1952-05-19

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 239, respecting the Burrard Inlet Tunnel and Bridge Company.-Mr. Sinclair.
Bill No. 240, respecting the Sisters of Charity of the House of Providence.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 241, respecting a certain patent application of the Garrett Corporation.-Mr. Richard) (Ottawa East).


Mr. Boivin:: Following the changes made on November 25, 1951, in the Montreal-Granby-Waterloo service, via Marieville, what arrangements have been made by the presidents of the Canadian National and' the Montreal and Southern Counties Railway unions concerning the old employees of the Montreal and Southern Counties Railway?


Mr. Benidickson:: Prior to the change in service, negotiations were carried on with representatives of organized labour who represent the employees concerned. The interested labour organizations could not reach an agreement between themselves and the new service has been manned by employees of the Canadian National Railways. This action has not resulted in any reduction in the number of train service employees of the Montreal and Southern Counties Railway.


FILM &quot;ROYAL JOURNEY&quot;
Mr. Fraser:: 1.	Was the film "Royal Journey" made as the exclusive property of the national film board?
2.	In what width or widths is the film produced or being produced, and do they include 35 mm. and' 16 mm. film?
3.	If so, what are the terms of the contracts or arrangements made with commercial firms, giving their names, for distribution of the 35 mm. film?
4.	Does any such contract contain a time limitation on the production, use or distribution of the 16 mm. film?
5.	Is the 16 mm. film to be made available for showing in churches and schools in the various communities throughout Canada? If so, when?
6.	Is the 16 mm. film for sale?
7.	If so, what is the price quoted, and when will it be available?
8.	Have any exclusive rights been given?
9.	If so, what are the terms?


Mr. Winters:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The film was produced in 16 mm. and 35 mm. widths.
3.	To date agreements have been negotiated with four distribution companies:
(a)	Columbia Pictures of Canada, Limited, Toronto, covering 35 mm. theatrical distribution in Canada. This contract runs for two years from December 21, 1951. The board receives 65 per cent of the gross revenue from exhibition of the film and pays for the prints used.
(b)	United Artists Corporation, New York, covering 35 mm. theatrical distribution in the United States of America and its possessions. This contract runs for three years from April 1, 1952. The board receives 65 per cent of the gross revenue from exhibition of the film and pays for the first 100 prints used.
(c)	General Film Distributors, Limited, London, covering 16 mm. and 35 mm. theatrical distribution in the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland, Isle of Man, Channel Islands, Eire, Gibraltar and Malta. This contract runs for five years from January 1, 1952. The board receives 60 per cent of the net revenues from exhibition of the film. Print costs are a first charge against gross revenue.
(d)	J. Arthur Rank Overseas Film Distributors, Limited, London, covering 16 mm. and 35 mm. theatrical distribution throughout the world excluding the western hemisphere and these territories granted to General Film Distributors, Limited, as set out in 3 (b). The agreement will run for five years. The board will receive 70 per cent of gross revenue and will pay for the cost of prints.
4.	Yes.
5.	Yes. On November 1, 1952.
6.	Not at present.
7.	It will be available for sale after November 1, 1952.
8.	No exclusive sales rights for the 16 mm. prints in Canada have been given.
9.	Answered by No. 8.


FILM BOARD
Mr. Fulton:: 1.	Has the national film board during the last three years made any film or films dealing with the nutritive value and/or food content of Canadian agricultural and/or fishery products?

Questions
2.	If so, what were the names of these films, when were they produced, and with what product or products did they deal respectively?
3.	On whose authority, at whose request, and for what purpose were these films, if any, produced respectively?


Mr. Winters:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Films. Teeth Are To Keep-1949; Carrots, celery, salads, apples and other fruits, whole wheat bread and milk are all represented as helping to keep teeth in good condition.
Filmstrips: Brush Up On Your Teeth-1949; Cheese, milk, fruits (apples and raisins), vegetables (carrots and celery) are shown as among foods which help to maintain healthy teeth.
Ten Little People And Their Teeth-1949; Shows children drinking milk in preference to soft drinks, and eating apples in preference to candy.
Rural School Lunches-1950; Milk, meat (or fish, eggs, cheese or beans), whole wheat bread, fruit and vegetables are shown as constituents of a good school lunch.
Vitamin D Fair-1950; Fish liver oil, whole wheat cereals, whole wheat bread, milk, meat, eggs, vegetables and fruit are recommended in a good diet for growing children.
What Breakfast Did For Emily-1951; Tomato or citrus fruit juice, milk, whole grain cereal, toast made from whole wheat bread, and butter comprise the breakfast on which Emily thrived.
A Good Breakfast-1950; Tomato and citrus fruit juice, vitaminized apple juice, melon, strawberries, apples, blackcurrants and other fruits, eggs, bacon, oatmeal, wheat germ and rolled oats are among the recommended foods.
3.	These films were produced at the request of the Department of National Health and Welfare for audiences of parents, teachers and school children.


SURPLUS NAVAL STORES
Mr. Maclnnis:: What equipment and furnishings were declared surplus and destroyed in naval stores. Esquimalt, British Columbia, during the months of November and December, 1951, and January, 1952?


Mr. Blanchette:: No surplus equipment and furnishings were destroyed by naval stores, Esquimalt, B.C., during the months of November and December, 1951, and January, 1952, but were handed over to Crown Assets Disposal Corporation for disposal.


NATURAL GAS
Mr. Nickle:: 1.	Has the government negotiated with, or is it now prepared to initiate negotiations with, the United States government, in order to determine

whether or not a large-scale, long-term firm agreement is feasible for exchange of natural gas between Canada and the United States?
2.	In the alternative, is the government prepared at this time to urge that the United States authorize export of American natural gas to southern Ontario, in a volume equal to that of Alberta gas (ten billion cubic feet yearly) now being exported to defence industry in Montana, and for at least a similar short-term period (five years) ?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	No. The principal supply of natural gas is controlled by the government of Alberta and the Canadian government has no natural gas at its disposal that could be used to implement any such agreement, if made.
2.	The Canadian government has made representations on behalf of the Union Gas Company's application to import natural gas into Ontario.


UNITED STATES-CANADIAN CURRENCY RATES   EXCHANGE BORDER STATIONS
Mr. Ross (Hamilton East):: 1.	Has the federal government given consideration to the setting up of exchange stations along the international border between Canada and the United States to assure travellers of both countries fair exchange rates on their respective currencies?
2.	If so, with what result?


Mr. Sinclair:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


CENSORSHIP OR BANNING OF BOOKS
Mr. Coldwell:: 1.	What officer or officials of the Department of National Revenue are responsible for the censorship or banning of books seeking entry into Canada?
2.	What qualifications do they possess for these important duties?


Mr. McCann:: 1 and 2. No officer is responsible for the determination as to what books shall be classified under tariff item 1201. Before any books are so classified they are passed upon by the Minister of National Revenue personally.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Pouliot:: Referring to answers made by the then minister of railways and canals on May 7, 1925, and May 25, 1925, Hansard, pages 2928, 3479, 3480 and 3481, of 1925:
1.	What are the names and the values of each of the pieces of machinery which were returned from the workshops of the Canadian National Railways at St. Malo, Quebec city, to Riviere du Loup?
2.	When did such transfer take place?
3.	What are the names and the respective occupations of the employees of the Canadian National Railways who were transferred from St. Malo,. Quebec city, to Riviere du Loup?

4.	On what date did each of said transfers take place?
5.	What are the names and the values of each one of the pieces of machinery which were at the Canadian National Railways shops at Riviere du Loup (a) immediately after the transfer above referred to in paragraph 1 took place; (b) on May 1, 1952?
He said: This question was drafted in the English language. In the first paragraph I used the word "returned" with regard to the names and values of the pieces of machinery that were returned from the shops of the Canadian National Railways at St. Malo, Quebec city, to Riviere du Loup. In French the word "transportees" is used instead of the word "retournees". I should like to have the words "ont ete retournees" used instead of "avaient ete transportees" in the first paragraph. Then I should like to amend the third paragraph by adding the word "back" after "transferred" so that it will read, "who were transferred back from St. Malo, Quebec city, to Riviere du Loup" in English. In the French language the third paragraph should read:
Quels sont les noms et les occupations respectives des employes du National-Canadien qui sont revenus de Saint-Malo, ville de Quebec, k la Rividre-du-Loup.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.


INTERNATIONAL SALMON FISHERIES COMMISSION
[Stage Direction]
The question being called:
Jean-François Pouliot: What is the total of travelling expenses and living allowances paid each Canadian member of the international salmon fisheries commission since 1937?
He said: I rise again on a point of order. This question belongs to the hon. member for Leeds.


Mr. Fulford:: This is my question.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Pearkes:: 1.	Have orders been placed for the Department of National Defence for boudoir, table, trilight and bridge lamps?
2.	If so, how many such lamps have been ordered?
3.	Have tenders been called for a supply of these lamps?
4.	If so, has any tender as yet been accepted?
5.	What is the estimated cost of these lamps?
6.	On what basis are they to be issued to the services?


PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: I should like to direct a question to
Inquiries of the Ministry the Minister of Public Works. Can he make a report to the house on the four-hour elevator incident in the Peace Tower yesterday, and will he tell us something about the inspection service and whether or not precautions will be taken so that this sort of thing will not happen again?


Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works):: On Sunday May 18 at approximately 3.30 o'clock in the afternoon elevator No. 1 carrying thirteen passengers and the elevator operator left the first floor level and stalled at about 25 feet down. The maintenance crews worked for a period of four hours in order to raise the elevator back to the upward position when the occupants of the car were released. The car is ordinarily known as having a capacity of 1,500 pounds, which is spoken of in the industry as being a 10-passenger car. An examination of the car showed that the emergency safety device had come into operation owing to the overload, and this particular device could not be released under such conditions until the car was taken back to the upward position which, as stated, required a period of about four hours.
The car was in charge of one of our regular elevator operators, Mr. Charles Michaud, who has operated the car for a period of two years. Yesterday previous to the incident the car was working satisfactorily. While there is a card in the car saying that the load is to be nine people, the elevator operator used his own discretion in estimating the load with regard to the weight of the people rather than the number, feeling that he had not exceeded the 1,500-pound limit. In this particular case the load was heavier than the operator estimated, and this caused the safety device to automatically come into action and stop the car. The service maintenance contract for the care and successful operating of the machine is under the Otis Fensom Elevator Company, who were the manufacturers thereof.


LIVESTOCK
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has any communication been received from the United States government that the embargo against Canadian cattle will be lifted within two months if there are no further outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease?

Military Establishments-Fires and Thefts


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Messages could have come to someone other than myself. I have seen no such message, but the law of the United States is that the embargo can be lifted two months after the certificate of final clearance is given by the United States secretary of agriculture.


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance) moved: that the house go into committee of supply.


THEFT AND FIRES IN MILITARY ESTABLISHMENTS -AMENDMENT, MR. DREW
Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, today I intend to present a motion such as is made possible at this stage of the proceedings of the house. It is one which I hope will receive consideration from members on all sides of the house having regard to its subject matter and also to the importance of the subject at a time when we actually have before the house the consideration of estimates for the Department of National Defence which it is anticipated may come close to $2J billion with the supplementary estimates that will be submitted later. Without going into the details of any matters now before any committee of the house, it is only necessary to draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that since this subject was last discussed only a few days ago attention has been drawn to still further examples of widespread theft and looting of government property in military establishments across this country.
If these things were happening in an isolated camp, or even in one or two camps, there might not be the same reason for returning once again to a subject which goes to the root of the confidence which can be placed by members of the house and the people of Canada in the administration of a department which is seeking an allocation of public funds that will amount to almost half of the total raised by taxes from the people of Canada during the coming year. Members of the house have been well aware for some time of the concern that has been expressed in the press and elsewhere about losses, thefts, incendiary fires and looting in government camps and storehouses throughout the country.
Our attention was directed to this subject very dramatically by the nature of the thefts that occurred at Petawawa. Since that time there have been further thefts in Ottawa, Montreal, Halifax, British Columbia and elsewhere throughout Canada, all of a nature which suggests a complete break-down of the
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l
administrative supervision of public property by the Department of National Defence. Nor is it simply a case of this concern being expressed by laymen. It would seem that this concern is being expressed in equally forceful language by those in uniform. The Calgary Herald of May 13 reports the contents of a letter written by Colonel J. S. Ross, officer in charge of administration, western command, to the heads of branches and staff, to the heads of services and to units and subunits under his authority. As reported in the Calgary Herald of that date the letter contains the following statement by Colonel Ross:
The adjutant-general has expressed sincere concern at the apparent laxity revealed by the current scandals at Montreal and Petawawa. The trials resulting from these episodes may bring substantial penitentiary sentences to guilty parties.
However, such action will not necessarily redeem lost confidence in the army by the minister, the members of the house, the press or the general public.
There have been numerous incidents of a similar nature, all of which indicate a very distinct lack of higher level supervision. Further, it is apparent that some of the younger officers have not grasped the fact that they are custodians of crown property, and that their action in becoming involved in various fraudulent enterprises displays a moral laxity which can only be described as shocking.
The most recent scandals involve officers and men in the sale of government stores and the appropriation of government stores for their own personal use.
It is of the utmost importance that such irregularities be curbed forthwith. Accordingly you are directed to impress on all officers under your command the necessity for increased vigilance and good personal example.
Drastically increased supervision is to be exercised immediately.
Unit, subunit and detachment commanders are to fully understand their personal responsibilities.
The line of responsibility within your organization is to be clearly defined so as to ensure a clear-cut disciplinary course in the event of slackness or dishonesty coming to light.
Heads of services, units, subunits and detachment commanders will be answerable for future irregularities developing within this command.
That is the end of the quotation in the Calgary Herald of May 13 from a letter attributed to Colonel J. S. Ross. I have pointed out that I am reading from this newspaper report, and that is my only source of information in regard to this letter. I would point out, however, that unless it is disclosed that such letter was not written by the officer in charge of administration, western command, then this house has reason to pay particular attention to certain words contained in that letter written by an officer occupying a position of considerable responsibility in the Canadian armed forces.
May I refer hon. members to one particular sentence in the letter-and I quote again: "There have been numerous incidents of a similar nature, all of which indicate a very

distinct lack of higher level supervision". That quotation suggests reasons why hon. members of this House of Commons should seek in every way in their power to bring about reforms which will examine with the most complete and searching inquiry every detail of the supervision, protection and accounting in relation to these vitally important public stores.
These are not just ordinary stores. These are not simply valuable pieces of public property. This is property which is part and parcel of the costly and vitally important preparation for the defence of Canada in case our security should be threatened. Therefore any method that is followed should be one which will assure that supervision either at the lower or at the higher level, as mentioned by Colonel Ross, will be examined dispassionately, judicially and completely.
Since this matter was first under discussion in the house during the present session, not only have there come to the attention of hon. members and the people of Canada incidents in particular camps, but there have become available reports of theft, looting and fires, some of them incendiary, which have resulted in the last two years in a loss estimated by the Department of National Defence at a figure of more than $7 million. There may be some question however as to whether those figures in themselves even approach the actual value of the losses to the people of Canada. It will be recalled that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) spoke of losses at Farnham as being in the neighbourhood of $3,500. If the accounting methods of the Department of National Defence report a loss of only $3,500 at Farnham, then the statement given of the total loss as in the statement prepared by the department, showing a loss of more than $7 million, should contain figures very much higher than it actually does.
What prompts me to raise this question with some sense of urgency this afternoon is that within the last few days it has been disclosed that the individual who was asked to undertake some form of inquiry into what had occurred at Petawawa is not actually in Canada at this time. One of the reasons why this in itself should call for immediate attention is that Colonel Currie's reputation, both as an accountant and as a man of great personal integrity and ability, did convey to the public a measure of confidence when the statement was made that he had undertaken to do this work.
No one would question either the accounting ability or the personal integrity or the high standing, in the esteem of Canadians who know him, of Colonel Currie, whose
Military Establishments-Fires and Thefts name was placed before us as the man who had been asked to carry out certain inquiries about which we are not too clearly informed.
It has been pointed out already in this house that, no matter what Colonel Currie's personal standing may be, that in itself is no substitute for an inquiry conducted under appropriate terms of reference which would give the inquiry the opportunity to go into every detail of the situation which has been described in such forceful terms by Colonel Ross in the letter quoted by the Calgary Herald. Since it has been stated that Colonel Currie has left Canada and is in England, and that this was with the knowledge and permission of the Minister of National Defence, and that such inquiries as are being conducted are being carried forward by his staff, then it does seem appropriate that we should examine with the utmost care just what measure of authority the staff in Colonel Currie's office really have to conduct an inquiry into laxity in administration which, according to the letter of Colonel Ross, if that is correctly reported shows a distinct lack of high-level supervision over government stores.
When the Minister of National Defence was asked under what authority Colonel Currie has been appointed to conduct an inquiry he replied that it was under section 4 of chapter 43 of the statutes of Canada, 1950, volume I, at page 473. This is known as the National Defence Act. Section 4, which is the section the minister put forward as the statutory provision under which Colonel Currie acquired his authority through a letter from the minister, reads as follows:
The minister shall have the control and management of the Canadian forces, the Defence Research Board and1 of all matters relating to national defence including preparation of civil defence against enemy action, and shall be responsible for the construction and maintenance of all defence establishments and works for the defence of Canada.
That is the whole section and it contains no reference, by implication or otherwise, to an inquiry of any kind. This is the section which says that the minister shall have the control and management of the Canadian forces. Under the authority of that section the minister has written to Mr. Currie to ask him to do certain things at the Petawawa camp. It was said before, and it should be repeated, that under the letter written to Mr. Currie by the minister, Mr. Currie has no authority whatever to call for the production of documents, to compel the attendance of any witness or generally to do any of the things that are essential to the conduct of an inquiry such as I am sure most Canadians thought had been initiated when they read the announcement by the minister. The section merely says that there will be a minister.
Mr. Speaker, without getting away from the real consideration which should be in the mind of every member here, may I suggest that this does reflect the superman complex

Military Establishments-Fires and Thefts
with which we seem to be dealing so frequently in this house. There is a minister appointed, and according to him he has the authority to do anything, therefore it is not necessary to bother about the public Inquiries Act or any other act that was designed by this parliament to authorize the kind of inquiry which should be under way at this time. In fact, one might almost hear the minister say, in the words of Gilbert and Sullivan:
The law is the true embodiment,
Of everything that's excellent.
It has no kind of fault or flaw,
And I, my lords, embody the law.
The minister is appointed. He is in charge of the establishment, and therefore he embodies the whole law, and his wish expressed in a letter to Mr. Currie is adequate to conduct an inquiry, which certainly would be one of the most important inquiries conducted in this country if it were carried forward with the measure of authority which such an inquiry should possess.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am going to present a motion, and in doing so I wish to refer to certain arguments which indicate an attitude toward inquiries provided by the public Inquiries Act which seems to be strangely inconsistent, not only with the attitude of this government on other occasions but also with the history of inquiries of this nature both here and in Great Britain, from whose records we gain so much when we seek precedents of value in dealing with matters of this kind. When it was suggested on another occasion that an inquiry under the public Inquiries Act should be conducted, the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe) belittled the suggestion that an inquiry of this kind could serve any useful purpose. He stated on an earlier occasion that a group of experts had been brought in from Chicago.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I gather that the hon. member is referring to another debate during this session. If it took place during this session, I request that he do not do so.


George Alexander Drew: I had no intention of quoting, but in any event I can put forward my argument without any further reference to what was said on another occasion. The attitude has been adopted on a number of occasions that the calling in of experts is not what is helpful in producing reforms. At the time that matter was under discussion I did not have the opportunity of replying because I had introduced a motion. If I had I would have pointed out that on a number of occasions the failure of people brought in without full authority has been demonstrated, and that is exactly what should be in the minds of hon. members in this house if the arguments which have been put forward against (Mr. Drew.]
the appointment of a body to inquire under the public Inquiries Act are to be regarded as valid. Those arguments themselves demonstrate the unsatisfactory nature of inquiries conducted without the appropriate authority to obtain evidence, to obtain the production of documents, and that is exactly what has been suggested in this house and elsewhere. It has been suggested that, no matter how high the standing may be of any individual or group of individuals asked to inquire into certain matters of importance to the public, that inquiry can produce no satisfactory result if such individual or individuals do not find themselves cloaked with adequate powers under the public Inquiries Act.
Any suggestion that it is a derogation of the authority and responsibility of members of the house to suggest the appointment of an appropriate body to conduct a public inquiry under the public Inquiries Act is surely answered by the fact that this government has on so many occasions seen fit to appoint bodies to conduct inquiries into matters which ultimately could only be dealt with by this house and by parliament, and have, in fact, claimed a substantial measure of credit for adopting that course.
May I, Mr. Speaker, anticipate the possibility that we would once again hear any suggestion that it would be a derogation of the responsibility of the members of this house and of parliament to express their opinion that an appropriate body should be appointed under the public Inquiries Act. May I point out the occasions on which the appointment of such a body has been of vital importance not only here but at Westminster, from which we draw so many of our valuable precedents.
I think it may be worth while pointing out that our whole present system of public accounting and the presentation of accounts and reports to parliament is the result of the recommendations of a royal commission appointed in 1831 by the parliament at Westminster to inquire into their general methods of accounting, the preparation of accounts and, generally, the business methods of the government in relation to those subjects. Not only were the reforms effected at Westminster which produced their modern system of accounting but since we became, to use words that have been so often employed, "the transcript of Westminster", we adopted the same methods that were the result of recommendations of a royal commission in 1831.
Then when we are told that our treasury system is so perfect that it could gain nothing from such an inquiry, may I remind hon. members that another commission appointed two years earlier by the House of Commons

and parliament at Westminster conducted an inquiry into treasury matters-it was known as the treasury commission-and our present treasury methods are largely the result of the recommendations of that commission.
Then, to bring the examples closer to the subject matter under discussion, I know that most members will recall-and most certainly the Minister of National Defence will do so- the Esher commission of 1904, which was a judicial commission headed by Lord Esher and which made recommendations that resulted in a complete reorganization not only of the British army but of the department of national defence and of the allocation of tasks within the department of national defence. May I remind the hon. members who have not recently read the findings of the Esher commission-when there is any suggestion that the appointment of such a commission is a derogation of the responsibilities and duties of members of parliament-that the Esher commission even went so far as to recommend what duties the prime minister of Great Britain should perform in relation to the supervision of national defence, and that commission outlined generally the duties of ministers, the duties of the general staff, of the adjutant general's branch, of the quartermaster general's branch, and of the whole military organization. Those recommendations brought about reforms without which it would never have been possible for the United Kingdom to go into the war of 1914 with an organization which was capable of performing the great services it rendered to Great Britain and to the whole free world.
Here in this country we have had commissions which have dealt with subjects that most certainly come under the authority and the responsibility of members of parliament at some point. Only a few days ago, I have reason to believe, approval was expressed on both sides of the house of an indication that the government proposes to carry out another recommendation of the Massey commission. The very fact that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) was making this announcement indicated that this subject is one which must be dealt with by parliament if it is to be dealt with effectively. I have seen no suggestion that there was any derogation from the authority and responsibility of members of parliament when the Massey commission was appointed to inquire into subjects which must be dealt with by this House of Commons and by parliament if the recommendations are to be implemented.
Then at a time when we have reason to examine the estimates of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation it perhaps is appropriate to remember that the Canadian Broadcasting
Military Establishments-Fires and Thefts Corporation is simply the Canadian broadcasting commission under a new form and that the Canadian broadcasting commission was set up as a result of the recommendations of a royal commission appointed by the government of Canada. In addition, there are a number of members who will recall that a royal commission conducted an inquiry into certain episodes connected with customs in this country, and that, as a result of the recommendations made at that time, there have been for a great many years no major scandals connected with customs.
There also have been a number of commissions appointed to deal with railways, shipping and other matters of the kind. In every single case those commissions were called upon to deal with subjects which ultimately would call for examination by the House of Commons and parliament if anything effective was to be done.
May I point out what a strange conclusion we would be led to if we accepted the proposition that the government has on some occasions put forward. If the government believes that it is a derogation of responsibility to appoint a royal commission to inquire into something that relates to the duties of government, then what does the government say about its appointment of a royal commission to inquire into the irrigation project and the power project in Saskatchewan which has been requested so frequently and with such vigour by the members on this side of the house?
If the government does not think that such a royal commission should be appointed, surely it is to be hoped that this thought was not in their minds when they appointed such a commission to deal with that tremendously important project at a time when the members of this party, and of all other parties in the house, were urging the government to act, and to act promptly, to carry forward this great and very beneficial undertaking.
No, Mr. Speaker, the history of royal commissions is a history of inquiries which have produced many of the major reforms in our administrative system, as well as in the detailed duties of government and of parliament. Granted, there have been in this country and in other countries royal commissions which have not done all that was expected: the fact remains nevertheless that over the years most of the major reforms in the organization of government, in the reorganization of military services, have been the result of inquiries of this kind. It was in fact because of the inquiry conducted by what was known as the Otter commission that there was a re-organization of the militia in Canada prior to the great war, which
2332	HOUSE OF
Military Establishments-Fires and Thefts made it possible for the Canadian forces at that time to take such an effective part so early in the first world war.
I have mentioned the 'history of these commissions to anticipate any suggestion that an inquiry under the public Inquiries Act would be any derogation of the responsibilities, duties and authority of the members of this house, and at the same time to urge the hon. members on both sides of the house to approach this subject with a recognition of the fact that each one of us should be seeking some method by which confidence will be restored in a department which is seeking approximately half of all the heavy taxes which will be imposed upon the people of Canada at this time, and which has the responsibility for preparing our defence forces in the hope that their effectiveness, along with the effectiveness of the defence forces of other free nations, may in fact avoid the necessity of employing these forces again at any time in the future for war itself.
How can the members of this house, the members on either side of this house, say to the people of Canada that they are confident that everything is being done, when step by step what has been done challenges our confidence in every way? No matter what view may have been expressed on other occasions, any arguments I have put forward as to the arguments raised against royal commissions are put forward only with the hope that arguments raised on other occasions may not be raised at this time against what seems to me to be the only possible device by which we can get a satisfactory inquiry that will restore confidence to this house, yes, restore confidence in the minds of the members on both sides of the house, and in doing that restore confidence to the people of Canada that something effective will really be done, and that if, as Colonel Ross is reported to have said, there is in fact a distinct lack of higher level supervision we shall know where that lack of supervision really is, no matter how high it may be.
I am sure that the members of this house have confidence in the chief of the general staff, in the chief of the air staff, in the chief of the naval staff. I am sure that they have confidence in these officers who are responsible for the strictly military aspect of our defence problems. But, Mr. Speaker, no matter where the break-down may have occurred, I think the members of this house and the people of Canada are greatly in need of restored confidence right up the line in those duties which have to do with accounting supervision and protection.


The Minister of National Defence is well aware that for several years efforts have been made within the Department of National Defence to bring about a more efficient method of accounting. I am sure the Minister of National Defence is aware that there have been suggestions that a central accounting organization which also had the most modern type of accounting methods, adjusting its inventory as any business would, would be able both to direct more effective supervision of accounting duties and at the same time to report on any problem relating to accounts in a manner which does not now seem to be possible.
Surely the members of this house must have been impressed with the length of time that, on a number of occasions, it has taken to provide information to the defence expenditure committee, as well as to this house, in regard to details which could have been provided within a few hours if the same accounting methods were in operation in the Department of National Defence as would be required in any big business in this country today.
Over and over again an almost plaintive story has been told of the number of officials required and the length of time that would be involved in preparing details of something that should have been available simply by examining the end entries under any effective system of accounting that was consistent with modern accounting practices. Surely it is something about which the Minister of National Defence can agree without being indignant that it might even be hinted that the Department of National Defence could be improved in any way. Surely the time has come when the constant recurrence of these thefts, losses and incendiary as well as other fires should have impressed upon the Minister of National Defence-even if it were only to reassure himself personally that everything is being done that should be done-that an inquiry of this nature would certainly be justified.
Both in the Supreme Court of Canada and in the supreme courts of the provinces are judges of great reputation, men who served in one war or the other with great distinction. I can think of certain judges who had experience in both wars. I am not suggesting that they alone would be highly qualified, but at least some of them would have available in their own memories a knowledge that would be extremely valuable in approaching a problem of this nature.
The people of this country have indicated through the press and in other ways that they want reassurance, and this government has on many occasions indicated its own belief in

the procedure provided by the Inquiries Act, and it is for that reason that I propose to present this motion. I ask the Minister of National Defence, in his own interest from the point of view of avoiding constant requests of other kinds, and also all members as representatives of the people of Canada, to indicate their desire that this subject be dealt with by a judicial inquiry. Now that we learn that the inquiry, which is not really an inquiry as that term is ordinarily used, is nothing more than an office accounting procedure because of the absence of Colonel Currie in England-that absence in itself indicates an extended delay before any satisfactory answers can be given to this house and to the people of Canada-I am proposing that a judicial inquiry at the very highest level, such as has brought about great reforms in the past, should be instituted to deal with something which now relates to the whole subject matter, not only of accounting but of the national defence of this country.
With a department which is going to spend in this year alone such fabulous sums as those before us, with a department which is responsible for preparing the defence of Canada and our common participation under the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, we should be assured of an administrative system, of an internal organization and of supervision of accounting which will guarantee that we have in this country as efficient and as effective an organization dealing with that vitally important matter as can possibly be made available. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon): '
That all the words after "that" to the end of the question be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"the government should consider the advisability of undertaking a judicial inquiry into the organization of the Department of National Defence and without restricting the generality of the foregoing, to investigate the accounting, inspection and administrative supervision of public property by the Department of National Defence with particular reference to losses of property by theft, looting and fire; the nature of supervision over the army stores and as to whether there has occurred any dereliction of duty on the part of any of the personnel of the said department whose duty it is to safeguard the public property of Canada.
The judicial body thus appointed to have all the powers of a royal commission under part I of the Inquiries Act, chapter 99, of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927, to make findings and recommendations and to report the same to parliament."


Hon. Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) has based his appeal to this house to adopt this motion on charges of "wholesale looting" in the Department of National Defence. He has made this charge
Military Establishments-Fires and Thefts before. He made it first on April 21 when he moved the adjournment of the house to discuss a matter of urgent public importance. He repeated it when he spoke for the first time on this subject on May 1. He repeated it in a broadcast of the program "The Nation's Business" over the trans-Canada network on May 6.
This charge is a serious charge. So far as I can learn from the speech of the leader of the opposition this afternoon it is based on thefts at Petawawa, Ottawa, Montreal, Halifax and in British Columbia. He seemed to derive some comfort and support from the fact that Colonel Ross directed a letter to the staff subordinate to him urging a more careful supervision. Why, this letter was the right kind of letter for an officer in command of men to write. That kind of letter has been sent through the years every time there is occasion. This is the kind of action that should be taken by commanding officers and in so far as anything that is brought to my attention is concerned, I see that it is taken.
I do not suggest that the leader of the opposition has said this, but the implication of these wholesale charges of wholesale looting is that great quantities of stores, out of all proportion to the value of the stores concerned, are being removed wholesale from the warehouses, storerooms and depots of the Department of National Defence and the armed forces. He himself used a figure of over $7 million as the amount of loss through theft and fire. That would be a very large figure but that is not in accordance with the facts before the defence expenditures committee. I will come to that in a minute.
What are we concerned with in the Department of National Defence and the three forces? We are concerned with an operation involving real estate valued at something over a billion and a half dollars, with equipment, supplies and stores having a value of perhaps another billion dollars, quite apart from ships and aircraft.


John George Diefenbaker: What did the minister mean by "real estate"? Does he mean the purchase of land, and so on?


Brooke Claxton: Buildings and land, but the land we occupy is not nearly as valuable as the buildings.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister mentioned a billion and a half for real estate.


Brooke Claxton: A billion and a half for real estate and something approaching a billion dollars for stores, equipment, and the like. I have made as careful comparisons as I can on the basis of the information available on the subject of fire losses. As I said in
2334	HOUSE OF
Military Establishments-Fires and Thefts the house a few days ago, we compared the experience of the Department of National Defence with the experience in six major cities in Canada. The experience in the Department of National Defence for the years 1950 and 1951, the last for which we have figures, was about the same as it was in 1949. The incidence of loss through fire in the Department of National Defence was just half as great on a fair basis of comparison as the loss to civilian property in these principal cities despite the fact that in national defence we are engaged in operations using inflammable and explosive materials, despite the fact that the camps and air stations are located at isolated centres and do not have the advantage of mutual protection, and despite the fact that a large part of the property is of wartime construction and is highly inflammable and very difficult to extinguish once a fire has started.
I ask the leader of the opposition or anyone else to establish before the defence expenditures committee that the rate of loss by fire in the armed forces is higher in proportion than it is in civilian life. This is a fair comparison, and no figures have ever been put before me which disclose the contrary. The leader of the opposition referred to the number of fires of incendiary origin. So far as it has been established in a court of law, there has only been one fire of incendiary origin. That was the last fire at Plouffe park and the soldier responsible was sentenced to two years less a day. Every fire is investigated by fire marshals and by the special officers of the R.C.M.P. In some cases civilian investigators are brought in. I suggest that to have one proven case of arson for the whole Department of National Defence in the last five years is far smaller than the record of arson in civil life.
The amount of loss by theft is not the gigantic figure mentioned by the leader of the opposition or implied through his reference to a figure of over $7 million. A return filed before the committee on defence expenditures gives a summary of losses due to theft or fraud, fire and other write-offs for the three services from April 1, 1950, to March 31, 1952, a period of two years. Losses due to theft or fraud less the amount recovered came to $85,809.75. I think every hon. member of the house has enough information from his own experience of fires and fire losses, of theft and losses by theft, and particularly with respect to property like that in the Department of National Defence and the services involving camps where construction is going on and large stores widely distributed among almost a thousand units throughout


the country, to realize that a loss of $85,000 odd in two years by theft or fraud is extremely small.
I have the figures on prosecutions for theft in the civil courts in cases where civilians were convicted, cases where servicemen were convicted and also cases where servicemen were convicted by courts martial for the same offence. The last period for which we have figures is from October 1, 1949, to September 30, 1950. In the civil courts charges in which civilians were convicted totalled 6,643. The number of servicemen convicted in civil courts was 94, and the number of servicemen convicted in courts martial was 31. The total male population of Canada between 18 and 45, which are the ages corresponding to those of practically all members of the armed forces, was 2,722,201 at that time. The mean population of the armed forces during that period was 61,799. The incidence of theft by civilians was -23 per cent and the incidence of theft by servicemen was -20 per cent, so that on the only figures that have been put before me the record of service personnel is better than that of civilian personnel.
Put in another way, during this period the service population was 2-22 per cent of the male population between the ages of 18 and 45, but service personnel were convicted either by civil courts or courts martial of committing 1-9 per cent of the offences of theft committed in the country, considerably less proportionately than the civilian population. In the armed forces today there are over 97,000 individuals. Employed in civilian occupations by the Department of National Defence and the armed services there are another 40,000 civilians making a total population employed full time of 137,000 people.
It is no part of my reply, Mr. Speaker, to say that the 137,000 are all perfect. Unfortunately, in such a large group there are a considerable number of individuals who have been tempted to do wrong. When we find them out we prosecute them; and we have I believe in the provost corps and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, which make investigations into every loss in which theft or fraud is suspected, a group comparable in efficiency and honesty with any group of civil or other police in this country.
That we should have any losses is deplorable. It must not be taken in any way, shape or form that, in making this reply, I am endeavouring to whitewash or to show complacency about the present situation, anything that has happened or anything that may happen. Our job is to use every means possible so as to ensure that the utmost care is

taken in safeguarding public property and in preventing loss, whether it be by fire, theft, fraud or any other means.
Toward that end from time to time we have the assistance of officers of the treasury. We have of course within the department itself an internal audit with a travelling group of auditors. We have the control of the Auditor General, to whom these audit reports are sent; and also from time to time we engage outside assistance to look into the question of systems and the like. We have the advantage of making comparisons with the systems and results in other countries, and in particular the United States and Great Britain. There has never been put before me any figure which would indicate that our losses by these causes are any greater than in the armed forces of those countries. As I indicated the other day in the house, the experience in connection with theft, in the Canadian National Railways, which carries on very large operations, showed losses which, in proportion to the amount involved, appear to be greater than those in the Department of National Defence.
Some general assertions have been made by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) and I must make some corrections. The use of round figures of large size should be indulged in with a sense of responsibility; and when the errors are large one can't help wondering how sound are the charges based upon the figures used to back them up.
I mentioned a few moments ago a statement placed before the committee on defence expenditures which showed losses due to theft in two years amounting to $85,809.75 and losses due to fire of $5,205,970.54-a long way from the figure of over $7 million. The other figure is for "write-offs" of $2,112,931.15. There is no evidence yet put forward to show that this resulted from theft, fraud or fire, or to suggest that they were not proper write-offs largely of an accounting nature.
The committee on defence expenditures is sitting. It has had these figures put before it. The witnesses are available. They have answered questions with respect to the figures. And I understand, from the last information coming to me, they have dealt with the write-offs, fires and thefts in so far as the navy is concerned, and that they are proceeding with the others. And I suggest that is the right place to do it.
The leader of the opposition referred to the cost of defence this year as of the order of two and a half billions of dollars. There is provision for two billions in the estimates and he spoke of another half billion in the supplementaries. How anyone can anticipate supplementaries of that magnitude at this
Military Establishments-Fires and Thefts stage, I do not know. There is no basis for it. With the exception of the year 1951-52, the Department of National Defence has come within one per cent of spending the amount appropriated!. It would surprise me if there were any supplementaries this year for the defence department.
But another figure was given. In his broadcast the leader of the opposition, making much the same argument as he made today, said:
Let us see just how some of these figures are made up. In the estimates of the Department of National Defence there is for instance a figure of $17 million for publicity. This sum does not include the salaries of the well-trained civil servants who perform the regular duties in connection with information and ordinary publicity.
Note that additional sentence-"This sum does not include the salaries of the well-trained civil servants who perform the regular duties in connection with information and ordinary publicity"-which tends to give a sort of corroborative detail as evidence to support the $17 million figure.
When I read this I must say I was astonished. I was not astonished at the figure, because I knew the figure was wrong; but I was astonished that it should have been given. I looked at once at the statement available to every hon. member, contained in the envelope at the back of the estimates, in which is set out a summary of standard objects of expenditure, under all the different categories, and arranged on a similar basis for each government department. I find there that the item for publicity for national defence is not $17 million but $2,875,460.


Mr. Sinclair:: The usual error.


Brooke Claxton: This item which appears under national defence is entirely for recruiting publicity, which comes under the heading, "Films, displays, advertising and other informational publicity", set out as column 10. The total for all government departments is $10,461,641. Then there is the heading of "Publication of departmental reports and other material", set out as column 9. Here there are over forty items listed for all departments, totalling $6,987,136, and the item for national defence is $2,485,900. It is, as the leader of the opposition has said, in addition to salaries and pay.
Now, sir, the leader of the opposition has made another charge that the need for this inquiry by a royal commission is indicated by the time it takes to get information from the Department of National Defence and the armed forces. We are not performing miracles in the department but I follow the questions on the order paper very carefully, and I venture to say that, having regard to the
2336	HOUSE OF
Military Establishments-Fires and Thefts number of questions, their nature and the size of the operation, answers are given about as promptly as one could expect. As for information requested before the parliamentary committee, I ask hon. members who sit on that committee what information they have been refused, and what delays there have been in making the information available. I have read the proceedings of the committee, and I have seen a number of charges about not getting information. But when the charges are made-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think it might be better if the minister did not refer to the proceedings in the committee.


Brooke Claxton: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. In the house itself, those charges have been made about lack of information. I venture to say that more information has been, and is being, given about defence and matters relating to defence than in any parliament in the British commonwealth. I ask any hon. member who questions that statement to prove his contention. I have here references to the debates on defence in the British House of Commons for the session corresponding to this one. I have the number of hours already spent, and the number of speakers who have taken part in the debate. I wish some hon. members who make these charges would read British Hansard to see how the debate on defence compares with the debate here. The government set aside one day in December for general debate on defence. There was one day for debate on the estimates on each of the service departments, the navy, army and air force, and one day on supplementaries. That is all there has been, and that is all there is likely to be this session.
There is a committee on estimates, but during the last year and a half it has not met for as many hours as our committees on public accounts and defence expenditures have devoted to defence matters. That committee, and the house at Westminster, have not had before them one-tenth of the information that has been placed before this house on defence matters. I suggest that it is time those who make these charges about lack of information should prove them.
It is time that the operation of national defence be regarded as an operation on a scale which is comparable with that of anything there is in the country today. At the present time, in addition to the 137,000 men and women engaged full time in defence, there are nearly another 60,000 in the reserve. There are well over 500 units, and there has been an increase of strength of over 100 per cent in two years. When you have an operation involving that number of people and the


amount of property and equipment that there is in the services, the record compares favourably with that of any operation about which we know and are able to obtain information.
The leader of the opposition was interesting when he said that he had confidence in the chiefs of staff, of the navy, army and air force, and others responsible for the strictly military operations. I was not surprised to hear him make this statement because he must know, and the house must know, that the sweeping charges of "wholesale looting" tend to cast aspersion on all members of the armed forces, officers and men alike. He must know, and the house must know, that the service personnel keenly resent these charges, because they believe that they are as honest and decent a group of men as there is in Canada. To anticipate this, the leader of the opposition says he has confidence in the chiefs of staff-well, so have I. I have confidence in the chiefs of staff who are responsible for the operation of the three services.
Under the general supervision of the chief of the general staff of the army comes the quartermaster general, who is responsible for the store of the ordnance corps and its administration; the Royal Canadian Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, and its administration; medical and dental stores, the Royal Canadian Engineers, and the Army Service Corps. Those are the branches concerned with the business of taking in stores, issuing stores, keeping stores and accounting for stores. They have had a very large job. Today the engineers are concerned with 513 major contracts across Canada. The engineers were concerned with plans and specifications and, to a certain extent, looking after this very large operation. This has been accomplished without any very substantial additions to personnel of the engineer corps. We are trying to handle this big operation without building up a large overhead which we would not need after the peak has been passed.
Now, I have mentioned these branches of the service which are responsible, and when the adjutant general, the quartermaster general or the chief of the general staff or the corresponding officers in all the three services, find that there has been a theft, he draws to the attention of the officers under him the need for effective supervision. When Colonel Ross was referring to a distinct lack of higher level supervision, he was referring to supervision at a level subordinate to himself.
We have had before us a motion that all this should be the subject of a royal commission. This is not the first time that the

leader of the opposition 'has made suggestions of this kind. I have not a full list, but I have some notes indicating that he made similar proposals back in 1949. On October 26-


John George Diefenbaker: Will the minister permit a question?


Brooke Claxton: Yes.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister has spoken about outside persons being asked to investigate. Before he turns to the subject of a royal commission, I was wondering whether this would not be the time to answer the question that was put on the order paper with regard to Mr. George Currie.


Brooke Claxton: I will come to Mr. Currie.


John George Diefenbaker: That is fine. I thought the minister was going to another subject, and that this might be a good opportunity.


Brooke Claxton: As I say, those suggestions have been made. On October 26, 1949, was made one of the numerous recommendations for a committee, denying that committees delegate parliamentary responsibility; April 26, 1950, demand for examination of government business by experts; May 30, 1950, suggested royal commission on government organization; April 28, 1950, demand for royal commission; June 12, 1951, demand for committee on estimates.


George Alexander Drew: And we got that.


Brooke Claxton: You got no committee on estimates.


George Alexander Drew: Oh, yes; we have.


Brooke Claxton: Well, I have followed the matter and I have not seen any committee on estimates.


George Alexander Drew: Are not the defence estimates sent to a committee?


Brooke Claxton: No. The defence estimates come before parliament. As recently as May 12 we had from the hon. gentleman another request of a similar character. Parliament is the place where this kind of operation should be carried on. This is the place where the estimates of the Department of National Defence have been examined at length every year. Parliament has set up a committee on defence expenditures which has been going into the expenditures since the date fixed in its terms of reference, March 31, 1950. There is the committee on public accounts and I understand that it will be looking tomorrow at the report of the Auditor General in so far as it relates to defence expenditures. Then we have pending, before the courts, the prosecutions at Petawawa. In addition, as I announced in the house on April 21, there is
Military Establishments-Fires and Thefts the appointment of Mr. George S. Currie, C.A., who has the terms of reference which I stated to the house at that time; and those show that he will have such other powers as he finds are necessary to carry out his job. What more could be done than that, if Mr. Currie is a man of the capacity described by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell), I think it was, and if he is a man of the integrity described by the leader of the opposition? And I agree that he is. Then if he wants extra power to do the job that has been given to him, he knows he will get it or else he will not try to do the job.
When this situation at Petawawa was drawn to my attention, I felt that the methods of accounting, stockkeeping, their operation and the responsibility for the losses at Petawawa or losses of that character elsewhere should be looked into by the best person we could find in all Canada. He was communicated with and he agreed to take the job. He at once told me that he would have to be away on the other side on business but that that absence would mean no delay because, in the meantime, partners and members of his firm would carry on the investigation so that it would be completed just as soon as it would have been had he been here throughout. That is the way he wanted to operate, that is the way he operates, and it seems to be a perfectly reasonable way to operate.
I am not going to delay the house further, Mr. Speaker. I suggest that the motion of the leader of the opposition is not much different from the one moved on May 12, which may be found at page 2105 of Hansard, when he asked for a royal commission for the purpose of examining and making recommendations for improving the organization and general efficiency of government administration; because in his speech he referred particularly to the Department of National Defence and the Department of Agriculture. This is a narrower field, related to one department. The house indicated its attitude to that proposal on that occasion and took the view-quite properly, I submit-that parliament is the body to which the government is responsible for its administration. That is the view that has been taken consistently by this side of the house and we do not see any reason for changing that view because of anything suggested this afternoon.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roseiown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, the concluding words of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) were substantially the words with which I was going to begin what I had to say. The proposals for royal commissions by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) on former occasions, particularly the one he made a week
2338	HOUSE OF
Military Establishments-Fires and Thefts ago today, were of a wider and a more general character than the one we now have before us.
Last week I pointed out that the motion involved the abrogation of the duties of this house since it dealt widely and generally with government administration. This afternoon the leader of the opposition has introduced a motion of quite a different character. The motion today is specific and deals with one department. Then it restricts itself to certain matters in connection with that department that are of public concern.
We are asked to approve a judicial inquiry into the organization of the Department of National Defence, to investigate the account-ting, inspection and administrative supervision of public property. Those requests are quite specific, I think, and in spite of anything that may follow in the amendment, they ask us, in view of the disquiet that is widespread across the country, to approve of a royal commission to investigate specifically the matters referred to in this amendment.
It is true that the motion speaks of theft, looting and fire. It does not use extravagant language. It does not say there has been wholesale looting but rather speaks of theft, looting and fire which we, as members of this house, know to be a fact that has been established not only before a committee of the house but in the courts of this country. And therefore, this being a proposal of a different nature, I feel that the attitude of the house should be different toward it. Speaking in the house last week in regard to the amendment to which the minister referred, I said something like this: that if members of parliament had any real function it must be that we control the finances and administration of this country. Then I went on to say that since the amendment involved the whole field of governmental administration we would be abrogating our functions if we agreed to it.
In the course of his remarks this afternoon, the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) referred quite properly to a number of royal commissions that had resulted in reports that were of general interest to this house and to the country. But I would point out that every one of these reports and every one of the subjects investigated were of a specific nature: arts and sciences, the Massey report; the inquiry into radio which resulted in the C.B.C.; the customs scandal in connection with the Department of National Revenue some years ago; the inquiry into the operation of railways, and again into the feasibility and desirability of the Saskatchewan river project. All these were of a specific character,


and the house generally approved of these commissions. But, as I said before, last week we were discussing something of a general nature, but today we are discussing something that is quite specific.
I listened with care to the leader of the opposition and to the Minister of National Defence, and I noted the defence that the minister made of some matters that had been under discussion and criticism in this house and before the committee. For example, I noted that he spoke of the rate of loss by fire among the civilian population of the country and among the military. I did not think that that argument was a particularly sound one, because after all in civilian life buildings, equipment and so on are not under constant supervision and constant patrol, which I understand is undertaken by the military in their warehouses, storehouses and so on across the country. Consequently, we should expect that the fire hazard in military establishments would be very greatly minimized by the constant patrol and supervision that exists. After all, $85,000 loss in theft and looting in two years is a very considerable amount, particularly if you look at it in the aggregate, but even if you break the amount down to losses of $3,500 a month or thereabouts, it is a considerable amount.


Brooke Claxton: $50,000 of that was at Peta-wawa.


Major James William Coldwell: Yes; at Petawawa. That is a very considerable loss. Then the comparison made again with civilian thefts and thefts in military establishments is one that strikes me as not being particularly sound. We have always thought of the military as being under constant regulation, constant inspection and so on, and that care is exercised when supplies are drawn, or anything leaves the military camp; therefore we would expect that again thefts at Petawawa and at other camps would be minimized in that way.
I want to say this to the minister. The department and the minister may be right, but the thing is that the people must be assured that the minister and the department are right. At the moment, anyone who travels across this country will realize that the public putting up this vast sum of money for defence at the present time are not convinced that everything is right. It is true that the leader of the opposition used the estimate of $2,500 million. The minister answered that that was an exaggeration. Whether it is $2,500 million or not, it is $2,106 million, which is a very considerable amount of money to be dealing with.
I hold in my hand the estimates of the departments of national defence for the United Kingdom for the year 1950-51, not

the current estimates. As hon. members will see, they consist of three volumes, the army estimates, 196 pages; the naval estimates, 304 pages; the air force estimates, 229 pages. Though the printing is somewhat different, and therefore the amount of printing probably in the books which I hold in my hand may not comprise as many items as a similar number of pages of our estimates do, yet I would point out that in our estimates this year there are only 14 pages of explanatory notes. In every one of these volumes you have the estimates, and on the opposite page there are usually explanatory notes of what the estimates involve. Possibly that does account, to some extent, for the fact that the debate in the House of Commons at Westminster is rather more restricted than the debate in our parliament in Canada regarding such estimates.
I want to say to the minister-and I am not going to labour the point this afternoon- that in my opinion, in the interests of the department and in his own position as minister, I believe the government would be well advised to accept the proposal involved in this amendment and to give the people of Canada the assurance that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the administration of the Department of National Defence at the present time.
I have said before that when I have been moving across this country I have heard many criticisms of what the ordinary man considers to be lack of supervision, extravagance, the tremendous movement of men on the trains, and so on. We hear the railway men discussing that matter quite frequently. They see cars around being used for all sorts and kinds of purposes, or at least people think they are being used for all sorts and kinds of purposes. That also leads to a considerable amount of criticism. Then of course, we have these recent cases of fire, theft and the disappearance of public property. When you put them all together they make a very impressive loss in the mind of the average person in our country.
I take it all hon. members in this house want the people of Canada to feel that in making these vast expenditures-and they are vast-for the defence of our country, and, as we sometimes put it, for our way of life, great care is taken to see that every dollar that the people of Canada are asked to provide shall be carefully and economically expended. That I think is the duty of this parliament, since the question has been raised, not only here but all across the country, as to the efficient organization and administration of the Department of National Defence. As the leader of the
Military Establishments-Fires and Thefts opposition (Mr. Drew) said, a similar royal commission was appointed many years ago in the United Kingdom to inquire into phases of government administration and organization. I believe the government would be well advised to accept this present suggestion of a specific nature, and the house would be well advised indeed to support the amendment now before us.


Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) will not be embarrassed unduly if I say that I agree with almost every word he said.


Major James William Coldwell: Not this time.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am not
going to enter into a battle of decimals with the minister. I listened to his decimals and I am not going to enter into that. Incidentally, the comments made by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar on that comparison were very sound indeed for the reason he gave. Surely a closely knit unit like military forces should be able to have supervision of a type which we could hardly expect in ordinary civilian life.
The reason I am on my feet is to stress- again I quote the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar-that it is not only necessary that things should be right; it is necessary that the people believe they are right. There is no question whatever but that up and down this country there is not only a feeling of alarm and disturbance at the present time that we have to find this huge amount of money; there is a feeling that this money is easily come by, so far as the armed forces are concerned, and is not being husbanded as it might be.
I want to be as fair on this as we can ever be.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Let me give you the simple facts with regard to that contract. The amount involved is trifling compared to the millions and billions we are spending, but if this is an example of the way they are dealing with these larger things then all I can say is that the people of Canada have every right to be uneasy and that they should have some kind of independent inquiry. In December last I brought to the attention of the committee- I suppose I may just mention that a committee existed-the fact that some 63,000 serving forks had been ordered. Serving forks are described as the forks used by cooks in roasting meats and also in dining halls for the serving of meat from platters. I am not getting on to forbidden ground beyond that and I hope you will not call me to order.
On the order paper last December there was a correction; the 63,000 was corrected to 42,000, I think. Then they had another look at it and I got an answer. It took only four months to prepare. This was not one of the cases where they were very prompt, but no doubt there was a reason. After all it was only an inquiry from a member of parliament. The answer was as follows:
An order has been placed by the Department of Defence Production on behalf of the Department of National Defence for 14,500 serving forks.
The total quantity is made up of 10,000 for current use by the army based on an actual issue of 4,500 in 1951-500 for the Royal Canadian Navy and 4,000 for mobilization stockpile.
I still believe that the 14,000 should have at least one zero knocked off, or perhaps two. I am told that a large hotel would use only a score or two of these forks. I am disturbed when you probe and find a soft spot like that. So far as I know after four months nobody seems disturbed about it. True they have reduced it to 14,000, but I still think that that is ten times or one hundred times too many.
However, let us assume that it is 14,000. They came down from 60,000 to 40,000 to 14,000 and as far as I know no one has been criticized. While that may seem a trifling thing it gives me a disturbed feeling about the whole affair. We hear all kinds of rumours. The air force is full of them. It is not a rumour but a fact that 20,000 trunks have been ordered. We do not ordinarily have trunks in the army.


Brooke Claxton: Yes, every man has a trunk.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Well, that is all right if every man has a trunk.


Brooke Claxton: A box at the foot of his bed.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: We will pass over the trunks. I am not an expert on trunks. I apologize for bringing up another humble ordinary utensil of the kitchen. The

other day I brought up the question of the ordering of between 29,000 and 30,000 teapots; two-quart teapots, not just little ones. I do not know whether that is reasonable. It does not seem so to me. I am not so sure about that as I am about the forks but it seems a lot unless the Canadian army is a tremendous consumer of tea at a rate of which ordinary people would not be capable.
I must not take too much time, but we also have the question of boots. We have 1,304,000 pairs of boots, which seems a lot. Maybe that is stockpiling, too. I offer no comment except to point out the large amount involved.
The other thing that I think is disturbing the people is the reports of losses by theft, and in this case the figures differ widely. The minister gave us what seemed a fairly conservative figure. I was struck by the figure he gave us the other day with respect to Farnham. As I recall it he said the loss was $3,500 after what was recovered was taken into account. I am assuming-if I am wrong I will be corrected-that is not worked out on the basis of what we originally expended at Farnham, but that there was a liberal writing down due to the passage of years, which I think would be reasonable to a point. On the other hand I have the feeling that it is very easy for a court of inquiry to fix the value of something that has been lost at a very small figure. As to the incidents now before us, that of Petawawa is before the courts, and, we have heard a lot in the committee which I must not mention about the sacred principle of sub judice. Apparently we cannot talk about that without being put in jail, but the minister actually talked about it on April 21. I should like to recall what he said at the time Mr. Currie's appointment was announced. Speaking of the select committee the minister said, as found at page 1424 of Hansard:
In conclusion I would like to add that if in the course of its work the select committee on defence expenditure would like to look into the stockkeeping, accounting or auditing procedure, or any other matter relating to its work, on the spot and anywhere, all facilities will be provided.
Apparently in our simplicity we read that all wrong. We thought that meant we could inquire and get information with regard to Petawawa and other places, but apparently we were wrong. The court of appeal in the committee that I must not name was against us. Actually-and here I wish to speak with restraint-it seems that we have to spend most of our time in a very pleasant discussion about abstract matters of accounting with a lot of details as to what has happened under the system of accounting, but we find difficulty in coming to grips
Military Establishments-Fires and Thefts with the cases where it would seem that the system has most obviously broken down.
I am not going to pursue the matter further.
I repeat what I said at the outset, that I think the people of Canada are disturbed about this matter and that though I greatly regret to have to feel obliged to vote for the motion nevertheless it seems to me for the reasons I have tried to give, and those which the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) gave in addition to those given by my leader, that this measure, unusual as it may be although there are many precedents for it, is warranted at the present time.


Mr. J. H. Ferguson (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) and his parliamentary assistant are both friends of mine. Nevertheless I believe this is the time for me to voice my opinion about certain matters pertaining to the expenditure of taxpayers' money by the Department of National Defence. The minister commented on certain statements of the *leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) and compared losses by fire in military camps with civilian fire losses. Such a comparison would seem to me to be almost ridiculous. We all know that in civilian areas there are children and old buildings with worn-out electrical wiring systems, whereas the defence installations are new construction with new wiring systems. There should also be a constant patrol of military property by guards. I do not think the minister should have made a comparison with civilian losses from fire, because it is not appropriate at all.
We of the opposition know that it is our duty to guard the taxpayers' money whenever possible by bringing to light what we believe to be maladministration of the people's affairs in the Dominion of Canada. That is our duty. We are not trying to run the government. We are trying to show the government where they are not running the people's affairs correctly. I should like to refer to a particular incident. The leader of the opposition mentioned looting, but I want to refer to something that I would describe as looting on a large scale. It has never been mentioned so far, and in my opinion it constitutes looting on a large scale.
A week ago some buses full of young girls and boys pulled up in front of the parliament buildings. Upon inquiry it was learned that these young girls and boys came from a small town, a beautiful spot I understand, in the province of Ontario. They were transported a distance of 185 miles to the parliament buildings and back at the expense of the taxpayers of Canada and with the full knowledge of the Department of National Defence, which is trying to run a war in Korea and trying to provide implements of war, soldiers,
2342	HOUSE OF
Military Establishments-Fires and Thefts sailors and air force men in an attempt to bring about peace. I want to show how far the government is going with the taxpayers' money.
The press is a pretty mighty weapon in Canada, and I hope the people of Canada will learn that their money is being spent in this manner. I asked certain questions of the Department of National Defence. The first one was:
For what purpose were army bus 103, licence No. 6011F and army bus 105, licence No. 6115F used on the 2nd day of May, 1952?
The answer I received was:
Transporting royal Canadian army cadets of Finch high school, Finch, Ontario.
That would be fine if these buses did not belong to the taxpayers, but wait till I read the other questions. The second question was:
Were they used out of Ottawa on the 2nd day of May, 1952?
The answer is "Yes", with no hesitation about it. They were used out of Ottawa. The third question was:
If so, what trips were made and what was the total mileage?
The answer is as follows:
From Finch, Ontario, to Ottawa and return. Total mileage on each bus was 185 miles.
The expense of travelling 185 miles with army men as chauffeurs was paid for by the taxpayers.
Wholesale looting!
Then question No. 4:
At whose request were such trips made?
And the answer:
Headquarters, eastern Ontario area, Kingston, Ontario.
Whom have we in Kingston or any other part of Canada who should make a request to Ottawa to pay for the transportation of these young men and women spending the money of the taxpayer to tote them back and forth, to and from the capital of Canada? Who are these people? Then question No. 5:
What were the nature of the military duties on which they were engaged?
And this is the answer-and just listen to this, for "military duties"-
Visit war museum and House of Commons.
On that basis, every American tourist is a soldier. It would seem that we are trying to train them how to defend our country by having them visit the House of Commons or, as it says, "visit war museum and House of Commons". Well, that must make a veteran laugh, when he feels that he must be encouraged to support his country, both in peace and war, by being toted up and down to the 

parliament buildings of Canada and to the war museum, where they have on display exhibits from the past two horrible wars.
What a training scheme! There was not a man in uniform either in the first great war or in the last one who ever needed to be taken to Ottawa and1 shown the war museum before he was prepared to get into uniform. He had a job, and he did it well. No man needs that kind of training, mentally or otherwise. Looting!
Then question No. 6:
Was any charge made for the use of the buses for such trips?
And what is the answer? It says, that no charge was made. No charge was made- except the charge I am making right now, And then, coming to question No. 7:
Are similar arrangements to those made in this case available in every part of Canada?
And question No. 8:
If not, what are the conditions under which applications for such arrangements must be made?
And just listen to this silly, nonsensical answer:
Transport to assist in carrying out training programs is provided for royal Canadian army cadets in all parts of Canada where it can be made available.
This, it says, is to assist in carrying out training programs. And the training program in this instance was a visit to the House of Commons, by a group from a Liberal member's constituency-free of charge- except on the taxpayer. Looting! Looting! That is another word for it. It will be noted that question No. 8 says:
If not, what are the conditions under which applications for such arrangements must be made?
As part of a joint answer to questions 7 and 8 we find the statement that where it is possible these facilities will be made available.
I come from a grand part of this country the county of Simcoe and the town of Col-lingwood, as well as Barrie, Ontario. I know those thriving and prosperous municipalities.
I do not know what the answer would be if I were to ask the department this question: Would you transport the high school students of my area down here to Ottawa, to see the parliament buildings and the war museum?


An hon. Member:: And the member.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Well, they could learn a good deal from the member and so could you, if you would only listen, regarding your duty to the taxpayers.
Now, if that is not wholesale looting and unmitigated gall on the part of this government, then I have never heard of it. I only hope that members will make this known

across Canada so the people may judge for themselves, and see where their defence money is going. I will admit that there may be some in the army and some civilian personnel who may stray from the narrow path and appropriate to themselves property which does not belong to them. But this is not done by men recruited in the armed forces. This looting is not done by civilian personnel. This is done with the authority of members of the House of Commons. This is done with the authority of the government. This is done by Liberal politicians. And I challenge the government to show that it is not wholesale looting, and absolutely unnecessary expenditure.
I do not think any member would rise in the House of Commons and say to any prospective soldier that he would be permitted to tour the parliament buildings and the museum at the expense of the taxpayer. I believe a trip through the museum would be enough to prevent anyone volunteering for the armed forces. These expenditures are one reason why the people begrudge paying taxes to support this government's defence program. To see the results of war, its devastation and destruction, would not encourage recruiting. The people know that defence expenditures have to be made if their freedom is to be preserved; but this kind of expenditure has nothing to do with the preservation of freedom.
Members of the House of Commons: in my opinion that is gross, flagrant and callous looting by this government, with the full knowledge of its supporters, of the taxpayers' money. When we need so badly every cent to defend this country, in the interests of peace, I resent this expenditure, even though it may be a small one, on free transportation. But in the midst of all the gross, flagrant and nonsensical expenditures, this one shows conclusively that the government has an utter disregard for its duty towards the taxpayer.


Mr. E. T. Applewhaite (Skeena):: Military Establishments

Fires and Thefts quite frankly that a certain matter of forks was, and I quote, "a trifling thing". Knowing that it was a trifling thing he has brought it to public attention time after time. I would suggest to him that if he has urgent matters of major criticism against the Department of National Defence he should find something other than what he himself terms a trifling thing. Do hon. members opposite think they are assisting in building up confidence while they pursue tactics of that sort?
I referred to sweeping statements and resounding phrases without factual data, and unless I am stopped, Mr. Speaker, I wish to quote the words of the leader of the opposition when he was discussing this subject on April 21, and which are to be found on page 1425 of Hansard. If he so desires I will read all of what is in that column, but I particularly wish to point out the following: The leader of the opposition referred to...
. . the accounting methods, of the Department of National Defence, the laxity of which has been revealed by the wholesale looting of military property, and by continuing incidents such as:
(a) the looting and disappearance of the Farn-ham military centre down to and including tne buildings, disclosed as early as December, 1949:
Paragraph (b) was not quite so sweeping, but paragraph (c) reads:
The theft by carload lots of hundreds of tons of supplies including such military equipment, according to press reports, as a baby tank;
(d) The theft of property at various military establishments throughout Canada, with the revelation that officers had been ordering men under their command to assist in acts of theft and fraud:
I should like to read that one again.
... the revelation that officers had been ordering men under their command to assist in acts of theft and fraud.
If that is not so worded to try to indicate to the country that such ordering was a matter of common practice, I do not know what it does mean.
Paragraph (e) reads:
Fraudulent government inspection of military property;
(f) The outbreak of incendiary fires in military storehouses, significantly timed in such a way that they could have hidden the extent of any looting and thefts which had taken place in these storehouses.
Let us look at paragraph (f) for a moment. It refers to the outbreak of incendiary fires, plural, in military storehouses, plural. As long as statements of that sort, in that type of terminology, are made by people whose very position entitles them to the ear and attention of this country, how can some people get up and say they hope this country will have confidence in that particular department of government while they deliberately tell the country, by their actions today, that in their opinion things are so bad we need a judicial inquiry.
[Mr. Applewhaite.l


An hon. Member:: That is right.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Someone says "that is right". That is their opinion of the Department of National Defence, but it is not my opinion and it is not yet the opinion of the country. This country is not going to be carried away by a lot of sweeping statements for which, although plenty of time has been allotted, no supporting evidence has been forthcoming.
My good friend-I wish he would not stay out when I am: speaking-the member for Greenwood referred, in terms that were intended to be sarcastic, to the stockpiling of certain items such as boots. It is not so long ago that it was being suggested by those who politically are not favourable to this government that we were not taking a serious enough view of the world situation; that we were not prepared. In other words either we did not know our duty or if we did know it we were not doing it. The Department of National Defence now decides to stockpile certain goods so that, if what we hope will not happen, does happen, and some serious outbreak occurs, we shall be ready to mobilize immediately. The department stockpiles and is then accused of extravagance. You cannot win. If you do not buy these goods you are lax, and if you do buy them against the time when you may need them you are wasteful of the country's money.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Forks.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I do not think anyone, despite the fact the member for Simcoe North finds it hard to restrain his impatience-


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I cannot understand how a kitchen fork is a good implement to fight a war with.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: It is very difficult for me to hear the member's interruptions if I keep on talking. I do not think any member on this side or the other side of the house has any desire to whitewash the Department of National Defence or any other department. I should be very much surprised if somewhere within the* Department of National Defence there are not weaknesses, if somewhere things have not been done which should have been done. I hope we can locate them, but I am not of the opinion, and I do not think the house is, that the Department of National Defence is in the situation today where we should tell the country there is nothing more parliament can do about it, that we have to have a judicial inquiry. In fairness to our armed forces, in fairness to our very public-spirited and hard working citizens, both classes of which are vital to the opposition as well as to us, and in fairness

to the minister himself, I should certainly hope this amendment will be voted down.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I will detain the house but a few moments. I have listened with interest throughout the afternoon not only to the remarks made by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) and particularly those by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) but also to the considered reply given by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton). No one wishes to undermine confidence. No one wishes to raise issues that ought not to be raised. But the events of the last few weeks are the answer to the Minister of National Defence when he says that all is well and nothing needs to be done.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Speaker, I did not say anything of the kind.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, possibly for once I could have just a little bit of order.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not mind the aimless interruptions; but I sat here this afternoon and listened, and asked but one question. Apparently what I am saying does not please the eggshell sensibilities of some of my hon. friends. But what I have to say is going to be said just the same. I think the Minister of National Defence would have welcomed the opportunity for a judicial investigation. I am one of those who, throughout the years, have stood most firmly against royal commissions composed of judges unless there is no other means to investigate matters which in any way might be termed political. I have taken that stand throughout the years. But I cannot see that there is any means other than a royal commission available to clear the situation in this dominion today. Certainly a committee of parliament will not do it. I have sat on some of those committees. Whenever a matter arises that in any way might cause any political repercussions as against the government, one can be sure that the matter terminates as soon as it is raised. Furthermore, committees of parliament are meaningless, for the majority simply passes on the situation; they make the report, and no minority report is allowed. A committee of parliament meeting on this matter could have its result predicted even before it commenced to sit. With no minority report allowed, the application of a coat of whitewash would be the inevitable result of any committee.
Passing on from there, what other method could be followed? The government has seen fit to have the matter investigated by Colonel 55704-148^
Military Establishments-Fires and Thefts Currie. It does not regard the situation as very serious for it appoints a man to investigate while at the same time allowing him to go on vacation or go away on other business while the investigation is taking place. A few days ago I asked a question with regard to this matter. The answer is not forthcoming as yet, though the minister today pointed out that the man who is to investigate, who is to be the spearhead of the investigation, has left the scene or the place where the investigation is to take place. It is all very well for the minister to say that while he is away things are going to be done. That is not what he was appointed for. He was appointed to direct the investigation. He was appointed to be the conscience of the minister; for the appointment is made under the section of the Defence Act that has no reference whatever to the making of appointments of investigators or of commissions to investigate. The minister says: All is well; we have the most perfect accounting system; there is no reason at all why anything should be done.


Brooke Claxton: The minister never said anything of the kind.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, that is the implication.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that is my interpretation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, could you call for order while I proceed for a moment or two? The minister says there is no need for a judicial inquiry into the organization, and in particular to investigate the accounting, inspection and administrative supervision of public property by the Department of National Defence. I simply bring to the attention of the house the evidence that was brought out the other day to the effect that in the fall of 1950 various supplies at Peta-wawa were removed. These are not the kind of things whose disappearance is not noticeable. Let me mention a few. One hundred and nineteen heavy kitchen ranges disappeared in the fall of 1950. This accountancy system did not find out about it until 1952. Fourteen to twenty stove heaters, a scale, 50 steel drums and 50 shower stalls also disappeared; and they did not find out about the scale for a year and a half under the accountancy system now in effect in the Department of National Defence. Let me point this out. The Fairbanks-Morse weigh scale with a capacity of approximately 20,000 pounds-
2346	HOUSE OF
Military Establishments-Fires and Thefts


Mr. Rowe:: It was the best accountant of all.


John George Diefenbaker: All I can say about the investigation is that it was sieve-like. All I can say about the accounting method in a military camp which allows the disappearance of a great scale such as that is that it reveals the lack of that supervision which the people of Canada today have a right to expect, with the hundreds of millions of dollars that are being spent on defence.
Let me proceed from there. Another witness said that he helped to load two or three railway cars with 52 box stoves, 38 ranges which weighed about 3,200 pounds each, and many lengths of old pipe. One can understand the disappearance of the old pipe. Also another helped to load parts of a railway. Rails 28 to 30 feet long were removed from the camp.


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If the hon. member is to be allowed to refer to a matter that is sub judice at Petawawa, may we reply to it?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing sub judice in this matter, I submit.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. If the matter is sub judice, neither the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) nor anyone else may refer to it at all.


John George Diefenbaker: That is true enough, Mr. Speaker. I know that. But the question of the lack of supervision is not sub judice and that is what we want to make sub judice by the setting up of a royal commission. All that is sub judice is the fact that certain people are charged with the theft of these things and with receiving stolen property. I am not dealing with that matter. I am dealing with the fact that these things could happen, that the articles so far referred to were removed from the camp, and that this is the magnificent supervisory system which the minister tells us took one and a half years to find out about their removal. Is there any wonder that Colonel Ross found it necessary, in his letter of instructions to the western command, to say this:
The adjutant-general has expressed sincere concern at the apparent laxity revealed by the current scandals at Montreal and Petawawa.
He called them scandals, and the minister said it was a letter he agreed with. I continue:
The trials resulting from these episodes may bring substantial penitentiary sentences to guilty parties.
However, such action will not necessarily redeem lost confidence-
Then he goes on to say what in his opinion should be done, and that is the issue here. The fact is that what happened at Petawawa,


what happened at Montreal, what happened in British Columbia, was during the time the minister took the stand that the supervisory system and the inspection facilities were what they should be. It is because these facts have come to light and the army, under the direction of the minister, has not been able to do anything to prevent them that we ask for the judical inquiry.


Brooke Claxton: Who brought them to light?


John George Diefenbaker: They were brought to light one and a half years after they took place. They were brought to light because the wife of one of the soldiers revealed them. And after they were so revealed, then the minister and his staff, this supervisory staff of which he speaks, finally went to work.


William Earl Rowe: And the members say you should not talk about it.


Douglas Charles Abbott: When are you going to make your speech?


William Earl Rowe: Any time you want it. I should like to hear you, too.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister's attitude is that no matter what is revealed, if there is any criticism it is improper. He regards this as a personal affront. The people of Canada are not concerned about what he regards as personal affront. They have a right to know what happened at Petawawa, what happened at Montreal and what happened in these other camps, and they are concerned as to whether it will happen again. They are concerned in knowing whether there has been laxity and inefficiency.
I have come to the conclusion, undesirous as I am of seeing royal commissions set up, that there is only one thing that can possibly clarify the situation, and that is a judicial body charged with the responsibility of ascertaining whether the accounting, inspection and administrative supervision is what it should be, to the end that Canadians will be reassured. I would have thought the minister would grasp at the opportunity; for if there is nothing wrong, if there is no justification for the criticism that is being made, a judicial body would clear it up; every alleged wrongdoing in the matter of supervision would be seen in its proper light, and any suggestion of a lack of confidence in his department would be removed.
Let there be an investigation. The events of the last year and a half indicate that an investigation is long overdue. I base my opinion on this fact, if on nothing else; that when the government has all these administrative officials in the Department of National

Defence, and a scale disappears, and a portion of a railroad disappears, and all of these other things disappear, that today are being considered in a trial; when these things can disappear and not be found out by the present supervisory system, then there is something radically wrong somewhere. A judicial investigation would determine whether or not there is reason for the lack of confidence I believe the Canadian people as a whole have today in the supervisory administration in connection with defence expenditures.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Unfortunately I was not able to be in the house when the minister spoke in reply to the speech of the leader of the opposition. 1 was called out for another meeting, and therefore did not hear what the minister had to say. But I did hear what was said by the leader of the opposition in moving his amendment. I heard most of what was said by the leader of the C.C.F. party and by all those who have spoken since.
When a similar motion was moved in this house a week ago I indicated my support of it. I have no reason to change my mind because of what I have heard this afternoon in the discussion of this amendment; but I am tempted to say just a few things, Mr. Speaker, that have occurred to me as a result of listening to the speeches made this afternoon. I am quite sure any fair-minded person would not charge that the opposition hunted up and made public the discrepancies in the stores at Petawawa. I never heard of any of the members on this side of the house having done so. The first we learned of this theft at Petawawa was what we read in the press, and because of the fact that we had read it in the press we became interested, just as the ordinary citizen across the country would become interested, and we thought it our duty to raise the whole question in the house and ask for some inquiry. Now we are being charged with trying to undermine the government.
Well, Mr. Speaker, if the people of this country are losing confidence-and 1 sug-ested even last week that I thought they were-it is not because of anything that the opposition has done. It certainly must be because of something the government has left undone, and I do not think there is any way of arguing around it. It is perfectly true, and I say this for the particular benefit of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Apple-whaite), that the members of the opposition have done their level best to induce the government to have a judicial inquiry into all the things that have been publicized across the country, and which came to be known by the people some time before the members
Military Establishments-Fires and Thefts of the house had it in their possession. Therefore I cannot see, Mr. Speaker, how any hon. member can charge that we are merely trying to undermine the government.
Of course everybody knows that one of the ancient and honourable political pastimes is to try to undermine the government; but that is not the thing we are trying to do in asking for the inquiry that has been asked for in this amendment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They do it themselves.


Solon Earl Low: Yes; they do it themselves. We did not burn down the depot here in Ottawa, although to listen to the hon. member for Skeena you would think we were being charged with having done so as a means of undermining confidence in the government. We did not tear up the railway track up there and sell it to secondhand dealers. We did not get rid of those stoves we heard about, and I did not see any of those serving forks that the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Mac-donnell) mentioned. We merely came into possession of certain information which we feel it our duty to follow up.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Solon Earl Low: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose at six o'clock I was in the process of discussing the statements which had emanated from the Liberal side of the house to the effect that the opposition were doing their level best to undermine the government and create throughout the country a lack of confidence in the government. The general charge seems to be that we on this side of the house concern ourselves almost entirely with small things which we magnify into large things and try to make the people of the country believe that everything is rotten in Denmark when it is not.
I was in the process of saying to the house that it was not the members of the opposition who tore up the rails at Petawawa. It was not the members of the opposition who burned down the ordnance depot. None of us on this side of the house got away with any of the numerous stoves that were taken from somewhere and sold. I do not see any loot and I deny any complicity in the plot.


Mr. Graydon:: Take your hands out of your pockets.


Solon Earl Low: I take my hands out of my pockets so I can speak both with my hands and voice. When the hon. member for Skeena
2348	HOUSE OF
Military Establishments-Fires and Thefts (Mr. Applewhaite) made the statement he did this afternoon I felt quite sure that he must have overlooked completely the implications contained in a certain letter spoken about by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) when he introduced the amendment this afternoon. I understand that this letter was admitted by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) as having gone out from Colonel J. S. Ross, officer in charge of administration, western command, to the heads of branches of staff, to the heads of services and to units, subunits and detachment commanders.
Just to refresh the memory of the hon. member for Skeena and others who are inclined to charge that members of the opposition spend their time carping and magnifying little things into big things with the object of undermining the government and creating a lack of confidence in the government on the part of the people, I should like to say to the hon. member that in his letter Colonel J. S. Ross made statements indicating concern at the apparent laxity revealed by the current scandals at Montreal and Petawawa.
I have not heard of Colonel J. S. Ross being a member of the opposition in this house. He certainly is not now. He is a prominent commander in the army. He speaks in these terms, referring to scandals, concern, apparent laxity. He then goes on to say:
However, such action will not necessarily redeem lost confidence in the army by the minister, the members of the house, the press, or the general public.
The confidence of the people across this country was lost as a consequence of those scandals, not as a consequence of anything we of the opposition have said. I remind the hon. member for Skeena and others who are inclined to pass this off lightly that Colonel Ross had other things to say. He said:
There have been numerous incidents-
Not just one incident involving some serving forks which the hon. member for Skeena ridiculed this afternoon.
-of a similar nature, all of which indicate a very distinct lack of higher level supervision.


Stanley Howard Knowles: How high?


Solon Earl Low: As the leader of the opposition asked this afternoon quite pertinently, just how high does this lack of supervision really go? Colonel Ross goes on to point out to the commanders and unit officers across this country as follows:
The most recent scandals involve officers and men In the sale of government stores and the appropriation of government stores for their own personal use.


Without carrying on too long with this matter, let me remind members on the government side of the house that it was not members of the opposition who went out across the country and attempted to magnify little things into big things to create scandals; it was the action or inaction of the government itself and it was certainly, as Colonel Ross said, laxity in supervision, even in high places. These things were taken up by the newspapers across Canada and were very properly carried to the people. If there has been a lack of confidence, and I claim there has been, it has been as a result of the incidents which came to the knowledge of the Canadian public through the press. It was not because of any effort on the part of members of the opposition to scandalize.
I think it is the height of hypocrisy for government members to charge that because there has been laxity, because things have gone wrong and there have been this long list of incidents and scandals, that when we on this side attempt to do our duty we are stooping to petty criticism and are making an effort to undermine the government. That in my judgment is the height of hypocrisy.
The words of certain officers in the army have tended to confirm the suspicions that have been in the minds of the general public for months past. I have already said that in time of peace when the government of any people of the numbers of the people of Canada collects over $4 billion in any year and attempts to spend half of it or more on defence, you can just put it down in your little book that a good many of the people of the country are going to be perturbed and uneasy and are going to want their members of parliament to be much more vigilant than they have ever been in the past. It is only because we are attempting to be vigilant that we bring forward such things as were brought forward by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) this afternoon, an amendment to the motion to go into committee of supply asking for the appointment of a judicial body of some sort to hold an inquiry into the organization and so on of the Department of National Defence.
We want and are determined to do our duty by the Canadian people, but let nobody get the idea that because we do attempt to do our duty we are merely sweeping up the filth and the rot in an attempt to create scandals. That is not the point at all. I for one do not intend to try to take one little incident of any kind and attempt to magnify it. I am trying to look at the whole picture. I am trying to measure up to my responsibility to the people who sent me here. We are placed on the opposition side of the house just as you are placed on the government

side of the house. We expect to do our duty and discharge our responsibility to the people, but when we do let us not have the hypocritical cry that we are just doing it for the purpose of trying to create a scandal so we can cause the people to lose their confidence in the government.
I have already said there are certain means within the reach of the members of the House of Commons by which they can investigate things. The chief of those of course is the committee method, but in a matter such as this, the question of an inquiry into the Department of National Defence, its organization, its provision for control, its bookkeeping and all that sort of thing, the committee method simply would not yield results at all. I have already said that I believe the committee method would not and I have said why. Therefore I have not the confidence in the committee method of investigation that a lot of other people may have, particularly those on the government side of the house who would depend upon the government majority to see to it that a report was brought back not unfavourable to the government. That is not what we need.
I have already said in other debates that I think some sort of judicial inquiry should be held. I think the people of Canada would want such an inquiry, and I think the government owes it to the people to set their minds at rest. If there is no laxity why hesitate? If there is laxity it is about time we had a judicial inquiry so it may be made known to the people. If a government are not capable of exercising proper control over the people's property then they ought to be turned out. There ought not to be any confidence in them. If the government are so sure they are not at fault then let us have the judicial inquiry called for, place the facts before the people and let them be the judges. I for one intend to vote for the amendment because I think what we need is a thorough and continuing inquiry into the organization and administration of the Department of National Defence.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for trespassing on the time of the house but because of a certain charge that was made this afternoon I feel some reply should be placed upon the record. The hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Ferguson) made the charge that a group of Finch high school students came to the parliament buildings and the war museum at the expense of the Canadian taxpayers. The charge was made in such language that I am sure after the hon. member has read it and knows the facts as I propose to put them on the record he will realize that the charge is no credit to him. The language used was something like this.
Military Establishments-Fires and Thefts


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I don't know-


An hon. Member:: Sit down and take it.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I will take it.


Lionel Chevrier: He said that the fact these students came to visit the parliament buildings in an army bus was looting, was wholesale looting, was spending the taxpayers' money, and in fact that on that basis every American citizen who came here was a soldier. Here are the facts for the hon. member's information and also for that of the house, because I happen to be in possession of them. The students who came here were eighty in number. They are members of the Finch high school cadet corps, one of the finest cadet corps in eastern Ontario. There were both young men and young women, all of them in uniform. They were under the command of Captain A. Egan. They are affiliated with the Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry Highlanders, and I need not give the record of that regiment.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: That is no answer.


Lionel Chevrier: They have been in existence for five years and have been affiliated with the S. D. and G. Highlanders for the last four years.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Fine.


Lionel Chevrier: Over and above that, there also came to Ottawa to visit the same parliament buildings and the same war museum the Avonmore cadet corps, which is also in the constituency of Stormont which I represent in the house, and1 which has been successful in obtaining a number of outstanding trophies for its proficiency in cadet corps work. That group travelled in the same kind of bus as the Finch high school cadet corps. They too are affiliated with the S. D. and G. Highlanders. When they came into the house they sat in the gallery wearing the tartan and kilt and received an ovation from the house. After the orders of the day they were spoken to by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) who commended them for their appearance and efficiency. He spoke very highly of them. Furthermore, their commanding officer, Captain Powell, has now left or is about to leave Avonmore high school and, I am informed, has gone or will go to a high school in Carleton county in the constituency of the leader of the opposition. If he desires to bring the high school students here I am sure he will be entirely welcome and be perfectly free to do so. I should like to quote from a history of the Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry Highlanders which has just been written by Lieutenant-Colonel W. Boss and which was formally presented to the officers of the Highlanders no later than Saturday evening of
2350	HOUSE OF
Military Establishments-Fires and Thefts last week. In it he has something to say about the cadet corps and their participation in the eastern area command. It is as follows:
Steps were now taken towards the affiliation with the regiment-
He is referring to the S. D. and G. Highlanders.
-of all cadet corps established in the area. The Cornwall collegiate and vocational school cadet corps had been allied with the regiment since 1927, but now those organized at the high schools in Alexandria, Maxville, Williamstown, Morrisburg, Chesterville, Avonmore and Vankleek Hill, and the Cornwall public school cadet corps were added. This policy had a twofold advantage. The battalion's full-time instructors (A. & T. staff) were made available with weapons, carriers, etc., to help in the cadet training. There was a platoon or company headquarters in each place where there was a cadet corps, so when the youngsters came of age they were fairly well qualified to either join the battalion or enlist direct into the arm of their choice.
I also add that affiliated with the S.D. and G. Highlanders are two other high schools in the constituency of my hon, friend, the hon. member for Grenville-Dundas (Mr. Cassel-man). They are Morrisburg and Chesterville.
I am sure these high school students, these members of the cadet corps, if they desire to make a requisition-and if they have not already made it-for a visit to this parliament, will be treated in the same way as the high school cadet corps of Avonmore and Finch.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I still think it is wrong. It should not be allowed. You have no right to do it, either.


Lionel Chevrier: My hon. friend says he still thinks it should not be allowed. Well, I do not think it is in his judgment to determine that. He may have the right to rise in the house and criticize it, but I should think it is in the judgment of those who command these young men and women, and particularly in the judgment of the area command at Kingston.
Before either of these two cadet corps came to Ottawa they sought the advice of their headquarters officer in Kingston, and made requisition upon the headquarters officer in Kingston who, in the last analysis, determined whether they should come; and they were given a permit to come, in that manner. So I think it ill becomes my hon. friend to rise and make the kind of charge he has made.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: May I ask the minister a question? Has any commanding officer of any district the right to take the taxpayers' money to transport cadets? I would like an answer to that question.


Lionel Chevrier: I am not a military expert; but I will tell my hon. friend this, that if in any high school in Ontario, or anywhere


else in Canada, there are young men and women who want to take the trouble and to make the sacrifice of working extra hours to enhance their training, then I believe that, with the consent of their officers, they are entitled to come here to Ottawa to visit the war museum and parliament buildings as part of their training, not as a field exercise but as related to that training. And it is not for me nor for my hon. friend but for the commander of the cadet corps to determine that, and the superior officers in Kingston; and it was they who determined it.
I say it ill becomes my hon. friend to make a charge, particularly when he uses the word "looting" as he did this afternoon. He has done himself no credit, and certainly he has done his party no credit.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


An hon. Member:: You have spoken.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: It is a good thing I spoke before, and cannot speak again. It is just too bad.


Mr. J. L. MacDougall (Vancouver-Burrard):: Mr. Speaker, I had no intention whatsoever, until late this afternoon, of entering this debate. I must say I was somewhat surprised, as was the minister who has just spoken, to hear certain observations made in the chamber this afternoon. I cannot help referring to my good friend the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Ferguson); and I am serious in the belief that if he will recall the days he went to Sunday school, as did the rest of us, he will remember that we learned there-and possibly also at our mothers' and fathers' knees-that it was a fine thing to "suffer the little children to come unto me". That is an axiomatic truth, and it is a very deep rooted opinion in the hearts and minds of a lot of us. And despite the fact that a protest has been made, I do think it is quite in order, when young men and women are augmenting their training, that some slight reward of the kind indicated should be given to them by way of recognition.
Again this afternoon the question about boots was raised.
Boots-boots-boots-boots movin' up and down again!
There's no discharge in the war!
That brings my mind back to the years when I served in His Majesty's forces. We had boots, of a kind-boots that were no credit to the Canadian taxpayer or to the government of the day, boots that were a very abomination to the men who had to wear them. If in this question of the stockpiling of boots we are robbing the Canadian

taxpayer to provide for a potential emergency, then I candidly believe the government is to be commended rather than condemned for its action. We can recall that during the years of the second world war, between 1939 and 1945, quite a number of the men who now serve in the government held high positions in the government of that day under the late Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King. They did a tremendous job for the taxpayers of Canada, and there has never been even a breath of scandal with respect to any contract whatsoever.
It seems to me that is a record of which those who support the government can be justly proud. The fact is that we came through the second world war, one of great magnitude, with a clear record, a record that was unblemished, with implements of war in full supply, and with ordnance never dreamed of in the war of 1914-18. Having in mind the accomplishments of those who carried the terrific load during the second world war, and who are now members of this government, I do not think the taxpayers of Canada will be particularly perturbed about certain items that may be dug up and classified as wasteful expenditures.
Let us get down to brass tacks. I think it is generally admitted by all sections in the house that putting a man in uniform is not going to effect a complete change overnight, if in civilian life he has not been high-minded and honest. Let us suppose that we have about 120,000 in the services today, and compare what goes on in that group with what goes on in any community of like numbers in any province, whether it be Ontario, Quebec, in the maritimes or on the Pacific coast. There is no community of comparable size in which there are not some men and women who are not wholly honest. In any civilian community we will find a constabulary, a jail and a judge.
In the 120,000 connected with the services it is only natural that there may be some who are not completely honest; but this does not condemn every man and woman in the services. I do not think the proportion of crime is any greater there than in civilian life. I am sure all members of the opposition will agree with me when I say that whether we are preparing for peace and spreading over our heads an umbrella of freedom, or whether we are preparing for imminent war, such preparation in a time of either peace or war is wasteful and unproductive. I think that is almost universally the understanding amongst the Canadian people, and amongst the people of all democracies, that the preparation for national 55704-149
19, 1952	2351
Military Establishments-Fires and Thefts defence is a wasteful procedure. It is wasteful; it is non-productive. But is there anyone in this house who would say that, because of a certain amount of wastefulness attached to those preparations, we should entirely forgo the building up of our armed services in all the branches we now maintain and expect to enlarge?
In addition to that I believe we have to bear this thought in mind. Because the preparation for war is wasteful, and because certain things are done during those preparations that might be off colour or not entirely honest, should we as legislators make a blanket condemnation of many people who are completely innocent of breaking any law of the Dominion of Canada, either civil or criminal? With that idea in mind, what have we to look forward to? I think it is generally recognized that had we not made the allocations this parliament has made for defence preparations, the government would not only be condemned by certain of its followers-of whom I would have been one- but also condemned by all the members of the opposition groups, and rightly so. If that is a correct judgment of the thinking of the Canadian people, then it seems we ought to expect that some defalcation is going to crop up at one time or another, just as it crops up in civil communities large and small right across Canada.
If we are going to maintain this umbrella of freedom we shall have to spend money. In the expenditure of that money there is going to be waste. But in the final judgment, Mr. Speaker, the people of Canada have to accept that small amount of wastage in order to get what I believe they want to have, a properly balanced and integrated armed service or, on the other hand, they will have to completely forget about it and at the same time lose the potential striking power we might have created if we had made this expenditure. It was only today I believe, sir, that His Excellency the Governor General, speaking to the Canadian Legion in Montreal, stated that times have changed considerably since the first Legion convention. Unquestionably that is true. The things that we got and paid for, and the things that we fought for in the first world war are today basically the same. No one in this house, however, would want our armed services to go on the rate of pay those of us who fought during 1914-18 received, $1.10 per day. No one would want to see the married personnel of the integrated forces of Canada, under our climatic conditions, housed in a pup tent where you all sleep with your feet towards the centre pole.
2352	HOUSE OF
Military Establishments-Fires and Thefts
In the Dominion of Canada we have outgrown that period, as has been stated by no less an authority than His Excellency the Governor General. On top of that we have to appreciate that we have a completely new status. This status is vastly different from what it was in 1914-18, and is considerably different from what it was in 1939. So far as our naval protection was concerned, in 1914-18 we leaned upon the United Kingdom government for that protection, and we received it. As a result of our experience in the first world war, and after the Statute of Westminster of 1931, we gradually developed into nationhood. It is true that our expenditures in connection with national defence are extremely high. There is no doubt in the world about that. I ask hon. members why they are so high today. It is because we supply for ourselves the naval protection that was supplied in 1914-18 by the British government. We have grown up, and it is only natural that we should assume the responsibility for our own protection in so far as that is humanly possible.
We ought to be proud of the fact that we have grown up. I believe the people of Canada are proud of their new status and that they are willing to subscribe to the new era through which we are now passing. So far as the people of Canada are concerned, they feel the burden of heavy taxation. I shall not dispute that. But how much better it is to feel the burden which is caused by our reliance upon our own ability to defend ourselves, rather than to have to depend upon others to volunteer to protect us in time of war. During Easter I took a trip through to the Pacific coast. I did not hear any great wailing at the wailing wall by taxpayers. They did feel that they would like to have a. lesser tax burden, but who amongst us does not feel the same way? I do not think anyone particularly relishes the payment of taxes. This expenditure is necessary, however, if we are going to maintain ourselves as an independent democracy, free and untrammelled. Now, when we have high income and great production, it is necessary that we make sure we are going to be able to produce the equipment for any emergency in order to save us from becoming the slaves of those who plot and scheme behind the iron curtain.
I shall conclude, sir, by saying this. I believe Canadian nationhood is something of greater value than the expenses that must be borne by the taxpayer in order to bring to Ottawa young Canadians who are giving up their time, augmenting their training, and showing an interest in Canadian national development. In bringing them here, at the
IMr. MacDougall.l

request of their commanding officer, I think we are rendering a service to nationhood in Canada. By having those young Canadians come here, not only were they able to visit the House of Commons but also were able to get an insight into some of the remarkable things we do here in a remarkable way.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: It will make them fighting mad.


John Lorne MacDougall: I dislike having to disagree with my good friend the hon. member for Simcoe North, but I must disagree with him on that point. Instead of putting our heads against the wailing wall I think that we might, with justifiable pride, hold our heads high, take a good breath of Canadian fresh air, fill our lungs and shout that we are proud of the fact that we are Canadians, able to defend our institutions, and able to manufacture and operate the necessary instruments of war required by any freedom-loving people in order to protect their freedom from those who would destroy them. God save the Queen!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Before you put the question, Mr. Speaker, may I say it seems to me, particularly after the last speech or two, that it might be well for us to get back to what we will be voting on. The question before us is not the whole range of defence policy to the extent to which it has been discussed by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. MacDougall).
Likewise, I would suggest that we are not voting on whether or not it was a good idea for that group of cadets to be brought to Ottawa. After all, that was a matter that was decided upon in a perfectly open and above-board fashion. Indeed there is something to be said for the idea that young Canadians should have the opportunity to see the capital city. However, that issue is not before us, and it would seem to me most unfortunate if the vote, which apparently is about to be taken, were thought to be in any sense a vote upon that particular question.
The issue before us is set out in the amendment that was moved by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew). It relates to the uneasiness and concern in the country over reports of loss of public property by theft, looting and fire. As the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) pointed out a while ago, this uneasiness does not arise from any course of action pursued by members of the opposition or by any members of parliament. It arises from information which has been given to the public in fact through the channels of the Department of National

Defence. Because of that uneasiness and concern on the part of the public, I suggest that it would be a good idea to have the matter cleared up by the appointment of a royal commission. As my leader pointed out this afternoon, and as others have pointed out in the course of this debate, if everything is clear and proper there is no reason on the part of the government to resist such a judicial inquiry. On the other hand, if there is something that should be brought out, there is every reason why we should have such an inquiry. Therefore, I hope that before we vote on this motion we shall in our thinking get back to the essential terms of it and vote on those terms.
I would remind the house that, though on most occasions when there is an amendment to the motion to go into supply it is regarded as a motion of non-confidence in the government and is treated accordingly by government supporters, there have been at least two occasions to my knowledge in the last ten years when such amendments have carried. One occasion was on August 27, 1946, when an amendment was moved to a motion to go into supply-and it was moved from our group-having to do with the subsidy on milk. After considerable debate the government, through the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), announced that so far as the government was concerned it was not to be regarded as a vote of nonconfidence but was to be a free vote. As a result, a number of government members voted with the members on the opposition side and that amendment carried. The next step was the moving again of a motion to go into supply, and the result was that the business of the session went on.
The next occasion when this happened was on June 12, 1951, when the present leader of the opposition moved an amendment to the motion to go into supply, that amendment having to do with the desirability of appointing a committee to consider the procedure of this house. The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) saw fit to accept the terms of that amendment, with the result that, after a few short speeches on it, the amendment carried. That event did not bring down the government nor did it even bring the session to a close. On that date the next step was for another motion to be made to go into committee of supply, and we went on with the work of the session.
I suggest that consideration might be given to pursuing the same course on this occasion. The proposal in this motion is one that would clear the air. Despite the opposition that has been expressed by government members thus 55704-149J
Military Establishments-Fires and Thefts far in the debate, I suggest that the government might even now give further consideration to the proposal for a judicial inquiry. In my view it would be well for the government to accept this amendment and then we can proceed with the business of the session in the way I have indicated.


Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, as one who cherishes dearly the good name of the services, I cannot help feeling that the revelation of these thefts and irregularities that have occurred during the past two years has to a large extent hurt the services themselves. I believe that every sailor, soldier and airman who is today serving in the forces of Canada deeply regrets that these irregularities have occurred. Why they have occurred, we do not know. They are abnormal. I do not believe anybody wants to try to close his eyes to them or to deny the fact that they are going on. But the people of Canada are hurt because the honour of Canada and of the armed services of Canada is at stake.
Today my leader suggested that possibly a special inquiry might be set up. Let us do something to clear the name of the services. Let us do something to clear the names of our gallant sailors, soldiers and airmen. If it is not a question of setting up a special inquiry, perhaps from the services themselves there might be somebody who would be reporting direct to the minister, somebody who is independent and who is above the question of promotion in his own service. In days gone by there used to be an inspector general. The inspector general reported to the minister direct. That was a check on many of the commands. But I do feel that something has to be done. We have to clear the good name of our servicemen; and if this is the best way to do it, then I am all for getting this matter cleared up, and then let us get on with the job of preparing for and maintaining the peace of the world.


Mr. R. O. Campney (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the leader of the opposition today saw fit to launch another of his violent attacks on the Department of National Defence. I submit that in so doing he followed a pattern which he apparently laid out for himself quite some time ago, and which he followed in this house on April 21, on May 1, subsequently in a radio speech and again in this house on May 5. I submit that each of those speeches was full of sound and fury, that each was long on assertions and on charges and longer still on innuendoes, but that each was equally short on fact. I submit in following this line of conduct he has assumed a very serious responsibility. I say that
2354	HOUSE OF
Military Establishments-Fires and Thefts because if these charges, assertions and innuendoes are true, and are substantiated, then they impugn the whole defence effort, a matter which is of vital and continuing concern to every man and woman in this country.
If that is to be done there must be facts; there must be substantiation, and there must be proof that the conditions to which he has referred exist and that they are of general application, that they are flagrant and outside of any normal situation which might be expected in an effort as vast as the effort being carried on by the Department of National Defence today.
If they are not so substantiated, Mr. Speaker, then I say they are irresponsible statements; I say they are unjust and unfair to the Department of National Defence, to the government and to the public in that they create suspicion, distrust and uneasiness in the public mind not only in this country but in, the other free nations of the world which are looking to the effort we are making to help assist in maintaining the peace of the world, and to 95,000 to 100,000 men and women who are wearing the Canadian uniform in Korea, in Europe and throughout Canada. I refer particularly to one quotation which was permitted to be quoted this afternoon in which the leader of the opposition said, as reported at page 1424 of Hansard of April 21:
-the revelation that officers had been ordering men under their command-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Is the hon. member referring to a debate which took place this session?


George Alexander Drew: Yes.


Ralph Osborne Campney: It was quoted this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, and that is why I have touched on the matter. No objection was taken this afternoon. It is the same wording, the same quotation.


Mr. Speaker:: I did not allow the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) to quote from a debate of a week ago.


George Alexander Drew: It is the same debate.


Ralph Osborne Campney: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I refer to page 95 of Beau-chesne's second edition, where it would appear that a member while speaking may not refer to any debate of the same session on any question not then under discussion. It would seem to me that the same subject is under discussion at the present time.


John Lorne MacDougall: It is under discussion today.


Jean-François Pouliot: If you will permit me, the purpose of the rule is to prevent obstruction
IMr. Campney.]

by the quotation of long excerpts from a previous debate in the same session. But there is nothing to prevent any member of parliament referring incidentally to any debate that has taken place during the session for the sake of the argument. We can use the argument of comparison to compare what is happening now with what happened before in the session, without using long verbatim quotations of previous debates. The purpose is to prevent obstruction; it is not to prevent argument in the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Before you get involved in the question, Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether or not the occasion which is being referred to was a debate. It was an attempt by the leader of the opposition to move the adjournment of the house under standing order 31. Your Honour denied him that right.


An hon. Member:: Well put.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand the hon. member for Vancouver Centre was quoting from a debate that took place in the house last week. If that is so, I did not allow the leader of the opposition to quote from it, and I could not allow the hon. member for Vancouver Centre to quote from it.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I am referring to a statement made in the house on April 21.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, it refers to the same debate in regard to which Your Honour made a ruling this afternoon.


Jean-François Pouliot: It was not a debate; it wa3 an abortion.


Mr. Hodgson:: Beauchesne is right again.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I find that the hon. member for Vancouver Centre is referring to a motion that was made in the house on April 21, when the leader of the opposition moved the adjournment of the house under standing order 31. The motion was not allowed, and there was no debate. My interpretation of the rule is that it is for the purpose of preventing the reviving of a debate on a subject that has been closed.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The amendment has done that already.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Vancouver Centre is not reviving a debate. I do however want to make it quite clear that debates of the same session must not be revived. The hon. member may continue.


Ralph Osborne Campney: The quotation, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: No.


Ralph Osborne Campney: -is from Hansard, April 21. On that occasion the leader of the opposition used these words when he was speaking.


An hon. Member:: Old straw.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Ralph Osborne Campney: He referred to the "revelation that officers had been ordering men under their command to assist in acts of theft and fraud." I used the words of the leader of the opposition to illustrate what I said, namely that if these assertions and statements are not fully substantiated they are in fact a reflection on every man and woman wearing the Canadian uniform unless he or she can come forward and prove his or her own innocence. I do not think it is good enough, Mr. Speaker, for any member, and especially the leader of the opposition, who probably has a greater responsibility than most of us, to make statements which are based on rumour, hearsay and generalization, without supporting them fully with the facts, the dates, the times, the places and the persons concerned, because these are serious matters. They are serious to everybody concerned. They are serious to the department; they are serious to the government, and above all they are serious to every individual concerned with the operation of the Department of National Defence, whether in uniform or not.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker-


Douglas Charles Abbott: Oh, sit down.


George Alexander Drew: On a point of order, the hon. member is referring to something that has been raised here before. Since he raises a question of this kind I would point out that what he has just referred to was given in sworn evidence at Pembroke last Friday and reported in the press.


Ralph Osborne Campney: The statement of the hon. member was made on April 21; and if he now seeks to justify it by something that was produced in evidence yesterday I do not think that has any particular relevancy to the line of argument which I am following. When you squeeze all the verbiage and high-sounding phrases out of the statements that come along with such regularity from the leader of the opposition you find a few facts which have been explained several times concerning Farnham and Petawawa. In addition there have been two or three arrests here and there. On that small foundation we have the leader of the opposition and the opposition generally seeking to raise a superstructure that affects the whole defence effort of this country, as well as the government and the Department of National Defence.
May I quote another paragraph from the statement of the leader of the opposition to which I referred as an indication of what I mean. I refer to what he said on the
Military Establishments-Fires and Thefts same date, April 21, 1952, as reported on page 1425 of Hansard. I think this is a gem. E quote:
the outbreak of incendiary fires in military storehouses, significantly timed in such a way that they could have hidden the extent of any looting and thefts which had taken place in these storehouses.
If that is not the best way of conveying a broad and damaging innuendo without adducing a single fact, I stand to be corrected. He said:
The outbreak of incendiary fires in military-storehouses, significantly timed-
By whom?
-in such a way that they could have hidden the-extent of any looting and thefts which had taken, place-
Did any take place?


Mr. Cardiff:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Tell us about cheese or butter.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Does he deny that there have been thefts or fires?


Ralph Osborne Campney: No, I am not denying that there were thefts; I am not denying that there was stealing or thieving or fires. I am just saying that the leader of the opposition made an innuendo that is very damaging to the services and to the department without adducing a single fact to support his statements.


Mr. Sinnoit:: Ask another question.


William Earl Rowe: A little looting, but we should not mention it.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I noticed that today the leader of the opposition tended to modify his general statement. This word "looting" has great significance apparently in the minds of members of the opposition. I remember when they used the word "looting" in reference-to some petty thieving here or there. I notice that when the leader of the opposition gave-his long interview to the Ottawa Journal on Tuesday, April 22, he referred to the wholesale looting of military property. Today he refers to widespread looting. The hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Ferguson) was not going to have any minimizing of the looting so he played it up and said that it was gross, flagrant and colossal looting. The facts upon which he based that statement have been very well dealt with by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier).


Mr. Ross (Souris):: Just peanuts.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I suggest that the words "gross, flagrant and colossal looting" are good circus language. Perhaps the opposition is coming to regard itself as a political circus. A lot of other people are of that view, no question about that.
2356	HOUSE OF
Military Establishments-Fires and Thefts


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: You are on the wrong side of the house for that.


James Sinclair: One of the chimpanzees.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I suppose pending by-elections do things to people and are apt to cause them to do things which they would not do under normal circumstances. Frankly I was surprised at the attitude taken by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). He suggested that a royal commission should be appointed just in case something was wrong; that it would restore the confidence of the people of this country in the government if nothing was found to be wrong. I submit that that assertion arises out of his reaction to the charges, innuendoes and statements that have been made without the production of any evidence, statements that have been going out across the country for the last six months. I am surprised that the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar would be impressed by that sort of argument, but it shows what might possibly happen to the people of the country who are not as conversant with all these political moves as he and who would be consequently much more impressed with such unsubstantiated information .and statements.
I say it is a serious thing to impugn public confidence in a matter so imperatively urgent as the activities of the Department of National Defence unless there is abundant proof to substantiate every charge that is made. The hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell), following the line of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, said that not only is it necessary that things should be right, the people should believe that they are right. I submit that if anyone alleges that they are not right they should produce some evidence to substantiate what they say and not to do as the hon. member did. His contribution was that somebody had told him about someone whose neighbour was called for by an army car every morning. I do not think that is .the sort of statement upon which to base general charges of inefficiency and gross, flagrant and colossal looting, such as were made by the hon. member for Simcoe North.
I am sorry I did not hear the whole speech made by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low), but I heard what he said just before the recess at six o'clock. He said he had not heard the minister's speech but he had heard the leader of the opposition and other speakers. He left a clear indication in my mind as to what he was proposing to do. When I came in this evening he finished it up by saying that he was prepared to vote


against the government. The only other reference I heard him make was to a political pastime, which I think hardly appropriate in a matter so serious.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) came in tonight with some sweet reasonableness and said that if everything was O.K. there would be no harm in having a royal commission; if it was not O.K., then it was not O.K. It was just as simple as that. Is that the way we are going to investigate departments of government? If we feel like it, if we drum up enough enthusiasm, will we look into every department? Apparently the hon. member thinks it would be all right to carry on such a procedure. That is the line he suggests we should take in approaching the activities of any department and in conducting this house.
The hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) took much the same line, but he did say something which I appreciated and which I am sure everyone in the service will appreciate. He said these statements are going across the country and that their effect will be most harmful to the prestige, the morale and the esprit de corps of the armed services. I suggest to the hon. member that he should have said that to his leader some months ago.
I do not want to dwell on this particular side of the matter, but we all know that the people making up the armed services and those on the civilian side are just like other people. There are good, bad and indifferent people to be found there; they are no better and no worse than the average. There is bound to be some stealing; there is bound to be some slipping from virtue. The point is whether these things are normal in relation to the amount of money involved and the extent of the activities. When they are normal as compared with other activities there is then no occasion for sweeping statements such as have been made. Certainly there is reason for vigilance. Certainly there is cause for continual attention, for strengthening procedures and for prosecutions wherever they are called for.
I should like now to mention a couple of points that I think might be mentioned, and which I do not think have been referred to so far. The first is that all these stores, merchandise and equipment are scattered from Korea to Germany and all over Canada in small isolated places as well as in large centres. In some parts they are distributed in almost inaccessible places, and that adds somewhat to the hazard of looking after such stores and equipment. I would also mention the fact that where you have enormous quantities of merchandise, goods or equipment

stored in a given place there are added difficulties, when the people concerned in the supervision of such goods and equipment do not own them.
I have had some experience in that sort of thing through participation in companies engaging in that type of business and also because I was chairman of the national harbours board for three years. The national harbours board operates warehouses filled with goods, elevators and so on. There is no question in my mind but that to try to maintain vigilant and active supervision and protection of goods such as those with which I was concerned as chairman of the national harbours board is vastly more difficult than in a private enterprise where you have a localized congested area and your goods and merchandise are under close control. I think that is obvious. There is a greater tendency for people to conspire with people outside. You have to be vigilant at all times. In spite of everything we could do, during the three years I ran the national harbours board we had substantial losses, and in many cases we could not put a linger on the culprits.
Banks have great losses. Department stores have huge losses which they have to write off every year. Nobody likes that. It is deplorable; but we should be reasonable, and I submit we should not take isolated facts in the face of what we all know are difficult situations with respect to protection and base far-reaching assertions on them. I think we should be fair. The Department* of National Defence through the use of the provost corps, the corps of commissionaires and its own internal organization is doing everything possible to protect what is entrusted to its care and to see that any time the system can be improved or strengthened in any way that that is done. That is the department's duty. I submit the department is endeavouring to do that to the very best of its ability. I submit further on the facts adduced today by the minister with respect to thefts and fires that relatively speaking in comparison with other enterprises-there is no other enterprise that is as large-the Department of National Defence is doing a first-class job. I do not think the odd police court case and the odd fire, some of them large, it is true, prove otherwise.
In Vancouver last month a large storage warehouse burned down with a loss of half a million dollars. An elevator structure was destroyed by Are with a loss of $1,500,000, and a shingle mill burned down. They were all privately operated and the fires took place within three weeks. I do not think anybody thought there was gross negligence on the
Military Establishments-Fires and Thefts part of either the owners, the operators or their employees. These things happen. Nobody likes them, but we ought to be reasonable about them.
I should also like to say that the Department of National Defence has had to build up an enormous organization at the same time that it has been expanding its fighting forces rapidly. It has had to take on people in large numbers. It has had to sort them out and train them quickly. The rapid expansion of its organization in conjunction with the growth of the fighting forces certainly has been a strain on the department. If you associate that fact with the percentage of loss by fire and theft I think you can say that the department has done an excellent job.
I do not propose to suggest that the Department of National Defence is perfect in every meticulous detail or that all the individuals who make up its service and civilian forces are infallible. The department has grown rapidly and has sought to create its own internal organization at the same time that it was building up its service organization.
That has not been easy. Qualified personnel are difficult to obtain in the numbers that have been required. I submit that having now arrived at the point where there are 135,000 people in the services and on the civilian side, these people are as good a crosssection of Canadian personnel and Canadian enterprise as can be found anywhere. I want to make one further observation. I believe that the end result of the department's activities is the troops that are produced. I do not think we should ever lose sight of that, and I refer not merely to numbers but also to quality. I do not wish to engage in a fulsome eulogy of the members of our forces. We do not need that and they do not need it, but I do wish to say in all humility and with great pride that the resourcefulness, courage and deportment of the 25th brigade now serving in Korea, which I had the honour to visit with the minister in January, would gladden the heart of any Canadian who could have seen them and would make him proud to be a Canadian.
After all, that is the reason for all these expenditures. The reason we require heavy taxation is to provide troops, and I maintain that our troops in Korea, in Europe and in Canada are the finest type that any man in any country could wish for at any time.
I should like to make one other observation. After close association with the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) for the past year, I want to support the tribute that was so justly paid to him by the hon. member for Trinity-Conception (Mr. Stick) when
2358	HOUSE OF
Military Establishments-Fires and Thefts speaking in the house in April last. In directing the most important matter of our national defence the Minister of National Defence bears tremendous responsibility. His vision and determination, and his quick understanding and appraisal of problems are well known. I who work with him every day can bear testimony to that. His energy and devotion to his task are proverbial. Because I think it should be said, I want to say that when all the smoke of battle, both military and political, has cleared away I believe that he will stand out clearly on the pages of history as a very great minister of national defence.


Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary assistant referred a few moments ago to our Canadian troops in Korea. There is no member of the house who is not intensely proud of the manner in which these young lads have represented our nation, and the same can be said of the young Canadians who are serving in Germany. However, surely these young men are entitled to have behind them in Canada the very finest system that it is possible to have in the defence department. There is the nub of our complaint.
We say that steps should be taken here in Canada without further delay to strengthen the organization at home. The parliamentary assistant has claimed that there should not be all this rumpus raised about a situation which he says is, in effect, just the odd police court case. If that were the whole story there might be something in his argument. But this is far more serious than one particular police court case. When we see freight-car loads of government property being stolen from a government camp, that cannot be described fairly as just a little side issue. That is a very serious happening. Not only were carloads of equipment taken away from Petawawa, but railway tracks were torn up and, I suppose, taken away for scrap metal. Then we know of the unfortunate incident involving the stealing or the disappearance of buildings at Farnham camp.
I know the effect on me, personally, has been that during these last weeks I have been greatly worried to learn that this sort of thing has been going on. We all deprecate it; no one approves of it. But it has been going on. There has been mention of it in the press, and it has been admitted within the last few moments by the parliamentary assistant that these thefts have taken place.
All we are asking is that there be a thorough inquiry by a judge. There can be no doubt that the results would be of benefit to the defence department and the country at large. I am:surprised that the minister and


his parliamentary assistant have taken the attitude that this question should not have been raised in the house, that it should have been hushed up, that even by discussing it we are injuring or in some way hurting Canada's defence forces. I suggest to the minister that the far more reasonable approach to the question would have been for him to say, "Certainly; I am only too glad to have any suggestions which will help me strengthen our defence organization here in Canada." That would have been an approach completely different from the one he and his parliamentary assistant have taken.
I believe when they take the attitude that they must not be criticized, that those of us who complain are not patriots and that we are doing an injury to the country, the minister and his parliamentary assistant are, in effect, undermining the efforts of this country to build up a strong defence force. I believe they are not being fair to the young men and women who have volunteered for service in the Canadian forces, and are failing to appreciate the fact that we are not in a situation which is going to be over in a month or a year.
We face many years of tension in the world today. The whole policy of the freedom-loving nations is to build up their forces on a long-term basis and to become so strong that the communists dare not start a third world war. This is a policy which will have to be carried on for perhaps twenty years, perhaps longer than that; and now is the time to remedy the defects in our defence set-up. This is the time to get things right; and here we have a situation which obviously is wrong. I need only point out to the house what was purported to have been said by the adjutant-general of our forces. Surely his statement should carry some weight with members on all sides of the house.
We have this editorial published in the Calgary Herald on May 13, just six days ago, in which reference is made to a letter forwarded by Colonel J. S. Ross, officer in charge of administration, western command, to the heads of branches and staff, to the heads of services, and to units, subunits and detachment commanders. I need read only this one sentence from this letter by Colonel Ross, because I think it sums up the whole picture." He wrote:
The adjutant-general has expressed sincere concern at the apparent laxity revealed by the current scandals at Montreal and Petawawa.
Hon. members will note that the adjutant-general expresses concern, that he refers to apparent laxity, and also that he uses the word "scandal". Just take that statement from the adjutant-general; surely that, without anything else, without all these

other details, should be sufficient to convince us in the House of Commons that it is our responsibility to see that a thorough and complete check is made at the present time in order to stop this sort of thing, and to help the men in our defence forces. I suggest the best way that can be done would be by having an impartial inquiry. Frankly I do not know of any way by which we could assure that such an inquiry would be impartial and quite removed from any political consideration, other than by having a judge appointed to inquire into the methods used in the defence department in caring for stores.
I have had complaints from Vancouver to the effect, for example, that there is no proper method of inspecting goods when they are sent out to a command. We have seen these tenders called stipulating that a certain quantity of equipment must be sent to one camp, and a different quantity to another, and so on right across the country. My informant may be wrong, but I am told there is no efficient method of checking goods when they are delivered to respective camps. A camp may receive a box full of rock, let us say, instead of equipment-and that, of course, would be an extreme case.


Brooke Claxton: It does not exist.


Howard Charles Green: That is one complaint that has been made to me; it may be right or it may be wrong. But we are engaged in a pursuit entirely different from that which engaged our attention during the war. Here we are building up forces, not rapidly as we did during the war, but much more slowly. In addition we are stockpiling to an extent we did not do in wartime. In those years when we manufactured goods the greater proportion of them would be shipped overseas for use, with the result that we did not have the problem of stockpiling that now confronts us. With the larger quantities and the more numerous types of equipment and defence stores in Canada, there is obviously a greater need for some efficient system of keeping track of what happens to the stores. We have the proof that at least some of the stores have gone astray. There has been wrongdoing and I urge upon the members, in all sincerity, that we would be wise to have an inquiry such as that suggested in this motion. I am going to read it again, because I believe it points to an effective remedy. It is in these words:
"The government should consider the advisability of undertaking a judicial inquiry into the organization of the Department of National Defence and without restricting the generality of the foregoing to investigate the accounting, inspection and administrative supervision of public property by the Department of National Defence with particular
Military Establishments-Fires and Thefts reference to losses of property by theft, looting and' fire; the nature of supervision over the army stores and as to whether there has occurred any dereliction of duty on the part of any of the personnel of the said department whose duty it is to safeguard the public property of Canada.
The judicial body thus appointed to have all the powers of a royal commission under part I of the Inquiries Act, chapter 99. of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927, to make findings and recommendations and to report the same to parliament."
If that recommendation were accepted, then we should have this question removed from the house and put into the hands of one of our senior judges in Canada. I am confident that the results would be greatly to the benefit not only of our forces but also of the nation at large.


Mr. D. S. Harkness (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the debate this afternoon as I was attending the Legion convention in Montreal and just returned in time to hear the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Campney). I was quite surprised at his speech, and that is why I am on my feet at the moment. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre, who is also the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton), tried to defend the government and the administration of the Department of National Defence by attacking the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew). Surely that is as weak a defence to any of the charges which have been made and about which he complains as could possibly be put forward by a spokesman for the government.
The hon. member said that criticism of the Department of National Defence was hurting the good name of the services, and by inference at least also stated that any criticism of the affairs of the Department of National Defence was having an adverse affect on our defence preparations. If we are to accept that attitude, the logical conclusion would be that we should say nothing in this house about defence unless we can praise something which has been done by the minister or his assistant. In other words, it is just not consistent with our conception of parliamentary government. The duty of the opposition is to bring to the attention of the government, and the Canadian public generally, things which we believe are wrong so far as the administration or general policy of the defence department or any other department is concerned, and as a result try to remedy those deficiencies which may exist.
I resent the implications of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre that those of us on this side of the house who have criticized defence matters are hurting the good name of the services. I am just as concerned about the good name of the defence service as any other member who has been active in defence
2360	HOUSE OF
Military Establishments-Fires and Thejts matters or defence criticism. On this side of the house we are just as anxious as anyone else in Canada to maintain the good name of the services, and to maintain the efficiency of our services. I doubt whether the hon. member for Vancouver Centre or any other hon. member opposite would directly state anything to the contrary. It seems to me, however, that the good name of our services, the efficiency of our services, can best be maintained, not by keeping anything secret or by stifling criticism where criticism is justified, but by rooting out improper practices wherever they may have occurred. It is the only way by which we are going to get a defence service that is as efficient as possible. Trying to keep these things secret is not going to help in any way so far as the general efficiency of the service is concerned. Surely, it must be apparent to anyone that the shedding of light upon any situation which happens to exist in our armed forces produces better results than any attempt which may be made to hush things up.
The hon. member for Vancouver Centre attempted to excuse any deficiencies which have occurred by saying that every commercial concern has large deficiencies, fire losses and so forth. Well, that is quite correct. No one has ever said they have not. However, that is still not a good excuse, particularly when you have matters coming to light as we have had in recent, weeks, such as the Peta-wawa affair and various others which were reported to the committee now investigating defence expenditures. As a matter of fact, the general attitude of the government seems to have been that whatever the situation may have been, let us not say anything about it; let us keep it quiet. If we keep it quiet, the good name and efficiency of the services will be maintained. I believe exactly the opposite effect will be produced, Mr. Speaker. It is only by proper criticism of these matters, which I maintain we on this side of the house have made, that the efficiency of the services will be improved. This is true of other government departments as well.
Unfortunately, in the defence expenditures committee the government has followed this same idea of saying "Let us not investigate this or that if it is felt it is going to bring to light something which might prove embarrassing". As the member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) said a little while ago, the best way to meet the situation would have been for the minister, as soon as there was any indication of impropriety, to frankly say to the country that these things had occurred; that they were sorry they had occurred and immediate steps would be taken to prevent their recurrence.


Brooke Claxton: That is what I did.


Douglas Scott Harkness: If that sort of approach had been made by the minister-


An hon. Member:: He did.


Douglas Scott Harkness: You would not have had all the criticism you have had about it. The difficulty is that that has not been the approach. There has always been this attempt to keep things quiet, and hope nobody would mention them. At the moment my sincere advice to the minister would be to bring these things out into the open and state definitely the steps that have been taken to correct them. If that were done I believe that many of the complaints and criticisms by hon. members and in newspaper editorials would rapidly disappear.


Mr. J. H. Dickey (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to keep the house for more than a moment, but after having heard the remarks of the hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Harkness) I think some clarification should be made for his benefit. He admitted that he had not heard any of the debate today, and then proceeded to take the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Campney) to task for some of the things he had heard the hon. member say-


Douglas Scott Harkness: It was just symptomatic of what he has been saying right along.


John Horace Dickey: He proceeded on that basis to make certain inferences. Fortunately he said he was making inferences, and I want to say to the hon. member for Calgary East that his inferences are out of order and completely unfounded. He suggested that from what the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Campney) had said the inference he took was that we were complaining about any criticism of the Department of National Defence, and that from what the hon. member for Vancouver Centre had said it was a logical conclusion that the opposition was not in a position to criticize at all.
That certainly is not an inference that could be properly made from anything the hon. member said in his speech. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre was not complaining about criticism from the opposition of the Department of National Defence. What he was complaining about was the repeated broad, sweeping suggestions of wrongdoing, wholesale looting and all that sort of thing in the services, which suggestions have been repeated time and time again inside this house and outside of it, but so far have not been substantiated by one jot or tittle of evidence.
There has been no attempt to hush up any substantial charge or suggestion made by the

opposition or anybody else with respect to wrongdoing. Such matters as Petawawa, Farn-ham or other individual cases that have been raised have been dealt with by the minister in this house in debates and in statements to the house, and hon. gentlemen opposite have not made any attempt to deal with those explanations. They have simply gone on the other tack of making wild generalizations so that it is not possible for the minister or anybody else to protect the members of the services from the general and serious allegations that are made against them all. These generalizations are things from which the members of the services cannot protect themselves, nor can they be protected from them. What we are complaining about here is not criticism or the bringing forward of any facts or figures that would be embarrassing to the government. What we are complaining about is simply the broad generalizations which constitute an attack on the members of the services.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before I put the question, perhaps I should tell the house that I have my doubts as to whether or not this amendment is in order. I may say immediately, however, that I accept it. In order to help the movers of future amendments, however, perhaps I might offer these remarks. Last Monday an amendment which I think is similar to this was offered to the house. It is found at page 2112 of Hansard and reads as follows:
That all the words after "that" to the end of the question be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"consideration should be given to the matter of appointing a royal commission for the purpose of examining and making recommendations for:
1. Improving the organization and general efficiency of government administration . . .
And so on. If that amendment had been carried by the house, it seems to me that a commission, if appointed, in looking into the improving of the organization and general efficiency of government administration, would have looked particularly into the Department of National Defence, amongst others, and would have investigated-if anything had been found to be incorrect-the accounting, inspection and administrative supervision of public property, as is now requested by this amendment.
In this connection, I should like to quote citation 332 of Beauchesne's third edition. It reads as follows:
It is a rule in both houses, which is essential to the due performance of their duties that no question
Military Establishments-Fires and Thefts
or bill shall be offered that is substantially the same as one on which their judgment has already been expressed in the current session.
An old rule of parliament reads: "That a question being once made and carried in the affirmative or negative, cannot be questioned again but must stand as the judgment of the house." Unless such a rule were in existence, the time of the house might be used in the discussion of motions of the same nature and contradictory decisions would be sometimes arrived at in the course of the same session.
Basing my opinion on what I have just said, and particularly on this citation, and having analysed both the amendment which was moved on Monday last and the one which was moved today, I say that I have doubts as to whether this present amendment is in order. However, since the house is ready for it, I will now put the question.
The leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), seconded by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon), moves:
That all the words after "that" to the end of the question be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"the government should consider the advisability of undertaking a judicial inquiry into the organization of the Department of National Defence and without restricting the generality of the foregoing to investigate the accounting, inspection and administrative supervision of public property by the Department of National Defence with particular reference to losses of property by theft, looting and fire; the nature of supervision over the army stores and as to whether there has occurred any dereliction of duty on the part of any of the personnel of the said department whose duty it is to safeguard the public property of Canada.
The judicial body thus appointed to have all the powers of a royal commission under part I of the Inquiries Act, chapter 99, of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927, to make findings and recommendations and to report the same to parliament."
The question is on the amendment to the main motion. Those who are in favour of the amendment will please say "yea".


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Those who are
opposed to the amendment will please say "nay".


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. White (Hasiings-Peierborough):: I was
paired. Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: I was paired. Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. Johnston:: I was paired with the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Jean-François Pouliot: I was paired with the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Gagnon). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.


DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL REVENUE
[Stage Direction]
Customs and excise divisions-
302. General administration, $2,105,832.
Item stands.

[Stage Direction]
Privy council office-
315. General administration, $346,391.
Item stands.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 330. Departmental administration, $584,997.
Item stands.

[Stage Direction]
A-Department-
Administration services-
221. Departmental administration, $431,397.
Item stands.
Progress reported.

Alphonse Fournier: the second reading of Bill No. 195, to amend the Government Employees Compensation Act.


Howard Charles Green: Will the parliamentary assistant make a statement?


James Arthur Ross: I was paired with the Mr. Paul E. Cote (Parliamentary Assistant
hon. member for Melville (Mr. Gardiner). j0 the Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I had Had I voted, I would have voted for the inten(jed to give some further explanations amendment.	on this when it reached the committee


John Horace Dickey: I was paired with the hon. stage. If my hon. friend wishes me to do it member for Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan). now I should like to answer the questions he Had I voted, I would have voted against the raised when we were discussing the resolu-amendment.	tion which preceded this bill. The hon.

member asked this question, as reported on page 1975 of Hansard of May 7:
Will the proposed amendment be wide enough to cover the case of a rehabilitation officer of the Department of Veterans Affairs who develops tuberculosis through contact with patients say in one of the military hospitals?
A little further on he made this comment:
There would probably be similar cases in the Indian affairs branch, in which some government official would come in contact with tuberculosis but would' not be eligible for assistance under the act.
This type of case is one which could be considered for compensation under the amended section. The question of whether or not compensation would be payable would depend on the facts of the case. The degree or extent of the exposure of an employee to disease in carrying out his duties as rehabilitation officer or otherwise would be a very important consideration. There is a considerable difference in the amount of exposure to disease by an employee such as a nurse or doctor or attendant who devotes the major part of his time to the care of tuberculosis patients and is thus thoroughly exposed to the disease, and the case of an employee, for example a rehabilitation officer, whose duties may bring him into contact with patients in a hospital at much less frequent intervals. Since the degree of exposure in the latter case is much less there would probably be greater difficulty in establishing that the employee contracted the disease through contact with patients in the course of his employment. I hope that answers satisfactorily the questions raised by my hon. friend.
I do not think this bill is very controversial. Its purpose is to extend the coverage of the act. This act has worked satisfactorily in the past. It was enacted in 1918 and has been amended only twice since, in 1931 and 1951. I do not think there is anything I can add to what the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) said when he introduced the resolution on May 7.
I would remind hon. members that under the provincial workmen's compensation acts there are types of disease which are not fully covered. The definition of industrial disease contained in the Ontario act is the widest in scope that we could find. We could get along with the Ontario act and the acts of the provinces west of Ontario and provide the coverage that we are interested in securing for certain types of employees in connection with diseases which they may contract in the performance of their duties but with this amendment the governor in council will have the authority and power to extend to the maritime provinces and the province of Quebec the privileges now enjoyed under other provincial legislation.
Government Employees Compensation Act


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
On section 1-Regulations re compensation for disability or death from certain diseases.
Howard Charles Green: Unfortunately I could not hear the parliamentary assistant very clearly when he answered the questions which I had asked on May 7, but I understood the tenor of his remarks to be that a case such as I mentioned then would be covered by this amended section. I would ask him whether it would not be wiser in line 15 to have the word "and" changed to "or". The section would then read:
The governor in council may make regulations prescribing the conditions under which compensation is to be payable, the amount of compensation payable and the manner in which the compensation is to be determined, in respect of any employee who is disabled or whose death is caused by reason of any disease that is not an industrial disease but is due to the nature of his employment or peculiar to or characteristic of the particular process, trade or occupation in which he was employed at the time the disease was contracted1, and compensation shall be awarded to such employee or to the dependents of such deceased employee in accordance with the regulations.
With the word "and" in there it seems to me the employee would have to show both that he contracted the disease due to the nature of his employment and that it was peculiar to or characteristic of the particular process, trade or occupation in which he was employed. The first classification seems to be much wider, namely, that it was due to the nature of his employment. I think that would let in cases which would not be allowed in under the second qualification. Would it not be possible to change "and" to "or"? Otherwise I am afraid a case such as I mentioned the other day, that of the rehabilitation officer who went to consult a tuberculosis patient about rehabilitation and contracted the disease, could not possibly qualify under the act.


Mr. Cote (Verdun-La Salle):: In reply I might say to my hon. friend that the case he submitted the other day has been carefully studied, and it is expected that the regulations to be drafted for the operation of this section will be wide enough to do justice to meritorious cases of the type mentioned by my hon. friend. Of course we want to guard against any liability on the part of the government with respect to cases where only casual exposure to patients in sanitaria has preceded contamination of any such rehabilitation officer. Therefore we cannot open the door too wide. The case has to be put forward and argued on its merits, but certainly the regulations will be wide enough to cover any justifiable case. I would not think it would
2364	HOUSE OF
Government Employees Compensation Act be wise to amend the section in the way my hon. friend has suggested, but I am sure his remarks will be taken into consideration and the best possible drafting will be given to the regulations in order that as many cases as possible will be covered.


Stanley Howard Knowles: When the minister spoke on the resolution preceding the bill he indicated what the intention was in rather precise terms. As indicated on page 1974 of Hansard, the intention included the covering of diseases not regarded as compensable under provincial law. The intention also included in particular the coverage of employees in federal government laboratories, particularly in animal disease laboratories and in animal disease field inspection work where they may be exposed to virus infections in the course of their work. We welcomed the statement of the minister that the purpose of the amendment was to cover cases of the kind to which I have just referred by quoting from what the minister said. When we get the bill it is noted, however, that section 8 as it read previously was specific in its reference to a particular disease, namely, pulmonary tuberculosis. On the other hand, the new section 8 proposed by the amending bill does not name any particular diseases. The reference to pulmonary tuberculosis is gone and there is no reference to the diseases which the minister suggested in his remarks on May 7. I take it that what is now intended is to cover the kinds of diseases that were covered before in section 8 and these additional diseases under regulations to be passed under this section. Can we be assured that those regulations will cover on the one hand everything that section 8 previously covered and on the other hand everything that the minister referred to in his remarks of May 7?


Paul-Émile Côté: Without any hesitation I can give that assurance to my hon. friend.


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: Was there any special case that gave rise to this amendment? Have there been actual difficulties that have arisen out of the interpretation of the old section, or has any case arisen where the person contracted a disease in the course of his employment and was not covered by the act?


Paul-Émile Côté: To my knowledge no pensionable case has arisen, but there have been indications that some might arise in the future. Therefore we are putting forward this amendment to cover any potential case that would be pensionable under the act.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
[Stage Direction]

Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall this bill be read the third time? Now?


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave.


Lionel Chevrier: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


EMERGENCY GOLD MINING ASSISTANCE ACT
[Stage Direction]
1952 AND 1953
The house resumed, from Wednesday, May 14, consideration of the motion of Mr. Prudham that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to extend the application of the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act to the years 1952 and 1953 and to clarify the provisions of subsection five of section three so as to provide for the assistance intended when this subsection was enacted in 1951.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
Mr. Murray (Cariboo):: Mr. Chairman, I repeat that I believe it would be a splendid gesture in the year of the coronation for Canada to strike golden coins in certain denominations to mark that great festival.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. I think the other day the hon. member made the same suggestion and, if he will recall, I pointed out to him on that occasion that he was not in order. He is not any more in order this evening.


George Matheson Murray: The position is this, that I am from a riding in which gold mining is an industry just like cattle ranching, lumbering or any of the other great natural industries. Any measure at all which could assist in improving the price of gold would certainly be of value to that part of Canada, and indeed to every other part in which gold mining is a great and basic industry. That would take in many parts of Quebec, northern Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, right across the country. I hope to see the day when Canada is released from any commitment under the international monetary fund. I hope to see the day when gold will command its proper price throughout the world. This would be of great benefit to our country, stimulating not only the gold mining industry but many others dependent upon it.
We have heard about the great development of iron in Labrador. The project now

being carried out would have been impossible had it not been for the genius and experience of men who had operated in gold in northern Ontario, who had acquired capital and the ability to participate in the development of that great iron ore industry in Quebec. In my own province, gold miners having acquired wealth in that industry have spent their money in many other industries, and have developed ranching, as well as mercantile and other activities in Vancouver, Victoria and elsewhere. In fact, the story in British Columbia is that the mining of gold has been fundamental to the success of that province.
Our north Atlantic allies should have a common coinage as well as a common monetary system. I had thought this might properly be considered under this resolution, but I believe I am ruled out of order, so I must be content to retire to a discussion of conditions within the boundaries of my own riding. We should continue this subsidy and increase it. By increasing the production of Canadian gold we can stimulate the business of all our people.
France hoards gold; the United States buys gold. Let us, then, follow the policy so well outlined by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, to sell our commodities in the best market. If France, United States and other nations wish to buy that metal product, then let us go into those markets and, as I say, free Canadian gold from control at the hands of men who, while their intentions may be good, direct institutions such as the international monetary fund. With all due respect to our own Minister of Finance I say those persons are often advised by theorists and by those who are not practical in the handling and directing of industries and the meeting of problems in the development of the northwest.
I do not wish to speak at greater length. I would point out, however, that during the last few months I have been in many of the new centres of northern British Columbia, as well as the Yukon and the Northwest Territories where, despite the low price of gold, development is going on. Large purchases are being made and a great market exists for the business houses of Vancouver, Edmonton, Toronto and elsewhere.
We are most fortunate in having a minister in the department who, I believe, shares the views I have endeavoured to present this evening. I commend him for continuing the subsidy to an industry which is vital to the success of our country.


Mr. Fulton:: Mr. Chairman, the length of this discussion and its very thoughtful nature indicate that all hon. members have become aware of the fact that the gold mining
Gold Mining
industry has been made a sick industry through the restrictive policies now being followed by the government as a result of our adherence to the international monetary fund. I say the gold mining industry has been made a sick industry because any industry is sick when its welfare depends directly upon the continued favour of the government and the continued support of the public treasury.
When I refer to favour of the government, I do not have in mind industries the existence or continuation of which can be wrecked by sudden changes in domestic, fiscal or tariff policy, but rather industries the existence of which on a solvent basis depends upon subsidies from the treasury. It is the seriousness of that situation and the growing awareness that it should not be allowed to continue which have given rise to this thoughtful discussion.
I believe we have to support the resolution and the bill which will be based upon it because, for reasons given by the minister and others who have taken part in the debate, it is hoped that the measure will improve somewhat the present position of this vital industry. But the mere fact that we support the resolution and the bill will not be taken, I hope, as any indication that we are in favour of the general policy now being followed which, in effect, amounts to a continuation of restrictive barriers built up around the industry and against trading in the commodity it produces.
I am not going to repeat the arguments set out in the excellent and timely speech of the hon. member for York West, in which he prescribed in some detail measures which would lead to a cure of the present conditions from which the gold mining industry suffers. But it seems to me that anyone who thinks cannot avoid being struck by the folly of the situation in the world today where we find large numbers of people in this country and in South Africa-to name only two of the largest gold producing countries-busily engaged in digging this valuable commodity, out of one hole in the ground and shipping it to the United States where on the other hand a large number of people is busily engaged in burying and guarding it in another hole in the ground.
This is a commodity which is valuable not only because of its intrinsic worth, but also because of its use in international trade. When it is placed in the hole in the ground in the United States it can serve no useful purpose; the only purpose it serves is to preserve the artificial price set for gold, and

Gold Mining
to continue a situation where the gold producing countries are denied the price and the place which would be theirs if international trade in gold were once again freely to take place.
Yet this situation, under which a commodity is dug out of one hole in the ground in one country and buried in another hole in the ground in another country, thus bringing about an artificially depressed price for gold, means that the price which our producers receive for the commodity-a price which is forced upon them by the present restrictive policies resulting from the international monetary fund to which, as yet, we continue to subscribe-bears no relationship to the price or the value which would attach to gold if it could be freely owned and used in trade. I join particularly with the hon. member for Eglinton in his statement the other day that he fully realizes and appreciates the difficulty of changing that situation. It cannot be lightly suggested that any country should withdraw from international agreements and obligations into which it has freely entered. But I do press strongly the point of view that unless we can see indications that these policies will be relaxed progressively, and that the relaxation will commence at an early date, we should serve notice that we may be compelled, in the discharge of the duty which is described as the prime function of this parliament-that is to consider first the interests of Canadians-to take measures which could only be taken if we did withdraw from that arrangement. Some of the remedies suggested perhaps do not involve immediately going that far, and I think they should be considered carefully; if it is at all possible they should be adopted whether or not we in fact withdraw from the fund.
It is for that reason we should see if it is not possible to allow the private ownership of gold in this country. Above all, we must take steps now leading to the restoration, at as early a date as possible, of the free market for gold. I believe that nothing plays into the hands of the communist countries and communist policies so much as the restrictions on the free movements of money and people which, as we see them in effect today, restrict the trade between ourselves and the sterling and other western European countries. The present conditions give a fair indication that if the restrictions are to continue, and particularly if they become any more serious, some form of economic breakdown will confront the western world. Nothing could contribute more to the furtherance of communist policy than that economic breakdown. In the last few years, on a number of occasions, we

have only narrowly averted such a breakdown, the consequences of which would be more far-reaching than the breakdown of our military strength. It goes without saying that military strength cannot be maintained unless there is a sound economy behind it.
When we see the difficulties which confront this country in selling its produce in the markets of the world because of currency restrictions, impediments to convertibility; when we see the complexity of difficulties which we experience in bringing into Canada immigrants of the type that we want and who want to come here, because those immigrants cannot bring their money with them; when we see these artificial restrictions on the free flow of money and people, then I think we have to realize that some parts of the world are being forced to adopt the same policies which we so vigorously condemned when they were adopted by the dictator countries. One of the first things Hitler did was to prevent the export of money and then to prevent the movement of people out of Germany. Having done that, he then said they had too many people in Germany and had to have more living space; that was one of his main pretexts for military expansion. I cannot see the sense of condemning those policies in others, and then permitting a similar situation to arise as a result of these restrictions now being imposed on movements of this type today.
I am convinced that one of the prime tasks confronting the North Atlantic treaty nations, and one quite as urgent as the building up of their military strength, is the restoration of the freedom of people to cross international boundaries and the freedom to move money and goods across international boundaries. I believe one of the first requisites to the restoration of those freedoms would be the restoration of a free market for gold. It seems to me that an international commodity which is accepted everywhere as a basis of values would at least permit the start of the process which would lead to the restoration of convertibility.
Now, those general statements are as far as I dare go into the field of international finance, and I make even those statements with some trepidation. But I am convinced that these general principles are applicable, and that the considerations arising out of them are urgent.
I come then to the other set of circumstances which, as I have said, lead us to support this measure-although we take exception to the continuance of the general restrictive policy-that is, the immediate welfare of the gold mining industry. At the moment, this depends upon some additional

assistance along the lines which will be provided by the bill to be based on this resolution. Other members with greater knowledge of the mining industry have spoken of those factors, and I do not intend to repeat them. I do intend, however, to say that, having two large gold mines in the constituency which I represent, the Pioneer and Bralorne mines in the Bridge river valley, and knowing something in a general way of the difficulties which those mines are facing, the difficulties which they have found in keeping men and the conditions facing the men because of the difficulty in paying wages which are commensurate with wages paid in other branches of mining, I know that even the temporary and limited relief offered by this measure is something we must support.
Again, though, I urge the minister, for the sake of the welfare of the mining industry as well as for the sake of the welfare of this country and all western countries who must restore freedom in international trade, to lose no time in going further than this temporary measure and making his main effort the restoration of the value of gold and the free trade in it as a commodity.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I know this is not the time to enter into a discussion of the functions of gold in a world economy, but I think perhaps I should say just a word in view of the inference of the hon. member that the difficulties which are now facing the gold mining industry of this country, and other gold producing countries, are due to what he has referred to as the restrictions imposed by the international monetary fund. The causes of those difficulties are very much more deep rooted than that. The very thoughtful speech which was made by the hon. member for York West the other day-I was sorry I was not here to listen to it-and the speech given by the member for Kamloops, show that they must have given a great deal of time and study to the history of gold as a foundation for currency.
The traditional role of gold, however, has been as a means of settling international balances and as a storehouse value. It has retained that position because it has had a stable value, not a fluctuating value. In the past it has been fixed by statute as a unit of national currency containing so many ounces of gold of a certain standard of weight and fineness. That is the traditional role of gold, and that is the only way we shall maintain gold as a metal having the value it has today. Gold itself, as was so rightly pointed out by the member for York West, has very little intrinsic value. Its uses in the arts are extensive, but they certainly would not
Gold Mining
account for one moment for the gold produced in this country alone, let alone that of South Africa and many others. The traditional value of gold, therefore, depends upon its being accepted as a suitable medium of exchange. Really to oversimplify it, the present value of gold today depends upon the willingness of the United States treasury to take it and to give $35 an ounce worth of goods and services for it. If the United States treasury ever stopped doing that, I can tell you that the Canadian gold producers would be in a much more serious position than they are at this moment.
There is a good deal of talk about this free market for gold. Those of us who have followed this question have been rather interested in what has happened since there have been these relaxations with regard to the sale of gold, in processed form, it is true, but in very slightly processed form. The fact that Canada and Southern Rhodesia have entered that market along with South Africa has had the effect of sharply depressing the price. I venture to say that if the so-called shackles were all done away with, if we offered the $110 million worth of gold production we have in this country freely and if South Africa and everybody else did the same thing, the United States would be reluctant to give $35 worth of automobiles, steel or what have you for our gold production, in view of the fact that they now have some $23 billion or $24 billion worth of non-productive gold, as my hon. friend has said, down in the vaults at Fort Knox, Kentucky. I would therefore not take it for granted, as some people do, that Canada gets no benefit from being a member of the international monetary fund.
This is a question on which opinions may differ. That may not be the best medium for maintaining the stable, traditional role of gold in the world economy, but it is one means. The international monetary fund is participated in by most of the major trading countries of the world with the exception of soviet Russia, and by all the major gold producers. I think that statement should be made here. As I have had occasion to do under other circumstances, I again remind hon. members that the continued value of gold and the future of the gold mining industry is dependent, under today's conditions, upon the United States treasury being willing to purchase it. Whether the price of gold will be raised from its present value of $35 an ounce to something else, as was done in 1933, is a matter on which opinions may differ. I am perhaps saying the obvious

Gold Mining
when I say the policy of the United States treasury would be a rather important factor in that eventuality.


Mr. Adamson:: Mr. Chairman, I am interested in what the Minister of Finance has just said. I disagree with him in the statement that the price of gold depends entirely upon what the United States treasury is prepared to pay, for this reason. At the present time the United States treasury and the other monetary authorities are merely purchasing some 15 per cent of the world's .total output of gold. The rest of it is going not to treasury sources but to sources outside the monetary funds of the various nations. As a matter of fact, according to the United Nations, production last year was some $856 million, based on $35 an ounce, of which $130 million went into monetary funds. The rest went to sources not controlled by the United States treasury. Therefore if you have an organization that is prepared to pay a price for a commodity, and by paying that price can purchase only 15 per cent of the world's output, I think it is incorrect to say that that purchaser controls the price of that commodity.
. My point is simply this. The return to a fixed value for gold which is accepted by the people of the world is desirable. It is not happening at the present time. The way to arrive at that price at which gold will be accepted-the whole 100 per cent of the production, the whole gold that is in hoards, doing no good to anybody or at least very little-is by some method in which you take the restrictions off owning, holding, importing or exporting gold. Those methods are, of necessity, complicated. However, that is the only way in which the true price for this commodity can be arrived at. In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, if the United States were willing to say that gold is worth $35 an ounce, they would offer to sell it against their own currency for $35 an ounce, and to their own nationals; but they are not prepared to do that. I suggest to the Minister of Finance and to you, Mr. Chairman, that there would be a great drain on the hoard at Fort Knox, which the United States treasury could ill afford to stand despite the fact that they are today the world's greatest creditor nation.
Just in this week's New York Times there is in the magazine section an article by Hoffman, the economic correspondent of the Times, saying that there are some $6 billion of gold in Europe alone and that the freeing of that hoard and the putting of that hoard to work would, in his opinion, go a long way towards solving the exchange problems of the European continent.


Douglas Charles Abbott: How do we do that?


Agar Rodney Adamson: That is his article. I will give it to the minister.


Douglas Charles Abbott: He does not know any more than we do about it.


Agar Rodney Adamson: It is his article.


Douglas Charles Abbott: How do we do it? That is the big question.


Agar Rodney Adamson: If gold were free; if restrictions were taken off gold-because gold is merely a form of capital-and if it were allowed to move freely, the situation would be like that portrayed in the old fable by Aesop of the man with the coat, the sun and the wind. Both wanted to get him to take his coat off. The wind tried to blow the coat off, and the man held his coat around him tighter and tighter. The sun came out and made things warm and pleasant and he took off his coat because he did not need it any more. What we must do is make international climatic conditions so financially pleasant that people will not hold gold but will put it to work.
In another article in the same paper it is estimated that there are some 10,000 ounces a day of gold going into the black market through New York channels-they call it the black market but it is in fact really the free market or the open market-and that gold smuggling has reached such an extent that less than one; in fifty of the gold smugglers are caught. I mention these things because I appreciate the minister's point of view. But, Mr. Chairman, we must take steps to free currency and exchange. We are not doing it at the present time.


Douglas Charles Abbott: We have.


Agar Rodney Adamson: We freed our dollar.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I think we should take the next step and free gold. The minister says we freed our dollar. That is something I advocated many years ago, and I think we should have done it long before we did. I think we should have had the courage to do it many years ago, as we should now have the courage to free gold. I think we should have had the courage to do it many years ago. At the same time I think we should have the courage, as I said on Wednesday, to take the steps to free our exchange and establish an open gold market in this country. I believe it would be the beginning of more freely convertible exchange conditions. You have the situation, Mr. Chairman, where 15 per cent or less of the gold at the present time is going into what no doubt the minister will say are useful channels. The rest of it

is going into what the minister would probably say is a black market, hoards, which is undesirable.
What are the steps to be taken to make gold the useful monetary commodity that it once was? In my opinion the first thing you have to do is free it. The first thing you have to do with any type of exchange is endeavour to free the trading in it. If the free market is not the way, if anybody can suggest a better way, I would be interested. At the present time we are going from bad to worse. We are destroying our industry, and nowhere do you find trading becoming easier in the world.
The final argument, Mr. Chairman, is that unless we in this country for our own good, let alone the good of the free world, and especially international trade, do this, we are going to further compartmentalize trade, we are going to continue currency blocs, restrictions and all the other devilish devices of scarcity, and by so doing we are not restoring the trade of the world.
I believe gold is a weapon we must use, and we must use it as a freely exchangeable commodity without any strings of any kind attached to it. That is my plea, Mr. Chairman.


Gordon Graydon: May I ask the minister one question? I am concerned about the number of workers who are engaged in the gold mines of Canada. Parliament had better consider their situation pretty carefully. I have listened to the remarks that have been made by hon. members and because every one of whom knows so much more about the subject than I do I take their word for many of the things that in some other debates I might be looking at with a more critical eye. I have listened to the debates very carefully, and I have been very much impressed with what has been said. The thing I am concerned about is this. If the gold mines of this country are in the condition which it has been said they are, and if the future under our present system is so uncertain, then I think parliament had better give very careful consideration to the people whose very lives are tied up in the question of work in these mines. You cannot just uproot working people and push them around. They have gone into this mining work with the idea of making it a livelihood, a vocation, and not just a temporary one, but a permanent one. For my own satisfaction I should1 like to know how many are involved in gold mining in Canada, because I think that is a figure we ought to have in this debate.


Mr. Prudham:: I have not that figure with me, but from memory I think it is 26,000 people, but I could be wrong.


Agar Rodney Adamson: It is 36,000.
Gold Mining


George Prudham: The resolution we have before us tonight proposes amendments to the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act. We have had a very interesting and I think profitable discussion of this resolution. The Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act was never designed to cure the ills that beset the industry. It cannot deal in any way with the international monetary fund or with other problems in the realm of finance. It is designed solely for the purpose of providing emergency assistance to the industry over a difficult period. Subsequent amendments, and the amendments that we now propose, do not alter the original intent of the act in any way, and I think we all understand that.
The discussion has all been very helpful, and I hope the committee will see fit to pass the resolution tonight so I can have these amendments before the house. I can also say that I expect that we shall have the report of last year's operations of the act in the hands of hon. members before second reading.


Gordon Graydon: May I ask one question before the debate ends, of either the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. In your opinion what is the future of gold mining? You know the picture behind it. I think we are entitled to know just what the picture is, because there has been a good deal of debate here tonight. You two experts over there ought to be able to answer the question I am asking.


George Prudham: I think the gold mining industry is going to survive. I just recently returned from a very interesting and educational trip into northwestern Quebec. The Minister of National Revenue and the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Dumas) were also in the party. I was very much pleased to see the thriving communities, the modern towns with every convenience, paved streets and beautiful public buildings and permanent homes. The mines are practically all in operation. Of course, there are casualties. You always have casualties in the mining industry. Mining is always a wasting industry but we saw many new mines coming into production. We saw two or three on that short trip. One thing that is perhaps overlooked by some hon. members is the fact that the government gives a three-year exemption of taxes on new mines. A great many of them are taking advantage of that and are bring new mines into production.
The engineers are a fine group of young businessmen, as fine a group as you will find anywhere in Canada. They are applying their energy and skill to developing better methods of production, better methods of

Gold Mining
treating the ores, and they are developing new economies. I think they are going to pull the industry through.


Gordon Graydon: You think it will go back to where it was?


George Prudham: Well, your opinion is as good as mine. I think it will.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Prudham thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 242, to amend the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow we will take up the resolution standing in the name of the
Prime Minister to provide for the establishment of a national library; then the resolution to amend the Canada Grain Act; then Bill No. 194, to amend the Aeronautics Act; Bill No. 224, respecting the Canadian forces. There are three bills in the name of the Minister of Justice: Bill No. 63, to amend the Prisons and Reformatories Act; Bill No. 196, to amend the Supreme Court Act and Bill No. 197, to amend the Interpretation Act. If we have time we will take up the resolution to approve the supplementary extradition convention.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, May 20, 1952