1953-01-20

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of personal privilege. Last evening the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) participated in a broadcast outside the house about a matter being discussed in the house, namely the Currie report. I, of couxse, take no exception to that action. However, in the broadcast the hon. member used these words:
But at any rate may I also point out that the Prime Minister himself, back in 1945, received certain documents which he knew were stolen.


Mr. Fraser:: What do you mean by that?


Mr. Knowles:: The documents that Igor Gouzenko brought to him when he was minister of justice and he felt it in the interest of the state that use should be made of those documents even though he knew quite clearly whence they had come.
I do not doubt that the hon. gentleman's recollection of what took place in 1945 may have become a bit hazy, but that statement is quite untrue. I never at any time saw Igor Gouzenko nor his documents nor did I at any time have them in my possession. The whole story is related in quite some detail by the then prime minister in Hansard of March 18, 1946, starting at page 47. I will not take the time of the house to read it but any hon. member who wishes to refresh his memory about the complete details will find them enumerated there. In the report of the royal commission which was set up to inquire into that matter, in another long narrative of the facts he will also find the following paragraph at page 644:
Gouzenko, his wife and child, remained in apartment 6 for the rest of the night, under the care of the city police. There was a later caller at apartment 4 in the night but he retired in a short time without incident. On the morning of the 7th of September, Gouzenko was taken to the office of the B.C.M.P. where he turned over his documents, told his story and asked to be kept in protective custody as he feared for his safety and that of his wife and child.
My own. personal recollection of the facts is that on the morning of the 6th of September-parliament was opening on that day- I did not go to the Justice building but came directly to the centre block here, and that when I arrived here my secretary reported to
me that a man with his wife had gone to him and asked to see me and had explained that he wanted to see me because he was from the Russian embassy and had some papers that he felt were of importance to the security of Canada. I answered that I could not see him, that we were maintaining friendly diplomatic relations with the Russian embassy and that I could not take any part in any quarrel between an employee in the embassy and his employers. I felt that that might become a rather serious international incident.
I communicated with the Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs and told him what my attitude had been and that, unless I received directions from the government to act otherwise, that is the way I felt I should act; that my secretary had a story that he would tell the Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs if he wished to hear it. I heard nothing more about it that day or until an incident that afterwards I found rather amusing. The high commissioner for the United Kingdom was having a reception out at Earnscliffe. It was a fine day and he was receiving his guests on the lawn. I was standing chatting with him when the Russian ambassador came up to greet his host. I still stood there and we had a few minutes' conversation, in the course of which the high commissioner asked the ambassador-who, I gathered afterwards, used to do some fishing in the Ottawa river opposite Earnscliffe-if he had done any fishing recently. The ambassador had not done any in the last few days, and he turned to me with a smile and said: "And what about Your Excellency? Did you find the fishing good today?" Well, I did not know that he was chaffing me about the possibility of information having been conveyed to me by someone from the embassy. But afterwards I came to the conclusion that perhaps my sense of humour was not as keen as was that of the ambassador.
It will be recalled that this man had tried on the 5th to tell his story, and had told his story to someone in a newspaper office, and had not been taken very seriously. He had tried that day, or on the 6th of September, to get someone to take his story seriously and had failed to do so. He had then asked-being apparently in real fear for his security-the occupant of apartment six in the apartment house where he had apartment four if he

Currie Report
could not stay there, or if they would not take care of his child because he was afraid there might be some attempt to reach him in. his own apartment, and there was an attempt which is related in this report by the Prime Minister and related in the report of the royal commission that there had been a fracas there. Four people had burst into apartment four and had ransacked it. The municipal police had been alerted and they did appear on the scene, and they watched over Gouzenko and his family's safety during the whole of that night, and the next morning they took him to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I was informed that that was taking place; I was told that he was brought there by the city police. I said: "Well, that seems to be regular procedure. I am not giving any instructions to the R.C.M.P. to behave in any other way than they behave when incidents are brought to their attention by municipal police." After that, the thing developed, but to the best of my recollection I never at any time saw Gouzenko. I did not see him to know that he was Gouzenko even if I did happen to see someone going by with the R.C.M.P. who actually was Gouzenko, and I never saw the documents.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, if I made a statement with respect to the part played by the Prime Minister in this incident which is not completely correct I readily accept the correction that he has made this afternoon. But may I be permitted at the same time to ask the Prime Minister one question? Is it not true that the documents referred to were accepted and used by the government of which he was a member, despite their known source?


Mr. Si. Laurent:: The documents in question were used as evidence of a criminal conspiracy against the safety of the state, which they revealed, and I am convinced that the hon. gentleman will agree that there was nothing done there in any way different from what is done when stolen property gets into the hands of the police and is used as evidence in prosecutions that are later instituted.



INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANIZATION


Mr. Paul E. Cole (Parliamenlary Assislanl lo Ihe Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, in conformity with the provisions of article 19, section 5, of the constitution of the international labour organization, I desire to lay on the table authentic texts of the following conventions and recommendations which were adopted by the international labour conference at its thirty-fifth session, held at Geneva,

in June, 1952, together with a copy of a letter from the acting deputy attorney general of Canada setting out the legislative jurisdiction for each of these conventions and recommendations: Convention No. 101, concerning holidays with pay in agriculture, 1952; Convention No. 102, concerning minimum standards of social security, 1952; Convention No. 103, concerning maternity protection, revised, 1952; Recommendation No. 93 concerning holidays with pay in agriculture, 1952; Recommendation No. 94 concerning consultation and co-operation between employers and workers at the level of the undertaking, 1952; and Recommendation No. 95 concerning protection of maternity, 1952.



IRRIGATION


Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to ask leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright), the adjournment of the house, under standing order 31, for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the possibility that the government may be influenced by the report of the royal commission tabled yesterday and thereby fail to undertake the immediate construction of the beneficial South Saskatchewan river project consistently recommended by the government's own P.F.R.A. officials and repeatedly promised to the people of western Canada by spokesmen for the federal government.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Argue, seconded by Mr. Wright, asked leave to make a motion under standing order 31 to adjourn the house to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance. The motion is made according to the rules after the ordinary daily routine of business has been concluded and before notices of motions or orders of the day are entered upon. The motion is accordingly made at the right time. The hon. member has stated the matter and has handed to me a statement of the matter proposed to be discussed.
It is my duty is determine whether it is in order and of urgent public importance. I have read the motion. One question for me to consider is whether the matter is one of urgent public importance in accordance with the rules of the house. I should remind the house that the question of urgency is one which means that the matter is so important that the national interest would suffer if consideration of it is not proceeded with immediately. The provisions with respect to this matter are found in Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, third edition, citation
114':

172 and following citations. Let me refer hon. members to citation 176, which reads:
The "definite matter of urgent public importance", for the discussion of which the adjournment of the house may be moved under standing order 31, must be so pressing that public interest will suffer if it is not given immediate attention.
And may I also remind hon. members of the second paragraph in citation 174, which reads:
"Urgency" within this rule does not apply to the matter itself, but it means "urgency of debate", when the ordinary opportunities provided by the rules of the house do not permit the subject to be brought on early enough and public interest demands that discussion take place immediately.
This is a matter which has been under consideration by a royal commission for some considerable time. The report of the royal commission was tabled yesterday. I am sure there will be ample opportunity within the near future, under the rules of the house, to discuss the matter. I do not feel it is one which should be debated today, so as to interrupt the business which has been arranged for today. Therefore I cannot allow the matter to be proceeded with at this time.



CUBAN SUGAR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. MacKenzie (Lambion-Keni):: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are called I should like to ask a question of the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce or, in his absence, the parliamentary assistant to the minister. In view of the fact that sugar beet growers in western Ontario are quite alarmed about the importation into Canada of fully refined sugar from Cuba, has the parliamentary assistant to the minister of trade and commerce any definite information as to what date the minister is scheduled to be in Cuba, in conference with the Cuban government officials, in an endeavour to come to an amicable agreement on the selling of fully refined Cuban sugar in this country?


Mr. G. J. Mcllraiih (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Trade and Commerce):: As hon. members are aware, there were two or three public announcements put out about the trip of the minister to Latin America. I understand he will be in Cuba on February 2, 3 and 4, and that a meeting will take place on February 4.	I think
that is public information that has been put out many times before.
Inquiries of the Ministry FREIGHT RATES



REPORTED HIGHER RATE ON BRITISH AUTOMOBILES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Knight (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker I should like to ask a question of the Ministei of Transport, of which I have given notice Has it been brought to the minister's atten tion that a higher freight rate per mile i: charged by the railways on British car: shipped to the prairies from Montreal that on Canadian cars shipped from Toronto Oshawa or Windsor? If so, has he considerec action to end this discrimination?


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Trans port):: Mr. Speaker, dealing with the last par of the question first, let me say that th< matter of discrimination is not one which car be handled by the minister. It is one which as a rule, is the responsibility of the boarc of transport commissioners when there i: unjust discrimination. But there are case: where the railways, because of competitivf rates, have the right to file certain tariffs.
In this case I am informed that curren rates on domestic automobile traffic are die tated by competitive conditions which art said not to exist in relation to automobile: imported from other countries.



DAIRY INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. Earl Calherwood (Haldimand):: Mr
Speaker, I should like to ask a question o the parliamentary assistant to the Ministe: of Trade and Commerce. Has the govern ment of Canada made representations to thi government of the United States protestinj against their most recent action in placin; further restrictions against the importatioi of dairy products into that country, contrar; to the Geneva agreement on tariffs and trade'
Mr. G. J. Mcllraiih (Parliamentary Assis tant to the Minister of Trade and Commerce)
The answer is no. Hon. members are m doubt aware of the changes now takin; place in the United States administration. Ii the light of these changes, the governmen has been awaiting a favourable opportunit; to review this whole question, and to decide what further representations should be made It will be recalled that representations wen made with respect to the first action take: by the United States government.


Mr. Fleming:: Could the parliamentary assis tant give us the date upon which the las representations were made on this subject t the United States government?

Committee on Defence Expenditure


George James McIlraith: I cannot give that date, offhand; but I can recall to the hon. member's attention the fact that the further restrictions referred to in the question were imposed by the United States government on December 30, 1952.



VICTORIA DAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a luestion of the Secretary of State. In view if conflicting interpretations in the press convening the act passed last year, can an jfficial announcement be made as to which Monday in May will be observed as Victoria iay?


Hon. F. G. Bradley (Secretary of State):: Mr. speaker, an announcement is to be made in lue course.



DEFENCE EXPENDITURE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, January .6, consideration of the motion of Mr. St. laurent for the appointment of a committee o examine defence expenditures and com-nitments, and the amendment thereto of Mr. llaxton, and the amendment to the amend-nent of Mr. Knowles.
Mr. G. C. Nowlan (Annapolis-Kings):: Mr. Speaker, I intend to intervene but briefly in his debate, which is taking place on the ubject as set forth in the resolution read to he house a moment ago by the Clerk Assisting Many matters have been covered in lebate, with some of which I should like to leal again. I do not think it would be fair o the house, however, to repeat some of the irguments made here before, important as hey may be.
References have been made to statements nade by the chief of general staff, both in a etter tabled in the house and in an article vhich has appeared subsequently in the Can-idian Army Journal. I was very glad indeed o hear the statement of the Prime Minister ^Mr. St. Laurent) that the article in question lad been written prior to the chief of general tail having seen the Currie report. This night suggest that the printing of the Canadian Army Journal is not as expeditious as >ne might like. Nevertheless it is a good hing that the statements contained therein annot be construed as a criticism of the louse of Commons, as such.
However, in his letter, the chief of general taff referred to what he termed as attacks

upon the armed services. And the minister, speaking in the house on January 13, said, as reported in Hansard'.
Perhaps I have been overenthusiastic In the defence of the armed forces, against what I felt to be unjustified charges.
I say, with respect, that that is a red herring thrown across the trail to try to obscure the real matter which should be investigated. In so far as I know, there have been no charges made against the armed forces at any time-certainly by no member on this side of the house. That should be made clear.
Mr. Currie in his report, and quite properly, reflects credit upon and compliments the members of the armed forces for having failed to walk through the open door which was left open to them by the administration, through this government, of the Department of National Defence. He says that it reflects great credit upon the honesty and integrity of the members of the forces. With that we all agree. We realize, as I think the Solicitor General (Mr. Campney) said earlier in this debate, that in any group of men you are bound to find some crooks. That is true. But we do take pride in the fact that the number of those who have appeared in any investigation of the armed forces is very small indeed.
I am sure that the reputation of our armed forces as to either honesty or efficiency, will compare very well with the reputation of the forces of any other nation in the world. I am quite sure that members of the armed forces would compare most favourably with a similar group of citizens from any walk of life, even members of the House of Commons. Some of us have had experience in the armed forces. There are many sitting around here, some like myself, who were rear rank privates while others were colonels, generals or occupied comparable ranks in the sister services. I think we all realize that the one thing which undermines the morale of the armed forces more than anything else is the loss of confidence in those at or near the top. That is something which saps the morale of the armed forces. It is something this parliament should rectify. That is what we are trying to deal with during this discussion of the Currie report, and nothing more.
Let us analyse for a moment the speeches made by the Solicitor General and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton), the latter speaking on January 13, both of which were long, both of which fully covered the field, and both of which were undoubtedly carefully prepared. I think they made the best defence possible in view of the circumstances with which they were confronted.

What do we find? I think their arguments fall into two classes. In the first place they both denied that there was any breakdown in the administration of the department. I think they denied that categorically. Then they went on to say, following somewhat the principle of the pleadings which were m effect under the old common law practice of confession and avoidance, that if there was a breakdown, which they submitted there was not, then it was due inevitably to the sudden expansion of the department brought about by the Korean crisis and the impossibility of getting trained personnel with which to perform the task confronting the department.
That is a most plausible explanation. It is one which perhaps we could understand, it is one which perhaps we could accept with some sympathy, if it were not for some of the statements which have been made by the Minister of National Defence in dealing previously with this matter. I have gone back through Hansard to look up some of the statements made by the minister with respect to the reconstruction of this department and its expansion. We remember in 1946 when the legislation was passed providing for the reorganization of the department following the war. Steps have been taken since then to develop this department.
We find that on June 24, 1948, almost five years ago, the minister, speaking on behalf of the government, set forth the purpose of the Department of National Defence, and I quote from page 5784 of Hansard of that date as follows:
(2) to provide the operational and administrative staffs, equipment, training personnel and reserve organization which would be capable of expansion as rapidly as necessary to meet any need;
That was a program which the minister laid down for himself, for the government and for his department in 1948. On August 31, 1950, the minister summed up the work of his department during the past year and then went on to say, and I quote from page 104 of Hansard as follows:
In conclusion I think we can say that we have been fortunate in that we were able to complete-
I ask you to note the word "complete", -the post-war organization of the armed forces earlier and to a greater extent than most other countries, so that we have a sound organizational foundation upon which to build. It is, I believe, a smooth-working and efficient set-up-
Having reviewed his department during 1950, that was the statement made by the minister. Then during his estimates in 1951 there was some discussion with the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell), who inquired about the set-up. The minister is reported on page 3362 of Hansard of May
Committee on Defence Expenditure 24, 1951, as having replied to the hon. member for Greenwood as follows:
It is set up in accordance with the practice wmch has obtained in the Department of National Defence over the years. There has not been much change. We have to do a job, and we do it.
That was a summary given by the minister in 1951. In other words, in 1948 we have the minister setting forth the program which he has to accomplish, that is, the setting up of an administrative nucleus which could be expanded to meet any demands. In 1951 we have the minister boasting of the fact that that has been accomplished. That program was to cover an administration organization which would be capable of expansion to meet any demands, to use the minister's own words.
What do we now find? We find the minister and the Solicitor General coming into the house and saying, "It is true, we have run into difficulties, but that is because we have been expanding, it is because we have not been able to get trained personnel, it is because we have not the organization which we should have in order to meet the demands with which we are confronted." I think that one can say without being unfair that what the minister is saying is this: If we have failed, and we have failed to some extent, then our failure is due to the fact that we failed to set up the organizational set-up which we told the house we had set up. In other words, the house was not treated frankly when those questions were asked before and when the picture was created that we had a nucleus which could be expanded to meet any demands. Now we have failed because forsooth we failed in the past in setting up that organizational base.
In this connection I think one should point out that in 1947-48 this government spent for national defence in the establishment of this nucleus $239-9 million. In 1948-49 we spent over $252 million. In order to establish the nucleus which the minister said would be capable of expanding to meet any demands we spent over a quarter of a billion dollars in each of those years.
In 1936-37 this government spent $36 million through the Department of National Defence. Having spent what now appears to be a most paltry sum upon a nucleus for the defence of Canada, the Department of National Defence was able to expand and to take care of all the administration work entailed in fighting a second world war. According to the boasts of the government, they expanded it efficiently, there was no

Committee on Defence Expenditure scandal or no suggestion of waste or extravagance. Yet a few years later with an expenditure ten times as large they were not able to make the expansion which was so necessary to be made.
In that connection too I should like to refer to another statement of the minister to the non. member for Greenwood in the same debate on May 24, 1951. The hon. member for Greenwood had raised some question about the possibilities of moneys being wasted, and the minister said, as found at page 3348 of Hansard:
I should like to ask the hon. member who has just expressed these vague fears if he knows of any reason for having them. If he knows of any failure of the services engaged in inspection to do their job properly I should like to hear about it. I have not heard about it and therefore I can assure him that I know of no reason for expressing dissatisfaction with the present situation. I hear of all cases that involve trouble, and I have heard of no case.
That is the statement of the minister to the hon. member for Greenwood in May of 1951. Yet Mr. Currie in his report refers to the fact that the chief auditor had made reports time and time again. Mr. Currie said:
Time and again he had reported unsatisfactory conditions. This is clear from appendix "B" which summarizes his findings over a period of years. The deputy minister in each case had directed the quartermaster general to investigate and report. Lack of adequate action at this point had, however, caused a progressive deterioration in the situation. Aside from reports being delayed for considerable periods of time, the record shows the next audit revealing conditions similar to those previously reported and, in some cases, worse. The process is then again repeated.
We have the situation that in May, 1951, the minister said he had heard no report whatsoever reflecting on matters concerning his department. Yet we have this unqualified statement in the Currie report speaking about report after report that had been referred and pigeonholed. The minister did not deal with this matter in his lengthy address the other afternoon. I think the minister should tell the house whether he obtained these reports to which Mr. Currie refers. If he did not get them, why did he not get them? If he did get them, why did he make a statement such as he made to the hon. member for Greenwood in reply to his question? I think those are matters with which we are concerned.
The minister did say that some time in February of 1952, I think it was, a committee was set up, almost a tri-service committee, representing the Auditor General, his own department and others, to conduct an investigation. He says that at that time he had received reports about Petawawa and other matters and he set up an investigating committee to conduct an inquiry. I wonder

if that was the first investigation that was conducted for the department? I wonder it the minister received no other reports before that. He was laying the foundation for the expansion of his department. Would he not apply to the civil service commission, for instance, for administrative personnel when necessary? Would there not be reports by officers of the civil service commission with respect to his department? I wonder how many reports the minister did receive concerning affairs in his department. I wonder if, for instance, he received reports criticizing construction costs. We have had a statement by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Shaw) respecting certain defence costs. I wonder if reports were received showing that buildings constructed by the engineers, for example, cost twice as much as those built by civilian contractors long before 1951. How many reports, if any, other than this one which the minister received, were received by his department, if not by him, prior to May 24, 1951?
Those are matters concerning which I think the house is entitled to more information than it has received heretofore. I quite agree with the minister that we are not concerned here with looking for scapegoats, and whatever our own interests may be in this house, certainly the people of Canada are not concerned with us playing politics. What they want is the situation cleared up so that the defence department and armed services can be maintained at as high a standard of efficiency as possible, and so that the taxpayers' dollar, 50 cents of which goes into this department, can and will be safeguarded. It is for that purpose that the defence expenditure committee is being set up, and f do not think it is fair to the committee to hamstring it by an order that it must first deal with the Currie report. In other words, the function of the committee would then be to investigate the investigator.
There are many other things that should be investigated by the committee. There are tremendous expenditures of government money concerning which the people expect a report by this parliament. Normally the house will be rising in a few months, and with the vast amounts of money that have been expended by this department and which expenditures have been referred to the committee, I say, sir, that it is not expedient, practical or right that the committee should be compelled to deal first with the one matter of this report and therefore be precluded from investigating many other matters with which the committee would like to deal. In fact it would appear that not only is the government attempting to becloud the matter of the Currie report itself, but by tying it in with

this committee it is also going to do its best to hamstring that committee and prevent it from conducting investigations into other matters which certainly should be investigated rather than the one question of the Currie report.
I do not intend to go further into this subject at this time. I think it is a matter of paramount interest to the nation, and one with which parliament should deal and deal now. I should like to make one reference to a matter which transpired yesterday and which possibly is sub judice now. However, I intend to make no specific reference except to the letter tabled yesterday by the Attorney General of Canada having to do with certain investigations and saying that following normal police practices certain matters had been referred to an individual. Without going into the details of any one matter, I wonder just what the reference to "normal police practices" means. We have heard a reference this afternoon by the Prime Minister to the police dealing with a national matter threatening the safety of the state and on a national basis. I have had some little experience with police matters as a prosecuting officer for many years and sometimes as defence counsel, and it is my experience that it is not the function of the police to conduct investigations on the orders of the Attorney General of Canada and then apparently to pass the matter on to an individual and say, "Either you deal with this or not", with the inference that if you do not you are failing in your duty to the state.
If there is a crime under the provisions of the Criminal Code, that is a matter for the attorney general of the province, and with that he should deal. If there is no crime under the Criminal Code and if it is a matter affecting the safety of the state, then it is one with which the Attorney General of Canada should deal as attorney general and not simply table correspondence in the house saying that the matter has been referred to an individual, and will he now please make up his mind what he is going to do about it. I doubt if that is consistent with the way in which matters of this kind should be dealt with, and I think it is something which will cause concern to all who do not want to see the intervention of police in matters which at one moment are termed criminal and at another moment savour of a political investigation. These, sir, are simply some observations of many that could be made on this report at this time.


Mr. Jean Francois Pouliot (Temiscouaia):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to speak today only as a member of parliament or as a member of the Liberal party. I want to speak
Committee on Defence Expenditure in another capacity, that of a taxpayer-a modest taxpayer who tries to abide as well as he can by the law of the land. I find that the contest between the C.C.F. and the Progressive Conservatives to steal, not another copy of the report but the show of political propaganda, from each other, is rather childish. Last week, leaving aside countless interruptions and elaborate and learned dissertations on points of order, for three days-with the exception of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) and the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), only five Liberals and fourteen opposition members spoke. There were nine Progressive Conservatives, three members of the C.C.F. and two Social Crediters. Two opposition members spoke for every supporter of the government who spoke.
Last session the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) criticized the appointment of Mr. Currie to make the report which has been referred to so often.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, he did not.


Jean-François Pouliot: I remember that he complained about Mr. Currie's appointment.


Donald Methuen Fleming: He did not.
INir. Drew: Mr. Speaker, I simply wish to make a correction. There is no record of my having criticized the appointment of Mr. Currie-in this house or outside the house.


Donald Methuen Fleming: At any time.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am very glad the hon gentleman has said that because now he considers Mr. Currie to be a great oracle.


Mr. Drew:: Mr. Speaker, in a matter that affects a very definite question of the acceptance of Mr. Currie, I wish to make it clear that I have at all times expressed my confidence in Mr. Currie. That confidence has gone back for a great many years.


Jean-François Pouliot: That is very good. Then he is an oracle and the Leader of the Opposition had no reason to rise again. He, and the C.C.F., swear by Mr. Currie's written word-


Donald Methuen Fleming: The Liberals are swearing at him.


Jean-François Pouliot: -and not at all by his spoken word. They do not want him to appear before the committee which would be appointed in virtue of this motion. The Progressive Conservatives and C.C.F. together do not seem anxious to controvert the veracity or exactitude of his pronouncements and to know whether they are well founded in fact or not. On the other hand, the Minister of National Defence, whose conscience is clear, says: Let us call Mr. Currie to give evidence before the committee.

Committee on Defence Expenditure
It makes a great difference.
The amendment of the Minister of National Defence was to instruct the committee-
-initially to give priority in their examination-
-to the Currie report. On the other hand, the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) moved instead that Mr. Currie should be- -authorized to continue his inquiries and conduct a similar investigation-
-during the sittings of the committee. That subamendment was declared out of order.
Then, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), a C.C.F. member, moved:
-to give consideration to the desirability of recommending that Mr. Currie be asked to conduct a further inquiry into any other expenditures and commitments covered by the terms of this resolution.
Both subamendments are wholly ejusdem farinae-to the same effect. The Progressive Conservatives and members of the C.C.F. do not seem to desire that Mr. Currie shall appear before the committee to substantiate his allegations of wrong doing in the army. Either they are afraid to have him as a witness or they realize that there is not enough already in the report to justify their commitments.


Mr. Wright:: The police prosecutions have substantiated them.


Jean-François Pouliot: That is the opinion of the hon. gentleman. We may differ with him. He may be right and I may be right. He is right in name but I may be right in fact.
Mr. Speaker, I have read with great concern the last report of the R.C.M.P. in which it is said that criminality has increased by 43 per cent in one year. That is very bad. Human nature is the same in the army as in civilian life-no better. No certificate of good behaviour is required by the army and the toughest guys are often the best soldiers. The responsibilities of parliament and the duties of members to control expenditure are necessary things in parliamentary life, but one should not lose any sense of proportion. Now, according to the Currie report, and if what he says is right, the total amount that has been wasted would be $50,000 out of $2 billion. That means-


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is not what he said.


Jean-François Pouliot: Well, that is the calculation that has been made by most of the speakers. That means $5 for each $200,000 of expenditure; $1 for each $40,000 of expenditure; 1 cent for each $400 of expenditure; and J of a cent for each $100 of expenditure.


An hon. Member:: Peanuts.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Jean-François Pouliot: Surely.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will the hon. member, in the light of what he has just said, favour the house with his comment on this expression in Mr. Currie's report as found at page 714 of Hansard?
My view would be, however, that the generally lax administrative situation would give rise to waste and inefficiency tar more costly in loss than that covered by actual dishonesty.
Would the hon. member favour us with his comment on that pungent statement in Mr. Currie's report?


Jean-François Pouliot: My comment would be this, and it dates back to a long time ago. One day in this house I said that the brass hats were mummies wrapped up in red tape. To my great humiliation the prime minister of the time asked me to withdraw. It may apply to Mr. Currie.


Donald Methuen Fleming: He is not a brass hat.


Jean-François Pouliot: What the hon. gentleman has said shows clearly the importance of the subamendment sponsored by the Minister of National Defence, to bring Mr. Currie-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mine is the subamendment.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, but the first subamendment was by the Minister of National Defence to give priority-


Donald Methuen Fleming: That was the amendment.


Jean-François Pouliot: -to the report before the committee. Then, when the motion is accepted or is voted on, the hon. gentleman and all other members of the committee will have full opportunity to get some evidence from Mr. Currie, and to be informed about the total amount of the money which has been wasted, according to what he has said. Until then and until his figures are checked and corrected, if necessary, it will be impossible for anyone, on the face of the report, to say what it is. But $50,000-


Donald Methuen Fleming: What does the hon. member say it is?


Mr. Brooks:: He was just speaking in respect of Petawawa.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member has stated there was a figure put on-


Jean-François Pouliot: I would ask the hon. member not to be hurt by what I have said. He may have a great surprise when he has the opportunity to hear the evidence that will be given by Mr. Currie before the committee. I hope that he will get full information. Undoubtedly he will do so. Then he will

be in a better position than he is today to make a statement or to adopt a statement that has been made by another.
I will now tell him something. He is a lawyer of experience and he knows that all reputable institutions have an account which is called the profit and loss account. I should be greatly surprised if the profit and loss accounts of our chartered banks, which are solid, and those of other important financial institutions were not higher than the amount referred to a moment ago and if their losses amounted to less than or to as little as a quarter of a cent per hundred dollars. But the opposition can hardly find any scandal during the eighteen years the Liberal party has been in power.


Mr. Hodgson:: What about Beauharnois in 1927?


Jean-François Pouliot: That was not in the last eighteen years and it was not a scandal. It was greatly exaggerated.


An hon. Member:: Do not start to go back too far.


Jean-François Pouliot: If we go back far enough we may find Garland, Foster and others such as Sam Hughes and all that. If you want a retrospective story I can give it because I have used it a great deal in past elections. I have a good enough memory to describe Sam Hughes accurately-


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Tell us about Beauharnois.


Jean-François Pouliot: -and also what happened at Valcartier near home.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: You are part of the government. Tell us about Beauharnois.


Jean-François Pouliot: No, no. I want the committee to sit as soon as possible. The position of the opposition is this. The hon. gentlemen are overrating and exaggerating the importance of this one report in the hope that it can serve their petty political purposes.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: No.


Jean-François Pouliot: My friend the hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser) says no. I will mention one incident, and I will do it in French. "La plus noble conquete que l'homme ait jamais faite est celle de ce fier et fougueux animal qui partage avec lui la gloire des combats." I mean, the horse, the friend of man. Having spoken of horses on the paylists, they do not realize how harmful it could be to those who have spoken about it in the house. I know the farmers and the day labourers very well. No one of them is so pleased as he is when he can have some work with his horse. When he works without
Committee on Defence Expenditure his horse he is paid much less than he is paid when he works with his horse. I invite any Conservative speaker to speak about the shame of having horses on the paylist. He would be laughed at by his audience. The people who have horses are accustomed to work with them-to work with the horse and the wagon-and they are naturally better paid than they are when they have none to work with.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Currie said they were there under the names of non-existent labourers.


Jean-François Pouliot: Perhaps it was the family name of the horse.


Mr. McGregor:: I think the hon. member is headed for the Senate.


Jean-François Pouliot: My hon. friend does not represent a rural constituency; but if he saw the names of some animals, he would be surprised. The names are so long that he would take them for grandees of Spain.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Apparently the Department of National Defence did that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Are any of those horses going to run in the next election?


Jean-François Pouliot: At the next election we will all defeat the president of the C.C.F. in the province of Quebec as I did twelve years ago when a majority of 12,000 was changed into a majority of 3,500. I had my say then. He will never be successful in political life. He is just a turncoat. That is not a threat, Mr. Speaker. It is a warning and a prophecy.
All hon. members are entitled to scrutinize the public accounts with a magnifying glass. No one should have any objection to that. But their criticism has missed the target because it was overdone and mostly because it was unfair and expressed lack of confidence in the Minister of National Defence. The only trouble was that he had to travel a great deal and nobody was appointed as a joint minister or acting minister until recently. But I understand that the government was right in appointing two defence ministers so that when one of them is outside of the country or is outside of Ottawa, there is always one here, who represents the government and the department. The appointment of the new minister was timely and called for.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I must say that since the report was tabled on December 15, I have met a number of people, and they are surprised at the length of the speeches which have been made with respect to it. Very often the issue has been sidetracked. What is before you, Mr. Speaker, is a motion

Committee on Defence Expenditure to set up a committee on national defence ;xpenditure; an amendment to give precedence to the examination of the Currie report by the committee; and then another amendment to which I have referred and which I hope will be defeated. In any event, the Canadian people have confidence in the Prime Minister, in the members of the government including the Minister of National Defence-the whole cabinet-and the Liberal party; and the next election will be won by the Liberal party.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, the subject before this house is one which does not lend itself to the kind of remarks which have been made on a number of occasions. This house has now before it a resolution which relates to the most important department of government, and to the expenditure of approximately half of the money that is being taken from the taxpayers of this country at this time. Moreover, the ultimate effect of the discussion which is taking place, and to which our remarks should be directed, is the security 3f Canada and its survival as a free nation, md nothing else. We are not dealing with my mere satisfaction with the details of me report or another; we are dealing with ;he effectiveness of the administration of a Jepartment which is answerable to the people >f Canada for the state of the armed forces md for the welfare and the maintenance of poung men and women in uniform over widely separated parts of the world today.
There are young men in Korea engaged n what to them is no cold war, who must [DOT]ely upon the efficiency of the administration >f the department which is under considera-;ion, and they must rely upon the acceptance jy the government of its responsibility as i government for the efficiency of that department. There are also young men and women n uniform in Germany, in France, in Britain md in other parts of the world. It is to hem that our thoughts should first be directed n considering the effect of any information low before us which may have been brought ;o our attention. Let us be quite clear on me fact. The reason that the Currie report s before us for discussion now is solely the [DOT]esponsibility of the government. We had >n the order paper for some time a notice >f a motion which would call for the setting ip of a committee to inquire into defence expenditures and commitments for defence expenditures. When that motion was called i week ago today the government employed t device which is entirely within the rules, iut which is unusual, of having another nember of the government rise on the motion md introduce an amendment which of lecessity would preclude the possibility of


an effective amendment to the motion such as was well known to be the intention of the opposition.
What must be recognized by everyone is that when an amendment has been made, such as that which was presented in this instance, one need not be in very much doubt that it will receive the support of the majority of hon. members, and therefore any subamendment must be added to that amendment and must embrace it. The amendment in question was one to direct the committee to give priority to the consideration of the Currie report. That is the reason this discussion has been taking place in the past week in regard to the Currie report, and the only reason.
It was well known to the government that in our opinion there was no need for the Currie report to go before the committee on defence expenditure; it was well known to the government that we asked only for action on the Currie report, but that we did seek a wider inquiry into the broad field of organization and administration of the Department of National Defence which it was obvious should take place because of the disclosures in the Currie report.
I am speaking at this time on the first occasion in this debate. I have waited in the hope that there would be some indication from the government that it would accept the suggestion which I made directly in a letter to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) on December 18 and which has been repeated on other occasions since then, that there be an inquiry into the broad details of organization and administration of the Department of National Defence. It is clear now, however, that the government intends to proceed with the course which it stated it intended to follow at the time that its position was put forward on the evening of December 17 last. Because of the extent to which an attempt has been made to divert attention from the real considerations before us I think it may be well to clarify some of those issues.
In the statement made by the government on the evening of December 17 an attempt was made to belittle the importance of the Currie report. Furthermore, an attempt was made in that carefully prepared statement by the government to create the impression that any attempt to deal with the disclosures in that report was to be regarded as an effort to take political advantage from the situation disclosed. In addition, it was indicated that the government proposed to divert attention in any way it could from the seriousness of the situation for which, as a government, it must accept full responsibility at this time.

The thing which it seems necessary to repeat and to emphasize is that the Currie report deals only with a very small segment of one part of the army, and deals in no way with the air force, the navy, or with any of the remaining parts of the army not covered by the direction to inquire into the army works services of the engineers. When these fantastic irregularities are disclosed within that small segment, then is it within the bounds of reason to suggest that the breakdown in the department which permitted that to happen affected just one small part of the army? If any argument of that kind were to be made, the answer to that argument was furnished to hon. members of this house by the annual report of the Auditor General tabled here a week ago yesterday. That report, presented by an official whose integrity and independence is unchallenged and unchallengeable, indicated that there are eight different methods of accounting within the Department of National Defence.
Do not let anyone come before this house and suggest that this is a desirable system, and one which has been maintained because of its efficiency. The Auditor General makes it perfectly clear that the ineffectiveness of the system has been emphasized over and over again, and that the government has failed to take the appropriate action to bring about the single system of accounting which is desirable.
These truly fantastic irregularities reported in the Currie report, almost all of which occurred in one camp, were under one system of accounting. What of the other seven systems? What is the evidence in regard to them? The Auditor General makes it quite clear that those other systems are not working any better.
He reports, as an example, that a brigadier in the army, proceeding to the civilian branch of the same service, receives a large salary in that office immediately upon his appointment to the civilian post, and for three months thereafter received the large salary paid him in the civilian post and at the same time his salary or pay as a brigadier. Other examples were given of irregularities which this chaotic system of accounting had permitted.
And yet, after this length of time, since the Currie report was presented to the house- now more than a month ago-there has not been any attempt to apologize to the house and, through the house, to the people of Canada, for the condition which has been disclosed. There has not been any attempt to express an appropriate measure of regret, but only an attempt to create the impression that any emphasis on the need for reforms within that department are, on the one hand,
Committee on Defence Expenditure an exaggeration of the importance of the situation or, on the other hand, an attempt to create uncertainty in the public mind as to what the situation really is.
The Currie report is not the issue before us. Neither is the report of the Auditor General. Neither is the evidence put forward by the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Murray), on his responsibility as a member, of still larger thefts and defalcations at an earlier date.
This Currie report brought before us for consideration, by the amendment presented by the government a week ago today, is a symptom of a grave disease, not the disease itself. It is the symptom of a dangerous and pernicious disease which calls for deep, firm and courageous cutting to remove the root of the trouble.
However, instead of any indication of an intention to submit the diseased administrative body to this type of operation, poultices of one kind or another are being applied to the surface irritation which has appeared. If this course continues, and if that majority in the house which, for whatever reason it does so, regularly supports the government, does support the course now proposed, then it will assure delay of those effective measures so badly needed to bring about some cure.
By the introduction of the Currie report in relation to the defence expenditure committee the government itself has placed squarely before us its administration of national defence. We know from the Currie report that there has been a complete breakdown in the accounting system of that department, so far as it affected the army branch of the engineering service. The Auditor General leaves no doubt that this breakdown, these chaotic conditions, extend over a wider field.
The statement I have just made cannot be challenged by the government, unless it is prepared to repudiate the Auditor General and also to repudiate Mr. Currie, the man whom they described last year as the man best qualified in the whole of Canada to undertake an inquiry of this nature.
There are certain findings in the Currie report which must not be dismissed from our minds, if we are to give appropriate consideration to the need for action other than that now suggested by the government. When we are told that there was only a loss of $50,000 at Petawawa, and that statement was repeated by one hon. member today, may I remind hon. members of Mr. Currie's words in that connection.
At no time did he suggest that $50,000 measured the losses at Petawawa. Where does this figure come from? On what authority?

Committee on Defence Expenditure Let us see what the man best qualified in the whole of Canada to state the facts has told us on this point. As reported on page 714 of Hansard, Mr. Currie, under the heading "The Attempts to Estimate Losses", had this to say:
These, then, represent the ascertained cases of irregularity at Petawawa. How many more there may have been will never be known. It was apparent from the beginning of the investigation that the accounting records were in a chaotic condition and would be of little use in determining the nature and extent of irregularities. It is impractical, and perhaps impossible, regardless of the time which might be spent on examining records, to try and determine by this means the amount and value of the deficiencies.
That is the statement of a man accustomed to examining accounts. That is the statement of the man chosen by the government to conduct this inquiry. That is the statement of the man whom they described as the best qualified in Canada. That is the statement of a man in whose integrity and accuracy we have indicated our complete confidence. He tells us that these figures cannot be estimated, that the accounting methods are so chaotic that the amount of the losses will never be known.
Let us see what has been said during this debate in regard to some of those things. Speaking for the government, the Prime Minister made the statement that there were no horses on the payroll. We have the positive statement of Mr. Currie that there were. What is the authority for these statements that there are none?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The payrolls.


George Alexander Drew: The Prime Minister interjects the word "payrolls." When he discussed the report the evidence that he relied on was the evidence of a man convicted of a crime and now in the penitentiary. He ranged that man's evidence against the evidence of Mr. Currie. In fact they waited in order to get this very important evidence so that he could make the statement. Remember that this was not any casual statement by Mr. Currie; this was a statement which had been reconsidered by Mr. Currie. This is the statement which the government tried to have kept out of the report.


An hon. Member:: No evidence of that.


George Alexander Drew: Oh, yes, there is. This is the statement that was considered and discussed and that Mr. Currie chose to keep in. There is no question as to the good faith of the Prime Minister in making the statement, but the fact remains that he was relying on information which had come to him through channels which are challenged by every findine in this report. He was relying on information which came to him from a man
who was convicted in connection with the very irregularities which are reported to us. I might say that he was relying on the evidence of a man who is now in the penitentiary and is seeking a parole.


An hon. Member:: He will get it.


George Alexander Drew: There is another thing I should like to point out. In an attempt to create the impression of inaccuracy in this report reference was made to the railway siding at Petawawa. The explanation with reference to this or the attempt to diminish its importance has two most interesting aspects.


Mr. Garson:: I wonder if my hon. friend will permit a question. He has just made the statement that Sergeant Young is seeking a parole. Would he tell us upon what authority he makes that statement?


George Alexander Drew: I would ask the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) if he will say that it is not so.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I most certainly will. The remissions branch comes under the Department of Justice and certainly no application for a parole has come to my attention. That is the reason I asked the question.


George Alexander Drew: I repeat that the man in question is seeking a parole. The Minister of Justice is well able to find that out if he will seek the information.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: May I ask my hon. friend the source of his information? Did he get it from Sergeant Young?


George Alexander Drew: I am referring now to the statement made in the Currie report in regard to the railway siding as reported on page 713 of Hansard.
In one striking instance, a large quantity of rails belonging to the Canadian Pacific railway was removed. When this loss was noted by the C.P.R. and questions raised, a spur line of the Canadian National running into the ordnance depot was taken up and the rails used to replace the missing C.P.R. track.
Some importance was attached to the statement that these rails did not belong to the Canadian National. I would point out the careful distinction that is drawn in this finding between the rails of the Canadian Pacific that were taken up and the Canadian National siding. My recollection of Petawawa goes back a great many years and the second siding from which the rails were removed has been known as the Canadian National siding since it was built into that camp. Those were the rails that were taken up.
However, the most interesting feature of this is that the government seems to think

i 157

that it is perfectly all right if rails belonging to the government are stolen, but that it may not be all right if they belong to the Canadian Pacific. That is exactly why I say that the time is overdue for the government to recognize the seriousness of the situation disclosed by this report, by the report of the Auditor General and by the known disappearance of camp equipment right across the country. The attitude of the government is that if it is stolen from the government it is a very different thing. According to the government, this is not a Canadian National siding, it is a government siding, so it is quite all right-help yourself.


Mr. Rowe:: Selective theft.


George Alexander Drew: This could be described as a selective theft. That has been the attitude of the government in regard to these matters. The story about the dam at Tucker creek is heart-warming to those who realize the piscatorial possibilities of the area immediately behind that dam. It really must conjure up in the minds of members who know a very dramatic picture of fire-fighting when they are told that the dam was built to fight fires out in that distant area so far from the place where the important buildings of the camp really are.
I submit that these are minor findings in this case, but the government has given them importance in an attempt to create the impression that the Currie report is not accurate in detail.
We are told that the government proposes to seek no scapegoats. What is it doing in attempting to create doubts about the reliability of the report made by the man whom they have described as the best qualified man in Canada for this task? If this government, with all its opportunities for propaganda outside of the house-paid for of course by the people of Canada-is going to follow a practice of this kind when it engages the services of a distinguished Canadian like Mr. Currie, then it is going to close the door to the services of a great many Canadians who know what may be in store for them if they state their frank opinion about what the government has done.
We are told that it is important to bring the report before the defence expenditure committee. We are told that it is important to submit these findings of facts to that committee. We are told that it is important to find out if these horses were actually on the payroll or if the information given the Prime Minister by Sergeant Young, who is now in penitentiary, is accurate information.


Jean-Paul Stephen St-Laurent: On a question of privilege, I deny having received any information from
Committee on Defence Expenditure Sergeant Young or even knowing exactly where he is or how he got there, beyond what I have seen in the records of the department. The information I got was from the department and all the facts, except as to the division of the $1.50 an hour, were taken from the departmental records. The information with respect to the division of the $1.50 an hour was taken from a signed confession of Sergeant Young made before his conviction both to the officers of the provost corps and to the officers of the R.C.M.P.


George Alexander Drew: That is the information which the Prime Minister referred to in the statement given in this house-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Pages 892 and 893 of Hansard.


George Alexander Drew: -and he told us then that he was waiting for the report of the statement by Sergeant Young.


Jean-Paul Stephen St-Laurent: My hon. friend is quite mistaken there. I said I made a qualification when I gave the information to the house because there was some of the information that came from a statement made by Sergeant Young, but that was the statement made in the form of a written confession to the police.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, since this has been raised, let me read exactly what the Prime Minister said. I am interested in the Prime Minister's remark that he did not know where Sergeant Young was. These are his words, as recorded at page 892 of Hansard:
I make this qualiBcation because a part of the information is based on statements secured by the police from Sergeant Young who is now in the penitentiary and it is not possible to check all of them from official records.


William Earl Rowe: That is just what he said.


George Alexander Drew: That is exactly what I said, that the Prime Minister was relying in part on information given by Sergeant Young, and the Prime Minister did know he was in the penitentiary.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I know he is in a penitentiary. I do not know which penitentiary-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: -and the statement-


William Earl Rowe: It does not matter much.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: -that I rose in my place to protest about implied that I had been in personal communication with Sergeant Young.


William Earl Rowe: It would not matter much which penitentiary he was in. He would be just as comfortable in one as in another.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The record will show if that is the implication of the words I rose to protest against.

Committee on Defence Expenditure


George Alexander Drew: The statement of the Prime Minister is perfectly clear that he knew Sergeant Young was in penitentiary and that in making his statement he did not wait until he got that statement to tell the house what he thought about the horses.


William Earl Rowe: And Mr. Currie.


George Alexander Drew: The fact is that what has happened is that the jockeys are in jail but the horses are still loose.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is statesmanlike.


George Alexander Drew: This may have appealed to
many people because of its absurdity but it is the kind of thing which brings into sharp focus the nature of the irregularities which were occurring.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Typical tactics of the opposition-Hong Kong, Bren gun, North Star.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) is so interested in these proceedings, I should like to deal with certain activities of the government for which I assume he has accepted responsibility. A great deal has been said about the theft of a document. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police were used to conduct an inquiry. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police were directed to conduct an inquiry into what? Into anything affected by any federal law? No. The Minister of Justice makes that quite clear now. They conducted an inquiry and as a result the Minister of Justice has now advised that if anything is to follow it must be at the instance of Mr. Currie or the printing firm from which, according to him, this paper was removed.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I wonder if my hon. friend would identify the statement or material upon which he bases the last remark he has made.


George Alexander Drew: Oh, Mr. Speaker, the Hansard record is adequate and I leave it at that.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Quote it then.


William Earl Rowe: He has been quoting it all afternoon to your shame.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If it is in Hansard and he is depending upon it, let him quote it.


Mr. Speaker:: The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) is not required to answer questions. It is a matter entirely within his discretion.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: On a question of privilege,
I say that my hon. friend's statement is without foundation, and if he has the evidence he will cite it.


George Alexander Drew: The authority for it is the long and evasive speech made in the house by the Minister of Justice on this very subject.

Furthermore, there is the letter of the Minister of Justice to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) which was placed on record, and so far as I know was a letter that actually did pass.


William Earl Rowe: Think that one over now.


George Alexander Drew: I assume the minister signed that. Let us get this thing in perspective.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Alexander Drew: Let us get this in perspective so that those who obviously have been diverted from the real issue may bring their attention back to what is before us.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: You are the person who has been doing the diverting.


William Earl Rowe: Your applause did not settle anything. Go ahead.


George Alexander Drew: We have heard a great deal about the use of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. We have heard the astonishing statement by the Minister of Justice that if it is appropriate for individuals to use private detectives it is quite proper for the government to use that great force for activities of this kind.


An hon. Member:: Right.


George Alexander Drew: The minister says "right".


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, no.


William Earl Rowe: Some other member of the government.


George Alexander Drew: Another member of the government-


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: No, no, not of the
government.


George Alexander Drew: Then, Mr. Speaker, what has just occurred indicates the desirability of those who have intelligent remarks to make getting on their feet to make them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, order.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, the ribald laughter of members who support the government for one reason or another-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: They have great justification.


William Earl Rowe: I would not laugh if I were on your side.


George Alexander Drew: -indicates the attitude of the supporters of the government in regard to the serious situation disclosed in this report. I hope that right across Canada the people of this country will know that, while we are discussing the administration of a department that takes over $2 billion of their money from their pockets by taxation, supporters of

this government can find nothing better than laughter with which to greet the discussion of a subject as serious as that now before us.


An hon. Member:: We were laughing at you.


William Earl Rowe: He laughs best who laughs last.


Mr. Fournier (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: Humbug.


George Alexander Drew: I can just imagine the righteous indignation with which the Prime Minister would have demanded a retraction if that remark which has just been made had been made on this side of the house.


Sarto Fournier: Hold your horses.


George Alexander Drew: One of the typical remarks made by a supporter of the government is "hold your horses".


William Earl Rowe: I wouldn't mention them again.


George Alexander Drew: It is the job of this government to hold the horses, and they have made a very poor effort-they have made an extremely poor effort; and these horses are nothing more than an indication of the general incompetence for which apparently the government is not prepared to accept the responsibility which it should.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
An. hon. Member: Are those DeWitt Foster's horses?


George Alexander Drew: I am speaking about the use of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to conduct an inquiry. We already have had the term "theft" applied to this piece of paper. Now, what was actually taken? The government apparently does know now how it was taken, from whom and by whom. In that, it certainly has the advantage over most of the members of this house at this time.
What was taken? The working sheets, put in printed form, of what the man appointed by the government to make this inquiry proposed to present as his report. Was this an army operation order? Was this any secret government document relating to atomic secrets? Was this anything relating to the development of new weapons or anything of that kind? No.


An hon. Member:: It was a new weapon for the Tory party.


George Alexander Drew: It was the draft of findings in regard to matters which have been under discussion for over a year-as has been pointed out over and over again by the government in discussing this subject.
I have no knowledge of how that document became public, as has already been indicated.
Committee on Defence Expenditure The government now has. I would imagine that the man appointed to conduct the inquiry would have some very serious objection to a document of that kind getting out of the printing shop; but what has actually happened as a result of that? All that has been lost is any pretence that this government permits reports to come before it without advance consideration. What has been disclosed by that chain of events, whether excusable or otherwise, is that this government tried to have substantial changes made in the Currie report and did not succeed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


William Earl Rowe: It got out too soon.


George Alexander Drew: What has been demonstrated beyond all question is that Mr. Currie was asked to reconsider the report, that he did, and that the report we now have before us in its final form is a report which was subject to that double checking and bears that double responsibility.
These words that are before us are words which this highly regarded accountant, this distinguished soldier, this man who at great personal sacrifice had acted as deputy minister of national defence during the war as a public servant, checked and refused to have changed.
When the government expresses such synthetic indignation over the removal of this paper from the print shop, I think it would be appropriate that we receive information from the same source about what the government is doing in regard to another report that got loose recently. Has the government instructed the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to conduct an inquiry as to who got a copy, in advance, of the report of the commission inquiring into the prospects of the South Saskatchewan power and irrigation development? Certainly one report was just as confidential as the other-but there is a difference, remember. There is a difference. The report on the South Saskatchewan development was a report to the government, and if it got out here in Ottawa it got out from the government and not from a printing office in Montreal or in Regina or in Saskatoon. Perhaps the government in this case feels that as long as it is theft from the government it is a kind of selective theft to which there is no objection. But let us make no mistake about it: if one was reprehensible, the other was. If the removal of one paper was open to criticism and justified an inquiry by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, so did the other.
Now, do not let anyone suggest that there was no criticism of the leak of information in that other report. Perhaps, as a matter

Committee on Defence Expenditure of fact, as a result of criticism, they may know the man that they describe as the thief in that case. As far back as five days ago the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) in Saskatchewan did criticize, and I quote his words, "unauthorized disclosure of confidential content".
Those are his words. Now, Mr. Speaker, one disclosure was no more important than the other. There is this difference, that it does appear that the disclosure of the contents of the first print of Mr. Currie's report was done without the knowledge of the government.
There is no evidence that that is so in the other case. We have become accustomed to well-informed disclosures in advance, which have the effect of softening up the impact of unfavourable communications of different kinds. At any rate, there is the situation. Here are two parallel cases. We have the information before us, from whatever source it came; and that information discloses a situation which cannot inspire confidence on the part of anyone as to the willingness of this government to accept an independent and frank criticism when that criticism is due for the conditions which exist.


Mr. Croll:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


David Arnold Croll: Will the hon. member not say that he said

and I read his words-
I do point out that a question does arise as to how this copy came to he delivered to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar.
Did he not say that as reported at page 656 of Hansard? Did he not ask the government how this copy came to be delivered to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar?


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, the Hansard
record is quite clear, and I accept any statement in the Hansard record. That has nothing whatever to do with what I am now saying. I simply pointed out clearly-and if the hon. member had been listening and not reading at the moment he would have heard it-that there is no suggestion of approving the method. I do not know what the method was. The government may know. If it does, we hope that we shall have a clearer explanation than any that has yet been given. But what I am pointing out is that the net result of this disclosure has been to bring to the attention of the members of this house and the people of Canada the important fact that a strong effort was made by this government to prevent the delivery in its original terms of a report which gave to this country extremely important information.


Let me mention another matter dealt with in that report. It is under the subheading "Failure in Security". These are the words of the Currie report in that respect, as found at page 715 of Hansard:
There was in addition a serious collapse in security. There was little to prevent or to detect the organized plundering of military stores on a systematic scale, though apparently comparatively little of it took place. If there is excuse'for inefficient accounting, there is none for the failure of security which is, after all, a prime military consideration. I take a serious view of this breakdown. If it is easy to pilfer military stores, then, by the same token, it is easy to sabotage military equipment.
That is the most important single statement in this report. I refer to the statement that as a result of the breakdown in security, of the general inefficiency of this department in its supervision of army stores, there is the possibility not only of pilfering and looting but also of sabotage of military equipment.
We now come to the suggestion that this report which has been tabled be submitted to further inquiry, and that is the substance of the amendment which the government has introduced. Why is a further inquiry now needed into that part of the army activities already covered by the Currie report? Let us remember that, at the time Mr. Currie was appointed, the committee on defence expenditure was then meeting and could have dealt with this subject, as is now suggested. The government chose another course. The government decided that this was a subject that could be better dealt with by an independent inquiry carried out by Mr. Currie. On a number of occasions the defence expenditure committee was told that it could not explore certain subjects because of that fact.
Let us see what the government thinks about the reliability of this man whom they chose to conduct an alternative type of inquiry. At pages 1814 and 1815 of Hansard of May 2 of last year this statement was made on behalf of the government by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) in regard to Mr. Currie:
I announced the appointment of Mr. George S. Currie, a prominent chartered accountant and a man of outstanding integrity . . .
Mr. Currie had been deputy minister of national defence. He had served with distinction in the first world war and we felt that no better man could be found to do this job if we searched the length and breadth of the country.
That was referring back to the statement made by the minister on behalf of the government on April 21, and emphasizing their complete confidence in Mr. Currie's ability and integrity. We now have the report by this extremely able man. What earthly purpose can there be in submitting this report

of one inquiry to another inquiry? This report and the report of the Auditor General make it clear that what we need in this case is not a further inquiry but action; and that what we need in the way of inquiry is a similar one to be conducted by Mr. Currie into the rest of the army and the whole of the navy and the air force with regard to organization and administration by the Department of National Defence.
We have been told by Mr. Currie that so lax were the methods used that there was an invitation to wrongdoing. That invitation has been extended by these lax methods right across Canada. Surely what all of us want to see is the removal of any possibility that these lax methods may continue. The best way that can be done is to have a complete and comprehensive inquiry into the whole of the Department of National Defence, as has been suggested.
Mr. Speaker, when the proposal is put forward that there be an inquiry of this kind, the most improper statement has been made that this proposal constitutes criticism of our armed forces. I cannot imagine anything less worthy of this government than the suggestion that an attempt to deal with this situation constitutes criticism of the armed forces. Every remark I have made is directed to the government. The one place where criticism should be directed is to the government itself for the conditions which existed and the invitation, as Mr. Currie states it, to wrongdoing, which has been created right across this country.


Mr. Cleaver:: And not to the thieves.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, when interjections of this kind and suggestions such as those to which I have referred are made, I remind those who make them that the hon. member who spoke first was the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes). When these statements are made about the criticism of the army and the danger of lowering morale I ask, is there any hon. member in this house who on second thought will suggest that the officer who has had the most experience of any officer in Canada, the man who has been awarded more decorations for valour than any other officer in Canada, the man who at his own expense has given such unlimited time to the advancement of the reserve forces, army, navy and air, is in fact criticizing the members of any of those forces when he makes such statements in this house as he did in this debate? What I have just said applies in various degrees to others who have spoken on this subject, whose record on the field of battle in the last war precludes any suggestion that they
Committee on Defence Expenditure would in any way seek to attack our armed forces, or to minimize their effectiveness, or in any way interfere with their morale.
No, Mr. Speaker; the one danger to morale that lies in this report, or in the Auditor General's report, or in any of the other disclosures would be the knowledge in the minds of those now in uniform that nothing effective was going to be done to deal with these irregularities which have occurred.
Every day that elapses without that kind of action which indicates an acceptance of the kind of responsibility that should be shown does raise questions which could interfere with morale; and it is with that thought in mind that I and others in this house have urged that the government act without delay on the report now before it, and that they also conduct a wider complete inquiry into the whole organization and administration of the armed services.
I have already suggested, and I repeat the suggestion, that if the government really meant what it said when it expressed its confidence in Mr. Currie, that it seek to have Mr. Currie conduct that wider inquiry with the same independence and impartiality that he showed in conducting the inquiry of which we now have a report. Mr. Currie of course would be free to do that if this diversionary action, to use a term that we have heard, were not employed, and the device were not adopted of having an inquiry into a report of another inquirer.
Let us see what would happen even if for the first time we did receive the kind of report from this committee that we had hoped we might receive when we urged the setting up of such a committee. That report would come back to this house. It would have no effect except as a finding of fact, corresponding with Mr. Currie's finding of fact, until it had been brought to the attention of this house by a motion for its approval. Are we to have another inquiry into an inquiry into an inquiry? That is what this procedure suggests. No, Mr. Speaker; right at this moment young men in uniform are facing a dangerous and terrible enemy on the field of battle. Young men in the Royal Canadian Air Force in France and in Britain at this very time are manning the aircraft of the squadrons which are over there as part of the joint defence of our freedom.
In Germany young Canadians in the army are carrying the name of Canada on their shoulders in a manner which gives us justification for pride in the Canadian uniform wherever it may be. At sea and in many parts of the world young men and women are offering the highest form of service to their country, to their fellow Canadians, that
1162	HOUSE OF
Committee on Defence Expenditure any citizen of this country could offer. And without trying to divert attention from the facts before us, they deserve assurance that there will be immediate action to remedy the situation which has been disclosed.
There are also the Canadian taxpayers, burdened down with the weight of the taxes they are now shouldering as part of their responsibilities as citizens of this country. When we have urged over and over again that steps be taken to reduce taxes and increase the efficiency of the administration of the departments, particularly of the Department of National Defence, we have been told that no savings could be made because nearly all the expenditure was for fixed obligations such as social services and for national defence. We have been left with the impression that the government thinks that national defence expenditure is sacrosanct. Any suggestion that there might be improvement in the methods adopted has been met by the improper suggestion on some occasions that we were urging that we reduce the defence forces of this country. No matter what other results there may be from the Currie report, there is this definite result. No person who has read the findings in that report can hope to have his statement taken seriously if he now contends that there is no waste, extravagance, or improper use of public funds. And even without the Currie report, the Auditor General's report makes it perfectly clear that there are things that :an be done to bring about a more effective supervision of public spending in this country.
There have been strong statements on both sides. When the statement of the government was made, along with the introduction of the report on the 15th of December, immediately she suggestion was made that any criticism was to be taken by the government as being political criticism. When the carefully considered statement of the government was made two days later, on the evening of December 17, there in a fully prepared state-nent on behalf of the government we had he same implication conveyed to us and to ;he people of Canada. That was not welcomed >y members of the opposition. Similar suggestions have not been welcomed since that ;ime because they are wholly out of keeping with the responsibility of every member in he House of Commons. The government has lot welcomed criticism from this side of the louse. That is its right. It has given very rigorous and very noticeable evidence of its ibjection to some of the comments which lave been made.
Let us accept that as part of the debate >n a report which, doubtless, came as a surmise to every member in the house except


those who had the special privilege of an earlier consideration of it. But let us accept the fact that, no matter what debate there has been, and no matter whether there has been objection on one side or on the other to things that have been said, we are dealing with the security of Canada, with the way in which young men and women will be permitted to defend this country in the uniforms they wear so proudly, and also with the assurance that the money paid out by our heavily-burdened taxpayers is being used in the best possible way for the defence of our native land.
These are the issues that are really before us. And it is in that light I hoped that at this time the government would reconsider its position, would depart from its rigid stand of defending the indefensible, and would depart from its diversionary activities in regard to the real core of the issue before us. I think I can safely speak on behalf of all members in the opposition in this instance, although without previous consultation with them, when I say I feel sure that hon. members in all parts of the house would applaud a decision by the government, if we received evidence of its determination to act effectively at this time.
We have before us a subamendment, which will be the first question upon which hon. members will be called upon to vote. Members of this party could have presented a subaimendment in that form, but we did not do so because we hoped it would be possible to deal with the need for a wider inquiry, and at the same time do that without being called upon to accept, even in form, the proposition that the Currie report should be submitted to a further inquiry. However, as a result of the procedure adopted by the government we were denied that opportunity. And while I regret that it has become necessary for a subamendment to embrace, in form at any rate, the amendment of the government, I welcome the fact that, subsequent to the subamendment which we put forward and which was ruled out of order, another has been introduced which will call for a straight vote on the question of whether this inquiry is to be carried into the wider field of all the rest of the department, which has not been covered by the Currie report.
For that reason I am sure the subamendment will receive general support among members of the opposition. However, we are still in a position where something else might happen. In all earnestness I do urge the government between now and eight o'clock, when the debate will be resumed, to follow a course which will not impose upon

its own members any question of a vote of confidence, or any reflection by those who normally support that government on what it has done.
I urge the government, in all earnestness, and having due regard to the full significance of the disclosures made in this report, to state to the house that it will act upon the Currie report; that the defence expenditure committee will be free to carry out the work for which it was set up, and to deal with other subjects; and that there will be a full inquiry into all the rest of the defence services by Mr. Currie or someone equally competent to carry forward an inquiry of this nature.
That would bring us back to the position we were in last April, when the government indicated its desire to get at the facts and deal with them. May I anticipate only one answer to this suggestion. We have been told that already the government has taken action to deal with so many of these things that, for all practical purposes, the job has been done. Mr. Speaker, if that were so there would be no need for the Currie report to go before this committee. If the government really believes that everything has been done that should be done under this report, then the only purpose in referring the Currie report to that committee is to try to cast reflections upon the accuracy of the report.
I hope that is not their purpose, because that would stultify the effectiveness of the committee and would drag out proceedings which, at this important time, could be directed to very important subjects which would come properly before the committee. I refer again to the statement by Mr. Currie that the chaotic conditions of the accounting methods are such that no one knows what the losses really were, and represent those of only one camp, amounting in value to perhaps 3 per cent of the total value of all the property of the Department of National Defence. The report does demonstrate the need for a wider and similarly complete inquiry. I hope we will have it.


Mr. Claxton:: Mr. Speaker, may I call it five o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The house will now consider business connected with private and public bills.



BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT


Stanley Howard Knowles: the second reading of Bill No. 18. to amend the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1952, with respect to the quorum of the House of Commons.
House of Commons Quorum
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill is one which concerns us, and I hope it will be considered by members of this House of Commons as a matter which should receive our serious and earnest attention. The proposal contained in the bill is that we make a slight increase in the quorum required for the transaction of business in the House of Commons. As hon. members know, at the present time the quorum is 20 members, as set out in section 48 of the British North America Act, which reads:
The presence of at least twenty members of the House of Commons shall be necessary to constitute a meeting of the house for the exercise of its powers; and for that purpose the Speaker shall be reckoned as a member.
As has been indicated in the explanatory notes to the printed copy of the bill, this figure of 20 members was decided upon back in 1867 when the membership of the House of Commons was set at 181. For my part I think that that was a very small quorum to propose for a house of 181 members. Nevertheless, in suggesting that the quorum should be increased I have felt that it might be difficult to persuade some hon. members that we go beyond the proportion that was fixed at that time.
The figure of 30 members as a quorum which my bill suggests was arrived at by the process of simple arithmetic. As hon. members know, the membership in this House of Commons is now 262. By reason of the amendment to the British North America Act passed last year respecting representation in the House of Commons, and the Representation Act of 1952, the terms of which were based on the amendment to the constitution to which I have just referred, we will have 265 members in the House of Commons that will meet following the forthcoming election. If 20 members were considered to be a quorum when the membership of the house was 181, simple arithmetic makes it clear that in the light of our larger membership the quorum would be 29 and a fraction. I have suggested the nearest round figure of 30. All that this bill proposes is that we change the quorum for the transaction of business in the House of Commons from 20 to 30 members.
This is the first occasion on which this bill has come before the house for consideration, but it is not the first occasion on which it has been on the order paper. As a result of it having been on the order paper on previous occasions, I have had comments made to me about it and I have noted comments in the press. The only serious criticism that has been made, a criticism which I readily accept, is that the figure of 30 seems too low.

House of Commons Quorum
The so-called man on "the street, to whom we often refer, is really shocked when he learns that our present quorum is only 20. At times I have asked unsuspecting people who do not know our rules what they supposed was the quorum in the House of Commons. Many times the answer has been, "I suppose a bare majority." Others have suggested 100, and the lowest figure I have ever had suggested to me by an unsuspecting person was the figure of 50. Yet here we are with a quorum of only 20.
Some of those who have commented on my bill are amazed that I have not proposed an even larger figure than 30. I want to make it clear that for my part I would like to see a much larger quorum. I think it only proper that for the transaction of this nation's business there should be required to be in attendance a much larger proportion of the membership of this House of Commons.
However, knowing the tendency that exists to be guided by precedent and tradition, for the purposes of this bill I am prepared to go along with the proportion established by the fathers of confederation. It is in that spirit that I have arrived at the figure of 30. I earnestly hope that the house will consider favourably this bill and will support the view that our responsibilities are such that there should be a few more of us here for the transaction of business than the minimum figure of 20.
Not only have I discussed this matter with people outside the house; not only have I noticed comments in the press on it. There have been some comments on this matter made to me by other members of the house. The difficulty raised by some who have spoken to me is whether or not it would always be possible to get as many as 30 members in the house, particularly at a time when committees were meeting. No one can deny the fact that when several important committees are meeting it might seem to be difficult to get a quorum in all the committees and also have an adequate attendance in the house at the same time. I admit that that seems to be difficult, but I submit most seriously that it should not be.
As hon. members know, the facilities in this building in the way of rooms available for the holding of committee meetings are much more limited than one would think when he looks at the amazing size of this building itself. Hon members know that we cannot hold more than four or five committee meetings at one and the same time. Committees vary in size, but even if we take the outside figure as an average of the normal committee meeting and assume that we have five committees going on at the same time

with 30 members in each committee, that makes only a total of 150 members, leaving 112 members available for attendance in the House of Commons.


Mr. MacDougall:: Provided they are here.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member says, "provided they are here." Are we not supposed to be here? Is not that the whole point? I recognize that that comment is made by a member from British Columbia, and that members from the more distant parts are more likely to be here pretty regularly. At any rate the interjection indicates the whole point of the argument I have just laid before the house, namely, that we are supposed to be here.
I submit that the figures I gave a moment ago concerning attendance in committees was much larger than is actually the case. I doubt if there has ever been an occasion when 150 members of this house have been in committee meetings outside of the chamber at one and the same time. But even if that were the case, it would still leave 112 members; therefore I suggest that there should not be any difficulty getting a quorum of 30, indeed a quorum of 50 or even 100 if that were the proposition.


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Gladly.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I think 1 heard the whole of what the hon. member said. Did he give us the quorums required in other jurisdictions, for instance at Washington or London? I think it would be interesting if those figures could be available.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, I did not give those figures. As a matter of fact, I am a little surprised that this matter came up today and I may say frankly that I have not looked them up. I am basing my whole argument on what would seem to be reasonable and responsible on our own part. I agree with the hon. member that the other figures would be interesting, and perhaps they can be ascertained and brought to bear upon the question. But whatever those figures are, even if they are smaller in proportion, I submit that we owe it to the country we serve by the duties that we perform here to require of ourselves a higher rate of attendance in the house than is required by section 48 of the British North America Act as it now stands. I repeat what I started out by saying, namely, that my bill does not ask for these much higher quorum figures to which I have referred. My bill asks for only 30, which is simply maintaining the proportion established by the fathers of confederation in 1867.

There are other aspects of the whole question of attendance that might be gone into. I have been known to take cracks, shall I say, at a certain institution that meets at the other end of this building; but so far as the question of attendance is concerned may I say that I note with interest and approval that in the other place a daily record is kept of the attendance of Their Honours, the members of the Senate. We have no such record here. There are times when we would not need a record. During the last week or so the interest in the subject that has been under discussion has been such that we have had excellent attendance in the house and in the galleries as well. But it is our responsibility to give serious and responsible attention to the business of the country whether or not it is a matter of great, dramatic and spectacular interest.
For that reason I press upon the house the serious consideration of this matter. I ask hon. members to face the fact that the change suggested in the bill is ever so slight. As a matter of fact it can be argued that it does not introduce any change at all. It merely says that we agree to maintain as a quorum the same proportion of our total membership that was agreed upon by the fathers of confederation in 1867. Despite the fact that I am not a lawyer-and one can always be corrected on these interpretations-I would point out that the wording of section 48 in the original British North America Act does not, in my view, say that the quorum can be no higher than 20. It merely says that there must be at least 20 members, and I have often taken the view that it would have been within the right of parliament, even before we had the right to amend the British North America Act, to fix a higher figure. In other words I am wondering if the fathers of confederation expected that 20 would remain as the figure. I wonder if they did not leave it to the House of Commons itself to make that figure a little higher if the house wished to do so. At any rate, we have not done so in all the years from 1867 until the present. Despite the increases that have taken place in the membership, the quorum has remained at that same terribly low figure of 20 members. Now that the matter has been put before the house in a formal way I hope we will correct the situation.
There is one other aspect about the bill which I might take the liberty of calling to the attention of the house, merely because I am sure it is of interest to many hon. members. This bill, like the one last year that changed the rules regarding redistribution, involves an amendment to the British North
House of Commons Quorum America Act. The bill with respect to redistribution, which was piloted through the house last year in the name of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Harris), I believe, was the first bill to amend the British North America Act, the constitution of this country, on the basis of legislation passed by this parliament and by this parliament alone. The bill now before us might be referred to as the first private member's bill amending the British North America Act since we obtained for ourselves in 1949 the right to amend that act in Canada in respect of matters exclusively federal.
This bill is drawn in exactly the same form as the bill introduced last year by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, at least in so far as its being a bill that amends the British North America Act is concerned. For my part I have been interested in this question, and have had the opportunity of discussing it with a number of authorities in the constitutional field. One question that used to concern me about this whole matter was a purely technical one. How was it possible for us in the parliament of Canada, even after the amendment of the British North America Act was passed which gave us the right to amend our own constitution, to amend what in effect seemed to be a statute of another country, namely the British North America Act passed originally in the parliament of the United Kingdom in 1867?
The opinion that was expressed to us on that point last year in the redistribution committee is, I think, perhaps novel but also interesting and rather conclusive. It was that the British North America Act of 1867 was, in purely legal and technical terms, an enactment of the crown which was passed with the advice and consent of the parliament of the United Kingdom. All we are doing when we amend that act in Canada is arranging for the crown to amend the same act which the crown originally enacted, the only difference being that in the meantime there has been a change as to who advises the crown with respect to this act, and in this instance it would be the parliament of Canada advising the crown rather than the parliament of the United Kingdom.
I think it is fair to say that, until the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration brought in his bill last year respecting redistribution, there were different patterns that might have been followed in amending our own constitution by decision of this parliament, and that any one of two or three different patterns might have been justified. I think it is also fair to say that, once a pattern has been established, there being plenty of lawyers around
1166	HOUSE OF
House of Commons Quorum this place, the tendency will be to say that that is the correct pattern and that is the pattern to follow henceforth.
In any case the bill follows that pattern so far as its technique is concerned. It is a bill of the parliament of Canada amending what is known as our constitution, the British North America Act. We have the right to advise the crown to enact legislation in this form by virtue of the amendment to the British North America Act of 1949 which gave the parliament of Canada the power to amend its own constitution with respect to matters that are exclusively federal. The issue in the bill is obviously a matter exclusively federal. It is even narrower than that; it is a matter that concerns us right here in the House of Commons. Therefore I think there can be no doubt as to our right to deal with the subject matter of the bill.
I also feel, as I have already said, that there is surely no doubt as to the simplicity of the request, as to the fact that it is a very minor change that is being requested. It merely proposes that we maintain the same proportion that was established in 1867.
I hope this will not be looked upon as a bill coming from any one party in the house, but rather as a bill presented to the rest of the members by one member who is interested in these things, and that it will be given very serious consideration in all parts of this house.


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate what my hon. friend has said about the constitutional aspects of this bill. Having, as he has said, sponsored a bill last session which did amend the British North America Act, I am obliged to say that I think the method followed at that time would be a proper one, and that this probably does fall into the same form.
Like my hon. friend, I was rather surprised that we reached this bill at this stage, because I expected there would probably be debates on the earlier bills this afternoon. It was with that in mind that notice was given .today by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) of the setting up of the committee on house procedure. That has been placed with the officials of the house and, had this bill been reached on Thursday or Friday, I should have moved an amendment to the motion for second reading to refer the subject matter of this bill to the committee which, presumably, at that time would have been established.
I do propose to follow that procedure when the time comes. Unfortunately I did not have an opportunity to discuss with my
[Mr. Knowles.)

hon. friend his preference in this respect. I take it that the motion which I had proposed to make, that the subject matter of this bill be referred to that committee, cannot now be made because the committee does not exist, although notice of it has been given. Therefore I propose to move adjournment of the debate, and on the next occasion when we reach this item I will move that the subject matter be sent to the committee on house procedure, there to be discussed and reported on as that committee thinks advisable.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I just say that the procedure suggested by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Harris) seems to me to be quite acceptable. The only question which arises is whether or not any other members of the house care to make any comment on the matter before it is referred to that committee. I am not saying that there are any who do. The other members might be quite satisfied. For my own part I have no objection to the procedure the minister proposes to follow, at one stage or another.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: May
I just add a word. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is often very persuasive. Sometimes I feel that I have to be on my guard against him. Today I must say that he was prima facie persuasive to me, but since I asked him the question I have been informed that the quorum in the British house is 40. That does give me a feeling that this matter perhaps is not quite as clear as it otherwise might be.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said that his proposal was to maintain the same percentage of membership that was originally laid down, and that seemed to me to go a long way toward answering the question. But circumstances have changed; for all I know there may be more committees that sit now. In any event, I am glad this is going to be considered by the committee as suggested by the minister.


Walter Edward Harris: I might complete what I was about to say. It would be the intention of the committee, I would hope, to consider this bill; and if any other member wishes to add his views at this moment I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I have no desire to intervene. I waited until everyone else had had an opportunity to rise. I shall sit down and ask one of my colleagues to move the adjournment of the debate after everyone else has had an opportunity to get up, if he so desires, and make a speech.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the proposition the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has put forward, if it stands simply on the basis of carrying forward to the present time the proportion that was established in 1867 which the quorum of the house should bear to the total membership of the house, seems to have much to commend it to reasonable people. However, there is another aspect of the matter which all hon. members must bear in mind.
The proposal just put forward now on behalf of the government by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Harris) I think is one that will meet with general approval in this house. This is a matter that may very well be considered in relation to the other matters that will, I take it, in due course be referred to the committee on rules for consideration. But whether the matter is dealt with conclusively here or whether it is deliberated on by the committee on rules, there will be no escape from one consideration.
When the fathers of confederation agreed upon their proposals for the formation of a nation on this northern half of the continent, they did not leave it to the parliament, nor to the House of Commons, to establish the quorum of the house. This matter was never viewed hitherto as a matter of concern simply to the House of Commons. That is not the way the fathers of confederation drafted the structure of confederation in this respect. They made it a provision of the British North America Act that the quorum should be fixed as set forth in section 48 of the act.
It might impress many hon. members that this is after all a relatively simple matter. You just change one figure, one word in the British North America Act. Well, Mr. Speaker, it is quite true that the amendment that is under discussion now does not do more than that in form. It simply changes the word "twenty" in section 48 of the British North America Act to "thirty". But before we can do that, Mr. Speaker, we must have due regard for some of the implications of the step we are taking.
The views which we of the Progressive Conservative party hold in regard to the subject of amendment of the British North America Act have been set forth on previous occasions, the last of which was the debate on the redistribution bill on June 12, 1952. While the matter before us now looks to be so simple, it nevertheless presents the same problems, Mr. Speaker, as to the right of parliament to proceed to amend the British North America Act without consultation with anyone.
&S108-75J
House of Commons Quorum
The fact that this problem arises again in a situation where the amendment proposed is in form so simple I think serves to emphasize once more, Mr. Speaker, the fact that the country needs today the legislative adoption of a proper formula for amendment within Canada of the British North America Act. That in turn requires the resumption, at as early a date as possible, of the conference which was called some three years ago-the dominion-provincial conference- with a view to working out by agreement some formula for amending the British North America Act within Canada.
It will be recalled by hon. members that when the provinces were asked to indicate their views on the method by which the act should be amended in various respects, there was quite a variety of answers. In view of the fact that this particular bill has been called unexpectedly today, Mr. Speaker, I have not had an opportunity to review the recommendations made by the provincial governments at that time with reference to the amendment of this particular section of the act. It may well be that many of the provinces at that time indicated they had no objection to parliament taking unto itself the right to amend this section simply by act of parliament. But I am not prepared to assume that with reference to all the provinces, because the views expressed by some of the provinces were quite strong as to the necessity for working out a general formula for amendment on the basis of that formula being satisfactory to all provinces, although the formula itself would make provision for the amendment of various provisions in the British North America Act, under varying terms. In some cases it would be by consent of a majority of the provinces, in other cases by varying proportions, leading up, in the case of some provisions of the British North America Act, to the requirement that the particular provision of the act should not be amended without the consent of all the provinces.
Surely what is required, not simply in relation to this particular matter but in relation to the whole question of the constitutional position of Canada, is that there should be a prompt resumption of that dominion-provincial conference. This particular section 48 is by no means the only section of the British North America Act that is crying aloud today for some legislative consideration. In the British North America Act today, as the fundamental law of Canada, we have provisions that are quite outworn; and the continued existence of those provisions, Mr. Speaker, stresses the necessity for a dominion-provincial conference with a view to changing them.
1168	HOUSE OF
House of Commons Quorum
May I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that we still have provisions like this in the British North America Act-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has been trying to stress the point that a dominion-provincial conference should be resumed for the purpose of studying not only this matter of a quorum but perhaps others. It seems to me that he has perhaps spent long enough on that part of his argument. If he wants to speak to the principle of this bill and to make his remarks relevant to it, I do not think he should embark upon a suggestion that there are other points in the constitution which deserve further consideration by a conference such as the one to which he has referred.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the point I was making-and I did not intend to elaborate on it at length-was that this bill, as do many other circumstances, points to the necessity for the resumption of that dominion-provincial conference. What I was about to do when you rose, Mr. Speaker, was to recall to the minds of hon. members that in sections like 55, 56 and 57 we have, in this fundamental written law of the constitution today, provisions that are completely outworn and that emphasize the necessity for our trying to bring the constitution up to date by the only method by which, in my submission, it can be brought up to date, namely by working out an amending formula that will be acceptable to the provinces.
This consideration, Mr. Speaker, is one that must be borne in mind, in my submission, even though this bill at a later point in this session may be referred to the house committee on rules. Had the fathers of confederation regarded this matter of the quorum of the house as simply a matter of the internal organization of the house, then this provision contained in section 48 would not have found its way into the act. It would have been left to the house to establish its own quorum. It may be that there are many today who, if this question were approached de novo, would take the position that it should be left to the house. But that is not the position in which we find ourselves.
As a result of the amendment of the British North America Act that was adopted in 1949 -an unwise form of amendment of the British North America Act, in my submission, in the ill-considered formula that it contained for carrying out amendments of the British North America Act-the position in which we find ourselves at the moment simply means this. Because this provision is in the British North America Act and the government says that it is a federal matter, then this result follows: if it is in the act, you simply proceed


by a bill, give it three readings, and change it just as you wish. If it were a rule of the house, presumably the house would simply change it by resolution providing for an amendment of the rules of the house. That is the only difference left. We in this part of the house do not think that the constitution of this country, the fundamental written law of Canada, should be equated simply with a rule of this house.
No matter how simple this matter may be in form, it has implications of great importance. Because of the fact that the federal government has not made any move to call for a resumption of the dominion-provincial conference, one province-Quebec-has recently found it necessary to propose the appointment of a royal commission to review the whole question of federal-provincial relations. In the face of situations like that, surely the need for the resumption of that dominion-provincial conference on the British North America Act and methods of amending it is imperative today.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member has made it quite clear that he is opposed to this method of bringing about an amendment to the constitution. If he wishes to speak to the principle of this bill, he should confine himself to the suggestion contained in the amendment, which in effect provides for amending our rules with respect to a quorum by inserting the word "thirty" instead of "twenty". I should like to hear him on that point.


Donald Methuen Fleming: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, may I say you have stated that this may involve the amendment of the rules of the house. The very point I am seeking to argue at the moment is that what is involved in this bill is an amendment of the British North America Act. The legislative position created by an unwise amendment of the British North America Act by the parliament at Westminster in 1949, at the instance of this parliament, makes this provision of the British North America Act mean little more than just a rule of the house. It can be changed in practically the same way that we can amend any rule of the house. It seems to me that is one of the implications of this present bill that ought to be laid before this house and ought to be considered by this house with the utmost seriousness.
As to the form of the amendment, I wish to make it clear that I am expressing no objection in principle to an increase in the quorum of the house. Just on the basis of mathematics alone I think there may be a good deal to be said-as was stated by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) in introducing this bill-for

increasing the quorum so that the fraction it represents of the total membership today may bear a reasonable relation to the fraction that was established in 1867. But the way to deal with this matter is not, in my submission, to treat it simply as a matter in which parliament has a perfectly free hand to proceed without consultation. There are implications here that go much farther and they are implications which, in my submission, are not going to be disposed of merely by referring the matter to the rules committee. I would not oppose that course for consideration of the matter but, Mr. Speaker, that will not end the problems that are presented by this bill. There will still be the fundamental problem that here you are dealing with a provision in the fundamental written constitution of this country.
What is so badly needed today is to avoid a piecemeal approach to this question. What is needed is not an approach that is going to make it more difficult to have that form of constitutional amendment which is required but which will instead make provision for a formula for dealing with all amendments that may be sought by the Canadian people. What is required here is due acknowledgment of the fact that the British North America Act is a fundamental constitutional document, and that in making changes in that fundamental constitutional document more should be required than simply a decision from time to time in this house or in the other place.
I urge, Mr. Speaker, that the only way out of the problem that has been created by an unwise amendment of the British North America Act in 1949 is the one I have proposed, namely that this and other matters requiring consideration in reference to needed amendments of the British North America Act should be the subject matter of consideration in an immediate resumption of the dominion-provincial conference on amendment of the British North America Act.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: I feel that I should say just a word about the bill that has been introduced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I think its provisions are reasonable. I would favour increasing the quorum to 30 because I think that does appear to keep the proportion the same as 20 was to begin with, when we had only 181 members in the house.
Because it is reasonable, and also because it does not appear to be a very important matter for constitutional reconsideration, I would hardly suggest that we hold up the bill until such time as a new formula for
Industrial Relations
amending the constitution has been adopted: although I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I certainly feel sympathetic to the views of the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming). We do need at the earliest possible time a formula for constitutional amendments. But the fact is that in 1949, if I remember correctly, this sort of thing was entrenched solely within the powers of the federal government. And since it does not affect the provinces in any way, since it affects nothing but the conduct of the affairs of this house, it would seem to me, Mr. Speaker, to be completely within our competence; and I would suggest that the procedure that was proposed by the minister be followed, namely that it be presented to the committee. Therefore I favour second reading of the bill.
On motion of Mr. Mcllraith the debate was adjourned.



INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, January 13, consideration of the motion of Mr. Knowles for the second reading of Bill No. 2, to amend the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act (voluntary revocable check-off).
Mr. Paul E. Cote (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Labour):: When I adjourned the debate last Tuesday I was examining certain views that had been expressed in a previous debate by some of the main supporters of the amendment which is now before the house. I had occasion more particularly to refer to the debate on the Maintenance of Railway Operation Act of 1950, and to the remarks of both the leader of my hon. friend, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) and the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis). I also referred to statements made by the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll), and at the time of the adjournment I still had one or two statements by the hon. member for Spadina that I wished to put on the record.
All those quotations which I have offered for the consideration of the house were intended at that time-and I use them in this debate for the same purpose-to indicate how important it is for the welfare of the Canadian worker and for the peaceful development of our industry as a whole that the utmost freedom should be left to collective bargaining between the two partners in industry.
During the debate on the Maintenance of Railway Operation Act of two years ago, the

Industrial Relations
hon. member for Spadina placed a great deal of importance on this basic principle of free collective bargaining in industry. I have quoted a few sentences from his remarks in this regard, and X wish to add this one which will be found on page 41 of Hansard for the fall session of 1950:
I believe that compulsory arbitration means the death of collective bargaining. It is all very well to say that we shall apply this principle only in this case, but we have done damage to a fundamental principle of freedom.
In my several participations in debates on this matter of the voluntary revocable checkoff, I have always sustained that particular point. Should this bill be passed and the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act be amended to make it compulsory to have the voluntary revocable check-off, we would, using the words of the hon. member for Spadina, be doing damage to a fundamental principle of freedom.
I should like to quote from the speech that the mover of this amendment made in the same debate in the fall of 1950, and which I submit is most relevant to the point. It will be found at page 41 of Hansard of that session:
I share the view that has just been expressed by the hon. member for Spadina, and which was also put forward .by my leader and by the member for Vancouver East, that it is in the public interest also, indeed that it is of primary importance, that there be no interference with the principle of free collective bargaining.
The hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) also participated in that debate and expounded his views on the basic principle of industrial relations in this country and on free collective bargaining. He had this to say, as reported at page 48 of Hansard:
I am convinced that you cannot write a trade-union agreement on the floor of the House of Commons. The former minister of labour made that statement many times and I agreed; you cannot do it.
We are setting a precedent that will be taken as a pattern by industry in this country if and when the bargaining gets a little tough. The simple and easy thing to do then will be to break off, throw the matter into the lap of the government and have a bill passed.
On page 49 the hon. member had this to say:
I believe we did a good job of writing a national labour code, but do not forget that this bill automatically wipes out many provisions of that code as it applies to this dispute.
The hon. member for York West (Mr. Adamson) also participated in the debate, and made an interesting contribution which I should like to place on record, when he said:
I object as strenuously as does any other member of this house to compulsion of any sort in labour-management disputes or in anything that has to do with collective bargaining.
IMr. Cote (Verdun-La Salle).]
While I cannot recall definitely the stand taken by the hon. member for York West on measures of this kind when they were presented to the house in years past, I wish to stress that all the other hon. members to whom I have referred have approved the principle of this amending bill, and by so doing have taken a position which is in direct conflict with the statements made by them during the debate on the Maintenance of Railway Operation Act in 1950.
If on the one hand parliament should preserve by all possible means the freedom of action of both management and labour when they get together and attempt in good faith to reach common agreement, then the amending bill proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) becomes- quite objectionable. It may not mean very much in itself, because what it proposes to introduce is, after all, only the slightest possible measure of union security, described in the amending bill as the voluntary revocable check-off. But once the principle is applied of interference by parliament in matters which have thus far been left with labour and management to discuss, and upon which they can surely agree, there will be no limit to the powers of parliament in future years for further interference, in circumstances which might be much more important than those surrounding the voluntary revocable check-off.
While I have not the exact reference before me, I do recollect that on one occasion in the past, when the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) was discussing a similar bill, I asked him if the bill were passed whether he and his party would be satisfied to leave it at that, and give a guarantee that it would not be considered as a precedent; that they would not come here year after year asking for more and more interference by parliament in matters of collective bargaining. He said, "No, that is not the end; that is just the beginning". I can vouch for his reply on that occasion-. So, that means a policy of opening the door wider and wider as the years go by, and some day bringing parliament to a position of dictating by statute what the wages, hours of work and conditions of work will be in any plant or industry coming under the jurisdiction of parliament.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the parliamentary assistant believe that to be a fair interpretation of what the hon. member for Vancouver East said on that occasion? I remember it very well, too.


Paul-Émile Côté: I am referring to the answer made by the hon. member to a question I put to him at that time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I remember it.


Charles Delmar Coyle: Unfortunately I did not expect this bill would be reached this afternoon, with the result that I have not with me certain papers which, otherwise, I would have had. I can assure the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, however, that I can produce the reference. At that time I asked the hon. member for Vancouver East if, in the event of the acceptance of the bill we were then studying, that would be the end of interference by the state in matters of collective bargaining-


Stanley Howard Knowles: And his reply was, "We believe in further progress."


Charles Delmar Coyle: ". .. that further progress should be made, further amendments should be brought, and so on". His reply was brief. In what I have said I am sure I have not gone beyond the meaning of the reply he made at that time. If I have gone too far in my interpretation, then in due time I shall be ready to apologize. I feel sure, however, that I am placing the proper interpretation upon the statement made by the hon. member for Vancouver East at that time.
I have quoted several statements from the late Hon. Humphrey Mitchell, but, after having placed on record the observations of those who have supported bills of this kind in the past, I should like to quote one further sentence from the late Mr. Mitchell, so that hon. members may compare his views with those which the supporters of this bill have expressed on another occasion. This is what Mr. Mitchell said:
Legislation of this nature will fail in its fundamental objective if it introduces features of a coercive character which only result in driving employers and employees further apart. That would make it more difficult for them to establish those friendly relations of good will and co-operation which are so necessary.


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.
On motion of Mr. Cote (Verdun-La Salle) the debate was adjourned.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hour for private and public bills having expired, at eight o'clock the house will resume the business interrupted at five o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock. DEFENCE EXPENDITURE
APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. St. Laurent for the appointment of a committee to examine defence
Committee on Defence Expenditure expenditures and commitments, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Claxton, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Knowles.
Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I desire to supplement a statement I made this afternoon, which was as follows:
The remissions branch comes under the Department of Justice and certainly no application for parole has come to my attention.
The reference here is to an application for parole by or on behalf of Sergeant Young. I wish to confirm now that this statement of mine is entirely correct. When later the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) repeated that Sergeant Young is seeking a parole, I took advantage of the dinner recess to check with officials of the remissions branch concerning this matter. They inform me that Mr. J. A. Maloney as counsel for Sergeant Young has made an application for parole which in due course will be laid before the minister for consideration as soon as the usual reports have been obtained in relation to it.


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has referred in this debate to red herrings. I would not be surprised if he is beginning to try to forget their paternity. I am not going to devote much time to the red herrings which he brought into the house for the first time on December 15 and which, because they are now beginning to smell, he is trying to lay on the doorstep of the government. But there are three points I should like to make in connection with the hon. member's red herrings.
The first is: How did he get the draft report? The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre took part in the broadcast "Press Conference" last night from Ottawa in the course of which one member of the press asked him:
Now, if it was not a stolen document, what was it?
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre replied:
Well, it was a document that had come into our possession. We did not know the ultimate source of it, but we were ready to believe that the person who sent it to us was concerned over the fact that changes were being made and he seemed most anxious that the matter might be raised in public.
You will all recall that the only report, the signed report, was tabled on December 15. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) wrote me a letter on January 17 reporting on the investigation by the police which showed that a copy of the draft stolen from the print shop had been stolen between November 25 and November 29. How did the
1172	HOUSE OF
Committee on Defence Expenditure person who had stolen the report between November 25 and November 29 know there were changes in the report as tabled on December 15?
Then according to a statement by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, reported in the Montreal Gazette of this morning, the draft came into the possession of his leader only-and I quote-"a few days before December 15". How did the person who delivered the stolen copy, if he was different, as the hon. member has said, from the person who took it-how he would know that precisely, I do not know-how would the person who delivered the stolen copy of the draft to the C.C.F. know that changes were being made when that could only be ascertained by a comparison of the two copies on December 15?
My second point is that the hon. member seems to be trying to excuse his conduct by pretending that the course of events has revealed that I brought pressure to bear on Mr. Currie. Hon. members opposite cannot have it both ways, as I pointed out the other day to the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker). Either they have confidence in Mr. Currie as being a competent person, who therefore will not accept pressure-


An hon. Member:: Haven't you?


Brooke Claxton: -or else they have not. I have, indeed. That is why I say he is not the kind of person who can be subjected to pressure and that if any change was made in the draft in consequence of suggestions made to him by the deputy minister of national defence, he adopted those changes because he believed they brought his report more closely to the truth and more in accordance with the facts.
The hon. member then said-this is the third and final point to which I shall refer- that my letter to his leader dated January 10 implied a threat. This letter, which appears in an appendix to Hansard, was sent as a courtesy to his leader and for no other reason. There was no reason why I should tell the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), for whom I have high regard as I have for other hon. members, that the R.C.M.P. were being instructed to look into this matter. There was no reason to inform him except as a courtesy because the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre had indicated that the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar had received this report.
Having received the report, as indicated by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, it seemed to me that had I not told the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar that


the R.C.M.P. were being instructed to investigate the matter I would have been charged at once with gross discourtesy to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar.
Now, we asked Mr. Currie to make a report. It was indicated in the house on December 15 that a draft of that report dated November 26 had come into unauthorized hands. On my return I wrote Mr. Currie and asked him for an explanation. After two previous letters he wrote me and said in the letter dated January 7, 1953, which appears at page 977 of Hansard:
Everything which I have done by way of inquiry and investigation negatives the possibility that the copy in question could have got out in any stage or step between the printer's shop and my own organization and the department; but I still, of course, 'welcome any further investigation which the department or any other authority may deem it expedient to make from any angle or direction.
Until this mystery was cleared up, Mr. Speaker, the officers of the Department of National Defence, Mr. Currie and the members of his firm and the printing company and its employees would all remain subject to the shadow of the suspicion that they had acted improperly with a document intended to be delivered to a member of the government in accordance with a request for a report. They all would have remained subject to that suspicion and to the further suspicion of dealing with a document which was to become a public document, and which should have been dealt with by a professional man and by a printing establishment in a way which should ensure security.
It seemed to us-and here I can tell the house that I consulted my colleague the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson)-that this was a case where the public interest was engaged, where it was desirable in the interests of finding out the truth, of getting to the bottom of the mystery and of putting the blame where it belonged, that we should continue the inquiry, particularly since Mr. Currie said in his letter that he would welcome its continuation. Accordingly I sent a letter dated January 8 to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), but because I knew he was in hospital I communicated first with his secretary and asked whether it should be sent to the hospital or to the secretary. The hon. member was in the hospital, though expected to be out in a day or two. The secretary took it to him and I received a very courteous and prompt reply.	'
In these circumstances I do not think we have anything further to explain or say about this matter. But with one statement of the hon. member for Winnipeg North

Centre I will emphatically agree, namely when he says that he has felt all along that the important question is what Mr. Currie dealt with in his real report. I have followed this debate closely and carefully. I had to be absent one day through illness but I read what took place, and I think I can say not with immodesty but with accuracy that so far in this debate since introducing the discussion a week ago today, I am the only member who has dealt at all with parts II, III and IV containing the concrete recommendations of Mr. Currie. I think I am the only member who has even referred to them.


Mr. Harkness:: I dealt with them at some length before Christmas.


Brooke Claxton: Indeed-and I think this is accurate too-only the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) and to some extent the hon. member for Annapolis-Kings (Mr. NowLan) this afternoon have referred in any way to the facts I gave in my statement, to the background explaining the way in which the auditor's branch worked, the army works services were established and the audits were conducted, or to the recommendations that have been made by Mr. Currie. Yet, hon. members opposite have endeavoured to say that we were not treating the report seriously. The hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Thomas) said, as found at page 1028 of Hansard:
The minister intimated yesterday that the report was of very little value.
The hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) said, "The government intends to do nothing". There were other hon. members who spoke to the same effect. I do not want to repeat, and I am sure nobody wants me to repeat, what I said a week ago; but I did tell the house precisely what the government and the department had done and were doing in consequence of the report, which I referred to as a very important document, and I referred to its constructive recommendations. Then I went on to deal with the recommendations under different classes. I referred to those which were being implemented before we ever received Mr. Currie's report at all, those which were being considered, and at the end of my remarks I referred to two which we considered so far as not being desirable in the circumstances.
That is not taking the report lightly. I have dealt with the report as it deserves to be dealt with. I have recounted to the house the approach we made to it, the consideration we gave to it and what we have done in consequence of it. I also said it would continue to receive consideration. I thought there were a number of matters raised in the
Committee on Defence Expenditure report, particularly the recommendations in parts II, III and IV, concerning which it would be very useful indeed to have the views of the committee and also those of Mr. Currie. If this matter had not become the political issue that it has been made, I can tell the house that I would have been in continuous consultation with Mr. Currie since he made his report working out with him ways and means whereby we might implement it as expeditiously as possible in exactly the same way as we in the department were in consultation with him and his representatives throughout the whole period of his investigation, which was carried on as a joint operation.
It was in that spirit that the job was approached and it is in that spirit that it would have been carried through. But I hope the defence expenditure committee will be able to look into the report, have the officials of the department there and see whether the views I have already expressed on the cost of implementing some of the recommendations of the report are correct or whether the estimates of cost are as low as they can be made. Perhaps we can find ways and means of building fences and providing security guards at lower costs than those I gave the house last Tuesday, but these costs are the lowest at which we have been able to arrive so far. Some of them throw grave doubt upon the desirability of some of the additional security measures to which reference has been made.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Would the minister permit a question?


Brooke Claxton: I think I had better finish.
Another thing, Mr. Speaker, at which the hon. members opposite have been pounding away, is that I gave the opposition and the country the assurance that everything was perfect. The hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) at page 1069 of Hansard said:
... he gave us the assurance that everything was perfect . . .
Similar expressions have been uttered by virtually every speaker for the Conservative opposition. Now, I have a pretty good filing system and index, and I have searched the records since I became Minister of National Defence in 1946 for any single occasion on which I said that everything was perfect, or anything to that effect. It is another myth the opposition are seeking to build up in order that when they find, as I know, that everything is not perfect they will say "but he said it was perfect".
Today the hon. member for Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan) quoted three passages
1174

Committee on Defence Expenditure from speeches of mine in the house in 1948, 1950 and 1951. The quotations were, I think, intended to support the assertion that I said everything was perfect. Well, I ask hon. members to read Hansard for this afternoon to see whether they can extract any such assertion from those three statements, even widely spaced, and putting them together out of their context. Indeed, I will find a dozen statements in which I brought before the house the difficulties and problems of building up defence forces during this period after the second world war. I assure hon. members that I was fully conscious of those difficulties and, sometimes, conscious of the fact that not very much in the way of support was given in that very difficult task.
Now, sir, reference was made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) to the report of the Auditor General. That is a report made to parliament. In it the Auditor General makes his observations of the activities of various departments and agencies of government. The report has a total of 43 pages. It has 107 numbered paragraphs. Twelve of those paragraphs are devoted to national defence.
One section to which the Leader of the Opposition referred appears at page 24 of the report of the Auditor General. It deals with the methods of keeping accounts for stores. Here I would suggest that the Leader of the Opposition, in his remarks this afternoon, appeared as it were to put into the mouth of the Auditor General, in presenting his report, more than I think you will find in the report itself. Hansard and the report will of course speak for themselves. In paragraph 56 the report refers to service forces accounting:
Stores. Surveys made oi accounting systems-* there are at least eight-indicate that no sustained effort has been made to achieve uniformity in systems within the services. The result is that mandatory directives are specialized, particularly with respect to the army. Various other special problems also exist, in particular:
Now, sir, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre referred to our uttering a blast upon receipt of the report of the Auditor General. There was no blast. The Canadian Press, the British United Press, and other sections of the press asked for comments on the background of the Auditor General's report and a statement was issued which gives some of the background. I will read from part of it.
The storekeeping systems in use by the services were explained at some length to the defence expenditures committee last year. While they vary in detail, the basic principles underlying the systems are the same in all three services, and within each service. The organization for administering
[Mr. Claxton.l

them differs among the services by reason of the differences in organization in each service to provide for the essentially different tasks of each. In the army, the ordnance corps, the army service corps, the medical corps, the dental corps and the engineer corps each have their own stores and accounting organizations. In this respect the Canadian army is similar to the British and United States armies with which they work. These systems of each corps differ in varying degrees to meet the specialized needs of the corps they serve. Continuous efforts are made to improve these systems and while uniformity is not an objective for its own sake where an improvement in one system could be usefully applied in the others, it is.
Then, Mr. Speaker, there are further notes. I suggest to the house that this is a matter which can properly go before the defence expenditure committee and be considered by it as was done last year.
The Leader of the Opposition, and also the member for Winnipeg North Centre, referred to the case of a brigadier who had received from the army both a retirement allowance and pay as a civilian employee in respect of the same period. That is dealt with at page 26 of the report, in paragraph 65. Here the Auditor General makes an observation drawing, as he properly should, the attention of parliament to this fact.
This grows out of the application by the Department of National Defence of the provisions of the law and regulations relating to retirement. Under these laws and regulations an officer or man on completion of a certain number of years of service is entitled -just like a civil servant-to a number of months of leave with pay upon retirement. In this case, and in numerous cases in this and other government departments, officers and men entitled to retirement leave have wished to join the civil service. Indeed, in our case, this officer was very much sought after and we wanted him to come to work at once. In accordance with the authority given to us by the treasury board, the civilian end of the department paid him his salary as a civilian worker while he got his retirement allowance for the period of leave which he was not getting. That was strictly in accordance with a ruling of the treasury board dated February 4, 1944.
The Auditor General feels that this should be drawn to the attention of members. It is another matter which I suggest could go before the committee on defence expenditure. Last year, when the observations of the Auditor General were before that committee, the committee examined them, heard the observations of the department, and appeared to be completely satisfied therewith. I hope the same result will obtain this year.
Now, sir, in the course of the discussion a number of points were made to which I

have only a brief moment to refer. The hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) was good enough in his1 very courteous remarks to extend to me a welcome back, which I appreciated. Both he and the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Thomas) referred to the reduction in size of the forces, and demobilization at the end of the second world war, having brought about or contributed to the situation in which the army works services found themselves at the time of Korea. I do not believe that can be successfully argued. There was no time at the end of the second world war when we were not engaged in building up the permanent peacetime array. Officers and men were taken on at the rate at which they were available, and at which spaces and money were available. The build-up was steady. Had we kept on forces in being and had we postponed demobilization, the disposal of surplus war stores and the conversion to peacetime use of the productive capacity in factories, I can hear the cry that would have gone up at our delay in getting the boys home and getting the people back to work. As it was, the speed with which the operation was carried out was a major factor in establishing Canada on a sound economic foundation and the early start in the post-war period contributed greatly to the prosperity which we have enjoyed ever since.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre asked the Prime Minister whether there was not another order issued by the chief of the general staff with regard to the discussion of the Currie report by employees of the department, and the Prime Minister said there was none. The Prime Minister was quite correct. The only order issued by the chief of the general staff was the one read by the Prime Minister. However, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre had a unit order which had been issued to a minor unit by the commanding officer, and it was couched in those terms because he had a number of civilians working alongside service personnel. The fact that this had been done was discovered within a matter of days and a correction was entered.
Then the hon. member for York West (Mr. Adamson) asked a number of questions with regard to aircraft, particularly what we were doing to plan and equip ourselves with supersonic aircraft of types more advanced than the F-86 Sabre and the CF-100, which he said were good aeroplanes. Then he went on to say, as reported at page 1077 of Hansard:
-they would be practically useless as effective barriers to such bombers.
68108-76J
Committee on Defence Expenditure
Mr. Speaker, his intelligence probably is no better than that available to the armed forces, but he himself suggests that these bombers, which might have an extremely high rate of speed and be able to travel at a high altitude, might come into the possession of the only possible enemy in three to five years. I believe that to be a rather modest estimate. I hope it is.


Mr. Adamson:: I said a minimum of five years.


Brooke Claxton: All right; a minimum of five years. I should think that was a fairly sound position. The F-86E is the most advanced type of aircraft in production anywhere. That fact is brought out by the fact that it is being produced by us for Britain to help fill the gap there. It is being used by us in Britain and in France as part of the front line defences of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and it has proved itself in the battlefield in Korea. Not only have the United States-built Sabres proved themselves there, but the Canadian-built Sabres have also done so and, if I may say so, so have the officers of the R.C.A.F.
Then the question is asked: What are we doing to design and to construct a fighter plane with the characteristics necessary for successful combat? There is no fighter having better characteristics for successful combat belonging to us or to our allies today than the F-86E, and when equipped with the more powerful Orenda engines it is believed that it will have characteristics which will enable it to have a considerable life of usefulness against any enemy that might confront us.	However, we are doing preliminary
design work and are working out the characteristics for further long-time development of the CF-100. We work in close co-operation with our allies, the United Kingdom and the United States, with whom we have the closest liaison.
Then the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Murray) referred to the Alaska highway, particularly in 1942 and 1943. I should point out that, as	hon. members know, the
highway and all its operations were only taken over by the Canadian army on April 1, 1946.
The Leader of the Opposition referred to the question of security. I should refer again to what I said on this subject a week ago, as reported at page 942 of Hansard, when I recalled that at Petawawa alone the cost of fences necessary to provide security was estimated at $286,000 and the annual cost of the additional guards would be $119,000. At Camp Borden the figures were respectively $346,000 and $139,000. In connection with these questions you find that you must

Committee on Defence Expenditure strike a balance between how much you gain through reducing your potential losses by investing in capital equipment and putting on additional personnel.
As I pointed out the other day and as was pointed out by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Applewhaite), in his constructive and fair speech, the most striking example of that feature was at Farnham where, in order to save a possible loss of property having a value of probably $10,000, it would have been necessary to spend between $25,000 and $30,000 a year on guards.
The question has been asked: Why should we refer the Currie report to a committee? In the speech I made the other night and in my remarks tonight I have indicated some of the reasons why that should be done. I can also point to others. Other matters which are particularly interesting, and upon which it would be most helpful and constructive to have the views of the committee would be the simplification of the procedure for establishing positions and the machinery for filling positions. As the Currie report states and as I stated-and as everyone knows- the main reason for the situation which gave rise to the opportunities that occurred at Petawawa was a shortage of staff. As I said the other day, we have full documentation on each of the recommendations, and will be prepared to put before the committee in detail the efforts made to secure adequate establishments and staffs, both within the department and through the civil service commission. Having regard to the circumstances; the fact that this new system had only begun to be introduced and that its introduction was only likely to be completed in 1951; the fact that Korea intervened in June, 1950; the fact that since then we have had the great build-up in the operations and size of the armed forces, I think the committee, in the end, will be satisfied that even with all the advantage of hindsight it is difficult to see today what should have been done-and nobody here has suggested it-to prevent what happened. We must use every possible endeavour to see that everything reasonably economic to promote the efficient operation of the department and proper accounting is carried through. But once again, Mr. Speaker, I would remind hon. members that in this matter there was no failure in operations. There was a breakdown, as Mr. Currie calls it, although I think it was not so much a breakdown as the fact that the new system never had a chance to be established. It was this which produced a lack of more adequate accounts in the most difficult type of stores, the accounts for these engineering and building stores at a
(Mr. Claxton.]
place in which, like other establishments across Canada, there was a great amount of construction going on.
Now, sir, at the beginning of his speech the Leader of the Opposition made reference to an amendment which the opposition had proposed to make. Of course it is appreciated that that amendment was not before the house. He suggested that the government had employed a device, though he said it was a perfectly proper device, to exclude its consideration. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that what the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) did on that occasion was something that I really cannot imagine the Leader of the Opposition, or for that matter many leaders of parties, doing, namely forgoing his right to speak in order that on my return from abroad, I might take advantage of the first opportunity to deal with a matter which had come up during my absence. I am sure that had that not been done it would have been a subject of criticism.


Mr. Cardiff:: A pretty lame excuse.


Brooke Claxton: It does not need an excuse at all. I have as much right to speak as the hon. member when I catch the Speaker's eye, and hon. members made no objection at the time. They had no right to make an objection, and no objection has been made since then.


Mr. Casselman:: You are entitled to your ordinary time.


Brooke Claxton: The Leader of the Opposition said that perhaps we should have anticipated what their attitude would be because we knew they would be opposed to referring the Currie report to the committee on defence expenditure. Well, if that is so, what better-


Mr. Lennard:: Who said that?


Brooke Claxton: -part could we play than to give them as early an opportunity as possible of indicating just where they stood; and that is what my amendment did.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It has been brought to my attention that the hon. member's time has expired.


Brooke Claxton: I am through; thanks.


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


Brooke Claxton: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you, hon. members.
In beginning his speech the Leader of the Opposition said that the effectiveness of the armed forces must depend on the administration of the Department of National Defence. He referred to our forces in Korea and in Europe, and later on in his speech

he praised them as I have praised them. But in conclusion I would point out not only that the effectiveness of the forces depends on the administration of the department, but also that the effectiveness of the armed forces does not come about despite the department.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister was kind enough to say that he would answer a question. When Mr. Currie says that internal warnings had not been lacking in the department, and that the chief auditor time and again had reported unsatisfactory conditions-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I understood the
Minister of National Defence to say that he would hear a question at the close of his remarks. The hon. member for Eglinton may ask a question.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I ask the minister whether those reports of the chief auditor of the department were read by the minister.


Brooke Claxton: I have already dealt with that. I dealt with it in my statement last Tuesday, Mr. Speaker. I pointed out that he made 1,185 reports and that in the nature of things they could not be seen by the minister, and only the most important ones by the deputy minister. However, matters were from time to time drawn to my attention.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister never saw any of those reports personally? The minister shakes his head, indicating his answer is no.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That is a terrible condition.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: I rise to support the subamendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). In our opinion the Currie report, the report of the Auditor General tabled in this house, and the concern of the public over the expenditure of the taxpayers' money by the Department of National Defence warrant-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: -that Mr. Currie be asked to conduct a further inquiry into the many other expenditures and commitments covered by the terms of the resolution. Without doubt the minister is responsible for the administration of his department, and quite openly has expressed no desire to escape the responsibility. I am of the opinion that the greater responsibility is not on the minister but on the government as a whole. To expect one minister to administer a department of such gigantic size as the Department of National Defence, having supervision over the expenditure of over $2,000 million, is to invite
Committee on Defence Expenditure the very things to happen that are indicated in the Currie report.
There is no doubt about it that rather late realization of this fact has caused the government to consider and advance proposals for the appointment of an associate minister of national defence. Personally I think that is all to the good. But I am quite sure everyone will recognize that under present conditions the minister has an intolerable amount of office work. I understand that the signing of letters even, and the signing of orders is a tremendous physical task alone, and it is far too much for this government to expect such a huge department to be administered by one minister.
I am not capable of making suggestions as to what is best so far as the division of this department is concerned, but I will say this. I have heard a good number of people across this country say they are of the opinion that the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) should be brought back and given charge of air, and that possibly we should have an associate minister for the army and an associate minister for the navy. I just offer that suggestion as one that has been given to me by a number of persons who have some experience in military matters, and who are concerned about the present situation and with relieving the minister of a tremendous load.
This evening I really have one main subject to deal with, but before going on with that I want to say that I was very interested to listen to the explanation given to the house this afternoon by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) in connection with the inadvertent mention by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) in his radio broadcast of the Prime Minister as receiving certain documents. Knowing the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre as I do, I know he certainly would not make an intentional misstatement. He did that quite unintentionally. The point is this, that everything that was being done at that time was under the direction of the then minister of justice, the present Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), and with his knowledge. As a matter of fact his personality affected all the events of that day. The government itself used certain documents and certain reports that were acknowledged to be stolen, in the interests of the state and for the safety of the state. No one criticized him on that account at that time.
This afternoon the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) I thought dealt very well with the, shall I say, "circumstances alter cases" part of the situation, when he was referring to the government's action so far as
1178	HOUSE OF
Committee on Defence Expenditure the Currie report is concerned when compared with its action on other reports. I quite support what he had to say with respect to the royal commission's report on the Saskatchewan water development, where it is obvious that the gist of the report was in the hands of some of the press some days ago, and members of the House of Commons and people generally throughout Canada were able to read details in various important magazines. Yet we have not heard of any suggestion by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) that a search is going to be made to see who leaked that report, or anything of the sort. We feel that circumstances do alter cases, and that possibly there is not quite the same incentive on the part of the government to find out who leaked that report, who stole that report, which has a bearing on government action, as there has seemed to be in connection with the first or working draft of the Currie report.
Before leaving that subject I should like to bring to the attention of the house this fact, that from a reading of the royal commission's report on the Canadian Pacific scandal of 1873, of the records of the house at that time, and of certain correspondence, X think it is quite correct to say that the first Liberal government that ever came into power in Canada after confederation obtained office as the result of a stolen telegram for which a supporter of the Liberal party paid $5,000.
I think that is quite right. It is obvious that the tradition was established at a very early date.
I have said that the great majority of the people are concerned, in the first instance, with the expenditure of their hard-earned tax dollars for defence purposes. I think the people of Canada are willing to pay for a satisfactory and efficient defence; but they certainly want to be assured that those hard-earned tax dollars are being spent in a proper way. That is an aspect of the question which has been dealt with extensively by members who have spoken previously, including those of the Progressive Conservative party, as well as members of my own group and the Social Credit group. I am not going to discuss that matter tonight, but I shall deal with another aspect of the subject which I think is causing a good number of thinking Canadians serious concern.
I have had an opportunity to discuss this matter with people in various walks of life, people who see things seriously, and I think it is quite safe to say there are quite a number of people seriously concerned with one aspect of the Currie report connected with the actions of some of the military personnel in high authority. I refer particularly, first of all, to the tabling by the Prime Minister, at
{Mr. Herridge.]

the time he tabled the Currie report, of a letter written by the chief of the general staff. I refer secondly to the message of the chief of the general staff in the latest issue of the Canadian Army Journal. I refer also to certain comments made by people in the Department of National Defence with respect to the Auditor General's report, as it applied to that department.
I deal with this question because I think at a time like this it is wise to bring it to the attention of the house, so that we may refresh our minds as to the exact meaning of a democracy. A great many editorials have been written about the tabling of the letter from the chief of the general staff, and about his message in the Canadian Army Journal. It is obvious that in some quarters there is great concern about this action. This is not the first time in Canada that a government has had to indicate that in a democracy those in high command in the army-the chief of the general staff and others-must accept their policy and their direction from parliament, through the government.
I should like to refer to the celebrated case in 1904 of Lord Dundonald, general officer commanding, who was dismissed by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the then prime minister, for not observing the principle that the civil power must at all times rule the military. This episode took place when the then minister of agriculture, Mr. Fisher, in his capacity as acting minister of militia, cancelled the name of an officer from a list of officers of a new regiment of dragoons, which had been recommended to the council by Lord Dundonald. Speaking at a military banquet in Montreal, Lord Dundonald, at that time general officer commanding troops in Canada, denounced the minister's action as a gross instance of political interference. The case was brought up in parliament, occasioning vigorous debate. Sir Wilfrid Laurier stated that the cabinet was not obliged to accept the general's recommendations, and said:
We are not accustomed to being dragooned in this country; Lord Dundonald, with all the respect I have for him, must learn that this is a responsible government.
I should like now to quote briefly extracts from volume 1 of the queen's regulations and orders for the Canadian army. Section 3, which deals with public, civil employment, and political activities, in article 19.36, headed, "Disclosure of information or opinion", states:
No officer or man shall publish, communicate, or otherwise disclose any information or opinion relating to military subjects acquired as a result of his army service to any person who is not entitled to receive such information or opinion.

And article 19.37 headed, "Permission required to publish writing or deliver address" states:
(1)	The provisions of this article shall not apply to a writing, lecture, address or broadcast confined exclusively to members of the Canadian forces.
(2)	No officer or man shall, whether it purports to be fiction or fact, publish any writing or deliver any lecture, address, or broadcast in any way dealing with military subjects unless permission is first obtained to do so.
At this point I am going to ask the minister a question: In view of the queen's regulations, when writing his message to the army did the general officer commanding obtain permission to make what in the opinion of many members in the House of Commons would be considered a reflection upon parliament?
In that connection, before proceeding further I should like to read a few brief extracts from the message to the Canadian army from the chief of general staff. I realize that this has already been placed on record by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I should add that this is a well drafted and well written message, and states:
In recent weeks and months the army has been the target of unremitting attacks from many sources. We have been criticized for the indiscipline of Canadian soldiers. We have been criticized for too much discipline. We have been criticized for extravagance and criticized for not providing a whole host of things which cost a very great deal of money. We have been criticized for lack of morale and accused of complacency and arrogance when we have shown or proclaimed a pride in the Canadian army.
And again:
None of this should give cause for any discouragement or depression. The only justification for the existence of the Canadian army is to defend democracy of which free public criticism is an essential element. Some of this criticism has been, and will continue to be, unfairly biased and irresponsible but that will be as clear to the citizens and taxpayers outside the army as to those that serve in it.
And again:
I charge every soldier to apply himself in all those matters where we clearly need improvement but not to be discouraged or depressed by criticisms which are neither founded on truth nor justified in the light of our positive achievements.
My point is this. In view of the fact that criticism of the operations of the army and of the Department of National Defence has been primarily in this House of Commons during the last twelve months, in view of the fact that there has been criticism in the press as a result of the debate in the House of Commons, we in this group think it is quite improper for the chief of the general staff to write a message to the troops of Canada which obviously, in view of what he has written and of what has occurred in this house, where the criticism of the Department of National Defence originated, can be taken
Committee on Defence Expenditure and has been taken by a great number of people to whom I have spoken about the matter as a criticism of parliament. I just want to go on to another aspect of these regulations. Section 3 of regulation 19.37 states:
No officer or man of the active force or of the reserves when he is on continuous army duty, special duty, or camp training, shall, whether it purports to be fiction or fact, publish any writing or deliver any lecture, address, or broadcast in any way dealing with subjects of a controversial nature affecting other departments of the public service or pertaining to public policy unless permission is first obtained to do so.
I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question in that connection. We all read the comments and quite clear criticism of the Auditor General's report which, according to the press, originated with high officers in the Department of National Defence. I ask the Prime Minister if those officers who made those comments in the Canadian press on the Auditor General's report had received the permission of the minister to do so. We in this group think it is highly improper for any official of the Department of National Defence or any high military officer to criticize or to comment upon the report of another department when it is issued. If that state of affairs were allowed to continue we would have the deputy minister of one department criticizing the deputy minister of another department.
I challenge anyone on the government side to indicate where in British parliamentary history a senior military officer or a senior official of the department having to do with military affairs, the war department as it is called in England, has criticized in public or in the press the report or statement of the official having a capacity equal to that of the Auditor General of Canada. It just is not done. I suggest in the same way that it is quite improper and is not fair to the officials who are being criticized or whose recommendations are being commented upon.
I am not going to delay the house at great length, but I feel keenly about this question because I think it is fundamental. I should like to make further reference to the case of Lord Dundonald, who was the general officer commanding in Canada in 1904. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, then prime minister of Canada, spoke in the debate that arose out of this case and I should like to quote his words, as reported in column 5533 of Hansard of June 24, 1904 as follows:
You will see in this but one more of the numerous contests for supremacy between the military power and the civil power which have taken place in England and in all British countries for many ages back. In England, sir, and in all British countries, and indeed in all civilized countries, these contests have taken place, but with this difference, however, that in all countries except England and British possessions, this contest invariably

Committee on Defence Expenditure terminated by the civil power being crushed by the military power; whereas in England and in British countries, countries that enjoy British laws the contest was decided once for all in favour of the civil power and of civil liberty. But though this contest was decided more than 100 years ago, still it is now and then revived by the military power.
I suggest that in the publication of this report and its distribution to the army, and in this reference to the Auditor General's report, there is an indication that some people are not considering parliament in respect to its relationship to the military power of this country. We all know that under British practice it is strictly forbidden for any member of the high command to comment on any political question or upon the happenings in parliament. I am informed by a good authority that on one occasion since 1945 a top ranking commander in the British army made a slight reference to the happenings in parliament and political developments, and was called immediately before the Prime Minister of Great Britain and told that that sort of thing was just not done.
I should like to refer again to what occurred in the house in 1904 and I quote from columns 4624 and 4626 of Hansard of June 10, 1904, where Mr. Henri Bourassa, speaking on the same Lord Dundonald matter, had this to say:
I think it is well that we should understand exactly the point at issue, not only before the house, but before the country. That point is whether the general officer commanding the militia of Canada is a servant of the government or not. If he is not a servant of the government, I quite accept the conclusion of hon. gentlemen opposite and say that he should not be interfered with by politicians. But, if it is acknowledged, as I always thought it was acknowledged, that he is a servant of the government, that he is appointed and paid by the government and therefore must report to the minister-who is responsible to the house-before stating anything to the country, then, I think the course of Lord Dundonald is absolutely indefensible.
But so long as this general officer commanding is in the position of any other public servant, he is bound to be silent, bound to do what would be the duty of any officer in his position in any civilized country.
Those remarks are strictly in accord with British tradition as to the relationship between parliament and the military power. Before concluding I should like to deal with the propriety of the Prime Minister tabling the letter written by the chief of the general staff, which has tended to have some influence on the public mind with regard to this Currie report and the consequential debate in parliament. I refer again to the debate that occurred in the Lord Dundonald case. There was another interesting aspect to that case which I think has a direct bearing upon the Prime Minister's action in tabling the communique from the chief of the general


staff. Lord Dundonald had submitted a report, and it was argued by some that the minister of militia should have tabled the report. In that debate the then prime minister of Canada, Sir Wilfrid Laurier-I know hon. members on the other side hold his memory in greatest respect-quoted from Todd, that great parliamentary authority of Great Britain. He gave a series of quotations, but I should like to read only one or two. I refer hon. members to column 5541 of Hansard of June 4, 1904, where the then prime minister quotes Todd as follows:
The system of laying upon the table of the house reports from officers addressed to particular departments of the executive government is most objectionable.
He then went on to quote Disraeli who had spoken in the British house on the question of the tabling of correspondence or reports by officers addressed to executive members of parliament.
This is what Laurier quotes Disraeli as saying:
There have been cases in which reports of a confidential character from officers of the government have been laid upon the table of the house, to prepare the public mind, and also that of parliament, to consent to some large measure, or perhaps some considerable vote of public money; but generally I think it is a course which the house ought not to sanction.
These are opinions from high authorities which I think indicate some grounds for saying that we consider it improper for reports to be tabled in that way. If the chief of the general staff wanted the matter brought to the attention of the house he had the right to bring it to the attention of his minister or the Prime Minister, and then it would be the duty of the political executive to bring the matter to the attention of the house.
I mention my objections to these things at this time because I find that the newspapers of the country have shown considerable interest through their comments, and newspapers do not comment on things of this sort unless they realize that a principle is at stake or that a large number of people are interested. I also find that quite a number of people are most concerned about this development. I am not suggesting that at this stage it is a serious one, but I do think it is a development that should be nipped in the bud by the Prime Minister and the minister of the department concerned.
This is a democracy; and in our opinion if we are going to maintain it as a democracy parliament and the civil power should always remain supreme. Democracy on occasions, Mr. Speaker, has to be defended on the field of battle. However, its ultimate and final defence rests in the hearts and hands of those

who live in the cottages of our land. I am sure all members of the house will agree with me when I say that their front-line trench is parliament.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, in beginning my remarks I should like to say a word to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) because he commenced proceedings this evening by admitting that the point of order raised this afternoon was not well taken and that Sergeant Young actually has applied for parole. I would think the word "parole" would have a great attraction for the Minister of Justice and the other members of the government, because if there is anything they need it is parole from their present responsibilities. I am glad to see the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) back in the house. I am also glad to say that, in spite of fairly strong political differences and probably harsh words back and forth in the house, personally we have remained quite friendly. I think that is one of the good things about this chamber.
I was sorry for the minister tonight because he was, in the words of my leader this afternoon, in the position of trying to explain the unexplainable. That of course is not novel for Liberal speakers during the past few years. They have had quite a number of unexplainable things to try to explain. I should like to comment on some of the matters the minister raised. While he was speaking I scribbled away fairly rapidly, but it may be that I missed some. However, I have a number of notes that cover most of them.
One of the first things he said was that the red herrings are beginning to smell, referring to a certain amount of comment that has come from this side of the house with respect to the red herrings the government has been attempting to drag across the Currie report. All I can say is that the minister's olfactory senses cannot be very keen or he would have recognized some time ago that the red herring was beginning to smell. The biggest red herring that has been brought into the debate so far is the attempt to make out that the most important issue before us is how the C.C.F. got possession of a draft copy of the report. That is the chief red herring that has been introduced into the debate.
It is beyond me why the members of the government would think that was a matter which the general public of the country were going to look upon as being very important, compared with the budget of $2 billion being spent on defence with which this debate is supposed to be dealing, to a considerable extent, in that we are talking about the
Committee on Defence Expenditure setting up of a defence expenditure committee. I do not understand why the government would think a red herring of that sort would have very much effect so far as the general public are concerned. That is certainly the smelliest of all the smelly red herrings that have been introduced. I am not, however, going to enter into the Liberal-C.C.F. argument that has been going on with respect to whether an extremely serious offence was committed when the C.C.F. got hold of a draft copy of the report. I think I can quite readily leave that to my friends of the C.C.F.
The minister also said that the only person who had dealt with parts II, III and IV of the report-the ones containing the recommendations-was himself. As a matter of fact, as I tried to point out to him by an interjection during his speech, I dealt with those parts when speaking on this matter before Christmas, at the time the Currie report was first tabled in the house. I dealt particularly with one recommendation which I think is extremely good, namely that a pilot plant or company should be set up so far as the works services are concerned. I recommended at that time, and I recommend now, that pilot companies, pilot battalions, pilot batteries and so forth be set up for all the various branches of the army and the other defence services, so people can see how things should be done properly and how they can be done properly, and then can go back to their own units and apply what they have learned.
I pointed out at that time that from my reading of history that was one of the chief strengths of the German army and one of the reasons they were able to train as good an army as they did in a relatively short period before the last war. That is one of the recommendations I dealt with at some length before Christmas, and I emphasize it again now because I think it is so important. Any attempt the minister may have been trying to make to represent that the members on this side of the house are not interested in the recommendations, that all we are interested in is the first part of the report which blisters the government, is a complete failure. We are even more interested in the latter parts of the report and the recommendations contained therein than in the first part, and we are particularly interested that those recommendations be put into effect.
I shall come back to that matter later. Certainly if the recommendations are to be put into effect it is absolutely useless to place them before the defence expenditure committee. The very name of the committee
1182	HOUSE OF
Committee on Defence Expenditure indicates that the committee is not equipped to deal with recommendations of the type Mr. Currie has made in his report. The only way these recommendations can be put into effect is for the minister and the officials of the department to start to put them into effect. The minister said in his other speech that quite a few of the recommendations- I think he said twenty odd-


Brooke Claxton: Twenty-seven.


Douglas Scott Harkness: -had already been put into effect. When the defence estimates are before the house later in the session I shall be interested in hearing a report from him with regard to how the recommendations put into effect have been working out, how successful they are and so forth, but certainly the defence expenditure committee cannot do anything toward putting them into effect. The idea of referring the report to the defence expenditure committee, from the point of view of the recommendations, is completely hopeless and just does not make sense.
The next thing is that the minister complained that we said that he said everything was perfect. He went on to say that was a myth, and he never did say so. He will recall, and I think he will admit, that at least I have complained of that myself for the last four years. As a matter of fact, every year for the last four years when we have been discussing the defence estimates I have brought this matter up and cited chapter and verse.
I have not time to go into it now, but I can think of two instances in which the minister represented everything as being just perfect. I brought up these things and asked "What is the situation?" and he gave an answer which did not mean anything. One was in connection with the number of field guns we had in this country. The other was in connection with the number of ack-ack guns we had in this country, and what kind of ack-ack defences we had. He said we had excellent ack-ack defences and that the people of Canada had nothing to worry about. I asked him what was this ack-ack defence and where were the guns. I cited the city of Ottawa as having no ack-ack defences. The minister never answered that and never said anything about it again. He just conveniently forgot it and hoped that everyone else would forget it.
Those are just two specific examples of what he claims is a myth. He has represented, in connection with practically every single matter brought up in the house, that everything is just fine: "Don't worry, boys; leave everything to me and the defence of me country is in safe hands." Every time we have brought up specific matters to show


that such was not the case he would try to brush the thing aside, or forget it, or say nothing about it. Mr. Speaker, I was glad to hear the minister admit tonight-and I think it is for the first time-that everything was not perfect. I think the minister is now making progress.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Douglas Scott Harkness: He finally admits for the first time that everything is not perfect, and it is the very first time.
The next matter the minister dealt with was the fact that complaints had been made from this side of the house to the effect that the rapid demobilization which took place following the war had been responsible for the lack of personnel in the army works services, and that therefore the policy of the government was responsible for the present mess at Petawawa and elsewhere. I think he quoted the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) and another hon. member in that regard. The minister said that rapid demobilization on the contrary had contributed greatly to the "prosperity of the country"; that is the note I made. He said it would have caused a great deal of disgruntlement amongst servicemen if it had not taken place. I agree with that; but what happened was that a great number of people who did not want to be demobilized were demobilized against their will, the very people who had administrative experience, who could have trained the other members of these works companies and other administrative people throughout the army.
I also spoke on this matter before Christmas and I do not like to repeat what I said then, but apparently the minister paid no attention to what I said at that time, and to what others said. Following the war the Department of National Defence followed the policy of getting out of the army all of the older officers who had had experience before the war in the peacetime administration of the army, the older N.C.O.'s and so on. A very considerable number of those people were retired years before their normal time for pension.
As a result of that policy of retiring these people-I think the idea was that by getting rid of the older fellows they could make room for younger fellows and then keep promoting them more rapidly, and so on-nearly all the men who had any amount of administrative and accounting experience and so on were let out. That was particularly true with those who had served in the Canadian army before the war. They were let out after the war, and we started with a group of green people. A great many had no experience along administrative and accounting lines.

Their experience during the war had been fighting experience; it was not administrative experience. It is no wonder they did not do a good job, and took a long time to learn the job.
So I place the responsibility for this situation which has developed at Petawawa, and generally as far as administration is concerned, squarely on the shoulders of this government, because of the policy they followed after the war of getting rid of people who did have administrative experience, accounting experience and so on.
The minister went on to say something about the obsolescence or otherwise of the F-86E Sabre. That, Mr. Speaker, is a very technical matter and there is not very much use of either the minister or myself, or any other member, making assertions about it.
I personally hope very much that what the minister said was correct, that the P-86E Sabre is the best fighter in production. Unfortunately I must point out that the United States jet fighter pilots who have come back from Korea have not said that. It is useless for the minister and myself to get into an argument on the matter because I know that neither he nor I have the technical knowledge to know what we are talking about. We are just taking assertions from this, that or the other person. In any event I will say no more about that particular matter.
The minister next asked why should we refer or why are we referring the Currie report to the committee. He said there were a lot of reasons which perhaps had not been mentioned. The first reason was to secure simplification in regard to the filling of posts. Goodness gracious, how can referring this report to the committee do anything in the world in regard to simplification as far as filling posts is concerned? The committee cannot do anything about that. All the committee can do is to listen to the recommendations from Mr. Currie or others, recommendations which he has already made to the government.
Once more this is one of the things which can only have any effect if the government takes it up and gets some good personnel managers on the job, gets them to work and gets posts filled as a result. Referring it to the committee is only going to delay getting personnel on the job, and the determination of what is required in posts in the army works services or other branches. The minister gave a second reason, but he wandered around and I really did not gather enough about it to comment.
Next was the question asked by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming). In reply
Committee on Defence Expenditure to that question the minister said that 1,100 odd reports from the auditors of his own department had been made. On further questioning, as I understood him, he said he had read none of those reports. Was that correct? He had not read a single one of those 1,100 reports submitted by his own inspecting officers or auditors, some of which reports are referred to in the Currie report.
I would say, Mr. Speaker, that many of the present troubles in the Department of National Defence might have been prevented if the minister had read those reports. I think this was one of the -most significant admissions the Minister of National Defence has yet made in this house. I referred to one a while ago, that everything was not perfect. Now this is a more significant admission because it shows clearly that the breakdown of administration which took place in his department was the result of not paying any attention to the inspection and auditing system which they had. Under any reasonable system at all I should say the minister would have had the more important of these auditors' reports brought to his attention. At the very least, Mr. Speaker, if the administrative set-up in the department had been running at all properly, a digest of these auditors' reports, and of the things which they showed were wrong, would have been placed before the minister every month or every two weeks, or at some such stated periods. Then, they having been brought to his attention, he could have taken some effective action to correct them. As the situation was, none of these 1,100 irregularities which the auditors reported was ever brought to the attention of the minister. Under those circumstances how could you expect any corrective action to be taken?


Brooke Claxton: Not 1,100 irregularities, as the hon. member stated, but 1,185 reports.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The irregularities were contained in the reports. There is no question about that. Many other matters might have been contained in them also, but the irregularities were contained in them. Under those circumstances, Mr. Speaker-the minister not having read a single one of them; none of them having been brought to his attention in any way-I would say it is no wonder that Mr. Currie in his report said that things had gone wrong at or near the top.
So much for the various matters which the minister mentioned. There are a few other things to which I should like to refer. A person sitting in the gallery throughout the discussion of this report, as far as the members on the government side of the house are concerned, if he happened to come
1184	HOUSE OF
Committee on Defence Expenditure in and listen only to government members, I am sure would have been greatly perturbed and puzzled as to what was the motion before the house. We of course are on a motion to set up a committee to investigate defence expenditure, the same sort of committee that we had for this purpose last year. I think the terms of reference are exactly the same. To that motion the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) moved an amendment. The amendment directs the committee, when set up, to first consider the Currie report.
As has been abundantly shown by all those who have spoken on this side of the house,
I think that report speaks for itself. I can think of nothing less valuable than to have the committee on defence expenditure spend its time, in effect, in investigating the investigator. That is what we would be doing, and that is all the defence expenditure committee can and will do if it is turned loose on this Currie report. We shall be investigating the investigator, the very man the Minister of National Defence and this government appointed for the purpose of investigating the irregularities which had taken place at Petawawa, who spent months in doing that, and who turned in what I think everyone will admit was an absolutely splendid report.
The reason for the tactics of the government in moving this amendment, Mr. Speaker, seems to be quite clear. I do not think there is much doubt about it. The first thing they hope to accomplish by doing that is this: By having the committee go minutely over the Currie report, clause by clause, their objective is to try to cast some doubt on some of the items which are contained in it and, at the same time, by spending weeks in that procedure, to smother the whole report in words. As a matter of fact, that is the technique which was employed so effectively on many occasions by their late leader, Mr. Mackenzie King: smother the thing in words. That seems to be what they are going to try to do in the committee on defence expenditure with regard to this report.
A second and probably much more important purpose would be served, as far as the government is concerned, in moving this amendment, and it is this. As a result of considering the Currie report the committee would not have time to investigate the much more important matters on which it should be engaged. Those matters are the expenditures, by this time something over $3 billion, on our rearmament. How much more than $3 billion it is, I do not know. It certainly must be considerably more than


that by this time because the committee's work starts back when the Korean war began in 1950.
What happened last year in the committee on defence expenditure I think presents a reasonable parallel with what happened here in the house this year with regard to this amendment moved by the minister. I think probably the- results which were achieved last year in the committee by the tactics followed there suggested the present course to the government and constitute the reason they have adopted it. Last year in the defence expenditure committee I made a motion that the committee should investigate the situation which had developed at Petawawa, but the government would not hear of it. Oh, no; there was no chance at all. It was sub judice. Everything was wrong with that idea.
In the committee we talked about the matter for some time. The government was in this position, I think. They did not want a vote on the issue directly. They thought it would look bad through the country to refuse to have the committee investigate Petawawa, so the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Applewhaite) rose and moved an amendment to that motion. The amendment was in this form:
That all the words after "that" be struck out-
And "that" was the first word in my motion. It can therefore be seen that the idea was to slaughter my motion completely.
I may say that this was on April 29, 1952. The amendment continues:
-and the following substituted therefor:
That pursuant to the terms of reference of this committee evidence be taken from competent witnesses dealing with the administrative procedures laid down by the Department of National Defence for the receipt, stockkeeping, issue and accounting of stores, material and equipment at military camps and establishments and in particular the steps taken to prevent, discover and eliminate the loss, misuse or wastage of government property of every kind and that the committee thereafter consider what further steps, if any, should be taken.
Of course that amendment was adopted by the Liberal majority of two to one on the committee. Those are all exceedingly high-sounding words. It sounded as though this were going to be a terrific committee, and as though they were going to carry on a terrific investigation. But in actual fact, Mr. Speaker, here is what it accomplished. It accomplished the purpose of keeping the committee occupied, for half of its entire sittings, with a mass of detail on hundreds of sheets of paper-and they were piled up to a considerable height-which contained lists of losses by fire, theft and other irregularities in the navy, the army and the air force, including items of $2.50, $3.69 and so

forth. We were expected to go through- and we did so as far as two of the services were concerned-these long lists, item by item, with an explanation on the side as to how this loss of $2.50 had taken place, and so on. What was accomplished by all that was this. Instead of doing the work which it was appointed to do; instead of doing the work it should have done; instead of doing the work that it was necessary should be done for the welfare of this country, that committee was smothered with this great mass of unimportant details which we had not asked for and which was pushed on top of us.
I have here, Mr. Speaker, an analysis of the meetings of that committee. The committee met first, for organizational purposes, on April 8. It was just an organization meeting. Following that meeting we had seventeen working sessions. Mark you, Mr. Chairman, this important committee held its first working session on April 22. It took all that time for the government to get around to the point of even getting the committee started, before they started to smother it. We started on April 22 and we finished on June 17 having, as I say, held seventeen working sessions, two of them on the last day we sat.
In order that there will be no mistake, the last working day we sat was June 12. We had two sessions, morning and afternoon. On June 17 we had a closed session to consider the report, which was presented to us in mimeographed form. It had been prepared by the chairman or somebody else, I do not know whom, but there it was in front of us, and they said: "There is your report." That is the great committee to which members on that side of the house will refer and say: "The committee on defence expenditure considered this, and they did not find anything wrong. The committee on defence expenditure did not find anything wrong with this particular matter. They did not turn in any adverse report on it." Mr. Speaker, do you think that any report brought in on a mimeographed sheet of paper by the chairman of the committee and presented to the members of the committee was going to be critical of anything the department had done? Why, the thing is unthinkable.


David Arnold Croll: Will the hon. member tell me how else you can produce fifty copies of a report?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Well, I will say this, Mr. Speaker. When we consider a report, we might consider some of the things that the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdon-nell) and the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton), and two or three others and
Committee on Defence Expenditure myself think should go into the report, but naturally these things were not wanted in.


Agar Rodney Adamson: And they were deliberately prevented from going into the report, too.


William Earl Rowe: Seventeen whitewash brushes.


Douglas Scott Harkness: A little further explanation of what went on at these various sessions is also extremely illuminating. There were seventeen working sessions. Eight of those were on these lists that I have talked about, losses by fire and theft and so forth, those minor matters. Eight of the seventeen were given to that. Then one was entirely given over to an explanation on the part of the deputy minister as to the excessive number of boots and forks and teapots and carpets and things of that sort that had been purchased and about which complaints had been made.


William Earl Rowe: And nylon stockings.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Four of the meetings were on mechanical transport. That is all right; mechanical transport is an important item in the armed services, but it is by no means one of the most expensive items. There was one session and a very small part of another one on armaments; that is, guns and small arms and that sort of thing. There were two sessions on aircraft of all kinds, ships and ammunition, all these things which took in I should say all told more than half the total defence budget. Well over $1 billion would be represented in these items of aircraft, ships and ammunition, and we had two out of the seventeen meetings on those items. Then the Liberal members of this house come here, and they go out around the country, and say that the defence expenditure committee did not find anything wrong; everything is fine. What opportunity did that committee have to find out anything about important items as far as expenditures in the country are concerned? They really had no opportunity at all.
Then we had one session on the construction program, which carried on-


An hon. Member:: How corny can you get?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think the minister gave the figure the other day of the total amount of buildings which we had in works services as $750 million. On that we had one session of two hours, most of which was taken up by Mr. Mansur, who gave a very able presentation. He spent most of the time reading his brief or giving his presentation in regard to that matter, with the result that just a few minutes were left for questioning on it. That was the defence expenditure committee last year. That is what went on in the committee last year. The committee was not allowed to function as it should have been allowed to function. The committee was
1186	HOUSE OF
Committee on Defence Expenditure deliberately put on unimportant matters, and was kept on those unimportant matters as long as it was possible to keep it there.
It seems quite evident, Mr. Speaker, that the idea this year is to put the committee on to the Currie report, and as a result to prevent it from dealing with these large items of expenditure. The aircraft item of $668 million which I referred to before Christmas is one such item. God knows how much more it is by this time.


Agar Rodney Adamson: And how effective it is.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The construction program which was spoken about by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Shaw), and which the Minister of Resources and Development (Mr. Winters) promised would be investigated by the defence expenditure committee, is another. How much time will the construction program get in the defence expenditure committee? I venture to predict that it will not get one two-hour session during the whole time. If this program envisaged by the government is carried out time will be spent on a minute examination and re-examination of the Currie report, and it will be a complete waste of time as far as the committee is concerned.


William Earl Rowe: They will be expected to curry the Currie report.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It seems to me that what the people of Canada are interested in is in seeing that value is received for the money spent on defence. That is the main thing that the people of Canada want at the present time. I do not think any Canadian grudges one cent or one dollar which is spent effectively for the defence effort. I emphasize the word "effectively" because the people of this country almost universally do grudge and complain bitterly about the money which is taken from them and wasted, as far as the defence effort is concerned, and which contributes to the inefficiency which has been displayed up to date in regard to our rearmament effort and defence spending generally.
At the present time people are making up their income tax returns. Those people are not too interested in how the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) got hold of an unauthorized copy or a draft copy of the Currie report. They are not too interested in that or in the other extraneous matters which have been brought up here, the red herrings which have been referred to. What they are interested in, and what they are concerned about is how their dollars are being spent for defence. They are very interested in that; and a task which the defence expenditure committee can do for them is to


determine whether these dollars are being properly and effectively spent in at least some ways in the defence department. Under the course followed by the government that committee is going to be prevented from discovering that.
The government, as I mentioned before, has attempted to make this disappearance of a draft copy a major question. The major effort on their part is to distract attention from the really important questions posed by the Currie report. The important criticism of the government in the Currie report is not the various details which the minister has spoken about. It is the general breakdown in administration which has taken place within the Department of National Defence, the cost of which Mr. Currie has said cannot even be estimated, and which is certainly very much greater than the value of the articles which were stolen or otherwise made away with.
I have comments here on speeches made by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the other Liberal members who have spoken in this debate. I see that I have not time to deal with them all. I would sum up all the speeches which have been made by Liberal members in defence of the government as far as the Currie report is concerned in this way. They were a confused mass of irrelevancies, and they exhibited a complete failure to meet the important criticisms to which I have referred, which are either definitely made or implied in the Currie report and also in the report of the Auditor General.
The criticisms which are either made or implied in these reports are criticisms which we on this side of the house have made here in the past three or four years. Year after year we have been telling the Minister of National Defence that things are not going well this way, or that they are not going well that way; that his general administrative set-up in the Department of National Defence headquarters is staff-heavy; that there is too much red tape; that in some places he has too much staff and in other places he has not enough; that his department is badly organized.
The hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) urged that a firm of efficiency experts should be brought in to make recommendations to the minister as to how the civilian or administrative part of his department could be reorganized so that he would have a more effective and better working department, but the minister has always pooh-poohed the idea. He has said, "The department does not need an efficiency experu They are small potatoes, so far as

we are concerned". According to the minister, only small concerns call in efficiency experts today. Well, I venture to say that if he had called one in three years ago the government would not be in the position they are today with regard to the Currie report.


William Earl Rowe: Some of them might have read the report, anyway.


Agar Rodney Adamson: You see what just one chartered accountant did for them.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I can sum it up in this way, that the Auditor General's report and the Currie report have demonstrated all too well
Committee on Defence Expenditure that the criticisms we on this side of the house have been making in the last three or four years are only too well founded.
On motion of Mr. Noseworthy the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: the adjournment of the house.
He said: Tomorrow is private members' day. We shall proceed according to standing order 15.	.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 9.55 p.m.

Wednesday, January 21, 1953