1953-01-22

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Hughes Cleaver (Halion) presented the first and second reports of the standing committee on banking and commerce, and moved that the first report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. H. W. Winkler (Lisgar) presented the first and second reports of the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills, and moved that the first report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Wright:: 1.	What increases have taken place in the charge per man by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for police services to municipalities in the province of Saskatchewan, since January 1, 1951?
2.	What increases have taken place in the rentals or other services required by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in these municipalities?


Mr. Garson:: 1.	No general increase has taken place between January 1, 1951 and December 31, 1952. The charge per man per annum was increased to the town of Eston from $1,200 to $1,400 on -the 1st November, 1952, and the rate to the city of North Battleford was increased from $1,000 to $1,400, effective the 1st November, 1951.
2.	Certain municipalities have been required to pay the sum of nine cents per mile for each mile travelled on municipal duty by R.C.M. Police transport. Certain municipalities not providing office accommodation have been required to pay an appropriate amount in lieu of such accommodation.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


Mr. Balcom:: What contracts over $100 for medical and surgical supplies have been awarded Nova Scotia drug or surgical instrument companies by the Canadian Commercial Corporation?



APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE

Right Hon. L. S. Si. Laurent (Prime Minister) moved:: That a select committee to be designated be appointed to consider with Mr. Speaker the procedure of this house for the purpose of suggesting any changes that may be desirable to assure the more expeditious dispatch of public business, with power to send for persons, and papers and to report from time to time its findings and recommendations to the house.


Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):: Mr. Speaker, I have not checked to see if this motion follows the same form as the motions in the last two sessions dealing with the appointment of this particular committee, and I wonder if the Prime Minister would tell us if the purposes outlined here are sufficiently broad. We are all concerned about the more expeditious dispatch of public business but it may be that there will be other matters that should be considered by the committee and which would not come strictly under the heading of the more expeditious dispatch of public business.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I think these words are identical with the words of previous motions. I know that last year the motion was to continue the work -that had been done by a previous committee and the report of that previous committee was referred to the committee to be set up. It was felt this time that it would be in order to have the language as general as possible. I am quite sure that if the committee finds that there is something that it wishes to do that is not covered by this reference, there will be no hesitancy on the part of the house to accept its recommendations that the terms of reference be enlarged. I would undertake to bring that before the house without any delay whatsoever.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I wish to thank the Prime Minister. I take it that we can agree that

Inquiries of the Ministry the purpose of the motion is to provide wide terms of reference for the committee.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Oh, yes. I would hope that these terms of reference would be quite sufficient to enable the committee to consider the principle of the bill introduced to amend the constitution with respect to the quorum of this house, if that bill or the subject matter of the bill is referred to the committee. I can give the hon. gentleman assurance that there is no desire to circumscribe the terms of reference of this committee in any manner whatsoever. Should the committee find that it requires some modification in the terms of reference in order to permit it to make the kind of recommendation it feels would be proper, I shall do my best to bring it before the house at the earliest possible moment and recommend that it be considered. We want the members of this committee to have full opportunity to consider the rules and make such recommendations as they hope will commend themselves to the majority of the members of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the conflicting recommendations in regard to the South Saskatchewan river project, will the Prime Minister say whether it is the intention of the government to stand by the recommendations of its own P.F.R.A. engineer and its own promises to the people of western Canada?
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime
Minister): The government has not yet had an opportunity to give proper consideration to the report of this royal commission. As soon as it has had that opportunity and has reached any decision, that will be announced to the house.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: May I ask
a supplementary question? Is it the intention to have the report printed and distributed at an early date among members of the house?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I am surprised to know the hon. member has not received it. Instructions were given to make it immediately available to all members of parliament. If that has not been done, I shall take steps to see that it is done at once. I was informed on Monday morning that there were copies in sufficient number to make them immediately available to all members of parliament.


Mr. Graydon:: Did you make a good count of the copies?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I was told in general terms that there were enough to go around and that there were sufficient copies available to enable me to send some to the governments of the three western provinces, which was done.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Donald Methuen Fleming: On
January 15 I put a question to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann), as reported on page 1014 of Hansard. This question was as follows:
Is the Minister of National Revenue aware of the fact that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, through its present information service, is announcing that on January 29 it will broadcast a childbirth? If so, what action is the government proposing to take?
The minister then replied as follows:
I am not aware of the matter, but I shall have it referred to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and give the imformation later.
A week has passed, and I wonder if this question could be answered soon.
(Translation):



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Bona Arsenault (Bonaventure):: I wish to put a question to the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier).
Two lives having been lost recently as a result of the collapse of part of the ice bridge between Cross Point, Quebec, and Campbellton, New Brunswick, I would like the hon. Minister of Public Works to tell me:
1.	Whether he has received from the government of the province of Quebec or from that of New Brunswick any representations through which these provinces have formally agreed to participate financially in the construction of an interprovincial bridge between Cross Point and Campbellton.
2.	Whether the federal government is willing to participate financially in the construction of such an interprovincial bridge, according to the practice generally adopted up to now in this country.


Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the matter of the construction of an interprovincial bridge between Cross Point and Campbellton has been brought time and again to the atten-

tion of my department by those members representing the neighbouring constituencies, including the one who asked this question.
Each time, I pointed out to hon. members that the federal government is always prepared to consider any proper suggestion that the two provincial governments might submit. However, no suggestion of the kind has yet been submitted to us by the provincial authorities concerned, neither jointly nor separately.
I should like to add that as soon as the two provinces concerned have formally indicated their decision to participate financially in the construction of this interprovincial bridge, I shall submit their proposals without delay to my colleagues of the cabinet.
(Text):



DEFENCE EXPENDITURE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, January 20, consideration of the motion of Mr. St. Laurent for the appointment of a committee to examine defence expenditures and commitments, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Claxton, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Knowles.
Mr. J. W. Noseworthy (York South):: Mr. Speaker, this debate is now going into its second week. During that time the Department of National Defence has acquired an unenviable reputation. It has become a joke and the laughingstock of this country. Worse than that, the present administration of the department has brought the department itself, and particularly the army branch, to a position where it also has become a laughingstock in the country. That, I suggest, is a very regrettable affair. The Department of National Defence is not only the largest spending department of the government but it is the department that is concerned with the nation's very survival in time of war. It is the department which is concerned not only with the spending of hundreds of millions of dollars but the department which is concerned with the life and welfare of thousands of our citizens who enlist in the various branches of the services. It is the department that must inspire young Canadians with sufficient confidence to induce large numbers of them to choose the armed services as their lifework and to inspire still larger numbers to submit themselves to sufficient training to enable us to defend ourselves in case of attack.
It is not good for the morale of the army or the morale of the Department of National Defence, nor is it good for the morale of the
Committee on Defence Expenditure country, that a department of such importance should become the laughingstock of the country, particularly at this time. When have we ever before in all the history of Canada had a department of national defence that has become, as this administration has, the subject of such numerous jokes by joke-sters and cartoonists all across the country? When has any one of our great national dailies ever had the opportunity of making such fun at the expense of the Department of National Defence as the Globe and Mail did on the front page of its issue of January 15? I have a copy of that page on my desk. There is a whole page of cartoons gathered from all across the country that hold the Department of National Defence up to ridicule.
There is a cartoon, for instance, representing an ordinary soldier up before the big brass of the army and defending himself by saying, "All I said was, I have been working like a horse." The present Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton), Mr. Speaker, is the most nagged man in all Canada today.


Mr. Sinnott:: That is only your opinion.


Joseph William Noseworthy: It is small wonder that the Department of National Defence has become an object of such ridicule. When before in our history has Hansard ever printed on one day a letter tabled by a minister of a responsible department, a letter supposed to be written by him, signed by him and sent by him to another citizen, only to be told on the next day by the minister that he did not write the letter, he did not dictate it and the signature must have been added at some stage either by a clerk or by a printer? It becomes quite evident to the public that the minister is not only unfamiliar with what goes on in his own department but he does not even know what he is doing when he is tabling documents in the House of Commons. He does not even know what he is tabling. How can we expect the country to have confidence in an administration of that kind? What goes on in the Department of National Defence? Who played such a prank on the minister? I suggest that this is a case worthy of the best efforts of the R.C.M.P. Certainly it is as worthy as some of the duties that have been assigned to that force by the Department of Justice in recent weeks.
The debate, as I said, has gone on now for two weeks. During that time the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), the Minister of National Defence, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) and the Solicitor General (Mr. Campney) have all participated along with some other lesser Liberal lights. Actually the big Klieg lights of the Liberal party and the little candle lights, as for example, the
1222	HOUSE OF
Committee on Defence Expenditure one from Mackenzie, have only served to blur the picture before us. What has quite evidently been the object of the government in this debate is the minimizing of the importance of the actual report and drawing the attention of the public to other minor and side issues.
I submit it is in the public interest that our attention should be focused on the report and the revelation of inefficiency on the part of those at or near the top of the Department of National Defence as exposed in the report. That is the issue which should be our concern. It is not, I submit, a matter of grave national importance whether a colonel's rocking horse was a $400 bang-up thoroughbred affair with a silken mane, as the soldier who made it evidently thought, or whether it was, as the minister says, a rough affair made from scrap, from a lady's worn-out fur coat and a milkman's horse's tail, a rocking horse that was only worth $9.50-


Mr. Studer:: Your party brought it up.


Joseph William Noseworthy: -and which $9.50 was returned to the government some weeks or months after the horse was made and after the investigation was well under way. It is a matter of some importance that an investigation by an investigator of Mr. Currie's standing gives us certain important facts. It is important that the explanations that the Minister of National Defence and the Prime Minister have given us pertaining to the same facts are at variance with and contradictory to those given by Mr. Currie. This becomes more important when we are given to understand by the minister that Mr. Currie got his information from the Department of National Defence, that the department cooperated with him in giving him all the information he wanted, and that the reason the minister wanted the Department of National Defence to check the report was that the facts had been given by the department.
The minister and the Prime Minister got their facts from the Department of National Defence. Yet they are at variance in a number of details. How does it happen, for instance, that Mr. Currie's story about horses on the payroll should differ so widely from the Prime Minister's explanation? How does it come about ,that Mr. Currie could find no useful purpose being served by a certain dam that was built and yet the Minister of National Defence comes forward with an explanation? How does it happen that nobody in the Department of National Defence was bright enough to think of these explanations when Mr. Currie interrogated them and that the explanations come to us only after


Mr. Currie has given us an entirely different version? Any impartial citizen who is at all interested in this affair can only reach one conclusion. That one and only conclusion is that the government is going to great lengths to whitewash the Currie report.
It is a matter of some public concern, I think, whether a government department being investigated should have the right to edit a report which exposes the inefficiency of the department being investigated. Is it the right of the Department of National Defence to have that report, which condemns that department for its inefficiency, revised and edited by that department before it is made public? That, I take it, is a question of some national importance.
The minister tries to gloss over that fact, without really facing up to it, by telling us that he ordered the report; that he wanted the truth; and apparently he admits that Mr. Currie could not get at the truth and so the minister has to get at it after the report is published. He tells us that Mr. Currie got his information from the department but the department wanted to check the facts that it gave to Mr. Currie.
The whole question at issue is whether or not a government department that is being investigated can require the submission to it of a report of the investigation which condemns that department for inefficiency- before the report is made public. You do not answer that question by saying that this report was Mr. Currie's; that Mr. Currie could submit it or not as he chose; that Mr. Currie could take the suggestion of the Department of National Defence or not as he pleased. That does not answer the question.
We shall never know what conversations took place nor what persuasive measures were taken to induce Mr. Currie to comply with the minister's request in this respect. I say that it was submitted for editing advisedly, because in my opinion the change that was made in that report, changing the wording from "those at or near the top" to read "higher ups" cannot by any stretch of the imagination be considered factual or anything else but editing. That was the real purpose why that report had to be submitted to the officers of the Department of National Defence.
Let us not forget that had it not been for the fact that what the Prime Minister calls a preliminary working paper found its way into the hands of the leader of this group, the country would never have known that Mr. Currie was requested by the Department of National Defence to submit his report to them for editing before it was tabled in this house.

Some of us believe that a department of government being investigated should not be accorded the privilege of editing a report made by an independent investigator condemning that department. We believe that a report produced and made public under those restrictive conditions could-I am not saying that this one did-lose all of its validity as an independent report by an independent investigator. On those grounds we think that the department should not have been accorded that privilege. In fact, some of us feel so strongly on this point that we believe that the member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) would have been condoning the action of the government and would not have been fulfilling his duty as a member of this house if he had, as the Prime Minister suggested, refused to make use of the information which came into his hands.
Are we to assume that only the government has the right to make use of stolen information-if it was stolen? No one questioned the right of the government to make use of stolen information in the Russian spy case. Are we to accord that right only to the government or, as the Prime Minister suggested, to the leader of the official opposition? As he suggested, had the report been taken to the editors of the country-


An hon. Member:: Who stole the report?


Joseph William Noseworthy: -it might have been taken to the leader of the official opposition. Are we to accord that privilege to those people and not accord it to the opposition members of parliament? That is an issue, I think, which might well be considered.
The Prime Minister on January 15, when speaking in this house about the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), as reported in Hansard on page 1019, said: -the hon. gentleman is sometimes inclined to set himself up not only as an authority, . . . but also as an example of rectitude for the rest of us to follow in our own public conduct.
Then a few minutes later the Prime Minister, as reported on page 1021, sets himself up as an example to the rest of us when he makes this statement:
Does anyone imagine, Mr. Speaker, that I would be doing lor anyone but the public service what I have been doing for the last four or five years for the pecuniary compensation that I get for it?
I am not for one moment questioning the fact that the Prime Minister was rendering this service because of his interest in the public and in the welfare of Canada, but what I am saying is that the Prime Minister should be broad-minded enough to accord to gentlemen on this side of the house the same privileges that he takes unto himself and that he takes for the members of his government.
Committee on Defence Expenditure


An hon. Member:: He did not steal anything.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Is the Prime Minister unwilling to concede that the member for Rosetown-Biggar used that information for no other purpose than in the public interest? He implies in his speech that the man who brought that information to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar-


An hon. Member:: Who was it?


Joseph William Noseworthy: -was not only stealing this information but that he was bringing the document solely for the purpose of its being used in party strife. The Prime Minister insinuated that the member for Rosetown-Biggar, when he made use of that information, was making use of it for no other purpose than party strife. Is the Prime Minister not big enough, is he not gentlemanly enough, to assume that there could be some people on this side of the house whose principles are high enough-


Mr. Dupuis:: Mr. Speaker, I want to know if the word "insinuate", in this case, is unparliamentary?


Mr. Brooks:: Look it up in the dictionary.


Hector Dupuis: Let the Speaker decide. To me the word "insinuate" means lied. I should like to know whether or not, in the present circumstances, that word is unparliamentary. I am waiting for your decision, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think I should rule that the word "insinuate" is out of order. I do not think it means "to lie". Many things may be insinuated. I cannot declare it to be unparliamentary in the present circumstances.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Nor could anyone else.


Joseph William Noseworthy: By what means does the Prime Minister arrive at his conclusion that because opposition members cannot identify the interests of the Liberal party with the interests of the country, as quite evidently the Liberals do, they are therefore stooping to party strife? They have attempted to expose a government practice which they consider wrong, and which they consider against the public interest. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, we in this group believe that the exposure of the government's insistence on editing the Currie report is not in the best interests of Canada, and that those who exposed that were, in reality, rendering the country a good public service.
Apart altogether from the question of the document and the issue arising out of it, I want to support the subamendment moved by the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. 1224	HOUSE OF
Committee on Defence Expenditure Knowles). The subamendment, on page 1019 of Hansard for January 15, 1953, reads in part as follows:
-and to give consideration to the desirability of recommending that Mr. Currie be asked to conduct a further inquiry into any other expenditures and commitments covered by the terms of this resolution.
If the Currie report has done nothing else, it has alerted the public to the fact that they are not getting value for all the money the Department of National Defence is spending. The public not only regard the administration of that department, as I said before, as a joke, but they have become cynical about it. They have become suspicious of what is happening elsewhere in that department. In my opinion, public interest and the interests of the Department of National Defence require that there be a thoroughgoing investigation of the expenditures of that whole department. Only in that way will public confidence in the department be restored to the point where the public will be willing to see *our youths devote their services to this country through the Department of National Defence.
Today this department is completely discredited in the eyes of the public, and only such a thoroughgoing investigation can restore that department to the confidence of the public. The minister tells us that he wants to get at the truth. I am confident the Prime Minister also wants to get at the truth. Yet, both of them will oppose this subamendment. The Prime Minister has told us he will vote against it, and he thereby gives the signal to all his followers to vote against it. Why? Certainly, they cannot pretend to those of us who sit in this house that they believe for one moment the committee on defence expenditure will make any such investigation of the true facts? They will get from that committee just those facts that the government wants revealed, and nothing more. Those of us who have had experience in sitting on committees in the past, and I sat on the defence expenditure committee during world war II, realize that they get just what information the government wants them to get.
I believe the keynote of the committee's investigation was given in an interview by Mr. MacTavish, president of the national Liberal federation, as reported in yesterday's Journal. Mr. MacTavish was interviewed during his first western trip in his present capacity, and had this to say:
-he believes the report will be put in its proper perspective after it is examined and analysed by the defence expenditures committee of the Commons.


Then he goes on to say that it will not be an issue in the forthcoming election. The report will be put in its proper perspective by the Liberal majority of that committee. They will minimize the charges in the report, and give the report such a good coat of whitewash that the Liberals hope the country will forget the report when election time comes, thus exonerating the government and the Department of National Defence from the charges that are implicit in that report. I maintain, Mr. Speaker, that the good name of our Department of National Defence, the good name and reputation of our armed forces acquired through the sacrifices of our soldiers, sailors and airmen in two world wars, is being sacrificed and held up to ridicule in this country because the Liberal party places party interests before national interest.
If the government today uses its majority in this house to defeat that subamendment, and thereby show the country that they do not want a thorough investigation into the Department of National Defence, they will furnish the country with proof of what I have just said.


Mr. David A. Croll (Spadina):: I have been reluctant to enter the debate on the establishment of a committee to investigate defence expenditures and examine the Currie report. Rumour has it that I shall have ample opportunity in the very near future of discussing the Currie report. The house will understand, therefore, if I do not discuss it at the present time. But in listening to the debate, and I have listened to it since its inception, I have had a curious feeling of unreality. Let us see what the government is proposing to this house. The government is proposing, and I quote:
That a select committee be appointed to continue the examination of all expenditure of public moneys for national defence and all commitments for expenditure for national defence since March 31, 1950, and initially to give priority in their examination to the expenditures and commitments of the Canadian army works services as dealt with in the report of G. S. Currie, Esquire, chartered accountant, tabled in the House of Commons on December 15, 1952.
That is the government proposal. The position of the official opposition on that matter is well known and was stated by a member of last year's committee on Tuesday, January 20. As reported at page 1182 of Hansard of that day the hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Harkness) said:
The idea of referring the report to the defence expenditure committee, from the point of view of the recommendations, is completely hopeless and just does not make sense.

Then again at page 1184:
I can think of nothing less valuable than to have the committee on defence expenditure spend its time, in effect, in investigating the investigator. That is what we would be doing, and that is all the defence expenditure committee can and will do if it is turned loose on this Currie report. We shall be investigating the investigator, the very man the Minister of National Defence and this government appointed for the purpose of investigating the irregularities which had taken place at Petawawa, who spent months in doing that, and who turned in what I think everyone will admit was an absolutely splendid report.
Then again at page 1186, still quoting the hon. member for Calgary East:
If this program envisaged by the government is carried out time will be spent on a minute examination and re-examination of the Currie report, and it will be a complete waste of time as far as the committee is concerned.
Then quoting the hon. member at page 1184 of Hansard:
Last year in the defence expenditure committee I made a motion that the committee should investigate the situation which had developed at Petawawa, but the government would not hear of it.
At that stage the hon. member for Calgary East neglected or in any event omitted the meat of his motion. The motion, as he states it, is tasteless, without being spiced. I cannot resist taking advantage of the opportunity to set the record clear.
On Tuesday, April 29, 1952, the committee on defence expenditure met and there were present Messrs. Adamson, Applewhaite, Blanchette, Campney, Cavers, Churchill, Croll, Dickey, Dinsdale-he had replaced the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) in that and a few other meetings; the hon. member for Nanaimo was away at that particular time -Fulton, Gauthier (Portneuf), George, Hark-ness, Henderson, James, Jones, Larson, Mac-donnell (Greenwood), Power, Stick and Weaver. Twenty-one members were present. Six members belonged to the official opposition; they were all present.
At that time the hon. member for Calgary East introduced a motion before that committee. I think I can tell you now that all the members of the official opposition voted for the motion of the hon. member for Calgary East and gave rather emphatic speeches on behalf of it. Let me read you the motion, Mr. Speaker; this is his notice of motion. It has four parts, (a), (b), (c) and (d) and it reads as follows:
(a)	That the Department of National Defence be asked to bring before the committee at its next meeting officials who can give us the general administrative set-up at Petawawa.
(b)	That witnesses be called before the committee to outline the losses of stores, etc., which have taken place at Petawawa, and the manner in which these losses occurred.
Committee on Defence Expenditure
(c)	That witnesses be called to outline the accounting and other procedures in use at Petawawa and other places to prevent loss and waste of government property.
Before I read (d) to you, Mr. Speaker, I want to repeat the proposal of the government before this house at the present time, namely:
That a select committee be appointed to continue the examination of all expenditure of public moneys for national defence and all commitments for expenditure for national defence since March 31, 1950, and initially to give priority in their examination to the expenditures and commitments of the Canadian army works services as dealt with in the report of G. S. Currie, Esquire, chartered accountant, tabled in the House of Commons on December 15, 1952.
I now read section (d) of the resolution introduced by the hon. member for Calgary East and supported by all the members of the opposition whose names I have read, all of whom have spoken in this house and all of whom support his point of view. It reads:
(d)	That as soon as Mr. George S. Currie has completed his investigation at Petawawa, his report be placed before this committee and that he be called for questioning on it.


Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, from both the Currie report and the Sellar report one thing is clear to me, and that is that the biggest business operation being conducted in this country today, namely the Department of National Defence, is being conducted on sloppy, inefficient and unbusinesslike lines. Both these reports have pointed out that little heed has been paid to accounting methods and accounting; and after all, accounting is the backbone of any successful business operation.
When he was speaking on Tuesday night, the minister made a rather startling admission. He admitted that he had not read any of the 1,185 auditors' reports dealing with conditions in his department, and that he was therefore unfamiliar with what those reports contained.


Mr. Claxion:: That was also stated by me in my speech a week before.


George Harris Hees: Then I think that makes it doubly shocking, Mr. Speaker, that someone in charge of a business operation which spends over $2 billion of the taxpayers' money each year, and which spends fifty cents out of every tax dollar collected from the Canadian people, has never bothered to look at an auditor's report on the conditions existing in his department. To me that is an exceedingly startling revelation.
When he was speaking in this house on Tuesday night, the minister said that not one member of the opposition had offered a constructive suggestion as to how the irregularities
1226	HOUSE OF
Committee on Defence Expenditure mentioned in Mr. Currie's report could have been prevented. I say to the minister that if he had paid some attention to the continuous reports of the chief auditor in his department, there would have been no necessity for Mr. Currie to make his investigation, because the conditions which necessitated that investigation would have been stamped out several years before.
If the president and the board of directors of a business corporation tried to defend this kind of negligence to the shareholders, all of them would be fired at the next annual meeting. The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the cabinet are the president and board of directors of this country. They have taken the position that they have nothing to excuse with regard to the administration of the defence department. They are, in so many words, condoning these irregularities brought to light by Mr. Currie, and, in so doing, are saying to all other departments, "Do not be too careful about wasting the taxpayers' money. Go ahead and waste a little, if you want to. We will not remonstrate with you."


An hon. Member:: That is not true.


George Harris Hees: The government is saying,
"There is lots more money where this came from. If you are a little short, we will take more from the taxpayers for you; because in the last six years we have been overtaxing the people of Canada by more than a million dollars a day in excess of what was needed to meet all requirements, and we cannot see any reason for stopping now."
And now, to show you how little the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) and others in charge of the defence department know about its operations, I would like to compare two statements made recently by the minister and his associate minister.
Speaking on this matter on December 17 the Acting Minister of National Defence, as reported at page 864 of Hansard, told us that the army works services consisted of 7,500 personnel. When speaking in the house on January 13 the Minister of National Defence, dealing with the army works services, said, as reported at page 937 of Hansard, that the army works services was made up of 765 service personnel and 3,334 civilian personnel, for a total of 4,100. There is a difference of 3,400 between those two figures, or the equivalent of an army brigade.
What I want to know is this: What happened to that army brigade in three weeks' time? It was there on December 17, but it had disappeared by January 13. If the two ministers in charge of the department can, between them, lose an army brigade in three weeks, how in the world can they expect


those who are working for them to keep track of smaller items such as railway sidings, trainloads of cement, and all the other examples of unchecked waste of the taxpayers' money which was brought to light by the Currie report?


Mr. Campney:: Does the hon. member wish me to make a correction now, and clear the issue up?


George Harris Hees: No, I shall be glad to have the correction made later on.


An hon. Member:: You are afraid to hear it.


Mr. Fournier (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: You
are afraid of it.


Mr. Dickey:: You do not want to have the truth on the record, eh?


George Harris Hees: I believe this kind of inefficiency and lack of knowledge of what is going on by way of waste and extravagance in the department is just not good enough, as a national effort, to back up our young fighting men in Korea and northwestern Europe. Those young men are giving up their very best; and I believe they are deserving of the best from the department that is responsible for our whole defence effort.
There is nothing that saps the morale of fighting men quicker than the knowledge that there is inefficiency in high places; and the inefficiency in this case stems right from this government.
As a member of the reserve army between 1947 and 1951, and as one who attended Petawawa Camp in three of those four summers, * I want to say that I believe the personnel in both our active and reserve forces is absolutely first-class. I feel that it is no responsibility of those fine young men and women in our armed services that the conditions brought to light by Mr. Currie existed. The responsibility lies "at or near the top" of this defence department. They, together with the whole of the government, must share the responsibility for the fact that these conditions were allowed to exist for several years, despite the fact that the auditor of the department reported such conditions on several occasions.


Irvin William Studer: And you were at Petawawa?


George Harris Hees: I was at Petawawa, training to be a soldier, like other young men and women who go there to train. I was not there to build houses. I was not there to check the accounting system; I was there in training to be a fighting man.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: And you are still dumb.


Irvin William Studer: And you did not see a thing.


George Harris Hees: If you are training, my dear friend, you do not have time to see these things. You are training; you are not looking at railway sidings, bags of cement or accounting records.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think we would make greater progress if hen. members would address the Speaker.


George Harris Hees: By ignoring proper accounting methods, and the continued warnings of the auditors within the department, I believe the Minister of National Defence, and those associated with him in running the department, threw the door wide open for wrongdoers. To me, the great wonder is, as Mr. Currie said, that far more crooks did not walk through that door than actually did walk through it. Surely it is a great credit to the young men and women of our armed services that there was not far more pilfering and dishonesty than actually developed.
The other afternoon we were entertained by the presentation of the sequel to the Currie report-the Murray report-given to us by the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Murray). He outlined the kind of irregularities which took place in connection with the construction of the Alaska highway during the period of the last war. According to him, what went on at Petawawa was simply child's play when compared with what went on in the construction of the Alaska highway.
All the hon. member for Cariboo succeeded in doing was to prove that this kind of waste and inefficiency in our defence department has been going on for at least ten years and, as in the present instance, the responsibility for that waste, mishandling and maladministration must be placed right on the shoulders of the government.
The people of Canada do not object to paying for the cost of defence if they feel that they are receiving value for their tax dollars.


An hon. Member:: I have heard that before.


George Harris Hees: They have proved this by paying willingly for the cost of defence during two world wars and, to date, for what might easily turn out to be preparations for a third world war. Mr. Currie has discovered gross waste and inefficiency in a relatively small branch of the defence department. If the people of Canada are to continue willingly to meet the huge cost of defence, then they must be assured that this kind of waste and extravagance does not exist in all other branches of the Department of National Defence.
If, as a parliament, we fail to give them that assurance, we will be doing much to
Committee on Defence Expenditure turn public opinion back to the days when taxation for defence purposes was not willingly accepted.
I believe that our obligations as a parliament, both to those in the armed services and in respect of our commitmentsi to our allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, demand action no less than that contained in the subamendment.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to delay the house long. At the outset I must congratulate the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) on pinpointing exactly what the opposition wanted to have done some time ago. It seems to me that the man who was put in charge of digging into matters at Petawawa and who accused certain people of looting should have been able to keep track of his own papers and not allow someone to steal them. I do not think he can condemn too much what was done at Petawawa when he could not keep track of what he was doing himself.
I have no brief or sympathy for any man in the armed forces who swears allegiance to his Queen and country and then loots and pilfers at the expense of the Canadian people. The government has dealt with these matters when they have been brought to their attention and it has been pointed out that twelve of these men are now in penitentiary.
Every business in Canada allows for certain losses occurring, but in the armed forces it is a different matter. When a man swears allegiance to his Queen and country he should live up to his signature. I understand that the items referred to by Mr. Currie in his report total in the neighbourhood of $50,000, much of which has been recovered. I am not talking about the horses that were referred to at Petawawa, but it does seem to me that at this time we are simply beating a dead horse.
The amount not recovered is no more than $15,000 or $20,000, and up to the present time we in this house have used $70,000 worth of time debating. We had better cut this out if we have any interest in the Canadian public dollar. If the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) and members of the opposition parties are interested in saving money they should stop talking and get down to business and, at the earliest opportunity, see what this Currie report has to say.


Solon Earl Low: Mr. Speaker, before the vote is taken I should like to speak for one moment on the subamendment proposed by the C.C.F., and make the position of the Social Credit group clear to the house. Members of our group have not done overmuch talking about the Currie
1228	HOUSE OF
Committee on Defence Expenditure report. I think I am correct when I say that thus far only three of us have entered into the debate. I spoke very briefly when the report was tabled, I think on December 16, and placed our position before the house as clearly as I could, having had only a brief time in which to examine the recommendations of Mr. Currie. The hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Thomas) spoke on January 15 and outlined our position a little more fully. The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Shaw) spoke on January 16 and expanded somewhat on what had been said already.
Let me make it clear that the members of our group have not felt that we should strain at this matter. We felt that it was our responsibility to examine most carefully into the report and to see what could possibly be done to correct or help to correct the situation that has developed within the army works services. We felt right from the beginning that in his report Mr. Currie had revealed a shocking state of affairs within the army works services, a state of affairs that has caused considerable uneasiness to the people from one end of Canada to the other, a state of affairs that has resulted in the loss of many thousands of dollars of the taxpayers' money.
We have tried to keep a balance in all that we have said or done in connection with the report and in the part we have taken in the debate thus far. We do not want to go overboard in an effort to make of this an election or political issue because we felt that we would like to know all that we could possibly learn about both sides of the question. We have felt that the government has been at fault in a good many ways and we have felt that to merely correct the accounting system and the security system which had been allowed to become loose and lax is not enough.
We have stated from the beginning that we felt that after doing everything possible to tighten up and improve the army works services accounting and administration systems, the government should then undertake a thorough and complete investigation of the whole Department of National Defence in all its branches from one end of the country to the other. We feel that it is necessary to investigate all branches of the Department of National Defence and the Department of Defence Production to see if there are not other places where a saving of the taxpayers' money could be effected.
The hon. member for Red Deer has pointed out on two different occasions that he has evidence which indicates that there must be serious losses in connection with defence


construction, which evidence he is prepared to present at the proper time. We call upon the government to institute a wide investigation into defence construction activities from one end of the country to the other, into the granting of contracts and all that sort of thing that needs to be investigated. We are satisfied that much more serious losses will be revealed than have been revealed at Petawawa.
As a consequence we felt that we could not lay undue emphasis upon the Currie report, particularly in view of the fact that the government has given evidence that it is trying to close up the gaps, to tighten up the administrative and accounting systems which will make impossible the things that have happened in the past and which were revealed in Mr. Currie's report.
We did not enter into the discussion with respect to how a copy of the report got into the hands of the C.C.F. We felt that was a matter which did not concern us too greatly. All I can say is that I am most thankful that nobody came to me and offered me an advance copy of the report. I am glad that I did not have it. It was soon enough for me to get it when it was tabled in the house. Entirely aside from who was responsible and whether it was stolen or not, we felt that we should not help to bog down the discussion in this house on a matter that did not cen-cern us too much.
What does concern us is what can be done from here on. We do not think that a mere consideration of defence expenditures by a committee of this house is enough. We feel that nothing short of a complete judicial inquiry into all phases of defence expenditures and commitments, including defence construction, will suffice. I think the people of this country are demanding just that sort of thing. They are certainly getting tired of hearing of horses and nags and all the other things that have been bandied about for some weeks. They want action and I think they expect this house to settle down to business now and get action as quickly as we possibly can.
At first, Mr. Speaker, we felt that we could not support the C.C.F. subamendment because it did not go as far as we wanted it to go. We felt that merely asking Mr. Currie to continue an investigation in the field of defence expenditures and commitments was not nearly enough and we did, as I say, call for a full judicial inquiry into all phases of defence expenditures and commitments. However, since the first speeches were given in the house on the Currie report we have listened carefully and have tried to measure as carefully as we possibly could all of the evidence. A number of things have been

brought out that have changed our views a bit, and we find ourselves at the present moment in favour of the C.C.F. subamendment and will vote for it as the next best thing to a judicial inquiry.
It does not seem possible to get a judicial inquiry out of the discussion that we are carrying on here at the present time. Therefore we are prepared to support the C.C.F. subamendment, and we hope that the committee will get down to business as quickly as possible and will not only investigate the Currie report but will launch out and investigate all these other things that a good many of the members, including the hon. member for Red Deer, would like to have investigated. I name particularly defence construction contracts.


Mr. Cruickshank:: I was paired with the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis).


Mr. Black (Chaleauguay-Hunlingdon-Laprairie):: I was paired. Had I voted, I would have voted against the subamendment.


Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver East):: Members of this group intend to vote against the amendment, Mr. Speaker, and I want to say a few words before the vote is taken to indicate why we are taking that position. The member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) made what he thought was a telling point when he claimed that members of the official opposition, last year at a session of the defence
Larson
Leduc
Lefraneois
Leger
Lesage
Macdonald (Edmonton East)
MacDougall
MacKenzie
MacLean (Cape Breton North and Victoria) MacNaught McCulloch McCusker
McDonald (Parry Sound-Muskoka)
Mcllraith
Mclvor
McMillan
Major
Masse
Monette
Mott
Murray (Cariboo) Murray (Oxford)
Pearson
Picard
Proudfoot
Prudham
Ratelle
Richard (Ottawa East)
Riley
Robertson
Robinson
Rochefort
Rooney
Ross (Hamilton East)
Rousseau
St. Laurent
Schneider
Simmons
Sinclair
Sinnott
Smith (Moose Mountain) Stick
Stuart (Charlotte)
Studer
Tremblay
Valois
Viau
Ward
Warren
Weir
Welbourn
Whiteside
Whitman
Winkler
Wood-140.
1230	HOUSE OF
Committee on Defence Expenditure expenditure committee, had moved that when the Currie report was tabled it he referred to that committee. There may be members of the house who think that this amendment does refer the Currie report to the committee. My contention is that it does not do anything of the kind.
The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) moved, seconded by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson):
That the motion be amended by inserting after the words "March 31, 1950", in the fourth line thereof, the following:
"and initially to give priority in their examination to the expenditures and commitments of the Canadian army works services as dealt with in the report of G. S. Currie, Esquire, chartered accountant, tabled in the House of Commons on December 15, 1952."
There is nothing said here about referring the Currie report to the committee. What it does state is that the items referred to in the Currie report be examined by the committee, and, indeed, be given priority, which is a very different thing.
We are voting against the amendment because it does not refer the Currie report to the committee. It does not instruct the committee to consider the recommendations in the Currie report. All it does is instruct the committee, as its first task, to inquire into the very same matters as Mr. Currie has already inquired into. I maintain, Mr. Speaker-I am not allowed to impute motives -that the only result of the adoption of this amendment will be to prevent the committee doing anything except to hash over what has already been hashed over in this house for the last two weeks. That is the purpose of the amendment, and it could have no other purpose.
Why does the government want that to be done? As has been said, the government wants that to be done because, while the government accuses the opposition of playing politics with this report, the government is going to play politics with the report the moment that report comes into the committee. For that reason every member in this house who is interested in the honest administration of this country's affairs, every member in this house who feels appalled, as the general public feels appalled, at what was revealed in the Currie report should, regardless of his party affiliation, vote against this amendment. If there needs to be anything further done in that regard, it should have been done by adopting the amendment moved by the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).
Regrettably, it seems to me, the government has tried to belittle the Currie report; to make light of it and to laugh at it.


No matter how generous we want to be to the Department of National Defence, what was revealed in the Currie report is most appalling and should be considered seriously by this government. I should like to have spoken at length on this matter, and if the debate had continued a little longer I would have done so. If the government wants the people of this country to believe that they are interested in the honest administration of the Department of National Defence, for which the people of Canada are paying such a large amount of their taxes, not only for the defence of this country but for the defence of the free world, they should stop this quibbling, this manoeuvring for political position, and let this house and the government get at the facts.


Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my remarks only to the amendment before us and to the reasons why that amendment will be opposed by myself and, I believe, by the members of the party to which I belong. We have already indicated quite clearly that we disapprove strongly of this amendment and the manner in which it was introduced. It is accepted that this procedure is within the rules; nevertheless it establishes a highly unsatisfactory practice. In order to vote for a wider inquiry, it became necessary for us to support a subamendment which embraced the motion now before us. I explained why we would vote for the subamendment as we have voted for it. The amendment is now before us and I propose to vote against that amendment. In doing so, however, there are one or two points I wish to emphasize and I also wish to deal with a point raised this afternoon.
Some attempt was made to suggest a measure of inconsistency by reference to a motion made in the committee on defence expenditure on April 29 last by the hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Harkness). The motion which has been referred to was a motion consisting of four paragraphs, one of which dealt with Mr. George S. Currie and the report he was to present. I submit that the way in which this reference has been introduced at this time is merely indicative of the extent to which the government and its supporters refuse to face the reality of the situation which is before us. Every device by which attention can be diverted from the real issue is employed by those who should be insisting upon a full inquiry if any of the arguments they made at that time in that committee had any real validity at all.
They opposed this motion for many reasons. They opposed this motion and voted it down

in the same way that every attempt before that committee to get facts was voted down. But anyone with any desire to understand the facts would know perfectly well that the motion as presented contemplated the return of the report by Mr. Currie during the life of that committee a year ago. The motion could have had no other meaning and no other thought. That was a year ago. The government did not want that report then; its supporters on the committee did not want that then. This man they had appointed was going to conduct an inquiry which would answer all these questions. They chose that course. They have received that report which is before us; and now a year later they suggest that it is wise for them to follow a course which they considered unwise a year ago.
Their inconsistency is this. If they really wanted to get at the facts, then was the time to do it. But no; they welcomed the postponement. They received the report. They delayed as long as possible its presentation to this house. Then when the report is before us they seek, by every device possible, further to postpone action on this report and also to prevent the possibility of that wider inquiry which is the only thing that we really need now.
The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) has emphasized a point which might well be borne in mind by every hon. member of this house who will for a moment think of what we are really dealing with at this time. We are dealing with the preparation of the defences of Canada, the taxpayers' money, and the possibility of ending the extravagance, waste and theft disclosed by the Currie report. That is what we are dealing with. Every cent that is wasted; every cent that is lost by the theft of goods; every cent that disappears as a result of the wholesale looting which took place means added taxes to the people of Canada. That is one of the reasons why this matter calls for a wider inquiry into the whole field covered by the administration which invited theft and looting of this kind.
The hon. member for Vancouver East has pointed out that this resolution now before us does not refer the Currie report to the committee but that it refers, for prior consideration of the committee, the subjects dealt with by Mr. Currie in conducting his inquiry which was the basis of this report. If the hon. members of this house support this resolution, they should recognize the fact that they are passing a resolution which is designed to sidetrack the Currie report and to conduct another inquiry into the same area, 68108-'794
Committee on Defence Expenditure although that inquiry was denied when the proposal was made by the hon. member for Calgary East before the defence expenditure committee on April 29 last year.
Let us once again recall what it is that is under consideration. A man with a distinguished record in the army in the first world war, with a high reputation as an accountant and with a respected reputation as deputy minister of national defence during the last war, undertook this task at the request of the government and conducted the inquiry they directed. They chose this great man, as they described him. We have accepted their estimate of that man. We are consistent in our acceptance of that estimate by saying that this man, with the qualifications which he possesses, should be permitted to extend that inquiry into the remaining part of the area of administration of the Department of National Defence which will expend this year over $2 billion of the taxpayers' money.
If that man was the great man described by the government, and if they accept even in a substantial measure the accuracy of his findings, then surely the first obligation of this government to our young men and young women in uniform and to the taxpayers whose money is being wasted and squandered, as disclosed in this report, is to appoint Mr. Currie to carry forward the investigation into every nook and cranny of a department whose administrative supervision of its responsibilities has broken down in the manner described.
That is what should be done. This motion is simply further delaying action by the government. It is drafted in a way that permits the government to sidetrack the report itself, to point to the wording of the report and say, "What you are told to consider in this committee is the subject matter that Mr. Currie dealt with, and to make your findings on that subject matter."
This house has debated the question for some time. Various opinions have been expressed. The answer of the government is, first of all, that the report of Mr. Currie in certain cases uses exaggerated language to describe events; and moreover, in so far as it makes recommendations, the government says in effect, "We have done most of these things that are suggested."
If this last assertion were so, then what earthly use would there be in having a further inquiry into a subject matter already covered by the report? Obviously if the government has acted, then that is finished business. The two arguments do not go hand in hand; it is one or the other.
The fact is that appropriate action has not been taken. The fact is that appropriate

Committee on Defence Expenditure action has not followed the findings. The fact is that there is no assurance and that there can be no assurance in the minds of the people of Canada that this long inquiry by this highly regarded expert is to produce any effective results on behalf of the heavily burdened taxpayer, or for the men and women in the uniform of Canada who are serving in different parts of the world today.
The government may not welcome repetition; it may not welcome discussion of this subject; but once again I urge every hon. member to recognize the evasive way in which this motion has been drawn and to vote according to his conscience. May I also urge that even at this late stage in the debate the government accept its responsibility, its duty to the men and women in uniform, its duty to the people of Canada, and say that it will direct Mr. Currie, or someone of equal competence, to continue this investigation into the large area not yet touched, and make a report which can result in savings of scores of millions of dollars to the taxpayers of Canada, as well as greater efficiency in the administration of that department upon which our security depends.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I was paired with the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis).


Donald Elmer Black: I was paired. Had I voted, I would have voted in favour of the amendment.


Mr. McCubbin:: I was paired with the hon. member for Middlesex East (Mr. White). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, no!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I would be disappointed on rising to speak on an occasion such as this if I were not greeted with the groans that I heard a moment ago from the Liberal benches.


Gordon Graydon: Groans from the roans.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My purpose in intervening in this debate once again is to have something to say about an issue which it seems to me is extremely important but about which very little has been said. Indeed, I doubt if anything has been said about it during the course of the debate at the various stages of the proposition under discussion. It is an issue with reference to defence expenditures concerning which there seems to be a sharp difference of opinion between the Auditor General and the Department of National Defence.
Earlier in the debate I had something to say about what I referred to as the blast by the department at the Auditor General. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) took exception to that language when he spoke on January 20, 1953. As recorded at page 1174 of Hansard, this is what he said:
Now, sir, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre referred to our uttering a blast upon receipt of the report of the Auditor General. There was no blast. The Canadian Press, the British United Press, and other sections of the press asked for comments on the background of the Auditor General's report and a statement was issued which gives some of the background.
Before I go into the specific question which is at issue between the Auditor General and the Department of National Defence, and which gives me concern, may I draw the minister's attention to the comments that appear in Arthur Blakely's column in this morning's Montreal Gazette with reference to the statement of the Minister of National Defence which I just read. In his column, "Ottawa Day by Day", Arthur Blakely says, after quoting the statement of the minister to which I have referred:	[DOT]
But the explanation wasn't strictly accurate. Newspapermen who received the defence department statement criticizing the Auditor General hadn't requested one. It appeared out of the blue and was distributed long before most correspondents had received copies of the Auditor General's report but not before, evidently, the anonymous defence department spokesmen had received and scrutinized theirs.
Committee on Defence Expenditure
Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that I have obtained a copy of the document to which the minister referred. He entitled it "Background material". It is a mimeographed document of some eight pages and it is headed, "Department of National Defence, background material in connection with defence references in the report of the Auditor General for the year 1951-52". It bears no signature, and thus there would seem to be some point to Arthur Blakely's description of it as coming from anonymous defence department spokesmen who had had an opportunity to scrutinize the report of the Auditor General and prepare replies to his comments, which replies appeared in the press on the same day the press carried a story on the Auditor General's report itself.


Angus MacInnis: How did it get into their
hands?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) wonders how that advance copy of the Auditor General's report, which report was tabled in parliament by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), got into the hands of these anonymous spokesmen for the Department of National Defence.


Angus MacInnis: Another case for the
mounted police.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is an inquiry that might profitably be pursued. However, my purpose in rising at this time is not to deal with these very interesting aspects of the matter but with a matter of real substance on which, as I say, there seems to be a difference of opinion between the Department of National Defence and the Auditor General. Before I go into that, may I say a few words of a general character about this mimeographed document entitled "Background material". I have no quarrel with any person, department or organization coming to its own defence when attacked; but it does get a bit monotonous to discover that, so far as the Minister of National Defence and his department are concerned, they are always right. It does not matter what complaint is made, it does not matter what criticism is levelled, there is always a perfect answer, so far as the minister is concerned. Therefore when the Auditor General's report was tabled in the house on Monday, January 12, that same day the press was put in a position to carry answers from the Department of National Defence to every paragraph in the report of the Auditor General that referred to that department.
The answers all make it clear, of course, that what the Department of National Defence had done was really all right or it

Committee on Defence Expenditure was by understanding with the treasury board or that the matter had been sufficiently dealt with. However, let me get down to the issue in the dispute between the Auditor General and the Department of National Defence which I think is the most important one. It is found in paragraphs 56, 57 and 58 of the Auditor General's report which appear on pages 24 and 25 thereof. These paragraphs, the numbers of which I have just given, deal with several questions but in the main they deal with the manner in which the auditing of stores is conducted by the defence department. Mr. Watson Sellar, the Auditor General, points out in paragraph 56 (b) the following:
Long-term usage is to regard stores as service property with responsibility for accounting and custody vested in various components of the service forces. The consequence is that no civilian authority answerable to parliament exercises direct control after procurement.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in the light of what has happened, which we have been discussing in relation to the Currie report, and in the light of the importance of parliamentary control over monetary and financial matters, I submit that this is a very important question upon which the Auditor General has put his finger; namely, that the set-up in the Department of National Defence is now such that these stores, the purchase of which parliament authorizes, which can run into millions and hundreds of millions of dollars, are being checked and audited by a system which is removed from direct responsibility to parliament.
In the document to which I referred, and which I originally called a blast back at the Auditor General, the Department of National Defence makes it clear that Mr. Watson Sellar is perfectly correct in his analysis of the situation. It is made clear from both these documents that what we have is a situation something like this. The deputy minister of national defence is regarded as responsible only to see and to satisfy himself that the chiefs of each of the services, the chiefs of staff, have an auditing system which is satisfactory. Beyond that, the responsibility for auditing and the responsibility for the care of these millions and hundreds of millions of dollars worth of goods that have been procured rests solely with the chiefs of the various staffs. In other words, if I may quote the language of the Winnipeg Free Press which happens to be on the side of the Auditor General and against the Department of National Defence in this matter, the deputy minister by this set-up has been reduced to the status of an errand boy.


The Department of National Defence, in my view, completely missed the point in Mr. Watson Sellar's paragraph 56 (b), because their answer to it in "Background material" is just a very simple sentence which reads:
The minister of the department is answerable to parliament for the stores held by the services.
It seems to me that is a very academic statement to make. The minister can stand up and say that he is responsible for everything that goes on in his department and all that sort of thing, but after the goods have disappeared, after it has turned out that the auditing system does not meet the scrutiny of an eye like that of Mr. Watson Sellar, or the scrutiny of Mr. Currie, it is not much use for the minister to say to parliament or through this memorandum that he is responsible.
The Winnipeg Free Press, as I say, deals very fully with this in an editorial which appeared in the issue of Saturday, January 17, 1953. It quotes in that editorial the main part of paragraph 56, together with some other material in that section of the Auditor General's report; and it also quotes the reply which was made by the Department of National Defence in its document entitled "Background material". After having quoted the pertinent paragraph from "Background material", the Winnipeg Free Press goes on to say:
With all deference to whoever wrote the foregoing. it must be said that to discard, demote or nullify the deputy minister in this fashion, the present law notwithstanding, is a reversal of sound practice. Moreover, to exalt the chiefs of staff in this way is to revert to the commander-in-chief principle of military organization which consistently and disastrously failed in Great Britain and was finally abandoned early in the present century. To abolish this chief of staff mastery was, perhaps, the greatest achievement of the famous Haldane reorganization and reform of the British army. It is shocking to discover that such antiquated ideas of army, air force and navy organization not only exist but are in operation at Ottawa.
The paragraph in the material from the Department of National Defence which the Free Press is criticizing, in the quotation which I have just read, is a paragraph which reads in part as follows:
The point which the Auditor General is endeavouring to make is obscure.
Well, right off the bat these anonymous spokesmen for the Department of National Defence admit that they did not understand the point that was being made by the Auditor General, so I do not see why they should so readily rush into print with an answer to it. They go on to say:
Stores purchased for the Canadian forces may only be used for those forces except where parliament has given authority for their use for other

purposes. Parliamentary grants do not distinguish between moneys for reserve stores and maintenance stores nor would it be desirable to segregate these for the reasons given with reference to audit note No. 56. In so far as a distinction between service and departmental accounting responsibilities is concerned, each chief of staff is responsible under the National Defence Act for the control and administration of his service.
That is the position taken by the Department of National Defence with respect to the care for these huge quantities of stores, that each chief of staff is responsible; not the deputy minister, not the minister, but the chiefs of staff.
Let me go on and indicate a point I made a moment ago, namely that the minister of the department takes the view that the only responsibility of the deputy is to be satisfied as to the kind of accounting system that the chiefs of staff are using. This is the position taken by the department:
If by departmental, the Auditor General has reference to the deputy minister and his staff, the responsibility of this officer extends only to an examination on behalf of the minister of the manner in which the accounting operations are being carried out by each service.
That is the statement, that is the view that is advanced of what is going on in the Department of National Defence which even the very Liberal Winnipeg Free Press *cannot take and against which it has made the comment in the paragraph I quoted from that paper a moment ago.
I recognize that the language I used when I referred to this material as a blast may have been offensive to the minister, but it was not uncalled for. I am still puzzled as to how that department was in a position, so soon after the tabling of the Auditor General's report, to make these replies of theirs to points in the report. I am even more puzzled, if Arthur Blakely's comment is correct, over the fact that some newspapermen had this background material from the department, these answers to the Auditor General's report, even before they had the Auditor General's report itself.


Brooke Claxton: Might I clear that up?


Stanley Howard Knowles: You mean right now and then I will go on? Certainly.


Brooke Claxton: We had inquiries during the morning from members of the press gallery as to background material, and that was being prepared during the afternoon. It was released to those members of the press gallery who had asked for it at 6 p.m. The report of the Auditor General was, of course, available to everyone at that time; and other members of the press gallery said well, we want copies too; so they were made available at that time.
Committee on Defence Expenditure


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am very glad to hear that explanation from the minister. He now tells us that the request for this information came to the department during the morning of January 12, and that the material was prepared and made available to them by six o'clock that evening. The Auditor General's report, of course, was tabled in this house at 2.30 o'clock that afternoon. Well, that is efficiency which we do not always find in the Department of National Defence, in that it was possible between 2.30 in the afternoon when that report was tabled and six o'clock to prepare and distribute an eight-page mimeographed document answering in technical language all the technical points set out in the Auditor General's report.
However, Mr. Speaker, I leave that part of the matter for those interested to pursue; but I do raise this matter of substance in the hope that the committee will go into it very carefully. It seems to me it may well be that one of the reasons we have had the scandals at Petawawa, one of the reasons we have had the things exposed that were revealed in the Currie report, is this kind of set-up with respect to these stores where there is that gap in responsibility between the civilian authority, namely the deputy minister acting for his minister on the one hand, and the chiefs of staff on the other. We urge very strongly that there should be no diminution of the practice of the principle of parliamentary control over the moneys we vote, and over the use of the stores that are purchased with that money. Parliamentary control of these stores must not disappear or be diminished in any way. That is what has happened as a result of this change in the set-up in the department. In my view the position should be changed back again at the earliest possible date, so there will be a complete responsibility for the auditing at the level where there is direct responsibility to parliament.
I recognize what this may mean in terms of more work at the deputy ministerial level. I realize what it may mean in terms of more work at the ministerial level. It may require more deputy ministers or it may require more ministers in the Department of National Defence, if this department is going to be such big business as it is. But in terms of parliamentary authority over these things there is a principle here that we simply must not let go. I recognize the tremendous amount of work and physical labour that must be involved when the minister has to sign his name hundreds of times every day. Even so, I think we were all amazed to have him tell us that he had not looked at any of the reports of the chief auditor in his own department, and that the deputy minister had looked at only a few of them.

Committee on Defence Expenditure
When you add all those things together, that lack of concern in studying these reports and the fact that this gulf has been created between the responsibility of the minister and the responsibility of the chiefs of staff, you have a situation which I suggest may have helped create the open doors referred to in Mr. Currie's report. One of the things that interest me about the Auditor General's report is the way he can deal with very important issues in the most moderate language. I find, for example, that his language in paragraph 58 is most restrained. He says:
Once procurement has been completed, it is the practice in some commonwealth countries-
Implying there that it has not yet been recognized as the practice in Canada.
-to regard issues for immediate requirements of the services as outside parliament's concern; all other holdings are regarded as still of parliamentary interest.
Then he shows the basis upon which that decision has been taken in some commonwealth countries, but not in Canada. He goes on to say:
Should this view-
The view that there are certain stores that are beyond parliamentary concern.
-be regarded as suited to Canadian requirements, attention is drawn to the need for the establishing of a dividing line between service and departmental accounting responsibilities.
In other words, Mr. Sellar admits that government policy is not his business. He merely comments on what is happening, and government policy rests with the government and whatever it can get through parliament. It seems to me that paragraph 58, taken along with paragraphs 56 and 57, indicates very clearly that, so far as Mr. Sellar is concerned, he does not approve of this practice of drawing a line between the two types of stores and allowing this huge quantity of stores to get into places where it is beyond accounting scrutiny that is directly responsible to parliament.
It is that issue which prompted the Winnipeg Free Press, in its editorial of January 17, 1953, on the defence department, to express the hope that the practice now being followed will be changed. The Winnipeg Free Press says:
Whatever else it may do, "Background Material" proves conclusively that there are grave weaknesses in the present organization of the Department of National Defence."
This is what I am talking about now. For the moment I am not complaining against any persons. I am not even repeating my complaint about the attitude of the top brass, and that sort of thing. What I am talking about now is the organization. Perhaps the minister
[.Mr. Knowles.]
will say this is provided for in the new National Defence Act. The Free Press admits that may be the case, and says if that is so then the act ought to be changed. The editorial goes on:
Would it be asking too much of the members of the government that they study the Esher report, the Haldane reforms, such textbooks on military as those written by the late Spenser Wilkinson, the former Chichele professor of military history at Oxford and examine the present organization of the British army, air force and navy?
There is a long, interesting, and exceedingly rewarding history in this regard and quite clearly the structure of our defence department at Ottawa is faulty.
Army organization is not and should never be a party or political matter. It is not a case of votes or constituencies. The need is for efficiency in the armed services and "Background Material"-
That is this document which was prepared and made public on the day the Auditor General's report was laid on the table of parliament.
-indicates all too clearly that our air force, army and navy are organized upon lines which make efficiency unattainable.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the charges in that editorial in one of the most prominent Liberal newspapers in the country, the Winnipeg Free Press, provide an even greater challenge to the government, and to the defence expenditure committee, than the Currie report or the Auditor General's report. There is a clear suggestion that the organization that is now in effect, particularly with respect to the handling of these huge quantities of stores, in the words of the Free Press, "makes efficiency unattainable". I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the defence expenditure committee will go into this important phase of the matter and make appropriate recommendations back to parliament.


George Alexander Drew: I merely wish to state why I shall be supporting the motion. This motion is actually for the purpose of setting up a committee which we have asked to have appointed for some considerable time. We will support the motion to set up this committee. In doing so, however, and in spite of the amendment which has been passed which ties the hands of that committee to some extent, I would hope that on this occasion the committee will make a serious effort to open up an inquiry into the accounts and not continue to be the kind of whitewashing committee which it has been in the past.
In view of the statement that has been repeated by members of the government to the effect that the defence expenditure committee has dealt with certain questions on certain occasions and found everything to be

satisfactory, I should like to remind hon. members that no minority report is permitted from committees of this house. With respect to the defence expenditure committee, in many cases the majority reports have not represented the opinions of the members of other parties.
This is not the time to discuss the rules of the house. I would hope that before this committee deals with the subject matters which come before it and is ready to report, the government will give consideration to the advisability of making provision for minority reports. In this way there could be an expression of opinion on the part of those who seek to place before the house ideas as to the way in which changes could be made for the benefit of the people of Canada. This committee can perform a great service if it is free to do so. But past experience is not encouraging. I urge the government to take off the shackles and indicate its desire, so that the measure of the uniformity of opinion which has so often asserted itself on the part of members on the other side might conceivably assert itself again to the advantage of the people of Canada rather than to the advantage of this government.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on the main motion. The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) moves, seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), that a select committee be appointed, and so on. Shall I dispense?


Some hon. Members:: Dispense.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On the motion as amended.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Yes, as amended. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion as amended?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion as amended agreed to.



PERSONNEL OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE

Mr. W. G. Weir (Porlage-Neepawa):: Mr. Speaker, with the consent of the house may I now submit to you the names of those who are to make up the members of this committee on defence expenditure?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Gilbert Weir: That the following members compose the special committee on defence expenditure: Messrs. Adamson, Applewhaite, Benidickson, Bennett, Blanchette, Boisvert, Cannon. Cavers, Crestohl, Croll, Dickey,
Committee on Defence Expenditure Fleming, Fulton, George. Gillis, Harkness, Henderson, Jutras, Larson, Macdonnell (Greenwood), Mcllraith, Pearkes, Power, Stick, Thomas and Wright.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to do the arithmetic that one might like to do when those names are read out quite so fast. I might say that is no reflection on Your Honour for reading them quickly. But the question arises as to the make-up of this committee with regard to representatives from the various groups in the house. I would hope that we might be given some information as to how many of those named represent the government side of the house and how many represent the groups on the opposition side. Notwithstanding the general practice that committees conform, roughly, to the proportions of groups in the whole house, it is my strong view that this is a committee which is so important that it should be more evenly balanced. I made the suggestion earlier and I repeat it now-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I was listening to the hon. member carefully, and I do not think he is in order when he wants to discuss on this resolution the method whereby the various members are apportioned among the parties to which they belong.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I quite understand the position of the hon. member; but presumably the practice has been that the whips, to a certain extent, provide the names of those who will be members of the committee; I refer to the whips of the various parties. Then a motion is moved by the whip of the government party. If there are any difficulties as to the number by party, I would suggest that the matter might be discussed on a different occasion. At the moment what we have before us is a motion that the members whose names I have read out shall comprise the membership of the committee which was set up by the motion adopted just a moment ago.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, if we had in our hands the list of names which you have in your hand, I take it that it would be-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. If I may do so, I should like to say this at this stage, following the remarks that have just been made by the hon. member. When the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa (Mr. Weir) asked for leave to introduce this motion setting out the names, at that stage the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre should have objected and asked him to wait until they appeared on the order paper. But he has not asked that; he has given his consent

National Defence Act
that this motion be made at this time. I therefore think that if he has any representations to make, he should make them later on. Does the hon. member wish me to read the names again?


Stanley Howard Knowles: No.


Mr. Depuly Speaker:: It is merely a formal motion, which I do not think is debatable.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is no point in the names being read again, Mr. Speaker. If Your Honour or the mover would allow the motion to stand until later, the purpose would be served. My point is this, and I will stick to it. The motion proposes certain names. On the motion proposing certain names surely it is in order, for us to suggest that too many of those names are from one party, that some of them should be withdrawn and that names from the other side of the house should be put on in order to balance the committee.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: From the chorus on the other side of the house I take it that the proposal for an equal balance is not acceptable to the government members.


Mr. Depuly Speaker:: May I tell the hon. member that what are being proposed are not certain names; the motion is that a gentleman designated by name and other members designated by name be members of the committee. If the hon. member wishes to be in order in discussing these names which are submitted, he must object to certain names being included in the list. Is the motion agreed to?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the National Defence Act to provide that the Governor General may at any time appoint an associate minister of national defence at a salary of ten thousand dollars per annum.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the motion agreed to?


George Alexander Drew: I trust that the Prime Minister is going to explain the reason for this motion.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I have a statement to make, Mr. Speaker. As the hon. gentleman knows, I have previously suggested that the time the motion that you leave the chair is
(Mr. Deputy Speaker.]
made would not be the proper time for a statement to be made in support of the resolution. I do not want to enter into a procedural debate at this time, and if hon. gentlemen prefer that I make the statement now I am quite prepared to do so, merely suggesting that when the committee to consider the rules is carrying on its deliberations, attention be given to that point as to whether there should be two occasions for a debate on a resolution for the introduction of a bill. I understand that it might be the desire of the house that I make my statement before Mr. Speaker leaves the chair.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I think that procedure is desirable. In view of the fact that the Prime Minister has referred to clarification of the rules on this matter, I should like to make an observation on that point.
The motion before us is to the effect that, in the opinion of this house, it is expedient that something be done. I submit that before the - members of this house express their opinion whether it is expedient to do anything, they should know why it is expedient to do so. For that reason I think this is the occasion when the purpose of a resolution of this kind should be explained. At a later point undoubtedly it will be desirable that the details be explained and also the effect of the wording that may be introduced when the proposed legislation is before us.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, hon. members will recall that on November 24 last I laid on the table order in council P.C. 4553 which had been passed that day. This order designated the Solicitor General (Mr. Campney) as a person who, under the terms of section 5 of the National Defence Act, might exercise any power or perform any duty or function that is vested in or that may be exercised or performed by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton). I think hon. gentlemen will find at page 15 of Hansard the statement I made on tabling that order in council. At that time I drew hon. members' attention to the forecast of legislation made in the speech from the throne, to provide for an associate minister of national defence. And as hon. members will recall I dealt with the desirability of having an associate minister of national defence, and foreshadowed the legislation to be introduced in consequence of this resolution. I have little to add to what I said on that occasion.
As I pointed out, a number of countries at the present time have, in addition to an overall minister of national defence, a minister for each of the three services, the navy, the army and the air force. That is the situation, I understand, in the United Kingdom, in the United States, in France and in Australia.

We have, however, considered it preferable in Canada to stress unification of the services for purposes of administration under the control of a single minister, a single department and a single deputy minister. We believe that our system has demonstrable advantages for this country, and that the appointment of separate ministers for each of the three services would be a retrograde step.
In the United States even today it is the view of the Hon. Robert A. Lovett, secretary of defence, who has just retired after quite a long experience in the defence department of that country, that the department has not had and still does not have sufficient power to bring about that degree of unification and co-ordination which was aimed at when their present national security act was adopted in 1947, or even when it was substantially amended in 1950.
In consequence of the course we adopted we have, I believe, gone as far to bring unification and co-ordination to the armed forces as have any of the free countries. While that is so, additional ways of developing unification and co-ordination still further are the subject of constant consideration.
As I said, it was hoped, and it was even expected, that the volume of work required of the minister would have become lighter as the defence program developed. That has not proved to be the case. Unfortunately the prolonging of the conflict in Korea, the buildup of our forces in Europe, and our relations with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, as well as greatly increasing the responsibilities of administering the department have also made it necessary quite frequently for the minister to be absent from the country. Our experience has shown that in a country like Canada the Minister of National Defence cannot administer the department and supervise the armed forces adequately by spending his whole time here in Ottawa.
Perhaps I should add a word or two to indicate just what there is to be administered and supervised. Reading on the globe, from left to right, as they do in photographs, we have the 25th Canadian infantry brigade in action in Korea, including various supporting units and details, back to the former capital of Seoul, where there are a number of units including a hospital, and then back to the base unit at Pusan, which is the main harbour.
To the west of Korea, in the Yellow sea, there are usually stationed three destroyers of the Royal Canadian Navy, making active contact with the enemy. They are based in Japan, over 100 miles to the east.
Not far back, at Kure, Japan, is the reinforcement group and other supporting details of the 25th brigade. At Kure also is the corn-68108-80i
National Defence Act
monwealth division's hospital, with a number of Canadian doctors and nurses, and, unfortunately, several Canadian wounded men. Not far from Kure there are training grounds where officers and men receive final training before going up to the front lines. Some 400 miles to the northeast of this is Tokyo, where there is a leave centre, a recreation room, and joint staff mission. Here also is the Japanese end of the Far Eastern airlift of the R.C.A.F., which has supporting details at Shemya in the Aleutian islands, as well as at McChord field in the state of Washington.
Then across Canada we have the various administrative training and operational units of the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian army and the Royal Canadian Air Force.
Units of the navy train by being at sea, and of the air force by flying. Their training and operations have taken the R.C.N. and the R.C.A.F. into most quarters of the globe during the year.
However, resuming our glance from left to right, we come to the R.C.A.F. wing at North Luffenham and the depot at Langar in England. Also in England we have the joint staff mission and a very considerable number of members of all three services either on exchange duties or attending courses and taking training. In addition there are British and United States service personnel in Canada for similar purposes.
Then in Germany we have the 27th brigade located at three different camps around Hanover but often away in different parts of Germany on exercises. This year we hope it will take up permanent quarters of its own at Soest, halfway between Hanover and Cologne, and we shall establish base detail in Belgium.
In France there is a second wing of the R.C.A.F. at Grostenquin and the air division headquarters at Paris, soon to be established at Metz. We shall soon have a Canadian component in the 4th allied tactical air force of which our air division will form a part.
In Paris also we have our representatives, civil and military, to NATO, and a certain number of Canadian officers at SHAPE.
In a month or two we will have a third wing of the R.C.A.F. at Zweibrucken and later this year a fourth wing at Bad Solingen in Germany.
I mention this because today we have members of all three services engaged in the threefold task of supporting United Nations action in Korea, taking our part under the North Atlantic treaty and engaged in the defence of Canada, involving relations with

National Defence Act
more countries than ever has been the case for this country in war or in peace.
Canadian forces are in Korea, Japan, the United States, Britain, Germany, Belgium and France. This situation is new. We have to work out with all these, as we call them, "host countries" agreements regarding jurisdiction over civil and criminal matters, customs duties and other taxes, passport and immigration regulations, postal and transport arrangements, tenure of land and maintenance of buildings, and numerous other questions of the greatest complexity and importance. This has involved endless negotiation at every level, and I am glad to say that the arrangements we have made have generally proved quite satisfactory.
Largely because of the increasing importance of such matters, we found it necessary some time ago to appoint a chairman of the chiefs of staff committee. A large part of his time is devoted to dealing with matters of joint co-operation in NATO, and with other countries, at the highest service levels.
In addition to these matters which are to a considerable extent political, constitutional and legal, there are other matters regarding standardization, the exchange of information on development, research and doctrine, the development of channels of communication and co-operation which require attention not only at the service level but also at the political level.
In all this I may say Canada has taken a very considerable part, and there is every indication that this kind of work will increase rather than diminish.
Within Canada the basic program has been laid down, and I think and hope the majority of the contracts for construction and equipment has been placed. It now seems possible to see a clearer division between matters of policy and matters of administration or of the implementation of policy.
Therefore it seemed to the government that this situation would make it possible to have the responsibility shared between ministers, and that that could best be done by the appointment not of three ministers of defence over the separate services but of one associate minister of national defence. The minister and associate minister will work closely together in all matters. One will take the place of the other when the other has to be away attending conferences, visiting our forces abroad or in points in Canada away from headquarters. The experience of the present minister would indicate that this is apt to take about one-third of one man's time.

The main line of division will be that the minister will usually attend to matters having to do with defence relationships with the United Nations, with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, with countries of the commonwealth and with the United States. He will also usually take the initiative with respect to matters of policy within Canada relating to defence generally or to two or more of the three services.
The associate minister, in addition to carrying on the work of the minister when the minister is away, will keep more closely in touch with matters of administration relating to the services. If I may repeat, it is expected that the associate minister would act for and exercise the powers of the minister when the minister is away and deal with matters of administration relating to the three services, including requisitions for construction, equipment and supplies, submissions on similar matters to the governor in council and to the treasury board, control of the establishment, appointment and supervision of the civil employees and service personnel, approval of expenditures, orders, instructions and plans within the lines of agreed policy.
When they consider the magnitude of the task of presiding over the department hon. members will probably ask themselves why an associate minister was not designated before now. Certainly the question has been raised in a not altogether friendly fashion by at least one newspaper and perhaps also elsewhere. However, it will be recalled that immediately after the war, and indeed right up to the outbreak of hostilities in Korea, our defence program was less than a quarter of what it is now. In addition, we felt it desirable to emphasize as much as we could the unification of the services for administrative purposes. Even with the coming of war in Korea and the rapid planned build-up of forces for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, it was not for some time that the pattern of our defence effort came to be worked out. There was much discussion and revision of plans and programs.
While the load of work borne by the Minister of National Defence was very great it was not clear, until the greatly enlarged program got under way, how best to divide the responsibilities of the defence department. We were not getting into a full-scale war but we were certainly into something which was not normal peace; and while plans for the build-up were being made it would not, I think, have been wise to divide the constitutional ministerial responsibility for meeting the many grave problems which arose from day to day in building up our defence forces.

Having now settled the main lines of our defence effort and having reached the principal decisions on policy, it has been possible to work out a plan for sharing the heavy load of responsibility in the manner envisaged in this legislation to provide for the appointment of an associate minister of national defence. I hope the plan will commend itself to the house.


George Alexander Drew: Is the Prime Minister not going to explain to us why the act needs to be amended? That is what the motion proposes to the house, yet he has given no word of explanation as to why the act needs to be amended.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The act needs to be amended because as it stands it provides that the governor in council may in an emergency appoint as many as three additional ministers of national defence; but only in an emergency. We do not think we are in the kind of emergency that would allow the governor in council to act under that statute and make appointments without further authority from parliament. We are now asking that, although there is not that kind of emergency, the governor in council may appoint an associate minister of national defence; and that while there is in office an associate minister of national defence the act which provides for the appointment of three additional ministers in an emergency be amended to provide for the appointment of two only.


George Alexander Drew: I should like to ask one question before I make any further remarks. I understand the Prime Minister's reason for considering it expedient that we have this amendment is that the number should be reduced from three to one.


Mr.   Si. Laureni@: The National Defence Act as it stands provides that in an emergency there can be an over-all minister of national defence and one separate minister for each of the three services. Here we wish to provide for the appointment of an associate minister of national defence who will not be identified with any one of the three services in particular but who will have powers that will extend to all three. We propose to ask the house to amend the provision in the statute by taking power to appoint an associate minister, even though there not be an emergency contemplated by the act. Secondly, we are asking to amend the provision which permits the appointment of three separate ministers by providing for the appointment of two only while there is an associate minister acting with the minister.


George Alexander Drew: So that I may understand it, when the Prime Minister speaks of the
National Defence Act
emergency contemplated in the act, am I right in assuming that there is no difference between the emergency contemplated in this act and any other emergency?


Mr. St. Laureni:: My understanding is that the emergency contemplated in the act is the kind of emergency defined in the War Measures Act; that is, the existence of war, actual or apprehended. We had quite a lengthy debate in this house when we introduced the first modified Emergency Powers Act immediately after the outbreak of war in Korea to take certain powers less than those that would result from the proclamation of the War Measures Act. We felt that there was not the kind of emergency existing at the present time that would authorize us to proclaim the War Measures Act or to exercise powers that are similarly to be exercised in the case of a situation described in the statute as an emergency.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has outlined the heavy duties that devolve upon the Department of National Defence, and has indicated the reasons which in his opinion support the contention that there should be an associate minister. But I submit that the amendment that is suggested is hardly supported by the arguments he has put forward. The reference to events in different parts of the world with which the Department of National Defence is connected does not in itself suggest a change in the situation which would support the need for an amendment of this nature at this time, unless there are some reasons which have not been placed before us.
I could understand an argument in favour of the appointment of a minister to deal with a specific service or to deal with specific duties in relation to the functions of the Department of National Defence. If the associate minister is, however, simply to have parallel duties to those of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton), it seems that the purpose of the appointment-not the amendment but the appointment-is merely to give ministerial rank to a parliamentary assistant. The duties that have been described would be performed by a parliamentary assistant except in so far as attendance at cabinet meetings is concerned.
I doubt if any hon. member will question the fact that steps need to be taken to improve the situation. The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has said that many countries have ministers for each service. He has pointed out that this is the system adopted in the United Kingdom, the United States, France, Australia and other countries.

National Defence Act
He did go on to say that the government believes our system has advantages in bringing about co-ordination. I should think we have had abundant evidence in the past few days that it has produced the very opposite. I should think we have had abundant evidence in the past few days that what we greatly need is some new definition of the duties of those who will be responsible for administration. If there is to be an additional minister, then I submit that one of the things which should be before the house is a clear definition of the responsibilities of that minister. If his real duty is to be that of an administrative official with cabinet rank, then I believe that should be before us in some detail when we say that it is expedient to introduce an appropriate amendment for this purpose. If on the other hand it is to deal with a particular service, then I think that should be before us.
I should think that great advantages could accrue from the appointment of a minister to a particular service, even if at the present time it is only to take over one service. Having regard to the fact that special emphasis is being placed upon Canada's development of its air defences, I can well see reasons why we should have a minister of national defence for air, or, if the minister is to be appointed under section 6 of the army act, an associate minister specifically appointed to deal with the administration of that branch of our military services.
I must confess that I find it difficult to understand how the government can contend on this occasion that there is no emergency and that the act must be amended for that reason, if it proposes to come before us at a later time in the session and suggest that there is an emergency which calls for the introduction of two other bills referred to in the speech from the throne. Either there is an emergency or there is not. The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has said that this provision was made at a time when we contemplated a special type of emergency. Then he went on to say-and while I do not purport to quote his exact words I am sure I am quoting their effect-that while we were not in a full-scale war we were certainly in something other than normal peace.
The only amendment, Mr. Speaker, that is contemplated by the motion before us, the only amendment it is suggested we should declare ourselves to believe it is expedient to introduce, is that the restriction that this can be done by order in council in time of emergency shall be removed and that there shall be a provision that at any time an additional minister can be appointed by order in council. I submit that if there is no

emergency we should follow the normal method, and that a bill should be introduced to deal with the appointment of a new minister in the ordinary way. Otherwise it is open to the government to appoint a new minister by order in council at any time without the matter being submitted to parliament. If there is no emergency, then the ordinary procedure of creating a new ministry and describing its functions by statute should be employed.
If there is an emergency, then no amendment is required. Section 6 of the act as it stands is more than adequate for the purpose of dealing with the situation outlined by the Prime Minister. I should think that everything that has taken place in the house ever since we met this session would emphasize the need for the most exact procedure in dealing with all matters connected with the Department of National Defence. I do not think we should further increase the opportunity for informal proceedings and undefined authority.
For that reason I hope hon. members will realize that what we are asked to declare by this motion is that, in the opinion of the members of the house, it is expedient that at any time, without the house knowing anything about it, an additional minister may be appointed without the house having any opportunity to say whether or not it is wise and also without the house having any opportunity to say what the duties of that minister shall be. I hope that hon. members, with that before them, will oppose this motion.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) moved a resolution that it was expedient to introduce a measure to amend the National Defence Act.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. May I correct the hon. member? The motion that was moved was that the Speaker do now leave the chair. That is the motion.


George Randolph Pearkes: That in committee we should discuss this resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the National Defence Act to provide that the Governor General may at any time appoint an associate minister of national defence at a salary of ten thousand dollars per annum.
We feel this resolution unnecessary because we feel that the present act makes provision for the government to appoint such associate

minister if the government so desires. We also feel that in the remarks made by the Prime Minister the duties of this associate minister were ill-defined, vague and not sufficiently specific.
I think it would be advisable to quote the actual words of the National Defence Act, paragraph 6 (1):
The Governor General may, during an emergency, by a commission under the Great Seal appoint (a) not more than three additional ministers of national defence, each of whom shall exercise and perform such of the powers, duties and functions of the minister as may be prescribed by the governor In council;
That refers to the possibility of the appointment of additional ministers of national defence. When the Prime Minister was speaking, according to the notes I jotted down at the time, he said that the National Defence Act as it stands provides that in an emergency there can be an over-all minister of national defence and one separate minister for each of the three services. My interpretation of the act, as I have read it, is that it does not state definitely that these three ministers are to be allocated to each of the three services; because it says very distinctly:
-each of whom shall exercise and perform such of the powers, duties and functions of the minister as may be prescribed by the governor in council;
My interpretation of the duties of those three ministers, if appointed, is not so circumscribed as the interpretation given by the Prime Minister this afternoon.
Paragraph 6 (1) (b) of the act reads:
-not more than three associate ministers of national defence, each of whom shall exercise and perform such of the powers, duties and functions of the minister as may be assigned to him by the governor in council or the minister.
That is, if necessary in an emergency there may be appointed three associate ministers of national defence. Paragraph 6 (2) goes on to say that such minister-
-may be continued in office for not more than six months after the termination of the emergency during which he is appointed.
I must submit that a great deal of the Prime Minister's speech this afternoon indicated that an emergency does exist. He referred to the 25th brigade being in. action in Korea, and outlined the various establishments which are maintained in the Far East, not only for the army but also for the navy and the air force. He went on to describe how our 27th brigade is stationed in Germany and how various units of the Royal Canadian Air Force are also stationed in Europe. He pointed out that we had units of our defence forces in Korea, Japan, the United States, Britain, Germany, Belgium and
National Defence Act
France. Those units of our defence forces, be they of the army or air force, are stationed in Europe because the dread of war hangs over Europe.
We find that we have Canadian troops in the Far East because there is real war. The illusion that there is only police action in Korea surely has been shattered when we realize that there have been over 1,200 Canadian casualties in Korea, of whom some 245 have been killed. Surely nobody is trying to maintain the myth that there is not war in Korea. Of course there is war, and real war, in Korea.
So far as Europe is concerned the raison d'etre for our troops being in Europe is the threat of war; war is apprehended. In the definition of this act we are told that an emergency means war, invasion, riot or insurrection, real or apprehended. I do submit, then, that we are faced with real war in Korea and apprehended war in Europe. For these reasons I feel that there is an emergency, and therefore the paragraph of this act granting authority to appoint both additional ministers and associate ministers amply applies, and has applied for many months past. On that ground I feel that it is quite unnecessary to refer this resolution to any committee or to even present the resolution at all. I do not see how we can say on one hand there is war, and on the other hand that our troops in action in Korea are not taking part in active service operations there.
Then the Prime Minister referred to the fact that in a number of countries there were over-all ministers of defence. I believe he pointed to the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia and France as countries having over-all ministers of defence. He said also these ministers had under them subordinate ministers who were charged with the responsibility of supervision, administration and organization of definite services, or some specific job they had to do. For several years after the end of the last war, while the army and navy were combined under a minister of national defence, we still retained a minister of national defence for air. II is not, therefore, an unusual thing so far as this country is concerned, and so far as the policy of the present government is concerned, that there should be a separate minister for one or other of these services, with a definite job.
The Prime Minister said that it would be a retrograde step if we established separate ministers for each of the three services. 1 wonder whether the experience which has been gained by following this fetish of unification has really shown that the policy oi

National Defence Act
unification at the top has been entirely successful. I believe we have had ample demonstration recently that it is impossible to have unification throughout the administration of the services. There may be unification or an attempt at unification at the top, but we have not made any great progress in unification in the middle. Only a few days ago we heard that there were eight different accounting systems. In fact, if I recall correctly, it was suggested that there was no great harm in having various accounting systems in the service, and that we should not strive after unification for unification's sake.
I am not at all sure we have not stressed too greatly this necessity for unification starting at the top. True, we are trying the experiment at the bottom as well. We have the three combined service colleges in which cadets of the army, navy and air force are studying together. I do not think we have gone far enough yet to say whether that experiment is entirely successful. We must have liaison and co-ordination, most assuredly. There has to be co-ordination between all three services; there is no question about that.
Surely the Minister of National Defence, who we have been told must spend a large part of his time away from Ottawa conferring with other countries-conferring with the NATO commanders; conferring with the United Nations and so forth-with his broad experience of what is going on in other countries would be in an admirable position to co-ordinate the activities of our three services. Because he is away from Canada so much, and because his duties take him into the realm of diplomacy, into the management of international relations, experience has shown that he has not had sufficient time to devote to the administration of all services, the army, the navy, the air force and the defence research council. We have found that there have been reports of failure in the administration. In fact, a great deal of the present minister's time has been taken up with the management of international relationships as well as the management of interservice relationships. I submit that he is in a position to be able to continue with the general supervision over all three of our services.
In order to help him along these lines he has, within the last couple of years, appointed a chairman of the chiefs of staff committee, to whom the Prime Minister referred. Under that chairman there are the chiefs of staff of the navy, army, air force and research council. There you have co-ordination at the top; liaison by the chairman of the chiefs of staff committee with the chiefs of staff of every service. As I see it the present minister is in a position to exercise that general supervision, being the over-all minister, in

much the same way as the chairman of the chiefs of staff committee exercises general supervision over the chiefs of staff of the various services.
We do realize that it would be an enormous task for the present minister or any other minister to maintain the general supervision of all the services and carry on these international discussions and relationships. It is beyond human power to be able to do that. He does need, and has needed for a long time perhaps, additional assistants. He has been provided with parliamentary assistants for some time. Just how he has divided the responsibilities which are his amongst his parliamentary assistants is a matter for him to decide.
This afternoon we were told by the Prime Minister-and I use his words as closely as I could copy them down while he was speaking-that the associate minister would keep more closely in touch with matters of administration relating to the services, that he would keep in touch with the administration of the three services as well as acting for the minister when he was away. Of course, when one minister is away another minister always has to act in his place. Then the Prime Minister went on in a little bit more detail and said that, amongst his other administrative duties, he would be required to supervise requisitions for construction. As we know, there is a great deal of building going on for the three services. Construction is playing a big part and is taking a large portion of the money which is voted for defence purposes. The associate minister would also be responsible for supervision of civil employees in the department-of whom there are a great many-and also for appointments and for the approval of expenditures. There may have been some other details to which the Prime Minister referred but those are, in the main, the duties which he assigned to the associate minister.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that it is utterly impossible to separate administration from policy. If administration falls down, then the policy cannot be put into effect. Administration and policy go hand in hand; and it is exceedingly difficult to make one man responsible for administration and somebody else responsible for directing policy. I think everyone who has had any practical experience, either in the services or in business, will realize that policy and administration go together. I therefore foresee that there will be great difficulties confronting the associate minister of national defence if he is to devote his attention almost entirely to matters of administration.

It is essential that the load be taken of! the present Minister of National Defence. I know that is the truth. In fact, in this house I suggested, I think about a year ago, that the present minister could not undertake all the responsibilities in connection with civil defence; and I am pleased that, shortly after that suggestion was made by me, the government acted on it and transferred the duties of civil defence to another minister.
One man can do just so much. It is an unfortunate practice that we sometimes have of overloading the willing horse. Hence I suggest that in the past we have been asking too much of our Minister of National Defence and that some relief was due him long ago. If that relief is long overdue, let us be practical, and let us see what is the best way in which we can relieve him of some of this burden which has overtaxed human ability.
We must realize that the present Minister of National Defence has shown exceedingly great ability. I do not hesitate to pay my tribute to him for all that he has attempted to do. He has had to try to take in the broad picture. By inclination he is extremely keen on administrative detail; hon. members can see that inclination evidenced in the reports he has made to this house. He has almost a mania for detail. He will come here and give us a large number of figures representing the amounts of money which have been spent by this and that department. He will have them at the tips of his fingers. I think he has shown on many occasions a remarkable ability in being able to point out the details connected with the various services. I am afraid that, by inclination, he is going to follow on with that mania. He loves detail, and it is going to be tremendously hard for him to divorce himself from administrative detail.
We are obliged to rely upon him to give us the over-all picture, and to deal with the immense problems of international relationships, interservice policy and so forth. But if he ties himself down to details as well, we are not going to have this country adequately served in that respect. If only loose instructions are given to his associate minister to look after administration I am fearful that, during the two-thirds of his time that the Minister of National Defence will be looking after affairs in Ottawa he will, by sheer force of habit, delve into matters of administration. Hence I foresee an associate minister of national defence charged with the responsibility of administration and a minister of national defence finding it extremely hard to divorce himself from the details of administration because, as I have already pointed out, administration and
National Defence Act
policy are closely interrelated. I therefore fear that we shall have confusion worse confounded and that we shall just go on muddling along; because if the division of responsibility, as defined by the Prime Minister today, is adhered to we shall have no clear-cut solution to the problem.
I should like to see this resolution reconsidered and provision made for a definite area of responsibility to be allocated to this associate minister of national defence. If any additional help is required for the minister, then let further parliamentary assistants be appointed. As was suggested this afternoon by the leader of this party, I would suggest that at this time we might well appoint a minister of defence for air.
Let us just look for a few minutes at the responsibilities a minister of defence for air would have.
To begin with, let us consider the amount of money that this house allocated in the main estimates during the last year for the defence services. For air alone there was allocated the huge sum of $929 million plus $577,891, a total of $929,577,891. The administration of that huge sum of money certainly requires that there should be a separate minister to look after that particular service. If it were just in the ordinary course of events that this large sum of money was being provided for our air service, perhaps the need would not be emphasized to the same extent as it is when one looks back and takes note of the amount allocated in the main estimates of 1951, at which time the sum of $252,842,836 was set aside for this purpose.
So we see here an enormous increase in expenditure for the air force, an increase in one year from $252 million to $929 million. These figures must give hon. members some idea of the tremendous expansion and increase in our air defence. Surely we will not say that we are going to have just a flash in the pan, or that we are not going to stress the air service in the future.
On various occasions in the house I have stressed the necessity of placing emphasis upon our air defence. We are particularly suited to play a large part in air operations. We have an enormous country which can be defended only by rapid movement from one part of the country to another. Our air services are essentially for the defence of the country. Not only are they for the defence of Canada, but also to fulfil our obligations in other parts of the world, notably those under the United Nations. We have an air division either in or about to arrive in Europe. I think some 12 fighter

National Defence Act squadrons is the number that has been mentioned, and those squadrons are expected to arrive in Europe within the foreseeable future.
Then we have the NATO training scheme, in which we are inviting young airmen from other countries who have joined us in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to come to Canada so they may do their training here. We do this because we have the facilities for it.
We have our obligations in Korea where No. 426 transport squadron has been doing amazing work. As was disclosed recently, they have made over 350 crossings of the Pacific, both ways. They have flown over four million miles in transporting over 8,500 personnel.
Then, because of the stress being placed upon air forces the world over, the whole situation regarding air warfare is in a constant state of flux. Our responsible officials, be they service personnel or ministers of the crown, have tremendous obligations in order to keep up to date in matters of research, design and construction in connection with aerial warfare.
During the last war there was no question that Canada played a most effective part in aerial warfare. I think very few members in the house would question the statement that to a great extent our success was due to the energy and ability of the minister of defence for air of that time.
I feel the time has now come when we have to have a clear-cut understanding of the responsibilities and duties of this new associate minister, and that the logical, practical and realistic step to take is to say now, "We will revert to our wartime policy of having a separate minister for the air service," so that the activities of the air force with all its tremendous developments, and the administrative arrangements regarding personnel, as well as the provisions for modern types of aircraft with which it must be supplied, will be the responsibility of one individual.
In order to tie in those responsibilities and that development with the development and progress of our other defence forces, there would be the over-all minister of national defence, who would be able to spend his time dealing with his international responsibilities. Being relieved of air force responsibilities, and of the expenditure of these $929 million-almost half of the defence vote -with the assistance of such parliamentary assistants as he might deem necessary he would be able to look after the administration of the other two services, the army and the navy.


It is for these reasons we feel this resolution need not be submitted to a committee at this time. While we are opposed to the resolution for the reasons I have advanced, we feel it would be better to wait until the bill is before us to advance any amendments we may have in mind. I indicate to the Prime Minister the line of objection we shall take to the bill when it is presented, and I do this in the hope that he will give serious consideration to the arguments I have advanced, that he will realize the resolution is not necessary, that all the powers exist in the National Defence Act as it stands today, and that there is an emergency-and one cannot gainsay that there is a war in Korea and a war apprehended in Europe. If there is a real war in Korea and an apprehended war in Europe, an emergency exists. And if that emergency exists, then in the act he has all the power required to appoint whatever associate ministers he may need.
Finally I hope that a much clearer definition of the responsibilities of the associate minister will be placed before us. I do recommend with all sincerity that the simplest and most logical way of proceeding is to appoint either a minister or associate minister of national defence for air, and to divorce from the present minister all those details of administration, design, construction and development connected with the air services. I feel it will only add to the confusion if an associate minister is given responsibility in connection with administration, when his responsibility for general policy is limited.
I do not believe it will be possible for the Minister of National Defence to divorce himself entirely from matters of administration. I repeat that I hope the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) will see that it is not necessary to proceed with this resolution. Secondly, I hope that when the associate minister is appointed his duties will be clearly defined and that he will be made responsible for one service. I submit that the air service is the logical one to be given a minister rather than confuse the whole question by giving him some vague, ill-defined responsibility over the administration of the navy, army and air services, the northwest system and all the other administration details of national defence.


Mr. O. L. Jones (Yale):: Mr. Speaker, I am prompted to enter the debate at this time after having listened carefully to the recital which the Prime Minister gave us before the recess of the duties devolving upon the Minister of National Defence. I think he opened our eyes; but perhaps he should also have told us that the Minister of National

Defence handles nearly 50 per cent of the national expenditure. That is the responsibility of one man, whereas the other nineteen members of the cabinet look after the other 50 per cent of our national expenditure. It is the thought of the tremendous responsibility that is placed upon the Minister of National Defence that prompts me to say a few words tonight.
This department has always received the lion's share of our national revenue. As the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) just mentioned, the handling of this department has always been too much for one minister. I remember when this department was handled by my predecessor from Yale, the late Hon. Grote Stirling, in 1934 and 1935; and tonight I pay tribute to that hon. gentleman. He served for twenty years as a member of this house, and he acted also as minister of national defence. He gave of his best with untiring zeal during those twenty years. He was a fine gentleman, a good member of the house and a conscientious administrator. I still find in my correspondence reference to the work he did and the good deeds he performed. He passed away during last week end and I am glad of this opportunity to pay this tribute. He was honoured by all parties in the house.
It is with those thoughts in the back of my mind that I think of the heavy responsibilities that devolve upon the shoulders of one man. The division of duties will naturally be a contentious subject. We from British Columbia are pleased that one of our members has been selected as the associate minister, but at the same time we are not quite happy about the situation. The difficulty seems to me to be in the division of responsibility. From what we have heard, this -responsibility will still rest upon the one man. He will have an associate to help him, but previously he had a parliamentary assistant. He is not a great deal better off.
I think we as members of parliament should place direct responsibility on all our ministers. I do not care whether the department is divided into four ministries, but I do feel that the army, navy and air force require separate ministers. I should like to see consideration given to the appointment of a minister to handle administration matters, to clean up the mess exposed by the Currie report. I think it would be money well spent to have a minister to do nothing else but look into the bookkeeping system, the storage system, the security system, and to be personally responsible for those matters. Then other developments in the army, navy
National Defence Act
and air force could be under separate associate ministers if you wished. I realize that this may mean greater expenditures; but when you consider that half our national income is spent by this one department under one man, and the other half by the other nineteen members of the cabinet, I think the expenditure will be found to be justified.
That is all I have to say. I am not going to criticize the appointment because we from British Columbia are pleased with it. I think we have as good a man as we could find to fill the position. But I sincerely believe that definite responsibility should be placed on this individual rather than to make him just a glorified parliamentary assistant with increased pay.


Mr. Ray Thomas (Weiaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I agree that an associate minister will be of great assistance to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton), although I contend there should be a more definite division of duties than was laid down this afternoon by the Prime Minister. I should like to see the new minister named as minister of air or as minister of air and navy, whichever is practicable, so there would be a more even distribution of responsibility.
This afternoon the Prime Minister said he did not like that kind of division because they were trying to retain as much unity as possible among the various branches of the service. But I would think if a break in that unity brought about increased efficiency it would probably be a good thing. If such a move would mean greater efficiency, then by all means we should have that definite break and have the duties of each of these ministers clearly defined.
We do not like to see a glorified parliamentary assistant in this post. We want to see a minister with definite duties. We want to see someone who can assume responsibility for certain branches of the department. I shall have to agree with the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) in disagreeing with the method proposed by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister says that he does not believe there is an emergency, and therefore he does not have the power under the act to appoint other ministers.
I do not know whether I would agree with the Prime Minister that there is not an emergency. Our boys in Korea feel that there is some sort of emergency or they would not be fighting there. If the government is not willing to accept the fact that we are in a state of emergency, surely they will agree that at least the Department of National Defence is in a state of emergency. The

National Defence Act
events and debates of the last few days I think prove that pretty clearly.
If we are in a state of emergency then the government has the power to create one minister or three ministers, whichever number is needed. If there is no emergency then I am afraid I cannot agree that this is the type of action that should be taken. The position of the new minister should be created by statute and not in the manner that has been set forth in the house today.


Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to add a very few words, really to follow up what has been said by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes); but first I should like to make one or two general comments on the Prime Minister's speech. As I listened to the Prime Minister describing to us in his quiet persuasive tones the reason for the appointment of this new minister; as he described the scope of the duties of the present minister; as he took us from the front line in Korea to Pusan, to the destroyers in the sea of Japan, to the Aleutian islands, to Canada, to Britain, to Germany, to France and described in great detail-and I am sure accurately- the scope of the duties of the present minister, I said to myself: Is this really the month of January, 1953? What has been happening in the last two and a half years since July, 1950, when in effect the enormous nature of the commitments which we had undertaken became clear?
If the Prime Minister was trying to demonstrate to us that it was utterly impossible for one man to undertake these duties, I think he succeeded admirably; and the only thing I would say to the Prime Minister is that for many many months we on this side in our small way have been trying to persuade the government that that was so.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: You are always right on your side.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: No, we are
not always right but we are sometimes right. We do not even suggest the government is always wrong, although they are sometimes wrong. What I want to come back to is that the government has taken advantage of the insatiable appetite for work and the insatiable energy of the Minister of National Defence; and in my opinion the government, and the Prime Minister at the head of it, are grievously to blame for the disorganization about which we now know, a disorganization which is demonstrated by the Currie report and which, if Mr. Currie could only investigate the whole of the expenditures instead of one one-hundredth, would be demonstrated even more.
We come now to this situation. I repeat that I think the government and the Prime Minister at the head of it are grievously to blame. Now the thing is to be set right; and how is it to be set right? Well, it seems to me that we are perhaps going from the frying pan into the fire. It seems to me we may be falling between two stools instead of falling off one stool. It seems to me that the outline of the duties that has been given does nothing whatever to indicate that there will be a clear-cut division. We were told by the Prime Minister this afternoon that the Minister of National Defence will usually look after duties A, B and C, let us say, and the associate minister will usually look after duties D, E and F, and that when one minister is away the other will look after his duties.
That is all right so far as it goes, but I submit it still leaves us in exactly the position outlined by the hon. member for Nanaimo, namely that there is no clear-cut definition of duties. We will still be in the position where energy and courage are asked to do the duty of organization. We have now found defects in the organization. We hoped that when the Prime Minister brought forward the resolution there would be evidence that there was now going to be some clear thinking to set this thing right. So far as I can see that evidence is not there. So far as I can see we are going to go on with the same vagueness, the same want of organization.
I hope, as the hon. member for Nanaimo has said, that the government will see fit to take another look at this matter. I hope in particular that they will accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Nanaimo, with all his experience and knowledge of these matters, as to a minister for air. In general it seems to me that he has made suggestions which, if we are single-minded in trying to correct this situation, the government might very well consider.


Mr. P. E. Wright (Melfort):: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it quite clear that as far as this group is concerned we believe that the principle behind the resolution is good. We believe the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) is in need of some assistance at this time. As a matter of fact, we think such assistance should have been given much earlier. We agree that when we sent our troops to Korea in the first place we did not expect that the war would drag on for two years, and that we probably thought then there might not be an emergency. But surely when we decided to become partners in NATO and to send a brigade to Europe, when we added to the responsibilities of the minister that of meeting the chiefs of staffs of

other countries and of consulting with the joint defence board set up in conjunction with the United States, it must have been apparent to the government that some assistance was necessary.
It should have been apparent to the government when our spending in this department practically tripled in one year that some assistance was necessary for the Minister of National Defence. Everybody agrees that the minister has done all that it was humanly possible for one man to do, but even that was not enough in the light of the tremendous responsibilities that devolved upon him so far as the increased expenditures and increased tensions in the world today are concerned. As I say, we agree with the principle that the minister should have assistance, but we do think it should be done in a somewhat different way than is being suggested.
In introducing the resolution the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) stated in a general way the division of responsibilities between the associate minister and the minister. He said the associate minister would be responsible for administration while the minister would be responsible for policy decisions and for attending international conferences and other meetings which our ministers of national defence must attend. That is not enough. When a government in this country appoints a minister of the crown and pays him the necessary emolument for that position, it seems to me that the minister as a member of the cabinet should be responsible to parliament for certain well-defined duties. After all, we still have a parliament, and it is parliament that is responsible to the people of the country, not the government alone.
How is parliament to hold the new minister responsible unless he has clearly defined duties? Therefore we say that in making this appointment the Prime Minister should clearly define the responsibilities that the associate minister is going to have. Surely there is some way in which the responsibilities involved in the Department of National Defence can be divided. Surely the matter of procurement and stores is a responsibility which might be given to the new minister at this time, because we are procuring tremendous quantities of goods and supplies not only for our armed forces as they are today but as they may be in the future. Surely there should be somebody directly responsible for that.
I am not going to try to define what division of responsibilities the government should make, but I say it should be clearly defined to parliament so that parliament can hold the minister appointed, whoever he may be, responsible for certain specific duties that he
National Defence Act
will have to perform as a member of the government. The hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) has suggested that the new minister might be made minister for air. That is a reasonable suggestion. In our defence department air responsibilities have always been great, in the last war and since the last war. We have taken on additional responsibility for the training of personnel from other parts of the NATO partnership, and those responsibilities are great.
I am not trying to say what the duties of the associate minister should be, but I do say they should be clearly defined by parliament so that when that minister is appointed parliament can hold him responsible for well-defined duties, as other ministers of the crown can be held responsible for their departments.


Mr. Rodney Adamson (York West):: I merely want to support the hon. and gallant member for Nanaimo with regard to a minister for air. If there is any way in which we -and I say "we" in the way the board of trade or chamber of commerce said "we as the third trading nation of the world"-have any responsibility in particular, it is our responsibility in the air. We have only a small population, and mass armies and large manpower are not for us. They can never be for us with our small population.
In two wars the Canadian genius showed us to be supreme in the air. I think the percentage of Canadians in the Royal Air Force and the Royal Flying Corps in the first war, and the Royal Air Force and the Royal Canadian Air Force in the second world war, was out of all proportion to our population. It is for that reason, for the logistics in the matter -one might almost say the geopolitical side -and also because of our peculiar genius for work in the air, that we should give special attention to it.
As has been said, expenditures for air defence have increased from a quarter of a billion to nearly one billion dollars. Not only have the expenditures increased; the technological progress in the air has increased at a very rapid rate and it is continuing to increase at even an accelerated rate at the present time.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that a minister for air, with the specific job of co-ordinating and co-operating with the air arm of the defence services, is an absolute necessity. Let us take what has happened recently. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) was away attending a NATO conference. While he was away the Currie report was brought down and there was a great deal of confusion in the department. To have had

National Defence Act
a minister for air, or another defence minister, would have tremendously reduced that confusion and steps might have been taken immediately, rather than to have the very unfortunate time lag and time waste which took place.
So I say that a minister for air, not only because of our small population but because of our geopolitical position and because of the genius of Canadian people for work in the air, is an absolute necessity.
I feel that unification of the armed services is ideal, but it has never been effectively worked out in the United States or in the United Kingdom. Despite all high level conferences and all attempts to work out unification of defence forces, they still form themselves into three essential services. I understand it is the United Kingdom practice, and I think it is desirable, that a member for each service is appointed whose job is purely of a technical nature. He has the responsibility of reporting on technical matters directly to the cabinet, thereby taking off the shoulders of the ministers, who have other responsibilities in the house, the details of the technical problems of the services. I have been informed that that system has worked very well and has relieved ministers of a great many of these technical problems for which they have not been trained. So, Mr. Speaker, while the problem is to take as much of the technical responsibility and essential detail off the shoulders of the minister, I also feel that if we are increasing the cabinet it is essential that we increase it by a specific minister with specific duties. I suggest, in our peculiar position, a minister for air is one of the essential additions we should make to the cabinet.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, if this is a motion on which I am not entitled to reply-


Mr. Speaker:: This is not a substantive motion and is not one on which reply is allowed by the rules, but with unanimous consent of the house-


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No. I will have an opportunity in committee.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Chairman, had it not
been possible for me to have this opportunity at once, I would have asked for the unanimous consent of the house to express to the hon. and gallant member for Nanaimo my sincere appreciation for the well-merited tribute he paid so generously, in a nonpartisan fashion, to the ability, energy and devotion to duty of the Minister of National

Defence. As a citizen of Quebec, I would also like to thank him for the equally generous and well-deserved tribute he paid to my old colleague from Quebec, now the dean of this House of Commons, for the service he was able to render to his country and to his fellow citizens during the last war as minister of national defence for air. It is refreshing to find that we have these sentiments, and that party affiliations have not prevented us from giving expression to them when there is proper occasion for doing so.
I think it was quite refreshing also to hear the tribute paid by the present member for Yale (Mr. Jones) to the nobility of character and the service rendered to the country by the former member for Yale, though they were not of the same political allegiance. I am sure that all hon. members who had the privilege of being fellow members of the late Hon. Grote Stirling were deeply gratified that there was this opportunity of paying a tribute to his memory, which we all would have been delighted to pay as soon as we learned of his death if it had not been contrary to the usual practice in this house, which is to refer only to those who are still members of parliament.
I believe there has been general agreement that there was occasion for assistance in some form in the discharge of the heavy responsibilities that now weigh upon the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton). There has been a suggestion that under the terms of the National Defence Act the same thing could have been done by the governor general in council without coming to parliament. Perhaps those who hold that view are right. Perhaps the present situation is as defined in the National Defence Act as an emergency, which means war, invasion, riot or insurrection, real or apprehended. We did not feel that there would be unanimity over such a construction of the present facts. If the governor in council had the right to do it without coming to parliament, it was thought parliament would not feel that it was offensive to ask parliament to state by statute, because this is to be a statute, that under present conditions one of the three authorized by the act might now be appointed.
As to the division of duties, the hon. and gallant member for Nanaimo suggests that a more clear-cut division would be the appointment of a minister for air. I have pointed out the distribution of our forces at the present time, and it is almost impossible to have separated the civil administration of these units belonging to the three different services. The arrangements that are entered into with the host countries, where there are members of our forces, are arrangements

that apply to all the members of our forces who may be there. These arrangements are very closely connected. The arrangements we make for the establishment of airfields and barracks at Grostenquin have a bearing upon like arrangements that are being discussed for barracks in Germany or barracks in Belgium. We are now fourteen allies in this North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and we are trying to adopt a pattern that will suit the purposes of all. These arrangements have to be negotiated and dealt with by one minister for the three services. I hope there will not be confusion in the performance of the work that has to be done by the minister and the associate minister.
The hon. gentleman says that the Minister of National Defence has a passion for doing it all, or for seeing to all that has any bearing upon that for which he is responsible. Well, that is no doubt a fault, in one aspect, but it is one to which I have to confess, too. But I find that in other aspects it is not altogether unfortunate that one can take details into account. After all, a nation is made up of individuals, and the implementation of policies is made up of an infinity of various small actions. The hon. member knows better than I do that the credit brought to this country by the performance of our armed forces during the last war was the result of the sum total of individual action of individual men and women, and the whole was magnificent because each small part had been regarded as important and an essential contribution to the whole picture.
I trust that there will not be such an amount of attention devoted to detail as will prevent one from seeing the forest itself as well as the trees. The hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) says there should be something specific for which the new minister will be responsible. The new minister, like all his colleagues, will be constitutionally responsible for everything that will have taken place in that department as well as in any other department of government. I have made no answer to the oft-repeated assertion that, in connection with the irregularities disclosed by the Currie report, each member of the government was constitutionally responsible. That is the doctrine and will continue to be the doctrine, not because I admit it but because it has come down through the traditional development of parliamentary institutions.
I hope the manner in which this will work will prove a very great alleviation of the heavy burden the present minister has to carry, and will make it humanly possible, within the twenty-four hours of each day of
National Defence Act
a man's life, to have closer supervision of all the incidents connected with the expenditure of money appropriated by parliament to perform this job. I am sure the whole Canadian public wants to see it performed, but performed as efficiently and as economically as it can be performed under the best possible supervision.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, there is no occasion to extend the debate in committee. The bill will come before the house and it will be possible then to discuss it. I would point out, however, that nothing the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has said in any way deals with what was placed before the house by the hon. member for Nanaimo, who has pointed out the need for clearly defined duties on the part of the minister to be appointed and has recommended the appointment of a minister for air. That course would be consistent with the practice in every other major country which carries on under the same system as ours or one similar to it.
In disposing of this matter at present, we leave it in the position that we will discuss it when the bill comes forward; but in view of what has been said with regard to this matter by the hon. member for Nanaimo, the hon. member for Greenwood and others, I would hope that the Prime Minister would review the situation and consider the advisability of following the course that has been suggested.
Far from a satisfactory situation prevailing there is one of confusion and great waste of public money which needs to be dealt with. That was the purpose of the suggestions that were made-as well as the welfare and efficiency of the armed forces-and which were put forward clearly, and with great understanding of their need, by those who advocated this course. The detailed discussion of this subject can take place on the bill itself, but I hope that the government will still reconsider the course they are proposing to follow.


George Randolph Pearkes: Is it the intention of the government to provide an additional deputy minister? Section 7 of the National Defence Act provides that, where additional ministers or associate ministers are appointed, additional deputy ministers may also be appointed. If there are going to be two ministers working through the one deputy minister, it seems to me that you are going to have a difficult bottleneck.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The department at the present time has one deputy minister, one associate deputy minister overseas and one associate deputy minister here in Ottawa. I would not want to commit the government

Judges Act
to a policy of not making further appointments, but up to the present time no consideration has been given to the appointment of additional deputy ministers.


George Randolph Pearkes: There is no amendment to that effect?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. St. Laurent thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 103, to amend the National Defence Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



JUDGES ACT


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice) moved: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a measure to amend the Judges Act, 1946, to authorize payment of a salary for an additional judge of the Supreme Court of British Columbia.


Mr. Fulton:: Will the minister say just a word as to the necessity for this resolution?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, the necessity for it arises from the fact that the legislature of the province of British Columbia has created a vacancy for the appointment of an additional judge of its supreme court. The purpose of this amendment to our Judges Act is to give us power to make an appointment to that vacancy so created.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Garson thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 104, to amend the Judges Act, 1946.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall this bill be read the second time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Next sitting of the house.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Might I speak to that point, Mr. Speaker? Before we agree to amend our Judges Act in order to authorize the appointment of an additional judge in any province, it is our practice in the department to ask for the production of statistics showing that the case load of the province amply warrants the additional assistance of another judge. That practice was followed
TMr. St. Laurent.]
in the present case. The statistics we received proved beyond any question that an additional judge was required, and we proceeded on that basis. Just within the past few days the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of British Columbia has had to go away for the purpose of an operation. This fact will leave the bench still further short. If there is no objection, I would ask the indulgence of hon. members that we might pass this bill through all of its readings tonight in order that we can appoint a judge quickly, owing to the fact that the bench is short as a result of the illness of the Chief Justice.


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: Has any
request been received from the government of the province of British Columbia to have this bill go through right away?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, indeed there has been a request, not only from the Chief Justice himself but from the acting chief justice. He wrote me a letter just a few days ago.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that the second reading take place now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: the second reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: that the house go into committee on the said bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Before you do that, Mr. Speaker, may I point out that hon. members have not the legislation before them. I do not think it is a matter of any importance but, before we agree, if at this stage the minister could just give us details as to the form of the legislation and its effect, we would know what we are agreeing to.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Certainly.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The motion for second reading has been carried. Therefore I must leave the chair so this bill may be considered in committee of the whole. If the hon. member does not object, perhaps the minister could give a further explanation of the bill when we are in committee of the whole.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That will be satisfactory.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Then is it agreed that I do now leave the chair, and that the house resolve itself into committee of the whole on the said bill?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is this bill very long, or can the minister read the bill in full?


Louis-René Beaudoin: According to the rules, the chairman is supposed to call the first section and, if necessary, to read it.


Some hon. Members:: Read it.


Louis-René Beaudoin: It is as follows:
Part I
1.	Paragraph, (d) of section 13 of the Judges Act. 1946, chapter 56 of the statutes pf 1946, as enacted by section 3 of chapter 52 of the statutes of 1951 (first session), is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"(d) Eight judges of the supreme court, each	 14,400.00".
The marginal note for section 1 is as follows:
Salaries of judges of court of appeal and supreme court of British Columbia.
Then part II is as follows:
Part II
2.	Paragraph (d) of section 13 of the Judges Act, chapter 159 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952, is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
" (d) Eight judges of the supreme court, each	 14,400.00".
The marginal note for section 2, part II, is as follows:
Salaries of judges of court of appeal and supreme court of British Columbia.
Then section 3:
3.	This part shall come into force, and part I is repealed, on the day the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952, come into force.
And the marginal note for section 3: "Coming into force; repeal."
On section 1-Salaries of judges of court of appeal and supreme court of British Columbia.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May we take it, then, that the only change being made by the bill is to increase the number of judges from seven to eight? Possibly the nod of the minister's head could somehow be reproduced in Hansard, perhaps by the offset process.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My hon. friend will notice that I was nodding my head up and down, and thus signifying agreement with what he was saying. The second part read by the chairman is placed in the bill for the purpose of having it dovetail with the new revised statutes. But so far as the substance of the bill is concerned it provides only for one more judge in the British Columbia supreme court.


Gordon Graydon: Is there any great reluctance out there on the part of people to take this extra job?
Judges Act


Angus MacInnis: I was not in the chamber when the Minister of Justice was giving his reasons for the bill. I should like to know if there is any backlog of court cases in British Columbia that are not being dealt with because of a shortage of judges. I imagine that is about the best criterion we could apply as to the need for an additional judge or judges.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: With deference to my hon. friend may I say that the volume of writs issued and cases tried perhaps would be an even more accurate indication of the need for a new judge. I have the figures showing the number of writs and petitions in 1942. There were 669 writs and 525 petitions, making a total of 1,194. In 1949 the writs had risen from 669 to 1,882, and the petitions from 525 to 921, for a total of 2,803 instead of 1,194. Then in 1951 the total had risen from 2,803 to 2,981. And in 1952, for only seven months-and these are the final figures for only those months, because we have to secure them from the whole of the province and there is some lag-there were a total of 3,248 writs and petitions for only seven months as compared with 1,194 for the whole twelve months as recently as 1942.
Then the figures for cases heard show that in 1942 there were 226; in 1948 there were 478; in 1951 there were 597 and for seven months of 1952 there were 440.
In 1942 there Were 5,165 motions in chambers, whereas in 1952 there were 8,195.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: What was the change in the number of judges during that period of time?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: One more. My hon. friend will recall that one was added a year or so ago. So they are certainly working a lot harder than they were ten years ago, even with this new judge. Then to continue with these figures: In 1942 there were 973 undefended divorce actions; in 1949 there were 1,572; in 1951, there were 1,554 and in 1952, 1,134.
In 1942 there were 598 lawyers in the province, while in 1952 there were 1,024.


Angus MacInnis: Perhaps to a lawyer the figures the minister has given would be a satisfactory answer to the suggestion that another judge be appointed. Perhaps, however, there is another answer; that prior to this time the judges really did not have much to do, and that they could deal with twice as many cases as they were dealing with before. I do not think they work a great deal of overtime-and would the minister please let me finish before he interrupts?

Judges Act
This may not be a very convincing argument, but it will be better if I have a chance to complete it at this time.
In all walks of life today-and I am not suggesting that it should be carried too far in court procedure, because that is something that should not be unduly hurried, and cannot be done on an assembly-line basis- people are doing more work in less time than they did before. If the minister would speak to a logger who worked in the British Columbia woods twenty-five years ago and to another who works in those woods today, he would find out that there is a great deal of difference in the amount of work each logger did.
I agree that there is another side to the matter, that the population of British Columbia has increased tremendously in the last few years. That would possibly be as good a reason as any as to why there is more work. But the actual figures the minister gave may mean, as I said before, that in the recent past the judges did not have much to do. Now, when there is some work to do, they should not be so insistent upon getting further help.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The point the hon. member has raised would be a good one if I did not have an answer for it. However, we do not appoint judges merely because we are asked to do it. We have to be shown that there is a need. Among other things we ask the question as to how much work the judges are doing. The answer to that question reveals that while in 1942 the seven judges did 1,332 sitting days' work, or an average of 16 days per month each, in 1952-


Gordon Graydon: I do not think the judges would agree with you on that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: How many months a year?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: In 1952 the average number of sitting days per judge per month was 16; in 1952, on the basis of eight judges, it would be 26 days, or on the basis of nine judges, including the chief justice, it would be 23 days. It will be seen therefore that there has been a substantial increase in the amount of work they do.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think the minister might make his statement a little clearer. Unless I am mistaken, when he makes reference to 16 days and 23 days he means the days on which a judge would be sitting in court. But we must remember that a judge must do his homework, write his judgments and so on.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The point raised by my hon. friend is quite correct. I had thought that

this would be quite obvious. The court officials have no way of keeping track of how much time a judge spends in doing his homework. They can just keep track of the time he spends in court. I was giving the sitting days only. I do not know what percentage of his time a judge would spend writing judgments and so on, but I am sure it would be substantial.


George Alexander Cruickshank: If this bill passes, which I presume it will, is there any set date by which the appointment must be made?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If this bill passes, as I hope it will, the desire will be to have the appointment made as soon as possible, because we want to get the new judge working right away.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I just wanted to point out that if the appointment is held off until after the election the services of the hon. member for Kamloops will be available.


Edmund Davie Fulton: After the election there will be more chance of a Conservative government being in power.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I do not
believe the minister has given us the details of the arrears. I think the hon. member for Vancouver East ought to be satisfied that the judges are not actually doing six or seven times as much work as they did in 1942. If the figures are available, I think we should have the number of cases in arrears awaiting judgment. Has the minister any comparative figures relating to other provinces?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, I have, but I think it would be most undesirable to give them unless an application were being made by the other provinces for the appointment of a judge. The figures I have indicate that on a comparable basis the need for an additional judge in British Columbia is substantial. I feel that will answer my hon. friend's question. I would not feel free to put the figures for another province on the record unless that province was urging the appointment of a judge.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Has the
minister the same feeling with regard to comparable figures as to cases awaiting judgment?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: You mean arrears?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Yes.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I have no figures as to arrears. I understand from the fairly lengthy exchange of correspondence which took place between myself and the Chief Justice that the arrears in British Columbia are not substantial. The

judges have been working very hard in order to keep up with their work. I do not think the arrears are necessarily a good criterion because if a court is not being carefully run and if the case load is not being properly distributed, it is quite possible to build up considerable arrears when the judges available should with proper distribution be able to handle the load. I think the real test as to whether another judge is needed is the increase in the volume of work and the number of sitting days each judge puts in.
The figures I put in indicate that these judges are carrying a heavy load. They have to do a lot of homework in addition to their sitting days in court. If by hard work they have kept themselves free from an accumulation of reserved judgments, the fact remains that they still need additional help.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I do not
question the fact that most judges work very hard, but the figures given by the minister seem to leave one question in my mind. If I understood them correctly, they appear to show that the judges seem to be trying about five times as many cases as formerly. If there is any answer that can be readily given to that, I shall be interested to have it.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think the hon. member for Vancouver East has put his finger upon part of the explanation. The case load in 1942 may have been on the low side. Since then there has been an increase of about 40 per cent in population and the number of lawyers has nearly doubled. From being on the low side, the case load is now on the high side and an additional judge is needed to take care of a load which is heavy and still increasing. Even with an additional judge these judges will be working quite hard.


Mr. Applewhaite:: I think there is one aspect of this matter which has not been recognized by hon. members. Not only has there been a great increase in population in British Columbia, the picture has changed greatly as to distribution of population. There are now large and prosperous communities in the north and in other parts of the province far away from existing centres of population. While not a practising lawyer I know from contacts I have made that there is considerably more work for judges on circuits, more need for them to spend a great length of time away from Vancouver and Victoria. Therefore the amount of time spent by a judge in carrying out his duties would not be accounted for entirely by the number of cases on the docket.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.
Canada Evidence Act
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: the second reading of Bill No. 9, to amend the Canada Evidence Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
On section 1-Proof of compliance with conditions.
Edmund Davie Fulton: I can only assume that there must have been some reason in the minds of the members of parliament and the authorities in drafting the original act when they restricted the officers qualified to take these affidavits to notaries public. What reason is now advanced why it should be desirable to enlarge it to include commissioners for oaths? I must say I see no objection but I am; a little curious to know what was the original reason for restricting it, and why the change?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: As my hon. friend knows, the practice prevails under this statute of doing away with the retention of voluminous documents by taking microfilm reproductions of them which are properly authenticated. Having regard to the fact that the original documents are destroyed and that all that is left of documents which may be very important are these films, I would offer the theory-I do not know for sure what the reason was, but I imagine this is it-that the reason for providing that the taking of the film had to be sworn to before a notary public was that they thought that might give an oath which was a little bit more serious or solemn than if taken before a commissioner for taking oaths.
But as time went on a number of these films were sworn to before commissioners, and the result is that a lot of material in microfilm form, the authenticity of which is beyond any doubt whatever, would now be technically, in a legal sense, valueless for the purposes for which it was originally prepared. The purpose of the bill is twofold. It is to provide that these microfilms, the taking of which has been proven by oath sworn by a commissioner rather than a notary public, shall be legal retroactively, and that from now on it will be possible to authenticate microfilms of that sort before a commissioner.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
house or
Canada Evidence Act
On section 3-Proof of compliance with conditions.
Edmund Davie Fulton: May I ask the minister when it is expected that the revised statutes will in fact be proclaimed? I notice they are called the revised statutes of 1952, but we are now in 1953 and we have not got them yet.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes. As a matter of fact we had thought that they would be available sometime during this month or next month. It is not very long ago that the hon. member for Eglinton asked me that question and elicited that answer. But the queen's printer tells us that the volume of work he has been kept busy doing is interfering with that program, and I do not think it will be possible for us to get them in February. It will be some months later in 1953 before they become available. So far as the Department of Justice is concerned, our task was completed some time ago. It is just the question of their reproduction in printed form. We also have the problem of getting the French translation made available, and there will be a bit of time lag on that as well.


Mr. Green:: Is this not a rather peculiar procedure to follow? I notice that several of the bills on the order paper contain a similar provision. They purport to amend the revised statutes of 1952.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: The house is being asked to approve that legislation without having any idea whether or not the amendment fits into the revised statutes. Are we not a little premature in passing these different amendments to the revised statutes of 1952 when we do not even have those statutes? Why is it necessary to include these changes in the bills before we actually see the revised statutes?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Well, for the reason that this bill and the revised statutes of 1952, to be completely effective for the purpose for which they were prepared, have to be a complete entity so that those referring to those statutes later on will know when they reach into the bookcase and pick out the volumes of the 1952-53 statutes and of the revised statutes of 1952 that these are the law as it stood in 1952, complete and entire. If we did not, in the course of this amendment we are putting through now, insert this part II revising the revised statutes of
1952,	then the revised statutes of 1952 when they were later proclaimed in their present form would repeal this very bill we are now passing. Thus later we shall not only have to look at the amendments passed in
1953,	1954 and 1955 and so on, but we would

have to look back to the statutes of 1952-53 and the revised statutes of 1952 to ascertain what the law was. That is why, as my hon. friend can see, we have included in all these bills a part II which merely has the effect of leaving the revised statutes of 1952 in the position in which they must be, if when they are proclaimed they are not to repeal the bill we are now passing.


Howard Charles Green: Will this part II appear in the actual revised statutes of 1952?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, in effect.


Howard Charles Green: If the minister is right in that, it means that we cannot get the revised statutes of 1952 until the end of this session because the amendments involved in all the bills that are to go through the house during this session will have to be written into the revised statutes of 1952, will they not?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Well, as I was explaining a few moments ago, we cannot get them anyhow because there is this printing lag. If we could get them it would be a different question, but we cannot.


Howard Charles Green: It does seem unreal that the house should be called upon to pass this legislation without in effect being able to check it at all. Why not do as I believe has been done in the province of British Columbia? Where there is a revision as of a certain year there may also be statutes passed in that same year, and you have to look at those in order to be sure that the revised statutes have not been changed. Here we are in a new year. This is not the session of 1952. This is the session of 1952-53.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: The revision is supposed to be as of 1952. Should the statutes of 1952-53 not be in the ordinary form and make amendments of the law as it now stands? The lawyers will have to check that, but it seems to me there is no justification for asking the house to pass legislation of this type when we really do not know anything about it. We are not in a position to check it at all.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I suggest to my hon. friend with all deference that we do know about it because the Canada Evidence Act will appear in the revised statutes. We see in part I of the bill the substance of our amendment, and all that part II of the bill says is that the substance of it will be carried into the revised statutes. That is all.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 4 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall this bill be read a third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Edmund Davie Fulton: At the next sitting of the house.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will take up third reading of Bill No. 9, an act to amend the Canada Evidence Act; Bill No. 10, an act to amend the Prisons and Reformatories Act, and Bill No. 45, an act to amend the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act; also the resolution respecting the liability of the crown for torts and civil salvage. If those matters are disposed of, and I hope they will be, I am told that the
Business of the House
Minister of Justice will be ready to take up second reading of Bill No. 93, an act respecting the criminal law.


Edmund Davie Fulton: In the order the minister has given?


Alphonse Fournier: In that order. If we dispose of those different matters, we will take up the small bills in the name of the Minister of Transport, Nos. 19, 38, 39. After that we can take up Bill No. 44, an act to protect the coastal fisheries.


Howard Charles Green: What are you going to do after that?


[Stage Direction]
It being three minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
j'-i kb - , rft
~T-

r	; i'ji i
[Stage Direction]
Friday, January 23, 1953