1950-03-14

Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance) moved:: That the public accounts of Canada and the report of the Auditor General for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1949, which were tabled in the house on October 31, 1949, be referred to the standing committee on public accounts.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (for the Minister of Agriculture) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a bill to amend the Agricultural Products Act to extend the operation of the act for a period of one year.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: In the absence of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. It concerns the two young Spanish merchant seamen, Enrique Montenegro and Angelo Parra, who apparently have been sent from Vancouver to Montreal, are to arrive in Montreal tomorrow morning and are to be sent on at once to New York. I have had representations from Vancouver that these young men are political refugees, that they are in grave danger should they be sent back to Spain, and also that they have been promised by Guatemala a visa which is due here shortly. Those statements may or may not be correct, but under the circumstances would it not be possible to hold these young men in Montreal until there is a further investigation?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I had not heard anything about Enrique Montenegro and Angelo Parra until the hon. member telephoned my office this morning about them. I know nothing about their political background or about what they may have been promised by the government of Guatemala; but I made inquiries and found that they were to be held in Montreal for further inquiry, and that no order would be made about them until after the inquiry report had been submitted to the minister and he had had an opportunity to consider it.


Howard Charles Green: I thank the Prime Minister for his answer.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roselown-Biggar):: May
I ask the government if questions and motions for production of papers could be taken up tomorrow?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: We had intended to answer questions last week, but there was such great complaint about there being any departure from the rules that we thought it would be advisable to allow the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne to be completed before we asked for any more unanimous consents.


Mr. Knowles:: It all depends on who is asking for it.



THEFT OF NEEDLES FROM NATIONAL RESEARCH BUILDING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough West):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is the government going to take full responsibility for the care and treatment of the young boy who has two radium burns on his hands caused by gross negligence and lack of proper handling and storing of radium needles by this government?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The hon. member, instead of asking a question, has made certain assertions that may or may not be accurate.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That ts what I want to find out.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I will examine the assertions in Hansard, consult my officials and give a reply later.



HUMAN RIGHTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):: I
should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. It has to do with the international declaration of human rights that Canada voted for in the United Nations assembly in December, 1948. Is it the intention of the government to set up at this session a committee on human freedoms; and if not, is it its intention to submit to parliament for consideration and approval this declaration which was accepted by our representatives?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The government has not yet made any decision in that regard. The position of the government was stated, with the required qualifications, when the matter was before the United Nations. Since that time the matter has not received further consideration.



BOMB EXPLOSION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Knapman Fraser: should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Does he intend to make a statement to this house with regard to the shocking accident in which a young boy's hand was blown off and his mother, Mrs. MacLaurin, was injured a few days ago by a Canadian army thunderflash bomb?


Hon. Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence):: The hon. gentleman seems to be making a number of assertions for which there seems to be little evidence indeed.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: We want to place the responsibility.


Brooke Claxton: No evidence has been brought to my attention to indicate that this is a Canadian army thunderflash bomb. That is a matter that has to be looked into. I must say that I, like the hon. member, regret the accident; but there is no evidence whatever that it was caused by a Canadian army bomb or that the Canadian armed forces were in any way negligent. In fact the newspaper reports indicate that there would be no liability on the part of the crown.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I should like to direct another question to the minister. Does he not feel


that the only place that hand grenades or army thunderflashes can come from would be the arsenal of the Canadian government?


Brooke Claxton: Not at all. This is not a military bomb. It is a commercial thunderflash bomb, produced by commercial producers.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: And sold to the government.


Brooke Claxton: And used in commerce as well as by government agencies. There is no evidence yet that this bomb ever was in our possession.



INQUIRY AS TO TABLING OF STATUTORY REPORTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can he say now, or if not will he ascertain, whether all the reports that are required by law to be laid on the table of the house within the first fifteen days of the opening of parliament, or some such similar period, have in fact been produced?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I will make inquiries, Mr. Speaker.


Douglas Charles Abbott: that the house go into committee of supply.



PROPOSED SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL DEFENCE

Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Nanaimo):: The rules of this house, Mr. Speaker, provide that, on the motion to go into supply, a private member may rise in his place and voice any grievances or bring to the attention of the house any matter that concerns him with respect to public policy. I want to take advantage of that rule this afternoon in order to bring to the attention of the house a matter which is of grave concern to me as well as to other members, and is causing considerable alarm in the country as a whole. I refer to the serious matter of national defence.
Since the last session of parliament the world has been marching forward at a tremendous pace. We have seen grave events taking place in Europe, in Asia and in other parts of the world. In this house and outside of it we have listened to speeches which can only cause the greatest possible consternation among the people of Canada. As to Asia, we have seen the red tide of communism sweeping across China. We have seen the new people's government recognized by Russia. So far as Europe is concerned,

only within the last few days have there been a series of general elections, the result of which it is extremely difficult to foretell, and which will undoubtedly have very great bearing upon the future of the peace of the world.
Since the last session of parliament, the fact that Russia has been able to develop an atomic bomb has been confirmed. Furthermore, we have seen the great republic to the south of us passing legislation which will authorize the development of weapons even more ghastly than the atomic bomb. Since the last session of parliament a number of defence and military conferences have been held in Europe. Our own Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) attended a conference at Paris. According to the reports from that conference, not only were the broad principles of defence planning discussed, but details as to military production and supplies were gone into so that the North Atlantic treaty might be implemented. It would appear that the chiefs of staff of the various countries are getting down to the details of the problems of collective defence. These responsibilities go with membership in the Atlantic alliance, but these responsibilities cannot merely be discharged by getting together boards of experts. The one thing that is necessary is that the people of all peace-loving countries get wholeheartedly behind their experts in order that the responsibilities that the governments of the countries have assumed may be fulfilled by the peoples of those countries.
It is essential that if that is to be done there be a philosophy established amongst the people which will demonstrate a determination to work in the direction of collective security and to put their whole effort into the plans which are designed to prevent a third world war. It is to the prevention of war that all our efforts on national defence should be directed; and we can only get a nation working wholeheartedly toward that end if the people of the nation are convinced that their government is working in the right direction, and furthermore that they are in possession of the true facts regarding the defence situation.
By agreement we are participants in this collective enterprise. This is a treaty for the security not only of the north Atlantic but of the world as a whole, because no war can be confined to the coast line of the north Atlantic. Should another war break out it will undoubtedly be a global war; no part of any continent will be spared. But while these conversations have been going on there has been some uncertainty in the minds of the Canadian people as to the extent and scale to which we, the Canadian nation, are committed, and whether those commitments which
14, 1950	727
Proposed National Defence Committee have been made, or which are about to be made, bear any relation whatever to the capabilities and the possibilities of this nation fulfilling these commitments.
In the last few days the estimates for 1950-51 have been tabled. The defence estimates are the largest in the peacetime history of this country. They have been increased by some $42 million. The question which is being asked all across the country is: Can this nation, in view of its many obligations, afford that sum? Likewise, disturbed by reports that have been made in various quarters, to which I shall refer later, the question is also being asked: Is this sum adequate? And again, is this sum being correctly distributed? There seems to be a good deal of uncertainty as to whether the amount which is divided between the fighting services is being distributed in the proper proportions.
On February 16 a report was published in the Citizen which indicated a considerable change in policy in so far as the Royal Canadian Navy is concerned. It is dated Ottawa, February 16, and is a Canadian Press item. In it we are told:
The navy today announced plans for a two-division fleet designed to build up a small, compact force ready for swift action in an emergency.
The main feature of the plan will be division of the fleet in two main segments, one concentrating on training and the other on operational work.
As we read on we are told:
The navy termed the two-division plan "the most important step taken by the navy since the war."
Hon. members will notice that this was announced on February 16. It goes on to describe how the first move was taken last year by the conversion of the cruiser Ontario into a training ship from its operational role. That is apparently a big and radical change in naval policy.
In the past we have heard about the submarine hunter-killer teams, for which it was announced in the white paper published during last session that special training and equipment are required. In looking over the defence appropriations for the United States I find that, according to the New York Times of March 3, the amount of money allocated for anti-submarine warfare has been increased by the United States navy to the extent of 200 per cent. In our estimates for this year we see a total increase of $4 million over the amount of $84 million allocated last year, indicating an increase of merely five per cent. One cannot help wondering whether these submarine hunter-killer teams, which we are supposed to be working upon and to be making as our first naval commitment, can be fully developed with only an increase of five per cent in expenditures.
728	HOUSE OF
Proposed National Defence Committee
Are we placing too much dependence upon obsolete or obsolescent ships held in reserve? A great deal of information has been published in the last few months about the type of submarines maintained in the fleets of some other countries, including Russia, which are commonly referred to as snorkel submarines. These vessels have an underwater speed of from 20 to 25 knots, a speed which is truly alarming and which cannot be met effectively by the frigates and corvettes of our Canadian navy. Nor have the destroyers of our Canadian navy been equipped with antisubmarine devices.
Therefore it would seem that although we have set as our naval objective the development of anti-submarine craft, at present we have no such craft available, although we understand that three vessels are now being prepared. I do not know the stage of development that has been reached in their preparation. It would be well for us to ponder the recognized capabilities of the submarines which do exist today in the navies of the world. Not only have they a much higher speed than those which were in operation at the close of the last war, but they can drop to depths far greater than the depths to which submarines in the last war submerged. This factor gives an unquestionable advantage to the submarine.
Can a submarine at a depth, let us say, of a thousand feet be detected by means of the appliances with which our Canadian vessels are at present equipped? Can the depth charges which might be delivered be effective against such vessels? Again, the endurance of the modern submarine is such that it may remain submerged indefinitely. It is equipped with weapons far more deadly than those used during the last war, equipped with the homing warheads that can be attached to torpedoes which, by means of either magnetic or acoustic warheads, once they have been launched in the general direction of a target can find that target, even though such torpedo has to change its course.
In naval quarters there is much questioning whether our Canadian navy is following along the right lines at the present time, and whether far more emphasis should not have been placed upon what has been described as our major naval objective.
Then, to consider the air for a moment; it was not long ago that Air Marshal W. A. Curtis announced that the Royal Canadian Air Force was now going to emphasize the operational side of its activities, and that this change represented a departure from the nucleus theory of the air force which was being slowly built up. In the estimates which will be before the house on Friday
	|

it is indicated that the ratio between the amount of money which has been spent in the past on the air force, and that which will be spent in the future, is as 42-6 is to 44-8. The question is whether that change is adequate; whether in view of our commitments we should not be placing even greater emphasis on defence and spending a larger proportion of our defence dollar on the air force.
Perhaps no real balance has yet been reached between the army and the air picture. On February 21 a correspondent who was attending the recent Sweetbriar exercises remarked that the R.C.A.F. plans to form another jet squadron this year. According to the statement in the press there are at present two jet squadrons in Canada equipped with Vampires, one at Montreal and one at Chatham. The report goes on to say it was originally intended that there should be two jet squadrons added this year, but that owing to budgetary problems it is unlikely that more than one will be added. The report goes on to quote a senior air officer to the effect that a strength of five such squadrons would be required to protect vital areas in Canada-that is, to protect merely the vital areas.
The question must again be asked: Are we saving money on the R.C.A.F. at the expense of safety? Reading from the Financial Times of a week ago it becomes obvious that these problems have been disturbing not only the senior officers in the various services but also the cabinet and other people across the country as a whole. In a report from the Financial Times we find this:
The really big fight has been on the defence estimates. All services came up with big and potent arguments for higher spending in 1950-51. They supported these arguments with cash demands needed to pay for equipment already ordered and committed in previous years and which will be delivered in 1950-51.
As well, there was submitted the growing demands of the cold war in terms of Canada's new North Atlantic pact commitments.
What actually happened was a slashing of proposed defence plans.
In recent months uncertainty has been caused in the country by the reports which have been made regarding Exercise Sweet-briar which was held in the Yukon and Alaska. All these reports were loud in their praises of the individual airmen and soldiers who took part in the exercise. While there is no doubt there was a distinct improvement over previous exercises, the reports indicate that we are far below the necessary standards of equipment which would be essential if warfare is to be carried out in the Arctic.

Mr. Baldwin, writing in the New York Times, used this picturesque language in describing how warfare can be carried out in the Arctic:
Air power has stormed the ramparts of the cold.
It is obvious that war can be waged in the Arctic provided that there is adequate air support. Mr. Baldwin's article in the New York Times has been repeated in various editorials across the country. The people of Canada have become concerned by the bold statement that the military weaknesses of Alaska and Canada were startlingly revealed by Exercise Sweetbriar. Mr. Baldwin goes on to say:
The number of aircraft Canada plans to maintain probably will never be adequate in peacetime to airlift all three battalions simultaneously.
He is referring there to the three battalions of the Canadian active army which are being trained as airborne troops for the express purpose of operating against diversionary raids such as may be launched in the northland. We know that one regiment, the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, has demonstrated the effectiveness of its training, but the men had to be carried in aircraft of a type which would have made it extremely doubtful that they would reach their dropping points in real operations. North Star aircraft are not equipped to permit parachute jumping.
Mr. Baldwin described the Canadian air force as being quite small by United States standards. As I said, the Princess Patricias were transported by Dakotas and C-47's which are not really efficient up-to-date aircraft for the carrying of airborne troops. An officer is reported as describing the Patricias in this way:
We have a fine buggy in the Pats, but no horse to pull it.
I think that describes very well the situation that exists at the moment. We have a fine regiment made up of excellent men who have progressed a long way in their training as a parachute jumping and airborne battalion, but unfortunately we have not the aircraft in which to move that battalion to its proper position. That makes one ask this question: Is there really a balance between the army and the air force at the present time? Other senior officials connected with the defence department have spoken and caused considerable alarm; I refer to a speech reported to have been made by Dr. O. M. Solandt, chairman of Canada's defence research board. In that article Dr. Solandt is indicating the extent to which machines will replace men in the fighting forces of the
14, 1950	729
Proposed National Defence Committee future. After describing the replacement of men by such things as rockets, jets and other machines, he goes on to say:
The tendency to replace men with machines, which has already begun, will spread rapidly through all the services.
After referring to the developments in connection with guided missiles, he goes on to say:
All these things are possible through the use of existing knowledge. This means that most of them are ready to pass from the hands of the research scientists to those of the research-minded engineer who will convert the ideas into realities; the crude experimental mock-ups into finished, effective and reliable machines.
Then he concludes by saying:
We are just on the threshold of the age of atomic power. I think that it will be many years before atomic power will be widely used in industry, but it will be used much sooner for military applications such as the propulsion of warships and submarines.
Those are some of the matters which are giving this nation concern. The only way in which the country can be satisfied and the people rallied behind the efforts being made to prevent a third world war is to make full publication of all the details. If the people are given the details of the commitments which this government has made, then I think they will respond. I quote again from the editorial in the Globe and Mail of February 28:
No doubt the Canadian people, aware of the country's present dangers and new obligations, approve of this increase in principle. But they are interested in knowing, and entitled to be told, what they are buying with the money, what specific responsibilities Canada is undertaking and whether our defence plans are sufficient for the purpose.
There is no substance in the argument that these matters must remain top secrets. When both the United States and Britain openly discuss the adequacy of their defences, it is nonsense to say that safety will be jeopardized by publicity for Canadian plans.
I have referred to a number of things which have happened in the last few months. In the speech from the throne at the opening of the present session information was given to the effect that it is the intention of the government to introduce a measure to revise and consolidate into one act the various acts under which the armed forces of the country have been operating for a great many years, to give to Canada the sole authority to administer her own forces, to make the various forces essentially Canadian, and to give them a uniform code. There will be new paragraphs designed to meet the present and future requirements of the services.
When explaining a bill of this nature in the Senate during the last session of parliament the Minister of National Defence emphasized the importance of it. When he referred to it in the House of Commons during the last

Proposed National Defence Committee session he pointed out how important the bill was, and said that because of its far-reaching effects he would be prepared to have it referred to a committee of the house.
In the speech from the throne there is other legislation forecast dealing with the Militia Pension Act. Although the minister has not so indicated, no doubt he will also be prepared to have that measure referred to the committee. What I want to ask for now, and what I feel will lead to a solution of the problem which confronts the people and will relieve them of their fear and anxiety, is what members of the Progressive Conservative party and others have asked for on many occasions in the past, namely, a special committee to inquire into the whole question of national defence. I do so at this time because only last night the house leader announced that on Friday next the estimates of the Department of National Defence would be called. Year after year we have had them introduced, and members on all sides of the house will appreciate how difficult it is for the minister to give in a few brief sentences the information required, no matter how willing he may be to answer the questions which hon. members of the opposition ask. Nor can members of the opposition be expected to place the minister under a prolonged cross-examination in order to disclose the innumerable details which go to make up the final picture as to Canada's defences-which, I repeat, are designed with the sole object of preventing a third world war.
If we had a committee in which members who are particularly concerned with the defences of this country, and whose past training has given them a certain experience in such matters, were able not only to ask the minister to state the general policy but also to call before the committee the senior officers of the various departments, we would be able to obtain the information we desire. As I have indicated, senior officers have been stating their views across the country. We could call before such a committee people with experience and authority in industry and science who are accustomed to looking after the social services of Canada. I do not think we are asking for too much. We have made the same request before, and it seems to me that when there are such big changes taking place in the world as a whole and in the policy of our defence forces, now is the time to ask for the widest and most thorough investigation.
Therefore I propose to move, seconded by the hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Harkness):
That all the words after "that" to the end of the question be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"It is expedient to appoint a special committee of this house to examine and report upon the Department of National Defence and the armed services of Canada; and that such committee have power to call for persons, papers and records, and to report from time to time to this house."


Mr. D. S. Harkness (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, in supporting the motion of the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) I should first like to draw attention to the fact that the experiences of the past five years have abundantly shown that a general discussion on defence matters or a discussion of the defence estimates cannot be satisfactorily carried on, either when the house is sitting as at present with the Speaker in the chair, or in committee of the whole. I think it has been shown conclusively that it is impossible under such circumstances for any member of the house to secure the detailed information necessary to enable him to form a sound and intelligent idea of what our defence situation is, and what is needed in connection therewith. That is one of the reasons why, during the past four or five years, we of this party have been urging that a standing committee on defence should be established.
During the time that I have been a member of the house the matter was first raised by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green). I think it is worth noting that at that time the government did not take the adamant position they have assumed during the last two years towards the creation of such a committee. In that regard I should like to read a short extract from Hansard which gives the position of the then minister of national defence, now the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), when the hon. member for Yancouver-Quadra first raised the question. It is to be found at page 877 of Hansard for October 9, 1945, and reads:


Douglas Charles Abbott: The second suggestion made by the
hon. member for Vancouver South was that a special committee should be set up to look into defence matters.


Howard Charles Green: A standing committee.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes. May I say that personally I
would welcome the establishment of such a committee, because I believe it could perform a useful service. The discussion and consideration of defence matters in my view should1 not be the subject of party strife, and I believe a committee of that sort could perform a useful purpose. I would1 hasten to say, however, that I feel it would not be feasible to set up such a committee at this session, one which is of a rather special nature. While I cannot commit the government as to policy, yet I would recommend personally that such a committee be established at the next session, when I have no doubt we shall not be quite so pressed for time as, I am afraid, we shall be at this session.
That was the position taken by the then minister of national defence, a position which was almost the same as that taken by this party since that time. The only reason he


did not agree to the setting up of the committee immediately was that in a short postwar session, it was not feasible.
Later on in that session the then prime minister, Mr. Mackenzie King, indicated that he was not opposed to this idea of setting up a committee. He said he thought it could serve a useful purpose. In view of the attitude of the government in 1945, why the extreme change that has taken place? Has the government something to hide about which it does not want this committee to learn the truth? If so, that is all the more reason for setting up the committee. I am not saying it is so, but I wonder if the government has come to the conclusion that the less the members of parliament know about defence matters, the better it is for the government. Perhaps that is one of the reasons why it is so firm in its refusal to set up this committee. It may be that it is part of the general disregard for parliament that this government has shown during the past few years. I am inclined to think it fits into that general pattern. In any event, no satisfactory explanation has been given for the extreme change in the attitude of the government towards the setting up of this committee.
I do not think the present Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) could give any good reasons for the change in the government's attitude. It seems to me it is part of the general picture of denying all the information to members of parliament which the government could possibly deny. It is illustrative of the position in which the government virtually says:	We have our
fingers in this pie, so you keep yours out; we do not want you to have anything to do with the matter. So far as the value of setting up a committee is concerned, I think everyone will agree that it is not only important, but vitally necessary, that there should be a group of members who are well informed on defence matters. At the moment there is no way of becoming informed. A member of parliament is up against insuperable difficulties in securing any information on this subject.
As I indicated, the hit-or-miss discussion we have across the floor of the house is entirely inadequate. The hon. member for Nanaimo has shown that, from the time point of view alone, it would not be possible to discuss all the detailed matters upon which we would like to have information. In addition to that, we all realize that there are certain matters about which the defence heads do not want to make information public. The government refuses to answer questions on these subjects. I believe, however, that in far too many cases that excuse is used1 as a means of escaping the answering of any questions. Nevertheless
14, 1950	731
Proposed National Defence Committee there are some questions which fall within that category and cannot be answered publicly.
During the past four or five years, comparatively few members have taken part in the discussions on national defence. The majority of the members have paid no attention to it, and are not even present when it is taking place. The reason is that the members have little information; they do not know anything about the subject. It is an obvious truth that a man is not interested in something that he knows nothing about. The more anyone delves into a certain subject, the more interested one becomes. The setting up of a standing committee on defence would serve the extremely useful purpose of increasing the interest of the members in this important subject, as well as the interest of the people throughout the country. It would serve also the interests of the defence forces themselves. What the forces were doing would be better understood and better appreciated by the general public. As a result, I believe we would get better support for our recruiting program.
On many occasions we have indicated that we believe there should be a standing committee before which the various defence chiefs and the members of their staffs could appear. Detailed information could be presented, on the basis of which the members could make up their minds as to the adequacy or otherwise of general defence policy, as well as the particular development which defence services are undertaking at any particular time. We could ascertain also whether our defence policy was changing as conditions changed, and whether we had a set-up which met the threats to Canadian security as they develop from time to time. The need for a standing committee on defence is indicated by a look at the estimates for this year's expenditures. One finds that the three largest spending departments, so far as money voted is concerned-I am leaving out of consideration the money which is spent by statute-are national defence, with about $420 million to be voted; veterans affairs, with about $199 million to be voted, and public works, with about $100 million to be voted.
Of these departments, the Department of National Defence is the largest. The amount involved is more than twice as much as veterans affairs and more than four times as much as public works. Of the $420 million, approximately $408 million, nearly the whole amount, is in two bulk items. They are numbered 202 and 203 in the estimates, and they cover over $408 million which we are asked to vote. Surely if a committee is needed to go into the expenditures in the Department of External Affairs, a similar committee is
732	HOUSE OF
Proposed National Defence Committee needed for the Department of National Defence. The experience we had in the house last year, as a result of trying to go into the details of these defence estimates, well illustrates that. The estimates came up towards the end of the session, and I tried to secure information about a number of matters. Every time I rose to ask a question, a great howl of protest went up from the benches facing me, and from those to my right-cries of "sit down, sit down"; "we want to get home" and so forth.


An hon. Member:: From the government benches.


Douglas Scott Harkness: From the government
benches, certainly. In addition to that I received from the other side of the house notes saying "Please do not ask any more questions." That is the situation when only one member tries to ask a few questions requesting details in connection with defence matters; he is howled down by the large number of government members in this house and every means really is taken to try to get him to desist. Under these circumstances it is quite obvious that we must have some other means whereby the large expenditures for this department can be properly examined. The only means by which that can be done, as far as I can see, and the only means that anyone has suggested so far as I am aware, is a standing committee on defence. About a week or so ago I received from a reserve force officer a letter in which he mentions several matters in connection with defence. He is a man whom I had known overseas; as a matter of fact, he is an old friend. The letter contains this sentence:
Is there no meansi of discussing defence questions and putting up contrary views to those of army headquarters without publicity?
In writing back to him I was obliged to say, of course, that there was no means. That letter would indicate that members of the reserve forces who are thinking on this matter and who have ideas which are contrary to those of the constituted authorities would like to see some means whereby those ideas could be brought to the attention of the minister and the defence chiefs and their merits discussed with those people. There just is not any means of anything like that being done at the present time. It is another indication of the necessity of there being some way in which members of this house can put forward their ideas and the ideas they pick up from other people who are interested in defence matters, and at least have an opinion on these contrary ideas expressed by the heads of the defence services and reasons given why, in their opinion, they would not be practical.
(Mr. Harkness.]

One other matter I should like to say something about is that of civil defence, and I have spoken about it in this house on numerous other occasions. We have never obtained from the minister or from the government any satisfactory information in connection with what was being done, nor have we been told whether anything at all was being done. All we have ever heard was that General Worthington had been appointed to look into the matter and to report upon it.
Last year when the defence estimates were up for consideration the minister said that this matter of preparing any plan for the defence of the civilian population in the event of ordinary bombing, atomic bombing or any other sort of attack, or preparing a plan for the evacuation of our large cities and so on was a matter of timing. I am prepared to agree with that statement; it probably is a matter of timing. The impression was left, however, that the time had not arrived for us to do anything along that line. Nevertheless, a large number of people think that the time has not only arrived when we should be doing something fairly definite, but is long past. A mere perusal of the newspapers during the last few months will indicate that there is a constantly growing awareness on the part of the general public of the necessity for plans for civilian defence being put into operation or at least for getting further along than this investigation-and-report stage at which the matter rests now, as far as we know.
A committee such as the one we are advocating would be the appropriate place where a question of that sort could be discussed, where the suggestions and ideas which members receive from their constituents right across Canada could be put forward and brought to the attention of the heads of the defence services, and where they might be, we will say, prodded into action on something definite.
The hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) mentioned the act with respect to national defence which was introduced in the other place last year and which will come to us in this chamber for consideration this year. As to that act of last year, the minister indicated that, in his opinion, it would have to be dealt with by a committee. There is no committee of this house which is adapted to deal with that act. It seems to me that if, in the minister's own opinion, this long and important act is to be dealt with by a committee, the only choice the government has is to appoint a committee on defence to take the matter up; and as a result of that act coming in at this session, it seems a singularly appropriate time to institute or inaugurate a standing committee of the house on defence. I

hope that the government will pay to the arguments we put up now on this matter, and which we have put up in past years, the attention which they deserve, and will proceed to some action with regard to setting up this committee.


Mr. P. E. Wright (Melfort):: I should like to say a few words, Mr. Speaker, in support of this amendment moved by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) with respect to setting up in this house a committee on defence. It seems to me that there are a great many other members who, like myself, have little information on what our defence situation is in this country. It is true that the estimates on defence have been brought into the house and discussed each session; but quite often it was in the latter days of the session, when discussion was limited, and we did not obtain all the information we should like to have had with regard to this matter.
Today we are spending a large proportion of our budget on defence; it is a much larger proportion than we have spent in the last two years. This year, as a matter of fact, we are spending $425 million plus whatever supplementary estimates there may be, plus whatever we may be spending on research work, and whatever we may be spending in the matter of atomic energy: in all, the amount will probably reach some $500 million. It seems to me that in the world as it is today, with the forces of evil there are in existence, we in this house should pay more attention to our defence estimates and should try to ascertain whether we are getting the most for the money we are spending in this respect. I have no doubt that the government are trying to do the best they can, and that they are trying to see that the dollars they spend are being spent for the best purpose. Nevertheless, we get a little bit alarmed when we read in the papers, as we did the other day in the Montreal Gazette, I think it was, that when certain officials were brought before study groups of government members in this house, the matter which the government members seemed to be most interested in was the patronage they might get out of defence estimates rather than the best service they could get. This report has not been denied; and it seems to me that, under the circumstances, we should have a committee of this house before which we could call in officials of the defence department and see that we are getting the best for the money that we are spending on defence.
Prior to the war-I believe it was in 1939 -we had a defence purchasing board set up under a special act of parliament. When the war broke out the duties of this board were turned over to the Department of Munitions
14. 1950	733
Proposed National Defence Committee and Supply, and that department did the purchasing for the armed forces. After the war the duties of purchasing for the armed forces were turned over to the Canadian Commercial Corporation instead of being turned back to the defence purchasing board under the old act passed in 1939. By the way, this was a fairly comprehensive act and it gave a great deal of protection to the government and to the people of this country in the purchases that were being made
My reading of the act under which the Canadian Commercial Corporation was set up leads me to believe that we have not the protection that we had under the defence purchasing board in seeing that there is no patronage in the matter of defence and that we get value for every cent that we spend in purchasing for the defence department.
There is also the matter of civilian defence. I believe General Worthington was appointed to make an investigation and report to the government as to what should be done with respect to civilian defence in Canada. Up to date, so far as I know, and I think as far as every hon. member knows, we have very little information as to whether anything definite has been done. In a war such as we might have, should there be a third war, and we all hope that we may not, with the use of bombs, atomic bombs and H-bombs, the matter of civilian defence becomes very important, of much greater importance than it ever was in former times. We should be organized. We should know what is taking place with respect to civilian defence, not only to relieve the minds of our people, not only to see that this matter is being taken care of, but to see that the civilian population is not left defenceless.
These are just a few things which I think should be discussed in a committee of this house. The idea is a good one. We would be in a much better position if we had our defence estimates referred to a committee, and if we, as members of parliament, through a committee such as this, took a greater interest in our defence, and through our interest transmitted it to the people of the Dominion of Canada.


Mr. A. J. Brooks (Royal):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to take up much of the time of the house, but I do wish to support the motion which has been made by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) for the setting up of a defence committee of this house. I think the house is indeed fortunate to have a member such as the hon. member for Nanaimo, who has a wide knowledge of defence matters. I might say also that the house is fortunate in having so many other

Proposed National Defence Committee men, especially those from the last war, who are well qualified to give advice and sit on a committee of this kind.
There is nothing more important to the people of Canada, and in fact to the people of the whole world today, than this question of defence. I am sure that there is nothing more complicated, and nothing which gives the government of this country more concern, than this question of defending our country. Wars of today are not like the wars of the past. Perhaps they would compare slightly with the last two wars, but in former wars, before the first and second great wars it was just a matter of armies getting together and fighting it out. The civilian population had very little to do with it.
As has been stated by one hon. member, time for preparation would be very short in the event of a war breaking out. Today a nation must be prepared. In the first great war we in this country had time to wait for months while France, Great Britain and the other countries held the line, as it were, for us. What was true of the first great war was also more or less true in the second world war, but I am sure everyone is convinced that should another war break out the time will not be a matter of months or weeks. It may possibly be a matter only of days until we shall have to have our army and our defences ready.
There are many matters which could and should be discussed by a committee. I do not wish to repeat what has already been said. For instance, a matter which might be discussed by a defence committee is that of the dispersal of munition plants. As we know, they are more or less in vulnerable spots throughout the country. In the event of bombing there is no question in my mind but that our munition plants would be the first to suffer. The matter of the dispersal of munition plants could and should be considered and acted upon long before war comes.
Then there is the matter of supplies and storage of food. If a war comes we shall require large quantities of food, and the food will have to be stored at different points throughout the country. That is a matter that a committee could very well discuss.
A committee on defence does not necessarily discuss only the air force, the navy or the army; but it could and should discuss practically every phase of our life.
Civilian defence, which was mentioned this afternoon by the hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Harkness) and the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright), is a matter about which I intended to say a few words. I find it is not necessary for me to do so except to point out that the United States has made.

and is making today, extensive preparations for civilian defence. I think they are paying proportionately far more attention to that very important matter than we are. I hold in my hand a clipping from the Christian Science Monitor of a short time ago-I am sorry I have not the date-written by Josephine Ripley, called "Civilian Defense Rolls Quietly", and which reads in part as follows:
This planning is going on quietly, but not secretly.
It is not necessary that it should be secret. The people should know what is going on. I continue:
It is going on calmly, and without hysteria. It is going on without frantic haste, but at a steady pace -a pace admittedly speeded up, however, since President Truman's announcement of Russia's possession of the atom bomb.
Since then, of course, we have had the report on the hydrogen bomb and the suggestion that the Russians know as much about the H-bomb as we do. Some of the things which the United States is planning for is a dispersion of government department's from Washington. They are also giving attention to the dispersal of munition plants and other important manufacturing plants.
In the matter of aircraft spotters this article says:
One of these is the call for 150,000 volunteer aircraft spotters to augment the mechanical "seeing-eye" of the radar screen.
These spotters will cover 25 northwestern and Atlantic coast states and stand ready to scan the skies around the clock, if necessary. This sky-watch will eventually be nationwide.
I suggest we can very well learn from the United States in this matter. Another matter worthy of consideration is the special training they are giving to combat radiation injuries, and like conditions. I believe we in Canada are doing something along those lines, but I feel that probably more should be done. Every city and town in Canada which might possibly be subject to bombing attack should at the present time-not at some later date-be prepared to look after matters of this kind.
This article also states that it is not only at headquarters in Washington that this is being done, but that there are state representatives, and that every state in the union is being made conscious of the necessity for civilian defence. Ido not think it is necessary for me to labour that point further; but I do believe, as I said a moment ago, that a committee might well look into and study these matters. A study of that kind would be of great advantage to the government and, I am sure, to the people generally.
Then, again, I was quite concerned not long ago when I read about the quality of

arms being supplied to Europe. It is important, of course, that the allies we might expect under-the Atlantic pact should be supplied with proper arms and munitions. I read an article which appeared in The Ensign of January 21, a paper published in Montreal. The headline reads, "Europe doubts quality of expected arms from United States. Experts believe special tank should be designed to meet unknown situation." This article, dated at Amsterdam, goes on to say that the supplies of secondary munitions for Europe are not good enough. It states the view is that the supplies from the last war would not stand up or be sufficient to meet any onslaught which we might have from Russia. The people in those countries feel that there should be set up some sort of western European arms industry, so that they would not have to rely too much on secondhand arms they are receiving from the United States and Canada.
This is a question which I am sure a committee could look into with great value and benefit to ourselves and to our friends. Speaking on the subject of defence last year, the minister set out as his sixth point the following:
Since an attack on Canada could only be made by air or by sea, emphasis must be placed on defence forces: by air-radar stations and communications, backed by interceptors and a relatively small mobile brigade group; by sea-anti-submarine and antimine vessels for protection of shipping and coastal waters.
The best place to defeat the enemy is as far away from Canada as possible, and1 our forces should also serve as the nucleus for the development of our maximum potential.
That is an ideal with which I am sure we all agree. The best place to defeat an enemy is as far away from Canada as possible. But I think the minister himself, the government and the people of Canada are beginning to realize that probably it will not be away from Canada at all that we will have to meet the enemy. His suggestion, for instance, that a small and relatively mobile brigade group is all that is necessary, I am sure would not meet the situation at all.
I was much concerned to read an article not long ago dealing with a probable attack on this country or on the United States. After all, if Russia ever goes to war, it will be against the United States, and I am satisfied her first attack would be against that country. If it is made against the United States it must and will be made through Canada. This article mentioned the fact that in Siberia, a country comparable to Alaska which adjoins the northern part of Canada, there are 25 million people, and that Russia has today some 20 divisions in that part of the world. It was pointed out that these people are not carrying out Sweetbriar operations of 4,000 or 5,000
Proposed National Defence Committee men, but that they are training many thousands of men for long periods who are well inured to the cold and hardships of that climate. That is something else about which we in this country should be concerned, namely the training of our men in the north.
I commend the minister upon the start he has made. It was small, involving 4,000 or 5,000 men over a period of ten days. My understanding is that it was experimental, and I am sure that the department and the United States authorities gained much valuable information. I am satisfied however that as time goes on the department will realize that our northern areas are the most vulnerable, so far as this country is concerned. There was a time when we thought our north country, because of the snow and ice, and the hardships which would be encountered by men who would fight in that area, was impregnable. Today we realize it is our most vulnerable point.
I believe a committee could assist the minister greatly in studying the situation as it applies to that part of the world. I shall not take further time in this discussion, but I do believe the minister and the government would be well advised to set up a committee of the house to study not only the navy, the army and the air force, but every phase of defence, which includes within its ambit practically the whole life of the Canadian people.


Mr. G. J. Mcllraith (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, since the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) in this debate has made reference to newspaper articles which appeared in the Montreal Gazette on Friday and Saturday of last week, having reference to the subject matter under discussion today, and since those matters were raised in the house last Friday on a motion to adjourn, I think perhaps it would be proper if I were to make an explanation and to set at rest once and for all this supposed change in policy in defence purchasing.
The facts are rather simple. There has been no change whatever in policy with respect to defence purchasing. The policy as carried out by the Canadian Commercial Corporation, which does the purchasing for the defence department, is exactly as it was, and as has been set out in its annual report and stated in the house on previous occasions.
As a matter of actual fact the subject matter alleged in the newspaper article to have been discussed was not discussed. It is just a case of a newspaperman having got hold of some facts and then, I am afraid, having gone considerably beyond the facts for one reason or another-whether misinformation or excessive imagination, or for what reason I
736	HOUSE OF
Proposed National Defence Committee do not know. And I do not know that it is the concern of anyone as to what caused him to do it.
I have convened a study club of Liberal members of the House of Commons during the last session and at this session. They have met regularly. As a matter of fact, if it is of any interest to hon. members, they have thus far had four meetings. The subjects under discussion have all been subjects connected with the organization of the department. Emergency import controls was one subject; the economic research and development branch was another; and on March 7, Tuesday of last week, the subject matter under discussion was the Canadian Commercial Corporation. It is purely a factual study group which deals with the system of organization and governmental functions and there was no discussion whatever on that occasion about patronage.
As a matter of fact I think all hon. members will realize that it would be most improper, if such a subject were to be discussed, to discuss it with a crown employee or a civil servant. The whole thing is difficult to deny completely because it is so much out of line with the facts and because it is so ridiculous. The fact that the meeting was held is quite true. It was held in the ordinary course. These meetings have been going on and as a matter of fact there has been some press publicity about certain meetings. I recall last fall there was quite a lengthy front page press coverage about the system of study groups generally. They go on at regular intervals depending upon when the appropriate officials are available. I expect they will continue to go on as long -as there is any demand for them.
I think hon. members are quite proper in feeling some concern about the newspaper article, that is the first one, because it does cast a serious reflection. Great expenditures are made by the Canadian Commercial Corporation and it would be a matter of concern if any changes had been discussed or made. No change was discussed or made or suggested in any way.
There is another rather interesting bit at the end of the newspaper article which refers to the managing director of the corporation as having been employed in a minor capacity by Canadian National Railways in Montreal before coming to Ottawa some eleven years ago to take up the matter of defence purchasing. That charge is completely ridiculous. Actually the managing director of the corporation was on the purchasing staff of Canadian National Railways. He was brought here in 1939 and has served to date, always


directly associated with munitions purchasing. There was a short break in 1942 when he was recalled to the C.N.R., but I believe that his record is an outstanding one, one that would tend to inspire confidence and indicate competence in this type of work. I am quite at a loss to understand that particular reference in the newspaper article.
Perhaps it would be usfeful to the house if I read a letter which the managing director wrote to. the minister on March 13. Hon. members will recall that the first article was published on Friday, March 10, and the second one on Saturday, March 11. This letter is dated March 13 and reads:
March 13, 1950
The Right Honourable C. D. Howe,
Minister of Trade and Commerce,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Dear Mr. Howe:
In view of the report which appeared in a Montreal newspaper recently, you might be interested in having a word from me as to what actually transpired when, at the suggestion of Mr. Mcllraith, I addressed the Liberal study group at the House of Commons on March 7. The majority of those present were new members, unfamiliar with the functions of. this corporation.
The remarks which I made were confined entirely to the policy and procedures followed by the corporation. While I answered many questions, the information given appeared to be well received and I sensed no disagreement whatever with the corporation's policy, which, as you know, is to seek out all possible sources of supply, irrespective of any consideration except to provide what is needed in the time required and at the lowest price, and to establish prices and award contracts by means of competitive tenders in all cases where it is possible to do so.
No member attending the meeting suggested that the corporation's policy be altered in any way.
Yours very truly,
W. D. Low, Managing Director.
Surely that should set the matter at rest for all time.


Percy Ellis Wright: I should like to ask the hon. member a question if I may.


George James McIlraith: Yes, by all means.


Percy Ellis Wright: Is the Canadian Commercial Corporation governed by the provisions of the defence purchases act of 1939 in connection with the making of defence purchases? If not, why not?


George James McIlraith: I cannot answer the question at this time, but my recollection is that the defence purchases act was superseded by the munitions and supply act. The corporation is now governed by the provisions of the Canadian Commercial Corporation Act. I shall be glad to look further into the point and give the hon. member a further answer at the first opportunity.


Percy Ellis Wright: There were certain safeguards provided by the defence purchases act which are not provided by the Canadian Commercial Corporation Act. Those safeguards should be carried forward into that act.


Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I am quite sure that all hon. members will be glad to have heard the statement which has just been made by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Mcllraith), to the effect that no change has been made in the defence purchasing policy carried out by the Canadian Commercial Corporation. Taking those words' at their face value I must say that it is gratifying to have that assurance. However, I think one would be entitled to remark that it is a pity the explanation was not made earlier because great concern was caused by the somewhat equivocal statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) on Friday, March 10, when he dealt with this matter. It will be recalled that his denial, if one could call it a denial, did not go nearly as far as the statement just made by the parliamentary assistant. The Prime Minister simply said that there had been no revolt among Liberal members so far as he was aware. Had that somewhat equivocal statement not been made, the credence given to the earlier reports might not have assumed the proportions it did. That being the case, it certainly is timely that we should have this assurance from the parliamentary assistant.
In commenting on this matter it does seem to me that this whole situation underlines the desirability of having a defence committee which could take as one subject of investigation the methods and procedure followed in making these defence contracts. If the chairman of the Canadian Commercial Corporation is free to appear before a group of Liberal members at the suggestion of the parliamentary assistant, I should think it would be quite proper and highly desirable that that gentleman should appear before a defence committee of the whole house. It seems to me, the fact that these private meetings are taking place reinforces the request that all hon. members should have the same opportunity of frank and free discussion which apparently this group of Liberal members has had.
There is one additional reason why we feel that a defence committee should be set up at this session without delay. Hon. members who have preceded me have referred to some of the occasions on which this request has been made previously. At one time we were encouraged to think that the request would be considered favourably. I intend to refer to
14, 1950	737
Proposed National Defence Committee one or two of the statements made by ministers which have not yet been referred to in this debate.
On March 29, 1946, the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) asked the then minister of national defence, now the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), whether he would consider setting up such a committee. That is to be found at page 406 of Hansard for that date. At that time the leader of the C.C.F. (Mr. Coldwell) made the observation:
We supported1 the suggestion last year and we do so again this year.


Major James William Coldwell: And we did so today.


Edmund Davie Fulton: As the hon. member has just reminded me, they have done so again today. At that time the then minister of national defence said:
I think I assured my hon. friend last year that his suggestion would receive sympathetic consideration, but I pointed out that the time was too short to do something about it last session. But I did promise consideration.
Thereupon the former prime minister, Mr. Mackenzie King, said:
I think the suggestion of my hon. friend is a very good one and, as the Minister of National Defence has just said, it is one that he is prepared to consider sympathetically. But once again the house will have to ask itself how many committees it can stand. We are enlarging the number and it will have a bearing on the attendance in the house. I think my hon. friend's suggestion of that particular committee is a very good one.
Referring to the question of whether or not the house can stand this additional committee, you will recall, Mr. Speaker, that in the discussions which have taken place since that time on the question of a general revision of the committee structure of the house it has been truly pointed out that many of our committees never meet at all, others only occasionally, and that in fact we could and should have an additional committee which would perform a regular and useful function in enabling the house to have a better grasp of defence matters than we can now have.
Later on in 1946 the matter was raised again. At page 5268 of Hansard for August 23, 1946, I asked the minister:
What is the intention with regard to the defence committee?
The minister replied:
I was sympathetic to it, as I indicated before. This session, as it has developed, many other committees got ahead of it. It seemed for one reason or another that a tremendous number of important special committees were set up this session, including the veterans affairs committee. I would hope that at another session it will not be necessary for the veterans affairs committee to undertake the stupendous amount of work it did this session, so that at the beginning of another session, which we could perhaps regard as our first normal session of the new parliament, it should be possible to give

Proposed National Defence Committee early consideration, to that question. The real reason why it was not actively considered this time was that there were so many other matters which had to be dealt with that it would not have been possible tor members to serve on- another committee.
By direct inference the minister there said that the reason a defence committee was not established was that we had a very large and active veterans affairs committee. At this session, in another parliament, the Minister of Veterans Affairs and the government have made it very clear that they do not intend to set up a veterans affairs committee. Therefore on that basis there is no reason why we should not, particularly at the beginning of a session, in accordance with the suggestion of the minister of national defence of that day, have a defence committee established at this time.
Later on in 1948 when the present Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) was dealing with this matter, he made it clear at that time that he was not definitely opposed to the idea of a defence committee. He was asked about it again by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, and in reply is reported at page 5807 of Hansard for June 24, 1948, as follows:
The hon. member for Vancouver South again raised the question as to whether the government would entertain the possibility of having a committee on defence matters. As I pointed out when that question was raised last year, my own personal inclination would be in favour of that course. I can see quite a few advantages from my own point a view as minister in having an opportunity of talking things over and having them explained in such a committee. I must say, however, that the suggestion raises considerations far greater than any such personal inclinations, and those considerations I have put before the house and this committee on a previous occasion.
The minister was referring there to his statements made at other times that he was not altogether easy in his mind about the enlargement of the committee system because, as he said, he felt it would lead to the same committee structure as they have in the United States. He went on to say:
I do not do so in any final sense. . .
That is to say, he did not put forward these reasons or any opposition to the committee in any final sense. Therefore we have reason to hope that the minister still has an open mind, and I think we should have reason to hope that we can, upon the arguments presented this afternoon, perhaps bring the minister around to the point where he would favourably consider the setting up of such a committee. I should remind you, Mr. Speaker, that at one time the minister held definite views in favour of the setting up of such a committee. I am not going to suggest that no one is entitled to change his mind, and indeed the minister has been very frank
(Mr. Fulton.]

in the past to say that on reflection he had changed these views. I hope he will allow us to suggest that on reflection we feel that his previous views, so firmly held, so clearly expressed and cogently argued in an article which appeared in 1943, I believe it was, were correct, and that his present views are not as sound as his former ones.
It seems to me that in defence at the present time, more than in any other aspect of our national life, there is need for as near an approach as we can get to a bipartisan policy. I think the need is even greater than in the case of external affairs, but surely it is not reasonable to expect that we can accept and support wholeheartedly without criticism a policy the reasons for which and the implications of which we do not know, and the background of which we have no means of understanding. Admittedly we criticize the minister and the government. It is our duty as the opposition, but I think I can assure the minister that in so far as we can properly do so we desire to facilitate his work in the building up of our defence forces, and we desire to co-operate to the fullest possible extent in the work of perfecting Canada's defence machinery. It is impossible to expect that we can do that unless we are taken into the confidence of the minister and the government, and have an opportunity of examining all the facts and factors entering into the decisions as to defence policy so that we can know the reasons behind the policy and accept and support it fully. If that is not done I suggest that we will find inevitably an increasing divergence of opinion with regard to national defence, and in fact an inevitable tendency towards criticism and pure opposition in this house.
In a matter so vital as national defence, a matter which concerns us all so personally, then as the member for Calgary East (Mr. Harkness) pointed out if we are continually to be held at arm's length in spite of efforts to co-operate, we can only come to the conclusion there is a desire to prevent us from co-operating, if indeed there is not an actual attempt to hide something. I appeal therefore, to the minister, and I assure him of an absolute desire on our part to co-operate to the fullest possible extent in this matter. I can assure him that, if he were to extend that opportunity which can only be extended through a defence committee, he would find that the gesture would not be abused but would be used to the benefit of himself and of Canada in formulating and supporting defence policies for this country.
The other reasons why I think we must have a defence committee are suggested by a study of a book to which reference has already been made earlier in this session. It

is one of the most complete studies of this question of defence under modern conditions, and is entitled "Modern Arms and Free Men", by Dr. Vannevar Bush. As Dr. Bush gives the outline of what he considers to be a workable defence plan for a free democracy under present-day circumstances, it seems to me he suggests that most weapons of offence, most weapons for delivering attack on a massive scale, have now produced their own defence. He says that the process was going on during the last' war, but that defence had not yet caught up with offence, or the means of delivering offence by way of mass bombing and so on. Now, with guided missiles, the defence against these mass attacks has, to a large extent, been at least brought into existence, even if it is not yet effective in an absolute sense. He emphasizes the necessity, therefore, for a highly competent defence network, a defence network which will eventually be manned at' a high degree of readiness.
The author does warn against the perils- I do not think the word is too strong-of going too fast in setting up this defensive network. He also emphasizes the need for a highly compact striking defence force. This striking force would act not' so much in the offensive role in the over-all sense, but would in fact be available to strike back at an enemy immediately after he had struck us. In that sense, it is regarded as a defence force. The necessity for a warning screen against surprise attack is also emphasized. All these considerations, Mr. Speaker, seem to raise new factors for discussion. They raise new elements which must be considered in the framing of our defence forces, and the assigning to its various components of the major or lesser roles. This study paints a picture of defence which is quite different from and much more complicated than anything which we have previously faced. That, it seems to me, points immediately to the corresponding necessity for a committee to give these problems the closest and most realistic study, and to consider the means and methods by which they can be met.
Incidentally, again without a desire to criticize unnecessarily, it does occur to me that, bearing in mind what Dr. Bush has said about the necessity for a highly organized and constantly ready striking force, Exercise Sweetbriar has proven-perhaps it was designed to prove it, as I know it was designed to test it-that today Canada does not possess a force capable of completely fulfilling the role of a striking defence force. As we have seen from the reports, while our personnel are trained, ready and willing, the transports are not available to build an offensive, or to make it possible for these forces to carry out that role under northern conditions. I believe 55946-47J
Proposed National Defence Committee that is a matter which should be studied by such a defence committee. The committee should know what steps are being taken to remedy that defect. Indeed some of the members of that committee might be able to suggest a means by which the- defect could be remedied more quickly than otherwise would be the case.
Certain passages of Dr. Bush's study should, I think, be considered by the house as indicating the need for a committee. At page 53 of this paper-bound volume which I have, Dr. Bush states as follows:
The major effort-
That is in building up a defence force.
-should go into bombs and their delivery, until logic shows that a substantial defence effort should be added. Logic at some time will give the warning. The point will be reached at which investments in defence installations will so reduce the ability of the enemy to reach the target that this indirect effort will pay higher dividends than a direct one. It will make it more certain that if war came we should win quickly, and at a minimum net damage to ourselves from every cause. To estimate the arrival time of that point early enough to launch programs needing several years for consummation will call for pre-eminent organization for intelligence and analysis. We do not have-
Speaking of the United States.
-such organization now, and if we value our safety, we had better get it. It will not do to bungle through, in the type of contest we are now engaged in or in the kind the future may produce.
The author goes on to point out that we should concentrate on this intelligence system, and should not rush into attempting to build up a great over-all defensive network now. If it is a fact, and Dr. Bush states ft is a fact, that the United States does not have such an organization now, I think it is a fact, and at least until the minister tells us differently I take it to be a fact, that Canada has not. Admittedly, that is the opinion of one man, but one pre-eminent in his field, who states that should be the first step in our defence thinking. I believe that matter is one which should be reviewed by a defence committee, with respect not only to the actual building up and arming of our forces, but to the over-all defence planning as well. It is an approach which could be made in a nonpartisan co-operative spirit.
Then Dr. Bush deals with the necessity, while we are undertaking this over-all planning and the building of our purely defence system, of guarding against surprise attack. At page 54 he says:
Here we need to treat the surprise attack as a part of war in, the open, for one thing is certain: If another great war is started by a dictator, it will be opened by a smashing, great, surprise offensive calculated to paralyse us before we are aroused.
A little later, at page 55, he says:
In a dictatorship it is different. A surprise blow on a small scale would not be staged even by a

Proposed National Defence Committee
dictatorship. It would be large, or it would not occur, for arousing a people fully by a small treacherous assault backfires. Those who study war have realized this fact since Pearl Harbor, if they did not know it before. But a dictator, if his control were tight enough and his iron curtain utterly impenetrable, might stage a large surprise opening when' he decided to go to war.
So Dr. Bush says we must guard against this surprise attack. He makes certain suggestions as to how that could be done. He refers again to the necessity of staying on the alert and building up this efficient, highly organized intelligence system to warn us of any move which the enemy may make. He then goes on again to say:
We can do no more than this. We can decrease the value of surprise by staying alert, to some extent even in peacetime. We cannot reduce the surprise factor to zero, but we can cut it heavily. This does not mean that we sit with every post manned and every gun cocked throughout the years; to do so would be overly expensive and our efforts would be better placed elsewhere, for we should slacken in time if we tried to be thus continuously vigilant. Short of this extreme of having every man poised and at his post, we can do much.
One element of our strength should indeed be ready and straining at the leash. That is the retaliation force.
A force to which I referred earlier.
It is the force that would strike back within twenty-four hours of the time the first bomb fell, remorselessly, through every obstacle, pressing its attacks home, before enemy defences were working smoothly, for they will be less effective then than later, even if alerted.
The planes of the retaliation force must always be fully equipped and ready to fly, its bombs must be ready to go off, its every element must be so protected that the most severe surprise bombing cannot impede its launching. Its crews must be highly trained, fully briefed, and tested by frequent exercises. There should be an insp*ection system independent of the line of command up to the very highest echelons, to ensure that there is never any slackening in this picked group or any false assurance. The members of the force should be young, and rotated in duty, for men cannot stand the strain of being thus poised for long periods. But, in comparison with our full military power, the force may be relatively small.
If we just pause and consider that quotation, I think we can see inherent in the very idea he advances there the necessity for a constant review of our defence planning and system, as he himself puts it, not only by the government which naturally would be, shall I say, predisposed to view with satisfaction the plans which they themselves have prepared and put into effect, but a review, constantly and impartially, by a body such as a defence committee of the house, whose members would bring an impartial view to bear on these plans. Again I say that that review would be undertaken not necessarily in a critical attitude but in the desire to bring to bear on the problem the collective views of those who all have a joint interest in it and have something to contribute even though-


and I grant the minister this point-they do not have, under our system, the immediate responsibility for carrying out the plans. To a considerable extent they might, because of that very factor, be able to contribute more usefully to the formulating of the plans and to an impartial criticism of them.
Another suggestion made by Dr. Bush, which I think can best be implemented by this defence committee, is found at page 56:
This is not the only thing we can do to decrease the potentiality of the surprise attack. Later on we can build defence systems and contrive to have them alert and ready. In the meantime our entire military system can be ready, even if it is not at all times acutely alerted, and as affairs become tense there can be means for placing it in this latter condition before a blow falls. We can build a civilian defence system and see that it is ready to cope with disaster.
The principal element of our preparation for possible surprise attack is an intelligence system of high effectiveness, capable of warning us clearly if an attack is being prepared. No iron curtain is utterly impenetrable. The operations necessary to set in motion a major surprise attack are ponderous and far-reaching. Dictatorship and oppression produce individuals who dare to flee and then dare to talk. . . . We need a modern intelligence agency in every sense of the word, using modern methods as they were partially developed during the last war, not a musical-comedy affair or a stodgy refuge, not even the half-successful affair we now have, but an organization qualified to meet our needs in this kind of world. It can cut down the threat of surprise attack. It does not cost much; by all means let us have it.
Then continuing he says:
We ought to know how to build it. . . But the really able men who functioned then-
That is, during the last war.
-have largely scattered into civilian life, the type of ability needed is rare, and the work is not attractive. The task can be done, by an individual of great mental and organizational capacity, having ample authority and the full backing of the President of the United States. As we value our peace of mind we had better be about it.
There, it seems to me, is a line of thought which suggests a new departure, a new element, in our over-all planning for defence. There is on the one hand the necessity for a radar screen to give warning against surprise; but there is the further suggestion of Dr. Bush that it is impossible and unrealistic to build up a complete defensive barrier around all the borders of your country but that your defence must be concentrated at key points. As all these points raise at least fresh thoughts, if not entirely new matters, it follows that in dealing with those thoughts and in working out the practical application of the solutions of the problems, a defence committee could contribute enormously to the work. But most important of all, as I have suggested before, a defence committee could bring to the supervision of that work the constant and co-operative effort of the best minds of those in all

sections of the country who are vitally interested in, and anxious to serve in working out, Canada's defence policy.


Mr. Ray Thomas (Welaskiwin):: I shall take only a moment or two, Mr. Speaker, but I should like to say that, in view of the international situation as it is today, I recognize not only the value but the necessity of setting up a committee such as the one suggested. It is true that under the estimates we have an opportunity of discussing these things; but it appears to me that the discussion on the estimates generally evolves into a political battle. The appointment of a committee would make it possible to have a wide open, heart-to-heart talk at its meetings, and as a result of these discussions, we could gain a great leal more useful information than we now get.
We realize, of course, that it would be impossible to expect to get any of the top secret information, but we could gain knowledge of material that would give us a much better understanding of Canada's defence position. This would help the average member greatly, in that he would be able to go back to his own constituency and give to the vet-srans' organizations there words of assurance backed by a knowledge of the facts. That is all I intend to say, Mr. Speaker. But in view af the situation, as I said before, we intend to support this motion.


Mr. Rodney Adamson (York West):: In
rising to support the amendment of the hon. aid gallant member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) I do so for one or two reasons which [ think the house will be interested to hear.
In the past the Minister of National Defence Mr. Claxton) has always opposed the setting ip of a defence committee. He has opposed it "or what appeared to him to be good reasons. He said that the setting up of committees in ;he congresses of the United States took away :rom the executive of that country executive powers of legislation. Were any committee to ae set up in this house which would take away "rom the executive the powers and the responsibilities of governing the country I too would 3e opposed to it and for the same reasons. However, that is not the case.
We have a parliamentary system under vhich the government controls the House of Commons, and the responsibility of govern-nent is directly through the house, which is ;ontrolled by the government. Therefore I ;ay, Mr. Speaker, that no committee set up lere could possibly take executive powers iway from the government. For that reason [ suggest that the previous main arguments if the minister are false. He advanced other irguments. He said that it would interfere vith the operation of the services; that it
14, 1950	741
Proposed National Defence Committee would jeopardize the free operation of the three armed services and would, in other words, cause inefficiency amongst the services. I feel that that also is an unwarranted assumption.
If the recent experience in the United States is of any value to us in Canada-and I suggest it is, and I am going to quote the reason why I suggest it is of value-it is this. The recent widely publicized quarrel, call it that, among the three services has done more to bring about unification of those services in the United States and to build good will now and in the future among those services than had the issue of the continued petty jealousies been suppressed and kept under cover.
There is another reason I come to, namely, the danger of the people of Canada considering the heads of the defence services as top brass. If there is any country in the world that loves peace it is Canada. There is no country in the world where the man on the back concession distrusts the brass hat as much as Canada. For that reason, and for that reason alone, I suggest that it would do an inestimable amount of good to give the heads of the three services, the technical experts, an opportunity to state, to this house and to the country, their case for the expenditure of $400 million.
In this connection I want to quote Albert Einstein on the military mentality. I shall quote one paragraph of what he had to say:
It Is characteristic of the military mentality that non-human factors (atom bombs, strategic bases, weapons of all sorts, the possession of raw materials, et cetera) are held essential, while the human being, his desires and thoughts-in short, the psychological factors-are considered as unimportant and secondary. Herein lies a certain resemblance to Marxism, at least in so far as its theoretical side alone is kept in view. The individual is degraded to a mere instrument; he becomes "human material." The normal ends of human aspiration vanish with such a viewpoint. Instead, the military mentality raises "naked power" as a goal in itself-one of the strangest illusions to which men can succumb.
There is considerable fear among the civilian population, among the peace-loving people of Canada, who want one thing only, namely, to be left alone, that the military mentality may upset them. Hon. members will recall that during the war men were referred to as bodies. They used to say: "Give us twelve bodies or fourteen bodies to do a certain job." This phrase became so prevalent that orders were issued from many headquarters stopping it. That I think shows the danger of the military mentality. If the military authority talks to a committee of the house, his problems and the problems of the defence of this country become a
742	HOUSE OF
Proposed National Defence Committee great deal more apparent, and I submit it would make the job of those whose business it is to create efficient fighting forces much easier, because of the sympathetic hearing they would have from the committee.
I feel that the experts should be allowed to tell their stories and to state their difficulties so that the information that we get in this house and pass on to the people would be complete or as complete as possible. Not only that, but the costs, the hundred and one different matters of defending this country would be dealt with in detail.
The committee in the United States, about which there was so much controversy, has recently made its report on unification. As the house will recall, the most bitter feelings between the United States navy and the United States air force were engendered by evidence given before that committee. The house will also recall the bitterness that existed between the two services. As I say, the committee has made its report. The report, except for one section, which had to do with one officer, Admiral Denfeld, was unanimously adopted. I will quote four of the most important sections.
They are of sufficient importance to quote verbatim to the house. Section 11 of the report had this to say:
A political body cannot of itself reach, through deliberative processes, final answers on professional military questions but must depend upon and encourage a continuation of the process of exploration, study, and co-ordination among our officers of the several services to preserve a satisfactory doctrine of defence, to have ready applicable plans, and to devise units, suitably equipped, to meet the most probable circumstances of any emergency. The significant thing is to ensure that the national-defence structure ensures adequate consideration of all professional views, especially during these early days of unification.
I may say that every word of that is germane to our situation in Canada, because we too are going through a unification of the three armed services, and we are also facing problems identical with those faced by the United States. There are two more paragraphs in the report, which form part of that section to which unanimous agreement was given by all thirty-three members of congress. While I commend the whole report to the house, section 22 is in these words:
Civilian control of the nation's armed forces is integrally a part of the nation's democratic process and tradition; it is strongly supported by the committee. But in supporting civilian control of the armed forces, the committee does not mean (1) preventing free testimony before congressional committees by members of the armed forces, or (2) the relegation of the United States congress to a bystander role in issues pertaining to the national defence.
Does this House of Commons want to be placed in the role of bystander in connection


with national defence? I do not think so.
Sections 30 and 31 deal with appropriations. Section 30 states:
The appropriations committee should augment its staff in order to keep in intimate touch with the development of national defence budgets, thereby easing the stresses and strains in the Pentagon and keeping the congress adequately informed on basic national defence planning as reflected in budgetary plans.
There is a definite suggestion that a committee of the house assist the high-ranking officers and act as intermediary between the congress and the three defence forces. I suggest such a body would be of great help in this country.
Then section 31 states:
The management committee of the Department of Defence should be placed under the direction of the comptroller of the Department of Defence on all fiscal and budgetary matters.
Those are four parts of the report which was produced, admittedly, after considerable heat and after the development of a good deal of bad feeling among the three services. It was, however, a report which, apart from one clause, was accepted unanimously by the thirty-three members who produced it. It has always been the supposition that the heads of defence departments, such as the chiefs of the general staff, the joint staffs committee and their subordinates or experts in the weapons production branches, would not be able to say anything concerning their knowledge of the services. Here again I disagree, and call as witness the United States chief of naval operations, Admiral Forrest P. Sherman, who has given a most extensive interview on a question and answer basis, to a periodical known as U.S. News, which is published in Washington and is of a semiofficial nature. I am sure the admiral would not have given the interview had he not had the full co-operation and consent of the executive and of the entire defence department in the United States.
These are the sort of questions the answers to which we would like to know in Canada. The head of the United States navy, and chief of naval operations, with the consent of his government, gave a most illuminating interview in which he answered many specific questions, just the kind we would like to have answered in this House of Commons. I believe hon. members would be interested in the kind of questions asked and the answers given. Here are some of them:
Q. Do we have an over-all plan? Is there an over-all strategy?
A. Definitely yes. There is and must always be an over-all plan and it must be revised each year in the light of the world situation and our military capabilities.

Then he goes on to discuss financial matters, which I shall not deal with at this time. Following that is a discussion of the subject which most interests the admiral, namely, the size of the United States navy and the decision to put the only battleship of that navy into a condition where it became a training ship, and would not be on active service.
With respect to # cruiser strength, the questions and answers are these:
Q. The other day we noticed in the papers that the decision to make the Missouri a training ship and, with the reduced cost, use part of the money for an extra carrier was cleared by you through the joint chiefs and the secretary of defence; is that a new procedure?
In his answer he proceeds to deal specifically with cruiser strength, in these words:
Since I have been here I have proposed to the joint chiefs of staff, and obtained their concurrence and the approval of the secretary of defence in three separate propositions;
The first was the retention of thirteen cruisers instead of twelve, in order to permit us to provide Admiral Conolly (Admiral Richard L. Conolly, Commander in Chief, U.S. Naval Forces, Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean) with a permanent flagship and also have six in each fleet for rotation to the western Pacific and the Mediterranean, on the basis of two ships in each relief, which came to a total of thirteen cruisers, as now required. This was instead of the twelve which had been agreed upon previously.
I quote that not because of its significance as part of the over-all defences of the United States but as an example of the detailed type of information which is being given by the highest authorities in the United States. Here is another question that was asked:
Q. How many landing battalions will that mean- eight?
A. Well, the commandant of the marine corps prefers, and I agree with him, that we talk in terms of marine divisions instead of the smaller components. The infantry battalions in each division will probably be more than three-nearly four. It will result in increasing the infantry component in each division by a third over what could have been accomplished otherwise. That will be done at the expense of service units, administrative units, security detachments, and so on.
Then he goes on to give further details. I submit that here are being given details about formations which we in this house and through us the country have every reason to expect will be given to us in regard to our own forces. There is a very pertinent thing here with regard to carriers and I quote:
Q. Is there any indication that the flush-deck carrier is the carrier of the future?
A. We believe we must eventually get into flush-deck carriers to handle the heavier and faster planes of the jet type.
There is information as to the different type of carrier that is necessitated by the heavier impact and faster landing of jet planes. I am sure the minister has read this article but I think hon. members will be interested in it.
Proposed National Defence Committee There follows a discussion of Russian reserves, and then there is reference to the reserves of the United States as follows:
Q. Are you satisfied with the progress you are making in maintaining reserves?
A. From what examination I have been able to make of the naval-reserve situation, I believe that our organized reserve is in a very healthy condition. Our voluntary reserve is quite large, but. of course, the effectiveness of the individuals is not being maintained to the degree that the organized reserve is. We have roughly 200,000 officers and men in the organized reserve and about 800,000 more in the volunteer reserve.
You might be interested to know that I have recently changed the organization of my office to make the assistant chief of naval operations for reserve matters responsible directly to me and thereby permit me to keep in very close touch with naval-reserve problems.
Then follow details as to numbers and classifications and types of reserves. Then the article goes on to deal with the Russian air force and the submarine question, and I want to quote the next question and answer:
Q. In case a war breaks out, would you have to wait for the reserve fleet to be taken out, or would you have enough strength to go ahead and start an initial blow with what ships you have? Would submarines, in other words, be able to stop our present navy?
A. That is a rather complicated question.
And later on:
We haven't as much anti-submarine strength as we would like to have. In the event of an emergency, we would need additional anti-submarine craft immediately-escort carriers, destroyers, patrol planes-all the elements of anti-submarine forces would have to be expanded very quickly. However, that situation would not cause us to delay using our offensive forces.
I have quoted these questions and answers because I feel that this is the sort of information our defence committee could obtain from the high officers in the armed services. There has been a candid admission of the situation with regards to the anti-submarine defences of the United States. If we had a candid admission that we needed so many more escort vessels, so many more radar screens, so many more anti-submarine devices, so many more submarines, or so many more of the other modern devices, hon. members of this house could go back to their constituents and say, "All right, it is going to cost us $400 million, or maybe more, but from the evidence given to me I know that if we want to preserve this country we have to have these things."
At the present time I cannot do that. I go back to my constituents and say that the minister has said so and so, but my constituents say, "The minister is a member of the government and is bound to say everything is O.K." I submit that it would create a more healthy position if members of this house could go back to their constituents and say that these expenditures were necessary because the information had been given in the

Proposed National Defence Committee committee on national defence. It would be information and not just a statement made by the minister standing in his place in the house and replying as briefly as possible to a question.
There are sombre, serious and even appalling possibilities in the hydrogen bomb. I should like to quote Professor Harrison S. Brown of the department of nuclear physics of the university of Chicago who I understand is one of the scientists working in the Argonne laboratories where the hydrogen bomb was either conceived or will in large part be put together and produced. He has this to say about the effectiveness of this weapon:
Few of us fully appreciate the enormous potentialities of the new weapon for destroying life. It has been stated many times that the bomb, if it works, can be used to destroy entire cities by the blast effects. That is horrible enough. But unfortunately the destructive potentiality of the hydrogen bomb does not stop there. If the bomb works at all, there may well be no upper limit to the size of the explosion that may be created.
Then he speaks about the calculations of the force of the explosion and goes on to say:
. . . the amount of destruction due to radioactivity from a hydrogen bomb could far exceed the destruction due to blast.
This extremely sombre statement follows:
If the hydrogen bomb works, technically speaking it is easy to visualize a series of explosions carried out along a north-south line at about the longitude of Prague, in Czechoslovakia. The radioactivity produced by the explosions would be carried eastward by the winds destroying all life within a strip 1,500 miles wide, extending from Leningrad to Odessa, and 3,000 miles deep, extending from Prague to the Ural mountains. By the time the radioactivity passed the Urals, the intensity would be lower, and the destruction would be less. By the time the Pacific had been crossed and the west coast of America reached, the radioactivity would not be dangerous. Many human beings could survive such an attack by protecting themselves with shielding and wearing gas masks to filter radioactive dust, but radioactivity is not specific against human beings. Animals and vegetation within the area would be destroyed. Such an attack would produce a scorched earth of an extent unprecedented in history.
The United States could be attacked in a similar manner. Hydrogen bomb explosions could be set off on a north-south line in the Pacific, approximately 1,000 miles west of California. The radioactive dust would reach California in about a day, and New York in four or five days, killing most life as it traversed the continent.
That, Mr. Speaker, is a statement of one of the principal nuclear scientists of the United States. Complete and absolute devastation of literally thousands of square miles and every living thing thereon is envisaged. Today we are spending $400 million on defence. We are spending some $600 million for all social security and welfare services. If this sort of weapon can be used against us all the money we spend on everything else other than national defence may be completely wasted. I suggest that this issue transcends every other


issue facing the Canadian people today. It is an issue on which we cannot afford to be kept in ignorance. If it is necessary even to double the expenditure on national defence in order to preserve our lives and to preserve Canada we should be told about it. We should know about it because in the hands of this parliament rests the responsibility for the peace, welfare and security of the Canadian people. I therefore support the amendment.


Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I have just three things to say, and I will say them in two minutes. The best preparation against war is the elimination of hate. I have heard cabinet ministers and the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), when addressing church organizations, say that the churches had the cure. What do the churches do? They believe in the providence and direction of the Almighty. They believe that peace will win, and if we can instil peace and love in the hearts of the enemy instead of hate we will win.
There is another thing I should like to say. I congratulate the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) on the fine display we saw last Saturday. I saw more than aeroplanes, and others did too. It was a chilly Saturday morning and some of us were cold. I thank the minister for the hot refreshments he served which warmed us from head to toe. A man like me could take lots of it because we could walk away as sober as when we came there. That suggests to me the thought that we have to be careful in the provision of stimulants to our youth under twenty or twenty-one years of age in the army, navy or air force. No man can give his best to his country if he cannot think clearly, and if a man has two, three, four or five hot Scotches in him then he does not think clearly. I do not drink because I do not like the look of some other people and how they act when they are under the influence. I do not like the taste and I have not a steady enough head to carry it.
Coming back to my first point, the best cure for war is to be found in the words of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, that great prime minister, that love is stronger than hate and faith is stronger than doubt. If we practise this we will drive out the devil of hate.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock. PRIVATE BILLS

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, March 7, consideration of the motion of Mr. Maybank

for the second reading of Bill No. 7, respecting Alberta Natural Gas Company, and the motion of Mr. MacDougall: "That this question be now put."
Mr. O. L. Jones (Yale):: Mr. Speaker, in speaking on this bill last week, I outlined the visible support in our province behind the suggestions we have made to the sponsor of the bill that the pipe line should go through British Columbia. Since then, I have had a great deal more evidence of the public support of our efforts in British Columbia. Boards of trade and other groups, as well as many individuals, have plied me with letters requesting that we carry on the fight to prevent this valuable natural asset from being taken to the United States. We have tried to answer those letters as best we could, but it has been difficult to explain why a private bill such as this apparently has a priority which I have never seen given any other private bill.
Naturally, one wonders why this is so. I do not know the reason behind it, but I am satisfied that the people who are fighting to have this pipe line taken directly to the United States are totally unaware of the possibilities this pipe line offers for developing our own country. I, therefore, put it down to possible ignorance or indifference. Perhaps it is due to the impression these people have that money can be made quickly by taking the gas to the United States. On the other hand, I believe a long-range policy of conservation, and utilization of this natural resource in our own country, would pay big dividends over a period of years. I can quite see why a private company is anxious to take this gas to the easiest market as quickly as possible, and as cheaply as possible. It is true that they may derive some immediate benefit from the profit point of view, but I assure you that the public of Canada as a whole, and particularly the people of British Columbia, would be the losers. Any recompense given by the ultimate consumer to the private company would bear no comparison with the benefits that could be derived if we were to use this gas in the development of our own country.
At times I wonder if we lack that pioneering faith we had in the early days, when the Canadian Pacific railway first decided to cross the country. I am sure if that company had come to this house, and requested approval of a route through Spokane, Tacoma and then possibly to Vancouver, it would have been turned down with scorn. I cannot conceive any government granting the privilege, nor can 1 conceive of any public-spirited body of men requesting that privilege of the government. It is true that the same arguments 55946-48
Alberta Natural Gas Company could have been used then as they are today. The Canadian Pacific could have said that there were several flourishing towns in the United States, filled with people who would use the passenger trains, freight trains, and so on. On the other hand, there was nothing on the prairie. Such a statement would have been correct. These men had vision. They could see a future for the territory through which that railway was going to travel. They could see hope for a bright future for the youth of that day. With men of vision at the head of the government, they entered into what has proven to be a major development in Canadian history, the bringing of the railway from east to west.
I am satisfied that modern youth is just as adventurous. It is as capable of developing the utilities and factories in the wake of a pipe line as our fathers were in developing things in the wake of a railway. The other night the member for Camrose (Mr. Beyer-stein) mentioned some of the possible developments that could follow in the wake of this gas pipe line. I have heard questions about the industries that could be developed, so I was pleased when he placed a list of them on the record. I should like to read what he said:
Visible in the west are the materials for every type of plastic, for virtually all the major industrial chemicals and electro-chemical products. There is, here, the material for rayon, for nylon, synthetic rubber, phenolic and cellulose plastics, carborundum, graphite, cyanamide, acetylene and its host of relatives.
He could very well have added other industries to the list. British Columbia has not only those raw materials, but many more and base metals that could be used if the power were available. I am thinking of a cheap power such as natural gas. Cheap power is one of the essential elements, if a modern industry is to produce for the competitive markets of the world. It is for that reason we are anxious to get this type of power in British Columbia. To the south of us, they are fully conscious of this fact. If one goes to Texas, or some of the other southern cities in which industries have been developed as a result of natural gas or oil, you will find enthusiastic, prosperous cities. I have in mind Houston, Texas. Recently I was talking with an engineer, and he pointed out that no Canadian university offers a course in petroleum engineering. I do not know of a single Canadian petroleum engineer. Most of them are Americans and work in the United States oil fields or overseas. This means that Canadians are entirely dependent upon information and technical instruments obtained from the United States in the development of our natural

Alberta Natural Gas Company resources. All this is the result of the fact there are no facilities for training petroleum engineers in Canada.
In the city of Houston there are 280 industries which owe their existence directly to the fact that natural gas was piped into the city. Each of those industries is large. I could mention several of them, such as explosives, chemicals, dyes, and so on, but anyone conversant with what is possible with natural gas and oil will know what I mean. I should like to read to you what an expert has to say about the possibilities. This expert, by the way, was speaking of the areas in the United States that are likely to benefit by the exportation of our natural gas over the border. He is W. Frank Prendergast, assistant to the president, public relations, Imperial Oil Limited, Denver, Colorado. He made the statement in October of last year, and I will quote it in part:
It Is impossible to predict at this time just how much the oil developments in Alberta will mean to your member areas, jointly and severally, as time goes on. Already they have meant a great deal to Alberta, to the prairies and to Canada and will mean more and more as the years pass. So far as you here in the United States are concerned it must be to your advantage to have a neighbour- that is a friendly neighbour-who is strong, and what country can call itself strong today if it is grievously deficient, as Canada has been, in petroleum?
Again, it should be encouraging to all of us to know that there are large new supplies of petroleum close at hand for many of us and accessible to all if required.
Then there are the enormous reserves of gas that I referred to-some 6,000 million cubic feet and much more in prospect. This might well become an available raw material for new industries in some of your member states as well as in Canada, or you may have materials south of the border which could be exported for manufacture or processing in a region so rich in gas.
That is one suggestion I should like to make, that we offer to our United States cousins facilities in this country to utilize the gas in the area in which it is produced rather than pipe the bulk of it out. The statement goes on as follows:
In that event Canada's improved exchange situation resulting from her lessened dependence on U.S. dollar oil might be of consequence.
Then he goes on to point out to this committee:
The area which you collectively represent is a continental area without the advantage of low-cost water carriage for its trade and commerce and so it faces more complex problems than areas which had the advantages of low-cost transportation from sources of raw materials and to major markets. Consequently its development-and I believe that in the next score of years it will be an enormous development-will set a pattern new in many important respects. It is a pattern that will evolve from the application of individual and collective imagination and initiative to the many problems and manifold opportunities. Of these opportunities


it seems to me that none today holds out a greater promise than the enormous new resources that are being found and developed in Alberta.
Some time ago those reserves were estimated at 5 billion barrels of oil and 6 billion cubic feet of gas, enough to carry on for many years if properly developed and conserved.
I have here another statement that I should like to read into the record, as to the approximate reserve that is available, because I am satisfied that we in this parliament are not conscious of it; otherwise we would not be hastily trying to get this bill through, knowing what will happen in the future. The statement, which by the way was written for this month's issue of Canadian National magazine, reads as follows:
With an estimated oil reserve of some 1,100 million barrels and reserves of 6,000 million cubic feet of natural gas in the province of Alberta, Canada is in the midst of the greatest oil and natural gas development in her history, according to S. W. Fairweather, vice-president of research and development. Edmonton, in one of the most active areas of oil exploration in the western hemisphere, is "oil capital" of North America.
In a concise, chronological report on the Canadian oil development, complete with maps and charts, Mr. Fairweather traces the development from the first oil discovery in the Turner valley in 1914 up to the present unprecedented activities.
The discovering of light oil near Leduc, 18 miles south of Edmonton, in 1947, is shown as the beginning of the present Canadian oil "boom." In less than a year, developments proved the presence of a major oil field extending from Leduc across the north Saskatchewan river to the Woodbend district. Up to the end of 1949, drilling in this field alone has indicated a reserve of 250 million barrels of oil and 500 billion cubic feet of natural gas.
Since the Leduc discovery, the railway economist declares, oil of a similar quality has been found "almost all around Edmonton;" at Joseph lake, Whitemud, Golden Spike, Barrhead, Bon Accord and Redwater. The Golden Spike discovery well is remarkable for a thickness of oil-bearing formation that exceeds 500 feet. The Redwater field, with an indicated reserve of 500 million barrels, is the largest oil pool yet discovered in Canada.
Fincher Creek, south of Calgary, has the deepest successful well ever drilled in Canada. It was recently brought into production at 12,500 feet with a record potential of 83 million cubic feet of wet gas per day.
The Lloydminster field, situated astride the Alberta-Saskatchewan boundary, which came into production in 1943, still constitutes the largest known reserve of heavy oil in Canada.
Exploration is now spreading into the sedimentary areas of British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and northern Alberta, Mr. Fairweather says. Oil in quantity was recently discovered by Imperial Oil, Limited, at Normandville, thirty miles south of Peace river and 210 miles north of Edmonton.
I have tried, Mr. Speaker, to indicate to you that this is a long-term proposition because of the vast known and potential reserves. I have tried to point out to you that here we have an asset which is equalled by no other that we know of in Canada today. While possibly wheat and timber have built up our

country up to the present time, this age is becoming more mechanized day by day; and day by day there is a greater demand for the products of Alberta oil and natural gas. Yet instead of conserving them and developing them to our interest and benefit, we are deliberately allowing them to be taken south of the border to be exploited by people whose interests are merely commercial ones for profit and are not those of Canadians. I feel that we should not only be looking forward now to replacing some of the spent wealth we have had-and we have spent it possibly recklessly-in timber, mines and so on; I believe we should be looking for some other source of wealth that would' be steady, and that we should profit by the experience we have had with regard to exploitation, and should conserve it and make it do its utmost to build up Canada. By proper conservation and development this very thing could be done, bringing a balanced economy particularly to us in British Columbia, in the interior, where we are dependent entirely on mining, lumbering and agriculture, and especially in the district from which I come where we depend mostly on fruit. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that we badly need that balance to our economy and we see here-and that is why I am fighting so hard-the very thing that would bring that balance and bring to our industries secure prosperity for years to come.
I understand that some objection has been made to the routes. Some say that it is too dangerous to have the pipe line alongside a railway on account of slides. I should like to point out that obviously the pipe would be on that side nearest the cliff; and the side nearest the cliff is usually the best protected from slides because they generally cross over. If the corner is protected

and the corner is protected, it is true-it slides over and takes the railway away. So the safest part for the pipe line obviously is not at the edge where it could be washed away but hugging the cliff where it is to a certain extent protected. But we are not entirely dependent on following the railway anyway. I do not believe that the route of the trans-Canada highway will have any very steep grades along any of its mileage through British Columbia. For all practical purposes it does not matter which one you decide on, the northern, the southern or the middle route. The three routes are of such a nature, so far as grade is concerned, that a pipe line could very well be put alongside the road through to Vancouver.
I hold in my hand a report which I should like to read if I had the time. It was made by Ford, Bacon and Davis for the Westcoast Transmission people. In this report they point 55946-48a
14, 1950	747
Alberta Natural Gas Company out that an ideal route lies between Edmonton and Vancouver, through the Yellowhead pass. These people are experts on that kind of thing. It is their declared and published opinion that that is an excellent and feasible route through which to reach Vancouver. I suggest that we could possibly ignore both roads and railways, if necessary, because I understand passes are now known, through which it would be possible to lay a pipe line, but I am not going into that. Suffice it to say that the engineers are on record as saying that they have a feasible route, a cheaper route than through the United States, to reach the coast.
Personally I would favour the government taking over the pipe line and controlling it, but I know that is dreaming. I know that the present government would not consider it; therefore I suggest the next best thing is for Canadians to control it by Canadian capital. Surely we in Canada can capitalize a pipe line. Why go to the United States for the capital? What is wrong with our banking system that it will not take a chance? What is wrong with our Canadian people that they will not take a chance? I am sure that if they studied the history of the United States pipe lines and found out what an excellent investment is has proved to be they would not have to go to the United States for one cent of capital for Canadian natural gas pipe lines.
Naturally money is available. I understand they can get all the money they want provided they get a charter and provided the route goes through U.S.A. territory. I know it is a good investment. It would be a good investment for the government. It would be a good method of control for the government. It would be definitely in the government's interest to have Canadians owning the line, paying their income tax and living in Canada, rather than have that immense wealth going to the United States, as it will.
This is not sentiment; this is business. I believe the government is anxious to look after its own business, and the pipe line is its own business. It is something that we as Canadians have inherited. It is something that we own now, that once taken away from us or given away, piped away or siphoned away, is lost forever. Our only chance of maintaining a hold on our own wealth is by withholding this bill or insisting that the nature of the bill be changed for our protection by saying that the route must be through British Columbia.
The other point that I would bring to the attention of the house is a very simple one. Just think what a development of this kind would mean in revenue to the people of
748	HOUSE OF
Alberta Natural Gas Company Canada. I saw the history of one pipe line in the United States that cost $180 million. But it started many industries in the territory that it served, amounting to over one billion dollars over a period of two or three years. That shows that the pipe line of itself is not where the wealth or the potential wealth is. It is in the industries that are created by the pipe line coming into the territory. It is that phase of the problem that worries me. It is true, we are worried about the pipe line itself. It is not so much the worry as the fact that we are wilfully, childishly and foolishly giving away such tremendous wealth through our ignorance of what it is possible to do in developing industries.
The government should take notice and if possible get this bill changed. After all, they are the trustees of the people. The people own these resources. The government as trustees have a duty toward the people. They have a duty to protect the wealth that is owned by all who are called Canadians. No other body but the government can do it. It would be in the best interests of the government of Canada and of the people to have this done. It would mean that we could start in British Columbia industries that could not possibly be started in this district or on the prairies. They could be started in British Columbia because we have a fine climate, an all the year round climate, where industries could flourish both summer and winter without the usual shutdown because of extremely cold weather.
While we on this side of the house are possibly taking a more active part in fighting this bill than those on the other side, it is not a political issue. It is not a political bill. It is a bill that is basically sound except for the fact that it has not a clause containing protection for Canada. We know we want development. We do not want to stop the pipe line being built. No. That is what the bill is going to do. I would like hon. members on the other side of the house to note that this is not a political issue, but I do think that the best interest of my province can be served by voting against this bill. Therefore I challenge them to do so in the interests of the people who have written to me from more than my own riding, calling on me to get others to help to kill this bill.
I could carry on but my time is nearly exhausted. I leave this thought with hon. members. Fifty years from now the economic history of this period will be written. Historians will talk of this period. If through neglect, or through indifference, we allow this wealth to cross the border they will look back on this particular parliament and this


particular period in our economic development and say, "What stupid people they were; they did not know what they were doing." To avoid that stigma in the future we can, before it is too late, insist that this company insert a clause in the bill promising faithfully to take the route through British Columbia, and give us first access to our own natural wealth.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, this is a bill to incorporate certain named individuals under the name of Alberta Natural Gas Company. The bill gives that company various powers, including the power to construct and operate pipe lines both for natural gas and for oil within and outside Canada. In other words, there is no restriction on the area in which this company can construct these pipe lines.
Of course, as we all know, the incorporation is sought in order that the incorporators, and their associates, may pipe natural gas, and also crude oil, from the province of Alberta to the Pacific coast. The great question the bill raises is this. Should these pipe lines serve Canadians first, or Americans? Or, putting it another way, shall the export of gas and oil to the United States be limited to the surplus after Canadians have been supplied? That question cannot be evaded by parliament. It must be faced; and the only opportunity to do so is when this or the other bill with a similar object is brought before us.
I am particularly and genuinely concerned, as I believe hon. members will appreciate, because it is my view that if parliament permits Canadian gas and oil to be piped out to the United States, without requiring that it first be supplied to the people of British Columbia, such action will constitute the worst betrayal of the people of that province since confederation.
May I warn members from some of the other provinces. Let us first take those from Saskatchewan. They may find the next step will be that instead of their towns being supplied with natural gas that gas will be sent down into the United States, to the south. Let me warn members from Quebec and the maritime provinces. They may find that these huge reserves of iron ore which are being developed, and which are now available in northern Quebec, may not be used in their provinces, but may be sent down to the New England states or through the St. Lawrence to the United States steel ports on lake Ontario. At present the people of British Columbia are the ones who are in jeopardy;

but if the principle behind this bill is accepted by parliament, then similar things may very well happen in other parts of Canada.
It is now perfectly clear that there are two alternatives. Before dealing with them, however, let me point out two things: In the first place it is admitted that there will be only one pipe line to the Pacific coast for natural gas. There may be another pipe line for oil; indeed, I believe there will be. But everyone admits that the market will support only one pipe line for gas. Secondly, it is admitted that the route used for the natural gas pipe line is almost certain eventually to have the pipe line for oil. It would be ridiculous to have a completely different pipe line route for crude oil. These two facts must be borne in mind in considering the arguments put forward on this question.
I said there were two choices. The first alternative with which I shall deal is that offered by the people behind this proposed company, the Alberta Natural Gas Company. They have attempted on two former occasions to get incorporation from the Canadian parliament, and on both occasions have failed because they proposed to build their line largely through the United States.
What are their plans? No secret is made of their intentions. Different statements have been made in the press. Three or four years ago promoters told me all about it in this building, and told other members who were here at that time. They have made no secret about what they intend to do. Their route is to be from southern Alberta through the Crowsnest pass into the district of Kootenay East, and then east of Kootenay lake the line will swing south into the state of Washington. It will continue across that state, eventually serving the great cities of Seattle, Tacoma and Portland, and en route serving such cities as Spokane, Wenatchee and other small American cities. Apparently there are to be two stub-lines running north into British Columbia. There may be only one, namely, that serving Vancouver. There is, however, talk of a stub-line running up into Trail.
In other words British Columbia enters into the picture only for a short distance through the Crowsnest pass and East Kootenay, and then by way of two stub-lines running up to the north from the main pipe line. They propose to go direct to the main market which, it is admitted, is in the states of Washington and Oregon. That is the last large district not served at the present time by a natural gas pipe line.
I have here the December issue of Fortune in which hon. members will find an interesting article entitled, "Natural gas, whoosh!".
14, 1950	749
Alberta Natural Gas Company Portions of it were read the other day by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Her-ridge). I shall not read them again, but I shall refer to one paragraph dealing with the Pacific northwest which states:
The Pacific northwest, which is now entirely on manufactured gas, also provides a large potential market for natural gas, but is left out of this calculation because it will probably pipe in its gas from the newly discovered bonanza fields in Alberta, Canada.
So that this company is proposing to go direct to this American market with this Canadian resource. The people behind the company make no pretence whatever about developing Canada; they aim to sell where there is a market. Then, at the end of the line, they will put in a stub, up to Vancouver. That means that we will pay there the highest price of all, because we are at the end of the line.


Mr. Cruickshank:: If there is any left.


Howard Charles Green: Yes, if there is any left. It will mean that very little employment will be furnished to Canadians in the construction of the pipe line, because nearly all of it is to be laid in United States ground. It means also that once the pipe line goes over the United States border it is beyond Canadian control. In other words we will get gas in Vancouver subject to the approval of some United States authorities. We will get Canadian gas in Vancouver subject only to the approval of an American authority. No treaty has been negotiated with the United States under the terms of which provision is made that this gas must be piped back into Canada. And if there is a shortage at any time-well, out in Vancouver we are at the end of the line, and we would get what is left. Only the Vancouver area, a small area in East' Kootenay and possibly Trail will be served. The rest of our province will have to go permanently without natural gas and crude oil.


George Alexander Cruickshank: For all time.


Howard Charles Green: Because there is to be only the one pipe line.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The team is working very well tonight, the chorus over here.


Mr. Smith (Calgary West):: The minister is the best judge of that that I know of.


George Alexander Cruickshank: We are working for British Columbia, not for Ontario.


Howard Charles Green: One thing about the hon. member for Fraser Valley is that he is working in the interests of the people of British Columbia. Let us consider the crude oil situation and the alternative suggested by the company which seeks incorporation this

Alberta Natural Gas Company evening. Under their plan the crude oil would be refined in the United States, not in Canada. When an oil pipe line is put in it will end at Seattle or Tacoma; the refinery will be located there and the people of British Columbia will be buying the products made from Canadian crude oil. So much for the first alternative.
A year ago the Westcoast Transmission Company Limited came here for a charter which was granted, but they gave an undertaking in the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines that they would build their line in Canada first.


Clarence Decatur Howe: How does that bill read?


Howard Charles Green: That company is now actually applying in Alberta for leave to construct the pipe line in Canada first. When their representatives appeared before the committee I cross-examined them and we got an assurance that the pipe line would be built in Canada first. Otherwise they would not have got a charter any more than the Alberta Natural Gas Company could get one then.


Clarence Decatur Howe: How does their charter read?


Howard Charles Green: It reads in the foolish way decided upon by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, just as the other charters read. If the minister had been protecting the interests of Canada he would have insisted that each group of applicants put in the charter a stipulation that they would serve the Canadian people first.
This second alternative is to construct a pipe line commencing at Edmonton and then going west through the Edson-Jasper district. I was amused the other night to hear the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Macdonald) move that the question on the other pipe line bill be now put, seconded by the hon. member for Jasper-Edson (Mr. Welbourn). The districts which those gentlemen represent stand to benefit greatly if this pipe line is built in Canada first. I wonder what their constituents will think of them when they find out they took the action they did the other night?
The pipe line would then go through the Yellowhead pass, which is nearly one thousand feet lower than the Crowsnest pass. It would continue on to Kamloops in British Columbia. I would point out to the two hon. gentlemen to whom I referred a minute ago that in order to build a pipe line a highway must be constructed. Only last fall the hon. member for Edmonton East was shouting his head off about having the trans-Canada highway go through Edmonton and on through the Yellow-head pass. Here is a chance for him to get


his highway built by the pipe line company and also maintained by the company in all seasons. Yet we find the hon. member standing up here and moving a motion to force through the United States route.
The plan is to run the pipe line from Kamloops down over the Princeton-Hope highway to the upper end of that wonderful district known as the Fraser valley. It would coritinue through Fraser valley and into greater Vancouver. There would be a branch from Fraser valley down to the United States, and there would be another branch running from Kamloops, down into the Okanagan valley through that wonderful fruit-growing district and then into Trail. It would continue south from Trail to serve Spokane and the atomic energy plant at Hanford, Washington.
Testimony was given in Calgary just a few weeks ago that this route is feasible and would be just as cheap to build as the one going almost entirely through the United States. There is another feature which has great attraction for the people of British Columbia. The Westcoast Transmission Company Limited plans to establish a gathering system in the Peace river district of British Columbia and Alberta to pick up the natural gas and carry it down to the main line running through the Yellowhead pass. That will mean that Prince George will have natural gas and it may mean that Prince Rupert on the coast will also have the advantage of natural gas. It must be remembered always that not only is there natural gas involved; crude oil also comes into the picture. If the Peace river district does not have this outlet to the main pipe line running through Canada I predict that it will be decades before that district will be able to get its natural gas and oil to market and have these resources developed as they should be.
I do not think there is an hon. member in this house who does not clearly realize what such a plan will mean to British Columbia and the Peace river district of Alberta. Many small industries will be located in the little settlements. Employment would be created by the building of the line on Canadian soil. The unemployment situation in British Columbia has been worse this winter than in any other part of Canada. Our percentage of unemployed has been higher and this condition is likely to exist each winter. We need some development project which will give employment, and this pipe line proposition would be splendid for that purpose.
As I pointed out a few minutes ago, it would mean cheaper gas because we would get it first. I have here a press dispatch

dated February 18 which refers to the evidence given before the conservation board in Calgary. It reads:
All-Canada Pipe Line Route means Cheaper Gas In B.C.
Vancouver will get cheaper gas than United States cities if the proposed natural gas pipe line becomes an all-Canadian route to the coast.
Conversely, if the gas is piped through to Vancouver by way of the United States, it could cost more here than in United States cities. Testimony of the Westcoast Transmission Company before the Alberta natural gas and petroleum board here revealed that total cost of transporting gas from Edmonton to Vancouver will be 23-3 cents per thousand cubic feet.
This company, which is applying to build a line from Edmonton through northern B.C. to Vancouver and then one to the United States, pointed out that the cost of gathering it will be 5-9 cents per thousand feet, bringing the total Vancouver cost to 29-2 cents. U.S. points, though, will have to pay an additional 6-4 cents per thousand, bringing the cost there to 35-6 cents.
The costs of this Canada-first route would be paid largely by the United States because they are going to buy most of the gas. Canada has control throughout until the surplus gas finally leaves our country. Gas by this route will command a larger sum of United States dollars than if it goes any other way because the Americans have to pay for its being transported that much further in Canada.
As for oil, this plan is the best one for the use of crude oil going to the west coast. Most of the oil in Alberta is in the Edmonton district. The shortest distance from Edmonton to the coast is through the Yellowhead pass, and that is the normal way in which oil should go. I think I am soon going to have the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Macdonald) converted. As I said before, the Westcoast Transmission Company Limited would never have got their charter if they had not given a pledge that they would build their route in Canada first. Yet they have no prior rights on this route. Any other companies have the same chance if they wish to take it, or to take any other Canada-first route. I am sure there will be no objection in the house from any of the hon. members who have been protesting against these particular measures if the applicants give an undertaking that they propose to build in Canada first.
The Alberta Natural Gas Company is not interested in developing Canada. Why should it be? It is a subsidiary of a United States company, the Northwest Natural Gas Company.


Arthur Leroy Smith: A Delaware corporation.


Howard Charles Green: Their purpose is to get into the United States market, and to get there just as quickly as it is possible to do so.
Alberta Natural Gas Company
Naturally very strong opinions on this question are held in the province of British Columbia. All of those opinions are in favour of this Canada-first route.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Except the Liberal members of the house.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Some of them.


Howard Charles Green: After all, one route misses most of the province of British Columbia and the other route serves most of our province. First of all let me give you the opinion of the government of British Columbia. The Hon. Gordon Wismer, our attorney-general, appeared before the conservation board in Calgary about a month ago, and there he asked the board to give a licence to the Westcoast Transmission Company Limited. Dealing with the reasons he gave, the newspaper article reads:
He urged that Canadian provinces be given priority over the United States who also want to buy Alberta natural gas. "We are strongly supporting the proposal that such a line be through British Columbia, and then, if sufficient gas is available, to the northwest United States," he said. "This route will assure that the domestic and industrial requirements of the people of B.C. will get first consideration. More important," he added, "a northerly route will assure greater industrial development in northern Alberta and throughout B.C. This northerly route would run through the northeastern area of B.C. The Peace river block contains about 50 million acres of potential oil and gas land," he said.
The provincial minister of lands took the same position in the provincial legislature just two weeks ago. The newspaper article refers to what the Hon. E. T. Kenney had to say and reads in part:
Stressing the importance of any attempt to pipe natural gas to the lower mainland from Alberta, Mr. Kenney said the public of this province should actively support the all-Canadian route of Westcoast Transmission Limited. Utilization of this route would mean Vancouver would be getting gas before it was piped into west coast cities in the United States instead of being at the end of the line. It would also mean a shorter line from Edmonton and would make more feasible tapping of gas reserves in B.C.'s Peace river district.
Another article refers to what Mr. Kenney had to say as follows:
Turning to the question of a gas pipe line from Alberta, Mr. Kenney saw the potential development of B.C.'s industry set back for "many, many" years if the line does not come through B.C.
The same stand has been taken by the press on the coast. I do not know of one paper which has not backed us up in the fight to have the line go through British Columbia first. I have editorials here from the Vancouver News-Herald, and the Vancouver Sun, both endorsing the stand we have taken and urging the people of British Columbia to insist that the line must go through their province first.
752	HOUSE OF
Proposed National Defence Committee
Here in this house we have the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) taking a stand in the interests of his province, taking the stand that is taken by the people from one end of the province to the other. The only voices raised against us are the rather feeble ones of several Liberal members from British Columbia.
We have the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. MacDougall) getting up and moving a motion that the question be now put as to this very measure, and we have his motion seconded by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Goode). We have the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Mott) applauding their action, and we have the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Campney) actively supporting this particular bill. Of course these men must make their own decisions, but when I see them acting in this way I cannot help thinking of the late Ian Mackenzie, the late Gerry McGeer, and men like Senator Tom Reid and A. W. Neill of Comox-Alberni. Time after time when questions concerning the province of British Columbia were under consideration those men stood up here and proved that they were British Columbians first before they were Liberals.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Nine o'clock.


Howard Charles Green: Yes, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) has had about enough. In this question there is not any doubt where the interests of British Columbia lie. I point out to those particular members whom I have mentioned that this is a private bill. There is no question of a motion of want of confidence in the government; this is a private measure.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I must inform the hon. member that it is nine o'clock.
On motion of Mr. Green the debate was adjourned.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being nine o'clock, the house will resume the business that was interrupted at six o'clock.

The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Abbott for committee of supply.



PROPOSED SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL DEFENCE

Mr. H. O. White (Middlesex East):: Mr. Speaker, in rising tonight to take part in this debate which has been brought about by the amendment of the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes), I do not do so because of my intimate knowledge of matters of defence but because of the people whom I represent, the man in the street who pays


and pays. So long as it assures peace, any price that we may pay for preparedness will not be too great. The past has demonstrated that unpreparedness has always brought us war. The price that we as Canadian people are prepared to pay for national defence should not necessarily be an open door to careless spending of the people's hard-earned money. Every dollar should be conserved and wisely spent.
The parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Mcllraith) went out of his way this afternoon to explain something about patronage, and other things that were happening. I am wondering whether what he said to us was not a clever way of changing the old political pork barrel into a study group. It was one of the most astute moves we have seen in this house, but I am afraid the net result is going to be the same.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is what he said, there had been no change.	,


Harry Oliver White: A moment ago I said I was speaking for the man in the
street, the man who pays the bill. I believe I can say to the Department of National Defence that the government, with the gloved hand on one side and the mailed fist on the other, extracts the necessary dollars by one means or the other from the taxpayer. When we realize that in 1938 about $480 million ran the government of the country, while today it takes about $400 million for the Department of National Defence alone, we can see how taxes must have increased. Do not get the idea I am complaining about the amount spent, but I do want to see that it is spent wisely and well.
I intend to deal with this matter of national defence as it applies to my riding, and I intend to mention the airport at London, Ontario. Most of you will recall a tragedy that occurred there not long ago when a Dow Chemical Company plane crashed, and a company official lost his life. This accident resulted from the inadequacy of the equipment at that airport, not because of any failure of the personnel at the airport. An ice storm was in progress, and the plane got into difficulties because of icing conditions. No emergency power development equipment was available at the airport to take the place of the hydro, which had failed because of this ice storm. I believe that applies not only to the airport at London, but to every airport over which the Department of Transport exercises control. Emergency power development equipment should be available at these airports, and particularly those that are served by rural hydro lines, because there is

greater danger of power failure on rural lines when these places are so far from the transmitting stations.
After that accident an inquiry was held, but so far there has been no improvement in conditions at the airport. The report of the inquiry resulted, more or less, in a whitewashing of the conditions at the airport. We have heard a great deal about aeroplanes, airlines, and these North Star planes. The runways at the London airport are not long enough to permit these North Stars to land. They have been able to go everywhere in the world but to London, Ontario. The newly acquired jet F-86 is not able to land at that airport, and so it will not be available to the student pilots who are being taught at the R.C.A.F. station there. Recently one of the high-ranking officials of the air force was reprimanded because he said that the F-86 would be available to students across the country. If the government purchases 100 of these planes, and they are not going to be available to student pilots, they will become obsolete before they can be used. If a great deal of money is to be spent buying these planes, let us equip the airports so that they can be used.
While I am on the subject of training, I understand that the Harvard trainer is still being used. It was a good trainer in its day, but the step from a Harvard trainer to a jet fighter is too great a step for a pilot to take. In other words, as a trainer, the Harvard is as extinct as the dodo. I should like to stress the fact that the tragedy which occurred at the London airport was not caused by the failure of any personnel, but was due to the lack of emergency equipment.
Mention was made today of the flying demonstration at Rockcliffe last week. Many hon. members will recall that two or three years ago we went to Rockcliffe one cold winter's day to see a Vampire jet demonstrated. From what I can learn, the whole program has been a miserable failure. If this last demonstration was merely for publicity, a bit of a fanfare to show the people what is being done with the $400 million, I think the people are going to be bitterly disappointed. I hope this demonstration will show greater results than the one witnessed by the members of parliament two or three years ago.
During the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, I mentioned the cost of national defence. Tonight, I should like to mention the fleet air arm. Canada has one aircraft carrier, with approximately 70 or 80 planes. A complete staff is maintained for the fleet air arm, just the same as for the Royal Canadian Air Force. There is no reason
14, 1950
Proposed National Defence Committee in the world why the fleet air arm should not be united with the Royal Canadian Air Force, thus eliminating this tremendous expense. It would probably be as efficiently or more efficiently administered. While I am mentioning that, I should like to refer to the difficulties that have arisen in the United States over the unification of the three branches of the armed services. I believe it is most important that Canada eliminate this duplication of services, and develop more efficiency, so far as it is possible, in our defence forces.
During an earlier speech, I mentioned the Royal Military College. Recently the answers to some questions regarding Royal Military College at Kingston were tabled in my name. During the first 16 months of its operation, it has cost $1,406,998. There are somewhere between 90 and 116 civilian employees, 26 military personnel, and about 100 students. This seems to be a heavy expense to build up a military caste in this country. The reason I say that is that we have some of the finest universities in the world, and they are properly equipped and are able to train our officers, as they demonstrated during the last war. Then when the men go out into the practical field they do not have to be graduates of a military college in order to get a job. That is a serious situation. We are hoping that we in Canada were getting away from the European plan of doing things. But that step back to the old military caste system that prevailed in many European countries, and which prevails today, results in discrimination against some of the ablest men that our universities have turned out. I say that without fear of successful contradiction because of the fact that last week I talked to some of these very men who have been through one or two wars and who complimented me on the stand I had taken on that particular matter.
I will put this fact on the credit side of the ledger. They tell me that recruiting is good. We are in need of skilled tradesmen in all branches of the armed forces. Our universities and technical schools are equipped and prepared to give that type of instruction. Let us take advantage of the facilities we already have and for which we as taxpayers are paying. The universities are looking for state aid, municipal, provincial and federal. If the state is to maintain them, I think the state should use them to the greatest possible advantage.
One of our greatest faults in the matter of defence is that we prepare for each war on the basis of the one we fought previously instead of on the basis of the one we are going to fight. I can recall that when I was

Proposed National Defence Committee in the army men were being trained with guns that were used in South Africa; and during the last war men were being trained with military equipment that was used in the war of 1914-18. We should be looking forward, not backward, in considering how to win and keep the peace.
I should say also that these young men who are joining the defence forces should be equipped with the best available material of all kinds, not with old and obsolete equipment. On the credit side of the ledger I should also mention the new CF-100,-an allCanadian plane built by Canadian enterprise -the transport jet with military potentialities; and it can possibly be used to great advantage. I wish to support the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) in his amendment to set up a committee to study the various phases of our national defence program.


Mr. J. A. Ross (Souris):: I rise, Mr.- Speaker, to offer a few remarks in support of the motion made this afternoon by my colleague the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes), and so well supported by him in his arguments. As was pointed out by one of those who spoke this afternoon, I think it is rather significant that the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), when he was minister of national defence in 1945, stated in this house that he favoured a committee on national defence such as the one which has been suggested. If the minister in his important portfolio today was of that opinion in 1945, surely, with the gigantic expenditures that this government are now proposing on the matter of national defence-almost $420 million-he should be of that opinion at this time.
Most people who have been associated with national defence realize that, no matter how careful you may be, there is great wastage, which arises from the fact that equipment rapidly becomes obsolete, which cannot be avoided. That in itself involves great expenditures.
Much has been said about the atom bomb and the hydrogen bomb. I am sure that all people are fearful of the consequences of that invention, especially if there should be another war; and God forbid that there ever should be another one. But we must prepare for war in order to try to prevent it. I am sure that many of the students of warfare and of national defence are of the opinion that, should a third great war break out, we in Canada would find ourselves in the position in which Belgium found itself in the last two great wars; and that is not a pleasant picture to contemplate. Many people today hold that belief.
(Mr. White (Middlesex East).]
With respect to a recent newspaper report to the effect that a considerable number of Liberal members had been requesting some element of patronage in connection with national defence-and I have pointed out the great expenditure to be made this year, in the amount of some $420 million-I understand that some explanation was made this afternoon by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, in which he pointed out that this had only been a study club, with an official invited in. I realize that we are living in an exceedingly fast age, with fast-changing conditions; but surely if we are to have study clubs set up to study the most modern pork-barrel methods, it is really something new.
I said something about the position of the Minister of Finance. I really think that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) and the government will accept this motion, which was so well proposed by my colleague this afternoon. I want to quote some of the remarks of the Minister of National Defence which appeared in Maclean's magazine of March 1, 1943, in an article entitled "What's Wrong with Parliament?" He said:
One reason why parliament has not functioned better is that 245 members-
We have, of course, many more members than that today.
-cannot get down to close grips with a subject. Also there is not enough time for the whole house to deal with everything. Hence, the practice of referring specific matters to committees for study and report should be extended . . .
To be effective a committee must be small, not more than fifteen. Its members should be selected because of their interest in the subject rather than solely because of other considerations like province, race or religion. Committees should be set up early in the session and bring in their reports early, before the last-minute rush.
That argument was fairly well covered in speeches this afternoon.
The committee on war expenditures has done exceedingly useful work but it has been suggested that it has been handicapped by lack of technical assistance. A committee of this character should have attached to it one or two full-time people who are competent to prepare the material as is done at both Westminster and Washington. Without such assistance the committee is largely in the hands of the interested department.
How true that has proved to be in this House of Commons!
Committees should sit regularly on matters like manpower and labour, financial and economic questions, reconstruction, external affairs and information, munitions and supplies, agriculture, the navy, the army and the air force.
I wonder if that is not the particular subject that we are discussing right now.
The United States senate has forty-seven committees exercising great power. We do not need anything like that number. The close connection

of our executive with our legislative branches makes it unnecessary. Fifteen working committees of our house, most of them only meeting through half the session, would do the job. My fifth point, therefore, is:
5. Whenever possible a matter of major importance should be referred to a committee of parliament and where necessary the committee should be provided with adequate research assistance.
These are the remarks of the present Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton), which were published in Maclean's magazine on the date that I have given. In view of these remarks, and the very able arguments set forth this afternoon, I would think that certainly now he would be prepared to accept the motion so well pressed by my colleague this afternoon.


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Speaker, this debate, which arose today, seems to have followed the expression of the hope made by the government leader of the house last night, namely, that the defence estimates might be dealt with on Friday next. That was my hope, just as it was my hope that they would have been dealt with on Friday last and the Friday before that, but in view of the progress being made in the house it did not prove possible.
This debate has anticipated the debate that might have occurred on the defence estimates next Friday, which I hope will still take place. On that occasion I hope to give a pretty comprehensive statement about our national defence. Tonight I should like to deal with one or two impressions that' hon. members have endeavoured to create: one, that the estimates of the Department of National Defence could not have been adequately discussed in the last three years because they were presented late.
In the first place I should like to say that during these last three years the estimates have been brought down just as soon as it was possible for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) to bring them down. Secondly, from the time when they were brought down officials of the Department of National Defence and myself were ready to discuss our estimates just as soon as the parliamentary program would permit us to do so. In the third place I should like to say that in 1947 defence estimates were discussed on the 9th and 10th of July; in 1948 on the 24th and 25th of June; and in 1949 on the 11th, 18th and 24th of November. In each of those three years they were discussed well before the terminal pressure of the conclusion of the government's program and the business of parliament. Indeed on the 11th, 18th and 24th of November they were discussed through some thirteen hours, and I never heard-and I was present throughout-any indication that the indefatigable member for Calgary East was
14, 1950	755
Proposed National Defence Committee suppressed or hushed in any way. If he was, then he was not doing his duty as a member of parliament.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I was not suppressed, but there were great efforts at it.


Brooke Claxton: No; so long as the hon. member is not suppressed, then I can say that parliament is functioning in its proper and norma] fashion with regard to the discussion of defence estimates, or of any other estimates. Throughout these discussions hon. members opposite, hon. members on this side of the house, and hon. members in every part of the house, spoke their minds, asked their questions, and I believe the record will bear out that they got answers.
As a basis for this appeal to change our constitutional system-because it is nothing less than that-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Brooke Claxton: -it is suggested that they sought information and it was refused. That kind of thing has been about the only pattern that one can find throughout the remarks of the members of the opposition today. If you look through the record, Mr. Speaker, you will find that that is not so. You will find that on the two or three occasions on which information has been refused for reasons of security, that has been in accord with the practice in this house and in accordance with the practice of the parliament at Westminster, which we frequently follow, because we regard it as the mother of parliaments; and we regard our parliamentary system, with all respect to all others, as much better than any of them. We feel also it is desirable that we should try to preserve that system and make it work just as well as possible.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Quite a few instances were put on the record last year and once before to show that that was not the case.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Brooke Claxton: The hon. member mentions that. I have the instances here. I have a full record of all this business with regard to the refusal of information, and the charges by the opposition. I can tell my hon. friend that in this house we have given far more information in answer to questions, and also in speeches and white papers, than is customarily the practice in the houses of the other members of the commonwealth of nations.
I should like to suggest to the house that this charge of refusing to give information is rather flattering, rather complimentary to the work of the armed services of Canada, and of the Department of National Defence. They do not seem to find much wrong either with the services or with the department, and so

Proposed National Defence Committee they say that we are not giving them anything with which to enable them to attack us properly in the way in which they would like to see us attacked. I should like to say this, and I say it without fear of possible contradiction, that never in the peacetime history of our country have this house and the country been given more information about defence than over the past three years.
Hon. members will recall that in introducing the estimates at the last session of parliament on November 11 we tabled a white paper. Then I made a statement in some detail, and those two supplemented the annual report which was tabled on October 19, four or five months before the annual report of the department was ordinarily tabled, the report giving more information in a more palatable form than ever before in the history of the department. Then we had three days' discussion in the house. At the end the estimates were voted, and there was considerable time for the hon. member for Calgary East or any other hon. member to raise any questions they wanted to. They could have been raised even that night, because we did not take up until eleven o'clock on the evening of November 24, or they could have raised them at any other time. But they did not raise their voices then. They raise them now.
I repeat that never in the peacetime history of this country have this house and country been given more information about our national defence. Also I should like to suggest to you, sir, that what I said before-that we are now giving more information on defence than is customary in the United Kingdom or in any other country of the commonwealth-should be perhaps a matter of some concern, on the ground that we are going too far.
However I feel, as hon. members do, and as the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) does, and as hon. members in every part of the house do, that all possible information must be given, so that we can judge whether or not what we are doing is right, and whether or not moneys voted by hon. members here is being properly spent.
I can assure you, sir, that a very great part of the time of those in the department and of the officers in the services is spent in trying to see that we, the members of parliament and the taxpayers of Canada-because we are all taxpayers, and so are they-are getting the utmost value for the defence dollar.
But I should like to suggest, as hon. members have been frank and honest and fair in suggesting, that this is an exceedingly difficult problem-now, probably, more than ever before. On that account we need the help of all hon. members.
[Mr. Claxton.l
I welcome their criticism and their suggestions, and so do the officers and men of the armed forces. But you must not expect the impossible. We cannot foresee what the future will bring forth. We cannot foresee if war will come, or when it will come. We cannot foresee the development of events, the development of new applications and of new inventions so accurately as to be right all the time.
What we can do is try to do the job with which we were entrusted under our constitutional system, and that is to try to spend the money voted by you for the people of Canada in the best and most effective way possible. Today we heard hon. members carry on their fight for a committee on defence. I have heard the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) refer again to what I said years ago; and I heard the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton), I believe it was, say that this case had never been met.
May I suggest that hon. members and others interested should look at Hansard for May 30, 1946; February 13, 1947; June 24, 1948; April 4, 1949; November 3, 1949; and November 24, 1949, so as to see what kind of difficulty the proposition now before the house presents to any responsible government trying to work a system of government within the large framework of what we call, and are proud to call, British parliamentary institutions.
It is perfectly clear from the speeches of hon. members today, as on those previous occasions, that what they want is a committee to deal with defence matters of the same character and having the same powers, and subject possibly to the same criticism, if it comes within our system, as a committee of the congress of the United States. I have the utmost respect for our good neighbours to the south, and for their system of government. I have no word of criticism to say about any of it. But I do say it is not our system; and before you begin to introduce bits of their system into our system, or before some reformers in the United States should introduce, as sometimes has been suggested, bits of our system into their system, the people who are responsible for the continuing of the kind of government which each country has found to work well should examine the proposition cautiously and coldly.
I put my attitude about this on record in the issues of Hansard to which I have referred, and I do not wish to weary the house by going over them again. But I do suggest that there is a fundamental difference in the American system of government from ours, in that the president is elected for a fixed term of years; that the cabinet is responsible, not to the people through congress, but to the president; that the members of the cabinet do

not meet congress; and that consequently in the United States it has been found necessary to devise a means whereby the executive meets with the people's representatives in congressional committees.
Now, I do not say that is a good thing or a bad thing. But I say it is almost inevitable, from the kind of constitution they have, that that result should be followed. And I do say further that a similar kind of procedure, if it results in a committee of parliament having anything like the powers of a committee of congress, would defeat our kind of government, and is unnecessary under our kind of government. Here the members of the government are appointed because the party they represent holds a majority in the House of Commons. They meet parliament every day. They are responsible collectively for the exercise of the functions of government, and they are responsible through parliament every day to the people.
So that we do not need this device that is so essential, or regarded as essential, in the United States. When I spoke before about this I said there was not a committee of the kind suggested by members of the opposition in any commonwealth country of which I was aware, and certainly not in the United Kingdom. I was taken to task for that statement by the Globe and Mail, that very dispassionate and accurate and non-partisan paper, in an editorial in the issue of November 30, 1949. That editorial concluded with these words:
A committee-or a' subcommittee, it does not matter which-to study the government's defence plans and learn about them from chiefs of staff and other informed persons is what is asked for. Mr. Claxton says this cannot be done because it is not done in London. But it is in fact done in London.
The Globe and Mail pinned this statement on the existence of a committee on estimates in the United Kingdom. That committee on estimates has a number of subcommittees and estimates of various departments are referred to various subcommittees. The order setting up the committee on November 17, 1948, reads:
That a select committee be appointed to examine such of the estimates presented to this house as may seem fit to the committee, and to suggest the form in which the estimates shall be presented for examination, and to report what, if any, economies consistent with the policy implied in those estimates may be effected therein.
That is the end of the quotation. Hon. members will see that this committee on estimates in the United Kingdom is a committee to deal with the form in which the estimates shall be presented and to report on economies, but within the scope of the policy presented. The Globe and Mail went on to suggest that
14, 1950	757
Proposed National Defence Committee we should have a committee of that character and ended up by saying what I have just quoted:
-and learn about them from chiefs of staff and other informed persons.
In that editorial the Globe and Mail listed the people who had appeared before this committee on estimates and there was no chief of staff among them. The people who attended were people who did not have to do with major planning, intelligence and operations of the forces; they were deputy ministers and people of that character who had to deal with the presentation of estimates, their preparation and the arrangements relative to finance. So far as I know, and I have made some inquiry, no chief of staff has yet appeared before the committee or any of the subcommittees on estimates in the United Kingdom. They have not discussed questions of strategy, the adequacy of defence or anything of that kind, which were the sole subject matters of the speeches made today by hon. members of the official opposition. They discussed matters of form, economy and efficiency, quite a different thing and of course a thing which . simply did not justify the conclusion of the Globe and Mail.
In connection with defence estimates, defence preparations and defence planning, the democracies are obviously in a difficult position. As I have said, I welcome every word of criticism, every suggestion by hon. members of this house, or for that matter by people outside the house, and we go to considerable length to obtain it. But we do not think it is desirable, in order to meet the views of the opposition, that we should change or jeopardize our constitutional system so that in effect the government of Canada would come to be conducted by a committee of members, including members of the opposition.
The British constitutional system has worked well. It is a system we admire and respect and revere. Under that system government is carried on by a committee of the group which constitutes the majority in the House of Commons and which is responsible to His Majesty's representatives, to the House of Commons and through the House of Commons to the people. We think that that is a better kind of committee than the one suggested by the opposition.
In his really helpful speech the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) referred at some length to that magnificent book "Modern Arms and Free Men" by Dr. Vannevar Bush and he quoted a number of extracts. As I followed the hon. member I gathered that he

Proposed National Defence Committee wanted us to believe that the extracts he was quoting were in support of the proposition he was upholding.
I had the advantage of two days of most profitable discussion with Dr. Yannevar Bush when he came up to discuss defence research with us. From what I know of him I do not think he was gravely concerned about having a committee in this house deal with defence matters. I do not think he mentions it in his book and if he did I am sure it was an oversight because he would not be so indiscreet.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Would the minister permit me to say that I certainly did not intend to leave the impression that Dr. Bush suggested there should be a committee. What I tried to say was that the ideas put forward by Dr. Bush could best be considered and implemented by a committee.


Brooke Claxton: Hansard of tomorrow will show what the hon. member said. Whether the views put forward by Dr. Bush could best be implemented in that way is a matter of opinion. I should like to refer the hon. member to another passage in Dr. Vannevar Bush's book at page 114, where he said:
To spread our entire thinking before a potential enemy is senseless; it gives him a very real advantage, and an avoidable one. There is a reasonable balance between keeping our people informed and intelligent and unnecessarily supplying data to a potential enemy.
Since the war ended we have at times erred and departed from this balance. As new aircraft have been developed, we have described their performance in some detail, published photographs of them, and discussed their merits and limitations. When a new guided missile flies well, the whole world knows of its success. We even discuss parts of our war plans, and examine in the full light of public discussion the relative merits of carriers and land-based planes for strategic bombardment, spreading out concepts of how we would use our power for all to read. Doing these things does not make sense.
Dr. Vannevar Bush is one of the world's great leaders in the field of scientific research. He is certainly one with whom my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) and people like Dr. O. M. Solandt were very glad to work when the going was tough. It has been suggested by the hon. and gallant member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) that giving information to a parliamentary committee of the character described would allay fears. I do not think that has been the result of giving that kind of information in the country which has the type of committee that hon. members of the opposition seem to want. I do not think so.
Of course I believe we are in a very difficult period. We must give all possible information, and we must also do everything possible to sustain the confidence of the people. I

believe it was the hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Harkness) who said that if a committee were established it would help recruiting. Our recruiting for the active forces, the navy, army and air force, does not need any help. We are getting all the men we want. They are first-class men of fine character.


An hon. Member:: Unemployment.


Brooke Claxton: That is interesting. I should like to take up the hon. member on that statement. I can give him some figures. When I last spoke to the house on the subject of defence on the 11th of November I put before the house the results of recruiting for the twelve months ending the 30th of September, 1949. In the introduction of the defence estimates, which I hope to make on Friday, I will put before the house the results of recruiting for the twelve months ending the 30th of January, 1950, four months later. No doubt the hon. member would suggest that during that period we should have had a great influx of recruits owing to unemployment. Not at all. We have had a slight decline resulting from our increased standards and our diminishing pressure. What is more, we have had just about the same number of applicants in respect of each twelve-month period, indicating that what the hon. gentleman suggests is simply not so.
As to the question of recruiting, because it has some bearing on the discussion, I believe that hon. members must now appreciate, because it has been said time after time, that we can only spend each defence dollar once. We can spend it on construction; we can spend it on equipment; we can spend it on personnel, but we cannot spend the same dollar twice. Therefore the problem of defence planning-and that is what we are concerned with-is finding out on the basis of the best information available what proportion of the amount that parliament and the country are willing to spend on defence should be spent on construction, equipment and personnel. We cannot spend the same money twice.
Then you have the same thing when you come to the allocation between the navy, army, air force, defence research and development. The allocation must be made, and under this government it is made by the cabinet on the advice of the cabinet defence committee, and in respect of matters affecting all three services on the joint advice of the chiefs of staff acting through their committee. When it comes down to a question concerning only one service, then it is done by the chief of staff with my approval, and subject always to the approval of the cabinet defence committee, the treasury board and the government. This planning oneration is continuous.

We plan to meet events that may develop three, four or five years ahead. We plan for steady development, but we also plan so that we will be able to make adjustments as they may be indicated to be necessary by the changing march of events. As to the distribution of our defence dollar, I propose to deal with it at some length on Friday in order to indicate to hon. members and the country at large on what the present division is based.
I should like to say a word or two with regard to the remarks of the hon. member for Nanaimo. It may be recalled that, when the defence estimates came up last November, he questioned if enough was being spent on the air force; and moved, I think, by nothing but the most serious considerations, he put forward a rather extreme case for that arm of the services. I said we were putting due emphasis on the air force, and were going to do more, that it was in accordance with our plans; and, as he indicated today, that is being done. Today he questions if the navy is getting enough. He asked if the increase in the appropriation for the navy was in any way matching up to the requirements for antisubmarine activities. I should like to give him some figures now which possibly may not be available in the estimates. On a cash basis the estimates and appropriations for the navy are proposed to be increased from $67 million for 1949-50 to $82 million for 1950-51, an increase of 22-4 per cent. That partly reflects the increase in the strength of the navy which is now over its present establishment of 9,047, standing at the 30th of January at 9,322, but mostly the increase in the proposed appropriation for the navy is due to our desire to meet exactly the thing that the hon. member had in mind, the necessity of constructing anti-submarine vessels of a type and character designed, equipped and manned to meet the threat of any submarine that can sail the seas.
Incidentally, I would not accept the hon. member's suggested figures for either the speed or the capacities of submarines so far developed, although that may be a possibility in the not too distant future. We are developing these anti-submarine vessels just because we recognize, and have ever since the end of the war, the need for the kind of thing that the hon. gentleman now mentions. So far as I know, our ships when they are produced will be at least up to and probably in advance of any other anti-submarine vessels. The hon. member also asked about the capacity of frigates, corvettes and destroyers to deal with modern high-speed submarines.
Our position in that respect is the same as any other country's. We do not like the situation that exists today, and we are doing what
14, 1950
Proposed National Defence Committee we can to meet it. We are doing just as much as the Canadian parliament, and the Canadian people, will enable us to do. We believe that our anti-submarine vessels, our destroyers which are undergoing modifications for antisubmarine work, and our other vessels will be able to do the job.
The hon. member also raised some question about the R.C.A.F. interceptors, the number of squadrons and so on. The member for Middlesex East (Mr. White) said our plan to have Vampires was a miserable failure. I hope he is not' serious about that, and I do not think he is. If he is, I do not think he knows the record made by Vampires throughout the world. I do not think he recognizes that these Vampires were the best aircraft we could get for this interim period, and that Vampires, winterized and equipped by us in Canada to meet the conditions of Arctic warfare, behaved magnificently during Exercise Sweetbriar.
Then, what are we doing? We are going on to produce the F-86A, which has the world's record for speed. I think it is by far the most effective single seater interceptor plane in the world. We are also producing the CF-100. Hon. members who, in common with the member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor), saw the demonstration of that aircraft last Saturday, will I think agree with me that we have a real aircraft. It is more powerful than any fighter aircraft yet produced. When it is equipped with the Orenda engine, after it has been flight tested, that aircraft will be still more powerful. Hon. members who saw that demonstration of air power no doubt feel that' we are moving along in the right direction. This aircraft is designed to suit Canadian conditions-long range, all weather, navigational instruments, and the capacity to do the kind of job which it was indicated by Exercise Sweetbriar might have to be done if some future eventuality occurs, which we hope will not occur.
The hon. member for Nanaimo and others referred to Exercise Sweetbriar as if it had been in some sense a failure with regard to Canadian forces, aircraft, or equipment employed. I was there. I talked with the officers and men of United States forces and Canadian forces. I heard no such remarks from any of those who were on the spot. I found, as I am sure he would have found had he been there, that we had reason to be proud of the way in which the Canadian staff, the Canadian servicing corps and above all the men of the P.P.C.L.I., the artillery and the other people who were out for eleven days in the exercise but almost seven weeks altogether, withstood the rigours of the north. They came through with magnificent physique, and in high spirits.

Proposed National Defence Committee
As for this charge that they did not have the required aircraft to do the job of airlift, the hon. member must be familiar with some of the facts about airlifts. My recollection, and I am only speaking from recollection, of the time when the Germans came into the low countries is that they had a total of 2,200 airborne troops. My recollection is that when we came back, and made that great air attack on Arnhem, it took the airlift of the United Kingdom, the United States and ourselves working a shuttle service to get in the airborne troops. Now the hon. member knows just as well as I do how many aircraft it takes to lift an airborne brigade; and how many it takes to lift an airborne division in one lift. But that is not the way it is done, because it is not possible for any country in the world to do it that way. I saw the airlift in to the final moment of the exercise at North way. They came in three flights of Dakotas. I must say I never saw anything finer than the sticks of men coming out of the aircraft, their bodies almost horizontal, then swinging down to the perpendicular position, the parachutes opening up and all of them landing almost in a row. It was a superb operation. We had Dakotas then. I do not know of any country in the world that has anything better than Dakotas to do that job, except the United States. Their aircraft for that job are of the C-82 and C-119 types. The United States had two C-82's at Sweet-briar, and we had a good many more Dakotas. They had no C-119's. We have contemplated buying the C-119, and we have even contemplated making it in Canada. At this particular moment, it is felt we just cannot afford it. Each of those aircraft would cost over half a million dollars, and with a year's supply of spare parts as well as the modifications, it might well run into a million dollars.
It is felt that this exercise has shown that the defence of our northwest, which is important beyond words, is an operation in joint . defence. In that operation, the Canadians took just as great a part, and did just as well, as the fine forces of the United States. When you move up the highway from Whitehorse to Snag, and then cross over into Alaska, it takes a cut boundary line to tell where the boundary is. No enemy would ever respect that boundary. The defence of that country must be done as a joint or combined operation. As matters stand, we will play our part, a proper, fair, honest, respectable and respected p rt, in any combined operation.
I am afraid, sir, that I have anticipated something of what I was going to say next Friday and have also delayed the house too long, because I am sure some hon. members are anxious to get into supply and discuss other matters of real importance, in addition

to defence. The hon. member for Middlesex East referred to the Royal Military College at Kingston. I wonder if he has ever been there? I should like to ask him if he has ever been there. I was there following the demonstration of the CF-100 and the transport aircraft, equally good in its field.


Arthur Leroy Smith: And attended a hockey match.


Brooke Claxton: On Saturday I motored down and assisted in laying the cornerstone of a new building and then attended a hockey match. The hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) is quite right. And I was extremely pleased to be present at a hockey game and see R.M.C. win over West Point for the first time since 1938! But I saw, as I have seen on four or five visits I have made to that college over the last year, the work being done, the bearing of the cadets, the quality of the staff, and the amount of research work that is being done by the staff; and I honestly wonder if the hon. member for Middlesex East (Mr. White), whom I respect, should not accept from me an invitation to go there and see what is going on. I think he would come back and say that it was a good thing for Canada that we had a college like that.
In conclusion I should like to refer to some remarks, in that connection and others, of a great general, Field Marshal Earl Wavell, who, in an article appearing in the Sunday Times of December 18, 1949, and headed "A Great Nation's Greater Future", had this to say:
My visit was primarily a military but unofficial one, to the Black Watch of Canada, which most proudly and worthily upholds the traditions and reputation of the oldest Highland regiment. I had also an opportunity at Ottawa and at Kingston, where the staff college and Royal Military College are very pleasantly situated on lake Ontario, of learning something of Canada's military ideas and progress. They seem to me eminently sensible.
Then he went on:
Canada has gone farther on the road to the integration of the three fighting services than any other country. There is a single defence budget; and while I was in Ottawa a bill was passed providing for a common code of discipline for all three services. The Royal Military College at Kingston trains cadets for all three services together: they looked to me a very likely lot of lads. The graduates of the staff college, also a combined one, whom I saw on the last day of their course, were obviously keen and efficient.
Canada does not attempt to maintain a large force in being, but does manage to keep alive the military spirit which proved itself on the battlefields of two great wars; and to be prepared to raise the forces necessary for any fresh emergency without undue delay. In political affairs, too, 1 should say that Canada gets herself governed-
And here perhaps we should hide our blushes.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Is he a qualified observer?


Brooke Claxton: The article continues:
-with a maximum of quiet efficiency and a minimum of fuss and interference. As a proof of her political stability, it is worth while to note that in the eighty-two years since federation in 1867 Canada has had only 12 prime ministers and 17 ministries.
And then these words:
A great nation already, Canada has a still greater future.
That, Mr. Speaker, is my belief. It is also my belief that the armed forces of Canada are today working to secure that future. From what I have seen of them-and I venture to say that I have seen a great deal more than has any other hon. member in this house-my belief is that they are people with whom it is good to work. They are good citizens first; they are good Canadians; and they are good soldiers.
I must say I am sure that they, like myself and all others concerned with our national defence, welcome every kind of suggestion and every offer of co-operation so that our armed forces can become better still; because Canada deserves nothing but the best.


Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of ihe Opposition):: With the closing remarks of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton), Mr. Speaker, there will be complete agreement. I might point out that there is, of course, no one in this house-including the Minister of National Defence-who has had experience in any way comparable with that of the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) whose service was direct and immediate, in active command of these very troops for whom these high praises have been expressed. When the hon. member for Nanaimo gives voice to the views he has expressed here as to the necessity for a committee of this kind, he is doing so out of a background of experience unique in this house; and he is doing so as a man who rose from the ranks to the command of a division. From the experience he has had he knows, better than anyone else, of the high qualities of Canadian troops in every kind of active service. It is out of that experience that he has made this motion that is now before the house.
Tonight we have listened to the Minister of National Defence give the strongest argument that has yet been presented in this house for the committee that is asked for by this motion. It is extraordinary, Mr. Speaker, how sometimes quite innocently a strong argument can be given. The Minister of National Defence just read a statement by a great soldier. Lord Wavell was one of the outstanding officers of the last war. But, like everyone else, Lord Wavell can be misled by propaganda.
Proposed National Defence Committee


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Alexander Drew: The Minister of National Defence has quoted an article in which Lord Wavell said "While I was in Ottawa a bill was passed providing for a common code of discipline for all three services." Every member of this house knows that that bill is not even in the house yet. We all know that Lord Wavell must have been misled by somebody who was guiding him on that trip, because he himself is a most careful man. But unfortunately he did not know of the extent of the inaccuracies that we are called upon to accept here.


Mr. Rowe:: He has not had our experience of them.


George Alexander Drew: No. Some question was raised that implied an element of surprise that this motion should come on at this time when the estimates are to be considered on Friday, as we hope. Let us be quite clear as to why this motion is before the house at this time. On Friday there will be brought forward the estimates of the department which is asking for the largest amount of money asked for by a department of national defence in this country, and much the largest amount of money asked for by any operating department of the government. It is asking for $425 million, and it is asking for more than that; because in addition to the $425 million being asked for in the estimates as presented, it is also asking for $194 million in deferred obligations, bringing the amount actually under consideration by this parliament to $619 million. It is appropriate that just today in the Montreal Standard there should appear that article by the Minister of National Defence entitled "Defence is Big Business." It certainly is. What we are dealing with is $619 million. In this the Minister of National Defence quite properly puts forward a number of views as to the defence plans of this country. I think it would be very interesting for hon. members to read the article and obtain some information as to the problems that are being considered by the department. In this article we find this statement:
Last year we spent $145,033,051 on construction and maintenance of buildings, equipment, food and other supplies through 65,308 contracts placed through our crown-owned purchasing agency.
That is an interesting figure, because it indicates the extent of the interest hon. members should have in this department.
Why is it suggested that there should be an opportunity to examine these accounts in a way that cannot be done here? It is most unfortunate that the Minister of National Defence should so underestimate the intelligence of the people of Canada, if not the


George Alexander Drew: I have in my hand the second report from the select committee on the defence estimates of last year. Just let me indicate to the house the kind of thing they have under consideration. This is a statement made by one of the members of the committee during the hearings:
But this inquiry really deals with defence, and we want to find out how much money is being properly or improperly used by the service departments in respect of defence, and how much, if any. of the expenditure has been incurred on behalf of civil aviation, or whatever it might be.
That is clear enough. This committee in Britain goes right into the question of how 
the money is spent, and of the allocation of the money, and whether it is being properly allocated for civil aviation, military aviation or otherwise. Let us see who appear before that committee. Let me just take as an example one day, February 16, 1949. At the opening of the hearing on that day the chairman said:
For the purposes of the record, Sir Harold, would you once more state your position?
(Sir Harold Parker:) I am the permanent secretary of the ministry of defence.
General Hollis? (Lieutenant-General Hollis):	I
am chief staff officer, ministry of defence.
These are the witnesses.
And Captain Searle? (Captain Searle): I am the admiralty representative on the oversea defence committee, and director of plans.
Major-General Redman? (Major-General Redman) : I am director of military operations.
Mr. Key? (Mr. Key) :	I am assistant secretary,
FI and F5.
Then it goes on:
And we have a representative of the air ministry? (Air Vice-Marshal Foster):	I am assistant chief of
the air staff for policy and plans.
That is the kind of thing, Mr. Speaker, that makes it so utterly impossible for hon. members to have any confidence in the statements made here on national defence.


Brooke Claxton: Excuse me. If I may, what I said was that there were no chiefs of staff, and no one in charge of operations.' That will be found to be so. The hon. member has not yet referred to any who are.


George Alexander Drew: Just the chief staff officer in the ministry of defence, and just the director of plans, that is all. These are not staff officers; these are not men who are military officers; they know nothing about it. These are people dealing with all accounts and economies. No; there was an attempt to mislead this house. These are not by any manner of means the only witnesses who were called. Read through this record, and you will find the witnesses of the highest standing who were brought before that committee to give their evidence and to assist the members of the house in regard to the subjects that were under discussion. Let me give the house the names of a few others, all experts. They are: Sir John Lang, K.C.B.; Sir George Turner, K.B.E.,	C.B.; Sir James Barnes, K.C.B.,
K.B.E.; Sir Archibald Rowlands, G.C.B., M.B.E.; and Sir Harold Parker, K.C.B., C.B.E., M.C.
These are only some of the witnesses who were brought before this committee and examined in regard to the way in which the money was being spent and the results that were being obtained. That is a regular, annual committee that sits and hears evidence and gives advice as to how the money can

best be spent with economy on the one hand and with efficiency in the actual military preparation on the other.
This subject is not one that has only arisen by way of suggestion that we should try to change our constitutional procedure. On the contrary, here is the mother of parliaments, as the Minister of National Defence has described it, going into their estimates with a committee whose evidence is printed in full and handed to the house. This is only one of the reports that they make each year on this subject. Why the difference between the Minister of National Defence today and the man he was in 1943? Why has all this change come about? In 1943, as has already been stated, and quoted, he then made one of the strongest arguments possible in regard to setting up a committee on national defence- under our system, not the American system. He pointed out that before a committee of the house there could be an inquiry into the army, the navy and the air force, where members of all parties in the House of Commons could sit around and have evidence brought before them and, in an impartial manner, reach conclusions that would be of assistance to the whole house.
Why the change?
Then he was parliamentary assistant, I believe, to the then prime minister; and in that capacity, and with that experience, he thought then there should be a committee on national defence. But now, as Minister of National Defence, he suggests to us that this would be contrary to the constitution and that it would, in fact, be an attempt to accept the American system of government, which is so unlike our own. To use his exact words -"It is an appeal to change our constitutional system, because it is not anything less than that."
Mr. Speaker, within the bounds of parliamentary procedure, it is not possible to use words that describe language of that kind, in relation to what the reality is. And after all, is it not remarkable that it should be so unconstitutional to have a committee on national defence when it is perfectly constitutional to have a committee on external affairs? And yet these are twin departments which are related to the maintenance and security of this country.
The Department of External Affairs is closely related to the Department of National Defence-so closely related, in fact, that the Department of External Affairs must, for instance, screen the arrangements which are made for the export of arms. Naturally that is something in which the Department of National Defence is not interested. But when I hear statements made about the lack of
14, 1950	763
Proposed National Defence Committee confidence of this government in the government of China, I cannot help wondering why it was that this government was sending millions of dollars' worth of arms and aircraft to the government of China last year, on the approval of the Department of External Affairs.
That is something members should realize -this close fellowship. They drive as a team, and if external affairs says that arms should not go to a particular country, they do not go. But when this government sends rifles and munitions and aircraft and nickel and other things of that kind to governments elsewhere, they do so with the approval of the Department of External Affairs and obviously with the approval of the Department of National Defence, because only the Department of National Defence could have had control over those military rifles and munitions. They are as close as that.
Yet we have a committee dealing with the Department of External Affairs, a committee precisely like the committee in Great Britain on national defence. And we have a committee on atomic energy, that other branch of activity which is so closely related to defence these days.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You had a committee.


George Alexander Drew: You are not going to have one again?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have not been asked to.


George Alexander Drew: I had hoped this had become a good habit. I hope this remark by the minister is not a suggestion that we will not have it again.
In any event it did produce very satisfactory results. It produced results; there was no breach of confidence and no improper disclosure, while at the same time it satisfied those who attended that things were being done in accordance with the best practice in regard to that particular subject. And that is exactly what committees of this kind should be able to do.
This committee also would have the right to find out why arms and munitions in enormous quantities are being sent to other countries-because it is for members of this house to know whether these are surplus rifles, or whether we are replacing them with a new type of rifle, or just what the circumstances are under which our reserve military surplus supplies are being depleted in any respect.
Now the Minister of National Defence has made a lot of general statements in regard to the amount of information given. He said that, in fact, this charge of a refusal to give information is rather flattering and somewhat complimentary to the Department of
764	HOUSE OF
Proposed National Defence Committee National Defence. Then he goes on and makes a statement to this effect-"I would like to say this, and I would say it without fear of contradiction, that never in the history of this parliament has the house been given so much information as it has during the past three years."
Well, I have been here for just over one year, and I do know that, if the two presentations of estimates we have had are samples, no parliament has had less information which could really make it possible for the members to express an opinion as to whether the troops are satisfactory, or whether the equipment is satisfactory.
Last year, the minister told us-and these were his words-"information was given in a more' palatable form than ever before." Palatable to whom? Palatable to the minister; palatable to those who are prepared to accept meaningless generalities, and at a time like this not prepared to fulfil their obligations as members of parliament and demand the facts for which this money is being spent.
I know the minister may not actually admire those cartoons; but sometimes one cannot help wondering when we see the minister wearing that paper hat that he appears in so often in a particular cartoon, because to hear some of these statements made you would think we were living in a kind of make-believe.
We are living in a land of cold reality that cannot be measured alone even by the more than $600 million that goes to this department. We are living in a land of reality in which the evidence is that Russia today has an air force with 9,000 transport and other heavy planes, and that they have today in these various fields of activity the largest army in the world, and that they have the largest air force, and that they have the largest navy. We have, for instance, the figures in Jane's annual book, recently published, and today regarded as almost an official publication, to show that Russia now has 360 submarines and expects to have between 750 and 1,000 submarines next year. This is merely an indication of the kind of reality we are facing.
It does not help to have the Minister of National Defence go on a junket, as he did out to western Canada, when he made forty speeches and told the people some things about national defence. On one occasion he said that we had a higher percentage of jet's than any country in the world.


Brooke Claxton: I never said anything of the kind.


George Alexander Drew: What did you say?


Brooke Claxton: I never said anything of the kind.


George Alexander Drew: You said that our plans called for the highest number of jets of any country in the world.


Brooke Claxton: I never said anything of the kind.


George Alexander Drew: We will see what some of the things are you did say. Here, for instance, is an editorial in the Calgary Herald of January 27.


Brooke Claxton: The hon. member said I said something. Does he say I said it, or not?


George Alexander Drew: I say that you were reported to have said-


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I inform both the leader of the opposition and the minister that it might be better if they would address the Chair.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I think the attitude that has been adopted in this case is evidence of what is happening in this house. Does anyone here suppose that I was on that trip with the Minister of National Defence? I had better use to make of my time. While the Minister of National Defence has extended every courtesy to me, he would not have expected me to go on that trip and I would not have expected to have accompanied him. The minister knows perfectly well that I was not there and he knows I am referring to reports of what he said.


Brooke Claxton: It would be interesting if the leader of the opposition would give the report so that I could deny it.


George Alexander Drew: What I said is that the minister was reported as saying that our-


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


George Alexander Drew: I said the minister was reported as saying that our plans called for a larger percentage of jet planes than any country in the world. If he did not say that, let him say so.


Brooke Claxton: The leader of the opposition did not say that I was reported as saying that, he said that I said it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Brooke Claxton: The leader of the opposition has not produced the report to which he has referred. If he does produce the report, it will be wrong.


George Alexander Drew: It is the same old story. I am reading from an editorial in the Calgary Herald of January 27 which states:
Hon. Brooke Claxton's nimble footwork in an interview with a representative of this newspaper

on Wednesday must not be allowed to divert attention from xhe central problem of Canada's defence: Have we an actual defence force, capable of taking the field, or haven't we? And if not, why not?


Brooke Claxton: What about these jets?


George Alexander Drew: What is the minister bothering about now?


Brooke Claxton: Just your statement about jets.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I have said before and I repeat, that I made the statement that the minister was reported to have said-


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


George Alexander Drew: -that our plans called for the use of a larger percentage of jet planes than any country in the world. He either made that statement or he did not. If he denies it, I am called upon by the rules to accept his statement.


Brooke Claxton: Read the report.


George Alexander Drew: I have made a statement and the minister either denies it or he does not. If he does not deny it-


Brooke Claxton: The leader of the opposition is attempting to diminish his statement. He said I made a statement and now he says there is a report that I made a statement. I say that he ought to prove one or the other, and I also say that he cannot prove either.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I have said before that I have made a statement and the minister can either challenge it or not. If he denies it, I am called upon to accept it.


Mr. Garson:: Read the report.


George Alexander Drew: I am reading something else and I do not intend to read anything but what I have before me. Do not let the minister who tried to mislead the house in regard to these defence estimates make statements of that kind. I am going to read-


Brooke Claxton: The hon. member-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Brooke Claxton: On a point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: May I say to the minister that the leader of the opposition has the floor.


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister can ask a question with the consent of the leader of the opposition or he can rise on a point of order.


Brooke Claxton: I rise on a point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: As I said, the minister may rise with the consent of the leader of the
14, 1950	765
Proposed National Defence Committee opposition and ask a question, or he can rise, as can any other hon. member, on a point of order.


Brooke Claxton: I am-


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker-


Brooke Claxton: -asserting the right that any hon. member has to raise a point of order. My impression was-I may be wrong-that in his concluding remarks the leader of the opposition said that I had misled the house.


William Earl Rowe: It amounts to that.


Brooke Claxton: I think, therefore, he should be called upon to withdraw that remark.


William Earl Rowe: No, to prove it.


George Alexander Drew: Now, I am going-


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Mr. Speaker:: The leader of the opposition made a statement to which objection has been taken. I might point out that Beauchesne's second edition sets out on page 99 certain expressions which have been ruled to be unparliamentary in the British House of Commons, and one of these is:
That a minister has stated what he knew not to be correct.
I would think that misleading the house would be stating what was known not to be correct.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


George Alexander Drew: The minister may be misleading the house innocently or otherwise. There is no occasion to withdraw the remark when there is not some accompanying word that makes it deliberate.


Mr. Speaker:: If the leader of the opposition is not saying that it was done deliberately I would not ask him to withdraw.


An hon. Member:: You have him worried, George.


Mr. Speaker:: In this respect I may say that I have given a very generous interpretation to the remark. If I remember the words of the leader of the opposition correctly, he said that the minister had tried to mislead the house. Can a member try to mislead the house without knowing he has tried?


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I am going to continue this because it has reference to the problem. I quote:
All Mr. Claxton's talk that "it all depends on the time element" and his insistence that these things must be considered in relation to "the likelihood and scale of attack" are so much camouflage. We

Proposed National Defence Committee trust that in. the coming session the Minister of National Defence will not be allowed to dodge this issue any more.
For a start, M.P.'s should insist on being told whether Canada possesses any operational forces, in the strict sense of the word, at all. By "operational forces" we mean combat units which could take the field and engage an enemy immediately. Mr. Claxton makes much of what he calls the "time element"-but it seems to us a very dangerous doctrine to suppose that there would be any time element at all in an emergency.
Then I come to a paper which has not always been unfriendly to the government, the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix, which states:
Since Mr. Claxton made almost forty-six speeches during his western trip, it must be assumed that he considered his junket, in part at least, as a public relations job. From this point of view his performance in Saskatoon (where he made four speeches) must be judged a failure. Our minister of defence has come and gone and we are no better informed on the principles governing our defence experts' thinking, on the state of our armed forces, on the part we play in the Atlantic association, than we were before he came. In a city keenly aware of the threat from the north Mr. Claxton found himself unable to rise above bromides and platitudes.
And later on:
So far Mr. Claxton and his colleagues have refused to give us anything to work on. It is literally true that the average Canadian knows more about the size, equipment and disposition of the American forces than he does about his own.
He also knows more about the principles upon which American planners base the defence of the continent than he does about what our own planners are thinking. For a few dollars he can buy Vannevar Bush's recent book, "Modern Arms and Free Men", and learn more about the technical developments in warfare and their implications than Canadian officials have released in the past decade.
In case it may be suggested that there is any attempt simply to quote those papers that might not be unduly favourable, let me quote the Toronto Daily Star which has not been regarded as extremely unfavourable to the government. In the closing paragraph of an editorial headed, "Canada's national security", they say:
As defence problems ought to be considered on an all-party basis, it seems not unreasonable that parliament should have a defence committee in which the utmost frankness consistent with safety should prevail. Should occasion arise, the committee could go into secret session to hear confidential reports. The committee, however, should not be given a status that would relieve the defence minister or the government of any of their responsibility for maintaining national security.
That editorial reflects the general opinion that has been expressed across the country in regard to the desirability of bringing these subjects under consideration, finding out exactly what it is we are spending money on, whether in fact we really have a defence force consistent with the needs of Canada at this time, whether more than $600 million is going to be properly spent on this particular occasion, and also, remembering the words

of the minister, whether contracts that run into thousands of dollars are being properly dealt with and properly let.
One could not help of course feeling a great interest in the study group of the Liberal party which unfortunately caused so much misunderstanding, but it was rather interesting that when Mr. Low was giving his explanation it did not embrace quite as wide a field. They were having an informal chat about matters connected with the letting of contracts, and it was doubtless a very informal chat, but at least it is interesting that the method by which these thousands of contracts are let is subject to study, and we hope that study will be extended to the advantage of the people of Canada if not to the others who are concerned.
So far as the amendment is concerned, it is nothing but the most blatant evasion to suggest for one moment that there is any breach of our constitutional practice called for in setting up a committee on national defence. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) is asking for a committee.


Mr. Mariin:: You are opposing it.


George Alexander Drew: The minister must be a mindreader. I have not spoken on that subject yet. If it is unconstitutional to have a committee dealing with the problems of the Department of National Defence it is equally unconstitutional to have a committee dealing with the problems of the Department of National Health and Welfare, the Department of External Affairs, or any other department of the government. It is the most meaningless evasion that this house has heard. It is simply an attempt to dodge the responsibility of presenting to the house information which every member should have. The minister talks about the information that is given on the estimates, but what earthly opportunity is there for any hon. member to get down to any detail that would help determine whether or not the money is being properly spent? Look at the bulk figures even in what is given in the details of the estimates. You will find there such figures as $22,492,208 for acquisition, construction, purchase, maintenance, repairs, rentals and operating expenses of properties for the army. A fine chance there is for anyone in this house to fulfil his obligation to find out what the money is being spent for or even whether money is being lost. What about the military camp that dis-r appeared at Farnham? What about other military camps that have almost walked away? We have a right and a duty to find out exactly what has happened to that government property. The only place we can do

so is before a committee of this kind. Before hon. members of the house applaud the remarks of the minister in evading his responsibility in this way it would be well for them to bear in mind that we are dealing with the national defence of Canada, and that every one of them knows perfectly well that they will get no information on the discussion of the estimates which will make it possible for them to determine whether or not the money is being properly spent.
Undoubtedly it would take time. Undoubtedly it would involve the attendance of officers before that committee just as it involved staff officers before the committee in Great Britain last year, and as it will involve the attendance of staff officers this year. It took time, but it also presented an opportunity for that house to get the actual information. If the issues are unpleasant to face then they are too dangerous to hide. After all, facts are the very foundation of our democracy, and it is the duty of members of this house to support an amendment which calls for the production of the facts in the one and only way that they can be obtained. In spite of the remarks of the minister and the way in which this has been done, I still hope that he will concur in the amendment when it is presented.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the motion carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Eleven o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Harris (Danforth):: I was paired-


Mr. Speaker:: Do hon. members wish to declare their pairs?


Major James William Coldwell: I think that standing order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I will hear any members who wish to declare their pairs.


Joseph Henry Harris: I was paired with the hon. member for Waterloo North (Mr. Breithaupt). Had I voted, I would have voted in favour of the amendment.
Abbott
Applewhaite
Ashbourne
Beaudoin
Messrs:
Beaudry
Blanchette
Boivin
Bonnier


James Arthur Ross: I was paired with the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Gardiner). If I had voted, I would have voted for the amendment.
768	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Proposed National Defence Committee


Mr. Cardiff:: I was paired, Mr. Speaker. If I seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver had voted, I would have voted for the amend- East (Mr. Maclnnis), that this debate be now ment.	adjourned.


Harry Oliver White: I was paired with the hon. member for Middlesex West (Mr. McCubbin). If I had voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Major James William Coldwell: At three o'clock this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, I was somewhat sharply reminded that there were certain rules which governed this house. One of those rules is that we adjourn at eleven o'clock. I suggest that we call it eleven o'clock.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Let us get to the consideration of the estimates as soon as possible so that we can scrutinize the expenditures carefully.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What about unanimous
consent?.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house that this debate be adjourned?


Major James William Coldwell: Eleven o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not want to hear too many speeches about considering the estimates; we have already heard a great many.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for
Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) moves,


Some hon. Members:: No.


Major James William Coldwell: Yes.


An hon. Member:: Eleven o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: It being after eleven o'clock, unless there is unanimous consent, I am forced to put the motion for the adjournment of the debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Prime Minister is not asking for unanimous consent.


Douglas Charles Abbott: A month has elapsed and only two departments are in supply.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Mr. Coldwell moves, seconded by Mr. Maclnnis, that the debate be now adjourned. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Fournier (Hull):: Tomorrow we shall resume the debate on the address.


[Stage Direction]
It being fifteen minutes after eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, March 15, 1950