1952-04-04

STANDING COMMITTEES


[Stage Direction]
Mr. H. B. McCulloch (Piciou) presented the first report of the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. A. Bradette (Cochrane) presented the first report of the standing committee on external affairs and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Milion F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to reply to the question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). The question, as reported at page 1078 of Hansard, was as follows:
Would the minister say whether the new 31 per cent interest rate on government annuities applies only to contracts taken out after April 1, 1952, or will it apply to moneys paid in after that date respecting contracts taken out during the period when the rate was 3 per cent?
The answer is that the rate in effect at the time the contract was made applies throughout the life of the contract. As to contracts made when the interest rate was 4 per cent, that rate continues to apply. As to those contracts made when the rate was 3 per cent, the same is true. In respect of contracts made on or after April 1, 1952, the interest rate will be 3 J per cent.


Mr. Knowles:: Will the minister permit a supplementary question? When the government prepares the bill to amend the annuities act, will consideration be given to the point implicit in my question of yesterday, which the minister has just now placed on Hansard?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I will take notice of the question.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. Bona Arsenault (Bonaventure) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 172, to amend the Criminal Code and the Combines Investigation Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Bona Arsenault: The purpose of the present bill is to prevent certain practices which have developed in Canadian sports, more especially in the field of hockey, practices which are generally admitted to be unfair to our youth and unworthy of a democracy. For instance, in so far as hockey is concerned, it should be an offence (a) to place on any hockey club negotiation lists the name of an amateur player without his consent or that of his parents, and (b) to try to prevent an amateur hockey player from offering his services to and playing with the professional club of his choice should he desire to become a professional player.


Mr. Graydon:: Do you think you will get across the blue line with that one?


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: Surely.


Mr. Studer:: Does this pertain to curling?
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 145, for the relief of Nathalie Olga Marianne Pervouchine Petrik.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 146, for the relief of Lily Stall Wax.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 147, for the relief of Charles William Silver.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 148, for the relief of Hilda Irene Gordon Diamond.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 149, for the relief of Jochwet Freiberg Rosenstein.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 150, for the relief of Mabel Elizabeth Jones McKay.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 151, for the relief of Dorothy Esme Graham Snell.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 152, for the relief of Olive Winni-fred Thistle Gour.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 153, for the relief of Sergius Messier.-Mr. Winkler.
[Stage Direction]
Private Bills
Bill No. 154, for the relief of Samuel Long Adamson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 155, for the relief of Sadie Isaac Kannon.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 156, for the relief of Yvonne Yvette Lalonde Faucher.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 157, for the relief of Kenneth Oliver Frawley.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 158, for the relief of Carol Almina Perry Alleyn.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 159, for the relief of Gertrude Mintz Dankoff.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 160, for the relief of Edna Pearl Tait Ames.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 161, for the relief of William Payne.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 162, for the relief of Edith Olive Catherine Cramp Midgley.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	163,	for	the	relief	of	Dorothy
Lillian Robinson Kay.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 164, for the relief of Emily Eileen Withall Rediker-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 165, for the relief of Joseph Charles Gerard Jean Leduc.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 166, for the relief of Hilda Miriam Magee Taylor.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	167,	for	the	relief	of	Laurent
Langlois.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	168,	for	the	relief	of	Dorothy
Lucille Girard Ward.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	169,	for	the	relief	of Alfred
Machabee.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 170, for the relief of Fanny Ian-covici Weissenberg.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 171, for the relief of Marilyn Apple Bogoroch.-Mr. Winkler.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  A. J. Baler@The Balllefords: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Has the federal government received a request from the government of Alberta for assistance to construct a bridge across the North Saskatchewan river due north of the border town of Lloydminster?


Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works):: My information is that the answer should be in the negative.



UNITED KINGDOM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of ihe Opposition):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance in relation to something of which I am sure he is aware, and of which I was informed just before coming into the house. I had heard the earlier
[Mr. Studer.l
news broadcast to which I shall refer, but not the subsequent information. It has probably been brought to his attention that there was a broadcast on the C.B.C. at eight o'clock this morning, which caused very great concern, in regard to the sterling position of the United Kingdom. Later that was corrected. Is the Minister of Finance in a position to make a statement which will clarify the situation?


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance):: I did not hear the broadcast referred to, Mr. Speaker, but it was brought to my attention. It would appear that the broadcast did in some respects inaccurately represent or incorrectly interpret the chancellor of the exchequer's statement in the United Kingdom House of Commons on the sterling area gold and dollar reserves.
The actual position is that the sterling area reserves at March 31 stood at approximately $1,700 million; the March deficit was $71 million as against a February deficit of $266 million, and a January deficit of $299 million. Toward the end of March of this year dollar reserves actually rose, and the chancellor stated that the receipts toward the end of March reflected a revival of confidence in sterling. It had been erroneously reported that the reserves are now at a lower point than immediately before devaluation in September, 1949. In fact, their lowest point was on September 18, 1949, when they stood at approximately $1,320 million.
The chancellor in his statement did point out, however, that it was the current trade and payments position which is in the long run decisive, and that rather than relaxing he indicated that the United Kingdom must redouble its efforts to assure an improvement in the position. He concluded by saying:
It would be a great mistake if we thought we had got through to safe ground.



MEETING OF INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):: should like ito direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce in connection with a meeting of the international wheat council to take place this month. Will the minister indicate whether the eight representatives from Canada will ask for increased floor and ceiling prices under the new agreement to be negotiated for the ensuing period following the conclusion of the present five-year agreement, as asked by the Canadian Council of Agriculture and the farmers union?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The delegates from Canada are going to the council, representing one of the exporting countries-I think there are four exporting countries-to negotiate with some fifty importing countries for a price for wheat to be included in the renewal of the agreement. With them are going five advisers representing the five principal farm organizations in western Canada. The delegates are taking with them no special instructions from the government. I presume that they will negotiate for the most favoured position that Canada can hope to obtain, but in any case they will have with them as expert advisers as can be found in western Canada. When the negotiations are completed the Canadian farm organizations will be asked whether or not they wish to enter into a renewal of the agreement, and the government will be guided by their views.



REPORTED USE OF COLOURING MATTER IN PRODUCTION OF BROWN LOAF

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: May I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare? Is he yet in a position to report on the conference which was to have been held on April 1 respecting regulations to make sure that brown bread is whole wheat bread and not white bread dyed brown?


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, to meet the convenience of the industrial firms and the trades concerned, the conference has been postponed until next Tuesday.



ABSENCE OF MINISTERS DURING CONSIDERATION OF THEIR ESTIMATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Yesterday, following the requests which had been made on different occasions, a debate on national defence, for which in excess of $2 billion is to be appropriated, was opened by a statement by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton). Following him, the speaker was the military spokesman of the Conservative party in this house, and he was known to be speaking in that place in this particular debate, the importance of which is emphasized not only by the money involved but also by the general circumstances under which this debate comes before us following the recent meeting in Lisbon.
Inquiries of the Ministry
When the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) had been speaking for only a very short time the minister left the house and did not return until shortly before his speech was completed. I would point out that this is not the first time we have had a similar experience. A week ago today, ministers whose estimates, involving more than $200 million, were coming before the house were not in their places. That made it impossible to deal with those estimates as they should have been dealt with, and, I might say, resulted in delay in the consideration of certain estimates until a time when it was not likely that they would be given adequate consideration.
I would point out that on this particular occasion the presence of the minister was not only a courtesy due to a member of this house in a debate, which is not a debate on estimates, not a debate in regard to any particular detail, but a debate to inform the house, and also to inform the minister as to what members of the house think about what is taking place. The absence of the minister in a case of this kind immediately after he had made his own speech indicates a lack of regard for the importance of the debate which must of necessity communicate itself to everyone in the house.
We had yesterday as excellent speeches as have ever been made in the house on national defence-presented, however, in an atmosphere from which the reality had been drawn by the fact that the minister responsible for introducing the debate was not present.
If this stood by itself, perhaps one might overlook it; but for the minister to leave the house after his own speech, at a time when a member with the unique experience of the hon. member for Nanaimo was speaking-a man who served in every rank from private to general and who has won decorations for valour not won by any other living infantry officer-to disregard the importance of a speech by such a man can only be regarded as the greatest discourtesy to him as well as to members of the house.
In referring to this matter I am dealing with something that goes to the very root of the privilege of every member who is recognized as the representative of the people who have chosen him, no matter to which party he may belong. When a subject as important as this is under debate, either the minister responsible should remain in the house, or *the government should regard it as advisable to adjourn the debate until he can con-, veniently return.


Hon. Brooke Claxion (Minister of National Defence):: I think everyone wanted to
hear what the leader of the opposition (Mr.;
1120 HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry Drew) had to say, though I think all hon. members recognize that everything he said was totally out of order. But since he has said it, I submit I am in a position where I have now a question of privilege to raise.
The hon. member has spoken about the attendance in the house of ministers. I can remember an occasion when I introduced a defence debate in the house at eight o'clock one evening, upon which occasion Your Honour had the bell rung until 8.09. The first Conservative to come in was the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) at 8.19. The leader of the opposition and the rest of the Conservatives who attended that sitting at all dropped in about 8.35 or later.
I can remember another occasion, on October 22, 1951, when, in consequence of repeated representations made by the leader of the opposition to the Prime Minister (Mr. St Laurent) for a debate on external affairs and defence, the Prime Minister discussed with the leaders of the opposition parties when it would be convenient to have the debate. He suggested to them the next day, but it was finally decided that it should take place on Monday, October 22. That debate, I suggest, was the most important ever to be held in this house in peacetime. It was to discuss the motion put forward by the Prime Minister that I read yesterday, that the house approve the action of Canada with regard to supporting United Nations action in Korea, and the North Atlantic treaty. We had a very interesting debate-very interesting indeed. It was brought on at the request of, pressed and pressed again by the leader of the opposition. It resulted in acceptance of the motion without a division. But the debate was not participated in by	the	leader	of	the	opposition,because he	was	not here	throughout the
whole of the debate.
Now, the hon. member has referred to the matter of courtesy as between members. I think I made my position clear to the hon. member for Nanaimo yesterday, in the presence of	the	leader	of	the	opposition,immediately at the close of the afternoon session-and	the	leader	of	the	opposition
heard me-when I apologized to the hon. member for Nanaimo because I had to leave for fifteen minutes in order to attend to some most urgent business concerning which my presence had been required in a message sent to the house.
I crossed the floor of the house and apologized to the hon. member for Nanaimo. He understood it, but apparently the leader of the opposition does not understand it- although he heard it. Now, every hon. member knows that when a debate is arranged


sometimes in advance and does not take place-four and a half days, for example, on external affairs-it is inevitable that we must keep engagements outside the house. This house is quite different from Westminster, which the leader of the opposition wishes us to follow in all respects except in respect of those important elements which might control debate. There it is well recognized that when a minister makes a statement he does not usually sit throughout the debate. Even the reply is usually made by his parliamentary under-secretary. However, yesterday I heard every word uttered by the hon. member for Nanaimo, with the exception of the fifteen minutes I mentioned, and I apologized to him at the time for my absence. He said, "That's all right," and I hope other hon. members of this house think that that is all right.


Mr. Speaker:: The charge and countercharge have been made. I doubt whether the discussion was in order. There is nothing before the house. Perhaps the matter could be adjourned until the debate on the budget, at which time it could be settled. It is not in order to continue the discussion now.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Cruickshank:: See Connie Smythe.


George Alexander Drew: It will not be necessary to adjourn the matter until the debate on the budget. I hope to deal with the inaccurate statements just made, but I shall be able to do so in the debate which we are about to resume.



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Has
the Minister of Justice given consideration to the tabling of suggested amendments to the Criminal Code before the Easter recess so that they may be in the hands of hon. members, particularly the lawyer members, who could place them before the various law societies of the provinces?


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: As I indicated in my answer to a question put by the hon. member on March 5 last, it is the intention of the government to table the report of the commission, and of the draft Criminal Code consolidation which is an integral part of the report, before the house adjourns for the Easter recess. The last check which I made on the matter was made this morning, and I was told that there is a reasonable prospect of the report being available on Monday next.



FLOOD CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. D. Wylie (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are called I should like to ask a question, but I am not just sure to which minister I should direct it. I am sorry that I have not sent notice of this question. I have received two telegrams today about the flood situation in Alberta, and I should like to know if any department of the government has been set up to assist the people who have had to leave their homes.
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime
Minister): I think the hon. member is under a misapprehension as to the distribution of responsibilities by the Canadian constitution. If I understood him correctly, he is referring to a flood which has occurred in different localities in the province from which he comes. This, in the first instance, is the responsibility of the local authorities. The only responsibility that has been assumed by the federal government in dealing with such matters arises when the situation is such that it means a catastrophe which it is beyond the financial power of the local authorities to handle. That is usually represented to the government by the provincial government concerned. It is not within my knowledge that any such representations have been made to us in connection with the matter referred to by the hon. gentleman.



NATIONAL DEFENCE

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, April 3, consideration of the motion of Mr. Claxton for committee of supply.
Mr. Rodney Adamson (York West):: Mr. Speaker, we are dealing this afternoon with the defence of Canada. If the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) will discuss his business outside I shall be able to continue.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I have said that we are discussing the defence of Canada. This sovereign parliament is charged by the people of Canada with providing adequate measures to secure this defence. This is our prime responsibility. The safety of our country is entrusted to us. This parliament has to judge the plans made by the military authorities and presented through the executive committee of this house, namely, the cabinet. We have to approve or disapprove the expenditures proposed and the degree of defence provided. We are called 55704-71
National Defence
upon to decide matters entailing our very survival as free men. It is a fierce but sacred duty.
We must accept this duty as individuals, because there can be no collective security without individual responsibility. Last year the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) said: It is not my responsibility to see to the security of my constituents. If it is not "my" responsibility, whose is it? We as members of this house represent the people in the different constituencies throughout Canada. The house is charged with national defence. It is wholly wrong if we as individuals relegate our individual and collective responsibility to the cabinet, more particularly to one member of that cabinet, the Minister of National Defence. The executive power is with the government, but the responsibility for the use of that executive power is with parliament, and it is still with parliament.
This has been forgotten as ministers have adopted a course which is fast becoming a habit of coming to parliament with a prepared statement, reading it into the record, and then leaving and not caring what the opinion of the house was on the statement so made because they had sitting behind them a large government majority. That is only one thing, contempt of parliament.
Yesterday the minister made a speech full of what we might call happy generalities.


George Alexander Cruickshank: He did not read it.


An hon. Member:: He read every word.


George Alexander Cruickshank: He did not.


Mr. Ross (Souris):: How do you know what he did?


George Alexander Cruickshank: I know.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Apparently there are some people in this house who cannot even read.
We have heard before from the minister these happy generalities and hopeful thoughts for defence, but what we heard yesterday contained very little real assurance or practical information that we were really preparing a defence force which is capable of entering military action on the 1952 level.
In other words, apparently we are prepared to engage in a war of the 1939 type. We are making the same mistakes that we made in 1939 when we were prepared to fight a war on the 1914-18 scale.
We have two things to consider with regard to the present situation. The war as it is today is in the political stage. We may hope that if we are successful in carrying out the political stage of the war we shall not have

National Defence
to enter the fighting stage. It seems to me that very little has been done or said with regard to our action in this regard.
Discussion on the infrastructure took place yesterday when the minister referred to the construction of aerodromes and other matters on the continent of Europe. As a matter of fact, the minister was chairman of the committee concerned. May I suggest that part of the infrastructure must be built to take care of the political side of the present situation. I hope, for example, that some steps have been taken with regard to the use of propaganda by short wave radio beamed from the continent of Europe to both the satellite countries and the Soviet heartland. I trust that we have taken adequate steps to see that those expelled from the satellites are accepted and also those who have been able to escape from behind the iron curtain, and that our intelligence service is up to the highest degree of efficiency. Those are things that are part of the non-fighting war.
The fact that our 27th brigade is in Europe, not as an occupying power but as a NATO force, has largely a political significance. It shows to the peoples of Europe that Canada, at any rate, is behind NATO, and the countries of the North American continent are as one with regard to the defence of Europe. That is important, and is a side of our defence effort which cannot be overlooked. I do not know whether or not it was Clausewitz, but someone has said that fighting starts when politicians stop talking, and that politics is merely warfare without shooting. It seems to me that we should do everything possible to carry out and to intensify the political effort in connection with our military organization.
Let us go to the military effort. What sort of a war are we likely to face? What sort of action has always been successful in western Europe? The actions in western Europe which have been successful have been the actions carried out by comparatively small forces with enormous mobility and tremendous striking power. The first world war was nearly lost in the first few months owing to the use of cavalry mobile artillery and the great speed with which the German army was able to move. The second world war was more nearly lost, and might have been lost a dozen times during the course of the war, had Hitler not interfered with his general staff and had General Guderian been allowed to push right through to the seacoast instead of being held up outside Dunkirk. It might have been impossible to evacuate any of the British expeditionary force. The same thing holds true about Moscow and the

oil fields near the Caspian. Political control by Hitler stopped his general staff from achieving a great victory.
Now, the forces that made that victory were armoured forces, very mobile and powerful striking panzer divisions. In the case of the battle of France I think in the neighbourhood of only 100,000 made the break-through, and that is a number only slightly larger than the forces we have in being now in all three services, according to the minister's statement. This is not, therefore, a question of manpower so much as it is a question of machines and weapons. The slogan of the royal tank corps in 1939, to which no attention was paid, was "steel saves blood". May I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the slogan today should be "science stops the horde", because we can never match the manpower of those behind the iron curtain, particularly the Asiatics, who are pitted against us. To say, therefore, that an infantry brigade, desirable in many ways though it may be, can be regarded as the proper use of the comparatively small number of men available in this country is, I think, open to question.
We Canadians pride ourselves on our adaptability, on our ability to make rapid movements and our ability to use all the techniques of new machinery, both in peace and in war. I believe it is questionable whether this 27th brigade should not, as soon as possible, become an armoured brigade. It is armour that we will have to stop, and armour will stop any mass movement of troops. This fact has been proven over and over again.
We have another problem in that we have the siege of Moscow in reverse. In other words should war break out, this time the problem of logistics and the movement of troops will be a problem which our enemy has to solve. The long starvation road from Moscow to Warsaw, with its comparatively low efficiency, and the inability of the railroad to handle anything like the necessary amount of equipment in order to keep a major fighting force in the field, will be a problem the Kremlin will have to solve. This long, barren stretch of country is an element in our favour, and we should be prepared to take advantage of it to destroy troops moving en masse across it. Yet I see no provision for bombers, no provision for troops especially trained and equipped to cut rail lines and destroy communications.
These are matters I believe should come before a defence committee. They are being discussed on every hand, and the Canadian people deserve information about them. They are matters on which I believe the opinions of the general staff and others should be obtained. Where it is a case of security

the matter might be dealt with in secret or the information withheld; but the general, over-all plan for a war in the second half of the twentieth century is the responsibility of those who sit here in this house. As I have said before we cannot delegate that responsibility to a committee of the cabinet or to the cabinet themselves and accept their say-so that everything in the world is comparatively rosy. We certainly cannot leave it to the Minister of National Defence. The role of Dr. Pangloss is too dangerous here.
I believe it would help the government if such a committee were set up. It would assist the deliberations of this house, and would let the country know whether or not it was secure, and the degree of security arrived at. Here we are making an expenditure of over $2 billion. That is a severe and heavy burden on every Canadian, and each Canadian is anxious to know how that money is being spent. At the present time there is a great deal of questioning about the wisdom of this or that; and our support of NATO and other international obligations are being brought into question, as they were in this house the other day for the first time. That is dangerous, because once even a small body of opinion in Canada questions our expenditures for defence the morale of the country deteriorates. So if for no other reason the setting up of a defence committee would be an advantage.
As an example of this we have the position of the Canadian navy. During the last war our navy, essentially made up of small ships, undertook to provide and I think until the last year of the war did provide escorts for more than fifty per cent of the convoys across the Atlantic. That was a staggering job for a country with so small a population. We were able to do that with a small-ship navy because there were no German capital ships abroad, with the exception of two which were bottled up by the British navy after one had got loose in the north Atlantic, the Bismarck, and done a great amount of damage. With capital ships in operation, a small-ship navy is not adequate as a convoy instrument. Without the capital ships of our allies in the last war, our navy would have been of little use if the large German capital ships had got loose.
Today the Soviet navy has grown to such an extent that it is rapidly becoming the second navy in the world in regard to capital ships, no less than three of which have been built or are building on the Baltic. It has some 14 to 16 first-class cruisers and nearly 100 destroyers, a formidable surface force. Compare that with the navy of the United Kingdom, which has some five capital ships, 24 cruisers and 106 destroyers, and you will see how the surface strength of the Soviet
National Defence
navy has grown since the war. They also have, as far as we know, one of the most modern aircraft carriers in the Graf Zeppelin, which under the treaty they were supposed to dismantle but of course have not done so. In addition they have the tremendous technical assets of all eastern Germany. It was very largely in eastern Germany, particularly at Konigsberg, now Kaliningrad, that the submarine strength of the German navy was created. So we have an entirely different type of navy to fight than we had the last time. We have not merely a submarine navy, and I am coming to that in a minute; we have a force which in surface units is extremely powerful and dangerous.
We also know that the Russian navy has a submarine fleet as large as any existing in the word today. We also know that they have the advice, the skill, the design, and in many cases the actual ships that were used so effectively by the third Reich. Are we being realistic in providing the same type of navy- that is, a small-ship navy-which did such wonderful work in the last war? Are we not providing a navy which is preparing to fight with the 1939-1944 techniques? I think that those are questions which should properly come before a defence committee.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, let me say this. The importance of morale in relation to the physical is as three is to one; at least, that was Napoleon's dictum. Today there is in this country and in the other western nations the beginning of a questioning as to whether the tremendous amount of our economy which we are putting into the war effort is justified. That situation is dangerous, Mr. Speaker, because once you get that feeling in the country, you get a sense of resistance to the effort which we must put forward. Once you get resistance, you get complacency; and with complacency you get halfhearted effort. You become oblivious of the real dangers that we face.
That sort of thing will destroy us, Mr. Speaker. Time may not yet be on our side. Unless we can keep our effort unflagging and completely efficient, we cannot survive in the ruthless days that lie ahead. For that reason I suggest that the defence committee bring out more information. To treat the Canadian people with complete frankness is one of the most important things that this government can do for the country at this time.


Mr. O. L. Jones (Yale):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest when the minister made his statement on the subject of our defence. The figures that he gave are so huge that we cannot grasp them all of a sudden, but time will gradually help us to assimilate the information given. We were

National Defence
given a outline, and one had to appreciate the fact that the defence of Canada is not the defence of this dominion alone. Our frontiers now have reached to Korea, to Germany, to other parts of Europe and to Asia; and the defence of those countries is definitely tied up wi.h the defence of Canada, for the time being at least.
I do not believe that Canada, of itself, offers a good target. It is not a very good target for the potential enemy that we all fear at the moment, because of our comparatively small and scattered population and the vast distances that have to be traversed in order to reach our centres of population. But our situation possibly calls for a different type of defence. I refer to radar and air defence. Al.hough the greater part of our defence expenditure is devoted to the air force, I am not yet satisfied that the proportion should not be still greater. I may be wrong, but that is my impression. I should like to see the air force part of our defence strengthened as well as the radar part.
Another matter that I should like to touch upon briefly is that of civil defence. In the estimates I notice that only one per cent of the total expenditures has been devoted to civil defence. I do not know what the experiences of other members are, but, speaking generally, my experience in the towns that I have visited is that civil defence is very much a patchwork system. It is a starved branch of our defence system. We all know the story. We all know that the municipalities cannot and will not help financially. We know that the provincial governments are looking to Ottawa to do that work. We know how Ottawa has been lacking funds. This year the amount has been increased to $6 million, but it is still far too small an amount to give adequate civil defence for 14 million Canadians in the various parts of Canada.
We in this group approve of the defence plans in general. That is quite natural, because the basic instinct of all human beings is to defend and to protect their homes and their land. We are just human beings, like all members of other parties; once the danger is known, to me defence ceases to be a political issue. It becomes the concern of all parties and of all individuals throughout the nation. Whether they be Conservatives, Liberals, Social Credit or C.C.F. or no matter what are their religious beliefs it makes no difference. On that basis we are therefore involved up to our necks in the defence of Canada. While we support the present defence plans in general-and as our leader said yesterday, no group of people are infallible-we criticize the division of our defence expenditures. We

still feel that economic aid is a vital part of any defence scheme, and we shall continue to urge the government to extend this angle of operations. I am pleased to be able to give further proof of our stand on this matter; and as I am coupling it with the economic defence of Canada, I should like to quote briefly from a statement made by a lady who is well known in Canada; she is one who knows Canada well, who knows the United States well, and more important still, is familiar with Europe as she lives in the heart of the danger zone of Europe. I refer to Queen Juliana of Holland. She has this to say, in part, as quoted in the Ottawa Journal of yesterday:
Major emphasis of the Queen's address, delivered in English, was on technical assistance. She said her country is helping to the best of its ability by exporting skills and experts to less developed countries.
"It is my earnest hope that one memorable day the enormous increase of production now demanded by rearmament will be converted to meet the needs of these enormous development projects.
"The circle of countries around the North Atlantic ocean should avoid imitating the example set by the countries behind the iron curtain, which have focused their minds so much on their defence, that they forget to focus as much attention on their economic, social and cultural well-being.
"If they do neglect these aspects, some day they might find themselves isolated around their ocean before, for instance, technical assistance could get under way properly, and link them with the world at large."
She ended by saying:
"Mankind in its distress has to trust largely to your good judgment for its deliverance."
I take it that last statement included Canada and its government, because they are looking to the western world for guidance and assistance and I hope that we are willing to give it and will give it wherever we can. I feel that if Europe collapses economically then all our defence plans, however elaborate they may be, are useless. The people of Europe will become very easily victims of the march of communism, and the blame will largely lie with us. That is why I personally, and the party to which I belong, stress the greater need of economic aid.
In his speech the minister referred to the total strength of the army as 95,300 all forces, the officers averaging one to seven other ranks. But he also mentioned 40,000 civilians against men in all services of 81,100. I could not understand, and I still cannot understand, why we need one civilian for every two men in the three forces. I should like to have a breakdown of their work, the type of work they do. I should like it for several reasons. I believe in the principle of civilians, where they can be used, being employed, because they relieve active combat men for other work; but to employ civilians to the extent of one for every two serving men seems to

me rather ridiculous. But anyway, as I pointed out, the principle of civilian employment is sound.
I should like to suggest that possibly we have a great deal of waste of manpower. I know we cannot stop all waste, but I feel there is a waste of manpower among the
40.000	civilians, because much of the work that you would expect the civilians to be doing around the camp or around the barracks is still being done by soldiers. The fatigue work and other work that was always done by soldiers is still being done by soldiers, so that for the life of me I cannot see where
40.000	civilians are called upon to look after
81.000	men. But not only that; we still have men of high rank holding down jobs in the city of Ottawa that could be done by civilians. We have men tied up in barracks, officers all over the country in combat form doing work that could be done as well by veterans. It is true in practically every unit that I know of. I have spoken to several servicemen, and they tell me that such is the case; that there is a lot of waste in the office and a lot of waste around the bookkeeping jobs that have attached themselves to the various services of the country.
I believe that here in Ottawa, as I pointed out before, we have several high-ranking officers, from lieutenants up to colonels, doing work that a low-grade civil servant could very well carry on and do as well. I cannot see why we should be paying that high salary for that type of work. Records could be simplified, easing the job. Many of the forms which are now used in the various services could be simplified and abbreviated. Many of them could be dispensed with entirely, because a lot of them are sheer red tape. They are useless when filled out. I suggest to the minister that a survey be made by a competent committee of this house or of the civil service, or that efficiency experts be employed to delve into the present clerical system and general office work of all the three services, to find out where the waste is, find out whether the suggestions I am making are correct, and they have been repeated to me several times.
I would also ask this committee to assess the various jobs, check up on the work and assess their value and the type of person needed, whether a woman or a low-grade clerk could do the job or whether it calls for a high-ranking officer. Then, wherever possible, civilian veterans should be employed. If this were done I feel sure that a great many officers and men, probably running into a thousand or two, could be transferred to combatant duties.
I point out that among our ex-servicemen we have men just as capable of carrying on
National Defence
any job in any office in connection with any of the services as those who now hold them. They have the actual experience. They are handicapped and cannot continue in civilian work, but they are ideal for this particular job. I feel that the red tape that created this empire of non-fighting men, or swivel-chair soldiers, should be broken. I think that red tape must be broken and discarded. I would ask the minister seriously to consider whether he does not think that 40,000 civilians, plus another 10,000 or 20,000 army personnel, tied up in swivel-chair jobs is not an overburdened defence system. It is not fair to the taxpayers of Canada if we are to continue this heavy burden of operation and administration.
Following my determination to speak on this point I happened to read the Journal of yesterday, and I found an editorial bearing on the same subject, and dealing with the minister's statement on personnel. It says in part:	-
We have heard a good deal of talk from Ottawa about the need for economy. To what extent is the government economizing on its own payroll? Repeated assertions have been made that the civil service was to be pared. But there has been no real reduction. As fast as one department lets them out, another one takes them in. Ottawa has thousands more employees today than it had at the peak of the war-120,000 against 112,000. It has close to three times as many as it had before the war.
Over the years, it has been suggested that there should be some adequate, practical method of measuring the size and efficiency of the civil service. With federal taxes running between four and five billion dollars a year, this is no longer merely desirable; it is essential. A parliamentary budget committee could very well start from this point. But the first thing to be done is to set up such a committee.
There is one other little point I should like to mention. Before very long most of our camps in Canada will be opened up for practice. Ranges will again be in use, and live shells and other ammunition will lie around or be thrown about, as it always has been. I believe there is tremendous waste on our ammunition supply that is dropped around on ranges and lost in general. You have only to read the papers here and there in Canada and see, as happened in Hull recently, where a little child is killed by an unexploded shell they had in the home. Two or three years ago we had two or three youngsters killed in Vernon after finding some shells that had lain on the ground for a long time undetected. I feel that intensified range training is about to take place. Therefore a qualified officer should sign for every bit of ammunition taken out of stores. That qualified officer should be held personally responsible for seeing that all ammunition taken out is either used or returned. I know

National Defence that in theory they do; but in practice they do not. That is why shells have been left around the range at Vernon, to my knowledge, and they are still there and constitute a danger to the people living in the vicinity.
I would go farther and insist upon a ruling whereby all firing should be supervised by a qualified expert. He should be there to check on each discharge, and to determine whether a shell exploded or not. If a shell was a dud, and did not explode, it should be his duty to mark the spot and to take steps to find it, by one of the modern methods, and to demolish or to remove it as a source of danger.
I suggest this because it is something that could very well slip up, as it has over the last several years. I would urge the minister to send an order to all those units going to camp that such precautions must be taken before any live ammunition is taken out on a range.


Mr. D. S. Harkness (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, I shall first make a few comments on the speech delivered yesterday by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton). I was greatly disappointed' in his speech from a number of points of view, which I believe will become apparent as I go along.
I was disappointed with the emphasis he placed upon the different points he covered, and the length of time he devoted to the various subjects upon which he touched. I shall discuss that in further detail in a moment. He spent twenty-five minutes of his time in discussing NATO, and our brigade in Korea, something in the nature of a travelogue. He spent about thirteen minutes discussing General Eisenhower's statement. The fifteen minutes following were devoted to our NATO contribution, and infrastructure. Then the following twenty-two minutes, if one were writing a military appreciation, would come under the head of "own forces". In other words he was referring to our own military set-up, and the type of thing to which most of us expected he would devote most of his time. That was followed by another five minutes in which he discussed NATO and what might be called his high hopes.
I do not think the division of time allocated to each subject in his speech was calculated to give the house or people throughout the country a very clear indication of our general defence picture. As a matter of fact a great deal of it was at least to some extent a repetition of what went on in the foreign affairs debate, as related to NATO.


Mr. Sinnott:: That is not what the hon.
member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) said.


An hon. Member:: Keep quiet.


Douglas Scott Harkness: To return to some of the
points made by the minister in his speech: He concluded with a statement I should like to read. At that point he made what I would call his yes-but statement, and it appears in these words at page 1088 of Hansard:
But as the full cost begins to appear in lives and manpower and money-yes, and in things we have to do without-there also begin to appear qualifications in that support. There are the people who say "yes, but." We begin to see emerging the cautious tribe of "yes, but'ers. Yes, but something more of this, something less of that, something sooner, something later, something else instead."
What a statement, that! The whole implication of it, as it would appear to me, is that any criticism we make of anything done by the minister or his department is bad, and that we have no right to make such criticism and no right to suggest that there should be more of this or less of that.
The minister appears to show by that statement that he has what I would describe as an Olympian complex, that everything he does comes from on high, and that we lesser mortals below should not dare to question it. His attitude reminds me of the cartoons we saw during the first war in which the Kaiser was always depicted as referring to "Me und Gott." It is the same sort of complex. I was amazed to hear the minister come out with a statement of that kind. It is that type of thing which makes one wonder how much respect the present government has for parliament or parliamentary processes.
Then, to return to some of the specific points I mentioned, I would deal first with the remarks he made concerning our brigade in Korea. I think all hon. members will agree with what he said in that connection, and we were glad to hear something about that brigade. We are all proud of the way our men have conducted themselves in Korea, and we were glad to hear something about them. It was proper for the minister to make some comments along that line. I doubt however whether it was necessary to take up roughly a third of his time speaking about NATO and his trip to Korea or, in other words, to deliver a travelogue on the subject.
Then, so far as General Eisenhower's statement was concerned, I believe it will be agreed that in many respects it was a heartening document. However, it is something all hon. members can read for themselves. It was not a matter which at this time needed to be expounded to us by the minister. As one hon. member has said, it was just padding.

The minister referred to the statement made by General Eisenhower that the Russians have 170 line divisions and 20,000 aircraft. I made a statement which, I think, may possibly have prompted the minister to emphasize this point. Of course it may not have prompted him. My statement in the debate on external affairs was that the Russians probably have upwards of 300 divisions. If they have 170 line divisions, I would say that they dispose of more than 300 divisions at the present time, because the number of reserve divisions required to support 170 line divisions, plus the satellite divisions, would bring the total up to well over 300. As the minister indicated, that is a formidable force.
Then, so far as our NATO contribution is concerned, I was glad that to some extent the minister did stress the $600 million worth of contributions we have made to NATO, in addition to the brigade group and 12 squadrons we are going to supply. I was sorry however to hear him use the word infrastructure. I should think it would be possible for us to talk about these things without making use of words which most people cannot understand. I am not any too sure even yet as to the meaning of infrastructure. As is suggested to me by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Wylie), I think most of the people throughout the country have not the foggiest idea what it means. It seems to me we could discuss this matter without making use of these horrible words.
The minister had something to say about our own forces, and I shall deal with that as I go along. Yesterday the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) gave an outline of this party's general position in the matter of defence. 1 do not think it is necessary for me to go into that again, so I shall turn to specific matters.
As is indicated in the white paper of June 30, 1951, the strength of our armed forces at the end of 1953, or early in 1954, is planned to be 115,000 men. The minister gave the strengths as at the end of March. The strength at March 31, 1951, a year ago, was 68,000. At March 31, 1952, it was 95,300 men. If the rate of increase shown last year can be maintained it would appear that the goal of 115,000 men would be met. The minister indicated that this would be the case, but that it would be met much earlier.
However, it must be remembered that a special form of recruitment was used to raise the brigade for service in Europe by making use of reserve force units. In addition to that, it was a form of service which was attractive
National Defence
to a large number of young men. I would be doubtful whether the same expedient for raising men, that is, to get them from reserve force units, could be used again.
One thing which has disturbed me is the rate of wastage. On March 7 I received a return which showed the total number of enlistments and the total number of discharges under the heading of increases and decreases, including desertions, deaths and so forth. This showed that last year the increases or enlistments numbered 41,757 men in all three services while there were decreases of 15,279. That indicates a rate of wastage of 36-5 per cent, which seems to me to be very high. I would submit that steps should be taken in order to cut down that rate of wastage.
The point I want to make particularly is that the enlistment cost per man runs to about $200 or $300.


Brooke Claxton: $85, I think.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The public accounts show that back in 1948-49 the advertising cost alone was more than $85; in 1949-50 it was $116.10 per man; and in 1950-51 it was $125 per recruit. It is going up quite rapidly every year, and I imagine that this year it will probably be considerably more. In addition to that there is the cost represented by the manpower in the services employed, office space and all that type of thing. Then there is the medical examination, outfitting and so on. I think the cost of enlistment would be from $200 to $300 a man.
The more frequently these men are turned over, the greater the overhead cost. The cost of training and maintaining a man runs to several thousand dollars a year. The minister told us in 1950, and I can quote this if necessary, that for the previous year it cost $2,600 per man just to pay him, feed him, house him and provide other things along that line. That did not include the cost of his training or anything else of that nature. When the rate of inflation is considered, we arrive at a total of several thousand dollars a year as the cost of maintaining and housing a soldier, sailor or airman.
It is quite clear that the more frequent your turnover, the greater the per man per day cost will be. The more we can cut down on the turnover, the cheaper will be the cost of getting people for our services. A rapid turnover in the personnel of a unit greatly impairs its efficiency. You need to have your men in a unit a fairly long time for them to get to know each other and be able to work efficiently together. This wastage which is taking place is deserving of considerable attention by the department and every effort should be made to reduce it.

National Defence
The defence estimate this year is just over $2,000 million, a very large sum. There is danger that its very size will deceive us as to the defence effort we are making and what are the actual accomplishments. There is a general misconception that the money voted for defence by any nation represents the effort being made, but this is not necessarily true. Unless the money is spent wisely and used without waste, large sums can be expended without obtaining an efficient defence set-up. That the amount expended for defence does not reflect accurately the nation's defence is shown by many examples in the past. At the present moment the Swiss army is the most efficient for the defence of that country. Of course, it is a defensive army. However, it costs very little money, much less per man than any other army in Europe and tremendously less per man than our cost. The same thing is true to quite an extent of the Turkish army. The amount of money you spend for defence does not necessarily say that the defences are efficient.


Mr. Murray (Cariboo):: What is the cost of the Chinese army?


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. member is making the point that money expended for defence does not necessarily show in the defence set-up you may have. Our defence expenditures are running to enormous sums. In addition we have the cost of defence production, civil defence and items in other departments that are related to defence. The result is that something like half, or perhaps even more than' half, of the total expenditures this year is on defence or related matters. Under the circumstances the close scrutiny of these expenditures is perhaps the most important duty of parliament at the present time. I think the attitude of the Canadian people to defence spending is well summed up by an editorial which appeared in the Montreal Gazette of March 21, one short paragraph of which reads:
Canadians really want to spend all that is needful on their own defence-the ultimate form of social security. But they are serving both themselves and their country if they make sure that every dollar will count.
That is what we in this house should be doing, making sure that every dollar spent on defence'counts. The article continues:
There is more room for waste and loss in defence spending than anywhere else. There is no real check ' upon efficiency. '
That is extremely true. One of the difficulties as. far as defence is concerned is to check on- efficiency, on unnecessary expenditures and things of that sort. The most effective way of keeping down these costs is to give carefql scrutiny to expenditures such as can be done by a defence expenditures

committee. I am glad to know that this committee is being set up and I hope that it meets quite frequently. During the time it was in operation last year it met only a few times. Requests were made, and motions were moved, asking for more frequent meetings, but they were voted down. I hope that that will not happen again and that this committee's work will not be what I might call obstructed or hampered.
I have maintained for several years that we have not been getting good value for our defence dollar. I am more convinced than ever that we waste a considerable proportion of the money voted. The number of units in a state of readiness to fight and the amount of modern armaments which we possess are quite small, particularly in relation to the amounts that have been spent on defence. I feel certain that by eliminating waste and unproductive expenditures of all kinds many hundreds of millions of dollars could be lopped off our defence cost. Not only would we maintain efficiency, but I contend that we would actually increase efficiency in some ways.
I do not believe that the idea of economy in defence matters is ever really seriously considered. Perhaps it is natural that it should not be considered. Most of the officers in our defence department are products of the last war, of the fighting part of that war, and they were not concerned with expenditures. Probably it is only natural that they would not be unduly concerned with those things now. As a matter of fact, as pointed out by the member for Nanaimo, no military man is going to concern himself unduly with expends itures unless he is forced to do so.
This matter of economy would become important in the minds of our defence people only as the result of constant pressure from the minister, and so far as I know there is no indication of that pressure being exerted. To begin with, it is necessary for the government to set a good example. I do not think that a good example has been set either by the government or by the minister. I have a return here which came down on June 3, 1950, showing expenses of various members of the cabinet so far as moving about the country in R.C.A.F. planes is concerned. I shall just read a few of the items here and you can see that a bad example has been set for the services. Here is the total cost, estimated, to the R.C.A.F. of moving these various cabinet ministers about the country: $42,450. The total cost of transporting the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) was $18,598. Those are not vast sums, but in my opinion they set a bad example.

We find here that the first item relates to taking the Minister of National Defence from Rockcliffe to Montreal, $154.10. The next item is the same thing, and the next trip is to West Point, $385.25 between Rockcliffe and Dorval, $154.10; Rockcliffe to Toronto, $231.15; between Rockcliffe and Torbay, $616.40; between Yarmouth and Rockcliffe, $462.30; between Lethbridge, Suffield and Rockcliffe, $924.60; and so on. There were other people who went along on some of these trips and probably that was the most economical way in which to transport them, but on a large number of these trips to Montreal no one went with the minister according to this return. I cannot see that he would save any appreciable amount of time by going in an R.C.A.F. plane. He could have travelled on a commercial air line to Montreal for $7.15. I cite that as an instance of the fact that, as I believe, examples of economy are not being set for the services. I do not suppose there is any pressure on the services to economize, and unless there is that pressure you will certainly not get economy.
In the last three years I have complained in almost every debate we have had on defence about the overblown staff at defence headquarters, at area and command headquarters. These are outstanding examples of the waste of manpower, due probably to the bureaucratic empire building which is so prevalent. To show the state of affairs at national headquarters we have only to look at the telephone directory which is supplied to every member. I am going to take as an example the directorate of training and staff duties. We look at this telephone directory and find that the director of military training is a colonel; the director of staff duties, a colonel; the director of Royal Canadian Artillery, a colonel-these are all full colonels, of course; office of the chief engineer, a full colonel; director of Royal Canadian Corps of Signals, another colonel; director of the Royal Canadian Infantry Corps, another colonel. In addition to that, I think there was also a director of the armoured corps, but I do not see him listed.


Mr. George:: Did they abolish him?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Perhaps he is located elsewhere, but he is not listed in the telephone directory. Without him there are six directors, and if he is hidden away some place that makes seven, concerned with military training and staff duties. Each of these men has a staff of officers, a major, a captain or two and a lieutenant or so, depending on what the particular job is. In addition there are a number of O.R.'s and a number of civilian personnel, about which the member for Yale 55704-72
National Defence
(Mr. Jones) was speaking. How many people are concerned, I do not know, but it is considerable in senior officers alone.
I should like to compare that with what the situation was before the war. Before the war we had one full colonel as a director of military training and staff duties. To assist him he had three majors, and he had about twelve other ranks. He did all the work with those few officers and other ranks, that is all the work that is done now by these six colonels, numerous captains, majors, the many O.R.'s and others. It is quite true that since the war the size of our permanent army has increased from about 3,000 to about 50,000, but before the war the reserve force was greater than it is today. There is just as much work to do in laying down a training program for 10,000 men as for 100,000 men. You have to do as much work in preparing pamphlets, training precis and all that sort of thing for 10,000 as for 100,000. The fact that the size of the force is increased does not necessarily mean there should be a great increase in the staff required. There is no question about it, down at headquarters there are majors, captains and so on doing the work that was done before the war by privates, corporals, sergeants and sergeant-majors. These people are falling over each other. The same situation with regard to multiplication of staff exists at command and area headquarters. What all these officers and their O.R.'s do, I find it difficult to understand. One thing I do know, and that is that the operations at headquarters are delayed and efficiency is cut down by the vast amount of paper which these people have to pass from one to the other. Things have to go through so many channels that it takes a great deal longer than it should. Each man looks these papers over, and what really happens is that these people keep each other busy by passing this paper around. I do not think there is any question whatever but that is one place where a considerable amount of money could be saved.
I shall give another example of the same thing with which I am personally familiar. In the city of Calgary about two years ago there was set up what was known as a garrison commandant. He was a full colonel and had on his staff a major, a captain and I do not know how many other ranks. They have been there ever since. These people have done a very good job, and I would compliment them on the way they have carried out their duties; but my point is that there was no necessity for this set-up. I do not know what it costs, but including housing for the staff and so on I would not doubt that this garrison commandant and his staff

National Defence
would cost the country at least $50,000 a year. The work done by those people was formerly done by the senior reserve officer in Calgary, assisted to some extent by the senior permanent force officer there. That was the case until less than two years ago, and there are no more troops in Calgary now than there were then. This has just been a duplication of staff, as far as I can see, serving no useful purpose. I suppose when the work was done under the previous set-up it cost at the most $300 or $400, as against at least $50,000 under the present set-up. That is one instance of the sort of thing you find all over this country. If you multiply that time after time it is easy to see why our defence expenditures have soared as they have, and why we have so few fighting units and so little modern equipment as a result of these expenditures.
Another point I would mention along this line is this business of public relations staffs. I brought this matter up last year in the public accounts committee but did not get very far with it. When the complaint was made about the number of people on these public relations staffs the only reply was that they were doing a useful job, that they were fine fellows and so on. Undoubtedly they are, but I do not think there is any real necessity for all these public relations officers both here and at command headquarters scattered across the country. As far as I can see the newspapers are quite capable of carrying on most of the activities of these public relations people, and are ready to do so. Whatever -could not be done in that way could be done in his otherwise spare time by a staff captain or some other junior staff officer at headquarters. I notice that the United States air force have recognized that all these public relations officers are not necessary. Here is a press dispatch dated March 17, which says:
The air force disclosed today it is cutting its public relations staff at headquarters 65 per cent.
The cut will reduce the air force information staff at headquarters to 19 officers and 15 civilians. The currently authorized staff permits 52 officers and 34 civilians.
I certainly believe we should do the same thing. The minister or someone may say this is another small matter, but there are so many of these small matters. If you could get the total that might be saved by cutting out unnecessary and in many cases useless expenditures, I believe it would astound everyone in this house.
Another example of the wasteful expenditure I believe is going on is a case that came to my attention in connection with housing at Claresholm, where there is a flying training school. Apparently the housing situation was bad; houses were needed, so they sent
[Mr. Harkness.l
in a whole bunch of metal prefabricated units. They came in and were put on a siding before the contracts had been let for their erection or for the plumbing, wiring and so on. As a result there was no one to unload them, so special people had to be hired to do that job. Then I believe it was discovered -that these houses were going to cost more than what might be called normal construction, by the time contracts were let for erection, plumbing and all the rest of it, so they decided they would go into normal construction. So they sent a bunch of people to load these prefabricated houses on railway cars and ship them out; then they started all over again. I do not know where those houses have gone, but I have been led to believe I would not be far wrong if I said they may be in England at the present time. How much money was lost in that deal I do not know, but it must have been many thousands of dollars.
I thought the minister's speech was remarkable because of three important omissions. He made no mention of our reserve forces: he did not refer to the CF-100 and the Orenda engine, and he made practically no mention of equipment matters generally. I should like to deal briefly with each of those points. One of the basic conceptions of our defence policy is and has been for a long time that in the event of war the mobilization of our forces must be based upon the reserves. In that connection last year we had a statement by the conference of defence associations, composed of the senior officers of the reserve forces. Their evidence was that the reserve was not in a good and efficient state. I have heard nothing from any source to indicate that conditions are better now than they were last year. I should like to read just one short sentence from the submission made last year by that conference to the minister:
It is our considered and unanimous opinion that proper value is not being received for much, of the public moneys now being spent on the reserve force.
This is the very thing I have just been talking about; proper value is not being received for the money being expended, according to the men most closely associated with the reserve forces.


Edmund William George: Read the rest of the paragraph.


Douglas Scott Harkness: If I read this whole memorandum my time would be gone-


An hon. Member:: So would your argument be gone.


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, it would not; it is borne out 100 per cent. As a matter of fact the amount spent on the reserve forces of the three services, including cadet training, is not inconsiderable. In the estimates for this year

it amounts to $23,820,479, considerably more than the entire defence expenditures in several years between the two wars. In view of the basic importance of the reserves and the amount being spent on them, I think the minister should have given at least a brief review of the position of the reserve forces today; and before we come to any of the specific items I hope we may get from the minister a statement concerning the reserve army, navy and air force. They constitute one of the most important components of our entire defence set-up, but so far in this debate they have been neglected.
Something was said about the CF-100 and the Orenda engine by the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Dinsdale) and I believe by someone else as well. When the CF-100 was first test-flown in January, 1950, over two years ago, and when the first production orders were given in June, 1950, nearly two years ago, on each occasion there was a great deal of fanfare by the government. The impression was given to everyone in the country that the best long-range fighter in the world would start rolling off the assembly lines and going into service with R.C.A.F. squadrons almost immediately. That was nearly two years ago; today the R.C.A.F. has none of these CF-100 fighters. Last October, again with great publicity and great fanfare, one CF-100 was turned over to the R.C.A.F. A few weeks later it was taken back to Malton where it was manufactured, and it is still there. The story is that it is undergoing minor changes and so on. Quite apparently the turning over of this one machine, which was not ready to be turned over, was done for political and publicity purposes. That is not the way our defence efforts should be treated. They should not be considered a means of publicity for the minister or the government generally. It would seem quite apparent that that machine should never have been turned over to the R.C.A.F.; and that if it was turned over, it should have been turned over for test purposes only and without a whole lot of publicity leading people to believe that these great fighters-and I believe they are great fighters-were rolling off the assembly line in large numbers, and that we were perfectly safe behind their cover.
In that connection I should like to quote briefly from an editorial in Canadian Aviation for April of this year; this issue is just out. The article is headed: "Facts versus Rumours -An Appraisal of the Avro Projects", and it goes on to say this:
The rumour factory seems to be In quantity production on the subject of Avro Canada and more particularly the two high-priced projects, the CF-100 patrol interceptor and the Orenda jet engine. If we are to credit the anonymous but "well-informed" sources responsible for current reports,
55704-72J
National Defence
the CF-100 is a flying flop and the Orenda is crawling with technical "bugs.'' To sum it up, millions of tax dollars have been poured into Avro but only delays and alibis have come out of the factory.
What are the facts? It is true that since 1946 the government has consigned some $50 millions to the Avro programs. It is also a fact that in terms of aircraft and engines produced to date, the return on this substantial investment has been insignificant. On the other hand, what reason did we have to expect these projects to move from drafting board to quantity production in less than five years? Here are two reasons: 1. As a nation we have had no previous experience in appraising topflight aeronautical assignments of this kind. 2. The fanciful predictions at the political level have supported the naive assumption that such a process should be quick and simple.
In other words what they say is that we were deceived at the political level in connection with this matter. The article goes on to say that as good progress was made as could have been expected as far as design and production of prototypes were concerned. I believe that to be a fact. I think good progress was made in that way. The article goes on to say that the CF- 100's that will be produced would not, as some people have said, be obsolete aircraft but would be quite all right. I believe that to be a fact. The whole thing is that we are not getting these aircraft and engines which we were led to expect, two years ago, that we would be getting in quantity; in fact, we were told that our squadrons would be equipped with them now. I do not think there is any doubt that the government made a bad miscalculation in connection with these aircraft and also in connection with the Orenda engine, as to when it could be produced and when it could be in use; and the result is that we have been left without anything along that line in the meantime.
I do not know why the minister made no mention of this matter at all. In the past he certainly made a great deal of mention of it at various times. It was one of his favourite topics; he often spoke about the CF-100 and the Orenda engine. But this year he comes in and has not a word to say about it. I think that is another matter on which we should get a full statement from the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) and the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe), as to what money we have put into this plant, what the chances are of getting aircraft and1 engines out, and how soon we will be getting them out. The thing should certainly not be left shrouded in the mystery in which the government has left it of late.
I should like to say something about the general picture with regard to the equipment. In that regard the minister said, as reported at page 1087 of Hansard:
With regard to equipment the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe) gave a very full report, reported on page 436 of Hansard of March 14, but

National Defence
I have no intention of going over that again. He dealt with the situation regarding ships and armaments for the navy, tanks and weapons for the army, and aircraft for the air force.
Again I did not remember his dealing with any of those things. When I heard the minister say this yesterday I was surprised. This morning I went and obtained Hansard for that day, looked up the pages referred to and read it over again. As a matter of fact, Mr. Howe does not deal with those things at all. What he did was to give a general economic report more than anything else. It was a good one in its way. I have no fault to find with it. It dealt, however, briefly with raw materials, markets, our own figures as to contracts and amounts of materials which will be needed, percentages and things of that sort. It did not deal at all with the ships for the navy, the aircraft for the air force and the guns and so forth for the army, although the minister, in what I have just quoted, says it did. It does not answer in any way any of the questions in our minds in regard to specific items of equipment for any one of the three services.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I must inform the hon. member that he has exhausted his time. Has the hon. member unanimous .consent to continue?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I can finish in about three minutes, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


Brooke Claxton: Yes, certainly.


Douglas Scott Harkness: There is one thing in particular about which I should like to say something and to ask some questions. What modern equipment have we for the army especially? As was pointed out by the hon. member for Nanaimo, nothing was said by the minister about standardization, a subject on which, for the two previous years particularly, he had been exceedingly eloquent. In fact, either in the public accounts committee or in the one on defence expenditures last year, we heard that a limited number of American small arms were secured from the United States. I should like to ask what is being done with those. What are they being used for? Our brigade in Korea, our one in Europe, our reserve forces here-our three battalions which are in the regular forces here at home-as far as I know are, as a standard at any rate, all armed with British type weapons.
Our mobilization equipment, in the event of a general war breaking out, is the British type of equipment, so far as we still have that mobilization equipment. We have sent to Europe equipment for three divisions, plus a considerable number of guns and extra equipment this past year. When the

minister was asked about this matter last year, what did he say? I asked him what the situation was with regard to mobilization equipment, and he said that we had sufficient. I said: What do you mean? He said that meant that we had sufficient for whatever might be needed. That does not mean anything, Mr. Speaker. I should like to know what mobilization equipment we have at the present time. These guns, particularly the larger guns of all calibres, have been sent away; and as far as I know, we have nothing to replace them. It seems to me that we are left in the position of not having anything like the equipment that we would need if war broke out any time in the immediate future; and once it broke out, it would be extremely difficult to get these things quickly because all the people who might be supplying us with them-Britain and the United States-would themselves need the stores they had on hand.
One of the essential types of weapons in any modern army is the anti-tank gun. Those that we had have been withdrawn. They were sent over to Europe. I refer to the self-propelled anti-tank gun, the converted 17-pounder. I do not think anything has replaced them. When the minister goes into this matter, I should like him to tell us what has been ordered, if anything, to replace those missing anti-tank guns. We have sent an infantry brigade to Europe and we have sent one to Korea. I understand that the one in Europe, as far as antitank defence is concerned, is being provided with Centurion tanks secured from Great Britain. Perhaps it is the plan to use them throughout the army. If that is the plan, we should be told of it and should be given some indication as to when we may have these tanks.
Last year the minister said a great deal about the radar screen, interceptor planes and ack-ack guns as a general defence against bombing. I should like to ask where these ack-ack guns are. Some of the ack-ack guns we had also went to Europe. We did not get anything to replace them. In effect, as far as I can make out, we have no ack-ack gun defence whatever, really, except for two or three batteries which are posted at the coasts protecting naval installations. Apart from that we have nothing. In a city like Ottawa there is not one ack-ack battery to provide protection; and the same situation prevails all over the country.
Our tank situation I mentioned very briefly. I think we should have a fairly full disclosure as to what the tank situation is. A year ago we were to be equipped with American type tanks, Pattons, particularly. It has now been

recognized, apparently, that the British Centurion is a better tank and our brigade in Europe is being equipped with them. Quite a few, I think it is twenty, have been brought into this country, as the minister said, for training purposes. If that is the tank which we are now going to have we need more than just twenty. They should be on order now, and we should know whether they are on order or not.


Brooke Claxton: I said they were on order.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Well, we have no indication of how many are on order, which perhaps we might get later. When the question was asked it was announced that there was no intention of manufacturing these tanks in Canada. I should like to ask why not. We certainly have plants here which could be adapted to tank manufacture. If these tanks are to be our standard armament, as far as armour is concerned, and I think armour is important, as everyone admits, they could be manufactured here under licence.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Time.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The importation of them into this country at the present time, or the manufacture by licence later, could help to solve one of our more difficult trade problems. At the moment we have large surpluses of meat products accumulating, for which we are going to have difficulty finding a market. To the great advantage of both countries we might be able to exchange this surplus of meat which we are going to have, as well as many other natural products, for Centurion tanks or for the licence rights to manufacture these Centurion tanks.
I am sorry to have exceeded my time.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I listened quite attentively and with interest to the lengthy statement the minister gave to the house yesterday, but I must state frankly, and admit before I proceed any further, that I do not consider myself competent to criticize the relative strength of the various arms of our services, the types of equipment or the disposition of the forces. That is without my competence; but I do think, Mr. Speaker, that as a member of this house I am competent to make a few observations on some aspects of these important estimates, and possibly to make a few suggestions.
With the total estimates of over $2 billion under the supervision of the minister, I would say that no minister has a greater responsibility to this house than the Minister of of National Defence (Mr. Claxton), not only because of the vast sums which come under his supervision and direction, but because of the peculiar difference between the handling
National Defence
of the defence estimates, and the estimates' of all other departments. There is no question about that. Hon. members find it much more difficult-and I am not blaming the-minister for this-to criticize satisfactorily expenditures for defence than say expenditures for public works, or veterans affairs and other departments of which they have a greater knowledge and which are matters that the average person has more knowledge of. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, there is no department of this government where hon.: members have to depend on a minister more than on the Minister for National Defence. It behooves us to consider very seriously the-general policy with regard to the expenditure of this money, because we must remember that this large sum of money is provided by. the working and farming people of Canada. It is the result of the things that they do without that provides the funds from which our defence requirements are met.
In recent weeks I have noticed that the congress of the United States, and various committees of that congress, have been very, much concerned about the waste in defence expenditures. Before proceeding, may I say that while I am not competent to criticize wasteful expenditure from some points of view of defence of the hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Harkness) I certainly support the remarks he had to make in this connection.
As I say, I have noticed that the congress and various committees of the congress of the United States have been seriously concerned in recent weeks about eliminating waste in defence expenditures. I think wastefulness develops because of the conditions under which we are living. Naturally, there is always waste in defence expenditures. Some waste is;. unavoidable. But under present circumstances, both in the United States and in Canada, we have been building forces at a rapid rate in peacetime and we have not had an opportunity for junior officers to graduate to senior ranks as a result of a long term of service experience and so on. In some cases a great deal of responsibility has been placed in the hands of people with very little experience in command, and little administrative experience. Coupled with that lack of experience, in my opinion, some people I have met-and-I pay my respects to the competent and the responsible, to the good and efficient officers of the defence services that I have met-some people in my opinion were very bumptious and had very little understanding of public' opinion and appreciation of their position and duties.	*
As I said before, it is very difficult for an " ordinary member of this house satisfactorily1

National Defence
to point his finger at defence estimates and suggest in detail where savings could be made. They are groping in the dark, as it were. I shall just give an illustration of a few cases that have come to my attention in travelling in this country and in meeting various people and servicemen. I noticed that the United States congress committee was concerned about the abuse of batmen. They had quite an investigation into that question. They also considered unnecessary expenses caused by wives of commissioned ranks who wanted certain extra accommodation, and so on, and they were concerned about waste in some construction projects. I find, Mr. Speaker, that we have in some cases a similar situation in Canada. I want to bring a few things to the minister's attention.
I was travelling on a train recently and sitting in a smoking coach. I always like to travel incognito, you know. I got chatting with four or five soldiers in the coach who were going on leave. I always like to find out how the boys like the service, how they are being treated. They all liked it very well. These were five batmen. So I said: "What do you boys do?" These men had been in the army nearly two years. They informed me that with the exception of the first few days of their entering the army they had never attended a parade. They were all the well-fed looking type, quite jolly chaps, you know. I would not say they were intellectuals, or anything of that sort; quite happy with their jobs, and content. I said: "What are your duties?" Well, their duties were to care for their officers' clothing and polish their boots and also to polish the floors in the officers' wives' homes and to run the washing machine. One man told me that he looked after the baby's nappies on occasion. I thought that was a bit off so far as national defence expenditures are concerned.
So far as I could see, the whole time of these five men was devoted to looking after the officers to whom they were attached or to the houses of the officers' wives in question.
These men came from Petawawa. One was batman to a colonel. I can give the minister some information privately if he wants it. Multiply that thousands of times across this country, and what unnecessary expenditure may be going on in this connection, expenditure that could be avoided! Possibly one batman would do for two officers. Why should not these men be taking training? I understood that in the army every man was supposed to be competent in the arm of the service in which he was engaged. I would like to draw that to the minister's attention.
[Mr. Herridge.l
When he speaks I would like him to tell this house what are the terms in the service with regard to employment of batmen and whether they are expected to act as house boys for officers' wives.
I had another chat with another group of men. Not so long ago I was having a drink of Coca-Cola with a group of men who were discussing their service in the reserve army. They were interested in playing basketball in the winter and football in the summer. 1 asked them how often they played, and they told me. And do you know what I discovered? I discovered that those men had joined the reserve army on the understanding that they would not have to wear a uniform, and that the only parade they would be required to attend would be the pay parade. That is what they told me. I understand it is correct.
We see professional sports entering the reserve army. Why is it necessary to ask us to give special facilities to men to join so that they may play professional sports, and with the necessity only to attend pay parade? I would ask the minister to look into that, and I shall give him the information privately. Is that a necessary expenditure in connection with our defence?
Then, I would ask him to look into the lavish gardens being developed, and furniture that is being purchased in Ottawa by his department. One of the staff down there told me that they had very good and expensive blinds removed, and replaced by Venetian blinds because the gentleman in question did not like the way the sun shone in through the windows when curtained with ordinary blinds. May I inquire again why very fine lawns have been disturbed and gardens rearranged, and gardening done around certain buildings connected with national defence when those buildings were already in creditable surroundings?
I suggest these points to the minister. They are only incidental and small things that have come to my attention while talking to people. But it is possible that these smaller things indicate greater waste. I do hope the minister will look into these matters, and make reference to them when he speaks at the conclusion of the debate.
I would ask the minister to tell the house what checks he has on the present improper use of army personnel, the improper use of army vehicles and the improper expense connected with the purchase of articles such as I have suggested. If I were minister of national defence, and I am not likely to be, I would have two slogans posted in every officers' mess. I would have one bearing the words We Are Responsible for the Security of Canada. And, so that those men would be

kept more or less down to earth, and would have some touch with ordinary human beings who are providing the money, I would 'have another slogan with the words My Economic Security is Provided by the Toil and Sweat of the Working People and the Farming People of Canada.
That is all I shall say in this connection. I turn now to education in the army. I know that excellent training is provided to train the men to become efficient soldiers, sailors and airmen. That is all to the good, and I believe the minister's department has produced excellent results in that respect. I understand that two or three leaflets have been published and given to the troops going overseas which, from an educational point of view, were commendable. But I do not think that is sufficient. Here we have in Canada, and particularly in Europe, large numbers of young, healthy and intelligent Canadians who, in my opinion, are not being provided with the educational facilities that should be provided. I understand that in Germany or in Europe the recreational facilities are provided by a unit attached to the British commonwealth group.
It is not right to have these young men, men who are serving in Canada, in Germany, and possibly to a lesser extent in Korea in a relatively permanent army, in a position where they do not take advantage of the hours during which they could obtain education. I find, in talking to some of our young men, that they do not understand even the basic principles of democracy. They do not understand the parliamentary system and how it works, and I suggest this shows a deficiency in our present educational methods. Many of our young men do not understand the objectives for which we are fighting. They do not understand the structure of the United Nations, nor do they know that the Atlantic pact, under a certain section of the charter, is a component part of the United Nations. They do not understand the over-all objectives of Canada and the nations associated with her in the defence of democracy.
Many of these young men would respond readily I am sure to a greater opportunity to improve their general education. We must face the fact that this is not a temporary condition. We will have to have defence forces for some years. I do not think we should let time slip by, and permit these young men to grow older without providing them with better educational facilities and training.
I am not quite sure as to what is the best program, but I do suggest the government should consider approaching the Canadian Legion officials and asking them if, with the
National Defence
assistance of the government, they could cooperate in providing educational services for our defence forces.


Brooke Claxton: That is already in existence.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am glad to hear that; but I have not yet found a soldier who is taking part in those facilities. When the minister speaks I would ask him to explain what is being done. I have met dozens of men, and I have not found one yet who has said that he is taking part in anything of an educational nature.
Before concluding I wish to read a short paragraph from a responsible magazine, from the capitalist point of view and, I believe, from the point of view of the government. I have here the Monetary Times of March, 1952, in which I find this statement:
Dropping Rule Britannia?
Winnie Gives 'em Heck
When Prime Minister Winston Churchill was in Ottawa, he lectured the cabinet tor banning "Rule, Britannia" from the Canadian Navy. In his role as an old sea dog, he told them this was a bad thing. Rather sheepishly the cabinet agreed to co-operate. So when any British navy personnel come aboard a Canadian ship, they will be piped aboard by "Rule, Britannia", or at least the tune will not be missing from the Canadian Navy's musical repertoire.
I would ask the minister to tell us, when he replies, if there is any truth in that statement and whether, as a result of a twigging by the Right Hon. Winston Churchill, the Canadian cabinet, and in particular the Department of National Defence, has changed its regulations so that "Rule, Britannia" will be played on Canadian ships.


Mr. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: Mr. Speaker, $2,000 million is an awful lot of money. It is half this country's total budget, and represents great sacrifices by the whole of the Canadian nation. I am sure our population wants to see that an amount such as the one required today by the Department of National Defence will be spent with common sense and to the best possible advantage of our nation.
The taxation the people are called upon to pay for purposes of national defence requires from the minister and his department real planning, real organization and, first of all, the most severe economies. At the present time the Canadian people are taxed to the limit, and have a right to demand good administration by the Department of National Defence. In the last few years that department has given ample proof of poor administration, and it is the duty of the House of Commons to make sure that our population is not called upon to make tremendous sacrifices which are completely lost as a result of a lack of common sense in departmental administration.

National Defence
All hon. members know that Canada is part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and, with the other nations of the Atlantic, has joined in the defence of the west. When Canada joined NATO we expected to have to make sacrifices to maintain peace in the world. We have made certain commitments which were to be based on the potentialities of our country, upon its industrial power and its human power. Today the government has placed before us a defence budget of over $2,000 million and we are asked to approve it in order to meet these commitments. I think the people of Canada will go along with the government as they are ready to make the proper sacrifices, but on the other hand we must make sure that what is done is done sensibly and is really for the purpose intended.
For instance, a great part of this $2,000 million is for the 27th brigade, the Canadian troops which our country is maintaining in Europe, more precisely in western Germany. I must say right away that the status of the 7,000 Canadian troops seems to be rather strange and I think this house is entitled to some explanation from the minister. The troops themselves do not know what they are doing there. I do not say that they are complaining, but they are not sure of their status. They and the Canadian public are told that they are in Germany for the defence of the western peoples, but it is strange to think that Canada at the present time is the only . country in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization which is maintaining troops outside of her own territory at her own expense.


Mr. Pearson:: What about the United
States?


Léon Balcer: Of course the United States, Great Britain and France all have troops in Germany but those troops are maintained at the expense of the West German Republic. Their upkeep is paid by the German people as occupation troops. They have been in Germany since the last war. We fought with them during that war but when the armistice was signed we were told that we were not needed and to get out. I think it is unfair to our country to have to pay to keep troops in Germany when our three larger allies have their troops maintained at German expense. I am anxious to hear what explanation the minister has to give as to why Canada is in this unfavourable position compared with her allies in the last war. There may be some reason for this, but if so I do not think the government has ever told this house what it is.
There is another question which should be cleared up. Not only must Canada pay for her troops in Germany but we have to buy

all our food supplies and ordinary stores from the British army of occupation, which apparently gets these free from the West German Republic-so much so that the Germans are asking themselves if instead of sending a brigade to defend the west, Canada has sent 7,000 more occupation soldiers to be fed out of the already heavily taxed West German economy.
When the Canadian people are asked to pay a defence budget of over $2,000 million I think they are entitled to know why we are not getting the same treatment as the other countries in NATO or whether we are just simply sending troops to a country where their presence will help to disrupt its economy.
Another foolish and not easily understood situation is the fact that our brigade is in Europe, supposedly as part of the NATO army, under General Eisenhower's headquarters known as SHAPE. Apparently no liaison whatsoever exists between the brigade and SHAPE. Our troops are attached to the British occupation forces and are completely out of contact with General Eisenhower and his headquarters. If these are facts they indicate that our troops have been sent to Europe with no plans or pre-arranged organization.
The situation is serious when you realize that these troops are within a few miles of the Russian zone of Germany and that this infantry brigade would be the first to face the Soviet army if they were ever to launch an attack. If the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) wants to send troops to Europe he should not send infantry when there are men by the million in Europe, and more than that he should not place them in the front line or the most exposed site.
Finally, this house and the Canadian people are entitled to a complete and true explanation of an extremely serious state of affairs. Why is the Canadian 27th brigade being maintained in Germany at the present time at high cost to the Canadian taxpayer and to the Canadian fishermen and being fed on food products from the U.S.S.R.? Our soldiers are in Germany to defend the west against Russian invasion.


Mr. Lesage:: That is a pretty strong statement, that they are fed with U.S.S.R. food.


Léon Balcer: I had some Russian salmon at a lunch in the barracks. I think the Canadian fishermen will be interested to know that Russian salmon is being bought by the Canadian government to be supplied to the 27th brigade. Before asking the Canadian people for $2 billion it is the duty of the

minister to explain this matter to this house, to the Canadian people and to the salmon producers of this country.
I come back to a question which has been discussed before and which will be discussed again as long as nothing is done about it.
I regard this question as a vital one and I intend to continue to raise it as long as this foolish and impossible situation exists. I refer to the Department of National Defence attitude toward one of the most serious problems in our forces, the non-existence of the French-speaking element in the senior ranks of our services. I was told the other day that I should not bring up this matter as it would be damaging to national unity.
I think that what is really damaging to national unity is the situation that exists, and the federal government is not doing anything to improve it. In disregarding this problem the Department of National Defence is continuing a policy which will bring nothing but resentment. This situation has not been improved and the government is not taking a single step at the present time to improve it.
On a previous occasion I gave some figures to the house, but they were not official. However, since then I have obtained a return from the department dated December 13, 1951. This shows that of a total number of 127 officers above the rank of major at army headquarters, only three were French; of a total number of 186 officers in the Royal Canadian Navy above the rank of lieutenant commander, only four were French; out of 382 officers in the Royal Canadian Air Force of the rank of wing commander and over, only ten were French-speaking.
It is heartbreaking to think that at the service colleges at Kingston and Royal Roads the proportion of French-Canadian cadets is always so low and so unfair. It is still only 38 out of a total of 500, which means that if that rate is continued the situation will just go on deteriorating and never improve. We know that an army should always have the same ethnical make-up as the nation itself, and not be a department run exclusively for the advantage of a selected few. When the bullets are flying the department does not care whether its junior officers and privates are French, English or Ukrainian, but when it comes time to fill a post at headquarters which carries with it a good career and good pay then the department forgets these fine democratic principles. The statistics are available to prove that this system does not work, and it is the duty of the department to try a different formula.
At the moment we have two service colleges in Canada, and I cannot see any reason why we cannot have another one in Quebec.
National Defence
In this way French-speaking boys would be enabled to follow a curriculum prepared for them, and in familiar surroundings. I sincerely believe that such a college would prove a great success. It is extremely difficult for a French boy to follow a technical course in a language with which he is not familiar. It is for that reason French-speaking boys do not apply to go to service college. It may be, of course, that there is definite discrimination so far as those who enter are concerned, and if that is the case it must cease right away. Let us not continue a system that is destructive of national unity, unfair to 30 per cent of the population and harmful to the services themselves.
When the whole population is called upon to pay $2 billion for national defence, it is time for this discrimination to cease and for the department to take proper measures to cure this unfair situation.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I propose to deal only briefly with the remarks that were made earlier this afternoon in connection with the attendance of the minister in this house, and which related to a practice that has indicated a lack of concern about the debates that the ministers themselves bring on in this house. As I pointed out, a week ago today at a time when the supplementary estimates were before the house, ministers who were required in the house in order to deal with those estimates were not here, although the estimates had been brought forward in an atmosphere of urgency and with the request that they be proceeded with as quickly as possible. In so far as the minister personally is concerned, I have no intention of engaging in any debate with him.
I must admit that it is very interesting to find that, on some unnamed day, the minister can tell us the exact time at which each member enters this house. I was not previously aware of any clock that is punched by members coming into this house. If we have some special arrangement of which the members are unaware, then it would be extremely helpful if all the members knew about it. It would greatly assist in checking the attendance of every member. I suggest that the minister should let us in on his secret and tell us exactly where the rest of us may look for records of the time to which he has referred, either on a named date or an unnamed date.


Brooke Claxton: Now or some other time?


George Alexander Drew: The minister will have ample opportunity to discuss this subject now that he is with us, but I wish to refer to what he said about my not being present on

National Defence
October 22 last. I do so only because the Hansard record as it now stands would leave an impression which is not correct. He said that in response to requests of mine the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) had arranged for a debate on external affairs on a particular day. It was finally decided that it should take place on Monday, October 22. The impression was left that after I had arranged for the debate to take place, I was not here. I would point out, of course, that there is a vast difference between my being here and the attendance of the minister who is responsible for the debate and who must answer the questions that arise in the course of the debate. I would also point out something of which the minister was obviously unaware, and that is that at the time the date was arranged it was clearly understood between myself and the minister who arranged for the date, not the Prime Minister, that I would not be present.
The reason for the fact that the debate went on was quite obvious. It dealt with external affairs, in regard to which the member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) always leads on behalf of this party. In so far as national defence was concerned, it was to be dealt with by the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes), who also always leads in regard to that subject for this party. Hansard records for that day will disclose that, following the speech by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), the member for Peel replied, as is customary, and after the speech by the Minister of National Defence, the member for Nanaimo followed. I repeat that the arrangement was made with the knowledge that I would not be present on that day, and that knowledge was accompanied by the knowledge also in my possession and the possession of the others with whom it was discussed, that the member for Peel and the member for Nanaimo would be here. I refer to that to remove any suggestion that an arrangement had been made with the Prime Minister which was not carried out.
I come now to the remarks made by the Minister of National Defence in his speech yesterday. It is necessary for us to remember exactly what it is we are discussing at this time. We are not discussing the estimates; we are not discussing the subjects which may come up under other specific headings. This debate was arranged for the purpose of having a report presented to this house of events that have occurred since last we met. I wish to repeat, in relation to the remarks that I made earlier, that it was the kind of debate in which the members of the house were looking for information, and in which the 
minister should have been giving the information. When I referred to the absence of the minister during the time that the member for Nanaimo was speaking, I did so because that followed immediately after he had spoken. Since he has left the suggestion that he was absent for only a short time and under circumstances which he subsequently explained, I would point out that I heard the explanation he gave and it did not satisfactorily explain at all his absence under the circumstances. I would also point out that he was not present in this house during the whole of the speech by the leader of the C.C.F. party (Mr. Coldwell); that he did not enter this house last evening after dinner until the debate had been under way for an hour; that he was not in the house for most of the speech by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill), who made one of the clearest and most comprehensive statements ever made here in regard to the type of organization and training that should be carried on; and that he was here for only a very small portion of the speech by the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Dinsdale), who dealt with various aspects of defence with special reference to the air force, in which he served so gallantly. I can only repeat that, having regard to the nature of the debate, this house had a right to expect his attendance when those important speeches were being made.
Now we come to the reference by the minister to those who may be guilty of the terrible offence of not fully agreeing with everything he says, though even yet they have no knowledge of most of the details. This is what he said, as reported at page 1088 of Hansard for yesterday:
But as the full cost begins to appear in lives and manpower and money-yes, and in things we have to do without-there also begin to appear qualifications in that support. There are the people who say "yes, but." We begin to see emerging the cautious tribe of "yes, but'ers . . ."
That is not a comment that can be passed over in this debate. A short way further on he said:
Moreover, too many suggestions like "not this but that" and "later and smaller" rather than "enough and now" will tend to do two things. It will tend to weaken support of our effort and that of our allies and our understanding of what we are doing together, and our confidence and trust in each other, all of which are fundamental ingredients of this kind of partnership.
Those words can have only one meaning. They imply that anyone who suggests that anything else should be done but what is being done is impairing the confidence of the people of Canada and in some way weakening Canada's position in support of NATO and the general defence of our country. We have the statement "not this but that";

in other words that anyone who suggests it could be done better in some other way is weakening our defence effort. I repudiate in the very strongest terms the suggestion that there is something improper, something savouring of disrespect and disservice to our country, if we are not prepared to swallow holus-bolus all the minister tells us as to our state of preparedness; and that in effect we are walking out on NATO if we offer any alternative suggestions or raise any questions about what is being done. The party I have the honour to lead does not stand in need of lessons in loyalty or devotion to Canada, or for that matter in devotion to NATO and the principles on which it was founded. This party does not stand in need of lessons in patriotism or devotion to that cause from the minister or anyone sitting behind him.
We have asked for a report, an understandable report upon which we can intelligently express opinions as to the effectiveness of the expenditures the people of this country are going to be called upon to make. As the minister has very properly pointed out, in the budget and whatever supplementary estimates may be introduced at some later time we are to be asked for $2,100 million for defence. He has pointed out that this is in striking contrast with the $196 million asked for defence as recently as the fiscal year 1947-48. What does $2,100 million mean to the people of Canada, the taxpayers, who are finding things difficult even now? These astronomical figures often mean little until you reduce them to an average figure we can understand. May I point out that $2,100 million means $150 for every man, woman and child for defence for the coming fiscal year; not $150 for each taxpayer but an average of $150 for every man, woman and child in the country. To adopt the convenient formula that has been adopted on many occasions, it means $750 from the head of the average family of five.
That needs to be borne in mind when we consider the importance of this proposal to the members of this house. It is in relation to that obligation which will rest upon the people of Canada that we have asked for a report. We are still waiting for a report, not a eulogy by the minister of his own activities in connection with his department. We are simply asking that we be told in adequate detail where that enormous sum of money is going; yes, and where the billions already spent have gone.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
55704-73}
Private Bills-Divorce AFTER RECESS
The house resumed at eight o'clock.	.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, March 31, consideration of the motion of Mr. Winkler for the second reading of Bill No. 19, for the relief of Mary Mildred Antoinette Castonguay Smithson.
Mr. Speaker:: There are a number of divorce bills on the order paper tonight.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Quite a number; there are 91, in fact.


Mr. Speaker:: There are 91, the hon. member says. Would the house be prepared-


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, Mr. Speaker. I should like to make the same suggestion as that which I made on Tuesday night.


Mr. Speaker:: I had not completed my remarks. What I was about to say was this. Would the house be prepared to consider the bills collectively, or is it the wish that I should call them one at a time?


Some hon. Members:: Collectively.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, Mr. Speaker. I think they should either be called individually or, if the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Winkler) wishes to move collectively the second reading of those bills for which the evidence is in, I would not object to that type of motion being made.


Mr. H. W. Winkler (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, when we last considered the divorce bills, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) made this suggestion. I was rather taken by surprise at that time, but I agreed to it. Before the evening was over, however, I discovered that he was a much better horse trader than I; so when he makes the proposition again, I am inclined to look for some deeper reason. I do not think there is much to be gained by considering the bills in this manner. I believe we should proceed with them in order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I have a slight feeling of resentment against what the hon. member for Lisgar has said but it is very slight and I will not press the point. I simply say-as the hon. member for Lisgar knows-[DOT] that in what I am doing I am simply suggesting that we handle these bills in the most responsible manner possible. With respect to Bill No. 19, the debate on which has been called, inasmuch as that evidence is not before us, I do not think we should proceed

Private Bills-Divorce
with it. There are on the order paper tonight a total of 91 divorce bills posted for second reading. Of those 91 there are 37 in connection with which the evidence is in. I think that should be enough for this House of Commons for one evening.


Gordon Graydon: Do you intend to debate them all?


Stanley Howard Knowles: No. I am prepared to approve of the batch. I for one have looked through the evidence-cursorily I admit-and I find that in 36 out of the 37 cases for which the evidence is in the respondent, although called, did not appear. In the other case the respondent was called and turned out to be a witness for the petitioner. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, so far as these 37 cases are concerned, I think a case could be made for the house giving second reading to them at this stage. But with regard to the rest, since the evidence has not been distributed, I think they should stand.


Howard Waldemar Winkler: Mr. Speaker, in all these cases there is not a single contested one. I think the same procedure should be followed in them all.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not know who adjourned the debate or rather who was speaking when I interrupted the debate on the motion for second reading of Bill No. 19, which is the bill before the house at the present time. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: No.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Mr. Speaker:: Those in favour of the motion will say "yea".


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those opposed will say "nay".


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it. I declare the motion carried.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: Carried on division.
Motion agreed to on division, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.



ALMA DOROTHY LINES ROBERTSON

Howard Waldemar Winkler: the second reading of Bill No. 20, for the relief of Alma Dorothy Lines Robertson.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I did not force a vote on the motion for second reading of the previous bill, because it was my hope that the hop. member for Lisgar might get back

into the mood he was in on Tuesday night and consent to this bill standing. I might point out that this is another of the bills for which the evidence is not in. If this one were to stand, I would point out that the next one is one for which the evidence is in, and then there are many more scattered through the list tonight. I make one more appeal to the hon. member for Lisgar to allow this bill to stand, as well as the others for which we do not have the evidence.


Howard Waldemar Winkler: Mr. Speaker, the evidence for all these bills is before the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It has not been distributed.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall I put the motion? Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: Carried on division.
Motion agreed to on division, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.



ERITA ETHEL ELLIOTT MORRIS

Howard Waldemar Winkler: the second reading of Bill No. 21, for the relief of Erita Ethel Elliott Morris.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I just wish to point out that the evidence is in in connection with this bill and I have no objection to it.


Mr. J. L. MacDougall (Vancouver-Burrard):: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to enter this controversy, but I feel that we are going to waste a terrific amount of time by taking each one of these bills separately. Speaking for myself personally, I feel that when the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has 37 bills which he is willing should be considered in a group for second reading, by adopting his suggestion we would at least be able to get rid of 37 whereas we shall possibly get rid of only ten or twelve by taking them individually. I would ask that the hon. member for Lisgar consider the proposition that has been made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre with respect to dealing with these 37 bills collectively all at the one time.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion for the second reading of Bill No. 21?


Some hon. Members:: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: Carried on division.
Motion agreed to on division, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.

114L



PHYLLIS JOAN CROSS COHEN

Howard Waldemar Winkler: the second reading of Bill No. 22, for the relief of Phyllis Joan Cross Cohen, otherwise known as Phyllis Joan Cross Grosvenor.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, unless the hon. member for Lisgar wishes to suggest that this bill stand-because it is one of the bills in connection with which the evidence has not been distributed to hon. members-I feel that I will have to move the appropriate motion. I appreciate the suggestion made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. MacDougall). I was hesitating and hoping that the hon. member for Lisgar would carry out that suggestion. If he seems not so disposed, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce), that the debate on the motion for second reading of Bill No. 22 be now adjourned.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: Carried.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Private Bills-Divorce
 NAYS Messrs:
Anderson
Applewhaite
Balcom
Bater
Benidickson
Bennett
Bradley
Campney
Carter
Cavers
Cloutier
Corry
Dewar
Eyre
Ferrie
Garland
George
Gregg
Harris (Grey-Bruce)
Helme
Henderson
Huffman
Kirk (Antigonlsh-Guysborough) Macdonald (Edmonton East)
MacDougall
MacKenzie
MacLean (Cape Breton North and Victoria) McCubbin McCulloch
McDonald (Parry Sound-Muskoka)
Mclvor
McLean (Huron-Perth)
McMillan
McWilliam
Mayhew
Murray (Cariboo)
Mutch
Prudham
Rooney
Stick
Stuart (Charlotte)
Ward
Weaver
Weir
Welbourn Whiteside Winkler Wood-48.


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


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


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


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: Those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those opposed will say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: Carried on division.
Motion agreed to on division, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.



JOHN GAVIGAN

Howard Waldemar Winkler: the second reading of Bill No. 23, for the relief of John Gavigan.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to remind hon. members, including the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. MacDougall), that this is another of that batch of 37 in connection with which the evidence is in. It is too bad we could not have had from the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Winkler) one motion for the 37, all in one.


An hon. Member:: Let us have it.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion for second reading ot this bill?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: Carried on division.
Motion agreed to on division, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.

Private Bills-Divorce



FRANCES BAILEY HERSHBAIN

Howard Waldemar Winkler: the second reading of Bill No. 25, for the relief of Frances Bailey Hershbain, otherwise known as Frances Bailey Berman.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce):
That the debate on second reading of this bill be now adjourned.
There is no evidence.


Mr. Mutch:: How silly can this get?


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.
Mclvor
McLean (Huron-Perth)
McMillan McWilliam Mayhew
Murray (Cariboo)
Prudham Stick


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, before we proceed I should like to say a word about the situation in which the house finds itself in connection with these divorce bills. What has taken place tonight indicates quite clearly how tired hon. members are of this business of dealing with divorces in this house. There are, I believe, six vacancies in our membership at the present time which gives us a total of 256 members who might be in their seats tonight.
Stuart (Charlotte)
Ward
Weaver
Weir
Welbourn Whiteside Winkler Wood-46.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: In my considered opinion the nays have it.


Mr. Hodgson:: A lot of them are out behind the curtains.


Major James William Coldwell: I said who might be in their seats. I am quite convinced that if it were not for the fact that so many object to participating in voting for these divorce bills more would be present. For example, as I look around I see that many of our colleagues from Quebec are not in their seats tonight. I think that that clearly indicates that they do not wish to participate in the granting of divorces.
Seventy-nine members voted in the vote before the one that wqs taken immediately before I rose to speak out of a possible 256 votes that might have been cast if hon. members who have retained seats had been present and able to vote. I think it is becoming quite apparent that many hon. members are here because they consider it to be an unpleasant duty, because they feel that someone has to do this job.


An hon. Member:: They do not necessarily agree.


Major James William Coldwell: They do not necessarily agree with what is being done. I can understand that viewpoint. I share that feeling which the hon. member has indicated, but I do feel that when a marriage has been broken up under certain circumstances a divorce should be granted.
As in the case about which I spoke the other evening, we have here a bill which is not supported by one shred of evidence; yet this house is being called upon to declare that one party named in the bill is guilty of an offence. In other words, without a shred of evidence we are adopting the principle of a bill to dissolve a marriage and by it are declaring one of the parties guilty. Without having in our hands one shred of evidence

we are in effect saying that we believe one of these parties to he guilty of the offence charged.
It is true that the bill will go to a committee, but when we approve the second reading of a bill we adopt the principle. The principle of this bill is that a divorce should be granted. If that divorce is to be approved then in effect we say that we believe that one of the parties named in the bill is guilty. I say that that is undemocratic. It is out of line entirely with the best traditions of our parliamentary institutions. If this is the high court of parliament, as we sometimes call it, then we should conduct ourselves as a high court and not consent to the adoption of the principle of bills of this description without having one shred of evidence before us to substantiate the charge made.
I am not going to discuss divorce generally, but I think what has happened tonight illustrates the manner in which these divorces are granted by this parliament. There are 91 bills on the list tonight and if we had followed the practice of a few years ago' those bills might have been passed. I believe we have dealt with 35 or 40 already this session. This parliament should not be called upon to deal with these bills under these circumstances and to become what is in effect a divorce mill as bad as Reno. It is really worse than Reno because there there is a hearing by the body which adjudicates. We are adjudicating tonight when we adopt the principle of a bill without having one shred of evidence to support it before us.
I do not know whether or not this divorce should be granted, and I take it that no one in this house knows because no one has had before him one shred of evidence in connection with this particular bill.


An hon. Member:: The evidence is false.


Major James William Coldwell: Hon. members should be given the evidence in order to have an opportunity to review it and come to a conclusion on the evidence before casting their vote.
Someone interjects that the evidence is false. I know that in a good many instances that is true. We see the same investigators bringing in the same type of evidence with the same story and we know perfectly well that there is collusion and falsification of evidence. I cannot say that there is falsification of evidence or collusion in this case because I have not had an opportunity, nor has any other hon. member, of reviewing the evidence.
I submit that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) was perfectly
Private Bills-Divorce
justified in moving the adjournment of the debate until we get the evidence. I think some progress could have been made tonight if the bills without evidence had been set aside until the evidence was available. The other 37 bills before us could have been dealt with. Hon. members who had read the evidence could have voted for or against the bills as they came up.
When the last bill came before us I said, "on division", because I had not read the evidence and did not want to vote for a bill when I had not had time to read it although evidence was accessible to me. But if we adopt the principle of this bill we are in effect saying that we believe that the charge named in the bill is true. That is what we do when we adopt the principle. The hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Harris) shakes his head, but can he deny that when we adopt the principle of the bill we are adopting the principle that a divorce should be granted? We refer it to the committee with our blessings, but we have adopted the principle and expressed a considered opinion.
Once we have adopted the principle we have in effect rendered judgment. Of course, we shall have an opportunity to review that judgment after it has been before the committee, but nonetheless we are asked to support a bill at this time in connection with which there is not a solitary shred of evidence before us.
I think even now the house should not allow this bill to go through without the evidence being available. I think we would be justified in voting down the bill.


Gordon Graydon: May I ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, who is leading the government tonight, whether the government has under consideration at the moment any plan for changing the manner of disposing of these cases in future?


Mr. Harris (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I am not leading the house tonight. Three of my senior colleagues are present, and I would not want to say anything in answer to the question. I think it may be directed to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) at some future time if an answer is desired.


Gordon Graydon: Would the hon. member convey that to the Prime Minister? He sees him quite often.


Walter Edward Harris: I shall.


Mr. E. T. Applewhaite (Skeena):: As Your Honour saw fit to permit the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) to complete his remarks, which dealt largely with procedure, I trust you will permit me to place in reply a few arguments which appeal to

Private Bills-Divorce
me, and which I think should go on the record this day. I had intended to bring them before the house on a notice of motion standing in the name of the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver). The reason I think they should go on the record this day is that I fear any statement, whether right or wrong, if made sufficiently often without contradiction is likely to be accepted in time as correct. A statement which is being made quite often in this house is that we have a moral right in so far as these private bills are concerned not to come to any conclusion on second reading until the evidence is before us.
Some days back, Mr. Speaker, you pointed out to us that the practice of this house has always been the reverse, and there can be no evidence -other than what we get secondhand from the other place until after a private bill passes second reading. This is not said in a personal way, but I do not recall whether or not the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar was in his seat some days ago when we passed Bill No. 62, a private bill, without anyone raising his voice and without there being one bit of evidence before the house on which members should have adopted the motion for second reading. It happened to be an incorporation bill. What difference does it make to the practice, which is the thing to which I am trying to confine my remarks?


Major James William Coldwell: Will the hon. member permit a question? Bill No. 62 to which he refers surely did not involve the guilt or innocence of any particular person.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: If the hon. member will restrain himself for just a moment I shall come to that. I am not trying to force any divorce procedure on this house. I am trying to straighten out what I say, humbly but with respect, is in connection with private bills a false or wrong practice which is going to grow up in this house.
The bill to which I was referring was a bill upon which this house will eventually be asked to decide whether certain people justify incorporation. We passed that and we said if they could justify it we have no objection. Then Your Honour referred the bill to a committee to find out whether they could justify it. Under these circumstances, we do not divorce a couple at this stage. We say that if one of the parties is guilty we believe they should be divorced. Then Your Honour says that the bill will be referred to a committee, and it is the responsibility of that committee to ascertain whether or not the one party is guilty of the offence charged. If that is not the case, then it is an absolute farce, and I say this with respect, for this house to refer the matter to a committee. If 
we are going to insist on the final evidence being before us at this stage upon which we can make a decision, I would ask what are we going to do with a private bill which originates in this house, which had not gone before any Senate committee and for which there will not even be secondhand evidence available for us to discuss.



DOROTHY GERTRUDE FRENCH GORRELL

Howard Waldemar Winkler: the second reading of Bill No. 29, for the relief of Dorothy Gertrude French Gorrell.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This is a case in connection with which the printed evidence has been distributed. There are aspects about the case,

as is true of every divorce case, which one does not like, but there seems to be no alternative but to grant this divorce. This is another of these Scotch tape cases.


George Matheson Murray: I object to the word "Scotch" being used in that connection.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I can only quote from the evidence, at the middle of page 11:
Q. Was the Scotch tape still in place?
A. It had not been touched.
This is the modern type of investigation, done with Scotch tape instead of match sticks. This is an unhappy case; the couple had not been living together for quite a time. For the reasons set out in the evidence the Senate has agreed to the divorce, and I must confess that they had no alternative. While I am on my feet I should like to say just a word in reply-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the debate on the question of procedure on the previous bill was not strictly in order. I permitted it at that time, but I doubt if we should continue that debate now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then I would like to say with respect to this bill that it is a private bill and therefore subject to the provisions of citation 769 in Beauchesne's third edition, which says that agreement to the second reading of a private bill is a conditional agreement, subject to proof being produced in the committee. Then the citation goes on to say:
Where, irrespective of such facts, the principle is objectionable, the house will not consent to the second reading . . .
Further on the citation says:
This is the first occasion on which the bill is before the house otherwise than pro forma or in connection with the standing orders; and if the bill be opposed, upon its principle, it is the proper time for attempting its defeat.
I do not wish to attempt the defeat of this biU.


An hon. Member:: Why not?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Because I have looked over the evidence and think it is one that can be granted. But I believe the point needs to be made and repeated, for the benefit of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Applewhaite) and others, that if an hon. member is opposed to the principle of one of these bills the time to express that opposition is on second reading.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion for second reading?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: On division?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Those in favour will say yea.
Private Bills-Divorce


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those opposed will say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion agreed to on division, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.



EDNA GIBSON SMITH SCHILLER

Howard Waldemar Winkler: the second reading of Bill No. 31, for the relief of Edna Gibson Smith Schiller.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This is another of the bills in connection with which the evidence has not been distributed. Therefore, for the reasons we have advanced previously, which were well put by my leader, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), again tonight, I do not think the house should be asked to proceed with this bill. I could move the motion I have moved on other bills but perhaps hon. members would be satisfied to have you call it nine o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Major James William Coldwell: We
do not want to delay the real business of the house, which is the motion to go into supply and the debate on defence. If the house will not agree to call it nine o'clock now I want to say I thoroughly agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that we should not deal with this bill. We do not wish to waste the time of the house with a vote on the motion, so I suggest that it is nine o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: It being nine o'clock, the house will revert to the business under consideration at six o'clock.



NATIONAL DEFENCE

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Claxton for committee of supply.
George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, at six o'clock I was discussing what the subject before us means in terms of taxes upon our people, and I had sought to emphasize the fact that at this time we are very strongly of the opinion that not only the members of this house but the people of Canada are entitled to detailed information as to how the billions of dollars already spent have actually been employed,

National Defence
the result we have obtained from that expenditure, and what is actually to be done in terms of defence with this enormous sum of $2,100 million.
We have had a statement which conveys to the members of this house the suggestion that, in spite of difficulties, all is well. We have had no indication of weaknesses that every hon. member of this house knows perfectly well exist. Only a short time ago we read of the statement of Mr. Churchill in the House of Commons in Great Britain in which he said without any reservation that things were far from satisfactory. He pointed out where the weaknesses lay. He showed where they were short in equipment of various kinds and he pointed out the dangerous deficiencies of their armed forces. He pointed out that Britain had been stripped bare of units ready to go into the field. He placed no veil of secrecy around the information which, in Great Britain, they believe that the house and the people have a right to expect at all times.
Britain's air minister is dissatisfied with the situation. He has not hesitated to say so. May I, in fairness, point out that this is not something that has simply happened with a change of government in Great Britain. There has been in Britain a frankness with regard to the situation which is a challenge to every member of this house. They do not say that they cannot tell where their divisions are, where their brigades are or where their air force is located because it might help the Russians. They tell the house and they tell their people what the situation is. As a result, the people are ready to support what is being done.
Make no mistake about the fact that the people of Canada want effective defence. Make no mistake about the fact that the people of Canada will back this government in the preparation of real defence. But the people of this country want to know what the money is being spent for. They want to know that we are really getting defence, and they want to have some assurance that we are not wasting millions of dollars under the plans which are now being put into effect.
Canada's Minister of National Defence is dissatisfied with nothing. For him everything is for the very best in the very best of all possible worlds. Why should it not be? This is a dream world of his own invention. Thus far, this parliament has no adequate report on NATO from either the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) or the Minister of National Defence. What happened at that conference, which was heralded as the meeting of minds, as a great turning point in history, is still just as

uncertain to us as it was before those two ministers spoke, except for the information which we have received from the newspapers. I should qualify that statement. It is more uncertain, because up until the time they spoke we thought we could rely on the responsible newspapers that had reported on the conference. But now we even have .those statements placed under some shadow of doubt, and we are left with very little that is certain, except that we know that the Secretary of State for External Affairs agrees that there was a statement made to the effect that in 1952 there were to be 50 divisions in an adequate state of battle readiness, something that we know is preposterous. The Secretary of State for External Affairs has also answered his own question. He wanted to know where this figure of 100 divisions in 1954 had come from. He gave that to us. Why should he be so greatly surprised that we have used the figure that he says we all knew? A few days ago in one breath he raised the question about the 100 divisions, and then immediately afterwards he said it was a matter of common knowledge that we were discussing a figure of somewhere between 80 and 110 or 115 divisions. If that statement is correct, then it is a matter of common knowledge that they were discussing figures which would give us the mean figure of approximately 100 divisions. If we are considering the possibility of 110 or 115 divisions in 1954, surely it is -not too much that this house should be told how we would meet a commitment of 100 divisions in 1954. We still have no real information on that matter.
The Minister of National Defence has added nothing to our knowledge. In his review yesterday the Minister of National Defence gave us no information that has not already been available to the people of this country through the press or over the radio. The Minister of National Defence yesterday did not even deal with the fundamentals of defence. For years it has been recognized that the whole basis of defence preparation in this country is the non-permanent force. It has been recognized that the permanent force-yes, and our gallant active force in Korea-are in there as men doing a full-time job, but that the basis of our whole defence organization in this country is the nonpermanent force. Yet yesterday, about that non-permanent force not a word was said that would really tell us what is being planned in order to prepare this great foundation for all the real defence organization that this country has built up over the years.
Yesterday the Minister of National Defence said that the policies as stated on February 5 last year have not changed. If that is so, there

is one particular statement that was made last year which calls for a definite explanation. On February 5 of last year, after outlining the other obligations to which he has now referred, he made this statement, and I quote his words as reported at page 95 of Hansard of February 5, 1951:
In addition to whatever army forces we have in Europe, our army role in NATO is to provide a strategic reserve.
Now we are told about a brigade and the squadrons of the R.C.A.F. But what of the strategic reserve? How big is that strategic reserve? If our policy has not changed, what was the strategic reserve agreed upon last year, and what was the strategic reserve agreed upon at Lisbon a short time ago? What is the strategic reserve for which the defence organization is being built in this country at this time? That is what we want to know. Surely that is part of the $2,100 million that we shall be discussing. Even if we cannot have the details at the moment, let us know what the force is, so that we may discuss this matter with some appearance of reality. Let no one in this house suggest that the strategic reserve referred to on February 5 of last year is in any way to be confused with the term "reserve" which we employ in describing our non-ipermanent military forces in Canada. These reserve forces are not the kind of strategic reserve which was referred to on February 5. A strategic reserve is a strategic force available to be moved into one area or another, depending upon the strategic considerations of the moment. Every student of the history of the last world war knows that, above everything else, it was the absence of a strategic reserve in France that spelled the doom of the French army at the time that Guderian made that tremendous sweep past Sedan through to the coast. I leave that question of what strategic reserve really is and what land forces constitute it, because it is the army that we are talking about, not the air force or the navy.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the minister's democratic duty to this House of Commons, where the people of Canada are represented by their chosen representatives, is to come to this house at this time and report frankly to us so that we may be informed, and invite at the same time from the members of this house opinions, criticism and debate, and not to brand criticism and alternative suggestions as something that may interfere with the defence preparations of Canada.
The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Clax-ton) anticipates the statements before they are made and says that any statements that will be made may weaken the defence of
National Defence
this country. The minister seemingly comes to this house only to invite the desk-thumping of those who sit behind him, and not to carry out his duties to the people of Canada at this very solemn hour in our history. I say this to the minister with the utmost earnestness. If any man in this country at this time rises in this house to say that our defence preparations are all that they should be, and that there are no weaknesses to be corrected, then that man loves applause more than he loves the truth.
The members of this house know perfectly that there are many things about which we should be told, and they want an opportunity to examine the estimates that will presently be before us with some knowledge of what we are actually to do as a nation. Instead of being told what we may usefully do as members in this house we are told of the great things being planned; never of the things that we have, always of the dreams of tomorrow, which, when they are fulfilled, are going to surpass the dreams that will be known in any other country in the world.
Canada has too proud a record of actual achievement in the field and in defence generally for any Canadian to need to go beyond reality. Canadians have never shown themselves unready to face the responsibility of the hour whenever the test came, and Canadians are ready to face whatever their responsibilities are today. The hard-pressed taxpayers of Canada, however, are now asked for $750 from the head of every family of five-and it is every head of a family of five on the average, no matter how these taxes are levied-and they want to know that we are getting a dollar's worth for every dollar spent, and that we are getting real defence for this enormous sum which is being spent.
My remarks are related to a positive proposal to which I referred yesterday, Mr. Speaker, and which I repeat at this time. I do urge the minister, no matter how satisfied he may be with most aspects of the defence preparation, to recognize that it is his duty, that it is our duty, that it is the duty of everyone who has anything to do with defence in any way, to see if savings cannot be made, and if we cannot produce results with the expenditure of less money than is now being called for under the estimates before us.
We are not suggesting any weakening of our efforts; we are suggesting that they be strengthened with the immense industrial and technical possibilities of Canada. We are saying: Place more hitting power in the hands of each individual soldier. That is the great thing that is possible in a highly developed industrial country such as Canada. Let us

National Defence
find ways in which we can give to our young men the very finest type of equipment, the very finest type of organization. Let us save the blood of our youth with things that are made by the skill and the brains that have been trained in the great universities, technical institutes and workshops of Canada.
Only yesterday, on the motion of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), a committee was set up which will be empowered to consider defence expenditures. I suggested to the Prime Minister yesterday that he should give consideration to the introduction, at the end of the present debate, of a resolution similar to the resolution which was moved at the determination of the debate on external affairs, a resolution which would refer to the committee on defence expenditures all the estimates which have been presented to this house by the Department of National Defence. When I made that suggestion yerterday the Prime Minister indicated that he could not accept it and he made a statement by way of explanation which, it seems to me, wholly misconceives the function of this committee and the purpose for which the estimates would be referred.
May I remind hon. members that the select committee which was approved yesterday by the resolution presented by the Prime Minister stated that a select committee be appointed: ... to examine all expenditure of public moneys for national defence and all commitments for expenditure for national defence . . .
May I emphasize in both cases the word "all"; all expenditures and all commitments. How is a committee going to deal with all expenditures and all commitments better than by having the estimates for defence referred to it in exactly the same way as the estimates of the Department of External Affairs have been referred to the committee on external affairs? The Prime Minister said, and I quote from page 1077 of Hansard:
It may be that the experience acquired in the course of the work of this committee will induce us to come to the conclusion that it would be possible to have a committee that would not proceed as do some committees of congress, and that here it is something that would work satisfactorily; but I am sorry I cannot at the moment make any commitment in that regard.
I hope that the Prime Minister has not closed the door, and since the Minister of National Defence is here, I repeat that request, and I repeat it with all the earnestness I possess, because of the seriousness of the moment and because of the immense sums of money that are involved. But may I point out, in view of the misconception which obviously exists in the mind of Prime Minister, that I am not suggesting that we have any such committee as they have in congress. I am suggesting that we do exactly what they

do at Westminster now and what they have done for years. For years they have had a committee in Great Britain on defence estimates. I hope it will not be suggested to us that a committee on defence estimates in Great Britain is limited in what it can do, because if we were told so it would be incorrect. It is true that the committee each year decides to deal particularly with certain specific items of defence, and get all the information in regard to those particular items. It of course examines the other items, and then the items all come before the house. But I would point out that in May's Parliamentary Practice, fourteenth edition, at page 641, the work of these committees is referred to, and it explains that:
The reference of the estimates to the consideration of a select committee has become a regular feature of Commons procedure since 1912, with the exception of the war years 1914-20 and from 1939 onwards. In these periods-from 1917 to 1920 and from 1939 onwards-the examination of war expenditure was entrusted to select committees on national expenditure.
The estimates committee was empowered to examine any of the estimates presented to the house, to suggest the form in which the estimates might be presented, and to report what economies, consistent with the policy implied in the estimates, might be effected.
Now, that is exactly what I am suggesting should be done here. We should do precisely what they have been doing at Westminster ever since 1912. All the estimates should be referred, and the committee on defence expenditures empowered to choose those items with which they will deal, then get all the information and make its recommendations to this house.
Over and over again we have heard the suggestion that we must not in any way depart from the principle that the government is responsible for policy. I cannot remember a single occasion when any member in the house has suggested at any time that we sought to intervene in the field of policy. What we do say is this, that the government makes policy, and that those policies result in the presentation of estimates. Those estimates come before us; and, just as they do at Westminster, recognizing the policies implied in the estimates, we should examine those estimates and, as representatives of the people of Canada, here in this House of Commons, through that committee, see what money we can save for the hard-pressed taxpayers of Canada.
Let us realize that we are dealing with almost half the total expenditures for the coming year. The total of the estimates now before us is $4,335,000,000. Of that figure, those for national defence are $2,100,000,000. That being the case, then surely if there ever was a time when we had an opportunity to

do a real job on behalf of the taxpayer, it is now. I assure the minister that if he agrees to this proposal-and I feel sure if he did the Prime Minister would concur in his request-then I am satisfied that when the estimates came back to the house we would find that instead of a long, protracted and unsatisfactory discussion on individual items, the basic work would have been done, really useful proposals would have been agreed upon, and in many cases agreed upon unanimously by the committee, and we would have made a great stride forward both in effectiveness of defence and in the economies which all of us wish to insist upon.
I shall close with emphasis upon this thought: We are not dealing with any academic discussion. We are not dealing merely with whether the textbooks are being complied with. We are not dealing merely with whether the camps in this country have adequate numbers of men in training. We are dealing with defence. We are dealing with survival itself. And if there is one single subject to which every member of this House of Commons should devote his thought and to which he should apply all his efforts, energy and ability, it is this subject which is going to take half our tax money, this subject upon which the peace, security and future of our children depend.


Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I had expected that I would be speaking somewhat earlier in the debate, and that the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) would perhaps speak immediately prior to the minister, who would wind up the debate. However, just before six o'clock, as I looked around, expecting someone else on the list to speak, I found suddenly that the leader of the opposition was already speaking. I did not wish to interrupt him then.
I have no desire to prolong the debate unnecessarily, but I should like to say one or two things before the minister replies. A sentiment was expressed in the minister's speech yesterday which I do not digest easily. He began his speech by exalting the North Atlantic Treaty Organization- and I am not finding any particular fault with that. We have all agreed to support that organization. We all believe it is a good thing. We all believe that, in cooperation one nation with another, we can more ably build our defences. But the minister struck another note, a note which I am afraid is beginning to mould the mentality of our people, and that is the note of exalting these international organizations above the importance of loyalty to our own country.
National Defence
That is a line of thinking which I deeply deplore. This is what I call the line of the internationalist, who usually places emphasis upon such matters as a world community of nations, and so on-which is, in reality, a softening up process for us so as to sell Canada to some outside international authority.
I have often heard it said that the word patriotism is a word that should no longer be in our vocabulary, that patriotism is something to be deplored. I take issue with that. I believe the day is still here when we must look upon men as patriots to the country they love. I might remind the house that all we have to do is to look back upon history, and we shall find that every man who has gone down in history, or who has moulded history, has been a patriot.
I would not give a nickel for a man who is not patriotically proud of his own country-and I do not care where he comes from. But the whole tendency of our thinking today is to cast some aspersion upon patriotism to our own country, in favour of letting go what we have in the interests of an international concept. I am not now throwing international co-operation to the winds. I believe in the co-operation of all freedom-loving nations. But I am saying now, and I will always say, because there is a basic principle involved, that I am an opponent of world government. Anything that tends to bring it into existence will hear at least my small voice raised in opposition to it.
I should like to point out further evidence of this mentality. Not only recently, but over the years I have noticed advertisements such as these: Join the forces and see the world; join the forces and make a career; join the forces and learn a trade while being paid. If that is what our young men are joining the forces for, then why call them the armed forces? Why not pass these as estimates for trades schools or for career forces or so that our young men can travel and see the world? Why call it defence if that is what they join for?
The principle seems to be: "We are not asking you to go out and fight for the country you love, we are asking you to join up so you can see the world or have a career or learn a trade. If that is the position into which we are getting then I feel that we are giving to the younger generation of this country the idea that Canada is not worth very much. I am a patriot, I am a Canadian, I believe in Canada as I believe we all do because I think that Canada is one of the greatest countries in the world and its people are one of the greatest of the peoples on the face of the earth. All

National Defence
we do in our advertising, in our thinking and in our speaking should be done by reason of our pride in our nation. It should be done to exalt our nation, the importance of our nation, as well as to set out the principles for which we stand which far outweigh the expounding of a philosophy which creates a mentality which would make us subservient to some type of international organization.
I should like to read a little passage from the speech of the minister to be found on page 1079 of Hansard of April 3, 1952. The minister said:
We have to come to regard the NATO peoples, not as a parcel of foreigners but as partners having a common interest in meeting a common danger in order to arrive at a common security.
It must become just as natural for any boy in Canada to take his place on our frontiers in Germany or Europe as it is for him to take a summer job on the frontier in Canada. Both mark the beginning of work in the service; both are adventures; both enlarge the horizons; both earn money to be invested in laying better foundations for a future career.
I take exception to that. There may be an element of truth in it, but that is not the reason for which we raise an army. Let us understand that.
I wish to say a few words along a little different line, that is defence expenditures. I am sure we are all happy that the defence expenditures committee is to be set up this session to examine defence expenditures and to recommend where savings can be made. However, I do not believe the terms of reference are broad enough. The committee is limited to the examination of expenditures for national defence and all commitments for expenditure for national defence since March 31, 1950. But there is another clause in the terms of reference which I think is significant. The committee is to report from time to time their observations and opinions thereon, and in particular what, if any, economies consistent with the execution of the policy decided by the government may be effected therein.
When you read that carefully it simply means that the committee can examine all expenditures, but must not criticize government policy. To my mind that is even more important than examining expenditures. All you have in these terms of reference are what you would have in reference to a public accounts committee. You may find here and there where a few dollars can be saved, and I am quite confident that the government does not expect the committee to find a great deal of fault with the expenditures; but when the committee begins to examine where expenditures can be saved by a reversal or readjustment of policy, where the committee decides that a different policy would save

many millions of dollars, it is going to be shut off in their examination because it will be said that it is discussing matters of government policy. To my mind that is where savings can be made or money more appropriately spent.
I do not think the government needs to be afraid that committees are going to dig up skeletons in respect to expenditures. We have the Auditor General and other supposed watchdogs on spending. What the government would be afraid of is a critical examination of its policies. I doubt very much that the committee will get far in its examination of expenditures because I fancy the government will welcome such an examination.
I was a bit surprised that the official opposition did not take up this point. I am inclined to think that it might reasonably be that there is no difference between the actual policies of our Conservative friends and the government. I am perfectly convinced that broadly speaking there are no differences. The leader of the opposition can get up and flay the government for spending too much money here, and saying they should save money there. All I wish to say is that if he were on the government side of the house, he would have to spend so much money here or save so much money there, and he would have to find the money the same way as the present government is finding it. I can see no difference in policy at all. As I have watched these two parties over the years, they do not argue one policy against another. All the official opposition says is, "Let us get over there and we will do the same job but by a different method".


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: By a better method.


Ernest George Hansell: All right, by a better method. Supposing you do that, it does not alter anything. It is not the same job we want. People do not want more taxation, they want less taxation. What the opposition has to tell us if they want to replace the government is how they can do the job and meet these expenditures, while at the same time reducing taxation. If they have some different policy, of course it is up to them to announce that policy and show how that policy will do the trick.
I have been waiting to hear this for a good many years, and I have not heard it. The crux of the whole matter is to decide this. Does a certain government policy cause certain expenditures that would not otherwise be necessary if some other policy were being pursued?
Now, Mr. Speaker, so much for that. There is one other matter I should like to draw to the attention of the government, and it is

this. I should like to have the government re-examine their policy concerning cost-plus contracts. At the moment I am not arguing for or against that policy, but I do believe that the time has come when this expenditures committee, or the government apart from that committee, should tell this country why they pursue the policy of cost-plus contracts instead of a straight tender basis. The reason I am bringing this matter forward is that it has been drawn to my attention, whether worthily or not I am not prepared to say, that there is a wastage of materials and man hours simply because the contractor says, "Well, the higher we can make the price the more profit we are making". The contractor does not mind if the men stand around a little bit or if there is a little bit of material wasted. If something goes wrong on the job that causes a wastage of materials the contractor says he is sorry it happened, but it adds to the cost so he is not worrying very much about it. It means more profit for him.
It has been drawn to my attention that in certain of these cost-plus contracts the men are standing around doing nothing or tumbling over one another's feet; that there is a wastage of materials and time. I say to the minister and to the government, therefore, and not only to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) but to the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe), that I believe it is time to re-examine their policy concerning cost-plus contracts.
I do not think I have any further critical examination to make at this particular point. We shall all have an opportunity to speak again on national defence, particularly when the estimates are scrutinized more carefully.


Mr. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: I think that every hon. member who has spoken in this debate so far is agreed upon one point, and that is that our defence effort at this time is directed towards preventing the next great war rather than merely winning it. I doubt if there is such a thing as winning a modern war. This reminds me of a statement which was made by Winston Churchill concerning the first great war. He said that victory was purchased at a price so great as to make it almost indistinguishable from defeat. That being the case, I think it behooves us to examine the possibility of finding a way of preventing the next world war.
I believe it is agreed the next world war will be prevented only if we can show all our potential enemies that an attack upon us is foredoomed to failure. How can we achieve that end? I believe history shows us that the use of new equipment, new methods, new concepts of strategy through the years
National Defence
have resulted in military advantages in more cases than any other combination of causes. Hannibal gained success by the introduction of the use of war elephants. Genghis Khan gained success by the idea of surprise attack and mobility. Field Marshal Barclay de Tolly gained success through the principle of defence in depth and what later became known as the scorched earth policy which resulted in the destruction of Napoleon's army in Russia.
We have only to look back to the last war to realize that time and again the tide of battle swung one way and then the other as new methods, new equipment and new concepts were introduced by one side or the other. In 1940, with a relatively small, well armoured, hard-striking force, the German army was able, in a matter of three weeks, to lay in helpless defeat the huge allied armies totalling a strength of about five million men. The winning of the battle of Britain was made possible by research and development which had been carefully conducted in the years prior to the war, and which resulted in Great Britain's radar warning screen and the Hurricane fighter. They were the things which made the winning of the battle of Britain possible. Later on we were able to sap the strength of Germany by the use of heavy bombers on a scale which had never been seen before. Still later our invasion of the continent was made possible by new ideas and new developments such as the Mulberry harbours and the pipe line under the ocean for supplying gasoline to the forces, commonly referred to as Pluto. As a result we were able to supply our forces after they landed on the continent, rendering useless the gallant and able defence made by the Germans of the channel ports.
Later our advance across Europe was made easier by such developments as Bailey bridges, amphibious craft, and the extensive use of glider and other airborne troops. But after all that, victory was almost snatched from our grasp when the Germans employed an altogether new type of weapon, the V-l and V-2. If German research at that time could have armed their V-2's with atomic warheads I dare say even at that late date they would have achieved victory. Then, too, late in the war our shipping took a severe mauling from snorkel-equipped U-boats, which were able to remain submerged for long periods and which had great range and great speed. Finally the war was concluded and the Japanese empire was forced to sue for peace after only two atomic bombs were dropped on that country.
I think it is clear, then, that if we are to be superior to any potential enemy we

National Defence
can only do so by being more advanced in research and in the development of the type of weapons which will certainly be used the next war. We must prove to the world that any possible attack upon us will fail. We have been told that we have the best troops in the world, that they are the best fed and best led troops that ever went into battle; and I do not question that. As a matter of fact I am very pleased to learn that our commanding officers rank with Hannibal and Napoleon and others of that class, and that ours are the most contented troops in the world. But that is not enough. Self-praise is not enough. I know of no case in history, at least since the fall of Jericho, in which any worth-while military advantage was gained by the blowing of one's own horn. Hitler gambled on winning the last war because he thought the German army had technical and scientific superiority, and he was almost right. It goes without saying that it is too late to prevent the last war. It is an accomplished fact; it is history. It should be almost as obvious that we cannot prevent the next war by being proficient, no matter how proficient, in the methods of the last war. We must be prepared to defend ourselves against the kind of attack the next war will bring, if it ever comes. We cannot hope to match our enemies in manpower. We must find some way of making each of our fighting men superior to ten of our potential enemies. The accent must be on scientific development, on equipment, on production capacity and technical superiority.
I am not quite clear as to the NATO target in regard to manpower that is regarded as sufficient to defend western Europe during the next three or four years, but I believe it is somewhere between 50 and 100 divisions. We lack a clear statement as to what our commitments are and what facilities we have to meet them, either ourselves as a nation or the NATO countries generally. While listening to spokesmen for the government I got the impression-and I hope it is entirely wrong-that they stood in considerable fear of being trapped into making some statement which was not ambiguous. It may be because of my inability to understand their statements that I am a bit confused; but let us suppose the total commitment of NATO for the next number of years is 50 divisions on the one hand or 100 on the other. I understand the Canadian commitment is one brigade. In other words the Canadian commitment in regard to manpower is somewhere between one-third and two-thirds of one per cent of the total manpower commitment. Therefore the accent certainly

is not on manpower, and I think the government is on perfectly safe ground there. I do not think there is any danger of the government being criticized because the commitments they have made to NATO in regard to manpower are excessive.
The point is, is the accent anywhere else? Is the accent on technical and scientific developments which will make each of our fighting men superior to ten of our potential enemies? That is what we are faced with. Even 100 divisions in western Europe would be something less than two million men, and it is obvious that our potential enemies could match that manpower three or four or five or even more to one. That is not good enough if we consider it merely on a manpower basis. We cannot hope to match our enemies on that basis.
If our defence effort is to have any point at all we must be capable of preventing a war in which long-range bombers will be used to attack us over the top of the world and over the North Atlantic on the great circle route from Russian bases; and we have to remember that such bombers will carry a load fifty thousand times as effective as the bomb loads carried at the beginning of world war II. We must be prepared to prevent a war in which U-boats of a very superior type will be used in large numbers to attack our shipping, U-boats which while submerged will be capable of greater speeds than any ordinary commercial surface craft. We must be prepared to prevent a war in which such submarines can surface at night off our coasts and fire guided missiles, probably with atomic warheads, into our coastal cities. We must be prepared to prevent a war in which guided missiles will be extensively used, and in which chemical and biological warfare will become a reality in a way hitherto undreamed of. We must be prepared to prevent a war in which rockets that can cross the Atlantic in less than fifteen minutes will be launched against our cities. We must be prepared to prevent a war in which our cities will be attacked with new and hellish weapons such as radioactive dust and many other things which are at present within the scope of scientific possibility, yet are unknown to the average man in the street.
I am perturbed by the fact that our efforts in this regard are not what I believe they should be in relation to our total defence effort. After all, it is not numbers of troops that guarantee superior strength. I notice that in the last two or three years the amount of money granted the defence research board is only something like four or five per cent of the total defence expenditure. Granted some research and development is being done in

the various branches of the service in addition; nevertheless I feel very strongly that this is one particular in which our effort is not sufficient. This is one department in which this young, virile and ingenuous country should press forward with the greatest energy in all lines of research and technical development, and also in the production of munitions and the technique of producing arms of all sorts. It is true that, owing to the secrecy of these operations, members of this house may not be well informed as to what actually is being done by the defence research board. I doubt, however, if this great secrecy is completely justified. After all, if we could keep our potential enemies as misinformed or as uninformed on our activities along that line as is the average man in the street or as are even the members of the opposition, it would possibly be justified; but it should be remembered that our potential enemies have methods that neither the average man in the street nor the members of the opposition would stoop to in order to gain information, even if they had the facilities for gaining it in that way.
I feel strongly, Mr. Speaker, that the key to our survival lies in our ability to be superior to our potential enemy in a technical and scientific way. Here is one place where we should not underestimate the Russian people. We should realize that they are skilful technicians, that they have almost limitless natural resources, and that they have working for them some of the greatest scientists of Germany and of eastern Europe. As far as Canadians are concerned, the present government is-for the present at least-the guardian, the trustee and the defender of our civilization. The survival of our civilization has never before been threatened as it is now. Those who wish to destroy us know nothing of the principle of "live and let live". They sincerely believe that, if they are to survive, they can do so only by exterminating us. They also believe the converse. They believe that if our civilization is to survive, it will do so only by exterminating them.
I shudder when I see people looking on this cold war as a sort of academic game of chess or something of that sort. It is nothing of that kind. It may be a cold war, but nevertheless it is a life and death struggle for the survival of our civilization. The sooner we realize that fact, the better are our chances of survival. Let the government squarely face up to the problems before them, and let them take the Canadian people into their confidence so that we shall know what our obligations are and what is expected of us, and so that we can unite our energy and our ingenuity in solving the problems
National Defence
which face us in order that world war III can be prevented. Let us make it known to the whole world that we are superior to any potential enemy, and that any attack against us is doomed to failure. Let the dark days never come, Mr. Speaker, when Canadians will say, from the forced labour camps of Siberia, that our effort in defence was too little, too late or in the wrong direction.


Mr. A. J. Brooks (Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I first want to congratulate the hon. member for Queens (Mr. MacLean), who has just taken his seat, on his excellent speech. It was an exceedingly instructive one. As a matter of fact I think we can truthfully say that this has been a good debate and a necessary one. We call what we are doing preparation for defence, not preparation for war. I think that we in Canada should feel proud that Canada has never prepared for aggressive war but that, in any wars in which we have been engaged, our preparation has always been for peace, for our own protection or for the protection of civilization.
A tremendous burden has been placed upon the people of Canada and on the civilized nations of the world. It is only by a great show of strength, I believe, that we can prevent war. I also believe that it is only by the unity of the democratic peoples of this world that war can be prevented. As I say, this preparation for defence has placed a tremendous burden on the Canadian taxpayers. It is also a tremendous burden on the taxpayers in all other countries who are joined in the same effort in which Canada is participating.
This afternoon our leader spoke about the $2,100 million that we have voted for defence. In analysing that figure, he pointed out that it represents $150 for each man, woman and child in this dominion. That gives us some idea of the extent of the burden which our people are bearing and which, I believe, they are prepared to bear as long as they know that the money that is being spent for defence is being spent in the proper way. I can compare this vote of $2,100 million with the vote of some ten or twelve years ago. I can remember that, in the late thirties, when $35 million was the amount which this parliament was asked to vote for defence, there was a long debate. As a matter of fact, from many quarters in this house there was opposition to voting even that small amount at that time for our defence, or our defence preparations. I think the potential danger then was almost as great as it is now; but the people of Canada and the members of parliament did not see it at that time. I think the situation is different today. I think that all members of parliament realize

National Defence
that there is a great danger facing civilization; and I think the people of Canada also realize this fact.
We usually think of defence as being simply military defence. But as we know, in this country and in other parts of the world, defence is not only military defence but includes civil defence. We also hear of psychological defence, and it is as important as any other. But the basis of all defence, as we are told and as we know, is our economic preparedness. These are the principles which are laid down by countries today which are preparing for the defence of civilization. I was pleased indeed to read not long ago an account of preparedness in Sweden. Sweden is a country that we hear very little of, in connection with the defence either of Europe or of freedom; but she is a country which has been quietly preparing her defences, and I think she is one which might well be taken as an example to smaller nations of just what a nation can do. Having regard to her size, I think today she is probably doing as much as or more than any other European country, with the exception of Great Britain.
This article that I read told how Sweden was preparing for defence. It gave an interview with General Helge Jung, I think his name was, and he told just what the army and other branches of the services were doing and how they were being prepared in Sweden. The article says this:
The army is developing into smaller units with additional mobility and increased fire efficiency. Our air force has laid chief stress upon the fighter aircraft. By imports it has partly been equipped with jet fighters of good quality. Aircraft sheds are to some extent built in the rocks and new ones are being built to protect the materials on the ground.
The navy is adopting small and speedy warships with great fire efficiency. It is supported in its operations by a coastal defence in rocky fortifications and by vast natural archipelagos. Even for the navy, sheds are being built in the rocks.
Then Helge Jung went on to say that every Swede capable of bearing arms has to be trained for national total resistance. Another thing he said, which is very important, and which we have been emphasizing here today, is that they are demanding the utmost economy in all their expenditures.
Sweden emphasized the newest scientific weapons. That is, they were not to have the old and obsolete weapons; they must have the very best. That was one of the first and last things emphasized in the defence of that country, and that is what the hon. member who has just taken his seat has emphasized. That is what the hon. members who have spoken for the opposition party here have emphasized. If there are obsolete weapons we must get rid of them, and they must be

replaced by the very finest and best weapons that can be procured. I was very interested to hear what the hon. member for Queens had to say. As a matter of fact, he stole some of my thunder. He spoke about radar in England during the battle of Britain. There is no question that there would have been a different story as far as the world, and as far as Great Britain and freedom are concerned, if it had not been for the great invention of radar. England did not wait until the war was on. Anyone who has read Chester Wilmot's "Struggle for Europe" realizes that they were preparing some years before. While the Germans had an air force which was two or three times greater than that of Great Britain, Great Britain, with the help of radar, was able to keep off that large armada and eventually discouraged them from making an attack on that country.
He spoke of the atom bomb and a long list of other modem scientific weapons which I will not weary the house by repeating; but I agree with what was said by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes), the hon. member for Queens and others, that use must be made of the very finest and most up-to-date equipment we can find. In that connection I should like to call the minister's attention to an article on the aircraft carrier Magnificent. We know that not only last year but the year before there was criticism in this country and criticism among naval men of this great aircraft carrier, as to whether she was a white elephant, whether its expense was too great, and so on. At that time it was felt that the aircraft carrier Magnificent was more or less obsolete. That was only two years ago. With the advance that has been made in the last two years with aircraft carriers, I wonder whether we are justified today in retaining that craft, which to all intents and purposes must be greatly out of date and obsolete. I am about to read from an article which was published in 1950 headed:	"Maggie is not obsolete but her
future debated." The Maggie I may say is the Magnificent, and not one of the Maggies that we heard about a while ago. The article says:
There have been published statements that the Maggie is "already antiquated, her elevator decks too weak to hoist modern carrier planes," that the arm itself has "never really been developed," that it showed signs of poor morale.
And so on. If this was true two years ago, it is much more true today. The people of Canada would be justified in asking whether this vessel is to be returned to England, whether it is to be remodelled or whether it can be remodelled.
In speaking about modern flat tops, may I say I just ran across an article in the Christian Science Monitor, of Tuesday, April 1, which gives a description of Britain's super

flat top. The heading is: "Britain's super flat top catapults jets into new sea role." The article reads:
It is a colourful business to catapult jet fighters off the Royal Navy's latest, largest, and fastest carrier-the first ever designed especially for that purpose. Or to receive them back with the arresting gear that brings them up short on $47,250,000 worth of floating airfield as though they were falcons landing on bird lime.
To compare that with the aircraft carrier, one has only to read this article to realize just how obsolete is the Magnificent. The article goes on to say:
If one were to come in and attack, those radar robots would train guns on it without human assistance and keep them trained on it while the barrels pumped out their steel. This is one of the most significant changes in combat since world war II-the increased ability of anti-aircraft guns to fasten upon a fast-moving target.
I may say it is fifteen months since England began experimenting with this type of aircraft. She now has two. I think hon. members would be interested to know just what the situation is regarding this aircraft carrier, which I believe takes about one-tenth of the cost of naval expenses and also has a thousand or more men employed. If she is obsolete, then we should get rid of her. That is one thing we would be interested to know.
I was very glad to learn that our army was to be equipped with the Centurion tank. I know there has been a controversy between the United States and Great Britain as to which is the better tank. I believe that in the tests they have made in Korea it is now proven that the Centurion is a much better tank; that it can climb over those rocky hills, whereas the United States tank has great difficulty in moving only a very short distance. I think we are to be congratulated on accepting the Centurion tank. For my part, I was very much concerned when a year ago it looked as though Canada was going to adopt United States equipment instead of British or Canadian equipment. I was aware that the commonwealth has always had superior equipment to what they have had in the United States. However, I do not say that we should not adopt the best that we an get anywhere, but to adopt United States equipment simply because it is United States equipment would be a great mistake.
I am trying to cut my remarks as short as I can. The other day the minister spoke about the defence of Canada, and at page 1086 of Hansard of April 3 he said:
The main possibility of attack would be by air, and therefore we have worked out with the United States an arrangement for air defence entailing radar stations with the necessary communications
\
\
National Defence
to enable the effective operation of fighter squadrons. These radar stations will be successfully brought into operation to replace the mobile stations we now have.
He also spoke about the training in the north. Well, it would be very difficult I think for a large army ever to invade Canada. There is no doubt that if an army did invade Canada it would be by parachute troops, and that Canada would have to be prepared with her air force to convey our own parachute troops from one part of Canada to another. We should also have aircraft which could carry tanks, and also a type of tank which could easily be transported by aircraft, and carried from one part of the country to the other.
No doubt we would be advised by radar of an attack, and the direction from which it was coming. We would have to be prepared not to use great numbers of troops, but be prepared to carry paratroops and tanks, and to rush into the position where the attack might be expected.
I was also disappointed when the minister did not give us some information regarding training areas in Canada. That matter was under considerable discussion a year ago, and even two years ago. We were disappointed when troops for Korea had to be trained in the United States. When one thinks of the great, broad areas in Canada, it does seem strange to us that we have to go to a foreign country to train our men. It would seem to me there must be areas in this country where we could train not only our own men but all the men needed in the allied forces.
I do not know whether the minister has yet selected a training area in Canada. I understand several were examined in the maritime provinces, two of which I believe were in my own province of New Brunswick. But it has always seemed to me that one of the best areas that could be found for combined training purposes would be that in the locality of what is known as- Utopia camp in New Brunswick. The minister has not told us just what is required for these training areas. I know however that there was a large camp at Utopia during the war. There is a military airfield in the immediate vicinity, and it is also near the bay of Fundy. Then, there are great back areas in which very few people live, and it would seem to me that the Utopia area could be developed into a very fine one for purposes of training.
I can hear my hon. friend from Annapolis^ Kings (Mr. Nowlan) clearing his throat. I know that he thinks there is a very fine area in Nova Scotia. I agree that there are some suitable places in that province; but I do not think they have any as good as the Utopia

National Defence
location in New Brunswick. In these days a large tract is required. Whether the one to which I have referred is large enough or not, I do not know. I hope when the minister speaks he will deal with this question.
I know there are other members who wish to speak, so I shall not take further time. I should have liked to hear the minister give us some information as to what defence we are to have for our different cities, seaports and the like. I have in mind ports such as Saint John, Halifax and Vancouver.
There is another matter connected with defence about which I have spoken in the house on several occasions. I refer to the necessity for the decentralization of industry in Canada. That is a serious problem so far as the defence of this country is concerned. I do not believe it is wise to have our large industries, including munition plants and the like, in large centres where they would be vulnerable to attack.
In closing I hope the minister will give us much more complete information than we have already received.


Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) so ably pointed out yesterday in the house, I believe that the most effective contribution we can make to the ground forces of NATO are armoured and tactical forces rather than the infantry brigade which is at present stationed in Germany. I believe that when the time comes to rotate our present force the infantry battalions should be replaced by armoured regiments. In this way we shall supply NATO with a force of far greater fire-power and mobility, without increasing by one single man the number of Canadians serving in Europe. In addition our troops will be far better protected in the event of enemy attack.
During the past few days we have heard a great deal about NATO, and the part our forces will play in that organization. I should like to speak tonight about the man around whom our whole effort revolves, and without whom we could have no military effort whatsoever. I refer of course to the private soldier. I believe it is about time we found out how this very important person has been making out since the start of the Korean war, because if he thinks he has been getting a square deal, then the volunteer system will continue to work satisfactorily. If on the other hand he does not, there is the possibility that it may break down.
At the outbreak of the Korean war, when this country found itself so shockingly unprepared, the government pleaded with the

young men of this country to go out and join the Korean brigade. They answered quickly and without reservation. Today many of those young men have completed their eighteen months tour of duty, are being released from the service, and are returning to civilian life. I have talked with a number of them, and I should like to pass along their experiences upon discharge.
When a man is released from the Korean force he receives one week's rehabilitation leave. That means that a private, first class, who is single and who has served in the Korean force for at least one year receives $28, made up of pay and allowances for one week. Before his discharge he makes out an application for war service gratuity, but he is given no indication as to when he may expect to receive that gratuity, or even if he will ever receive it. He is simply given his $28, and out he goes.
Now, at the end of world war II, every man or woman in the service was given a clothing allowance of $100 upon discharge, to enable him or her to buy civilian clothes needed to re-enter civilian life. This allowance was awarded irrespective of length of service or condition of discharge. In other words, every man or woman received this allowance, even though he or she might have been in the service for only a few days, or had had a dishonourable discharge.
Let us contrast that situation with the one today. A man leaving the Korean force is given one week's rehabilitation leave. He leaves the depot in battledress with $28 in his pocket. He has to find a job, re-equip himself in civilian clothes, and pay board and lodging-all on $28. He knows that many who received the allowance at the end of world war II never left Canada. He knows that some who received it had been in the service for only a few days, and that a few had received dishonourable discharges. He also knows that it will cost $150 today, as a minimum, to buy the same amount of clothing as was bought for $100 in 1945.
What makes the situation a great deal worse is that many of the men who joined the Korean force had to wear their own clothing during the first five or six weeks of their service, because boots and uniforms were not available. Anyone who has ever trained at military camp knows what six weeks' use will do to civilian clothing. These worn-out shoes and clothing are all that many men who have left the Korean force have when they return to civilian life.
/

Does the government expect the men leaving the Korea force to feel that they are getting a square deal? They are volunteers who have served in the front line in a foreign theatre of war. In world war II men who were in the service for only a few days and discharged as unsatisfactory received far better treatment than these men are getting. The Korea veteran feels that the treatment he is getting is an insult to the service he has given. He is right; it is an insult to men who immediately answered the call to duty in the summer of 1950 when this country found itself so tragically unprepared owing to the policies of this government.
The pleas that this government made to those men at that time bear little relationship to the treatment they are being given now. I believe that if the volunteer system is to be satisfactory this government must learn to treat men as well after they have completed their service as it did when it was pleading with them to undertake that service. I hope that the government will realize the mistake it has made in refusing to pay the men of the Korea force the allowance to which they are entitled and which they very much need. I hope that this government will act generously towards those who have served their country gallantly and well and will provide discharge benefits in keeping with the
services rendered.	that	these	fighting men	have


Edmund William George: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in this debate after having looked over the speeches that have been made already, and after listening to members of the opposition speak this afternoon, and this applies practically to all the opposition, it would seem that they forget that Canada has only 14 million people and the form of defence and the types of troops and formations that we should have bear no relation to our present population and our industrial outlook.
I want first to deal briefly with the reserve. The hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Hark-ness) deplored in his speech the fact that the minister had not mentioned the reserve. Far be it from me to assume the role of the minister in answering for the reserve, but I do believe that I am the only member in this house who is actively commanding a regiment of that type today. There are some who are members of the reserve, but I feel that I know the reserve army better than anyone in the House of Commons with the exception of the minister.
It is most annoying, not only to a member of parliament but to the members of the
National Defence
reserve army, to hear it said that some members of the reserve-I am sure the hon. member did not intend to leave this inference, but nevertheless it is there-join primarily for purposes of athletics or to have the benefits of a social club. That may be true in one or two cases, but by the same token you may say that in the past a member of parliament has forfeited his seat because he was a communist. The same parallel would exist.
I was in the NPAM previous to the war and I am in the reserve army today. I think the reserve is in the best shape it has ever been in. I do not think I need to dwell on this because many hon. members have covered it previously. I remember devoting one whole speech of mine to the reserve army, and I know that several other members have referred to this.
The junior member for Queens (Mr. MacLean) made the statement that he did not know of any battle that had been won by the blowing of horns since the battle of Jericho. That may be correct, but the fact is that unless we blow our own horns occasionally no one else will do it for us. I am going to indulge in that pastime right now. The regiment I command is an armoured regiment and is a member of the Royal Canadian Armoured Corps Association. That association has five trophies which can be won by an armoured corps unit. My regiment, the 8th Princess Louise's (NB) Hussars, has won four of the five trophies and was runner up for the fifth. I think that is horn blowing that is justifiable. I do not take credit for that myself because I just happen to be the custodian for the time being of a famous regiment. We have in our regiment a spirit that is unknown in many regiments. In fact, if I were going to criticize certain parts of the reserve army, I would not criticize the units but rather some of the officers. There are no poor units, there are only poor officers.
I think the Department of National Defence could well assess some of these units that are existing on paper only. There are a few of them with a membership in the officers' and sergeants' messes only. I think serious consideration should be given to placing these units on the dormant list until such time as they can be more active. I know that some of my friends in the reserve will criticize me for saying this, but I really believe that that is a fact.
I am going to direct most of my remarks this evening to the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes). Half-colonels often disagree with major generals, but not very successfully. It can be done more successfully in peacetime than in war. The hon. member

National Defence
for Nanaimo made several statements during his speech on April 3 which is reported on pages 1091, 1092 and 1093 of Hansard. He stated that he had seen with his own eyes a vast reservoir of manpower in the countries of Europe from which the infantry components of NATO could have been drawn. He said that the manpower was there but that it lacked adequate equipment. He laid stress on the importance of our contribution to NATO being that of a mobile and thoroughly modern organization.
In addition to what he said in the house yesterday the hon. member for Nanaimo made other statements on his return from Europe last year about the 27th infantry brigade in Germany. The first of these statements was made in Paris and was reported by Canadian Press dispatches which appeared in Canadian newspapers on December 24, 1951. He then made a political broadcast on "The Nation's Business" series over the trans-Canada network on January 15. I do not know whether the Canadian Press report is correct, but in any event it does not appear to have been publicly denied or contradicted.
These statements indicate such an amazing position for the military spokesman for the Tory party to take that I think they should be placed on Hansard. In doing so and in criticizing the hon. member for Nanaimo I want to say that I have the utmost respect for him personally and as a soldier. But 1 simply cannot understand the statements he has been making.
Here is a Canadian Press statement which appeared in the London Free Press on December 24, 1951. Mr. Pearkes says:
But I do not believe that the money which is being spent by Canadian taxpayers is getting anything like the return in defence assistance to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization that the Canadian people have a right to expect.
I feel that the Canadian government had not fully informed itself or the Canadian people as to actual conditions in Europe before sending the 27th brigade and committing Canada to a long-term policy which to my mind is unwarranted and extremely expensive.
Here we have the spokesman on military matters for the Conservative party advocating Canada should not make her contribution of ground forces to the integrated forces.
Let us look further into this proposal that Canada should leave the fighting on the ground to the men of other nations. To my mind that is like the old rhyme:
Mother, may I go out to swim?
Yes, my darling daughter:
Hang your clothes on a hickory limb And don't go near the water.
In two wars Canada sent substantial ground forces to Europe to assist in restoring peace. This time the North Atlantic treaty nations

are trying to build up forces including, and particularly including, ground forces to preserve peace. Shall Canada not be represented in this effort? Would the member for Nanaimo say that we should discharge the 10,000 men raised for the 27th brigade or should we keep them in Canada? There is no point of our having in Canada larger forces than those needed for the immediate defence of Canada as well as for administration and training and the supplying of a nucleus for the build-up of our own potential.
The statement by the member for Nanaimo did not meet with approval in Canada, nor presumably in the ranks of his own party. Any editorial comment that there was was unfavourable. The Victoria Colonist of December 25, 1951, says this:
It would be easier, of course, to sit back and send only equipment, arms and technicians. For a nation so prosperous as this one, that would scarcely dent the national composure.


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Will the hon. member speak more loudly?


Edmund William George: Yes.
It is always a comparatively single gesture to extend help in the form of a donation rather than to participate in the endeavour itself.
The London Free Press of December 26, 1951, says this:
In the United States there are a great many people who feel, like General Pearkes, that all that is necessary is to send American arms and equipment to Europe, and that the dispatch of American troops is wasteful. From a military standpoint, this may be true, but from a psychological standpoint, it is dangerous. The Germans exploited this feeling in the last war when they sneered that the British were willing to fight to the last Frenchman.
Only by sharing the actual perils of front line resistance with the Europeans can the people of this continent hope to rally the western Europeans to anything like a successful defence effort.
I have several other quotations, Mr. Speaker, but I shall only read one more. It was published on January 9 by the Toronto Globe and Mail, a very famous paper which supports certain parties in this house. It says:
Canada can claim no exemption from the front line service in the cause of western alliance. General Pearkes does not speak for the Canadian public. He does not speak for his party, and speaking for himself he has gone badly astray.
That, I repeat, is from the Toronto Globe and Mail of January 9, 1952.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to interrupt the hon. member, but I wonder if he is aware that when the member for Nanaimo did amplify his statement, subsequently the Globe and Mail wrote a very different editorial.


Edmund William George: That may be, Mr. Speaker, but unfortunately I have not got it with me. I can assure the leader of the opposition the

omission was not intentional. In the face of all this, it is not surprising that the member for Nanaimo would change his tune. In a speech over the radio he said this:
It is the form of help that I consider so wrong. In spite of the fact that in Europe there are hundreds of thousands of young men available for the infantry regiments of their own armies, the government of Canada failing to take advantage of this country's industrial ability and its unique facilities for the training of armoured formations and air units, have sent the very type of soldier most plentiful in Europe, placing reliance upon numbers rather than hitting power. Surely the reverse should have been our policy. It is not a few extra riflemen that are required, and after all a brigade is soon swallowed up by the larger formations, but highly mobile hard-hitting units able to develop the greatest possible volume of Are with the minimum number of men, and to repeat the number over and over again.
Then, further, he says:
The cost of maintaining one Canadian soldier in Europe is, therefore, out of all proportion to that of maintaining a European soldier in his own country. Such disparagement can only be justified provided the Canadian soldier possesses much greater power than his European counterpart, for after all, one man carrying a rifle is worth exactly one man, one rifle. The British have recognized this fact and their army in Germany is organized on the basis of three armoured formations to every one of infantry. Yet Canada sends an infantry brigade with only a small armoured component all this distance at great expense to the taxpayers.
It is not possible for me here to give in detail the composition of an infantry brigade group or of an armoured brigade. Everyone knows that an infantry brigade group has armour in connection with it sufficient to enable it to fight as a self-contained formation. It is the minimum formation that can fight as a unit. The 27th brigade is established on this basis in Germany. It does not constitute a part of a division or corps. It lives and trains as a unit. An infantry brigade group is the only formation of which I know that can do that. I think you will all agree it is desirable, other things being equal, that it should do that. To do this job it has precisely the armour considered necessary by the British and Canadian staffs. It has the same quantity of armour as Canadians have used so successfully in Korea. There the army is equipped with Sherman Mark IV tanks which have been found useful. Incidentally, we have a number of these tanks in Canada, but subsequent models in the United States are not sufficiently advanced in development and production to justify proceeding to acquire them. Accordingly, we have arranged with the United Kingdom to buy a similar number of Centurion tanks. Our brigade in Germany is to be equipped with them, and they are very good tanks.
An armoured brigade is not a self-contained unit. It does not fight as such. If armour is to be used in a predominant role, you would
National Defence
never use anything less than one division of armour. Then, it would be advantageous to have a second armoured division in reserve. An armoured brigade always fights in association with other units. It has no infantry, no artillery or supporting and administrative formations. I repeat that the infantry brigade group is the only formation short of a division which is self-contained.
An armoured brigade would have faced us with one of two choices. On the one hand we would have had to build up a self-contained brigade by adding other formations, and in this way we would have had a pretty fair sized division, resulting not in the saving of manpower as suggested by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) but in a greater expenditure of manpower. The other alternative would have been to fit the armoured brigade into a British corps. The brigade then would have lost its identity. I can assure you that is one thing Canadian soldiers do not want. I, as a serviceman, strongly support the servicemen of Canada in that view. There are a great many other reasons of a military nature why it is desirable to have an infantry brigade group. One is that it is very easy to build it up to form a division. Already we have in existence and fully trained virtually all the component units to do this at any time. Other military reasons I am afraid I cannot go into. Yesterday the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) gave an excellent speech on armour, quoting such famous generals as Martel, Fuller, Hart, and others whom we all know and have studied. However his treatise on armour did not deal with an armoured brigade group but with at least one division, or an armoured corps.
There are two things I would like to discuss further. In the first place, when we joined the North Atlantic treaty nations we retained, as did all other nations, the final say as to what each should do. We have not relinquished any of the authority of this government over the forces of Canada. We agreed to work with the other nations, and this we have done and shall continue to do. As I understand it, the suggestion made to us in the first instance by the standing group and later by other agencies of NATO was not that we should contribute an armoured brigade but that we should contribute what we have contributed, namely an infantry brigade group. I know of no country ever having contributed to any force an armoured brigade alone. I suggest this is a military monstrosity.
Finally, unless we send to Europe the Mark IV tanks we have in Canada, I do not think enough tanks would be available to arm an armoured brigade. They do not exist. We are

National Defence
obtaining all the tanks the United Kingdom can let us have, as fast as they can build them. If it is suggested that we should construct tanks in Canada, then I say this would be an industrial monstrosity. There is no doubt about our capacity to construct anything in this country. That does not mean, however, we should try to build everything. It is only sensible for us to make for ourselves and others the things we need for ourselves. To start a production line to meet the Canadian need for tanks I repeat would be an industrial monstrosity. The British, Americans and French are all making their own tanks. If we made tanks in addition to the numbers they turn out we could only dispose of them by giving them away. We think it more desirable, and so I believe do all the nations associated with us, that we make and give away the things we have decided to make and give away: electronic equipment, wireless sets, medium and light guns and ammunition of various calibres.
One can see how the mind of the hon. member for Nanaimo must have been working. What is the military critic of the Conservative opposition to do if he cannot find anything to criticize? He must lose his job. It is interesting to note, however, that this suggestion was not made in time for us to do anything about it, had we thought it desirable to do so. The intention to raise the brigade was announced on May 4, 1951. Subsequently the estimates of the Department of National Defence were under discussion in this chamber for nine days, during quite a few of which the hon. member for Nanaimo was in his seat. He did not say anything about this, though that was the time to speak. He is a military expert, and we in this house are entitled to the advantage of his advice. During that session no member of the Conservative opposition made the suggestion that we should have an armoured brigade, or that we should strengthen our armour. The next session of parliament opened on October 9, 1951. At that session the debate on the address gave the hon. member for Nanaimo or any other Conservative member the opportunity to bring up this point. Only one did so, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, on October 23, 1951, and that was after the brigade had started to move.
The memory of the opposition is short. On the opening day of that session the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) asked for a debate on external affairs and defence matters. Any of these questions could have been brought up during the speech from the throne. However, the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), who is more accommodating to the opposition than any prime minister I have ever heard of, offered to bring on such a debate at once. This did not suit the leader of the opposition, who suggested that it be postponed as the hon. member for Nanaimo would not be available until Monday, October 22. After consultation with the opposition parties the Prime Minister announced that the debate would take place then. Even before that, however, in a statement on October 18, 1951, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) had announced the pending departure of the 27th brigade. At the conclusion of that statement he told the house the Prime Minister would be putting a motion on the order paper calling for approval of the action of the government in connection with the United Nations and the North Atlantic treaty. The Prime Minister gave notice of that motion next morning and it read:
That this house approves the continuation of Canada's participation in the efforts being made through the United Nations to establish international peace, and in particular to defeat aggression and restore peace in Korea, and by the North Atlantic treaty nations to deter aggression and promote stability and well-being in the north Atlantic area.
The motion was introduced on Monday, October 22, with the Prime Minister making a short speech. He was followed by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) and spokesmen for each of the parties on external affairs. The Minister of National Defence then made a statement on defence, and was followed by the hon. member for Nanaimo.
On motion of Mr. George the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Monday is private members' day.


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