1953-02-02

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, as you know, we have all been deeply moved by the news of the disasters both on sea and on land that have taken place as a result of the terrible storms raging about the United Kingdom, and the channel between the United Kingdom and continental Europe.
We do not know as yet just the extent of the disaster, but we do know that very many lives have been lost, that many, many families have been forced to evacuate their homes, and that there has been a great destruction of property. I think I can assume that I would have the consent of every hon. member if I were to put a motion at this time in connection with this disaster. We all remember what great comfort our people got out of the sympathy of the peoples of those lands when disasters overtook some of our fellow citizens in the Fraser valley, in Manitoba, in Rimouski and Cabano in my native province of Quebec. We all know how much good it does to people who are in the throes of such disaster to realize that they have the active and concrete sympathy of those they regard as their friends.
If I may have unanimous consent to move the motion, without the usual notice, I do move, seconded by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew):
That His Honour the Speaker be asked to convey to Her Majesty the Queen, to Her Majesty the Queen of the Netherlands and to His Majesty the King of the Belgians the deep sympathy of the Commons of Canada to the people of the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Belgium who have been so sorely stricken by the appalling disaster which has befallen them and the earnest desire of the Canadian people to manifest their sympathy to the sufferers in such concrete form as, after more accurate information is available about the actual needs, will prove to be the most helpful to them in their great distress.


Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be permitted to join with the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) in seconding the 68108-974
motion that has been placed before the house. I know all hon. members will regard this as an opportunity to express their own sympathy with those who are suffering so severely in Britain, in Holland and in Belgium at this time. As many hon. members will have heard in the news broadcast within the last hour, the floods are increasing on an even greater scale and those who have suffered so greatly already would appear to be facing even worse trials than those they faced before.
While the terms of suffering cannot be measured in the loss of life as given in numbers alone, nevertheless it must have impressed all hon. members who heard the latest reports that since this morning the figures have risen to 397 known dead in Britain, 464 in Holland and 27 in Belgium, with the accompanying statement that this probably represents only a part of what the loss will actually be.
The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has pointed out that at a time when we felt something of the damage and sorrow that can come from floods here in our own country we were greatly heartened by the evidence of sympathy that came to us from across the ocean. I happened to be in Winnipeg on the day when a large air transport arrived from Great Britain carrying goods and supplies which had been sent from there to assist the sufferers in that area. I know something of what the effect was on the minds of those who were suffering at that time and who realized that with the privations under which the people of Great Britain had been living they had gone to the extent they had in sending these things for their assistance.
We also received succour and assistance from the people of Holland and Belgium. I know that this cannot be reduced to the terms of a return for what was done, but nevertheless we know, from what they did, what our evidence of sympathy at this time may mean. I heard this latest report just before I came into the chamber and I did not have an opportunity to speak to the Prime Minister, but I would place before him the suggestion that with the extent of the disaster being as it is it might perhaps be desirable to consider the possibility of taking initial steps to set up a committee of some kind so that in every community something

Floods
may be under way, and when the type of assistance that is to be given can be determined by the governments of Great Britain, the Netherlands and Belgium it will then be possible to proceed with the utmost speed.
I think that that might be worth while, considering the encouragement that would come from the knowledge that positive action had been taken along that line. It might well be that a non-partisan committee under the chairmanship of Mr. Speaker could proceed to lay down general plans and indicate to mayors and reeves throughout Canada that preliminary arrangements might be undertaken to meet whatever situation does arise as a result of the decisions of these governments.
This storm and the floods accompanying it are stated to be the worst in 500 years and I do feel that our attitude in regard to it might well be measured by the extent of the tragedy which has visited the countries which have been named by the Prime Minister in this motion.


Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, this group would like to join with the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) in supporting the motion which has just been made. We appreciate the prompt action taken by the Prime Minister because we realize the many disturbing and perplexing problems that must come to his desk in these strenuous days. Yet he finds time to take this most humane and friendly action.
This motion this afternoon is just another indication of how small the western world is becoming. We think of extending aid to countries on the other side of the Atlantic as we would of extending aid to a neighbouring province or a nearby country. I am glad indeed that the Prime Minister mentioned material aid because after all that is what will be of the greatest assistance to the people concerned as soon as help of that kind can be properly measured and extended.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, we have no hesitation in giving our unanimous support to the motion which has been moved by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). We think it is only right that we in Canada, who have been the recipients of assistance from the various countries that are now stricken, should do everything we can to help these people in return. Even if they had not helped us I am sure the Prime Minister would have brought forward a motion of this kind. In addition to sending our expressions of sympathy and all the moral support we can at this time, we feel that out of the blessings we have received
[Mr. Drew.)
from Providence we should be prepared to assist these people in a material way. We will back the Prime Minister and the government in whatever they want to do.


Mr. L. A. Mulch (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, representing as I do the area in the Red River valley which suffered perhaps the major loss in the recent flood, I should like to say that having returned from there only yesterday I have had communications from that area expressing the hope and desire of those who benefited so materially from the kindliness of those who are now afflicted that they be associated completely with any attempts that might be made to make a return for the sympathy and the material assistance given, and to show their appreciation at such a time.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Unanimously.
Motion agreed to unanimously.



THE BUDGET


Hon. Douglas Abboil (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, subject to the usual reservations as to unforeseen contingencies, I want to announce that I intend to bring down the budget on Thursday, February 19, at the usual hour of eight o'clock.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. W. G. Weir (Poriage-Neepawa):: In
compliance with the motion of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) on Friday, January 23, I move:
That the following members form the special committee on the criminal law: Messrs. Brown (Essex West), Browne (St. John's West), Cameron, Cannon, Carroll, Churchill, Diefenbaker, Garson, Henderson, Laing, Maclnnis, MacNaught, Mac-naughton, Noseworthy, Pinard, Robichaud, and Shaw.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.	.


Mr. Hellyer:: What revenue has the government received from sales and excise taxes on television receiving sets, each month for the last five years?


Mr. McCann:: No segregation of sales tax revenue is made according to commodities.
The Excise Tax Act applies the excise tax to "phonographs, record playing devices,

radio broadcast or telecast receiving sets and tubes therefor and apparatus for receiving radio broadcast and music". The tax received from manufacturers under this heading is in total and the amount paid on any one item is not known.


&quot;NATION'S BUSINESS&quot; BROADCAST
Mr. Harrison:: 1.	Was the broadcast delivered by the Hon.
George Drew, M.P., Leader of the Opposition, on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation program of political broadcasts "Nation's Business" on Tuesday, January 13,	1953, a live broadcast or a
recording?
2.	If the broadcast was a recording, was it recorded before the session of the house beginning at 2.30 p.m. on Monday, January 12, when the Prime Minister answered a question and explained that there had been no horses on the army payroll?


Mr. McCann:: 1.	Live broadcast.
2.	See answer to No. 1.


POSTMASTERS
Mr. Noseworihy:: 1.	Were any postmasters or any assistants to postmasters, in post offices with revenue over $3,000 per annum paid for their extra overtime, during the Christmas rush?
2.	If not, is it the intention of the Post Office Department to pay them for their extra overtime worked during the Christmas rush?


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: 1.	The regulations governing overtime in the postal service authorized by the governor in council on the recommendation of the civil service commission do not grant payment for overtime to senior supervisory personnel which include postmasters.
Compensation for overtime during the Christmas period falls in two classes-
(a)	staff offices;
(b)	semi-staff offices.
In staff offices compensation is given for overtime worked during the Christmas period to employees up to and including the class postal supervisor grade 2 when engaged in manipulative duties.
In semi-staff offices compensation is given to assistants to postmasters for overtime performed during the Christmas season by granting equivalent time off or by payment in cash.
2.	See answer to No. 1.


DORVAL AIRPORT
Mr. Macnaughlon:: 1.	Has the Department of Transport received any complaints with respect to inadequate and outmoded facilities provided at the domestic and transatlantic terminal buildings at Dorval airport, Montreal, for (a) air travel passengers; (b) the public generally?
Questions
2.	Has the Department of Transport received any complaints to this effect from the different airline companies, both domestic and foreign?
3.	Has any survey of the situation been made?
4.	Are any plans for improvements under active consideration? If so, when will a start be made to improve this situation?


MALTON AIRPORT
Mr. Macnaughlon:: 1.	Has any recent survey been made of the terminal facilities at Malton airport, near Toronto?
2.	If so, what improvements are projected and when will they be started?


GANDER AIRPORT
Mr. Macnaughlon:: 1.	Has any recent survey been made of the passenger terminal facilities at Gander airport, Newfoundland?
2.	If so, what improvements are projected and when will they be started?


Mr. Chevrier:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal orally with these three questions. I have for some time been fully aware that terminal building facilities at the major airports operated by my department are inadequate to meet the rapidly growing needs of civil aviation. Many representations to this effect have been received both from the public generally and from commercial air lines. Concentration on the defence program has, however, meant that expansion of terminal facilities, along with many other desirable projects, has had to be deferred. I am glad to be able to report that I have instructed my officials to proceed as rapidly as possible with the preparation of the necessary architectural plans for expansion of airport terminal facilities so that construction may begin just as soon as funds can be made available.
We have already completed small new terminals at the lakehead and at Moncton during the past year. Blueprints for a new building at Saskatoon, made necessary by national defence use of buildings previously employed for civil purposes, are almost completed, and this building will be constructed during 1953. At Gander we are improving the interior of the existing terminal through the provision of Canadian films and the installation of Canadian literature, exhibits, maps and murals. In addition, the preparation of blueprints for expansion of the Gander terminal facilities is now under way, and it is expected that these plans will be ready in time to allow construction to begin later this year.
My officials are also studying how best the present facilities can be expanded at Malton, and I have asked that plans be ready by the end of 1953 or early in 1954, if possible, so that if funds can be made available a contract for the expansion can be let promptly. At Dorval we are fully aware of

Questions
the need for a major change to combine both iomestic and international terminal facilities in a much enlarged terminal building. I have directed my officials to reach an early decision as to whether a completely new terminal should be constructed in a new location or whether the existing domestic terminal can be used as the core of a new terminal. As soon as this decision has been reached, instructions will be issued for the preparation of plans and specifications.
In addition, my officials are well advanced with the preparation of specifications for a new terminal building of a size and type which would be suitable for use either in Ottawa or in Winnipeg. New buildings are required and will be provided in both places as funds become available. It is my hope to see construction initiated over the next two or three years for the necessary new terminal facilities at all our major airports to keep abreast of the growth of civil aviation.


CANADA MEDAL
Mr. Fraser:: 1.	Have any awards of the Canada Medal been made, since May, 1951?
2.	If so, when were the awards made and to whom?


Mr. Bradley:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
AUDITOR GENERAl/S REPORT


ALTERATIONS
Mr. Knowles:: 1.	How many paragraphs in the 1952 report of the Auditor General were altered after August 25, 1952, following discussions with officers of the departments concerned?
2.	What are the numbers of any paragraphs that were so altered?
3.	Did any of these alterations involve deletions from paragraphs still in the final draft of the report? If so, what are the numbers of such paragraphs?
4.	Were any paragraphs which were in the draft of the above report which was put in circulation on August 25, 1952, deleted from the report following discussions with officers of the departments concerned?
5.	If so, how many paragraphs were deleted and to what departments did they refer?


Mr. Lesage:: 1.	4.
2.	Paragraphs 49, 53, 61 and 87.
3.	No.
4.	No.
5.	Answered by No. 4.


CITIZENSHIP CONFERENCE
Mrs. Fairclough:: 1. Is a citizenship conference being planned by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration?
I Mr. Chevrier.]
2.	If so, where is it being held?
3.	When will it convene?
4.	Who has been invited?


Mr. Harris:: 1, 2, 3 and 4. It is proposed to hold f. seminar on citizenship next spring or summer for the discussion of the respective roles of governmental and voluntary organizations, but arrangements have not yet been completed and invitations have not been sent out.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Noseworlhy:: 1.	What lawyers or notaries public, residing in the counties of Carleton and Victoria, New Brunswick, have acted as agents on behalf of any department or board of the dominion government, during the fiscal years 1948-49, 1949-50, 1950-51, 195152, and from April 1 to December 31, 1952?
2.	What amounts have been paid to each and in connection with what services?


IRRIGATION-SOUTH SASKATCHEWAN RIVER   ROYAL COMMISSION
Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	What is the total expenditure to date in connection with the royal commission on the South Saskatchewan river project for (a) commissioners; (b) counsel; (c) staff?
2.	Are there any accounts above referred to that are unpaid? If so, how much?
3.	How many hours were spent by each of the commissioners in drafting the report?


Mr. SI. Laurent:: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the third paragraph of this question, "How many hours were spent by each of the commissioners in drafting the report", that information is not available. So far as the other two paragraphs are concerned, I would ask that they be made an order for return.


Mr. Speaker:: Order for return.


BERTHIERVILLE, QUE.-WHARF
Mr. Balcer:: 1.	Has the government sold the old Berthierville wharf in the county of Berthier-Maskinonge?
2.	If so, to whom was it sold, on what date and for what amount?
3.	Has the government contributed to the raising of the cement walls and to the filling up of the approaches to the said wharf?
4.	If so, to whom were such contracts awarded and for what amounts?



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Angus MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which I had intended to ask the Secretary of State for

External Affairs but as he is not here I should like to direct it to the Prime Minister. Was the Canadian government informed or consulted as to changes in United States foreign policy with respect to Formosa, as stated by President Eisenhower in his speech at noon today? Will the minister make a statement on what stand the government took, or what stand it now takes on this important question, which it is considered in many quarters might have serious consequences for the peace of the world?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: In the absence of the Secretary
of State for External Affairs, and anticipating that such a question might be asked from some quarter of the house, I got a note from the officials of the department.
It will be appreciated that the government have not had an opportunity to study the text of President Eisenhower's announcement regarding the modification of the order to the seventh fleet, as this announcement was made only about an hour ago. I may say, however, that the presidential order to the seventh fleet, issued on June 27, 1950, was made on the sole responsibility of the United States government. The modification of the order announced today by President Eisenhower is also made on the sole responsibility of the United States government. Late Friday last, the Canadian embassy was informed about the forthcoming statement to be made by President Eisenhower, but it was not suggested that we should express our views about it. The Canadian ambassador, Mr. Wrong, arrived in Ottawa this morning. He is here on a visit which had been arranged before this incident occurred. Advantage will be taken of his presence to discuss this matter and its background more fully.


George Alexander Drew: I would ask that we might have a statement at an early date with respect to another and, in my opinion, a much more important point raised in the speech by President Eisenhower today. That is his statement that the United States government is no longer going to regard itself as bound by any secret treaties with nations which have not observed their part of such undertakings. It is not necessary to point out what those treaties are. We all know what they are. It would seem to me that the consequences of that action are so far-reaching that we should have a statement in the house at the earliest possible date as to what this means in terms of Canadian policy with relation to the same subject.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I feel quite satisfied that there are no secret undertakings with Canada
Inquiries oj the Ministry that will be affected by the policy announced by President Eisenhower. The whole matter will be given careful consideration because, though they may be matters of entirely domestic concern to the people of the United States, all of us are so close together that what is of domestic concern to any one of us is apt to have the kind of repercussions upon the fate of others that makes it very desirable for us to give most definitive consideration to those matters.


George Alexander Drew: Without extending the discussion I wish to indicate the point I had in mind. The statement by President Eisenhower does not relate to secret undertakings with other nations. It obviously referred to those secret agreements out of which grow certain divisions of authority which today have a very profound effect on the whole world situation. It is in relation to these matters, and particularly as they relate to Europe, on which I would hope we would have a definite statement as soon as possible. [Later:]


REQUEST FOR EARLY DEBATE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: May I direct to the Prime Minister a supplementary question with respect to United States foreign policy. Will the government give consideration to arranging for an early debate in the house on foreign affairs?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I understand that my colleague, the leader of the house, intends to move some time tomorrow to go into supply. That will be an opportunity for there being at least some preliminary discussion of matters of that kind. I know that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) is very anxious that the house do go into committee of supply so that his estimates may be called and so that he may make a statement on external affairs before he is required to return to New York for the continuation of the sessions of the United Nations.


COINAGE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. S. Follwell (Hastings South):: I
would like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) of which I have already given him notice. In view of the many inquiries by coin collectors, will the minister advise the house whether the Royal Canadian Mint intends to issue special coins to commemorate the coronation of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.

Inquiries of the Ministry
If so, what will be the denominations of the special coins so issued?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Mr. Speaker, it is not the intention of Canada to issue special coins to commemorate the coronation. As the house is aware, new coins bearing the effigy of Her Majesty have just appeared within the last two or three weeks. There are no plans for a further special commemorative issue.


FISHERIES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Nanaimo):: May I
direct a question to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. MacNaught) to whom I have sent notice.
Will the minister extend the herring season in the lower east coast area of Vancouver island beyond the closure date of February 5, so that new orders from Formosa for salted herring may be filled? I understand that the orders cannot be filled without extension of the season?


Mr. J. Waison MacNaught (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Fisheries):: wish to thank the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) for having given me notice of his intention to ask this question. Since discussing the matter with him on Saturday morning many telegrams have arrived in the department regarding extension of the herring season.
The scientists attached to the Pacific biological staff of the fisheries research board of Canada have been asked to carry out an investigation to ascertain whether the conservation of herring will in any way be affected by extension of the closing date beyond February 5. When their report is received a decision will be made and announced.


IMMIGRATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: I should like to ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Harris) a question based on a C.B.C. news dispatch and a dispatch in the press to which I referred the minister in telephone conversation this morning. I should like to ask if the minister is able to say whether any conversations have taken place between the West German government and Canadian representatives regarding the
[Mr. Follwell.l
admission to Canada of refugees from East Germany. If so, what is the position taken by the Canadian government?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, we are accepting immigrants from Germany in accordance with the policy which has been explained to the house on many occasions. I have no doubt that for that purpose conversations are going on at all times or at various times between the government of West Germany and our offices abroad. However, I noticed the comment in the press to which he referred me and all I can say about it is that we have had no communication of that kind in Ottawa, although there may have been a particular approach by the government of West Germany about which we will hear in due course. When we receive word about it, we will study it, having in mind the policy laid down, and having in mind the needs of the Canadian people for immigration.


RADIO BROADCASTING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Rodney Adamson (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) of which I have not been able to give him notice.
Was the character called "Mr. M.P." on last night's broadcast on the city of Ottawa in which the mayor of the city of Ottawa took part actually a member of this house? If so, was he advised of the ridicule he was to be subjected to by the other speakers on the panel?


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Speaker, I have no knowledge of the incident but I will take the hon. gentleman's question as notice.


INTERNATIONAL WHEAT AGREEMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Chevrier) in connection with the meeting in Washington of the international wheat agreement council and to ask what attitude the Canadian representative is taking regarding the increase of minimum and maximum prices; and whether Canada is joining with the United States in asking for an increase in both minimum and maximum prices?


Lionel Chevrier: This is a question which is of some importance and which would, I think, normally require some notice. I would say off-hand that I should think it rather improbable that I or anyone should give an opinion on what is taking place in Washington now during the conference. It seems to me that until the conference is completed I should not, as Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce, make a statement on the position which a representative of the government is taking there.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I presume,
on a question of privilege, that I should point out that the representative of Canada, Mr. Sharp, at the opening session of the international wheat council said that he was not there to try to force unreasonable terms-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


John George Diefenbaker: He went on to discuss
the attitude that Canada is to take. I suggest that parliament should know, and that is the reason I asked the question, what the general attitude is going to be in reference to this matter before it becomes a decided fact.


Lionel Chevrier: I think I should at least
have the opportunity of seeing what is stated in the press release to which my hon. friend has just referred. When I have seen it perhaps I can give the house a statement.



IRRIGATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). Can the minister inform the house whether his colleagues in the cabinet agree with his published statement in western Canada that the royal commission report on the South Saskatchewan dam was the silliest blank, blank thing?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, if I made that
statement I was not making it under circumstances where I thought it would be reported in the press. All I have to say with regard to the question itself is that the government has not yet discussed the report and I can say nothing about it.



INTERIM PAYMENT ON 1952 CROP

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon):: I would
like to direct a question to the parliamentary
Inquiries of the Ministry assistant to the Minister of Trade anc Commerce (Mr. Mcllraith). Can he indicate when prairie farmers may expect interin payments on the 1952 crop?
Mr. G. J. Mcllraith (Parliamentary Assis' tant to the Minister of Trade and Commerce)
I would like to take the question as notice Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: Just before the nex'
election.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a questior
of privilege. I would ask that certair questions of mine, which were purportedlj answered in Hansard of January 29, 1953 at pages 1432 and 1433, be looked at again My questions were eight in number, and mi point of privilege relates in particular to th< last five questions, Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 They ask for very specific information witl reference to background material put out b: the Department of National Defence. Th< one answer to these five questions, to saj the least, is evasive. My point of privilege is that those questions should be answered ii detail.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to direct a question to the Minister o: Agriculture. Can the minister say whethei the floor price for eggs will be increased anc enforced, or other action taken, since th< farm women on the prairies are now receiv ing as little as-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


James Garfield Gardiner: I just returned from the wes yesterday, and there has been no counci meeting since my return. I am not in < position to report on the matter.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. J. Mcllraith (Parliamentary Assist ant to the Minister of Trade and Commerce)
On Friday last, the hon. member for Melfor (Mr. Wright) asked a question which appear on page 1476 of Hansard, and reads as follows
I should like to ask a question of the parlia mentary assistant to the Minister of Trade ani
[Stage Direction]
National Defence Act
Commerce. Has any protest been made by the government to the United States authorities with regard to the bad effect on Canadian wheat sales caused by recent actions of certain United States importers who are reported as having used Canadian cracked wheat in flour for human consumption in that country?
I should like to point out, of course, that the reference to cracked wheat in these newspaper articles is a wrong reference. The wheat referred to would be wheat that had ieen down-graded by reason of frost or other damage.
In connection with the sale of low-grade Canadian wheat to the United States, the Jnited States government has certain obligations which are set forth in the general agreement on tariffs and trade. The Canadian government has drawn the attention of the United States government to these obligations, and it has also made clear to the [Jnited States government the concern which is felt about this matter.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: the second reading of Bill 'Jo. 103, to amend the National Defence Act.
He said:	The government has, as might
well have been expected, Mr. Speaker, given careful consideration to the various points raised in the debate on the resolution preceding the introduction of this bill. The Leader if the Opposition (Mr. Drew), and several >ther hon. members, argued that if an emergency existed that justified the present emergency powers legislation, it was not necessary to have any amendment to the National Defence Act since the power already existed to appoint one or more associate ministers of national defence during an emergency and for six months thereafter.
It seems to me that hon. members who advanced' that argument did not take into account the distinction between the international emergency that parliament declared did exist when it enacted the emergency powers legislation and the emergency defined n the National Defence Act and contemplated in the War Measures Act. The Emergency Powers Act states categorically that an international emergency exists which threatens the security of Canada, and that certain emergency powers might, therefore, be required by the government. On the other hand, the National Defence Act, in section 20, defines emergency as the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) pointed out during the course of his argument, as war, invasion, riot or insurrection, real or

apprehended. One finds the same definition in the War Measures Act, which empowers the governor in council to exercise the powers conferred upon him only when the governor in council has taken the responsibility of declaring, by proclamation, that by reason of the existence of a real or apprehended war, invasion or insurrection, such measures are required.
We do feel that the present conditions are not normal conditions. We do agree with the hon. members that, in fact, war is being waged in Korea. We do agree that if war were not being waged in Korea, a war which might have serious consequences for the free world at large, young Canadians would not be voluntarily offering up their services and risking their lives for something of the character of an ordinary police action. It was because there was a realization by the Canadian people that it was desirable, in the interests of freedom in the world, that a stand be taken in Korea that would make it apparent that aggression was not going to be allowed to pay. This has resulted in very serious, active, and unfortunately destructive warfare, which has cost many lives and the destruction of a great deal of property. I believe it is nevertheless fortunate for the world that the United Nations did have the resolute determination that they were going to demonstrate that aggression did not pay. If that had not been done, no one can be sure what the consequences might have been.
Fortunately, the consequences have not been the kind of war that the hon. gentleman's generation and mine have twice known in our lifetime. The government felt that the emergency contemplated by the War Measures Act, and the emergency contemplated by the National Defence Act, were the kind of emergencies that we had been through from 1914 to 1918 and from 1939 to 1945 and not this twilight period which cannot be said to be peace but is fortunately not world war. I, therefore, felt that if that twilight situation required something to be done now, that would have to be done too under the other kind of emergency, it would be proper to come to parliament and tell parliament what our intentions were and to get parliament to express its views on the propriety of the action being proposed.
Hon. gentlemen will also have noticed that when the Emergency Powers Act was framed it was circumscribed in many ways. We do not complain about that, and I think it was wisely circumscribed. It was provided that nothing in that Emergency Powers Act would apply in this twilight period that would affect the liberty of persons and that

there should be no expenditure of money that was not appropriated by parliament itself. Human nature is such that to provide for an associate minister of national defence there has to be some money provided as well to compensate for the services that the associate minister will be expected to render. It was felt, therefore, that there had to be parliamentary action before any decision of that kind could be implemented, and that as there had to be parliamentary action it would be proper to have that parliamentary action cover both the policy decision and the appropriation necessary to implement the policy.
I would hope, as I am sure the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) would hope, that there would be as few occasions as possible when the executive would have to dispense with the decision of parliament in any matter of importance, and that hon. gentlemen will not think it was wrong to come to parliament for this action if in fact the decision to be made and to be implemented is the right kind of decision.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the Prime Minister allow a question? Since he has mentioned the matter, what is the difference between an emergency under the National Defence Act and an emergency under the transitional powers act as interpreted in the Nolan case? What is the distinction? I cannot quite follow it and I just wonder whether the Prime Minister would elucidate it.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: National Defence Act
But the theoretical or ideal development of the forces of a country is always circumscribed by the financial and manpower resources of that country. We or the government have to decide what portion of the annual production of the country it is desirable to set aside for defence purposes in any given year. That portion has to be the best kind of balance we can make between the defence requirements and the other requirements of the nation as a whole, and it necessarily varies according to the degree of danger for which the defence forces have to be ready. When a determination has been made as to what proportion of the gross national product of the nation it is proper for the nation to expend as an insurance policy for its safety and continued existence, that is the cloth that can be cut.
It was felt that it would be preferable to have one minister receiving the representations of the various services, co-ordinating them and determining between them what allocation could be made to each service. It would seem to us to be inevitable that if there were three ministers, one for each of these three services, each would naturally feel more keenly the importance of his service than that of the other services, and that there would be a competitive spirit. As honest, unprejudiced and unbiased as it would be possible for the head of one service to be and still be fair to his service, it seemed to us that he would naturally want as large a slice as he could get of the total amount appropriated for defence. It was felt that that competitive spirit had been the cause of duplication that was unnecessary and that it made for additional expense during the last war.
I remember many anxious moments during the discussions of the last war about the proper set-up of the hospital facilities for the services, and finding it difficult for me, a civilian, to appreciate that it was so necessary that there be no common hospital services for the treatment of the men of the three services. After all, they were Canadian men or Canadian women, serving the Canadian cause, and the health of each one was not so very different in character from the health of the other. But those who had military experience felt that it was necessary to retain the identity of these services, and that even in the hospital and medical branches the line of division had to be kept quite clear, distinct and apart.
Well, after the war, rightly or wrongly we decided that there would be a serious attempt to cut out some of the duplication, and not do it under the stress of fighting action going on at the same time, and we

placed the department under one minister and one civilian departmental set-up. And we have not yet had reason to backstep, or reason to admit that that was not a good policy.
We, therefore, when approaching this matter of providing additional responsibility and additional service for the Department of National Defence, thought that the best way was to retain the one over-all civilian set-up, with an associate minister rather than a separate minister. Under the bill proposed, this co-ordination of the services will be preserved. Both the minister and the associate minister of national defence will be charged with the apportionment of the available public money, men and military supplies among the three services.
As I said a minute ago, we do realize, and we did realize after the war, that under wartime conditions, which we did not want to interfere with during wartime, when there were almost three separate departments of national defence, under three ministers, there had been quite a good deal of duplication of the civilian services; and we expected that considerable saving of the taxpayers' money could be made by having this unified civilian structure of the armed services, thus assisting in the closer co-ordination of all three.
I am inclined to think that, if we set up an entirely separate department of national defence for air, with a separate minister and separate deputy minister, inevitably there would be developed once again all this amount of duplication and overlapping which it was our policy to eliminate to the extent to which it could be eliminated.
Now, perhaps what the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) meant was that we should have an associate minister of national defence who would have special responsibility for the Royal Canadian Air Force and its supporting services. Well, I would admit this, that the argument against that course is not as strong as the argument against an entirely separate department. But I do not think such an arrangement would go any greater distance towards meeting the objection raised by the hon. member that there was not a clear and precise division of functions between the minister and the associate minister.
If there is to be co-ordination-and everyone agrees that there should be-the minister would have to continue to have responsibility for that co-ordination, and therefore for overall policy in respect of the three services. The associate minister would, therefore, be limited in fact to the oversight and supervision of administration of the air force and

perhaps an indefinite fraction of the existing civilian side of the department which supports the three services.
It seems to me that this would not be a very tidy arrangement, and that it would not be very long before there would have to be an associate deputy minister for air, and that would immediately start a duplication of the civilian side, again, which we have endeavoured to eliminate.
I think that the field of activity of the associate minister would, under such an arrangement, be more restricted than what is contemplated by our proposal, under which proposal the associate minister will, in effect, have ordinary supervision over all the administrative activities which come under the deputy minister, for supply, for procurement, for accounting and auditing, and what might be described in general terms as the housekeeping activities of national defence.
That was what I was trying to indicate when I said on January 22, as reported at page 1240 of Hansard:
The associate minister, in addition to carrying on the work of the minister when the minister is away, will keep more closely in touch with matters of administration relating to the services. If I may repeat it is expected that the associate minister would act for and exercise the powers of the minister when the minister is away and deal with matters of administration relating to the three services, including requisitions for construction, equipment and supplies, submissions on similar matters to the governor in council and to the treasury board, control of the establishment, appointment and supervision of the civil employees and service personnel, approval of expenditures, orders, instructions and plans within the lines of agreed policy.
I doubt if it is possible to define the functions any more precisely and at the same time accomplish what the government really has in mind. We are not trying to divide up the department, or create something like two departments, or trying to create a department and a sub-department. What we are trying to do is to make it possible, as I said last Thursday, for responsibility to be shared between ministers. I believe, as I said then, that what is proposed will be satisfactory only if the minister and the associate minister work closely together in all matters, so that each will be really familiar, not with all the details, but with the general lines of the operation of the whole department, and of all three services.
This is really important, so that when, as so frequently happens, one minister has to be absent from Ottawa, the other will be sufficiently familiar with the whole department to act effectively in the whole field of its operations.
National Defence Act
I do not believe that an arrangement like this can work unless there is an exceptional degree of harmony between the minister and the associate minister, and an even greater degree of frankness and understanding than is necessary between two ministers of the government having quite separate departments. That was one reason why there was some hesitation before proposing sharing of the responsibility for this portfolio. As hon. members know, it is intended, if this legislation is approved, that the Solicitor General (Mr. Campney) shall become associate .minister.
For some time before he became a member of the government, the Solicitor General had been parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Defence. Their relationship had proved to be very satisfactory to themselves, to us and to the personnel of the department. As a result of that experience, both the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) and the Solicitor General were convinced that they could make an arrangement like this one work. I may say to the house that when I first suggested it to the minister he welcomed its acceptance, and indicated to me that for some time he himself had been thinking of suggesting precisely the same arrangement.
What we are proposing is not a new departure. If hon. members will look up the legislation adopted in 1940, which was 4 George VI, chapter 21, they will see that in addition to providing for a minister of national defence for air and a minister of national defence for naval services the legislation provided also that the minister of national defence should have co-ordinating functions in respect of all three services and that there should be an associate minister of national defence who should act for the minister whenever he was absent from Ottawa and who at all times should be entitled to exercise the powers of the minister over the whole range of his responsibility unless the governor in council otherwise directed. The governor in council never otherwise directed.
The only hon. gentleman who ever occupied the post of associate minister of national defence is the present dean of the house. I am sure it is his view that the success of this kind of arrangement-and it was a success-did depend upon a very high degree of mutual confidence, mutual respect and harmony such as existed throughout all those war years between the associate minister and the minister of national defence with whom he was associated.

National Defence Act
What is more, I do believe that Canadians generally would agree that Canada was exceptionally well served by that partnership between the late regretted hon. gentleman who was minister of national defence and the associate minister, who fortunately is still with us in this House of Commons. Of course the parallel is not absolutely complete, as hon. gentlemen opposite will no doubt point out. The hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) was also minister of national defence for air and that was his principal responsibility. But he did serve actively as associate minister. He was able to serve successfully in that capacity because he was at all times familiar, and kept himself at all times familiar, with the general trend of departmental activity in connection with the three services.
As hon. gentlemen will remember, there was also, in the person of the present premier of Nova Scotia, a minister of national defence for naval services. The minister of national defence for naval services under the act of 1940 could also exercise all the powers of the minister of national defence in his absence and in the absence of the associate minister of national defence. It did quite often happen that he had to exercise those powers.
During all that period I do not recall a single occasion on which anyone in this house suggested that there was any difficulty about establishing where ministerial responsibility lay for the administration of national defence. When any question arose in this house it seemed to me, and I think by the way it was acquiesced in by ail members of the house, that it was appropriate that the one of the three who did get up to answer the question should be dealing with the problem.
It is intended, if this legislation is approved, to vest in the associate minister precisely the same powers the associate minister enjoyed during the war years. The minister of course will have the immediate responsibility for defence policy. As all hon. members know, that is a responsibility which is shared constitutionally by all his colleagues and in a special degree, under our system, by the prime minister. Apart from the general constitutional responsibility, the responsibility for specific acts which require ministerial approval will of course rest with whichever minister gives that approval. In each case that will be a matter of record and the degree of responsibility would be precisely the same if there was no associate minister but merely an acting minister when the minister was absent.

I might say that the course which has been recommended to the house was proposed only after long and careful consideration of all the alternatives. We came to the conclusion that it was a course which it was hoped would achieve a realistic sharing of the heavy responsibilities for our defence services and the degree of ministerial control required for the very large operations which are involved.
I think hon. members will agree that it is appropriate that a fair trial should be made of any modification and will also share our hope that if there is a fair trial made of it it will prove to work as satisfactorily this time as we know it did in fact work through the co-operation, collaboration and mutual respect which the late minister of national defence and his associate minister had for each other during those other years of also very heavy responsibility.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, the amendment now before us is of much greater importance than might appear at first glance. What is proposed by this bill is that parliament enact a measure which will add another section to the National Defence Act. This would leave in its present form section 6 which permits the appointment of three additional ministers of national defence and would provide for the appointment of an associate minister of national defence without including in that section any definition of his authority.
The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), in arguing against the suggestion that there be an associate minister of national defence for air, has contended that this might create confusion and division of authority. Yet, having said that, he has also made the statement that he does not recall a single occasion when any difficulty arose between the ministers who previously occupied the different positions under the measure passed in 1940. If under the stress of a world war it was possible for the ministers to carry out their responsibilities in respect of the different services without any difficulty in determining the boundaries of their authority, then it would seem that the Prime Minister has placed before us a most effective argument as to why there should now be an associate minister of national defence for air. He has assured us that in the experience of this government that could be done without creating any difficulty as to the measure of authority exercised by any single minister.
However, there is one aspect of the opinions placed before us by the Prime Minister which it seems overlooks the situation with which we are actually dealing.

The Prime Minister has said that the appointment of this minister will assist in the administration of the Department of National Defence. What has not been pointed out is that this subject has become one of immense importance to the members of the house because of the demonstrated fact that there has been a breakdown in the administration of the Department of National Defence. To appoint another minister with similar powers, no better defined than those already being exercised by the minister who occupies that office, will not solve the difficulties that have already been demonstrated to the members of the house.
The Prime Minister has said that there is a distinction between the emergency we now face and the emergency contemplated by section 6 of the National Defence Act which would permit the appointment by the government of three additional ministers of national defence. He points out that the National Defence Act defines the emergency which would be the basis for action under that act as war, invasion or insurrection, real or apprehended. The Prime Minister did go on to say that there is a real war in Korea. Consequently there is no question about the fact that in accordance with the words of the Prime Minister today the type of emergency contemplated by this act is in existence. If that is so, then the government could act under the present legislation if it saw fit to do so.
I agree that it would be desirable that such action should not be taken because the kind of emergency undoubtedly does not exist which should deny to us in this house a full opportunity to debate the authority that any minister will have. I submit that the only justification for emergency legislation of any kind is that the emergency is of a nature which requires a more expeditious procedure than would ordinarily be afforded by bringing legislative measures before the house and having them fully debated. I do not think that anyone will contend that there is not ample opportunity to discuss this legislation at this time. The very fact that the bill is brought before us demonstrates that there is time to discuss it. That being the case, I suggest that we should not only have the proposal for an additional minister but we should have the details as to what the authority and responsibility of that minister will be, to be incorporated in the measure before us, thus leaving no doubt as to what his responsibilities are going to be if he is appointed.
The fact that this subject is now before us in this way and that the Prime Minister
National Defence Act
has supported his presentation of the measure by arguments that it has worked well in the past should not divert from the mind of any hon. member in the house the fact that there is a situation with which we should be dealing and that this is the time to deal with that situation. The Prime Minister has said that we should have coordination of all activities related to national defence under a single minister. We should. Whatever is placed before us should make it possible for us to be able to assure ourselves that there is going to be effective co-ordination. That co-ordination has not existed, not only as between the department and the government but within the department itself. No single incident could better demonstrate the need for some effective change at this time in the whole operation of the Department of National Defence than the information which we have been given by the minister himself that not a single one of the 1,200 recommendations made by the auditors dealing with the methods of supervising the affairs of the department had reached 'the minister. If that is co-ordination, then it is certainly not the kind of co-ordination we want to perpetuate by a measure adopted by this house.
Granted that the minister might not have the time to read every recommendation that is made in detail or to communicate the effect of these recommendations to the department, but, Mr. Speaker, we are confronted with the admission that not one of these extremely important recommendations was read by the minister or communicated by him to the government. If that is the situation which we are going to perpetuate by the measure now before us, then I suggest that members of the house are not accepting their responsibility to the people of Canada and the members of the armed forces at this time. The words that are before us are clear enough. It has been demonstrated beyond question that there has been a breakdown of administration. It is not any single incident of that breakdown with which we are dealing. We are dealing with a breakdown of administration in the Department of National Defence for which the government as a whole is responsible.
Nothing less than new legislation which will deal with that breakdown is adequate to deal with the extremely serious situation before us. The situation will not be solved by appointing another minister to carry on the same unsatisfactory methods. That is exactly what we are being asked to support. The Prime Minister has said that he hopes we will deal with the merits of the proposal before us and not with procedure. The merits

National Defence Act
of the proposal before us rest on the adequacy of that proposal and not merely on the appointment of a minister. The merits of what is before us will be determined by the extent to which the measure before us does or does not deal with the breakdown which has been so abundantly demonstrated.
It is also clear from what has been placed before us that many of the difficulties which have been disclosed have been the result of a failure to define the responsibility of different officials within the department. We are asked to appoint a minister without defining his responsibilities. We are simply told that he will have the general responsibility of carrying on the system that already exists. What I should say is that he is to be appointed to carry on the complete lack of system that has been demonstrated. That is what we are really being asked to do. The Prime Minister has said that if there were an associate minister of national defence for air it would lead to a competitive interest on the part of that minister which would create confusion. If that argument is to be accepted, then how is it to be rationalized with the statement of the Prime Minister that he does not recall any case where that competitive spirit caused any difficulty when there was a minister of defence for air, a minister of defence for the navy, and in addition an associate minister with powers similar to those of the minister that the government now seeks to appoint?
The two statements do not go hand in hand. The fact is that, whatever details might be open to debate in regard to the general administration of the defence activities of this country during the war, it will be generally agreed that the Prime Minister was correct in saying that each of these ministers was able to deal with the particular responsibility he had, without any difficulty in defining what the measure of those responsibilities really was. That being so, we simply say:	Accept the statement of the
Prime Minister-that is the last statement- that there was no difficulty even under all the pressure of war in defining the limits of responsibility. Accept that statement and then appoint an associate minister of defence for air and define his responsibilities under the measure that this house will be called upon to adopt.
Now, we have been told that so complete was the breakdown of supervision that it will never be possible to tell what the losses were. I know that some attempt has been made to tell the members of this house in dollars and cents what the losses were. But we have the statement of one of the outstanding chartered accountants in Canada

to the effect that so confused and so ineffective was the system that it will never be possible to tell what was actually lost. What more can be placed before the members of this house to demonstrate the need of some new system than that statement by a man whose word should be accepted by all members of this house in that respect?
I am not arguing that any human being who is called upon to perform a service such as that which was performed in the consideration of certain limited aspects of the administration of the Department of National Defence should be regarded as infallible. Nevertheless, I would point out that whatever argument may be made about the interpretation to be placed on certain words, there has been a finding by an outstanding chartered accountant that the methods of accounting were so utterly ineffective as to make it impossible to say what the losses actually were. That man is a man who is called upon to report on the affairs of great corporations. Thousands of shareholders rely upon his statements. Those who are administrating estates relay on his statements. His statements are accepted as the basis of extremely important transactions in connection with the securities of those corporations. Is it to be, then, that his statements would be accepted with such finality in regard to methods of accounting in the ordinary case and be completely disregarded in a report of this kind, made to the government which appointed him and which stated that he was the best man in Canada for the job? I hope not.
I hope that, even with the willingness there has been to permit some doubt to creep in about the complete accuracy of his statements, at least there will be no attempt to create any impression that his statements in regard to methods of accounting and matters of that kind are challengeable at this time.
We have only seen through one window; and we were only allowed to look into one room. The room was so hopelessly untidy that we should know that the rest of the house must be just as untidy. Our job is to make sure there is a cleaning up of that house. Our job is to make sure that something will be done so that we can see in the other windows. If we cannot have more housecleaning by trained housecleaners then at least let us make sure some system is adopted which will assure housecleaning in the most important section of the whole operation; and the most important section of that operation is the operation of the air services.
We are not just dealing with air services because they are air services. We are not

just dealing with the suggestion that there should be an associate minister of defence for air because that challenges the imagination. We are dealing with it because it has been agreed on both sides of this house that Canada's primary contribution to the defence of our land, and to the common defence of freedom, is in the building up of our air forces. That is also before us in the extent to which allocation of funds is being directed to that department.
In the estimates tabled this week we find that for the year ending March 31, 1954, $332 million is to be spent for the navy, $533 million for the army, and $936 million for air defences. The latter figure is more than half of the total amount to be spent for all our defences. I would point out that this, of course, does not include the supplementary estimates which will add substantially to the figures.
The figures before us show that air defence calls for 52 [DOT] 5 per cent of our total expenditure for defence. The figure for army is 29-1 per cent, and for the navy it is 18 -4 per cent.
Therefore, air defences are of primary importance both from the point of view of their recognized importance as part of our combined defence activities and also from the point of view of the amount of money to be spent on them. That is the reason why we strongly urge the government to consider, even at this stage, its declared decision not to appoint a minister with definite authority to deal with air defence but rather simply to appoint a minister with general and undefined authority under the Minister of National Defence.
Now, Mr. Speaker, if there is one thing that we should bear in mind at the time we deal with this subject on this occasion it is that we are not just dealing with an ordinary legislative measure. We are dealing with the defence of our country. We are dealing with the enlistment, training, equipment, supply and direction of those young men and women in uniform who take the highest responsibility for the defence of Canada. Anything that has come to our attention which should be dealt with in regard to this subject should be dealt with on this occasion. We should not disregard these important matters when we are asked to amend the National Defence Act.
Instead of anything positive now before us we simply have a repetition of statements such as have been made on earlier occasions. As we deal with this subject at this time we must remember that instead of some positive declaration that radical changes are
National Defence Act
going to take place we simply have the assurance that we are going to continue the same methods we have used in the past. I cannot help but recall statements made in the House of Commons of Great Britain on May 25, 1938. They show how similar these problems are from time to time. They show how necessary it is for the mere civilian, elected as a member of parliament in this house, to deal with the problems of national defence and not leave them to the officers in charge, no matter how competent they may be. I would recall these statements by the present Prime Minister in Britain in the debate on the possibility of strengthening Britain's air defences at that time. He said then that in the House of Commons over there they had been reassured time and time again that everything was being done that should be done for the defence of Britain in the face of the German threat. He said that any suggestion of this kind is met with this sort of reply, and I quote:
That is being considered. We have given our attention to this. We are fully alive to that. The other matter is engaging our interested attention. We are exploring that.
I simply read those words to remind the members of this house that if there is one subject which, over and over again, has called for the attention of civilians in parliament it is the reorganization of the Department of National Defence and the abandonment of the old methods which have been carried over from the war before, whatever that war might be.
Every hon. member in this house will recall the statement that war is too serious a business to be left to staff officers. Now, that statement is not a reflection on staff officers. It is simply a statement of something that everyone knows who has had any dealing with this subject. The most efficient officers in war naturally regard the methods under which they were able to work satisfactorily as very useful and desirable methods. Naturally, those officers are inclined to perpetuate those methods and carry forward the same system. The more efficient they have been, the more certain they are that these methods are quite satisfactory.
There is not one occasion when reform in the system of administering our Department of National Defence, either in this country or in Great Britain, has come from staff officers. On every occasion it has come from consideration of the problem by parliament, with the advice of those who examined the matter from an objective and independent point of view. We even had the

National Defence Act
situation after the Napoleonic wars when Wellington himself was prime minister of Great Britain, yet he was not able to bring about those reforms which would give Britain an efficient army. Years later, when the Crimean war came, Britain still did not have an efficient army. It was not as a result of the recommendations of any staff officers following that war that reforms were brought about. In fact, they were not brought about, and many of the unsatisfactory conditions continued until a royal commission was appointed to inquire into the whole administration of the Ministry of Defence in Great Britain.
The Prime Minister, the members of the government, and most members in this house will recall the famous Esher commission which was the basis of a reorganization of the British army, and became the basis of our own reorganization of our defence forces in this country. The same thing happened after the great war. The reorganization which was obviously necessary was not brought about as a result of recommendations from members of the general staff. It was civilian organizations which pressed for reforms and were able to bring them into force. The reason for this has nothing to do with any intractability of mind on the part of the professional soldier. The professional soldier is answerable to the government. The professional soldier must take his direction from the government; he must carry out policies established by the government. It is not for him to tell the government what it will do; it is for the government to say what the staff officers will do and what the armed forces under those staff officers will do. That has been the policy of the supervision of our defence forces ever since we have had defence forces. The time has now come, therefore, when we should be considering this problem as civilian members of this parliament, and in the light of information which has come to us.
If there is one thing to which we should not agree, it is allowing habits of the past to stand in the way of reorganization which will be sound and effective in the light of the experience we have had in this house. In addition to the evidence of the breakdown in administration of the department, we also have before us the statement of the Auditor General that in spite of recommendations that something be done there are still eight different methods of accounting in that department. Those are the kind of things that should be tackled at this time. They are the kind of things we should be assured will be dealt with by any steps we now take. Instead of indicating to us how
[Mr: Drew.]
these problems are going to be solved, how this great expenditure of money is going to be managed in a way that will assure a higher measure of efficiency, we are asked to support a measure that simply says we will have another minister who will have the same duties as the minister already appointed.


Mr. Ferguson:: There will be two of them, so it will be twice as bad.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: How wise.


George Alexander Drew: What the government is asking us to do is to pass a bill which permits the appointment of an associate minister and then say, in effect, to the members of parliament: You trust us to use our judgment as to how this can best be done. I submit that this government should be prepared to accept the fact that the evidence before us demonstrates that it has not justified that responsibility. What is before us demonstrates the need for a measure containing the power not only to appoint a minister but to define in the most exact terms what his responsibility will be. We suggest that the responsibility should be defined, in any event, whether it is to be an associate minister of national defence for air or simply to provide the authority to appoint an associate minister.
There is, moreover, the fact that the Prime Minister has emphasized to us that it is not desirable that undefined powers should be granted. I do not profess to quote his exact words, but I am sure that this was the effect of what he said. I would hope that there would be as few occasions as possible when the executive would dispense with the authority of parliament in any matter of major importance. There are some of us who do regard the definition of the authority of this new minister as a matter of importance. That being so, I urge the Prime Minister to follow the very line that he has put before us, and to agree that it is not wise to dispense with the authority of parliament in a matter of such importance. We say there should be another minister. We say also that there should be another minister with definite powers. We say there should be an associate minister of defence for air. If the government is not prepared to go that far, the minister they appoint should have clear and definite responsibilities. Parliament has a responsibility for what is done on this occasion. I hope every member of parliament will keep in mind the facts that have been placed before us, the facts that are contained in the Currie report, and the facts that are contained in the report of the Auditor General, and the knowledge that we have

obtained from the minister himself that the present system is such that he did not even see any of the large number of reports that came forward recommending a better system of accounting in the particular part of the army that was under consideration at that time.
It is difficult to follow the Prime Minister's argument that it would create a lack of co-ordination if there were appointed an associate minister of defence for air when he told us that no problem arose in that connection previously. I would certainly be among the first to argue that we should not follow any other legislative body in the course they adopt simply because of the size or the importance of that body. Nevertheless I think we may well bear in mind the fact that the head of the government of the United States today is not only a man of demonstrated administrative ability but is one of the outstanding soldiers of our generation.
In his speech to congress just over two hours ago that man emphasized the importance of the allocation of responsibilities to associate officials for air, navy and other defence activities. This man who not only led the combined forces of the western world in Europe in the days of victory but also did so much to co-ordinate the defence forces of western Europe within the past few years believes it is wise to place the administration of air defence under an official who will be fully responsible for that matter to the minister of national defence. I submit that in this case it constitutes a strong argument.
However, we do not need to go to Washington for an argument. I think most of us will agree that Winston Churchill has demonstrated a fairly satisfactory knowledge of the administration of defence forces. He did so during the war. I should think that experience is useful today. He believes it is wise to have a separate minister responsible for air defence; and that man, with experience which contributed so greatly to the freedom that we possess today, has continued the administration of air defence under a separate minister of defence for air. Whether under our own system as in the United Kingdom or under the different system of the United States, at least it can be said that the two major powers in the western community of nations have decided that it is most efficient to have a minister of defence for air.
With this evidence before us; with the evidence of the need for a clear definition of responsibility; and with the clear evidence of the need to relieve the present minister of a substantial measure of responsibility if the
National Defence Act
confusion in and ineffectiveness of that department are to be overcome, I submit that we should be dealing with an act which will appoint not only a minister but one with defined authority.
On second reading I do not believe it would be necessary for us to attempt to define that authority; it will be possible for us to do so when this measure goes into committee. However, on second reading it is possible to ask for a reconsideration of this measure and, in the light of what has been said, in the light of the statements of the Prime Minister himself, who has told us that no difficulty arose, even under the pressure of war, in defining the limits of responsibility of associate ministers and separate ministers appointed in this way, to ask the government to reconsider and bring before us a bill that will provide for the appointment of a minister of defence for air with clearly defined authority approved by this parliament.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes):
That the said bill be not now read the second time but that it be resolved that in the opinion of this house consideration should be given to the introducing of legislation to amend the National Defence Act which will provide for one or more associate ministers with duties defined by statute.


Mr. P. E. Wright (Melfort):: Mr. Speaker, there are two or three things on which I think both the government and the members of the opposition are agreed. I would say that the first is that there is need for a reorganization of the Department of National Defence. It is quite evident that the government agree in view of the fact that they bring in this amendment. They agree that there has been lack of proper supervision- not altogether because of the Minister of National Defence but because of the multiple duties which have been placed on him during the last few years-and that some assistance is necessary.
In the second place, there is need for more detailed examination by the civil authorities of the expenditures which take place in the Department of National Defence. That fact is perfectly evident from the Currie report and from letters which almost every member of parliament gets from day to day with regard to the detailed operations of the Department of National Defence. The point on which we seem to disagree is how this assistance shall be given to the department and how we can get a more efficient administration of the department to supervise these tremendous expenditures which the Department of National Defence is making today.

National Defence Act
I think that the Prime Minister probably gave the best arguments that could be given to the house for a minister or an associate minister with defined responsibilities. He stated that during the war we had two associate ministers of national defence and that they found no difficulty in administering their departments through a minister in that department. The reason they found so few difficulties was simply that they had clearly-defined responsibilities. The minister for air had the responsibility for air, the minister for the navy had responsibility for the navy, and so on. They had clearly defined responsibilities and they were therefore able to carry on in an efficient and effective way.
In any large business today, those in authority must have clearly-defined responsibility if the business is to be a success. How we can expect to operate the Department of National Defence-which is the largest spending department of the government-with an associate minister without any clearly-defined responsibilities is beyond my comprehension. It does not make common business sense.
In any large business where you are spending hundreds of millions of dollars someone must be responsible for that spending. Here we have an associate minister being appointed without any defined responsibility. To me that does not make sense, and I do not think it will make sense to many people across the country.
The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) said that if he appointed an associate minister for air, this inevitably would mean that we would have to appoint an associate deputy minister for air. Well, why not?
Just what will be the position of the deputy minister of national defence when he has two bosses. He has a difficult enough time now with one boss. He has not been able to report to that boss all the things that are happening in the department. I do not see how it will help to appoint another associate minister to whom the deputy would have to report, unless he is given some assistance as well. The deputy minister of national defence has terrific responsibilities, almost equalling those of the minister. By appointing an associate minister, and failing to appoint a deputy under him, I just cannot see how it will solve the difficulty with which we are faced.
I agree that any minister of the crown should have clearly defined responsibilities. I know of no occasion in the Canadian parliament when we have appointed ministers and have not clearly defined their responsibilities. When during the war we appointed associate ministers of national defence they were made responsible for particular departments. The

minister for air was responsible for air; the minister for the navy was responsible for the navy, and the then minister of national defence was responsible for the army. Naturally the senior associate minister became responsible for the whole department, in the absence of the minister when he had to go abroad or to be absent from parliament on other business.
That seems a natural division. It is a workable division of responsibility. But if we have an associate minister with no defined responsibility, and no deputy minister under him, it seems to me we are just going to add to the confusion we already have in the Department of National Defence, as evidenced by the Currie report and the report of the Auditor General.
Surely the government is anxious to see that that situation is cleared up. I think the most effective way of doing it would be to appoint an associate minister for air, with defined responsibility, and a deputy minister under him who could carry out the supervision of the tremendous air expenditures we are making today. Not only are we making these expenditures on behalf of the Canadian people, but we are bringing to Canada young airmen from other NATO countries, training them here, and supplying them with some of the equipment they will have to use when they go back to their own countries, and operate in connection with the common defence problem with which the world is faced today. Surely that problem is important enough that we in Canada should have an associate minister for air, with defined responsibility, and a deputy minister under him who could carry out his orders, and thus have the proper supervision we should have in the department.
I am not going to labour the matter; but I do think if the government were wise, if it were anxious to have the best possible administration, this can be done only when we have an associate minister with clearly defined responsibilities. No business organization in Canada could operate successfully under two bosses, one of whom had no clearly defined responsibilities.


Solon Earl Low: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say just a word about this bill. I listened to what the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) had to say this afternoon, and it seemed to me he found it pretty difficult to justify the proposal he put forward. I wondered at the time if the provisions in the bill were what had been recommended to him by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton). That may account for the difficulty he had in justifying

his position. It seemed to me at one stage particularly that the Prime Minister was arguing against himself.
If we pass this bill and proceed to appoint an associate minister of national defence, with no definite powers and responsibilities, then in case something arises again as has already arisen in the army works services, we would never be able to pin anyone down. We would have put these ministers in a position where they could blame each other. And if that occurs, then what chance have we to pin them down and place responsibility where it should be placed?
If we proceeded to do what has already been suggested, that is appoint an associate minister for air and define his powers carefully in the legislation, then we would have something specific and could hold someone responsible if things went wrong.
I have not been able to understand the amendment very well. The one that was handed to me makes reference to estimates for the year ending March 31, 1954, and then it proceeds to outline what the army, navy and air force is supposed to get by way of appropriations. I take it for granted this is not what was supposed to be amended. Under the circumstances I have to rely upon my memory. But I think it is reasonable to suggest that the government should withdraw the bill as it is now, and bring back a bill which would provide for the appointment of an associate minister for air. That is what we favour.
Speaking when the resolution was before the house, our spokesman suggested that we should accept the proposal of the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) that there be such a minister with defined powers. I join the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) in making that suggestion today.


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, when this measure was being discussed in the resolution stage I think there was general agreement on all sides of the house that the time had arrived, if indeed it was not actually overdue, when the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) should be given some additional help in the execution of his many and great responsibilities.
I am not going to enter into a discussion as to whether this procedure, as indicated in the bill, is actually necessary or not. It was stated clearly earlier this afternoon that a state of urgency does actually exist. However, in seconding the amendment offered by the leader of this party I do wish to review the request I made during the debate at the resolution stage that there should be a clearer definition of the duties of the associate minister.
National Defence Act
Speaking at the resolution stage the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) indicated that the associate minister would be responsible for the administrative details relative to the three services. He gave, as he did this afternoon, some details as to what those administrative duties would be. They would be rather vague responsibilities connected with the general administration of the three services.
I suggest that the duties of the associate minister as we have them at present will be those of a super-parliamentary assistant. He has already been occupying the position of a parliamentary assistant, and to a certain extent will be carrying out those general administrative supervisions. That is not really what is required. Even though you give a man a different title you cannot expect him to give greater assistance than he has been able to give in the past unless you him some additional and clearly defined responsibility.
As an alternative to the vague duties that he is to perform in regard to the administration of the three services, I suggested during the resolution stage that there should be appointed an associate minister for air. I do not mind whether you refer to him as the minister for air or the associate minister for air, because there is no appreciable difference to my way of thinking. The associate minister for air or the minister for air must be associated with the Minister of National Defence, whose responsibility quite obviously would be to co-ordinate the activities of the minister or associate minister for air.
When speaking on January 22 the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) offered as a reason why it might be difficult for a separate minister for air or an associate minister for air to carry out his duties apart from those of the Minister of National Defence that it was necessary for arrangements to be made for the establishment of airfields and barracks in France for the R.C.A.F., and that the arrangements so made would have a bearing on the discussions going on in Germany and Belgium in connection with our army units now stationed in those countries. He then went on to say that those arrangements would have to be negotiated by one minister.
Of course they would have to be negotiated by one minister. The Prime Minister also pointed out on January 22 that the Minister of National Defence would have to attend to matters having to do with defence relationships with the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The Minister of National Defence would be performing the very same duties he has had

National Defence Act
to perform heretofore, but he would have more time to devote to those international defence relationships, be they with the United Kingdom or with NATO. He would coordinate the activities of the three defence services. He would have to co-ordinate the negotiations for these airfields and barracks, be they required for the army or the navy.
I cannot see any difficulty about that. That is what he is going to do in any case. After all, these matters have been discussed at length at the various conferences which the Minister of National Defence has been attending recently and they are all summed up in a rather difficult word, "infrastructure". It is the infrastructure of NATO in Europe which takes care of these housekeeping details for the troops of the various nations, including Canada, which are at present serving in Europe for the defence of western ideals. Therefore I see nothing out of the way as far as that suggestion is concerned.
The Minister of National Defence would co-ordinate the activities of the minister or associate minister for air. Since we made those recommendations on January 22 I think the attention of this nation has been directed toward the importance of the air services in a most pronounced way. The services of the chief of the air staff, Air Marshal W.
A.	Curtis, terminated at the end of last week. In an impressive ceremony in his farewell to the force which he had done so much to build up he called attention to the pre-eminent position of the R.C.A.F. in the general defence structure of this nation. He went so far as to say that the Canadian people and even parliament did not realize the revolution which had been taking place in this country's military structure.
I wonder whether the government has realized the tremendous changes which have been taking place over the past few years in so far as the relationship of the air services to the other forces of this country are concerned. I cannot help recalling that in 1949 I made the statement in this house that for every dollar spent on the army three dollars should be spent on the air force. I was told that I had gone too far, that the suggestion I had made was quite impracticable.
I based my recommendation at that time on the fact that in 1947-48 the amount spent on the air force was $55 million out of a total defence expenditure of $195 million, and that in 1948-49, $90 million was being allocated to the air force out of a total of $268 million. I appealed to the minister to face with immediate determination the problem which was before him and if necessary to act ruthlessly in the reorganization of the forces, only to be met, as I have
[Mr. Pearkes.l
said already, with the statement that my suggestion was impracticable. I was told that if my suggestion were brought into effect a sum of $600 million would have to be allocated for the air force alone.
Today we have gone far beyond that amount. Today the sum of approximately $1 billion is being allocated to the air force. If the amount I suggested, $600 million, had been allocated at that time it would have meant, according to the minister, an expenditure of $3 on the air force for every $1 spent on the army. Well, we have exceeded that. I wonder whether we have really realized the extent of the evolution that has been taking place. The retiring air marshal uses these words, as found in a report of his speech in the Montreal Gazette:
The. fact we have sent large expeditionary forces overseas in two wars to fight on the ground has left its mark on Canadian thinking. It has tended to obscure the fact that both our human and industrial resources, or small but skilled population and our complex industry, fit us for concentration on air power. It has also obscured the fact that we are already tending in that direction to a marked degree. Other countries have the manpower for massed ground warfare. We haven't. But we do have the technical skills, the high level of education and the industrial establishment to support a relatively large air force because its manpower demands are much less and are of the type we can meet admirably.
He went on to say:
This by no means indicates a lessening of our contribution to joint defence.
Then he gives as an example the fact that in the near future we will have some 7,000 airmen in Europe and that that will be approximately the same number as there are in the army units in Europe. Then he made this very pertinent statement:
The airmen will have at their command roughly ten times the striking power of the soldiers.
I think that is an indication of the important role which the Royal Canadian Air Force is now playing not only in the defence of Canada but in the carrying out of the obligations that Canada has assumed in other parts of the world. If more than half of this year's total defence estimates are to be spent on air services, surely it indicates that the spending of that large amount of money on that most important service requires a minister who can concentrate upon the development and construction of the new types of aircraft which the retiring air marshal indicated have already been started in this country, even though they have not yet got beyond the planning stage.
As he pointed out, we must have a new type of fighter ready and available by 1960 at which time he indicated that the CF-100, which is not yet fully in service, would be

obsolete. Therefore I feel that with all these important developments that are taking place in this field we must be quite certain that we are developing our air services and air equipment along the right lines. There is the vast field of guided missiles, be they ground to air or air to air, which must be explored and developed.
I believe the air services constitute a tremendous field which will require the full attention of a cabinet minister who will devote practically all his time to looking after the interests of that service. I do not care whether that minister is called a minister or an associate minister. That is immaterial; but let us avoid this duplication, the continuance of this confusion that has existed in the past few years and which will continue if we merely appoint an associate minister who will carry on general duties of administration in such an ill-defined manner as has been described today.
It has been suggested that a minister is required to recommend the allocation of funds and of manpower among the three services, and that if there were three separate ministers there would be competition between them for whatever funds were available. We have seen that competition in past years. Certainly we saw it in pre-war days when there were three chiefs of staff, each of them competing for such funds as were available. But I am not suggesting that. No suggestion has ever been made that there should be three separate ministers all of equal rank. We have emphasized the importance-and I repeat it- of there being a co-ordinating authority, a minister who is responsible for co-ordinating the activities of the three services, for coordinating the purchases of airfields in Europe or the allocation of funds among the various services in Canada. That would be a general supervisory minister, who would be responsible for the supervision of the services.
I believe that situation exists in the United Kingdom at the present time. It certainly has in the past. There is a minister of defence, but under that minister there can be other ministers definitely responsible for certain particular duties in connection with the services. I am suggesting that there should be someone with definite responsibility for developing our air services which today are pre-eminent and are taking up more than 50 per cent of the funds allocated for defence. It is not fair to suggest that senior staff officers of the various services would be able to make their representations in such a way that they could be properly weighed by the government.
It has already been pointed out that the senior staff officers of the various services
National Defence Act
are the servants of the government. They must carry out the policy of the government. In the past, as I said earlier, there has been competition between the three services. Today I think there are three chiefs of staff and I presume there is a certain amount of competition between them; but a chairman of the chiefs of staff committee has been appointed and I presume that it is partly his duty to co-ordinate requests which are made by the different chiefs of staff.
So in seconding this motion I do stress the desirability of giving and placing on the statute books clearly defined instructions to this associate minister of national defence whom we all agree is necessary in order to assist the present minister in the fulfilment of his duties.


Mr. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, there are a few observations I would like to make with regard to the subject which is now before the house for discussion. Over the last few years defence spending has increased to such an extent that the Department of National Defence is spending nearly half of the national budget. There is increasing evidence to indicate that concurrently with this great increase in spending and great increase in responsibility the ministry of defence is becoming so large and unwieldy as to be unmanageable.
I think the problem is generally recognized, and it is also recognized that the responsibilities are too great to rest on the shoulders of only one minister. I think it is obviously unreasonable to have one minister in the government spending almost as much as all other ministers put together. Therefore it seems obvious that something in the way of appointing another minister to share this great load of responsibility is a necessary step, and one that we have to face.
Before plunging off in any particular direction on the problem and how it should be solved or met, it might be well to look briefly at what has been done in other countries; because they too have met these very problems. We find in the United Kingdom that for many years they have had three ministers responsible for the three services. This is also the case in the commonwealth of Australia. There at the present time there is a defence minister responsible for the co-ordination of defence generally, and they also have a minister for the army and another minister responsible for the air force and the navy.
In the United Kingdom, as I have already said, there are three ministers who are responsible for the services. There it has been recognized that by dividing responsibility between various ministers you may lose a

National Defence Act
certain amount of co-ordination. That is a problem that must be faced, and I think we all recognize that problem. In the United Kingdom an attempt has been made to solve it by appointing a minister of defence who is responsible for the co-ordination of defence generally. This procedure takes from the Prime Minister in a general way the load of responsibility for defence.
I would like to quote briefly from a white paper published by the United Kingdom government in 1946 with regard to the central organization for defence on the occasion when it was considered necessary to appoint a defence minister. It says:
Outline of new organization proposed
After reviewing the development of our defence organization over the last forty years and its practical performance under the test of two major wars, His Majesty's government are satisfied that there are no grounds for any drastic recasting of the main structure of the organization as it exists today. Some changes are, however, required in order to consolidate the advances which have been made in recent years under the compulsion of war or of the threat of war. Above all, experience during these years has shown the need of a minister who has both the time and the authority to formulate and apply a unified defence policy for the three services; and it is proposed that this need should be met by the creation of a minister of defence.
That is the position in the United Kingdom. They have a minister of defence responsible for defence and for the co-ordination of the various defence departments; but in addition they have ministers directly responsible to parliament who have clearly defined fields of responsibility, and their fields of responsibility coincide with the various services in the United Kingdom. The paper goes on to say:
The service ministers will continue to be responsible to parliament for the administration of their services in accordance with the general policy approved by the cabinet and within the resources allotted to them.
That is what I would consider a reasonable solution to the problem and it would seem to me that here in Canada we should go very carefully before we start branching off on some new and unproven idea. I think we should try to retain the principle where each minister has clearly defined responsibilities. In Australia, as I have said, that is accomplished by having a defence minister and separate ministers, one responsible for the army, and one for the air force and navy. Of course, it does not necessarily follow that we should completely follow either one of those systems, but I think we can learn a good deal from them.
If we look at the expenditures of the Department of National Defence we find that more than one-fifth of our total budget is
[Mr. MacLean (Queens) .1
now spent by the air force, and almost one-half of our budget is spent by the Department of National Defence. It would seem, on that basis, to be reasonable to have a minister responsible for the co-ordination of defence generally and also responsible for the army and navy, with another minister responsible for the air force who might be called the associate minister of defence for air, or something of that sort.
The Prime Minister in his remarks pointed out that if such a system were introduced you would have the problem of requiring to create some new positions such as another deputy minister. He pointed out that this would necessitate further expenditures, and that economy is a very important thing. I agree with the Prime Minister and I think his sentiments along that line are most commendable, but I think that at the same time we might easily fall into the danger of being penny wise and pound foolish. After all, why should one deputy minister be considered capable of supervising and carefully vetting expenditures representing half our national budget when it takes perhaps twenty other deputy ministers to look after the remainder.
I think this is a case where perhaps money could be saved by the appointment of another deputy minister. In any case I think it should be very important to have a clear line drawn between the responsibilities of the minister of defence and those of the associate minister of defence or whatever you may wish to call him. The important thing is that each one should have a watertight compartment of responsibility so far as parliament is concerned.
Although I do not think it is vitally important that the responsibility should be divided in precisely that way, I think there is a good argument for it. In addition to our air force spending about one-fifth of our national budget, the Department of National Defence, if its existence is justified at all, exists to deal with any war or threat of war which may come our way in the future. If there is a real threat of war or if there is another war, the defence of this country will be, for the most part, air defence. Any other activities in which we might engage with our armed forces will be more or less military mutual aid. So far as the defence of this continent is concerned it will be primarily a case of air defence. So far as the actual defence of Canada is concerned, that responsibility will rest to a great degree upon the air force. I believe that is another reason why the appointment of an associate minister

responsible for the air defence of our country, as well as other activities of the Department of National Defence, is reasonable.
I believe that at this time the government proposes we should create the position of associate minister of defence without defining precisely what his responsibilities are going to be. In other words, we are going to have one Department of National Defence and two ministers. We will have one body with two heads. Before we create a monstrosity of that sort we should give the matter careful consideration. After all, you are going to have one servant and two masters, a department of defence and two ministers. I believe it is generally recognized that it is impossible to serve two masters. You are going to create a sort of two-headed hydra. I think we should be very careful before we put such a monster on the payroll.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: It seems to be the general opinion that the proposal before the house this afternoon is long overdue. All hon. members who have taken part in the debate thus far agree with the general principle that some further administrative assistance is necessary in the Department of National Defence.
There is no need for me to labour what has already been said during the discussion this afternoon, and the other discussions that have taken place here in recent weeks. In rising to take part in this debate I should like to emphasize a point that has been raised by the amendment put forward by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew), to the effect that the solution of the difficulty is not in establishing a vague assistanceship but rather that the duties of the assistant minister be clearly defined under the heading of associate minister for air.
We realize that the responsibility of the Department of National Defence has been accentuated by the Korean crisis, and the position is extremely difficult mainly because we are in a twilight war period which makes it hard indeed to stir up the response of the public to the demands and responsibilities that are created by such a situation. We acknowledge and recognize that the problem of administering matters pertaining to the army and the navy are extremely difficult. However, I feel it is obvious that Canada has a peculiar natural situation so far as air force matters are concerned, and that the present situation confronting the western powers necessitates that Canada carry forward with the greatest possible speed and efficiency the program of air defence upon which she has embarked. During world war II it became firmly established in the minds
National Defence Act
of military authorities that air power was absolutely indispensable to the successful conclusion of any military campaign. In fact some authorities, I recall, went out on the limb a considerable distance by recommending that the only way to achieve victory in modern warfare was through air power. We had such presentations appearing under such titles as "Victory through air power". Whether or not that be true, I am not going to discuss this afternoon.
We do know that, because of the geographic position in which Canada finds herself, because of the nature of the country, it is essential that she make a major effort toward solving the very difficult problems confronting her at the present time in regard to the build-up of air power. It has been pointed out that today almost $1 billion is being expended in air force expansion, and that represents almost one-half our total expenditure for defence. In that factor alone we have emphasized the necessity for giving special attention to the appointment of some individual who would be particularly responsible for the administration of the expenditure of this huge sum of money.
In addition to the peculiar situation of Canada, as is recognized in the amount of money that is being granted for air force matters, we have the record that was established by the R.C.A.F. during world war II. This record speaks for itself, but I believe that the success that was achieved by our air force was second to none, commencing almost from scratch in 1939. That achievement was largely due to the fact that there was one minister who had the burden of carrying through the very extensive and difficult program of expansion.
There is another matter related to the problem of air defence. Actually I suppose it comes under the heading of defence production. In connection with the tremendous build-up that is facing our Canadian air force, there has been some discussion in the house concerning the lack of success in the industrial part of the program. For example, there have been discussions concerning the progress made in the production of Canada's CF-100, the much heralded all-weather fighter which is now, according to reports, in the production stage. I feel that some of the discussion has arisen from lack of information, or it might be from undue optimism expressed in the reports we have had in the chamber. Some of this discussion has been unfortunate, because if we had actually realized the problems connected with the development of an original aircraft type from the drawing board stage to actual production, some of the criticism would not

National Defence Act have been brought forward in the house. The same thing applies, of course, to the Orenda engine.
I was thumbing through the pages of the magazine Aircraft for March, 1952, and the writer makes much the same point as I have just made. In reference to the CF-100 he says that admittedly the production of the CF-100 is behind schedule at A. V. Roe (Canada) Limited . . . there is much to indicate that in the eagerness to promise that the R.C.A.F. would build up strength in a remarkably short time, the government was prone to an overly-optimistic view of how soon the CF-100 could be made available.
Optimistic prognostications of that kind have led to unnecessary criticism. With a responsible minister in charge of air force matters-and the need is becoming increasingly obvious-who was able to find the time to keep closely in touch with the production aspects of the building up of our air force, statements of that kind could be avoided; because overly-optimistic statements tend to arise from a lack of detailed information on the inevitable problems that must be faced when we are in the process of establishing our own aircraft industry. As another example-and others could be mentioned

we have the experience with the jet liner on which some $6 million was expended in the production of an original prototype of Canadian manufacture. Then suddenly the project was dropped in the interests of more pressing demands for aircraft of military type. If there had been proper co-ordination and planning, and if there had been one minister responsible for the handling of the complex matters pertaining to the air force, no doubt this expenditure could have been avoided.
It is most interesting to note that recently Canada has placed an order for two of the British Comets as soon as they become available. Whether this action is the result of careful forethought as to what use these Comet air liners might be put to in the air force, or whether again it is a case of jumping oft into the dark and hoping they might be useful, still remains to be seen. We have not heard any discussion on that point.
So far as the air force is concerned, the crux of the matter is that we are in what you might call almost a revolutionary period in air power development. During world war II Canada established an enviable record. As I have indicated, she developed a tremendously effective and powerful air force in a relatively short space of time. But looking back now on the experience of world war II and the types of aircraft then used, we find that even the best types have today become completely obsolescent. We find ourselves in a major period of change, a transitional
[Mr. Dinsdale.l

period, that is demanding not only the development of new aircraft types but also new techniques in the handling of the new aircraft, and an entirely new approach to the problem of air offensive and air defence.
With the tremendous multiple tasks involved in proceeding successfully without a repetition of some of the costly errors into which we have fallen, it seems to me it is essential that as we move to tighten up defence department administration we should give special attention to the air force department by the appointment of an associate minister who will have complete responsibility for the successful carrying out of the transitional period developments.
I could have mentioned another example of misunderstanding caused by lack of information. For a long time in this house we were pursuing the question of the use of -5 calibre armament that was almost obsolescent in world war II. Of course the difficulty there was that it was merely stopgap armament, and that we were moving forward into guided missiles and other armament developments which are still on the highly secret list. This being so I repeat that there is an urgent necessity that some specialized attention be given to air force matters if we, as a Canadian air force, are going to maintain the record that we established in world war II and if we are going to play the role that is demanded of this country as we participate in NATO defence and in the defence of western Christian civilization generally.
There is one more point I should like to raise while I have the opportunity to do so. In addition to the need to have highly competent guidance in this transitional period, I think there are many indications that point to the necessity for a more judicious and economical use of manpower. As we have been endeavouring to build up the air force potential again-I think we had declined in total numerical strength to something like
14,000	in 1947, and since that time we have come back to almost 50,000-the emphasis in recruiting has been to establish a core of qualified personnel to carry on the necessary training operations. As I have endeavoured to get information on this matter of recruiting, it has seemed to me that it has been a difficult and painful process to get candidates of the right kind to link up with our air force. We have resorted to the use of "retreads" as they are popularly known, or men with world war II experience retrained and brought back into the service in order to meet the immediate demands of the extended activity. Not only in the active force but in connection with the reserves we find a good deal of uncertainty in this regard. It seems no one has

sat down and considered how reserve skills and experience could be used most expeditiously and efficiently.
I happen to be associated with an air force association. This is a voluntary group of air force veterans banded together to assist the air force in every way possible in maintaining its high standards and also in meeting the challenge of the present emergency period. The association to which I belong in the city of Brandon happens to be recognized as the banner association because of the excellent work it has done in the last year. However, constantly we feel frustrated because we have a feeling that we are not tying directly into the demands of the present emergency situation. The numerical strength of the wing is high, but there is no concrete program, other than that of assisting in recruiting. They had thought they might assist as an air observation corps, but there is going to be no need for that particular activity in our area.
Along with a failure to make expeditious and efficient use of reserve skills and experience, we find that some of our air force associations are not up to date in meeting the demands of air force expansion. It seems to me that with a minister responsible for air, more detailed attention could be given to the peculiar problems of recruiting in this country. Where we have a voluntary system, specialized attention must be given to putting the idea across to potential candidates so they will know that the air force requires their services. Instead of inducing volunteers to enter our services by promising them personal security with pensions and the like, we should put it across to them as a direct challenge to assist in the preservation of our way of life.
Actually if the emergency situation is as severe as we think it is, and if the comments we hear respecting the discussions that took place at NATO in the early part of January are true-and it will be recalled that our Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) took part in those discussions-then we are facing a real emergency that demands the promptest attention we can possibly give to the problem of establishing our own air force. For example, I believe it was the Ottawa Journal of Monday, January 26, which stated that a responsible officer of high rank in the United States army said that a surprise allout Russian air attack would knock out western Europe's first line of air defence in one swoop.
If that is so, rather than thinking in terms of a minimum of defence we should be thinking in terms of a maximum. This is particularly true in Canada, which is in the direct
National Defence Act
line of attack between the potential enemy and the target to the south of us that would have highest priority. This means that almost all of us are in the front line and that in every way possible, by means of information to the press and so on, we should try to impress upon those who are in the reserves and who have had experience in the air force that they are needed to assist in establishing what will become the front line of defence, our air power.
To sum up these remarks, I am glad to see that steps are going to be taken to solve a problem that has become increasingly difficult. In fact, ever since I came to the House of Commons the Department of National Defence has been under attack and criticism for some cause or another. In most cases the criticism has arisen from a genuine feeling that all was not for the best in this particular department. I do not think, however, that the appointment of a glorified parliamentary assistant, as the present proposal seems to suggest, is a solution. I feel there is a special need in Canada to give specific and particular attention to the problems faced by our air force as we move through this difficult transition period.
As for the argument that unification is the prime essential in matters of defence, I cannot agree because in my view this is a day of specialization, diversification and division of labour. In almost every industrial activity we find this diversification and specialization carried out to an extreme degree. Certainly if we can operate successfully with a division of labour to bring about greater efficiency in private business, we can operate just as successfully in government departments, and particularly in the field of national defence. We have the administrative skills; we have the business knowledge required to maintain the channels of communication that would be necessary if there were an appointment of a special minister for air.
As for the argument that additional expense would be involved, let me say that I think there is a very simple answer when one asks the rhetorical question: What could be more expensive than the present set-up in the Department of National Defence? This department has revealed a high degree of inefficiency mainly, I feel, because of the attempt of too few people to cover too much ground. Particularly is this true in the field of air power.
Then finally there is the appeal that the proposed scheme put forward by the government be given a fair trial. I do not think it merits consideration, because certainly during the last three years, through a process of

National Defence Act
trial and error, we have been attempting to meet the challenge facing us; and that process of trial and error has not worked out too satisfactorily. I would say that today is the time for action, particularly in matters pertaining to this very important part of our defence system, the Royal Canadian Air Force.
(Translation):


Mr. A. M. Robichaud (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I only wish to add a few words to the remarks made by those who have spoken before me during the debate on the bill now before the house providing for a most important amendment to the National Defence Act.
Not being a soldier, I must confess immediately my complete ignorance of the whole technical aspect of the various military divisions of national defence, such as the air force, the army and the navy. However, I fully support the remarks that have been made this afternoon by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) and the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) who asked for a clearer definition of the responsibilities, powers, duties, privileges and prerogatives of the associate minister of national defence, whose appointment is provided for in the bill now before the house.
Mr. Speaker, although fully realizing that the new associate minister will be indirectly responsible to the present Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton), I am wondering if we must presume that the new associate minister will also be responsible to this house, that is to the hon. members who sit here as the representatives of the Canadian people; I am wondering also if the new associate minister of national defence would be just as responsible to -this house as the present Minister of National Defence-if not more so-because, after all, Mr. Speaker, in my estimation, one of the most important duties of any minister of the crown is to account for his actions to this house.
I am also wondering, Mr. Speaker, whether we will witness, after the appointment of this associate minister of national defence, a repetition of the infringement on the prerogatives and privileges of the members of this house such as we witnessed last week on the part of the Minister of National Defence in this house.
I am of the opinion, Mr. Speaker, that it is the duty of any minister, of the associate minister for national defence whose appointment we are being asked to approve, to communicate to this house every detail, every bit of information that we, as representatives of
[Mr. Dlnsdale.)
the people, are entitled to expect from our ministers. Now last week some questions were put to the Minister of National Defence regarding certain radar installations. I had myself put certain questions on the order paper concerning the cost of one of these establishments at St. Margarets, New Brunswick. As you will recall, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister of National Defence refused to give this information on the ground that it would have endangered national security.
Are we to expect then that the associate minister of national defence, whose appointment we are now being asked to approve, will subject us to the same kind of treatment we received last week from the Minister of National Defence himself? The very day after he had flatly refused to give any information about the cost of certain radar installations, that is on January 30, the minister, addressing the chamber of commerce in North Bay, is reported by the Globe and Mail for January 31 to have said:
(Text):
Mr. Claxton gave the most detailed description to date of Canada's system of northern defences which he said were operated in closest co-operation with the U.S.
All aircraft flying in the north were identified by the radar screens and if they had not registered route plans they were investigated. The system had three phases: Identification by radar, communication of information by wire or microwave; and bases for fighter aircraft, of which the new R.C.A.F. base here was one of the most important.
(Translation):
Are we to expect, Mr. Speaker, that the associate minister of national defence, once appointed by the house, will refuse to give us information on the installation cost of our radar stations and establishments in Canada, when the present Minister of National Defence, the day after having categorically refused to answer our inquiries on the subject, went to North Bay and revealed what I am now going to quote-again from the Globe and Mail:
(Text):
"A total of $10 million would be expended." (Translation) :


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I do not wish to prevent the hon. member from expressing all his opinions on the amendment and the main motion now under study. However, I listened to what he -said from the beginning of his remarks. He has asked himself many questions; he raises a lot of theoretical points and I wonder whether he is complying with the rules by raising these points and by answering them himself. At that rate, there would be no end to the number of theoretical points that he could raise.

We are only dealing now with the appointment of an associate minister of national defence. If the hon. member is of the opinion that the powers of such a minister should be more clearly defined, he may say so, as other speakers did. I have allowed him sufficient latitude and I would now ask him to be kind enough to co-operate with me.


Albany M. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, you will
understand that I have limited knowledge of military matters as well as of parliamentary procedure. I thank you for the indulgence you have shown thus far. I shall abide by your suggestion. To what I have already said I only wish to add that I am strongly in favour of defining more clearly the powers, duties, privileges and more particularly the prerogatives to be given to the associate minister of national defence, whose appointment we are now asked to approve.
(Text):


Hon. Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, there are several points that have been raised in the course of this debate on which I feel I should touch briefly.
(Translation):
As far as the question asked by the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud) is concerned, does he know that the amount of $10 million that I mentioned at North Bay represents the cost of an airport and not that of a radar station?
(Text):
Some reference was made to the fact that the reports of the chief auditor of the department were not shown to me. There must be a misunderstanding of the functions and position of the chief auditor in the minds of hon. members who have made this assertion. I described that at some length in my remarks on January 13, and no doubt it will be gone into by the defence expenditure committee if that is the desire of the committee.
I would point out that the chief auditor of the Department of National Defence makes an internal audit. He is an officer under the deputy minister, responsible to the deputy minister. He makes his reports to the deputy minister on the conditions which he finds within the service establishments. Until 1946 there was no such officer; such internal audit was not made. This is a new development in the Department of National Defence which has been progressively introduced and worked out.
I said in my remarks before that he had made a total of 1,185 reports to the deputy minister since his appointment. Those reports go to the deputy minister and result in action
National Defence Act
by the deputy minister. If there is anything in the reports requiring my attention the deputy minister brings that to my attention, but in his own words. In a number of cases the deputy minister discussed with me the organization and the fixing of the establishment for the army works services, the shortages of personnel, the necessity for a followup by a team within the armed forces, and other matters. These discussions resulted in numerous changes being made in the organization, as I stated to the house when I was dealing with the recommendations of the Currie report, most of which were in whole or in part anticipated and put into effect before we ever saw the report.
Those changes have been in process ever since the chief auditor started making reports. In particular the deputy minister drew my attention repeatedly to that fact that we were short of civilian personnel to carry out the job of doing the accounting in the way we would have liked, and repeatedly I would give him the support he wanted in making requisitions and requests to the civil service commission both to increase the numbers of staff allowed us and to enable us to pay them salaries and wages which would attract the type of men needed to do the job. The records of that are all there and I do not believe that there was any failure in that respect.
Reference was also made to the "breakdown" in the administration of the department. If that reference is based on the Currie report, then there is nothing in the report to justify it because Mr. Currie was, as he says, investigating the army works services, a branch of the Royal Canadian Engineers, which is a branch of the Canadian army. While from one point of view all those things are operations that are carried on within the department, for which the department, the deputy minister and the minister are responsible, it was the army works services that were the subject of investigation and report. When sweeping assertions of that kind are made I would suggest that hon. members making them should ask themselves if they are probable in face of the record of the Royal Canadian Navy, as demonstrated in the Far East and in reports by officers of other countries under which units of the navy have served; the record of the Canadian army, the 25th Canadian brigade in Korea and the 27th in Germany-


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: On a point of order, I do not think it is a proper comparison to compare our fighting men with the mess in the minister's department. It is a disgrace to hold them up as a shield.

National Defence Act


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has risen to a point of order. Perhaps I might take advantage of this interruption to say that I wonder whether it is appropriate, in discussing the amendment and the motion for second reading of the bill, to go so far into the general administration of national defence and the performance of our armed services. I know that some passing references have been made by hon. members speaking in opposition to second reading or in proposing the amendment, but the minister will find that if he enlarges upon the performance of the services, and other questions which to my mind may not be related to the amendment and the motion for second reading, I may have to allow opposition members to deal with these matters as well.


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Speaker, I had about
concluded my reference to this matter. I thought I was being just a little more specific than the hon. members who made these sweeping assertions without any support whatsoever. When I was making my remarks the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Ferguson) intervened with something that was not a point of order and had no relevance at all to the matter under discussion or to what I was saying.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: It was time the intervention was made.


Brooke Claxton: There is one further point I wish to make. Reference has been made with approval to the statements made by the chief of the air staff who has just retired, Air Marshal W. A. Curtis. I think the hon. members who made these references will also have noticed that the chief of the air staff before his retirement, in both his broadcast and in the release which appeared in the press, described the operations of the Royal Canadian Air Force in terms which are a complete answer to the assertions made by the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Dinsdale) and others.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, the minister certainly is broadening the debate and he is going to get a broadened debate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member cannot interrupt unless he has the consent of the minister who has the floor.


Mr. Fleming:: He is speaking on a point of order.


Brooke Claxton: What is the point of order?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I did not hear the hon. member say he was rising on a point of order. All he did was stand up and interrupt
[Mr. Ferguson.!

the minister, and that is not according to the rules. The minister may continue.


Agar Rodney Adamson: May I ask the minister whether he said that Air Marshal Curtis' statement was made with the approval of the government? In other words, what he said on retirement was approved by the government?


Brooke Claxton: I never mentioned that at all, but of course what he said in the broadcast-


Agar Rodney Adamson: The minister said "with approval".


Brooke Claxton: -was said in my presence. His remarks were made during a broadcast in which I participated.
Reference was made, Mr. Speaker, to the Esher royal commission in the United Kingdom, which was appointed in 1903. I have its report here, and if hon. members will look at the report of the commission I think they will see that all its recommendations that are pertinent and relevant to the situation in Canada have long since been carried out in this country.
Reference was also made earlier in the debate to the so-called Hoover commission, the commission appointed by President Truman which made a number of reports to congress. The one dealing with the national security organization was made in February, 1949. The relevance of that report to the Canadian scene has already been dealt with by me in a speech on September 5, 1950, which appears at page 297 of Hansard for that year.
We have in Canada a system of administration of the Department of National Defence which has been worked out as the result of our experience in two world wars and in the period between. It was changed very substantially with my own appointment in 1946, and in consequence of those changes, as I shall indicate very briefly indeed, a considerable number of steps were taken by way of unification and reorganization, steps which I think hon. members who have followed the matter will recognize were far more striking and sweeping in the development of methods of unification and co-ordination than in any of the other countries to which reference has been made.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Brooke Claxton: When the house took recess I had just made a brief reference to unification and co-ordination. This has particular

relevance to the bill under discussion because it is necessary to consider any further development in the organization of the national defence department and the appointment of an associate minister or other ministers against the background of what has been done. It is also necessary to have in mind the general desirability, I think admitted by all members, of securing the greatest possible unification and co-ordination of the activities of the three armed forces-the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian army and the Royal Canadian Air Force-as well as defence research.
In this connection I think hon. members opposite would agree that, all things being equal, it is a good thing to have the utmost possible unification and co-ordination, not for their own sake but because they produce better planning, better programs and greater economy. The hon. member for Middlesex East (Mr. White) speaking on March 14, 1950, as reported in Hansard at page 753 said:
I believe it is most important that Canada eliminate this duplication of services, and develop more efficiency, so far as it is possible, in our defence forces.
The hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) said on May 16, 1950, as reported at page 2560 of Hansard:
It is to be hoped that unification will bring about a lessening of the amount of money which might be required for each of the services if they were to continue to operate separately.
The same hon. member on May 8, 1951, said at page 2809 of Hansard:
A co-ordinated or unified policy, though the various services may at times have to go through a slimming process, is far more likely to produce economical and effective results than is a system under which each of the services is working on its own.
With all those statements I emphatically agree, and I am sure the hon. members who made them would make them again.
In this connection what we tried to do was arrive at a basis of organization for the department under which plans and programs and the action necessary to carry them out would be taken by the department acting as a single department, having regard to the objects and necessities of the three services, but all within the lines of policy approved by the government. To a very considerable degree we have arrived at that objective. We have a unified system for preparing estimates, for establishing conditions of service, of standards of accommodation and the other items that enter into the production of estimates. I could also enumerate, if hon. members were interested and if time permitted, the ways in which unification has actually been carried out, duplication avoided, and coordination effected. However, most of those
National Defence Act
matters have already been put on Hansard and I will not delay the house with regard to them.
When the program of the Department of National Defence comes to be considered each year by the chiefs of staff committee there are present, in addition to the three chiefs of staff, the chairman of the defence research board, the deputy minister of national defence and, when required, representatives of the departments of external affairs, finance, and defence production. Questions are dealt with having regard to the agreed lines of government policy and within those lines it has usually proved possible, certainly in recent years, for the chiefs of staff and their committee, with representation such as I have described, to agree, and I say agree, on an allocation of the total amount to be provided for defence expenditure.
This is done by them and then the defence program as reflected in these estimates is considered in detail by a screening committee within the department where the chairman of the chiefs of staff committee, the deputy minister, and representatives of the Department of Finance-treasury-go over the program in detail with each chief of staff in turn together with his officials responsible for making up the estimates. It is then referred to me and the whole program is put forward for approval by the cabinet defence committee and by the cabinet itself.
So I think you will find that to a very considerable extent we have effected that degree of unification and co-ordination which has been our objective, and which has been the objective of other countries. We have, under the system adopted since 1946, a single department, a single deputy minister, a single set of civil servants, a number of unified operations-all those relating to the civil service and a good many relating to the armed forces themselves. We have established identical conditions of service for all three services; for pay, allowances, pensions, food, clothing in so far as it is common to all services, transportation, leave arrangements, married quarters and the like. Also we have a single National Defence Act and a single disciplinary code. As I say, I think without fear of successful challenge, we have gone farther in the degree of unification, co-ordination and elimination of duplication than any country I know of.
All the time this has been going on we have been observing and studying what has gone on in other countries and, where it has

National Defence Act
been possible to learn from anything that has happened there, we have taken advantage of those developments.
It seems to me that on the principle of the Prime Minister's bill and the suggestions made by various opposition members, the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has covered the question in general terms and I do not propose to go over that at all.
However, if the suggestion were adopted of having a separate minister or associate minister for air, then we would be limiting his activities because he would, under that proposal, act for air only. While I recognize the importance of the air branch, as other members do, I should point out that from the point of view of administration and the time occupied, the problems arising in connection with the air force are certainly no greater and probably less-though not in importance or amount of money spent-than the problems arising in connection with the army. You can appreciate this, because I think the air force has about one-fifth the number of units that the army has. It certainly has far less than one-fifth the number of weapons, and certainly less than one-fifth the number of contracts, due to different functions and operations.
If an order is placed for an aircraft like the CF-100 or the F-86E Sabre and its spare parts, then that order, subject to modification of course, is one operation which adds up to several hundred million dollars. It has to be watched carefully; but to add up to several hundred million dollars in terms of army equipment, construction and personnel requires a much greater number of administrative operations. If the proposed additional minister were to be limited to the air, then you would deprive the navy and army of his services unless the Minister of National Defence happened to be away. I believe that to return to the position where we have a Minister of National Defence and an associate minister earmarked for a special department would be a retrograde step. Indeed, the experience of other countries has shown that the best practice is to have either one minister or four.
If you had four ministers you would have, as in the United States, Britain or Australia, four departments. You not only would have a Department of National Defence but also one for the navy, one for the army and one for the air force. You would have to have all the things that go with a government department. There then would be the necessity of reconciling their programs, allocating funds, conditions of service and the like, all of which problems are avoided if you have a

single department. I suggest to hon. members that we have armed forces of the size, and a country of the size, which enables one department to handle the matter successfully. The proposal that we have an associate minister of national defence for air, I suggest, does not meet the needs as they exist today.
The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has put these things before you. I can assure you that I can say for the Solicitor General (Mr. Campney), or any other minister who might be appointed as associate, that there will not be duplication of effort nor confusion but there will be that kind of co-operation which is necessary to make for teamwork. I believe that the Prime Minister's proposal should be carried through.


Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: My
old friend the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton), Mr. Speaker, must permit me to speak plainly by saying that as I listened to him I found my amazement growing steadily. We have heard from the minister what we have heard several times before, a pleasant discourse indicating to us that all is well in the Department of National Defence. As I listened to him I began to rub my eyes and to ask whether there had or had not been a Currie report. Everything the minister said in the last part of his remarks following the dinner recess seemed to me to imply that criticism had never invaded or come near the Department of National Defence.
I had not intended to add more than one or two comments on the Prime Minister's bill with regard to the division of duties, but frankly I have been so surprised-so alarmed; I think that is the right word-to find that the minister, apparently notwithstanding what is in the Currie report, is able to stand up in this house and talk as if nothing had happened, that I must say something. I will be as brief as I can.
Having regard to what the minister said about the audit, I think I must ask the house to listen while I read the words in the Currie report, although they have been read before. I cannot make my argument unless I read what was said in this report with regard to the audit. At page 712 of Hansard for December 15, 1952, I find the following:
The chief auditor of the department had performed his functions conscientiously. 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. This process is then again repeated.
Now, in the face of that the minister, at the end of his remarks about auditing, says that there was "no failure in that respect". I am quick to add that the minister based that partly on the fact that he had apparently tried to get more adequate personnel for auditing from the civil service commission. Having done that, he appears to think that his duty was done, and therefore he says there was no failure in that respect, notwithstanding these devastating words. If we should get into a real war, it would not be much protection against an enemy to say that the civil service commission did not give us the proper people to keep the books and therefore we are not ready.
Then I come to the recommendations in the Currie report. Some ten days ago or more the minister said in this house, I thought with some pride, that a lot of the recommendations of the Currie report had been put into effect. This afternoon he took a great step forward, when he said that most of the recommendations in the Currie report had been, in part at least, anticipated and put into effect before we ever heard of the report. I believe that is a real advance! 1 do not think the minister mentioned that the other night when the member for Calgary East (Mr. Harkness) was talking about these things.
There is one point which I believe is particularly worthy of note, because to me it is a most astonishing line of thought. The minister referred to the fact that the Currie report had spoken of a breakdown of administration in the department. This afternoon the minister said there was nothing that justified his comment because Mr. Currie was only investigating the army works services, and therefore to say that there was a breakdown in the department when he was only investigating a part of the army was not warranted. I suppose, Mr. Speaker, that the only thing we can deduce from that is that the department is only responsible for whatever is good, if we can find anything. If there is anything wrong, the department is not responsible for it because the burden for that is carried by the subdivision of the army concerned.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I find myself distressed by this because it seems to me that it indicates that in spite of everything the minister does not yet feel there is any real reason for correcting anything in the department. All I can say is if that is his real feeling, then it does not seem to me to make much difference whether we appoint one associate minister or a dozen associate ministers. It seems 68108-99
National Defence Act
to me that we will not get anywhere if the minister is satisfied that things are all right in the face of what has been said. There is another thing. If it is assumed that everything is all right in so far as what Mr. Currie investigated is concerned, then of course we have no right to ask that all the rest be investigated. Therefore the whole thing comes to an end if that suggestion is once accepted.
The minister said a good deal about co-ordination and unification. I want to recall to the minister's mind that I think he perhaps did not take us fully into his confidence some time ago when we raised the question of organization, I think it was on May 24, 1951. It was in answer to a question in which I asked the minister what steps he was taking to organize this tremendous job and the minister said that day, as reported at page 3362 of Hansard:
It is set up-
That is the department.
-in accordance with the practice which has obtained in the Department of National Defence over the years. There has not been much change. We have to do a job, and we do it.
That was on May 24, 1951. The minister gave us a good deal of interesting information tonight about changes which had been going on since 1946. I do not propose to follow him into the arguments about co-ordination and unification. 1 think those are long, mouthfilling words and that they express desirable things; in principle, I imagine we are all in favour of them. The only thing I can say is that if what we have now is co-ordination and unification in the department, then we should try to have something else or should try a different type of co-ordination and unification.
There is one further point I wish to make with regard to that matter, Mr. Speaker. I want to bring back to the attention of the house the words Mr. Currie used indicating the need for the broadest kind of reorganization in the department, not confined to the army works department or confined to anything. These are his words as they appear at page 717 of Hansard:
What is needed now is the creation-
Note the word "creation", Mr. Speaker.
-of a system designed to fit the economic and efficient administration of a large and long-sustained preparedness program inside a national economy . . .
Mr. Speaker, if that indicates anything it indicates the need for building a new structure, the need for a complete overhaul. All I can say is that if those words have gone over the minister's head, or have gone over

National Defence Act
the minister like water over a duck's back, the situation disturbs me more than I can say.
I now want to say a word or two in particular about the proposal of the Prime Minister. My trouble about it is that just as we often hear it said that we are in a kind of twilight war, so I think this a kind of twilight measure. We recognize-and the Prime Minister was at pains to point it out the other night-that the Minister of National Defence has been carrying a tremendous burden. I repeat what I said the other night, namely that I think the government is greatly to blame for having allowed that situation to continue. Readiness to work hard is not a substitute for organization. If we have had unification, all I can say is that it has landed us in a mess. Incidentally, I should like to point out to the Prime Minister the language used in 1940, when the ministries were set up to carry on the war-of course I admit that the present situation is substantially different
__and the clear-cut words that were used to
define the duties of the minister. I will read what was said in the statute about the minister of national defence for air:
The minister of national defence for air shall be entitled to exercise all the powers of the Minister of National Defence in respect of any matter relating exclusively to the air service.
There, I submit, is a clear-cut definition of the powers and responsibilities; and it goes on to say that when a matter affects more than one service, then there is to be consultation with the minister. But I submit, Mr. Speaker, that that shows the kind of situation we want.
I want to revert for a moment to another matter. There is one other thing the minister said today to which I take great exception and which I wish to mention. That was the attempt that I was amazed to see him make to drag in the navy and the 25th brigade -incidentally as if they were creations of the government instead of belonging to the people of Canada. Really, as far as I could follow him, his suggestion was that in our criticisms we were criticizing the fighting men. I would say to him that is an utterly unfair suggestion, and I am amazed at him for making it, and I hope he will withdraw it.


Brooke Claxton: I never made any such suggestion and the hon. member knows it.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: No; I do
not know it.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The minister is telling you now.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: If the minister says that, then I withdraw that part of my statement. I could only take that meaning from it.


Brooke Claxton: May I make the words plain? Will the hon. member permit me to do so? What I had endeavoured to suggest, until I was interrupted, was that if we had achieved-and I am talking about the people of Canada-such success with the armed forces in their operational activities, it was not precisely the kind of evidence of a general breakdown of administration of the Department of National Defence that justifies the kind of sweeping statements that are made in attacking the department.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The minister is now talking about the Currie report.
I am quite content to let Mr. Currie stand behind his own report.


Brooke Claxton: It has nothing to do with the Currie report. It has to do with the statements of the opposition.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I continue. The reasons given for all these months of delay I found to be disappointing indeed. The Prime Minister said-and bear in mind that this was two and a half years ago-as reported at page 1240 of Hansard:
Even with the coming of war in Korea and the rapid planned build-up of forces for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, it was not for some time that the pattern of our defence effort came to be worked out.
That is the end of the quotation from the Prime Minister. All I can say is that I do not think the pattern has been worked out yet. In the second place, as reported on the same page of Hansard the Prime Minister said:
While the load of work borne by the Minister of National Defence was very great it was not clear, until the greatly enlarged program got under way, how best to divide the responsibilities of the defence department.
I would point out that now, when things are not so pressing, when we can look at things more calmly, it took two and a half years to do this whereas when the war was on they managed to get around to it and passed the legislation in 1940. In other words they did it in considerably less than a year. I found that part of the argument extremely unconvincing. Finally the Prime Minister, as reported at page 1241 of Hansard, said:
Having now settled the main lines of our defence effort and having reached the principal decisions on policy, it has been possible to work out a plan for sharing the heavy load of responsibility-
-and so on. I have pointed out to you, Mr. Speaker, the clear-cut responsibilities that

were laid on the ministers and the clear-cut statement of duties contained in the legislation of 1940. Now I want to read what the Prime Minister said as to the division we shall now have. I am reading from page 1240 of Hansard:
The main line of division-
That is between the minister and the associate minister.
-will be that the minister will usually attend to matters having to do with defence relationships with the United Nations, with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, with countries of the commonwealth and with the United States. He will also usually take the initiative with respect to matters of policy within Canada relating to defence generally or to two or more of the three services.
Then he goes on to say:
The associate minister, in addition to carrying on the work of the minister when the minister is away, will keep more closely in touch with matters of administration relating to the services.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest that they are just going to be like Siamese twins, that there is no clear-cut division, that the whole thing is woolly and that the upshot will be that the Minister of National Defence will not really be relieved of any responsibility at all. It is all resting on his shoulders, and we will have the present situation or perhaps even worse. So I am disappointed-disappointed more than I can say-that the representations made at this time from this side of the house have carried no weight. I can only hope that when the amendment is put tonight there will be some members on the government side who will feel differently.


Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, when he was speaking just before the dinner recess, and making reference to the treatment of the chief auditor's reports by his department, as reported by Mr. Currie, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) said:
I said in my remarks before that he had made a total of 1,185 reports to the deputy minister since his appointment. Those reports go to the deputy minister and result in action by the deputy minister. If there is anything in the reports requiring my attention the deputy minister brings that to my attention, but in his own words.
Now I am going to repeat the paragraph just read by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell), because I believe it is the crux of the situation with which Mr. Currie dealt. I repeat his words:
The chief auditor of the department had performed his functions conscientiously. 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.
National Defence Act
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.
I believe it is obvious from this that if the deputy minister had required the quartermaster general to report back to him on the various occasions when he directed the quartermaster general to investigate the conditions reported to him by the chief auditor, there would have been no need for any investigation by Mr. Currie, because the conditions which made that investigation necessary would have been wiped out several years ago.
The minister has said he is responsible for all actions within his department. Therefore of course he is responsible for this gross negligence on the part of his deputy minister in not requiring the quartermaster general, time and again, to report back on his findings!
Those in charge of this department obviously do not understand the principles upon which business, especially big business, are operated. I refer particularly to the delegation of authority which requires those to whom authority is delegated to report back on those matters concerning which they are told to investigate. In any business of which I am aware, any subordinate who had been given a job to investigate and report back, and who did not report back, would be fired; and any executive who required that subordinate to report back, and did not see that he reported back, would also be fired. Any president and board of directors that tried to justify such negligence to its shareholders would certainly be fired at the next annual meeting.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I know it is difficult to relate the discussion of the Currie report to the bill without going into the details of the report. I have not objected to reference being made to the Currie report, but such reference must be in direct relation to the bill, which has for its purpose the amending of the National Defence Act by the appointment of an associate minister of national defence. I would ask hon. members to endeavour to relate any reference to the Currie report to the bill now before the house.


George Harris Hees: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I shall close my remarks by asking the minister this question. Does the minister consider that the deputy minister took adequate and satisfactory action in requiring the quartermaster general to investigate and report back, and then never, on any occasion whatsoever, checking the quartermaster general because he did not report back?

National Defence Act


Brooke Claxton: I would be happy to answer the question if the facts stated in the question were true. Unfortunately, however, they are not. They are not accurate. I think this had better be left to the committee on defence expenditure.


George Harris Hees: What part of the question is not true? My question was founded on Mr. Currie's report to this parliament. I am asking the minister what part of my question is not true.


Brooke Claxton: I could be very clear about it, that part in which you said that 'the deputy minister never, on any occasion whatsoever, checked the quartermaster general because he did not report back. As I have said to the house-and if the committee on defence expenditure wishes to see the facts, which I think are interesting, they may see them- every one of the 154 irregularities listed in appendix "B" of the Currie report is dealt with there, indicating what kind of irregularities they were, what report was made by the chief auditor, what action was taken and how the follow-up occurred. That will all be on the record.


George Harris Hees: Then may I ask another question. Does the minister then say that Mr. Currie made an erroneous report?


Mr. Speaker:: Order; I am afraid we are getting too far afield. The hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Hees) should, I suggest, try to relate his remarks to the bill.
Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


George Alexander Drew: On division.
Motion agreed to on division, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
On section 1-Associate minister.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, clause 1 is the clause which deals with the amendment of the act envisaged by introducing section 6A, and carries forward the proposal already placed before the house in the statement of

the Prime Minister this afternoon. I propose to direct my remarks entirely to the statement made by the Prime Minister because this is a bill presented 'by him, and I wish to make it quite clear that, in so far as any comments are made about the necessity of amendment, they are directed to him and to the government and not to any particular minister of that government. The government must assume full responsibility for the course that is being followed, and the acceptance of that principle has been indicated by the fact that the bill does stand in the name of the Prime Minister.
Before dealing with the wording of the sections before us I wish to deal very briefly with the suggestion that was made in this house that criticism directed to the administration of the Department of National Defence should be interpreted as criticism of the armed forces. I doubt if there could be any more improper suggestion made by any member of this government than that most improper statement. Having regard to the fact that some measure of courtesy has been extended to the minister by those whose service justifies respect, and particularly by the hon. member for Nanaimo whose service justifies the respect of every member of this house and of every Canadian, I would have thought we would not have found the government remaining silent at a time such an improper suggestion' was made, no matter what member of the government made it. There is only one thing that would interfere with the morale of the army, navy or air force.


Brooke Claxton: By the way, the suggestion was never made, Mr. Chairman.


An hon. Member:: Oh yes, it was.


George Alexander Drew: It has been made over and over again. There is only one thing that will impair the morale of the army, navy and air force, and that is if they come to the conclusion that the government are not going to act upon the recommendations made by the man they chose to conduct an inquiry.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order.


George Alexander Drew: The one thing-*


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. I think it is my
duty to remind the Leader of the Opposition that according to standing order No. 58, paragraph (2):
Speeches in committee of the whole house must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration.
It is a pretty wide clause, I understand, but I do not think it is so wide that the Leader of the Opposition can make a speech
National Defence Act
of the type which could be made on second reading of the bill which has just been carried.


Agar Rodney Adamson: On a point of order. This afternoon when the Leader of the Opposition was not in the house you, in your office as Speaker of this house, had to request the Minister of National Defence to cease and desist from discussing the armed forces in the way he was discussing them. I mention that now, as a point of order, to show that his remark at the present time is entirely in error.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. Following what the hon. member for York West has said, I might say that if the Leader of the Opposition wished to correct a remark which had been made in the course of the speech of the Minister of National Defence he could properly have done so when the Speaker was in the chair on the motion for second reading of the bill. A moment ago, before the question was put, I noticed that the Leader of the Opposition was in his seat, and that was the time to make the correction.
That phase of the debate is now over and we are in committee of the whole house. I cannot entertain any correction or any clarification of position or any amendment of what has been said by the Minister of National Defence in reply to remarks made on second reading of the bill by the Leader of the Opposition, while we are in committee of the whole. All I can deal with now is what is being said on this clause and I am governed, as the hon. member understands, by standing order No. 58, paragraph (2), which says speeches must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration. I am sorry, but that is the rule I must apply.


Agar Rodney Adamson: My point of order was to correct a statement on second reading, while you were in the chair, which the Leader of the Opposition has not yet been apprised of.


John George Diefenbaker: In that connection, Mr. Chairman, while the rule is in effect has it not always been the habit to allow a general discussion in committee on the first section? I suggest that while the rule applies strictly once the sections are taken up individually, on the first section it has been the invariable custom to allow the widest possible discussion.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Hon. members will realize that the general discussion cannot extend beyond the two clauses which are in this amending bill. It cannot be a repetition of the general discussion which took place on the principle of the bill on second reading.



National Defence Act


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, it would appear that there has been some misapprehension about the point to which I was directing my remarks. I propose to move an amendment, and my remarks are directed to the reason why an amendment should be made.
I am suggesting that the amendment that is to be proposed is one that is in keeping with the responsibilities of this house to the members of the armed forces. I would hope that in dealing with that there will be no recurrence of any suggestion that, when we make this proposal that there be a more efficient manner of administering the Department of National Defence, and that the government assume that measure of responsibility indicated by the facts placed before us, this is in any way a reflection on the members of the armed forces.
The members of the armed forces are those who deserve immediate action to improve the situation which now exists. That situation is one which calls for some change in the general procedure and improvement in the handling of national defence. These remarks are not directed to a minister now holding a portfolio. They are directed to the Prime Minister as head of the government in relation to the suggestion that there be a new minister and, presumably, a new minister for the purpose of changing a very unsatisfactory condition which does now exist. Any suggestion that the situation is satisfactory now is simply a denial of all the facts which have been placed before us, and a denial of the known facts in the possession of every member of this house.
We have had assurance after assurance that everything was being done that should be done and then, when an opportunity is presented to obtain the facts, we get the clear and unchallengeable evidence that a great deal does remain to be done. The suggestion was made that the bill go back for reconsideration. That has been disposed of. Now we are in committee, and this is the point at which an amendment may be moved calling for the appointment of an associate minister of national defence for air. In view of the fact that the government has not seen fit to reconsider the measure it will not be possible to define by amendment in a satisfactory way the duties that should be exercised. Nevertheless, if an amendment were accepted which simply called for the appointment of an associate minister of national defence for air, that term in itself would be sufficiently descriptive to indicate the nature of the duties which could be defined for that minister under the section now before us.
The proposal has been made that we should, in this case, follow the practice which has
[The Chairman.]
been adopted in other countries of the commonwealth as well as in the United States. Every one of us recognizes that the procedure is different in the United States. Every one of us recognizes that they do not carry on government under the parliamentary system. Nevertheless, from the point of view of administration, it is significant that they have chosen to deal with this extremely important part of the responsibility of government in the very way we are suggesting it should be dealt with here. The difference between their system and our parliamentary system does not in itself render inapplicable the reasons they have adopted that course. Since it is so generally agreed that we depend very largely on the efficiency of their effort for the combined strength of the western nations, I think most of us will hope that their system is efficient. Most of us do believe that the present President of the United States has had that measure of military experience which would give him a very unusual appreciation of the type of administrative organization that would be most effective under circumstances of this kind.
The proposal that there be an associate minister of national defence for air does not create any difficulties from the point of view of administration. The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) made this clear. He has indicated that no problems arose when an associate minister was appointed before. He has made it clear that at a time when, in addition to an associate minister, there were ministers of defence for air and naval services, no problems arose as to overlapping jurisdiction or competitive efforts to advance the cause of one service or the other.
One of the reasons it does seem particularly appropriate that we should have an associate minister of defence for air is that this country, more than any other country in the world, has demonstrated its special qualifications in the air. This country, more than any other country in the world, has demonstrated the aptitude of our young men for this still comparatively new branch of the service. Moreover our geographical position makes it essential that we develop our air service in a way that will make it easy for us to contribute that form of defence which could be most effective.
Since this matter was discussed this afternoon, Mr. Chairman, I have heard certain comments made over the radio that emphasized that a minister for air services would mean added national defence costs. Actually what might well happen, and what we believe would happen, is that there could be substantially reduced national defence costs and


substantially reduced taxes as a result of that, with still greater effectiveness and hitting power if we rationalized our whole defence organization with appreciation of the fact that Canada occupies a peculiarly favoured position from the point of view of developing air defence. By the employment of air transport, by the employment of long-range aircraft of every type, we could develop a mobile force with armoured forces which could be moved rapidly to any point either in our own country or outside, with the highest economy that could be established. In this modern world, with the material resources and human skills we possess, we should be concentrating every effort to give every man in a unit the greatest hitting power that our industrial skill makes possible.
The way to do that is to develop fast, mobile forces which can be moved by air to any part of the world. This proposal has already been made on a number of occasions from this side of the house. The appointment of an associate minister of defence for air would not only make it possible to emphasize the development of our air service, but also to co-ordinate the development of our air services with the development of other forces. It would increase the hitting power per man, and in that way achieve great economy of force and great economy of manpower.
The time for a re-examination of our defence organization is long overdue. One of the ways to achieve it is to appoint a minister particularly responsible for the administration of that part of our defence organization which will be called upon to spend more than half of every tax dollar raised for the purposes of national defence. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes):
That section 1 be amended by adding the words "of air" after the word "defence" in the sixth line thereof, and that section 2 be amended by adding the words "of air" after the word "defence" in the sixth line thereof.
Now, Mr. Chairman, before you deal with that amendment, I would point out that its effect would be to have section 6A read as follows:
The Governor General may at any time by commission under the Great Seal appoint an associate minister of national defence of air who shall exercise and perform such of the powers, duties and functions of the minister as may be assigned to him by the governor in council or the minister, and shall be paid a salary of $10,000 per annum: during the period that a person holds office as associate minister of national defence-
National Defence Act
I should have the words "for air" in there. -under this section, the number of associate ministers of national defence who may be appointed under section 6 shall be reduced by one.
The same would apply to section 2. Now, Mr. Chairman, I am not attempting to deal with the details of the duties of the minister as proposed, because as I pointed out today that would practically mean the rewriting of the section. Nevertheless, if the minister is described as the minister of national defence for air, then it will be natural for the government to define his functions in relation to that title. I feel sure that, with the title adopted, the functions would naturally follow in relation to the activities of the minister in the way that has already been suggested.
I urge consideration of this proposal. I know it has been said, but I repeat, that in the face of what has come before this house it seems difficult for anyone to seriously argue that there is no need for some effective step to be taken to change the present method of handling the general organization of our defence forces. If that is so, this is a positive proposal consistent with the experience of other nations of the commonwealth and the United States with which we are associated in a common effort. If it is convenient for our Minister of National Defence to discuss problems of national defence with the other minister of national defence, it would be equally convenient for a minister of national defence for air from Canada to discuss air problems with the ministers of national defence for air of the other countries with which we are associated. That in itself would seem to be one advantage of a system of this kind. We all know of the primary importance being placed upon the development of air power by every one of the nations with which we are associated at this time.
Without attempting to go back over the various arguments that have been dealt with at other stages of the consideration of this bill, I once again urge favourable consideration of the proposal put forward in this amendment.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I notice that the amendment I have before me contains the words "of air". Does the leader of the opposition wish to have "for air" instead of "of air"?


George Alexander Drew: Yes; "for air". I regret that, Mr. Chairman; it should have been "for air"; and also it should be that in lines six and eleven.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Also in lines fourteen and seventeen.


George Alexander Drew: That is right.



National Defence Act


Louis-René Beaudoin: Therefore the motion is:
Mr. Drew moves, seconded by Mr. Pearkes, that clause 1 be amended by adding the words "lor air" after the word "defence" in the sixth line thereof and in the eleventh line thereof.
That would take care of clause 1. Perhaps it might be preferable to wait until we consider the second clause before we put the amendment on that clause, which would be:
That section 2 be amended by adding the words "for air" after the word "defence" in the sixth line, and in the eleventh line thereof.


Jean-Paul Stephen St-Laurent: With respect to part II, there it will follow as a matter of course. Part II is only a reproduction of part I for the purpose of making the revised statutes conform with whatever may be adopted at this session. Therefore, as a matter of substance, we really have to deal only with part I.
The hon. gentleman proposes that the words "for air" be added in part I after "associate minister of national defence". The effect of that, if it has any effect at all, would be to restrict the authority that would be indicated by parliament as being granted to this minister of national defence. There is something which I find strange about this amendment. I will not say it is illogical. I suppose that the purpose, object and function of the opposition is always to find that even when we are doing the right things, we are doing them in the wrong way. I am not disputing my hon. friend's right to be quite sincere about it. His suggestion was that it was quite wrong to come to parliament, that we had in the National Defence Act the right to do the very thing that we were asking parliament to join us in doing. Had we done it-


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the Prime Minister who made the suggestion that it was improper to come to parliament?


Jean-Paul Stephen St-Laurent: The hon. gentleman himself; the Leader of the Opposition. Every hon. member who spoke against the resolution when we were at the resolution stage suggested that this was quite unnecessary, that we were in the emergency that was provided for in the Emergency Powers Act, and that under the Emergency Powers Act we could have done just exactly what it was proposed to do by this legislation.


George Alexander Drew: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, I would point out that the statement made by the Prime Minister is wholly incorrect. What was recommended was that this matter come before parliament and that we deal in explicit detail with the functions and responsibilities of the minister. That proposition has been argued on every occasion. The point that was raised in regard to
[Mr. Drew.l
the emergency act was that if the government was going to rely on an emergency-


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. May I point out that now we are in committee hon. members may take part in debate as often as they wish. If the Leader of the Opposition wishes to clarify or correct part of the speech made by the Prime Minister, perhaps it might be advisable for him to wait until the Prime Minister has concluded his remarks.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I am not going to make any argument about it. The thing is there in writing. It is on the record, and I rely on the record to show whether or not the suggestion was made that it was quite unnecessary to come here with a resolution for the introduction of a bill because the National Defence Act provided in its terms that we could do, during an emergency, what the resolution suggested we wanted to do.
The argument on that matter was as to the character of the emergency. We had some further discussion about that matter this afternoon on the second reading of the bill, and the hon. member for Lake Centre asked what distinction I would make between the kind of emergency described in the National Defence Act and in the War Measures Act and the kind of emergency described in the Emergency Powers Act. I think we both agreed that it was really a matter of degree rather than a matter of substance that distinguished the two. But the suggestion made was: You do not need this at all; you can go ahead and do it under the National Defence Act.


John George Diefenbaker: I never made any such suggestion.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No; the hon. member for Lake Centre did not make that suggestion. I am just reminding the hon. member for Lake Centre that we had this exchange of views as to what difference there might be between the one emergency and the other.
The defence act provides that in an emergency not only one but three associate ministers can be appointed to do just exactly the same thing that is provided for, and in the same language that is found in section 6. It is exactly the same language in section 6A with respect to the appointment of one associate minister that is found in section 6 for the appointment of-
-not more than three additional ministers of national defence, each of whom shall exercise and perform such of the powers, duties and functions of the minister as may be assigned to him by the governor in council or the minister.


Here the language is exactly the same. Instead of saying:
-each of whom shall exercise and perform such of the powers, duties and functions of the minister as may be assigned to him by the governor in council-
Section 6A provides:
-who shall exercise and perform such of the powers, duties and functions of the minister as may be assigned to him by the governor in council-
All that is going to be accomplished by this bill is this insertion of section 6A. There is not going to be any amendment of section 4 of the act which comes after section 2, the interpretation clause which determines what is meant by "minister". Section 4 says:
The minister shall have the control and management of the Canadian forces, the defence research board and of all matters relating to national defence including preparation for civil defence against enemy action, and shall be responsible for the construction and maintenance of all defence establishments and works for the defence of Canada.
That is going to stay there. Therefore even if this amendment were accepted and this provision were made for the appointment of an associate minister for air, the overriding powers of the minister under section 4 would still exist and there would still have to be this co-operation, understanding and mutual respect for each other, and mutual help to each other that is going to be required under this bill as it stands. The only effect of the amendment would be to indicate that in the view of parliament the associate minister should not be concerned with anything but that part of the service which is the Royal Canadian Air Force.
We wish the associate minister to have more of the powers of the minister than would be implied in the amendment that is now suggested. We wish him to be the associate minister and to have all the powers, duties and functions of the minister, to be able to exercise them jointly with the minister and to be able to do what was provided in the statutes of 1940, namely that he might replace the minister, act for the minister and exercise all the powers of the minister that were not withheld from him by the governor in council; and none were ever withheld. I do not think it necessary or desirable nor do I think it would make for efficiency to restrict to the Royal Canadian Air Force the powers of the minister that might be exercised by this associate minister. I submit that the associate minister here will have just exactly the same status, position and authority as he would have had, had we found that there was the kind of emergency that made it proper to do it by order in council.
National Defence Act


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Chairman, I do not inten to repeat the arguments advanced during th resolution stage and in the debate on secon reading of the bill, upon which occasions w have advocated that the activities of th associate minister be confined, in the main, t dealing with the Royal Canadian Air Forci or the air service.
It seems to me that the restriction of hi authority to certain specific details or, to b precise, to the administration of one servici is a very distinct advantage rather than disadvantage, as was implied by the Prim Minister's remarks. Surely the confusio into which the Department of National De fence has now been thrown, surely all th uncertainty about the administration of tha service, surely the very fact that there noA has to be a division of responsibility, is du to the fact that one minister has had sue a wide range of responsibility, and that hi responsibility was not confined to definit limits capable of being handled efficientl by any one person.
Having spread the minister's responsibilit over all branches of the Department c National Defence, it seems to me the goverr ment is now committing exactly the sam fault by spreading the responsibility of th associate minister over all the variou branches of the department. Rather tha being a detriment to effective administratior it seems to me the suggestion I make woul be a very definite advantage in the adminis tration of the department, and a step towar efficiency.
There are many other ways in which th Minister of National Defence may receiv assistance in the administration of the othe branches of his department, namely th army and the navy. He may have parlis mentary assistants to help him in that respec But surely if we are going to have efficienc in this department we should take this grea air service away from the general adminis tration or general supervision of the Ministe of National Defence and give it to one defir ite person. The administration of that serv ice would be his responsibility. He woul not be asked to spend his time dealing wit the administration of the navy, the army c any other branches of the department.
A minister for air would confine his atter tion to that branch of the service which noi is spending .a billion dollars, a branch whic is taking 50 per cent or more of the tots amount to be voted to this departmen Therefore it seems perfectly logical to sug gest that the associate minister should cor fine his attention to the air service.
Of course there will be the necessary cc operation; of course there must be mutus

National Defence Act
espect between the Minister of National defence and an associate minister for air. We annot see them working in watertight com-lartments. But what we are trying to do s ensure that one man has a reasonable imount of responsibility, that he has respon-ibility over a limited field, or a field over vhich it would be possible for him or for my other man in his position to exercise Luthority.
As I say, we would expect the same co-iperation. We would expect the same mutual *espect between the Minister of National Defence and his associate minister for air. presume there would be the same co-opera-ion and the same mutual respect that must ixist among all members of the cabinet. I iee no reason why that co-operation and nutual respect should cease just because he responsibilities of an associate minister or air were restricted to the air service.
It is a clean, straightforward division of esponsibility. It can be made effective; it :an be made efficient. On the other hand, here is still confusion; there is still too wide i distribution of responsibility over too wide i field, and it is beyond the capabilities of i human being to exercise that supervision fficiently over such a wide field. Therefore support the amendment.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Mr. Chairman, I have only i word to say. If I had not been convinced hat a minister for air was desirable, then most certainly would have been after laving read in some detail the remarks of the etiring chief of the air staff, Air Marshal V. A. Curtis, who dealt with the problems if the air arm. He dealt in detail with the iroblems of the defence of this country from he air. He dealt in detail with the ability, he genius, of the Canadian in the air. He lealt in detail with the logistics of the geo-[raphical problems in Canada.
In the house some nights ago I asked these (uestions, and the Minister of National Defence answered in general terms. But the pecific answers were contained in Air Marshal Curtis' speech. Those answers were echnical, in some degree. But today, when ve are moving at this rate in matters of lational defence, it is necessary for all of us o spend some time in the study of these iroblems.
As the problems grow more complex, it is mpossible for any one man dealing with the 'eneral problem of land warfare also to deal vith the problem of air warfare which, I :uggest, constitutes at least half or probably nore than half the whole problem of national lefence. If any proof is needed that we hould have a minister for air, it is contained 
in the words spoken the other day by the retiring chief of the air staff.
To give one example: Speaking earlier, I mentioned that we would have to reorient our ideas with respect to fighting aircraft, that we would have to produce aircraft that could fly beyond the sound barrier in level flight for sustained periods of time, and that would mean an entirely new development in air thinking. There was a general reply; but Air Marshal Curtis dealt with this matter in detail, because he was capable of giving the answers. There is proof that you have a capable specialist who knows the air as the new theatre of war. We are spending over half our total defence expenditures on air, and this will grow and grow as the years go by. Within a few years it may so predominate our thinking on national defence that we will have a minister for air and the other ministers will be subordinate to him.
I mention these things because I think they are so important that I believe this move should be taken now; therefore I support the amendment.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, as you have pointed out, it is possible to speak again in committee. So that the record may be quite clear I wish to deal with the statement made by the Prime Minister that we had urged a contrary course. The record does speak quite clearly as the Prime Minister has said. For that reason I would refer to what I said on January 22, as reported on page 1242 of Hansard as follows:
If there is to be an additional minister, then I submit that one of the things which should be before the house is a clear definition of the responsibilities of that minister. If his real duty is to be that of an administrative official with cabinet rank, then I believe that should be before us in some detail when we say that it is expedient to introduce an appropriate amendment for this purpose. If on the other hand it is to deal with a particular service, then I think that should be before us.
Then I went on to deal with the question of the emergency. What I was emphasizing was that if the government was going to rely on emergency powers in one case, it certainly was inconsistent to suggest in another case that it was not going to regard this as an emergency. The Prime Minister pointed out that he did draw a distinction between the nature of the emergency as defined in the National Defence Act and that he did not feel it was proper to proceed under that act.
We were not urging that the government act that way; we were pointing out that if they were going to assert an emergency, then they had the powers already rather than to deal with it in this unsatisfactory manner. That was the emergency I was

referring to. Having discussed that, I then went on to say, as recorded later on the same page:
I submit that if there is no emergency we should follow the normal method, and that a bill should be introduced to deal with the appointment of a new minister in the ordinary way. Otherwise it is open to the government to appoint a new minister by order in council at any time without the matter being submitted to parliament. If there is no emergency, then the ordinary procedure of creating a new ministry and describing its functions by statute should be employed.
Then a little later I said:
I should think that everything that has taken place in the house ever since we met this session would emphasize the need for the most exact procedure in dealing with all matters connected with the Department of National Defence. I do not think we should further increase the opportunity for informal proceedings and undefined authority.
That is exactly what I have been contending, that we should not increase the opportunity for informal proceedings and undefined authority. I am suggesting now by the amendment put forward that we should specifically name the minister as the minister of national defence for air. While it may not be possible now to draft the details of a satisfactory measure, I feel sure if this were done the government would in the very nature of things define his function in relation to air activities.
It does seem strange that there is absent from the arguments being made by the government in regard to this matter an acceptance of the fact that there is urgent need for radical reforms in the handling of our national defence and that there is urgent need for some steps to be taken to avoid the kind of waste and extravagance and the invitation to theft which have been placed before us.
The government is certainly in position where it should place before us something that will give us assurance of a more effective method of handling our defence problems. No mere addition of a new minister with the same functions the minister already has will meet the situation with which we are faced. We must have a change of system. There is no hint of any change of system now placed before us. Without a change of system the government are going to find themselves in the same confusion, in the same uncertainty, in the same breakdown which has already been described to us.
Surely this is the time the government should rise to the level of events. Surely this is the time the government should act in accordance with the nature of the situation which has been described to us. Surely this is the time the government should be ready to accept a suggestion which would greatly increase the efficiency of our preparations for defence now and in the months ahead.
National Defence Act


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, there is one point about this first section that bothers me and the proposed amendment of the Leader of the Opposition does not settle that poinl in my mind. I refer to the fact that the wording of the Prime Minister's bill suggests that the powers and functions and responsibilities of the associate minister are to be those to be assigned to him either by the governor in council or by the Minister ol National Defence.
The Prime Minister will correct me if I arr wrong, but I do not know of any other instance where a full-fledged member of the cabinet, with all the powers and responsibilities that go with being such a full-fledgec minister, is in the position of having his duties assigned to him by a fellow minister supposedly on the same level. I have checked the act of 1940 when provision was made for an associate minister of national defence anc also for a minister for air and a minister for naval services. Certainly there is no wording in that act which corresponds with thf wording here, under which the associate minister of national defence shall exercise and perform such of the powers, duties anc functions of the Minister of National Defence as may be assigned to him by the governo: in council or by the Minister of Nationa Defence.
It is true that in section 6 of this act there is provision for associate ministers to be appointed, three of them in fact, and tha their duties could be outlined in one of twe ways. Either their duties could be outline! by the governor in council, and that woule be the end of it, or they could be outlined b; the governor in council or the minister. Th Prime Minister knows that as yet no actio: has been taken under that section so tha even though that provision is- on the statut books, so far as I know we do not yet hav a minister in the cabinet whose position i outlined for him, not by the government as whole, not by the governor in council, but b; another minister.
A great deal has been said about the mutus respect, trust and confidence between th present Minister of National Defence an the Solicitor General, and the fact that the will get along together and so on. But w have to look at this in terms of principlf What would be the situation if other person were occupying these positions? The ques tion I am asking is this: Will it work for tw men to be on the same level, both full-fledge ministers of the government, with all th responsibilities that go with being ministei of the crown, yet one of them to be in fa( subservient to the other? I put it that way s

National Defence Act
strongly as I can, but I should like to have the Prime Minister's comment on that situation.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Of course that situation does not affect the amendment that is now before the committee. The amendment before the committee is merely to provide that the associate minister be designated associate minister for air, but that would not change the provisions of the National Defence Act in any way at all. When this act was drawn in that fashion I was concerned, as the hon. gentleman has been concerned, with that form of legislation, and I was told that we had better have it in exactly the same form in which it is already in the National Defence Act. The governor in council will assign to the associate minister equal powers with those of the Minister of National Defence and will have the right at any time to modify that should the situation require. Thus in fact you will have the same situation that existed under the statute of 1940.
Under the statute of 1940 the associate minister was given by parliament unless the governor in council otherwise directed-and ae never did otherwise direct-the right to axercise all the powers of the Minister of National Defence including those defined by :his act. Had the amendment been to substitute for the language of 6A as it is here she language that was in the statute of 1940 t would have been perfectly prepared to accept it. If that should be the desire of the committee after we have disposed of this amendment, I would be perfectly prepared ;o accept an amendment in the language of ;he statute of 1940 instead of as it is in 6A. Section 6A was drafted in this way so that ve might not have to make any explanation af why we were not satisfied with the language that we ourselves had recommended ;o parliament and that parliament had idopted in the defence act of 1950. Therefore vhen we have disposed of the present amend-nent, if there are any hon. members who 'eel that it would be preferable to have this ict read as does the act of 1940 I would be luite prepared, as the promoter of this legis-ation, to accept that kind of amendment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I appreciate the Prime
Minister's comments. I should like to reply o one point. He said that when section 6A vas drafted the government felt it should ise the language that was approved by par-iament when the National Defence Act was ast before us. May I draw to his attention hat section 6, subsection 1, of that act con-ains two alternative ways of dealing with his matter.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Prime Minister will find that section in the explanatory notes on the righthand page of the bill now before us. Section 6(1) contains two alternative ways of dealing with this problem, and they are set out as subparagraphs (a) and (b). Subparagraph (a) provided that the powers of any such additional minister would be prescribed by the governor in council. That was as far as subparagraph (a) went. It was subparagraph (b) that imported this idea of these powers being set up either by the governor in council or the minister. In my view section 6(1) (a) is infinitely preferable to section 6(1) (b). It seems to me that it puts ministers on the level they ought to be in the cabinet. I should like to ask this question. If the Prime Minister took for the new section 6A wording that was already in the act, why did he take the wording of 6(1) (b) rather than the preferable wording of 6(1) (a)?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Because we were appointing only one, and it seemed to be more convenient to have him described as an associate minister of national defence than to have him described as an additional minister of national defence. As a matter of fact when the speech from the throne was drawn the same careful scrutiny of the language to be used had not been given to the act, and we announced that we would recommend to parliament the appointment of an associate minister.


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: There was one small point that occurred to me with respect to the wording. It says, "such of the powers, duties and functions of the minister as may be assigned to him by the governor in council or the minister". Is that really intended to be an alternative or is it such duties as may be assigned by the governor in council and the minister? Does it mean "and/or"?


Jean-Paul Stephen St-Laurent: I think it is intended to mean that there will be an order in council assigning certain powers and functions, and that there might be additions to that made by the minister.


William Joseph Browne: "And/or"?


Jean-Paul Stephen St-Laurent: And/or. Our law officers do not like the expression "and/or". They seem to feel that "or" means "and/or".


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: It seems to me the government is wasting a great deal of the time of the Canadian taxpayer in trying to create Siamese twins which they have great hopes will solve some of their problems. We all know that Siamese twins are greatly handicapped. Thousands of dollars are spent in trying to make even one of them function

properly, but here they are trying to make Siamese twins out of two ministers of national defence and the end result will be worse than the results already achieved by one minister. Why do they not make up their minds to answer the public properly, because not only members of the opposition but members of the Liberal party realize in their hearts that they have a duty to the people of Canada and to the people of the world to do their part in defending peace and preparing for war if necessary. We went into one great war short of men and munitions and the people of our country woke up to the realization that their boys and girls were going to war to be slaughtered.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. Perhaps I should tell the hon. member that the discussion now should proceed according to the standing order I quoted earlier, and it is further narrowed because of the amendment.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I will narrow it down to the Siamese twins. Surely the Prime Minister must realize that he is giving nothing to the public of Canada when he offers a dual ministry. If the government's intention is to do what the people want, and if they wish to give the people what they want, surely they should announce to this flabbergasted country what will be the functions of
National Defence Act
the gentleman who is to be appointed as the new minister of national defence. With the exception of the government, neither members of parliament nor anybody else will know about the duties of the newly appointed minister until some other mess is created and they realize that the welding together of the twins has not been a perfect operation.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall I put the question?


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.
Section stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Fournier (Hull):: Tomorrow we wil continue the consideration of Bill No. 103, tc amend the National Defence Act. Then we will take up Bill No. 102, respecting the roya! style and titles. Then we will move to gc into supply and call the following departments:	external affairs, transport, laboui
and agriculture. After calling these departments, we will take up the bills under the name of the Minister of Transport.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, February 3, 1953