to start reading letters mentioning names, but that is one of the things you should start to do now.
I thought, Mr. Chairman, I should make these few remarks because of the trend the discussion has taken about planning for our defence. I do not think that kind of planning can be done here, but it can be done around a table. I know I sat on the last defence committee with the hon. member for Nanaimo, and I had no difficulty in getting along with him. He was just the member for Nanaimo expressing common-sense opinions about what was happening. I was greatly impressed by the representatives of the services, the navy, army and air force. They had men there who could allay all the suspicions and misapprehensions with regard to clauses about which I would have fought for weeks on the floor of the house. With people who knew and were able to give answers, my suspicions were removed without any difficulty. The same thing applies to this matter of defence. We are wondering now, and we do not know. We are voicing suspicions, and they are creating more suspicion outside. It is doing an injury to the very thing we want done.
It is my belief that the minister was ill advised in trying to answer questions this morning about the size of the army. I cannot see that in relation to these particular estimates. They represent getting some place to put the army, if and when we raise it, and to put some clothes on the men-things of that sort. The question raised by the member for Nanaimo as to the size of the army should be answered, but not here. I am not going to lecture the minister, but I do not think he should answer that sort

Defence Appropriation Act of thing in the house. Personally I should like such answers given in committee. When I go back to the people I represent, I should like to be able to tell them definitely just what the government proposes, and that I think that is necessary and right in view of the present international situation. I should like to be able to take my responsibility as a citizen, confident the government is doing everything they can in this situation. I cannot do that if I am frustrated, if I do not know and do not understand what is being done. I hate to express an opinion either for or against the government to anyone unless I am absolutely sure of what I am saying. I believe that committee should be set up as soon as possible, and put to work-not while the house is sitting; I think it is a little too serious for that. If necessary the committee should be here all the time, sitting with the defence department heads and the minister and helping them as best they can.
We do not want any more Koreas. It is a complete demonstration of our stupidity. We want to be in a position if something like that happens somewhere else to walk in with men who are trained, who know what they are doing and what they are fighting for, and be able to stop that sort of thing immediately. This can be done only by those who have an understanding of what is happening and confidence in the people who are carrying the responsibility. It is too serious to be quibbling about it.	.
I suggest the minister should consult with the heads of the government, the defence department, and ask them what they think about taking in these other fellows. We are taxpayers. We are citizens, and we believe in fighting communism. We want to do the right thing, and we want to help. The only way that I can see in which members of this house can help is by sitting on a committee, not to help formulate policy but to give the government the benefit of their opinions. Those opinions could be discussed with the men who have the responsibility, and plans made accordingly.


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member referred to the extremely unfortunate accident at Petawawa, which I deeply regret. It is being thoroughly investigated. From the reports so far made to me, there is no evidence of negligence on the part of anyone. So far it would appear that the accident was due to the premature explosion of a mortar bomb in the barrel, and this type of accident had not, so I am informed, occurred before in training in Canada since the end of the second world war. It was something which could not be anticipated, and it will remain


to be learned from the report of the inquiry what steps should be taken to prevent a similar occurrence in the future. In the meantime the use of that ammunition has been stopped.
The hon. member mentioned one other thing which I must say came to me with surprise. He said he had had letters from fathers of sons in the special force, saying that the food is bad, the barracks dirty, and so on. I have seen a great deal of our armed forces. I have talked with the men individually, and have also talked with others who have been at our camps. I must say that I have not had any such report from any source whatever. As I think the hon. members knows, such complaints, if there are any, are reported in the newspapers or by letter, but no such complaint has reached me. I shall, however, be glad to look into the matter, if the hon. member will hand to me the letter or give me the name of the place in question; and if any other hon. member knows of any such circumstances, if he will let me know, I shall be glad to look into them.
Our aim has been to give the men nothing but the best, and I think we have done fairly well in giving them adequate food, good clothing and good living conditions. If there is any failure in that respect, if hon. members will only let me know at once, I will have an immediate and thorough investigation made.


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: I have
already taken up the time of the house to express my views on the setting up of a committee, and for that reason alone I would hesitate to say more than a word on it. In addition I would hesitate to follow the most excellent remarks made by the hon. member for Cape Breton South, for fear of doing injustice to the topic. But I just want to say this, because it seems to me that somehow or other we are failing to reach common sense.
Apparently we on this side of the chamber are not able to convince the minister that in suggesting a committee we have not some deep, dark design. On the other hand, criticisms are being made which the minister is seeking to answer in a way which to us is not satisfactory. We may be wrong; I am not going to argue that point at all. I am only saying that the speech, full of good sense, made by the hon. member for Cape Breton South I suggest affords the minister a chance to get away from this difficulty, this situation in which we now think he is giving us bits and pieces of information and not the comprehensive statement that we want.

Who would be on that committee? On that committee presumably would be men from various parties, with military experience themselves, whose loyalty would be unquestioned in any man's language.
The minister has another fear which we must meet. If I remember aright, he said yesterday that there will be exchanged beween governments secrets which cannot be disclosed. Does he think any of these men would press him and ask for the disclosure of something which he said should not be disclosed? Of course he does not think that. I therefore suggest again that we have that committee, where we shall be able to work together, and where the public of Canada will be convinced we are working together; otherwise we can go on with this fruitless waste of time, as the hon. member for Cape Breton South described it; and it will go on like that if this present situation is allowed to continue.


John Horne Blackmore: Would the minister care
to give us a statement as to the housing provisions which are being made for married personnel? I notice that a good many more men are to be brought into the services; and I have already been informed that the housing accommodation has been inadequate for the members already in the forces. What is going to be done about housing for the married personnel entering the forces under the minister's plan?


Brooke Claxton: At the present time housing in urban centres is not contemplated for members of the armed forces, except in extremely unusual circumstances where it is found by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation that there will be a continuing need for special accommodation for service personnel and where the supply of civilian quarters for them is going to be insufficient for a period as far ahead as one can see. Such a place is Rockcliffe, for example, where we have already constructed, I believe, 134 houses. Another 174 are under construction, and 300 more will be started as soon as possible.
In isolated centres our aim is to provide married quarters for all the married personnel that need them. That program has been pushed forward since 1947, so that with the houses already constructed or the construction of which has been approved, out of the appropriations for the current year, we shall have 10,773 married quarters for the personnel of the armed forces.
At some centres such as, for example, Goose Bay and Shilo, which have been given high priority, there are enough married quarters to accommodate all or almost all the
Defence Appropriation Act married personnel needing them. At other centres where there have been considerable changes in the strength of the establishment, such as Petawawa, although we have built there a great number of houses, we still need to build some more and we shall be pressing on with that. We shall be continuing the arrangement under which a large part of the building program for the Department of National Defence is carried out by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and met out of their vote, although that will require an adjustment between the two departments later. The policy is for the Department of National Defence itself to-carry out the construction in isolated centres-such as Whitehorse, Churchill, Yellowknife,, and the like, where the costs are high and where Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation ordinarily have not facilities of inspection, service and the like.
That gives you the picture in general, terms. We have met the shortage to a considerable degree. We have put into three-years what was originally planned as a six-or seven-year program. It is being proceeded' with, however, and while at the present time we may continue to be limited by labour and materials, these can be met.
At one o'clock the committee took recess-
The committee resumed at three o'clock.


Mr. Graydon:: As the minister may know, there has been some complaint from those in the reserve forces about the income tax they have to pay. To some people this may seem to be a small matter, but the whole question of the morale of the reserve forces is important and should have serious consideration by the committee.
Not only do members of the reserve force have to pay income tax on the additional amounts they receive, but, as was pointed out this morning, this sometimes results in their being brought into a higher income tax bracket, and as a result the pay they receive may be partly wiped out. Has the minister made representations to the Minister of National Revenue on this point, and if so, with what results?
Secondly, is the government considering; means by which further monetary encouragement may be given to those who are doing such a magnificent job in our reserve forces? All hon. members will agree that they are paid at a rate which could not in any sense be regarded as reasonable compensation for the service they perform in peacetime.

Defence Appropriation Act
I wonder if we do not take too much for granted the work done by those who are in the reserve forces. It is not a spectacular service, but parliament should take cognizance of what they have done in keeping the pilot light burning between wars. The position of the reserve army in our military establishment is too often forgotten. I hope parliament will not forget it, and will acknowledge, perhaps in a monetary fashion, the good results they have achieved.


Brooke Claxton: I agree with everything the hon. member has said. We have emphasized the importance of the reserve army and the grand job they are doing. As I have told the house' on several occasions, the question of exemptions from income tax for the pay and allowances for reserve officers and men has been taken up a number of times. I believe I said formerly that the amount involved in government revenue is negligible, while the amount involved in nuisance is very considerable. From the point of view of greater interest in the reserve forces, I should be very glad personally to see some method worked out by which the pay and allowances of members of the reserve navy, army, and air force might in some way be exempt from income tax.
The general principle which the government has adopted, and which I think has met with general agreement, is that everything in the nature of income should be subject to taxation. I have indicated to representatives of the reserve associations and to hon. members on a number of occasions that if they or we could find some formula which would do the required jotb, other than an outright statutory exemption, I would certainly be glad to take it up with my colleagues the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Revenue. We have had officers in the department and outside accountants in the reserve forces consider various proposals, but so far one has not yet been put forward. It would appear that if this were to be done it would have to be by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. So far the government has not been prepared to accept that. I can assure the hon. member for Peel and all others that any way in which the fine and unselfish services of the officers of the reserve force can be properly recognized in a monetary fashion certainly will receive every possible consideration.
Since the change in the pay rates adopted in 1946 we have put the reserve and active forces on exactly the same basis with regard to pay and allowances and conditions of ser-
[Mr. Graydon.j

vice, and we think it rather important that that similarity should be maintained. If hon. members can make any constructive suggestions as to what should be done along the lines suggested by the hon. member for Peel, we shall be only too glad to accept them. I can assure the hon. member that the matter is receiving active consideration.


Gordon Graydon: The reserve army is on a part-time basis, and I think "part-time" might be underlined and underscored. Because it is on a part-time basis, the dislocation which takes place in their civilian life is considerable. Surely in these times, when there is such a great need for reserve army personnel, the minister might consider some arrangement by which they could be paid an additional amount by virtue of the temporary or parttime character of their duties. As the minister knows, in civilian life part-time work commands a higher rate of pay than work on a weekly, monthly or yearly basis. There is a distinction between the part-time work of the reserve army and the full-time work of those who are in the active army. If that distinction were recognized, I think it would help materially.
I am not suggesting for one moment, and I fancy no one would, that the question of dollars and cents enters into this question of reserve army training. The naked fact is that a good many men lose money through taking an active part in this training. It has been a losing proposition for many thousands of them, and I do not think we ought to compel them to lose money when they carry out their patriotic duty as they see it.
There is real need of indicating in some way that we do appreciate the work these patriotic men are doing. At times it is not particularly spectacular; there is considerable slogging to do, but these men are working hard in an effort to provide security for the rest of us in Canada through a peacetime period.


Brooke Claxton: That certainly will have
further consideration.


John Horne Blackmore: At one o'clock I was questioning the minister with regard to housing facilities for married personnel. He gave what appeared to be a satisfactory general answer, and later I shall probably ask some other questions concerning this matter. I have had many complaints brought to my attention. There is one particular rumour which I think the minister should be given an opportunity to deal with. In this connection I have drafted seventeen questions which I propose to ask the minister. I shall send

him a copy of these questions, so that he can have the answers prepared. Here are the questions:
1.	Has the Department of National Defence had any business dealings with an organization called the Maritime Construction Company Limited, 209 Shelly building, Vancouver, B.C.?
2.	Did the Department of National Defence or one of its agents lease or let to that company the contract to house the R.C.A.F. married personnel of Sea Island airport?
3.	If so, on what date?
4.	For how many houses?
5.	For delivery on what date?
6.	Were the houses delivered on that date?
7.	Were tenders for the erection of these houses publicly advertised?
8.	If so, how many and what companies submitted a tender? And what was the offer of each company?
9.	What considerations influenced the department's decision to award this contract to the Maritime Construction Company?
10.	What is the date of incorporation of this company?
11.	What is their authorized capital?
12.	What is their subscribed capital?
13.	What are the names and addresses and occupations of the directors and shareholders?
14.	What is the date of publication of the incorporation of the company in the British Columbia Gazette, and what are the advertised objects of the company?
15.	What was the paid-up capital of the company at the time of the granting of the Sea Island housing contract?
16.	Are incorporated companies in the province of British Columbia required to file annual returns as to financial status, identity of the shareholders and responsible officers, et cetera?
17.	Does the registrar of companies of the province of British Columbia state that the Maritime Construction Company Limited has not complied with the regulations of his department in this respect?
I should like the minister to look into these matters and report to the committee before he finishes with his estimates.


Brooke Claxton: These questions would have to be dealt with by the Minister of Resources and Development, because the contract for housing accommodation was arranged through Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. A contract was let on July 20, 1949, for thirty-five houses in the 1949-50 program. Those
Defence Appropriation Act have been reported as having been completed, but I understand that delivery has not been accepted. I shall draw the attention of my colleague to the questions asked by the hon. member.


Mr. Hees:: Just before the luncheon recess this committee had the privilege of listening to one of the most constructive and sensible speeches I have heard since I came to this house. I refer to the speech delivered by the hon. member for Cape Breton South. I do not think anyone will contend that that hon. member was partisan. We were impressed by the suggestion he made, a suggestion which has been made by other members of the opposition, that a defence committee should be set up. As he pointed out, this debate is apt to go on for a long time.
The government seem to feel that if they accept any suggestion of the opposition they are in some way losing prestige, and the result is that the opposition have to go ahead and do the best they can to pry out answers. As the hon. member said this morning, I do not think that that is a constructive way of getting on with the vitally important business of this house. It would be a fine gesture on the part of the government if they could accept the sincere suggestion made this morning. It would raise them in the estimation of the people if once in a while they could give way to the unanimous opinion of the opposition. In the meantime until that committee is established, if it ever is, we must continue to try to get information by asking perhaps interminable questions.
Possibly I am in a slightly better position to understand the problems of the reserve army than some members of the house, because I happen to be a member of it at the present time. But I must say that I have learned absolutely nothing so far about our plans for preparing this country to defend itself in any eventuality. I have tried to understand. I have conscientiously listened to everything that has been said, and I am as much at sea now as I was when I came to the house over a week ago.
This morning the Minister of National Defence told us that in his opinion, and in the opinion of his department, we do not need a division to provide for the protection of Canada. He said that a brigade group could adequately defend our vast area. We have also learned that the brigade group has a dual task. It has the task of training further forces which might be raised for service elsewhere. I do not believe that it can remain in a state of readiness to act as a formation and at the same time be spread over several

Defence Appropriation Act training areas training other people. I just do not think it can be done. Let us suppose for a moment, however, that it can be done. When would the brigade group be ready to act as a formation and fight as a brigade? To get some information on that point I asked the hon. member for Nanaimo the same question this morning. I think all hon. members will agree that he is one of the foremost Canadian military authorities today; and he said he believed that it would take probably two months from today, if preparations were started at once, before the formation could fight as a brigade group.
The first question I want to ask the minister is when the brigade group will be ready to fight as a brigade. Then I want to deal with the creation of further forces. With the world situation as it is today I do not think there is a doubt in any hon. member's mind that the creation of the Korean brigade is not the last troop formation we shall have to raise. We have obligations under the United Nations organization and as a member of the North Atlantic pact. As the Secretary of State for External Affairs told us last June when he came back from a meeting of the Atlantic pact countries, the cardinal principle laid down at that meeting was that in future no build-up of forces would be permitted behind a bulwark of overrun nations. In other words, members of the North Atlantic pact who are expected to supply forces against aggression in the future must have those forces ready.
We are told that the role of the permanent force will be to stay in Canada for the purpose of training and preparing forces which may be used either in Canada or in other parts of the world. Therefore if we are called upon to raise other forces it will require a minimum of six to eight months, as has been required to raise the Korean brigade. Under the plan that I submitted to the Minister of National Defence we would at all times have a division trained and ready, and maintained at a minimum of cost to the taxpayers. The minister does not regard that as a good idea. Therefore as my second question I am going to ask him whether we are planning on a requirement of six to eight months each time we are called upon to produce armed forces to fulfil our obligations to the United Nations and as a member of the North Atlantic pact.
The third subject I want to deal with is the reserve army. Any member of the reserve forces will tell you that it would require a minimum of nine months to one year before a reserve division would be ready to fight as a formation. What I want to find out is
[Mr. Hees.l	>
jjf |

what plan the minister has for building up the equipment and personnel of our present reserve division. He mentioned a stepped-up recruiting drive this fall. As a member of the reserve I have taken part in recruiting drives over the past three years, and I regret to say that they have produced practically nothing in the way of new recruits. Therefore the third question I want to ask the minister is what new recruiting plans we have for our reserve forces, and what plans have we for equipping those forces.


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Chairman, answering the hon. member's questions in reverse order, I must say that the figures do not bear out his last remark about the lack of results of recruiting efforts for the reserve forces. In January, 1948, the strength of the Canadian army reserve was 33,369, and in July, 1950, it was 44,314, an increase of over thirty per cent. Furthermore, the proportion that is effective and is taking full training has increased to an even greater degree, as was indicated by the hon. member for Westmorland in the figures he gave to the house. Therefore I simply do not agree with this policy of despair so far as our reserve forces are concerned. They are doing a great job. I think, given encouragement and help in every way that we can give it, they will continue to recruit at a rate that will enable them to build up to the standards we are aiming at for them, which are equivalent to those of active force troops. That standard has been virtually achieved in the case of a relatively small number of units, but it indicates that it can be done.
When we entered the first great war and the second great war it was largely on the basis of the reserve army that the forces were built up. That is still the plan, but it can be done now very much faster because the forces are to a greater extent more effective, and have a greater number of officers who are physically fit and qualified, as well as N.C.O.'s and tradesmen. It can also be done very much faster because we have the equipment with which to supply them for training purposes, and also, as I indicated before, equipment that would to a considerable degree be sufficient for the Canadian army during the first year in a total war. So the situation is entirely different from what it was between the wars or before the first war; but, granted further co-operation, this challenging question can be met, and I am sure will be met, by added support for the reserve forces. If, as has been indicated by the hon. member for Peel, there are ways in which greater incentive can be given, then let us have them and consider them.
As to the suggestion of the hon. member that the role of the permanent force is to

stay here and train, some 'Clarification must be given. The permanent force army does not consist only of the brigade group; it includes all the officers and men at headquarters engaged in administrative and training work, those attached to reserve army units, the engineers, R.C.E.M.E. and so on, equipped and trained to do the job of organizing and getting going. It also includes complete machinery for training officers, N.C.O.'s and men at the schools now in operation for the training of active force and reserve army personnel. In those training staffs we have large numbers of men-more than in the brigade group- engaged full-time, who would be carrying on that training in the event of an emergency.
At the present time the brigade group itself is not only doing its job of being available for the defence of Canada; it is also helping to train the special force. So far as one can see, while the one operation may interfere a little with the other, the brigade group is carrying on both tasks, which I suggest is inevitable in the case of any regular and reserve army. The regulars must carry out the dual function of being available for immediate defence and assisting in training. If the threat of immediate attack on Canada should disappear and be known not to exist to the same extent that had been feared, then of course in an emergency the brigade group of the active force would be available at once for service abroad. It would also be available as other men were trained to take its place. So the suggestion that the permanent force is a stay-at-home army is totally false and entirely out of accord with our announced plans.
As to the time it would take to train a unit, of course this would depend upon the state of training of the unit at the time the period of intense training began, and various other conditions existing at the time. It would' be quite possible for the brigade group to get into action very rapidly, indeed' in far less time than two months; but I must admit that I entirely agree with the hon. member for Nanaimo that this would not be desirable, and that two months would be a reasonable period for them to have, if that were possible. If it were not, then the brigade group could get into action sooner.


George Harris Hees: May I repeat my questions to the minister, since he has not answered those he said he was going to answer? He said he was going to answer my questions in reverse order. Part of my last question was: what are the plans of this government for rearming the reserve divisions?


Brooke Claxton: I thought I had answered that; I believe I dealt with the question of equipment. We have either on issue to active
Defence Appropriation Act and reserve army units or in mobilization stores a very great part of the equipment they would need to fight the first year of a war. We lack certain things, and part of this vote will be used to fill those gaps. We are proposing not to buy certain articles because they are not so necessary as to warrant, in our belief, the expenditure involved. I repeat, we have a very large proportion of the equipment needed to fit out the forces we would mobilize today in the event of an emergency.


George Harris Hees: I asked the minister whether we could always expect to have a period of six to eight months for preparation before supplying troops to meet our obligations under the Atlantic pact or the United Nations charter. The minister replied by saying that if at some future time there was no threat to this country the little brigade group, which is the only defence of this vast country, could be sent elsewhere. I do not envisage, as I am sure he does not, that there will be a time when we are apt to need troops in other parts of the world so badly that we can afford to denude this country of even our minute brigade group. Therefore I repeat, do we expect always to have six to eight months in which to prepare any force which might be required of us in future as a member of the Atlantic pact or of the United Nations; or in what other way do we expect to be able to produce those troops?


Brooke Claxton: The answer to that question must be based upon assumptions and hypotheses. Where will the war take place? Under what conditions will it be fought? Given answers to such questions I am sure competent staff officers will have worked out the plans. I could proceed on the same basis of hypotheses, but I do not think it would be profitable to this house to do so. The fact is that everyone recognizes that it takes time to train men. There is no secret about that. To train men from the very beginning, men who are completely untrained, certainly requires three months at least before they can be moved to the further stage of brigade and higher formation training. I am sure hon. members would regard three months as the very minimum for that. Then to get them to the point where they can fight as a division certainly takes six months plus. There is no secret about that.


George Harris Hees: From the minister's remarks I take it that we are always going to require six or eight months or more before we can live up to any future military commitments, as was the case with Korea. Is that not so?


Brooke Claxton: No commitment of a military character has been made yet. What has been done is to work out with other allied countries plans based upon the capabilities and needs
338	HOUSE OF
Defence Appropriation Act of the countries concerned. That is the present situation. I cannot do more than tell the hon. member what he already knows; that is, the time required to train men, which varies depending upon the circumstances.


George Harris Hees: If I may ask one last question-


The Chairman:: The hon. member for Kootenay West.


George Harris Hees: This is my last remark.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: The hon. member for Kootenay West.


Mr. Herridge:: When we started this discussion in committee I understood that hon. members were going to be permitted to make general observations on what might be called item No. 1, and that questions then would come on the various items in the schedules. Some of us have been sitting here for some time waiting to say a word or two. I am not going to speak at length. I am not capable of speaking of such broad military considerations as have been dealt with by the member for Nanaimo, or by our military expert the member for Cape Breton South. But I do want to make a few-observations that come to me as a result of reading this resolution, knowing the situation in the country and having some faint idea of what the average person thinks about problems of this sort. This unexpected and additional expense will place extra burdens on the Canadian people, an unavoidable burden in taxes, and possibly a burden in rising prices and shortages.
We in this group, Mr. Chairman, support the contention of the official opposition that in order to assure sound economy at this time, and to get the greatest co-operation in the country, there should be a committee on defence. I do not think many members in this house, with the exception of one or two, are capable of discussing military problems on a broad scale, or wish to have, shall I say, secret matters brought to the attention of this house. The great majority of the members of this house, however, are capable of discussing the procedures in expenditures, costs, contracts and things of that sort, which we believe could be discussed by a defence committee to great advantage. In this way the opposition members could secure information they desire and also assist the minister.
Military expenditures are somewhat more difficult to check than expenditures by other government departments. If the Department of Public Works, for instance, builds a wharf or erects a building, we have concrete evidence of the expenditure in a form that the average person can understand. Military expenditures are somewhat different. It is because of that difference between military and civil expenditures and, shall I


say, the intangible nature of military expenditures on occasions, that we believe it is more necessary than ever for this house to have a defence committee.
I believe, Mr. Chairman, that public opinion at this time will demand that this government secure good value for its expenditures on national defence. In saying that I am thinking of a few things that I noticed during the last war. Unfortunately when you reach a period of expansion in the defence services you have in some quarters a sense of irresponsibility. You have a core of responsible and practical officers in your defence department, but inevitably, as a result of the expansion of the services, there is also the possibility of getting some personnel who are not responsible. I remember during the last war going from Vancouver to the interior of British Columbia on a train with a senior military officer. On the train he had a drawing room and all the extra comforts of life, to go with it. Upon arriving at a small town where he had to leave the main line and take a local train a distance of twenty miles, he discovered that the local train had no sleeper, no drawing room and no chair car. His passage had been paid by the people of Canada from Vancouver to the point to which he was going. The conductor said, "Sir, you will have to ride in the day coach". The senior military officer said, "I am not riding in any day coach". What did he do? He telephoned for a car to come for him and carry him to the end of his journey. This meant that a car travelled forty miles at public expense because this high and mighty person would not travel in a day coach with such lowly people as myself and other local people.
Now, Mr. Chairman, that sort of thing is not good for the morale of the people of Canada. The conductor on the train, the train crew, and all the passengers in the coach witnessed or heard of this situation with disgust. I just bring that forward as one illustration of the irresponsible approach to the expenditure of public funds on one occasion.
I want to mention now the question of military cars and military vehicles. I am quite sure the minister will do what he can to check this type of irresponsibility at this time. I am not saying it is happening now, but I am just giving my experiences. We all know there has always been a tendency in the past for members of the armed forces, particularly senior commissioned officers, to consider themselves as almost a caste apart from ordinary human beings. They consider it the prerogative of the colonel to have the chauffeur drive his wife to pink teas, and

things of that sort. I hope that sort of thing will not be allowed under these conditions. Mrs. Muggins will not think much of that sort of thing if she finds she is helping to pay through taxation for the transportation of the colonel's wife to a pink tea.


Mr. Smith (Calgary West):: What is pink
tea? I have never tasted it.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Pink teas are select social events that blue Conservatives attend. Mr. Chairman, these are the things that have an effect on public opinion and public morale, and it is for that reason I mention them.
On another occasion I saw a large army truck loaded with equipment, blankets, bedding and that sort of thing. I said, "What is going on here?" I discovered that some of the officers were going on a hunting trip for the week end with this large truck, chauffeur, and gasoline all paid for by the public. I hope the minister will see that that sort of thing does not happen under present circumstances. I just mention these few instances. No doubt they are violations of the regulations, and so on, but if this is to be a democratic effort; if we are to have the co-operation of most of the people, they must be shown that the department receives value for the money spent. These are only a few illustrations on a small scale, but to the average person they are indications of a wasteful approach to the expenditure of public money. I do hope that the minister exercises the strictest supervision in this respect, and issues instructions that this sort of thing shall not occur, because this money is being paid with some difficulty by many Canadian people.
The hon. member for Cape Breton South mentioned that he had heard the food was not good in some of the camps. I have heard, quite recently and almost directly, that the situation at Petawawa is not satisfactory so far as food is concerned. I am not certain of my information, but I am informed that the contractors for the reserve army are now cooking for the special forces and there is considerable dissatisfaction. I could give the minister a number of other illustrations, but I am not going to take the time of the committee. I do urge the minister to give serious consideration to these small aspects of expenditure in order to prove to the Canadian people that the large expenditures are being given serious consideration. As I said before, small as they are, they indicate to the public a wasteful approach to the expenditure of money by the Department of National Defence.
Before resuming my seat, I should like to say a word or two more about securing cooperation for a thoroughly democratic effort
Defence Appropriation Act in this situation. In this group we believe that if we are going to do that, in view of the increasing burden on the people of this country it is necessary for this government to make every effort to protect the living standards of the people. Without question prices have not risen since the Korean incident as a result of increased wages. They have risen for two reasons. The first reason is outright greed, and the second is fear of shortages. I do hope the government does something to protect the Canadian public before this session is over. There is a rising demand in Canada for the reimposition of price controls and necessary subsidies. Trade unions are urging this action, and consumers' groups are expressing their opinions very strongly. Only in this morning's Citizen I read that the executive council of the Canadian Legion in Quebec intend to bring before the national convention of the Canadian Legion a resolution urging the reimposition by this government of necessary price controls. In addition to that, a good number of smaller businessmen who at one time joined the uniholy chorus of decontrol-who had written to me or come to me and spoken to me and said that they wanted controls taken off; they sincerely felt that it would permit them to operate to greater advantage-these men are coming back now and saying: For heaven's sake let us have some control over this economy so that we shall know where we are; we were better off-and I am speaking of friends I have in the lumber and other industries-with price control, than we are now with this unstable price condition.
In conclusion I therefore urge again that this government give consideration to the establishment of a defence committee to work as outlined by several previous speakers, with a view to ensuring wise economy in the expenditures for the defence of this country; and in securing that wise economy to secure the broad-based support of the Canadian people. In addition I urge again, as I did when I spoke in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, that legislation be introduced to protect the living standards of the Canadian people.


Mr. Fulton:: Mr. Chairman, the arguments and the criticisms which I am going to put forward are based on the premise that we are facing a genuine and real emergency, the full extent of which is perhaps not realized by all our people, and that we face certain disaster if we do not act now to an even greater extent than has been outlined in the program put forward by the government to meet that crisis.
I am supported in this position by statements made by the Prime Minister and the

Defence Appropriation Act Secretary of State for External Affairs particularly, and by others on the government side, particularly the hon. member for Port-neuf, who spoke yesterday morning. In addition to those statements the whole premise that we are facing a catastrophe is, I think, strongly supported by the present turn of events in Korea.
Just the other day the Prime Minister told us that in ten months we might be brought face to face with a war. It was not just the possibility of another isolated aggression; that was not the meaning of the Prime Minister's words. It is true he said that if we escaped a war for the next ten months, we might then begin to be able to hope for peace. The only meaning which could be taken from his words, in the context in which he used them, is that there is real danger of a war in the next ten months.
Then there is the Korean situation, and we must remember all that the Secretary of State for External Affairs has told us-that any aggressor who finds that he can get away with one aggression is encouraged and proceeds at an increasingly rapid pace from one aggression to another. We agree with that view. I therefore think that the Secretary of State for External Affairs will agree with me when I say that if the present trend of events in Korea comes to the disastrous conclusion which unfortunately at the moment it seems to be pointing to, namely, a defeat for the United Nations forces, the international situation will be infinitely worsened.
All the spokesmen from the government side, supported by everyone else who has spoken in this chamber, have outlined Canada's duty to take her part to meet this aggression, to play her role as one of the United Nations in preserving peace. I am therefore not going to enlarge upon what they have said. It is obvious that all members of the House of Commons, as well as, I believe, everyone throughout the country- except perhaps the few communists we may have in Canada-support that position and fully agree that this time we must learn the lessons of the past and act before it is too late. We must meet this threat. I believe that any proper action taken to prepare ourselves not only to meet the threat but to discourage an aggressor by positive readiness will be wholeheartedly supported from one end of Canada to the other. Based upon that argument, my criticism is that we are not doing sufficient to meet this situation.
In the first place, an analysis of our defence position indicates that we are not getting value for our money. It is true that this year we are intending to spend a large sum, $1,400 million. But if we compare the return that

we are getting for the money which we are being asked to spend this year with what we got for what we spent on the same basis during the war years, we can see immediately that the comparison is most unfavourable and indicates that we are not getting value for that money.
During the war years our war expenditures reached a peak in the year 1943. If hon. members will look at the table presented by the then minister of finance, Mr. Ilsley, appearing at page 392 of Hansard of February 11, 1944, they will see that in 1943-44 we spent $3,824 million on defence. In 1944-45 we spent $3,619 million on defence. Those were the total expenditures of the government attributable to defence purposes. This year we are spending on the defence of Canada over one-third of the amount which we spent during the peak year of the last war.
If one looks at the actual war effort, the peak effort Canada was putting forward at that time, measured by the most immediately available measure to hand1-that is, the number of men under arms-one finds that the peak of all three services was approximately
780.000	men and women. That is the maximum number that we had under arms at any one time. As close as one can come to it, Mr. Chairman, that peak was reached in the year 1943. It is true that the navy reached its peak in 1944; but both the army and the air force reached their peaks in 1943. The maximum number under arms was 780,000. At the present time, according to the figures which have been produced by the minister, we have for the three permanent forces a ceiling which has recently been raised to 69,160.
The other day the minister told us that the actual strength is 56,962. There are some
60.000	men in the reserve forces; so we have a total of about 120,000 men, of whom half are reserve. But even including the reserve forces we have only about one-seventh the number of men in the services for one-third the total expenditures of the war years. When we consider that in addition there was a tremendous and inevitable wastage of men and equipment-


Brooke Claxton: I make the expenditures between one-sixth and one-seventh.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister will perhaps be able to correct me when he speaks, but I am using the figures as I have found them.


Brooke Claxton: The amount this year is $567 million.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No; the figures which are being cited now, when added to the amount' included in the estimates, and further commitments-


Brooke Claxton: We cannot spend commitments this year.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is what we are seeking authority to spend in this fiscal year.


Brooke Claxton: No.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, that is what we are seeking in this fiscal year authority to spend.


Brooke Claxton: In some future year.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Some of the expenditures have already been approved; the others will be approved this year. The minister has told us that next year the extra expenditures will be considerably increased. Therefore in this fiscal year we are being asked for authority to spend $1,400 million, and we are told that in future fiscal years we shall be asked for more.
In the war years the highest annual war expenditure, for all departments, was $3,824 million.


Brooke Claxton: But the hon. member-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Perhaps the minister would care to make his answer later; I shall be very glad indeed to listen if he wishes to correct my figures if they are wrong. If we take off $17 million or so that it is possible to segregate in the estimates of this year as being spent exclusively for the reserve forces, and then if we deduct the approximately 60,000 men in the reserve forces, we find that we have a fraction of only about one-fifteenth of the men in the forces this year that we had in the peak war year, with an expenditure of approximately the same fraction, namely, one-third.
If you just take the permanent force under arms now as against the peak number during the war you find you have one-fifteenth the number of men, with an expenditure of one-third the amount of money. Or, taking the minister's figures, which I do not admit to be correct, he makes the expenditure about one-seventh. That gives us the figure of one-fifteenth the number of men for an expenditure of one-seventh the amount of money.
It is seen, therefore, that an examination of the figures with a view to comparing the relative efforts indicates clearly that we are not getting value for our defence dollar today as compared with the value we received for it in the 1939-45 war.
The hon. member for Kootenay West has just referred to the tendency toward relaxation of the control of expenditures during
Defence Appropriation Act wartime. I am not going to say that that is completely correct, but it certainly must be remembered that during a war the main effort is to win the war. There is, shall I say, less rigid control of expenditures for that purpose than there is supposed to be during a normal period of peace. This year-at least up to the present-we were supposed to be back to peacetime rigidity and economy of expenditures. Certainly all the ministers have insisted that there is not one cent of extravagance or duplication. That being so, it reinforces the argument that on the basis of comparative expenditures and comparative returns we are not getting value for our defence dollar.
I put forward next the criticism that to a large extent what is happening in the outline of government policy is that we are talking but not acting. We have so-called plans laid before us with respect to the increase of ceilings and the recruiting program, but we are not given any definite date at which it is expected those programs will have been fulfilled.
This afternoon as well as this morning, politely it is true but quite firmly, the minister refused to say when we might expect our forces to be ready. The situation in this regard is I think not new in any country. I could not help doing some studying to find a parallel situation, and I think I have found one which pretty well parallels that which faces us today. It is found in the words of a statesman of a good many thousand years ago.
Only the other day the hon. member for Greenwood described the activities of the Secretary of State for External Affairs when forces were sought by the United Nations for service in Korea, and what happened between that time and the time the government came to its decision. The hon. member described the Secretary of . State for External Affairs as hurrying back and forth to conferences, and the simile he drew was perfectly accurate. I have here the words of an orator who spoke several hundred years before Christ, when his country was faced with a similar situation, and they are certainly applicable at this time. This is what he said:
But look to this, Athenians, that our envoys shall not only make speeches, but have some real proof that we have gone forth as becomes our country, and are engaged in action. All speech without action appears vain and idle, but especially that of our commonwealth; as the more we are thought to excel therein, the more is our speaking distrusted by all. You must show yourselves, greatly reformed, greatly changed, contributing, serving personally, acting promptly, before anyone will pay attention to you.
342	HOUSE OF
Defence Appropriation Act
And again:
Another thing, too, you should observe, Athenians, that a decree is worth nothing without a readiness on your part to do what you determine. Could decrees of themselves compel you to perform your duty, or execute what they prescribe, neither would you with many decrees have accomplished little or nothing, nor would Philip have insulted you so long. Had it depended on decrees, he would have been chastised long ago. But the course of things is otherwise. Action, posterior in order of time to speaking and voting, is in efficacy prior and superior. This requisite you want; the others you possess.
And perhaps most applicable to the present * situation are these words:
The cause lies in all of us, Athenians, that, when we ought to oppose an ambitious power by deeds and actions, not by words, we men of the hustings shrink from our duty, of moving and advising, for fear of your displeasure, and only declaim on the heinousness and atrocity of Philip's conduct; you of the assembly, though better instructed than Philip to argue justly, or comprehend the argument of another, to check him in the execution of his designs are totally unprepared. The result is inevitable, I imagine, and perhaps just. You each succeed better in what you are busy and earnest about; Philip in actions, you in words. If you are still satisfied with using the better arguments, it is an easy matter, and there is no trouble.


Mr. Darroch:: That will stop the Russians.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The orator whom I am quoting is Demosthenes, urging his countrymen in Athens to take effective action; not merely to resolve or pass decrees but to follow up with action before it was too late. It should perhaps be said, although probably it is not necessary, that his fellow countrymen did not follow his advice and the results were as might be expected.
Can anyone say that we are really placing this country in position to meet aggression at a moment's notice? Remember the type of aggression of which spokesmen on the government side have warned us. Then consider even the limited objectives outlined this morning by the minister. He told us that the ceilings of the three services have recently been increased by forty per cent. The ceiling of the Royal Canadian Navy has been increased to 14,440 from I think about 9,000, and I am speaking in round figures. That would be an increase of some 5,000 in the ceiling. He told us that they were intending to bring men in at the rate of 240 a month. If my arithmetic is right, that means that it will be about a month short of two years before the navy will be brought up to the authorized ceiling.
The minister did not tell us the rate at which it was expected to bring in recruits for the army, although the ceiling had been increased by some 7,000. He did tell us that it was intended to bring up the brigade group to its war establishment, but he did not tell us when it was intended to have accomplished that result.


He told us that the ceiling with respect to the air force has been increased from 18,000 to 24,000, in round figures, an increase of 6,000. He told us also that they intend to bring in recruits at the rate of 150 every six weeks. According to my arithmetic that means that it will take four and a half years *to get the extra 6,000 men in order to bring the air force up to its authorized ceiling.
We must assume that these increased ceilings have been set because it is thought we may have to meet aggression, and in times like this that is the only reason that one can attribute for the taking of this step. If that is so, then I think we must have an answer to the question: Are we acting quickly enough and doing all that we can to place ourselves in position to meet aggression? It is going to take four and a half years in the case of the air force, our most vital service, before we have filled the objective which has been set.


Mr. Sinnoli:: Do you want conscription?


Edmund Davie Fulton: We should have assurance from the minister that he is going to be able to meet the objectives that have been set. Can he give parliament an assurance, and I mean a definite and positive assurance, that those ceilings which he has set will be met? I should like him to outline in full the steps which he proposes to take to see that the assurance is a valid one.
My view is that we are really not facing our manpower problem, the most serious problem of all. Here I am reinforced in my view by what the minister said, as reported at page 101 of Hansard, as follows:
So far I have dealt with this program largely from the point of view of manpower, because that is what counts in the end.
I agree with the minister. In what I have to say now I want to make it quite clear that I am expressing my own views and not those of any other individual or organization. Of what use are programs and general assurances unless we have the men? Let us consider what the minister said this morning about a division. As I recall his words, he said that it would be very nice and desirable if we could have a division, but we were not able to have a division with our present resources. When he was asked what he meant by that statement he said that it would take much more money and a much greater flow of recruits. I think that statement is correct. Certainly it would mean much higher ceilings than the minister has told us they have set.
Remember the minister said that it would be desirable to have a division ready to meet aggression. I ask hon. members: Would a

division be too much in the light of the world situation which has been outlined to us by the government? Surely we must answer that question by saying that we must prepare now to place this country in a position where men can be raised at a moment's notice, and that a division would not be too much. I repeat that I am voicing my own views, which I have expressed recently, and which can be summarized in a general way by saying that in my view the military defence of Canada is a national obligation which should be distributed equally and fairly among all the people and should be discharged in that manner.
Some say that it is untimely and unpatriotic to mention the problem of manpower at this time, but I do not think it is. This problem has arisen before, and the refusal to recognize its existence in time created more harm throughout Canada than could possibly have been created had the problem been dealt with in time. There are hon. members who were here in the period from 1939 to 1945 who will remember the damage caused to national unity by the refusal to deal with this problem until it was too late to do so impartially and fairly.
All I am suggesting is that when we are faced with a threat to our very existence as a nation we ought not to close our minds to the fact that this is a problem to be faced, nor should we blind ourselves to the fact that the protection of the national security of Canada is the duty and obligation of every Canadian. That national obligation should be distributed fairly and with justice among all the individuals in our society. In my view this can be done only if we enact legislation now which would distribute the burden fairly among all our citizens. Then when the time comes we could invoke that legislation.
The mere enactment of such draft legislation does not involve the immediate raising of a large standing army in peacetime. What it means is that with the legislation on the statute book, should a threat to national security arise the government would be in position to raise such forces as would be necessary by the most effective and equitable means. With the threat with which we are faced we should not delay longer in placing ourselves in that position and enacting draft legislation now; then should war occur within ten months, as the Prime Minister has said that it might, we will be in position to act without delay, and with fairness and justness to all our citizens.
Mr. Chairman, this is not a new principle. It is in vogue in other democratic countries. It is not a new principle, and as I have said it is not unpatriotic to mention it now,
Defence Appropriation Act because it should be faced. With apologies for finding myself unable to express my views as well as I might, I would call to my support again the orator Demosthenes from whom I have quoted before. I call him to my support again because I feel that the position of our two nations is exactly similar. In speaking to his fellow countrymen on this very matter of raising their forces, Demosthenes said:
For all men will side with and respect those whom they see prepared and willing to make proper exertions. If you, Athenians, will adopt this principle now-
The principle of preparedness on a national scale.
-though you did not before, and every man, where he can and ought to give his service to the state, be ready to give it without excuse, the wealthy to contribute, the able-bodied to enlist; in a word, plainly, if you will become your own masters, and cease each expecting to do nothing himself, while his neighbour does everything for him, you shall then with heaven's permission recover your own, and get back what has been frittered away, and chastise Philip.
We must act now. In my view there would be no delay or advantage lost if we were to consider this problem now fairly and impartially. The same problems arose in times gone by, and as Demosthenes said:
As to the kind of force which I think may extricate you from your difficulties, the amount, the supplies of money, the best and speediest method (in my judgment) of providing all the necessaries, X shall endeavour to inform you forthwith . . . When you have heard all, determine; prejudge not before. And let none think I delay our operations, because I recommend an entirely new force.
He goes a little further than anything that has been suggested here.
Not those that cry, quickly! today! speak most to the purpose; (for what has already happened we shall not be able to prevent by our present armament) ; but he that shows what and how great and whence procured must be the force capable of enduring, till either we have advisedly terminated the war, or overcome our enemies . . .
Again he said:
I think it will assist your deliberations about the war and the whole arrangements, to regard the position, Athenians, of the hostile country, and consider that Philip by the winds and seasons of the year gets the start in most of his operations, watching for the trade winds . . . On this account, we must carry on the war not with hasty levies (or we shall be too late for everything), but with a permanent force and power.
I cannot bring myself to subscribe to anything which may result again in a two-army system or which may result in the mistakes, tragedies and disasters-and I call it a disaster to national unity-that we were faced with in the last war. I have said that I express my own views. I will not be a party to embarking upon a course which will result inevitably, as I see it, in the same mistakes so that when we are in the midst of things,
344	HOUSE OF
Defence Appropriation Act when it is too late to consider these things fairly, impartially, and dispassionately, we suddenly find the problem upon us. That is why I have felt impelled to express my view at this time.
I thank the committee for its consideration and courtesy in listening to me. I am quite certain that, as I appreciate the views of those whom I am addressing, they will understand my appreciation of their attention to me in my remarks today.


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Kamloops made some comparisons between defence expenditures at the peak of the last war and today, related to the number of men. I have not had a chance to check up all the figures, but the figure he used for defence expenditure today was $1,500 million.


Edmund Davie Fulton: $1,400 million.


Brooke Claxton: $1,400 million, which of course includes commitments for future years, none of which can be spent in this year at all. Therefore his comparison is invalid by very nearly 300 per cent.


John George Diefenbaker: What part cannot be spent this year?


Brooke Claxton: Only $567 million, the cash appropriations voted by parliament, can be spent this year.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What about the other $300 million which will be a cash appropriation when we approve it?


Brooke Claxton: The moneys for future years will have to be voted as part of the cash appropriation for future years.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is not what the resolution says.


Brooke Claxton: What did you say about the other $300 million?


Edmund Davie Fulton: There is $300 million to be spent for defence purposes by other departments.


Brooke Claxton: You included that?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am not referring to cash commitments alone for future years. It is to be spent for defence purposes just as in the war appropriation acts there were departments other than the Department of National Defence, such as munitions and supply.


Brooke Claxton: The hon. member did not make that plain in his remarks before, but that makes the error smaller than I mentioned. I also think he did not hear me correctly this morning when I said the planned


rate of intake of aircrew was 150, and for groundcrew 450. Therefore in the rate of expansion he made an error of 300 per cent.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It still makes it two years.


Brooke Claxton: Yes. It will also take two years and more to provide the aircrew with aircraft. The hon. member asked for assurance whether these targets can be met. I can tell him that at the present rate of recruiting they can be met short of the times planned.


Mr. Knight:: One of the disadvantages of a debate of this kind is that it is not very coherent in that we have no definite clause before us to follow. The debate wanders around from subject to subject in accordance with the will of the speaker in each case. We have had a matter of tremendous importance put before us by the hon. member for Kamloops. Perhaps it will be somewhat of a let-down if I proceed to discuss a comparatively trivial matter, although I do not think it i9 particularly trivial.
My remarks might have followed better those of my colleague, the hon. member for Kootenay West, or perhaps even those of the hon. member for Peel who spoke some time ago about how some people were mulcted even for their patriotic efforts. The hon. member for Kootenay West said that public moneys are sometimes squandered in the case of military expenditures. The hon. member for Kamloops spoke about the conscription of men. I hope to say a word or two about what is virtually conscription of funds in time of war, and the result of it, so far as the people whose money is so used are concerned. In other words, I want tc say a word about the effect that the injection of these tremendous sums of money into the economy of our country, already feverish and inflated, will have.
By its very nature this must act as a stimulus, in an economy already inflated to the danger point, to prices already much too high. I think the government will have to devise some means of checking this inflation. Much has been said, perhaps mainly by those of this group but also by those in other quarters of the house where people may still be vocal, of the hardships which have been endured by the people of this country up to the present. Those on low and indeed on moderate incomes have been compelled to reduce their standards of living. The low purchasing power of money has weighed heavily on those with fixed incomes, such as military pensioners, civil servants, old age pensioners and the like. Many people in what are often called humble positions have been forced to use

their savings to meet the exigencies of the moment; this has been brought to my attention by many of my acquaintances. In some cases they have even given up their life insurance, and of course the selling of war bonds in order to get some ready cash is a common practice. It has become more and more difficult for wage earners to stretch their wages to meet the increased cost of the necessities of family life. In 1948 the royal commission on prices stated it was probable that most workers were as well off then as they were in 1945. That may have been true at that time, though you will notice it was not made as a definite assertion; but I doubt whether the rise in wages since that date has kept pace with the increased cost of living. I suggest that now prices have outstripped wages and salaries. Certainly that is so in the case of the people about whom I have been talking, the widows, those drawing veterans' allowance, those on pension, and so on.
I suppose what I have said refers largely to urban communities, but the same situation exists throughout the rural communities as well, because of the tremendous increase in the costs of production on the farm. Farmers have been worried about this tremendous increase in prices; and may I say that in my opinion many of these increases, which have been progressively greater since the beginning of the Korean trouble, were not at all justified. We have the instance of the increase in the price of sugar, though it was shown that we have greater stocks of sugar in the world today than ever before. Farmers have been paying higher prices for their machinery. When you meet a farmer on the road in Saskatchewan today with a combine on his truck and ask what he paid for it, it is not unusual to be told that the price was in the neighbourhood of $5,000; and there have been increases in the cost of oil, twine and repairs.
Organized farmers, of course, are doing something about this. It is this increase in prices that has caused renewed activity on the part of the farmers' union in the province of Saskatchewan. They have come to realize, I believe, that their cause is somewhat the same as that of labour; in fact they have acknowledged this in their speeches and pamphlets. They are asking for an adjustment, for some control of prices, at least on a parity basis; and I hope the government will see fit to do something to bring about such an equitable parity. If we are to judge from the history of the past, however, the government will avoid that; but certainly it must introduce some anti-inflationary
Defence Appropriation Act measures in order to control expenditures. I suppose we might predict higher income taxes and perhaps an excess profits tax.
Now I come to the point I particularly wanted to make today. I believe there should be some domestic financing in order to draw off some of the extra money that has been accruing to at least some sections of the population during these periods of war and rumours of war. If the government cannot give the assurance of some degree of stability in the price structure over a period of years, it may have difficulty in its domestic financing in peacetime, when the purchase of government bonds is not stimulated by the patriotic feeling prevalent in time of war. There is no doubt that this patriotic motive does encourage the almost universal purchase of war bonds during times of national emergency.
It would be rather interesting to look into this question of bonds. I do not know much about them, but like many others I thought it my duty to invest in a bond or two of small denomination during the war. This morning I looked up the figures in the Canada Year Book, and I find that the price of bonds has varied very little, ranging from $100 to $104. After support was withdrawn a year or two ago the price went back to about $102, and I should imagine that the average would be below that figure. Those bonds, of course, had a par value of $100. Then I looked up the cost of living index during the same period. Taking 1939 as 100 I found that in 1945 the index was 119; in 1947 it was 144; in 1948 it was 159; in 1949 it was 160-8, and for the month of August, 1950-of course we have not the figure for the year yet-it was 168-5, the highest in our history. When we come to the index figure for food-and may I say that in- these days, when wages have to be stretched to cover the necessities of life, the greater part of those wages must be spent on food-we find that the figure is 216-7.
My point is that if a person invested $100 in a war bond in 1942 or thereabouts and sold that bond today, he would get somewhere between $100 and $102 for it; but if he took that money into a store he would be able to purchase food worth only about $50 on the basis of prices in 1942. In other words, even adding the interest received in the meantime, the amount received for the bond today would not nearly equal in purchasing power the amount of money originally invested. Thus when the government urges us to invest in these bonds as a patriotic duty, we certainly do just that; we perform an unselfish, patriotic duty not only in
346	HOUSE OF
Defence Appropriation Act lending but in giving the government money for the purpose of war expenditures.
This is a point I thought should be drawn to the attention of this house. Even children appreciate it. I heard of one instance in a family somewhat connected with my own, only the other day. A little girl had a war savings certificate. Her parents had paid only $4 for it; now she got $5; but even that young girl had sufficient acumen to realize that when she spent that money she did not get anything like what $4 would have bought at the time the war savings certificate was purchased for her. I want to draw that to the attention of the government. I suppose it is a small thing, but it is generally felt throughout the whole population.
In so far as these great expenditures proposed are concerned, we realize they are a necessity at this time. I think I can say we shall support the government in the expenditure of these moneys. Looking out in the world today we come to the conclusion that we must be strong. We would need to be strong to maintain neutrality as between combatants in whose combat we were not particularly interested. By that strength we might be able to maintain that position of neutrality. By that strength we would serve notice to the combatants that they had better not violate such neutrality or make our country a battleground. Having said that, I must go on to say that we think we must be strong in order that we may fulfil our commitments to the United Nations in putting down aggression wherever it may occur. We must be strong in order to fulfil our commitments to those to whom we would naturally look for assistance in our defence.
I believe the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Courtemanche) took a somewhat unrealistic attitude. Although he sits on the Conservative benches his opinions appear to be different from those of the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton), who has just spoken in this debate. The hon. member for Labelle is living in a world of unreality if he imagines that we can possibly defend our shores against all comers. Does he not realize that there are mighty nations in this world against whom we could not hope to stand alone? How could we expect other nations to come to our defence if we did not reciprocate and fulfil our commitments to those nations? I believe that is all I wish to say upon the matter. For these reasons, although we abhor war, we shall be prepared to support the resolution, even to the extent of these colossal sums of money.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, there is one question I should like to ask the minister


arising out of his statement this afternoon regarding military commitments. He stated that we, in Canada, have no military commitments at the present time. I should like to ask whether or not there are any military commitments under the North Atlantic pact. If I recall correctly, when the matter was before the house last fall, assurance was given that there were commitments whereby Canada would be required to carry out her responsibilities. The member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) has handed me article 5 of the pact which reads:
The parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all.
The parties agree to work in concert to take such action as may be deemed necessary.
There is another matter which has arisen which indicates the necessity for a committee on security. I shall not continue to advance arguments for that, because practically every argument has been canvassed. But there is no better example of the need for such a committee than the article which appears in the Evening Journal. While parliament sits and information is being requested, a report appears in this evening's paper to the effect that the 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.


Brooke Claxton: There is nothing in the story.


John George Diefenbaker: I place another matter before the minister in connection with the pay of ground and aircrew members working on the north Pacific airlift to Japan. There are a number of men from my own province doing this work. I understand there is unfairness so far as these men are concerned, because they are being paid in American currency but at the Canadian foreign exchange rates which means that the Canadians are paid ten per cent less than the United States airmen doing the same work. It is a small thing, but it is the small things that cause annoyance. The men are engaged in a common United Nations effort, United States airmen and Canadians, and yet the Canadians are receiving less than their brothers who are doing United Nations work. I should like to ask the minister whether consideration is being given to assure that there shall be equality in payment?


Brooke Claxton: Yes, sir. Just as soon as the force was dispatched to the United States to begin operations to Japan, the question of additional allowances to take care of exchange differentials was at once looked into. A submission has been forwarded by this department to the treasury board to provide for an

equalization of the differentials due to exchange or similar conditions. In effect, then, the officers and men serving in the R.C.A.F. would receive abroad the mathematical equivalent of the pay and allowances that they would receive in Canada. That may require further adjustment in allowances with regard to forces serving in Japan and Korean waters, or Korea itself.


John George Diefenbaker: Does that apply to all the
armed forces?


Brooke Claxton: Not only has it been looked into, but it is being actively pressed forward. If I have anything to do with it, any adjustment made will be retroactive so that the men will not lose anything.
I have another question with which I should deal. I am glad the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) entered the chamber, because the question of commitments, political or otherwise, is a question relating to the external policy of Canada. I believe the hon. member will recall when this matter came up before, and it came up two or three times, there was some confusion between political commitments and military commitments. Under the North Atlantic treaty Canada has agreed that an act of aggression against any nation would be an act of aggression against all, and that we would take steps to deal with an act of aggression.
That is a political undertaking which this government would honour and will honour, and it will put before parliament the steps that may be necessary to implement that undertaking. That is, however, quite a different matter from a specific military commitment, using it in the sense conveyed in the military term, of committing a force to action here, there or anywhere else. There are no such military commitments. Whether or not there will be such commitments will depend on arrangements that are under discussion as between the North Atlantic treaty nations themselves. But that is the situation.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs is here and I think he should supplement what I have said from the point of view of our external relations.


Mr. Pearson:: I do not know that there is a great deal that I can add to what my colleague, the Minister of National Defence, has said. I can of course verify the accuracy of what he has said as to our commitment under the North Atlantic pact. I might also just mention again, although I tried to deal with it yesterday, our commitments under the United Nations charter, because those commitments were mentioned this afternoon in the course of this debate.
Defence Appropriation Act


John George Diefenbaker: I was talking about the North Atlantic pact.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, but the United Nations charter commitments were also mentioned here this afternoon. May I just deal with them first? .Our commitments under the United Nations charter, as I said yesterday- that is, under article 43 of the United Nations charter-have not been implemented because no military agreements under that article have been made. Our commitment under the United Nations charter in regard to the supplying of military forces to carry out our obligations is therefore exactly the same as the commitment of Brazil, South Africa, the United States or any other member, namely to do our best to carry out the recommendations of assistance made by a United Nations agency, which we have agreed to do.
How we will do that has not been worked out under the charter. As the agreements under article 43 have been shown to be impossible because of the attitude of the U.S.S.R., I hope that we may work this out in a different way, possibly starting at this forthcoming assembly, and in a way which the U.S.S.R. will not be able to prevent. For that purpose the precedent-and I think it is a precedent which we have established-of earmarking our military forces for carrying out UN commitments may be followed by the same kind of procedure in other countries, so that we shall have the beginning of a United Nations force, national contingents, earmarked to carry out specifically certain obligations. That is, however, in the future.
As to the commitment under the North Atlantic pact, as my colleague has stated, we have a general commitment to do what we can to meet an aggression on any member of the group. That is our political commitment and we must live up to it. How we carry out that political commitment in military terms is something that is being worked out now by the appropriate agencies under the North Atlantic council.
The discussions of this matter were going on last spring when I attended the meeting of the North Atlantic council, and there were being negotiated by the military experts of the North Atlantic agencies various arrangements which would have provided certain detailed plans so that each member of the group would know what its military commitment was in case a political commitment was engaged. Those discussions were influenced by the aggression in Korea in the sense that they have been proceeded with since that time with greater urgency, and the earlier plans which were being worked out have

Defence Appropriation Act been modified in the course of the discussions this summer so that they will be made rather broader, and deeper in character, and will be brought into effect more speedily.
I had hoped, during the course of this debate, to be able to report to the house something about these discussions of the deputies in London, because they are concerned with this very matter of military and supply commitments. But these discussions have just been completed by the deputies, and they will be referred to the North Atlantic council which meets in New York a week from this Friday. The deputies finished their summer discussions in London last week, and their efficient chairman, the delegate of the United States, issued a statement when those discussions were completed. I think that it is a rather important statement and that it might go on the record. On September 4 he said this:
The North Atlantic council deputies on Saturday adjourned their meetings until 13th September, 1950, when they will convene in New York prior to the meeting of the North Atlantic council.
The council deputies drew up plans to Implement and finance a priority production program, and recommended to their governments the immediate placing of orders, up to the full utilization of existing capacity, for certain specified items of equipment most urgently required for the forces contemplated under approved defence plans. This priority program will be embodied in future long-term plans for the production and financing of military equipment.
The deputies inaugurated an urgent study, with the assistance of the appropriate agencies of the North Atlantic treaty, of the measures required, first, to strengthen the military organization of the treaty, and, second, to decide what arrangements would bring about a fair distribution of the financial burden and the most effective and economic use of the collective resources of the twelve countries for the defence of the North Atlantic area.
The deputies examined reports submitted by the member governments on their proposed increased defence efforts.
One of those reports was from the Canadian deputy, our high commissioner in London. Then Mr. Spofford's statement goes on:
They found that much remains to be done, and further effort and sacrifice will be required. Nevertheless the deputies were encouraged by the steps being taken by member governments and the determination evidenced by these steps to stiffen the defences of the west.
I do not feel that at this time I can add much to that brief communique. But the work of the deputies, in all its detail, will be considered by the council members next week in New York. If the house were still in session after that council meeting, I should be happy indeed to report the results of that consideration.


John George Diefenbaker: I am sure, Mr. Chairman, that the committee listened with interest to

what the Secretary of State for External Affairs has said; but what he has said has underlined the necessity of parliament and the people of Canada finding out what the major nature of our contribution is to be under the North Atlantic pact.
In July the United Nations World dealt with the situation generally with regard to Canada's contribution. Among other things it said this, and I am reading from an article by the editor:	-
For too long Canada has been overlooked when the North American potential for peace or war was being estimated. The resources and potentials of the United States have monopolized the spotlight, for indeed the U.S. achievement is spectacular.
Then it goes on to say about Canada:
Apart from giving credit where credit is due, nobody can think accurately about the North American continent unless he adds Canada's assets to those of the United States.
Canada is the second largest country in the world, since the USSR began whittling off pieces of China . . .
The old word "inexhaustible," can be dusted off and used again for the mineral wealth of Canada. The possibilities have only been tapped but already the list includes gold, silver, copper, nickel, platinum, uranium, radium, cobalt, cadmium, tungsten, magnesium, mercury, asbestos, oil, iron and coal.
In the United Nations World it is set out that there must be mobilization of both manpower and material resources of the nations making up the North Atlantic pact. It is a matter of surprise that at this late date the minister is still in a position where, in effect, he says that there has been no decision as to the responsibility of the several countries making up the pact.
It was for that reason that I asked the question the other day as to Canada's objective. What are the plans of the government? Is our contribution to the prevention of aggression to be manpower, or is it to be industrial expansion, or is it to be the development of our natural resources? Certainly when one reads the article that was published three years ago in the Saturday Evening Post one has cause to think. At that time Mr. Averell Harriman, secretary of commerce in the United States, speaking about the United States, said:
Having ruthlessly tapped our natural resources, we are becoming a "have-not nation."
The United States has the industrial capacity for expansion. In the last war Canada made tremendous advances in this connection, too; but we have in addition the needs without which the war potential of Canada and of all the nations in 'the North Atlantic pact cannot achieve the maximum.

As I have said on previous occasions, I believe the time has come for an announcement from the government as to what Canada's contribution is to be. Certainly, having regard to the fact that our armed forces are to be kept to a minimum, and having regard to the international situation, the question which naturally suggests itself is this: Has it been agreed that in place of manpower Canada's contribution is going to be expanded mineral development, expanded development of those things that are as yet hidden in the ground, but potentially available and requiring only development? It was because of that fact that I suggested that, the natural resources and their administration being within the prerogative of the provinces, when the dominion-provincial conference meets a plan should be arrived at whereby, in co-operation, there will be an intensified and accelerated development in the expansion of our resources, particularly our iron, oil and coal, and such other minerals as are required in the development of this nation.
We ask questions and we get such information as the government vouchsafes us, and believes it is proper that we should have. But no one in the House of Commons-indeed, now we can say no one in parliament, because the minister says there is no over-all plan in the mind of the government or the nations making up the North Atlantic pact-knows what each one of these nations is to produce or to provide in the event of aggression.
I believe the government would go a long way if it were to say to the people either that their responsibility is going to be one of manpower, despite a comparatively small population of some 14 million people or, on the other hand, their main contribution to the resistance of aggression will be the provision of the resources they have and without which there could not be mobilization for defence or total war. Never have we had a greater opportunity in that direction.
In my own province of Saskatchewan the potential development of oil has blanketed the province with oil rights owned and controlled by Americans who have come to this country. We have had these potential resources, and yet Canadians have not been developing them. Are these resources now to be developed? What co-operation is there to be, and what is going to be done to the end that the United States, with its vast industrial opportunities, will have those resources available to it in the event that aggression does strike North America or any of the other countries making up the North Atlantic pact? What provision will there be for the mobilization of these resources?
Defence Appropriation Act
This is a matter upon which all of us want information, and upon which hon. members individually can determine their attitude toward the whole question of manpower and the necessity for the provision of manpower for the preservation of our way of life. I trust it will not be long before the government will be in a position to make a statement in this particular. They were asked the question in 1945-and I have the debates here-"When are you going to arrive at some conclusion?"
Well, the United Nations has been emasculated by the overhanging veto in the hands of the five powers, and used in particular by one of them.


Mr. Pouliot:: It was a painless operation.


John George Diefenbaker: That is one of the best designations I have heard. Is Canada's effort to be a painless operation? The hon. member can invariably coin expressions that in two words embody many words; and in those two words he has embodied something we have been asking.
What is this operation to be? Is it to be merely a palatable one; is it to be a manpower one; is it to be an industrial one? If it is to be a manpower one, then certain questions arise. If it is to consist of the development of our resources, to provide for the have-not nations those natural resources we have here in abundance as yet undeveloped, then we in this country should know, so that we would be in a position to meet the challenge. The Prime Minister has said that within a decade of months-and those were striking words-we may find ourselves with our way of life challenged. Surely we do not meet the possible challenge in a decade of months by the announcement made this afternoon by the Minister of National Defence that what we now vote in money to a great extent will not be expended for two years, or even beyond that.


Brooke Claxton: I must again explain that if the amount of $567 million set out in the bill is voted-and we have been assured that it will be-we estimate it will be spent by March 31, 1951. What we undertake under the future years commitment authority in contracts for delivery after March 31, 1951, will not be spent in the current fiscal year, but will be spent in future years, stretching forward for two or three years, and the expenditure will be provided for out of cash votes in respect of those years. That is the position and I think the hon. gentleman understands it quite well. However, I did not want any misunderstanding.
The hon. member asked whether we would be expected to provide manpower or
350	HOUSE OF
Defence Appropriation Act resources. Of course, that will rest with parliament and the government of Canada. We will sit down, and we are sitting down from day to day, with representatives of other nations to discuss how we can best meet the threat that lies ahead. Should there be an emergency in the immediate future we have a plan for the working out of our defence arrangements which we believe will deal with the situation promptly and effectively in the light of circumstances that exist. As these discussions go on there will be developments and changes. There will never be a plan in a final sense because that is not the way you plan militarily in this changing world.
There will have to be great capacity for improvisation and change, depending on the kind of action that is taken and as it takes place. The hon. member appreciates that there cannot ever be any final plan, but there will be working arrangements changed from time to time according to the circumstances.


John George Diefenbaker: Is there at the present
time any plan whereby in co-operation with the north Atlantic nations there will be a development of the natural resources of any one of them to the end that necessary materials of war will be available?


Mr. Howe:: Perhaps I might say a word
about that subject, as I have had something to do with it. There is an international joint committee set up for almost every natural resource that this continent produces which can be used in war, the purpose being to make sure that supplies will be adequate.
I think there are at least twenty joint committees on twenty different materials in being at the present moment. My hon. friend referred to oil. In the last war we produced about five per cent of our oil whereas today we are able to produce 35 per cent. A good many strategic supplies have been stepped up in the interval since war ended and study is being given to others, the purpose being to make sure that supplies are adequate for the requirements of war.
I hope my hon. friend was not implying that our full part in the defence of Europe might be to supply materials.


John George Diefenbaker: I was just asking what
the plan is.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am reminded of a conversation I had in France when my wife and I were dining with a French couple. We were talking about war and the lady of the house said, "I would like to have a war where North America does the fighting and we furnish the munitions". I do not think any country would be satisfied with the kind of role


suggested by the hon. member for Lake Centre. I suggest to my hon. friend that our role in the defence of Europe is to supply both men and materials.


John George Diefenbaker: Let there be no
misunderstanding about my views on that. I was trying to find out the attitude of the government in view of the remarks of the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Howard Charles Green: I think in the interests of the Canadian people and also of the other nations who are members of the north Atlantic group Canada's obligations should be stated quite clearly. It was my understanding when the house approved Canada's signature to the North Atlantic treaty that we were obligated to fight if any of the countries who were signatory to that treaty was attacked. Article 5 of the treaty reads:
The parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them allin other words, an attack on one of the countries in Europe would be considered by Canada as an attack on Canada.
-and, consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by article 51 of the charter of the United Nations, will assist the party or parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force-
Those are very important words.
-to restore and maintain the security of the north Atlantic area.
Then there is further reference to informing the security council. That appears to be a binding obligation on every nation a party to the treaty to supply a fighting force provided any one of the nations is attacked. Some doubt has been thrown on that by the statements of the Minister of National Defence and the Secretary of State for External Affairs this afternoon.


Brooke Claxton: Not a doubt.


Howard Charles Green: 1 should like to put the matter clearly before them. Suppose there is an attack on western Germany tonight, which would mean an attack on the United States, the United Kingdom and France because they have troops in western Germany, is Canada bound to fight at once and to supply troops? If the answer is yes, then are we not in the position where we are bound to supply troops to fight in Europe and also by our membership in the United Nations bound to supply troops to fight in Korea? May I have an answer to those questions from one or other of the ministers?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I shall be glad to try to reply to the question asked by the hon. gentleman

in such a way that there will be no doubt in his mind or in the mind of anybody else as to where we stand in a matter of that kind. The hon. member has read from the North Atlantic treaty the article which imposes an obligation on us. If there is an attack made on a member of the north Atlantic group, that is an attack on all the members of the group.


Howard Charles Green: Including Canada?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Including Canada. If such an attack is made I take it that it will be 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. If parliament decided that such an attack had been made and we were at war, it is the custom of Canadians when they are attacked to fight back with materials and with men.


Howard Charles Green: Could the minister answer my second question? If such an attack took place in western Germany tonight would we be obligated to fight there in addition to our present obligation to fight in Korea?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I thought I had made that clear. An attack on western Germany which involved Canada by the decision of its parliament and its obligations under the North Atlantic pact would be met by materials and men. But I take it that that would not interfere with any obligation we may have in Korea at this time. We would have two attacks to meet, one in Europe because of our membership in the Atlantic pact and one in Korea because of our membership in the United Nations.


George Harris Hees: When I was speaking earlier this afternoon I asked the minister if he would answer this question: With the world situation as it has been pictured this afternoon and our obligations under the United Nations charter and the Atlantic pact, there seems to be a very good possibility that we shall have to supply troops, other than the Korean brigade, at some future date. The Minister of National Defence has said that in case of hostilities the permanent force will have the role of training other forces. Therefore they will not be available to go out of the country. If we are engaged in Korea the Korean brigade will be occupied there. I ask the minister what plans the government has to provide the forces we would be called on to supply, having in mind the delay of about six to eight months that has been necessary to get the Korean brigade ready. If we have no trained forces we shall require a lapse of about six to eight months to prepare
Defence Appropriation Act them. Have we some plan to get around the delay of six to eight months, or do we plan on always taking that period of time to prepare forces if we are ever asked for them in the future under the Atlantic pact or by the United Nations Organization?
There is another question I asked and which I have not had answered. On June 26 last I asked the Minister of National Defence whether he did not consider that we required a division for the defence of Canada. At that time he said no, that he and his department considered that the brigade group we have at the present time was quite sufficient. Now it has become evident that we have never had a brigade group as such. We have three airborne battalions that have never worked together, have no headquarters and no signal section, and would require several weeks- the hon. member for Nanaimo estimates it would be closer to two months-before the brigade group could fight as a formation. Therefore since June 26 up to the present time we have not had the brigade group which the minister assured me that we had on that day in the house, because it has not been an effective fighting unit. I also want to ask him how long it will be before the brigade group is ready to fight as a unit in the defence of Canada.


Brooke Claxton: Both questions have been asked before, and I believe both questions have been answered as fully as it is possible to answer them. However, I will make another effort. The time it will take to get a division ready depends on circumstances that I cannot anticipate at this moment, but that time will steadily decrease with the further recruitment and training of the armed forces of Canada, both active and reserve. The time it will take will depend on when we begin.


George Harris Hees: When are you going to start? That is what I want to know.


Brooke Claxton: We are not going to start to raise a division at the present time. That is not a part of our plan. I have said so to the hon. member and the committee generally, and have given the reasons why that is so. If circumstances change and it becomes a part of our plan to raise a division in peacetime, then that will obviously shorten the delay necessary to get that division into action as a fighting division in war. But if we do not decide to raise a division in peacetime then the delay involved- in raising it will depend upon when we begin, and what the degree of training is of the active and reserve forces at the time.
I should like to say a further word with respect to having a division in Canada. The hon. member made a serious suggestion and

Defence Appropriation Act I treated it seriously and with the benefit of the advice of the members of the general staff. I should like to add this point. If we are to have a division in being, then for it to be a division in being, ready to fight at the drop of a hat, it should be located for continuous training in one place. I think the hon. member will agree with that. That would mean having a force in peacetime of about 20,000, plus an administrative and training force of perhaps 10,000, plus wives and dependents and all the attendant services and amenities that go to make up a community. Therefore if we are going to keep this division together in Canada so that it is in training and ready to fight from day to day, I submit we would have a community of
30,000	plus, a very considerable operation.
That would require housing and services on a very large scale. I have seen communities in the United States where they have divisions, for instance, Fort Benning, and they are very large communities indeed. If we do not keep the division together in being and under training then it ceases to be a division that is ready to fight at the drop of a hat. As we envisage the defence needs of Canada they do not require the presence of a division in being in Canada at any one locality or at several localities. They require the elements in the brigade group in the state of training that they are today. In time the brigade group will receive training of the month or two months necessary to enable it to fight instantly as a unit. That is not considered to be necessary today as we think their time is being better occupied.
If elements in the division that the hon. member proposes are to be scattered about the country in brigades or battalions of infantry, regiments of artillery and the like, there is no very great advantage in having them called a division over the situation we have today. As I pointed out, we have in the active forces elements making up about three-quarters of those that would be required to form a division. That will be reduced when the force training for service under the United Nations is concentrated and moved out of Canada, if that is decided upon, as we expect it will be. But meanwhile recruiting will have gone on. Therefore I submit the hon. member's desire to have a division in being is partly met by the existing situation, and that will change and develop steadily. We do not mean to stand still. If the situation should develop in such a way that we find it both necessary and desirable to use our resources of men and money in some other way, then of course that change will be worked out.

With respect to the suggestion that we should have a division, I do not want to make comparisons with other countries, but I recall to the committee that the leader of the opposition said there were twelve divisions in western Europe, and I dare say hon. members know how many there are in each of the various countries of western Europe, including the United Kingdom. A division in being in peacetime in a country like Canada would be a very considerable undertaking. If we were to undertake that, it would constitute a very considerable advance. On the other hand we secure a very large part of the benefits of having a division in being from having active and reserve forces constituted as they are at present.
Just as a final word on this subject, I would like to ask hon. members what would have been the position if in 1946, when we were reorganizing the armed forces, we had adopted this suggestion.


George Harris Hees: The situation is not the same at all.


Brooke Claxton: That is quite correct, but the situation may change at any moment. At that time we had to start to plan for the organization, the administrative and training staff and the development of the training schools necessary to build up our armed forces. That has been done; and because it has been done we were able to raise, equip and start to train the special force for Korea in a very short time. I submit that the way the active and reserve forces have been organized and are developing today indicates that we have the kind of fundamental framework which is sound for this country, on which we can move ahead rapidly or otherwise depending upon circumstances-our appreciation of the needs, and the availability of resources. Circumstances will change from time to time, requiring changes in our defence arrangements; and if those changes and developments appear desirable and a good way to spend our defence dollars, I can assure hon. members they will be gladly undertaken.


Mr. Fulford:: I wonder if the minister would tell the committee what arrangements are being made for special officer training. During the last war, as many hon. members know, the largest officer training centre in Canada was located in the town of Brockville. That camp was to be declared surplus the latter part of this summer and handed over to the crown assets corporation, but only recently it was announced that the camp was to be taken off the surplus list. Naturally any community in which there was a camp during the war, which camp has been taken off the surplus

list, is anxious to know what is to become of it. In the case of Brockville, many of the buildings are in good condition; others are in pretty fair condition, while of course others, having been built for only ten years, have lived their lives. Of course we are anxious to see the camp reopened. It is interesting to recall that the training camp to which I am referring was commanded for over a year by a man of such distinction as the present Minister of Labour. I believe we would all like to know exactly what are the plans of the department with regard to the special training of officers.


Brooke Claxton: I am sure hon. members are familiar with the plans for training officers in peacetime, under which we have arrangements for training university students for each of the three services. All twenty-seven universities are co-operating magnificently in this work. Under that arrangement the men do some extra work throughout their academic year and then put in full-time service for three or four months during the summer, so that at the end of their academic course they have a university degree and the equivalent of a year's practical training. This is working out admirably in all three services.
Then we have the Canadian service colleges at R.M.C. and Royal Roads where men are being trained for all three services. That is a four-year course, and if the men are in the technical branches they are sent at government expense to take their final year at a university. These two systems qualify men to exactly the same standards; they intermingle during the summer. There is also a third arrangement under which officers for the army are trained locally in command contingent corps, also to the same standards. These arrangements are very flexible, so that men can achieve the same standards in a number of different ways. Under one system or another we have over six thousand officers in training at the present time, so that to a very large degree we are meeting current needs in each locality and also, to a smaller degree, building up a pool of trained officers across 'the nation. In the event of an emergency this would enable us to meet the first shock and have time to accelerate training under arrangements such as those in effect during the second world war, at Brockville or other places that might be selected, where officers would receive accelerated courses lasting probably six months, and where they could develop just as speedily as possible. We also plan to have a great deal of on-the-job training for technical officers after they receive basic training.
Whether or not Brockville would be reopened for this purpose has not been decided, G9262-23
Defence Appropriation Act but pending further developments we are keeping hold of the camp there. The R.C.R. were at that camp until last year, and now they are at Petawawa. They had very good relations with the town of Brockville, and I think both were sorry when the unit had to leave.


Mr. Fleming:: I am sure there is not a member of this house who is not fully cognizant of the fact that the Minister of National Defence and the Secretary of State for External Affairs are carrying heavy burdens of responsibility at this time. That is one reason why in contributions to the debates during this special session members of the official opposition have at all times stressed their desire to be constructive, co-operative and helpful. I urge upon the Minister of National Defence, who has taken the lead in rejecting a very useful suggestion for furthering that co-operation, that it is not too late to reconsider his stand in relation to that proposal. I am not going to labour the point, which has been thoroughly discussed, but I am going to ask the minister if he thinks that at this stage he is contributing very much by what appears to be a stubborn refusal to consider a proposal which has worked well in other fields and which it seems to me is capable of working efficiently and to the general advantage of parliament and the country in the field of national defence. It is paradoxical to see the Secretary of State for External Affairs sitting beside the Minister of National Defence while that minister categorically rejects the suggestion that a committee of this house be set up to deal with matters pertaining to national defence, since the Secretary of State for External Affairs is one minister who has contributed much to furthering the efficiency of one or more of the committees of the house. As you and I well know, Mr. Chairman, no standing committee of this house has worked better than the standing committee on external relations, and I think that is a perfect parallel.
Why it is that a principle can work so well in this house in the field of external relations, and build up within that sphere a spirit of co-operation among political parties, and yet, in spite of that fact some of the ministers deem it to be so unworthy even of experiment in the field of national defence? The answers that have been given to repeated requests for the establishment of such a committee in the interests of parliamentary efficiency in dealing with a national crisis have been weak. They have done no justice to the mental powers of those ministers who have put them forward. Even at this late period in the debate, Mr. Chairman, I would urge

Defence Appropriation Act the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Clax-ton) to give that subject renewed consideration. What advantage is it to Canada or to parliament for the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) to throw out challenges and also crack the whip for the benefit of his followers as he did in the house one day last week when he said if we have been slow in rearming the country and preparing it for this crisis, then of course we should be voted out of office, and in the same breath say there is not going to be any committee, through which channel the members of this house could obtain the information they require to reach a decision as to whether the government has been measuring up to its responsibility in reference to the defence of the nation? That sort of attitude simply defeats any opportunity the house might have of addressing its intelligence to its responsibility in answering that important question.
I propose, sir, to be as direct and as brief as I can be in touching on two or three highlights in this question of our national defence position, and then to treat briefly two subjects that, so far as I know, have not been mentioned by any member in this discussion. In the first place, I wish we could obtain a common statement from the government ministers with reference to the extent of the emergency that exists. Listening to the Prime Minister when he spoke in the house last week it seemed to me, and I think to all members of the house, that the Prime Minister was seized with the extreme gravity of the situation. At times he described it in very serious terms. It seemed to me he was indicating an awareness of the existence of a critical emergency; but although I have been following the Minister of National Defence carefully, in his statements thus far I cannot detect any indication of a parallel attitude to that which I thought I found in the Prime Minister's statement. If I correctly understood the Prime Minister's position there is a very grave and critical emergency facing this country and the other free nations of the world. If I follow what the Minister of National Defence says, it seems as though there is plenty of time to experiment, that we may go this way or we may go that way, that we are keeping our planning very fluid so we can adjust ourselves to circumstances as they arise. Apparently there is nothing yet that calls for the government to grapple with an existing situation. For my part I should like to hear from the Minister of National Defence, since he has a very great responsibility now, as we all know, some indication of a sense of gripping urgency and critical emergency in the situation that confronts Canada.
Korea has at least nakedly exposed the danger of aggression. Aggressions were being

practised elsewhere. In all fairness and in all accuracy it cannot be said that the government did not have warning of the necessity for a measure of preparation for a situation of the kind that confronts us now.
It is crystal clear that there is, on the part of the members of this house, the utmost readiness to vote public money for the defence of Canada. There have been differences of view expressed in this debate as to the extent of commitments, and as to the particular direction in which Canadian assistance should be sent. At no particular time, or even in the present situation so far as I am aware, has any member of this house said that there should be any tying of the hands of the government in meeting the situation. If the government will only take us into its confidence, ask us for what is required by way of money to meet the needs of defence, there will be no haggling on the part of the members as long as the house is given the information, and as long as the house is satisfied the Canadian people are going to receive value for their money. In his war memoirs Mr. Churchill has said:
It is much better for parties or politicians to be turned out of office than to imperil the life of the nation. Moreover, there is no record in our history of any government asking parliament and the people for the necessary measures of defence and being refused.
Sir, that applies to the attitude of this house on this occasion.
I said, sir, that the Canadian people and, I hope, this house, wish to see value for our expenditures on national defence. Again Mr. Churchill says in his war memoirs:
Don't hamper departments acting in a time of crisis; give them the responsibility; but call them swiftly to account for any failure in thrift.
Applying that injunction from the great war leader, one is entitled to call this government swiftly to account for any failure in thrift. That, sir, is precisely what this house is trying to do at this time, and certainly what the members of the opposition are trying to do in the face of difficulties and obstacles put in their way because of the fact that we are denied, for various reasons, information that we say we are entitled to have.
Cannot the Minister of National Defence see that there is no party in this house that wants to be unfair in judging whatever preparations he can show have been made with these large expenditures of money, the hard-earned money of the Canadian taxpayers? We are palpably left in the dark. and, from past experience, unless we are given a great deal more information than has as yet been forthcoming, we can only conclude that that money has not been expended to the best advantage,

and that the Canadian people have not been given value for the expenditure of their money on national defence.
In measuring what the situation calls for and the need for forces in being, I wish the Minister of National Defence-I do not say this in any spirit of carping criticism-would be much clearer than he has been on this subject of commitments. This is no occasion for any play on words. Surely in a situation of this kind, where parliament is being called upon to vote vast sums of money, there is no time for playing upon words. What we want from the government are clear and understandable statements that admit of no misunderstanding or ambiguity. This afternoon the Minister of National Defence said we have no military commitments. Would it not have been much truer if the minister had said we have no military commitments apart from those clear commitments to which we have subscribed in the North Atlantic treaty? He was asked about commitments on April 3, 1950, when he returned from the meeting of the North Atlantic council and the subject of training in this country soldiers for the other North Atlantic nations arose. At page 1471 of Hansard the minister said:
We have our obligations under the treaty. The only additional obligation is the offer I have made, which is in course of being accepted, for the training of army personnel and aircrew. There are no other specific commitments.
Let us not split hairs about specific commitments. There are great and clear commitments in this pact to which Canada is a party; and unless these are commitments on Canada's part, we do not enjoy today the benefits we thought we enjoyed for the defence of Canada under this North Atlantic pact. We did not go into this simply because we thought we were giving something away. We entered into that pact because we thought that, by our becoming subscribers to that treaty, there was a great gain to be had for the defence of Canada. We should not wish to whittle down these commitments because, sooner than we care to think about it, we might wish to claim the benefit of the commitments on the part of other nations to that treaty.
I have spoken about the attitude of the house. In the absence of full information to the contrary, we can only conclude that the government has been slow and that its attitude has been marked by inertia. Again, Mr. Chairman, I quote from Mr. Churchill:
Virtuous motives, trammelled by inertia and timidity, are no match for armed and resolute wickedness.
We and the other free nations of the world are confronted today with armed and resolute wickedness. In that situation virtuous motives, 69262-23J
Defence Appropriation Act trammelled by inertia and timidity, are not enough; and we call upon the government to cast off those trammels of inertia and timidity.
Naturally we are not thinking simply in terms of the defence of Canada by Canada. We have to take account of all measures that we are entitled to look to for the defence of Canada; and from the discussions of the North Atlantic council and from statements that have since been made by responsible statesmen representing the free nations, it seemed quite clear that what the free nations are contemplating now is something of a functional collective preparation for the meeting of aggression. Collective preparation for collective self-defence seemed to be what we might expect following the statements issued after the last meeting of the North Atlantic council. I should therefore like to ask the Minister of National Defence if the particular measures that are being contemplated by the Canadian government-and I mean particular measures; I am not speaking in generalities -have been undertaken in consultation with the other nations of the North Atlantic pact, if the particular form of our defence preparations has been taken in consultation with the other nations who are members of that treaty arrangement.
I now mention a subject that I think is of direct concern to us. We are a long way from Korea, but the events there have made themselves felt in every part of Canada. How did it happen that the forces of aggression from north of the 38th parallel in Korea were able to burst their way over that parallel and flood southern Korea? How did it happen that there was here, apparently, a disastrous failure of intelligence? I do not know on whom the Canadian government was relying for intelligence in this situation. It may be that the Canadian government is not equipped to seek intelligence at these danger points in various places in the world. It may be that we must rely upon the intelligence facilities of the United States in certain areas and of the United Kingdom in other areas. But whatever the situation is, we have a direct concern in it because unquestionably there was a lamentable failure of intelligence in Korea, and we are bearing a share of the consequences.
We know that Mr. Dulles was there in Korea just a few days before the aggression burst over the boundary, and that he made an inspection, talked to some of the people there and apparently came away without any fear of imminent aggression. Perhaps others were still thinking of the trumpeting Russia made on her withdrawal from Korea, strangely enough on Christmas day, 1948. I was looking over some press clippings

Defence Appropriation Act I had on this subject and, in the light of later events, I was amazed to find that as far back as May 10 not some irresponsible person but a member of the government of the republic of South Korea made a statement warning the nations of the world that aggression was about to burst over the border. This is a Canadian Press dispatch coming from Seoul, Korea, dated May 10. It is brief, and it reads as follows:
The independent republic of South Korea is threatened with invasion by the communist forces of North Korea, defence minister Sihn Sung Mo of the southern republic warned today.
Sihn today said intelligence reports indicate that forces of the north are moving toward the 38th parallel. He gave a breakdown of forces available to communist Korea.
The north Korean army totals 183,000 trained men, he reported. It has 173 planes, 173 tanks and 32 naval vessels. In addition there are 9,000 trained guerrillas plus communist constabulary and youth corps units. These forces, Sihn added, include about 25,000 north Koreans who fought with the Chinese communists and now have returned home to aid their own country's red forces.
That was a warning coming on May 10 last from the minister of defence of the republic of South Korea, six weeks in advance of the attack. That timely warning apparently fell on deaf ears. The nations of the free world, including our own nation, have since been feeling the disastrous effects of the aggression that has taken place; and those disastrous effects were attributable at least in part to the fact that either there was a deplorable lack of intelligence or those who were receiving intelligence reports were not acting upon them.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Donald Methuen Fleming: Defence Appropriation Act free nations to strengthen themselves we are taking the obviously necessary first step to preserve the peace of the world.
It is in no maudlin sense that in closing I take up this theme. I do not believe that the free nations of the world will ever answer completely the threat of communism, based as it is upon atheistic materialism, by some other form of materialism. It will take something more than counter-materialism to answer the threat of materialistic communism. We have a great heritage of freedom which they cannot match. If there ever was a time when we should be urging our people not to take freedom for granted, it is now. There is one other resource possessed alone by the free nations of the world, and that is the spiritual conceptions that underlie democracy. There is one resource the communists will never be able to match, our unblushing belief in and reliance upon spiritual forces as destined to prevail upon earth.


Mr. Noseworthy:: Mr. Chairman, when
speaking last week on the subject now before the house, the present crisis, I went to some length to point out that we cannot and dare not rely on military action alone. I am rather disturbed at the extent to which reference to other weapons that could be used against communism has been omitted in this debate. The speaker who has just taken his seat referred to some of the weapons against communism which the free nations have at their disposal, but he too failed to refer to the one great factor which today makes communism desirable to vast masses of people in Asia. I refer to the fact that the western world in the past has failed to show those people that democracy as we know it in the west can serve them for their own needs and not for the purpose of satisfying western greed and western profit.
I should like to speak for a few moments on the military side of this matter because I realize, as does every hon. member, that in the world as it is constituted today and when we are faced with such danger as we are faced with today there must be adequate military preparations.
As I said last week, force must be used to meet aggression when force is the weapon the aggressor chooses to use, as is the case in Korea. If one is to survive, force must be met with still greater force. Because of that I have no choice, as other hon. members have no choice, but to support the government in the measures now before us for the purpose of strengthening our military forces. I support those measures, yet at the same time I believe they are but half


measures, merely stopgaps. In themselves they cannot possibly help us win the long fight against communism that lies ahead.
Because of the importance of military preparedness I find that I must ally myself with those who have been critical of the government's lack of preparedness as was shown to us when the Korean situation broke. When the security council issued its appeal for military support I was surprised to learn that we were able to give such little support. When the Prime Minister issued his statement in June he assured us that if more help were needed by the United Nations than the ships the government had already undertaken to send, parliament would be called to approve the sending of such forces. I never dreamed for a moment that parliament would have to be called together to authorize the government to enlist and raise the forces that would be sent to Korea. I took it for granted that, with the expenditures on national defence of somewhere near a billion and a half since the last war, we were much better prepared at the present time than the facts reveal. Members of the house, whose military records and experience lend some weight to the statements they make, have charged that at the time of the outbreak in Korea the government did not have any troops sufficiently trained or organized to go into immediate action either to defend Canada against attack or to fulfil our obligations to the United Nations or to our allies under the North Atlantic pact.
I have heard no denial of that charge on the part of the minister or the government. I have heard a great many excuses given by the minister, but I submit that the taxpayers of Canada, and certainly if not the taxpayers their elected representatives in this house, are entitled to know with some degree of clarity what we have by way of military forces and what we have accomplished in military preparation for the billion and a half dollars voted by parliament in the last few years. In my opinion, if the minister thinks he cannot, because of security reasons, give in open session the kind of information that opposition members are asking for, then I for one agree with the leader of the opposition who appealed for a secret session of the house. We found secret sessions helpful during the last war. I am not sure that we were given much information in the secret sessions which I had the privilege of attending that could not have been given in open session of the house, but I do know that we were given much more detailed information than we were able to secure in open sessions.
So far as I know, national security did not suffer by reason of those secret sessions.

What is true is that opposition members, and I suspect many government members, felt that they were being taken into the government's confidence with some degree of dignity and with some regard for the responsibility of elected representatives to their constituents. The cabinet of that day did not assume to itself the attributes of omniscience and omnipotence that the present cabinet assumes in its dealings with the house. They did not assume that they were the only group in the house with all the knowledge obtainable on any given subject. Nor did they assume that degree of all-powerfulness that the present government appears to be assuming.
I submit that if the government cannot answer in. open session the very relevant and pointed questions asked by opposition members, then by all means they should be answered in a secret session of the house while we are here at this time. Members of the house are entitled to that information. Otherwise they become nothing more than mere rubber stamps for cabinet decisions. Again let me say, Mr. Chairman, that it is not in the best interests of good government that the Canadian people should conclude that the government has anything to hide from parliament or the public regarding its expenditures on national defence. Certainly that is the impression which is going abroad across the country as a result of the opposition of the Minister of National Defence and the other cabinet ministers to the request of opposition members for a parliamentary committee or a secret session of parliament where more information can be given and where there is an opportunity to learn just what the government is doing with the money we vote.
The very nature of the Department of National Defence with its extensive ramifications, as pointed out by the Minister of National Defence yesterday, is only a reason for the closest possible scrutiny by parliament of expenditures by that department. There is abroad the impression that the Department of National Defence is the one government department in which money is wasted in huge amounts. It is probably inevitable that there should be waste in war expenditures of any kind. It is pretty generally agreed throughout the country that during the last war, although no public scandal was uncovered, literally millions of dollars were squandered in war expenditures. That merely points up the necessity at this time of parliament being afforded every possible opportunity to cooperate with the government in an effort to get good value for the moneys spent.
On the question of the time lag between the date when the security council called
Defence Appropriation Act for assistance and the time when the government finally made up its mind to raise ground forces for Korea, I can only say that as yet no sound reason has been given to parliament for the delay. It is true that the Secretary of State for External Affairs gave us certain reasons, but, with all the regard I have for him, I must say that those reasons were not very convincing. I even wondered whether the Secretary of State for External Affairs was himself convinced of their soundness. It would seem to me the government were more concerned with the possible political repercussions of any speedy action that might be taken at that point than with the exigencies of the situation. That could be; and I believe this house is entitled to more information than we have yet received.
Now I want to turn for a few moments from the military aspect to the phase emphasized by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, when he said we cannot hope to win in this crisis by military power alone. In recent years vast numbers of people in all parts of the world have come to embrace communism because it gives them some hope of attaining one of the freedoms mankind has sought throughout its entire history; that is, freedom from hunger. Because communism has held out to the world that promise of freedom from hunger it has appealed to hungry millions the world over. It was a similar promise by fascists and nazis during the thirties that won for them the support of millions of people in central Europe. To men and women iri any country, at any time, who have to go literally half-starved and watch their children suffer hunger, freedom from hunger becomes of paramount importance. Freedom of parliament, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom of enterprise and even freedom of religion all take second place to freedom from hunger, in the minds of a half-starved people. It is because communism has always held out and still holds out the promise of freedom from hunger- which, incidentally, imperialist capitalism has failed to assuage in Asia during the past hundred years-that millions of people in Asia are turning not to democracy but to communism. We have only to read the story of rubber or oil or any of our great industrial empires that have been built upon the oppression of eastern peoples and the exploitation of their natural resources to see why it should be so comparatively easy today for Russia to persuade the people of the east that she is their liberator, that western nations have been and still are their oppressors. What the peoples of the east want today is not so much liberation from their own despots as liberation from western oppression and exploitation. Our problem, as western democracies

Defence Appropriation Act anxious to preserve whatever degree of democracy we have attained, is to offset in the east in the shortest possible time the injustices we have been inflicting upon these people for the last hundred years. We shall not have a hundred years in which to do that. We shall not have fifty years. We shall be lucky if we have ten years in which to put our own houses in order and in which to convince the peoples of the east that democracy as we know it can be made to function in their day-to-day lives. Just so long as the economic benefits of democracy accrue to a comparatively small, privileged group, while millions abroad and hundreds of thousands in our own country devote all their energies to eking out a bare existence, all our high-sounding phrases about democratic freedom will have little meaning, and little effect against communism.
I believe communism is a blind alley up which a great section of mankind is stumbling today in its drive toward a better way of life, a drive which constitutes a sort of divine spark in human nature. Unless mankind annihilates itself in an atomic war-and I have far too much confidence in homo sapiens to believe that homo is such a sap as to do any such thing-I believe mankind eventually will find its way back to a through thoroughfare which will lead it closer to its eternal goal.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I must say that even if it were possible for us to defeat Russia in an atomic war or any other kind of war as decisively as we defeated Germany and Italy in the last war, we would only scotch the snake and not kill it. As the leader of our group, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, said a few days ago, communism is an idea; and you cannot kill an idea with bullets. Somehow we must show those who are being attracted to communism that our way of life can bring them more happiness without depriving them of the freedoms they wish, and without requiring the sacrifice of any material benefit which communism may be able to offer. This government can give leadership to the world at the forthcoming assembly of the United Nations by showing its readiness to contribute, through the appropriate committees and councils of that organization, to the abolition of poverty and starvation through the introduction of measures which will assist undeveloped countries of the world to develop their own resources for their own use. What is needed at home to win the battle against communism, and to properly arm us in this conflict, is for the government to bring down some legislation that will effectively cope with the spiral of rising prices that confronts us today;


legislation that will prevent undue profiteering out of the $800 million that we are being asked to vote in this session.
If you think that matter is not important, you have only to glance over today's newspapers. I have a series of clippings from the Toronto Globe and Mail which give a fairly good picture of our situation today. Concerning the international situation there is this headline blazing across the front page: "United Nations flank crushed." On the second page there is an article concerned with the fact that a Red bomber was shot down yesterday while attacking United Nations forces. In another article in the same paper we read of the steps Red China is taking in order to influence and secure the support of the people of Tibet. Still further we hear that the people of New York are taking the present situation so seriously that they are restricting the use of the siren in New York to air raid signals only. That is the world as it is pictured in one issue of one paper.
Looking at the economic situation, here is a heading which tells us, "Abbott says arms bill is to hit living standards." In another article we find that the veterans are asking that the pension act be revised to cover the high cost of living. A further article in the same paper indicates that the united automobile workers are demanding United States wage rates. With prices rising, workers are beginning to grow restless and demand adequate salaries and wages. Still another heading says, "Railway running trades ask thirty per cent increase; deal with C.P.R. first." This is an indication of the ferment in which we find ourselves today, and shows the necessity for passing some legislation at this session which will curb that economic situation.
Turning to another phase of the same problem, we read that a trade union conference in Great Britain representing some 8 million trade unionists applauded Prime Minister Attlee who came into the congress asking the trade unionists to accept sacrifices in the interest of security. He was acclaimed as if he had brought a bigger pay packet to every man and woman in Britain. Why? I believe the answer is given in a short paragraph in the same article which reads:
The Prime Minister promised that the government would do its utmost to see that the sacrifices made for the nation's safety were fairly borne.
I believe, Mr. Chairman, that the people of Canada are asking that, if they are called upon to make sacrifices, whether it is the sacrifice of their sons or a reduction in their living standards, those sacrifices be borne fairly by all the Canadian people. They do not want to see once more sacrifices made by

large sections of the Canadian people, while a comparative few become millionaires as a result of war profiteering. The Canadian people do not want to again be called upon to make sacrifices under those circumstances. They will rally to the call of the government in this crisis as they rallied in the forties. But to get their support we in this parliament must give them some assurance that steps will be taken to curb the rising cost of living and to prevent profiteering.


Mr. Blair:: Mr. Chairman, there is another matter I should like to bring before this committee which has to do with the defence of Canada. It is a matter that has not been brought up by any of the speakers in the debate thus far. I refer to civil defence. I bring this matter before the committee not with any idea of causing alarm to the Canadian people, but conditions in warfare have changed. They have changed so greatly that now the civilian population might be considered to be in the front lines. In England in the last war during the intensive bombing, before the army ever saw any action, the civilian population suffered greatly. In fact, for some time in England it was said by way of a joke, "Join the army and be safe." The army got into action later and suffered severe casualties, but the civilian population suffered tremendous casualties.
For the past two or three days we have heard speeches about the defence of Canada. Mention has been made of battalions, brigades, divisions, aircraft; and many members are greatly concerned with the defence of Canada, and rightly so. But no nation is properly protected unless some recognition is taken of the civilian population. This morning in the C.B.C. news at eight o'clock I heard that the mayor of Windsor was very much concerned: over the safety of that large industrial city. Later in the morning papers I found two references indicating 'that people were concerned about civil defence. One item dealt with York township, north of Toronto, and the headline in the Globe and Mail states, "York spends $15 on atom defence." This is not a joke, and when I read the article you will see how serious it is. These men are looking for some direction from the government. The article reads:
York township council turned its attention yesterday to the defence of township citizens in the event of an atom bomb raid in this area. Councillors agreed to order twelve copies at $1.25 each of the United States atomic energy commission's new pamphlet The Effects of Atomic Weapons. Distribution will be to councillors, and the police, health and fire departments.
In the same paper, with the headline "Chief asks part in civil defence", is a dispatch from
69262-2i
Defence Appropriation Act the Canadian Press dated September 5. It reads:
Fire Chief Robert C. McRonald, of London, Ontario, today called for integration of the Dominion Association of Fire Marshals in Canada's civil defence scheme.
In his presidential address he said:
A body of men such as ours, responsible for protection of life and property in peace, is most certainly a tailor-made set-up in a national emergency.
The report continues:
Stressing the importance of the municipal fire authority in Canada's civil defence program, he said an alliance between the association and Ottawa's defence scheme "would make for a strong and compact organization; it would be ready for protection and defence at a moment's notice."
If such an alliance were formed, it would be imperative that the administrator of national defence keep the association posted on all latest developments concerning atomic, biological and chemical warfare.
Within security regulations, this data would be disseminated to points "deemed vulnerable to attack," he said.
I remember that last year a question was asked of the minister concerning what preparations had been made and what had been done toward training the civilian population of Canada in this matter. If I remember correctly, he intimated that if the people were organized now, and if some attempt were made at training the people, they would lose their enthusiasm, that the matter would wear out, and that they would come to disregard preparations.
I think this matter is altogether too serious for that. If this world condition has gone so. far that it is necessary to debate in the House of Commons the question of the defence of Canada and military preparations, I think this matter is of equal importance and that the civilian population should have some defence.
This country might occupy the same position as England occupied in the last war, or Belgium or Poland. The civilian population might suffer and the army, being occupied elsewhere, could not carry out this work. In fact, if the army were occupied in repelling an invader, their field ambulances, their medical staff and their field hospitals would be too much occupied to begin to attend to the civilian population. More than that, it would be difficult to spread this work over the whole of Canada in areas which might be subjected to bombing or in the event of widespread bombing of industrial areas.
I wish to say again that I bring this matter up for consideration not with any intention of alarming the population of this country. It is, however, an extremely important matter

Defence Appropriation Act at the present time. I am aware that the government has appointed General Worthington, an outstanding soldier, to do some work in this connection but with regard to this work I find that at the present time our preparations are vague. Certainly we have heard from three municipalities today, both by radio and by the press, that they are asking for some direction and that something be done about this matter. This is a matter that is of interest to every Canadian. If we send our army into action in the defence of Canada, if we have no preparations made for modern warfare, and if the civilian population suffers, then our defence plans are far from being complete. One is almost as important as the other.
I should like to give a short review of what might happen if this country were invaded. There are three possible dangers from warfare by air. One comes immediately to our minds-and it was mentioned by the last speaker-namely the question of bombing. Bombing might be by use of the explosive bomb, which by its explosive power destroys property; that is a tremendous agent in war. The other form of bombing might be by the use of the atomic bomb. Every member of this committee is aware of what happened in London in the last war with regard to explosive bombing, so tonight I am going to say a few words about the question of the atomic bomb.
We have had two examples of the effect of atomic bomb warfare on a civilian population, one in Hiroshima and the other in Nagasaki. There are certain lessons to be learned from what happened there. These lessons concern the defence of the civilian population. Not only was there a large area destroyed by the explosive force of the atomic bomb, but the people at the outer perimeter of the area that was bombed suffered terribly from burns and from the effects of rays released by the explosion of the atomic bomb. The people at these outer perimeters who escaped burning began to suffer weeks and months later from vague and unusual blood diseases in the forms of anaemia and leukemia. In any preparations made for the future we must therefore consider these two types of bombs.
The question of the explosive bomb, which by its very destructive power causes damage to property and loss of human life, would give the authorities in any municipality a tremendous question to deal with. But the picture with regard to the atomic bomb is entirely different. We would have to make preparation of another type to deal with such a condition. Medical men will find it difficult to deal with

some of the results which last for a long time after the actual explosion of the bomb has taken place.
There is another matter which might enter into our consideration-and I refer to aerial warfare-and it is the question of germ or bacterial warfare. This might take several courses. We have heard a great deal about it, and it is not a matter for light consideration.' In the event that the enemy used germ or bacterial warfare, it is apparent that he would try to infect our civilian population and cripple our industrial life by making ill the workers and labourers in the factories. Or it might be some form of germ warfare that would interfere with our food supplies, our water supplies or something of that nature. But one thing stands out clearly with regard to germ warfare. An attempt would be made to infect our civilian population with some organism which would be friendly to the enemy but which would cripple our people for the time being at least. It would be easy for an enemy to infect the population of this country, and at the same time it would put many of our factories out of business if our workers in those factories were infected with some of the diseases that could be used. I am not going to enter into the question of certain germs which could be used, but this is a matter for consideration.
Gas warfare is quite a possibility. In concentrated areas where a large population exists, it would be possible to use gas warfare in Canada, employing gases of certain types. That would mean that the civilian population would have to have some instruction in gas warfare; and certainly they would need something to help them out in the way of gas masks, training in resuscitation and in methods of helping people who had become casualties owing to gas.
I have mentioned three things that could happen in aerial warfare or invasion, namely the use of gases, the use of germ warfare, the use of the explosive bomb and the use of the atomic bomb. We would have to have certain defences against such a thing, if it ever happened in this country. Defence measures would certainly lead to an enlargement of all the facilities we have for treating casualties. Our hospitals at the present time are jammed to the doors. There would be no hope of those hospitals or the medical staffs in them taking care of an area where there was a concentrated attack by gas or bomb, so that some other arrangements would have to be made.
In the first place I think the most important of all would be instruction to the people cf Canada. The people who are at the head cf

the municipalities-the mayors-are aware that something may happen, and they are looking to the government for help and instruction. We would need to get busy at once and train a large personnel in first aid and in the treatment of people who had suffered from burns, or the various types of casualties which may occur in the new type of warfare.
It takes a long time to train personnel in this work. It is all very well to say that if the occasion arises we are going to do this or that; but you cannot train first-aid help in a short time. If we are going to have this country fully prepared for the care of our civilian population we should get busy at once and train personnel and make arrangements for the care of casualties. It is necessary then that we think of some form of hospital care at first, so that in every municipality arrangements would be made for some place other than hospitals to take care of casualties-because the hospitals are full.
Some plans should be made for the use of church basements, or some place where there would be some form of protection where the work of first aid could be carried out-because as I said before, we have to go somewhere other than hospitals. The arrangements that could be made in each municipality would be directed by the municipal councils, so long as personnel were trained in each municipality and so long as some place were provided to which these casualties could be taken.
That brings me to the question of the care of casualties. One of the first thoughts to come to my mind is that of the building up of an adequate blood bank. In the last war there was some measure of preparation but, so far as the blood banks were concerned, they were for the use of the soldiers overseas, although they were used partially also for the use of our own population.
This work could again be started, and something done to build up the blood banks, which are so important in the treatment of casualties, and particularly the type of casualties one would get in a war where there would be injuries from bombing. When people are afflicted through bombing the first thing to do is to carry out a blood transfusion, before any attempt at surgery is made.
Then there should be plans made for the evacuation of large centres, so that the people could be sent somewhere. It would be all very well, for instance, to say that the city of Ottawa was to be evacuated: where would it be evacuated to? The people could not be sent to the surrounding towns, because 69262-241
Defence Appropriation Act they suffer from a housing shortage, and there would be no place for the extra population.
Something must be done. In the event of actual bombing there is the need of known places of shelter to which people could be taken so that they might be safe from the bombs. The atomic bomb makes necessary some changes in the type of shelter required. Already the United States government has put out pamphlets and given some instruction to their people about what should be done. In one of the papers I saw some excellent diagrams in which direction was given as to how to build a bomb shelter, and particularly a bomb shelter that would be effective against an atomic bomb.
It is important also, so far as the government is concerned, that there should be selected areas or depots for the storage of food, and especially for the storage of drugs and surgical supplies. There should be central depots from which such supplies could be drawn, and such depots would have to be placed in every area so that every town or city in the country would have some place from which they could draw emergency supplies.
I have mentioned the question of the contamination of food supplies through germ warfare. It is most important that the water supply be protected, and that there be close co-operation between the people and the bacteriological laboratories. The same co-operation would be required if an attempt were made by an enemy to contaminate the milk or water supplies, or to plant diseases in the animals of this country. Veterinary and medical organizations should be alerted to the possible danger of such a thing happening. This is a very important matter, just as important as any plan we may make for the future regarding the repelling of any force invading our country.
The fire chief of London quite properly, at the convention in Victoria, brought the matter of defence before that convention. No doubt he was concerned about fire protection, and that there might be danger from fifth columnists who would try to interfere with our large factories. Or, as was found in England in the last war, there might be some danger of fire from bombs. The civilian population should be organized to take part. That is one branch of civil defence that would not take too long to organize, and I appeal to the government that some arrangements be made for the defence of the population against the gas and bomb warfare to which I have referred. Such excellent organizations as the Red Cross and the St. John Ambulance
364	HOUSE OF
Defence Appropriation Act Association would need some time to train personnel, to prepare supplies and, in general, to prepare to combat such a condition if it should arise through an invasion of this country.
Remember, it is just as important that the civilian population and those people who produce foods and who work in our industries be protected as it is to protect the army in the field. Conditions of warfare have changed, and this has become a vitally important subject.
I am not going to speak at length on this matter, but in view of what I read this morning, that these municipal authorities are asking for help, and the further fact that nothing is being done about it at the present time, I felt I should speak. There may be some plan and some organization; but even if such a plan could be put into operation, there would still be some problems.
The minister spoke this morning about the length of time it takes to train a body of troops. It would take a great deal longer time to train a highly efficient personnel who would deal with matters of this kind. The minister suggested that there might be some possibility of their becoming careless about their work if they were in training for a long time and nothing happened. I do not think the Canadian people would lose their enthusiasm, if they saw the necessity.
Let us remember this, that the longer the training went on the more efficient would the personnel become. It would not be a matter of simply giving a first aid course, but instruction which would lead1 to handling casualties efficiently.
I leave this matter with the government and appeal to every member of the house by saying that this matter is just as important as the other matters we have been discussing. Let us hope that no use need ever be made of the trained personnel or of the defence measures I have mentioned. If any use were made of it, it would not be an expensive arm of the service and the training received by these people would be useful all their lives. Nothing would be lost. But there should be some direction from the government, something more than vague intimations once in a while that they are doing something about it.
This morning the hon. member for Cape Breton South referred to the accident at Peta-wawa. I do not intend to discuss a matter under investigation by the authorities, but I do suggest that some training along industrial accident prevention lines should be given these men. Sometimes familiarity breeds contempt and people who are handling explosives become careless. I remember quite well the


trench mortars of the first war. Nobody knew whether they were going to start or where they would go. I do not blame anyone in this matter but I do think the personnel should be instructed that they are dealing with dangerous materials.
Two other cases have occurred not far from the city of Ottawa. An Ottawa high school student was blinded by a grenade at Hogs-back. I do not know how the grenade got there, and I do not think anyone knows, but in some way it got out of army stores. The court has held that the army is not responsible, yet the fact remains that this boy is blinded for life. A short time ago two children received eye injuries and serious burns close to Petawawa camp. I do not know how it happened, but the fact remains that the two children were seriously hurt.
A closer check should be kept on army stores. When you consider the boy blinded at Ottawa, the two little children who received eye injuries and burns at Petawawa and the four soldiers who were killed and the others who were injured at Petawawa camp you have a rather high total of casualties for peacetime. There were a number of casualties following the war owing to the fact that the boys brought home different weapons, and such casualties are still occurring.
Accidents will occur when you are dealing with weapons of this type, but I repeat that a closer check should be made of the men handling these dangerous things. The hon. member for Cape Breton South brought out the point this morning that only skilled instructors or men who realize what they are handling should have to do with these weapons. That is all I am going to say on the matter.	\
We have had a debate on the possibilities of the invasion of Canada and the defensive measures we are taking, and I think we should also seriously consider what should be done for the civilian population. I hope the need for what I have suggested will never occur; I hope that this organization will never have to go into action, but we should be prepared for what might happen to our civilian population.


Brooke Claxton: Everyone appreciates the
interest shown by the hon. member for Lanark in health and welfare matters. There are one or two brief comments I should like to make. Lest there be an impression that there have been a large number of civilian losses due to explosives used by the armed forces, may I state to the committee that since 1939 there have been just twenty such incidents. There were four cases in which the crown was found to be negligent and in those cases payment

was made. There were a number of other cases where there was no legal responsibility but there might be moral responsibility and applications were submitted for ex gratia payments, which were made. That is a good record considering the fact that we .had thousands of establishments at which high explosives were used.
The hon. member has suggested that during exercises with live ammunition there should be present personnel trained along the lines of those engaged in industrial accident prevention work. The instructions are that on all such occasions there is to be a safety officer with each group of men. My experience is that this is done. I have no reason to believe that such officer was not present when the regrettable accident occurred at Petawawa. Perhaps the hon. member was not in the house today when I gave an indication of the cause of that accident in so far as it has been reported to me.
Civil defence of course is an important question. Recently we had a conference with the provinces which resulted in an understanding of lines of responsibility and action. The results of that conference were communicated to the provinces and are under consideration, r do not want to go into them because the conference was confidential, but I would point out that while the federal government accepts responsibility for leadership in this field, the actual working forces for civil defence must, of necessity, be handled by local authorities.
I do not suggest for a second that the responsibility is entirely local, but I do suggest that, the agencies for carrying out that responsibility, such as police, firemen and so on, must be related to the ordinary civil life of the community. In our experience in dealing with the Fraser river and the Manitoba floods and the Rimouski and Cabano fires it was found that the federal authorities, acting through the military arm, could best carry out their functions by backing up and supporting the civil authorities in their respective field.
However, civil defence in time of war is another problem. The character of the possible disaster is quite different. The federal government must accept and does accept responsibility for planning the organization at the higher level, but the arrangements that are being worked out with the provinces indicate that they will have their role and deal with the municipalities in their several aspects. We believe that is a very important principle to be worked out at this stage. Later it may be necessary to change that relationship but at the present stage the best
Defence Appropriation Act way in which the federal government can deal with municipalities, which must be the local agencies for dealing with civil defence, is through and with the provinces. That has been the basis on which we have discussed the matter with the provinces, and we have not yet had a full expression of their views.
Something was said about three forms of warfare-A, B, and C. With respect to biological and chemical warfare, Canada has probably done as much work as any country on defence against this kind of warfare. Our defence research board is keeping well abreast, and in fact ahead, of most developments in that field. With regard to atomic warfare, the hon. member has no doubt seen various reports on this subject, and I can also assure him that, through our experience gained from the developments we are conducting on the civil side of Chalk River, we are well up with developments from the defence point of view. All these are being taken into account. I can assure the hon. member that his views will be given full consideration and effect. It will be a matter of weeks, if not of days, before we receive the views of the provinces on our discussions. Those will be communicated by them to the municipalities, and I am sure will produce results along the line he wants.


Gordon Graydon: Is there any plan under discussion or consideration for continental civil defence for both the United States and Canada? After all, these bombs will not have any respect for parallels of latitude.


Brooke Claxton: Oh yes, indeed. There is an arrangement made for the communication of information in the first place, and then for co-ordination of action between the two countries. Also the arrangements suggested to the provinces contemplate that as between closely adjacent communities, for example, Windsor and Detroit, they will, if they wish, co-operate closely. That co-operation will be co-ordinated between province and state organizations, and then between the federal governments concerned.


Gordon Graydon: Does this matter come under the jurisdiction of the permanent joint board on defence of the two countries?


Brooke Claxton: The permanent joint board on defence is concerned with the consideration of long-term planning projects and the like. This is a matter which has been before them but which is being dealt with directly between the governments concerned.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight to speak in this defence debate with a deep sense of frustration. I think I have been here almost continuously during the discussion of
386	HOUSE OF
Defence Appropriation Act defence matters in the debate on the speech from the throne and on the present resolution. It has been a confused and diffused debate which is not producing very much specific information. The minister has not come to grips with the questions in the minds of the members and the people of the country. The way in which the debate has proceeded, and how little it has produced in answers to questions which people want answered, are the best indication of the good sense of a committee on defence. I thought the speech of the hon. member for Cape Breton South this morning was a model of good sense in that regard. He spoke of the futility of a debate of this kind so far as obtaining any real information about defence matters is concerned.
What are the main questions in the minds of the people of Canada relating to defence? The first one undoubtedly is why were there not fighting forces available, forces in being ready to fight, after some five years had elapsed and one and a half billion dollars had been spent on them from the end of the last war to the present time? That question is still unanswered. The minister has not given us any definite information as to where the money has gone and on what it has been spent.
Then there is another question in people's minds. How are the present large sums that are being asked for going to result in definite defences for this country? What is going to be the effect of them? What are we actually going to get so far as people are concerned who can fight and who will be ready to fight in the defence of Canada? I think the people of Canada are primarily interested in their own defence. After that they are interested in answering the call of the United Nations, living up to our agreements under the Atlantic pact, and so on. They want to live up to all commitments we have made, either specific or general, but the first thing they want to be assured about in their own minds is whether we have in Canada something with which to defend the country.
Their confidence, if they had any, that such was the case has been very rudely shaken during the last month and a half. I think it is now the first duty of the government to tell the country definitely and specifically what forces are in being and what forces will be in being for the next six months or a year, at which time it is hoped, according to the general information we have been given, that the defences of Canada will be in a reasonably prepared state. Instead of doing that, the minister continues with the theme of the well-known Mr. Coue, every day in every way we are getting better and better. Everything he says is in that vein. That
[Mr. Harkness.l

sort of course has worn thin. We do not want to hear anything more along that line. We have heard too much of it already, particularly with the lack of existing fighting forces to back up such words.
The minister said today that we could not have a division in Canada, and I think he added at the present time. He gave two reasons for that. He said first of all that it was not necessary at the present time, and second, that we could not afford it. So far as necessity is concerned, I think during the course of the day he went as far as to say that he would be very happy to have a division if it could be done within practical bounds. He has never said that it was necessary, but nevertheless he said he would be very glad to have it. My contention is that it is necessary. With the present condition of the world I think that a division of troops- and I mean regular troops who are in a position to fight if required-is necessary for the defence of Canada. Certainly if we are going to be able to meet any of our commitments, specific or general-I do not care what you call them because there is no use arguing over the terms of the commitments-we need a division. We know from what the Secretary of State for External Affairs has said that we have some commitments already. In order to meet any of those it is quite apparent that we must have larger armed forces, ready to fight, than we have at the present time; and I am sure nearly everyone in this country is convinced that we need more than we have now in order to look after the defence of this country alone.
Now I come to the second of the minister's contentions, that we cannot afford it; that it would be too expensive; that it would require twenty thousand men, with a further ten thousand to look after them. I do not know where the figure of twenty thousand came from. Unless I am very much mistaken the number of men in a division is much closer to fifteen thousand than twenty thousand. As far as the extra ten thousand to look after them is concerned, that has been one of the troubles of our defence set-up for many years past. For several years we have had large headquarters and administrative staffs which could have looked after very much greater numbers of people than we have had. So I doubt very much whether anything like the number of people mentioned by the minister would be required. Of course he exploded that idea himself by going on to say that already we are fairly well on the way to having a division, taking the airborne brigade, the special brigade and certain other units which are in being. The only reason we could not have a division in being in this country without expending an additional cent is that we are spending far too much on

needlessly large headquarters and administrative staffs. Go into national defence headquarters here in Ottawa, or command or area headquarters anywhere in the country; you wonder what all the people are doing. We are top-heavy in that regard; I do not think there is any doubt about that. I think there is no question but that by' cutting down our whole headquarters and administrative set-up, with the same amount of money or perhaps even less we could have a division in being, and could have had that division when this Korean trouble started. It is not a question of the total expenditure; it is a question of properly spending the money that has been voted.
In that connection it might be instructive to take a brief look at the fighting units that were in existence in 1938 and 1939, before the last war. People look back at that period and say in an offhand way, "Oh, we had nothing then. We are tremendously better off now than we were at that time." As a matter of fact, as far as fighting units are concerned, exactly the same units were in existence then that we have now. There are one or two more now; that is all. We had the three infantry battalions; we had the two cavalry regiments, as they were then; we had one artillery regiment, and some engineers and so on. Basically, however, the units in the regular army, the people who really go out and fight, were the same as they are now. It is true that we did not have nearly as many men in them as we have at the present time; but even at that, as far as I know we are only up to strength in one unit, unless conditions have changed within the last two months. When we consider the amount of money being spent on defence in 1938 and 1939 and the number enrolled in the regular forces at that time and compare it with the number in the regular forces now and the money being spent, it is simply amazing to realize that we have no more fighting units than we had then, no more units trained to go out with bayonets and do some hard work on the enemy if one should come in sight. We have more people in those units, that is all; and still they are not up to strength.
Several times during the past two or three days we have heard the minister say how much the reserve army has increased in strength in the last three years, that the percentage is up so much, and so on. I know something about a fair number of reserve units in my own province, and in my opinion those units are not in as good shape to mobilize at the present time as they were in 1939. In fact most of the units out there with which I am acquainted are not as well trained as they were then; they are not as well prepared to form the nucleus of a regiment or
Defence Appropriation Act battalion or whatever it may be. I am not blaming this entirely on the defence department. The reconstitution of those units following the war was bound to take some time and to be a difficult matter. The same thing occurred after the first world war; it took some years to get the reserve units reorganized and working. However, I do blame the government for not taking more energetic measures to get men into those units. The only thing that will make them successful and efficient is a proper number of men, with the necessary officers and N.C.O.'s to train them; and that is just what we have not had. I blame the government severely for not taking more energetic measures to get these units in better shape as far as personnel is concerned; and there has been no indication in what has been said during the past two days that any great change is to be made in that regard. All the minister has said is that they are going to expand the reserve units. How are they going to expand them? What specific plans have they to increase the number of men in those units? What definitely are they going to do to increase the personnel? As a matter of fact I think one of the difficulties in some places, at any rate, is that there are too many units, as I pointed out two or three years ago. Some places have been simply loaded down with units, and have so many it is not possible for any of them to get sufficient men because there just are not enough men available in the right age brackets and of the right type. I think perhaps some progress might be made in certain places by reducing the number of units, combining them or what you will, so the men actually available for the reserve army can be used more efficiently.
We have here, Mr. Chairman, essentially three matters to consider. The first is the regular force, and what expansion is to take place there. The second is the reserve force, about which I have just been talking. The third is the matter of civil defence, which was mentioned by the hon. member for Lanark. Last year and again this year we have followed the procedure of asking question after question each time extracting some little morsel of information from the minister with great difficulty. I suggest that we get away from that procedure and that the minister, perhaps while the budget debate is going on, get to work and1 put down in definite form all the information he feels he can give us, first under the heading of the regular force including the navy, army and air force, then the reserve force, and then civil defence. If he would come in here with a reasonably concise statement containing all the information he feels he can possibly give us in connection with these matters, in a well organized form,

Defence Appropriation Act I think it would considerably expedite the discussion of this whole matter. As it is all we are doing is drawing out a little information a morsel at a time. It is not getting us very far.
I should like to say a few words about the regular forces. It has developed, and it was apparent a year ago, that the navy is the only force which had units in being and ready to fight. Three destroyers were sent immediately to Korea, and other naval units are in home waters or on training cruises. It was the only service that had anything ready to go, and for that I commend the navy. I am glad there was one service that had some fighting units ready to fight. I trust the new ships which are now under construction, and which the minister says we shall start to get in 1951, will come along quite rapidly. It seems to me that 1951 is a somewhat indefinite date. The nearest part of 1951 is only four months away, and if we receive those vessels in the early part of 1951 that will be fairly satisfactory. I wish, however, that the minister would be a little more specific, and instead of saying they will be delivered in 1951 tell us when in 1951 they will be delivered.
When the minister was speaking about the destroyers and other naval vessels which were being put back into commission, the ones which people say have been in mothballs, he said that they would be put into commission fairly rapidly. At that time I asked him if he could tell us when, and he said no. These ships are in existence. It is a matter of reconditioning them, and putting certain new armaments on them. In the past as soon as one ship has been put into commission, it has been immediately announced by the defence department with a great hurrah. I cannot see any reason why the minister cannot tell us when these vessels which are being recommissioned will be back in service. It is not much use to be told that they will be put into service when it might be a year or two years from now. Why can we not be told when they will be back in service? I cannot see any requirement of security or anything else to prevent it.
I have already spoken about the army to some extent, but when the discussion was going on this afternoon in connection with commitments and the fact that under the Atlantic pact we might be required to send forces to any country which was attacked, it struck me that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. . Pearson) had commenced to deal with that question a few days ago. During the debate on the speech from the throne I had asked a question about the attitude of our government in regard to the dispersion of our forces in the event of various other Koreas breaking out in different places.


I think it was absolutely essential that we send ground forces to Korea. I am only sorry that we took so long to say we would do it. But that does not necessarily mean that we should send forces to every place in the world when trouble breaks out. As a matter of fact, I can think of no surer way of keeping ourselves weak than sending 6,000 men to Korea, 1,000 to Formosa, 2,000 to Indo-China, 3,000 to Persia, and so forth. We should have a policy in connection with this matter, and the government should state the policy in regard to sending forces hither and yon where trouble might break out.
As I say, the minister started to answer this in one part of his speech, but was diverted by a question and did not come back to that matter. I should like to hear what he has to say on that particular subject, and whether we have any policy on it.
Turning briefly to the air force, I believe we had almost as bad a picture, so far as it was concerned when the Korean outbreak came, as we had for the army. We had no fighter squadrons we could send, and we had no bomber squadrons. What we did send was a small squadron of transport planes which was supplemented with some planes we rented from the C.P.R. That is all we could do because we had nobody who could fight. Now we find that there is a program of expansion so far as equipment for the air force is concerned. We should be told a little more definitely than we have been when this expansion program is going to start to bear results. I believe the minister said the interceptor squadrons would be increased threefold. When are those increases going to be effective? The hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) pointed out this afternoon that the rate of recruiting which the minister said they expected would mean that it would be four and a half years before the air force reached its ceiling. You see that is a different picture from the one presented by the minister when he says that interceptor squadrons will be increased threefold, other squadrons will be increased so many fold, and the rate of production of the Orenda engine will be increased five hundred per cent. Those things may sound all right to a person who is not thinking about the matter, but they do not mean anything. They are not the kind of figures we should get. These percentages and general statements are no good.
So far as the reserve forces ate concerned, I have said enough about them. I should like to say one word about civil defence. As the minister knows, for the past two or three years I have been urging that something definite should be done about this

matter. I was glad to read in the newspaper about a provincial conference which was held dealing with the subject. Upon looking over these estimates which we are asked to pass, I see no mention whatever of any vote for civil defence. A little while ago the minister said that it would likely be a local matter. I hope the dominion government is not going to leave this matter almost entirely to the municipalities and the provinces, with no central direction. If the dominion assumes its proper responsibility in the matter of civil defence, it must have some funds voted to support it. As I say, I do not see anything in these estimates before us, so I should like the minister to explain why. So far as the dominion is concerned, how are civil defence matters going to be financed?


Brooke Claxton: I should answer at once the question with regard to financing the federal part of civil defence. It will be provided for out of the administration vote for the department. Perhaps I should add that already representatives of the provinces have arranged a civil defence course on radiation to begin at Borden this month. Successive courses will be held until the spring. We will also be establishing at Borden or at Meaford a civil defence school for representatives of the provinces and municipalities, along the lines of the schools already established in the United Kingdom. This matter is moving along.
With regard to some of the other matters which the hon. gentleman mentioned, he has gone over some of the ground that I have already dealt with in this and other debates, and I do not want to go over it again. He asked about the progressive commissioning of ships. One of the ships, which was in reserve at the time of the Korean incident, has since been commissioned. That is the Nootka. Successively other ships-Crusader, Crescent and Iroquois-will be commissioned as they complete their refits and as crews are recruited and trained or supplied from other sources. That will be a progressive operation relating to the recruitment and training of crews. Later of course there will be the production and installation of the new guns. These will be produced at Sorel.
As to the amount spent on administration and headquarters staff, I should like to call to the attention of the committee that this is the second specific reference to any lack of proper economy on the part of the Department of National Defence with regard to this job.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I have been referring to it for three years.
Defence Appropriation Act


Brooke Claxton: I know; and I think everyone discussing this subject, on both the government side and the opposition side in every legislature, has referred to the same thing. It certainly is a matter of the most serious importance; and as I have said before, we have had our own headquarters staffs gone over by teams of the civil service commission, the treasury board and experts; and I must say that usually the result is to increase them rather than to decrease them. I can only say that in so far as I have gone over them myself, I have effected a good many reductions, as have the officers, and we are constantly working at it. But on the other hand, with increased commitments in connection with negotiations with friendly countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, the North Atlantic treaty organization, and so on, considerable staff is required to deal with them.
I have also made comparisons with the headquarters of other comparable countries and have also done everything else that I think anyone could possibly do in order to drive for a reduction in overhead. On one or two occasions we have just introduced a flat cut right across the board; and on others, as I say, we have moved from office to office and done this job. This is a continuous struggle in every government department and in every service, and we are keeping up that struggle; but as I say, I am not able to do anything else than my best to continue that effort along the lines suggested by the hon. member. I can assure him that I have had the utmost co-operation from all three services and the department. Again, in comparison with other countries, we find that the proportion of overhead to various operations is about the same, notwithstanding the fact that we are smaller.
As to reserve units, the hon. gentleman suggests that there should be fewer of them.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I said in some places.


Brooke Claxton: Yes, in some places. That is a suggestion which, of course, must be taken seriously. The hon. member has had a good deal of experience in these matters, but he will appreciate as much as I do the difficulty of carrying out that suggestion. For one thing, although units may not be active for one reason or another-owing to local conditions, possibly the lack of a suitable commanding officer or something of that kind- they may be activated at an early date and become the nucleus of a good unit. Even if that event does not take place, they would provide the organizational framework. Former officers and men would come back from the general reserve list to help the unit organize
370	HOUSE OF
Defence Appropriation Act should an emergency arise. Our general policy therefore is not to abolish units; but if they are inactive and not worth supporting by reason of lack of support at any time, we allow them to remain dormant but give the local general officer commanding or area commander full authority to work with the local community, and the former officers of the unit, to see what can be done to reactivate it. We think that is a sensible course to pursue.
With regard to the R.C.A.F. taking four and a half years to recruit the number of men at the rate indicated by me, perhaps the hon. gentleman was not in the chamber when I ventured to correct the hon. member for Kamloops.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We agreed it might be nearer two years.


Brooke Claxton: Yes; that is right.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is still two years.


Brooke Claxton: With regard to the general charge that every day we are getting better and better, and that he does not want to hear that any more, I do not know just what to say. 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. I do not think we are very far apart in that field.
The hon. member said again that we should have had fighting forces to act in Korea. That matter has been explained from the point of view of the Department of External Affairs and myself at least a dozen times. It was made perfectly evident in this chamber that just what the hon. gentleman wants-[DOT]


Douglas Scott Harkness: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman;
I do not think the minister wants to misrepresent me. I did not say: Why are there no fighting forces to fight in Korea? I said I wanted to know why there were no fighting forces to fight in Canada or any place else.


Brooke Claxton: I thought the hon. member said Korea. I thought that was the connotation. If I was not right, 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.


Mr. Jones:: I should like to follow with some remarks on the subject the other two speakers have dealt with, namely civilian defence. I endorse heartily all that the hon. member for Lanark had to say, from his expert point of view. He outlined to us the dangers of atomic war, the dangers of the use of bacteria and other things. In view of 

the fact that he is so well qualified to speak on those matters, I am going to leave that part to him, merely endorsing every word that he said as something which we should take heed of.
I am, however, interested in what the minister had to say. He pointed out that civilian defence is to be left more or less to the provinces and to the municipalities. We know, from experience in the past, how impossible the situation has been, whether it has been with regard to relief, old age pensions or anything else. It is just a form of passing the buck. I believe that it is a mistake if the dominion government does not take the lead and tell the municipalities and the provincial governments what their part shall be rather than waiting for them to take the lead. I know that the minister possibly did not mean what he said quite in the way he said it, but I am also sure that he is not aware of the urgency of this situation. As the hon. member for Lanark pointed out, it takes time for civilian defence. Time is important. However, this defence appropriation contains no item whatever for civil defence-not one cent, so far as I can see. Therefore the urgency has not yet dawned on the department. The minister has indicated that there is a certain amount of secrecy about it, and certain information he cannot divulge. My only suggestion would be that there should be no secrecy around a matter of such importance to the civil population of Canada as is their own defence. That is one thing you cannot keep secret. The more knowledge imparted to them, and the more they are educated, the better it will be for the people concerned.
The minister knows as well as I do what happened in France during the last war. He knows how the people, lacking leadership, lacking training and lacking civil defence fled in panic from town to town, clogging the roads, hampering the movement of troops, and getting killed into the bargain. The same thing could happen here in Canada; the same panic could take place. I know people say it cannot happen here, that the Russians are too far away; but let me remind the committee that it is only a few years ago a flight of Russians came all the way across northern Canada and landed in the United States, and with planes greatly inferior to the ones they have today. That has been done, and if it has been done once it can be done again. So, do not fool yourselves; do not become complacent and say that it cannot happen here in Canada.
I do feel that civilian defence is as important as military defence. In the next war, wherever it may be, the civilians will be right in the centre of the area of warfare,

right in the target area-and whether it be Canada, the United States or Europe makes no difference. Therefore, bearing that in mind, civilian defence must be carried out in full co-operation with the military defence of the country; and those civil defence measures should be started immediately. The training and supplying of guards and air raid wardens in towns should be commenced, so that they would have some knowledge of communications, learn something about telephones, telegraph, radio and transportation, by road, rail or air, and prepare for the maintenance of supplies of light, power, oil, gas, coal, wood and the like.
As was pointed out by the hon. member for Lanark, preparations should be made to find places for the storage of food, and for its distribution later on. The rail strike brought home to us forcefully the fact that some of our towns in Canada are supplied only from week to week. After only a few days one town was calling for more supplies, because it was running short. Another week of the rail strike would have brought that weakness to the fore, and it would have been shown that very few towns in Canada have enough supplies to last them for more than one to three weeks in case of distress conditions, or in the event of war.
A civil defence set-up would be instructed to find out what supplies are available, to list them and to have them in convenient points in case of need. They would also look after water, sanitation, health and the like. I am suggesting this because if a beginning is made in plenty of time I am sure the authorities will receive all the assistance they want from clubs such as the Rotary club, the Gyro club, Kiwanis and others. Their members would be only too willing to help and to be trained; they would be prepared to organize and to submit -to the discipline required for civil defence.
The seriousness of the situation is better known to the minister than it is to us, because the huge appropriation before us is an indication of the urgency and the seriousness of the international situation. The hon. member for Lanark also pointed out that it is possible to minimize the danger from atomic explosion. I believe the cost of informing the public either through the press or the radio or through lectures would be very cheap when compared with the vast results that would accumulate for the protection of our people. I shall not deal more with that aspect of the matter because I think it has been covered fairly well.
My point is that we ought not to rely upon the immunity of Canada from war, and that we should remember at this time we are in
Defence Appropriation Act the danger area. Chaos may be the result if we are not trained to meet the impact of the enemy in our own land.
When reading through the suggestion that has been made for financing the military defence of the country I was somewhat alarmed to find an item of about $28 million for the acquisition of property. I would ask the minister if new properties are to be acquired with this money, if any substantial portion of it is to be used for that purpose, or if the old properties that obviously we had in the last war are to be operative in the next one.
I feel that during the last war Canada had enough properties with which to train the largest army we ever had, and perhaps one larger than we hope to gather together at the present time. Therefore, for the life of me I cannot see why it should be necessary to have an item of $28 million to acquire more properties.
If old properties are to be used, then I suggest to the minister that a real check should be made, particularly on old ranges, to make sure that there is no unexploded ammunition left in the ground. I know it is charged that the accidents at Petawawa and at other camps have been the result of slackness. The same applies to the Vernon camp. It was given up, abandoned, and a wire put around it. Here and there, every mile or so a danger sign was erected, instead of removing the danger from unexploded shells still in the ground. The result was that long after the war was over three young men went on to the area and, while digging, struck one of these unexploded shells, with the result that all three were killed. The department will accept no responsibility. I have taken the matter up with the minister and, while I must say he has done all he can do personally, the legal branch of the department continues to deny all liability. These three boys lost their lives, partially, I say, through the responsibility and neglect of the Department of National Defence and its failure to make sure that these unexploded shells would not go off. I suggest that before these camps are used again they should be covered thoroughly by mine detectors, particularly in the target and storage areas, to make sure that there is no chance of further explosions of this kind.
May I now mention the reserve army, in which I served during the last war. Let me suggest to the minister that if he wants to get more co-operation from the men and officers in the reserve force, greater consideration should be given for the time they give to the reserve army. I know they are allowed

Defence Appropriation Act the time during which they are actually drilling, but sometimes they are in attendance one or two hours before drilling commences, and some must travel ten or twelve miles to reach the drill hall. If some compensation could be given for the time taken in travel to and from the drill hall, and waiting for training to commence, I believe there would be greater co-operation.
Any pay given to the reserves should, in my view, be accepted as an allowable deduction for income tax purposes. The sum is not great, and I understand it cannot be segregated; but if it were considered as an allowable expense it should be so treated. I can assure the minister, as other hon. members have done, that the money that members of the reserve forces receive for the services they render does not by any means cover the expense to which they are put to attend drill, particularly those who are ten miles away.
In conclusion may I suggest that the leader of the opposition rendered excellent service to the people of Canada when he asked that a secret session be held so that we might hear the truth about Korea. Like other hon. members I came here in total ignorance and I am still in ignorance. I have not learned a great deal because we have been kept in the dark. In justice to hon. members who have come long distances and who for five or six months are out of touch with the government, this secret session should be held. We should be told the truth, no matter how unpalatable or unpleasant it is. If we were told the stark, naked truth we would be better able to serve our country. It is up to the government to indicate their confidence in us rather than to treat us like children. I appeal to the minister to consider seriously the suggestion made by the leader of the opposition.


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: In the course of the discussion of these resolutions it has been obvious that the most attention has been given to the work of the Canadian army. I would point out that at the outset of the session which was called at the beginning of the last war the leader of the opposition pointed out then that Canada was liable to invasion from the north. With the great advances that have been made in the range of aeroplanes such an invasion seems more feasible today; it is hardly likely to be anything more than a diversionary raid which would not require prolonged attention from the army.
However, there is one great danger which I think this country will have to face, particularly if it is involved in a European war. I refer to the danger from submarines. Whatever may be the comparison between our forces and those of other countries, there can [Mr. Jones.l
be no doubt that there are great numbers of submarines in the possession of our potential enemies. The submarine of today is much more powerful than those used during the first and second world wars. It is said that the present-day submarine has a range five times as great as the U-boats of the last war.
I should like to refer to a couple of incidents that took place during the last war around the shores of Newfoundland. One summer's day a submarine or submarines entered Conception bay where there were three or four ships waiting at Bell island to load iron ore for North Sydney. Those ships were sunk at the pier or while waiting at anchorage in the presence of thousands of people. There was a corvette within three miles and Torbay airport was only four or five miles away, yet the submarines escaped.
I am wondering if any provision is being made in these items to provide for improved submarine detection. I happened to be at that spot shortly after those ships were sunk and saw naval vessels trying to locate those submarines. It is a shallow bay and the incident occurred four or five miles inside the headlands, and yet the submarines could not be located there. If they could not be located in such narrow waters, what will happen when they have a greater area in which to hide? I trust that the research department has been making a study of how better to detect submarines.
We shall have to convoy troops and supplies to Europe as was done before. It is well known that a convoy goes only as fast as the slowest ship, and convoys are the principal targets that submarines go after. It is necessary that our submarine detection devices should be powerful and that we should have suitable aircraft and sub-chasers ready to take up the chase. Good work was done by the Canadian navy working out of St. John's and the Royal Canadian Air Force in protecting convoys to Europe.
There are two areas which are particularly dangerous. One is cape Race, the point that most ships make for when coming to America and from which they depart when going to Europe. It is a common sight to see many large ships passing by that cape. That would be one point where packs of submarines would be lying in wait for ships. The strait of Belle Isle is another dangerous point.
In view of the reports that have been published about submarines along the coasts of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia and in the Cabot strait, we ought to have a patrol in existence now to watch for submarines. It should be remembered that within a few hours after the last war was declared the

Athenia was sunk in mid-Atlantic. If an enemy were going to make war upon us or upon some European country he would not announce beforehand what he was going to do .but would attack and might have his submarines in the position where they could do the most harm.
There is another matter I should like to speak of and which was referred to by the hon. member for Cape Breton South in the excellent speech he made this morning. The hon. member referred to our merchant seamen. These men have always felt that they had a grievance. They ran risks equal to if not greater than those faced by the men in the navy or army but they have not been given the same consideration. If they have been injured they receive no pension. I believe that the United States merchant seamen who served during the war were treated the same as the men in the navy.
I ask the minister to give consideration to these men. There is no doubt about the courage of the merchant seamen for some of them were torpedoed two, three or even four times and yet they went back to sea. This is an extremely important service and it deserves every consideration in the way of compensation and other benefits.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Mr. Chairman, I rise on this occasion to tell the committee that on a Sunday afternoon twenty years ago I was taken through a communist school in the city of Toronto where at least 150 children, ranging in age from six to fourteen years, were being instructed by communist instructors how to ridicule their parents, how to worship the Russian state and how to lose any confidence that they might have in the great British empire. In that school were pictures of Stalin draped with red flags. The children of those parents were sitting around playing cards or just talking.
Those children of twenty years ago are now men and women of 26 to 34 years of age. I do not thinik anyone will doubt that many of those young children who were being trained in that school when their minds were so impressionable continued on to Moscow to become more thoroughly trained in propaganda and how to take insidious action against their native land. Those men and women are on the loose in all parts of Canada. Surely the government must be aware of the fact that I am stating. If they are not they should be. I have never had the opportunity of going through the communistic schools in the city of Montreal, but I am positive I am right in saying they are there, and that they are adequately equipped and largely attended year in and year out. These are facts.
Defence Appropriation Act
My constituents and yours, fellow members of the House of Commons, rely on us when we come to parliament to find out what are the facts regarding the possibilities of an attack on the Dominion of Canada by the communist-controlled part of the world. We did not come here for this session simply to listen to a half-baked plan of the Minister of National Defence and salve our conscience that it provides the answers the people are looking for. These are not the questions your constituents ask you, and that applies to members in all parts of the house.
The people of Canada realize that the only reason traitors to this country ended up in Kingston penitentiary for espionage was the fact that the Russians kicked the door off an apartment in the city of Ottawa. That was not because of anything done by the secret service or any part played by the Liberal government. The Russians had to kick a door down. A man had to break away from the Russian embassy, had to plead for protection, and even when he did a very important member of this government at that time gave instructions that the young man should return to his embassy. He did not want to have anything to do with him. The government has taken a great deal of credit for capturing the spies. All they did was to try them and, in my opinion, inadequately sentence them after the Russians had virtually delivered their spies to the gates of our prisons.
What was the sense of going to terrific expenditure to bring members of parliament to this House of Commons for this session? To settle a strike that was already settled? From the expressions on the faces of members of the Liberal party, particularly the cabinet ministers, it was a foregone conclusion that no matter what we said or did the result was going to be exactly as it turned out. The men were going back to work, and they will continue to work. The strike is settled to the satisfaction of the workers involved. That could have been done without bringing members of parliament thousands of miles at terrific expense.
Now we are told that another important subject is the Korean situation. If any member of the house has learned any more about the Korean situation since he arrived here than he knew from the daily newspapers, or why we should vote for more munitions or less munitions, I should like to know what he has learned. Nothing has been divulged here to lead one to believe that we do not have all the armed services necessary to cope with the situation right up to this very minute.
Speaking of communistic trained people in Canada, I wish I could be sent on a mission to Russia to blow up their Niagara falls three

Defence Appropriation Act weeks before an attack with the same kind of training and the same knowledge that they have of this country. I wish the great honour would be given me to blow up a canal similar to the Welland canal. I would certainly blow it. There is not a guard on that life-line of industry at the present time. There is not a guard on the Niagara power plant, the new power plants recently put into operation in the province of Ontario, or anywhere else from coast to coast. There is not a guard on the Welland canal. There is not a guard on the Sault canal. Nevertheless we are brought here in a crisis and we are almost led to believe that there may be some necessity for terrific expenditures. The government is trying to impress upon us that the Russians mean business. We have not got a division of
30,000	men. We have not got a brigade for Korea. No person has told us what a thimbleful we have for the defence of Canada.
I do not suppose we can spare any of our competently trained permanent force men to guard property properly. I do not suppose we can spare the necessary handful from our thimbleful of trained men to guard the Welland canal or the source of power and energy at Niagara. Crisis! How can the people of Canada be convinced that this expenditure is necessary, that this country as a member of the United Nations is playing a part in a serious situation, when things of that nature are not being attended to? The people back home are just ordinary human beings. They are not mind-readers, and today they are perplexed beyond description. They have not the vaguest conception of what is going on. They are being lulled into a false sense of security and safety by the fact that the great parliament of Canada is now in session, and doing nothing but wasting time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I am certainly on a popular side of the house because if I am wasting time I have got a lot of company. There are 190 members of the Liberal party who are all with me. I can tell you that.


An hon. Member:: We are not speaking.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: The situation is that no newspaper can convey to the public of Canada where Canada stands at the present time.
I am not simply speaking to hear myself talk or for your benefit either. I am trying to voice the opinions and feelings of Mr. Average Canadian. I feel I am voicing them when I say that I believe Canadians will be rushed into another war without knowing why they are in it, almost precisely as they were in 1914 and in 1939.


An hon. Member:: They made a good showing.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: They made a good showing, and you were not the only man who was there to make a showing. Probably you will not be the last one to go this time either. I believe that Canadians will be rushed into a war with Russia with the concrete evidence we have regarding the attitude of Russia towards the rest of the world, and the reason for fighting the enemy will be the most perplexing that any group of people ever had. Recruiting for the army today, both the permanent force and the Korean brigade, is certainly disgraceful when compared with the thirty thousand men who were recruited, equipped and shipped to Salisbury Plain within thirty days, in 1914. That is due to the fact that while the young people of this country are just as willing to fight in defence of their country today as they were in 1914, they just cannot see why they should enlist; they cannot see the necessity. That has been brought about by the lethargy of this government. The mere fact that the members have been brought back to parliament does not give the young people of Canada any reason why they should volunteer to fight. It is time some person here spoke frankly and was not afraid that Mr. Joe Stalin might learn something he does not know today if we said we were in an awful mess, as we are.
I am only speaking on behalf of the man who is questioning the actions of the cabinet of this country. I hope they will give the press something that will convey to the people of Canada the fact that we are not only being attacked by communists outside Canada. We are also being attacked by a well trained army of communists in Canada, and these are Canadian-born, I am sorry to say.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall the resolution carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Was it not understood that after this general discussion was completed we would deal with the various items?


Joseph-Alfred Dion: I suggest that we should proceed to deal with the resolution paragraph by paragraph. The figures that have been given are only for-information; they are not in the resolution. I think the better procedure would be to call the first paragraph and deal with it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thought it was clearly understood yesterday, and in view of the Prime Minister's response to my question a day or two ago, that we would follow the practice which was adopted in the closing years of the war in connection with similar

resolutions. I realize, of course, that many hon. members who are now here were not here then and that they may wish to follow a different course, but that did seem to be a satisfactory way. What we did then is quite clear. I need not take time to read it, but I have the volumes of Hansard here, together with the references. On those occasions we had a general discussion and then, by agreement, took each of the items in the breakdown that was furnished to us by the Minister of Finance. It is quite clear that what we have before us is a resolution; and to make the distinction Hansard did not say "carried" as we finished each item; it simply said "item agreed to." We took them one by one, in an orderly way, and if it were necessary I could refer-


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: No one is objecting to that. Why not proceed?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The chairman just suggested that we should take the resolution paragraph by paragraph, and that the figures given us by the minister were only for information. I suggest that we follow the practice we followed in 1943 and 1944 in particular; that we take the resolution paragraph by paragraph, if you will, but that in connection with each of the figures in those paragraphs we take them item by item as they appear in the break-down furnished by the minister.


Alphonse Fournier: I am all for any method that will permit us to go ahead. The remarks being made right now do not help the debate. If the hon. member has any questions to ask, why not put them?


Stanley Howard Knowles: As a matter of fact I am trying to help the debate. I have been thinking of suggesting this for some time, and perhaps now that the general discussion is over-


James MacKerras Macdonnell: No, it is not.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -we can take these amounts item by item, and as we finish each one we will know we are making that much progress.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: It is for the committee to decide whether these amounts should be considered item by item, but at the moment all I have before me is the resolution.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I wish to raise one point in connection with the general debate, arising from a statement made this afternoon by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. As I understood him-and incidentally it seemed to me the minister was interpreting the section correctly-in answer to a question asked by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra he said that, under the Atlantic pact, if another nation were attacked the procedure then would be for our parlia-
Defence Appropriation Act ment to be assembled to determine whether there had been an attack, whereupon we would consider in our own discretion what steps we would take. Is that a fair recital of what the minister said? If it is I want to direct this question to him. According to my understanding that is radically different from what was intended and planned under the United Nations Organization. My understanding is that there it was fully intended that there should be definite allotments of forces to be supplied by the various nations, but that this was prevented by the Russian veto. If I am right so far I wish to ask the minister this. Why is it that under the Atlantic pact they are satisfied with an arrangement which seems to me not only infinitely less effective but I would say so ineffective that I cannot think the nations of western Europe will regard it as of much assistance at all? I was in France three weeks ago, and I got some conception of the anxieties they face there. It does seem to me-and I would like the minister's comment on this-that the procedure as he described it this afternoon would involve such delay and such uncertainty that it would be largely nugatory in the sense of any common effort.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I tried to explain this point this afternoon, but I do not mind trying again if there is any doubt in the mind of the hon. member as to what I meant.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I thought I understood you.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The situation visualized under the United Nations charter was not the same as that we now have under the North Atlantic pact. Under the United Nations charter article 43 provided for certain specific military forces to be made available for defence against aggression on instructions from the security council. This country, along with other members of the United Nations, accepted that charter, the only condition being that if we were not on the security council, where we would have our say in the determination of aggression, and if our forces were to be used, we would be consulted in the security council before they were used. That was the situation under the United Nations, which was made ineffective by the veto of the U.S.S.R.
Under the North Atlantic pact we have agreed that an attack on one member is an attack on all. Whether that attack has taken place will be decided by the members of the group individually and collectively. That was not our individual decision in this matter; that was the decision taken by all the members of the Atlantic group. An attack on one would be an attack on all, but each member

Defence Appropriation Act 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.
If there is anything more I can say I shall be glad to try to explain further, but I believe I have made the position pretty clear. That is the position which has been accepted by all the members of the pact, including the European countries.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Would any majority decision be involved? Suppose one nation decided there was no attack and all the others decided there had been an attack. Could that 6ne nation stay out while all the other nations carried on?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The position is that each nation determines whether that obligation it has undertaken by signing this pact is engaged in respect of any particular incident. It remains to each nation to determine whether the obligation into which it has entered has actually been engaged by any particular incident.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I did understand the minister this afternoon then, and I am grateful to him for repeating it. The only other thing I should like to say is that when we had this before us months ago, owing to the fact that our imagination was dull, perhaps we did not scrutinize these things as carefully as we might have. I suppose also that that was the most we could get. I do not know whether it is fair to ask the minister this question, so perhaps I had better content myself with expressing my own hope. In the light of the very grave realities, we now see so much more clearly than we did months ago what seems to me to be an obvious weakness in the Atlantic pact as compared with what was at any rate hoped under the United Nations Organization, and my hope is that it might now be strengthened, and I am wondering if there is any such hope.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not admit for one minute that there is any weakness in the obligation we have undertaken in the Atlantic pact in comparison with the obligation we have undertaken under the United Nations charter. The members of the Atlantic pact are a group of nations that have confidence in each other and in their collective will to resist aggression. I think each member of the Atlantic group is also confident that if an attack is made on one member all the others will consider it as unprovoked attack and will,' if the facts are clear-and the facts certainly would be clear if they were those which we have in Korea-take action to meet it.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Let me preface this by another question. If the intention of the article in the UN charter had been carried out then would the situation not be, in effect, that any nation that was attacked would know just what it could count on from the other nations, whereas now there is no such knowledge?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not think that is the situation, because even under the UN charter if article 43 had been carried out the determination of aggression would be made by the security council, and any one of the five countries on the security council could have vetoed that decision. I think our position under the Atlantic pact is an advance, in fact, on that which we might have had on the security council even if article 43 had been carried into effect, because on that security council we have five permanent members any one of whom had a veto and one of those permanent members was the U.S.S.R.


Mr. Adamson:: I gather from what the minister has said, and he has said it before and I think this is a fundamental weakness, that had the U.S.S.R. been at the meeting and exercised her veto we would have been powerless under the UN charter to take steps against the aggression in Korea. Is that a correct interpretation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, Mr. Chairman, the legal situation, as hon. members know, is that if the U.S.S.R. member had been present in the security council when the resolution to determine aggression was before that council, he could have vetoed that resolution. Under the charter of the United Nations, no such resolution would have become effective. There are, however, other ways by which the United Nations could act than through the security council. A special session of the assembly could have been called and recommendations passed which are not obligatory upon the members, but which could be accepted by the members. If the members of the United Nations had desired, that alternative course might have been followed.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I am glad to know there is a backdoor method of preventing aggression in the machinery of the United Nations.
With regard to the Atlantic pact, if a member of the Atlantic community decided in its sovereign powers that an aggression has taken place against any member and decides to place armed forces at the control of the Atlantic community, what machinery is there for commanding those forces? Are they placed under an organization headed by Field Marshal Montgomery, or who is there to take command of those forces?


Brooke Claxton: Very elaborate machinery
has been worked out. There are five regional groups under the North Atlantic treaty, including the western European group which corresponds with the western union. For the purpose of the North Atlantic treaty planning, the western union command under General Montgomery is the corresponding agent for the North Atlantic treaty organization. There are two groups in respect of which Canada is directly involved. They are the North American region and the north Atlantic ocean .region. Our officers sit with those of other countries, and consider plans for our own defence. The five groups all communicate their considerations to the standing group which consists of the chiefs of staff of the United States, the United Kingdom and France or their representatives, under the chairmanship of the United States. They report to the military chiefs of staff of all twelve nations and the chiefs of staff report to the defence ministers.
Ever since the organization of the North Atlantic treaty countries, these groups have been working together in their regions assessing the requirements, assessing available means of defence and discussing plans for defence; and as has been reported to this house on a number of occasions, they have arrived at an over-all plan. On the basis of that plan, which was reported to the council of foreign ministers last May, further developments have since been taking place. There has been a committee of deputies appointed and continuously in session, as was pointed out by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. A further meeting of the council of foreign ministers is being held in September, and of defence ministers at Washington in October. There is a very complete, almost too complete, procedure for working out plans and arriving at concrete considerations. Our thought has been that it should be possible to simplify that.
The only place where a commanding officer has been appointed is in the western union which now has, by reference, been made the planning group for the western European region of the North Atlantic treaty. Whether or not further commanding officers will be appointed in advance of an emergency remains to be seen. That can be done very easily by agreement if it is desirable. Even if it is not done in advance, there can be an understanding as to who should be appointed.


Agar Rodney Adamson: There is a sort of attempt
to form a chiefs of staff committee, and to set the co-ordinating machinery at work. Presumably those are some of the things that will be discussed on Saturday.
Defence Appropriation Act


Brooke Claxton: A chiefs of staff committee
has been set up under the North Atlantic treaty; that is called the military committee. It has met on several occasions and it has an executive group named the standing group, consisting of the chiefs of staff of the United States, France and the United Kingdom or their representatives. They report to the military committee and the military committee reports to the defence ministers.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I was glad to hear the minister, in connection with defence, say he was afraid perhaps the organization at the top was too complete. It may become like our Canadian army with 15,000 training and administrative personnel to only
5,000	fighting troops.
I wanted to go -back to what the minister of external affairs said. It seemed to me the answer he gave to me to support the statement that the Atlantic pact was really better than the UN was because what had been hoped to be accomplished in UN was impossible of accomplishment as a result of the potential veto.
I will now just come back to this point and offer my opinion for what it is worth. It seems to me that if the minister is content to leave the situation as it is now where, as he said, people trust each other and believe they will do the right thing when trouble comes, I like that spirit a great deal. But on the other hand, in the state that things are now in I would feel much happier, and I am sorry that the minister does not take that view, if there were much more in the way of definite understanding as to what is going to happen when trouble comes.


Lester Bowles Pearson: There is only one other way, Mr. Chairman, in which it could be done under the North Atlantic pact, as I understand it; and that is by having the decision taken by the North Atlantic council in respect of the determination of an aggression, by a majority of the council, by which the minority would be bound. We have not yet reached that point in -any international committee of this kind that I know of. In effect, I -think it will be found that if aggression of the North Korean kind is committed, there will be no hesitation or doubt on the part of any of the members of the North Atlantic pact.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The minister is talking just about the question of determining aggression. I am talking about what you do when an aggression is determined.


Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Chairman, I have a motion to move before eleven o'clock. If it is agreeable to the committee, I would move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Business of the House


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, this morning my colleague the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) announced that he wished to move that the house resolve itself into committee of ways and means tomorrow at eight o'clock. We find that this cannot be done without moving the following motion by leave of the house. I therefore move, seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson):
That the provision of standing order 28 respecting the committee of ways and means be suspended for Thursday, September 7, 1950.


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


Mr. Drew:: The understanding is that the adoption of this motion is only for the purpose of permitting the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) to introduce his budget at eight, o'clock tomorrow night.


Alphonse Fournier: That is the understanding, Mr. Speaker; and I understand that the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) will move the adjournment of that debate. Tomorrow we shall continue the debate on this resolution and proceed with the bill, if possible, if the resolution carries.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, September 7, 1950