1953-04-15

[Stage Direction]
Second report of standing committee on external affairs.-Mr. Bradette.

['That items Nos. 85 to 104 inclusive, of the main estimates for 1953-54, approved and reported upon this day by the standing committee on external affairs, be referred back to the committee of supply.']
Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance) moved:: That items Nos. 85 to 104 inclusive, of the main estimates for 1953-54, approved and reported upon this day by the standing committee on external affairs, be referred back to the committee of supply.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. F. Macdonald (Edmonton East)
presented the first report of the standing committee on industrial relations, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Brooke Claxton (Acting Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) asked a question to which I should like to reply.
The report of the international joint commission in response to the joint reference of the governments of the United States and Canada for an investigation of the Saint John river system with a view to the conservation and regulation of the waters of that system has not yet been submitted to the two governments. The commission stated in Washington on April 8, 1953, that it expects completion of the report of its engineering board by about June 1, 1953.
Following completion of the engineering board's report and its appropriate consideration by the commission, the commission will submit to the two governments its recommendations concerning development of the basin.
68108-246J



RADIO ACT


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 337, to amend the Radio Act, 1938.


Mr. Green:: Will the minister explain?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, the object of the bill is to put into effect the recommendations announced by the Minister of Finance in his budget speech, one of which was the abolition of the radio fees, and to make certain other minor amendments to the Radio Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT MEASURE PROVIDING FOR ORGANIZATION AND SUPERVISION OF ASSOCIATIONS

Douglas Charles Abbott: for leave to introduce Bill No. 338, respecting co-operative credit associations.


Mr. Knowles:: Explain.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The purpose of the bill is to authorize the incorporation of co-operative credit associations by special act of parliament and to provide for the inspection and supervision of these organizations. The bill in a good many of its particulars resembles the Trust Companies Act and the Loan Companies Act with respect to the supervisory and inspection powers of the superintendent of insurance.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS


GAGETOWN BRIGADE TRAINING AREA


Mr. Brooks:: 1.	Has the Department of National Defence decided on the location of the headquarters site for the Gagetown army brigade training area in New Brunswick?
2.	If so, where is the headquarters to he located, and is it the intention of the department to start work and construction on headquarters this spring?
3.	If no decision has been made yet as to the location of such headquarters, when may one be expected?

Questions


Mr. Blanchette:: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the minister answered this question in his statement to the house yesterday, may I respectfully submit that the question be dropped.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.
"current affairs"


Mr. Diefenbaker:: What was the March, 1953, press run of ''Current Affairs", published by the army bureau of current affairs?


Mr. Cote (St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville):: English	 45,406
French	 7,220
52,626
It may be noted that the above quantities include copies requisitioned for use by the Department of National Defence and for sale and authorized distribution by the department of public printing and stationery.
"LA SEMAINE a RADIO-CANADA"


John George Diefenbaker: What was the January, 1953, press run of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation "Times" (English) and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation "La Semaine d Radio-Canada"?


Mr. McCann:: Canadian Broadcasting Corporation "Times" and "La Semaine a Radio-Canada" are issued weekly. For the week of January 25, 1953, the following number of copies was printed for each edition: Pacific edition, 1,800; Prairie edition, 7,600; Eastern edition, 7,725; French edition, 2,450.



KNOWN COMMUNISTS IN CANADA

Mr. Higgins:: 1.	How many known communists are there in Canada?
2.	What is the approximate number in each province?


Mr. Garson:: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for St. John's East and I have discussed this question and have reached agreement that it might be dropped.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.



COLOMBO PLAN


Mr. Caiherwood:: 1.	What was Canada's total contribution to the Colombo plan, during the years ending March 31, 1952 and March 31, 1953?
2.	For what purpose was this money used and in what amount?


Mr. Claxion:: 1. In addition to the appropriation of $400,000 for technical assistance in each of
fMr. Brooks.]
the two years, parliament approved a contribution of $25 million for 1951-52 and the same amount for 1952-53 to assist in the economic development of countries in south and southeast Asia under the Colombo plan.
2. Expenditures or commitments against these capital assistance votes have been made for the following purposes and in the amounts indicated:
1951-	52
India-
(a)	$10 million for wheat.
(b)	$4-5 million for trucks and buses for the improvement and extension of the Bombay state transport system.
(c)	$500,000 for capital equipment for an irrigation and hydroelectric project.
Pakistan-
(a)	$5 million for a cement plant in the Thai area where the Pakistan government is carrying out a large-scale refugee colonization scheme.
(b)	$2-8 million for railway ties.
(c)	$2 million for an air and geological survey of Pakistan's resources.
(d)	$200,000 for agricultural machinery and related equipment for a model livestock farm in the Thai area. This is a joint Canadian-Australian-New Zealand project.
1952-	53
India-
$5 million for wheat.
$3 million for equipment for a hydroelectric project.
$2-2 million for locomotive boilers.
Pakistan-
$5 million for wheat.
$3 [DOT] 4 million for equipment for a hydroelectric project.
$170,000 for three aircraft fitted with special equipment for use in the locust control program.
$500,000 to cover remaining costs of the cement plant project undertaken during the previous year.
Ceylon-
$1 million for fishing vessels, cold storage plant and technical personnel for a fisheries research and development project.
Several of these projects will yield revenue in local currency (counterpart funds) which will, in turn, be used by the government concerned, in consultation with the Canadian government, to finance further economic development.



IS, 1953 QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS IMPORTS FROM UNITED KINGDOM BY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

['Mr. Speaker, the scientists of the national research council and the fisheries research board are aware of these researches at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the different methods of sterilizing food products using electro-magnetic effects. Some of this work is being carried on in national research council laboratories, but so far knowledge has not advanced to a point that makes industrial application of the new ideas practicable.']
Mr. Coldwell:: What was the total value of imports from the United Kingdom made by the departments, agencies and crown corporations of the federal government for each of the years 1946 to 1952 inclusive?



Mr. Wylie:: 1.	What was the total cost of the new post office building in Brooks, Alberta?
2.	What was the cost of the furnishings in the various offices?
3.	What price was paid for the lots?
4.	From whom were they purchased?


LAWYERS OR NOTARIES PUBLIC, NEW BRUNSWICK
Mr. Noseworihy:: 1.	What lawyers or notaries public, residing in the counties of Sunbury, York, Saint John, Albert and Charlotte, in the province of New Brunswick, have acted as agents on behalf of any department or board of the dominion government, during the fiscal years 1948-49, 1949-50, 1950-51, 1951-52, and from April 1, to December 31, 1952?
2.	What amounts have been paid to each and in connection with what services?


MOTION FOR PAPERS
Mr. White (Middlesex East):: For a copy of all correspondence, papers, telegrams and other documents from January 1, 1949 to date, in possession of the Department of Public Works, including the expropriation proceedings and rulings regarding the purchase of the building in London, Ontario, known as the International Harvester building on York street, for the purposes of using it as a postal terminal.


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. gentleman be kind enough to let this motion stand? It is the first time that it has appeared on the order paper, and I have not had an opportunity to look over the files.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING ACT
James Joseph McCann: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Canadian Broadcasting Act, 1936, to provide that the Minister of Finance shall from time to time grant to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, out of the consolidated revenue fund, amounts equal to the taxes collected under part
Inquiries of the Ministry
XI of the Excise Tax Act in respect of the goods mentioned in section 6 of schedule I to that act.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, in view of the concern expressed during current hearings of the United States federal power commission over the fact that the permit issued under our Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act for the export of natural gas from the Peace river area to the northwest United States is for one year only, has the government given consideration to enacting a regulation making it possible to grant a permit for this particular export which will be in effect over a period of years rather than on the present year to year basis? The Minister of Trade and Commerce will realize the great importance of this project to British Columbia.


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend was good enough to give me notice of his question. The house will recall that on March 13 I dealt at some length with the government's policy with respect to the export of oil and gas. In the course of my remarks I pointed out that the government had issued an export licence to Westcoast Transmission Company Limited for the export of natural gas. The licence as issued was to be renewable from year to year, and the Canadian government was prepared to accept responsibility for providing gas in quantities as specified in the licence for the full period of the existing permit issued by the province of Alberta. This was of course contingent upon Westcoast meeting its obligations to supply customers in British Columbia.
Hon. members will be aware that the principal considerations in the construction and operation of any gas pipe line are that sufficient gas must be transported for such periods as will permit the amortization of the capital costs of construction; that adequate and continuing deliveries of gas must be assured to distributors to enable them to underwrite the capital costs of distribution; that adequate and continuing supplies of gas must be assured to consumers. Having
3882	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry regard to these and other considerations, it now appears desirable to crystallize the undertaking given with the licence already issued to Westcoast. The government has therefore issued an amended licence to West-coast Transmission Company Limited for a period of twenty-two years for the export of surplus gas, the volumes to be determined from time to time by the Canadian government but to be not less than the quantities specified in the permit. In so doing, the requirements of British Columbia will of course be protected.
Bearing in mind that without export the construction of this line would be postponed perhaps for all time, the government in reaching this decision also recognizes the unanimous resolution passed by the province of British Columbia endorsing this project, and the permit issued by the province of Alberta for twenty-two years, as well as the dedication by that province of the Peace river gas to this project. To enable the government to issue such a licence, it has been necessary to amend the regulations under the Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act, and this has been done. This amendment provides that in the case of export of surplus natural gas the period of the export licence shall be determined by the governor in council. Export licences for electricity and petroleum remain, as before, on a yearly basis.


Howard Charles Green: Will the amended regulations
be tabled?


Clarence Decatur Howe: They will, yes. I should have added that the orders in council amending the regulations and providing for the issuance of the permit to Westcoast Transmission Company Limited will be tabled.


INTERNATIONAL WHEAT AGREEMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the explanation given to the house on Monday with respect to the wheat agreement and the motion now standing on the order paper in the name of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, I would ask the Prime Minister if the international wheat agreement can be tabled for consideration before the motion is called.


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, it is intended to table the text of the agreement just as soon as we receive it from Washington; and the motion for concurrence will not be called


until it has been tabled and members have had an opportunity of seeing the text.


FISHERIES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. R. Balcom (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) - if his attention has been drawn to an article appearing in the April 2 issue of the "Fisheries Council of Canada Bulletin" concerning a new meat preserving process developed by scientists of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology for the United States navy. If so, is he prepared to make any comments on this process at this time so far as it might apply to preserving fish?


Hon. James Sinclair (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, the scientists of the national research council and the fisheries research board are aware of these researches at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the different methods of sterilizing food products using electro-magnetic effects. Some of this work is being carried on in national research council laboratories, but so far knowledge has not advanced to a point that makes industrial application of the new ideas practicable.



NEWFOUNDLAND


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. F. Higgins (St. John's East):: May
I ask the Minister of Fisheries when the special committee appointed to investigate storm damage to fishermen's gear will visit Newfoundland?


James Sinclair: I thank the hon. member for having given me notice of this question but, unfortunately, I could not read it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


James Sinclair: I shall take his verbal question as notice and answer tomorrow.




[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Sinclair: Yesterday the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Browne) asked when the report of the Newfoundland fisheries development committee would be tabled in the house. This report is now being printed in Newfoundland and copies will be available for general distribution in about two weeks' time.

Meanwhile the committee has forwarded some mimeographed copies to the federal government. These are not complete since they lack the maps and appendices, but they do contain the committee analyses and its recommendations.
Sufficient of these mimeographed copies are not available for all members of the house, but for the convenience of those members particularly interested and of members of the press gallery I am tabling ten copies of the report as received by us yesterday. In addition a copy will be made available to each of the Newfoundland members.
These advance copies will permit the federal government to give the report immediate consideration and to reach early policy decisions on its implementation. These advance copies will permit also earlier discussions between the governments of Canada and Newfoundland on their respective responsibilities and joint undertakings in any development program.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Harris) which arises out of a press report stating that the largest single group of emigrants to leave Northern Ireland in the last five years is on its way to Canada and something more than a thousand are to follow. I would like to ask if the government is assisting in their passage.


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I would
have to look at the individual cases to see if any of them had qualified for assisted passage. I would assume that some have and I would be glad to give my hon. friend the details.
I wish to assure the house that we are delighted to have an additional group of Irish people coming to settle in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That is what I wanted to hear the minister say.



SUGGESTED REFERENCE OF REPORT OF BOARD OF GRAIN COMMISSIONERS TO AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to refer to orders of the day for March
Inquiries of the Ministry 27, 1953, and ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) if he has anything to say about whether or not the report of the board of grain commissioners will be sent to the agriculture committee so that members of the committee will have an opportunity to go over the report this session?


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend is a member
of the agriculture committee and I am not. If he will speak to the chairman of that committee, I am sure the chairman will be glad to tell him whether he intends to call the committee. If the committee is called and wishes any document in my possession I shall be glad to have it referred to the committee.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder if the minister
would tell me if he is prepared to have the agriculture committee called.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Hazen Robert Argue: Well, we have done it both
ways.


Some hon. Members:: Order.



FERRY SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Digby-Yarmouth (Mr. Kirk) asked me if I would make a statement on the position of the Bar Harbor-Yarmouth ferry. I am pleased to do so now.
On November 7, 1952, authority was given for entry into a contract with the Davie Shipbuilding and Repairing Company Limited of Montreal, for the construction of an automobile ferry between Yarmouth, N.S., and Bar Harbor, Maine. The specification called for delivery of the vessel within eighteen months from date of contract, as well as engines which would guarantee a service speed of 18 J knots.
Deliberations began immediately between the technical officers of that company, the naval architect and officers of this department.
It became evident that the specification, which had been prepared by the naval architect, did not provide for sufficient power to allow the proposed vessel to operate on a service speed of 18J knots. This fact, plus some doubts expressed by the contractor as to the stability of the vessel as designed, made it necessary that tank tests be per-

Sales Tax on Hospital Drugs formed in order to ascertain unequivocally the speed and stability of the vessei.
The tank tests were performed in England and the United States, and the results substantiated the contention of the shipyard as to the two points mentioned above. This has, therefore, brought about some redesigning and alterations in the ship as originally designed, which the shipyard has been authorized to perform.
Davie Shipbuilding and Repairing Company guarantee that the vessel will be delivered eighteen months after contract is signed. This means that the ship will still be delivered in 1954, but unfortunately it appears doubtful that it will be economically feasible to begin operation in late 1954. It would be preferable to delay the opening of the service to the summer months of 1955, when traffic would be available in sufficient volume to allow the economic operation of the service.


Alphonse Fournier: that the house go into committee of supply.



SALES TAX ON DRUGS USED IN HOSPITALS

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, before Your Honour
leaves the chair I wish to raise a matter and I assure you and the house at the outset that it will only take a few minutes, and I have no amendment up my sleeve. My reason for raising this now, rather than on the orders of the day where I might have done it, is that it would have taken me a little longer than is permitted at that stage of our proceedings.
I have had brought to my attention by a person in Montreal something which rather amazes me. Indeed when this correspondent first wrote to me about the matter I could hardly believe what he told me and I asked him to submit the evidence to which he had referred. I have now received this evidence in the form of a bill from the Montreal General Hospital and I should like to draw it to the attention of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) and have his comment on it.
I hope there is an error.
This is a bill, as I have already said, from the Montreal General Hospital, account No. C93951, under date of March 23, 1953, and the total amount of the bill happens to be $70.61. One item on it is for medicine, $5.10, and further along in the same line where "medicine" is printed, are the words
fMr. Chevrier.]

"federal tax 10 per cent". In this case 51 cents has been added to the cost of these medicines.
It has been my understanding from the law, from debates in this house, and from my own unfortunate experiences in having to pay hospital bills, that medicines supplied to hospitals are not subject to federal taxes. I assume in this case that the reference is to the sales tax. I have in my hand, as a matter of fact, another hospital bill and this one comes from Manitoba. It happens to be one for which I was responsible myself and it has on it an item which corresponds to the same item on the Montreal bill-"ordinary drugs". The amount is $5.60-being one item in the total bill. There is no reference of any kind to any tax, federal or otherwise.
When I look into the legislation in connection with this matter, namely the Excise Tax Act, I find that articles and materials for the sole use of any bona fide public hospital, certified to be such by the Department of National Health and Welfare, when purchased in good faith and for use by the hospital and not for resale, are exempt from the sales tax.


Douglas Charles Abbott: But they are selling them.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: They are administering them.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I anticipated that the
minister might make that comment and, as a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I took this point up with my correspondent in Montreal; and he told me these were drugs administered to the patient while she was in the hospital. It was exactly the same in the case of the bill from Manitoba which I have in my other hand. In both cases these were drugs purchased by the hospital and used for the benefit of the patients while they were in the hospital. They are paid for as part of the hospital bill. In one case, that of the Manitoba bill, apparently no sales tax has been added; but in the case of the Montreal General Hospital a tax has been added and it is indicated on the bill that it is a federal tax of 10 per cent. I draw attention to the fact that it is a printed form, so it must be standard practice in the case of the Montreal General Hospital. The form for Manitoba is likewise printed-


Douglas Charles Abbott: Manitoba should charge the tax.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -but there is no place on it for the addition of such a tax. I submit that if what the minister is now saying is the case, then the public have been deluded as to the meaning of the provisions in the Excise Tax Act that drugs and medicines

for use in bona fide hospitals are not supposed to be subject to the excise tax. I quite understand that, if the hospitals were reselling medicines for patients to take home, they would have to be regarded in the same light as drugs purchased at an ordinary drugstore. I, for one, do not think even those drugs should be subject to tax, but as yet we have not been able to persuade the government to change the law in that regard, although as the minister knows we shall continue our efforts in that connection.
My point now, Mr. Speaker, is that it does seem to me that the spirit if not the letter of the law is not being followed in this case, and that in my view hospitals should not be required to add that federal 10 per cent tax to drugs purchased by them and used for the benefit of patients in hospitals on the direction of physicians attending those patients. As is being suggested by my friends around me, it is certainly part of the hospital treatment, just as much as other items. For example, this patient in Montreal had a bill for routine laboratory tests, and a bill for X-rays. In the case of Winnipeg, there are laboratory tests, electrocardiograms, intravenous and other items. In both cases the drugs were part of the treatment being administered by the hospital.
As I say, I am not at this moment trying to deal with something that might be out of order at this stage since we have passed the excise tax bill, namely that drugs purchased outside of a hospital should be free of tax. But certainly it is incredible and astounding that the public should be deluded, which is what is happening if drugs purchased by a hospital, and used on the direction of a physician while a patient is in the hospital, are being made subject to the sales tax. I make my plea to the minister that this practice be discontinued.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Mr. Speaker, this matter is very simple. Where drugs or any other taxable products are purchased by a hospital for use by the hospital, they are free of sales tax. But where hospitals sell to patients at a hospital, as is the case where their dispensaries sell drugs and other products, which if purchased from a retail druggist would be subject to sales tax, then they are obliged to charge the patient the sales tax. I am sure that is exactly what happened in the case the hon. member has cited of the Montreal General Hospital. The dispensary sold to the patient at retail prices the particular drug or medicine in question. If the hospital buys alcohol or liniments or any other drugs, and does not sell them to the patient but in-
Sales Tax on Hospital Drugs eludes them in the general hospital bill, then of course they would not be subject to tax. Most hospitals operate a dispensary which, in essence, is the same as a prescription druggist. They sell to the patient drugs which are subject to sales tax, and that is all there is in this case.


Major James William Coldwell: I
think that is something that is indefensible.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Well, why should one pay more and another pay less?


Major James William Coldwell: A hospital obtains its drugs from a wholesale druggist, and those drugs are prescribed by a physician and given under the direction of a physician.


Douglas Charles Abbott: And sold at retail prices.


Major James William Coldwell: I do not know whether or
not they are sold at retail prices.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Why should a man pay one
price for drugs in a hospital and another price when he is at home?


Major James William Coldwell: My understanding is that
the hospital sells these drugs at a price to cover the cost of handling the drugs.


Douglas Charles Abbott: And they make a profit on
them.


Major James William Coldwell: I do not know. I have
never examined the statements of a hospital in that manner, although I was a member of the board of governors of the Regina City Hospital for many years. I cannot tell you whether or not a profit is made on the drugs, but I do not believe that the payment of a handling charge is a profit. It seems to me that when a patient is in a hospital and the doctor prescribes certain drugs which are administered by nurses in the hospital, that is a part of the general treatment given in the hospital. Such a case is not in the same category as when I go to the druggist, buy certain drugs on a prescription and administer them myself. The two things are quite different.
As I understand it, in some of our provinces-I believe this is true in my own province-drugs are given under our hospitalization plan, and practically all the drugs prescribed by a physician are regarded as part of the hospital treatment. Certainly, this is a new principle, and I think if it were put into effect across Canada it would cause a great deal of difficulty.


Douglas Charles Abbott: A good many doctors provide their own drugs, and they have to charge the sales tax. Why should a person who happens to go into a hospital get a special benefit?


Major James William Coldwell: I am not going to argue
the matter, except to say this. I cannot

Sales Tax on Hospital Drugs understand the justice of it. There is no justice in it. It is one of those abominations that the government has-


Douglas Charles Abbott: If I may be allowed, Mr. Speaker, I want to make this point and ask whether any reasonable man has an answer to it. It may be that these things should not be subject to sales tax. I am not going to discuss that now. But if they are subject to sales tax, why should one man pay the sales tax when he is using the drug in a hospital, and another man not pay it? My point is that everybody should be treated the same. If the drugs are subject to sales tax, because a man is able to be treated in his own home by a doctor without going to a hospital, why should he pay a higher price there than if he were in the hospital? Why should he pay a higher price if the doctor dispenses the drug himself and charges the sales tax, as he must do, whereas if he were in hospital he would not have to pay the sales tax.
The reason, of course, for the exemption of hospital purchases from sales tax is that it is rightly assumed that hospitals are nonprofit organizations. They are supported by public subscriptions, state assistance and so on. It is felt that the general purchases of the hospital for its supplies should not be subject to sales tax, but people who are being treated in the hospital and who use taxable articles, whether drugs or anything else, should pay their tax just the same as the man who does not go to hospital. I think it is going a long way to call this an abomination and all the other strong words that have been used. My suggestion is that this practice treats everybody fairly. Perhaps one could argue that the tax on drugs should be eliminated, but I am not going to argue that now. So long as the tax is imposed, the man who uses the drugs in the hospital should not be exempt.


Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinion):: The
minister has said that this is a simple matter. Perhaps the trouble with it is that, in the view of the government, it is a little too simple in so far as their approach is concerned. The matter is not new. This same question has been raised in the house before. I recall several years ago having just such a hospital bill as the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has presented today, and raising the question at that time.
The point is made that this is not a fair application of the statute. The minister says, well, if the drugs are used by a hospital and are not resold to the patient, then they are exempt. But, Mr. Speaker, let us look 

a little more closely at that. When does a hospital use drugs? Does the hospital not use them on patients? Of course, the hospital always uses drugs on patients and that is the only reason the hospital has them; that is the use the hospital makes of them, unless it is in the course of research.


Mr. Lesage:: What about the operating room?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Are they not then used on patients?


Jean Lesage: Yes, but the patient does not pay extra.


Donald Methuen Fleming: This is an attempt to draw a fine distinction which does not exist. The way in which a hospital uses drugs is on patients and for the benefit of patients. The minister is trying to draw some distinction between drugs used by a hospital and those drugs which are paid for by the accounts the hospital renders a patient. If a hospital uses drugs at all, they are used on patients in every case, so far as I know. Why then should a distinction be drawn in a case of that kind, simply because the drugs are put on the bill? In many of these cases the patient who is paying his bill is the patient who is helping to meet the expenses of the hospital, quite apart from the cost of drugs.
I think this is a case of discrimination.
If the minister has not a better answer to the question than he has given this morning, and if he can only say that he defends it because to do otherwise would be discriminatory-a point of view that I do not share because I think the way he is applying the act now is discriminatory-let him do away with all of these taxes on drugs. These taxes are causing great hardship for many people. Why should the government-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think that a debate on that subject would be in order at this time.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, may I remind you that this is a motion to go into supply and this is a point that has been raised. The minister himself has touched on this point in his reply. I am dealing with the point that he has made.


Mr. Speaker:: The excise tax bill was before the house this session.


Donald Methuen Fleming: With respect, Mr. Speaker, may I say that there has not been any bill dealing with this particular subject. We had some discussion about the sales tax in general on the bill to amend the Excise Tax Act. However, I content myself by simply making this point, and 1 do not intend to labour it. If the answer the minister has

given this morning is the best answer he can give when the point is made that the government is, in a discriminatory manner, charging sales tax on drugs furnished to patients in hospitals, then the proper course for him to follow is to bring in legislation that these taxes on drugs be done away with entirely.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I should just like to say a word also in protest against what appears to be an unfair practice by some hospitals, as has been drawn to our attention by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), while others do not resort to it.
I was a little bit surprised that the minister should himself get excited over this matter.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am not excited.


Solon Earl Low: I think he should look at the whole thing in his usual calm manner. When he does so, I am sure that he will realize-


Douglas Charles Abbott: I just do not like the use of words like "abomination" when they are not justified.


Solon Earl Low: The procedure which is used by hospitals generally, I believe, is this. Their drugs taken out of their dispensary for the use of patients in a general way while the patients are in the hospital are provided as a part of the services given by the hospital just as the services given in the case of anaesthesia. The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) points to the fact that anaesthesia involves the use of drugs. I know, Mr. Speaker, that on this bill provided by the Montreal General Hospital anaesthesia is charged for separately from all other items and there is no federal sales tax on it although anaesthesia in this case involves the use of drugs. That is a point in support of what my friend the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has said.
Then there is the further practice, Mr. Speaker, that hospitals often follow and it is this. When a patient is about ready to go home, the doctor attending the patient sometimes prescribes drugs that are supplied by the hospital's dispensary. If those drugs were taken home by the patient to be used there, I could quite well understand how the sales tax would apply. The important thing to remember, however, is that the great bulk of the drugs that are charged for on these bills-if not all of them-are drugs that are supplied in the normal course of treating patients within the hospital. In those cases, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that it was intended that those drugs should be tax
Sales Tax on Hospital Drugs free under the Excise Tax Act. If the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) will look at the matter fairly and unemotionally, I am sure he will see that it is right that we should ask for a correction of what appears to be an abuse of the law. I am certainly going to add my voice in protest against the practice that seems to be carried on by the Montreal General Hospital-and there is no telling how many others-of charging tax when they ought not to do so according to the law.


Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that this matter could not have been settled outside of the realm of public discussion. As I understand the problem now, perhaps Montreal may be the only section of Canada where the tax is being applied in this way. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) says that it is not charged in Manitoba. I do not think it is charged in Nova Scotia. At least I have paid a number of hospital bills and have never had a sales tax item on them. As a result of this discussion we may get all the hospitals in Canada adding sales tax to their drugs.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Clarence Gillis: It would be unfortunate if that happened.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That would mean the end
of this government.


Clarence Gillis: I do not agree with the
minister when he interprets the administration of drugs in a hospital as being a resale of drugs. If you purchase drugs from a drugstore, you expeet to pay the sales tax. If a doctor prescribes a specific drug for you and if you are conscious and you take the prescription to the drugstore, you buy the drug and you expect to pay the sales tax. But if you are taken into a hospital when you are in a serious condition such as, for instance, when you may require an operation, you are not buying anything; they are not selling you anything. The doctors and the hospital staff are deciding what is best for you.


Solon Earl Low: And you have to take it.


Clarence Gillis: While you are in a semiconscious condition they are administering drugs to you; you are not doing any buying at all. It is an involuntary act, as far as you are concerned. Then, on the other hand, there is quite a big difference between the price of drugs in a hospital and that outside of a hospital. I refer to drugs like penicillin, aureomycin and streptomycin. All of those important drugs today you can get at least 50 per cent cheaper in hospital than you

Sales Tax on Hospital Drugs can outside. That fact leads me to believe that the hospital purchases in bulk. They buy direct from the manufacturer and they can afford to sell the drugs that much cheaper than the ordinary druggist.


James Joseph McCann: Yes; but they do not.


Clarence Gillis: They do in my section of the
country. For example, I can go and get a penicillin needle in hospital for 90 cents, and I will pay $2.50 outside for it. In this city I think you will pay $5 if you get a shot of penicillin outside the hospital. The resale of drugs and the prices charged are matters which require a great deal of examination across Canada, in my opinion. But I think there may be something in this feature also. Perhaps as to the Manitoba hospitals and the Nova Scotia hospitals who do not carry that item of federal tax on their bills, there may be a difference in their accounting systems. Perhaps that tax is wrapped up in the cost of the drug that is administered in the hospital.


James Joseph McCann: That is the whole point.


Clarence Gillis: That may be true. But as a result of this discussion I think the minister should assure this house that, in so far as he is concerned, he is going to take a look at this matter, is going to determine whether it is the method of accounting that raises this issue with respect to the Montreal hospital, have a general understanding with the hospitals on the point, and try to give us some information before the house rises. As I say, I think it is unfortunate that a discussion like this took place. If the matter is properly examined, with the minister, through the medium of his department, I think there is a reasonable answer to it somewhere that would dispel the kind of thing that we are getting today, namely that one hospital in Montreal is violating the regulations in charging this tax. Anyway,
I wish the minister would assure the house that he will take a sensible look at the matter and give us some information on the point at a later time in the session.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am sure the Minister of
National Revenue (Mr. McCann), will do so; and he is highly competent to do so because he knows something about it.


James Joseph McCann: There appears to be a misconception with reference to the application of the sales tax as far as hospitals are concerned. With respect to whether or not there should be a sales tax on drugs, I am not going to say anything this morning. That is one separate question; but in the administration of the affairs of the Department of


National Revenue, in the eight years that I have been there, there has always been a sales tax on drugs which have been dispensed by a dispensary within the hospital that provides the drugs. And there is no difference between-and there should be no difference between-a patient, we will say, in Montreal who lives on Sherbrooke street and who is ill and is attended at home, and who sends his people to the drugstore and buys a bill of goods on which he has to pay a sales tax, and a patient in a hospital. What is the difference between that fellow, from the point of view of treating everybody the same, and the chap who is in the hospital and from the dispensary within the hospital has drugs supplied to him and the sales tax is added?
As the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) said, it is the way in which it is shown. I feel quite confident that in the case illustrated by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) the sales tax was paid and he did not know it, and the sales tax has been included in his bill; whereas in the Montreal case it is shown up as a separate item. I think that is a more honest and fair way of doing it. It should be shown up as a separate item. In every hospital throughout the country that is subject to sales tax on drugs, the tax is collected.
There is a difference between drugs that are given to the individual and those that are bought for general hospital use, such as alcohol, liniments or disinfectants. You could not set up an accounting system that would deal with the amount of these articles that are applicable to the account of each individual patient, but where a patient specifically gets a bill of goods for drugs that are used in his treatment in the hospital, or to take home, the sales tax is either added or included in the general bill.



EXPENSES OF VICTORIA CROSS WINNERS TO CORONATION

Harry Oliver White: I want to deal with an entirely different subject, to bring it to the attention of the house and of the government before we go into supply. The question I wish to raise has already been brought up in the house. Therefore I am going to be very brief.
I feel that we as Canadians think it is just a bit of a disgrace that the winners of the Victoria Cross in the two world wars, while being invited to the coronation, are not going to have their expenses paid. Many of them are not in a position to go otherwise.
I think I speak for Canadians generally, all

Strike of Grain Handlers
of them, when I say that they would appre- early settlement of this matter which is ciate it if the government would change its having a most detrimental effect-and the mind and see fit to pay the expenses of those longer it continues the more serious the effect men to the coronation.	will be.



STRIKE OF GRAIN HANDLERS AT VANCOUVER

John George Diefenbaker: There is one matter I should like to raise before you leave the chair, Mr. Speaker. It has been raised on other occasions in the house. It has to do with the grain handlers' strike in Vancouver, which has continued on and on during the weeks, with deteriorating effects upon the marketing of wheat. As I understand it, within the last couple of days, the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has received a telegram from the president of the Saskatchewan farmers' union in reference to this matter. Reports have been made almost from day to day by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg), but apparently the situation in Vancouver is no nearer solution than it was weeks ago.
While the delay in settlement continues, the serious situation with respect to marketing is being continued and intensified. I hold in my hand a copy of a telegram that was sent to the Prime Minister by Mr. Phelps, the president of the Saskatchewan farmers' union, and I bring it to the attention of the house as the views expressed by the provincial board of the Saskatchewan farmers' union now in session in Saskatoon. The telegram was sent to the Prime Minister on April 14 and reads in part as follows:
Provincial board Saskatchewan farmers' union meeting special session appreciate government's efforts resolve dispute Vancouver terminal elevators. Farmers increasing concern its continuation if further efforts along lines previously pursued fail in accomplishment . . .
The government is requested to take certain drastic courses by the union, or in any event-
-to request the prairie farm unions to negotiate settlement immediately between companies and union which we are prepared . . .
That is, to consider settlement. The strike has continued for a very long time. Much has been said of the success attained in the settlement of the impending railway strike a few months ago. This is one that affects the farmers of the western provinces to a degree that few of us really appreciate, and it has exercised the minds of farmers throughout the west to a degree that I have not seen in a considerable period of time. I would appreciate it very much if the Prime Minister would say what his reaction is to the representations that have been made, the last one by the farmers' union, and also whether he is in a position, as leader of the government, to hold out any hope of an
Certainly no one can say that an endeavour has not been made by the representatives of the Department of Labour to achieve something in the nature of a settlement of this matter. However one suggestion that has been made-and I repeat it-is that the representatives of the companies and the workers be brought to Ottawa in order to discuss the matter with the Prime Minister and the Minister of Labour. I believe that bringing them face to face with the cabinet, in the same way as was done in the other matter of recent days, could not but have beneficial results. For some reason the attitude of the Minister of Labour has been that such a course would not hold out any hope of beneficial results. Something must be done. The situation becomes more serious day by day. To follow such a course would result in neither side having to make any retreat from its position, but it would give the Prime Minister and the Minister of Labour an opportunity, in a face to face discussion with the representatives of the companies and of the workingmen, to achieve a measure of conciliation and compromise without which this matter will not be settled. The longer it takes, the more dangerous it is going to be and the more difficult of settlement. I suggest that the Prime Minister use his offices in that regard.
I suggest that the Prime Minister use his offices to bring these two jarring elements together and thereby do something definite to settle a matter which is becoming more insoluble as the days go on. All of us know that without the opportunity of conciliation being available, in the manner it would be should these people foe brought into consultation with the Prime Minister and the Minister of Labour, the more difficult it is going to be. I suggest that the farmers in western Canada do expect something in the nature of action such as that in order to achieve a settlement at the earliest possible date.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker). I believe that the grain handlers' strike is most serious as far as the grain producers of western Canada are concerned. The fact that this strike is going on prevents the sale of tens of millions of bushels of grain.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Oh, no.

Strike of Grain Handlers


Hazen Robert Argue: Oh, yes, it cannot help but do that. With our present surplus position in grain it is essential that it be moved as rapidly as possible. A great many of the farmers on the prairies still have their granaries full and there is great need of their being able to deliver larger quantities of grain. It is essential that this strike be ended as quickly as possible.
I believe that in offering their services to mediate this strike the farmers' union organization did something that was most statesmanlike. It was astounding to me that the parties which turned them down were the grain companies rather than the grain handlers' union. When a settlement is reached, if it results in an increase in wages it will be the grain producers who will pay that increase in the final analysis. Here you have a situation where the people who are going to pay any increases which will result have offered their services to negotiate this strike and they have been turned down by the grain companies. I say that in any effort which I hope the Prime Minister will make to settle this strike pressure will need to be brought to bear on the grain companies.
I know that any strike puts the government, the producers and everyone else in a difficult position. This strike has gone on a long time and seems to be no closer to settlement. It has had a most adverse effect upon the movement and sale of Canadian grain at a time when it is most essential that our large surplus of grain be moved to market. The government should step in; the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) should step in. He was successful in the past and I think if he brought the same efforts to bear on this situation as he did in the case of a previous situation we might have the same happy results.


Mr. Robert Fair (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, I believe it is fully realized by now that it is about time this strike in Vancouver was settled. It has been going on now for approximately sixty days and apparently the efforts made by representatives of the Department of Labour have not been successful in bringing it to a conclusion. I am not going to suggest any measure that should be adopted by the government, as I think that is their business, but I do believe that the marketing of wheat is of sufficient importance that the government should take action without any further delay.
Many people think that the farmers are rolling in wealth, but that is not correct. I have had many letters from individuals stating that they are not able to deliver their quota, which in most cases is up to 15


John George Diefenbaker: Would the Prime Minister permit a question, which I ask just for the purpose of getting information? Has he asked these various elevator companies to send representatives and have they refused to do anything but send one lawyer to represent them, he being without authority?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I must confess that this matter has been handled by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg), and the information I have had is that if we were to invite representatives the representative would be the lawyer who has been handling the correspondence and that he would not come here with sufficient authority to be able to make a settlement.


Hazen Robert Argue: Is the Prime Minister prepared to invite the heads of the elevator companies to come to Ottawa so that the strike may be settled at an early date?


Mr. Si. Laurent:: I received the telegram to which the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) referred and immediately turned it over to the Department of Labour. The Prime Minister has confidence in his colleagues and prefers to have them deal with matters which are within their respective fields, but he is always ready to give them whatever assistance they feel can be of use in bringing about results.


John George Diefenbaker: I think the Minister of Labour needs assistance now.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Well, when the matter of the dispute between the railways and their operatives was under discussion I was asked by my colleagues, the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier), to take part in the discussions and negotiations. There I felt that, knowing personally the presidents of these big undertakings and knowing personally the leaders of the labour unions, I could be helpful in the course of the discussions. Unfortunately I do not know personally either the owners of these elevators or the leaders of the union, and I must confess that I know very little about the operation of elevators. I do know that it is a relatively small group of elevators that are involved in the strike and that whatever settlement is made is apt to affect not only these three or four or five elevators but also the whole industry all over the country. That
Strike of Grain Handlers is something which requires to be handled with tact.
All I can say is that no government would be discharging its responsibility if it allowed these essential implements of the grain trade to remain indefinitely out of service. Therefore I think that one must exhaust all possibilities of getting the parties to reach an agreement before looking upon it as a case where expropriation proceedings, or the equivalent thereof, are justified.


John George Diefenbaker: That is why I suggested the undrastic way of having them come down here.


Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I venture to make a comment on this matter only because I find myself greatly surprised at the reason which the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) gave, namely that if the parties were asked to come here they would come without authority. It is very difficult for me to believe that if responsible people were asked to come to Ottawa by the government of Canada to discuss a matter they would venture to come and then say that they had no authority to represent the parties.
In the second place, the Prime Minister gave another reason which surprised me even more. He said that in the case of the railways he knew the parties concerned personally and in this case he did not. I venture to say with deference that surely that could have nothing to do with it. The parties will know well enough who the Prime Minister is. Having regard to the fact that sixty days have elapsed and also the urgency of the problem as indicated by members from Saskatchewan, frankly I feel that the reasons the Prime Minister has given are unconvincing.


Mr. J. A. Ross (Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to add a word in support of the request that some further action be taken at this time. I was a bit disappointed with the remarks the Prime Minister made, but taking his own argument I should think that there is a real reason why he should intervene now. I would also think that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) would have a very direct interest in the matter because he is the minister of the government responsible for these elevators and the marketing of grain. With the many weeks that have gone by, the situation has become very embarrassing and is causing considerable loss to western farm producers. While recognizing that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) and his officials have done a great deal toward trying to bring about a settlement, I think that the Prime Minister should now invite

Supply-National Defence the heads of the grain companies and the heads of the labour unions to come here. He and the Minister of Trade and Commerce should take a hand with the Minister of Labour to bring about a proper settlement in the interests of the producers who are being so embarrassed at this time. I would think these ministers should be vitally concerned about the matter and I hope that some action will be taken in the immediate future.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I hope I have not given the impression that the Minister of Labour was not conferring both with the Minister of Trade and Commerce and with myself about each move that he has made to try to bring about a settlement of the problem.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, without extending the discussion, may I point out to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) that he has made one statement which has a bearing on the desirability now of inviting the representatives of both parties. He has said that it is not possible to contemplate the results that would follow a long delay in the settlement of the strike. Without going into details, that implies a type of solution that the Prime Minister said he does not wish at the present time. If that possibility is in the background, then it would seem that it should be communicated to the representatives of both parties so that they will have an opportunity of considering what they should do in the light of that possibility.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Robinson in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND TECHNICAL SURVEYS Administration services-
212. Departmental administration, $420,566.
Item stands.



DEPARTMENT OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE

[Stage Direction]
419. Departmental administration, $216,964.
Item stands.
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE Defence services-
241. To provide for the Canadian forces, the defence research board and other expenditures relating to defence, including contributions toward the military costs of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization; to authorize expenditures in the current year out of the amount hereby provided, not exceeding $324,000,000, under the provisions of section 3 of the Defence Appropriation Act, 1950, and to provide that, notwithstanding subsection 3 of that section, where equipment or supplies acquired by the Canadian forces after March 31, 1950, are transferred, the estimated present value thereof shall, if the governor in council so directs, be credited to this vote instead of being paid into

the special account mentioned in the said subsection 3, and when so credited may be expended for the purposes of the Canadian forces; and notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act to authorize total commitments for the foregoing purposes of $3,994,895,578 regardless of the year in which such commitments will come in course of payment (of which it is estimated that $1,971,926,275 will come due for payment in future years), $1,960,159,633.
Mr. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon):: Mr. Chairman, last evening when the house rose I was discussing certain matters of interest arising from the general presentation of the Minister of National Defence yesterday and pointing out the difficulty that a private member faces in obtaining information on this important subject. As a result my discussion will largely take the form of questions and queries.
I was reviewing some of the attempts that I have made thus far to obtain information with respect to welfare services for the troops, a matter that interests me as well as other members of the house. On November 27 last I placed on the order paper a question to which I received a rather blunt and peremptory reply. I pursued the matter in another question asking for further details. The question I submitted on February 5 read as follows:
1.	What welfare service is now being provided at unit level for troops serving (a) in Korea, (b) in Germany?
2.	What staff at unit level is detailed exclusively to welfare service duty (a) in Korea, (b) in Germany?
3.	What voluntary welfare organizations are serving (a) in Korea (b) in Germany? How many personnel are involved?
4.	What Canadian amenities e.g. movies, news, comforts, etc., are available to Canadian forces abroad and how are these distributed?
That question was passed as an order for return and the return has not yet been brought down in the house, so I am still very much in the dark.
In a final effort I attempted to have the documents relating to this subject tabled, and that request was turned down. Therefore, I want to pursue this matter because, in spite of the fact that the minister has expressed the viewpoint that to resort to voluntary welfare services would be uneconomical, unnecessary and unwise, I still feel that there is considerable interest in this subject. That interest is displayed in recent reports from the organizations most concerned.
I was going to quote last evening from an article in the January issue of the Legionary, the official organ of the Canadian Legion in Canada. The Legion had directed a letter to the minister asking for information concerning the present attitude of the govern-

ment towards welfare problems. One or two excerpts from the minister's reply are interesting:
At present we have a brigade group in Korea, a reinforcement group and other units in Japan, an air force wing and a depot in England, a brigade in Germany and an air force wing in France.
The heads of the three services consider that it would be unwise, uneconomical and unnecessary to establish at all these places the five welfare agencies (Canadian Legion, Y.M.C.A., Salvation Army, Knights of Columbus, Red Cross) that we used during the second world war and I agree with them.
Now, that is substantially the same reply, only much briefer, that I received to my question on November 27. Another excerpt from the minister's reply is interesting:
From what I have seen and from the advice given to me by those whose responsibility it is, the conditions of service, general amenities and welfare services of the Canadians today are, having regard to the situation they are in, in every way as good and in most ways better than during the second world war.
That is rather an aspersion on the type of service that was offered by the voluntary organizations during world war I and world war II. From my knowledge of their activities, I think it would be pretty hard to supply the type of welfare services that those organizations provided during world war II; and I would doubt very much if what pertains to units serving abroad is equal in every respect today to the type of service which we who served in world war II were privileged to enjoy.
I come to another section of the reply:
As far as the 27th brigade is concerned, the same is true, but they are located in the neighbourhood of Hanover, a large city, with of course all the opportunities for religious worship, entertainment and sightseeing that a large city offers.
The implication there is to the effect that because the 27th brigade is located in a large urban area it would be possible for them to enjoy the social amenities extended to the German civilian population. However, recent reports from the well-known journalist, Bill Boss, would indicate that the situation is just the reverse-and that one of the major problems in Hanover is the inability of the troops to fraternize with the civilian population. The troops are regarded rather coldly and the explanation, as I have read it in these interesting dispatches, is that the residents of Hanover are rather standoffish people who do not easily extend hospitality to strangers in their midst. That, of course, may be a carryover from the situation that prevailed during world war II, but definitely according to reliable press dispatches-and unfortunately we have to depend on press dispatches in these matters as we are not able to determine from official
Supply-National Defence sources-the situation with respect to the 27th brigade has not been realized as it was anticipated in the reply to the Canadian Legion by the minister.
Now, I will move along to the Y.M.C.A.'s interest in this matter. There was a press dispatch in the Globe and Mail of February 27, 1953, reading as follows:
The Y.M.C.A. will press the government to do something about lack of recreational facilities in the army, both in Canada and overseas, when the annual national council meets today at the Royal York hotel.
A report to be tabled announces that the "Y" is already working with leaders of the Salvation Army, Y.W.C.A., the Canadian Legion, and the Knights of Columbus on a combined submission to be sent to Ottawa.
I presume that submission is already in the hands of the Department of National Defence.
That joint action gets around a difficulty that was outlined in the reply to my question of November 27, to the effect that it would not be possible to establish representatives of all these organizations with any one particular unit. Of course the experience of world war II should have provided the solution for that particular problem because, as I recall, only one representative of one particular organization serviced any one unit, whether it was army, air force or navy. In other words, the organizations pooled their resources and, in so doing, were able to provide a much more comprehensive and efficient welfare program.
I note that in so far as the Salvation Army auxiliary services are concerned they have taken the initiative and have voluntarily sent a team-I think it is a husband and wife team-to the Hanover area to work among the troops of the 27th brigade. I believe that was done at no cost or at very little cost to the Department of National Defence-which would remove the charge that the service would be uneconomical.
I do not want to labour this, but the main point I want to bring out is that it seems to me that there has been a trend toward militarization of welfare services-that is the incorporation of the welfare services within the body of the service units. I think that is contrary to the real spirit of welfare. Military organization, by its very nature, must have discipline and must have a certain rigidity in its functions. I cannot see that we can provide the subtleties necessary in meeting the welfare problems of servicemen by employing men in the forces who have been trained for military duties and not welfare duties.
There is another matter that must be kept in mind in regard to this welfare problem.

Supply-National Defence Our forces have always been, and I suppose they always will be-so long as we retain a democratic system-civilian, forces made up of personnel whose interests lie predominantly in the direction of civilian activities. It seems to me that the voluntary organizations have built up a vast reservoir of experience, during world war II in particular. I have been reading the story of the Y.M.C.A. in the war, and they built up tremendous resources in regard to the handling of service welfare problems, which, combined with their civilian capacity to serve, makes it almost inevitable that our own military organizations will have to depend upon that organization along with Others for meeting the welfare needs. The welfare problem is not only one that pertains to troops in the field or air personnel who are 6n active service. There is also a large area of welfare problems created, particularly when great numbers of civilians are called up and find it necessary to serve in foreign theatres. This precipitates a crisis in the families back home. We are well aware that divorce statistics went up during world war II and immediately following world war II. It is perhaps significant that divorces are again on the increase, following a decline during the years 1949, 1950 and 1951.
A good many of the men serving in the forces are married men with family responsibilities. They are removed from those responsibilities, and automatically social welfare problems are created which no military welfare set-up can handle. The representatives of the voluntary organizations serving in the field have immediate call upon the welfare resources of the organizations at home. The Y.M.C.A., in particular, has a unit in almost every major community in Canada, as has the Salvation Army. They are able to direct their personnel serving on the home front to give assistance in cases where domestic difficulties arise as a result of the absence of the husband and father from the home. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that no democratic military force can afford to dispense with the offer of service that has been so generously and so promptly put forward by each of these voluntary organizations.
There is one more aspect of the civilian question that I should like to mention. During world war II, auxiliary officers representing the voluntary organizations retained their civilian status. I saw them in action with my own squadron in the field, and with other units, and I thought such a condition was a decided advantage. In spite of the fact that the process of democratization has gone on in our military forces, there is still, a wide gap between the enlisted private or airman IMr. Dinsdale.l

and the officer. I know in my own squadron experience we lived apart in rather comfortable mess conditions, while the airmen took whatever was available. Even the problem of geographical separation, particularly while we were on the continent, was one of some proportions. The only time we were in touch with the men who serviced the aircraft, and the other airmen who were responsible for carrying on all the functions that are necessary to keep the aircraft flying, was when we met these men at the point of duty. It was the efforts of our welfare officer in organizing various entertainment activities and recreational activities that brought the officers and men together and created a much better situation so far as morale was concerned.
I believe that the very fact that a man is wearing pips or rings is a deterrent to coming to close grips with the intimate personal needs of the men who are serving in our armed forces. There is a line of social distinction that exists. Obviously the welfare officer, even if he had specialized social service training, is under a handicap in dealing with the men because of the fact he is wearing pips or rings. The soldier or airman in difficulty thinks twice before he bares his soul to such an individual. One of the advantages of using the voluntary organizations was the fact that the representative retained his civilian status, and the organizations provided excellent co-ordination between the commanding officer, the padre and the men. In addition to this they were always in direct contact with the domestic situation on the home front.
When the minister says the use of these services at the present stage of development of our armed forces is uneconomical, unnecessary and unwise, I would disagree most heartily with that statement. If we are moving towards the militarization of welfare,
I believe that the words which have been used to describe the use of voluntary systems might be more aptly applied to a strictly military program of welfare. Such a program is uneconomical because we can use our military personnel to much better advantage. It is unnecessary because we have social welfare agencies willing to undertake the job, and axiomatically such a program would be unwise.
I notice the minister says that the advice from the heads of the three services, the navy, army and air force, was against the use of these voluntary bodies. I can understand that problem. As civilians, auxiliary officers would not come under strict military discipline. They might constitute a thorn in the flesh, particularly when they are dealing with subtle, intimate personal problems, and they

might have a solution other than the prescribed military solution according to Q.R. (Air) or army regulations. Other disadvantages arise from the policy of maintaining strict military discipline over these auxiliary personnel, but they are more than compensated for by the fact that qualified and experienced welfare officers are able to get to the heart of the matter, are able to get under the surface and look at the problem from the standpoint of the real needs. The fact that the welfare bodies are continuing their representations and are compromising in every way to make it possible for them to serve the present defence needs, which has been stressed by the minister as an urgent and imminent one, is an indication of their willingness and interest in this matter.
I am going to leave the problem of welfare. It might be that, since the Y.M.C.A. and other organizations have made their representations, there has been a change in the interpretation of this problem. Unfortunately, we have not heard about it in the house. I have not been able to get any information from the various attempts I have made.
I now want to discuss briefly a statement that appears in the white paper on Canada's defence program. It is contained on page 5, section 13, subparagraph 1, which reads as follows:
The immediate defence of Canada and North America from direct attack;
That is given as the No. 1 priority under the objective of out defence policy, and according to the white paper that defence policy has remained unchanged since the reorganization of the services to meet the Korean crisis.
Then, going down to section 18 on page 5, we find that the defence department is moving to fill the gap, that has become increasingly evident so far as home defence is concerned, as follows:
Regular and reserve fighter squadrons, the backbone of the air defence network, are being built up. The first regular squadron, equipped with CF-100 all-weather, twin-engine jet fighters, was recently formed and by the end of the fiscal year a number of these squadrons will be operating. Meanwhile, a number of squadrons of F-86E Sabres, destined as part of Canada's NATO air contribution have been in Canada available for the defence of this continent. As the last of these are sent to Europe during the year, their places will be taken by squadrons of CF-100's. Reserve squadrons now equipped with Vampires and Mustangs will be re-equipped with CF-100's as these become available.
Ever since I came into the house hon. members on this side have been stressing the fact that priority No. 1 has been ignored in the build-up of Canada's defence. I agree heartily with the hon. member for Nanaimo. I remember when he was rather severely castigated because he dared to infer that
Supply-National Defence priority was not being given to the defence of this continent; but it becomes increasingly obvious that such is the case.
It is now generally recognized that Canada occupies a unique position with regard to air defence. The very fact that we are contributing to it at least half of the national defence budget indicates an emphasis in that direction. From the standpoint of military strategy, we guard the northern approach to the most vulnerable country of the western world, namely the United States of America; and therefore we have a special obligation, along with that country, to see to it that our home defences are adequate to meet any threat of attack. Then during our short military history, beginning with world war I and our participation in the Royal Flying Corps and again in world war II, Canadians have demonstrated that they have a special aptitude with regard to air warfare and air defence.
We of the official opposition gave emphasis to that viewpoint, during the discussion that arose from the appointment of an associate minister of national defence, when we suggested that it would be a more feasible plan to appoint a deputy minister for air who could concentrate exclusively on the important and highly necessary task of building up our defences for air. I do not know just how the defence department is organized, but recently in the Winnipeg Free Press a series of interesting articles attracted my attention. These articles proposed a much more logical, coherent and rational defence organization where the responsibility for policy determination would be removed from the shoulders of the heads of the departments and would be placed in the hands of some sort of military council which would be in a position to deal more adequately with the difficult problems that are connected with our defence build-up.
The suggestion that we appoint a special deputy minister for air was turned down and we are carrying on much in the same hit-or-miss fashion that has been going on in the past few years.
To come directly to this matter of defence for Canada, we have had it brought to our attention forcibly by certain air force personnel that, so far as air defence is concerned, we are wholly inadequate in this regard. Wing Commander Rohmer in Toronto, towards the end of March, made a statement in this regard.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: 
Mr. Dickey:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Yes.


John Horace Dickey: Does he think that the quotation he has just read from the editorial to which he referred is a fair quotation to make from that editorial when read as a whole?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Yes, I do; because the editorial goes on to describe the efforts of Avro in regard to the production of the CF-100 and points out that in terms of the experience in the United Kingdom and in the United States, Canada's record has been unexcelled.


Brooke Claxton: First class.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: That is notwithstanding the fact that we had to start from scratch. We


had no previous experience in this regard. But I do agree with this criticism that we were naive in assuming that we could have CF-100's and other types in production back as early as 1950, when it takes such a long time to produce an original type from the drawing board. Because of that, or as the article expresses it because of the fanciful predictions at the political level, we have been lulled into lethargy, thinking that everything was well. I think the government should have taken the public, through the elected representatives of the people, into its confidence and explained the details, the problems and the circumstances. Had that been, done, I think we would have had greater co-operation from the public at large. It is a good thing that for the first time air force personnel intimately in touch with the problem are speaking out, in order to bring these difficulties to the attention of the public.
We do not criticize the F-86. It has proved its worth in operations in Korea. It is being sent as interim supplies to the R.A.F. until they can develop their own advanced types. The CF-100 likewise is going to serve a very useful purpose in the defence of Canada. My criticism is that the government has not been realistic in keeping the public and this house informed, rather choosing to lull us into a sense of well-being when there was no cause for such a feeling.


Some hon. Members:: Time.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I think I still have a few minutes.


Alphonse Fournier: Go ahead.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: And nobody is overly enthusiastic on the other side. Continuing to deal with the problem of the defence of Canada, the No. 1 priority, according to the minister's white paper, is getting over the equipment difficulties so far as aircraft are concerned. I only hope-I have no information, because no information is forthcoming for hon. members-that in the production of aircraft we shall continue to keep abreast of the changing needs as we move toward the delta wing type of aircraft, or as it is presented in the Roundel for the current month, as we move toward "the turbo-jet, the ram-jet and the rocket air force of the future". Here is a very interesting article on that subject. That contains information that we could not possibly get in this house.
There is also the personnel problem. We discovered that in the lowering of the educational standards. The hon. member for Calgary East, in a reply he received, got the information that the educational standards for servicemen were constantly going down. I often wondered how the quality

of our personnel compares with that of other NATO troops, especially NATO airmen being trained in this country. I do not have the information on it but I would rather doubt, with the continuing lowering of standards, that we are finding it easy to maintain the necessary high levels to man the type of air force required by today's defence needs.
I notice that we are still emphasizing the sort of easy approach to defence in advertisements in the press. Here is an advertisement that appeared in the Carberry Express on January 28, 1953:
Security-Pension Responsible Position for
Young men
If you are over 17 years of age ... in good health. . . . eager for adventure, travel and fellowship in a large organization that offers real careers for young Canadians today . . . fill in the coupon below and get the full information about careers open to you in the Canadian army. You will be amazed at the wonderful opportunities for trade training . . . the good wages . . . benefits of all kinds including long annual holidays. Find out without obligation.
Well, that is offering a good time in the army when I think we should be emphasizing more the obligation and the responsibility to serve in the defence of freedom. It reminds me of the situation that existed during the 1930's when I was a young student. In 1936 we subscribed to that famous Oxford resolution that under no circumstances would we take up arms for king and for country, and three years later most of us who had subscribed to that view were involved in the bloodiest war that this world has ever seen. We seem to be still bogged down by the fallacy of nineteenth century Liberalism that believed we were moving gradually towards perfection and that if we only waited long enough everything would work out happily in the end, or, as the Fabians called it, the inevitability of gradualness. I believe that we should be emphasizing more the responsibility of service and the obligation to serve rather than feather-bedding the situation, as seems to be indicated by that advertisement.
Now, there is the reserve and the auxiliary problem. The reserve seems to be frustrated and the auxiliary seems to be frustrated, judging from the statements I have already indicated. From personal experience I know that we have not been able to make very good use of the auxiliary other than those who are actively engaged in the nine auxiliary squadrons, and even those do not seem to be too happy, judging from Rohmer and Northcott's remarks; but in the air force association frustration prevails because up to
Supply-National Defence the present time-and I am a member of of the association-the only part we have been able to take is in the form of a social club, to try to preserve the old camaraderie of world war II, to do a little line shooting in an atmosphere that is very similar to the wartime mess atmosphere.
We tried to assist recruiting, but there were not enough recruits offering themselves to require any assistance. We tried for the air observer corps, but we discovered no observer corps was being formed in our area so we participated in the mobilization air training plan; at least two of us did. I am glad to see this plan being expanded, because I think it is a very useful way to absorb those keen types who in the face of the present emergency and crisis want to do something more than reminisce about world war II.
Speaking personally, I have been trying to retain my interest in radar, because I think it is the most important avenue of service as we move toward the new type of air defence required in Canada; but under the M.A.T.P. I am earmarked as a personnel officer, a trade in which I have had absolutely no experience in the air force. All my experience was with night fighter airborne radar. We spent months and months in tedious training in aerial interception (A.I.) tactics, and now there seems to be no use for that particular activity. I find this very hard to understand in a day when the defence of Canada depends upon a supply of personnel skilled in the practices of
G.C.I. (ground controlled interception).
One final word on this problem of the defence of Canada. Judging by the statement in the white paper we are going to replace the present Vampires and Mustangs of reserve squadrons with the CF-100. That seems to be another one of these facile statements and so far as I am concerned it requires more elaboration. With the present type of training going on in the reserve squadrons, I am very sceptical whether it will be possible to bring the reserve crews up to the standards of efficiency required for radar-equipped CF-100 all-weather fighters and necessary to cope with any possible airborne attack. I remember my own long-extended training: a year in Canada, two months at an advanced flying unit to convert from singles to twins, four months on operational training and then on to blind approach training and further squadron training before becoming operational. From the time we graduated with wings until we became operational another year was absorbed in training. After we were trained we converted twice to new types of radar equipment, and we were taken out of the line of operations during the period
3898	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence of conversion. But this statement says-and apparently the reserve is still going to be the backbone, the main responsibility for Canadian defence-that the CF-100 will be supplied to the reserve and everything will work out for the best. All-weather flying of jet aircraft with airborne radar requires the most highly skilled type of crew. It is one of the most highly skilled types of activity in the air force. It means that we shall have to take into consideration real problems of reserve training in order to handle this responsibility.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. It being one o'clock I now leave the chair.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.


John Horace Dickey: Mr. Chairman, before the house rose at one o'clock the hon. member for Brandon had been speaking for some fifty minutes or so, and at one point in his speech he referred to an editorial in Canadian Aviation of April, 1952. At the time he gave the quotation I asked the hon. member if he thought that what he had selected from the editorial was fair, without reading the whole editorial as it appeared, simply using that quotation to try to support the kind of case he was making.
The fact is that this editorial was written at a time when a number of public statements had been made which were I think intended to make exactly the kind of case the hon. member was trying to make in his speech this morning. This editorial was written, not in support of that case but as an answer to the criticisms that were being made. It was for that reason that I questioned the hon. member on the careful selection he had made of one small part of the editorial. I think in fairness to everybody I should read the editorial as it appeared. This reads:
Facts Versus Rumours-An Appraisal of the Avro Projects
The rumour factory seems to be in quantity production on the subject of Avro Canada and more particularly the two high-priced projects, the CF-100 patrol interceptor and the Orenda jet engine. If we are to credit the anonymous but "well-informed" sources responsible for current reports, the CF-100 is a flying flop and the Orenda is crawling with technical "bugs". To sum it up, millions of tax dollars have been poured into Avro but only delays and alibis have come out of the factory.
What are the facts? It is true that since 1946 the government has consigned some $50 million to the Avro programs. It is also a fact that in terms of aircraft and engines produced to date, the return


on this substantial investment has been insignia fieant. On the other hand, what reason did we have to expect these projects to move from drafting board to quantity production in less than five years? Here are two reasons: 1. As a nation we have had no previous experience in appraising topflight aeronautical assignments of this kind.
This is the portion selected by the hon. member for his quotation:
2. The fanciful predictions at the political level have supported the naive assumption that such a process should be quick and simple.
Is the CF-100 fighter program shamefully sluggish? Here is the chronicle: Design project launched in October, 1946. Detailed design started in May,
1947.	Prototype tooling commenced in January,
1948.	Government contract for 10 pre-production fighters issued in May, 1949. First prototype CF-100 flown in January, 1950. Total elapsed time, design start to test flight: 40 months. Comparable British fighter prototypes have required 38 and 39 months to initial flight. A U.S. fighter got airborne in 34 months.
The original assignment was to build 10 CF-100 fighters. It was not until September, 1950, that a production order was issued and this was stepped up substantially in February of last year.
The record also reveals that time consumption on the Orenda development has not been out of line. The period from design to first test run: 29 months. U.S. average: 25 months. Two comparable British jets: 29 months average.
In February this year, the Orenda Mk. 2 (production version) completed, with success, its 150-hour type acceptance test run. This was 36 months after the initial run. U.S. average for this stage: 46 months. Comparable British average: 37 months.
In attempting to assess Avro's progress, it is only fair to note that conversion from experimental development to quantity production is quite an ordeal for any organization. In this instance it involved a drastic shake-up that split Avro down the middle to create engine and fighter divisions. The Orenda assignment has called for erection, in less than a year, of a new 400,000 square-foot plant. While the pilot production line in the original building continues to dribble out engines, the impressive ranks of machine tools are forming in the new plant and it is predicted that production will be flowing steadily before the end of this year. Meantime, fighter production has been retarded for spar modification and for important armament changes. Such delays are a familiar feature of military aircraft progress. On the strength of factual evidence we believe it is fair to concede that these two projects are proceeding without significant delay.
The editorial then goes on to discuss briefly the quality of the aircraft and of the engine which I do not think is relevant to the argument the hon. member was making. The editorial concludes as follows:
The CF-100 is neither substandard nor obsolete. It was recognized after flight testing of the prototype that the main spar would have to be strengthened to prevent undue wing flexing under the high G stress of military aerobatics. The two prototype versions delivered to the R.C.A.F. and shortly returned to the manufacturer for modification had been placarded (with a 5 G limitation) pending this modification.
This aircraft was designed to meet a particular military specification combining exceptional range, all-weather night and day operation, high rate of climb, and effective speed for combat. There are

very few aircraft in the world today in this particular bracket. And until one of this type with superior performance comes along, the CF-100 can't be described with accuracy as obsolete. Critical examination of government investments such as the Avro projects is a right of the public and a responsibility of the press. But criticism is only helpful when it is sound. And rumours are poor substitutes for facts.
I am content, Mr. Chairman, to leave my question to the hon. member, who has made a quotation from that editorial in support of the argument he has been making, and the reading of the editorial to speak for themselves. Perhaps I might also say in addition that the final sentence of the editorial can, I think, with great justice and with advantage be applied to a very great majority of the criticisms that we have been hearing not only in this debate but also over the past two or three years from the official opposition regarding defence matters, namely, that rumours are poor substitutes for facts.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I am glad that the hon. member has placed the entire editorial on the record. I did not have time to do so myself.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I think it brings out the point I was trying to make even more clearly than hitherto. As the hon. member will recall, the point I made at the beginning of my remarks last evening was that information has not been forthcoming concerning some of the major defence developments, particularly with reference to air. As a result of the rumour-mongering that has arisen from lack of information, there has been much unnecessary criticism of these very excellent projects. I agree entirely that A. V. Roe and Canadair have done an excellent job, but it is unfortunate that members of the house could not have been taken into the confidence of the Department of National Defence so that unnecessary rumours might have been allayed.
I also made the point at the opening of my remarks that we in the opposition have to go to magazine and newspaper reports in order to get the facts, and that is an unfortunate state of affairs. The editorial that has just been read indicates that situation precisely. I was not fully aware of developments on the CF-100 project and the Orenda engine until I received all the necessary information from various Canadian aviation magazines. We in the house are treated to broad optimistic generalities rather than the specific information that is necessary in order to discuss the very important problems of defence development intelligently and in a meaningful way.
Supply-National Defence
The phrase "not in the public interest" is used repeatedly when we are looking for information on these problems. The hon. member for Nanaimo asked for information on radar development which he was denied. We had to get the information from a publication of the air force association. I would venture to say that espionage agents know more about the defence program than we in the opposition. I think we would have a happier state of affairs so far as defence matters are concerned if the government were willing to take members on all sides of the house into their confidence and treat them as reasonable beings having a sense of responsibility in these matters and as official representatives of the citizens of Canada, because in the final analysis, no matter how we try to conceal the true facts of the real situation, the burden is going to fall upon the shoulders of the public. They are the ones who inevitably have to bear the brunt. Therefore I thank the hon. member for Halifax for putting the editorial on the record because it very precisely and effectively climaxes the important point that I was trying to make in my remarks.


Mr. Jean Francois Pouliol (Temiscouata):: Mr. Chairman, I was rather surprised by the attitude of the hon. member who has just spoken and who is one of our most likeable colleagues. He forgets one thing, that no minister of national defence has afforded as many opportunities to members of parliament to visit plants where jet planes are made and other plants that supply arms and ammunition as the present Minister of National Defence. I wonder if the hon. gentleman was a member of parliament when we went to Toronto a couple of years ago and visited the A. V. Roe plant at Malton. Nothing was hidden from us. There were gentlemen there who were willing to show and explain everything to all members of parliament who were there, and they were not only Liberal members. There were many Conservatives and members belonging to other groups. We were together and that visit was very interesting and most informative.
Now, sir, you may find me a little old-fashioned but I do not understand the propriety of discussing technical matters concerning arms and ammunition in the house. There are some things that are supposed to be secret but nothing should be secret to a member of parliament. He has the right to be informed, but I wonder if it would not be a good thing to discuss all these matters in camera. Some gentlemen of the press might complain about it because they would not have the opportunity to hear the discussion that took place in the house, but members of
3900	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence parliament would have the opportunity to become much better acquainted with all these matters without any publicity. I presume that the hon. gentleman who has just spoken was not at all seeking publicity and that he was fulfilling his parliamentary duties in speaking as he did. I am sure that was his purpose.
But on the other hand if we look at the newspapers we see that they give very detailed and precise information about matters that should remain secret, and I maintain the view that discussions like this one should be held in camera notwithstanding the complaints that may come from the press. When members of parliament are properly informed about any matter, they cannot ask for anything more unless they want to play politics.
I stand by the minister and I also stand by my own attitude in the house with regard to military matters and with regard to two incidents that occurred in Quebec city. Something very serious happened during the Quebec conference. We all remember, as it appeared in the press, that the plans for the invasion of Normandy were lost in the reading room of the Chateau Frontenac. They were top secret documents; and they were left there by an officer who was absent-minded -whether American, English or Canadian I do not know. But that top secret document, the most secret document of the time, was left there by someone who was perhaps absent-minded, perhaps drunk, perhaps crazy- probably all three. But, now, what did we see in the press afterwards? We saw that a sergeant had been rewarded, had been given a decoration because he had found those papers-and quite properly so. But we did not see in any paper, and I have not been told by anyone, that the officer guilty of that gross negligence has been punished. One was rewarded; the other was not punished.
The result was this. It occurred again, and it was reported in all the papers and particularly in the Ottawa Journal of November 7 of last year:
Reporters Hear 'Top Secret'-on Upper Shelf
Quebec City, Nov. 7-(BUP)-Two reporters rode down in a Chateau Frontenac elevator with 15 civilians and senior officers attending the Canadian-British-U.S. military conference.
One officer turned to the other and asked: "Can I borrow those documents you have?"
Answer: "I'm sorry, I can't do it-top secret you know. But you'll find them in my room . . . on the upper shelf in the clothes closet".


Mr. Adamson:: Did they fire the manager of the hotel too?


Jean-François Pouliot: No, they did not fire the manager of the hotel at all. But, because


there was no sanction of the first offence a second one occurred which was reported by the press.
Do you not find it serious, Mr. Chairman? I cannot conceive that men who are supposed to keep the old army tradition and make the necessary distinction between what is important and what is not could come to be guilty of such an offence. I am not telling you, sir, anything that is unknown. I only remind you of what you know and, I hope, the consequences too.
May I tell you, sir, that I am much more interested in Korea than in Currie; and we have heard so much about Currie that I hope that I may be excused if I talk about Korea. I have great respect for the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) and I believe that he has done a quite superhuman job, especially before the appointment of his associate minister. That does not mean that I have always agreed with him and that I take for granted everything that is said by the Department of National Defence; but I believe sincerely that he has done a good job under the circumstances and that none of his critics could have done better under similar circumstances. Now, sir, what astounds me is that external affairs and the army are intermingled to such a point that it is impossible to discuss army matters without discussing external policy, and vice versa. Very often the Minister of National Defence had to speak about external matters, matters of external policy, and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) had to speak about military matters. I will speak about both.
Mr. Chairman, I remember that about three years ago, when it was decided that Canada should take part in the police force that was to settle the Korean problem, everyone was under the impression that the destroyer that was sent by Canada to Korea would arrive in Korea when everything was over. One remembers also, Mr. Chairman, that President Roosevelt some years ago, immediately after the war with Japan, decided to "liberate" Korea. That was the expression used by the then president. He wanted to free the Koreans from all Japanese influence. It was a noble aim, but afterwards it was decided that Korea would be divided in two by the 38th parallel; and that there would be a police force in the south-an American police force. What happened was that the American officers who were there were under no control, and one of the top ranking officers was m love with a mistress of the chief of the communists of North Korea. That woman succeeded in helping the smuggling

of arms from South Korea to North Korea and that is the reason why North Korea became at one time well equipped in arms and ammunition. That has been published in Coronet, a United States magazine.
Well, there were battles in Korea but there was no declaration of war-so much so that sometime ago a young American soldier who carried double risk insurance was killed in Korea and, according to the press, his family after consulting eminent lawyers decided to take legal action against the insurance company, under the claim that there was no war in Korea, that it was only a police action, and that the insurance which did not cover war risks was in force for that man who was fighting as a policeman in Korea. The United States tribunal which studied the case in the first instance gave judgment in favour of the family, and that judgment was appealed by the insurance company. The appeal court confirmed the judgment of the first instance, showing that it was a police action that was being undertaken in Korea. Approximately three years ago when it was decided to send a Canadian destroyer to Korea, I warned the Secretary of State for External Affairs that that was a very dangerous step, to be tco much under the influence of the foreign policy of the United States. It was abused by some of the newspapers, in these times of human rights and fundamental freedoms, because I had taken advantage of my human rights and fundamental freedoms.
Since then, many important statements have been made. I recall reading in Le Soleil of Quebec, February 14 last year, a very well written and timely article under the pen of one of the most brilliant journalists in Canada, the former president of the press gallery, Mr. Lorenzo Pare. He said that it was then time to get out of Korea. One may say that it is the prerogative of military men to express views on military matters, and that it is their exclusive right to make pronunciamentos in that regard. Well, some important gentlemen have spoken to that effect. General Mark Clark, for instance, is quoted by the Ottawa Journal of September 26, 1952, in an editorial entitled "This Bleak Prospect in Korea". He said:
The sober reality today in Korea is that there is no fresh and concrete evidence to indicate any increase in the reds' desire for a truce.
Then the Journal continues:
General Clark's grave words come with the Panmunjom 'truce' talks virtually suspended, and while hot water in Korea grows hotter.
Supply-National Defence
The same editorial, dating back eight months ago, quotes Major General Selden, who had just returned from Korea. He said:
Twice as many United Nations troops and half again as much air power would insure a decisive allied victory in Korea.
After having made these two quotations, the Journal concludes:
It may be, as so many argue, that we can't risk all-out war with China: that we can't do much more than we are doing in Korea lest it bring such war with China. But against that, can we risk or afford a continuation of what is happening in Korea now, with its bleak prospect of years of costly indecision, and with exposure to the Russians of both weakness and fear?
On September 25 last year, Mr. Clement Davies, Liberal party leader in the British House of Commons, suggested a quick plan for disarmament, to be supervised by a United Nations police force. On Thursday, October 2, 1952, Major General A. J. H. Cassels had a hunch that there would be a Korean armistice within six or nine months from that date. Therefore the pourparler that is taking place now was foreseen by officers of high standing.
There was something else that occurred last year, and that was the Truman-Eisen-hower controversy about the campaign in Asia, and what former President Truman said was reported in the newspapers of October 1. Two days later the newspapers carried General Eisenhower's answer, and I need only read the headline:
Ike tells isolationist area U.S. should not have fought.
General suggests America should not have gone to war against Kaiser, Hitler; leave Asia to Asians.
Well, this statement is most important, because it came from the lips of the general who commanded the allied forces during the last war. What I find very refreshing is the change of administration in the Pentagon at Washington. Just because the United States is a friendly neighbour, one should not be precluded from expressing an honest opinion about matters of such tremendous importance which mean life or death for countless people. When I think of that beautiful country, full of tradition, that rich country that was Korea, and when we see the mountains of ruins in all the cities of that formerly prosperous country, I wonder how that country has been liberated, to use the words of President Roosevelt.
Well, sir, I have many quotations that I could use, but I shall abstain from doing so because I do not want to make a long speech at this stage of the session. But my conclusion, sir, is this. The Minister of National Defence and also the Secretary of State for External Affairs, to whom I give certain credit
3902	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence for his efforts for peace, should see to it that even within the United Nations Canada should express an independent opinion-one that is not biased by that of the United States or of Great Britain-until a common decision is made. We are partners. It happens that under NATO the forces should be under one command and should have one policy. But it is important that those who attend such conferences should not be impressed by the other delegates who represent larger countries. They must express the sentiments and the feelings of the Canadian people before giving a power of attorney to the other delegates who speak in their behalf. Therein lies the superiority of NATO over the United Nations.
In the United Nations everything was run by the security council; everything was run by the great nations, and the other countries like Canada were not on a footing of equality with the big ones. In the next conference I hope that the Minister of National Defence and also the Secretary of State for External Affairs for Canada will continue to impress upon their fellow delegates the importance of Canada as a great nation. If the population of Canada is not as large as that of the United States, Great Britain, Russia, France, or the other countries of Europe or of China, nevertheless it is a great country in the noblest meaning of that word. By that I mean that Canada has reached the point where she should be considered by all to be on a footing of equality in the international discussions in which our ministers and delegates take part.
In conclusion may I say that I hope the efforts made by the government-I do not say by the ministers alone but rather by the government-to promote peace in the world at the earliest possible opportunity will have the full support of all those who belong to NATO and also of those who belong to the United Nations.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Chairman, in rising to speak in this debate I fully admit my limited capacity to speak with authority on this subject. What I have to say will be based on listening to debates in the House of Commons and on my experience on the defence expenditure committee. I will also convey to the minister some of the things that have been expressed to me by a good number of my constituents.
With the knowledge that some 45 per cent of the taxes collected today are being spent on defence, I am quite sure that all members of the committee realize the necessity for making as certain as possible that there are no unnecessary expenditures in this extremely large-spending department. I never rise to speak on this question without thinking of the workers in the smelters, the mines, the forests, the factories, the offices and on the


farms of Canada whose hard labour, and the taxes which result from that hard labour, make it possible to carry on and to continue this defence program. I am sure they are willing to pay what is necessary to provide adequate defence for this country; but I am sure they would be most unwilling to pay what was unnecessary.
We must realize at this time that all those people who are contributing considerable taxes from their modest incomes are doing without many things they would otherwise enjoy were it not necessary to provide for these defence estimates. May I also say, Mr. Chairman, that I think we are making an exceptional defence effort. I think it is quite correct to say that for purposes of defence we are paying a greater percentage of the taxes collected than is any western European country. I understand that the average there is somewhere about 32 per cent.
Whenever I am listening to debates on defence or am starting to speak on defence, I am always reminded of a statement made by the hon. member for Nanaimo and to be found in Hansard of May 10, 1951, at page 2810. I never forgot that statement because when the hon. member made it he spoke with a lifetime of experience and with knowledge. I accept that statement as founded in fact. The hon. gentleman said:
I have never known an admiral, a general or an air marshal who did not begin by asking for more than his share of anything.
I have always kept that statement in my mind when I have been dealing with defence matters because I think it puts into good language what happens in military circles not only in Canada but in other countries. It indicates a more or less inevitable development of the military mind.
The scandal at Camp Petawawa was revealed as the result of the action of a responsible and patriotic citizen in sending an anonymous letter to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. It was not discovered by the defence department. It was discovered by the alertness of one citizen. I hope that all citizens of Canada continue to be just as alert as was that gentleman.
That scandal was discovered and as a result of the discovery of it the minister ordered Mr. George Currie to conduct an investigation into the whole situation in the army works services. This investigation proved without question that at Petawawa-and it was an exceptional case, we admit-as a result of a conspiracy, a gang of crooks had organized to loot and to steal public property. In addition to that, there is no doubt that the Currie report revealed an unfortunate state of affairs throughout a considerable section of the army works services.

As a result of that investigation and as a result of debates in the House of Commons- and they should never be underestimated, although we all at times get tired of listening to repetitious remarks-there is no doubt about it that there is a great improvement across Canada at this time. I have heard that from my constituents; I have heard it also from friends in the services. There is an improvement in the administration of the Department of National Defence. In fact, I am told that the pendulum has swung a bit too far the other way and that now if you want to paint a screen door you must get authority from Ottawa. That is typical of the defence department, and the military mind. It naturally goes from one extreme to another. But I am told that is a fact. In any event, I think we are all extremely pleased to know that there is a considerable improvement.
I might say at this point that to me there is an interesting aspect of these debates as far as my correspondence is concerned. I have had to explain repeatedly to some of my constituents that the so-called Murray report dealt with the United States forces and not the Canadian forces.


Mr. Fulton:: No, no.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Constituents have written and told me about the dreadful waste on the Alaska highway, and that sort of thing. I have had to write back and tell them it had nothing to do with Canada, that it was waste by United States forces there during the second world war.
As a member of the defence expenditure committee, I have had an opportunity to hear witnesses from the Department of Defence Production. I must say in fairness that I have formed the opinion that they are an honest, competent group of officials who have been working under particularly difficult conditions. Without doubt, though, Mr. Chairman, the evidence clearly indicates that in the defence construction program there has been waste and extravagance. But I do not blame the officials of Defence Construction Limited. I am trying to be fair in this whole question. Their handicaps have been the results of a set of unusual circumstances. The first was the inevitable sense of haste and urgency. In fairness I think we must admit that we do not do things as well under abnormal conditions as under normal conditions when we can take the normal time to plan a project, develop it and so forth.
Second, there were shortages of material, particularly of steel, which caused delays, and which in turn caused increased expenses and excessive costs, and so on. That was not their fault.
Supply-National Defence
The third important thing was that, after listening to the evidence, I came to the conclusion that there were delays and increased expenses occasioned first of all by the program as designed by the armed forces. They say what they want, and it is obvious to me in many cases they started out on a project without knowing exactly what they did want, and then after they got started in some instances major changes were made in design. These things caused increased expenses, and no doubt in some cases there was no justification for it. On top of all that we had this program going on under difficult weather conditions, with the construction industry naturally looking for its profits as usual. I think that that combination of circumstances did produce conditions which meant extra cost, some extravagance and some waste, but I certainly would not lay the blame on the honest and competent officials of Defence Construction Limited. After listening to their evidence in the committee I think it is fair to say that one cannot fail to be impressed by the magnitude of the task, the unusual problems they had to meet, the urgency of the program and these other factors that I have mentioned.
Defence Construction is commissioned to build what the armed forces consider they require. I am of the opinion there is every evidence, as Mr. Currie said in his report on the army works services, of a tendency toward war psychology among certain of the high officials of the defence department. Many of these men obtained their experience in the second world war, and public money is nothing to them when trying to get things done. They were impressed, and rightly so, by the urgency of the situation and the element of speed, and they allowed themselves to be carried away. Money apparently was no object whatever when things had to be done. That has had a big effect on the cost of the program today. Buildings were frequently delayed, as I said before, because of change in designs and plans. I am distinctly under the impression, because of that war psychology that Mr. Currie mentioned, that the senior officials in the armed forces gave little thought to costs when planning the building programs and bringing them to fruition. These people look on things from an entirely different point of view when compared with the average Canadian citizen. They have lived a different life; in fact I have said to some of them, and I know some of them who are bitterly opposed to socialism, that they live the life of the most complete social security of any people of Canada. They are cared for from the cradle to the grave, and naturally they have not

Supply-National Defence the same approach as the man in the street who is struggling along making a living, and being taxed to pay for these things. That was indicated when the program was first started by the purchase of new desks and furniture.
I am told, and I should like the minister to correct me if I am wrong, that quite serviceable desks were taken out and, I understand, taken down to public works and brand new desks of a finer type were brought in. Expensive rugs were bought. I am quite sure that these new desks and these expensive carpets did very little to increase the defence effort or contribute to the greater defence of Canada. In that connection, Mr. Chairman, I want to read briefly from an article in the Globe and Mail of November 20, 1952, by George Bain:
Two years' purchases Defence rugs, carpets cost $839,903
In less than two years. $839,903 worth of rugs and carpets have been ordered by the Department of National Defence.
At $17 a square yard-more than most Canadian householders pay for floor-covering-this would buy enough broadloom to cover Yonge street, curb-to-curb from King street almost to Roxborough street.
On this rug, all the 100,000 men and women of Canada's active navy, army and air force could be assembled-two to a yard-without crowding.
The total of the defence department's rug orders is derived from the lists of major defence contracts which have been published twice monthly since November 20, 1950.
This is how the rug-buying breaks down by years:
Between November 20 and the end of 1950, contracts were placed for $54,865 worth of rugs.
In 1951, five orders added $141,403 to the total.
And up to the end of October this year-the last date covered by the contracts lists-$643,635 worth had been ordered.
In the same 23 months since November, 1950, contracts in a total of $452,929 were made for linoleum. All but one of these was awarded in 1951, when linoleum purchases amounted to $428,929.
Retail prices quoted here for top quality linoleum are $4 a square yard for blue, $3.45 a square yard for brown-the colours in which it is presumed the defence purchasers would be most interested.
At an average price of $3.75 a yard, $452,929 would buy more than 114,000 square yards of linoleum. Even with allowance made for the cost of installation, which would reduce the yardage, the amount purchased still could be reckoned in acres -about 24 of them.
To go with the new rugs and linoleum, the defence department in same period-a period in which the strength of the services increased by fewer than 55,000 men-ordered about $8,650,000 worth of furniture.
Some of this has been office furniture-filing cabinets, tables, office safes (79,671 this year) and the like-but the largest number of contracts listed have been simply for "furniture".
Defence headquarters and the country's navy, army and air force bases were not without furniture when the new, post-Korea defence program was embarked upon.

And so on. I think that very extensive ordering of rugs-and there are some very expensive rugs in some of the offices of defence headquarters; you fairly sink into them when you walk on them-and this expensive linoleum and these expenses for furniture show that these people were going to have their offices in good shape as soon as they had the money to carry on and do it with.
I am going to pass from there to bring to the attention of the minister something that several of my constituents have mentioned to me, men of experience in the Royal Navy and in the Royal Canadian Navy. I have no capacity to speak on the subject, but I am just passing on to the minister the criticisms that have come to me from men with senior naval experience. They are of the opinion that there is a danger for us in this country to get delusions of grandeur as far as the navy is concerned and consider going in for large ships. I should like the minister to tell the committee what is the daily cost of running the Magnificent and if the government is considering building another aircraft carrier of that type. What does it cost per day to run a cruiser?
I have a clipping here from the Montreal Gazette of December 18, 1951, which deals with the Canadian naval policy as laid out by Admiral Mainguy. This reads:
Mainguy Stresses Anti-Sub Defence Sees Major R.C.N. Role Under NATO in Combating Undersea Menace
Ottawa, Dec. 17-Major role of the R.C.N. under the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is antisubmarine warfare, Vice-Admiral E. R. Mainguy said today.
The admiral who this month took over command of the R.C.N. and who two years ago wrote the "Mainguy Report" on the navy's internal problems, said at a conference in the parliamentary press gallery that he, as chief of the naval staff, is "against" any R.C.N. activity or development which does not have to do with anti-submarine work or the defence of harbours.
The admiral said in a speech recently that there was no reason why Canada should not become the anti-sub authority of the allied powers.
At today's conference he said Canada's naval role had been discussed at NATO conferences, and it was generally considered that Canada's main responsibility is anti-submarine work.
When the minister replies I should like him to tell the committee what are the intentions of the government with respect to building large ships for the navy.
I have very little to say at this time with regard to the army except that a number of my constituents have said to me that it appears to be rather expensive advertising when it costs $161 to secure each recruit.


Brooke Claxton: The corrected figure is $70 per active force man or $43 if you include the reserves.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I got the figure of $161 from another person and I am glad to be corrected. That is the figure that people have written me about and I will see that it is corrected.
I listened with a great deal of interest yesterday to the speech of the hon. member for Cape Breton South. I think he made a most excellent speech and dealt with some aspects of defence in a unique and somewhat unusual way.
He spoke at some length about the morale of the troops in Germany and Korea. I mention this also because a number of my constituents have written to me and I have met a number of men who have returned from Korea and Germany and there are complaints about the welfare services in those countries. The hon. member for Brandon spoke at some length on this matter earlier today. I have another clipping from the Montreal Gazette of December 8,	1952, dealing with this
question. This is entitled "Troop Morale in Germany Said 'Rotten' ". It sets out interviews with various men who have returned from overseas and who were complaining about the lack of recreational facilities and so on.
I am definitely in favour of the suggestion made by the hon. member for Brandon that civilian recreational services for the troops should be provided if possible. I know that they rendered great service during the first and second world wars. I want to make my plea that everything be done to make living conditions as good as possible for those men who are away from Canada. The minister may have some explanation of the present form of welfare services that are being provided, but I would like him to tell the committee just what is being done at the present time. I think there is a general complaint across the country, and I know I have received complaints from my constituents that the welfare services overseas are not all that they should be.
Dealing with the air force I must say that here I will have to depend upon what other people say. I was disturbed by an article which appeared in the Globe and Mail of March 27 entitled, "Time People Given Truth, Rohmer Says". The article continues:
Addressing a meeting of the Canadian Progress Club at the Royal York hotel, he continued: "Canada could not put up a single modern aircraft in its own defence. (She) is absolutely helpless to an air attack".
His main charges:
The air defence of Canada is entrusted to nine auxiliary fighter squadrons equipped with hopeless, obsolescent aircraft and manned by part-time pilots.
Supply-National Defence
Despite frequent assurances to the contrary, there is not one Canadian squadron to enforce the radar chain being established along the Arctic frontier.
Every first-line jet in squadron service with the R.C.A.F. has been committed for use in Europe under provisions of the North Atlantic treaty alliance.
Apparently that article was reprinted in many Canadian papers and has caused great concern to many Canadians. I should like the minister to deal particularly with the charges made by this retired air force officer and tell the committee exactly what is the situation.
There is another aspect of defence in which I am particularly interested and in which a great number of people across the country are interested. Many people are of the opinion that in recent years there has been a tendency for parliament to lose control of these vast expenditures and for civilian control to be lessened and lessened. This has been a gradual development. In this respect I should like to quote briefly from Comment of June, 1951. This is an excellent magazine which deals with economic and social questions. I think it will save time to quote this article because it sets out succinctly what I have in mind. It reads:
Military Must Accept Civilian Control
The experience of recent months has graphically illustrated the importance of civilian control over military forces.
Military commanders must have a good deal of power and authority so that they can direct the forces at their disposal effectively. But military commanders derive their authority from appointment and not from democratic elections. They are not responsible to the people but must be held absolutely responsible to the civilian representatives of the people who appoint them.
And again:
The principle of civic control over the armed forces of the nation has long been accepted in the United Kingdom and in other nations which derive their constitutional practices from the traditions of the British parliamentary system. But the evolution of modern methods of defence, warfare and international security action may call for closer scrutiny of the way in which this principle is being applied.
We of this group agree with those sentiments. We believe that we should watch to make certain that there is proper civilian control of the military in connection with the expansion of our defence program. We feel that decisions are made by the military with regard to large expenditures that should be made by civilian authorities. They have had their way as to what was required here and there. We do urge that there be stricter control of the military and greater reference to parliament with regard to these large expenditures. In many cases all that parliament does is to confirm the total amounts when knowing little about the

Supply-National Defence details until after the money has been expended. Apparently Mr. Currie was of the same opinion because he makes this suggestion in his report:
Alternative No. 2
The second alternative is to create a civilian organization running parallel to a military organization up through commands to army headquarters. This alternative would-
1. Relieve military personnel of most of the administrative function and enable them to concentrate on planning and on executive direction of works.
2.	Open up career possibilities to civilians and thus attract high calibre permanent personnel and provide stability to administration now difficult to achieve.
The advantage of this course of action would appear to be the combining of greater administrative stability and efficiency with a valuable training element for R.C.K. personnel.
He had in mind there a more or less parallel civilian organization. As I understand it, at the present time huge quantities of valuable buildings and supplies are handed over to the armed forces and they are not made directly responsible for accounting for them. So far as the quartermaster general's branch is concerned, there should be a civilian check and audit on the whole quartermaster general's department so that they will be responsible for equipment and supplies to a civilian authority, with that civilian authority responsible to the minister's officials. As I said before, in our opinion parliament under present conditions has very little to say about the major decisions involving large expenditures. The military people decide what they want regardless of cost and go ahead and spend the money. In our opinion a system must be devised whereby there will be more civilian control of the defence program through the parliament of this country.
I want to deal now with a different aspect of the question. I understand that the present defence program was designed with a view to a peak in our expenditures being reached in 1954-55, but present events should cause some consideration to be given to a levelling off of that program. There is not the sense of urgency; we can continue to carry out the program over a longer period of years, and on that account there should be some opportunity in the near future for reducing our expenditures on the military aspects of national defence. With the defence construction program nearly completed, it should be possible to save considerable sums of money in that quarter.
A few months ago a United States commission conducted an investigation into the armed forces of that country, and it was their honest opinion that a 10 per cent reduction in defence expenditures could be achieved
[Mr. Herridge.l
through the elimination of waste occasioned by haste and speed without affecting the adequate defence of the country. That period is passing in the United States as it is here, and there is more control by congress over defence expenditures and so on. Even this year in my opinion the minister could save $200 million by insisting on economy and doing away with frills and so on, which saving could be used by way of economic aid as a part of our defence program and thus give some positive evidence to the world of our desire to go at least half way in the effort toward world peace.
There has been certain optimism in recent weeks because of the apparently changed position of the Soviet leaders. Past experience would cause us to proceed with caution, but I do think it is quite safe to say, just as the hon. member for Temiscouata said, that the Canadian people want the government to speak up for Canada and say in a very positive way that we are willing to do all that is fair and possible to promote world peace and to go at least half-way in that direction.
In going over some figures recently, I noticed that the subsidy to A. V. Roe Limited for the development of the jet airliner was $6,648,363.50, and that total subsidies to A. V. Roe Limited were over $63 million, mostly for the Orenda engine and CF-lOO's. I am not going into the question of whether or not that was a warranted expenditure. I am not competent to say but I do want to say that $63 million is ten times as much as we are spending on technical aid today. If we could reduce our defence expenditures by $200 million in the year or two ahead, what possibilities that would offer for the Canadian people to make a big contribution in the form of economic aid; first, economic aid under the North Atlantic treaty; second, rehabilitation of Korea; and, third, through technical assistance to substandard countries.
More than that, not only would we be making a gesture that would be a challenge to other countries of the world but we would also be doing something very sound and concrete to stabilize our agriculture. I am sure that the Minister of Agriculture would like to have a few of the millions that are being spent on defence to spend on floor price support for certain agricultural commodities. I am certain that the Canadian people would welcome the opportunity to make a magnificent gesture by contributing from $200 million to $400 million for economic aid, the rehabilitation of Korea and technical assistance to substandard countries. In doing so, we would not only be helping others but would be stabilizing the agricultural economy

of Canada and taking positive action in the development of world peace.


Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: Mr. Chairman, for a few moments I want to go back to the very interesting subject about which we were talking last night. I should like to start by asking the minister when it was-oh, I see no minister. Perhaps I can wait until the minister returns, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. Croll:: The parliamentary assistant is here.


George Harris Hees: I wanted to ask the minister, and in his absence somebody else who can answer for him, when the minister first saw the MacNab memorandum, as the minister likes to call it.


David Arnold Croll: Go on with your speech.


George Harris Hees: I think that is quite an important point. We are talking about the national defence estimates. These are the estimates for which the minister is responsible. We are spending $2 billion on them this year, and I am rather disappointed that both the ministers responsible for this department seem to be out of the house at the present time.


David Arnold Croll: They did not know you were going to speak.


Joseph-Adéodat Blanchette: If I may explain, the short answer is that the Minister of National Defence has just left to welcome Field Marshal Montgomery.


John Horace Dickey: If the hon. member wants an answer I shall be glad to give it. My view would be that the Minister of National Defence has never seen the MacNab report.


Edmund Davie Fulton: How about that for hearsay?


George Harris Hees: I am not asking for the view of the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Defence Production. When we are discussing the estimates of the Department of National Defence and the money that the government is asking us to vote, we ought to have somebody here who is able to answer these questions. We are here to get information. Both ministers are out of the house, so I will have to proceed without them. I take it from the remarks that the Minister of National Defence made last night that he either has never seen the MacNab memorandum, or he has seen it just recently. From that it is obvious that the memorandum has simply lain in the files of Mr. Jackson for the past three years.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It has been through treasury board.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Jackson sent Mr. MacNab across the country to investigate conditions in the various military establishments.
Supply-National Defence


John Horace Dickey: May I ask the hon. gentleman
a question?


George Harris Hees: Certainly.


John Horace Dickey: On what authority does he make the statement that Mr. Jackson sent somebody somewhere?


Edmund Davie Fulton: On the basis of the interview given by Mr. MacNab to Mr. Jackson of the Journal.


George Harris Hees: I say that Mr. MacNab presented his memorandum to Mr. Jackson after his investigation of the various defence installations which he visited. Therefore I take it that he made his trip-


An hon. Member:: Hearsay.


George Harris Hees: and inspected these defence installations at the request of his superior, Mr. Jackson.


Mr. Applewhaiie:: Guesswork.


George Harris Hees: If Mr. MacNab had returned to Ottawa after his tour of inspection and had reported to Mr. Jackson that conditions were satisfactory, the logical thing would have been to file the report and forget about it. However, the conditions which Mr. MacNab found and reported upon were anything but satisfactory. The minister told us yesterday that in his naval production program he has encountered slippage. I think the only word that can describe what Mr. MacNab found in inspecting the defence installations is slop-page, because the report that he made to Mr. Jackson was a very critical one indeed.
Now, Mr. Jackson is an intelligent, logical and conscientious man, and I feel sure that the obvious thing for him to have done, when he received a report telling him that conditions were anything but satisfactory in the defence installations which were inspected, would have been to bring that memorandum immediately to the attention of the minister whose department had been under investigation-so that the minister could immediately take steps to investigate those conditions to see if they were as reported, and, if they were as reported, to have those conditions rectified as soon as possible.
However, for some unexplained reason, Mr. Jackson decided not to do that and the only explanation I can give for a reasonable, conscientious and intelligent civil servant taking the action that he did, or not taking the action that he should have taken, is that he had learned, as we in this house have learned, that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) resents very strongly indeed any criticism having to do with any aspect of his department. I think that Mr. 3908	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence Jackson must have figured that if he brought the attention of the minister-


John Horace Dickey: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Oh, now, this becomes frightful-


David Arnold Croll: If he doesn't raise it, I will.


John Horace Dickey: On a point of order, in the absence of the Secretary of State (Mr. Bradley) I think a protest should be made immediately-


Mr. Pearkes:: Are you speaking on his
behalf now?


John Horace Dickey: -against this kind of attack on a civil servant. It is quite improper-[DOT]


Mr. Ferguson:: Oh, what are you speaking about?


John Horace Dickey: -in the activities of this house. Mr. Jackson is an excellent civil servant-


An hon. Member:: Sir Galahad.


John Horace Dickey: -and I protest against this kind of attack.


George Harris Hees: I have never heard such utter nonsense uttered in this house, and there now comes up the interesting point of just which portfolio the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Defence Production is aiming to take over; because now he is speaking for all departments. Perhaps he is aiming for the prime ministership, and perhaps he is going to be entered in that race after the next election.


John Horace Dickey: I am speaking for parliament.


Edmund Davie Fulton: He may be aiming for the leadership of the opposition.


George Harris Hees: Yes, that is what he will be trying out for.


John Horace Dickey: There are enough contestants for that leadership now without my entering.


George Harris Hees: When I was so rudely interrupted I was saying that the only explanation I could find for Mr. Jackson not making this obvious report to the Minister of National Defence was that he must have felt that the minister would simply blow his top; would do nothing about the report; and that no good would come of his presenting this memorandum to the minister. Therefore, he decided to file it away.
If the attitude of the Minister of National Defence had been such as to invite a memorandum of this kind to be presented to him so that he could constructively go to work on it, the country would have been saved hundreds and hundreds of thousands of


dollars. In the first place, there would have been no need for Mr. Currie's investigation, because the conditions which made that investigation necessary would have been stamped out three years ago.
We are told that Mr. Currie's investigation cost $55,000. That would have been saved, and also there would not have been the train loads of cement, removed sidings, horses on the payroll and all the other things that Mr. Currie has described as being impossible of adding up to calculate the loss incurred. In addition, we would have saved the unknown losses that undoubtedly occurred between the time Mr. MacNab made his investigation and when Mr. Currie made his. It was a very important period when heaven knows what went on in this much investigated department.
All of this makes us wonder how many other similar reports made by senior civil servants on operations going on in the various departments of government are today lying in Mr. Jackson's files, or in the files of other senior civil servants, simply because the ministers of this government have made it so obvious that they will tolerate no criticism of their departments; and civil servants feel that it is a waste of time to present them with facts showing conditions as being anything but what they should be in the various departments.
It makes it again very obvious, Mr. Chairman, that if we are ever going to have any kind of efficiency check-up and clean-up of the waste and extravagance that becomes more obvious every day in the operations of this government, it can only be done by bringing in somebody from outside, like Mr. Currie, who has proper qualifications and can look at the picture with an unbiased eye.
To do that would be simply following the principles that have long been established in the business world. After all, we have got to remember that this defence department is the biggest business in the country, doing about $2 billion worth of business every year; and a great many operations in the defence department are exactly similar to operations within any big, successful, commercial corporation.
In the business world it is well known that you cannot expect a departmental manager to report upon himself because, if he does, he is simply showing up the things that he should have done and the things that he should not have done. Periodically in large and successful business operations efficiency experts from outside are called in. They are not magicians but only people who have studied the most

satisfactory operations in the most successfully run commercial businesses. They take a look at the business they are investigating and, having no pet theories, no pet personnel, no ghosts in the closet to cover up, they say what that business operation is doing wrong. They make an unbiased report and, if that report is acted upon, as it is in business, the savings are usually far beyond the wildest dreams of the people running the company.
From practical experience I can say that it is impossible to know where you are being inefficient when you are close to the business, as you are when you are operating within a corporation. It is the kind of thing that we have urged this government to do with the various departments, particularly the Department of National Defence, but it seems that this government just does not want to listen to that kind of thing. I suppose that it is because they know that they have too much to hide.
The usual excuse is that it is not in the public interest to have outside investigators look departments over. I say it is far more evident now that it is not in the best political interests of the Liberal party to have these operations looked over on the eve of an election. I suppose, Mr. Chairman, that we are going to have to wait until we take over in a short time-


An hon. Member:: What? How long?


George Harris Hees: -to bring in the kind of investigation that will clean up this government.


Mr. Stuart (Charlotte):: Might I ask the hon. member a question?


George Harris Hees: Certainly.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Do you take the same view with regard to the examination of the South Saskatchewan project and the report?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Harris Hees: I would like to know how that has any bearing on what I have said. If you want me to give you a short talk on the South Saskatchewan river project I shall be very glad to do so.
I think that the building of the South Saskatchewan dam is the best way I can see to provide hydroelectric power which will make it possible to give the province of Saskatchewan industries which it badly needs to diversify its activities-and if you are against that, get up and say so.
The Depuiy Chairman: Order. We are discussing the estimates of the Department of National Defence, not the South Saskatchewan river project.
Supply-National Defence


Mr. W. Ross Thatcher (Moose Jaw):: Supply

National Defence forces. Therefore, according to official United States figures, it is costing the United States taxpayer $12,333 this year for each man in the armed forces.
Yesterday the Minister of National Defence tabled the white paper on Canada's defence program. On page 15 of that paper we find that Canada, as at March 31, had 104,486 men in the armed services. According to the estimates of the Department of National Defence and the Department of Defence Production, we will spend this year $2,068 million for defence. It is then costing Canada $19,792 to equip one man in our services, or almost four times what it is costing for each man in the British service.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: If the hon. member will just allow me to continue for a moment, I shall be very pleased. I know that someone is going to say, what about mutual aid? Suppose we take mutual aid of $32 million off the figure, and we will arrive at an average cost of $17,750 for equipping one man in our service.
When you remember that Great Britain is fighting a war in Malaya, when you remember that she is guarding the Suez canal, when you remember that she has one of the largest navies in the world, I think there is something wrong. When you remember that the United States is bearing the brunt of the Korean war, when you remember that she has divisions in Europe and divisions in Japan, their figures seem to be out of line with ours. It has been suggested that the Canadian defence department is also equipping the reserve army, and that would affect the Canadian figures. I admit that, but surely the same is true of Great Britain and the United States. It has been suggested also by the defence department that the lack of conscription in Canada is a contributing factor. I think that, to a degree, that explanation is reasonable, but I do not think it can explain such a huge disparity.
The government says there is no waste or extravagance in defence spending. Well, I suggest that these per capita costs indicate that there is either waste or extravagance or gross mismanagement. I challenge the Minister of National Defence or one of his parliamentary assistants to tell the Canadian people why our figures are so out of line if there is no waste or extravagance.
If the hon. member wants to ask me that question before I proceed to one other matter, I shall be glad to have it.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I wanted to ask the hon. member if he had compared the position of the United States $44 billion figure which he quoted with the position of our $2 billion figure, not only with respect to mutual aid but with respect to capital expenditure on defence construction and so forth, or whether he was endeavouring to create the impression that the $2 billion Canada spends is spent entirely equipping men in the forces?


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I went over that with one of the United States officials and got the figures which he felt were comparable to our own. Now, if there is something wrong with them I should be very glad to have it pointed out. As I see it, the comparison as I have put it is a fair one.
There is only one other aspect of our defence program which concerns me as a layman and which I should like to mention at this time. I seriously question the wisdom of this nation pioneering, as it has been doing, in the field of advanced military weapons. It seems to me that this phase of defence could be better undertaken by our allies, Great Britain and the United States, who have greater facilities. For example, in recent years Canada has spent hundreds of millions of dollars, as has been pointed out today, experimenting in the field of advanced military aviation. Much of that work has been duplicated by other NATO countries.
Let us take the CF-100 project which has been bandied about a good deal today. I think it is obvious that for about four years this project has been dawdling along very slowly. The latest figures I have seen show that it has cost the taxpayer roughly $130 million, and about 16 planes have come off the assembly line. I think it is obvious to an unbiased observer that this CF-100 project, if it is not a fiasco, is at least a very costly experiment. I recall that the F-86 project was started at roughly the same time under United States licence. My understanding is that about 700 F-86 planes have come off the assembly line. I think there is a lesson to be learned from that comparison. It may give us a sense of real pride to read of Canada's achievements in this field, but I think at the same time parliament should keep in mind the staggering costs to the taxpayer. In addition, there is always the danger of one of these advanced weapons bogging down some place between the blueprint stage and the production stage.
We have read newspaper reports to the effect that the department is planning on going into further advanced fields in so far as military planes are concerned. I have seen the figure of $100 million bandied about for a new fighter. I think such costs are

unnecessary, and I contend that the taxpayers could save millions of dollars and still we could have weapons which were just as effective or better if, instead of taking on the present headaches of pioneering and design, we were to leave those to Britain and the United States. Then we could manufacture under licence in this country the best weapons which those countries could produce. It would be much less costly, and I think we would have just as good or better weapons.
I hope that before this debate is concluded the minister will tell me if there is something wrong with that suggestion. I have other suggestions to make during this discussion, but I shall leave them until the details of the estimates are being considered.


Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a word or two on the first item in the estimates of the Department of National Defence. Like the speaker who has preceded me, I do not claim to be an expert on defence. As a matter of fact I have never fired an army gun in my life. I have never been in the army, the navy or the air force, and know very little about that. The last gun I ever fired was a 12-gauge shotgun, and it kicked so badly it knocked me over and I lost my hat. However, I got the bird.
While I do not claim to be an expert, nevertheless I am interested in the defence of our country. I have personal reasons also for being interested. I had three sons, one of whom I lost in the war. Of the other two Who went through the last war, one is at present a flight lieutenant in the Canadian air force.
I wish to speak on what I might term broad policies with respect to defence. I have always adopted the view that it is best to be strong for the purposes of self-preservation. I have not been a keen critic of the defence department. I have more or less left such responsibility with the government as a responsibility of trust. I have never criticized individual expenditures unless such expenditures may have affected my own constituents in some direct fashion.
If I have been critical at all, it has always been of broad policies such as those which existed during the war; I refer, for instance, to the policy of the conscription of men, whether necessary or unnecessary, and to broad questions affecting war measures which involve defence policy at large. After all, I feel that policy with respect to war, defence and international relations governing defence are the more important issues. Therefore as I rise to speak on this item I feel impelled to say a word or two with respect to policy.
68108-248J
Supply-National Defence
Toward the conclusion of his speech yesterday, when the estimates of his department were introduced, the minister welcomed the apparent shift in Soviet policy. I am sure we all welcome any change in policy that will lead to a better understanding between the nations of the world and particularly between the Soviet and what we generally term the western or free democratic nations of the world. The policy now apparently adopted by the Soviets looks to be one designed to thaw out the cold-war policy that has existed in the world for a number of years.
Even though the minister may have welcomed this shift in Soviet policy, it seems to me that one or two questions must be asked and that those questions should be answered. The one question that gives me a good deal of concern-and it must give the minister similar concern-is whether or not communism itself ever changes, or whether communism always remains the ruthless ambition for world dominance and world dictatorship. If the answer to that question is that communism never changes, even though communist tactics may, then we must conclude that the present shift in policy is a tactical one. If we come to that conclusion, then we must ask ourselves the question:	What is the reason for this
tactical shift in Soviet policy?
If I am not mistaken, the general consensus is that the Soviet have always played their cards with some expectancy that what they call the capitalist system would eventually collapse; and by carrying on a cold-war policy which to some extent has avoided a universal war, they have hoped that the economies of the western democratic world would collapse. If such an event took place, then of course they expected that the result would be a depression of such great proportions that the western democratic world would be a fertile breeding ground for communism, and that it would become strong within the democratic countries.
I think it is conceded by some that one thing that is keeping the economies of the western nations-and I should say particularly the North American economies-in a reasonably prosperous position is the vast amounts of money being appropriated for defence, a fact which is reflected in a fairly high level of industrial activity and employment. I think it is generally believed that should reasonable assurance of peace be accepted, thus bringing about a condition where defence preparations would not be so necessary, we would consequently be headed for a business recession and perhaps a very serious economic depression.
The question that should be asked is what policies v/ould be pursued. The government of the day should be farsighted enough to be
3912	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence able to answer the question as to what policies, financial or otherwise, they are now contemplating to prevent the occurrence of a business recession or a depression. This is a question that has been asked on previous occasions, if not directly at least by very direct inference over and over again. Yet to my knowledge the government has never sufficiently answered the question. It is a very important one because the people who have to pay the bills ought to know. If Soviet calculations are correct that what they call a capitalist collapse is within the realm of possibility, then what policies would the government pursue? We have yet to have that question answered, and it is an important one.
There is another question that should be answered; and I am aware of the fact that in concluding his speech yesterday the minister was very careful to state the reason he was asking for such vast sums of money. I have gone over the last page of his speech very carefully. The minister is an able gentleman. He was not speaking from a prepared manuscript, but I daresay he watched every tiny word and every tiny comma in the conclusion of his remarks yesterday. Should peace come in Korea can the people of Canada expect a reduction in defence expenditures? That is important.
In conclusion may I mention one or two things in respect to a broader international policy involving defence. The hon. member for Temiscouata this afternoon indicated that he was interested in any defence policy having to do with the defence of Canada proper. I fancy that what he intended to convey was that he was not particularly in favour of vast expenditures for defence in other parts of the world. Perhaps I did not interpret him correctly, but that was the impression I received. I am not going to comment on that except to say that I believe Canada's voice should be stronger when it comes to the determination of foreign policy affecting our defence efforts abroad. We are all aware, and it is coming to light now, that in the recent past we have had nothing whatsoever to do with certain secret agreements that have been struck by the leaders of some nations, and particularly of one other great world power.
That just is not good enough. If we are to be called upon to support armies, navies and air forces against what might appear to be an aggressor, then we should demand to be heard in respect of agreements that might be struck behind the scenes. That has not been our experience in the past. We were not consulted with respect to the policy of turning Manchuria over to the Soviet, and not only turning Manchuria over to them but with
[Mr. Hansell.l

Manchuria millions and millions of dollars worth of excellent war equipment, which the Russians eventually turned over to the Mao communist administration of China to handle, and which became the base of their operations in the present struggle in Korea. We were never consulted about that, yet we are called upon to share in paying the bill.
We were never consulted in respect of the reversal of United States policy in China, which was largely responsible for communism taking over there. Some of these things, in my belief, were blunders on the part of a very large world power; but when trouble comes of course we are asked to help overcome that trouble by taking part in a shooting war. I repeat, that is not just good enough. I do not know to what extent we were called upon to enter into a discussion on whether or not General MacArthur should have been withdrawn from that scene, a man who to my mind knew the score in respect of oriental policy, if I might put it that way, at least policy in China and Japan. I do not know whether we were called in for consultation about these things or not, but we should have been. At least if we were not, then we would have a perfect right to say: well, we are not going to send men over to give their lives for what might be the protection of the blunders of others, whose blunders have been made in secret.
I do not know what is going to happen ^s a result of the present Korean struggle. I do not know if anybody else does. Whether it is going to wind up eventually with the 38th parallel being the line separating communist North Korea from Syngman Rhee's regime in South Korea, I do not know. I do not know whether it is going to result in communism boring from within in South Korea and getting all they want anyway. I do not know and perhaps nobody else knows, either.
Those are broad policies that we have to look at. We do not know what is going to result, even in Japan. We do not know whether communism may or may not bore in there and thus cause us to lose the position we once occupied, at least in the East. We do not know what is going to happen in India and other countries. I realize that these are broad matters and that someone has to make decisions. What I am saying is that when decisions in respect to these things are made we should be brought into consultation and not expected just to help fight a war, to give the lives of our young men and to give our money in order to protect the ultimate result of someone else's blunders.

Most likely the minister will be replying to the speeches that have been made and answering the questions that have been asked, and I wonder if he would answer one or two that I want to put to him. What policy does the government expect to pursue in case peace should be achieved in Korea? Are we to expect such vast expenditures to continue? Does the government regard the present Soviet move as one intended to bring about normal peace among the nations of the world, thus eliminating the necessity for such vast expenditures and bringing about a depression? What policies are the government going to pursue to prevent such depression and the making of the western nations breeding grounds for communism?
There is another question I believe the minister should answer. How much in dollars has Canada contributed toward the Korean war? That may be a little hard to determine, although it should not be too difficult. It may involve some actuarial figuring, because we know that as we carry on the training of men, as we erect various buildings necessary for the defence of Canada, as we bring into being schools and barracks and air runs, and as we provide equipment of one kind and another, these are general defence expenditures and it cannot be said just what part is for the Korean effort. But I think we should be able to arrive at some sort of comparable estimate. I repeat that I would like the minister to say just how much the Korean war has cost the taxpayers of Canada.
That is all I want to say at the present time, but I repeat that we must be careful in respect to broad international policies which involve Canada, and in connection with decisions made by other powers.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry the minister is not in his seat, but probably the associate minister will be able to answer the questions which I shall bring up and which I think are fairly fundamental to our whole defence policy.
It appears from the white paper and everything that has been said by the minister and the other spokesmen for the defence department that Canada's role is to build a purely defensive force. For instance, in the air we are building fighters and interceptors, but the R.C.A.F. is to have no bombers. At sea we have anti-submarine vessels, there is a new aircraft carrier to come, we have two old cruisers, but no submarines. In the army we have a military force which has a
Supply-National Defence very low percentage of armour. The question is:	Why not bombers? Why not submarines? Why not more armour? I shall discuss that in more detail in a minute.
I realize that defence production and the production of arms is dependent entirely upon the national economy. If we use too much of the national effort to produce arms we put our economy in unbalance. A well-rounded defence force, however, must have strike-back weapons; it must have some weapons of offence. There are two ways to destroy a bomber. One is to shoot it down when it is attacking your target, and the other is to destroy the plant that makes the bomber before that bomber can attack your target.
I realize that this is a problem of some magnitude and that probably a compromise decision must be made, but it seems to me that with the history of the R.C.A.F. and the ability we showed in bombing during world war II, and considering the time that it takes to train a bomber crew, let alone a bomber wing we should now be at least training bomber personnel. All this is something to which consideration must be given at the present time. Study must also be given to the resultant effect upon technical manpower. But it seems to me that to have your air force composed entirely of fighters and interceptors, with trainers of course, is to have an air force which is in unbalance. Naturally the main problem is the defence of Canada and undoubtedly we should concentrate on interceptors and fighters, but to ignore entirely the bombing arm is, I think, open to question.
I come now to the matter of the provision of a striking naval arm which we are building so many ships to combat. I refer to the submarine. The same firm, Canadair, that is building Sabre jets and the other fighters which I shall deal with in a minute is also producing submarines. It is probably the world's premier submarine-producing firm. I refer to the Electric Boat division of the General Dynamics Corporation. The first atomic submarine cost the firm $19 million. I happen to be a shareholder of the firm because I was interested in national defence and what they were doing. In their report they have stated that the first atomic submarine cost approximately $19 million.
With a company that is already building submarines and with quite a considerable naval construction industry within our boundaries, surely there is some argument that we, whose life depends on an anti-submarine navy, should give some consideration to the advisability of the construction of submarines, particularly as we have a liaison with
3914	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence this corporation which is building Sabre jets. Modern naval thought is that a submarine is the best defence against itself.
The minister may say that the construction of this type of vessel is entirely beyond our means. I should like to point out that this firm is not only building two atomic submarines but built three new high speed submarines for the . United States last year as well as two target submarines, and has also built two large guppy submarines, the Tiburon and the Lobo, for the republic of Peru. Surely if a small country like Peru considers that the submarine is not beyond the capabilities of the country, some consideration should be given to the matter by Canada where the question of building an anti-submarine navy is of such paramount importance not only to us but to the whole free world.
Coming now to the question of the provision of armour for the military side of our defence forces, that has been dealt with before; but I feel that the more we can develop the army into an armoured force the more effective it is going to be. We can never have a large army. Our manpower precludes that, but because of our national characteristics and the mechanical ability of the Canadian people we have a flair for the production of armour and the utilization of armour in combat. I feel that the ratio of armoured to non-armoured troops should be increased in favour of armoured.
Considering the most important question of all, the function of the R.C.A.F. in the design and production of aircraft, the R.C.A.F. is a fighting service. Its primary duty is to fight. To ask a fighting service to superintend the construction and design of aircraft is to ask it to step out of its role. Not only do you not have trained engineering officers in a fighting service, but because of the rotation of officers you do not get the permanency which is required when you go into something like the production of fighter aircraft. I commend that some consideration should be given, and some discussion should take place in the house, as to the possibility of setting up a similar establishment to the ministry of supply of the United Kingdom to which technical officers are seconded from the R.A.F. Together with engineer officers you have business people with the business knowhow who deal with the problems of supply and the production of aircraft. I think that the lead the United Kingdom has today in new types of aircraft is better evidence than any that I can give of the effectiveness of this procedure.
Dealing quite briefly with Canadian production, the Canadair annual statement, which


has come to hand today, shows that they completed 453 F-86E Sabre jet fighter planes for the Canadian government in 1952. They received an order for 300 to 400 Sabre jet fighters from the British Royal Air Force. They completed the first of more than 500 T-33 Silver Star two-seater jet trainer planes for the R.C.A.F., and they prepared for the production of T-36 defence trainer transports with piston engines for the United States air force. I mention that because there you have a private company, a company with shareholders, with, I submit, a very satisfactory record in the last year so far as the production of aircraft is concerned. If nothing else shows the importance of the government divesting itself of interference with the aircraft industry, the statement of the Canadair corporation certainly does.
I will deal quite briefly with the situation at Avro. The problem of designing and producing a prototype of an entirely new aircraft, which the CF-100 is in its various marks up to the Mark 4, and producing in quantity and delivering to the service does not seem to be understood. As has been stated, the designing of the CF-100 commenced in 1947. The time to flight of the first prototype was 33 months. The time for the second prototype was 39 months. The time to delivery of first production after that was 22 months, and the time to series production in quantity and delivery to the R.C.A.F. was approximately six years. For a new aircraft, from the drawing board and with new engines, I contend, Mr. Chairman, that that is a very creditable performance and one of which we should be extremely proud. The hold-up in production of the CF-100 has been the interference of the government with the A. V. Roe Company and the system by which the R.C.A.F. controls design and interferes with the production of the aircraft right the way through. I suggest that even these figures would have been greatly improved if some mechanism similar to the United Kingdom ministry of supply had been in force in Canada. I earnestly ask the minister to comment upon that.
I want now to say something about subclause 141 on page 26 of the white paper. It is the last sentence discussing the CF-100, and it reads:
On the other hand, funds expended for aircraft development in Canada support and encourage Canadian design and development organizations, essential to the growth of the Canadian aircraft industry.
I wish the cabinet would read that sentence every day. There is nothing more important to the development of this country than that we should have our own design and our own

aircraft industry. To allow the aircraft design team, or call it what you will, at the A. V. Roe Company to be disbanded or to fall into disuse would be nothing short of criminal. I say that because of bitter experience at the outbreak of the last war. We had in Canada no aircraft industry and no people competent to design aircraft, so we were fobbed off by the United Kingdom-the United States was not in it then but the United Kingdom was- with the production of obsolete or obsolescent types of aircraft, because the United Kingdom manufacturers did not believe that it was within the competence of Canada to produce aircraft. I remember very well the hon. member for Quebec South calling me a fifth columnist, when I made my maiden speech in this house some 14 years ago, because I said that we were being fobbed off and asked to produce obsolete and obsolescent aircraft.
Mr. Chairman, we can never be put in that position again. We must have an aircraft design organization and an aircraft development organization in Canada that will keep us up in the very forefront of aircraft production. Not only is that good national defence, but it is good economics. It is a matter of dollars and cents. The cost of design for the CF-100, that is design and development costs to date, runs somewhere under $12 million, dating from 1947 to the present time, 1953. On the total order for the CF-100, up to the Mark 4 which they are now about to produce, that amounts to about $13,000 per aircraft.	[DOT]
Well, Mr. Chairman, I have looked through the report of the General Dynamics; and for licence fees to produce the Sabre jet, and patent fees and royalties which we have to pay to produce an American-designed aircraft, as far as I can find out the figure will run to very nearly $20,000 an aircraft. That figure covers all of the patent fees and all of the licences and other things concerned. It is money that is first of all lost to Canada, and which pays no taxes. Second, it is money that goes elsewhere to build up the design and development facilities of someone else's aircraft industry. I contend, Mr. Chairman, that it is not only bad business but it is bad national defence in every way. Today we have the Avro firm with the results they have produced, with a keen and alive team, and we must allow this teamwork and development to go on. We must act at once, and in this connection I would hope that there would be an immediate announcement that the production of the new aircraft, the CF-104, which I shall call the Orca, should be proceeded with immediately.
Supply-National Defence
We have seen that the life of an aircraft is limited in years. What the continuous life of the Sabre will be we do not know. We do not know when the Sabre will be replaced by the turbo-jet, but it will be replaced; and we know that the Sabre has only a certain number of years of useful life ahead of it. We also know that the CF-100 has only a certain number of useful years of combat life ahead of it. We have a limited amount of time, not much, and I contend that the CF-104 should be given the green light and proceeded with at once.
I want to quote some figures to give an example of what the United Kingdom aircraft industry is spending on development. The United Kingdom is spending some $160 million in the year 1952-53 for aeronautical design and development; and the research establishments are spending $70 million. The United Kingdom, with a frightfully heavy tax burden and shortage of materials, considers it desirable to spend money in these large amounts for research and development alone. Surely the comparatively modest amount which it will cost to develop our own aircraft in Canada should be willingly and gladly spent. The amount that it will cost to carry this on is quite modest. I have heard that the figure will be something between $5 million and $10 million a year. Mr. Chairman, we can never again fall back on someone else's design of aircraft.
In this regard I wish to disagree completely and absolutely with the statement made by the hon. member for Moose Jaw. It is bad national defence to do so, and not only that; it is bad economics. We cannot allow our engineering brains to leave this country and develop the aircraft industry in another country.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, we are not only dealing with the department of government which asks for by far the largest sum of money from the taxpayers of Canada through their representatives now meeting here; we are also dealing with a subject which is of most vital concern to every Canadian at this time.
Yesterday a very distinguished soldier, with the widest experience of any officer in Canada today, placed on the record a clear and unchallengeable analysis of the failure of the Department of National Defence to provide national defence for Canada. The hon. member for Nanaimo has, in his own service, embraced not only the different ranks of military service but the different problems of military service in a way which I believe is unequalled by any other single officer in this country. Out of that great experience he
3916	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence has given us an analysis of the present situation. No white paper, no generalities, no interjections about equipment being designed for NATO, constitute an answer to that analysis of our defence which calls for action, not by the Minister of National Defence but by the government of Canada.
My remarks this afternoon are not directed to any one minister. They are directed to the government of Canada which is responsible for this shocking failure which has been exposed in terms that cannot be denied. Let us see exactly what the government itself declares to be the purpose of our defence objectives. These are stated on page 5 of the white paper issued the day before yesterday under the title "Canada's Defence Program." Under the heading "Canada's Defence Objectives", we read the following:
The objectives of our defence policy remain the same as heretofore:
(1)	The immediate defence of Canada and North America from direct attack;
(2)	implementation of any undertakings made by Canada under the charter of the United Nations, or under the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or other agreement for collective security;
(3)	the organization to build up strength in a total war.
Mr. Chairman, those are the objectives as declared by the government. Surely, therefore, it is appropriate that we should examine what the result has been from the expenditure of over $5 billion since the end of the war, and more than $4 billion since the beginning of the period which commenced with the act of aggression in Korea.
Let us deal with the second item first. In so far as the implementation of any undertakings made by Canada under the charter of the United Nations or under the North Atlantic Treaty Organization or other agreement for collective security is concerned, we must, in a very large measure, accept the statement of the government without too complete information as to the details. Those who have already spoken have indicated their own admiration for the high standard of efficiency displayed by these young men in uniform who are taking part in the various duties which constitute the implementation of these various agreements. Every Canadian shares the pride that is the proper appreciation of the gallant and courageous action of our young men in the different units serving in Korea. Those who have seen their services, and those who have seen the other units now outside of Canada, have expressed their admiration for the way in which those young men are taking their part in the various operations that are part of our attempt to defend freedom by a plan of collective security.


I have seen the Canadian troops in Europe. They are giving Canadians the same reason for pride that Canadians have given in other places where the Canadian uniform is worn. I have seen the Canadian squadrons in Europe. I have seen the operations of those squadrons, and I have also had reason to know something of the admiration that is expressed for those young men who fly the aircraft which have gone from Canada to Europe. I have seen something of our naval forces, and I know the splendid job they are doing. It is because our young men and young women in uniform are always capable of giving a good account of themselves, and adding new reasons for pride in the name of Canada which they carry on their shoulders, that we should recognize the extent to which many young Canadians today, both men and women, are being denied the opportunity to give the kind of service they want to give by the failure of this government to fulfil its own undertakings in regard to the defence of this country.
Nothing that is said here can be interpreted as any reflection on the young men and women of Canada, either in uniform or out of it. It is because we know how good they are that we have a right and a duty to examine what the situation really is, and what the facts are in regard to the defence of this country at this time.
I have referred to the second item of our defence objectives, and I say that to the extent that we know wh#t is being done, we certainly have reason for pride in the achievements and conduct of the young Canadians who have gone from Canada or are training in Canada to fulfil our obligations under the charter of the United Nations, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization or other agreements for collective security.
But then let us examine the other two. Let us remember that we are told that the first objective is the immediate defence of Canada and North America from direct attack. The hon. member for Nanaimo yesterday pointed out-and gave supporting figures- that in spite of this tremendous expenditure the government has not provided for the defence of Canada and North America from direct attack. In fact the hon. member for Nanaimo has made it clear that not one service-the army, the navy or the air force -in so far as the direct defence of Canada is concerned, is in a position to meet an attack of that kind.
Then also there is the other item under Canada's defence objectives: the organization to build up strength in total war. The statements made by the hon. member for Nanaimo

and by other hon. members who spoke yesterday and today have made it perfectly clear that we have not today the organization to build up strength in total war or otherwise.
Mr. Chairman, the defence of Canada against the possibility of direct attack simply does not exist. With all the fine spirit of those who seek to serve, our naval defence is inadequate for that purpose; our air defence is non-existent; and the army defence is wholly ineffective for that task because of the limitation upon mobility and the lack of equipment to which reference has already been made.
I think some further reference should be made to our reserve forces. At all times it has been recognized that in this country the reserve forces are the backbone of our defence. We never at any time have pretended that our permanent forces are adequate in peacetime for the defence of Canada. It is to the reserves that we look for the larger numbers . and the possibility of expansion. That has been the case through long years of the military history of Canada. Today the reserve force is simply not being allowed to fulfil its allotted task; and that statement applies to every branch of the reserve forces.
Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to go through one unit after another in order to indicate the situation with which the reserve units of this country are confronted at this time.
I wish, however, to refer to an interjection made by the Minister of National Defence yesterday when, in reply to a statement by the hon. member for Calgary East, as reported at page 3833 of Hansard, he said:
The hon. member must know that the equipment to which he refers is being taken away to be rehabilitated and then shipped to Europe, and will be replaced by equipment of the latest type. That procedure is well under way.
I wish to speak about that interjection, because it referred to a statement that arms and equipment had been taken away from certain reserve units and that they were incapable of performing their responsibilities. The answer given by the Minister of National Defence is not in keeping with the understanding of the reserve units which find themselves in that position.
It is by giving specific illustrations that the general situation can best be understood. Let me give the example of one artillery regiment. I am under the impression that the figures I give in this case will be found to be repeated generally in the case of other artillery regiments across Canada. I will give the figures in regard to an artillery regiment of three batteries. It happens to be one of the oldest artillery regiments in Canada, with a record of efficiency which
Supply-National Defence indicates why it is certainly a perfectly fair test of the present situation.
That regiment, in addition to its headquarters, has three batteries authorized. Two of those batteries are at present activated. The number of guns required for three batteries of that type is 32 for that regiment. That regiment at present has four guns instead of 32. A year ago it had eight. Four were taken away. The four that remain cannot be fired. In fact they cannot even give effective training with the four guns they have, because not one of those four guns has a breech-block. Everyone with any knowledge of gunnery training knows that, without a breech-block, you cannot give effective training in loading and firing guns.
Last year it was decided that the breech rings on the guns needed to be changed. The regiment was informed that these guns could not be fired. Four of the guns were taken away, not with any explanation that they were to be sent to NATO but with the explanation that they were to have the breech rings replaced, and with the understanding that the guns would then be available for firing practice. The other four guns remained, but they could not be used for firing. As far as that is concerned, they could not give the members of the battery effective training anyway, because the tractors that haul these guns are not adequate for the job. Therefore even if they could give effective gun drill, they cannot train the men for the camp to which they are expected to go during the coming summer in this very critical period.
Up to a month ago they had eight gun tractors. Five were taken away. Now they have only three tractors. The jeeps were taken away a year ago, with the understanding that they were to be replaced; but they have not been replaced. The fact is that this artillery regiment, which certainly can be shown to be one of the better artillery regiments in Canada, is worse off from the point of view of equipment than it has been at any time since the war. To my knowledge it is worse off than it has been at any time either since the last war or in between the two world wars. That is the situation with which we find ourselves confronted after $5 billion has been spent for defence.


Brooke Claxton: Will the Leader of the Opposition let me know the name of the regiment? Would he mind doing that?


George Alexander Drew: I shall be very happy to let the Minister of National Defence know the name of the regiment, and I shall do it outside of the house. I have no doubt he is aware that

Supply-National Defence I have certain contacts with certain artillery-regiments in this country, and I shall be very happy to let him know.


Brooke Claxton: Is it your old regiment?


George Alexander Drew: I shall be very happy to let him know the name of the regiment. The minister is aware that I have not completely severed my association with the artillery.
The situation is this. These units are trying to train gunners without serviceable guns. They are trying to train gunners for camp this summer in what we are told is a very critical period without the opportunity to give them adequate tactical manoeuvres. These units cannot even do what are described as dry exercises, under which the gunners could be given some impression of what their duties will be in camp. Nor are those who will be charged with the responsibility for handling the movement of the vehicles being given the type of training that will qualify them to perform that task when they go to camp. As everyone knows, whether they have been with one service or another, it is not simply a case of getting onto a tractor and then moving that tractor. There are involved movements by signal which call for a great deal of training. The officers of these units, when they are carrying out their exercises in preparation for camp, are called upon to use their own automobiles for that purpose. They are using their own private cars for command post training.
I have not given these figures, Mr. Chairman, with the idea that this is an isolated case. It is not. Right across Canada units find themselves in a similar position today in varying degrees. If a reason is sought for the inability to maintain the enlistment level of our reserve units, it will be found in the atmosphere of utter unreality which is created by the shortage of weapons and equipment in the reserve units of this country at this time. That remark applies to other branches of the army as well as the artillery.
It is extremely difficult to get young men, keen young men, anxious to perform some useful task, to go through the movements of drill when they know that what they are doing has little relation to the kind of training they will be called upon to do in camp. If this were a period in which we had been spending little money then of course one might understand and even seek to justify a situation of this kind. How is it possible to justify a situation of this kind after an expenditure of $5 billion? There can be no justification. If our present results are to be the measure of what we get for $5 billion, then think of what would happen to Canada if by any unhappy chance we were called upon really to take part in war. God forbid 
that that should happen, but there is no sensible person who does not realize that this training is done with the knowledge that the dreadful possibility of war is always there.
If what we have now received for the expenditure of $5 billion is to be the measure of the result of such expenditure, then this country would literally almost bankrupt itself if it were called upon to raise the forces that we might be called upon to raise with the serious threat of a more imminent emergency than that which now confronts us. These figures, this expenditure of $5 billion and the inadequate results flowing from that expenditure, indicate why this parliament and the people of Canada should have assurances which have not yet been given to them.
I hope no one is going to imagine that after the consideration of these estimates we are going to know very much more about the ' details than we know now. We have learned by experience that this government will use its majority at any time to close the door upon information that we are seeking. We do know that there has been waste, extravagance and inefficiency of the most astounding kind. We know that from the very small measure of information which has come to us as a result of inquiries which have been conducted. We know that within the very limited area of the inquiries which have actually taken place waste, extravagance, and inefficiency give a very clear indication of why we have these inadequate results after the enormous expenditure of money which has taken place.
Effort after effort has been made to have a complete and exhaustive inquiry into the whole organization and administration of the Department of National Defence, which was found to be inefficient by the one impartial inquiry which has gone into the administration of that department and which we have been permitted to examine. Statements made within the last few days, Mr. Chairman, have not been reassuring. In the white paper tabled the day before yesterday we find this statement:
During 1952-53, in addition to meeting its own requirements, Canada was able to sell a number of F-86E Sabre aircraft to the United States for successful operation in Korea.
Then in Hansard of yesterday, the following day, we find the minister giving us information in the following words, as reported at page 3809:
We have deliberately postponed the equipping of our own forces with additional Sabre fighters in order to make Sabres available to the United States and to Britain.

There are several clear inconsistencies between the white paper which was tabled the day before yesterday and the statements made yesterday by the minister, and there are inconsistencies as between the various white papers. But these are not things which call for our attention to the same extent as the simple fact that after the expenditure of more than $5,000 million the reserve forces of this country are incapable of performing the tasks allotted to them and of meeting the test laid down by the government itself in regard to those defence forces.
We also have the fact, and it is an alarming fact, that in spite of these enormous expenditures our defence forces are not capable of undertaking the immediate defence of Canada from direct attack. That is the first objective of our defence preparations as declared by the government itself. The government has already spent $5,000 million and asks for more than $2,000 million more without having gone very far toward meeting that first requirement, according to its own statement.
Nor have we met the requirement stated by the government of an organization to build up strength in total war. We know that one of the ways in which we can most likely hope to prevent war is to have it known by Russia that there is in Canada as in the other free nations an organization capable of building up the strength of the defence forces beyond those now in existence. Those requirements have not been met. It is a story of failure for which this government has given no effective answer.
I repeat that my remarks are not directed to the Minister of National Defence; my remarks are directed to the Prime Minister and government of Canada. This is their responsibility. They are asking the people of Canada to provide this year more than $2,000 million on top of more than $5,000 million already spent. We should have and the people of Canada should have at this stage assurance by the Prime Minister on behalf of the government that in the face of these admitted inadequacies there will be an immediate, effective and complete inquiry into the administration, organization and general activities of the Department of National Defence.
We are not going to be able to change this situation during the course of the discussion of these money items now before us. We know perfectly well, having regard to the policy of the government, that we are not to know very much more after these estimates have been dealt with than we know now as to what the results are going to be. Let anyone outside of this house who suggests that the opposition could have obtained more
Supply-National Defence information than they did remember that the government has denied an opportunity to obtain information in the one effective way in which it could be obtained. It was effective in that limited case where less than one per cent of the expenditures was under examination. We have sought a similarly effective examination in regard to the total expenditures of the department.
Recognizing that we cannot obtain the facts from a government which uses its majority to deny the facts, I urge that the Prime Minister on behalf of the whole government reassure this house at this time and reassure the people of Canada, who now learn that they have not the defence they had the right to expect, that there will be a review of the organization, administration and accounting of the Department of National Defence as a result of which we may expect to get results from the money that we are called upon to spend.


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Chairman, the Leader of the Opposition in his opening remarks properly gave praise to the personnel of the Canadian forces in the Far East and in Europe. He did that under the head of speaking about the second objective of our national defence, namely the implementation of any undertakings made by Canada under the charter of the United Nations or under the North Atlantic treaty or other agreements for collective security.
If I understood him aright, the Leader of the Opposition said that with the information available he felt that in this respect we were doing what we said we were doing. That is all right. There are three objectives in our national defence which we have set out. The first is the defence of Canada against immediate attack. The third is to enable us to mobilize our resources to meet an all-out objective. The ' second, at this time of cold war and of activities in Korea and of the building up of the strength of the North Atlantic treaty nations in Europe, is really part of the other two.
Who is to say which should come first. In the view of the government they are all part of the single problem of national defence. They are aspects of one thing that has to be done. We must take our part in the cold war and at the same time be prepared for a hot war should it come.
In his speech the Leader of the Opposition praised our soldiers and by necessary implication acknowledged the part played by the government, by the department and by the armed forces in respect to that very important second category, carrying out our commitments to the United Nations in Korea

Supply-National Defence and to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in Europe. This is the first time in six years that the Leader of the Opposition has made such an acknowledgment. If he stays on that side and we stay on this side of the house, as we all expect will be the case for some time further, it may be that he will be in a position next year or perhaps the following year to acknowledge that we have done equally well on the first and third points, because we are just on the way to getting there.
The building up of our armed forces at the rate at which ii has been done has been, as we all know, a large job, and it has been a complicated one. In his remarks the Leader of the Opposition made several sweeping assertions, but he based his whole case largely upon the analysis that had been made by the hon. member for Nanaimo. I propose, in replying to hon. members who have taken part in the debate so far, dealing with as many points as I can and answering such questions as I can without delaying the house too long, to begin by taking up the remarks of the hon. member for Nanaimo.
He said in his speech yesterday, if you remember, that our one and only aircraft carrier, H.M.C.S. Magnificent, is the only vessel of her class which to date has not been modernized. My information is that that is not the case and that so far only one vessel of the class to which the Magnificent belongs is in process of modernization. He also said, as found at page 3815 of Hansard:
* . . only the prototype of the new anti-submarine escort ship has so far been commissioned. She is the former destroyer H.M.C.S. Algonquin . . .
The Algonquin is not the prototype of the new anti-submarine escort vessel. She is the first of our Tribal class destroyers to be modernized and equipped with mess decks, bunks, new electronic and fire control apparatus and the like. She is not one of the new anti-submarine escort vessels. The hon. member also said:
There are fourteen destroyer escorts of Canadian design and fourteen coastal minesweepers being built in Canadian yards. Of the former, I understand that nine keels only have been laid to date.
Nine keels have been laid, but with modern shipbuilding practice that is not necessarily a good indication of the degree of progress, because so much is done in different parts of the whole operation. Three of these ships have been launched. All fourteen of the coastal minesweepers have been launched, and we expect that they will be completed during this fiscal year. The hon. member for Nanaimo went on to say:
In reserve we have a wartime fleet of frigates and minesweepers. If they are to be used, they 

must be completely modernized before they could possibly fulfil any of their roles in the event of an emergency.
All of these ships in reserve will, we expect, be modernized in the present fiscal year. Some of them already have been, and the work is well in hand. Then the hon. member remarked on the fact that we had no submarines, which of course is self-evident. But it would be spreading our resources very thinly indeed if, in addition to going in for an aircraft carrier, we went in for a submarine as well and had an orphan submarine. It is much better for us to go along with the arrangement we have with the Royal Navy and the United States navy to borrow a submarine for training purposes whenever we need it.
Then the hon. member came to his remarks on the army. He referred at some length to the position of the striking or mobile airborne force for the direct defence of Canada. It seems to me that he has been badly misinformed about the situation of the mobile striking force. This force exists now and includes the second battalions of the three regiments. The required number of men to make it effective for the purpose for which it is designed have been trained. In addition to the infantry units there are units of artillery, engineers, army service corps, signals, medicals, and so on, who are also trained airborne troops.
Then he suggested that we should have special engineers trained to make airfields, apparently after they had landed. This is not according to the concept of defence that my advisers have. Indeed, in the operations in which we have engaged in training and in working out the doctrine of defence of our north, the fewer airfields we have the fewer airfields we have to defend against the possibility of the enemy using them as steppingstones from which to leapfrog toward our settled1 areas. Indeed, were it possible the greatest single defence throughout our northland would be the rough nature of the ground and the extent of the territory itself.
We recall, for example, how important were the 21 miles of the channel even during the period of the bomber and fighter attack. There is a depth of a good deal more than 2,000 miles in our northland, and this would be very useful indeed. The concept of this defence is that with the equipment that the only potential enemy has he cannot make a large-scale airborne attack and landing in force on this continent at the present time, and we have arranged with our United States allies that each of us shall have the force which we together have agreed upon to be

desirable to clean up any operation that we would anticipate might take place in the future so far as we can foresee it. We have that force; we have it now.
What is more, we have the transport to enable that force to be used. Hon. members have referred to the fact that hitherto we have only had Dakotas to use for this operation, and very good they were too. A good many countries in the world still only have Dakotas, but to them we have added a number of C-119's. They are coming along at the rate of several per month. Therefore we believe that today we have an airlift sufficient to meet the kind of situation envisaged by the concept on which we are working. Exercises are held regularly. Parts of these formations are trained in succession in winter warfare at Churchill and in airborne operations at other places. Last year a large exercise was held at Churchill. Another exercise, exercise Bulldog, was held at Norman Wells. The airstrip was defended by a force acting the part of an enemy, and was then retaken by an airborne force. Similar exercises have been held at Wain-wright, Fort Chimo and other places. There are usually two such planned each year.
In addition, our officers are being trained steadily both in the doctrine and management of these operations. At Rivers there is the joint airborne training school operated for the benefit of the navy, army and air force. There, three weeks ago I was present at the closing lecture to the army staff college and the air staff college. It was attended by representatives of ten different countries, including a very large team from the United States. They all had spent over ten days at Rivers and elsewhere working over specific plans for just this kind of operation. In fact at the staff colleges, as well as in training exercises for both army and air force, this has formed a major part of their training over the last several years.
Then the hon. member referred to antiaircraft artillery. On that I was very frank. There is not in the world today any antiaircraft artillery of the conventional type or of new type which is really adequate to deal with fast high-flying jets. Fortunately, we do not know that the only potential enemy has any such jets that can reach this continent carrying a load of bombs; but on the other hand we do have in Canada anti-aircraft guns of the latest conventional type and we are modifying them so as to make them just as effective as conventional antiaircraft guns can be made. We are not going to go into a complete outfitting of all our own forces, active and reserve, at an expenditure of something like $500,000 per
Supply-National Defence gun, with weapons which will unquestionably be rendered obsolete within a period of 3, 4 or 5 years. In the meantime we have a considerable number of the latest types of guns. They are being modified with the latest types of devices, and there is nothing better than those of which we know. All we could do would be to get more of those, if they existed, and have them delivered to us at just about the time when we are rather confident that there will be a far more effective weapon in production in the form of ground-to-air guided missiles.
The hon. member referred again to the 27th brigade and expressed the thought which he has so often expressed, that we should have more armour. I have gone into that before, and I do not think there is any point in repeating the observations I have made on previous occasions. We have the type of unit we were asked to provide and which fits into the scheme of things on the other side. It enables us to train and operate independently as a unit, but an independent armoured brigade group working in isolation from a division or a group, as I have said before, is a military monstrosity. We have never heard of such an organization, and it could not operate.
What would have to be done to carry out the suggestions as I understand them would be to add elements to our infantry brigade group to constitute a balanced force of very considerable proportions. Well, we have no intention whatever of increasing our manpower commitments on the other side at the present time. From the studies I have made and that I have had made for me, we feel that to carry out this suggestion would not mean a saving in manpower; for in order to create the unit that has been suggested, as we understand it, we would require larger forces than the present ones.
With regard to the tanks used by the 27th brigade, the hon. member referred to the fact that a number of Centurion tanks had been issued to the squadron. He said:
It is a start in the right direction, the direction which I recommended.
I am sorry but I cannot give him that satisfaction, because the squadron had tanks before the suggestion was made by the hon. member. It had Sherman tanks with which it was outfitted on this side and, as soon as they became available, we replaced the Shermans with Centurions for several reasons, the main one being maintenance on the other side. Also the Centurion is more modern and in some ways, but not all, a more effective tank for Europe than the Sherman.
Then the hon. member said:
-it is highly questionable whether they
3922	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence -the aircraftare of types suitable for the work for which they were intended.
As far as my advisers tell me, and that means the chief of the air staff and his technical officers, the aircraft we have and that we are getting are the aircraft best suited for the purpose for which we are getting them. If the hon. member has in mind one type, namely the Lancasters which we have modified for use as maritime reconnaissance aircraft, then I can tell him that we do not know of any other aircraft in the world today more suitable for this type of work over the waters over which our aircraft have to travel. There is not one. We have had to make these modifications and we have done so, because it was the cheapest way of going about it. Otherwise it would have been necessary to design and build a new long-range aircraft.
The Lancasters will, of course, wear out and they will have to be replaced; and we are looking into the question of what is to be the ultimate replacement of the Lancaster for maritime reconnaissance. So far we have not found the answer. We do not know that such an aircraft is yet on the design board of any country. We do not want to have to go ourselves into the design of a fundamentally new type of aircraft if we can get one from another country which can possibly be modified, adapted and built in this country or purchased from abroad. The Lancaster is the only aircraft to which the hon. member's remarks could be directed, I should think, and the answer is as I have stated.
We are producing the F-86E, the CF-100, the T-33 trainer, the latest Harvard type trainer, plus light transport aircraft-the Otter, the Beaver and the Chipmunk, leading aircraft of their type. As far as we know there is not anything to match them; and it is high time, I think, that the Canadian people began to recognize that their air force has become one of the leading air forces in effective fighting power on our side today.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Brooke Claxton: When the committee rose I was dealing with some of the points made by the hon. member for Nanaimo. There is one more that I should mention. He referred to the nine auxiliary fighter squadrons distributed throughout the length and breadth of Canada from Montreal to Vancouver, "which are equipped," as he said "with world war II


Mustangs and more or less worn-out British-built Vampires". The situation regarding those I have already described. It does happen that for the type of air attack which might be made on Canada and North America, with the type of aircraft which the only possible enemy are believed to have with the capacity to carry a bomb load to this continent, world war II Mustangs and Vampires would be, not the best defence, but a very good defence. They are the kind of planes that dealt with this kind of aircraft during the war, and which a number of other countries have to deal with today.
The fact is that had we obtained other types of aircraft to replace the Mustangs and Vampires we would have been using our resources on aircraft that would soon have become obsolete, instead of which we decided, as a matter of deliberate policy, to go for the F-86E for its particular role of fighter interceptor and the CF-100 for its role of long range, all-weather fighter. The CF-100 was designed for the defence of Canada, and the F-86E was not. While the F-86E is unquestionably the leading aircraft of its type in the world today, it by no means follows that that is the ideal type of aircraft for the kind of operation we envisage as being necessary to defend Canada in the next few years. The range of this aircraft is not great, it has not full instrumentation and does not carry a navigator. Consequently anyone familiar with flying conditions in our north country would recognize that, while the F-88E would give a good account of itself, the losses would be high due to the fact that it might not be able to get back to its base again. We therefore went for the CF-100, designed particularly for the purpose, and so far as we know it is the best aircraft to meet that purpose.
What is important from the point of view of this committee is to recognize that there was no alternative to following this course. So far as we know there is not a long-range allweather fighter in production anywhere comparable to the CF-100, and designed to meet conditions as we envisage likely to obtain in the next few years on this continent. In the meantime these Vampires and Mustangs have proven very worthy against the only type of bomber that we know the enemy has in quantities able to deliver a bomb load on North America.
There is quite a different problem from the one in northwestern Europe, where the main objective would be to secure command of the air by destruction of many fighters. In the defence of North America it is not envisaged at the present time that fighters from any enemy country could travel the distance required. Consequently there is an interim period during which Vampires and Mustangs

will be useful. To have acquired any other aircraft would have been wasteful, we think. The CF-100 is designed for the job.
The hon. member for Nanaimo referred to our construction program and asked what plan is being followed in respect to the erection of permanent or semi-permanent buildings. He indicated that this matter had been dealt with by the special committee on defence expenditures. It was dealt with during a series of sessions. I can refer him particularly to June 12, 1952 and March 17, 1953. This question of the type of construction, the need for it, the scale and quality of the construction was gone into by that committee at that time. Certainly in June of last year the scales and standards of construction, the way in which contracts were placed, the number of square feet per man, and all the other elements that might give hon. members an opportunity to exercise some judgment of their own, were laid before the committee. Reading the records of the committee at that time, I can see no objection being there made to them. Those scales and standards were worked out over a period of years having regard to wartime experience and having regard also to the conditions that existed in Canada, the conditions which existed in other countries and the way they have been met there.
I have not heard any hon. member specify any particular instance in respect of which the allowance has been too great for the Canadian sailor, soldier or airman. If any hon. member thought that, he might have said so. I have not heard, either, that the costs were too high, having regard to building costs throughout the country.
In all these cases, except in the few referred to in the statement by the hon. member for Halifax where there were cost-plus contracts because of special considerations, the contracts were let on tender and the buildings are there. Hon. members have been given numerous opportunities of seeing them. If they feel that they are too luxurious for the Canadian sailor, soldier, or airman, they ought to say so. In fact they ought to have said so a long time ago, because the facts on which they could have based their judgment have been before them for a long time now.
The hon. member for Cape Breton South made a speech which I think appealed to most hon. members of this committee, as do most of his speeches. He began by disclaiming any special knowledge as an expert. He said he approached this consideration with the viewpoint of an ordinary man. He expresses the view of the ordinary citizen in no ordinary fashion because he speaks from the heart, and he speaks his mind effectively and forcefully. With a great deal of his speech I was in complete agreement.
Supply-National Defence
He referred to the terms of enlistment for service in Korea and in Germany, and it seems to me that there he had been misinformed, because after the special force had been enlisted for 18 months or duration in Korea, everyone else was enlisted in the Canadian armed forces for a minimum of three years, and that procedure has been going on. Every effort is made, of course, to keep in the armed forces the men. we want to keep.
He referred to the National Defence Act as having cut down some of the rights of the service personnel. As I suggested to him, that has not been the case. What was done was to arrive at a service disciplinary code for all three services on a sound basis; and we were the first country in the world to do that. We did it after this disciplinary code had been considered by committees of the other place and of the House of Commons over a period of many months. The result has been not that the rights of the common soldier have been reduced but that they are actually greater than before.
He said that officers in the three services had long complained about the requirement that they purchase their own dress uniforms and certain items of equipment. I do not know to what that refers, but he must have had in mind the fact that all officers in all three services receive an allowance of $375 towards the purchase of their equipment: and in addition they are issued, at cost, items such as battledress, working clothes and so on.
He referred to the educational and information services. Here a considerable change has been made over the last 18 months in that we have instituted the bureau of current affairs which serves all three services with publications, booklets, wall charts and the like as well as lectures and education courses with officers and others as discussion leaders. We have communicated with our opposite numbers in the allied countries, and I think most of them would agree that we are a good deal in advance of the other countries in this respect, namely in the respect of putting before our service personnel information on which they can base their own views and which will serve as the basis of discussion. If hon. members are interested in any of this material, they can always have it. A great number have expressed interest. I must say that throughout the whole course of publications-and the publications are given out every two weeks in French and in English- I have never had a single complaint about any text or any work from any hon. member of this chamber; and they are fairly ready to voice their views if they find anything wrong along that line.

Supply-National Defence
As to education, all members of the armed forces have available to them the educational services which were conducted by the Canadian Legion and the Department of Veterans Affairs during the war and which are now continued. In addition, we have voluntary educational classes which will become compulsory with effect from September, 1953, for educational courses up to grade VIII. That system is already in effect for the 27th infantry brigade, but it is not possible to make it effective in Korea.
The next statement to which I refer is that of the hon. member for Calgary East, who made some assertions about waste and commented on how the cost of having a man in the armed forces has mounted year by year. This brings me to a point that has been made by numerous hon. members opposite, including the hon. member for Moose Jaw just before the adjournment. I think it was started in an editorial in the Globe and Mail of November 17, 1952. I refer to the procedure whereby you arrive at the cost of the soldier by dividing the number of service personnel into the total amount spent on defence for that year. I would point out that the two things bear no relation whatever.
Let us take, for example, the case of the United States or Britain and ourselves. Before the second world war Britain and the United States had large regular forces in peacetime and they had the physical equipment, the accommodation, the training facilities and the great camp areas necessary to train men. We did not. Before the beginning of the second world war we had for the armed forces in Canada virtually no special accommodation of any kind. Almost all were living in established centres. Most of them were engaged on administrative and training work. We had virtually no forces in being, to use that commonly-used expression. Consequently when, at the end of the second world war and particularly since Korea, we had to build up our forces, we had to spend much more per man simply on constructing accommodation in which he could live, as well as mess halls and the other facilities.
It may also be pointed out that in the case of both the United Kingdom and the United States they have a much larger proportion of their personnel serving abroad. In respect of those men serving in Germany, for example, all construction and all maintenance costs have so far been met out of occupation costs whereas, in the case of Canada, we pay our own maintenance costs. These comparisons are therefore invalid and misleading. If you want to get a proper basis of comparison you must find out how much is paid to each
[Mr. Claxton.l

soldier in Britain, Canada and the United States for pay and allowances, clothing, food, pension, medical and dental services, the equivalent of a civilian wage.
I have set out in my statement at page 3807 the costs for Canada. We have looked into the problem of finding similar costs in the United States and Britain. It is pretty difficult to arrive at costs because of the different way in which their figures are computed; but by and large I would say that the cost of maintaining an average service person throughout the year in Canada is not far off that in the United States. The pay and allowances in the United States are a bit higher than in Canada, corresponding in part to the difference in the wage levels in the two countries. But the cost of clothing in Canada is a bit higher than the cost of clothing a soldier, sailor or airman in the United States, owing to the difference in climate. The figures work out very closely indeed. If you take a weighted figure, having regard to the proportion of officers, N.C.O.'s and so on, you get a higher figure on a per capita basis for the United States than for Canada.
If you compare the figures by the process of division that the hon. member for Moose Jaw used, and that has been used by other hon. members, then you ought to be pretty sure that you have the same basis for comparison. That is, the total costs for Canada should be less expenditures on mutual aid, less expenditures on stockpiling, and should be on a totally comparable basis. After you arrive at that you have to consider how much more one country puts into the air force, which is much the most expensive service and how much more another country will put in the army, which is the least expensive service, on a per capita basis. So these comparisons, on a per capita cost basis, arrived at by the process of dividing the total costs of defence by the number of personnel in the armed forces, are, I suggest totally invalid and cannot stand up to any serious examination.
Then the hon. member for Calgary East referred, as several others have done, to the statement of Wing Commander Rohmer. Here I must admit I am in a little difficult position. I do not think it is necessarily desirable that I should answer in the house or in public the statements of an officer in the air force reserve. This one happens to be a man with a good record during the war. He was a flight lieutenant at the end of the war. Had he stayed on in the active forces he would toy now be at about the rank of squadron leader with about one year's seniority. However, he went into the reserve.

He became a wing commander in charge of one of the squadrons in Toronto, and I found on inquiry that he was about 275th on the list of seniority of wing commanders in the air force.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The rank doesn't matter;
answer his assertions.


David Arnold Croll: You used his rank.


Brooke Claxton: I have seen hon. members opposite point with a good deal of importance to his rank. I am just giving the facts, and if anyone wants to hear the facts I will give them. The situation is that he made a request to relinquish his command before he made this speech. He made the speech, and ever since hon. members have been very largely engaged in basing their cases against the air force, the Department of National Defence and the government on the basis of that speech.


Mr. Harkness:: We have been saying these things for two years.


Mr. Fournier (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: For
twenty years we have been receiving promises from your party.


Brooke Claxton: It is rather important to keep a sense of proportion. In my position I do not make decisions about air force plans, about the program of aircraft, about how many aircraft are to be sent abroad, the types of aircraft we are going to make, without long, patient and thorough investigation by the people whom I regard as the most competent in the world to make that investigation, namely my advisers and the Royal Canadian Air Force. This starts with the chief of air staff, with his long experience, and all his officers. I do not say I always take their advice, but generally I do on technical matters.
In any event, whenever a matter comes up of any important consequence involving future policies it goes to other government departments and is considered by them and by the cabinet defence committee, and is ultimately approved by the cabinet. Everyone knows that is the procedure. I do not profess to be an expert, but I should like to read to the committee a letter written by Wing Commander Rohmer to Crawford Gordon, Jr., president of A. V. Roe Canada Limited, Malton, Ontario, on February 27, 1953, before this matter came up. He wrote:
Dear Mr. Gordon:
The officers of 411	(F) squadron (auxiliary)
toured your plant last evening.
On behalf of the squadron members, I wish to thank you for the privilege of seeing the progress which your firm has made toward the ultimate high production of the CF-100.
Supply-National Defence
This progress is of special significance to us, inasmuch as the plans of the air force to date provide for our use of your aircraft at the earliest possible moment.
What we saw last night has given all of us a much better perspective as regards what we might expect by way of production and quality of production. As you are well aware, there have been several rumours and stories as to the capability and potential of A. V. Roe. It was my intention in asking for this visit to discredit in the minds of my officers that any contrary rumours that they might have heard should be dispelled.
Such is the case today, and we are looking forward with confidence to watching the CF-100 roll off the line in quantity and to flying it.
My compliments to your conducting staff, and in particular, to Mr. Jackson who handled our group with a great deal of care and attention.
Yours sincerely,
Richard H. Rohmer, W/C. Commanding Officer,
411 (F) squadron (auxiliary)


Edmund Davie Fulton: Does he say on what date they are going to roll?


Brooke Claxton: They have been rolling for some time. The letterhead, I may say, is:
Lang, Michener & Cranston Barristers & Solicitors
Bank of Montreal Building,
50 King Street W.,
Toronto.


Douglas Scott Harkness: What does that prove?


Brooke Claxton: The hon. member for Calgary East then went on to talk about overblown staffs. This is the easiest kind of charge to make, of course, and it would be very easy for me to say, as I do, that this is a matter of gravest concern to all of us, to keep down our staffs to the lowest possible level so as to ensure adequate control with the least possible number of controllers.
Hon. members have referred a great deal to the Currie report, and some hon. members have heard that report discussed before the special committee on defence expenditures. They will find from the evidence that the statement I made in the house on January 13 was completely confirmed, that is that a major factor in the lack of control which gave rise to my appointing Mr. Currie and the making of his report was the lack of sufficient staff to do the job. Actually we are understaffed today in the Department of National Defence.
The hon. member went on to give as his only example of this the situation in the office of the deputy minister, and stated that there are now more personnel there than at any time during the war. The hon. member for Kamloops made the same statement and gave the same figures at page 3840 of Hansard.
3926	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence


Edmund Davie Fulton: Figures provided by the department.


An hon. Member:: Hush, Davie.


Brooke Claxton: Of course we always give information when it is possible to give it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: And when it is not too embarrassing.


An hon. Member:: Oh, hush.


Brooke Claxton: The answer to this is the following figures. The present staff in the deputy minister's office is 114 as compared with totals of 98, 93 and 77 for the staffs of the three defence deputies on March 31, 1944, March 31, 1945 and March 31, 1946 respectively. The increase is due exclusively to the assumption by the present deputy minister of national defence of responsibility for several functions that were previously allotted to the services. They have been assumed either to permit a greater degree of co-ordination or control or to replace service personnel with civilians.
The chief secretary with a staff of 29 provides secretarial services for the interservices committees, an activity previously carried out by service personnel. The present arrangement has the advantage of providing greater continuity since service officers can be appointed as committee secretaries only for short periods.
Until recently each of the three services was responsible for preparing its own estimates and for a number of other financial control functions. The assistant deputy minister of defence, who came to the Department of National Defence from the Department of Finance, now co-ordinates the financial control and the preparation of estimates for all three services. The present staff of this branch is 23.
The real estate adviser's office with a staff of eight also carries out a function that until recently was performed by the three services. The controller of office services and supplies with a staff of three co-ordinates the demands of the three services for stationery supplies and office equipment. Experience has shown that substantial economies have been achieved by co-ordinating the demands for this type of supplies. Thus of the total staff of 114 in the office of the deputy minister, 64 are engaged in activities that were not undertaken by the three deputies in 1944, 1945 and 1946. So the increase in staff over the comparative figures for those years is attributable entirely to the additional functions now carried on.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Not entirely on a proportionate basis.


Brooke Claxton: The next statement by the hon. member for Calgary East was in connection with evidence of waste, and he said he had seen burlap bundles filled with paper outside the Department of National Defence. I hope he has seen similar bundles outside every department of government and I hope, as in this case, they are sold as waste paper on tender. What else the hon. member would expect to do with it, I do not know.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Just an example of the paper war.


Brooke Claxton: Then the hon. member dealt with the question of equipment for the reserve forces, and he quoted largely from an article which had appeared in the Calgary Herald. The hon. member said:
They told me their carriers were about to be taken away from them.
I do not know where he got this information, but if it is so it must be because the carriers they had were worn out. So far there is nowhere that we know of an acceptable modern infantry carrier. Everyone on our side is working on one, but we have not found anything better. Then the hon. member said, "Their jeeps have gone already." The jeeps were removed from the reserve army units and active force units in order to renovate them and send them to Europe where they were urgently required to be used for operational training, and were immediately replaced with a new type made during the last 18 months which are now pooled under the control of the general officers commanding. Jeeps that were used previously for administrative purposes are being replaced by *commercial type vehicles. More than 80 per cent of that operation is complete, and I would think that it will all be complete this month.
The hon. member suggested that the reserve force officers should be given a tour of duty in Korea. That is provided for if they will agree to serve a year. It would not be economical on any other basis.
Then the hon. member dealt with promotions within the Royal Canadian Air Force, I understand particularly those on the administrative list. Everyone in the Royal Canadian Air Force up to the rank of squadron leader is required to take examinations in order to qualify for promotion. If any of the gentlemen he had in mind have not qualified it is due to their failure to pass the examinations. Above that rank it is considered that officers generally should be on the general list, but there are arrangements under way under which they can move from one to the other.

The next comment to which I would make reference was that of the hon. member for Kamloops who said, as reported on page 3840 of Hansard:
In the case of the two buildings in Montreal we see that they were sold only three and a half years later for a fifth of the amount paid for them.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I told you last night that they were not defence buildings.


Brooke Claxton: A number were dealt with last night. I am dealing with those that were not dealt with last night.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I told you that they were not defence buildings last night.


Brooke Claxton: In answer to a question you told me that one of them was not.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I said that the Montreal
example was not defence buildings.


Brooke Claxton: Why did you give it?


The Chairman:: May I suggest that this type of discussion between two hon. members should not be carried on. If the hon. member for Kamloops wishes to interrupt the minister he should do so through the chair. This sort of thing has been going on for some time.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I was simply bearing in mind the treatment to which I was subjected last night. I apologize to you and I shall not repeat the example which we saw here last night. I am sorry.


Brooke Claxton: The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre referred again, as he has on numerous occasions, to the shortage of ammunition. I suggest that this is a matter on which hon. members should exercise the usual caution which should be applied to matters affecting the morale and welfare of the troops. I can read to him a statement made in the British House of Commons on March 26, 1953. The quotation is as follows:
Mr. Shinwell asked the Prime Minister, as the head of our defence forces, whether he was informed of the shortage of ammunition for United Nations troops in Korea; and what action was taken in the matter.
The Prime Minister; I am informed that the ammunition supply in Korea has always been sufficient to meet the operational requirements of the United Nations forces, and shortages of ammunition have not restricted the planning of operations.


Mr.   Shinwell@: But has the right hon. gentleman not been informed of the statement made quite recently by General Van Fleet on his retirement from the command in Korea to the effect that there has been a considerable shortage of ammunition?
The Prime Minister; I have to rely upon the official information which is transmitted to us in due course. I cannot deal with every statement that is made by an ex-commander-or even by an ex-cabinet minister.


Mr.   Shinwell@: But would the Prime Minister be good enough to address his mind seriously to this question. Does he regard it as satisfactory
Supply-National Defence
that statements should 'be made to congressional committees in the United States by retiring commanders on the subject of the alleged shortage of ammunition without information being conveyed to this house in order to remove a possible misleading statement of this kind?
The Prime Minister; I do not think it would be a good thing if we were to let our procedure in this house be governed by investigations of congressional committees in the United States. I should have thought that the right hon. gentleman ought to be very careful when he pursues this line as he might be falling out with some of his colleagues below the gangway.


Mr.   Shinwell@: Does not the right hon. gentleman understand that I am anxious not to fall out with anybody but if I had to choose between my hon. friends below the gangway and the Prime Minister I should prefer the right hon. gentleman because he is much easier to handle. Will he be good enough to make inquiries and to ascertain whether the statements by General Van Fleet are accurate? After all, we ought to be assured on a very important subject of this kind.
The Prime Minister: We have regular reports, and very close and intimate relations prevail between the British military representative and the commander in chief in Korea. I have no doubt that the reports we have received fully justify us in giving our full confidence to the character of the statements made. May I thank the right hon. gentleman for the compliment which he paid me and only express my regret that he should have thought it necessary to add any reservation.
On the same day the views of President Eisenhower were expressed, and they were quoted in the Washington Post of March 27. I read:
President Eisenhower said yesterday there is sufficient ammunition in Korea for present scale operations and then described the supply situation as perfectly sound under current circumstances. Across the Atlantic, Prime Minister Winston Churchill gave similar assurances to the House of Commons and an army spokesman said that shipments of some types of ammunition have been diverted to other areas because Far East pipe lines of such shells are now full.
The president was asked about the ammunition situation at his news conference. He said he had questioned the Pentagon about it and if there was any relation between the shortage and the loss of Baldy Ridge hill in Korea, given up by American troops yesterday after a heavy fight. The army chiefs assured him emphatically that ammunition was not a factor in the loss of the position, Mr. Eisenhower said. In fact, he added, the Far East command turned back a shipload of ammunition because the reserves of that particular type were so high they didn't want it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Which editorial do you believe?


Brooke Claxton: I do not understand the hon. member's comment. I am reading from the report of a debate in the British Hansard and the report of what President Eisenhower said in Washington.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Which editorial do you believe? How about giving your own views?


Brooke Claxton: My own views?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes.
3928	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence


Brooke Claxton: I have already given them in the house.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have not heard them.


Brooke Claxton: Well, the hon. member was not here, Mr. Chairman.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, I was.


An hon. Member:: He was not all here.


Brooke Claxton: The situation was described before and there is no need to go into it further. But the hon. gentleman did ask about the supply line. What happened was that the British were in need of some 25-pounder shells at the beginning of the war in Korea and we sent them 200,000. That was our contribution to the commonwealth supply line. Shells for 25-pounders, some mortar bombs and small arms ammunition now come from British production. Ammunition for other weapons comes off the American supply line. We generally get the same treatment as anyone else. The situation was as I indicated in my statement in the house last December, and since then it has steadily improved.
The next reference with which I wish to deal is that made by the hon. member for Brandon with respect to welfare. I must say that I think an apology is owing to him for some delay in completing the answer to a return he asked for some time ago, but it required investigation and checking in both Korea and Germany. However, I have ascertained that the information is now available and it will be tabled tomorrow. It will give a full statement on the question of welfare in both theatres. I have a number of quotations, extracts and so on and so forth which run directly contrary to some of those which have been used in the house, but I will not give them now. I should add, however, that it has been decided to institute a Canadian army welfare fund similar to the benevolent funds for the air force and navy for the purpose of extending benefits to serving personnel. That has been set up and a statement to that effect will go out tonight.
With regard to one or two other matters, the hon. member for Kootenay West and other hon. members have referred again to these global figures for items such as rugs, furniture and the like. We have set up a special committee on defence expenditure to look into these items. That committee has done so.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Rugs? They have not been discussed.


Brooke Claxton: If it has not been done, it is exclusively due to the lack of endeavour on the part of the hon. member to have that subject brought forward.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No. On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, it may interest the minister to know that we have had six items on the agenda, which was the maximum we were allowed to place on it, and we have not been allowed to deal with more than three of them.


John Horace Dickey: Mr. Chairman-


Louis-René Beaudoin: May I ask if a report has been made to the house with respect to the proceedings of the committee? If not, they cannot be discussed in the house.


John Horace Dickey: But Mr. Chairman-


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister should not make an inaccurate statement about it.


John Horace Dickey: Mr. Chairman, the proceedings-


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. I did not object to the hon. member for Kamloops rising on a question of privilege. He was quite right in doing so, and he has stated his question of privilege. But I say again that to carry on a discussion of what has happened before that committee before its proceedings have been reported to the house is, in my view, not in order.


John Horace Dickey: But Mr. Chairman-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order-


John Horace Dickey: The proceedings of the committee-


Edmund Davie Fulton: On a question of privilege-


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. The hon. member for Kamloops must give the hon. member for Halifax a chance to state his question of privilege if he has one.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am endeavouring to state a question of privilege myself.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. The hon. member for Kamloops rose and stated his question of privilege.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, Mr. Chairman. You yourself-


Louis-René Beaudoin: If he did not, I will hear him now. The hon. member for Kamloops.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, you yourself have said that either there is no question of privilege before the committee or that alternatively this committee is not entitled to discuss the proceedings of the special committee on defence expenditure. My point was that the minister made an inaccurate statement with regard to the proceedings in that committee, which I endeavoured to correct.


An hon. Member:: You didn't.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Now, sir, if you are going to allow debate or discussion on that question I submit that you must allow complete discussion of what has or has not been allowed to be debated in that committee.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You have spoken in this debate already. Sit down.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You have spoken six or seven times.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We all know how the Minister of Trade and Commerce resents giving anybody else an opportunity to speak in this house.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Douglas Scott Harkness: You wait for wheat
tomorrow.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I think it might be preferable to observe the rules to the letter and, therefore, any references to the proceedings of the committee on defence expenditure are not in order.


John Horace Dickey: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of National Defence was referring to the proceedings in the committee last year, proceedings which were reported to this house.


Edmund Davie Fulton: On a point of privilege-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Perhaps we might let the Minister of National Defence say what proceedings he was referring to.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Carroll:: Mr. Chairman, you have made a decision in this matter and I think it is the due of members of this house that you should enforce it. You have made the decision, and I do not think you should call on the Minister of National Defence at the present time to answer any questions.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. Perhaps we should reflect a little on what is happening. Let us not develop heat where there is no reason for it. The Minister of National Defence, in the course of his speech, said there was a committee set up to examine the expenditures of the Department of National Defence. He was at that time referring to a question which had been put to him by hon. members on the opposite side and which had to do with the purchase of rugs. He said that the committee had been set up and if the matter were to be investigated it could have been investigated there and was investigated there.
At that moment the hon. member for Kamloops took exception to the statement.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Hear, hear.
Supply-National Defence


Louis-René Beaudoin: He rose on a question of privilege and said that they were not allowed to discuss the matter, that there were only six items put on the agenda. At that moment the hon. member for Halifax rose in order to contradict what the hon. member for Kamloops was saying. As two members were attempting to speak at once, I considered it my duty to rise and say that if the proceedings of the committee had not been reported they could not be referred to in debate in this house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Louis-René Beaudoin: The hon. member for Kamloops again rose, carrying on the statement of his question of privilege. He was merely continuing the statement of his question of privilege which had been interrupted by the rising of the hon. member for Halifax. At that moment I heard him further and said that I thought it preferable not to carry on the discussion of proceedings in committee which had not been reported. The hon. member for Halifax then rose and explained that what the Minister of National Defence was referring to were not proceedings before the committee now sitting but proceedings of the committee last year. Therefore I proposed and I now suggest that the Minister of National Defence, who was the one who referred to these proceedings, is the one to say to what proceedings he was referring.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Was it proceedings of the committee this year or last year? I think it is proper for the minister who created the incident to explain to what proceedings he was referring.


Brooke Claxton: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Last year the committee on defence expenditure referred to a great many items and if they did not include rugs that was surely by way of oversight, because rugs were dealt with in the house, as I see by the statement made on November 27, 1952.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That was after the committee had risen.


James Sinclair: Address the chair.


Brooke Claxton: Now, sir, hon. members of the opposition have on a good many occasions made sweeping statements about extravagance, waste and the like; and those usually take the form of stating a large figure: "They have spent $251,000 on landscape gardening; so much on ties", and so on. Those assertions are played up and made use of repeatedly, as if there was something wrong because the figures happen to be large. The figures happen

Supply-National Defence to be large because of the scale of the operations, and the place where these things can be looked into best has been and is, I suggest, before the committee on defence expenditure.
An illustration of this situation perhaps can be given in the simplest possible terms. Many hon. members of the opposition have made a good deal of the fact that we bought a lot of ties. We need 420,000 ties a year to supply each member of the armed forces who has to wear a tie with the minimum number required to equip him. You have to think in terms of that sum.
The Leader of the Opposition followed the hon. member for Calgary East by referring to some shortages in the equipment of the reserve forces. He described them as deplorable and likely to produce an attitude of frustration and so on. Well, we have some hundreds of units in the reserve force of the army and their effort is to do the best job they can-and a very good job they do, too. They are handicapped in that effort if they have more equipment than they need for the purposes of their training; so effort is constantly made by the reserve forces themselves to reduce the amount of their equipment to that which they need for training purposes.
In the question put by the Leader of the Opposition it would appear that he had in mind an artillery regiment. Indeed, it would look as if he were quoting from the same text that was referred to by the hon. member for Calgary East. As far back as last August information went out that the number of guns that would be available for the training of each artillery regiment would be reduced to the number they could usefully use. The distribution was put under the command of the general officer commanding. It was before the conference of defence associations at their meeting in Ottawa in January, 1953, and no complaint whatever was made about the result. Indeed, it appears to have been in accordance with their wishes. The general officers commanding and area commanders recently had their conference in Ottawa and the question was not raised. As far as one can see this was a thoroughly sensible course, in accordance with the wishes of the units.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Probably they asked for guns without breeches and breech rings, did they?


Brooke Claxton: With regard to the question of breech rings, in consequence of experience gained in Korea it was decided just before Christmas of this year to make modifications in the breech rings in order to ensure greater security, this despite the fact that 25-pounders have been in production and use for a number


of years. So the breech rings are being modified, and that modification will be completed before the coming training seasoip Had an accident occurred by reason of failure to carry out that modification, the necessity of which was borne in by experience in Korea, I am sure that hon. members opposite would have been the first to call this to our attention.
Now, sir, I think I have dealt with most of the points covered by hon. members opposite. If there are any that I have not covered I am sure they will be drawn to my attention and we can deal with them as we get into the detailed discussion of the estimates.


George Randolph Pearkes: Before we go into the discussion of the details, there is one question I should like to ask the minister, arising out of his observations. Just before the recess he referred to a statement I made yesterday with reference to the former destroyer
H.M.C.S. Algonquin, which I had said was being converted at the Yarrows yard in Esquimalt and was the only prototype of the new anti-submarine escort ships that have so far been commissioned. The minister said the Algonquin is not the prototype of the new anti-submarine escort vessel, but she is the first of our Tribal class destroyers to be modernized, equipped with new mess decks, bunks, new electronic fire control apparatus and the like. She is not one of the new anti-submarine escort vessels. I think I took down the minister's words correctly.
I based my statement on information which appeared in a magazine entitled Canadian Shipping and Marine Engineering News, March 1953, the Royal Canadian Navy issue, and particularly an article entitled "The Navy's Progress", by the Hon. Brooke Claxton, D.C.M.,	Q.C., Minister of National
Defence. In this article the minister said:
A prototype of Canada's new anti-submarine escort ships, the former destroyer H.M.C.S. Algonquin, was commissioned in February, and the job of converting another destroyer, H.M.C.S. Crescent, into a similar deadly foe of the submarine, was taken in hand.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I do submit that these are two diametrically opposed statements. On the one hand the minister says Algonquin is not the prototype of the new anti-submarine escort ships, and the month before he wrote an article in a trade magazine in which he said that she is the prototype of the new anti-submarine escort vessels. These conflicting statements only lead to confusion, not only confusion for members of the opposition who try to base their arguments on statements made by the minister, but also confusion in the minds of the public. I do not know which of these two exactly

opposite statements is correct, and I would ask the minister.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Convicted out of his own mouth.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Neither is correct.


Brooke Claxton: The titles of these ships, as the hon. member may know, change from time to time according to the type of description applied to them.


Edmund Davie Fulton: They change every time the minister speaks.


An hon. Member:: Wait.


Brooke Claxton: The type of ship which we generally call the anti-submarine escort vessel is the new type which is being produced, the first of which is the St. Laurent, which was launched last year. The Tribal class destroyers are being reconverted for antisubmarine work, but they are not the antisubmarine escort ships.


George Randolph Pearkes: Then the statement in this edition of Canadian Shipping of March, 1953, by the minister is incorrect.


Brooke Claxton: I do not know; I have not checked it.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, I should like to discuss not the details of the equipment but the broad question of organization. Before doing that, I should like to make one or two comments on the speech which the minister has just finished.
I was rather puzzled by the comments he made about Wing Commander Rohmer. It did not seem to me that it was important to know whether he was No. 286 on the list or whether he had a pleasant talk with Crawford Gordon, Jr., or whether he wrote a letter to Crawford Gordon, Jr., or whether he was the partner of a Conservative candidate and an active Liberal party worker in Toronto. I think the only thing that was important was whether or not what he said was true. I understand that what he said was exactly what the hon. member for Nanaimo said, and that it has not been either controverted or attempted to be controverted in any way.
The minister began by saying that this gentleman was an officer with a good record. But from that point on it seemed to me the disposition was rather to play him down. It will be a sorry day when we try to play down men who have the courage to say what they think. One of the troubles is that there are so few people who do have that courage.
I should like to draw attention to another thing. At the beginning of the minister's speech he referred to the fact that the Leader of the Opposition had expressed approval of what is called our No. 2 obligation, that is
Supply-National Defence the obligation to NATO and our obligations under the United Nations charter. I am quite satisfied that the Leader of the Opposition is ready to give credit where credit is due.
With regard to the other two points-No. 1, the defence of Canada against enemy attack, and No. 3, the organizations to build up strength in a total war-I confess I found myself very disappointed with the words which the minister used. Speaking of the Leader of the Opposition he said: "If he stays on that side of the house and we stay on this side, as we all expect will be the case for some time further,"-that was just thrown in-"it may be that he will be in a position next year or perhaps the following year to acknowledge that we have done equally well on the first and third points because we are just on the way to getting there."
I think the taxpayers will be disappointed at the fact that all the minister can say is "maybe next year or perhaps the following year." In that connection I wish to read from today's Ottawa Journal concerning the increasing futurity, we might say, of the progress that they are making in the Department of National Defence. Speaking of the white paper the Journal says:
We read them, anxious and eager to agree with Mr. Claxton that all is going well and that our billions of dollars of expenditure have brought us the utmost in defence security; but we cannot, no matter how we try.
One reason for our cautious approach to these white papers is Mr. Claxton's persistent use of the words "will be", his emphasis about the arms we are to have rather than the sabre in our national fist at the moment. For example, we have looked up the 1952-53 white paper and it said: "At present the fighter squadrons for this purpose (fighter defence of Canada) are equipped with Vampire and Mustang aircraft. These will be replaced by CF-lOO's as they become available. In addition, there are a number of squadrons equipped with F-86E's and designated for the NATO air force in Europe. In the meantime they are available for the defence of this continent.
The following year, in the 1953-54 white paper, I read the following from the white paper:
The first regular squadron, equipped with CF-100 all-weather, twin-engine, jet fighters, was recently formed and by the end of the fiscal year a number of these squadrons will be operating. Meanwhile, a number of squadrons of F-86E Sabres, destined as part of Canada's NATO air contribution, have been in Canada available for the defence of this continent. As the last of these are sent to Europe during the year, their places will be taken by squadrons of CF-lOO's. Reserve squadrons now equipped with Vampires and Mustangs will be re-equipped with CF-lOO's as these become available.
And the Journal goes on briefly:
So, apart from that one squadron with an unstated number of aircraft, the CF-lOO's are still
3932	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence in the "will be" stage, and antiquated Vampires and Mustangs remain to be counted anlong the defenders of the nation in the case of a sudden attack.
I wish to direct the rest of my remarks to what I think may be called No. 3 of these objectives, although it affects them all. I refer to the objective of enabling us to mobilize our forces to meet an all-out attack. I wish to discuss that matter from the point of view of the whole organization of the Department of National Defence and its conjoint companies, defence production, defence construction and Central Mortgage and Housing.
I put it this way to you, Mr. Chairman. Two years ago or thereabouts we started on a huge new enterprise on which we have spent billions of dollars. In his speech the minister referred to the capital expenditure and put it at $2,767 million. Then the minister proceeded to talk with what seemed to me to be great satisfaction about the fact that we had managed to spend all this money. He told us that it involved hundreds of contracts. Actually it came to sound like a song of billions. But for the most part or indeed almost altogether it seemed that we were just listening to an outline of huge expenditures.
For example, the minister compared it with the expenditures of the Canadian National Railways. He said that in 25 years the Canadian National Railways had managed to spend only $1,341 million; and I presume this is on capital account. He pointed out, apparently with pride, that in two and a half years our defence program has managed to spend more than twice as much as this. Then he gave us an illustration of a private corporation. He gave as an illustration the Shawinigan company which I think he said in 50 years had spent something like $335 million, although I am not quite sure about that figure.
What I felt was that all these figures were splendidly irrelevant. They seemed to me to have nothing to do with the case. To me the whole point is to know not whether we spent all this money-I have no doubt that we did-but whether we did so effectively. From listening to the minister, as far as I could see one was almost supposed to assume that we had spent this money effectively. From the fact that we had been able to enter into all these contracts and have everything done according to legal form by all the various companies, including defence construction, defence production, Central Mortgage and Housing and national defence-I find it difficult to remember all the names-we were


supposed to assume that that in itself was a great achievement.
Then we have had criticisms in this debate. We have had criticisms that have been referred to tonight. I do not propose to take the time of the committee to refer to them. Those gentlemen who have made their criticisms and who have been answered-and in my opinion very ineffectively-will be prepared to say whatever further needs to be said on those subjects. I come back to the question of organization.
Many months ago, indeed I think I may say years ago, when this thing first came up, we on this side felt that this was a tremendous job; and I think sincerely enough we tried to press that view on those across the gangway. It seemed to us-and I have never been able to get away from that feeling-that the matter was taken too lightly. I myself asked a question in the house on May 24, 1951. I tried to stress as best I could what seemed to me to be the magnitude and the complexity of this job, and I asked whether any expert assistance was being sought. I asked whether the government was seeking in any way to get assistance, and the answer I got was this:
it-
That is the department.
-is set up in accordance with the practice which has obtained in the Department of National Defence over the years. There has not been much change. We have to do a job, and we do it.
I might point out, too, that there was a slight inaccuracy in that statement of the minister because my understanding is that during the war years Colonel Ralston did in fact bring in several top-ranking businessmen to assist him, one of them being Mr. Currie with whose name we are all so familiar. Hence in fact it was not just the department itself that he relied on. He went outside for assistance.
We know that there are people who specialize in organization and who have useful help which they can give if they are asked for it. Of course it is always arguable that there are men who do not need to be trained in administration, that there are men of genius who seem to be able to do things without the training and experience that ordinary men need; and it was always arguable that we might have found that * these men were in the Department of National Defence. So far as I can see, that assumption was made, namely that without any outside assistance and without any outside advice they had succeeded in mastering this tremendous job. As a matter of fact, I was assured by the department that these efficiency companies

really were not competent to assist large organizations, that they could assist only the small fry. That was just a complete misunderstanding of the assistance that was available if it had been sought.
Yesterday the minister made a great point of telling us that he had had few letters of complaint. He said you could count them on two hands. I did not take much stock in that answer. The complaints would have to come mainly from two sources. The first source would be somebody in the services. I do not need to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that people in the services are not going to be very ready to write letters of complaint to the minister. That would be a rather unusual thing to do. Then the second source would be people who are doing business with the government; and I do not think they would be very free in writing letters of criticism either. They want to do business with the government, not to criticize them. I am therefore not at all impressed by that test which the minister applied.
We in the opposition have tried to make effective criticisms. We have not done it to our own liking; but I leave the matter to anyone who looks at the thing in a detached way. It is extremely difficult to drive your criticisms home if you have no means of making an independent examination and if you are left entirely to departmental officials who, however competent they are and however desirous they are of doing the right ' thing, have got to take the departmental line. How could they do anything else? They are in a department and they must take that line. Let us be realistic about the thing.
So things went along, Mr. Chairman, and we were uneasy. I think many people were uneasy. Then something more than a year ago an event took place which perhaps is an illustration of the old hymn that "God moves in a mysterious way"; because an anonymous letter really touched off something. There was an anonymous letter which indicated that all was not well at Petawawa; and as a result of this letter the minister took the entirely proper and wise action of appointing Mr. Currie to make an investigation, which he did.
We know about the investigation. It was discussed in the house. But once the report was brought in, it did not seem to attract much favour among the ministers. Mr. Currie suddenly descended from the heights which he had occupied, and we suddenly found that this idol, in the eyes of the ministers, had feet of clay.
I must say that the Minister of Trade and Commerce made a very gallant attempt to 68108-249
Supply-National Defence deal with the situation in a broadcast which he gave about a week ago. Anyone who knows anything about the background would be considerably enlightened if I read a paragraph from what the minister said in regard to the report. He was paying his tribute to the opposition, and in the midst of it he said this:
Opposition parties will say: "What about the Currie report? They are all we need to prove our charges." What are the tacts?
And then the minister went on:
Mr. Currie in his report did not find any waste or inefficiency, nor does he claim to have found any. It was the Minister of National Defence who discovered irregularities in the army works service at Petawawa.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce was not quite fair to the anonymous letter, but we will pass that. I continue:
It was he who brought to justice those who conspired together to steal a few thousand of dollars worth of public property, and those who personally profited through some of the operations of the army works company at Petawawa camp. These men were being tried and sentenced before Mr. Currie was appointed to suggest improvements in administrative procedures, such as would make that kind of thieving impossible. The Currie report indicates that many improvements had already been made in the system, and more have been made since.
You will I hope realize, Mr. Chairman, that what I have read would seem to indicate that the Currie report, far from being critical of the Department of National Defence, was almost a eulogy. The minister I am sure will not misunderstand it if I say I really think that is one of the most splendid instances of sublime arrogance that I have ever seen. I do not know how the minister got into that frame of mind. The rest of us all thought this report was a criticism. The minister says it is not a criticism. It carried me back to a thing I never could understand when I went to school. It was a thing called a syllogism, a form of reasoning that was always over my head.


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, it is a phobia.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: It occurs to me that the only way I can explain it to my own satisfaction-I hope the minister will accept this as a genuine attempt to explain what he said-the only thing I can imagine is that the minister with sublime arrogance, as I said, argued this way: No sane man can criticize this government; Currie is a sane man; therefore Currie did not criticize the government.
I looked carefully through the broadcast to see whether the minister had concealed any further references to the report, but I could not find anything unless it was in between the lines.
3934	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence


Clarence Decatur Howe: Everybody has forgotten the Currie report except you and me.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I can only say to the minister that this is the most magnificent effrontery that I ever heard in my life. I was going to say, Mr. Chairman, that for those who do not live in this rarefied atmosphere of imperturbable and unassailable self-satisfaction-


Clarence Decatur Howe: My sentence was better than yours, anyway.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: -the Currie report does seem to us to be criticism. I am not going to go over the phrases that we know so well, but I want to remind you in passing, Mr. Chairman,-and here I am getting near dangerous ground, but not quite on it-that apart from a couple of negligible quibbles, there has not been a dent made in the Currie report.


Mr. Casselman:: They know it, too.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I think the ordinary person, not one of those people who are living in this rarefied atmosphere, but just the ordinary Joe, as we call him, would think that it would be reasonable when you found a state of gross-what shall we say- gross irregularity, gross inefficiency in the department, an attempt would be made to extend the examination. I would say that anyone outside of a kindergarten, or even inside a kindergarten, would think that was reasonable. And of course we all know that in a private business, if a department was found to be ineffective or inefficient and the manager did not move to have the whole business investigated, he would get the sack. It is just as simple as that. But to this government nothing is impossible, nothing unreasonable is impossible, and so there has been no inquiry. It was voted down.
I can only imagine the government hopes that memories are very short. It is their hope that before the 10th day of August, that magic date which is being bandied about by the Citizen and in other places, this will be forgotten.
I do want to make one reference to the Currie report, because in addition to the blistering criticism of the department's administration, Mr. Currie makes one statement which I think is so far-reaching and goes so much to the root of the matter that I want to read it, and I want to support it a little later on; and I do hope that it will be in order. I am watching awfully carefully, Mr. Chairman. At page 717 of Hansard of December last Mr. Currie, after his various detailed criticisms of what he found, goes on to what seems to me to be the basic criticism that he makes, which goes to the
[Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood) .1

very root of the matter and which personally I find very convincing, because I think it would be nothing short of a miracle if this organization could have been licked into satisfactory shape just by a sort of hit-or-miss method, and I have never been able to discover any other which has been used. This is what Mr. Currie says:
What is needed now is the creation of a system-
I want to repeat that:
What is needed now is the creation of a system-
It is not a modification or a little change here and there, but the creation of a system. -designed to fit the economic and efficient administration of a large and long-sustained preparedness program inside a national economy operating at full blast.
Now, Mr. Chairman, there you see a man who knows his onions. There is a man who knows something about the economy and what fitting this into the economy means, because he is at once a distinguished businessman and a distinguished public servant. They could not have found a man better qualified. The minister did a great public service when he got Mr. Currie to go into this a year ago. The only trouble is, having got him, and having got the medicine, they would not take it. I continue:-


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. I do not want to stop the hon. member from making references to the Currie report, but I bear in mind the fact that a debate took place upon it earlier in the session, and that later on when other measures came before the house His Honour the Speaker intervened. I should like to remind the hon. member of the ruling the Speaker made, which is to be found at page 2340 of Hansard, where he said:
The hon. member cannot refer to a previous debate on another subject during the present session, either directly or in quoting newspaper reports or speaking generally. It is improper for a member to refer to a previous debate, whether or not he uses the exact words which have been said.
It is my opinion that the debate on the Currie report should not be revived at this time.
That was during the budget debate during which, as the hon. member knows, considerable latitude is allowed. The Speaker continued:
That report, for consideration, was referred to a special committee of the house. Now, I do not intend to prevent a reference to the Currie report; but another debate on it at this time I am sure would not be in order.
It has been said that only part of the report has been referred to the committee, but that is not the point at issue at the moment. It is that before the hon. member carries on quoting further from the Currie report, and comments on it, I think I should bring to his attention this ruling and also one which had to do

with the extension of the inquiry, which was asked by the opposition and which was voted down by the house. Therefore, a decision of the house having been taken on that very subject, it should not be brought forward again.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, may I say with deference that we are now discussing the organization of the Department of National Defence. I am not reading from Hansard; I am reading from the Currie report which made an observation upon the organization of the department. There was only one short extract that I wanted to read. I submit that there is nothing more relevant in a discussion of the organization of the Department of National Defence than the suggestion made by a distinguished man engaged by the government to make recommendations. I just wish to be allowed to read briefly from those recommendations.


Louis-René Beaudoin: As I say, it is relevant; I did not stop the hon. member previously when he had made several references to it. He can carry on and make other references to it and I will not stop him. I have in mind the fact that if I allow the hon. member to discuss the Currie report at this time I shall have to allow other hon. members to do the same thing, and then we will not be discussing national defence estimates at all, but will be reviving a debate which took place a few weeks ago.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, I think you will And that I am not going to discuss the Currie report, but I should like to quote from it as follows:
This involves the abandonment, by all administrators of the program, of the war psychology with its emphasis on speed with resultant wastefulness and extravagance, and the substitution of an alert, economic and efficient operation flexibly designed, to be sure, to meet emergencies, but designed also to become a more or less permanent part of Canadian life and government.
It so happens that the Winnipeg Free Press has carried a series of articles by a man called S. M. I do not know who he is.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Shane MacKay.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I hope he is a good man. I should like to read briefly from this article because it is perfectly clear that I am not the only one who is troubled about this question of organization. This is from the Winnipeg Free Press of March 17, 1953:
Apart from the individual cases of deficiency brought to light by the Currie report, a study of the present organization of the Canadian army indicates the presence of a more fundamental problem in military administration.
Supply-National Defence
Mr. Currie's report implies that the breakdown in the army works services branch may have been the consequence of a more serious administrative shortcoming at defence headquarters.
I am going to be quite brief. The writer of these articles and finally the Winnipeg Free Press itself puts forward quite a definite thesis as to organization. I have no intention of supporting that thesis because I have not given the matter enough thought. I am raising this only to show that this question of organization is exercising other people, and to show that there is a great disturbance of minds as to whether or not our organization is sound. I should like to read from another of these articles where reference is made to the hon. member for Nanaimo and a reference by him to the National Defence Act which was approved in 1950. This article reads:
When the act was referred to a special committee of the House of Commons, General G. R. Pearkes, V.C., the Progressive Conservative for Nanaimo, commented on the wide powers it gave to the chief of the general staff.
I might interject here to say that the thesis of this writer, as far as I can make it out, is that the army chiefs have been given too much power. I continue to quote from the article which is quoting the hon. member for Nanaimo:
"Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether the committee is aware of the fact, but I think there is a bigger change here in so far as the army and the general administration of the staff are concerned than in any other section of the act. Here you are changing the whole system of the staff control of the army.
In the past you have had the general staff represented by the chief of the general staff, who has had the responsibility of co-ordinating the work of the other branches of the staff, the adjutant-general, the quartermaster-general and the master-general of ordnance.
Here you are placing the chief of the general staff in a position senior to the heads of the other branches, and that is really a major change which is going back almost to the system which was in vogue in 1904, when you had a commander-inchief of the army.
I shall go on now to make a few further brief remarks. I come back to the words used by Mr. Currie, "the creation of a system". This report was made by a competent man. Of course we thought that the inquiry should be extended, but it was not. I am not going to say anything about that, Mr. Chairman, because I see you shaking your head at me. But I think we might have expected that there would have been some indication in the minister's speech that somewhere there had been a stirring of the waters, that something was going to be done, that there was not complete satisfaction with the present situation. However, I could not detect anything of that kind in the minister's speech.

Supply-National Defence Maybe it was there, and it he can correct me on that I shall be only too glad to be corrected. I could not see that there was any recognition of the existence of the problem.
Since I may not mention the fact that we could not get the report extended you will realize that so far as we are concerned we feel that an iron curtain has been pulled down. If you cannot have an independent inquiry into what is going on you are faced with practically an iron curtain, as I said a little while ago. We have to go on in the dark to deal with such information as the minister sees fit to give us.
I want to be fair in this and say that we have been given quite a lot of information; but the question is, what kind of information? The information that we got is and is bound to be, shall I say, screened information. When I say "screened" I am not suggesting anything sinister-I want to be fair to the situation; but it is not the kind of information you get when you send in your own representative, when you send in an independent person to inspect. It is suggested to me that it is edited information. In one sense it is.
I have talked long enough and you have been most patient with me, for which I am grateful. I just want to say that the situation is unsatisfactory. It is perfectly clear that at the moment the defence of Canada is in a most unsatisfactory state. The minister used a phrase which at one time was used a great deal, that the sound thing is to defend your country as far away from your country as possible. But that remark would be valid only before the days of global aircraft. I am not sure, but I think that phrase was used first of all by the Australians in Africa, who said that they went to Africa because they preferred to defend Australia there.
As the hon. member for Nanaimo said, what is the use of saying that, unless you can get the enemy to agree to fight it out, say, in the Falkland islands? We know that at the present time the situation is unsatisfactory and there is no use of having any make-up about it. I can only hope that as a result of this debate and other means of enlightenment the people of Canada will wake up to the situation. If they do I am quite sure they will find it to be most unsatisfactory.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Mr. Chairman, it is rather late in the evening-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Francis Higgins: -and looking around the house I see that most people are fairly quiet.


I do not think there is going to be much interrupting. I am not going to say anything that is going to provoke people very much.
I want to talk about the silent service. It has not been talked about very much and it talks very little for itself. There is very little about it in the minister's white paper, very little in the minister's article that the hon. member for Nanaimo quoted, very little in Hansard of yesterday, and very little in the minister's speech of today. But because Canada is the type of country that will always require a navy, and because I come from that part of Canada which has been associated with the navy for so many years, I am going to take a little bit on my back and speak for a short time about the navy this evening. I am basing what I have to say, before I quote what I have to quote, on an article written by the chief of the naval staff, the present Vice-Admiral Mainguy.
When I first knew Vice-Admiral Mainguy in St. John's, Newfoundland, in the last war he was then known as Captain D, and he was the person responsible for the establishment of what has become in naval circles, and almost internationally, a very well known place, the Crows' Nest in St. John's, Newfoundland. Possibly some hon. members remember when they were on escort duty in the bad days of the last war and came back from England or Ireland to Newfoundland. After that particular patrol you went to the Crows' Nest to get a little bit of sustenance, not only the sustenance that you took there but the sustenance that you got in the form of good fellowship. As I say, the Crows' Nest has become more or less an international place for naval people, particularly of the Royal Navy, the Royal Canadian Navy and, as we knew it in wartime, the wavy navy of Canada. St. John's, Newfoundland, was indeed a very honoured place in those days because of the great number of ships that called there and because of the very real pleasure the navy extended to the residents of St. John's which they were happy to reciprocate in kind.
With that preamble I want to quote rather extensively, because it has not been quoted and I think it should be-the navy does not usually talk very much-from an article by the chief of the naval staff, Vice-Admiral Mainguy, in the last edition of Canadian Shipping and Marine Engineering News. It is the Royal Canadian Navy issue, and the article deals chiefly with submarines. I trust that I will be excused for putting it on the record. I think it is worth while having. It is not too long and it is quite important, at least to me.

At page 83 of the magazine there is the following in Vice-Admiral Mainguy's article:
A good deal has been said and written during the past few years on the subject of the R.C.N.'s chief potential antagonist, the modern submarine, but the fact remains that only a few have any clear understanding of its real, and considerable, destructive power. This should be as well known to every Canadian as it is to those who might seek to use it against us, for it is among the gravest threats that we may have to face as a nation should we become involved in yet another great destructive war.
In appearance the post-war model submarine is not vastly different from its sufficiently troublesome predecessors. In performance it is in many respects an entirely different vessel, with some rather alarming characteristics and possibilities. In the first place, its underwater speed is approximately double that which could be attained by the U-boats of the second world war. Secondly, the depth to which the submarine can dive is steadily increasing. This makes it harder to detect and increases its chances of escape even if detected.
Then he talks about the German apparatus which we knew as the snorkel but which he calls the "snort". He says that with the snort installed this submarine of the modern age can now stay down for a matter of weeks. He says that the modern submarine has a range of 5,000 miles, and carries torpedoes whose range may now be calculated in miles and which are equipped with targetfinding devices which have increased their effectiveness most seriously. He goes on and enlarges upon the fact that the submarine with its new potential killing apparatus is an infinitely more dangerous weapon than ever before. Then he says:
The submarine Is thus faster, harder to catch, harder to kill and possessed of greater destructive power than at any time in the past. What is more, it can be built in quantity. The U.S.S.R. has today some five or six times as many submarines as the Germans had in 1939, and is certainly building many more of advanced types. The present fleet is actually about the size of that possessed by Germany at the zenith of success in the last war. There is every indication that it will continue to grow.
I am by no means competent to evaluate properly the findings of the chief of the naval staff except as an ordinary common-sense individual reading common-sense language. The Minister of Fisheries may say that I cannot write too well, but I can read better than I can write.


Mr. Graydon:: He needs glasses.


Gordon Francis Higgins: It does appear to me that the new submarine is a threat that we cannot afford to ignore in any way. I believe the only way-and again I speak subject to correction by persons who are very much more advanced in knowledge of this particular subject than I am-that you can possibly handle submarines is by the co-ordination of aircraft and surface vessels. There are two
Supply-National Defence particular factors to which I want to direct my remarks in the time left to me tonight, the aircraft and the surface craft that Canada now has.
Before I proceed to deal with the aircraft situation, may I say that I am somewhat confused by the statement made by the chief of the naval staff as to the ships now under construction, by the white paper issued by the minister and by the minister's statement in Hansard. I shall tell the minister the particular parts about which I have a little doubt so I will not confuse him any more than I am. For instance, in the table that the chief of the naval staff has in his article he shows the Royal Canadian Navy's construction and conversion program. Under the heading "New Construction" there are fourteen anti-submarine escort vessels, with nine under construction, three of them launched and five more to be laid down in the near future. You will note he says that three of them are launched. After all, a ship is a ship. It does not disappear. It does not suddenly get itself born again. He says that three of them have been launched.
At page 25 of the minister's white paper, paragraph 130, the statement is made that two escort vessels have now been launched and nine keels have been laid. Either there is a misprint in one statement or the other or the minister is wrong or the chief of the naval staff is wrong. Obviously somebody is out a ship.


Brooke Claxton: Or the dates are different.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Well, yes; I suppose the dates could be different. The minister's statement is dated-what date is it, actually? I presume it is dated the day he tabled it.


Douglas Scott Harkness: He tabled it the day before yesterday.


Gordon Francis Higgins: This particular issue of the magazine is dated March, 1953. Perhaps there was a ship launched-or not launched -within the past seven or eight days. There could be, I suppose. The chief of the naval staff says, as I say, that there are three; and the minister in his statement says there are two. Maybe there was a ship launched in the past week that the minister did not know about. I suppose that could be, but I would think it unlikely.


Brooke Claxton: I said there were three, tonight.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Then the white paper is wrong?


Brooke Claxton: It is a little out of date.


Gordon Francis Higgins: When was this printed?

Supply-National Defence


Douglas Scott Harkness: It was tabled the day before yesterday.


Gordon Francis Higgins: How much more is wrong in this?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Most of it is wrong.


Gordon Francis Higgins: This is a rather extraordinary situation.


Mr. Cleaver:: Why?


Gordon Francis Higgins: I will tell you why, and I am just giving it to you as I see it. Your hon. members may be used to it, but I accepted this thing as a statement of fact.


An hon. Member:: You are naive.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I agree that may be so. I thought everything that was in this was absolutely correct; but do you mean to say this is not correct?


Brooke Claxton: Correct as of the date when it was prepared.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I do not want to provoke things at this hour of the evening, Mr. Chairman, but would the minister say when this was prepared?


Brooke Claxton: I would have to look at the passage and trace it back.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Would you look at it?


Brooke Claxton: Sure.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Would you do it now? Have you got it there?


An hon. Member:: He is going to answer you.


Brooke Claxton: Sure.


Gordon Francis Higgins: It is paragraph 130 and it says:
Two escort vessels have now been launched and nine keels have been laid.
The minister says that is not correct. Well, what is the correct situation, and when was the correction made? Before I go on could I have that answer?


Brooke Claxton: Yes.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Do you mean to answer it now?


Brooke Claxton: No, I will answer it tomorrow.


Gordon Francis Higgins: All right.


An hon. Member:: They are going to lay another keel tomorrow.


Mr. Lapoinie:: Are you lost, Gordon?


Gordon Francis Higgins: There are a couple more what appear to be errors that the minister could explain.


An hon. Member:: Only'five minutes to kill.
Mr. Higgins.]


Gordon Francis Higgins: I have not any five minutes to kill.


Hughes Cleaver: Four and a half.


Gordon Francis Higgins: If hon. members would only give me their attention I might be able to gather my wits together. All right; in paragraph 131 we have this particular sentence:


Mr. Lapointe:: Who found that for you?


Gordon Francis Higgins: It reads:
Three additional destroyers, nine "Bangor" class minesweepers . . .
-and I had better finish the sentence-
-two diesel minesweepers and fifteen frigates are expected to complete conversion refits during 1953.
Vice-Admiral Mainguy says: Minesweepers, "Bangor," ten complete, ten others under modernization. There is a very definite difference; and I think I am reading it correctly now.


Hughes Cleaver: Just two minutes now.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Does the hon. member want to time me?


Jean Lesage: We are helping you.


Douglas Scott Harkness: On a question of privilege, hon. members on the Liberal side seem to be implying by their constant interjections about time, and so forth, that the hon. member is trying to kill five minutes-


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, my question of privilege covers the fact that I have four pages of notes on which I will speak at considerable length as a result of the speech the minister made. I should say that will take me 15 or 20 minutes, so there is no question of killing time or anything else.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I submit that is not a question of privilege.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Well, I have a question of privilege.


Jean Lesage: You are getting a lot of help.


Edmund Davie Fulton: My question of privilege is that we are discussing here the estimates of the Department of National Defence. It is my understanding that, according to the rules of the house, the minister is bound to answer questions which are put to him.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is a perfectly good question of privilege.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, I want to listen to the hon. member for St. John's East, but the hon. member for Calgary East and the hon. member for Kamloops prevent me from listening to him.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Someone suggests that time will be killed. Perhaps I should kill it myself and therefore settle the argument.
The point I want to bring forward is that last year and two years ago when we studied the estimates of the Department of National Defence there was an agreed procedure, which we are following this year. It is that first of all we have a general policy discussion and, as soon as that is over, we carry on with the question and answer period. I think we are still at the general policy discussion period.


Brooke Claxton: May I help the hon. member for St. John's East out of his difficulty by taking up the remaining time-


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, no, no, Mr. Chairman.


Hughes Cleaver: Held over.


Brooke Claxton: The date in the white paper for ships and such matters is up to February 28, or some date in February. The paper was set up in proof form but dates and figures were changed as they came in, particularly regarding manpower. Subsequent to the insertion of the figure of two ships launched, shown there as at the month of February, there was one ship launched. Hence my statement today. Admiral Mainguy's statement in the publication from which you are reading, and the statement in the white paper are all correct.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman-


Louis-René Beaudoin: May I ask the Minister of National Defence not to imply-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Louis-René Beaudoin: -that perhaps the hon. member for St. John's East had in his mind to kill time. Also, I would not want anything I said myself, when I made a remark in a light vein, to be construed to the effect that the hon. member was trying to kill time.


Gordon Graydon: The clock has let you all out.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Before you call it ten o'clock, I think the minister should withdraw that remark.


Jean-François Pouliot: You will agree, sir, that it is easier to kill time than it is to kill the minister.
Supply-National Defence


Douglas Scott Harkness: I would like the minister to withdraw the remark that the hon. member was killing time.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I am glad to see that at this closing hour hon. members are still in a very good mood. I might tell the hon. member for Calgary East that under the rules the implication which was perhaps in the minister's remark is not offensive and I do not think I should ask him to withdraw. Might I make the suggestion that no implication should be left of accusing an hon. member of trying to kill time. The minister has nodded his head in agreement with me. That nod will not appear on Hansard but my explanations will clear up the situation, and I think that will satisfy the hon. member.


Gordon Francis Higgins: May I make a suggestion? I realize that the minister has been under a bit of cross-heckling today, if you will, and I am quite certain that he did not mean the remark he made. Even if he did it would be understandable. I was really not trying to kill time, but I was pressing the point I was trying to make, and I will make it tomorrow, maybe.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we shall take up the second reading of Bill No. 334, an act to provide for the superannuation of persons employed in the public service of Canada. After second reading this bill will be referred immediately to the committee on banking and commerce. I should like to see the bill reach that stage, because the Minister of Finance will be absent for a week and we shall have time to make a serious study of this bill in the committee. Then we shall take up the estimates of national defence and trade and commerce.


Donald Methuen Fleming: In that order?


Alphonse Fournier: In that order.


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


Thursday, April 16, 1953