1953-04-14

CANADA SHIPPING ACT


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, in connection with
reports tabled on February 4, 1953, indicating cases in which ships were exempted, under the provisions of section 133A of the Canada Shipping Act, 1934, from the obligation of carrying certificated masters, mates and engineers during the past year, I beg leave to table a supplementary report for the month of December, 1952. These exemptions were granted by the steamship inspector in Europe, and his report was not made until his recent return to Canada.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I beg to table parliamentary return No. 178, mover Mr. Robichaud:	How
many persons received unemployment insurance cheques in each month and in each county of the province of New Brunswick during the years 1949, 1950, 1951 and 1952?
I might add a word of explanation by saying that we do not keep the record exactly for counties. This return gives the information as near to that as possible.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Hon. Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the interest that has been taken in the matter, I think the house might be interested in a brief statement on the selection of the town-site of Gagetown. This has reference to a question by the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) and is in consequence of other representations.
It was announced on November 15, 1952, that following a thorough investigation by a group of six independent engineers and architects, it had been decided to construct the permanent installations of the army divisional training camp at Gagetown, New Brunswick, in the vicinity of the town of
Oromocto, this site being the most practical under the circumstances. A further announcement on December 3,	1952, gave the
eleven conclusions reached by the six independent engineers and architects following their investigation, which formed the basis of their recommendation of the Oromocto site. Their decision was based on such factors as general topography and soil condition, capacity for expansion and development, water supply, supply of electric power, railway facilities, the proximity of airport facilities and the accessibility of both the main training area and local ranges. Following the announcement of that decision, a delegation of citizens from Saint John, New Brunswick, met with the Minister of National Defence and made representation that the matter should be reconsidered. As a consequence, representatives of the citizens of Saint John, the Department of National Defence and the consulting engineers, met last week at Saint John and visited the alternative Westfield site. When the detailed military requirements were related to the ground in the Westfield area it was decided that it would be more satisfactory and more economical to develop the Oromocto site and the decision announced on November 15, 1952, has consequently been affirmed.


Mr. Brooks:: When does the minister
expect this construction will be started?


Brooke Claxton: A considerable amount of
preliminary engineering has been done already and will be pressed forward. Construction will be started just as soon as the plans can be related to the engineers' investigations. It will certainly be within a matter of weeks or months.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I take it that the preliminary
engineering work was done before it was decided where the site would be?


Brooke Claxton: It was begun and partly
completed. It was stopped and now it will be pressed on.


Mr. Fleming:: Will the minister make available to the house the reports of the engineers?


Brooke Claxton: It is not the kind of report
which is usually made available because it is intended for the confidential information of the minister in order to arrive at a decision. In view of the fact that two reports have
3804	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry been made I shall certainly give consideration to the hon. member's request.



WATER POWER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jean Francois Pouliot (Temiscouala):: May I ask the Minister of National Defence if he is the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs in the absence of the minister?


Brooke Claxton: Yes.


Jean-François Pouliot: Will he be kind enough to table this week a copy of the report made by the international joint commission at Washington with regard to the development of hydroelectric power on the Saint John river?


Brooke Claxton: I shall be very
glad to look into that and if the report is available and should be tabled I will be glad to table it.



FERRY SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. A. M. Kirk (Digby-Yarmouth):: May I ask the Minister of Transport if he is now in a position to give the house a copy of the report concerning the progress of the proposed Yarmouth-Bar Harbor ferry project.


Lionel Chevrier: I am sorry but I am not in a position to do that. If the hon. member will allow me to take his question as notice perhaps I can answer it tomorrow.



THE CORONATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: Is the
Prime Minister aware that no member of the Canadian Indian race, the original inhabitants of this country, is to attend the coronation? Will the government give consideration to sending a suitable representative in full Indian regalia? I think this would be more interesting to those attending the coronation than any of our officials in their regalia.


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: In answer to the first part of the
hon. member's question, may I say that I am not aware of all those who are to attend the coronation. In answer to his second question,
IMr. Claxton.]

may I say that as it has now been asked publicly, no doubt it will come to the notice of the coronation committee.



REPORTED EMBARGO BY UNITED STATES AGAINST OATS AND FEEDS  DAIRY PRODUCTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Cenlre):: should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister based on a report in today's press that the secretary of agriculture of the United States has announced that the administration is studying an embargo against Canadian oats and feeds. Can he state whether representations are being made to the United States protesting against such action? Also whether protests have been made regarding the embargo placed some time ago on certain Canadian dairy products, and whether a reply has been received officially from the United States government?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The hon. member did not consider it necessary to give me notice of this question. In fact I shall have to make inquiries before I can give him a proper answer.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. J. Browne (St. John's West):: Can
the Minister of Fisheries state when the report of the joint committee on the fisheries of Newfoundland will be released? I understand it is at the printer's.


Hon. James Sinclair (Minister of Fisheries):: The department received a wire this morning from Newfoundland saying that copies will be air-mailed to the government today.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. Earl Catherwood (Haldimand):: I
should like to direct two questions to the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the government received any representations from the government of Pakistan asking for a loan to finance the purchase of wheat from Canada, and also would the minister state whether any immediate or recent shipments have been or are being made under the 1952-53 Colombo plan agreement with that country?


Brooke Claxton: The hon. member was good enough to give me notice of his questions and I can answer both of them now.
In autumn of last year there were some discussions concerning the possibility of credit arrangements to assist the Pakistan government in financing wheat purchases from Canada. At that time it was concluded that, within the limits of existing legislation, the only practicable form of assistance would be the use of some part of the funds made available by Canada under the Colombo plan on a grant or loan basis. In February of this year the Pakistan government requested that Canada's contribution to Pakistan under the Colombo plan for 1952-53 should take the form of wheat. As announced on February 24, the Canadian government agreed to the allocation of $5 million of Colombo plan funds for this purpose. Shipments of wheat financed from this grant are scheduled to take place between mid-April and mid-May. The first vessels are now loading.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL REVENUE Customs and excise divisions-*
294. General administration, $2,177,924.
Item stands.


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT
[Stage Direction]
302. Departmental administration, $1,159,011.
Item stands.

[Stage Direction]
511. Departmental administration, $2,130,643.
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 68108-241
Supply-National Defence 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.
Brooke Claxton: Mr. Chairman, as there has been distributed to hon. members a white paper on Canada's defence program for 1953-54 which gives very full information about the program for the current fiscal year, it is not my intention to go into the same facts and figures or to endeavour to cover the same ground.
When we consider the defence program of any country we must realize that its purpose is to produce armed forces. It will be judged by the quantity, quality, selection, training, equipment and leadership of the forces, whether they be in the navy, army or air force and whether they be active or reserve. In the last resort the quality of the forces of any country is tried and tested and proved in battle, and during peacetime in exercises and training operations. So that it seems to us that it is important to keep always in the forefront of our minds the fact that while here in parliament we.are dealing with dollars and cents and in the department often we are dealing with plans and programs, contract demands and requisitions, orders and regulations; but the object of it all is the young man with a rifle and his ability to use it as part of a trained, equipped formation. We should, I submit, in appraising and appreciating what has been done in the way of defence, examine the results, and those results can be seen today in far-off Korea or in Germany or in the various training exercises that have taken place in Canada and elsewhere.
For the first time in peacetime our defence forces, navy, army and air force, have achieved a total of over 104,000, and of those there are officers and men of the Royal Canadian Navy in three destroyers constantly on duty, on patrol and in action in the Far East. That has been the case ever since July, 1950. In the course of their operations these ships have sailed a total of 720,000 miles. They have engaged in action and in activities on a scale far above anything experienced by similar vessels in the second world war, and they have shown that if you can judge the quality of the Royal Canadian Navy by their performance there is not much wrong with the Royal Canadian Navy.
At the same time officers and men of the 25th infantry brigade have been in action in Korea. While the strength of the brigade, as is well known, is about 6,000, altogether over 20,000 officers and men have fought with the brigade in Korea. We have followed the practice of rotating men who have been
3806	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence in service there for a year and it has been possible to maintain the practice of rotation. In the course of it, and to replace those wounded now totalling some 1,300, or others who have had to leave the field of battle by reason of illness, it has taken a total of about 20,000 officers and men.
The third battalions of the Royal Canadian Regiment, the Princess Patricia's and the "Van Doos" have left for Korea to begin the third term of rotation. When the United Nations began this international police operation no one anticipated that it would go on for three years. As the Hon. Frank Pace, Jr., former United States secretary of the army, declared before a committee of congress just ten days ago, no one anticipated it; and yet day in and day out there have been Canadians on that front showing that they are as good as any force fighting there.
Simultaneously squadron No. 426 of the Royal Canadian Air Force has been carrying on an airlift to the Far East supplemented by Canadian Pacific Air Lines, both flying North Star aircraft produced by Canadair Limited, and the two services working in close harmony have produced a record of over 900 round trips for a total of close to 12 million miles of successful travel without loss or injury, a record unequalled.
At the same time at the other side of the world we have been building up our forces in Europe, and in the army have contributed the 27th Canadian infantry brigade to the forces under the command of the supreme allied commander in Europe. That completes our army commitment to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Our forces have been there since the target date of November, 1951. In accordance with the procedure decided upon, some 1,913 married men have returned on rotation at the end of a year's service. The force has been maintained and is among those forces on the western front trained and equipped so that it could enter battle at an hour's notice. It also has earned a good record for itself and for Canadian arms.
We have sent abroad a wing of three squadrons of Sabre fighters which are now stationed at North Luffenham, England, and form an important, yes, an important part of the defences of the north Atlantic area in England. They were followed by a second wing in a remarkable operation called "Operation Leapfrog" when all the aircraft of the second wing were flown across by their own pilots to take up their station at Grostenquin, France. A third wing is on the way over and is arriving at Zweibrucken in the French zone of Germany. When I visit it for the first time next week I expect to hand it over to the control of SHAPE and complete


three-quarters of our air force commitment on the target date.
A fourth wing is now being formed in Canada with officers and men joining their squadrons and being equipped with Sabre fighters as they come off the lines and are tested. That wing will leave for overseas later this year to complete the formation of our air division of twelve squadrons of Sabre fighters plus a divisional headquarters, plus a repair depot and the other supporting units, which will complete our air commitment to NATO right on the target date.
Simultaneously our navy has been building up its strength and we have supplied to the forces under SACLANT, the supreme allied commander in the Atlantic, North Atlantic Treaty Organization, all the ships we have promised up to date. We expect to comply with our commitment for the current fiscal year of 1953-54; and, subject to a possible exception which I will mention later, we expect to complete our naval commitment to the North Atlantic treaty on the target date.
At one and the same time we have been discharging our obligations as one of the United Nations in an effort to stop aggression in Korea and, as one of the North Atlantic treaty nations, to build up our forces in Europe so that they, with those of our allies, may form a rampart of peace and preserve our security by being sufficiently strong to indicate to the only potential enemy that he cannot win.
That operation has gone on over a period of less than three years. It is important that hon. members should appreciate that fact. The act of aggression which changed the thinking of the western world took place on June 25, 1950, and the plan under which we began to build up our forces in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was first approved at Washington in October, 1950. In other words, in less than three years Canada, like the other western nations, has built up its strength very substantially indeed.
Now, Mr. Chairman, the plan on which we have been proceeding was announced by me in the house on February 5, 1951. On that occasion I announced that we were embarking on a three-year plan which it was then estimated would cost $5 billion. It was a three-year plan because that was the period which had been agreed to by the North Atlantic treaty nations as being suitable for planning purposes; and the object at that time was to build up our forces collectively so that we would arrive at the strengths that were fixed from time to time by June 30, 1954. Since then, of course, there have been delays in all countries-

delays in construction and the production of equipment, delays sometimes due to financial or economic reasons, and delays contributed to considerably by the continuation of hostilities in Korea and in other parts of the world. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization recognizes this situation and uses a new word "slippage" to describe it.
There has been some slippage and, generally speaking, the date now fixed as the target for the achievement of the program as revised from time to time is June 30, 1955. As I say, having completed our army commitment already, having every expectation of completing our air force commitment this year, and having completed our navy commitment up to date and expecting to do so for the next year, we expect to complete our planned program, subject to one or two exceptions which I will mention later, by the date originally indicated-by June 30,
1954.
As we go on, some countries will give consideration to a deliberate stretch-out of their programs in order to keep production lines in operation. Rather than accumulate large stockpiles of equipment such as ships, aircraft, guns and ammunition over and above what appears to be immediately required, and over and above reasonable reserves, participating countries will wish to keep items of that kind in production to maintain production lines and keep up productive capacity, rather than to stockpile and close them down. However, in Canada we have not started to do that. The only deliberate stretch-out that we have had has been in connection with the production of the CF-100 and the F-86E aircraft, both of which we deliberately delayed in order to begin production of later types at the earliest possible dates. Neither of those stretch-outs will affect our ultimate position.
I think, Mr. Chairman, that it would be of some convenience to hon. members if we looked at this three-year program and saw how much of it had been achieved and how much it has cost. We can do that now because two of the three years have passed. We have the actual expenditures for the year 1951-52, we have an estimate of the expenditures for the year 1952-53 which has just been completed, but it is likely to be an accurate estimate as it is on the basis of eleven months' experience and a projection for the rest of the fiscal year. Also, we have before us the estimates which we are now discussing for the year 1953-54. The figures which I will give you are divided under the heads which are customary in 68108-2411
Supply-National Defence NATO and which are used in the table appearing in the white paper at page 37. The heads are: Military personnel costs; procurement of equipment; construction; operations and maintenance.
We have expended or will expend during the period 1951-54 a total of $1,164 million on military personnel. That has been the cost of maintaining-paying, feeding and clothing our forces in the navy, army and air force during that period. The total strengths as at April 1, 1953, on the basis of the last figures available but which are subject to correction, are: 15,546 for the navy; 48,458 for the army; 40,482 for the air force; or a total of 104,486 in the active force, and 5,325 for the navy; 47,318 for the army; and 5,760 for the air force; or a total of 58,403 in the reserve force.
There has been some talk about the cost of a man in the armed forces for a year, so I will give the actual figure for the cost of another rank for his initial year on joining the armed forces. The cost is $2,251 per year based on figures most lately determined, without travel or transportation but covering items of pay and allowances, subsistence, clothing, medical and dental services, and pension. That figure is broken down as follows: Pay and allowances $1,135; subsistence, $732; maintenance of clothing and personal equipment, $136; medical and dental service, $43; government contribution to the pension fund, $205; for the total I mentioned of $2,251. Now, for all other ranks for the same period, giving proper weight to the number of men in each grade and pay group, the average cost is $3,023 per year. If we take the average for all three services, for all officers and men, again weighted so as to give the proper weight to the number of officers, their ranks and so on, with the N.C.O.'s and men, the figure is $3,411. The comparable figure for 1949 was $2,975. The comparable figure for all other ranks in 1949 was $2,573, whereas it is $3,023 today, the difference being largely represented by increases in pay and some increases in the cost of living reflected in the items I have mentioned. A comparable figure for all civil servants in the civil service is $2,526. If we take all the civil servants, exclusive of prevailing rate employees and casual labour, their average salary is $2,526, and that compares with the figure for the armed forces of $3,023. They are not very far apart, having regard to the different functions that they perform.
Now, of the members of the armed forces, 43 per cent are married today. This has led us, of course, to the necessity for establishing campsites with married quarters, chapels,

Supply-National Defence schools, stores and all the other amenities of the average civilian community. For example, today the Department of National Defence operates 40 schools for the children of serving personnel, and in those schools there are close to 10,000 children and about 400 teachers, all working in accordance with and under.the provincial educational systems. In the armed forces today we have, largely in the R.C.A.F., 3,200 women who are included in the figures I mentioned above.
Turning to the category of officers, which is of great importance, we have in training today for the active and reserve forces a total of 7,957 men, of whom 4,612 are at the universities. During this last fiscal year we made two major changes in the provisions for the training of officers. The first was the establishment in September, 1952, of the College Militaire Royal de Saint-Jean, at Saint-Jean, Quebec. I should like to say a word about that institution, which was started in September, 1952, some three months after it had been decided to establish it there. The response, both from the Frenchspeaking and from English-speaking candidates, was very good indeed. The number originally intended to be taken in in the first year of 100 had to be increased to the maximum capacity we could handle, 125. Of the 125, some 78 were of French-speaking origin and the balance were of Englishspeaking origin. In view of the experience of the last six months it can be said that this college, which was certainly new in military training arrangements in this country and in most others, has already proven itself to be a substantial success. The candidates of the two languages mix and work together, and virtually all of them now speak both languages. These men will constitute an important pool of officers of great value, particularly today when the nations of the world are intermingling more freely.
Another important thing is that of the 123 candidates now in attendance, all except 7, if my memory serves me correctly, have signed on with the regular forces and consequently after they graduate from Saint-Jean, and possibly R.M.C., will enter the regular forces, if they qualify, and serve for three years. More and more, we are looking to the graduates who enter the three services colleges of Saint-Jean, R.M.C. and Royal Roads, to be of a category who will sign on for a minimum of three years' service with the regular forces. The balance will serve with the reserve forces.
This brings me to an announcement I should like to make for the first time today. So great has been the success of Saint-Jean, and so desirable is it that this operation in military training as well as in national unity should

be extended, we are going to make provision for a total strength of 400 cadets.
The second development of major proportions made during the year in the training of officers was the establishment of the regular officers training plan, under which cadets at R.M.C., Royal Roads, Saint-Jean or any one of the university plans, may sign on at any stage of his course and receive tuition, subsistence, clothing and so on, and serve as a subordinate officer taking the summer courses, conditional upon his agreement to serve with the regular forces for three years after graduation. It is too early to say what the results of these various devices will be, but our expectation is that, by one means or another, through the services colleges, through the universities or through direct entry on short-service commission basis, we will be able to meet all the requirements to replace the wastage of officers which it is estimated will be of the magnitude of 1,500 from 1954 on. This applies now for the first time, I am glad to say, to doctors and some other officers requiring professional qualifications. Hon. members may recall that I reported earlier that we were short, and we expected to remain short, of doctors. However, owing to improvements in the arrangements we have made, and also to our having recruited a certain number of doctors in the British Isles, the situation is such now that we believe we will have enough doctors, dentists and most other professional personnel to fill all requirements as they arise,
Turning from the question of personnel to that of equipment, I may say that in 1951-54 we have spent or will have spent a total of $2,102 million on equipment. Main items of equipment include ships, of which we now have some 52 on order, of types varying from the aircraft carrier H.M.C.S. Bonaventure which is being built for us on the other side to replace the Magnificent, or the arctic patrol vessel the Labrador, or the escort vessels and minesweepers down to gate vessels. We expect to be behind in the program with regard to the construction of anti-submarine escort vessels. This is accounted for partly by the fact that these are ships of an entirely new type never before built here or anywhere else. We had delays in procuring steel, component parts and machine tools from other countries. The ships are so complicated that the engineering-particularly the electrical engineering-took more time than we had engineers to do the work. I anticipate that there will be some delay with others of these ships as they come off. I also anticipate that they will still be well ahead of any corresponding vessels being made by any other country because we got started on this operation well in advance of the others.

Another major item of equipment is aircraft. It may be remembered that in 1951, in my statement then, I announced that we would require a total of over 3,000 new aircraft. We expect to have by the end of the current fiscal year over 2,000 of those; and we will complete the balance of the planned figure, which is considerably above 3,000 of new aircraft, early in 1955. 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. The delay in finishing our own aircraft program will not delay our ful-fulling our commitments to NATO and will not delay beyond the target dates the buildup of our own air force for the defence of Canada, but it will delay the re-equipment of auxiliary squadrons with CF-lOO's and the provision of reserve aircraft.
With regard to weapons such as guns, we have had a large program under way; and here again we expect, for the reasons I have stated, that we shall not be able to complete the whole by March 31 or June 30, 1954, but we should be able to comply with our commitments. The same thing applies to ammunition. Apart from these items we expect that our production of equipment will meet all our requirements. The figures before hon. members already reflect some reduction, as we have completed the program for the stockpiling of a large part of what are called "soft goods" such as clothing and barrack stores.
The next major head of expenditure is construction. Between 1951 and 1954 we have spent or shall have spent a total of $665 million. Between April 1, 1952, and February 28, 1953-that is in the first eleven months of the fiscal year just completed- orders were placed bringing the total value of contracts under administration to $358,398,000, on 1,048 major construction projects plus a larger number of minor ones. Hon. members may appreciate how large an operation this has been when I tell them that during the year 1940-41 we spent on construction a total of $92 million and, during the wartime peak, a total of $152 million

that was in the year 1943-44-whereas at the present time we are administering contracts for a total of $358 million, more than twice the wartime peak. Included in the construction have been buildings for operations, research laboratories, barrack blocks, cookhouses and all the others but, in addition, some 16,550 permanent married quarters which, with the temporary married quarters that we have, make a total of about 20,000 married quarters. We shall still have to continue the married quarters program. The construction program has passed its peak, and this has resulted this
Supply-National Defence year in a lower appropriation for construction, and we believe this figure will be still further reduced next year.
The fourth major head is operations and maintenance. That means the oil and fuel and the repair work necessary to maintain the forces and to enable them to carry on their operations. For the years 1951 to 1954 the total spent or expected to be spent under these heads is $1,301 million.
To summarize these items of cost for the years 1951-54 as actually spent or estimated: personnel, $1,164 million; equipment, $2,102 million; construction, $665 million; operation and maintenance, $1,302 million: or a total of $5,233 million. In addition the excess of credits to the replacement account over expenditures therefrom within this period of $35 million brings the total to $5,268 million. That is on account of the program, announced on February 5, 1951, of $5 billion. It represents an expenditure of 5 per cent over the estimate; but, as I have indicated, there will be some additional expenditures carried into 1954-55 owing to delays in production to which I have referred.
This total includes the amount of $680 million spent or expected to be spent during the period on mutual aid. In the white paper, at page 33, hon. members will see outlined all the expenditures made up to date on mutual aid. They run back to a year before the 1951 period to which I have just referred, and up to March 31, 1953, they total $551,800,000. In addition, in the estimates put before hon. members, there is provided a total of $324 million.
These figures represent, of course, large sums; and the magnitude of the operation that this has involved for the various government departments concerned can be appreciated by one or two comparisons. A large part of the moneys appropriated for national defence is not spent by the Department of National Defence itself. The spending is administered by the Department of Defence Production, in the procurement of equipment; by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, in the provision of married quarters; by Defence Construction Limited, in the provision of other buildings; by the Department of Transport in the acquisition of land and in the construction and lengthening of runways. Altogether, during the fiscal year 1952-53 this operation has involved the placing of a total of 151,000 contracts. We have spent on what might be called capital account-that is, for construction and equipment: $2,102 million on equipment and $665 million on construction- making a total of $2,767 million which we have spent or will have spent between 1951 and 1954.
3810	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence
And a great deal of the construction and equipment represented by that expenditure already exists. It is placed on the ground- equipment is on issue or in store, except for such portions as might have been used up either in action or in training.
This total of $2,767 million may be compared with expenditures on comparable account by the Canadian National Railways. The Canadian National Railways came into existence in 1923, and in those thirty years spent on corresponding accounts a total of $1,341 million. Or, in other words, the Department of National Defence, through the agencies I have mentioned, in the performance of its program will have spent twice as much in one-tenth of the time.
Then, if we take another great Canadian corporation well known to all hon. members, the Shawinigan Water and Power Company, which has built an industrial empire along the St. Maurice river, we find that in the fifty-five years of its existence it has spent on comparable accounts something under $300 million. I mention this only to indicate the scale and the magnitude of what has been involved in bringing our forces and their equipment up to their present state.
During that time the number of men has increased from 47,000 to 104,000, an increase of 120 per cent. But the increase in fighting capacity, in the elements of the three services that can properly be called operational, is far greater in proportion than the increase in the total strength of officers and men.
For example, in the navy during this period the number of ships in active operation has increased from 23 to 56, the present number. And we expect the target set in 1951, of 100 operational ships by 1954, will be met.
In the army, where we had six major operational units before Korea, including the Royal Canadian Regiment, the Princess Patricia's, the "Van Doos", the Lord Strath-cona's, the Royal Canadian Dragoons and a regiment of artillery, today we have 26 major operational units, including those in Korea in the 25th brigade, and those in Germany in the 27th brigade. They constitute the major units for an equivalent of two divisions.
In the air force the increase has been even more substantial, because during this period we have added nine squadrons of Sabre fighters, and have begun the organization of the first squadron of CF-lOO's. Of the total objective of some 41 squadrons we have now achieved the formation of 31. The proportion of administrative and training troops to that of operational troops in organized formations of the R.C.A.F. will stand comparison, and I may say favourable comparison, with those of any other country.


At the end of the program announced in 1951 I outlined fifteen points as our target for 1954. In the course of my remarks I have tried in a general way to deal with what has been achieved under each of those fifteen points. I shall now set out those points, and indicate what has happened in respect of each of those goals:
In the navy-
1.	Nearly 100 ships and many small craft, either new or refitted and newly armed.
Today we have 56, and we expect to achieve the target.
2.	Permanent seaward defence of vital harbours.
These are under construction, and we expect they will be completed by the target date.
3.	The shipbuilding industry geared to produce additional ships rapidly.
We have some 26 ships under construction, and 26 more are to be begun in 16 different yards.
4.	Administrative and training staffs, depots and stores, for all-out mobilization.
That is largely completed.
In the army-
5.	An airborne striking force, anti-aircraft artillery and other units for the defence of Canada against direct attack.
We have an airborne striking force which we have maintained at the planned strength. We have anti-aircraft artillery units, but they are becoming obsolescent and are being modified, in part, by the addition of new equipment now in the course of production. But for part we propose deliberately to postpone the construction or purchase of new anti-aircraft guns, because we believe that by the time we got them they would be obsolete, and would be under replacement by ground-to-air guided missiles, which are already in production in some countries.
6.	Part of the active army with integrated force under General Eisenhower.
That has been dealt with. Our commitment is completed.
7.	Part of the Canadian forces continuing in the Far East as long as that is necessary.
I am sure all hon. members share my regret that it has proved to be necessary to continue the strength it has. I shall have a word to say about that in conclusion.
8.	Administrative staff, training establishments, depots, stores, clothing and equipment to provide for rapid mobilization in a total effort.
Generally that has been accomplished, particularly with regard to the provision of soft goods. We expect by the time set to have completed the operations for other types of equipment except in so far as we decide to

stretch out the program so as to maintain productive capacity. I believe that that may prove to be desirable in a number of cases.
In addition we have decided, since 1951, to acquire the large training area at Gagetown, which we believe will be in operation by 1954.
The philosophy of stockpiling has been dealt with in the house a good many times. It was announced in my statement of February 5, 1951, and nobody took any objection to it. It has been carried out in so far as we considered it desirable with regard to soft goods, as we call them. We have done the job there and we will proceed with the stockpiling of other types of goods and ammunition. But I have already said a word on what may affect the timing of that.
In so far as experience shows that we have more equipment of any type than we need for the reserves or for mobilization, we can take it into current issue. Before any order for new equipment is placed we look at both our stocks and our stockpiling for mobilization, and either place the order or not place the order accordingly.
9.	Replacement of equipment on issue to the active or reserve forces, or in stores, by latest type United States equipment purchased from the United States or made in Canada and our industry in Canada tooled up to make a considerable part of this equipment.
That has been partly accomplished and the rest is under way.
10.	In the air force-41 regular and reserve squadrons with more thain 3,000 aircraft additional to those we now have of the types suitable for the purposes intended.
I have mentioned the figures in a general way and probably that is as far as I should go. We expect to complete the program on time in so far as it relates to our commitments to NATO and the equipping of our regular forces in Canada, but it may not be possible to convert all the reserve or auxiliary squadrons to new types of aircraft by the target dates.
I should add here that very considerable interest is being shown by other countries and by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in the CF-100. There is no other allweather fighter in quantity production anywhere. This aircraft is considered to have qualities and capacities which could make it desirable for use in Europe as it certainly is in Canada.
11.	Radar equipment manned and located to provide radar defence integrated with a
Supply-National Defence corresponding United States chain of stations, connected by the necessary communication system and backed by fighters.
This radar system will be largely completed in 1953.
12.	In Europe an air division of eleven fighter squadrons.
This was subsequently increased to twelve. Nine of them are there and we expect the other three to be there this year.
13.	Airfields, men and equipment to train large numbers of aircrew for ourselves and other countries.
During 1952-53 there were 19 regular units including airfields, stations and schools opened, bringing the total number used by the air force up to 108. Another 13 regular and 7 auxiliary schools and stations will be opened during 1953-54. To date for NATO we have trained 748 pilots and 947 navigators, and another 1,200 are in training.
Just on Sunday I visited the great station at Clinton, Ontario, for the training of radar and wireless operators. The strength there varies from 1,800 to 2,100, depending on the number of pupils. That station is now working on two shifts with something over 1,000 pupils. We could easily increase the number using that plant by more than 100 per cent, or probably 200 per cent in the event of emergency, by working three shifts and doubling up.
14.	Industry in a position to produce large numbers of the latest type of aircraft needed by the forces of ourselves and others.
Hon. members are very familiar with that.
15.	Production of quantities of equipment for NATO and training of large numbers of officers to strengthen our common defence by assisting our allies.
I have already referred to the program of equipment and air training for NATO and that is being carried on.
I have reviewed the three-year program in the light of our experience and given to the committee as effectively as I could in the time available information on the progress made. There are a number of things which I might mention if time permitted, such as standardization. We have made great progress in the standardization of procedure, communications, weather reporting and the like. The progress has been much slower in connection with equipment. The latest word on the all-important question of the rifles and ammunition is that quite considerable progress has been made in the last few weeks toward reaching agreement. I am beginning to be hopeful that that will be arrived at within the next month or two.

Supply-National Defence
With regard to the reserves, I could give a number of facts and figures. We started this period with some 47,000 officers and men in the reserves and today there are 58,000 despite the fact that some 11,000 of the most active officers and men have joined the active forces from the reserve forces. The number undergoing summer training and taking courses has steadily increased. However, like other hon. members I feel that this very important part of our defence activities deserves every support we can give it. We are constantly discussing with representatives of the conference of reserve associations ways and means of making the work of the reserve more effective.
During recent weeks developments have occurred in the Far East and elsewhere which must have struck hon. members. The communists have shown a disposition to at least open discussions that may lead to a settlement of hostilities in Korea. We welcome that possibility. The peaceful objectives of the western nations have been shown both at the United Nations in New York and in the resumption of negotiations in Korea.
But we must remember that no change has occurred to alter the policy which the United Nations in Korea and the North Atlantic nations have agreed to, that is to build up sufficient strengths so that they can be secured. President Eisenhower and Mr. Churchill have made plain in their statements what I believe is the attitude of all the western nations on this subject. As the Financial Post said on April 4, 1953:
If, today, all the guns on all the fronts where East is fighting West were to be silenced, our side would still be far from achieving the unity, the economic and armed strength essential to our safety.
The western nations have had as their objective the stopping of aggression in Korea and the preventing of aggression in Europe. They have worked together in both areas in a great demonstration of common purpose and common practice to bring about both objectives. This is the first time in the history of the world that nations have agreed on a plan, on an objective and on the ways to achieve it, and nothing has happened to change that objective or to change that plan. We have spent great sums on our defence in Canada, as have other western nations, sums expended as insurance of peace, and the prudent man does not stop paying the premium if the risk continues. While, therefore, everyone is hopeful that what is taking place in Korea may lead to a termination of hostilities there and may lead to a better atmosphere everywhere else, there is no


reason yet for the North Atlantic treaty nations, or those of the United Nations who think with us, to change fundamentally the policy and the course to which they have agreed and to which they put their hands three years ago.
Our hope is that it may be possible to moderate what we are doing, but to change it fundamentally would be a serious indication of weakness. The fact is that the Russians have shown a change of attitude, and. in our view, and I think in the views of those in the other western nations, something which has contributed to that change has been the attitude shown in Korea and the building up of our strength in Europe and at home. That has been our objective, and the fact that we have had three years without a major war has indicated that the policy has so far been right. That policy has, I believe, had the strong support of all sections of the Canadian people as it has had the strong support of members in every part of the house. It is because of that support, because of that great objective and the appeal of that objective to our own people, that the government has seen fit to ask parliament for the large sums of money which we consider necessary to maintain and build up our strength. It is in that spirit that I put before this committee these estimates.
Mr. Chairman, it has been the practice during the war and since to table, and to print as an appendix to Hansard, a list of the orders, decorations and medals awarded officers and men of the Canadian forces for gallantry. Such a list was last printed as an appendix to Hansard on June 25, 1952. I have here a list bringing that information up to date and, if I have the unanimous consent of hon. members, I should like to have it printed as an appendix to Hansard, following my remarks of this morning.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
(For list of awards, see appendix, pages 3S61-77.)


Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Nanaimo):: Mr. Chairman, I should like to join with the minister in offering congratulations on behalf of this party to the men of the various services who are now taking part in the operations which are being conducted in Korea and in Europe. It was my great privilege to see the departure of the first three destroyers which left Esquimalt in the summer of 1951 in order to play their part as a first contribution from Canada in the operations to prevent aggression in Korea. It has been a source of pride to all of us that the Royal Canadian Navy has kept destroyers such as the Athabaskan, the Haida, the Sault Ste. Marie, the Crusader

and others in the dangerous waters surrounding Korea. The men on these vessels have had to experience the dangers and hardships of active operations. They have been exposed not only to shellfire from the land fortifications of the enemy but also to the great mining activity which the enemy utilizes.
We have also seen the activities of the 25th brigade. I saw the original units when they were in training in the state of Washington in the United States just before they left. I have followed their activities with interest, activities which simulate very closely the type of fighting of which I personally saw something during the first world war. They have all the discomforts of life in the trenches, having to take shelter in deep dugouts and to take part in constant patrolling of no man's land in order to be ever on the alert for enemy actions. They have also experienced very brisk and sharp encounters, and we regret the casualties, now amounting to over a thousand, which our units have suffered during these operations.
I also had the opportunity of seeing something of the 27th brigade when it landed in Europe. I have watched with interest their progress during the manoeuvres that have been held by the NATO command in Europe. The air force has been maintaining an airlift of thousands of tons of equipment and a great many personnel, both Canadian and American. No. 426 squadron has had a truly remarkable record, as the minister said, of flights across the Pacific following the dangerous northern route over the mist-shrouded islands of the Aleutian chain.
I should also like to call attention to the fact that civilian pilots and crews of Canadian Pacific Air Lines have been doing their share in maintaining operations in Korea. When the day comes I hope that full recognition will be given to the services of the civilian airmen who have shared the dangers of these long flights with our own R.C.A.F. personnel.
The minister made a reference to the developments that have taken place in Canada and emphasized the importance which he attached to the production of officer personnel. He called attention to the new college that has been established at Saint-Jean in the province of Quebec. We were naturally very pleased to hear about that because the hon. member for Three Rivers has been the protagonist for the establishment of such a college in the province of Quebec where young French-speaking Canadians would have equal opportunities of qualifying for commissions in the regular forces. I am also pleased to hear that there is to be still further development and increase in that 68108-242
Supply-National Defence direction, and I was delighted to hear of the progress which is being made both at Royal Military College at Kingston and at Royal Roads. I cannot help but recall that as far back as 1946 the then hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard, Colonel Cecil Merritt, advocated very strongly that the Royal Military College should be reopened so that the young men of this country should have an opportunity of preparing themselves for eventualities which, even in those days, seemed inevitable.
I think it was very largely the activities of Colonel Merritt and other members of the R.M.C. club of Canada which persuaded the government a few years later to reopen that college. I have been connected with the college myself and had the opportunity of visiting it only a few days ago.
Now, I will turn to the white paper which was issued to us yesterday and I will also refer to the white paper which initiated this program in February of 1951. In the original white paper, the program of 1951, the objectives of our national defence policy are laid down. The minister at that time referred to them as being clear and simple. They are repeated in the program issued yesterday and I will just take a moment to read them because I think they still remain, and I am certain they still remain, as the objectives for which we are working.
(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.
In other words, we are to make preparations against the risk of communist policy forcing us to defend ourselves against direct attack while, at the same time, meeting our overseas obligations. To a very considerable extent these objectives overlap, because by building up our forces both at home and abroad they will soon become in a position to be a powerful deterrent against aggression; and they will also be in a better position to fight wherever required should global war be forced upon us.
As I have said, these objectives have not been changed. They have been endorsed from the beginning by the members of this party. In fact, this party has repeatedly urged and encouraged the government to achieve these objectives. The means of achieving them and the rate of progress towards their achievement has given and still continues to give this party considerable concern. When the Korean war broke out, and when it became necessary for this country

Supply-National Defence to take action to check aggression there-and also to make our contribution to the deterring of aggression which was being organized to prevent that aggression in Europe-members of this party cast aside their natural misgivings as far as this government was concerned and formed common cause with the government in order to carry out those objectives.
The right course had to be found and, having been found, it had to be followed. It was not only a right course as far as Canada was concerned, but that right course had to be found which would be in the best interests of all people who took common cause with us and had that common cause at heart. However, I must say on this occasion that I find it much easier to support the government's objective than to admire the actual progress that the government has made toward those objectives with the large sums of money which have been made available for that purpose.
Huge sums of money reaching into astronomical figures have been made available year after year but the results in actual fighting men are extraordinarily meagre, and in no way proportionate to the millions of dollars which have been voted annually by parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Randolph Pearkes: In times of high taxation it is especially important that the country get the fullest possible value for the taxpayers' money which is spent on defence- or on the activities of any other department. We feel that this has not been done; for, in too many instances, instead of well armed men supported by modern equipment, tanks and aircraft, we have been asked to accept spacious lawns, full-page advertisements and stocks of clothing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Randolph Pearkes: Had less money been spent on some of the frills and fineries we could have expected more to have been provided for actual defence, thus giving the taxpayer the security that he has a right to expect.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Randolph Pearkes: Two billion dollars was supplied or voted last year and the same amount is included in this year's estimates to be voted for the services or defence-and for no other purpose. If we continue to squander the money as we have been doing to a certain extent during the past two years, we shall only play into the hands of the enemy either by gradually breaking down our own national economy or by our failure to bear the full share with our allies in the common battle for freedom.


It is noteworthy that attention has already been called to the fact that the government has failed to spend all the money that parliament voted during the last two years for military aid to our NATO allies. Perhaps the minister will be able to tell this committee the extent to which we have fallen short in the mutual aid program during the last year, and the reasons why our mutual aid program has not been entirely lived up to. I ask this question particularly in view of the warnings which were issued by Lord Ismay when he was in Ottawa recently and the appeal that he made to all partners in the NATO organization to contribute to their utmost.
I notice that the same amount which was voted last year is included in this year's estimates, namely, some $324 million. According to the calculations I have made, I believe that in the last two years Canada has voted- it may be the last three years-some $685,383,108 for mutual aid, of which somewhere in the neighbourhood of $556,517,216 has been actually spent. This works out to somewhere around 19 per cent of the money voted for mutual aid which has not been spent. Last year, I believe, the sum voted was $322 million, of which only $235 million was spent. I doubt whether those figures tell the whole story, because operating expenses will have been deducted from those amounts so that those amounts do not represent the quantity of goods actually placed in the hands of our NATO allies.
According to the minister's white paper, until now the equipment transferred to NATO countries was mainly from existing stock. It would be very interesting to know what prices were placed on that old war material which we sent to our NATO allies. The plan laid down in February, 1951, is described as a three-year $5 billion defence program. It now appears to be turning out in the neighbourhood of $6 billion, and I am not certain that it is not more of a misfire than an actual program. The additional money is made up of $5,268 million from the Department of National Defence, $327,700,000 from the Department of Defence Production, and $121 million from NATO.
Now, up to the end of 1952, the Department of Defence Production had placed orders to the value of approximately $2,708,525,000 for the armed forces. I mention these figures because I referred to them as being astronomical. They are certainly very large figures indeed. In the report of the Department of Defence Production tabled on March 31 this year reference is made to expenditures by the department on national defence during the year January 1, 1952, to December 31, 1952. This figure gives some idea of the amount of

money which has already been spent, orders having been placed for these amounts. I shall only deal in millions because the thousands are only fractional points. Orders were placed for aircraft to the value of over $519 million last year; for ships, over $65 million, practically $66 million; tanks and automotive, $87 million; weapons and ammunition $143-5 million; electronics and communication equipment, $131 million; clothing, etc., $76 million; construction, $168 million; other expenses, $192 million. These items make a grand total of $1,385,204,000 for orders placed last year. The orders which were placed last year, added to the previous orders placed by this department, make a grand total of $2,708,525,000.
We have now to ask ourselves what we have got in return for these huge sums of money. Let us turn first of all to the Royal Canadian Navy. In so far as that service is concerned, we were told that there would be 100 ships, manned by some 21,000 personnel. What is the situation today? We are told that we have 56 ships in commission. Hon. members should recall that two-thirds of the time allotted to this program has already elapsed. During 1953-54 there will be in commission 56 ships. Our one and only aircraft carrier, H.M.C.S. Magnificent, is urgently in need of a major overhaul. In fact, she must be regarded as an obsolescent vessel. She is the only vessel of her class which, to date, has not been modernized. She has been on loan from the Royal Navy for a number of years. Today we were told that a new carrier, the Bona-venture, is to replace the Magnificent. She is now under construction in Belfast. I do not know whether or not the Bonaventure will be on loan from the Royal Navy in the same way as the Magnificent was or whether she will become the property of the Royal Canadian Navy. However, it will be many months yet before she can be commissioned.
Our two cruisers, the Quebec and the Ontario, are old but still serviceable. When we come to the modern vessels, 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, which was converted at Yarrows yard in Esquimalt. She underwent her acceptance trials just last month. Every effort was made by Yarrows to do a good job on this vessel. As the minister said today, there is a good deal of complicated machinery to instal, and it was a severe test for the engineering skill of the draftsmen of that company and of the admiralty men concerned. Another destroyer, H.M.C.S. Crescent, is at present being converted in the dockyard at Esquimalt, conforming to the plans which were made for the Algonquin. Just why H.M.C. dockyard 68108-242i
Supply-National Defence should have been called upon to make this conversion, I do not know. I would have thought the experience gained by Yarrows in developing the prototype of this ship and in turning out the Algonquin would have been of great help in the conversion of the Crescent. It does not seem to me that much encouragement is being offered to a shipyard if they are to produce prototype plans and do all the development work on one vessel, only to find that the next vessel of the same type is to be handed to a government competitor to do the work.
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. 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. It would be almost criminal to send men to sea in those wartime ships at the present time if there was an emergency. Hence, with the exception of the three destroyers now in service in Korean waters and, you might say, the coronation review fleet- which I believe will consist of the aircraft carrier Magnificent, the cruisers Ontario and Quebec, the destroyer Sioux and two frigates- one may well ask: Where are the 100 ships and the men who are to man them? On February 28 we were told that the total naval personnel consists of some 15,400 men and that of this number nearly 5,000 are employed in administrative duties in commands and in the dockyards. One may truly ask: Why have there been these delays? The minister referred to the delays as "slipping". It seems to me that we have slipped badly with regard to our naval program.
Then we can only call attention to the fact that although we are essentially an antisubmarine navy, we have no submarines and no means whatever

and apparently no plans being made for that purpose-by which "we are to develop the types of crafts now considered to be most efficient in the hunting of that underwater marauder.
We were told that the defence program would also include the seaward defences of our vital harbours. I venture to say that never have our harbours been more exposed to attack than they are today. The seaward defences of any nature are practically nonexistent. Certainly the great ports on the Pacific coast such as Vancouver, Victoria, Esquimalt and Prince Rupert have no seaward defences. Therefore, with regard to the senior service, I cannot feel that we can be
33IB	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence encouraged by the progress which has been made in this program.
Mr. Chairman, it is now three minutes to one; and instead of my now starting on some comments with regard to the army, I would ask you to call it one o'clock.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Chairman, I should like now to refer to the part the army has been assigned, and the progress it has made toward achieving the objectives outlined in the program of February, 1951. The 25th brigade in Korea and the 27th brigade in Europe have been maintained at the strengths up to which it was decided in February, 1951, to have those formations recruited, and it would be churlish on my part if I did not refer to the efforts made by the minister to live up to the obligations he then accepted. We in this party, on this side of the house, are pleased that the government has been able to maintain our overseas detachments of the army at the strength promised to the United Nations and to the NATO organization.
But that strength has been maintained at some expense to the forces being provided for the direct defence of Canada. The program of 1951 included an airborne striking force, anti-aircraft artillery and other units for the defence of Canada against direct attack. When the Korean operation started it was decided that it would not be expedient to send the regular units of the army which at that time were embodied in the striking or mobile airborne force for the direct defence of Canada, and for that reason second battalions of the three regular regiments and the artillery regiment were recruited as ad hoc formations.
Unfortunately it has not been possible to maintain that policy. The airborne striking force has already been broken up and its personnel distributed not only among the forces raised for Korea but also the forces sent with the 27th brigade, with the result that today we have no striking force of units which have been accustomed to work together and which have carried out any extensive training under arctic conditions.
If we are to have units organized and trained to meet an airborne invasion from the north, then those units should have extensive practice in northern areas and, if possible, should be stationed there. In the pamphlet issued by the minister yesterday, in which this year's program is set out, attention is called to the fact that a substantial increase is to be made in the emphasis placed on


the defence of North America against air attack. Well, I should think so! We from this side of the house have been emphasizing ever since 1947 the importance of providing home defence. I have been called various names. It has been suggested that I was an isolationist and that I was an alarmist; and last year I was accused of being a yes-but man. Well, perhaps it will be recognized now that I was a realist, and that I had pointed out the danger of attack on this country, and the necessity for the government to maintain an effective force which would be prepared to meet any airborne attack which might be delivered against our shores.
The mobility of such a striking force would be governed very largely by its ability to be transported by air. We have no transport squadrons available for that purpose. We are told in the white paper that Bristol freighters and C-119 aircraft are being obtained. Well, they are not here now; and even if they were obtained, their range of manoeuvrability would be very considerably handicapped by the lack of airfields in our northern areas.
The fact also remains that in this mobile striking force no provision is made for engineer units trained in the rapid construction of airfields. At the present time such a force would be entirely tied down to the existing airfields, and I think if it is to be a really mobile tactical force it must have included in its organization engineer units capable of and fully trained in the laying down of new airfields and familiar with airfield construction.
Reference was made to anti-aircraft artillery. In his remarks today the minister said that such batteries as we have for the antiaircraft defence of this country, particularly in the reserve army, are armed with obsolescent weapons. I would go much further than that, and say that they were armed with obsolete weapons quite out of date and incapable of engaging a modern bomber which might be sent here. The old Bofors guns which is the equipment of many of the light ack-ack batteries across this country would be quite useless against a modern aircraft. I doubt very much whether they provide the right type of training for our antiaircraft gunners. In fact there is considerable discouragement among the personnel of the anti-aircraft units by reason of the fact that they have such out-of-date equipment.
In so far as the mobile force is concerned, at the moment they have no aircraft which would be capable of acting as fighters to escort them. Without airfields and without fighter escorts to convoy the transports I feel that our mobile force is in a hopeless condition. It has not trained; it has not carried

out many exercises, if any, at the unit level or any operations which it would be called upon to do in the future. They are confined largely to parachute operations because of a lack of landing fields.
I have made observations in the past about the 27th brigade in Germany which were based upon personal experience gained when I was in Germany. I felt then and I still feel that too much emphasis is being placed upon the infantry units when they are employed in a theatre of operations where armour would be particularly valuable. I notice from the white paper that since I spoke in the house a year ago a certain number of Centurion tanks have been issued to a squadron-it is only a squadron-with the 27th brigade. It is a start in the right direction, the direction which I recommended. I hope we will go much further in that direction. Personally I feel that it is of the utmost importance that we do.
I notice another change which appears to be taking place in connection with the brigade. Regular units or regular personnel are being sent to replace personnel which had been recruited into the first infantry battalion, the first rifle battalion or the first highland battalion, three units of that brigade. I notice that it is now contemplated that regular units will be sent over to Germany, either the first or third battalion or one of the battalions of the regular units. This seems to be a change in policy.
The minister referred to the large number of men who have passed through that formation. The formation has a strength of some
6,000	personnel, I think he said, and something over 20,000 have passed through in rotation or have been brought back as casualties. This rotation policy may be pleasant for the personnel serving in the brigade; it is nice to think that a married man will be in Europe for only a year and that the single personnel will not have to stay away from Canada for more than two years. But the policy is extremely expensive and has the detrimental effect of breaking up the units.
A continual change of personnel is not healthy for the maintenance of morale. This applies particularly to infantry units where it is most desirable that the men serve with their regiments and regard their regiments as being their service homes for as long a period as possible. Where you have certain personnel coming back after twelve months and others rotating at different periods it has a serious effect on the development of esprit de corps.
I know that I am an old soldier and that 25 years or more ago we placed a great deal
Supply-National Defence of emphasis upon regimental spirit. I sometimes wonder whether the army of today emphasizes that aspect to the same extent. It was with considerable interest that I read an article last January in the Canadian Army Journal by Major Garber, who was emphasizing the need for maintaining personnel in their regiments as long as possible while serving in Korea. He points out the dangers of frequent changes of personnel and emphasizes the necessity of ensuring that a larger proportion of what he terms capable men be sent to the infantry. I should like to make two brief quotations from this article, which is entitled "Every Rifleman Must be An Aggressive Fighter". I commend the article to the attention of all those who are interested in the problem of maintaining morale and efficiency in our units.
The first extract which I should like to quote is to be found on page 23 and is as follows:
The allocation to Infantry of men who fail to meet the standards set by another corps is a common and dangerous practice for it contributes to inefficiency in a corps that is vital to Canada's defence.
I feel that attention should be drawn to that. Then later on, referring to something which the hon. member for Broadview had advocated a couple of years ago, he states that the soldiers who actually fight should receive danger pay, and he goes on to say:
Many men in specialized corps are given educations at army expense which enhance their opportunities on return to civilian life, but the skills taught infantrymen In most cases, cannot be applied to civilian occupations. They have nothing to show for their years of service except the knowledge of a job well done. Additional pay for fighting men would help to equalize the rewards of service. It is ridiculous to deny fighting men these small rewards on the basis that the administrative effort required is too great. If the task requires longer hours of work from the staff, it would be a small sacrifice to make in comparison to that of the front-line infantrymen.
I am inclined to think that the feeling of the Canadian infantryman today is very much the same as it was during the first world war, because I would have voiced much the same sentiments a good many years ago.
I should like to refer now to the endeavours which have been made to live up to our commitments in respect to the reserve forces. That is the sorry plight-I repeat, the sorry plight-in which we find our reserve army at the present time. It is reported in the white paper that the reserve army had a strength of 47,300 at the end of February of this year. I cannot help feeling that that strength is padded by a good many thousands because when we look at a return submitted earlier in the session in answer

Supply-National Defence to a question we find that only 13,715 out of the 47,300 attended training in camp last year. That 13,000 odd is made up of some 3,850 officers and 9,865 non-commissioned officers and men. If the strength of the reserve army is indeed 47,300, I feel that we are training but a very small fraction of the strength.
After all is said and done, the effective strength of the reserve army lies in the trained personnel in that force. In the past we have voted large sums of money, both last year and in previous years, and the fact that we only trained some 13,000 men for short periods in the summertime bears out my statement that we are only getting meagre returns for the money which has been expended. In other words, the reserve army needs a thorough reorganization at the present time. It must be modernized and it must be provided with the equipment and the facilities to attract the right type of recruits. You cannot expect men to give up their evenings after finishing work at their ordinary civilian occupations to go and train on obsolete anti-aircraft guns. It may be that some of the inefficient units will have to be eliminated. But this is a source of manpower which we must find a way of building up.
As the minister pointed out, this force has also been handicapped by the fact that it has sacrificed itself in making a contribution of some 11,000 men, I think he said, to the active army during the last year. That is highly creditable so far as the units are concerned and is indicative of the desire of the commanding officers who have released these men to take the broadest possible view of conditions. It points out the value of our reserve forces. All through the years our reserve army has provided the means for the expansions that have been necessary when war has broken out. We should be very careful in seeing that our reserves from this source are not weakened, and additional encouragement is required in order to make them effective at the present time. So much for the army.
I have a few remarks I should like to make with respect to the Royal Canadian Air Force and the part that it is playing and should play in the fulfilment of the objectives which were outlined. In the first place I think we must call attention to the dangerous weaknesses which existed in our air force when the Korean conflict commenced. Again it is only fair to give credit to the last-minute efforts that have been made by the government to build up our air forces. But if credit is due to the government for building


up our air forces at the eleventh hour, then blame must also be attached to the government for having allowed those forces to sink to such a dangerous level prior to the outbreak of the Korean disturbance.
In the last few years the air force has received a great proportion of the defence vote. It is receiving now as much in the way of money as is being spent on the other two services. Yet the progress which is being made in the R.C.A.F. still causes us considerable concern. The program of 1951 called for 40 regular and reserve squadrons with more than 3,000 aircraft in addition to aircraft which were in existence in 1951 and of types, so the program indicated, suitable for the purposes for which they were intended. We have been told today, now that more than two-thirds of the three-year period has elapsed, that we have some 2,000 aircraft out of the 3,000, but it is highly questionable whether they are of types suitable for the work for which they were intended. So far as the twelve squadrons of jet fighters for the air division in France are concerned, I believe nine of them are now in Europe and the other three are just in the process of organization. Thus we have very little fighter strength in this country. I understand there are some nine auxiliary fighter squadrons-distributed throughout the length and breadth of Canada from Montreal to Vancouver-which are equipped with world war II Mustangs and more or less worn-out British-built Vampires.
Our fighters have all been sent out of the country with the exception of one squadron of CF-lOO's at North Bay which is today only in the process of being organized. Therefore we have nothing at the moment with the exception of the one squadron of CF-lOO's now being organized, three squadrons of Sabre jets now earmarked for NATO and preparing to move to Europe, and the nine squadrons of the auxiliary air force armed with very indifferent equipment quite incapable of meeting any hostile bombers which might possibly be sent to attack us here. Even the CF-100 squadron at North Bay is far from operational yet. There are difficulties with respect to organization and the supply of ground personnel, and so far as equipment is concerned there are difficulties with respect to the machines and the engines which still have to be ironed out.
In fact the minister in his white paper said that the aircraft we are now producing will eventually become obsolete. I suppose all aircraft will eventually become obsolete, but time is moving very fast. In fact, I do not think I am exaggerating in the least if

I say that in effect Canada has no air defence to direct attack at present, nor is she likely to have for many months to come. Our fighters are non-existent. If we are to rely upon these auxiliary fighter squadrons to produce the direct defence of Canada, it must be realized that they will very soon have to be equipped with aircraft not less efficient than the CF-100; and it takes a very long time to train pilots and to organize ground crews when the personnel of the fighter squadrons are working solely on a part-time basis. No matter how interested the individuals concerned may be, no matter how much time they are prepared to devote to the study of their work, I am very doubtful whether the auxiliary squadrons can be brought up to that state of efficiency which will enable them to be considered as first-line defence against air attack here in Canada. They will require a larger infusion of regular personnel than they have at present. I am not at all sure that we should not place the squadrons to be equipped with CF-lOO's on a regular basis.
Air commitments to NATO have been met but our air arm at the moment is insufficient to meet our NATO commitments without stripping, as has been done, units in Canada which are for the defence of Canada. We are told that we should defend Canada as far away from Canada as possible. That is a delightful dream, but in order to be effective, arrangements would have to be made with the enemy that they would attack Canada as far away from Canada as possible.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Randolph Pearkes: We might possibly send all our troops down to the Falkland islands, and they could not get very much farther away, but I question whether we would be doing very much for the defence of Canada if we did that. The long and the short of this matter seems to me to be that we have left our front door wide open while we have sallied out through the back door.
The government has spent millions in developing a specific plane, the CF-100, for our own defence; but until that plane is produced in sufficient numbers, and until ground crews are trained, Canada remains without adequate defence at home-and as far as I can see that condition is going to last for many months yet to come. We are told now that:
In the event of an all-out war the most probable method of attack on the North American continent would be by air.
It goes on:
The possibility of such an attack will increase as further progress is made in the design and produc-
Supply-National Defence tion of new aircraft and the increasing stockpile of atomic weapons estimated to be held by the U.S.S.R.
Obviously now the admission is made that the communists could, if they wished, use their stockpile of atomic bombs and use their modern bombers, bombers which are capable of flying 6,000 miles or more if they adopt methods of refuelling in the air, against Canada; and we have nothing here in Canada at the present time to meet such an attack.
No wonder the minister says that the emphasis must now be changed in order to meet such a direct attack on Canada. I fear that until we have built up our defences for this country many Canadians are going to sleep very uneasily in their beds in the months to come. If the international situation, which for the moment seems to have cleared a little bit, should deteriorate again, then I fear that we shall sleep uneasily in our beds until we are provided with the necessary fighter squadrons to beat off any enemy bomber attack which might be directed against our cities. This is nothing new. I have spoken about this matter in the house time and time again. I think it was only last year that I used these words:
The need of maintaining adequate fighter squadrons in Canada for the protection of our industrial plants, the loss of which would create such a crippling blow to our NATO effort and might prove fatal to Canada . . . must not be lost sight of.
I am afraid that it was lost sight of but I am delighted to see that recognition is now being given to the fact that Russian bombers, their TU-4's which have been tried out, are capable of coming here; and steps must be taken to defend Canada against the possibility of such an attack. It is no good to merely refer to our radar screen-if a radar screen exists-because, if it is sufficiently far away from the immediate targets to which it is going to give warning, it must be remembered that it can only be a warning system. There is no defence in radar. Radar can merely give a warning of the approaching enemy; and, unless the radar stations are in the extreme northland, it can only be a warning of a matter of four or five hours at most before a modern bomber could reach our industrial cities.
If you have no defence-and we have no anti-aircraft defence and we have no fighters -then all you can do is to tell people to run and hide. That is all the defence that radar can give you. It is no wonder that a man like Wing Commander Rohmer should have felt that it was his duty to speak in the city of Toronto just a few weeks ago and to say that Canada is absolutely defenceless to air

Supply-National Defence attack at the present time in spite of the millions which have already been spent on air defence.
I could go on a great deal longer on the question of air but I do not feel that I am entitled to detain the committee much longer. However, I just want to refer to the question of construction which has been going on.
The minister referred to the fantastic sums which have been spent on construction in this country, but there is other construction going on in Europe and foreign countries. The amount spent between April 1, 1950, and December 31, 1952, is, I think, somewhere in the neighbourhood of $358 million for projects in Canada, exclusive of married quarters. That construction can be divided into accommodation such as barracks and so forth, into amenities such as canteens, recreation rooms, swimming pools, schools, hospitals and so forth; and technical buildings such as workshops, administrative buildings and hangars. I would like the minister to explain the policy which is being followed in connection with this big construction program.
Some of these buildings which are being constructed are of a permanent nature, others semi-permanent and still others are purely temporary. We understand the purposes to which the temporary buildings will be put; they are to meet the immediate situation. But what plan is being followed, if any, in respect to the erection of permanent and semi-permanent buildings? Where are those being placed, and for what number of troops to be permanently employed in Canada are those buildings designed? Elsewhere, the methods of construction and the methods of awarding the contracts have been examined. We are not satisfied with all of this construction work, some of which I have seen. In a great many cases, the contracts are being let without calling for tenders. The contracts are being let on a cost-plus basis, and they are an invitation to extravagance. There is the feeling that such extravagance has taken place. Everyone wishes to have our troops comfortably housed and our servicemen provided with all the amenities, but nothing is to be gained by such expenditures as those which have been disclosed in the press and elsewhere.
Now, to sum up my rather lengthy remarks, I feel that the program which was drawn up in 1951, which is still being adhered to, and the progress which has been made shows that, although two-thirds of the time for this three-year program has elapsed, the objectives are not really in sight. Secondly, already the

estimated $5 billion has been found inadequate and is being exceeded. Thirdly, much of the huge sum of money that has been spent has been spent on non-essentials, with the result that the taxpayer has not received full value in terms of defence for the outlay of his dollars. Fourthly, Canada today is virtually defenceless against air attack, although such attack is now admitted as a possibility. Fifthly, no mobile tactical force, combining the army and R.C.A.F. units, for defence against airborne attack on Canada exists. Sixthly, the reserve army, because of lack of training facilities, is ineffective and requires complete reorganization before it can play its role in the defence of Canada in total war. Lastly, our naval construction program lags far behind schedule.
It is for these reasons that we have criticized the progress that has been made in the development of this program which was laid down in 1951.


Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Chairman, I am sure you will agree with me that any backbencher entering this debate does so with a lot of diffidence. Most of the members of this house are not able to obtain the kind of information necessary to enable them to discuss the defence program. In my opinion national defence is a misnomer. What we are engaged in is a global defence. Canada is merely one part of a team that has been organized through the United Nations to provide an international police force to police the peace of the world. If we are going to do that job successfully it is going to cost money. We are going to have to pull our share of the load, and merely carping criticism based on a lot of misinformation is not going to serve any useful purpose. The opinions which I shall express are based on the information it is possible for an ordinary member of the house to obtain.
We are going to have to ask ourselves some questions, and answer them honestly, in order that the people who pay the taxes to provide this program may have some understanding of the necessity for the continuation of the program upon which we have embarked. The first question we have to ask ourselves is whether or not peace is any closer today than it was when we first made the appropriation of $5 billion and allocated it for the purpose of defence. In my opinion, it is not. I have seen a lot of comment in the press, and I have heard a lot of opinions expressed to the effect that the new tactics employed by Russia are an indication that that nation is ready to put out the hand of peace and do away with the armaments race. It is said that, therefore, our defence effort is no longer necessary.

In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, the new Russian approach to the international problem is not a change of policy at all, but merely a change of tactics. I know that many members of this house have read a lot of the philosophy and the program of communism as laid down by Marx, brought up to date by Lenin and Stalin, and now Malenkov has the job of carrying that program forward and bringing it up to date. I say it is merely a change of tactics because in the past I have had tc contend with a lot of these people. You have to read about their philosophy and policies if you are going to successfully talk to them in the many places that you meet them. Since 1945, and up until recently, we have been going through part of a program, as far as communism is concerned, that was laid down a good many years ago. Since 1945 we were in the period which they termed the national revolutions, in which they would stay at home to build up their own country, promote revolution in every other country, just as they have right across Europe and Asia, and then let the revolution take place on the inside of that country. That period is over.
The communists tell you quite frankly in their literature that in the struggle for world revolution there will be periods of attack, retrenchment and retreat. They are merely in a period of retrenchment to consolidate the gains which they have made, then they will go forward when the opportune time arrives. In my opinion, the program upon which we have embarked for global defence to build an international police force to police the peace of the world is just as necessary now as it was when we made that appropriation. I think that has to be made clear to our people. We have to make it clear that we are living in a world in which there are no frontiers, no barriers; it is one world. Our defences are going to have to be kept up, I believe, during the lifetime of most members of this house.
I have listened to a lot of criticism in the house, and I have read a lot in the press, concerning waste and extravagance. I could stand up here perhaps and make that kind of criticism myself. But I should just like to say this. When we made the appropriation of $5 billion and said that we were going to build an army, a navy and an air force and everything that is necessary to supplement those organizations, we were in the position where we went out into the country and took in civilians from all over Canada, people who were untrained, gave them a few months o' military training, made officers of them, put stars on their shoulders and then sent them in to head up a department that was going
Supply-National Defence to spend perhaps a billion dollars. The spending of money and the keeping of books requires a great deal of training and in the process of throwing that money around there was bound to be a good deal of waste, not because of dishonesty but, in my opinion, because of inefficiency. In many of the documents that I have seen, and with the eight or nine accounting systems that existed, for example, in the works branch of the army, I think there was a clear indication that there were on jobs a great many people who should not have been on them, and as a result there was created the mess that necessitated the Currie report.
I say that the minister himself and his department are responsible for permitting that kind of thing to develop. As the minister will recall, for two years, as one member of this group-and there were others in the house-I suggested that the minister should take under consideration the appointment of an additional minister. I pointed out that it was not humanly possible for one minister to preside over the three defence departments, with the reorganization that was bound to take place and with the huge amount of money that was to be spent. I said that he would need an assistant. My suggestion was not followed.
Another suggestion that I made and urged on the government from time to time was that we should set up a defence expenditure committee, a committee that would continue to sit week by week and month by month for the purpose of scrutinizing expenditures, with the power of calling in the heads of the departments and of the different services, in order to check from time to time as to the methods that were being employed in the spending of the money and in the reorganization of the forces. That committee was not set up for two years. It has now been set up, but it was set up too late.
The minister now has an associate minister to take some of the load. You have that defence expenditure committee set up and probing what is termed waste and extravagance. In my opinion there should be a continuing committee of this house consisting of some of the members of the house who have had some experience in the services, and there are about 100 of them in the House of Commons. That kind of committee would have prevented from happening the kind of thing that brought about the Currie report. As to responsibility, the minister and his department are responsible for not taking the necessary precautionary steps which, in my opinion, could have prevented the bad tangle that was brought about and that

Supply-National Defence necessitated the bringing in of this famous Currie report.
The question arose as to whether it was right for Mr. Currie to make available to the deputy minister of national defence a copy of his report before it was tabled in the House of Commons. I do not think it was. I think that was a bad mistake. The way I see it is this. It is just as if, in civilian life, if someone commits a crime and the crown prosecutor prepares the case against him, he then submits the case to the accused to check it for accuracy as to whether or not it was properly prepared. That is about the correct analogy. It was the Department of National Defence that was under suspicion. They were being investigated and they were being charged. I think Mr. Currie will have to take the responsibility for releasing that report to those who were accused at that time. As to that particular angle, however, it is in the past as far as I am concerned; and I think what we must do from now on is to plan for the future.
I listened to the hon. member for Nanaimo speak on this question of Canada's present position in the matter of air defence. In "Canada's Defence Program" issued by the Minister of National Defence, on pages 1 and 5 I notice that he indicates that the department and the government are becoming conscious of the fact that our air defences in this country are not adequate. I never set myself up as an expert and I did not get to my feet here and try to tell the minister what he should do in that particular field; but I have always had the opinion that the building of a network of radar stations across this country was not enough. Of what value are those radar stations in the event of an air attack? We have nine squadrons of Sabre jets overseas at the present time and there is one squadron of Sabre jets in Canada. If something happened-and, as is indicated by this program the minister has shown us now, the only possible chance of attack on Canada would be from the air-we blow all the horns in Canada, and there is one squadron of Sabre jets in the country that may get somewhere fast enough to intercept somebody who might be coming in. I think that greater attention must be paid to that matter.
I also think-and I have thought it from the start-that sending foot troops or infantry over to Europe is a mistake. As far as Canada's defence is concerned, I believe that the main emphasis should have been put on the air force of this country and that there should be in Canada sufficient air force to protect this country in the event of something happening. In the second place, I think that the force that we should have in Europe is an armoured force. As to the soldier on 
foot today, may I say this. In the kind of situation that prevails over in Germany, there is in eastern Germany all kinds of heavy armour that could race through foot soldiers like nothing if it were desired. As far as we are concerned in Europe, I think the emphasis should be on heavy armour. I believe that our whole program in that regard has been wrong. I am glad to see that the minister and his department have done some thinking anyway in the matter of air defence; but I still think that it is necessary for them to give some thought to the problem of foot soldiers versus armour over in Europe.
Another thing that I never could see is the period of enlistment. You will take a soldier on for Korea, and he is enlisting in for eighteen months. He goes to Korea for eighteen months and you take him back and discharge him. You enlist him to go over with the 27th brigade. You equip him and train him and go to all that expense. He serves a year over in Europe with the 27th brigade, comes back and is discharged. In my opinion that system is all wrong. I believe that if a young man in this country is going to be persuaded to make a career of the service, periods of eighteen months and two years are too short. On the other hand, if we are going to get the young people of the right calibre in this country to make a career of the service, we must begin to understand that our defence program is not a short-term program and that it is not going to be handled by soldiers who go in for eighteen months and get out, go back in again for another year and go to Germany. They are merely Cook's tours.
I think something must be done to build up the morale of the army, and to establish the old esprit de corps that existed in the different units at the time of the first world war. One does not hear any praise today for the unit in which a soldier has been serving. They will say that they were in a year or eighteen months, and that they got out. The only comment we will hear about their service is that they had a pretty rough time of it, that they were not treated well, or that sort of thing.
Something must be done, as I say, to build up the morale of the army. I know that, under present circumstances, if I were 21 years of age and wished to join the armed services, I would want to join for a period of three years. I would want to be in long enough to find out something about it, and to determine whether or not I wanted to make a career of it. Because today in this country service in the armed forces is a good career for the average young man, and proper methods should be taken so that he will be

interested in the services and will want to make a career of it.
I have made a few notes on this question of morale in the services, and have set down what I think is wrong and what should be done. There are very few things as important to the armed services of a nation as morale. Whether morale is high or low can depend upon many factors-food, fair treatment, pay, discipline, the prompt and just redress of grievances, and so on. The methods by which discipline is administered, and the manner in which grievances are heard, are as important as any of these factors. Discipline, and the disposal of grievances of members of the armed services, are important not only because of their relationship to morale, but also because of necessary limitations of civil rights imposed upon those who join the forces.
Civil rights and privileges of a member of the armed services are very much restricted. He is subject to absolute discipline. He may not sue his sergeant if he thinks that he has been unjustly treated. He may not write letters to the editor complaining about his commanding officer. He may not stand up on a soap box and speak about the inefficient way in which his service is organized. His political rights are limited to little more than the privilege of voting. He may not form any organization remotely resembling a union. Indeed any attempt at mass redress of grievances is an offence, according to the military code. He has no say whatsoever in the formation or administration of the rules of military discipline by which he must abide.
For these reasons it is particularly important that parliament exercise the greatest vigilance to ensure that members of the armed forces are afforded the greatest possible protection, consistent with the requirements of military discipline and efficiency, to ensure that th'e possibility of injustice and wrong to members of the armed services is reduced to a minimum.
The National Defence Act passed by the House of Commons on June 7, 1950-and I was a member of the committee which looked it over-took away some of the limited protection which soldiers, sailors and airmen had under previous legislation. Formerly a soldier who felt himself wronged by his officer could appeal over the head of that officer to seek redress of his grievance. His right to carry his complaint right up as far as the general was established by law. Similarly, an officer who felt himself wronged or who had a grievance had the right of appealing over the heads of his superiors, ultimately to the King himself. Now, however, section 30 of the new act, instead of prescribing the right of the soldier with respect to redressing
Supply-National Defence wrongs, simply states that such rights and such procedure shall be as "prescribed in regulations made by the governor in council".
Again, the right of an accused person to be represented by counsel before court martial is not set out in the statute. Here again, the right to be represented at such proceedings is to be governed by "regulations made by the governor in council". This is provided by section 150 of the act.
Generally the new National Defence Act greatly increased the jurisdiction as well as the powers of punishment to be exercised by the various officers in the armed services. Previously any person convicted of insubordination was liable to penal servitude, or to a lesser punishment. Now, however, he is liable to life imprisonment or less. This provision is made in sections 74 and 75. The powers of a commanding officer were formerly limited to the awarding of 28 days' detention. Now his powers have been increased so that he may award 90 days' detention. This is set out in section 136.
These and numerous other examples may be cited to show how the armed services were, by the new act, made more authoritarian than previously and the rights of the members of the forces, as prescribed by law, were reduced. This tendency is to be deplored, and every effort should be made in parliament to afford the members of the services greater legal protection than they now have.


Brooke Claxton: They have more protection than ever before, under the regulations.


Clarence Gillis: I am simply setting out the sections of the act. Their rights were definitely laid down before the act was changed. Now they are subject to regulations; and who knows what those regulations are?
Another important element in maintaining morale in the armed services is pay. There is little doubt that in spite of increased pay in recent years there is a great deal of dissatisfaction with the rates now prevailing. The deputy minister of national defence in appearing before the House of Commons public accounts committee on May 3, 1951, admitted that one of the difficulties with respect to recruiting was that the men would receive less pay in the forces than they could get in industry.
During the war one of the social advances made by the armed services was the institution of dependents' allowances. These were paid for wives, children and other dependents, so that the income of a man with a large family was increased to help meet his greater needs. This provision went a long way toward recognizing a principle toward which socialists have strived for many years: "from
3824	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence each according to his ability, to each according to his need". Since the war the dependents' allowance has been greatly restricted so that now, while there is a flat marriage allowance, there is no provision for increases in the allowance according to the number of children, and no provision whatsoever for other dependents.
Officers in the three services have long complained about the requirement that they purchase their own dress uniforms and certain items of equipment. This requirement is a hangover from the old days when a career in the services was a privilege reserved for the well-to-do. A man had to have a private income of his own before he could afford to take out a commission in His Majesty's forces. Gradually this has been changed so that officers are properly paid for their jobs, but the requirement that they buy their own uniforms still remains. If service regulations require the wearing of particular uniforms or equipment, that equipment should be paid for by the service and not by the man concerned. Otherwise it is simply a roundabout way of reducing the officer's pay.
One of the biggest omissions in the attempt to build healthy morale among the armed services is the failure to provide the men with proper educational and informational services. The deputy minister of national defence admitted that if a man "goes into the infantry and remains with it, about the only skill that he would acquire would be some mechanical knowledge about the weapons with which he has to deal." The navy has educational officers to instruct recruits in academic subjects, but army and air force recruits must, if they wish to improve their educational background, take correspondence courses.
The complete failure of the services to provide proper informational and educational services for their men has led to a failure of the Canadian troops in Korea to appreciate the significance of the United Nations action there. Pierre Berton, the feature editor of Maclean's magazine, who visited Korea earlier this year, reported on his return that, while most of the officers know what they were fighting for, the men could seldom answer the question as to why they were there and what they were fighting for.
I have thought a lot about the morale of the troops in the services. We have heard many stories from Germany about the 27th brigade. Men have told me that the punishment meted out in that brigade was worse than anything they had seen during the last war, in which some of these boys had served for five years. They said it was no trouble


at all to get 90 days for the slightest misdemeanour. But there was one thing that stood out in their minds. When you were sentenced, even if it were only to 14 days' detention, the first thing that happened was that you were marched off to a German civilian barber who shaved off all your hair just like a convict. When you came back to your unit after the 14 days you still bore the stigma of a convict by having had your hair shaved off.
That kind of thing is ridiculous; it is absolute nonsense.
Another mistake made by the Department of National Defence is in connection with young men of 19 or 20 years of age who are taken into the service when married and perhaps with a child or two. These men are sent out of the country but their wives are not entitled to any allowance until they reach 21 years of age. Those women are left for a year or two without any allowance except what their husbands can spare by way of pay assignments.
I suggest to the Minister of National Defence that in building up an army, navy or air force he is dealing with human beings who react to injustices and the kind of thing I have just been talking about exactly as the minister or I would. It is not hard to be fair and reasonable with these young men, who are prepared to leave good jobs in many cases in order to make a contribution which they feel is vital under present world conditions.
I should like to say just a word on the matter of production. This is all-important. The hon. member for Nanaimo mentioned that our whole program was lagging, that we were not getting the kind of production we should. That may not be the fault of the Department of National Defence. I have in my hand a copy of a speech delivered by Mr. ' R. M. Brophy, deputy minister of defence production at the annual meeting of the Canadian industrial preparedness association in Quebec city on Thursday, October 16, 1952. I have had this for some time but I was struck with two passages which seem to indicate that there are others in this country who are not pulling their weight. I quote from page 8 as follows:
It is always a good thing to plan well in advance for a possible contingency but in doing so we don't want to neglect the job in hand. From the government's point of view, the task immediately ahead of us is to maintain production schedules and to get deliveries as quickly as possible in order to attain the degree of strength needed to stop aggression.
I well remember the enthusiasm which Canadian industry first showed in tackling this defence job. Much of that enthusiasm is still in evidence and there are many companies today that are putting their best effort into defence work. On the other

hand, we are facing situations where it is hard to get firms to take on certain types of defence contracts and also where there is a slowing down on work already in production. In other words, it seems to those of us who are looking at the picture from the government side, that there is a growing tendency to put priority on commercial work instead of defence contracts.
Then on page 11 he supplements that statement with these words:
Getting back to this matter of a certain indifference towards defence work that we are finding in industry, I want to point out again that this by no means applies to industry as a whole. However, it is true of certain firms. I am sure that we all embarked on this defence effort with the earnest desire to make a worth-while contribution to the defence of this country, and to the defence of the free world. I know that the delays and complexities have been discouraging. Nevertheless, the necessity to complete the program as soon as possible is still there. We have undertaken certain commitments and it is up to us to carry them through. As I see it, a defence contract carries with it a good deal of responsibility-responsibility to keep costs down, to maintain production schedules, and to meet delivery dates.
The financial inducement to accept this responsibility is, I know, not very great, but surely the returns are immeasurable. Individually, Canadians are making their contribution to Canada's defence. Industry, particularly in a free enterprise country, has an equal stake in this endeavour and the acceptance of defence contracts, even if they are not as lucrative as commercial business, is not too high a price to pay for the maintenance of political and economic freedom.
I think that answers the question of retarded production. It is the sort of story that we have been hearing since 1944, that certain industrial plants are reluctant to change over and retool for defence contracts. In those days there was a lot of stalling and delay. As the hon. member for Nanaimo suggests, there has been delay and there have been bottlenecks, but I would not hold the Department of National Defence responsible for that. The same thing happened when Great Britain had her back to the wall at Dunkirk. At that time the 5 per cent limitation on profits which had been laid down by statute by the House of Commons had to be removed. The minister of munitions and supply indicated to the house at that time that he could not get firms in this country to accept war contracts until the profits limitation had been removed. Those who were in business for the sake of business apparently did not have much patriotism or did not recognize the necessity of making a contribution toward defence. They were not ready to lose money by retooling for defence contracts.
Unless the government puts some teeth into some legislation these people will not carry their share of the load. The young man joining the air force to become a pilot may be giving up a job which pays him $500 a month. He leaves that job and risks his life because he realizes that this country is worth fighting
Supply-National Defence for. It is not too much to ask the man who wants to carry on commercially, who wants to make money out of his operations, to do something as well. I think the government ought to talk a little to people of that kind.
I want to say a few words about defence research. Suggestions have been made in this house that Canada should discontinue defence research, that we should sit back and let the United States do the necessary research work and take whatever they may get. In the meantime we would not be spending money on research.
That is a pretty immature attitude for any hon. member of this house to take in the kind of world that we are living in today and with the kind of defence that must be visualized for the future. Our defence set-up will come mainly from the test tubes of the scientists. Where would our whole defence program be without the atomic research and plant that we have today? There must be continuing research into defence against atomic attack. If you do not spend money on that type of defence you will not have much in the way of defence.
On the other hand, we are experimenting up in the north country, where there is extremely cold weather, on the use of equipment, machines, planes and so on. We are doing research on clothing to enable our troops to move in that kind of climate in the event of having to meet a threat that might come over the Bering sea. That kind of research has got to continue. I have in my hand a little booklet put out by the defence research board. Its title is "Research Opportunities". I am not going to take the time of the house to read from it, but if anyone who is thinking in terms of depending only on research that may be done in the United States will take the trouble to take a look at the kind of work that the defence research board is carrying on and relate it to any war that may occur in the future he will realize that the most important part of otir defence expenditure is the work that the scientists are doing in developing new machines, new equipment, new engines, further uses for atomic energy and all that kind of thing.
Actually in my opinion we are in the hands of the scientists for all of our defences in the future. I wanted to say that because I think anyone who makes the statement that Canada should discontinue defence research has not thought the matter through very far. That is about all I want to say. What I have said I thought should be said. As I said when I began, I do not set myself up as an expert. I think most members of the house are just feeling their way. In my judgment there are no experts on the world of the future in so far as war and
3826	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence social problems are concerned. I think we have entered a new era. We have closed the old book of history and are writing a new one. There is no charted course. It is going to be a matter of trial and error from now on, but the least any of us can do is to try to think the thing through sanely and honestly and make the best contribution we can to our country regardless of what political tag we may wear.


Mr. Ray Thomas (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Chairman, at the outset I should like to join the hon. member for Nanaimo and the minister in paying tribute to the members of our armed forces. They have built up an enviable reputation throughout the years and have certainly served with distinction in the wars in which they have taken part. They are well known for their abilities, courage and resourcefulness in the field. We have been critical many times in the past and probably will be in the future but those criticisms have never been aimed at the armed forces as such. They have been criticisms of the department and the manner in which the administration of the armed services has been carried out.
In the present situation we know that things are serious. We are engaged now in a battle-and whether it be a hot war or a cold war it is still a battle-to maintain our way of life. This is not a war as we have known wars in the past. It is not a war between countries for trade benefits or anything of that sort. It is a battle between communism and the democratic way of life. We must never allow the peace overtures emanating from the communist bloc at the present time to lull us into a false sense of security. World domination has always been a part of communist doctrine. We sincerely hope that the peace moves that we have seen in the last few weeks are sincere. I am sure that Canada and the other western nations will meet the communists half way if they are sincere and will do all they can to bring about a lasting peace.
There is the possibility of course that the new soviet administration has seen the light and realizes that a world union based on power or anything of that sort will not work but that the community of nations upon this earth can get along peacefully if good will is exercised on the part of all. Although, as I indicated a few moments ago, we have always supported the expenditures of the Department of National Defence because we feel that at the present time defence is the most important branch of our government, we have been critical of the way in which the moneys have been spent at times and still are. The aims of the department are
[Mr. Gillis.l

certainly worthy but in many cases the results leave very much to be desired.
The minister said today that our commitments to NATO will be met. I am glad to learn that but I am not too sure that the NATO aims are high enough. I believe that the NATO objective for armed forces is something like 90 divisions or 1,350,000 men by 1954. If we achieve that we will have done something, but we are far from having enough available men to even fight against the might of soviet Russia for a short time until we can build up further defences. As General Gruenther said last year-these figures were placed on Hansard during this same debate of last year-the soviet active force consists of 175 divisions or something over 4 million men, and they also have 20,000 first-line aircraft and 300 submarines. These figures are out of date. He also pointed out that the East German police force has at the present time 360,000 men who could be converted into an army on very short notice. Coupled with at least
360,000	Russian soldiers in East Germany, it makes quite a formidable force to meet if they should decide to march across the border anywhere within Germany.
The magazine Aviation Age says that the 1951 Russian production was 10,700 fighter planes, 530 reconnaissance planes, 3,060 light and medium bombers, 1,430 transport aircraft and 5,000 trainers and liaison aircraft. During the same period the United States produced only 5,000 planes of all types and in the neighbourhood of 20,000 aircraft engines. It is quite apparent that at the present time soviet Russia exceeds us in air power, manpower and sea power. If they can keep on producing at this rate we can never catch up with them.
I should like to say a few words with regard to aircraft. General Hoyt Vandenberg was reported to have said that the MIG-15 is a better climber than the F-86 and that the F-86 has a longer range. At altitudes up to 25,000 feet the F-86 equals the speed and appears to handle better than the MIG-15. Above 25,000 feet the MIG is faster and has a higher service ceiling. He goes on to say that the MIG and the F-86 are roughly in the same general area of technical development.
However, we must remember that the MIG-15 is not the best fighter plane the Russians have. The MIG-19 and the LA-17 are both superior to the MIG-15 in all respects; and it is claimed that both are either in production or could be put into production in a very short period of time. It has been pointed out to us that our F-86's have proven themselves superior in many respects in

Korea, although we have had reports to the contrary. We have no way of knowing, however, whether the MIG-15's that are in use there are the Russians' first-line aircraft or whether they are a second-grade aircraft being shoved into the Korean war.
Last year, Mr. Speaker, I urged that the Department of National Defence consider building more small aircraft carriers. At that time I indicated that I was not referring to the Magnificent or anything like it, but to something of the order of the old converted merchant vessel aircraft carriers we had for escort purposes during the war. Certainly those aircraft carriers played a leading role in the defeat of the U-boats in the Atlantic during the last war. That was particularly due to the fact that while our escort vessels were unable to match the speed of many of the new submarines which the Germans then had, the aircraft, which incidentally were of an obsolete type, were able to make up the deficiency in speed. I would suggest to the minister that this type of aircraft carrier is cheap, and they would certainly pay for themselves in a very short time in the event of submarine attacks in the Atlantic.
The minister mentioned today that we have at the present time 56 ships in the R.C.N. I wonder just how many of those are first-line ships or how many would be any good under actual combat conditions and against modern submarines. 1 certainly hope they would be good; but if they are anything like the old ones, and if they have not been remodelled, they certainly would not stand up under modem warfare.
It is all right, Mr. Chairman, for the minister to say that our commitments to NATO will be met, but we must remember that while we are meeting these commitments we must have something left over for our own defence here at home. We must have fighter strength spread across this country so we can offset any air attack which might come to any part of the country. I believe the minister said, or it was said in the white paper that was tabled, that air attack would be the type of attack we would have to worry about here at home. Also I think we need an adequate mobile army defence force which can be transported in a hurry to any part of the country where it may be needed. We should have sufficient numbers to do some good when they get there-at least sufficient to hold back any invader until some of the NATO countries, the United States or someone else, can come to our assistance.
We certainly appreciate the troubles which the Minister of National Defence and the Department of National Defence have had in
Supply-National Defence the past, but I do not think these difficulties which have been pointed out should be sufficient to stop our defence effort. Our freedom, our way of life, and as a matter of fact our very lives are at stake. With good administration, conscientious defence spending, and with armed forces personnel of the type we have here in Canada we should be able to hold back all comers. We have the personnel, we have the ability, and now it is up to the department to see that we have those things which the men require to fulfil their duties to NATO and to us.


Mr. D. S. Harkness (Calgary East):: Mr. Chairman, this morning the minister spoke at some length of the quality and achievements of the fighting men of the army, navy and air force who have been taking an active part in the war in Korea. I should like to join with him in paying tribute to those men-tribute to their spirit, to the efficiency of their training, to their leadership and to their accomplishments. I was glad to hear the minister pay that tribute to the men who are out on the sharp edge as far as the defence of Canada is concerned at the present time. In that way I would hope to draw the attention of the general public to the work which they have been doing in defending all of us.
I was rather sorry, however, that the minister conveyed the general impression, I thought, that the efficiency, the spirit and the accomplishment of these men were due to a high level of efficiency as far as the Department of National Defence is concerned. I do not think that follows at all. The ability of the Canadian fighting man has been well demonstrated in every engagement in which he has taken part; and the job these men have done is, I think, essentially due to that ability.
I was also glad to hear the minister say something about the College Militaire Royal de Saint-Jean this morning. Perhaps I might say that I have a certain amount of personal knowledge in regard to the college because I have a boy attending there. I think at that college they are doing an excellent job from the point of view of training young Canadians both in the way of a general education and of giving them military training at the same time. They are also helping to foster a spirit of unity between the two chief races in Canada.
I have been at the college on two or three occasions and I was extremely favourably impressed with the commandant, Colonel Lahaie, and the way he is carrying on his job there. I did not have an opportunity of meeting many of his staff, but those whom I did meet also made a very favourable
3828	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence impression. I think the creation of this college will serve a very important need, one which has not been met before in Canada, and will considerably strengthen the country from both points of view I have just mentioned.
As has already been indicated by the hon. member for Nanaimo, the objectives of our national defence effort were stated in the white paper of, I think, three years ago. They are again stated in the white paper which was issued yesterday. I shall not read them but they are, briefly, to defend Canada itself, to meet our commitments overseas-our commitments to the United Nations or NATO- and organization to build up strength in the event that total war should break out.
With those objectives I am in full agreement as, I believe, is every loyal citizen of Canada. My criticism of the government is of the way in which they have attempted to attain these objectives or, perhaps I should say, how they have failed to reach them effectively. In that failure they have wasted large sums of the taxpayers' money.
For the past five years I have condemned the government on the grounds that our effective fighting forces are very small in comparison with the amount we have been paying for them. Unfortunately, year by year this situation has grown worse instead of better. If we look at the figures which are given on page 86 of the report of the Department of National Defence for 1952, and also in the white paper at page 36, we get a picture of how the cost has mounted. If these are arranged in the form of a table, as I have them here, the thing strikes one quite forcibly. For 1949-50 we had in the active forces 47,185 personnel; the cost was $384,879,000-I shall not give the odd dollars. This works out at a cost per man in uniform of $8,157. In 1950-51 there were 68,427 personnel; the cost was $782,457,000, and the cost per man was $11,435. In 1951-52 the total personnel was 95,394; the cost was $1,415,473,000, and the cost per man, $14,438. In 1952-53 the total personnel was 104,486; the cost was $1,889,507,000, and the cost per man, $18,083. For this year the estimated cost as given in the white paper is $2,243,767,000. We do not know the number of personnel, so we cannot make that calculation.
Based on the figures we have for these four years, we find the cost per man mounting from $8,100 to $11,400, to $14,400 and to $18,000. In other words there has been a steady progression upward in the cost per man in uniform. I might point out also that the strengths I have taken here are the strengths given for the end of the year in each case, that is at March 31. If one took
rMr. Harkness.]

the average strength throughout the year the figure would be somewhere halfway between each of the figures I have given, and therefore the cost per man would be considerably greater than the amounts I have given.
Now, these figures show how the cost has mounted for each man and woman in uniform. Of the 104,000 men and women we now have in the services, a large number are in administrative or training positions. The number actually in fighting units and capable of being put into battle is, of course, very much smaller. According to the figures on page 15 of this white paper the total number of men in fighting formations or units is 43,200. That would include a considerable number of non-fighting personnel, such as medical personnel and so forth. I would estimate that not more than 35,000 or 40,000 actual fighting personnel are to be found there.
This morning the minister said that we now have a larger proportion of troops operational than we had three years ago, and that is correct. He went on to say that the number we now have operational compares very favourably with other countries. I would have accepted that more readily if it had not been exactly the same answer he gave two or three years ago when I brought up this question. At that time he stated that the number of operational troops we had, as compared with non-operational troops, compared favourably to the number in any other country. Today he says we have greatly increased the number of operational troops, so surely there is a discrepancy there. It leads one to wonder about the minister's statement.
In any event we have a comparatively small number of fighting troops ready to go into action. As I say, probably 35,000 or
40,000	are in this category. In order to secure this comparatively small fighting potential we will have spent in the five years from 1949 to 1954, a total of $6,720,084,000. This is the total of the figures I gave before. I should like to ask, Mr. Chairman, can this showing be defended by the government as efficient handling of defence funds when we have spent such enormous amounts for, comparatively speaking, such small effective fighting formations? Of course the minister will say that a large part of this sum has been spent for armaments, ships, airplanes, guns, for buildings, the stockpiling of equipment and things of that sort. It is true that large amounts have been spent for these purposes, but the unfortunate fact is ' that even the small forces we have in being are not fully equipped with up-to-date arms. At the same time, I must say that we have more carpets,

neckties, teapots and things of that kind than these forces will be able to use in a good many years.
Last year I pointed out that we now have considerably fewer field and anti-tank guns, rifles and small arms of all sorts than we had four years ago, in spite of having made some purchases of United States type arms of these kinds. We have shipped equipment of that sort for some three divisions or more to Europe. We are, therefore, in the position of having spent this very large amount, yet we have a smaller amount of equipment in many lines on hand for fighting purposes than we had four years before the program started. We have also only a small number of up-to-date tanks, of the Centurion type. We have fewer serviceable vehicles of all sorts than we had four years ago. When we come to the air force, on which a large measure of the expenditure has been made, we find that, according to the white paper and the minister's statement, we now have nine squadrons of F-86E Sabre jets in operation. These are the only operational squadrons of up-to-date aircraft which we have. There are three more squadrons of these Sabres in the process of formation and training in Canada.
We have, however, no fully operational squadron of CF- 100's, the aircraft that has been announced as the one to provide for the defence of Canada itself. The white paper says there is one squadron of CF-lOO's but that squadron is only in the process of formation. I know it is not fully operational. In addition to that, of course, the Minister of Defence Production announced a short time ago that the total number of CF-lOO's of all sorts produced to date was 16. The Minister of National Defence made some statement to the effect that they had deliberately let the program lag to some extent, but that certainly was not the tenor of the statement he made last year in connection with the CF-100, or the year before that. These aircraft were supposed to be available in large numbers long before this, and in the sky ready to defend this country. We have not got them.
We have been told that we have a partially constructed radar screen, but we do not know how complete it is. One thing we do know is that we have practically nothing with which to back up that screen, either in the way of fighter aircraft or ack-ack defence. As the hon. member for Nanaimo pointed out, a radar screen is useless for defence purposes unless you have something with which to back it up. He referred to the statement made by Wing Commander Rohmer; and I too think he did a great service in drawing
Supply-National Defence that fact to the general attention of the people of Canada. It is a matter which we have raised year after year, but I am afraid it did not sink into the consciousness of a great many of the Canadian general public that we were comparatively defenseless as far as any air attack from the north was concerned.
The minister also mentioned the airborne brigade. That airborne brigade, of course, has been changed around considerably because of the rotation system of troops to Korea and so forth. However, whatever its efficiency may be-and I believe and trust that it is quite high again, because the people now in the airborne brigade have had upwards of a year of training in that role- and whatever the quality of the airborne brigade may be, it would not be of a great deal of use in discharging its function of being dropped to meet any attempted invasion of this country from the north, or the seizure of an airfield in the north so that bombing could be carried on down here or anything of that sort, because we simply have not the transport planes to carry it and drop it there. To that extent the airborne brigade serves only to lull the people of Canada into a false sense of security. For that brigade to be effective we must have planes ready to take them where they are needed and drop them there; but we just have not those planes.
What all this adds up to, Mr. Chairman, is that we have not the requirements to meet our primary objective, namely the defence of Canadian territory. In other words that objective has not been met, and it has not been nearly met. When we come to the second commitment, namely our obligations to UN and NATO, the minister says that has been met or will be met by the target date. We have done considerably better in meeting that objective than we have in meeting the primary one. When we come to the third objective, we find it is to a large extent a matter of the reserve forces and the general organization that is to be built up; and I shall deal with that matter later.
The small amount of defensive strength that we have in relation to the amount we have spent is also shown up clearly by a comparison of the numbers of personnel in the forces now and their cost, with the numbers and costs during the war. This comparison shows to what a great extent the cost per man in the services has increased. The increase is really out of all proportion to what one could reasonably expect. These figures are to be found at page 86 of the report of the Department of National Defence. I have already put on the record the figures for the past four or five years and I should
3830	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence now like to refer to the figures for the years 1941 down to 1945.
In the year 1941-42 there were in our active forces approximately 426,000 personnel and the expenditure was $1,011,451,000, or a cost of $2,373 per man. In 1942-43 the number in the forces was 640,592 and the cost was $1,865,622,000, or a cost per man of $2,912. In 1943-44 there were in the services 709,666 personnel and the expenditure was $2,629,094,000, or a cost per man of $3,704. This was the year in which our forces were at their height, and this was the year in which we started to fight in earnest. In spite of that fact, when we were blowing away large amounts of ammunition, and when we had the largest number of people in uniform that we had at any time during the war, the cost was only $3,704 per man whereas today it is approximately $18,000. In 1944-45 the number in the forces was 672,632 and the expenditure was $2,938,377,000 or a cost per person of $4,369.
Compare those costs, namely $2,300, $2,900, $3,700 and $4,300 at the height of the war, when the greatest expenditures of all were taking place, with the cost during the last three or four years of $8,100, $11,400, $14,800 and $18,000, with the figure still to go up in the next year, apparently. It certainly indicates that something in the nature of extravagance has been going on.
The minister, of course, may say that the costs now are greatly increased over what they were during the war, and that the general cost of living has increased. That is true, of course. But what he should add, but will not, is that that fact again is, to a considerable extent, owing to the policy of this government as a result of which we now have a 50-cent dollar. But even if you take that fact into consideration and allow that general costs of everything now are twice what they were, we still find that defence costs per man are over four times what they were at the height of the war, or just twice as much as we might reasonably expect them to be.
Amongst the chief reasons, for this excessive cost are poor administration, overblown staffs, inefficiency, extravagance and waste. The Auditor General's report, the Currie report, and the two reports which we were not permitted to see all show these conditions to exist in certain branches of the defence department. I think no reasonable person in Canada is in any doubt that similar conditions prevail to a greater or lesser degree in all branches. The reports, of course, dealt especially with inefficiency, extravagance and waste. I have spoken on those matters in


a previous debate and I shall not go into them again at this moment. However, I should like to look at the matter of how staffs have been expanded, or in other words the empire-building which has gone on in the Department of National Defence.
A return which was recently brought down for the hon. member for Kamloops showed that in the deputy minister's office there are now more personnel than there were at any time during the war. What is or can be the justification for a state of affairs of that sort? If we look at the estimates for this year we find, under departmental administration alone, that the number of employees has increased from 2,512 in 1952-53 to 3,599 for 1953-54, or an increase of 1,087 in one year. If we go back and look at the estimates for the previous year we find that in 1951-52 the number of these civilian employees was 1,230. So there was an increase of 1,282 the previous year. The staff was more than doubled for the next year, in order to bring the figure up to 2,512 in these estimates for 1952-53. Well, this leads one to ask where this thing is going to stop. Are they going to keep on multiplying and multiplying and multiplying these staffs, until they employ half the people in Canada?
Then the number of civilian employees throughout the department showed a very sharp rise, though perhaps not quite as bad as in the departmental administration branch. Throughout the whole department in 1952 there were 21,782 civilian employees. For 1953-54 that figure is up to 26,638, or an increase of 4,856. And I would add that these figures do not include the casual and prevailing rate employees, who must number several thousand, although the exact number is not given.
One of the particular spots where the increase in the number of civilian employees is shown is in connection with stenographers and typists. Evidently the paper war has been and is being stepped up, although we were told last year, I believe it was, that the paper work in the department was to be simplified. Well, I can readily believe that paper is flowing more freely than ever both into and out of national defence headquarters, because I have seen some graphic examples of it. My route home from this building often takes me between the national defence headquarters buildings, and on several occasions I have seen large burlap bundles filled with paper. Evidently this is waste paper that has been piled ready to be taken away. It is an arresting example of the vast number of pamphlets, forms and letters which have to be thrown out frequently, and gives one some idea of the enormous amount

of paper that this very large number of civilian employees are kept busy passing about from one to another. The cost of the staff employed in shuffling this paper about is enormous. Even the cost of the paper must be very high.
Then last year I spoke at some length concerning the multiplication of staffs that has taken place at national defence headquarters, as well as at command and area headquarters, and at similar headquarters of other services. I shall not repeat what I said at that time, except to mention that in one branch of national defence headquarters alone, that of the army training and staff duties branch, there are now seven full colonels, each with a staff of officers and other ranks, as well as civilians. All those people are doing the work accomplished before the war by one colonel, three majors, and something like twelve other ranks.
No doubt the amount of work has increased; but I doubt very much whether, so far as that particular branch is concerned, the amount of work has more than doubled, or anything along that line. As I said last year, they have to put out the same number of training pamphlets whether they have a thousand men or ten thousand men. The work of preparing those pamphlets is the same in either case. But in any event we see this enormous multiplication of effort taking place, a great deal of which I am sure does not contribute very greatly to the defence of this country, and which is certainly very expensive.
Then, extremely large sums of money have been spent for equipment, but we have received comparatively little information as to what equipment we have received for these large sums of money. Last year in the defence expenditure committee there was discussion of an item of $683 million for aircraft, about which we could get practically no information. We find in these estimates another $400 million for aircraft. I would hope that this year, when we begin to discuss the estimates in detail, the minister will be able to give us a considerable amount of information as to how this billion-dollar item has been spent. What have we to show for it? What did we receivfe for it? So far as we know, all we have is nine squadrons of Sabre fighters, plus a certain number of training aircraft.
The same applies in respect of equipment for the army. Large sums of money have been spent for it, and from the last information we were able to get in last year's defence expenditure committee, it did not appear that much equipment had been secured. In fact a very limited amount had
Supply-National Defence been secured at that time. That is another matter upon which we should have more detailed information from the minister during the discussion of his estimates.
The minister said that, so far as administrative procedures and things of that nature were concerned, standardization had gone ahead satisfactorily, but that it had not worked out so well in respect of arms. He expressed the hope that a standard rifle would be adopted in the not too distant future. I firmly believe that the decision made three years ago by the minister to standardize our arms with those of the Americans was a very grave mistake. After the decision was made, the department started in on the program of getting rid of the arms we then had by sending them to European nations. Then the department found that in many cases they could not get arms from the Americans, and that when they did they were not as satisfactory as the ones they could get from the British.
That program had to be halted, and it definitely was halted. Only a limited number of American small arms, guns and the like were purchased. Practically no purchases were made of United States tanks. I believe the mistake then made has done a great deal to increase the expense of our defence effort, and has greatly complicated it and made it less efficient than otherwise it would have been.
I suggest the minister should tell us what amount of United States armament we now have, including small arms, guns and the like. He should tell us what Canadian forces, if any, are equipped with these small arms, in other words to what units they have been issued. The minister said-and I am not sure whether it was in his speech or in the white paper

that good progress has been made in producing 105-millimeter and 155-millimeter guns. I would like to know how many of these guns have been produced, and what units in our forces are equipped with them; because we were definitely short of guns, due to the number that were shipped to Europe.
I should like now to say a word about the reserve army. Once again I would compliment the members of our reserve army, those men who give so much of their time and energy in an attempt to keep the reserve in force. I would include not only those men, but also members of the naval reserve and of the air force reserve. These are men who are devoted to their task but who, to a very large extent, are not supported to the extent they should be-and indeed never have received the support from this government that should have been given. At page 14 of


Brooke Claxton: Is it not a good thing to begin at the base, to show the increase from the base?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think it is a good thing if the impression the minister is trying to make is that everything is improving with the Canadian defence forces, but I do not think it is a good thing to try to deceive the Canadian people and make them believe that things have been improving constantly when as a matter of fact they have been standing still for the last few years. The reserve forces have been hard put to it to maintain the strength they have.

The situation in the reserve forces has not been good. There is no question about that. Along with other hon. members I have been receiving an increasing number of complaints from men in the reserve forces. The general situation in a lot of the reserve units is pretty well summarized in an article which appeared in the Calgary Herald of March 30. This was written by Jim Senter, who was a member of the unit I was in overseas and also of the reserve force unit which I commanded after the war. This was an artillery unit, and therefore I think he knows what he is talking about. I believe he is still in the reserve army. The article goes on in this way:
Officers Claim Faults Injuring Reserve Army Lack
of Understanding and Scarcity of Equipment Cited as Main Troubles
A lack of understanding, a shortage of permanent and non-permanent personnel and a scarcity of good, modern technical equipment is tearing the heart out of Canada's reserve army.
And then again:
In part, at least, the reasons for the above situation are not too hard to find. These are: Overcommitment of Canada's small, but efficient regular army, now charged with the defence of Canada and the maintaining of two brigades for service under United Nations charter in Germany and Korea; and, promises and shipments of Canadian army equipment to countries of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization have stripped stores and supplies for the reserve army.
"I think they are making a big mistake", said one officer. "Most of our equipment was hauled away gradually and what we have left is becoming obsolete fast. At this rate things are going to be just like they were in 1939-40 when the artillery was training on 18-pounders and 4-5-inch howitzers.
"If a third great war should come, troops would require so much training after the outbreak that it would be years before they would be ready to fight."
This officer suggested that at least one piece of each item of modern equipment should be issued reserve army units "so we can keep up to date. They keep promising us that equipment will be replaced but, at the present rate, that's going to take years and it will be obsolete by the time we get it."
Particular shortages are to be found in transport, technical survey equipment such as the director, so important in artillery work, and range tables, without which artillery batteries can scarcely function.
The infantry in Calgary is not too badly off, but artillery units are in the ridiculous position of training with guns without breech rings. The director shortage is reminiscent of pre-second great war days when units made do with wax tins and broom sticks.
The article says the infantry is not too badly off, but I was talking to some infantry officers when I was home over Easter and they were complaining bitterly about shortages of equipment. They told me their carriers were about to be taken away from them. They told me their carrier platoon was the best they had. Their jeeps have gone already, and other pa'rts of their transport are gone. Their contention was that if their carriers

were taken the only thing they would have left with which to train would be small arms, and generally the spirit of the battalion would suffer seriously as a result.
It is extremely difficult to understand why the equipment of the reserve forces should have been constantly drained away during the past four years. The minister gets up here year after year and says they are anxious to do everything possible for the reserve forces, yet we find this situation existing. This equipment is gradually being taken away from them, and as a result their efficiency has been destroyed.


Brooke Claxton: 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.


Douglas Scott Harkness: What is the use of taking away equipment and saying that it will be replaced, and then months and months go by and it is not replaced. These people are left without equipment with which to train. How can you expect the spirit of a unit to be kept up; how can you keep up the interest of the men; how can you carry on training if you take equipment away and say that some time in the future they will be given more modern equipment? As a matter of fact the equipment they had should have been left with them until the modern equipment was available. Then they would have had something with which to train; but to take away this equipment and have months go by without it being replaced is the surest way I know to kill interest. The article continues:
We're not getting the understanding or co-operation we should from western command. They treat us as active force units. Returns, returns, returns, all the time.
It is the same paper war I was talking about a while ago.
It's impossible to do them all in the few hours' training time allotted each week.
I do not blame the western command for this situation. I blame national defence headquarters and the minister. They are the people who lay down what returns have to be sent in. They are the people responsible for the paper war that the reserve army has to fight. The western command or any other command merely carry out the orders they get from here.
This article goes on to deal with other matters and then makes a few recommendations as to how the situation might be improved. One of the suggestions made is one that I have mentioned before. This is the suggestion that a certain number of officers and N.C.O.'s from reserve units should
14, 1953
Supply-National Defence be sent on a tour of duty of six weeks or two months in Korea or Europe.
I have heard the minister say on several occasions that the availability of officers has always been a matter of worry, that there has been difficulty in getting officers. I would think that any deficiency which may exist in connection with officers and N.C.O.'s could readily be met by giving reserve force officers a tour of duty in Korea. Of course it would have to be limited in time because they have civilian jobs which they could not stay away from for very long. We have an airlift in operation. It would be quite a practical business to carry them back and forth, and the cost of doing so would be no greater than the cost of putting them in camps, sending them to schools and things of that sort which have proved comparatively ineffective. From the training point of view, if you adopted some scheme of this sort you would give these people the best training they could possibly have and make them very much more effective in their own units when they returned from such tours. You would also build up the reserve of people who had had actual experience in the Korean war about which the minister was talking. That is one way in which interest in the reserve forces and their standard of training could be improved, and I would recommend it very strongly to the minister.
Other ways, of course, are to reduce the number of returns and the great quantity of paper work involved which reserve force people on the whole just do not have the time to attend to. Another would be greater interest being displayed on the part of the government, national defence headquarters and so on in the reserve forces and their problems, particularly expressed in making sure that they have sufficient equipment. I have spoken about the matter of equipment before. Apparently equipment of all sorts is short. One of the things which the reserve force units resented particularly was the loss of their jeeps, which left them without vehicles to do all sorts of little jobs. I do not think you can expect anything else but that the reserve force officers will have to put up a terrific fight to keep their men and to get more men in the units and get them interested if they are constantly short of equipment, if what they have is taken away from them, and if they constantly have to improvise.
There is one other matter which I should like to mention briefly. I refer to promotions within the Royal Canadian Air Force. Last year I took up the matter of promotions of administrative officers with the minister and pointed out that the number of promotions

Supply-National Defence in that category had been very small. I understood there was a considerable amount of feeling among administrative officers because of that fact, which naturally did harm in the service. The minister made a reply which I thought was none too satisfactory.
However, there is another matter along the same line that I should like to take up. I asked some questions as to the length of time officers in the R.C.A.F. had been in their present ranks. I received a return on the 4th of March. The highest rank is air commodore, of whom there is only one, who has held that rank for over nine years. Taking all officers, there were 120 who had had no promotion for over nine years. There were 173 who had had no promotion for nine years. There were 298 who had had no promotion for over six years and 913 who had had no promotion for over three years. Many of these men are junior officers.
Taking flying officers, the lowest rank, there were 21 who had had no promotion for over nine years. There were 33 who had had no promotion for nine years, 98 who had had no promotion for over six years and 285 who had had no promotion for over three years. I should like to ask the minister to toe prepared to make a statement on the promotion policy of the R.C.A.F. particularly, and also of the army and navy. It seems to me that it is very difficult to get efficient service if you have considerable numbers of men, particularly in the two most junior ranks, who have had no promotion for nine years or more. It is bound to kill initiative and make things sticky as far as carrying out military activities of all sorts is concerned. It may be that there is a good explanation, I do not know; but certainly it is a matter about which the committee should have some explanation.


The Chairman:: The hon. member for Calgary East has divided his speech into two sections, one which had to do with a discussion of policy and the latter part which had to do with the asking of questions. Since there are only two minutes left before five o'clock and we have to consider private and public bills at that hour, I thought this might be a good opportunity to discuss the procedure which we will follow after the general discussion is completed. It will toe recalled that last year the details at page 295 were called heading by heading and studied under the various headings. Is that procedure agreeable to all members this year?
I should like to hear comments if there are any. Is it agreed that we will follow that procedure?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Does the hon. member for Kamloops wish to begin his speech?


Mr. Fulton:: It is now one minute to five.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall I call it five o'clock?


Edmund Davie Fulton: If that is agreeable to the minister.


Brooke Claxton: Agreed.


Louis-René Beaudoin: As it is five o'clock, the house will consider private and public bills.


PRIVATE BILLS
[Stage Direction]
On the order:
House in committee on Bill No. 280 (Letter R-9 of the Senate), intituled: "An act to incorporate Merit Insurance Company". (Without amendment)-Mr. Macnaughton.
Mr. Speaker:: I notice that on the order paper there are two bills, the one the deputy clerk has called and also a bill intituled "an act to incorporate Canadian Disaster Relief Fund, Incorporated", being Bill No. 229. There are also a number of divorce bills. All these bills are to be considered in committee of the whole. Is it the unanimous wish of the house that I should now leave the chair for the house to consider all these bills in committee of the whole?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READINGS
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 280, to incorporate Merit Insurance Company.-Mr. Macnaughton.
Bill No. 229, to incorporate Canadian Disaster Relief Fund, Incorporated.-Mr. Weir.
Bill	No.	231,	for	the	relief	of	Rolande
Jacqueline Lortie Nugent.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 232, for the relief of Alice Cecilia Anne Magniac Parker.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	233,	for	the	relief	of	Therese
Monette Lax.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 234, for the relief of Paul Edward Tremblay.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	235,	for	the	relief	of	Maurice
Leveille.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	236,	for	the	relief	of	Bernard
Gordon Smith.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 237, for the relief of Anne O'Connor Shapiro.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 238, for the relief of Beryl Mildred Taylor Leckie.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 239, for the relief of Eileen Margaret Amos Trudeau.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 240, for the relief of Florence Mae Mitchell Anderson.-Mr. Winkler.
. Bill No. 241, for the relief of Sidney William Donald Butler.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 242, for the relief of Adele Roberta Jeffrey.-Mr. Winkler.

Bill No. 243, for the relief of Margaret Bell Favreau.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 244, for the relief of Lena Herman Besner.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 245, for the relief of Muriel Luella Sproston Kerr.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 246, for the relief of Ruth Steirman Fernley.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 247, for the relief of Milorad Aragian.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 248, for the relief of Kenneth Angus Eaton Hewitt.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 249, for the relief of Delia Fleurette Ayotte Martin,-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 250, for the relief of Clarence Albert Edwards.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 251, for the relief of Issie Adler.- Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 252, for the relief of Jean Shelving-ton Parnell Adams.'-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 253, for the relief of Peggy Louise Miller McCallum.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 254, for the relief of Jean Paul Gauthier.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 255, for the relief of Bernice Catherine MacDonald Crawford.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 256, for the relief of Horst Wilhelm Wossidlo.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 257, for the relief of Nick Sauchuk.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 258, for the relief of Rita Frost Siversky.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 259, for the relief of Beatrice Gotlieb Slobotsky.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 260, for the relief of Georgina Julia Rose Charland.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 261, for the relief of Margaret Violet Creasor McKenna.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 262, for the relief of Kathleen Snell Meloche.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 263, for the relief of Henry George Maxham.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 264, for the relief of Marjorie Evelyn Lee Stevens.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 265, for the relief of Queenie Isabel Brambell Muchan.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 266, for the relief of Bessie Mabel Witcomb Elson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 267, for the relief of Catherine Maine McKenzie Woods.

Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 268, for the relief of Robert Edward Francis Clements.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 269, for the relief of Agnes Jackson Stroud Earle.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 270, for the relief of Mary Elizabeth Irene Gray Brideau.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 271, for the relief of Marie Claire Marcelle Suzanne Langlois Crowe, otherwise known as Marie Claire Marcelle Suzanne Langlois Cockell.-Mr. Winkler.
Private Bills-Divorce
Bill No. 272, for the relief of Janina Jenny Spaiches Remeikis.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 273, for the relief of Ruth Sanel Kolofsky.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 274, for the relief of Pauline Tratenberg Goldman.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 275, for the relief of Molly Klau Lust.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 276, for the relief of Charlotte Freeman Pelletier.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 277, for the relief of Olive Spencer Thompson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 278, for the relief of Dorothy Sanger Anderson Morris.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 281, for the relief of Helen Vera Cater Morgan.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 282, for the relief of Theresa Hynes Gnatiuk.

Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 283, for the relief of Anna Kobito-wich Gordon.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 284, for the relief of Mary Viola Yolanda Decorato Roy, otherwise known as Mary Viola Yolanda Decorato King.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 285, for the relief of Vincent John Laviolette.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 286, for the relief of Eileen Arthur Osborne Prescott.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 287, for the relief of Margaret Aziz Salhany.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 288, for the relief of Margaret Parker Graves.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 289, for the relief of Audrey Jane Clements Patterson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 290, for the relief of Roland Masson. -Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 294, for the relief of Clara Doris Jacobovitch Shepherd.

Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 295, for the relief of Doris Esther Kimel Schwartz.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 296, for the relief of Hans (Johann) Mueller.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 297, for the relief of Joseph Henri Jacques Gaston Lareault.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 298, for the relief of Joseph Nagy. -Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 299, for the relief of Aime Arthur Roy.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 300, for the relief of Sarah Juliet Montgomery Scott.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 301, for the relief of Mary Ethel Flood Harding.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 302, for the relief of Carrie Ruth Morbey Chenoy.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 303, for the relief of Beatrice Sylvia Aston Sutton.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 304, for the relief of Irene Toth Nagy.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 305, for the relief of Henryka Ziernicka Bogdan.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 306, for the relief of Mildred Ermine Bradshaw Moore.-Mr. Winkler.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-*National Defence
Bill No. 307, for the relief of Shirley William Bales.

Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 308, for the relief of Marjorie Joy Hartley Tanner.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 309, for the relief of Thomasine Elaine Mansfield Black.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 310, for the relief of Patricia Mary Kearney Hollett.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 311, for the relief of Margot Fairbanks Duff Pratt.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 312, for the relief of Marguerite Rita Stevenson LaFerme.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 313, for the relief of James Alexander Dougherty.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 314, for the relief of Morris Fishman.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 315, for the relief of Yvon Perras.
Mr.   Winkler.Mr. Speaker@: The business under the heading of public and private bills having been disposed of, the house will resume the business which was interrupted at five o'clock.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
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.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I do not suppose any member who heard the minister's statement this morning on Canada's defence program could have failed to be impressed with the thought that if the defences of Canada were in as good shape as the minister would have us take from his statement, there would not be very much for anybody to say about it. However, the facts of the situation are, Mr. Chairman, that unfortunately there are a number of us who feel that we cannot take that reassurance from the minister's statement; .because he has been making these reassuring


statements every year now, particularly since Korea and the inauguration of the three-year, $5 billion program.
The developments and the discoveries of what is going on in the department do not warrant us in relaxing our efforts or, I think it is fair to say, they do not warrant us in relaxing our criticism in an attempt to obtain a more realistic and efficient defence program in this country and, also, as part of the United Nations Organization and as a country having responsibilities to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
It is, of course, true that one of the main features with which our criticism deals is the actual amounts of money which are spent; but, Mr. Chairman, it should be made clear, if it has not already been made clear, that the objection on that score is not that we have to spend money on defence. Owing to the circumstances in which Canada and other free nations find themselves it is unfortunately necessary to provide for defence on a scale with which we have never before been confronted in a time of nominal peace. It is not the fact that the government is asking parliament to authorize huge sums of money for defence which is criticized but, rather, the fact that we are told that we are getting defence which is quite unrealistic when you compare the situation as it actually exists, and the adequacy of our defences, with what should be available in terms of real defence after the amount of money we have spent.
This attempt to have the house and the country believe that we have in fact got real defence for all of the money we have spent takes two forms. The first is with respect to the details of the program announced in the various white papers we have had, as to the size of our defence forces themselves, the efficiency of the various components and so on, to the effect that they are at a certain level of efficiency and that they have equipment. That does not seem to be the case when we analyse the situation. Second, there is an apparent belief-and certainly it is so consistently put forward by the department that it may be the minister believes it himself-that money spent on frills and fineries, on things which do not actually increase the shooting power of Canada's defence forces, nevertheless is providing a defence machine which will be adequate to discharge the job of defending Canada, when in fact the things for which large amounts of defence funds are being spent will not give us any defence at all in the real sense of the word.
In respect to the first of the unrealistic branches of the minister's defence of his own department-that is, that our defence forces are actually equipped and ready, that we have forces in being to an extent which does

not seem to be borne out by a detailed analysis of the situation-I think there cannot be a better example of the truth of what I have said than that which was furnished recently in the statement by Wing Commander Rohmer, which was previously referred to in this debate. Wing Commander Rohmer, in the speech he made on March 26, 1953, in Toronto, took exception to the very thing I have been mentioning, these general statements about the adequacy of the defence forces of Canada-statements which are not borne out by the facts. He opened his address with a statement or an article appearing in the press in Toronto which was obviously inspired by the department. He took objection to the statement contained in that article. We have all had similar experiences concerning inspired articles in the press with regard to what the government is doing. The words to which the minister took exception are the following:
Backed by R.C.A.F. jet fighter squadrons and the army's mobile striking force, they constitute a military force that experts say is capable of dealing with any Arctic invader.
Military authorities, guided by long years of experience, believe that control of the air is vital to any successful land attack on this continent.
With a fast striking air force to guard the northern skies, the mobile army striking force to deal with a surprise airborne invasion, and a fast-growing navy to patrol the coastal waters, Canada's home defences against attack are stronger today than ever before in peacetime.
Those words, Mr. Chairman, were found in a Toronto newspaper article on January 12, and they are words obviously inspired by the Department of National Defence.


Brooke Claxton: What evidence has the hon. member of that?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have the evidence of other similar articles.


Brooke Claxton: That is no evidence at all.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Perhaps the minister is indicating that the department does not agree with this statement in the article I just read.


Brooke Claxton: With what has just been said? That article goes much farther than the facts or than anything I have ever said.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Then the minister is saying that those words which appear in the press article-
With a fast striking air force to guard the northern skies, a mobile army striking force to deal with a surprise airborne invasion, and a fastgrowing navy to patrol the coastal waters, Canada's home defences against attack are stronger today than ever before in peacetime.
-are not based upon anything the minister has said, and do I understand him to say that it goes much farther than the facts?


Brooke Claxton: I would have to sort it out. The final statement that the defence forces
Supply-National Defence available are much greater than ever before in peacetime is completely true, but that vast striking-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Fast, not vast.


Brooke Claxton: There is a fast one, but I thought you said vast. I am sorry, but I did not make the statement. I have made lots of statements and I stand by them, but I did not make that statement.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I had not indicated that the minister made the statement, but I was saying we had experience with similar reports in the press which are said to be inspired by military experts or departmental officials. Then when we try to tie it down we cannot find the name of the expert who actually said it. I am glad to have the minister's statement. I will not go any farther than what he has actually said here. I understand now he says that this does not represent or is not based upon a statement made by the department, and that certain parts of the article go beyond anything which is justified by the facts or by any official statement made by the department.


Brooke Claxton: I said that having understood the hon. member as saying "vast". Now that I have the correct impression as "fast", 1 would have to look at the article and sort out what was in accordance with what I said before and what was not.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Then we are left in the position that perhaps we had better wait until the minister deals with the matter at a later stage. On that basis, then, I should like to deal with a statement made by Wing Commander Rohmer to the effect that except for three Sabre squadrons under training to go to Europe under NATO, Canada could not put up a single modern aircraft. He said that Canada is absolutely defenseless against air attack, and after analysing the situation went on as follows:
Gentlemen, the air officer commanding, air defence command of the R.C.A.F., through no fault of his own or that of the R.C.A.F., could not stop one Russian bomber attacking over 30,000 feet in broad daylight, unless it stumbled into the Quebec area.
From other parts of that speech it is obvious that the reason he said "unless it stumbled into the Quebec area" is that it is in the Quebec area that the three Sabre squadrons destined to form part of Canada's air division of the NATO forces in Europe are at the present time. If they were to leave tomorrow the situation would be, on the basis of this article, that even if it did stumble into the Quebec area the R.C.A.F. could not stop one Russian bomber attacking at over 30,000 feet in broad daylight. This is
3838

Supply

National Defence the situation, Mr. Chairman, in spite of the statements which have been made in this house year after year as to Canada's defence program, the first branch of which is to provide for the adequate defence of Canada as part of the North American continent.
We find the same impression being created this year, that adequate attention is being given to home defence, by the statement on the first page of the white paper tabled yesterday. It reads:
There has also been a substantial Increase in the emphasis on the defence of North America against air attack.
On page 5 of the white paper we find this statement:
In the event of an all-out war the most probable method of attack upon the North American continent would be by air.
This statement is under the heading, "First objective: Defence against direct attack." As I say, Mr. Chairman, similar statements have been made year after year in this house and in the course of the white papers, yet we find the situation such that if tomorrow the three Sabre squadrons forming part of the NATO component were dispatched overseas, we could not stop one Russian bomber attacking at over 30,000 feet in broad daylight. We have other statements which have been made to the house in an effort to reassure the country that everything is as well as it could possibly be in the best of all possible departments. There have been statements to the effect that the aircraft production program is going ahead as scheduled; yet as a result of pressing for details we have a statement made by the Minister of Defence Production- with obvious signs of annoyance that he should have been pressed into giving that accounting-with respect to the production of CF-lOO's, that after four years and the expenditure of $130 million only 16 airframes and 96 engines had been produced up to December 31, 1952. After four years and the expenditure of $130 million of government funds, that is the situation.
Then we find another statement being made which, if taken at face value, would give the impression that Canada has a squadron now equipped with CF-lOO's, capable of taking to the air. Of course the fact is that, although the squadron has now been activated, it is not yet in a position to take to the air and operate as a fighting unit. Here is what the white paper says, again at page 5:
The first regular squadron equipped with CF-100 all-weather, twin-engine, jet fighters, was recently formed-
It is not much use forming a squadron unless it is in a position to fly and fight. I do not know why, in these white papers, the


minister does not complete that side of the picture. We find that that sort of completed statement is never made. We are left with the indefinite and vague information that by the end of the fiscal year a number of these squadrons will be operating. But we have the information, which was made available finally by the Minister of Defence Production, that in the field of air defence with respect to the CF-100-which we have been told is the one aircraft on which we can rely to meet the requirements of defence of Canada's northland-after four years, the expenditure of $130 million, and vast numbers of promises, all we had received up to December 31, 1952 were 16 airframes and 96 engines.
Then we were told'-and the minister spent some time this morning in entering this branch of his defence-that we have spent vast sums of money on defence. But I should think that fully half of the minister's lengthy statement this morning was devoted to an outline of the purchase of objects and of installations which would not in fact stop one Russian from attacking Canada. Neither the Russians nor any other enemy would be deterred by any amount of defence building or construction of the sort which the minister was taking obvious pride in outlining to us this morning. We are not going to stop the Russians by building barracks or indeed by building airfields unless we have the aircraft to operate from those airfields. We are not going to stop them by building barracks to accommodate the soldiers who form part of the airborne brigade unless we also have the aircraft to lift that brigade and the places to set them down in the areas in which it is anticipated that the Russians may be making their first landing.
The building of barracks and training grounds is not going to be the thing which will stop a Russian attack. What will stop a Russian attack will be a trained and equipped group which is not only ready with its own weapons but is capable of being moved to the places where the attack is anticipated. So far as one can find from the white paper or from the minister's statement this morning, we do not have that airborne brigade in being in that sense, even at the end of two-thirds of the $5 billion, three-year defence program. But we have vain statements-that is to say vain in the sense that they are not going to help us to repel a potential attacker-as to the amounts that we have been spending on construction.
We were told by the minister this morning that the construction program calls for $358 million this year. Then we were told-and it was said in a manner which indicated pride and satisfaction on the part of the minister-

that this amount was more than twice that expended during the peak of wartime construction. That is a most extraordinary thing for the minister to take pride in, Mr. Chairman. In wartime, in the last war, we had approximately 1 million men under arms. Yet this year, although we have only 104,000 in the three forces, or only about one-ninth or one-eighth of what we had at the peak of the wartime, we are spending more than twice what we spent on construction in the peak wartime year.
This fact that we are spending on construction more than twice what was spent in the peak war year is put forward as an important aspect of the defence program, as though somehow or another it was going to deter a potential aggressor. I should think that, on the contrary, a potential aggressor, if he had any aggressive intent, would be encouraged to think that the government of Canada in this year, with about one-ninth of the number of men in uniform that it had in the war, was spending with respect to the forces over twice as much on construction as it spent in the peak war year, instead of getting on with the job or providing them with the necessary arms, equipment and aircraft to enable them to do the job for which they were designed.
Then the minister appeared to take pride in putting forward as a defence of the defence effort the fact that the department, on this type of construction or on the acquisition of this type of installation, has spent more than twice as much-and done so in one-tenth the time-as the Canadian National Railways has spent in the whole course of its existence. What an extraordinary and perfectly meaningless argument to put forward as a defence of the way in which the government is discharging its responsibility to provide for the defence of Canada against aggression. All one can say there, Mr. Chairman, is that perhaps the country has rather more to show from what the Canadian National Railways has spent, even though it may have taken ten times as long to spend it, than we shall have as a real contribution to defence from the type of things in this field for which the government is spending these vast sums of money.
Then the minister seemed to take much pleasure out of the fact that somewhere in the neighbourhood of $2 billion out of a total of $5 billion was to be spent on construction-
I think he used the general word "construction"-or under the heading of construction. Was that not approximately the figure he used this morning?
68108-243i
Supply-National Defence


Brooke Claxton: No. Speaking from memory I think the figure on construction was $665 million. I think the $2 billion was for equipment.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister says $665 million will be spent on construction. That will be approximately one-eighth of the total of $5 billion to be spent on defence in this three-year period. That fact seemed to give the minister a good deal of satisfaction and to be regarded by him as an argument that the government must be discharging adequately its responsibility in this field of providing defence because it was going to spend on construction one-eighth of the total cost of the defence effort. Mr. Chairman, you would almost think that Canada, during the war of 1939-45, made no more contribution to the war effort than a country the size of, let us say, Luxembourg. You would almost think we did not have any accommodation at all in which to train, equip, marshal and house our army, navy and air force during the 1939-45 war. Certainly when you come to look at the amounts that we are spending now you would think the government of that period of 1939-45 had not provided any sort of armed forces and that Canada's defence effort had been almost completely negligible.
Now when we have armed forces of just about one-tenth of what we had in the peak of the war years, we are spending as though we had had practically no accommodation for the really enormous armed forces which we put into the field during those years. I think one is entitled to ask what has happened to all those buildings which were constructed during the last war. Some of the information we now get as to how they have been disposed of and as to the prices which have been received is really disturbing when you compare those figures with the cost of the present construction program.
From returns which were brought down this session I have taken four illustrations.
I know that buildings are subject to deterioration but I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that these figures raise in our minds serious questions as to whether this money is being spent wisely or well. As to the four buildings here in Ottawa at the corner of Elgin and Argyle streets which were built at a total cost of $95,600, with fixtures worth $12,417 or a total of $108,017, those four buildings and all fixtures and equipment were sold for $10,000. There were two buildings at St. Hubert in Quebec which were built at a cost of $50,724.18 and sold a year or two ago for $5,600. There were three buildings at the same place built at a cost to the taxpayers of $99,386.35 and sold for $6,000.
3840	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. Are not these
figures the object of examination by the special committee on defence expenditures?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, not these figures. None of these has been made the subject of inquiry by that committee; and so far as I know the agenda of the committee does not indicate that they are to be examined.


Brooke Claxton: What have they to do with defence?


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is surprising to me that the minister will suggest they have nothing to do with defence, when he devoted such a relatively large part of his address this morning to a boastful revelation of the amount we were spending on defence construction, as a part of Canada's defence effort.
Then there were two other buildings in Montreal purchased as recently as 1948 for $29,000 and sold a year ago for $5,750. Those are examples of the way in which we have been disposing of buildings, which were built at heavy expense and sold for relatively small sums, and which would provide accommodation for our forces. 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. Yet at the same time we are devoting hundreds of millions of dollars to constructing accommodation for the forces which have been raised as a result of the present program.
So I do not think the country can take much comfort from the fact that these huge sums are being spent on construction. Particularly is it true that the country cannot take comfort in the sense the minister would have the matter understood, namely that the construction of this accommodation is in some way or another a material contribution to the deterrent we are trying to build up against possible attack by the only potential aggressor that could attack Canada-that is, the Russians.
Then there are other features of the defence program, and the administration and handling of that program by the department, which give great concern to the people of Canada, and which it is our duty to bring up in the house with a view to obtaining an explanation. The hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Harkness) referred only a few moments ago to the tendency toward empire building that seems to be going on in the defence department. He has given us some examples, and made particular reference to an increase in staff which appears to be entirely unjustified by the volume of work being done. I was particularly impressed by the increase in staff in the deputy
fMr. Fulton.]

minister's office. There may be some good explanation for these figures, but certainly I have not been able to think of it. I shall put the figures before the minister, and perhaps he will give us an explanation as to why these numbers should be on the staff now, as compared with the smaller numbers there during the war.
I have here a two-page return tabled in the house. It involves only one department, namely the Department of National Defence, and contains a question relating exclusively to the administration of the deputy minister's office here in Ottawa. This question stood on the order paper for quite some time, for at least a week or two, and finally, one day, it was answered. However, on the day it was answered it was made an order for return, as a result of which, of course, the answer did not appear in Hansard. I imagine that fact would probably give some comfort to the department, because the figures set out in the return are not particularly creditable to it.
This return was brought down on Monday, March 30, and it states that the total number at that time on the staff of the deputy minister of national defence was 114, whereas, during the war, as at March 31, 1944, the total number on the staff of the three deputy ministers for navy, army and air force was 98; as at March 31,-1945 it was 93 and as at March 31, 1946 it was 77.
To understand the significance of these figures we have only to mention the fact that in 1953 the department is administering a fighting force totalling 104,000, and for that task the staff of the deputy minister numbers 114; whereas in 1944 and 1945 they were administering fighting services totalling approximately 900,000, and for that purpose required staffs of only 98 and 93 respectively. In 1946, although demobilization had already commenced, there was still a substantial number of men in the forces over and above the number there now. In addition at that time they were faced with the extra problem [DOT] of demobilization. Yet in that year they were able to handle the work with a staff of 77 in the deputy minister's office.
In addition to that, there seems to be an unwarranted mushrooming of personnel, in comparison with the size of the armed forces, and particularly as compared with the numbers on strength during the war years. There now seems to be a tendency to resist giving full and complete information as to what is going on in the department, and what has been said about it by experts and others who have been appointed to examine into the affairs of the Department of National Defence.

We have seen examples in the house recently. We remember the refusal to give us copies of reports, and statements made with respect to those reports which have created a wrong impression. I would refer particularly to a report made by a member of the civil service commission on the activities in the establishment of the army works services, about which I attempted to get information on several occasions. Although it is known that a report does exist-and of course its existence is now established by authority of the statement by the Prime Minister-the house has not yet been taken into the confidence of the government; and thus far the government has refused to give us any other information as to what is in the report, or the circumstances under which it was compiled.
The other day I asked the Minister of National Defence if he would now table the full text of the report. His reluctance to give any information on the report, one which obviously is embarrassing to the government, is in strong contrast to some of his earlier statements as to the duties of governments and governmental bodies to give information, and as to the conclusions to be drawn when those bodies refuse to give information and let the people know the facts.
I had hoped the minister might show a great deal of frankness, and a readiness to co-operate with the house in this respect, in the light of a statement he is reported to have made at a meeting of the graduates of McGill University, and others held at South Porcupine, Ontario, on Saturday, March 6, 1948. I have here a mimeographed copy of the text, and the minister is on record as having said this at that time:
Communists cannot face facts. That is the reason why the communists will not allow us to go into their countries to see and report what is happening there, or tell their people the truth about what is happening here. They just cannot stand the comparison.
I regret very much that the minister who holds those views, views which are obviously correct, should not apply them in the case of his own department and welcome us into the department to see and report upon what is happening there. I hope it is not because he feels that the department could not stand comparison. It is unfortunate that statements were made in the house in connection with this particular report in reply to efforts we were making to get it, which certainly created a wrong impression. A statement was made by the Associate Minister of National Defence on March 4, as reported on page 2608 of Hansard:
I might add, Mr. Speaker, that if the hon. member is looking for an alleged report to which he
Supply-National Defence referred in the defence expenditures committee on February 26 and which was the subject of an article by Mr. Blakely in the Montreal Gazette of February 27-in which article Mr. Blakely purported to quote from such report-I would inform the house that no such report was ever made to or received by the Department of National Defence at any time.


Mr. Dickey:: Do you question that?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not know why the
parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Defence Production should be so anxious to intrude into the affairs of another department. If the hon. gentleman will just give me time to complete my statement I will let him know what I- have in mind.


John Horace Dickey: Do you question it?


An hon. Member:: If anything.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Defence Production has made certain statements in connection with this report and the activities of those of us who are trying to get it which themselves do not stand up too well to analysis. I suggest that he refrain from interrupting other people, and I shall tell him about the statement made by the Associate Minister of National Defence. It was stated by the Prime Minister in the house on a later occasion that this report was not a report made to the Department of National Defence. In that respect, but only in that limited respect, the actual words used by the Associate Minister of National Defence are accurate.


Brooke Claxton: That is completely accurate.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The report was not made to
or received by the Department of National Defence.


John Horace Dickey: Completely accurate.


Mr. Gray  don:@: Do not be so agitated over there.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is obvious that the hon.
member for Halifax and the Minister of National Defence know that words can be used in a way which, although they are completely accurate, as they are now so loudly proclaiming in a rather parrot-like fashion, can convey a wrong impression. I am informed, and I hope the minister will correct me if I am wrong, that the existence of this report very shortly after it became a subject of controversy, particularly after it was quoted in the Montreal Gazette, was known to senior officials in his department, one of whom, after thinking carefully about the matter, found that he was familiar with those words and that he was able to trace back where they came from.


Brooke Claxton: The hon. member is making
a statement that has no foundation in fact and which I think is offensive in that it
3842	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence reflects on the Associate Minister of National Defence. If it does not do that, then I do not see the point of his making it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The ministers of the government unfortunately are all too prone to consider criticism as reflecting on somebody and being offensive. If that is the way they react to criticism, that is not something over which we have any control.


Brooke Claxton: That is the way we react
to misrepresentation.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is not. misrepresentation.
The minister has been pressed to give us the facts with respect to this matter, and there has been extreme reluctance on the part of the government to do so. Apparently the whole matter is very embarrassing to the government.


Brooke Claxton: The facts have been given.


John Horace Dickey: The facts have been given.


Edmund Davie Fulton: A report of this kind, containing the statements that it does, is obviously not a report which would go unnoticed by the government or by those to whom it was made, particularly when extracts from it are published in the press. It seems hardly possible to assume that the government and the departments concerned would not be making most strenuous efforts to find out just what the report said, whether there was such a report and where it was. Yet we have the situation that on March 16, some 18 days later, when the report was again referred to in the house at approximately three o'clock, the Prime Minister makes a statement to the effect that there was no such report from which the extracts quoted in the Montreal Gazette could be taken.


The Deputy Chairman:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but I am obliged to advise him that his time has expired.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am under the impression that in committee the 40-minute rule is not one which it is possible to enforce inasmuch as members are entitled to speak on a number of occasions. I have had a number of interruptions. If it is your ruling that I should not complete this at the moment I shall resume my seat, but I will have to exercise the opportunity to complete my remarks at a later stage.


William Alfred Robinson: I am entirely in the hands of the committee. Has the hon. member leave to proceed?


An hon. Member:: Carry on.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Edmund Davie Fulton: With respect, I put it to you that it is not a matter of proceeding by leave, it is a matter of the right to proceed according to the rules of the committee.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Since it is obvious that this matter is objectionable, and understandingly so, to certain hon. members opposite I do not wish to be in the position of proceeding by leave. I shall proceed at a later stage when I shall be perfectly within the rules in doing so.


John Horace Dickey: Mr. Chairman, I do not propose at the moment to deal with the subject with which the hon. member for Kamloops was dealing just as he sat down, as apparently he intends to continue his remarks in connection with that matter and it can be dealt with fully when he has completed what he has to say.
I should like to deal briefly with another part of his speech this afternoon, the disposal of surplus buildings. As I understood the hon. gentleman, he was attempting to make some point that surplus temporary wartime construction was being disposed of at the present time under conditions that would indicate no justification for some or all of the present construction program being carried on to meet the present needs of the Department of National Defence.
The hon. member has placed a number of questions on the order paper in connection with the disposal of surplus buildings. It has been quite obvious from those questions that he has been interested in the disposal of wartime surplus buildings of a temporary nature, and that he has been interested particularly in the items in the annual report of Crown Assets Disposal Corporation which indicate that some buildings have been disposed of at fairly small amounts in comparison with the original cost.
The first point I should like to make is that the requirements of the Department of National Defence for construction at the present time obviously do not necessarily bear any relation to the requirements that the department faced under wartime conditions between 1939 and 1945. The requirements of our defence services have changed in the interim, and the whole program at the present time is a very different one. The construction program during the war was almost 100 per cent of a temporary nature, and I think nobody will deny that to make wartime construction of a temporary nature was obviously the proper and economical thing to do.
The second point is that at the present time there are certain requirements that can

be observed and recognized to be permanent. The fact is that prior to 1939 there was practically no permanent construction for the defence forces in Canada that had not been done by the British before they gave up their military responsibilities in this country. We therefore, in starting our defence program in 1950, were faced with very large requirements for permanent construction, and wartime temporary construction could not meet that need. Wartime temporary construction is continuing to be used wherever it can be used. It is being used in its present state in certain cases. In other cases, where circumstances require it, it is being made into a more permanent type of construction by means of the installation of foundations and things of that kind. In every instance where wartime accommodation can be used it is being employed, but in certain cases we are having to go into permanent construction for purposes of economy.
I think it is recognized throughout the construction industry and in every phase of Canadian life that when you have a longterm permanent requirement the cheapest and most satisfactory way to meet it is with a permanent, solid type of construction that does not carry with it the maintenance and ever-recurring costs that must be met with in less permanent types of constructions. So much for the suggestion in the hon. member's speech that for some strange reason we were not taking advantage of wartime temporary construction to the extent that we should.
Let us look for a moment at the question of the disposal of surplus buildings and what we get for them. It must be obvious to all hon. members that the value we get from construction is not to be judged by what the building will bring when its utility for the purpose for which it was intended has come to an end. The fact is that wartime construction served us extremely well and we got full value for the money spent on such construction from 1939 right up to 1946, 1947 and 1948 when our requirements for such buildings came to an end.
One example of the four given by the hon. member for Kamloops was the C.W.A.C. barracks at the corner of Elgin and Argyle streets, known as Argyle barracks. These barracks were built early in the war when the C.W.A.C. was first organized. They were used continuously while they were required for that branch of the army service and gave excellent value and good accommodation for the estimable young ladies who served in the C.W.A.C. in Ottawa during those years. When the C.W.A.C. was disbanded I understand the buildings were used for certain
Supply-National Defence temporary requirements, and then those requirements in turn came to an end. The problem was very simple. We either keep those buildings under crown ownership and let them stand empty and become a total loss or we try to sell them.
In a number of instances where there was a civilian use for wartime construction, the prices secured for the buildings were very reasonable and gave quite a nice return to the crown for the original investment. But in many cases, and the Argyle barracks was one of them, there was no civilian use. In fact they were put up for sale and there were no takers except those who were prepared to buy the buildings for the material they could salvage from them, in other words, those who were prepared to pay scrap value for the buildings. The means whereby we ensured that we got the best possible value out of these buildings was to put them up for sale by public tender. If the hon. member for Kamloops thinks that in the circumstances these buildings were worth more than the amount that was paid for them, and which he quoted from the annual report of the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation, he was perfectly entitled to go out and buy them and pay the price that he thought they were worth.


An hon. Member:: Himself.


John Horace Dickey: Himself, or anybody else who might have wanted them. The fact is that those assets were put up for sale by public tender. We got the greatest amount of money for them that they would bring, and the result is that the crown has not only got out of the buildings the value of their service during the time they were occupied for army purposes, but they have also got the highest amount possible to get from them for scrap value. If the hon. member thinks there is any validity in any criticism that he has based on the questions he has placed on the order paper and the kind of argument he has made today, I submit he is very much mistaken.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Chairman, I should like to join with others who have already spoken in this debate in expressing the appreciation we all feel for the men and women of our armed forces who are performing a great service to Canada at home and abroad in these uncertain times. They constitute the shield behind which all of us can shelter. A review of the

Supply-National Defence world situation at the present time indicates that we cannot afford to relax our efforts in any way to build up our defences, and I am quite sure that all sides of the house, and for that matter the people of Canada generally, are in agreement on pushing forward the program for defence.
We are entitled, of course, to criticize the details of that program, but generally I think the feeling is one of desire that Canada play her full part in world affairs and protect not only her own territories and shores, but contribute to the defence of the free nations throughout the world.
The situation in Korea at the present time, although offering some slight prospect of relaxation of tension, is far from a solution. The exchange of sick and wounded prisoners is about to take place, but I noticed in the press of yesterday that rather extensive attacks by land, sea and air have been prosecuted by the United Nations forces, that the enemy's attacks on various portions of the front have been repulsed, and that strife is going on quite close to the place which those who are arranging the exchange of prisoners have selected. I notice, too, that even at this time with the prospect of some settlement held out before us, Canadians are back in action, and that Canadian casualties are again growing. It is not a prospect that leads one to hold out any hope for relaxation of effort.
This morning when the minister was making his statement I listened attentively, hoping that he would cover fully the situation in Korea. After all, we are making there our major effort in terms of danger to lives. I thought that his mention-it was not a review-of the Canadian situation was inadequate. I had hoped that he would give us a review of the last year's operations in Korea and draw our attention to the performance of our Canadian troops there, and generally point out, for the benefit of all of us and for Canada, the contribution that is being made by our forces under these difficult conditions. I had hoped that he would indicate the composition of our forces there in detail; that he would tell us the measures that are being taken to provide protection for our personnel in the field and comment on the standard of training and efficiency, and generally give us a picture of the war that is being waged in Korea.
I had hoped that he might say something about the use, if use is being made, of the Republic of Korea troops with our Canadian forces, as has been reported in the press. I had hoped that he would say something about the equipment of our men in the field and


the advantages, if any, of the type of protective clothing that has been developed for men serving in the line. I had expected that he would say something about the casualties suffered by our forces in Korea; but the mention of our casualties was confined to one brief sentence. As I recall the minister's remarks, he pointed out that 20,000 Canadians have participated in the engagements in Korea, and the rotation of units has taken place during the last two years. Then he said that of that number, 1,300 had been wounded. I think he intended to say that there had been 1,300 casualties.
I feel that more attention should have been paid to that particular aspect of the situation. As I say, it is our major effort from the standpoint of danger. Other efforts that we are making within Canada and abroad are vitally important; but nevertheless this does constitute the danger point of Canada's experience in warfare.
The casualty lists should be drawn to the attention of the House of Commons from time to time; we should not be dependent on the statements that appear in the newspapers. I notice that in today's paper the 171st casualty list was published, showing a total of 1,301 casualties under the headings of killed, 248; wounded, 939; missing, 26; injured, 87; prisoner, 1. That figure does not correspond with the return that was given to me and which appears in Hansard of February 9 of this year at page 1730, in response to my question. The answer that appears there says the total casualties to January 31 amounted to 1,335. I wonder why the difference, and whether there is not some explanation the department might give with regard to that. We should have accurate figures on the casualties occurring in Korea.
This is a heavy casualty list in 24 months of fighting. As I have pointed out before, the casualties have been suffered very largely by the 1,800 front-line troops of the infantry battalions, and a casualty list of 1,300 out of 1,800 men who appeared actively in the forward positions is heavy indeed.
From time to time I have been endeavouring to get information on another problem, namely that of ammunition. I notice that the minister's statement today with regard to ammunition was contained in one sentence. He was speaking about equipment and said something about the fact that we would meet our commitments with regard to guns, and then added that the same thing applies to ammunition. It would be advantageous, 1 think, if a complete report on the ammunition situation were available to the House of Commons.

On November 25 I asked a question of the minister concerning this matter, and on that occasion I was given a reply which is reported on page 63 of Hansard for that date. I should like to read two sentences from it, which are as follows:
But in this case our ammunition is supplied' from United States sources. We are on the United States supply line and get precisely the same treatment as the Americans get.
On December 5 the matter came up again, as the minister thought it necessary to rise at the opening of the house and make a statement in view of some remarks I had made earlier. On page 365 of Hansard for December 5, 1952, he had this to say with regard to ammunition:
So far as ammunition is concerned, the position in Korea is precisely as I outlined it the other day. Canadian troops have never been subjected to unnecessary casualties by any shortage of ammunition, nor are they in the least likely to be exposed in such a manner.
On March 9 I again returned to this problem because of the reports in the press throughout November, December, January and February concerning the shortage of ammunition in Korea. On that date I questioned the Associate Minister of National Defence, and his reply is reported on page 2736 of Hansard for that date. He said:
-there is no shortage of ammunition in respect of actual operations.
Then when I asked if the minister was aware of the declaration of General Van Fleet concerning the ammunition shortage in Korea, he replied again as follows:
I have no intention of commenting on any dispatches or any statements with reference to the ammunition supply of other nations.
I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that if the Minister of National Defence informs the House of Commons that we are on the supply line of the United. States, then it is quite competent for members of the house to ask questions if that supply line seems to have failed in any respect, and we are entitled to answers with regard to that problem. It is not an answer to say that the problem of some other nation with regard to ammunition is not a matter for discussion in this house. If we are dependent upon the United States supply line for ammunition, then we are entitled to know what ammunition is being supplied to our forces, and that was the basis of my query.
Quite a bit of information concerning the ammunition shortage in Korea has come to light since the return of General Van Fleet from that theatre of operation. He was in command of the United Nations army there for two years, and under his command were the Canadians. In U.S. News and World Report for April 3 there is a lengthy verbatim 68108-244
Supply-National Defence report of the questions asked of General Van Fleet and the answers he gave concerning the situation in Korea and the alleged shortage of ammunition. General Van Fleet declared time and again during the course of that inquiry that there was a shortage of ammunition during the time he was in command in Korea, and that from time to time he had to issue orders restricting the use of ammunition. I am asking the minister to give to the House of Commons a complete report, some time during the discussion of his estimates, with regard to ammunition. Are our forces in Korea on the United States supply line for ammunition, or are they on a British supply line?
Information has reached me to the effect that a great portion of the ammunition supplied to our artillery in Korea has come from Canadian sources. Why can we not have that information, if that is correct? I have heard that during 1952 a very large quantity of ammunition was shipped from Canada to Korea. Why can we not have that information here? Let us have the facts. I am speaking of shells for the artillery. I notice that in General Van Fleet's discussion of the problem, mortar shells were often in short supply, as were grenades. The infantry soldier is dependent upon the supporting fire of mortars, and his use of grenades when he is in a difficult position under enemy attack. If the artillery is unable to supply the defensive fire which is required to repel an enemy attack, the infantry unit is dependent wholly upon its own supporting weapons, its mortars, its machine guns and the grenades in the hands of the individual soldier.
A little earlier I referred to the fact that the minister, in replying to me some time ago, had said that no Canadian troops had ever been subjected to unnecessary casualties due to a shortage of ammunition. It depends, of course, on how you view the situation. A somewhat similar question was asked of General Van Fleet by Senator Saltonstall, and the report is contained in U.S. News and World Report for April 3, at page 83. The questions and answers are as follows:
-were lives lost because we failed to send enough ammunition or was it that you just could not advance?
General Van Fleet replied:
The lack of ammunition means that you do not shoot as much as you wish, that you do not shoot at all the targets of opportunity; that when the enemy is firing at you, you do not fire a sufficient amount to silence his fire, counter-battery; that you do not maintain fire superiority on the battlefield because you cannot shoot enough that you would like to shoot, and all our regimental, all our battalion commanders, division, corps, and myself
3846	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence would like to shoot more, and the more you shoot, the more enemy you kill, and the more American lives you save; that is just axiomatic.
I think any person who has served actively is well aware of that fact. If the artillery has an insufficient quantity of shells they cannot undertake counter-battery work, and counterbattery work is most effective in protecting your own troops from enemy fire. You may argue, and statements appear in the press, that there has been a sufficient quantity of ammunition in Korea for, as it is put in military terms, the mission given to the troops. But I say this. If the mission assigned to the troops is simply to sit in their trenches and take it because there is not sufficient ammunition to deter the enemy from firing their artillery at these troops, then that is not a very satisfactory mission on which to be engaged. It is far better to put in the hands of those troops the arms and ammunition that is required so they can dominate the field.
General Van Fleet reports that the enemy have doubled the number of guns on their front now as compared with the guns of the United Nations army. He reports that they may not have as much ammunition as has our side, nevertheless it is a fairly serious situation. He reports that it has resolved itself into an artillery war, and that greater emphasis is placed upon artillery than on any other branch of the service. It follows therefore that ammunition must be supplied for that type of conflict. He similarly treats of shortages that developed with regard to hand grenades and mortars. Just to indicate his awareness of the situation, at page 84 he says:
Because of that small supply or critical-below the critical level-by the end of December, I had practically prohibited anyone using 81-ram. ammunition except in extreme emergency.
That is evidence from the army commander that there was a shortage of some types of ammunition. In another place, at page 89, in answer to a question as to whether the method of operation at the front was dictated by the control of ammunition, General Van Fleet said:
It naturally influences everything we do along the front; the less ammunition you have, the less pressure you put on an enemy.
l am wondering what is the situation today with regard to our forces in Korea. They have just re-entered the line. A press dispatch from there says they have to regain control of no man's land and again gain domination of the battlefield area. Have they the arms and the ammunition with which to do that, or must they sacrifice lives? Must we have a lengthening casualty list because men have to go out and patrol under those conditions without adequate fire support? That is


the type of information we want and should have, I think, with regard to our forces which are serving actively in the field.
The problem of ammunition does not stop at that point. A press dispatch appearing in the Ottawa Citizen of March 18, 1953, coming from the Associated Press at Paris and referring to the meeting of the foreign ministers of the NATO nations who are to gather together on April 23, says this:
The critical shortage in all categories of ammunition will be the biggest headache facing the foreign ministers of the fourteen NATO nations when they gather in Paris April 23 for their second meeting in four months.
So perhaps we are facing an ammunition shortage in Europe as well as elsewhere. What is the ammunition situation right here in Canada?
The third matter with which I intend to deal, Mr. Chairman, is the balance of forces within the Canadian army. We have had put before us a great defence program for the defence of this country and for our commitments elsewhere. We have had painted for us a picture of developments in a great many fields of activities in the three services. I propose to deal now only with the Canadian army.
I think that in the last three years we have achieved within the Canadian army an unbalance of forces which is serious. In the Canadian army there are four main fighting groups, namely the infantry corps, the artillery, the engineers and the armoured corps assisted by the various services whose work is essential and is always conducted in an able manner. But the four fighting groups are those that I have mentioned.
What has happened owing to the policy that has been laid down by the minister? I am dealing now with high policy which rests right with the minister himself. As a result of the program, we have an infantry brigade in Korea and an infantry brigade in Europe. The second rotation now taking place in Korea provides that by this year three brigades of infantry will have gone through a baptism of fire under war conditions in Korea. The other brigade will have completed intensive training in Europe. All told, it means that four brigades of infantry will have received some form of intensive training or of actual active service.
In the artillery we have a regiment in Korea and a regiment in Europe. Rotation of the regiments, I presume, will result by this summer in four regiments of artillery receiving intensive or active service training and experience. I suppose a similar situation prevails with regard to the engineers, although their services may not have been called upon to a great extent; I am not aware of that.

Nevertheless they are, 1 presume, through rotation, getting a somewhat similar experience.
Let us consider the armoured corps, with one squadron in Korea and one squadron in Europe. By rotation not more than four squadrons have been exercised either in intensive training in Europe or under active service conditions in Korea.
What are the training results that come from a program of this nature? Let us consider the situation. Approximately four infantry brigades have been trained. Four brigadiers have received training. Twelve infantry commanders, lieutenant colonels, have received intensive training. Twelve majors, second in command of battalions, have been trained in an active theatre. Forty-eight majors, company commanders, have been trained actively. The infantry corps of the Canadian army must be at an extremely high state of trained efficiency, and I think that is all to the good.
But what about the armoured corps? It has become the Cinderella of the Canadian army. Not one lieutenant colonel has received training in an active theatre of war or intensively in Europe. He has no command. What training is there for a major in command of a squadron in Korea or in Europe? The white paper informs us that in Europe the infantry units are formed into three regimental combat battalions supported by tanks. It means that the tanks of the squadron there are farmed out to the infantry regiments. How does the major in command of that squadron ever exercise his squadron as a whole? I presume the same thing applies in Korea.
The importance of this matter becomes evident when you consider what is being brought about. Not only is it important that the junior officers, N.C.O.'s and men be thoroughly trained under active service conditions but it is even more important that the senior officers receive adequate training. That is being done in the infantry corps and, as time passes, from those trained senior officers in the infantry corps will be drawn the brigadiers and major generals of the Canadian army of the future. The artillery and the engineers may supply their quota of senior officers. But what opportunity is there in the armoured corps for advancement of any officer? There is no expansion of the armoured corps, and there is no opportunity for lieutenant colonels or brigadiers to be trained.
As time goes on we will find that the higher positions within the Canadian army are going to be filled by men who are unfamiliar with the armoured corps. I maintain that there 68108-244J
Supply-National Defence is a clear lack of balance in the training program of the Canadian army. What a difference there is between the situation now and the situation as it was at the time of the second great war. We had overseas three infantry divisions, two armoured divisions, two army tank brigades, three armoured reconnaissance regiments, two armoured car regiments and other armoured units. In summary, the Canadian army overseas was about half drawn from the infantry corps and half from the armoured corps. And that, I think, is a reasonable division of responsibility within a modern army.
At the present time the Canadian army is overweighted in infantry. The armoured corps is neglected. Compare the British army of today. They have eleven divisions undergoing training and performing services in various parts of the world. At least three of those divisions are armoured, and they are serving in Europe at the present time. They have maintained an armoured regiment with the commonwealth division in Korea, and have rotated. From the Royal Tank Regiment they have armoured units attached to the various infantry divisions, and they are maintaining a balance between their infantry forces and their armoured forces.
I suggest that the opportunity is now and for some considerable time has been in the hands of the minister. This is the plan I suggest to him, to maintain a proper balance: an infantry brigade in Canada; an infantry brigade in Korea; an armoured brigade in Canada and an armoured brigade in Europe. This would provide for the necessary rotation and replacements.
What could be done immediately? It would be reasonable to dispatch to Korea an armoured regiment. Send the Lord Strath-cona's Horse or the Royal Canadian Dragoons to the commonwealth division, and replace the British armoured regiment that is there. Or make plans for the dispatch to Europe of an armoured brigade to replace the infantry brigade now in that area. By that means a balance in our army would be maintained, and the training of our officers would be performed as it should be performed.
There is nothing more disturbing in warfare than to have a senior officer in charge of formations of which he has had little experience. Hon. members will recall that we went into the war of 1939-45 totally unprepared for armoured warfare. We had ignored the exploratory work that had been done by the British. We had ignored completely the efficient build-up of armour that had been conducted by the Germans; and we were caught totally unprepared. It was an extremely difficult matter for Canada to raise,
3848	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence equip and train armoured formations. Fortunately we had several years in which to do it. We may not have that time available on another occasion, and I suggest that we should profit by the lessons of the past, and put our emphasis on these two major formations within the Canadian army, namely our trained infantry and our trained armour.
What is our final objective? Surely the lesson of the second great war is this, that if you are going to fight effectively you must have armoured formations. The white paper indicates that plans are afoot for the provision of a large training area in New Brunswick, where it will be possible to train formations of divisional strength. Are we to do that just on the basis of an infantry division? Surely not in this age. Armoured divisions, mobile forces, are what are required. And that is why I suggest we are missing a great opportunity at this time. It is unfortunate that we are involved in a war in Korea, and that heavy casualties have to be suffered there; but the opportunity is there to train men under active service conditions. It is unfortunate that we have to station men in Europe; but that provides an opportunity to give intensive and useful training to large formations.
Surely we must attempt to re-establish the balance in the Canadian army that we had during the second great war, and put proper emphasis upon the use of armour. In fact I have advocated in the house before this, and will continue to advocate in the future, that still greater emphasis should be placed upon a mobile armoured force. This has also been brought to the attention of the house by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) and by others on more than one occasion. The mobility of an infantry division in conjunction with an armoured division can be greatly increased if that infantry component is provided with the proper type of armoured tracked vehicles to keep up with the armoured force. There is a great future for a mobile armoured force of that nature; and I think Canada most certainly should be in the forefront of progress along that line.
I shall not deal with other problems connected with the balance of forces within the Canadian army, but will be content to leave the matter there. I repeat that the Royal Canadian Armoured Corps has become the Cinderella of the Canadian army, and something should be done immediately to bring it back to the position it should occupy. We must produce officers in the Canadian army not only for infantry formations, but also officers trained in the use of armour as well as artillery. We cannot do that unless we


produce the means whereby they may gain that experience.


Some hon. Members:: Time.


Some hon. Members:: Go on.


Gordon Minto Churchill: We are spending billions of dollars in providing camp installations of all kinds. We are stockpiling soft goods, as they are called. We are doing something with regard to arms and ammunition, but we have not the full story even yet. I hope we will get it. And all of this will be ineffective unless the highest efficiency is obtained in our military formations and in their training.
Canada's shield of defence is to be found in her young men of military age. They deserve the best type of weapons and the best type of training. Of vital importance is the complete training of the senior officers; and that training is not being provided with the present lack of balance of forces within the Canadian army.


Mr. G. A. Cruickshank (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Chairman, I shall not take long with what I have to say. I wish to make it perfectly clear at the outset that I am not a military expert. Apparently we have an abundance of them across the way. However, they had gallant records during the war, so I will give them credit for being experts. And if I did not give them that credit, it is obvious from their speeches that they are claiming credit for it themselves.
I happen to have in my riding the best army camp in the Dominion of Canada. I am very proud of it; and in spite of all the disparaging remarks that have been made, it still has the best record in more ways than one, when compared not only with camps in Canada but camps throughout the British empire.


George Harris Hees: What about the world?


George Alexander Cruickshank: I will include the world, if you like; and possibly for the simple reason that the hon. member for Nanaimo was one of those who gave material assistance to selecting the campsite. I have had a certain amount of experience in the army, augmented by the fact that I served in the battalion that best represented Canada in the army.


George Harris Hees: Or any other country. What about the world?


George Alexander Cruickshank: I would include the
world in that as well. It is doubtful if anyone would include the city of Toronto in the world.


George Harris Hees: It is away above it.


George Alexander Cruickshank: What I really wanted to say was that we have the finest airport in

Canada in the riding of Fraser Valley. We spent $5,491,887.86-we keep very close track of it-on that airport. There are three allsteel hangars, and they are not those little jerkwater hangars like they have around Malton. They are capable of handling the largest plane manufactured in Canada or any other part of the world. We have accommodation for 88 officers and 1,152 men.
What I am saying is borne out by the press of British Columbia and by other people who may not be so well versed in military lore or other military matters as my hon. friends in the opposition. I repeat that we have the best airport in Canada. That is the opinion of qualified airmen who actually have flown planes, not men who were behind the lines reading books on military law and strategy. Those men knew what they were talking about. They have said that this is the best airport in Canada, and the press of Vancouver agree with that.
At the present time I am sorry to say that this airport is made use of only when planes carrying the Minister of National Defence, the Minister of Transport or the Minister of Defence Production cannot land at the fogbound airport at Vancouver. The Abbotsford airport is fog-free at all times of the year. Even with all the accommodation I have mentioned we have only 65 men stationed there at the present time.
I am not trying to be critical. The people of my riding do not care how much money is spent on national defence, for they believe that the best way to prevent actual war is by working through the United Nations. I am sorry my friends in the far corner do not believe in the United Nations. We in the Fraser valley definitely do. I presume those in the far corner do not, because of their past utterances to the effect that they believe the United Nations is just a bunch of communists and socialists. I want that on the record.
We cannot understand why this airport only 20 miles from the heart of Vancouver as an aeroplane flies is not made use of. We are willing to submit to any taxation necessary to improve our defences. I urge the Minister of National Defence to make use of this airport. I am not doing this in a spirit of warmongering, but simply because this third largest city in Canada is situated on the most vulnerable spot of the Pacific coast if we are ever attacked. Under these circumstances surely an airport such as that should be made use of.
I want the minister to appreciate the facilities that are available there. I know he is aware that they are there, because 1 had the
Supply-National Defence privilege of showing him through the stainless steel kitchen. I do not want it to rust for lack of use. I urge the Minister of National Defence, if not in the immediate future then certainly at some time soon, to give consideration to utilizing these airport facilities in the defence of the Pacific coast and the rest of Canada.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, you will recall that just before six o'clock I was invited to continue certain remarks I was making at that time having to do with the suppression of a certain report dealing with the Department of National Defence. At that time the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Defence Production entered the discussion and criticized what I had said with regard to the disposal by Crown Assets Disposal Corporation of certain buildings which were previously owned by the Department of National Defence and which had been declared surplus.
I am sure the hon. member will take this in good part, but in what he said he appeared to miss completely the point I was trying to make, which was not concerned exclusively or even very much with the small prices actually received by Crown Assets Disposal Corporation for these buildings but with the fact that at the very time the department was declaring surplus and disposing of buildings which apparently had been useful at one time for the purposes of defence, they were taxing the people of Canada to provide other buildings for accommodation purposes at enormous cost. It was not only the fact that these buildings were disposed of at sums not more than-


Brooke Claxton: Were those department of defence buildings?


Edmund Davie Fulton: All but the one example I gave this afternoon were department of defence buildings.


Brooke Claxton: None of them were in
Montreal.


Edmund Davie Fulton: They were used for defence purposes, to house defence personnel, except in one case in Montreal. In that particular case the building was disposed of for about one-fifth of what it had cost, while the defence buildings were disposed of for only one-tenth of what they had cost.
One interesting thing about the remarks this afternoon by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Defence Production was the suggestion that since these buildings were disposed of by public tender, anyone who felt that the government was not getting the best possible prices-and particularly if I felt that the government was not getting the
3850	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence best possible prices for them-I was free to go and bid on them and buy them in, I suppose for the purpose of selling them at a profit.
I realize that the government, this government particularly, is not too much concerned with the relationship between members of parliament, or indeed between members of the cabinet, and the government in connection with transactions involving profit when members of the cabinet or members of parliament are dealing with the government, as has been shown recently by the instance of the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys who, in common with his colleagues in the cabinet, appears to feel that it is perfectly all right for ministers to have these direct financial dealings with the government. I suggest to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Defence Production that he consult the Senate and House of Commons Act which raises some serious doubts as to the propriety of members having dealings with the government or with government agencies of the sort which he suggests I might have if I questioned the amount which the government received.
While it might well be that hon. members opposite would welcome the fact that I was compelled to resign my seat, I assure them that I do not intend to give them any such ready-made method of getting me out of the House of Commons.


John Horace Dickey: Labour this a little more! It is laboured.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is a point which perhaps requires some labouring because the government seems to be extremely indifferent to the propriety of the sort of course suggested by the parliamentary assistant.
The thing I wanted to deal with specifically this evening was the report on certain establishments in the Department of National Defence which has come to light, although the government has refused to table the full text. As I pointed out before six o'clock, the Associate Minister of National Defence used words in connection with the matter which while accurate in themselves had the effect of creating an impression which did not accord with the facts. The associate minister was very careful to add the qualification that the report was never made to or received by the Department of National Defence at any time. I think he will agree with me when I say that he did use words which left the impression that his department and the government as a whole had no knowledge of that report.


Mr. Campney:: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege, I made the statement attributed to me by the hon. member for Kamloops and I meant exactly what I said. I was speaking for the department which I then represented, and I do not think it is in order for the hon. member to read a further meaning into my words beyond the ordinary meaning of the words which I used and which I meant.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The words the minister used are now on record in the course of this discussion. That, I point out, was on March 4, which would be five days after certain extracts from the report had been quoted in the press. These extracts, from which I shall quote shortly, raised very serious considerations as to the efficiency of the Department of National Defence. I doubt if either of the ministers would suggest, and certainly I would not suggest, that the government would be so completely indifferent to the implications or import of these passages that they would not be making fairly strenuous efforts to determine whether such a report was made, exactly where it was and the circumstances under which it was made. If it was discovered that there never had been such a report or memorandum or writing they would not have lost very much time in denying the existence of the report and in telling the house that there was no such writing in the possession of the government.
But not very long after that I had occasion to refer to this matter again in the house; that was on March 12. At that time I was challenged to produce the report, to which I replied that the government had the report and that I had asked them to produce it, and if they denied the accuracy of anything I was saying then I suggested they produce the records and prove that what I said was inaccurate. That challenge, I might say, was not taken up by the government.
Four days later, on March 16, these extracts which had appeared in the press, and the existence of the report, were again referred to. On that occasion the Prime Minister intervened and said, with reference to the earlier statement by the Associate Minister of National Defence, that the hon. gentleman had stated that there was no report of which these excerpts, referring to the excerpts that had appeared in the press, would be extracts. On the same date he also said there had been no indication of where these excerpts had come from.
This was on March 16, some 18 days after the appearance of these quotations in the press. I suggest to you sir that if the Prime Minister was able to state that there was no

report of which these excerpts would be excerpts, and was able to reinforce what the Associate Minister of National Defence had earlier said, that there were no such reports in the possession of the Department of National Defence, it is then very obvious that the government had been making pretty intensive inquiries to ascertain what were the true facts. As every hon. member will agree, and as I will be the first to maintain, when the Prime Minister makes a statement on a matter which is within his knowledge as prime minister and head of the nation, then that statement must be accepted and we accept the fact that it is a statement made on his responsibility as Prime Minister.
I doubt very much if it would be proper- certainly it would not be accepted by hon. gentlemen opposite-for us to suggest that the Prime Minister would make that statement without having been informed that pretty intensive inquiries had been made within the department and by the government as a whole. I think I should interject here that the report in question was a report made by an official of the civil service commission concerning establishments as the result of a request made by the Department of National Defence, and a report made as the result of a survey of the army works service and the establishment of that service, which was the object of the request by the Department of National Defence. The report was made and it was in the possession and under the control of the government, as the Prime Minister's subsequent statement revealed.
But it is important to realize that at three o'clock in the afternoon of March 16 the Prime Minister made a statement which threw very grave doubts upon the accuracy of an earlier statement that had been made from this side of the house concerning the report; and he made that statement some 18 days after the matter had first become a subject of controversy in the house and a subject of discussion in the press. I raise very seriously the question of whether the government knew anything more about that report at 3.30 on the afternoon of March 16 than they knew about it at 3 o'clock on the afternoon of March 16. Are we to suppose that after 18 days of intensive search and inquiry as to the existence of the report, as to its whereabouts and the circumstances under which it was made, the government was in complete ignorance at 3 o'clock and yet at 3.30 that same afternoon knew all about it? I suggest to you, sir, that that supposition does not stand up; but if that is the case, then I would expect and would
Supply-National Defence welcome verification from the government that those were the circumstances.
But the facts again are that, although at 3 o'clock on March 16 the Prime Minister made the statement in which he indicated that he was informed that there was no report of which these excerpts would be excerpts, nevertheless at 3.30 he made an entirely different statement in which he placed on the record the fact that there was such a report, that it was made by an official of the civil service commission, that it was in the possession and under the control of the government and that its whereabouts were known to the government.
These circumstances would not call for the comment they do if there had not been another event which took place between 3 and 3.30 o'clock on the afternoon of March
16.	After all, the Prime Minister is entitled to change his mind. It has happened before in connection with orders in council whose existence he assured the house he had not known about or had forgotten. Therefore we might be inclined to accept in good faith the statement that the government knew more about this report at 3.30 on March 16 than it knew at 3 o'clock were it not for this other very significant fact, that at about 3.10 p.m. on March 16 the afternoon edition of the Ottawa Journal appeared on the streets, and these afternoon editions are in the lobbies of the House of Commons at about 3.15. On this particular afternoon the afternoon edition of the Ottawa Journal was received in the House of Commons, and it carried a complete statement as to the circumstances of the making of the report which verified its existence.


Mr. Fournier (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I should like to know what we are talking about.


Douglas Scott Harkness: If you will just listen you will find out.


Sarto Fournier: I
have been listening for more than half an hour and I do not know yet what we are talking about.


William Alfred Robinson: Order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It also pointed out that the report had been delivered to the immediate senior of its author at the time and that the man who had been his senior at the time he made his investigation-


Sarto Fournier: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry to-


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Sarto Fournier: rise on a point of order.
3852	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence The Deputy Chairman: I must remind the hon. member that the member who has the floor may not be interrupted without his consent.


Sarto Fournier: May I point out to you, Mr. Chairman, that it is not my intention to interrupt the hon. gentleman. I merely want to know what we are talking about.


Mr. Fraser:: Do you know what you are talking about?


George Harris Hees: He doesn't know.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It was then fifteen-


Sarto Fournier: Mr. Chairman-


George Harris Hees: Go out and have a sleep.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I do not like to be unpleasant to any other hon. member-


Sarto Fournier: You
are not unpleasant; you are the most pleasant fellow in the world, but I want to know what you are pleasant about.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I must remind hon. members once more that the hon. gentleman who has the floor must not be interrupted without his consent.


Sarto Fournier: What is he talking about?


William Alfred Robinson: Order.


Sarto Fournier: Mr. Chairman, if you refuse to tell us what he is talking about perhaps the hon. gentleman is in a position to tell us what he is talking about.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do ask the hon. member, with all the good will in the world, to appreciate the fact that I have done my best to explain to hon. members what I am talking about and the seriousness of what I have to say. If the hon. member is unable to understand me at the moment I do urge him to read it in Hansard tomorrow, when I think he will grasp the full implications of it.


Sarto Fournier: Mr. Chairman-


George Harris Hees: Oh, sit down.


Sarto Fournier: The
hon. gentleman has put a question to me, Mr. Chairman.


Edmund Davie Fulton: In the circumstances I ask the hon. gentleman if he will do me a favour and let me continue without interruption.


Sarto Fournier: It is not a matter of favour.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am sure all hon. members will appreciate that.


Sarto Fournier: The
hon. gentleman has already told us that we are supposed to understand what he is talking about, but the fact that we are supposed to understand, Mr. Chairman, does not mean that we do understand. Therefore the hon. gentleman is supposed to give us his ideas in such a way that everybody will understand and will not have to go to Hansard tomorrow.


George Harris Hees: You will feel better tomorrow.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. Once again may I please remind hon. members that the hon. member for Kamloops has the floor and may not be interrupted without his consent.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think the facts I have recounted to the committee so far are facts which raise implications, the answer to which is perfectly obvious and which it should not be necessary for me to emphasize on this occasion, except that I do want to make it perfectly clear that I question very seriously whether the government knew anything more about these circumstances at 3.30 o'clock on March 16 than it knew about them at 3 o'clock; and it is, I say, a very unfortunate and serious circumstance that it should be necessary for outside evidence to come in and make it clear beyond any peradventure of doubt that the facts are as we have alleged them, before the government admits in fact they are as we have alleged them.
I say to you, sir, that it should not be necessary, in connection with matters of this importance, dealing with the Department of National Defence, a subject so vital to the welfare of the country, for this sort of circumstance to develop before the government admits and places the house and the country in possession of all the facts; because, as I say to you, sir, when ministers - make statements we on this side of the house and the country as a whole are bound to accept them as full and frank statements of all the facts in connection with the situation.


Sarto Fournier: Sure.


Edmund Davie Fulton: And we like to do that; we want to do that.


Sarto Fournier: Do it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: And we regret very much-


Sarto Fournier: No, no.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -that at any time a question should arise as to whether the government does in fact take the house and the country into its confidence in connection with these matters.
Now, sir, the existence of this report has been established, and it raises very serious

questions not only with relation to the circumstances I have been describing and the matter of whether or not confidence should be placed in statements made by the government, but it also raises very serious questions as to the administration of the department itself.
The minister has told us on earlier occasions something to the effect that this is not a report; it is only a memorandum. It might be interesting for us to indulge in some speculation as to when a report is not a report. It is only a report, apparently, when its contents happen to suit the thinking of the government; but if it does not happen to suit their thinking, then apparently it gets put into a pigeonhole and is never taken out again unless it should come accidentally to the attention of other people against the desires of the government, when it is called not a report but a memorandum.
The fact is that this written document contains very serious criticisms of the Department of National Defence with respect to the army works service particularly. The other fact is that this report was made in September, 1949, and it reveals that the circumstances with regard to the activities of the army works service in September, 1949, were exactly the same as they were two and one-half years later, at the time Mr. Currie made his investigation. That being the case, the inescapable conclusion is that the government knew about these circumstances, or if they did not, they most certainly should have known; but they did nothing about them. They kept the matter under cover until the development of the irregularities at Petawawa became of such a serious nature that it was no longer possible to conceal from the people the true facts with respect to the administration of the department.
The reason I make that statement, Mr. Chairman, is that the report that I am referring to, the MacNab report, refers to a situation at Halifax which is in the same terms-


Sarto Fournier: have a question to ask the hon. gentleman.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -as those which were subsequently used by Mr. Currie in his report. Here is what the MacNab report had to say:
The slowness of the tradesmen (at Halifax) is a standing joke-


Sarto Fournier: rise on a point of order.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I continue:
The slowness of the tradesmen (at Halifax) is a standing joke in the garrison. As an example, I
Supply-National Defence was shown a plywood partition about six feet wide and told that it actually took four carpenters two weeks to build it.


Sarto Fournier: I
rise on a point of order.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: A bit later with respect to Halifax:
The command engineer officer (at Halifax) said they weren't ready for a survey and that he knew many things were wrong.


Sarto Fournier: Both of us are on our feet.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. Do I understand the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont is now rising on a point of order?


Sarto Fournier: You
are right. The hon. member for Kamloops has been talking about evidence. I should like to know what is his definition of evidence.


Louis-René Beaudoin: The hon. member for
Kamloops.


Edmund Davie Fulton: As I was saying, Mr. Chairman, the report made by the official of the civil service commission who made a survey-


Sarto Fournier: No,
no, not that. I hope you will not accept that.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: shows circumstances found and reported upon to be exactly as those that were found by Mr. Currie. We have this particular extract:
I came to the conclusion that number six works company must be known in Halifax by workmen as a good place to get a soft job and a good place for third-class tradesmen to roost to their heart's content.
I am not doing this with any desire to make an invidious distinction as between one locality or another. I took these two excerpts because they do prove conclusively that the situation at Halifax was known to officials in the employ of this government two and a half years before Mr. Currie made his investigation. When Mr. Currie made his investigation, he found exactly the same circumstances at Halifax as well as at other places. It is particularly because the incidents at Halifax proved the truth of that general assertion that I have referred to them.


John Horace Dickey: I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Up to the moment I have been making these remarks under considerable difficulty. I wonder if the hon. member would reserve his question until a later stage, or until I have concluded this part of my remarks?


John Horace Dickey: I shall be delighted.
3854	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence


Edmund Davie Fulton: What Mr. Currie said is reported at page 728 of Hansard for December 15, 1952. It reads as follows:
As an example of what can be and actually has been done to remedy conditions quickly, it is interesting to follow the action which was taken at Halifax immediately following my inspection early in September. I reported verbally to national defence headquarters that conditions at Halifax were not satisfactory. As had been found at other establishments, stores, accounting and administrative procedures had broken down seriously. Senior officers were immediately dispatched from Ottawa to look into the situation. They took remedial action at once. Certain key personnel were replaced; others were put on notice; temporary stores and clerical staff together with a labour force were engaged to clean up the situation and bring the accounting records up to date.
In November, I was invited to return to Halifax to examine the results of the vigorous action which had been taken. I found that remarkable changes had been made. The company had been completely reorganized.
A little later on he said:
As a result of what had been done the unit had been placed in a position to function properly and to carry on with normal efficiency.
So, Mr. Chairman, what happened was this. In April, 1952, Mr. Currie was appointed to investigate the whole situation in the army works services. He found a chaotic condition at Halifax, exactly the same as that reported in September, 1949, by Mr. MacNab. Mr. Currie outlines the situation here. He tells the officials in the department what the circumstances are, and by now the matter has reached such proportions the department knows it cannot keep this under the cover any longer, so active steps are taken to deal with the situation at Halifax. Only three months later Mr. Currie says that he goes back to Halifax and finds that effective action has been taken.
Now, when we apply that situation to the whole of the Currie report, in which he reports on the administrative breakdown in the Department of National Defence and in which he says that at various army works service establishments he finds this chaotic condition, you can see, Mr. Chairman, how important this is, and how unfortunate it is that the government did not take effective action in September, 1949 to deal with the situation which was then drawn to its attention but which it preferred to ignore. Effective action was taken as a result of Mr. Currie's inquiry because the matter had come into the realm of public knowledge and public discussion, and could not be kept under the carpet any longer. A report was in their possession as long ago as September, 1949, yet they did nothing about it.
Of course, various attempts are made to minimize this matter and say that this is not


a report at all but merely a memorandum. When the matter becomes one of public knowledge and public discussion, officials of the department write to reporters objecting to what those reporters may say about it.
In this connection I think the public should be, and is, very much concerned. Certainly my impression is that the public is very much concerned about the way in which the Minister of National Defence has sheltered behind his deputy, and has allowed and encouraged his deputy minister to make representations which should have been made by the minister. Let there be no doubt about the situation in this regard. To criticize what has happened in this case is not to criticize the civil service. It is to criticize the government for not cleaning up affairs in its own department initially, and then leaving things in a position where civil servants feel that they have to enter the lists of controversy in order to defend things that are going on in their department.
Just two days ago we were told by the Minister of National Defence that he approved the writing of the letter by the deputy minister, and that places upon the minister the onus of a very serious charge. It is the charge of using the civil service in a manner in which it is most improper for the government to use it. If the deputy minister felt keenly about this and wanted to write such a letter, that is a matter which can be understood. But if the minister approved that course of action, and in fact encouraged it, I submit to you that would be a most improper course of action for a responsible minister of the crown to take. If there were things which required to be said regarding this matter of public political controversy, it was for the minister to say them and not his deputy.
I am glad to note that the deputy did go to the minister before he wrote the letter. As I have said, his motives and his feelings with respect to what was going on are matters we can appreciate, because he is a normal person. But the fact that the minister would allow him to fall into what I suggest was an error and would, in fact, encourage him to do so, thus leaving the responsibility on his deputy instead of assuming it himself, is most reprehensible.
In this connection I do not leave it, sir, on the basis that I am a constitutional expert. I base my position on a book which is accepted as the authority on the British constitution, written by Mr. Ivor Jennings, in which at pages 143 and 144 you find the following passages:
The responsibility of ministers to the House of Commons is no fiction, though it is not so simple

as it sounds. All decisions of any consequence are taken by ministers, either as such or as members of the cabinet. All decisions taken by civil servants are taken on behalf of ministers and under their control. If the minister chooses, as in the large departments inevitably he must, to leave decisions to civil servants, then he must take the political consequences of any defect of administration, any injustice to an individual, or any policy disapproved by the House of Commons. He cannot defend himself by blaming the civil servant. If the civil servant could be criticized, he would require the means of defending himself. If the minister could blame the civil servant, then the civil servant would require the power to blame the minister. In other words, the civil servant would become a politician. The fundamental principle of our system of administration is, however, that the civil service should be impartial and, as far as may be possible, anonymous.
I am quite sure, Mr. Chairman, there is not a member of the house on either side who, if he but reflects upon the matter, would not agree with that statement of principle. Yet the minister has made two if not more most important departures from that principle, and has taken actions which place him in direct violation of the principle of independence of the civil service. He has encouraged his deputy minister to take action with respect to a matter which is in the realm of political controversy, which is going to involve the department and the civil service in criticism. Jennings says that if the civil servant can be criticized, he would require the means to defend himself.
It is one of the principles of our government that civil servants do not speak on matters of policy. They do not have the means of defending themselves. It is therefore important-and I make this statement with due regard for its implications-that in the House of Commons we should avoid criticizing civil servants with respect to matters of government policy. Our criticism should be directed toward the government. When the minister encourages his deputy minister, his senior civil servant, to take a position with respect to a matter of political controversy, then he inevitably and most improperly exposes that civil servant to criticism in the house. I am not going to say anything beyond that point. My quarrel is with the minister and with the government, not with the civil servant who was led into placing himself in that position.
Then Jennings goes on to say:
If the minister could blame the civil servant, then the civil servant would require the power to blame the minister.
There is controversy here. There are criticisms in connection with the letter which the deputy minister wrote to Mr. Stevenson because of the facts which I have put on the records of the house regarding the circumstances surrounding this MacNab report. Yet the minister encouraged the writing of that
Supply-National Defence letter. The minister has told us that he approved the letter and said, "Yes; go on and write it". I think it is most extraordinary that the minister did not say, "I will sign that letter; the responsibility is mine, not yours". The minister is now in a position to say, and has to say, that any fault or inaccuracy or otherwise is, of course, in the deputy minister's letter. He says it is perfectly accurate. There is a controversy as to that.


Brooke Claxton: What controversy?


Edmund Davie Fulton: What position is the minister left in? He has to say, "That is a letter of my deputy". It is a letter of his deputy. So if there is any blame to be attached or any criticism to be made, the situation would be that the minister would have to blame the civil servant. But it is not open to a civil servant to answer, or to blame the minister. So we have a complete breach and a complete disregard of two of the most important principles with regard to the position of the civil service. The fact is that as a result of this course of action what is likely to happen is just what Jennings has said:
hi other words, the civil servant would become a politician. The fundamental principle of our system of administration is, however, that the civil service should be impartial and, as far as may be possible, anonymous.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Is that the Jennings of the restaurant?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I did not hear what the hon. member said. What did he say?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Something silly.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am not sure whether or not the remark will appear in Hansard,', but as I did not hear it, I cannot answer it.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I asked whether that was the Jennings of the restaurant.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If the hon. member for
Fraser Valley thinks that Mr. Jennings of the restaurant-estimable character though he may be-is an authority on constitutional matters, I shall leave him to continue in that belief. However, I do not think he holds it seriously and I greatly doubt that any other member of the House of Commons would not know the Jennings to whom I was referring.
The situation is this. Since this matter first came up, that is to say, the question of the Currie report itself and the question later on of the MacNab report and all these various matters involving criticism of his department-the Minister of National Defence has been, I submit, too prone to leave responsibility with those who should not be required to bear the political responsibility, and he
3856	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence still owes to the house a great many things by way of explanation with regard to the circumstances surrounding this whole matter. He owes us an explanation as to why they chose to disregard the MacNab report. He owes us an explanation as to why they chose to leave the impression with the house and the country that there was no such report; and why it was that they did not do anything to remove that impression until after the evening edition of the Ottawa Journal of March 16 proved beyond a doubt that there was such a report and that the government could no longer get away with the fiction it was trying to maintain in this matter, and indeed in connection with the whole matter of national defence.
The minister and his associate owe a duty not only to the house but to the country to take it into their confidence and to stop trying to indicate to the people that they are getting value for their money when we find that, far from that being the fact, an unnecessarily large proportion of what is being spent for defence is being spent on frills and fancy things which are not going to deter any potential aggressor from his desire to attack, if that should be his desire. And they owe an explanation as to why it is that the government-which now, in spite of its own efforts, has had a few comers of the rug lifted so that a few glimpses of what is underneath the rug have been vouchsafed to the people of Canada-should still persist in trying to sweep more things under the rug and then to hammer more tacks into the edge of the rug so as to keep the people in ignorance of the true state of affairs with respect to national defence.	.


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention to delay the committee for many minutes because everything the hon. member for Kamloops has said has already been answered in Hansard. I refer to the statement of the Prime Minister on March 16 which appears at page 2968 of Hansard, and also to the other statements that have been made. To that I have little to add at this time, beyond this. The hon. member has raised the matter of this so-called MacNab report two or three times, I think, in another place, and two or three times in this chamber. It is rather important that it should be understood just what this report was. I suggest that the best source of that information is what Mr. MacNab himself said about it as reported in the London Free Press of March 17, 1953.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Who was interviewing him?


Mr. Stuart (Charlotte):: Oh, you were not interrupted.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Not more than a dozen times.


Brooke Claxton: The article is headed "Private Letter Lawyer States" and reads as follows:
Ronald S. MacNab, former staff investigator for the civil service commission and now a London lawyer, denied last night that a memorandum he wrote in 1949 was a government report. He said it was'a private letter to his superior, and statements in it were not necessarily facts, but-
And the reporter quotes this:

"things I had heard from various sources during the course of routine investigation.''
Mr. MacNab was reported in Ottawa yesterday as the author of one of the controversial "reports" which opposition members have sought as alleging waste and extravagance in the defence department.
Contacted in London, Mr. MacNab said he wrote a private letter to George T. Jackson, director of organization and classification for the civil service commission, in September, 1949, on the request of Mr. Jackson. In it, Mr. MacNab said, there were statements-not charges nor facts as such-which he had heard from army and other sources.
"But it was not a government report," he emphasized. "Before it could be a government report these statements would have had to be checked and double-checked."
This is the document which somehow, by means unknown, was extracted from the files of George T. Jackson of the civil service commission or was given by someone unknown into the hands of the hon. member for Kamloops or Mr. Arthur Blakely, the correspondent of the Montreal Gazette, and which then was produced not at the committee on defence expenditure when it might have been produced-


Donald Methuen Fleming: It was refused there. It was asked for and was refused by the government majority.


Brooke Claxton: It was asked for, but by a person who probably had a copy of that memorandum in his own possession, whereas the Department of National Defence had never had a copy in its possession.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Or the rest of the government?


Brooke Claxton: The rest of the government, either. This was a personal document prepared for Mr. George T. Jackson who, as the Prime Minister said in his statement on March 16, happened to be in Burma, and consequently it was some time before any trace was found of the source of this story as it appeared in the Montreal Gazette, from some source unknown to the government, quoting sections of this statement. On the basis of that the hon. member for Kamloops has on two occasions taken up the time of this house and held up the defence expenditure committee to talk about reports and concealment and so on.
I suggest to him that the business of this country demands that we give most serious

attention to the affairs of national defence; that we look into every charge for which there is any basis, and that we investigate it to the full, as we have. People talk about receiving hundreds of letters. How many letters have been brought to my attention during the last six years relating to irregularities? How many? You could count them on the fingers of one or two hands. Every one of them has been investigated; and in every case where an investigation has shown that there has been wrongdoing, the prosecutor has been the government and the Department of National Defence. We have taken that course in every case where it appeared to be justified.
Now we have these continued sweeping assertions without support and without corroboration.- In this instance a report dating from 1949, four years ago, is now paraded before us as something that the government is endeavouring to conceal, when the government did not even know of its existence.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The Prime Minister knew about it on March 16.


Brooke Claxton: Because at about that time Mr. Jackson's secretary looked in his private file.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Then the government should know of its existence.


Brooke Claxton: I am prepared to answer other questions that were put by hon. members in the course of the serious discussion this afternoon. I would be happy to do so, unless there are other hon. members who wish to speak. I must say that the course of the debate this evening has indicated that there is an intention rather not to allow me to make this reply tonight.
Sir, the business of the defence of our country is serious business. As hon. members have said, we have defence forces fighting in the field today, and I suggest that that business is serious; and that hon. members before attacking the effectiveness of our operations either abroad or at home by making assertions for which they are unwilling to take personal responsibility, should think twice about its effect upon our national effort.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If the minister wishes to have an answer, I take the responsibility, as I have said before, for the assertions I have made. And I will give the minister an answer now, if he wants to have one, or later, if he wishes.


An hon. Member:: Produce the letter.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister seeks to brush this whole incident aside as something based not upon any memorandum or report, but merely a private letter. As I have said
Supply-National Defence before, when is a report not a report? Perhaps it is when it is embarrassing to the government.
The minister has read from a Canadian Press dispatch of a reported interview with Mr. Jackson in London. I asked him the source of that dispatch, and he did not indicate what it was. I happen to have read it, and I know it is a Canadian Press dispatch giving, in abbreviated form, the gist of a reported interview. But there is in existence and on the record a very much fuller report of an interview with Mr. MacNab. This was an interview by Mr. Richard Jackson of the Ottawa Journal, containing the observations made by Mr. MacNab in reply to his questions. This particular portion is not in quotation marks, but it is what Mr. MacNab said. The newspaper article states-
He left the government service In 1949, but not before verbally reporting to Mr. Jackson-
That is Mr. George Jackson.
-conditions he had found in army camps.
At Mr. Jackson's request, he committed his findings to writing in an official memorandum after he had left the civil service staff but was still in Ottawa.
Since that time-
The actual time of that incident is not reported in this article.
*-tire memorandum has been shown to deputy defence minister C. M. Drury.


Brooke Claxton: That is not correct.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It continues:
Tracing Mr. MacNab's moves since he left Ottawa in 1950, the Journal this morning found him by long distance telephone at his London law office.
Were you the author of the disputed MacNab report? he was asked.
"Why, is it now causing a stir?" he countered. "Yes, something of a stir in parliament.
"Some people say it was an official report, others claim it was a personal letter; which was it?" asked the Journal.
"It was neither. It was a memorandum." "Written before or after you left Ottawa?" "Written after I had left the civil service commission, but while I still was in Ottawa."
"Why did you write it after you had left the government staff?"
"I was instructed to."
"By whom?"
"By Mr. George Jackson. I had reported verbally to him on the findings of my investigations and he ordered me to put them in a memorandum."
"Did it just cover conditions you found in army establishments at Halifax?"
"No, it covered a number of other centres.''
"Do you regard it as an official report made in line of duty as a civil service investigator?"
"Yes. I suppose I must. But why don't you ask Mr. Jackson about it?"
Then there is an interjection by Mr. Richard Jackson who wrote the article, where he states:
Mr. Jackson is on a special government assignment in Burma, advising the Burmese government in civil service problems.
3858	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence The interview continues:
"Is there any doubt that your memorandum reported a condition of waste and extravagance in army encampments?"
"You'd better read the report yourself".
Then the article continues:
The memorandum was written (at Mr. Jackson's request) as a matter of "routine", further explained Mr. MacNab.
Every two years, civil service staff investigators probed the use each department made of staff.
Then the article continues with observations by Mr. Richard Jackson on other subjects of controversy. So it is pretty certain that this was not a private letter. It was a memorandum reducing to writing personal observations made by Mr. MacNab when he was touring army works services establishments in the course of his official duties. If the minister wants to perpetuate this fiction that it was not a report based on personal observations, but was merely hearsay, I suggest to him that to do so is merely to insult the intelligence of the house. All you have to do is to read what was said in that memorandum as quoted in the press. The accuracy of what was quoted has not been questioned in any way. Of course they cannot question its accuracy.


John Horace Dickey: Does the hon. member take responsibility for the accuracy of that quotation?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have told the hon. member on two occasions previously, and I now say to him for the third time, that I take responsibility for the accuracy of everything I have said. If the hon. gentleman disputes its accuracy let him go to the government and require the government to table the text of the report. Until he does that I wish he would cease these futile and childish interruptions and show some sense of responsibility in connection with this matter. Here is what the memorandum says:
The slowness of the tradesmen (at Halifax) is a standing joke in the garrison. As an example I was shown a plywood partition about six feet wide and told that it actually took four carpenters two weeks to build it.
Here is another one:
While I was interviewing in the area engineer's office in Regina (one whole day) the entire staff was idle, many were sitting at their desks, soldiers and civilians, no work of any sort on the desks.
I ask the hon. member and the minister if that is hearsay. I ask them further how they reconcile-


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. Perhaps I should point out that when the hon. member for Kamloops says, "I am asking the hon. member", when he puts a question he should at the same time indicate when he wants the hon. member for Halifax to answer. Otherwise 

it becomes provocative and perhaps the hon. member for Halifax is justified in trying to take the floor in order to answer.


Edmund Davie Fulton: There will be another question.


Louis-René Beaudoin: The hon. member for Kamloops has the floor but if in the course of his remarks he says, "I ask the hon. member for Halifax," perhaps the hon. member for Halifax should wait until the hon. member for Kamloops, who has the floor, indicates when he wants him to answer.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I welcome the hon. member's question, but I was in the course of putting another one to him and I thought he might like to answer them both at the same time. I should like to hear also from the minister. After all, it is the Minister of National Defence to whom we are putting these questions. If the hon. member for Halifax wishes to assume responsibility for that department as well, he is welcome to do it. My other question is this: Will the minister, the associate minister and the hon. member for Halifax explain how they reconcile the fact that what Mr. MacNab said in his memorandum was on all fours with what Mr. Currie subsequently reported. Are they going to say that Mr. Currie's report is based on hearsay?


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Currie did not say anything about that. You can search his report and you will not find anything to that effect.


John Horace Dickey: So far as the question submitted to me is concerned, I might say that the very point covered by the minister was what I intended to raise a few minutes ago when the hon. member would not agree to my asking a question. It is quite obvious from the quotations he gave from this personal letter of Mr. MacNab's and from the Currie report that there cannot be the slightest connection between the two incidents.
In answer to his question about hearsay I would simply point out that anybody who has the slightest knowledge of what hearsay is and what direct evidence is, on reading the quotations which the hon. member put on the record from the MacNab letter, will say that what he says there is based upon what he was told had happened some time previously. If that is not hearsay, then I do not know what it is.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You do not.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Apparently the hon. gentleman does not know what is hearsay; and if he wants to indulge in self-accusation, that is all right by me. It will be remembered that Mr. Currie said that the appalling conditions at Halifax were the same sort of conditions

that had been reported upon in the MacNab report. Mr. Currie said:
I reported verbally to national defence headquarters that conditions at Halifax were not satisfactory. As had been found at other establishments, stores, accounting and administrative procedures had broken down seriously.
Those things are in amplification of and are exactly similar in nature to the very incidents mentioned by Mr. MacNab.


John Horace Dickey: Oh, no.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. MacNab is even more specific than Mr. Currie. He reported on particular incidents which he noticed at Halifax.


Ralph Osborne Campney: What somebody told him.


Edmund Davie Fulton: He said, "I saw". He said that at Regina when he was interviewing, the whole staff was idle, that many soldiers and civilians were sitting with no work on their desks. That was a personal observation. He further said this:
The engineers (R.C.E.) are engaged in some very large (construction) projects and I think it is fair to say that their attitude toward costs of construction indicates their attitude to finance generally, including money spent on staff. It seems to me that they are under the impression that . . . cost is no object when they want to do something.
That is in language exactly similar to the report of Mr. Currie, who states, as reported on page 717 of Hansard:
This involves the abandonment, by all administrators of the program, of the war psychology with its emphasis on speed with resultant wastefulness and extravagance-
The findings of the two men throughout their reports proceed on parallel lines. If the government wishes to draw the absurd distinction that in one case it was not a report because it was a memorandum, whereas in the other case it was a report because it was entitled a report, they can rely upon that sort of distinction; but it shows that they are driven to that sort of absurdity to justify their position.
The facts placed on the record and the facts found by Mr. MacNab and reported by him, as well as his own conclusions based upon his personal observations, establish clearly that these matters were found and were reported, not to a minor or obscure official but in the first instance to the director of organization of the civil service commission. Is anyone going to say that he is a minor or obscure official? I should not think the government would say that.
Then as to the minister's statement that the answer to all this is found in the statement made by the Prime Minister on March 16, to be found at page 2968 of Hansard; that is no answer at all. Indeed it proves,
Supply-National Defence if anything more were needed, that the government did know about this report; that it sought to leave the impression that there was no such report; that it knew about it at 3 o'clock on March 16 yet still refused to set out the full facts; that it left the impression with the house that there was not such a report or if there was one, which they doubted, they did not know anything about it.
The statement made by the Prime Minister at 3.30 showed that they had known just as much at 3 o'clock as they knew at 3.30. But they revealed their knowledge at 3.30 only because their hands were forced by the article which appeared in the afternoon edition of the Journal of that day.
What the minister has said is no answer to the serious criticism we are making. There may be room for controversy as to whether or not the mere incidence of the MacNab report reporting on conditions in the army works services would be sufficient justification for a sweeping condemnation of the whole defence department; but when you find that what is said in the MacNab report is substantiated and confirmed by what is said in the Currie report; when you find that the government is so anxious to suppress the facts regarding the MacNab report, indeed its very existence; when you find that they will say at 3 o'clock on March 16 words which leave the impression that there is no such report and then have to eat those words at 3.30, I submit to you, Mr. Chairman, that the basis of our condemnation and criticism of the department has been amply established.


An hon. Member:: No answers?


Mr. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon):: Mr. Chairman, in the few minutes remaining I should like to get back to matters other than that which has been discussed for the last hour. I want to refer to some of the items that were dealt with in a general way by the minister earlier today. I listened to his statement with a great deal of interest, and it was encouraging to note that when given even half a chance Canadian youth are able to put forth a fairly substantial effort in the defence of freedom and the values that make up our way of life. The record established in world war I was maintained in world war II, and it is evident that the pioneer spirit is by no means dead in this country.
As I listened to the rather general statement of the minister I felt the same sense of frustration that I have experienced on other occasions when defence matters have been discussed in the house. I do not think I am as frustrated as the hon. member for Kamloops because he has a real problem and he
3860	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence has been here longer and has had a greater opportunity to become frustrated. However, I have discovered in my short experience in the house that it is rather difficult to dig out information from the Department of National Defence dealing with what might be described as problem areas. I have found that in most cases it is necessary to go to magazine or newspaper reports in order to get any information that might be regarded as helpful. I felt that such was again the case this afternoon as I listened to the general statement of the minister.
The phrase "not in the public interest" seems to be resorted to very frequently by the government, and perhaps the Department of National Defence abuses the privilege more than any other department. I am sometimes led to believe that instead of saying "not in the public interest" it should say "not in the government's interest" or "not in the party's interest". I had that experience of frustration at the beginning of March when I was trying to seek out information with respect to welfare services in the armed forces. At that time a resolution that I had placed on the order paper for the production of papers was denied. Access to that information was denied me as a private member. Previous to that, on November 27 last, I asked a question on the orders of the day with regard to the same problem. My question was as follows:
In view of the continuing expansion of the armed forces, does the government intend to make use of the welfare facilities offered by the voluntary organizations which served so effectively during world war II?
In reply the minister said:
The heads of the three services consider that it would be unwise, uneconomical and unnecessary to establish at all these places-
The reference is to the various Canadian military establishments.
-the five welfare agencies that we used during the second world war and I agree with them.
I suppose that is where the matter would have rested if we on the opposition side had been inclined to accept the statement as

definitive. But I find that the matter is not at all settled. It would seem that even the Department of National Defence itself is not completely happy over the present situation, because in the answer to a question I placed on the order paper on February 25 there was some indication that resort is being had to welfare facilities other than those found within the military organization itself. Part 3 of my question was as follows:
What facilities are provided for entertainment, recreation and welfare for these personnel and who provides these services?
The reference is to our air force personnel stationed in France. The answer to question No. 3 reads in part as follows:
To assist in recreational planning, the R.C.A.F. has on loan from the government of Ontario an expert in adult education and recreation. He is now in France to organize recreational and entertainment programs.
That would indicate that the trend toward militarization of welfare, if I may use that phrase, has not been entirely satisfactory in its results. Again, I notice that the Canadian Legion makes use of a phrase that was used in reference to my question of November 27 and quotes it in an article found on page 17 of the Legionary. The heading is, "Unwise, Uneconomical, Unnecessary". The Legionary quotes excerpts from a letter written by the Minister of National Defence in reply to an inquiry with respect to whether the department intended to use the auxiliary services of the Legion.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Fournier (Hull):: Tomorrow we shall move to go into supply and call the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys and the Department of the Secretary of State, these items to stand. We shall then continue this interesting debate on national defence.


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

Military Awards

[Stage Direction]
Orders, decorations and medals awarded officers and men of the Canadian forces for gallantry or outstanding service in the Far East
June 14, 1952, to March 28, 1953


[Stage Direction]
Number	Rank	Name	Previous Decorations	Unit at Time of Award	Residence Prior to Enrolment	Present Location0-59510	Captain	Plomber, James	DSC and Bar, CD.	"Cayuga"	Victoria, B.C	"Cornwallis", Digby, N.S.

[Stage Direction]
0-39100		King, Dudley Gawen..	CD				
						Ottawa.
0-72120			CD				"Naden" Esquimalt, B.C.
		Dalrymple.				
0-69700						
0-65205	Lieutenant Commander	Saxon, Donald Roy		CD

[Stage Direction]
Chief Petty Officer (Second Class).
Bonner, Albert Leo___
[Stage Direction]
"Nootka"
Not Known
"Cornwallis" Digby, N.S.
0-48417
0-4184.. 0-77118. 3387-H.

[Stage Direction]
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant	
Lieutenant (L)	
Surgeon Lieutenant....
Chief Petty Officer (1st Class).
Saunders, Frank Phillips Rich.
McCulloch, Paul Lancelot Steele.
Banfield, Nelson Ralph
West, Chris Alfred....
Leary, Joseph Ernest..
[Stage Direction]


"Nootka"
"Athabaskan"
"Sioux"	
"Athabaskan"
"Nootka"
Saskatoon, Sask	 "Naden" Esquimalt, B.C.
Victoria, B.C	 "Niobe" London, Eng.
Victoria, B.C....
Mimico, Ont	
Abbotsford, B.C,
"Bytown" Ottawa, Ont. "Naden" Esquimalt, B.C. "Stadacona" Halifax, N.S.
3862	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Military Awards
3232-E		Chief Petty Officer		Davies, Ralph Evans..				"Naden" Esquimalt, B.C.
	(2nd Class).					
3362-E		Chief Petty Officer	Moyes, William David.			Din-hv N S	"Crusader" Far East.
	(2nd Class).					
4240-E		Chief Petty Officer	Brown, Harry Edward				"Ontario" Esquimalt, B.C.
	(2nd Class).					
3299-E		Chief Petty Officer....	Morgan, Henry Cecil...	CD			Vancouver, B.C		"Naden" Esquimalt, B.C.
	(2nd Class).					
21663-E		Chief Petty Officer	Vanthaaff, George	CD				"Naden" Esquimalt, B.C.
	(2nd Class).	Edward				
4973-E		Petty Officer	Shaw, Samuel Henry..			Medicine Hat, Alta		"Naden" Esquimalt, B.C.
	(1st Class).

[Stage Direction]
Brigadier		Bogert, Mortimer	DSO, OBE, CD...
	Patrick.	
Commander, 25 Cdn Inf Bde.
Montreal, P.Q,
25 Cdn Inf Bde, Far East.

[Stage Direction]
ZH 1136		Lieutenant-Colonel		Wilson-Smith, Norman	MBE		1st Battalion PPCLI, RCIC.		HQ, Western Command, Edmonton, Alta.
		George.				
ZP 1659		Major		Jewkes, Victor Wilfred	MC	Ld SH (RC) RCAC..	TnV>rtQ p n	Ld SH (RC) 2 Armd Regt., Calgary, Alta.
						
ZP 1537		Lieutenant-Colonel		Bingham, Peter		1st Battalion RCR, RCIC.		1 RCR, Far East.
		Richard.				
ZP 1754		Lieutenant-Colonel		McNaughton, Edward	CD		1st Regiment, RCHA.		1 RCHA, Far East.
		Murray Dalziel.

[Stage Direction]
ZD 553		Lieutenant-Colonel		Brosseau, Bernard	MC				25 Fd Amb., Valcartier, P.Q.
		Louis Persillier.		RCAMC.		
ZP 1379		Lieutenant-Colonel			DSO, CD.	2nd Regiment RCHA..	Montreal, P.Q		2 RCHA, Winnipeg, Man.
		frey.				
>
cn
co
co
oo
Military Awards
OFFICER OF THE MILITARY DIVISION OF THE MOST EXCELLENT ORDER OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE (OBE)-Cont'd
Number	Rank	Name	Previous Decorations	Unit at Time of Award	Residence Prior to Enrolment	Present LocationZTC 4142	DSO, ED	2 RCR, RCIC	New Westminster, B.C.	2 RCR, London, Ont.Charleson.	ZP 1345	CD	2 R 22e R, RCIC	2 R 22e R, Quebec, P.Q.dre Armand Gaston.	ZF 276	Halifax, N.S	1 PPCLI, Calgary, Alta.RCIC.	ZR 2391	MC	Browning.	RCAMC.	ZP 1276	Lieutenant-Colonel	Trudeau, Louis Fremont	DSO, CD	1st Battalion, R 22e R..	Quebec City, P.Q	1 R 22e R, Far East.MEMBER OF THE MILITARY DIVISION OF THE MOST EXCELLENT ORDER OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE (MBE)	7Cr 1123	Ferris, Harold Rowley	CD	Fairville, N.B	26 Central Ord Depot,Coy., RCOC.	Ottawa, Ont.ZT, 116	George, Donald Harry	MC	HQ 25 Cdn Inf Bde,	Saskatoon, Sask	HQ Western Command,Sig Sqn., RCCS.	Edmonton, Alta.ZH 419	HQ 25 Cdn Inf Bde....	Brandon, Man	C and D Est CAS, Wash.John Alexander.	Washington, D.C., U.S.ATP, 2944	Ottawa, Ont	Released: 101-lst Ave.,Charles David.	RCASC.	Ottawa, Ont.7,p 1427	Orton, John Swaffield..	MC, CD	2 RCHA, RCA	Duncan B.C	Army Headquarters,Ottawa, Ont.ZP 640	HQ 1 Comwel Div	Port Au Port, Nfld....	Army Headquarters,Ottawa, Ont.ZM 102	Allan, James Chalmers	DSO, CD	1 PPCLI, RCIC	Calgary, Alta	Army Headquarters,Ottawa, Ont.ZK 603.. ..	57 Cdn Ind Fd Sqn,	Monterey, California,	Royal Cdn School MilitaryRCE.	U.S.A.	Eng., Chilliwack, B.C.3864	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Military Awards
MEMBER OF THE MILITARY DIVISION OF THE MOST EXCELLENT ORDER OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE (MBE) (Cont'd)
				HQ 1 Comwel Div.,	Ottawa, Ont	
				RCASC.	
				25 Cdn FDS, RCAMC.	Kingston, Ont-
		McLarnon, John Robert		HQ 1 Comwel Div.,	London, Ont	
				RCEME.	
				191 Cdn Inf Wksp.,	Toronto, Ont	
		Edgar.		RCEME.	
				57 Cdn Ind Fd Sqn.,	Toronto, Ont	
		George.		RCE.	
			CD		25 Cdn Inf Bde, Sig Tp,	Kingston, Ont...
		Edward.		RC Sigs.	
	WO T			2nd Regiment, RCHA	Kingston, Ont-
		Vincent.			
	WO T			191 Cdn Inf Wksp,	Kimberley, B.C.
				RCEME.	
		Baker, Alfred Jeffery..	CD		HQ 25 Cdn Inf Bde.,	Victoria, B.C....
				RCIC.	
		Dolan, Joseph Ignatius		23 Transport Coy,	Stratford, Ont.. .
				RCASC.	
		Jaffey, Bertram David		37 Field Ambulance,	Toronto, Ont	
				RCAMC.	
				1st Battalion RCR,	London, Ont	
				RCIC.	
		Leach, John Edward...	CD		HQ 25 Cdn Inf Bde.,	Kingston, Ont...
				RCIC.	
				Ld SH (RC) RCAC...	Saint John, N.B.
		Sutton.			
				1st Regiment, RCHA.	Toronto, Ont-
				RCAChC (P) Att'd 1st	Toronto, Ont-
		Alexander.		Bn., PPCLI.	
				1st Battalion, PPCLI	Calgary, Alta...
				RCIC.	1
Army Headquarters, Ottawa, Ont.
C and D Est CAS, Wash., Washington, D.C., U.S.A.
Army Headquarters, Ottawa, Ont.
RCEME School, Barriefield, Ont.
57 Cdn Ind Fd Sqn., Chilliwack, B.C.
Royal Cdn School of Signals, Barriefield, Ont.
2 RCHA, Winnipeg, Man.
3 Coy RCEME, Kingston, Ont.
HQ 25 Cdn Inf Bde, Far East.
23 Tpt Coy, RCASC, Far East.
37 Field Ambulance, RCAMC, Far East.
1 RCR, Far East.
HQ 25 Cdn Inf Bde., Far East.
Ld SH (RC) Far East
1 RCHA, Far East.
HQ Prairie Command, Winnipeg, Man.
1 PPCLI, Calgary, Alta.
>
►-I
r
[Stage Direction]
Cn
[Stage Direction]


o>
cn
Military Awards

[Stage Direction]
Number	Rank	Name	Previous Decorations	Unit at Time of Award	Residence Prior to Enrolment	Present LocationZD 2770....	Captain	Tremblay, Joseph Patrick Rene. Therrien, Jean Paul	HQ BC Area, Vancouver, B.C.ZD 4529	Lieutenant	2 R 22e R, RCIC	Quebec City, P.Q	Andre.	2 R 22e R, Quebec, P.Q.ZH 9926	Lieutenant	Middleton, David	MM	i ppct.t prrrn	ZD 3947	Lieutenant	Alexander. Peterson, Allan Angus	1 RCR Rnn	HQ Central Command, Oakville, Ont.ZF 5016	Captain	Sloss. Berthiaume, Elie William. Le Clerc, Roland	2nd Regiment, RCHA 2nd Battalion, R 22e R 1st Battalion, RCR	Bridgetown, N.S	1 RCR, Far East. I & A Cadre, HQ Eastern Command, Halifax, N.S.ZE 337	Captain	ZC 4309	Lieutenant	Gardner, Herbert	Rimouski, P.Q	I & A Cadre, HQ Que. Command, Montreal.Russell.	Ainpuor, Out	2 RCR, London, Ont.ZP 2810	Captain	Cloutier, Herbert	CD	1st Battalion, RCR	George.	1 RCR, Far East.ZD 4331	Lieutenant	Clark, John	1st Battalion, RCR	
1st Battalion, RCR, RCIC. 1st Regiment, RCHA..	Beebe, P.Q	1 RCR, Far East. 1 RCR, Far East.ZF 857	Captain (Acting Major)	Taylor, George Gray..	ED	ZP 2192	Captain	Caldwell, Douglas	CD...	Samuel.	1 RCHA, tar East.ZC 4936	Captain	Howitt, Gerald Henry King, Andrew Martin..	1st Regiment, RCHA.. 1st Battalion RCR, RCIC. 1st Battalion RCR, RCIC. 1st Battalion PPCLI, RCIC.	ZC 4693	Lieutenant	1 RCHA, Far East.ZG 10026....	2/Lieutenant	Merrithew, Haldene	London, Ont	
Fairvale Stn., Kings Co., N.B.	1 RCR, Far East. 1 RCR, Far East.ZL 9929	2/Lieutenant	Owen. Robertson, William Cryle	Saskatoon, Sask	1 PPCLI, Calgary, Alta.3868	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Military Awards

[Stage Direction]
SK 3460	 SK 12487....	Sergeant	 Sergeant		Buxton, Richard George. Richardson, John Henry.		1 Bn PPCLI, RCIC... 1 Bn PPCLI, RCIC...	Victoria, B.C	 Calgary, Alta		1 PPCLI, Calgary, Alta. 1 PPCLI, Calgary, Alta.
THE GEORGE MEDAL (GM)						
SG 2594		Lance-Corporal		Sinnott, Sterling Lloyd		25 Cdn Fd Dressing Station, RCAMC.	Saint John, N.B		Released: Milltown, N.B.
SE 800308....	Corporal	
B 800398.	
SN 1106 ..	
E 800061		Sergeant	
D 800406		Acting Bombardier....
C 800037		
D 800577....	Private	
O 800403 ..	
SF 800236....	Sergeant	
SK 8338 ..	
D 801793		
SG 9631		Corporal	
SL 918 .	
SC 6603...

[Stage Direction]
2 R 22e R, RCIC		Atholville, N.B	
McOrmond, Kenneth Victor.		2 Bn RCR, RCIC		Sudbury, Ont	
			
Le Moine, Donald George.		1 Bn RCR, RCIC		Grand Falls, Nfld	
			
		2 R 22e R, RCIC		Montreal, P.Q	
Deardon, Thomas Edward.		2 RCHA, RCA		East Angus, P.Q	
			
Carley, Douglas Wesley.		2 Bn RCR		Consecon, Ont	
			
		2 Bn RCR, RCIC		Montreal, P.Q	
		2 Bn RCR, RCIC		Harcourt, N.B	
		"C" Squadron, Ld SH (RC) RCAC. 1 PPCLI, RCIC		Springhill, N.S	
Dunbar, John Glenford			Vancouver, B.C	
		1 R 22e R, RCIC		Montreal, P.Q	
		1 RCR, RCIC		Milltown, N.B	
Rimmer, James Ernest		1 st Battalion, PPCLI,	Foam Lake, Sask	
		RCIC. 1st Battalion, RCR, RCIC.	Kingston, Ont	
			
RCS of I, Borden, Ont.
Released: G9 Ethelbert St., Sudbury, Ont.
1	RCR, Far East.
2	R 22e R, Quebec, P.Q.
Released: 235 Montcalm Blvd., Granby, P.Q.
Released: 10 Water St., Trenton, Ont.
Released: 751 Mercer St., Windsor, Ont.
Released: Harcourt, N.B.
Ld SH (RC) 2 Armd. Regt., Calgary, Alta.
25 Cdn RFT Gp., Far East.
UN Forces, Far East.
2 RCR, London, Ont
1 PPCLI, Calgary, Alta.
UN Forces, Far East.
[Stage Direction]
o>
>3
Military Awards
THE MILITARY MEDAL (MM) (Cont'd)
Number	Rank	Name	Previous Decorations	Unit at Time of Award	Residence Prior to Enrolment	Present LocationSH 61937....	Trooper	Stevenson, Roy Charles.	"B" Squadron LdSH (RC) RCAC.	UN Forces, Far East.
SC 135658....	Sergeant		Enright, Gerald		1st Battalion, RCR, RCIC.		1 RCR, Far East.
		Emerson Peter.				
SB 42537		WO 2		Johnson, Leo Austin...		1st Battalion, RCR, RCIC.		1 RCR, Far East.
						
SB 41694		Staff-Sergeant				1st Battalion, RCR, RCIC.		1 RCR, Far East.
						
SD 189946...	Sergeant		Champoux, Joseph Renaud.		1st Battalion, R 22e R, RCIC.		2 R 22e R, Quebec City, P.Q.
						
SH 60643....	Sergeant		Graveline, William		1st Regiment, RCHA		1 RCHA, Far East.
		George.				
SB 153746....	Sergeant		Prentice, Rhodes		1st Battalion, PPCLI, RCIC.		Colonel Belcher'Hosp., Calgary, Alta.
		Albert.				
SK 14630....	Corporal				1st Battalion, PPCLI, RCIC.	Kelowna, B.C		Released: Westbank, B.C.
						
SB 7474		Corporal				1st Battalion, R 22e R, RCIC.		2 R 22e R, Quebec City, P.Q.
		Roland.				
SN 1051		Corporal		Pelley, Cecil Wilbert Hoskin.		1st Battalion, RCR, RCIC.		1 RCR, Far East.
						
SE 800476....	Lance-Corporal				1st Battalion, R 22e R, RCIC.	Isle Verte, Riviere-du-Loup, P.Q.	3 Personnel Depot, Quebec, P.Q.
						
SC 850324....	Lance-Corporal				1st Battalion, R 22e R, RCIC.		2 R 22e R, Quebec City, P.Q.

[Stage Direction]
SK 14437....	Sergeant		Elliott, George William.		1st Battalion, PPCLI, RCIC.	Vancouver, B.C		1 PPCLI, Calgary, Alta.
						
SH 800192...	Sergeant		Haynes, Malcolm				HQ W Ont. Area, London, Ont.
		Stuart.		and Base Tps, RCASC.		
3868	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Military Awards
BRITISH EMPIRE MEDAL (BEM) (Cont'd)
SK 62292....		Tutte, Kenneth Gordon.				1 PPCLI, Calgary, Alta.
				and Base Tps, RCASC.		
SD 82512....	Staff-Sergeant (Acting WO 2).			1st Battalion, PPCLI, RCIC.		RCS of I, Camp Borden.
						
SB 144511....		Gardiner, Lome Percival.		23 Ind Fd Sqn, RCE..		23 Ind Fd Sqn, Far East.
						
SM 8932					25 Cdn PRU RCE....		HQ Prairie Comd. Winnipeg, Man.
						
SB 7363	1st Battalion, RCR	
Ld SH (RC) RCAC)..	1 RCR, Far East. Ld SH (RC) Far East.SM 9445	Trooper	Wyatt, Henry	Bellevue, Alta

[Stage Direction]
ZB 2724		
ZB 3486		
SF 35284		
B 800357		
H 800412		
B 802044		
SC 850324.... SB 7819		
	
H 800111		
TF 70506		
	
Whiticar, Clarence Mervyn.
Besley, John Keith
Murray, Robert Fraser
Blanchfield, Nelson Joseph.
Cloutier, Joseph John
Gauthier, Andrew Joseph.
Gingras, Jean Robert
Ruttan, Lawrence Albert.
Winkworth, Alfred Victor.
Gillis, Duncan Hugh.
25 Cdn Inf Bde RCASC.
25 Cdn Inf Bde, RCAMC.
25 Cdn Inf Bde,
[Stage Direction]
25 Cdn Fd Amb, RCAMC.
54 Tpt Company, RCASC.
2 R 22e R, RCIC..
2 R 22e R, RCIC..
1 PPCLI, RCIC....
2nd Regiment, RCHA.
2nd Regiment, RCHA.
Glen Tay, Ont	
Toronto, Ont	
Halifax, N.S	
Cobalt, Ont	
McKee, Sask	
Quebec, P.Q	
Quebec, P.Q	
Braeebridge, Ont	
Winnipeg, Man	
Antigonish, N.S	
HQ Prairie Comd., Winnipeg, Man.
25 Field Amb., Valcartier, P.Q.
12 Regional Ord Depot, Halifax, N.S.
Released: 21 Greenwood Ave., Carter Hatch Rd., Enfield, Eng.
Released: 1233 Edwards St., The Pas, Man.
UN Forces, Far East.
2 R 22e R, Quebec, P.Q.
6 Personnel Depot, Toronto Ont.
Released: 319 Cathedral Ave., Winnipeg, Man.
Released: 7 Charlotte St., Sydney, N.S.
[Stage Direction]
Cn
[Stage Direction]

Military Awards
MENTION-IN-DESPATCHES (MID) (Cont'd)
Number	Rank	Name	Previous Decorations	Unit at Time of Award	Residence Prior to EnrolmentTA 37619....	DSO	2nd Battalion, RCR...	St. Thomas, Ont	Frederick.	ZF, 219	2nd Battalion, R 22e R	St. Michel, P.Q	Patrick Gabriel.	2nd Regiment, RCHA.	Hamilton, Ont	Morrison.	ZD 4752	HQ 1 Comwel Div.,	Ste Anne de BellevueJoseph Albert.	RCAMC.	P.Q.MC	1st Battalion, PPCLI..	Calgary, Alta	2nd Battalion, R 22e R	Joliette, P.Q	Edouard.	ZTT 9Q18	RCCS Attached	Winnipeg, Man	Thomas.	1 PPCLI.	ZF 252	Howard, John Henry..	2nd Regiment, RCHA.	Penetanguishene, Ont.CD	RCCS Attached	Kingston, Ont	Gaston.	2 R 22e R.	ZF 4728	RCAChC Attached	Quebec City, P.Q	2 R 22e R.	57 Cdn Ind Fd Sqn.,	Toronto, Ont	Oliver.	RCE.	2nd Regiment, RCHA.	Brantford, Ont	ZC 3411	2nd Regiment, RCHA.	Woodville, Ont	Bateman.	54 Tpt Coy RCASC...	Ottawa, Ont	Robert.	57 Cdn Ind Fd Sqn.,	Vancouver, B.C	Edward.	RCE.	
Present Location
Released: 140 Forest Ave., St. Thomas, Ont.
Cdn Army Training School, Valcartier, P.Q.
2 RCHA, Winnipeg, Man.
Vancouver Military Hosp., Vancouver, B.C.
1	PPCLI, Calgary, Alta.
Cdn Army Training School, Valcartier, P.Q.
AF Bde Gp Sig Sqn., Barriefield, Ont.
2	RCHA, Winnipeg, Man.
Royal Cdn Sch. of Signals, Barriefield, Ont.
College Militaire Royal de Saint-Jean, St. Jean, P.Q.
57 Cdn Ind Fd Sqn., Chilliwack, B.C.
2 RCHA, Winnipeg, Man.
2 RCHA, Winnipeg, Man.
54 Tpt Coy., Camp Borden, Ont.
Released: 12800 Phillips Ave., North Vancouver, B.C.
3870	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Military Awards
MENTION-IN-DESPATCHES (MID) (Cont'd)
ZK 3641		
ZA 4318		
TA 32161....	Lieutenant	
ZD 4097		
ZF 3763		
TB 14292....	Lieutenant	
ZK 3412		
TE 68095....	Lieutenant	
ZG 9788		
TD 3878		
ZE 10135....	2nd Lieutenant	
SD 13525....	WO II	
SG 45024		WO II	
SA 2402		
SC 850308....	Sergeant	
SD 800057...	Sergeant	
B 801929		
SB 801126....	Sergeant			
Corry, Geoffrey Donald.
Darling, Carman Grant
Hamel, John Starr____
Hartnett, James Joseph
MacLean, James William.
McLellan, Alister Porteous.
Murphy, Robert Harold.
Paradis, Jacques	
Smith, Douglas Thomson.
Sorenson, Frank Edward.
Fournier, Real	
Malcolm, Robert	
Walker, Ronald Walker.
Guy, Harold John	
MacKinnon, Donald Hillman.
McCormick, George Edward.
Steele, Wilbert Ross...
Sillaby, Harry Arthur
HQ 25 Cdn Inf Bde„ RCIC.
2nd Battalion, RCR...
2nd Battalion, RCR...
2nd Battalion, RCR...
1st Battalion, RCR____
2nd Battalion, RCR...
25 Cdn Prov Det,
C Pro C.
2 nd Battalion, R 22e R.
Ld SH (RC) RCAC...
2 RCHA Sgn Tp, RC Sigs.
1st Battalion, R 22e R.
2nd Regiment, RCHA.
RCEME Attached Ld SH (RC)
2 RCHA Sgn Tp, RC Sigs.
2nd Regiment, RCHA.
2nd Regiment, RCHA.
57 Cdn Ind Fd Sqn., RCE.
2nd Battalion, RCR..,
Victoria, B.C	
Byron, Ont	
Scudder, Ont	
Montreal, P.Q	
Glace Bay, N.S	
Toronto, Ont	
Victoria, B.C	
Quebec City, P.Q	
Peterborough, Ont....
Kingston, Ont	
Les Boules, P.Q	
Magog, P.Q	
Fairvale Stn., N.B...
London, Ont	
Ottawa, Ont	
Ste Anne de Bellevue, P.Q.
Meldrum Bay, Mani-toulin Island, Ont.
Georgina Island, Ont.
27 Cdn Inf Bde., Europe.
2 RCR, London, Ont.
Released: Scudder, Ont.
I & A Cadre, II.Q. Que. Command, Montreal.
RCS of I, Camp Borden, Ont.
9 Personnel Depot,
Regina, Sask.
1	and A Cadre, HQ BC Area, Vancouver, B.C.
Released: 130 des Erables Ave., Quebec, P.Q.
Ld SH (RC) 2 Armd. Regt. Calgary, Alta.
Released: 2019 Stanley St., Apt. 9, Montreal, P.Q.
4 Personnel Depot, Montreal, P.Q.
2	RCHA, Winnipeg, Man.
192 Cdn Light Aid Det., Winnipeg, Man.
RCS of S, Barriefield,
Ont.
Royal Cdn Sch. of Arty., Shilo, Man.,
2 RCHA, Winnipeg, Man.
Released:
251 Balmoral Ave., Hamilton, Ont.
2 RCR, London, Ont.
>
w
[Stage Direction]
r
[Stage Direction]
Military Awards
MENTION-IN-DESPATCHES (MID) (Cont'd)
Number	Rank	Name	Previous Decorations	Unit at Time of Award	Residence Prior to Enrolment	Present Location
SR 801995						1 PPCLI, Calgary, Alta.
SM 52894....				25 Cdn FDS, RCAMC	Hodgeville, Sask		Shilo Military Hospital,
		Lawrence.				Shilo, Man.
SF 800752....						2 RCHA, Winnipeg, Man.
				Regt. RCHA.		
SH 61543....						1 PPCLI, Calgary, Alta.
		Stanley.				
SR 7236	Owen Sound, Ont	Deceased.D 801830	2 RCHA Sgn Tp., RC	Waterville, P.Q	Released:Sigs.	Waterville, P.Q.SM 9228	Edmonton, Alta	10 Personnel Depot,Hubert.	Calgary, Alta.C 800054.	2nd Battalion, RCR...	Clydesdale PO, Ont...	Released: 332 Rubidge St.,Peterborough, Ont.OS 9124	Brockville, Ont	2 RCR, London, Ont.E 800381	2nd Battalion,	Thetford Mines, P.Q...	Released: Thetford Mines,R 22e R.	P.Q.D 801844	1st Battalion, R 22e R.	MacKayville, P.Q	Deceased.Albert.	R 801935	2nd Battalion, RCR...	Hamilton, Ont	Released: 11th StrathconaConnor.	N., Hamilton, Ont.A 800513	Mann, Arnold Rudolph	2 RCHA Sgn Tp,	Gretna, Man	Released: R.R. No. 3,RC Sigs.	Teeswater, Ont.A 800005	2nd Battalion, RCR...	Brantford, Ont	7 Personnel Depot, London,Robert.	Ont.SF 8958..	1st Battalion, RCR....	Musquodoboit Har-	1 RCR, Far East.Morton.	bour, Halifax Co.,	N.S.	ZE 3784	Lieutenant	Smyth, Robert Dunlop	1st Regiment, RCHA..	Quebec City, P.Q	1 RCHA, Far East.3872	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Military Awards
MENTION-IN-DESPATCHES (MID) (Cont'd)
SB 73992	WO II	BEM...SG 28010	Corporal	McNulty, Robert Ronald. Whitney, Ronald Arthur.	SK 14467.... SG 9728	Corporal	Lance-Corporal	SB 7441	Lance-Corporal	Ludgate, Clarence Edward. Barter, Walter Franklin	SG 10400	Lance-Bombardier	SG 9593	Gunner	SF 1442	Gunner	SF 21560	Private	SB 10793	Private	Morrison, Charles Joseph. Bouffard, Joseph Paul Jacques.	ZD 4610	Captain	SE 4301	WO I	ZC 741	Major	Cohen, Elliott Lapedus Holmes, Donald Ernest. Pelletier, Joseph Albert Modeste Bernard. Richards, Robert Stanley. Rochefort, Joseph	MBEZA 221	ZC 2200	Major	ZP 1314	Major	CD	ZC 470	MBE...ZK 794	Captain	
ZP 4573			Fisher, Orland Mowatt	CD	
			
1st Battalion, RCR_____ Oakville, Ont______
1st Battalion, RCR_____ Saint John, N.B,
1 RCR, Far East. 1 RCR, Far East.
1st Battalion, RCR_____
1st Battalion, RCR_____
1st Battalion, RCR_____
Wilberforce, Ont.. Kentville, N.S.... Virginiatown, Ont.
1 RCR, Far East. 1 RCR, Far East. 1 RCR, Far East.
1st Battalion, RCR_____
1st Regiment, RCHA.. 1st Regiment, RCHA..
1st Battalion, RCR_____
1st Battalion, RCR_____
Saint John, N.B. Saint John, N.B. Port Arthur, Ont.
Halifax, N.S...
Glace Bay, N.S..
1 RCHA, Far East.
1 RCHA, Far East.
129 AA Bty, Victoria, B.C. 1 RCR, Far East. Deceased.
2nd Battalion,
R 22e R.
2nd Battalion,
R 22e R.
1st Battalion, RCR, RCIC.
1st Battalion, RCR, RCIC.
1st Battalion, R 22e R, RCIC.
1st Battalion, RCR, RCIC.
HQ 1 Commonwealth Division (RCASC).
1st Battalion, PPCLI, RCIC.
23 Transport Co., RCASC.
Montreal, P.Q.. Montreal, P.Q.. Brockville, Ont.
London, Ont____
Ottawa, Ont____
St Johns, P.Q... Ottawa, Ont.... Princeton, B.C.. Ottawa, Ont....
2 R 22e R, Quebec, P.Q.
HQ Camp Valcartier, Valcartier, P.Q.
5 Personnel Depot, Kingston, Ont.
1 RCR, Far East.
25 Cdn Rft Gp, Far East.
1 RCR, Far East.
HQ 1 Commonwealth Div. Far East.
1 PPCLI, Calgary, Alta.
No. 9 Transport Coy., RCASC, Ottawa, Ont.
>
i-i
r
[Stage Direction]
cn
co
[Stage Direction]
co
[Stage Direction]
Military Awards
MENTION-IN-DESPATCHES (MID) (Cont'd)
Number	Rank	Name	Previous Decorations	Unit at Time or Award	Residence Prior to Enrolment	Present LocationZF 657	1st Battalion, RCR,	Charlottetown, P.E.I..	1 RCR, Far East.Herbert.	RCIC.	ZD 4044	RCAChC(RC) Att'd	Montreal, P.Q	HQ Quebec Comd.,Arthur Olivier.	1st Bn, R 22e R.	Montreal, P.Q.ZM 9776	Calgary, Alta	RCASC School, CampRCIC.	Borden, Ont.ZB 3601....	Ld SH(RC), RCAC...	Owen Sound, Ont	Ld SH(RC), Far East.Coleman.	SC 5923 ..	WO I ..	Gibbs, Walter Robert..	CD	Oshawa, Ont	23 Tpt Coy, Far East.RCASC.	SP 28012 .	WO 2 ..	Winnipeg, Man	1 PPCLI, Calgary, Alta.Thomas.	RCIC.	SC 41588	WO 2	CD	Eastview, Ont	1 RCR, Far East.RCIC.	SP 16427...	WO 2	1st Battalion, RCR,	Brockville, Ont	5 Personnel Depot,RCIC.	Kingston, Ont.SH 45752....	Appleton, Roy Harold.	MM	Saskatoon, Sask	1 PPCLI, Calgary, Alta.PPCLI, RCIC.	SD 41123	1st Battalion,	Magog, P.Q	1 R 22e R, Far East.Henri.	R 22e R, RCIC.	SD 19036.8	1st Battalion,	St. Peters, N.S	1 R 22e R, Far East.R 22e R, RCIC.	SB 154062	25 Cdn Inf Bde Sig Tp,	Toronto, Ont	Released: 32 Alton Ave.,Allen.	RC Sigs.	Toronto, Ont.SF 36233 .	RCAMC Att'd to 1st	Halifax, N.S	RCAMC, Far East.Bn, R 22e R.	SL 108617....	Regina, Sask	1 PPCLI, Calgary, Alta.PPCLI, RCIC.	SK 14705....	Victoria, B.C	HQ Prairie Comd.,Jack.	Winnipeg, Man.3874	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Military Awards
MENTION-IN-DESPATCHES (MID) (Cont'd)
SK 14497.... SM 100423... SB 153495....	Corporal	
Bombardier	
Corporal	Reding, Raymond George. Reid, Gavin Ian	
Reid, Roy Hamilton..	1st Battalion, PPCLI, RCIC. 1st Regiment, RCHA.. 23 Ind Fid Sqn, RCE..	Innisfail, Alta	
Banff, Alta	
Richmond Hill, Ont...	10 Personnel Depot, Calgary, Alta. 1 RCHA, Far East. 23 Ind Fid Sqn, Far East.SD 4512	
SK 9545	Corporal	Rioux, Joseph Andre...	1st Battalion, R 22e R, RCIC.	St. Fidele, P.Q	1 R 22e R, Far East. I PPCLI, Calgary, Alta. 1 PPCLI, Calgary, Alta. 23 Ind Fid Sqn, Far East.SC 8782	
SB 34148	Lance-Corporal	
Lance-Corporal	Murphy, Pierce Leo	
Webber, Robert William Charles.	PPCLI, RCIC. 1st Battalion, PPCLI, RCIC. 23 Ind Fid Sqn, RCE..	Chapel's Cove, Nfld... Brantford, Ont	SA 1502	Private	Bertrand, Wilfred Laurier.	1st Battalion, PPCLI, RCIC.	Tecumseh, Ont	2 PPCLI, Calgary, Alta.SK 14848.... SD 4870	Private	Kelley, Leonard William. Norton, John Henry...	37 Fid Amb, RCAMC.. 23 Ind Fid Sqn, RCE..	Vancouver, B.C	
New York, USA	37 Fid Amb, Far East. 23 Ind Fid Sqn, Far East. Ld SII(RC), Far East. 1 RCHA, Far East. 1 PPCLI, Calgary, Alta.SH 61920.... SP 8992	Trooper	Olynyk, William	Ld SH (RC) RCAC... 1st Regiment, RCHA.. 1st Battalion,	Winnipeg Beach, Man..	SD 4852	Private	Woods, Russell Larry..	Noranda, P.Q	
U.S. LEGION OF MERIT (DEGREE IF OFFICER)				
ZK 4050	 ZD 637		Brigadier	 Brigadier		Rockingham, John Meredith. Fleury, Frank James...	CB, CBE, DSO, ED. CBE, ED		25 Cdn Inf Bde	 Cdn Military Mission, Far East.	Vancouver, B.C	 Montreal, P.Q		C&D Est CALE, London, Eng. HQ East Que Area, Quebec, P.Q.
		U.S. AIR MEDAL				
	1					
ZD 2265		Captain	1 Drapeau, Louis Rene...		DCM and Bar		2nd Battalion, R 22e R.	Montreal, P.Q.	2 R 22e R, Quebec, P.Q.
[Stage Direction]
►H
r
[Stage Direction]
cn
co
o>
Cn
Military Awards
U.S. AIR MEDAL (Cont'd)
Number	Rank	Name	Previous Decorations	Unit at Time of Award	Residence Prior to Enrolment	Present LocationZF 9.R9.	2nd Regiment, RCHA.	Montreal, P.Q	2 RCHA, Winnipeg, Man.7,1. Sftfti	1st Battalion,	Victoria, B.C	I&A Cadre HQ Sask.PPCLI.	Area, Regina, Sask.7.1. 0Q9Q	1st Battalion,	Saskatoon, Sask	1 PPCLI, Calgary, Alta.Cryle.	PPCLI.


[Stage Direction]
17484		Flight Lieutenant		Glover, Ernest Arthur.		Attached USAF in Korea.	Leaside, Ont		422 (F) Squadron, Uplands, Ont.
AIR FORCE CROSS (AFC)						
30018		Flight Lieutenant		Edwards, Robert Martin.		426 (T) Squadron, Lachine, Que.	St. James, Man		412 (T) Squadron, Rockcliffe, Ont.
BRITISH EMPIRE MEDAL (BEM)						
24068		Corporal		Trudel, Jean Baptiste Paul Aime.		426 (T) Squadron, Lachine, P.Q.	Levis, P.Q		426 (T) Squadron, Lachine, P.Q.
QUEEN'S COMMENDATION FOR VALUABLE SERVICES IN THE AIR (QC)						
17486	 25486		Flight Lieutenant	 Flight Lieutenant		Burn, Robert Edward.. Wolkowski, Edward Raymond.		426 (T) Squadron, Lachine, P.Q. 426 (T) Squadron, Lachine, P.Q.	Hespeler, Ont	 Winnipeg, Man.	426 (T) Squadron, Lachine, P.Q. 426 (T) Squadron, Lachine, P.Q.
3876	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Military Awards
25507				426 (T) Squadron,	Georgetown, Ont		RCAF Station,
				Lachine, P.Q.		Lachine, P.Q.
25880				426 (T) Squadron,	Summerland, B.C		4 Operational Training
				Lachine, P.Q.		Unit, Lachine, P.Q.
23847				426 (T) Squadron,	Fernie, B.C		426 (T) Squadron,
				Lachine, P.Q.		Lachine, P.Q.

[Stage Direction]
16514		Hale, Edward Birney..	DFC, CD		Attached to USAF in	Hamilton, Ont	
				Korea.	
17484		Glover, Ernest Arthur.	DFC		Attached to USAF in	Leaside, Ont	
				Korea.	
30003...				Attached to USAF in	Chateau d'Eau, Que...
		Claude Andre.		Korea.	
17807					Middleton, N.S	
		Esmond.		Korea.	
120772				Attached to USAF in	Montreal, Que	
		Bruce.		Korea.	
1 Fighter Wing IIQ, North Luffenham, Eng.
422 (F) Squadron,
Uplands, Ont.
1 (Fighter) Operational Training Unit, Chatham, N.B.
1 (Fighter) Operational Training Unit, Chatham, N.B.
1 (Fighter) Operational Training Unit, Chatham, N.B.
>
cn

[Stage Direction]
14565				Attached to USAF in	Hanna, Alta		3 Fighter Wing, Germany.
				Korea.		
[Stage Direction]


va
^4
Military Awards
s;„3
mi i jm'ip.
cl	. : -;'i' '<
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, April 15, 1953