1952-04-03

STATEMENT OF MR. COLDWELL AS TO MEMBERS' OPINIONS AND PARTY DISCIPLINE

Mr. Jean Francois Pouliot (Temiscouaia):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I was rather surprised to read in yesterday's Ottawa J ournal that the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) had expressed some comments about members of parliament in a speech that he delivered yesterday. The article is entitled "Coldwell's opinion: feels M.P.'s and Senators put party discipline before consciences." I was greatly surprised to read that, because I would not have said it about the hon. member or any other member in this house. I cannot conceive of any member, living and working with us, speaking in that way about all of us. As one who believes that Liberalism is synonymous with independence-
An horn Member: The word perhaps, but not the practice.


Jean-François Pouliot: I shall ask the hon. member to keep quiet, because I am coming to his defence, although he does not realize it.
Perhaps the report is inaccurate. I should be very glad if it were, and I should not be at all surprised. My dealings with the hon. member have always been extremely pleasant. If the situation is as the headline indicates: "Coldwell's opinion: feels M.P.'s and Senators put party discipline before consciences," and if he is accurately reported, I am surprised. I never noticed it, because I give every one of my colleagues the benefit of the doubt. Even when they differ, I am sure that they are sincere. For my part, I have never sold my birthright for a mess of pottage, and I do not know anyone among my colleagues who has done so.
In the first paragraph it is stated that the hon. member was speaking of "leading Conservatives and Liberals in both the Commons and the Senate." I am not a leading Liberal; and if I were, taking what was said literally, it would not apply to me. As a member of the House of Commons who was here when the hon. gentleman was presented to Mr. Speaker, and for a long time before that, may I say that I cannot stand for that kind of language being used with
regard to the membership of the House of Commons. I differ with my colleagues. Sometimes the argument is heated. While they may not agree with my views, I admit that they are sincere just the same.
In these times, when we hear so much about human rights and fundamental freedoms, I am surprised that I should be the one to rise on a question of privilege on a matter like this. Having spoken of "leading Conservatives and Liberals in both the Commons and the Senate", the hon. gentleman is reported as follows:
Men who hold the views we do, fail to express them.
Let him look at the index of Hansard and he will see that I have expressed my view quite a number of times in the House of Commons, and have done so quite independently. I will also tell him that in the Liberal party we have more freedom than has anyone in his own group. The hon. member says this, according to the Ottawa Journal:
" "While party discipline is essential," he said, "there are times when men who believe their party is wrong should exercise the right to satisfy their own conscience."
I do not intend to read any more of the article. I am extremely sorry that this has been said. I am sure that the hon. gentleman, who is a gentleman, is himself sorry to have spoken in this way. I am sure he realizes that, and I hope he will not slander his colleagues any more when talking outside of the House of Commons. I will also tell him that this is most dangerous language to use; because in these times especially no member of the House of Commons should say anything like that with regard to his colleagues.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to say that the article carried in the newspaper is substantially correct in this particular, namely, that I was discussing the problem of party discipline and of party loyalty. As the press says, I stated that there were times in the House of Commons when hon. gentlemen felt bound by party discipline or by party loyalty either to remain silent or to vote not always according to dictates of their consciences.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Major James William Coldwell: I said that.

House of Commons


An hon. Member:: Speak for yourself.


An hon. Member:: What about your party?


Major James William Coldwell: I said that, Mr. Speaker. I want to say that I know on occasion that has happened. I want to say further that on March 12, when I was speaking in this house, I said to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) that there were gentlemen who were sitting behind him that evening who agreed with what I had said on a previous occasion.


An hon. Member:: Name them.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Major James William Coldwell: I say to hon. members of this house-and many of them know this- that there are hon. gentlemen sitting in this house who felt, because of party loyalty, or, as was said perhaps by another hon. gentleman, because he did not wish to divide the house, that what we said about economic aid to the United Nations was substantially the view a number of hon. members held in this house. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, while I feel that the hon. gentleman was quite right in raising this matter on a question of privilege, none the less I believe what I said to have been a fact, and I want to say so in the presence of my colleagues in the house, for whom on the whole I have the most profound respect.


Mr. Speaker:: This matter was mentioned in the house the other day by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker). At that time I stated that I thought there might be some exception taken to the remarks. May I remind hon. members of a citation in Beauchesne's third edition. It is paragraph 260, which reads as follows:
Bourinot gives the following example of unparliamentary phrases:
. . . that the house has a right to know whether a member meant what he said or knew what he meant.
Then again:
. . . that he-
That is, the member.
__(joes not believe a statement he himself has
made.
And here are words which are probably more pertinent:
Nor may he refer derisively to another member: . . . that he is a servile follower of the government.


Major James William Coldwell: I did not go that far.


Mr. Speaker:: Certainly not. I merely
bring these citations to the attention of the house for the guidance of members in the future.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I beg to table the following reports in English and in French:
Annual report of the Canadian National Railways for the year ended December 31, 1951.
Annual report of the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships Limited for the year ended December 31, 1951.
Annual report of the Canadian National Railways securities trust for the year ended December 31, 1951.
The auditors' report to parliament for the year ended December 31, 1951, in respect to the Canadian National Railways system and the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships Limited.



DECENNIAL CENSUS


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I desire to table copies, in English and in French, of a publication of the bureau of statistics entitled "Ninth Census of Canada, 1951-Population" by electoral districts and census subdivisions.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Middlesex East (Mr. White) concerning a complaint of unfair trade practices on construction work at Centralia and Clinton air schools, I can tell him -that one of our industrial relations officers has been asked to make an investigation of the complaint and to report.



REDISTRIBUTION COMMISSION


Hon. C. G. Power (Quebec South) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 144, respecting the constitution and duties of the redistribution commission.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 95, for the relief of Arline Silverman Cohen.-Mr. Croll.

Bill No. 96, for the relief of Doris Jane Aitchison Birchenough.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 97, for the relief of Margaret Lois Long Fordham.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 98, for the relief of Eileen Roberta Lynn Walker.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 99, for the relief of Claire Greenberg Ghilcig.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 100, for the relief of Rose Godfrey Slutsky.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 101, for the relief of Eva Lubin Greenfield.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 102, for the relief of Gladys Cecelia Fisher Waugh.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 103, for the relief of Sheila Ruth Coppelman Mitmaker, otherwise known as Sheila Ruth Coppelman Mintz.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 104, for the relief of Ada Vera Higgins Montgomery.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 105, for the relief of Priscilla Theresa Marie Laurin Minyaska.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 106, for the relief of Marie Dora Adrienne Menard Chartrand.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 107, for the relief of Bridget Chias-son Musseau.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 108, for the relief of Emilia Bigelis Kozakiewicz.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 109, for the relief of Dora Katz Schniederman.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 110, for the relief of Joseph Lionel Bibeau.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. Ill, for the relief of Helene Philo-mena Schenker Champ-Renaud.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 112, for the relief of Mary Finkel-stein Fogel.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 113, for the relief of Gregorij Sergeij Anker-Jakerov.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 114, for the relief of Florence Margaret Parsonage Velleman.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 115, for the relief of Georgine Jun Ruzicka.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 116, for the relief of Jean (Janek) Mazur.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 117, for the relief of Giuseppa Manuri Bartucci.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 118, for the relief of Joseph Edgar Eaton.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 119, for the relief of Sylvia Grace Martin Corbett.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 120, for the relief of Sarah Sybil Aaron Daugaard.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 121, for the relief of Kenneth Ashby Lambe.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 122, for the relief of Lillian Ethlyn Crouse McManus.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 123, for the relief of Marie Leopoldine Gabrielle Asselin Adler.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 124, for the relief of Joseph Jacques Ernest Demers.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 125, for the relief of Madeleine Therrien Ferron.-Mr. Winkler.
Private Bills-Divorce
Bill No. 126, for the relief of Catherine Victoria Howie Burnett Worthington.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 127, for the relief of Hazel Rawlings Passnick.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 128, for the relief of Douglas Paul Wilbur.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 129, for the relief of Arnold Ernest Kirby.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 130, for the relief of Annie Shaw Young Goudie Corcoran.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 131, for the relief of Frederick Charles Butler.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 132, for the relief of Sam Feld-stein.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 133, for the relief of Thomas Richard Markey.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 134, for the relief of Vera Jane Carroll Ross.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 135, for the relief of Ruth van der Walde Crowley.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 136, for the relief of Mabel (Kar-ianoron) Stacey Delorimier.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 137, for the relief of Ruth Friefeld Ragoza.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 138, for the relief of Mary Duncan Barlow.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 139, for the relief of Cyril Frederick Hembling.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 140, for the relief of Denise Gelinas Gilmour.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 141, for the relief of Gordon Eugene White.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 142, for the relief of Silas Maxwell Barrow.-Mr. Winkler.


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: When are the wireless telephones to be Installed at Colinet island and other places in Newfoundland?


Mr. Benidickson:: The Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
Delivery of telephone sets and associated equipment for Colinet island and other points in Newfoundland has been promised for the end of April. As soon as the equipment is received installation will be commenced under a plan to progressively complete the program during the coming summer.


ST. LAWRENCE WATERWAY
Mr. Fraser:: 1.	Has the dominion government or any agency thereof instructed any firm or individual to prepare plans, take soundings or do any engineering or surveying work on the St. Lawrence river in connection with the proposed St. Lawrence seaway and power plan?

Questions
2.	If so, what are the names of party or parties engaged to do this work?


Mr. Benidickson:: 1.	No.
2.	See answer to No. 1.


CANADIAN. NATIONAL RAILWAYS   DIESEL ENGINES
Mr. Dube;: 1.	Has the Canadian National Railways any diesel engines operating at the present time in yard service in the province of New Brunswick?
2.	If so, at what points?
3.	Have arrangements been made by the Canadian National Railways to operate diesel oilburning locomotives in yard service at Edmundston and Campbellton, New Brunswick?


William Moore Benidickson: The Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1.	Yes.
2.	Two at Campbellton; three at Moncton; two at Saint John; one planned for Newcastle in April, 1952.
3.	One planned for Edmundston in April, 1952.


EXPORTS VIA CHURCHILL
Mr. Wright:: 1.	What was the saving to the wheat board on freight on grain exported through Churchill in the crop year 1950-51?
2.	What premiums were received on wheat exported via Churchill over the Port Arthur, Fort William price, in the crop year 1950-51, under (a) world wheat agreement; (b) class II wheat?
3.	What was the rate and the amount of diversion charges paid on wheat at Churchill in the crop year 1950-51?


Mr. Howe:: 1.	$132,217.22. This is saving in inland freight to Churchill as compared with corresponding rates to the lakehead.
2.	Average international wheat agreement sales, 4-96 cents per bushel; average class II sales, 3-05 cents per bushel.
3.	Rate, 1J cents per bushel. Total diversion charges, paid $139,560.91.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Bryce:: 1.	How many interested buyers were requested by the Indian affairs branch to tender for the wild rice crop harvested on Lone Island lake and Crowduck lake, in 1951?
2.	What are the names of those who submitted tenders, and the amount of their respective tenders?


Mr. Harris (Grey-Bruce):: 1.	Nine.
2.	Canadian Fish Producers, Limited, Winnipeg, Manitoba, 40 cents per lb. basic with 10 per cent bonus and 5 per cent royalty to provincial government.

Charles Lagsden, 42 cents per lb.
J. R. Copeland, Red River Grain Co., St. Boniface, Manitoba, 37 cents per lb. and 5 per cent royalty to provincial government.
Julius Kowbel, 85 Linden Avenue, East Kildonan, Manitoba, 35 cents per lb.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
INCOME TAX
Mr. Fair:: 1.	During each of the years 1946, 1947, 1948, 1949 and 1950, what was the income tax per capita for each province?
2.	During the same period what amount of income tax per capita was paid by (a) farmers; (b) industrial workers; (c) professional persons; (d) clergy, in each province?
3.	During the same period, what was the average tax paid by lawyers, medical doctors, dentists and opticians, in each province?


Mr. Bradley:: Return tabled.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
Right	Hon.	L.	S.	Si.	Laurent	(Prime
Minister) moved:
That the provision of standing order relative to Mr. Speaker leaving the chair without question put be suspended for the sittings of the house on Thursday, April 3, 1952, and Friday, April 4, 1952.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Right	Hon.	L.	S.	St.	Laurent	(Prime
Minister) moved:
That a select committee be appointed to examine all expenditure of public moneys for national defence and all commitments for expenditure for national defence since March 31, 1950, and 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, with power to send for persons, papers and records and to examine witnesses: and that notwithstanding standing order 65, the committee shall consist of twenty-six members to be designated by the house at a later date.
Mr, George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to express the hope that this motion will receive unanimous support, and also to make a suggestion, which, it seems to me, I can make only at this point. The motion now before us, in the name of the Prime Minister, calls for the setting up of a select committee to examine all expenditure of public moneys for national defence and all commitments for expenditures for national defence. With the adoption of this motion I believe it will be highly desirable that, at the termination of

the debate which will be started this afternoon on national defence, there be a similar motion before the house to that which was adopted yesterday in respect of the estimates of the Department of External Affairs.
I would point out that the Department of National Defence can be under no greater measure of secrecy than the Department of External Affairs. All the estimates of the Department of External Affairs have now been referred to the committee on external affairs, and I suggest that the proper and satisfactory course would be similarly to refer the estimates of the Department of National Defence to this committee so that they also may be examined in the way in which the estimates of the Department of External Affairs are examined.
In presenting this suggestion for consideration, may I point out the experience has been that the estimates of the Department of External Affairs come back here and are dealt with very quickly after they have been reviewed by the committee.


Mr. St. Laurent:: I am sorry that I cannot accept at once the suggestion of the hon. member. It may be that we shall find it convenient to proceed in that way, but we have not yet been able to come to that conclusion. I would hope that this motion can be adopted. 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.


Mr. Drew:: Mr. Speaker, I simply wish to make it clear that I was not asking for any commitment, nor was I suggesting that my support of this motion is in any way conditional upon any arrangement. I was making the suggestion, and I still hope it will be given consideration so that conceivably before the termination of this debate some different view might prevail.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. W. G. Weir (Porfage-Neepawa):: By
leave of the house may I move:
That the following members comprise the special committee on defence expenditure as provided for in the resolution passed this day, namely: Messrs: Adamson, Applewhaite, Benidickson, Bennett, Blanchette, Campney, Cavers, Churchill, Croll, Dickey, Fulton, Gauthier (Portneuf), George, Hark-ness, Henderson, James, Jones, Larson, Lesage, Macdonneli (Greenwood), Pearkes, Power, Stewart (Winnipeg North), Stick, Thomas, Weaver.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Committee on Defence Expenditure INCOME TAX

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance, of which I sent him notice. Would the minister care to comment on the statement of Premier Frost in the Ontario legislature yesterday that he is hopeful that the federal government will agree to pay the province five per cent of the income tax collected in Ontario?


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance):: I saw the report, Mr. Speaker. I think the premier of Ontario is an optimist. As my hon. friend is aware, the Income Tax Act provides that any resident of a non-agreeing province who has to pay income tax imposed and collected by that province will be allowed to deduct the amount of such tax up to five per cent of the federal government tax for purposes of his federal tax. That offer has been outstanding since 1946, when Mr. Ilsley made his budget speech. The offer is open to Ontario and Quebec or to any other province that does not enter into an agreement with the federal government.



LIVESTOCK


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: Can the
Minister of Agriculture make a statement as to what has been achieved by the agricultural conference?


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: The conference met yesterday at two o'clock and continued until about twelve-thirty today, when they completed their discussions. The discussions were very satisfactory, but four of the ministers thought they would have to refer the matter back to their governments before making a final decision.


Hazen Robert Argue: May I ask a further question? Would the minister tell the house whether any offer was made to the provinces to encourage them to lift their embargoes? If so, what was the offer?


James Garfield Gardiner: The discussions were not proceeded with in that atmosphere. We discussed the question, and we were all pretty well satisfied when we got through with the discussions.

Inquiries of the Ministry FREIGHT RATES



SHIPMENTS OF WESTERN GRAIN TO NEWFOUNDLAND

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Joseph Browne: Can
the Minister of Agriculture say whether there is any intention on the part of the government to change the present policy of granting freight rates assistance on western grain to Newfoundland?


James Garfield Gardiner: The present policy requires that we pay the freight until July 31. The question has not been discussed as to what we will do beyond that date.



ANNUITIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Labour respecting the order in council he tabled yesterday. Would the minister say whether the new 3i 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 three per cent?


Milton Fowler Gregg: May I take the question as notice? I should like to give the hon. member an exact answer.



POSTAL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):: I should like to ask a question of the Postmaster General. In view of the present difficult food situation in Great Britain, will he give consideration to decreasing the postal rates on parcels, so that Canadians may be able to increase parcel shipments to their friends or relatives in the old country?


Hon. Alcide Cote (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his question. I have made inquiries in the department, and I am told that the concessionary rates which were established on gift parcels to Great Britain were made possible by the reduced terminal charges granted by the British postal administration. In addition, the steamship companies also granted reduced sea conveyance charges to help establish the concessionary rates.
(Mr. Gardiner.]
The discontinuance of the concessionary postage rates was not at the request of the Canadian postal administration but was the direct result of higher terminal charges which the British postal administration imposed, and which it stated were absolutely necessary. In addition, the British postal administration cancelled the reduced charges on gift parcels which had hitherto applied.
In the first instance they asked that these higher rates be made effective in October, 1951, and we were able to persuade them not to introduce the increased rates until after the Christmas season.
Certain Canadian patrons have written direct to the British post office and have been informed in effect that with the rising costs of handling, the concessionary postage rates were really subsidized ones. Apparently the United Kingdom authorities took the position that they were not warranted in subsidizing private food parcels to a favoured few, at the expense of the general taxpayer.


Jean-François Pouliot: More gifts to England and less taxation.



COMMONWEALTH CONFERENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Finance. Is there to be a conference of commonwealth finance officials in London shortly to re-examine the position of the sterling area? If so, is Canada to be represented, and by whom?


Douglas Charles Abbott: My hon. friend was good enough to give notice of his question, and to send me the press clipping, which I had not seen, relating to such a conference. I think it must refer to the two working parties set up after the commonwealth finance ministers' conference in January, one of which was to look into the question of the convertibility of sterling and the other to look into the question of the development of natural resources in the sterling area.
Canada is represented on both committees by the finance attache at Canada House. They were to meet late in April again, I believe, and my information is that it was suggested that during that meeting there might be another review of the sterling area position. I think the press report to which my hon. friend refers must relate to these committees.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: I should like to answer a question asked the other day by the hon. member for Queens (Mr. McLure) concerning the operation by the Canadian National Railways in Prince Edward Island of both bus and railway services.
The Canadian National Railways officers advise me now that they have been endeavouring for some time to secure the approval of the government of Prince Edward Island to a plan of co-ordination of services which would permit the railway to substitute bus operation for passenger train operation on all sections of the island except between Charlottetown and Borden, where train operation would be continued. In the opinion of the Canadian National Railways this would provide the people on the island with a better service and at the same time permit the railway to effect certain economies.



RADIO BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. T. Hellyer (Davenport):: In the light of a newspaper report, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether there is to be any change in the method followed last year of selling radio receiving licences.


Lionel Chevrier: So far as I know, there are no changes in the method of operation from that of last year.



WAR REPARATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Alexander Drew: I should like to ask a question of the Prime Minister, of which I have not given notice. If he cannot answer today, I suggest that he take my question as notice. This is a matter which has been brought to my attention.
Has a definite decision been reached which may give some assurance of interim payments to those with claims connected with German and Japanese occupation of territory, where Canadian non-combatants were affected? While the Japanese and German peace treaties may not have been fully concluded, in the case of Japanese nationals there was an announcement a few days ago that certain settlements had been made with reference to the Japanese themselves. For that reason we
National Defence
might hope that there would be a decision, possibly before the Easter recess, in regard to those who have claims against these funds.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I shall take the question as notice, and try to get a statement as to the exact position.



NATIONAL DEFENCE

Hon. Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence) moved: that the house go into committee of supply.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the realization must be borne in on all of us that in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization we have a new concept of international co-operation and of international organization. The peoples of all fourteen nations, and, I hope, their children, have a new framework for their freedom and, indeed, for their lives. Though history, tradition and sentiment make many differences, this organization of NATO has in some respects a parallel significance to the commonwealth, to our relationship with the United States and to our feeling for France. NATO is not just an organization that meets at Ottawa or Rome or Lisbon and issues a press release. In time it may come about, perhaps the sooner the better, that NATO is not even news. NATO is neighbourhood; NATO must become as familiar as the family.
The beginning of a realization of this concept is indicated in some of the references made in the four-and-a-half day debate in this house on external affairs. 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.
Also it should cease to be sensational for there either to be a report of agreement or disagreement at the meetings of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
Our arrangements for our joint defence must be regarded simply as an extension of our arrangements for our own territorial defence. These concepts are new in the history of the world. You may recall that it was only three years ago tomorrow, on April 4, 1949, that the North Atlantic treaty

National Defence
was signed at Washington. It was only one year ago yesterday that General Eisenhower took office as supreme commander. It was two years ago today that at The Hague we first agreed to military plans and an estimate of the requirements and directed the standing group to state how these should be met.
How did this come about? This partnership of free nations working to stop aggression in Korea and working to prevent aggression in Europe came about because of the policy of communist aggression, of the practice of communist aggression and of the power of communist aggression. The "Struggle for Europe" by Chester Wilmot has been described as the most important book yet written about the war. In his concluding paragraphs Mr. Wilmot sums up the causes, the results, the agonies and the lessons of those five years, and he went on to say:
The course of the wartime negotiations with the Soviet union-whether conducted by the United States and Britain or by Germany-shows plainly that the present Russian rulers, while relentless in pursuit of what they believe to be Soviet interests, are respecters of strength. Concessions made as gestures of good will were invariably interpreted by Stalin and Molotov as evidence of weakness and served only to encourage them to drive a harder bargain-witness the development of Stalin's demands during the discussions about his entry into the war against Japan, and his handling of the Polish problem. Over the last decade and more the only policy that has proved effective in dealings with the Kremlin has been the firmness in diplomacy backed by military strength: a combination of patience and power. This, it seems, must be the policy of the countries now associated in the North Atlantic alliance.
That is why nations are co-operating in the Far East and under the North Atlantic treaty. That is why they have been working together to do what is necessary to meet the danger. This means that each one of us is not always doing what is easiest or what is cheapest, but rather the things which fit into a larger pattern which have not been imposed upon us but which we helped to fashion and work for.
The objectives of Canada's defence were stated last year as, first, the immediate defence of Canada and North America from direct attack; second, the implementation of any undertakings made by Canada under the charter of the United Nations, under the North Atlantic treaty or under any other agreement for collective security and, third, the organization to build up our strength in total war. Similar objectives were stated first in this house in 1947 and they have remained the same ever since.
That does not mean that the means taken to achieve the objectives have remained the same. While generally we have followed the same policy and the same program, the yardstick of change and size and speed can be seen by comparing the amount expended in
IMr. Claxton.l
1947-48 of $196 million with the estimate for 1952-53 of $2,001 million. Increases, some greater and some smaller, have been made in all the countries working on our side. They reflect the assessment of the danger and the people's willingness to meet the challenge of the threat of danger to which weakness exposes us.
While we regard the defence of our country as the overriding object, when we have men in battle facing a foe abroad, we put above everything else the necessity of supporting in every way those men who are risking and giving their lives in order that peace may be restored and freedom preserved. Consequently, I take up first the position of our forces in Korea. They are there supporting the action of the United Nations. There is no need to review the course of events which began with the unprovoked act of aggression by communist North Korea on June 25, 1950. Numerous reports on that have been given in this house.
Twenty months have gone by since communist North Korea made a ruthless and unprovoked attack on South Korea. That brought into action sixteen of the united nations, who contributed forces. Among the first was Canada. In the truest sense of the word the action taken by the United Nations in Korea is police action, action to stop aggression. Our forces fighting there are in every sense of the word international police.
Our sailors, soldiers and airmen are grand people. They deserve the best we can give them; and generally I think that has been provided. Since the house was last in session, with the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe), the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Campney), Dr. Solandt, chairman of defence research, and other officers, and four members of the press, I visited Japan and Korea. We had the privilege of seeing our destroyers in Far Eastern waters, the men of the 25th Canadian infantry brigade, and the Tokyo end of the R.C.A.F. Pacific airlift. In his most interesting speech on December 10 the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Applewhaite) made a full report on his visit there, and I do not propose to go over the same ground.
I can report, however, that all our party found, as the hon. member reported, that the morale of the troops everywhere was high. We went from the rear areas up to the foxholes within a thousand yards of the enemy front. We found that our men are as well clothed and fed and led as any troops that ever went into battle. The view of everyone who has visited the front, including the four leaders of the churches, representatives of the press and members of the armed forces of our own and other countries, is that they

have never seen troops in better spirit or with higher morale. When we were there some soldiers pointed to a frozen reservoir and asked if there was any chance of getting some hockey equipment. Within a few days after our party returned enough equipment, including pads for the goalkeepers, was on its way by air to outfit six teams. As hon. members have probably noticed in press reports, this equipment was used not only by men of the 25th brigade but also by Australians and New Zealanders, and over 100 scheduled games were played at "Imjin Gardens".
Concern for the welfare of the troops was one of the main reasons for our visit to Korea. It had been suggested in Canada, generally by people who had never been in Korea, that we should have auxiliary civilian services to help look after the needs of the brigade at the front. Members of our party made it a special point to discuss this suggestion with commonwealth, United States and other officers and authorities as well as with members of the Canadian forces from generals to privates. There was general agreement that it was neither practical nor useful to have outside agencies in Korea at the present time. Only last week, however, I visited Toronto and said bon voyage to a group of eight fine young Canadian girls who are going out as workers with the Canadian Red Cross at Kure and Tokyo in Japan. This arrangement was worked out with the Red Cross, which was most co-operative, immediately following my return from Korea. From what I have seen of them, from the training they have had and from their splendid background, I am sure these girls will be a credit to the Red Cross, to the women of Canada and to their country.
The troops off duty have always been able to see a nightly movie back of the lines and we have made arrangements whereby more movies will be supplied from Canada on a regular circuit. We have also made arrangements for the more regular and speedy distribution of news and mail, and amenities of that kind. The C.B.C. is now sending to Korea special Canadian programs which are rebroadcast in Japan or through the wireless facilities of our ships when they are available.
At the end of our trip to the front we went back of the lines. Altogether we had visits with over forty different groups of men. These were no formal visits. On each occasion the men available would be lined up but there were no guards, except for one ceremonial parade of the R.C.R. The men would be broken off; we would gather them around and discuss with them arrangements for rotation, for rest and recreation, and so on.
National Defence
We would ask their views, and at each group I offered to see privately any man who wanted to see me, either then or later. At the end of this discussion-because we always had some wisecracks together-I would usually see three or four who would come up to me. It gave me some satisfaction to learn that not one of those who came up had a complaint about any of the conditions of service. In the main their problems concerned welfare problems of their families back home, which were under process of investigation by the regular agencies. In some cases it was possible to speed up the reports, and in one or two to see that additional consideration was given to what seemed to be borderline cases. But there were no complaints about the conditions of service, or anything that could be remedied by speedy action, with one exception. Apparently there was a delay in forwarding some mail just before Christmas. We were able to trace this down to the manner in which the mail was handled by the air transport service of the United States at McChord field; and that has been rectified.
Following this visit we went back to Japan by air and saw the officers and men of the reinforcement group and the other base units at Kure. We also visited the two ships that happened to be in port, the Cayuga and Athabaska; and there the same practice was followed. We walked through every mess deck; we had a few words with the men on every deck, and later they could see me, as some of them did. The same privilege was open to all members of the party, and was taken advantage of by the press. I think hon. members who read the press reports of this visit, by the five Canadians who participated in it, will agree that they gave a fine and fair account of gallant Canadians facing difficult conditions and adding lustre to the name of our country.
Altogether five ships of the navy have been working in rotation. In all they have taken nine tours and have sailed 450,000 miles in Far Eastern waters. With its airlift the R.C.A.F. has travelled nearly four million miles without a serious accident, without a forced landing, and without loss of life or serious damage, still less the loss of a plane. In Tokyo and elsewhere in the Far East, we share some facilities with the rest of the commonwealth forces. Sometimes the standards provided through those sources are not the same as ours. Sometimes we would like to see them different, but we believe we should co-operate with the commonwealth because that makes military sense, as well as being in accordance with our traditions. As long as we do that we shall probably, on some occasions, have rations

National Defence
and conditions of service which might be different if we had our own pipeline. We have made arrangements with the commonwealth forces to share in the cost of every thing on an out-of-pocket basis. We have made arrangements to divide those expenses in Korea, and to pay for everything we get from the United States in consideration of a capitation fee of $4.6187 per man per day.
In Korea, our men usually have United States rations which are similar to our own. It may astonish hon. members to learn that introduced, there has already served in the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army and the Royal Canadian Air Force in the Far East a total of 14,183 officers and men. We are well up on the system of rotation that we introduced of replacing men after they have served for one year. Some time next month we expect to see Brigadier John Rockingham return. At this time, I should like to pay tribute to one of the finest soldiers this country has put in the field. A great soldier and a great Canadian, he is loved by every man in his command. On New Year's eve we attended about half a dozen singsongs in tents and dugouts, and if you ever heard the boys sing a rowdy number entitled "Won't you join old Rocky's army?", you could feel that this was a man they respected and liked.


Mr. Mclvor:: Sing it.


Brooke Claxton: I can remember only one occasion upon which a member opposite endeavoured to sing a song, and he did not remember any more than the first few lines.
With regard to rotation, the Princess Patricia's have already been replaced by the first battalion, and the second battalions of R.C.R. and the Royal 22nd are in process of being replaced. This whole operation will, we expect, be concluded next month or at the latest in June. Our policy is to replace commanding officers rather sooner than twelve months, following the practice that was established in the second world war, because no one is under such constant strain as commanding officers in fighting conditions such as these, where troops are always in the line; where they are facing an enemy superior in numbers; where the front is not continuous, and where what appears like a patrol may be the beginning of an all-out attack. As far as possible, therefore, we follow the policy of replacing commanding officers sooner than the twelve months. In this way we give more of them battle experience.

On August 31, 1950, as reported at page 99 of Hansard I said:
All the senior officers have been chosen, and the evidence of their fighting records is exemplified in the nation-wide reputation of their commander. Brigadier John M. Rockingham, C.B.E., and a double D.S.O. In no case was a unit commander a second choice.
In advance of units having commenced training, I was sticking my neck out a bit, but I can state this: that every single one of the commanding officers of the unit has already added to the good record he made for himself in the second world war. And I should add that every one of them would be the first to state that the credit is not due to them but to the men.
The 25th Canadian infantry brigade is generally recognized as one of the finest fighting formations on the front or for that matter ever raised in Canada. The brigade is maintained at full strength, and there are ample reinforcements in the theatre and here to provide for wastage and rotation. Whenever you see a Canadian in Korea or Japan, you find that they are the same kind of man as those of you who are veterans of the first and second world wars knew. They are alert, engaging, robust and tough. They are distinguishable from others in their dress, in their bearing and in their attitude. Their fighting qualities are superb, their disciplined obedience to orders and their bearing on parade leave nothing to be desired. But despite this trained teamwork they remain intensely individual, and have every kind of initiative.
Now, if I may leave the scene in Korea and the Far East and move on to our other major operation abroad, in Germany and Europe, it is interesting to observe that this scene of operations is just about on the opposite side of the globe from Korea. The locations of our 25th brigade in Korea and that of the 27th brigade in Germany are about 12,000 miles apart. It must be of interest and of some satisfaction to hon. members that our commitment for one-third of a division or a Canadian infantry brigade was completed by the date we planned, early in December. So far as I know we were the first to complete our military commitment. As I said before, tomorrow win be the third anniversary of the signature of the treaty, and in that connection perhaps I may recall that Canada was the first to suggest it and the first to ratify the treaty. It is some satisfaction, therefore, to find we are possibly the first to comply with our military commitments.

I am not going to go over the ground that was covered so fully in the debate on external affairs. The development up to Rome has been explained many times, and the recent debate on external affairs carried it on to Lisbon. There is no concealing from hon. members the difficulties that had to be faced. As I indicated from the outset, this is a completely new idea that fourteen nations should combine together in peacetime in order to preserve peace, not to win a war, not to obtain a victory, but to preserve peace. We have seen considerable progress in that respect. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) reviewed the situation, and reported on the achievements at Lisbon. I have read the statements of Mr. Eden, Mr. Acheson, Mr. Lovett, Mr. Schuman and they all say substantially the same thing, and reach substantially the same conclusions. But yesterday there was issued to the North Atlantic treaty nations the first report by General Eisenhower, on the anniversary of his appointment as supreme commander a year ago yesterday. That document has already received attention in the press; but in case any hon. members desire to have copies, we have prepared copies following an 11,000-word service message yesterday, and more will be available in printed form in a few days.
In this report the supreme commander reviews the situation as he found it when he came into office, and describes the steps he took to set up the organization and to build up the commands. Then he describes the situation as it now is. About the progress that has been made I am not going to give my own estimate. I am going to give that of General Eisenhower, with which I agree. At the outset of this report he says:
It would be disastrous if the favourable signs and developments recorded in this report were to put any mind at ease, or to create a sense of adequate security, for there is no real security yet achieved in Europe: there is only a beginning.
Equally, it would be unfortunate if anyone were to find excuse for defeatism in the manifold difficulties and shortcomings of our joint effort to date, for we have made progress in all aspects of security.
_ And he adds, and it is interesting and important to observe that this is a soldier speaking:
The momentum must be continued with renewed vigour, and since moral force is the genesis of all progress, especially progress towards security and peace, we must give primary attention to this vital element.
Then he speaks of the unity of NATO:
The unity of NATO must rest ultimately on one thing-the enlightened self-interest of each participating nation. The United States, for example is
National Defence
furnishing much of the material resources of this project during the current year because it believes that America's enlightened self-interest is served thereby. Most American people agree as to the wisdom and necessity of this course.
That, Mr. Speaker, is precisely the position of the Canadian government. Later General Eisenhower continues:
For the United States and Canada, the future could promise ever-greater danger of attack, requiring endless sacrifices and defence costs which would ultimately break their economies.
That is, unless we work together through NATO. General Eisenhower describes the situation as he found it a year ago:
At the moment, however, in western Europe there were fewer than 15 NATO divisions adequately trained and equipped for war. National service programs, existing in all European member countries, had trained, or partially trained, a reservoir of manpower since the end of the war. Unfortunately, equipment was inadequate to convert this pool into effective reserve divisions. In the air the situation was no better, perhaps worse. We had fewer than one thousand operational aircraft available in all western Europe, and many of these were of obsolescent types.
Next comes a description of how he got on with the job and proceeded with the organization of his headquarters, of his commands, and of the forces and then the beginning of the build-up:
Very quickly after the establishment of a command structure we began to see definite improvement in the morale and readiness of troops. But first and foremost was the need for more forces. The United States and Great Britain alone possessed previously formed and disposable reserves, and they proceeded to deploy additional strength in Germany-four divisions from America and two from the United Kingdom. France already had the equivalent of four divisions in Germany. Air reinforcement, although sorely needed, had to await the accomplishment of major programs for air crew training, production of aircraft, and construction of additional airfields.
He goes on to deal with the situation in Europe today:
Already our active forces have increased to a point where they could give a vigorous account of themselves, should an attack be launched against us. In terms of army divisions whether in service or quickly mobilizable, our forces in western Europe have nearly doubled in numbers. The national units pledged to this command a year ago were for the most part poorly equipped, inadequately trained, and lacking essential support in both supplies and installations. Because of their weakness on all fronts, and the absence of central direction, they could have offered little more than token resistance to attack. Today, the combat readiness of our troops has improved markedly. Readjustments in their deployment have enhanced their potential effectiveness against the threat from the east. Behind them is a steadily-expanding supply system, and a command organization to plan and direct their co-ordinated efforts. Still far-disappointingly far-from sufficient for a determined defence, they nevertheless represent a fighting force in whose spirit and increasing fitness our nations can take considerable pride.

National Defence The result is summarized:
Pursuant to the recommendations of the temporary council committee, our member countries have pledged to produce this year 50 divisions for European defence, exclusive of those to be provided by the two new NATO nations, Greece and Turkey. Roughly, one-half of the 50 divisions will be standing forces; the remainder are planned as reserve divisions available for employment at periods varying from 3 to 30 days.
Then he says:
The defence of the west must necessarily be based on highly-trained covering forces, backed up by reserve units which can be brought into action immediately after the outbreak of hostilities. Admittedly this is the only system-
It will be noted that he says it is "the only system".
__of defence which can be adopted without excessive cost or crippling damage to national economies. To make the system work will demand far more attention than is now being given to the organization and readying of reserve forces on the continent.
Speaking about airfields he says:
Air power is the dominant factor in war today. It cannot win a war alone, but without it, no war can be won. Our goal is to create air strength capable of answering immediately the onslaught of an aggressor and covering, at the same time, the mobilization of reserve forces.
That is why in the Canadian program we put the greatest emphasis, and spend by far the greatest proportion of the defence dollar, on the air force. Still speaking about air strength he says:
There is still a long way to go in developing air strength in western Europe. A major task has been and continues to be the provision of adequate air bases and communications to link them.
The airfield problem stems largely from the fact that jet fighters require runways substantially longer than those in current use for even the largest commercial aircraft. During the past year some thirty airfields have been put into use, but these were largely an inheritance from previous European construction programs and involved improvements on fields already in existence. A vast amount of new construction is needed to accommodate the air power necessary to the defence of the west.
One of the most heartening achievements of the Lisbon conference was the approval by member nations of a cost-sharing scheme to build a large number of additional airfields in Europe. Action was also taken to provide headquarters sites and communication facilities.
I have only one thing to add, and that is that in this report General Eisenhower gives the figures for the estimated strength of the enemy at the figures which are commonly given, 175 front line divisions, one-third of which were either mechanized or armoured, and an air force of 20,000 aircraft. The navy at the same time stood at twenty cruisers and some 300 submarines. Behind all this was the vast sprawling economy still largely harnessed to war.
That concluding quotation from General Eisenhower's magnificent report is the reason

why the government is putting before this house estimates seeking the huge sum of $2,001 million. I am sure hon. members would wish me now to say what Canada is going to do as her part of the build-up of the North Atlantic alliance, in terms of navy, army and air force. I should emphasize that there have not been any substantial changes in the program, as announced to the house on February 5, a year ago. That had been foreshadowed in the speech from the throne at the beginning of the first session in 1951, and reference was made, too, to the organization of the 27th Canadian infantry brigade as part of that operation in a statement to the house on May 4. A white paper giving this information was tabled on May 7. There was a further statement when the estimates were discussed on May 8, and then the same matter was dealt with in the speech from the throne beginning the second session of 1951, and in the statement tabled on October 18 regarding the dispatch of the 27th infantry brigade overseas.
Hon. members will also recall that the debate on external affairs and defence was introduced on October 22, when the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) moved this motion:
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.
That was followed by a statement by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) and myself. In mine, I again referred to our proposed contributions, and in the course of that speech tabled a revised white paper, where the same references were made.
It is within the recollection of all hon. members that the motion introduced by the Prime Minister was carried without a single dissenting voice, and so far as I know, there was no objection throughout the country, either as to our participation in NATO or as to the nature of our contributing forces. When the Prime Minister introduced the motion on October 22, it was accepted by all parties without a dissenting voice, and I take it from the debate we have had that so far that attitude has not materially changed.
The figure of eleven air force squadrons that I announced for NATO for 1954 was subsequently increased as I announced on my return from" Lisbon to twelve, and we believe that these twelve squadrons can be raised and equipped by suitable adjustments in the reserve aircraft for the other eleven squadrons, for which we had provided on what is now believed to be a basis more ample

than that generally regarded as necessary by other countries. It was announced then that we would supply or have for our defence a hundred ships for th'e navy by 1954. About 52 of these are at present planned for use in connection with NATO. The others would be used for our own territorial defence.
The army and air force figures for 1954, one-third of a division and twelve squadrons, remain the same. In consequence of our last meeting at NATO I am now in a position to give figures for our 1952 NATO program: twenty-four ships, one-third of a division, four fighter squadrons. We have complied with the requirements for the army; we have the ships commissioned, and men to comply with the navy requirements. We have the squadrons with the men and the aircraft to comply with the requirements for the air force, and expect to do so, subject only to the possibility that the necessary airfields may not be available.
From the point of view of planning for our effective defence, together with our allies, it of course would be more desirable not to make, each one of us in turn, these figures available to the only possible aggressor. That is the information he most wants to get; but in a democracy it is necessary to give information to enable our own parliaments and people to understand in order to support what is involved; but while this is done we must recognize that from the military point of view, this is just the information any possible enemy would most like to have.
In addition to these contributions of forces, we have been contributing arms, and have provided in the estimates for another $324 million. Altogether the amount that we shall have contributed to NATO or provided for over the last two years in arms and training facilities will total over $600 million, a pretty substantial contribution of mutual aid and economic assistance.
We are also prepared to train an output for NATO of 1,400 aircrew, and we are looking to the question of working things out so that possibly this figure may be increased without increasing facilities, so that if the standing group, or other appropriate NATO agency, makes such a recommendation we might be able to train more aircrew for the R.A.F. We are giving consideration to our doing that without increasing the facilities, which are already stretching our resources.
I referred to the possibility that our air force may not be able to place the squadrons required in Europe at the time when we will be able to have them there.
And this brings up the question of infrastructure, about which I should like to say a
National Defence
word. As General Eisenhower said, this is a most urgent requirement. We shall need, by 1954 to have four airfields of which it is expected now that two will be in France and two in Germany-all four in a group in the neighbourhood of Metz. This means the building of airstrips, the constructing of hangars, the providing of maintenance facilities, living quarters, headquarters and communications.
I am sure part of the mystery attached to the subject of infrastructure is due to the word itself. I have made some search in the matter and I find there is such a word-and this may astonish hon. members. But there is such a word, in French, and with this meaning:
(Translation):
Infrastructure (from Lat. infra, below and structure) f.n. (Railroads) :	All works relating to the
construction of the earth roadway previous to the laying of the tracks. Infrastructure includes embankments and trenches, bridges, viaducts, subways, level crossings and fences. The track and its appurtenances, stations, depots and signals belong to the superstructure.
(Text):
This use of the word in French railway language has been extended to military language, and it was first used in connection with western union. Indeed the first slice of infrastructure was the result of the .work already done by the western union countries, and it is quite possible that the first airfield that will be allocated to Canada will be one of the airfields which have been built by the western union.
Infrastructure, then, is the name given to the operational headquarters, communications facilities and airfields, the costs of which are to be met out of a common fund. The lists of headquarters, the communications facilities and the airfields that will be required to carry out this plan, to be initiated in 1952, were prepared by SHAPE. They were considered and amended by the military committee of the chiefs of staff. They were considered by the committee of defence ministers, and approved. They were considered by the committee of ministers on infrastructure, and they were approved by the council.
The arrangement is that in the case of airfields the host country provides the land, without charge, and the infrastructure fund meets the cost of constructing runways, taxi strips, hangars and operational facilities up to what is called the minimum NATO standard.
The user country-in this case Canada- pays the cost of any additional operational facilities, living accommodation, messing and recreational facilities. Any equipment that can be moved away continues to belong to

National Defence
the user country. Prior to the Lisbon meeting efforts to agree on a method of sharing the cost for infrastructure to be initiated in 1952 had failed. At Lisbon a committee of ministers-some ministers of finance, some of external affairs and some of defence-was set up to deal with this matter, and to try to arrive at an agreement. I had the privilege -I must say it was not precisely a pleasure- of acting as chairman of that committee.
It was a difficult undertaking, because obviously there was no principle that could be applied to the division. Neither the principle of user, nor the principle of capacity to pay could be applied. So that in the end, by mutual agreement the nations concerned arrived at a basis for sharing the costs, in consequence of what may be called multilateral ten-sided negotiations on a protracted basis. That arrangement made provision whereby Canada's provision in these estimates is put at $22,700,000 in respect of all these undertakings. But it is expected that only a small proportion of that will be met this year.
This brings me to the question of financial arrangements regarding our forces in Europe. Hon. members will be interested to hear what they are. It has been extraordinarily difficult to work them out, both there and in the Far East, because of the complication that at the present time negotiations are going on with both Japan and Germany to end the occupation, and ,to arrive at an agreement. This was not the best time to negotiate such arrangements.
Here they are:
For the 27th brigade in Germany we shall pay $0,973 per man per day to the U.K., and $2.0364 to the German government per man per day, representing the actual cost of the services and supplies furnished, so that the brigade will not add to the cost of occupation;
We shall pay expenditures directly attributable to our occupancy of the accommodation we have had in the neighbourhood of Hanover;
We shall pay for the cost of living accommodation and additional facilities for the two airfields in France but probably not for the two airfields and the permanent quarters of the 27th brigade in Germany. That has not been worked out.
In Great Britain we shall meet costs resulting from our occupancy of the airfield at North Luffenham and capitation fees for maintenance and supplies as well as costs of construction, maintenance and supplies for the air material base at Langar, England, which will provide logistics support for our air division.
Perhaps I have spent too long in describing our arrangements for co-operation with the

other united nations in the Far East, and with the North Atlantic treaty nations in Europe. The primary object of this, however, is the defence of Canada, as well as the prevention of war itself.
In connection with the defence of Canada we have two objects, both the defence of Canada as a territory and the provision of the necessary administrative and training establishments to provide for the greatest and speediest possible mobilization in the event of all-out war. And while these two objects are different, the forces available for one may be available for the other, depending upon the situation.
There is much more real danger to Canada, of course, than there has been in previous periods; but not the most real danger. That is in Europe. Obviously we cannot deal with the defence of our half of the North American continent, three and a half million square miles, by our own unaided efforts. We must do it in association with the United States. Also the United States alone cannot do it efficiently. We must work together. So we have worked out with the United States very full and detailed arrangements for our joint defence. This arrangement forms part of the arrangements under the North Atlantic treaty because Canada and the United States form one of the regions of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
One feature which differentiates our defence territorially in Canada from the defence of European countries is that every man in the line in western Europe stands there for the defence of his own country territorially as well as to make his contribution toward the common defence. What we do in Europe then is a combined effort. Since we regard the defence there as a defence of Canada, it is our defence. But it does not add to our immediate territorial defence.
While there is only one defence today, just as there is only one potential aggressor, we must see to it, with our neighbours, that we provide as much defence of our continent as seems appropriate to the risk. 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 to enable the effective operation of fighter squadrons. These radar stations will be successively brought into operation to replace the mobile stations we now have.
For the army we have had in existence for some years the mobile striking force of well-trained, largely airborne and Arctic-trained officers and men forming a combat team designed to clear up any situation that might develop. For the navy we have ships

designed to meet our need for coastal defence and minesweeping and we are building up our seaward defences.
Adding these operations together the approximate strengths of the three services as at March 31, 1952, were as follows:
Officers	Men	TotalNavy 	
Army 	
4,800	11,600 44,400 25,800	13,500 49,200 32,600Air Force 	
6,800	Total 	81,800	95,300
We have increased our strength since Korea from 47,000 to 95,300, which is a 100 per cent increase in twenty months. During that period we have increased the number of officers from over 7,000 to a total of 13,470. The strengths of the three services as at March 31 of the previous five years were as follows:
1947 		
1948 		
1949 		
1950 		
1951 		
During this period of five years we have increased the number of officers from 5,201 to the figure of 13,470 which I have just mentioned. In addition there are today 7,304 officer candidates in training, of whom 3,157 are already in the services and the others are additional.
Over the last three or four years there have been alarming reports about the difficulty of getting men whom we require at the rate necessary. So far with very few exceptions we have been able to meet every target and I believe that with continued stern efforts and strong support we will succeed in meeting the target for manpower we have set ourselves for 1954 even before that date. That does not mean that we get all the men we want right across the board. We would like more doctors, engineers, more junior officers, aircrew and tradesmen.
If there was an emergency we could fill up the gaps because there are over 26,000 officers and men who have retired into civil life since the end of the second world war. We have 58,000 in the active reserve and a good many tens of thousands of officers who were veterans of the second world war but who are still young enough to serve.
With regard to equipment the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe), gave a very full report recorded on page 436 of Hansard of March 14 and 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. I should like to call attention to one thing which might be causing some hon. members and others certain con-
National Defence
cern, the relative merits of the F-86E Sabre aircraft. The Globe and Mail of February 1, 1952 contained the following editorial:
For Lack of Engines
If we are determined to produce our own jets, we should settle on one type and set our aircraft industry to producing them-giving them top priority on materials, manpower and everything else.
The article was referring to the slowness it alleged in producing jet aircraft. It then goes on, and I ask hon. members to note these words and that the date is February 1:
Failing that, all we can do is to ask Britain or the United States to produce jets for us.
The timing of this was a bit unfortunate because on February 13 the announcement was made that we had arranged with Britain and the United States to supply Britain with some hundreds of Sabre jets. A few days later, on February 17, the announcement was made that we had arranged to supply, not only Great Britain but the United States with Sabre jets made in Canada.
With regard to the relative merits of the aircraft, I should like to quote from a speech made by Mr. George Ward, under-secretary of state for air, when introducing the air estimates in the British house on March 18, 1952. This is quoted from column 2115 of the British Hansard. Referring to the situation regarding the production of aircraft in Britain he said:
Even more Important is the fact which the Prime Minister has already told the house, that we are in some respects inferior in the performance of our aircraft. We have today no fighter in service to match the MIG. 15 which is already operating in large numbers in Korea, and it will be some time before we begin to re-equip our squadrons with our own latest types.
Just the previous Monday the Globe and Mail had suggested:
Failing that, all we can do is to ask Britain or the United States to produce jets for us.
The under-secretary of state goes on:
The day fighters with which our fighter command is now armed are still capable of intercepting and shooting down any type of enemy bomber likely to invade these shores in large numbers for some time to come. It is in a fighter versus fighter battle that our inferiority is likely to be apparent although the high quality of our pilots would no doubt largely counteract the difference in aircraft performances. However, we are very glad to have with us in this country Canadian and American fighter squadrons equipped with the Sabre, a high performance fighter which has proved itself in many ways superior to the MIG. 15 in combat. Their presence will improve the defensive power of the whole fighter force in this country.
I do not want to delay the house by going into questions of construction, but the very considerable increase in the amount of construction reflects the increase in the size of the forces. That perhaps is shown most

National Defence
prominently by the figures for permanent occupation. Currie barracks at Calgary, which had accommodation for about 100 officers and men in 1939, now has during most of the year upwards of 3,000, with very little in the way of additional permanent accommodation. With a total of 95,000 officers and men in the armed forces, 47 per cent of them married, we have a service population including dependents which is estimated at over 200,000. On the completion- of the contracts now placed or planned we will have over 20,000 married quarters of all types. It may also interest hon. members to learn that following the practice of employing civilians where they would be used in war we have in the department as of March 31 a total of about 40,000 civilians. The major construction projects underway today, apart from married quarters, total 508; and in dollar value and to some extent in complexity and number they rival the wartime peak.
All this, Mr. Speaker, mean-s that in order to meet our requirements for 1952-53 we are seeking the sum of $2,001,725,000, an increase of $329,410,629 over the appropriation for the present fiscal year. This last year we will have underspent by an amount which it is not possible yet to estimate but which is mainly made up of two items, one of approximately $140 million for equipment not delivered, and the other of $40 million for construction not completed.


Howard Charles Green: Is that for the year which has just expired or the new year?


Brooke Claxton: The year which has just expired.
Actually our appropriations and expenditures have been very close indeed over the previous three years. In 1948-49 the appropriation was $275 million and the expenditure $268 million. In 1949-50 the appropriation was $387 million and the expenditure $384 million. In 1950-51 the appropriation was $784 million and the expenditure $782 million. In other words the difference is less than one-half of one per cent of the amount of the appropriation. This year the underspending is almost all if not entirely due to the two factors I have mentioned, delays in delivery of equipment, largely from the United States, and construction not completed for various reasons.
By way of summary, Mr. Speaker, in the twenty months since Korea the navy has commissioned nine ships and launched six others. It has twenty-seven more on order, with forty awaiting refitting. It is operating sixteen schools. In Korean waters alone it has sailed over 450,000 miles. Its ships have made cruises like that of the Ontario to Australia and New Zealand, and that of the Magnificent,

the Micmac and Huron to the Mediterranean and north Atlantic. It has steadily built up its strength, largely at sea.
In the army we have raised, equipped and trained the 25th and 27th brigades; provided for their reinforcement and rotation; maintained the mobile striking force and continued the training for airborne and Arctic warfare. We have had the operational, training and administrative staffs to build up these forces.
There has been an increase to twenty-four squadrons of the regular and auxiliary air force. One squadron has had a tour of duty in the United Kingdom and has returned to Canada, and two more are in the United Kingdom. We have provided the manning and training machinery, and the aircraft, for the build-up at a rate of approximately one squadron every two months, equipped and manned with aircrew and ground crew, until the total of forty squadrons for NATO and the defence of Canada is reached. We have added nearly 500 aircraft, 1,300 aircrew and 10,500 ground crew to the strength. We have increased from seven to seventeen the number of schools for aircrew and ground crew, and the number of airfields from thirty-one to forty-two.
I have already referred to the resolution which was adopted by this house on the motion of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) without a dissenting voice. I take it that nearly everyone in this house and nearly everyone in the country supports NATO. 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." We may have a good deal of that. One other thing that is likely to become evident is that with the advantage of hindsight some people will begin to say that things were being done too big and too soon rather than too little or too late.
We do not know which will be right, but we should never forget that the ability of anyone to exercise any hindsight at all is made possible by the fact that we have had three years of peace. It was bought by the price we have paid for the prevention of war. The insurance premium buys us time as well as security. But there is the danger that as we get time, as we all hope, people will become less inclined to pay the premium. 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. Then also it will tend to take away our attention from the danger which is so well described in General Eisenhower's report. It is the reason we are doing this in co-operation with thirteen other friendly peoples.
As I have said from the beginning, this is a tough operation. We must avoid both complacency and despair. We must lay our plans so that we strike the medium between too much and too little, too late and too soon. As I have mentioned, tomorrow April 4, we celebrate the third anniversary of the signing of the North Atlantic treaty. It means that we have had three more years of peace than a good many people counted on our having at that time. The opportunity we and our allies have created has been not only to have those three years of peace, but also to set under way those long lead operations which will enable us to increase our strength still more in the next few years.
This has been done by the North Atlantic treaty nations, despite the dangers and difficulties of Korea, Indo-China, Malaya, Iran and Egypt. General Eisenhower referred, quite properly, to the build-up of military strength. He is no armchair optimist. He has referred, and properly so, to the growing sense of community. That, Mr. Speaker, is the greatest reality. At Lisbon, at Rome and here in Ottawa, I am sure the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) would agree with me, there was no tendency to make rhetorical speeches, to take up defensive or bargaining positions or to indulge in recriminations. Those were business meetings of like-minded people working together to do a job, probably the most difficult joint undertaking ever to be attempted by sovereign states in peacetime. To continue with that job will stretch our resources, but we all must stand the burden-Canada and the United States, fortunately are in a better position than most of our partners. I said that this is one of the largest and most difficult jobs ever to be attempted by nations working together. It is also one of the most hopeful, because on it depends the hope of peace, the promise of security and the survival of freedom.


Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Nanaimo):: In rising to join in this debate, Mr. Speaker, I feel it is my first duty to join with the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) in paying tribute to the forces of Canada which 55704-69
National Defence
are now engaged on the battlefields of Korea, those forces which are patrolling the seas around that peninsula and our air transport units supplying those forces. From time to time, as dispatches have reached us from Korea, we have been proud of the achievements of those troops. We have been proud of the gallantry that they have shown. We have been proud of their tenacity when holding to exposed and advance positions, and we are also pleased to hear of the high morale and cheerfulness which is prevalent amongst those troops.
I am sure that every member in this house was pleased to hear the personal report given by the minister this afternoon of the visits he had made to those troops. He was able to tell the members of this house, in fact the whole of Canada, what he bad seen, and how his own impressions confirmed the reports which had reached this country through the press. Personally, I feel indebted to the minister for having taken the time to give that detailed description of what was happening in Korea.
It is no easy task to follow the minister's detailed and carefully prepared review of the activities of the armed forces during this past year. Owing to the rather meagre information that he has given concerning the expenditures which have been planned for the coming year, and because of our lack of information as to how these vast sums of money are going to be spent, I feel that it will be necessary to ask some questions. I hope the minister will answer them when he closes this debate. If at times suggestions are made as to what might be done, whether a little bit more here or a little bit less, whether too soon or too late- the "buts" to which the minister referred are perhaps forgivable because of the difficulty members of the opposition have in fathoming the plans the government has for the future. We heard about what has been done in the past, but we do find it difficult to know what is going to be done in the future. There must be, therefore, a certain degree of hindsight expressed. I hope that if, in the course of my remarks or any other member's remarks, we appear to be a little wiser after the event than before,' the minister will realize that it is in no way intended to be an insult to his judgment, nor is it any sort of outrage against the plans that he has made. We are trying to be constructive and helpful.
The minister gave us an idea of a new concept of the world under the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. He referred to it as being almost as natural for a Canadian boy to serve on the frontiers of Germany during

National Defence the summer months as it would be for a Canadian boy to serve on the frontiers of Canada. I think we owe thanks to the Canadian youths who are now serving in western Europe, who believe that they are doing the job which the minister has defined for them to do and in which they were carefully instructed by the issue of a pamphlet or book laying out what the objectives were. I feel that we owe a word of thanks to those young men who are over in Europe doing that particular task.
There is one other general observation I should like to make arising out of the minister's remarks. There were times when I was confused by the frequent use of the word "we". He followed the example of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), and it was rather difficult for somebody sitting on this side of the house to know whether "we" meant Canada, NATO, Canada and the United States, or Canada with the rest of the commonwealth nations. I refer particularly to his closing remarks where he took considerable credit under the title of "we" for the peace which has reigned for the past three years. I do not think that the efforts which were made by Canada-certainly until the last year-have in any way changed the long-planned designs of the rulers of the Kremlin; and I was at a loss to understand quite the implications of that remark.


Brooke Claxton: I think it was clear that it was NATO.


George Randolph Pearkes: I presumed that meant NATO, but I did not know. We will take it that way, anyhow.
The general defence policy of Canada, as the minister said this afternoon, was defined a year ago in a pamphlet entitled "Canada's Defence Program" and in the speeches which were made by the minister shortly after that pamphlet had been issued. The minister said that the object of all defence policy is to preserve the security of our country. That is a quotation from his speech in the house. It will be found in Hansard at page 2798 of May 8, 1951. He then went on to elaborate on that statement; and, boiling down a rather long and involved sentence, I think one can say that he explained that by referring to the fact that it is better to prevent war than to fight a war to victory, that the best place-to defend Canada is as far away from our shores as possible, and that we cannot do that alone but we must have allies.
This party has no quarrel with those general objectives, as set out either in this program or white paper as it is referred to or in the speeches which were made at that time by the minister, as part of that general policy. This party recognizes the necessity

for making adequate contributions of men, arms and materials to the forces of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization that are marshalled or are in the process of being marshalled to deter aggression or, if necessary, to suppress aggression in Europe and also the necessity for providing the economic assistance which is so essential in this struggle with communism. I think it is interesting to note the reference made to the economic side in the report which is published by General Eisenhower, and in which he says:
Unless the economy can safely carry the military establishment, whatever force of this nature a nation might create is worse than useless in a crisis.
Then he goes on to say:
Since behind it there is nothing, it will only disintegrate.
Those were statements made by General Eisenhower in the report as published in the New York Times of April 2. We therefore recognize the fact that the economic side is of great importance in this struggle against communism. For these reasons we supported the government in its proposal not only to send the arms and the equipment for three divisions to Europe but also to dispatch the 27th brigade which is now in western Germany.
After listening to the speeches of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, it must be remembered that the contributions which we are making to NATO are not the only commitments that Canada has assumed. In the first place, this government and any other government-as the minister has said this afternoon-must provide the forces required to defend Canada against any sudden attack which might be directed against our country. Second, we have our commitments with the United Nations, as for example our forces which are now deployed in Korea. Third, as the minister has intimated again this afternoon, we must maintain the organization for the expansion of our forces should the present world situation deteriorate into global warfare. Quite recently many people in authority have been stressing the importance of building up reserves not only in this country but in Europe and in America so that there may be organized reserves ready as soon as possible after the outbreak of war, should war come.
I hardly refer to those formations which are now earmarked as being reserves for NATO to be produced in the first thirty days. I am referring to the reserves which must follow up behind them because actually you cannot refer to a formation which is ready to take the field in three days as being a reserve formation. In fact, I would say that in my conception of a reserve formation, you

could not have it ready even in thirty days, because I do not think that any reserve army formation in Canada could begin to be ready in that length of time. As for the reserve formations such as territorial divisions in the United Kingdom, they could not be ready in that short period of time. I am not clear yet really as to the type of the reserves which are going to be ready in this period of from three to thirty days. They are much nearer to being line formations than they are to my conception of a reserve formation. It is therefore essential that the forces allocated to any particular role which Canada has assumed must be reviewed constantly in the light of the changing conditions and the varied importance of these three roles that I have mentioned, namely our commitments to NATO, our commitments for the defence of this territory of Canada and our other commitments with the United Nations.
Since we share responsibility for these commitments with other nations, many influences beyond our control affect the situation almost daily. For example, a change of government in western Germany when the elections are held in 1953 might alter the whole attitude of that country towards the European defence community. Nor can the possibility of a unified Germany as a sequence to the allGerman election along the lines proposed recently by Russia be altogether disregarded, in which case a neutral Germany might be established, and therefore might not have forces available for NATO.
Again, since the first announcement was made that Canada would contribute an infantry brigade to NATO and this brigade would be stationed in Europe, the membership of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization has been increased by the addition of Greece and Turkey, thus extending NATO's commitments to the eastern shores of the Mediterranean; although, on the other hand, you might well say that they form a point of vantage or a horn of a defence in the Far East and of Europe.
Progress has also been made toward the fulfilment of the Pleven plan and the establishment of an integrated European army, in which it is intended to include formations of a re-armed Germany. If these plans mature, emphasis will be shifted from one factor to another. Europe may then become better able to supply what has been referred to by General Bradley, and also referred to in this Canadian defence program, this white paper, as the hard core of ground power. Similarly every scientific development affects the relative importance of the various roles that the Canadian armed forces 55704-69J
National Defence
have to carry out. Modern scientific development tends to increase not only the destructive force of weapons, but also their range. Distance and time have been almost eliminated by jet aircraft, thus exposing the most remote parts of the world to danger of sudden attack.
A year ago western Europe appeared to be the most likely theatre in which operations would break out. It may remain so, but the danger point may easily have shifted elsewhere by the end of this coming year. During world war II frequent reference was made to Greece and Roumania as being the soft under-belly of Europe; and, as history now records, Churchill frequently advocated that that theatre of operations should be the line of approach against Germany. I venture to say that the soft under-belly of this country is the undefended west coast of Canada. The inference is quite obvious.
Even in General Eisenhower's report he refers to the fact that if there is a continual advance of the iron curtain, then the United States and Canada would be in greater danger of attack than they have been in the past. Therefore it is for these numerous reasons that I wish to stress the necessity of constant revision and examination of the resources allocated to our various divisions.
Canada is represented on the council of NATO by ministers of the crown, by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton), They have the responsibility for approving, or otherwise, the recommendations of the chiefs of staff committee. Civilian control and responsibility in accordance with established constitutional practice must of course remain paramount.
When I was in Europe last December I had the privilege of visiting our 27th brigade there. I could not help but be impressed by
what seemed to me-hindsight if you like_____
as being the unsuitability of the composition of our Canadian contingent for the role that it had to carry out there. For instead of supplying a very mobile, fast-moving, hardhitting formation of armoured and technical units, we have dispatched a formation which was built around three infantry regiments. This Canadian infantry brigade would operate, should war break out in the great plain of central Europe, the very cradle of the panzer divisions of Hitler's army, a territory flatter than our western prairies, traversed by great strategic highways, and intersected by innumerable crossroads in every direction.
This afternoon the minister, repeating what General Eisenhower had said, told us that the enemy would have his 175 divisions behind the iron curtain, line divisions, of which one-third would be either motorized or armoured.

National Defence
The British have also recognized the importance of armour in this particular part of Europe; for the British army on the Rhine has three armoured to one infantry division. To say that armour was not available to Canada is an admission that, as I have intimated many times in this chamber, our Canadian forces have not been kept up to date, and that they have been organized since the cessation of hostilities along time-honoured though out-dated lines.
We have in Canada two armoured regiments of the active army. We have a dozen units of the armoured corps in the reserve army. It is a pity that the units of the Canadian armoured corps had not been given greater opportunities to fulfil their role when plans were originally prepared for Canada's contribution to NATO. It may be that had we drawn the contingent from these units of the armoured corps it would not have been possible at that time to give them the full and complete equipment; but it must be remembered that in the first years of the last war Canada sent two armoured divisions over to England, and subsequently they went to Europe. When these divisions arrived in Europe they were not fully equipped by any manner of means. It was many months before they were fully equipped, but they were men who had received training in the use of armour, and their officers had been inculcated with the idea of fast-moving armoured units.
Furthermore, there is in Europe, as I saw with my own eyes, a vast reservoir of manpower from which the infantry components of NATO could have been drawn. For many years the youth of Europe have been accustomed to serve in their national armies for certain periods as soon as they have finished their education. They receive very little pay for this service, and it does not weigh heavily upon them, because they are usually stationed near their homes where they can visit their parents during their frequent leave periods. As has been said by General Eisenhower in his report, the national service programs existing in all European countries have trained, or partially trained, a reservoir of manpower since the end of the war. But he said the great difficulty there was that these troops did not have adequate equipment.
Now, the lot of the Canadian soldier in Germany is entirely different. His pay is many times greater than that of the young European infantryman. He is far away from his home, and consequently must be provided with compensating facilities such as leave centres, and the like, all of which add to the burden of the Canadian taxpayer.

It is just possible that the minister, knowing that this brigade was to be stationed near the site of the battlefield of Minden, might have remembered the lines Kipling wrote in his poem "The Men Who Fought At Minden"-
The men that fought at Minden, they was armed with musketoons,
Also, they was drilled by 'alberdiers;
The British general who fought at the battle of Minden was cashiered because he failed to use his mobile forces. I think a lesson can be drawn from that. We must utilize fully our mobile forces.
The communist strength lies in their huge manpower; their weakness in the fact that their manpower is relatively unskilled and uneducated. They can produce countless divisions of infantry, equipped with simple but effective weapons. But they can no more match the western powers in the production, maintenance and use of high-grade modern equipment than we can hope to match, division for division, their teeming hordes.
In this situation we must face the facts. It is vital that we should plan our armed forces to keep abreast of the times and to make the fullest use of our scientific and technical superiority. The size of the force and the actual numbers made available are not the prime requisites. From the point of view of military effectiveness one brigade, one third of a division, in an army which today numbers some fifty divisions, and which we are told in another couple of years may number a hundred or more, is neither here nor there. It is really only a drop in the bucket.
In speaking the other day the Secretary of State for External Affairs said that everyone knows we have been talking of a plan to be achieved by the end of 1954 which would result in having sufficient defensive armed strength to halt an invasion, and estimated that for that purpose there would be between 80 and 115 divisions. So I think we can take the question of 100 divisions in this uncertain state of combat readiness as being a fairly good average.
On the other hand history is replete with instances where a few men, specially skilled, or equipped with new weapons, have changed the course of a whole battle, if not a whole campaign. Hon. members will recall what happened at the battle of Leipzig, which ended in the defeat of Napoleon I, as well as his capture and exile to the island of Elba. The course of that battle was changed by the employment of a British rocket troop of less than 100 men. Rockets at that time were an entirely new weapon. The enemy was so terrified by the noise and appearance

of these rockets that they surrendered literally in thousands, and the day was won by the employment of a special force, specially armed, but very few in numbers.
There are many other instances of that same sort of thing. I therefore stress the importance of our contribution to NATO being that of a mobile and thoroughly modern organization.
Our naval forces have been given no offensive role, but their task has been to keep open the vital sea communications, vital sea lanes which may be threatened by air or by underwater attack. These threats can be dealt with only by a combination of escort carriers and specially equipped surface vessels. Canada has developed special surface craft for this purpose, but our carrier strength is negligible.
The only carrier we have is now out of date and, as the minister stated a year ago, will soon be in need of major overhaul. She is in fact the only carrier of her class whose landing decks have not yet been converted to taking jet aircraft. With one carrier, no matter how modern, the Royal Canadian Navy cannot fulfil its occupation of escorting convoys from Canada across the ocean. And, a continuous escort policy being adopted, subsequent convoys would have to wait until the carrier had completed its first mission and returned again in order to pick up the second convoy. If carriers are to be stationed at nodal points along the route, then the range of the aircraft from those carriers, under weather conditions that may be expected to prevail in the ocean, is inadequate to give protection throughout the danger area, if only one carrier is to be used.
Quite irrespective of the fact that Canada is flanked by two oceans, the Atlantic and the Pacific, it is now an imperative necessity that the Royal Canadian Navy acquire an additional carrier, if our navy is to carry out the mission assigned to her under NATO. The time has come when the Magnificent will have to be converted. She will have to be laid up for major overhaul. Let the plans now be made for her replacement by at least two modern aircraft carriers.
Various experiments are being carried out, and are now meeting with considerable success, in the use of steam catapults for the purpose of launching jet aircraft from carriers. We must have modern carriers if our navy is to carry out its particular role.
I referred the other day to the importance of maintaining flexibility in our air force, and the need of maintaining adequate fighter squadrons in Canada for the protection of our industrial plants, the loss of which would
National Defence
create such a crippling blow to our NATO effort. I trust that there is no need to repeat that warning today.
The minister's reference this afternoon to the suitable adjustment of aircraft with the other eleven squadrons was not quite clear to me. I do not know whether he was referring to the transfer of aircraft from squadrons in Canada to squadrons which would be stationed in Europe or to the transfer of aircraft within those squadrons.
We have some cause to be concerned about the number of aircraft which will be available for the defence of our industrial plants in Canada. Reference has been made to the fact that these twelve squadrons are to be available in Europe by 1954 if the airfields can be provided, either in Europe or in Great Britain. The minister referred to four fields which 1 think he said were to be located near Metz. I was not certain, but I presumed that that was for the servicing of the whole twelve squadrons and it could not be expected to have those ready until the end of 1954.


Brooke Claxton: I should correct that. The last one would not be ready until the end of 1954, but we hope that one will be ready in 1952.


George Randolph Pearkes: There is some concern regarding the ability of Canada to produce the aircraft which will be required for these twelve squadrons plus whatever squadrons are retained for the defence of industrial plants in Canada. I should like to ask particularly regarding the progress which is being made in the production of the CF-100. A year ago a good deal was made of the CF-100, but in his remarks this afternoon no mention was made by the minister of that special Canadian aircraft which we were all looking forward to being in production this year. A year ago the minister intimated that the CF-100 would be in production early this year. On May 10, 1951, the minister said, and I quote from page 2877 of Hansard:
It takes a minimum of four years to develop a new type of aircraft, which was about the time taken in the case of the CF-100, the design of which began in the late months of 1946. We expect that the planned rate of production on the CF-100 will be reached early next year.
That is early this year. Somehow or other we have heard little of late about the CF-100 and I think one is justified in expressing some concern in view of the fact that the minister made no mention of it in his remarks today. I understood that the CF-100 was to be equipped with Orenda engines. When will those engines be available? In an article in today's Globe and Mail by James Hornick

National Defence
it is stated that the new engine plant of Avro is still in the process of tuning up and that Orendas will not likely be available in substantial numbers for a few years yet to come.


Brooke Claxton: About as accurate as the rest of the stuff.


George Randolph Pearkes: I do not know; I am merely reporting what is in the paper. The very fact that the minister did not mention it is reason for justifiable concern whether these Orenda engines will be used solely for the CF-100 or whether they are to be used also for the F-86. That is another point on which we would like information. This same article goes on to say that reliable estimates indicate that engine production would run at about twenty a month.
If that is so, sheer mathematical process makes one wonder how we can get enough aircraft fitted with these engines, particularly if they are going to be fitted into the F-86, to look after our overseas commitments and our commitments in Canada as well.
Going on from that, we come to the position regarding the standardization of weapons. This was another point that was emphasized by the minister a year ago. I express some surprise that no mention was made of it today. In fact, the whole situation regarding standardization is somewhat bewildered because a year ago we were shipping British-type weapons to our European allies. We sent equipment for three divisions and at that time we were told that the British-type weapons would be replaced with United States equipment. The minister advised then that that would be done and said that an exceedingly good arrangement, to use his own words, had been reached. He intimated that substantial quantities of United States-type equipment were forthcoming, but United States-type equipment in any large quantities has not been forthcoming. We gave a warning a year ago about the hasty Americanization of the Canadian army, and I think that warning was well founded.
The 25th brigade in Korea is part of the commonwealth division and it uses British equipment, as do the other units of that division. The 27th brigade is operating with the British army on the Rhine and is serviced and maintained largely, if not entirely, through British channels. The standardization of our army along United States lines :seems to have misfired badly. Canada has sent British-type weapons to Europe-Belgium, The Netherlands and Italy each receiving the equipment for one division. Other equipment, including artillery, has been sent to Portugal, Denmark and Luxembourg, but the Canadian army has not been refitted.

I think the minister owes an explanation to the country as to what has happened in this respect and whether a premature decision was made to standardize along United States lines which seems to have been abandoned in midstream, leaving our army units in Canada short of equipment. We do not question the desirability or the advisability of sending equipment to Europe. As has been pointed out, the great reserve of manpower in Europe cannot be utilized because of the lack of equipment. What I am asking is what has happened to the replacement of the British-type equipment that we have sent out of this country.
Very large amounts are involved, including the sum of over $2,000 million, an increase of $400 million over last year's appropriation. It should be remembered also that the appropriations for civil defence this year are not included in these estimates, though they were in the national defence estimates last year.
I said we have not a great deal of information in the blue book as to how this amount is going to be spent. We shall have opportunities of going into that not only when this house is in committee of the whole but, if the suggestion made this afternoon by my leader is adopted and these estimates are referred to the committee on defence expenditures which was set up today, that committee will provide ample opportunity for careful examination not only of the expenditures made last year but of current expenditures as well. However, just a quick examination of such detail as is available indicates that over $213 million is to be spent on the acquisition of land and the construction of buildings in Canada. No particular details are given beyond the division of that amount as between the different branches of the department, $20 million to the navy, $81 million to the army and $114 million to the R.C.A.F. It would look as though we shall soon require a department of defence construction as well as a Department of Defence Production, because that is a large sum of money to be spending, and I hope the minister will give us details in regard to it.
This afternoon the minister referred to the number of men now in the service, both in uniform and as civilians. I noticed he said there are now 40,000 civilian employees in the services. If I remember correctly he estimated last year that the number might reach 30,000. It seems to have gone up in the interval. I wonder whether there is not a desire to increase that number perhaps out of all proportion to the actual service rendered. From my experience in the services a number of years ago I know there is a tendency to inflate establishments. There is only one man who can see that these civilians are used

economically and that establishments for home service do not become blown up; that is the minister. A great responsibility rests upon him, and I hope he is not going to be carried away by what might almost be described as an inordinate ambition or a lust for power, but that rather he will use his judgment to try to relieve the burden which rests upon the taxpayers by seeing that there are no unnecessary expenditures.
I am not convinced that we have reached the bedrock of economy in this department.
I believe if a thorough examination were instituted by the minister, perhaps in the form of a special travelling board or something of the kind, more unnecessary expenditures might be eliminated and these inflated establishments might be reduced. I know the tendency of all commanders to build up their headquarters as much as they can. I believe it was Gladstone who said something like this, that if you took the word of a doctor you believed there was no health in the country; if you listened to a parson you believed there was no purity; if you listened to a soldier you believed there was no security; and that the advice of these experts must be tempered with a generous portion of good common sense. I know there is a great tendency on the part of all senior officers to revel in the size of their commands. So I am not thrilled by the fact that there are 40,000 civilians serving at the present time instead of 30,000, though I realize perfectly well that many of them will be usefully employed.
No doubt many of the services mentioned in the blue book are very desirable and attractive, but I think of such things as some of these grants which are made to associations, which have been creeping up and up over the years. I think of such personnel as military attaches in many European countries. I suggest that their employment be reviewed now in the light of the fact that we have national representatives at SHAPE, because we do not want any duplication of the work there.
So I would wind up on this note: that while many of these services will seem attractive and desirable for the armed forces, the minister has to be extremely careful to see that only necessary expenditures are made at this time. It is only in the Department of National Defence that any real reduction may be made. Perhaps that cannot be done at the moment because of our commitments, but a grave responsibility rests upon the minister to see that in the expenditure of this enormous amount of money there is no waste or duplication or superfluous spending. It is not a question of how much the services would
National Defence
like spent on them; it is how much this country dares spend on the bare essentials of the services.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Major James William Coldwell: Before the dinner recess, Mr. Speaker, we heard two very interesting speeches, one by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Clax-ton) in which he gave the house quite a lot of information concerning the defence estimates, what has been done and to some extent what is expected to be accomplished during the current year. I do not propose tonight to speak at any great length, because either the suggestion made by the leader of the opposition will be followed, that is to say that the estimates will be referred to the committee which is to be established on defence expenditures, or we shall have an opportunity of going into the estimates item by item in this house.
I think it is almost staggering, indeed quite staggering, that seven years after the close of a great war we have before us the largest peacetime budget for defence in the history of our country, $2,106 million, out of a total budget for all purposes for Canada of $4,335 million. Approximately fifty per cent of our budget this year is to be devoted to some form of defence expenditures. As X have said, this sets a new peacetime record. When I looked over the estimates for last year. I found that the estimate now before us is twenty-three per cent higher than the estimated expenditure for last year, which was $1,723 million. It will be interesting to go into these great appropriations to find out how this increase has occurred. It may be that it is because we are carrying over from last year some of the projects that were included in the estimates of that year and remain unspent. It may be that some projects we are undertaking this year, and which were estimated to cost a certain amount, are, because of inflation, costing more than was expected.
Last year this house appropriated $5 billion to be spent on various projects for defence and related defence efforts over a three-year period. I presume that that is the target we still have in mind. It may be that because the military experts believe that 1953 will be a crucial year we are speeding up our expenditures during the current year, and that in the following year we may be spending less for defence; I do not know. But those are questions which I believe will have to be answered by the government in order that

National Defence
we and the country may know precisely what we are expected to do, not only in the current year but in the next year of the three-year period. Let me say at once that my party agreed that we would support the three-year appropriation defence expenditure, and we continue to support that total expenditure.
Canada's estimated spending on behalf of the Atlantic pact in the fiscal year starting April 1, 1952, is set at $351 million. This, of course, includes the $324 million mutual aid we were discussing a few days ago, and includes the air training scheme, shipments of arms and costs associated with those, broadcasts, films, materials and supplies. The balance of the $351,500,000 is, as I understand, the estimate of $27,500,000 for the contribution to the cost of permanent headquarters, certain airfield costs and other projects to support front-line formations; in other words, the infrastructure estimate that we have heard so much about. But in addition to the $351 million I think we should know that Canada will also spend some millions of dollars on the maintenance of the brigade in Germany, and on the balance of the air division in the United Kingdom and in France. This afternoon the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes), who has recently visited Germany and the brigade that we have there, gave us an interesting report. He expressed a point of view which I know is held by others who have been in Germany in recent days. I am not going to recount what they have told me, because I rather expect that one or two of the members of this house who have been in Germany within the last four or five months will be able to put what they have gathered before this house much more ably than I can, and certainly with much greater authority.
We have to bear in mind, too, that there is one item which is looked upon perhaps partly as an item of expenditure for defence which is not included in the estimates, and that is the $45 million item for the development of atomic energy and the building of a new plant and equipment at Chalk River.
I believe that Canada is wise in undertaking further development of the atomic project.
I look upon that-as I know the people engaged in it do also-as more of a peacetime project than a defence estimate; and probably that is why-and I hope quite properly-it is not included in the defence estimates. None the less, it is an estimate linked up with defence and with our expenditures for defence.
One of the most striking features of the estimates now before the house is, I think, the large appropriation for the air force in the amount of $759 million, almost as much 
as the $800 million to be appropriated for the army and the navy together. I believe that any military defence effort that Canada makes in co-operation with our allies can best be made in the field of air defence. During the second world war our young Canadians played an important part in the defence of the democratic countries, and indeed came out of it with flying colours, bringing much credit both to themselves and to the country which sent them overseas. Consequently, while the estimate looks large in comparison with the estimates for the army and the navy, none the less it seems to me that the part that Canada could play-and I hope will never be called upon to play-in another war is in the field of air defence. Situated as we are, with long northern boundaries stretching not only for hundreds but several thousands of miles from sea to sea, uninhabited and accessible only by air, for our own defence we are probably wise-as long as defence is necessary -in building up our air arm to a greater extent than either our army or our navy.
This afternoon mention was also made of civil defence. I know that the estimate for civil defence is increased some 50 per cent this year, jumping from $4,196,000 to $6,508,000. But may I point out that this amount, which looks large when we speak of millions of dollars, is in reality only approximately one per cent of the entire estimate for defence. As I said before, I am not going into the estimates, except in the manner in which I have already done, because they will be investigated either by the defence expenditures committee or item by item on the floor of this house in committee. I want to say, however, that I support the plea that was made this afternoon by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) that careful scrutiny be given to these estimates and that every attempt be made, both by this house and by the government, to ensure that there is no waste of money or of material.
The hon. member for Nanaimo-himself a high-ranking military officer, with a distinguished record-this afternoon pointed out that it was quite normal for those who occupy high military authority and power to do all they could to build up the unit and the organization around them. I think that has been the story of the defence project in our own country. From time to time I meet people who are serving in the armed forces and they tell me that there is a great deal of waste. Within the past few days I was given some examples of how, as the end of the year drew near-I refer to the end of the fiscal year ending on March 31-every attempt was made to see to it that the entire estimate was spent before the year expired. I do not know how you can overcome that

situation, in government departments, for I think that it is to some extent true of departments other than the defence department. Where you have a department like the defence department, however, it is not, and perhaps cannot be, subjected to the same intensive scrutiny as are the civil departments of government, since we are so frequently met with the statement: Oh, well, we cannot give that information because security is involved. No one in this house wants to betray the preparations of this country in such a manner as would give aid and comfort to any potential enemy that we may have. Consequently, quite frequently hon. members remain silent when that answer is given.
It seems to me that is one reason why a defence expenditures committee should be established. I would even go this far and say it might be well, on some occasions, for that committee to sit in camera. I do not like the idea of secret meetings or of secret sessions; but if that answer is given and if certain information which hon. members of the committee feel the committee should have is refused on the ground that security is involved, I think the committee would be quite justified in deciding that at that point, on that day and for that time, they would sit in camera. I do not think it should be normal for the committee to do, but under such conditions I think they would be justified in deciding to sit in camera.
This afternoon the minister seemed to be rather worried, because he said that as our defence program had expanded and a feeling of more security had come over many people of the country, some people were inclined to support the defence projects with some "ifs" and some "buts"; that people might now be disinclined to pay the premium that was required for the insurance they were buying when they set up these defence expenditures; and that some people might say there was too much of this and too little of that. May I say to the minister and to hon. members of the house that I think that is not the attitude in which the government or the minister should approach the house or the problems of defence. As a matter of fact, I think it is the duty of this house to inquire as to whether we are doing too much of this or too little of that in order that we may know that we are doing the thing we wish to do most economically and most efficiently. An attitude of complacency that the government is always right and of resentment of any criticism that may be offered is, I think, one that is wrong. There is no infallibility anywhere in this house, neither in the official opposition nor in the Social Credit party, neither in the C.C.F. nor in the government party itself. None of us is infallible. We 55704-70
National Defence
should inquire whether we are doing too little of this or too much of that. In the doing of all things we should ensure that at all times this house is paramount; that civilian control of the defence projects and the armed forces is emphasized and continued, yes, indeed, under present circumstances, expanded to the fullest extent possible; because we must not allow the military to gain control of the country in any field or in any form, and most of all in the control of the navy, army and air forces themselves.
This afternoon the minister spoke of hindsight, ifs and buts and the fact that perhaps some people were thinking that we were doing too much. I do not know what he referred to, but I want to say again-and I say this with all the conviction that is in me-I think a mistake may be made in placing all of our eggs in one basket; that Canada should be doing more in the realm of economic aid. That is my criticism of the estimates now before us. I say to the house that within a short time the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) may find himself with a great deal of food that we shall not be able to export, cheese, meat, dairy products and so on; though I think we shall be able to export and market all the grain that we have. But we may find that we cannot dispose of surpluses that may have accumulated owing to the shortage of dollars overseas, and owing to the loss of our export market in the United States. If that be so I wish that we had a provision in these estimates as a part at least of our NATO obligation for economic as well as the military aid that we have before us at the present time. If we had such an estimate, then, out of that estimate, the agricultural producers of this country could be paid the proper floor prices for the goods, and we could make our contribution in a manner that I believe would be most acceptable to our allies overseas.
This has been our attitude throughout. An attempt was made a day or two ago to indicate perhaps that we are not supporting NATO in the manner in which we did heretofore. It is almost exactly three years ago to the day since I had the privilege of speaking in this house when we were about to join the NATO organization and to establish a regional defence pact out of which this estimate arises at the present time under the United Nations charter among Belgium, Canada, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Norway, the United Kingdom and the United States. To the establishment of that defence organization we gave

National Defence
our approval, and we continue to approve it. On that occasion I said this, as reported at page 2072 of Hansard of March 28, 1949:
The C.C.F. is convinced that mere military-alliances cannot guarantee peace. Economic recovery must continue to be the primary objective.
Then I added this:
Nothing done or arranged through this proposed pact should be allowed to interfere with the rebuilding of the economy of western Europe and the world. Some rearmament is essential in the present circumstances and in view of the world situation, but surely it would be sheer folly to believe that armaments, at the expense of economic recovery or economic well-being, can serve as a basis for peace, even though armaments may still be necessary to guard it.
These estimates that we have before us are once again for military defence; and our contributions to NATO again this year, if I include that for infrastructure, amounting to approximately $351 million altogether, are all in that one particular held. Even after we had a whole year and a half's experience with NATO in May 1951 we gave a very perfunctory consideration to NATO in this house. If I may refer to the debate that has just concluded, I think that was one of the most valuable debates we have had in this parliament since I have been a member of it. It was an excellent debate in every respect. Though there was disagreement over certain details of policy, there was no disagreement on the objective, the objective being the prevention of aggression against the free world.
After more than a year's experience with NATO, I said this on May 7, 1951, as reported at page 2763 of Hansard:
We cannot win the struggle against totalitarian communism by military means alone. Indeed ultimate victory will lie with those who can do most to end poverty, misery and want wherever they may be found.
And I added this:
Even a billion dollars spent in technical assistance and in the provision of food over the three ensuing years-
We were discussing the very appropriation that I am discussing now, the appropriation of $5 billion for the three years and now that part of it which is the $2,106 million that we have tonight. I continue:
-would have been only one-fifth of the money we appropriated for military expenditures and defence . . . and in spite of our heavy commitments to the Atlantic alliance, we believe we should be doing more in economic aid to depressed peoples than the government proposes at this time.
So, with this huge estimate for military defence we provide no parallel, or apportion no part of it for economic aid- and may I say that I have read very carefully what the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) said, and his

admission that there was a desire on the part of those allied with us that they would receive some economic aid from Canada in various forms during this year. That was my comment then, and as recently as December 29, 1951, I said much the same thing. I said:
It seems to me we have been too interested in promoting rearmament without realizing that we must reinforce anything we do in that field with sound economic aid to our allies.
And again:
If we are going to meet the threat of communism and totalitarianism all across the world, the final decision will not be made on the field of battle . . . what we have always to remember is that totalitarian communism can be met only by removing the causes that give an opportunity for communism to grow and to make headway in the world.
There is the consistent point of view that we have expressed over these last several years, and I want to emphasize it tonight when I am discussing this estimate.
I noticed the other day that General Gruenther, General Eisenhower's assistant, in appearing before the United States senate committee on foreign affairs in dealing with defence, said that there was a necessity of giving immediate economic aid to the western European countries. He was, of course, urging congress not to cut the mutual aid program, and he contended that in defence support-and that is what we are talking about tonight-economic aid and military aid are inseparable.
He added that this was so because defence spending diverts manpower, material and industrial capacity away from production for export. Europe is able to earn fewer dollars. This is why western Europe needs some economic aid for defence support.
And I quite agree with the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) when he says that we should go very carefully into what we are sending to Europe. This afternoon he spoke of the necessity of sending more armour, perhaps, rather than more men. That, of course, is quite consistent with what the hon. member said in Paris at the end of December, and what he said upon his arrival here-that, after all, the solution lies not in arms alone sent from this side of the ocean, but more in more aid in armour-and, may I add, I believe more aid in raw materials in order that Europeans may not only train their own manpower, but that they may arm their own manpower effectively themselves.
And again, if I may quote General Gruenther shortly, in his appearance before the senate committee, he said that one dollar's worth of raw material sent to western Europe

was worth as much as two dollars and fifty cents' worth of military equipment from North America. And this is particularly true, of course, of the United Kingdom.
You will remember that we have got to see to it, not only that we send arms and equipment overseas, but that we make it possible for those who are co-operating with us to carry out their own particular programs. Hr. Churchill, just a few weeks ago, in the House of Commons in the United Kingdom said that Britain's rearmament program had been delayed for at least a year because Britain-and I will use Mr. Churchill's own words, taken directly from British Hansard-"has not received aid in keeping with our defence burden undertaken by the late prime minister."
He was, as hon. members know, referring to raw materials, and such defence materials as steel. And so it is, Mr. Speaker, I wish to emphasize the point that we are not offering ifs and buts in saying this today. We are not doing that. But what we are trying to do is to emphasize something that I believe is absolutely essential, that not in armies, not in navies or in air forces will the strength of the western democracies ultimately lie-although some are needed in order to guard the effort we are making-but rather to the extent that we can help them to improve their economies, and enable particularly the hard-pressed British and French, with some 14 per cent of their national production diverted to armaments.-remembering that our production is 10 per cent diverted to armaments-to meet the danger of economic and social collapse. Should that occur armaments would be of no avail, because the communist parties would take over the democratic countries and ally themselves with the Soviet union. Then democracy and freedom, as we understand them, would be endangered throughout the entire world-and that, may I add, includes North America.


Mr. Ray Thomas (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I should like to add my word of appreciation to those already expressed in the debate concerning members of the Canadian armed forces serving abroad. Undoubtedly they have done a wonderful job. They have stood up against tremendous odds, and have fought like true Canadians. They always have, and they always will.
I was somewhat amused this afternoon when the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) said that the present Russian leaders were respecters of strength. What amused me about it was that, sitting here and thinking about it, I wondered how much respect the Russian leaders have for us. Undoubtedly the Russians are in a much 55704-70J
National Defence
stronger position than the NATO countries, both in the matter of manpower and in that of machinery. And in view of the Russian leaders' avowed stand that they would eventually control the world, I am led to believe that the only reason Russia does not attack the western powers today is not that she is afraid of our strength at the present time but rather because she believes, or has reason to believe, that she can still outproduce us, and continue to out-produce us.
This afternoon the minister reiterated a statement made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) that the United Nations forces in Korea were taking part in a police action to stop aggression- which makes me wonder whether or not the United Nations has reversed its original stand, that of forming a united and free Korea, and intends now merely to stop Chinese aggression in North Korea. I am wondering whether, if an armistice agreement is signed, the United Nations will be content to see Korea divided either at the 38th parallel or at some other place. In my opinion, if the United Nations are going to reverse their original stand and, in the event of an armistice, are content to allow Korea to remain divided, the communists can and probably will claim victory in Korea.
The minister made a quite lengthy comment on his visit to Japan and Korea and gave us an interesting picture of Canadian troops and forces in action in that country, as well as those stationed in Japan. We are pleased to have his report, and it is good to know that the Canadian boys are well-equipped and, it would seem, in good spirits. However, I would suggest to the minister that, on any future trips of this kind, it might be wise to take some members of the opposition along with him so that they may see for themselves just how well off our troops are or may be. It would satisfy opposition groups in the house, relieve the government of much of the criticism, and also add more strength to the minister's statement upon his return concerning the welfare of the troops.
According to the testimony of General Gruenther before the foreign affairs committee in Washington, Russia has an active force of 4 million troops or 175 divisions. These figures were put on record this afternoon, but they are worth repeating. She has something like 20,000 aircraft and 300 submarines. However, unless I misread General Eisenhower's statement, those figures were effective a year ago. The minister can correct me if I am wrong in that. I might say that as far as aircraft and submarines are concerned I think it is an understatement.
I think it is interesting to note that today the armed strength of Russia is 4 million men

National Defence
in 175 divisions, whereas NATO hopes to have somewhere in the neighbourhood of one hundred divisions by the end of 1954, or about four-sevenths of the present armed strength of Russia.
Another interesting fact that was placed before the house committee by General Gruenther was that the soviet exceeds the western countries in unity. While this unity has been brought about by force and fear, nevertheless it is there and something we have to take into consideration. A recent press report stated that 160,000 Russians in east Germany, representing about 50 per cent of the Russian force, went on spring manoeuvres. That would indicate a standing Russian army of something like 360,000 well trained1 and well equipped troops within east Germany.
It was pointed out also that the east German security police force made up of Germans numbers something like 360,000 men. Therefore the force available to the Russians in east Germany at the present time would be something in the neighbourhood of 720,000 men.
I should like to comment on a news report datelined Dusseldorf, Germany, March 13, as appearing in the Ottawa Journal. This report would indicate that the morale of the red army is very low and it is based on a statement of a Russian sergeant-major who deserted and was given asylum in the British sector in Germany. I shall not make any attempt to put his name on the record because I could not pronounce it, but in my opinion this sort of thing is not at all reliable.
When the Germans first started to march into Russia during the original offensive in the second war we heard many times that the Russians could not fight, that they had no morale, that they had no will to fight. Let us not kid ourselves. They pushed back the German war machine most effectively and there is no reason why they could not do the same today with the same will to fight.
According to the technical and trade magazine Aviation Age, Russia has about 85 aircraft factories, more than 28 engine plants and produced something in the neighbourhood of 22,000 aircraft during the past year. I should like the government to take particular note of the fact that these aircraft plants are scattered all across Russia. They have been decentralized to a very high degree.
I should like to refer briefly to six points which were dealt with in that magazine under a dateline, Washington, March 13. The first is that there are about 15 large, 30 medium, and 40 smaller plants producing airframes within Russia. The Russian ministry for the

aircraft industry supervises 360 factories which do all or most of their work for the red air force. Then they have a number of contributing industries such as 20 rubber factories and 15 to 18 aluminum plants.
I shall not go on to the other points, but they do mention that each plant is able to produce something like 3,600 engines and except for the fact that there is a bottleneck in the aluminum industry the output could be raised to 50,000 or 60,000 Russian planes per year.
It is pointed out that during the same period the United States had 27 airframe factories, about 15 smaller ones, and some 30 other companies building major subsections, et cetera. To get back to the claimed production of 22,000 aircraft for Russia, it is believed that about 10,700 are fighting planes, 539 reconnaissance planes, 3,060 light and medium bombers, 1,246 heavy bombers, 1,430 transport planes and 5,000 trainer and liaison planes. The production last year in the United States was something like 5,000 planes.
I was interested to note that the minister said that the secretary for air of Great Britain recently stated in the British House of Commons that the F-86 Sabre jet was superior in many ways to the MIG-15. Apparently General Vandenberg does not share that belief because he says that the MIG-15 is a better climber than the F-86, although the F-86 has a longer range. He says that at altitudes up to 25,000 feet the F-86 has equal speed and appears to handle better, but above 25,000 feet the MIG-15 is faster, has a higher service ceiling and a longer range. However, he does say that the two planes are roughly in the same area of technical development.
As has been pointed out in previous debates, many pilots returning from Korea have said that in many ways the MIG-15 is superior to the Sabre jets. Many of them have expressed the wish that United States pilots could have the MIG-15 and the red pilots the Sabre jets. We must not forget that while the MIG-15 is a good plane it is not the most advanced fighter aircraft the Russians have. I understand that at the present time they have under construction the MIG-19 and the LA-17, both of which are reported to be superior to the MIG-15 as far as speed, manoeuvrability, armament, range and fighting abilities are concerned. It is believed that both these planes are in production, but if they are not in production they are ready to go on the production line at the present time.
The United States has no light bomber of any value. They are relying on the old B-26,

which was fast becoming obsolete at the end of world war II. Those planes are doing a good job in Korea because they have not the air opposition; but the Soviet has in production at the present time the IL-26 and the TU-10, both of which are light jet bombers which it is believed are capable of something like 600 miles an hour, with a range of about 2,200 miles. The closest thing we have to them is the Canberra bomber which is produced in Britain and which before long may be produced in the United States, though none are being produced at the present time. So we are extremely short of suitable, fast, light bombers in the event of any hostilities in Europe.
The opinion expressed by General Gruenther that the Russians have 300 submarines is I think an understatement. I will not mention the cruisers and other ships; I think we could deal very adequately with those. Jane's Fighting Ships for this year credits Russia with somewhere between 300 and 400 submarines. This, too, I believe is an understatement. In 1948 Jane's Fighting Ships gave Russia approximately 280 submarines with 100 more building, to be completed in 1948 or 1949. So even if they had 280 in 1948, they have had ample opportunity to increase their production and have many more today. It is believed that their ultimate aim is 1,000 modern, fast, up-to-date submarines. When we think that at the beginning of the last war Germany had only 60 submarines, the idea of Russia with perhaps 500 leaves us rather cold. As a matter of fact, as far as our naval production is concerned, I would not doubt that some of those submarines could sail up the St. Lawrence to Montreal and torpedo the Vickers shipbuilding plant before we could get any of our ships off the slips.
I believe we need a little more information on the naval shipbuilding program. Today the minister mentioned 52 anti-submarine vessels for NATO by 1954, and 48 coastal vessels. We have had very little information in that connection. However, I will not go into that at the present time; I will have a few questions to ask when the naval estimates are under consideration.
This afternoon the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) made a plea for more aircraft carriers. I will go along with him on that. I would not want to see the Canadian navy build or buy a number of carriers the size of the Magnificent or anything like that, but I do think Canada, with an anti-submarine fleet, should have a number of aircraft carriers possibly something like those we had in the past war, converted carriers, if you like, though perhaps a little faster than those we had at
National Defence
that time. We should have something that will give us some sort of air cover. In the event of hostilities breaking out I believe we should have at least one aircraft carrier for each trans-ocean escort group that may be set up.
Then we see many reports in the press, which may be simply scare reports, that the Russians are working on nerve gas, bacteriological warfare, and so on. I hope that is not the case. I am not going to say very much about it; I am not too worried. But we must remember that at the present time Russia is throwing accusations at the United Nations, charging that they are using bacteriological warfare in Korea. It may be just possible that they are making those charges at the present time so that if hostilities should break out in western Europe they could use that as an excuse to launch into bacteriological warfare on their own. This I believe is something for the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin), as head of the civil defence program. We have no reason to believe that any bacteriological warfare would necessarily be directed against human beings. It might be in the form of virus which would infect livestock. I suggest to the minister that he set up some sort of co-operative scheme with the provinces so they might be prepared if anything like this should happen. We have a good argument for that in this foot-and-mouth disease epidemic. Immediately we heard of that some of the provincial governments became panicky and slapped on embargoes, tying up the entire livestock industry of Canada. We would not want that sort of thing to happen if it should become necessary to increase our production of livestock because we were dragged into an all-out war.
Now I want to say just a word about the defence expenditures committee. We all appreciate that the Department of National Defence has a job to do and that it is necessary to greatly expand our defence expenditures in order to protect ourselves. But we in parliament also have a responsibility to the taxpayers. I do not think we should spare any expense that is necessary to protect our way of life and our beliefs, because after all this is a war of beliefs and ideals. If we have to spend every cent we have, if we have to suffer hardships here in Canada in order to achieve our objective, then I say let us go ahead. But that does not give us any licence to waste the money of the taxpayers. The war expenditures committee set up in 1941 did an extremely valuable job. There is no reason why the defence expenditures committee presently set up in this house cannot do the same

National Defence
valuable work. As has been said already this evening, it is necessary to scrutinize our expenditures very closely. There is no doubt in my mind but that the heads of the various branches within the department are honest and sincere; but they are not infallible, and it is the job of this committee to look out for any errors that might be made.
During the brief interval between the two sessions I made it a point to talk to servicemen wherever I went, and also to civilians employed at various army camps and so on across Canada. Everyone to whom I have spoken has pointed out to me that there is local waste, and a great deal of it. That is something which we have to investigate. We may have to lop off a few heads in the process, but it should be cleared up. Last fall the committee made a good start and if they continue in that manner, with the idea of honestly scrutinizing everything and not with the idea of finding some fault with the government, I believe they can make an extremely valuable contribution towards our defence effort.


Mr. L. T. Stick (Trinity-Conception):: believe we could sum up our defence policy in the phrase that we are playing safe, and that it is better to be sure than sorry. We have no alternative to building up our armament today to such a point that we may deter the communist world from setting this world on fire. Our policy is based on strength, peace through strength. We can only ensure peace if we have the strength to enforce it. I think that is true, and I think everyone in this house agrees that is the safe policy to pursue. We may disagree as to the methods by which we build up that strength, and we may have a certain amount of criticism of the Department of National Defence as to how they are going about it, but our basic principle of peace through strength stands for the policy of Canada supported by all members in this house.
During the last two or three weeks I have heard much about the economic side of defence, the fear that we may spend so much money we will wreck our economy. My answer to that is this. It is the government's duty to see that we do not wreck the economy, and I have faith in the government and the common sense of all members on all sides that we will not do that. The impression has been left here that communism is largely the result of poverty. No doubt poverty is a cause of communism in some instances, but it is not the only cause. I think we should stress the other causes.
At this point I should like to quote from an article by the Right Hon. Richard Law,

M.P., in the British House of Commons, which appeared in the "National and English Review" for March, 1952. He has this to say, and I think there is a lot of truth in it:
Rearmament is an instrument for the maintenance of order, but it is not, of course, of itself an alternative to communism . . . we tell ourselves that we cannot put the clock back. We tell ourselves that the new nationalism which is arising all over the Middle East, all over Asia, is something that cannot be resisted. Once again we are bound hand and foot to a phrase. How do we know that this new nationalism cannot be resisted, when we have never sought to resist it? All that we can be sure of is that for as long as we roam about the world, wringing our hands and loudly bewailing our impotence in the face of movements which are too strong for us, for just so long will we be kicked around, and for just so long will communism make headway. For this new nationalism which "cannot be resisted," and which we are always hearing about, is just one of the instruments which communism uses to break up the old order: it is by no means certain that it is an irresistible force. And even if it were, there might still be something to be said for the policy of opposing to it an immovable object.
There you have another idea of what communism is. A week ago, when speaking about the Orient during another debate, I said in this house that we have a situation in Indochina and in the Federated Malay States which is fraught with great danger. The impression was left in this house by other speakers that the reason for this trouble is economic. It is not economic; it is racial and it is just as well for us to acknowledge that fact. It is economic to some extent, but it is a racial problem between us and the Orient. The sooner we recognize that fact the sooner we shall be able to make headway towards beating the communists at their own game. It is all very well to get up in this chamber and blame South Africa for what she is doing, and blame us for what we did in India for 150 years. I have heard it said that we have exploited the Orient. There may be a certain amount of truth in that statement, but go out to the Orient yourself and see what we have done to raise the standard of living. Let us have the other side of the story for once, and then you will have a balanced idea of what the Orient thinks and what its ambitions are. True, we tapped the wealth of the East, but we gave something in exchange. We improved their methods of living, and we gave them great irrigation works. We taught them democracy, and we kept the peace while we were there; that is the other side of the story.
I have been asked by numbers of people, both here and at home, "Are we going to have a war?" That is a question which is upon the lips of everyone in this world today. I do not know whether or not we are and neither does anyone else, except probably the men in the Kremlin. We do not want it,

but if Russia wants war she will have it in her time. It is our job to persuade her that war does not pay, just as we hear it said that crime does not pay. The only way we can persuade her of that is by being strong. If we pussyfoot with peace in this house and say that our commitments for national defence are going to break the economy of this country, we are playing right into the hands of the Russians.
I am going to read an extract from a book which I obtained from the library and read last year. I advise members to take this book and read it. They should read it with the book in one hand and the daily newspaper in the other, then they could make up their own minds as to whether or not we are going to have a war. The book was written by Rear Admiral Ellis M. Zacharias, retired from the United States navy, who was chief of the United States intelligence service for the navy during the last war. I want hon. members to listen to this, because it is rather interesting. I am not saying that it is the gospel truth, but it is worth listening to. It reads as follows:
The uncertain days of the precarious peace that we call the cold war are numbered.
War between the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which would be the third and probably decisive world war in the life of this tragic, unruly generation, is likely to materialize some time between the summer of 1952 and the fall of 1956.
War may come in response to a series of aggressive Soviet moves, which the kremlin will regard as essential to Russian security but to which we shall react violently and with determination.
Or it may come, as Soviet experts now say it will, as a move of desperation on the part of the United States to stave off an "inevitable" depression or, better still, to turn depression into prosperity.
On the other side of the Atlantic, and especially behind the iron curtain, abundant and tangible evidence reveals that the U.S.S.R. has definitely decided to abandon the prolonged shadow boxing of the cold war.
This decision was reached on the basis of an "estimate of the situation," prepared in the fall of 1948 at the specific request of Generalissimo Stalin by a select group of top-ranking Soviet specialists-military experts, economists, political observers, diplomats, and spies.
Upon that estimate, the politburo unanimously agreed, in extraordinary session on January 28, 1949, to accept as immediately valid Lenin's thesis that war between capitalism-imperialism and communism is inevitable. At once they ordered the whole vast Soviet state to gird itself for the showdown between the United States and the U.S.S.R. . .
There are available to us several convincing clues as to the date the U.S.S.R. regards as most likely to be the D-day of a shooting war.
The years 1952, 1954, and 1956 are regarded as crucial in the calculations of the kremlin.
It is no mere coincidence that the year 1952 was the only future date explicitly mentioned in the recent Russo-Chinese treaty between Moscow and the communist regime in Peiping.
The same year, accepted by Soviet analysts as the last tranquil year of the cold war, also recurs in the secret protocols of the treaties and military
National, Defence
alliances Moscow concluded with its satellites in Warsaw, Prague, Budapest, Bucharest, and Sofia. It is frequently mentioned in cominform documents as a "year of decision"-the outside date at which certain plans have to be concluded, quotas reached-"the end of an era and the beginning of a new epoch."
These are serious words for a man of the standing of Admiral Zacharias to write. If you read that book and if you follow events of the last two or three years you begin to get a better idea of what Russia is doing and of what she is trying to do. As I see it, her whole plan is so to weaken us that if we do get into a shooting war we shall be fighting with one hand behind our back.
The first duty of this government is to provide for the security of Canada. That is a sound policy. It has been stated also that the policy of this government is to defend Canada as far away from the shores of Canada as possible. I think that is sensible, and I think any sensible person will agree with that policy. By doing that, we shall keep war from the shores of Canada, if that is possible. Furthermore, we shall be supporting in other pants of the world other freedom-loving peoples who are dependent upon us for support. That policy I agree with. Any other policy would be a cowardly one and one not fit for Canada or the Canadian people to support. If we get into a shooting war our policy is to play it safe. There are certain dangers which were pointed out this afternoon by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) with whom I am in agreement up to a point. He stated that the under-belly of Canada was on the Pacific. It could be on the Pacific if we had lost the war in the other hemisphere. My opinion is that the greatest danger point for Canada, if we get into a future war, is on the Atlantic. We in Newfoundland know what war is on the Atlantic. During the last war, war was right at our back door. We came in contact with it at close quarters. Every week we had men coming in from convoys that were sunk. We had survivors coming in to St. John's, as my colleague from St. John's knows. We had first-hand accounts of how our ships were sunk and of the brutality of the U-boats. That danger was -there. It has been stated here on more than one occasion that Russia has a tremendous number of submarines. I do not know exactly what state they are in, but they have some of the most modern ones; and until we can have sufficient defence forces built up to cope with them, if we ever get into a shooting war we shall have hell on the Atlantic. There is no use in mincing words about the matter. That danger has got to be

National Defence
faced. If we lose the battle on the Atlantic, we shall lose the war. I am going to quote from Mr. Churchill, and I know of no greater authority than he on that matter. In his book "Closing the Ring", he has this to say:
The single-handed British struggle against the U-boats, the magnetic mines, and the surface raiders in the first two and a half years of the war has already been described. The long-awaited supreme event of the American alliance which arose from the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor seemed at first to have increased our perils at sea. In 1940 four million tons of merchant shipping were lost, and more than four million tons in 1941. In 1942, after the United States was our ally, nearly eight million tons of the augmented mass of allied shipping had been sunk. Until the end of 1942, the U-boats sank ships faster than the allies could build them. The foundation of all our hopes and schemes was the immense shipbuilding program of the United States. By the beginning of 1943, the curve of new tonnage was rising sharply and losses fell. Before the end of that year, new tonnage at last surpassed losses at sea from all causes, and the second quarter saw, for the first time, U-boat losses exceed their rate of replacement. The time was presently to come when more U-boats would be sunk in the Atlantic than merchant ships. But before this lay a long and bitter conflict.
The battle of the Atlantic was the dominating factor all through the war. Never for one moment could we forget that everything happening elsewhere, on land, at sea, or in the air, depended ultimately on its outcome, and amid all other cares we viewed its changing fortunes day by day with hope or apprehension. The tale of hard and unremitting toil, often under conditions of acute discomfort and frustration and always in the presence of unseen danger, is lighted by incident and drama; but for the individual sailor or airman in the U-boat war there were few moments of exhilarating action to break the monotony of an endless succession of anxious, uneventful days. Vigilance could never be relaxed. Dire crisis might at any moment flash upon the scene with brilliant fortune or glare with mortal tragedy. Many gallant actions and incredible feats of endurance are recorded, but the deeds of those who perished will never be known. Our merchant seamen displayed their highest qualities, and the brotherhood of the sea was never more strikingly shown than in their determination to defeat the U-boat.
One of the reasons I am mentioning this matter is that I believe the new province of Newfoundland from which I come is the key to the north Atlantic. I have stressed the importance of defence measures in that province. By taking them, not only are you strengthening us but you are strengthening Canada and the whole of the North American continent.
This is a joint effort. We have the United States bases down there. We get on very well with the Americans. This afternoon the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) stressed the fact that the defence of North America is a joint effort on the part of the United States and ourselves. I think that fact should be driven home and be recognized, and that we should allow nothing to make us forget that fact. However

we may differ with the United States on matters of policy and however we may differ with them in other ways, we are together in this matter and we are all seeking the same end.
I am glad to be able to say here tonight that arrangements are now being made whereby the defences in Newfoundland are being augmented. I am not going to go into details, but will merely say that steps are being taken today-and they will be carried out sometime this summer-whereby the harbours that played such a large part in guarding the convoys and the convoy routes are now to be taken in hand; and the work going on there will be of inestimable value not only to us in Newfoundland but the whole of North America. I am glad that has happened. I have advocated it here on many occasions.
Finally I want to say this. I do not think anybody here can accuse me of throwing bouquets around, and I do not propose to do so tonight. I must say this, however, and I believe it is fair to do so. The new policy inaugurated by the Minister of National Defence is now showing results and is a tribute to his foresight, his courage and his ability to take a risk. I should like to say that I like a person who is able to take a risk. The minister could have taken a middle course and played the safe game but in the interests of this country, exercising his judgment, he inaugurated this policy which he was responsible for. He has taken these risks, and I believe that Canada today is playing her full part, and more, in the cause of peace. I wanted to say that to the minister. I think it is something which should be understood not only in this house but in the whole of Canada. He is a hard-working man. He is carrying a terrific responsibility.


An hon. Member:: He is carrying a terrific load.


Leonard T. Stick: And he is carrying a terrific load, as the hon. member says. It is a load that I would not like to carry, nor would I like to carry the responsibility either. But he has carried it. Our defence effort and our preparation are largely the result of his hard work and his effort; and I want to say that.
Furthermore, I am a new Canadian. I believe Canada has a part to play, and I believe she is playing a part for peace out of all proportion to her population. I think we have a record to date of which we can be proud. If we all do our duty as Canadians, as peace-loving and hard-working citizens, we shall win this war, we shall win any war that may come; but we shall

only do that with united effort, by standing shoulder to shoulder with the United States and our other allies, and by putting forth every effort we can. When we have done that we shall have done our duty, we shall have played our part, not as Canadians but as citizens of this world, and whatever war may come we shall win. Let us have no fear about that whatsoever. Let us have courage; let us have faith; let us be Canadians, one and all.


Mr. Higgins:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the hon. member one question before he finishes his speech completely. He has announced a special policy with respect to defence in St. John's harbour. I am a little bit unaware of what it is. I wonder whether the hon. member could give a little more detail.


Leonard T. Stick: It is not for me to announce defence policy. I announced that there were certain works going on. I regret I cannot give the detail. I do not believe in giving comfort to the enemy.


Mr. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to join with other hon. members who have spoken in this debate in expressing the respect and admiration that I am sure we all have for our fellow citizens who are serving Canada so well in the armed forces at home and abroad. We have confidence that they will uphold and enhance the great traditions so firmly established by our navy, army and air force.
The twentieth century, to our misfortune, Mr. Speaker, is establishing a record for war and destruction exceeded by only a few scattered periods in the history of the world. Despite our desire for peace we are compelled by circumstances to give attention to warlike preparations as the price we must pay to maintain our freedom. As General Eisenhower has stated in his recent report, and I quote his words:
We want peace. We want freedom, too, and the individual rights to which our whole civilization is dedicated.
To ensure that freedom, to protect those individual rights, we have found it necessary to make an alliance under NATO and to provide armed forces as a deterrent to the threat imposed by the armed might of Russia. We have been told, time and again, that the task ahead of us is serious and burdensome, and that for many years, and perhaps for a generation, we may have to maintain our armed forces in a state of readiness for any emergency. That seems to imply that until the threat of world war is removed we must resolutely apply ourselves to creating and maintaining armed forces suitable to the tasks
National Defence
that may confront them. Whether we are developing suitable forces is the question to which I desire to direct attention, with particular reference to the Canadian army.
The present policy appears to be the provision of infantry brigades in Korea and Europe, with small tank components in support and an infantry airborne brigade for use in Canada. Our reserve army appears to be based largely on the plan of providing infantry divisions, with the addition of one or two tank brigades. If for any reason we were required to supply additional troops for service overseas, or if we were required to mobilize for general war, do our army plans provide for forces other than infantry divisions with their supporting arms?
A study of the second world war indicates that, increasingly, mobile armoured forces have been developed to a position of dominance on the battlefield. Along with that change there are present developments in new weapons of destruction which make even more perilous the position of the unprotected infantry soldier.
What is the task confronting NATO's armed forces in Europe? We are informed that Russia has 175 divisions east of the iron curtain, one-third of them being mechanized or armoured. Thirty of those divisions are supposed to be within striking distance of our NATO forces, eight or ten of the divisions being armoured. I should like to quote from the report recently furnished by General Eisenhower, which has been mimeographed and made available. On page 5 of this mimeographed report he says-and this is in respect to the satellite countries adjoining Russia:
Under duress, the satellite countries had been obliged to follow the policy of Soviet Russia. Their foreign masters had set them to work immediately to train for war and had merged their economy with that of Russia. By the beginning of 1951, these nations had been forced to produce, between them, a total of some sixty divisions, while their air forces were also under development.
Then on page 20 of the same report in the section which deals with the present situation he says:
The Soviet army casts its shadow over the length and breadth of Europe. The satellite countries have increased the size and combat effectiveness of their armed forces.
I would judge from that that we have facing us more than just 175 Russian divisions. We have those satellite formations as well. And then on page 11 of the document General Eisenhower has this to say, in speaking of the difficulty of offering prolonged resistance east of the Rhine barrier:
Defensive depth is indispensable in countering the striking power of mechanized armies, and the speed and range of modern aircraft.

National Defence
Obviously, General Eisenhower sees the action of armoured units as the spearhead of any attack on the western powers. It is interesting to recall that with ten armoured divisions the Germans penetrated the Franco-British line of defence in May of 1940, and within seventeen days reached the channel. This feat was accomplished by 100,000 to
150.000	men thrusting forward with 2,800 tanks. The Franco-British forces, including French reservists, numbered 5 million, with
4.000	armoured vehicles, most of which were superior to the German ones both in armour and in gun calibre. Only a fraction of those armoured vehicles were organized for operational employment. The majority were assigned in detail to the infantry divisions just as, for example, are the tanks with our brigade in Europe at the present time. In other words, the allied forces in 1940 were preoccupied with defensive positional warfare. The Germans were intent on penetration and envelopment. Liddell Hart, in his comments on this campaign, in his book "Defence Of The West", which merits careful study, says:
In the light of all the evidence now available from the enemy side it is very clear how easily the German drive could have been paralyzed by a combination of air bombing and armoured counterstroke, whereas the immobile mass of the hundred Franco-British foot-marching divisions proved helpless. Their action was always too late.
It was fortunate for us that the Germans repeated in 1944 the Franco-British mistake of 1940. The chief emphasis, as you will recall, was on the fortification of the Atlantic wall, the Maginot line of the seacoast. And Rommel, experienced commander of mobile forces in North Africa, chose positional warfare in western Europe. Instead of concentrating his mobile armoured forces he used them piecemeal and thus suffered defeat.
I notice that General Eisenhower, in dealing with the forces required for the defence of the west, says, at page 15 of his report:
The defence of the west must necessarily be based on highly-trained covering forces, backed by reserve units which can be brought into action immediately after the outbreak of hostilities.
I judge that by his "covering forces" he must be referring to mobile armoured forces. The astonishing thing about the German success in 1940, if I may refer back to that, and their near-success against Russia in the fall of 1941, is that they were applying to warfare the lessons they had learned from British experiments with armoured fighting vehicles in earlier years, and from the writings of Fuller, Liddell Hart and Martel.
The German general who was primarily responsible for organizing, training, and subsequently directing the panzer divisions to
success was Guderian, who has recently written his biography under the title "General Guderian, a Panzer Leader". At page 20 there is this passage:
It was principally the books and articles of the Englishmen, Fuller, Liddell Hart and Martel, that excited my interest and gave me food for thought. These far-sighted soldiers were even then trying to make of the tank something more than just an infantry support weapon. They envisaged it in relationship to the growing motorization of our age and thus they became the pioneers of a new type of warfare on the largest scale.
Belatedly the allies followed the German example and organized many armoured divisions which subsequently crushed the German armies in Africa, Italy and northwest Europe in conjunction, of course, with the infantry divisions and the air force. The combination of infantry, armour and air power proved decisive.
As I said in the house last fall, the Canadians went further than the Germans and developed successfully the tracked armoured infantry carrier. On a score of battefields the armoured infantry carrier solved the problem of the combined assault by infantry and armoured formations. Before the fully-tracked infantry carrier was used the tanks all too frequently got too far in advance of the infantry and the infantry, plodding along in 1914-1918 fashion, were cut down by artillery, mortar and machine-gun fire.
Thirty years ago Liddell Hart, in forecasting the nature of the armies of the future, had emphasized the necessity of armoured tracked vehicles to carry forward the infantry in company with the tanks. He envisaged a mobile armoured force comprised of all arms, mounted in tracked vehicles capable of crosscountry movement. Armies that are tied down to railway tracks or to roads tend to become immobile. When one considers the organization of the divisions as they were in the last war, he can understand how easily they can become immobile, if they are dependent solely upon roads. An armoured division and an infantry division each require 3,500 wheeled vehicles for supply purposes. Those 3,500 wheeled vehicles spaced out, at 50 yards apart, occupy 100 miles of road. Many times the allied forces were hindered by the fact that their wheeled transport was unable to go across country. The Germans had the same trouble.
In the recent war the Germans carried their infantry, supporting their armoured regiments, in lorries or in half-tracked vehicles. Their success in France was so unexpected and so easy that they were content to make no further improvement. In the fall of 1941 the poor roads and the mud of Russia immobilized their infantry forces

and their supply columns, and cheated them of success. Liddell Hart states as his opinion at page 27 of his book that-
-tank forces that had tracked transport could have overrun Russia's vital centres long before autumn.
Push-button war is still a figment of the imagination. In the face of the present threat to Europe from the Russian army, one third of which is a mobile armoured force, the answer lies for the present in mobile armoured forces supported by air power. If at any time in the future Canada should be called upon to fight again in Europe, her contribution should be armoured mobile forces and air. And the infantry portion of her forces should be given the protection of tracked armoured carriers.
I am aware that there is a school of thought that considers that the tank is no longer a potent weapon. Some people had that idea in the 1920's and 1930's. They were entirely wrong. During the war the defences against tank attacks were improved. Anti-tank guns, bazookas, and mines were increasingly used effectively against tanks. Water obstacles were a serious handicap. On the other hand, the offensive power of tanks was not fully utilized on all occasions. Wheeled transport tied to the roads, marching infantry, failure of gasoline supplies-all these and other factors contributed to reduce the mobility of the tank forces.
Despite these handicaps there remains a great field for development. For example, in the opinion of General Fuller, the war in Europe might have been shortened by six months if gasoline supplies had been available in sufficient quantity by air transport for the armoured spearheads after the break-out from Normandy.
What will be the nature of armoured forces of the future? General Eisenhower gives us some indication of that. I should like to quote a short paragraph from his report at pages 19 and 20. These are his words:
The military forces we are building must be continually modified to keep pace with new weapons. To this end an annual review of the full nature and composition of our military programs should be accomplished. We are at the very point, for example, of seeing a whole sequence of fundamental changes made in response to development of new types of arms. The tendency in recent decades to produce weapons of greater range, penetrating power and destructiveness is accelerating. As a result, the balance between men and materiel is bound to shift, probably reducing the concentration of manpower on the battlefield, increasing the ratio of materiel to men, increasing the complexity of equipment as the price of its power. There will be more and more demand for the highly-skilled and specialized men in which our democracies excel. Military forces in the field may
National Defence
become lighter, faster and harder hitting, but the support which gives them these very qualities will become more elaborate and more costly.
Let us look for a moment at what Great Britain is doing, and in this connection I should like to quote briefly from the official report of the British House of Commons containing a speech made by Mr. Winston Churchill on March 5, 1952. As usual, he gave a fairly frank forecast of what was ahead of Great Britain when he said:
The disturbed condition of the world compels us to maintain outside Europe the equivalent of nearly six regular divisions, as well as the equivalent of five divisions, including three amoured divisions, which we now have on the continent. As soon as a sufficiency of modernised equipment can be provided we shall have available for service abroad or at home a total of 22 divisions which are of a much more complex character than anything known in the late war, and a considerable proportion of which will be armoured.
Here then is Canada's opportunity. Armoured mobile forces should be the aim of our army. We have the men with the technical aptitude and experience to handle machines. We have the open spaces essential for the training of mobile formations. We have the successful experience of the last war to guide us when we were the first to use the armoured tracked carrier for infantry and ammunition. Let us now go further and develop here in our own country the completely mobile force that modern warfare has shown to be essential, the mobile force capable of cross-country movement, supplied with fuel and ammunition by tracked transport vehicles or by air transport, with infantry, artillery, and engineers equipped with tracked armoured vehicles.
In addition to great mobility an armoured formation has the additional advantage of requiring a smaller number of men and of having a greatly increased fire power than an infantry formation. For example, the number of men in an armoured division may be two thousand less than in an infantry division with a fire power in excess of that of an infantry division by approximately 120 guns and 400 machine guns. Mobility, fire power and economy in men mark the armoured division.
The saying of the lives of our soldiers is to my mind the most compelling reason for advocating mobile armoured forces. Our own experience was similar to that of the Germans. Guderian, on page 73 of his book, writes as follows concerning the campaign in Poland, with particular reference to a three-day battle:
Hitler asked about casualities. I gave him the latest figures that I had received, some 150 dead and 700 wounded for all the four divisions under my command during the battle of the corridor. He was amazed at the smallness of these figures and contrasted them with the casualties of his own old

National Defence
regiment during the first world war; on the first day of battle that one regiment alone had lost more than 2,000 dead and wounded. I was able to show him that the smallness of our casualties in this battle against a tough and courageous enemy was primarily due to the effectiveness of our tanks. Tanks are a life-saving weapon.
Canadian experience also showed that tanks are a life-saving weapon. And Canadian experience showed that the armoured carrier for infantry was the greatest lifesaving device ever used on a battlefield.
In conclusion, our objective for our army should be the development of the most effective striking force that can be devised in the light of modern experience. Canada should be in the forefront of experiments with mobile armoured forces in conjunction with air power. Canada's experience with such forces in the past, her emphasis on such forces for the future should give her authority to guide in the councils of the NATO allies.
If we must prepare for defence, and perchance for war, no effort should be spared to give our young men every advantage and every means of protection that the ingenuity of man can provide.


Mr. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon):: Mr. Speaker, I want to approach this topic from the standpoint of one who has been interested in defence matters since the end of world war II, but who has not had the privilege of sitting in this chamber and keeping as intimately in touch with these important matters as those who have been here for a longer period. Looking at it from that standpoint it was with some degree of disappointment that I saw the evidence of relaxation, and the attitude of taking it easy appear so soon after the end of hostilities in 1945.
When the war ended in 1945 the western nations threw away their arms with wild abandon. War assets which had accumulated were tossed out for civilian use with astonishing loss and wastage. The armies, navies and air forces dwindled to rather small proportions. Generally speaking, the west wanted nothing more than to be rid of war and all its works.
This is not the first time that this attitude of mind has developed following a world war. We saw the same thing occur after world war I when it was thought that the world had been made safe for democracy, to use the well-known phrase of President Wilson. We thought that never again would we be faced with global war. I am reminded of Tennyson, who said;
For I dipt into the future, far as human eye could see,
Saw the Vision of the world, and all the wonder that would be;

Tennyson went on to say;
Till the war-drum throbb'd no longer, and the battle-flags were furl'd
In the Parliament of man, the Federation of the world.
Our western way of life has been saturated in the belief that we are heading for inevitable progress and perfection. Notwithstanding the difficulties that arose following world war I we seemingly fell into the same error after world war II. Perhaps we were lulled into that attitude of mind because of the close relationship we had enjoyed, on a military level, with the U.S.S.R. during the period of hostilities when the western world and the soviet came together to resist the aggression of nazi Germany.
Actually of course the picture that has emerged and has become quite clear today is quite different from that which we anticipated in 1945. Today we are faced with wars and rumours of wars. We have passed through a depression of extreme significance and extent; and sometimes when we get pessimistic we think we see all the signs of a civilization in decay. True, we boast of our material progress. We have the finest machines and technologies in the world; we have the greatest resources, and we can measure progress in terms of accumulating financial wealth. We like to boast of those things. But actually if we get down to the grass roots of the matter there is very little to boast of. I feel that this easygoing optimism that has been radiated following two world wars is the result of the intellectual atmosphere and the social and political background of 19th century liberalism. I believe we have seen evidence of it in some of the discussion that has taken place in this chamber today.
Actually if we are to boast of anything in a democratic country it should be of our preservation of a sound democratic body politic; because it might even be that totalitarian systems such as were developed by Hitler and Mussolini and today by Stalin are even more successful in promoting material wealth than are the democracies. They can build roads; they can build bridges; they can exploit their resources; they can develop their industry, as Germany did during world war II to an unprecedented degree. So this booming material prosperity is no unique boast of the democracies. During the heyday of Mussolini we used to hear the great boast of the Italians that he made the trains run on time, another evidence of a technological civilization.
I believe the test of good government from the standpoint of our standards is the maintenance and promotion of the democratic way of life; where the government is the servant

and not the master of the people; where there is encouragement of the spirit of responsibility among individual citizens. When a difficulty arises in this country today we hear too often "What is the government going to do about it?" Of course that is inevitable as we develop the philosophy of Santa Clausism, or the belief that everything will come our way from an all-benevolent, all-kind and all-powerful government. A good government in a democratic country encourages a vital and dynamic local government. Coming from the west I may be looking at the situation from a biased point of view, but sometimes I get the feeling that our smaller communities are dying. There is this process of depopulation which has tended to interfere with the development of a healthy, vital democracy at the local level, with more and more citizens failing to take an active interest in their responsibilities and the problems that are close to their hearth and home.
I speak in this way because I believe the major difficulty we are facing, the major battle, is ideological; and we are not too successfully building up the necessary mental and spiritual resources to take part in this conflict. In 1825 Count de Tocqueville, a French writer of some reputation on historical events and social affairs, made a rather comprehensive analysis of democracy in America. He predicted that within a hundred years we would be faced with these problems on this continent: we would have responsibility bartered for security; second, we would find democracy tending to degenerate into majority rule. Majority rule, of course, is peculiar to democracy; but at the same time we must admit that some of the more important ideas, some of the more creative ideas, have emerged from the minority groups working under a benevolent majority. Again he said that dull uniformity resulting from this situation would tend to depress individual creativity and initiative; and, finally, that the increased complexity of our society and our national life would lead to autocracy or, even worse, to bureaucracy.
Well, in other parts of the world these very things have taken place. Just after world war I, when President Wilson sought to propagate the idea that the world had been made safe for democracy, at that moment of time we saw democracy go on the defensive. The revolution, or counter-revolution, as it is sometimes called, which overthrew Kerensky's democratic regime, set up reverberations which have increased in power and in their impact down through the years. During this debate, as well as during the recent debate on external affairs, we in this chamber have felt those reverberations in
National Defence
no uncertain fashion. Even in those countries which have been the heart and source of democracy we find democracy tending to go on the defensive, with governments able to perpetuate themselves indefinitely and the trend toward a one-party state, as de Tocqueville predicted from his careful analysis away back in 1825.
These are internal problems which I feel are important because with such conditions prevailing we are ill-prepared to meet the onslaught of the ideological side of the offensive, militant communism. I need not go over the territory that was covered during the four-day debate on external affairs; but it became obvious that there is a great deal of uncertainty and anxiety notwithstanding the United Nations, notwithstanding the commonwealth of nations, and notwithstanding the more recent alliance under the North Atlantic treaty. Recently Max Freedman has been quoted quite frequently as the result of a speech he made dealing with the United Nations, which in many quarters was received with a great deal of enthusiasm. He expressed his disappointment in the ability of the United Nations to cope with the international problems facing the world today. He has been quoted as follows, for example, after having been a keen observer of the United Nations in action:
Here is no brave crusade for peace, but instead a paradise of platitudes and a cynic's delight.
Again, he has said:
The general assembly has become less a forum of peace than an arena where the world's two strongest powers measure their strength.
We had the same idea expressed many times during the debate on external affairs. We tend to ignore the significance of the commonwealth as a political organization for international relationships, even though it has developed and evolved in a realistic way and today is actually based on social and political organic reality, and does have the machinery for exchanging international ideas and the solution of international problems as far as the member nations of the commonwealth are concerned. But we are tending to ignore or at least understress the significance of the British commonwealth of nations which, in reality, is the only bridge between east and west at the moment. We are placing most of our hopes on the NATO organization or the union of the European countries which, because of the developing awareness, have been awakened from their post-war lethargy and are now preparing to resist the obvious aggression of Russia by a heroic defensive effort. Much as we do not like war, as citizens of a Christian democracy, we are up against a situation that might plunge us

National Defence
into a global war on a scale never before witnessed. We are faced with the tragedy of going back to the dreary waste of armament, in spite of all that has been pointed out by the C.C.F. regarding the economic and social solutions to the problem. We are faced with the stark reality of defending ourselves against an aggressor nation such as the world has never seen.
During this debate we have had the staggering appropriations of Russia for arms quoted amounting to some $28 billion. We find that nation busily engaged in producing an efficient air arm. The MiG's operating in Korea already have gained considerable prestige amongst the members of our air forces, and are sometimes presented as superior to anything that we have been able to produce. I believe that is to be expected, because the Russians have the advantage of the expert knowledge of the German technicians who disappeared behind the iron curtain following the close of world war II. It is said that Russia is engaged in the production of a long-range bomber which would suggest that they are interested in carrying atomic warfare to this continent. This, combined with the crusading zeal of the Russian ideology that is sometimes called communism, a materialistic perversion of the Christian ethic, has forced us from our lethargy which, it seemed to me as an outside observer, existed following world war II.
With reference to this ideology, I should like to say that I believe it is closely related to the philosophy which formed the background of social reality for the rise of nazi Germany. The nazi believed in a pure race theory, a perversion of the science of eugenics. It is to be noted that this has a relationship with the unrealistic belief in progress and perfectibility which has motivated western civilization up until quite recent times. Now we are forced to remove our heads from the sand and realize that, just as other civilizations have collapsed, so could western civilization. It has no guarantee of eternal life any more than the Roman, Greek or other civilizations that have risen and fallen before us.
Now, that is the basis of the situation as I see it, and we are faced with this reality today. Unfortunately, we have to engage in the struggle for survival. First of all, we must see that our military defensive bulwarks are established. As I listened to the minister of defence this afternoon, I felt he was tinged with an optimism which might be described as a hangover from the easygoing optimism that has been strongly felt in Canada and other western countries during the first part of the century. I remember last session that

the minister justified the post-war policy by saying that the delay was going to be to the advantage of Canada, because we have been able to get rid of obsolete equipment. We have been able to start from scratch with airplanes, tanks and other armament of the latest style, the most up-to-date equipment that our military inventive genius can produce. This afternoon I believe figures were quoted-I cannot recall them exactly-to show that our defence budget in 1947 was something like $700 million as compared with the $2 billion today.
There are just two difficulties in that argument. First of all, it follows that the sudden necessity of reactivating our military forces to bring them to a state of preparedness necessary to meet the present aggressive tendencies of Russia has made a large contribution towards the inflationary trend that has been felt in our economy. We have had to indulge in astronomical expenditures in order to make up for the lost years following world war II. As a second query, I wonder whether4 we have entirely gotten rid of our obsolescent equipment, and whether we are starting from scratch with the best equipment possible for the three services. For example, the Canadian troops that were sent to Germany last fall returned to Europe with exactly the same weapons they used in world war II with the exception of the British Centurion tank, which has proved to be superior to the Churchill tank. I am informed that it is generally accepted as a superior weapon. I am not going to deal with the army situation, because that has been dealt with most satisfactorily by the member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill).
I should like to deal with aircraft, a field with which I am a little more familiar and perhaps have something to contribute. Looking at this matter of retiring obsolescent equipment, I recall that only last October there was an unveiling ceremony at Fort William when the first Harvard aircraft came off the assembly line of the Canadian Car and Foundry Company at Fort William. An article appeared in the magazine Canadian Aircraft which suggested that this was made up from a series of stock equipment items and was actually the only one that was produced for some considerable time. The Harvard, of course, was the stand-by in service training schools during world war II. Then again we were faced with the necessity of re-purchasing Mitchells and Mustangs in order to equip our reserve squadrons. In Canada we have been building up our reserve squadrons quite rapidly and the only equipment available for those squadrons was the equipment left over from world war II. Some

of these had to be repurchased from the United States, mostly Mitchells and Mustangs.
Then there is the history of Avro Canada Limited at Malton which has been engaged during the past six or seven years in the production of a jet liner, the much heralded CF-100 and again the highly tooted Orenda jet engine. This, of course, is military equipment that is entirely new, and is something that we did not have at the end of world war II. What is the fate of those three projects? What progress have we made in getting rid of obsolescent equipment and in equipping the important military units with the latest up-to-date equipment?
The jet liner project has been abandoned after reaching the flying stage, and we are now dependent on the purchase of Comets from England. As to the Orenda engine, although I have not up-to-date information with regard to it, as far as I can determine it is still in the experimental stage. It has not been used in any of the aircraft flying with our operational front-line squadrons. The greatest mystery of all, perhaps, surrounds the highly tooted CF-100: the allCanadian, superior, all-weather fighter that was going to be called the Canuck. There was again an unveiling ceremony down at Malton last October when the first of these aircraft came off the assembly line, and it was to be followed in grand procession until squadron 413 at Bagotville was to have been equipped with those aircraft and also the No. 3 all-weather training unit at North Bay. Neither of these squadrons has seen the CF-100; and I understand that there are no R.C.A.F. markings on any CF-100 at the present time. It would therefore seem that we have not been too successful. Let me point out that I am throwing these comments out more or less as queries rather than forthright statements. It is very difficult to get information. But from personal observation and discussion with those who know, this seems to be the situation prevailing at the moment.
The prototypes were produced of these three projects and that is where the matter ended. I would imagine that huge expenditures have been involved in the production of these prototypes. One expenditure is well known, namely that for the jet liner, which amounted to some $8 million before the project was abandoned. I can therefore readily conclude that there is a real need for careful scrutiny of these items by the committee on defence expenditures when it finally assembles, and I am sure that some interesting information will be revealed as a result of the deliberations of this committee.
So much for our battle against obsolescence. I just want to deal with the famous Sabre
National Defence
F-86E which I think is the designation. It is the front-line aircraft of the western powers. It is in mass production in the United States and is apparently in mass production in Canada at the present time. There have been some complaints, particularly from the men flying the machines, to the effect that they are not the equal of the Russian MIG in performance. That was the statement of Major George A. Davis, Jr., who has since been shot down in Korea. I say again that with the technical skill of the German experts who are working with the Russians on the development of jet aircraft it is quite possible -indeed probable-that they have produced a superior aircraft. We are going forward to equip our twelve squadrons for NATO with the Sabres. Apparently we are making progress here.
As we were informed this afternoon, we are in a position whereby we can equip, every two months, one entire fighter squadron, with all the maintenance personnel and all the paraphernalia associated with a fighter squadron. Then by the year 1954 we shall have completely equipped the twelve squadrons required for NATO. It would therefore seem that we are making progress in that regard. But by the time 1954 comes around from my air force experience, I would say that the speed of development in aircraft is such that if the Sabre is not obsolescent today it will be by the time 1954 arrives. For example there is the famous Mosquito that went through so many changes. Our squadron, 410 squadron, had three different types within the period of a year or a year and a half; and by the time the war ended the authorities were preparing to discard the Mosquito entirely and substitute for it the de Havilland Hornet. This will indicate the speed at which modern aircraft become obsolescent. We shall have to be exceedingly nimble and flexible in our planning if we are to be able to overcome this difficulty.
I say again that it would seem that the phantom air force that has been talked about and the phantom aircraft that have been talked about by so many with such great enthusiasm and optimism are at last taking tangible shape, although in reference to one statement I should like to read, from the report in the British Hansard, a statement of Mr. Shinwell, during the defence debates on March 5. With regard to the Sabres that Canada is going to supply to Britain, he had this to say, as reported at page 458:
The right hon. gentleman mentioned provision by the Canadians of the F.86's. More than 12 months ago we had negotiations with the American government and Canadians.
- (Hon. Members:	"What happened?")

National Defence
1 will tell hon. members what the trouble was. I will be glad to-not glad, because there is nothing to be glad about. The Canadians were very willing to produce the air frames but the engines were produced in the United States of America and they have not been supplied yet. That is the trouble.
That was a statement made on March 5, so it might be that the aircraft are still very-much in the phantom stage.
There is one other item with regard to which I should like to say a word before I leave that topic, and I have been pursuing this for some little time. I did not intend to say anything at the present time on the subject, but the other day I was reading, in the Toronto Saturday Night, a report of 410 squadron stationed overseas. Some of the comments made by the aircrew flying the Sabres were recorded. I am greatly interested in the armament policy of the air force because, since world war II, we have changed from 20 millimetre cannon to 50 calibre armament. The aircrew were discussing the problems of modern aerial warfare, and they are the boys who know the score if anybody does, because they actually fly and handle the aircraft, and know them intimately. This young chap said:
What we need is some effective armament . . . Four cannon maybe instead of those six peashooters up front.
Yeah, and what about those air-to-air rockets? . . . They'd be the real McCoy for bomber interception like this morning.
I was curious -when I read that, for this reason. According to the careful instruction I received under the R.C.A.F. training program, we were taught that armament was basic to successful aerial interception. If you do not have the firepower you can have the most wonderful aircraft in the world, the greatest speed in the world, but unless the armament is deadly effective in aerial combat it is all to no purpose. The Germans found that difficulty during the battle of Britain when their aircraft, perhaps superior to our own, were inadequately equipped from the standpoint of armament. All through the war they suffered from that handicap. Although latterly the Germans had the 20 millimetre cannon, because they did not use high explosive and incendiary shells it was possible to get a shell in your gasoline tank and come out of it scot free; whereas with our 20 millimetre armament, one shell in the lethal gasoline tank was all that was necessary. That was during the relatively slower flying operations of world war II. Today with jet aircraft and the high speed-s they attain, the armament and the concentration of firepower must be more important than ever. You are lucky if you get any strikes, but whatever strikes you get on the enemy must count. To that end the most

effective and lethal armament possible is necessary. I should like to recommend the statement of the young chap who was speaking apparently in the dispersal hut of 410 squadron overseas.


An hon. Member:: What was the magazine?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: It is taken from the Saturday Night magazine of some two weeks ago. The date is not on the sheet. I should like to recommend the statement to the minister because without any doubt there will not be the opportunity for the young man himself to make the representation.
Another subject that I want to mention briefly is that of the auxiliary services. We had a very comprehensive survey of the auxiliary service, or the welfare service situation as it exists, particularly in Korea at the present time. There was some discussion of this subject last fall, and the minister has kindly dealt with it in more or less comprehensive terms. There is just one aspect of his statement that I could not quite comprehend. I think he said that there were no complaints at all from the army. Well, that is an unusual state of affairs. An army that does not complain must be in bad shape indeed because they say-and this is more than folklore-when the soldiers are griping most, morale is highest; when they are not griping, they are muttering under their breath, and that is an indication of relatively low morale. I rather suspect that the statement that there are no complaints is something like the experience of the typical orderly officer who walks into the mess. He says: "Any complaints?" And nobody dares say a word. The orderly officer walks out again, and then the hubbub starts after he has disappeared. I cannot possibly conceive, regardless of how efficient welfare services are, of a group of men gathered together in a military organization away from home, in the sort of country and in the situation in which the boys find themselves in Korea, not having any complaints whatsoever. That is just a little too optimistic, and a little bit too rosy-


Mr. Macdonneli (Greenwood):: What else would they be doing?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: It is a little bit too optimistic and a little bit too rosy for common sense.
On this subject of auxiliary services, it would seem that now the government is going to make use of the services of the voluntary organizations because we already have a group of young ladies from the Red Cross en route overseas. I am happy to see

that this is so, because I do believe that the voluntary welfare organizations have a unique contribution to make when it comes to serving men who find themselves in the unnatural and difficult circumstances of modern warfare. No matter how many cigarettes you have got, how many shows you have got, how many sing-songs you have, or how many other comforts are supplied, it is still a difficult situation to be separated from your normal associations. We are only too well aware that the major tragedy of modern warfare is not necessarily physical wounds. We are all familiar today with war neuroses and hysteria. We have many men who are receiving war veterans allowances today, the pension popularly known as the burnt-out pension, who have no obvious physical defects, but yet are suffering from the impact of war neuroses.
I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that voluntary welfare organizations are especially equipped, and uniquely equipped, to make a worth-while contribution in this area of service. Our troops, our soldiers, our navy men and our airmen are essentially civilian soldiers, and the closer we can keep them to the home front, the more we can avoid situational maladjustments-that is the term the psychiatrists use-the better. These men find themselves away from the support of home, the support of the church and of the other bulwarks of normal society. The closer we can keep our civilian soldiers to that atmosphere the less severe will be the impact, the effects of these war neuroses that used to be called shell shock. These voluntary organizations with experienced personnel, with personnel who are highly motivated, with personnel who have gained valuable experience in world war I and world war II, are in a much happier position, I submit, to provide the necessary welfare services than any regimented military scheme of welfare services. It is hard to visualize a military man providing the type of human service that is necessary in order to help a man keep his balance, keep his proper perspective, when he finds himself amidst the - dangers, confusion and uncertainty of modern warfare.
I do not think I need say anything further on that subject. It seems obvious that we are not going to depend entirely upon military welfare services. We have made a start in using voluntary services, and as the need arises I am sure that the services which have been so generously offered by the four voluntary organizations, the Canadian Legion, the Y.M.C.A., the Salvation Army and the Knights
National Defence
of Columbus, who have a large number of experienced personnel available for the job, will be taken into consideration.
On that subject just one further point: not only can they keep a man on the battle-front in touch with the home front; they can also keep the home front in touch with the man on the battlefront, and through their widespread organizations back home they can deal with domestic problems and problems of juvenile delinquency as a result of father being absent overseas, and so forth, in a way that military personnel cannot possibly hope to do.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I believe that while military preparation is necessary in this situation in which we find ourselves, there has to be in addition a total preparedness, the psychological effect that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) spoke about in a recent speech in the city of Ottawa. We have to equip our people in their thinking to accept the sacrifices that are necessary in order to meet the onrush of Soviet military and ideological aggression. It involves an educational program, and this is being stressed in the adult education movement. It is a matter of using our defence production in the most efficient way possible; it is a matter of controlling defence spending wisely. It is a matter of integrating defence production as closely as we can with peacetime production, dispersing industry so that we will avoid the dislocation of the period between 1939 and 1945 when Manitoba, for example, lost 200,000 people who wended their way to the factories of the industries in the east. With the threat of atomic warfare, there is no reason why, facing military reality, we cannot disperse our industries realistically.
Undoubtedly we must establish the necessary moral fibre by strengthening the values of our civilization. A much more dangerous threat to our way of life than the communist is the "apathist", the ordinary citizen who is overcome with apathy, and could not care less what happens.
We are all in the front line. I believe the sooner we tell the truth and give all the facts concerning the situation, and refrain from painting rosy and optimistic pictures of the inevitable glorious future, and the sooner we realize that our nation and western civilization are up against the greatest challenge they have ever faced, the sooner we will be prepared successfully to meet that challenge.


Mr. G. M. Murray (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker,
I have been particularly impressed by the speeches made here this evening, which seem to indicate that among all parties there is

National Defence
a uniformity of opinion, a sort of patriotism that one rarely finds in a country where there are diverse parties, and where debate sometimes becomes heated.
In his concluding remarks the last speaker said something which impressed me greatly, and that is the necessity in this country of bringing together peacetime qualities with those of defence. Up in the northwest, where possibly we are not so exposed as hon. members from Newfoundland, who fear hell on the Atlantic, we are nevertheless in a part of this continent which is exposed to possible enemy attack.
We may have our air force, a strong naval force and our army; but I say to the house that in the northwestern part of Canada we should seek along peaceful lines to settle those vacant valleys and build roads and railways, and possibly bring over here some of the surplus population from Europe. I believe that would be the more economical procedure, in the long run. Let us place them on the land and allow them to share in the light of this Canada of ours.
Only one unpleasant thought developed during the recent session, and that was by way of some unkindly references to the United States of America. In my own constituency certain speakers have spoken disparagingly of the United States, and have sought to divide the Canadian people from their good neighbours to the south. In the making of peace in the world the policies so well outlined by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), indicating that we are walking hand in hand with the United States in our policy of defence, are salutary and good, and are re-echoed in all the capitals of the world.
We are going along here peacefully. In his speech the other day in which he dealt with atomic energy, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) made one of the most historic observations ever made in parliament when he said that we are well advanced into the atomic age, and that the time is not far distant when atomic energy will be harnessed for peaceful purposes. We achieve these things by friendly co-operation with our allies.
I would like to see even more friendly exchange of plans and inventions with our allies to the south. And when I say this I do not wish to leave out the motherland from which we all spring. Great Britain has led throughout the world; and it grieves me greatly when I hear people speak about British imperialism, and make reference to the way in which England invaded certain

countries in times past and sought to bring various peoples under her domination in a purely military sense.
I do not think any power in the world has been more beneficent than has Britain in her contact with all the nations. She has improved the peoples in every country in Asia with which she has been in contact. I have referred to the defence of the northwest part of the continent because I know a good deal about the Pacific region. I know that if Britain had remained in China it would have been better for the world today, and better for the Chinese. I know that where Britain did operate in China she built hospitals, installed sanitation, provided fresh water supplies, paved streets, built roads, established industries, and built great docks and warehouses.
Had it not been for England's operations in China, and in other places across the seven seas, we would not have known the prosperity of the Victorian era. Englishmen went out in their ships and brought raw materials back to their country to keep the mills turning, and to manufacture useful goods for the welfare of the world.
She set a fine example in the Far East. Her contact with Japan was on the highest level; and the world is finding out today, many years too late, that the Anglo-Japanese alliance was a very useful and proper thing for the maintenance of peace in that part of the world. We now have an American-Japanese alliance. Britain has led the way in all those countries; and we in Canada could do nothing better than to follow in her footsteps, and associate ourselves with the Americans to that end.
I wish to compliment the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) upon the good work he has done up in the northwest in recent months by way of the improvement of airways, the improvement of highways, and co-operation along the Alaskan perimeter. In that part of the country we have a very friendly feeling toward the United States. Their capitalists are sharing in the development of our industries. Many of them are coming in, settling upon the land and becoming Canadian citizens. It is good to have a sort of harmonious feeling in Canada, and to know that we are united with our good allies the United States of America, the mother country and the other nations making up the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and that we are firmly behind the United Nations in its efforts.
I have had the opportunity of visiting at the United Nations, and I am one who feels

that the work of that great institution is just dawning. It has already accomplished great things. And, under the fine leadership of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), and the ministers clustered about him, I hope we may continue to give unstinted support to the United Nations. I hope some day to see raised that emblem which they have raised on Mount Royal, the Christian cross, raised above the United Nations building down there near the Goddess of Liberty.


Mr. Adamson:: In view of the importance of this debate and the fact that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) finds it inconvenient to be present, I move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.
Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Fournier (Hull) moved: the adjournment of the house.
He said: Tomorrow we will continue this debate and if it is concluded we will call items in national health and welfare, trade and commerce and resources and development. We will then proceed with the resolution to approve a treaty of peace with Japan. If that does not take too long, we will deal with some of the small bills; bill No. 9, respecting the appointment of auditors for national railways, and the resolution of the Minister of Labour to amend the Government Employees Compensation Act, and perhaps some other small matters.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.45 p.m.

Friday, April 4. 1952