1953-01-16

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 102, an act respecting the royal style and titles.
He said: This bill is to secure constitutional approval of changes envisaged in the royal style and titles which were agreed to at the prime ministers' conference in London in December. It was decided that they should be recommended to the respective parliaments of the commonwealth. It is to carry out the agreed minute which was tabled in this house on December 15, as printed as an appendix to Hansard of that date.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):: would like to ask a question, and although I did not give notice to the minister, the matter was up before and it is this. Has consideration been given to permitting employees of the Canadian National Railways, who are in receipt of excess contributions under the original pension plan, to be relieved from reporting such refunds as income, as though they were received during the current year?
I understand that representations to that end have been made and I would like to know the result from either the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) or the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier). I do not know which minister is looking after it.


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, some consideration has been given to the matter. As the law stands now, the amount received is taxable in the year it is received. However, we will take the question as notice and if there is further information we can get for the hon. member we will be very glad to give it.


John George Diefenbaker: Might I ask a further question in that connection, since it affects many employees? They claim they were given promises to that effect.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


John George Diefenbaker: There is nothing controversial about this. They claim that they were promised to that effect and I wonder whether the Minister of Transport is in a position to say whether they were, and in any event whether he would recommend that something be done along the line suggested in my first question.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: I have given some attention to the problem and I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that no promise was given in so far as the Department of Transport was concerned. I have received representations from the chairman of the committee established under the pension scheme and I intend to discuss the matter with my colleague the Minister of National Revenue.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):: Mr. Speaker, on December 17, as recorded at page 832 of Hansard, I asked this question of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann):
Will the government take steps leading to the appointment by the house of a special committee of the house at an early date to review the report and operations and policies of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation?
The minister's reply was:
Mr. Speaker, the government have no objection to following that course and I will place the matter before my colleagues immediately.
I wonder if the minister would indicate whether it is the government's intention to place a notice of motion to that effect on the order paper at an early date so that the committee can be appointed and launch on its inquiry very soon.


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact the motion has been drawn and, as has happened in years gone by, we are awaiting
1058	HOUSE OF
Committee on Defence Expenditure nominations from the party to which the hon. gentleman belongs to complete the personnel of the committee.


Donald Methuen Fleming: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The minister has no right to make the statement he has just made, because it has not been the practice to make these nominations until the house has approved the motion to set up the committee. If the minister will indicate that that will be done, the nominations will be readily forthcoming.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think I should allow a debate on the matter at this time.



DEFENCE EXPENDITURE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, January 15, consideration of the motion of Mr. St. Laurent for the appointment of a committee to examine defence expenditures and commitments, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Claxton, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Knowles.
Mr. P. E. Wright (Melfort):: When the house rose last night, we were discussing the matter of the Currie report. Before dealing with that matter specifically, I want to make a few remarks about the speech made yesterday by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). I must say that I was surprised that the Prime Minister should have displayed what I considered to be a waspish bad temper with regard to this matter. Perhaps it was brought about by the weakness of the argument which he had to make. Knowing the Prime Minister as we do in this house as having always been a fair-minded person, I did not expect that he would stoop to use what I at least consider to be sly insinuations and innuendoes against the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) to draw attention away from the poor administration of the Department of National Defence. To me, that seemed to be beneath the dignity of the Prime Minister, and beneath the dignity of the position which he occupies.
The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar needs no defence from me in this house. His record over the years has been one of meticulous care and good judgment in the debates of this house. At no time has he ever tried to take advantage or to use innuendoes against any other member of this house. As a matter of fact, in my opinion, the whole matter of this working paper which came into his hands has been overemphasized. It is not the first occasion upon which the members of this group have had alleged


irregularities in various government departments brought to their attention. In every case, we have carefully considered the use to be made of that information and intended to use it in the public interest. In some cases, we have seen fit to do nothing about it. In other cases, we have seen fit to bring it to the attention of the minister concerned when we felt confident that he did not know of the irregularities, and if * 'they were brought to his attention he would take the necessary action immediately to correct them. I am pleased to say that in most instances that has been the case.
In the matter of this working paper which came into the possession of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, we did not have the same confidence because, in that working paper, this was stated:
Before reciting the irregularities and their circumstances uncovered by the R.C.M.P.-with the assistance later of the provincial police and the army provost corps-it must be said that internal warnings had not been lacking in the Department of National Defence. 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. The process is then again repeated.
What confidence could we have that action would be taken had the working paper which came into our hands been submitted to the minister himself? I should like to ask the minister or the associate minister whether copies of the chief auditor's reports, given to the deputy minister, had been placed in the hands of the minister himself? If they were, why did he not follow them up and take the necessary action to correct these practices which, according to Mr. Currie's report, had been going on, not for months but for years. There are some very pertinent questions which I think the Minister of National Defence has failed to answer in that respect. I want to say that the type of innuendo that was used in the house yesterday was the sort of thing that one might expect from a second-rate debater on the hustings in the heat of an election. Certainly, it was not the type of thing one would expect from the Prime Minister of this country in dealing with a serious matter of maladministration in one of the largest spending departments of this government.


An hon. Member:: You don't like it.


Percy Ellis Wright: To me, the seriousness of this matter is that the taxpayers of this country, from whom in 1951 the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) saw fit to collect $1,725 million for our armed forces and last year collected taxes of $2,100 million, are going to ask questions. They are going to wonder whether they should be taxed to the extent that they are taxed for our armed forces, unless this money is going to be used for the purposes for which it is being collected. They will want to get dollar value. If we want to have national defence in this country, then we have to have the confidence of the taxpayers in the Department of National Defence. Certainly, they cannot have that confidence today, following the issuance of this report and other incidents which are happening in this department. Yet, when we suggest that the government should give consideration to having Mr. Currie inspect some of the other parts of the Department of National Defence, the Prime Minister rises and states that he does not consider it is necessary.
As a matter of fact, the corps that has been investigated is only a small portion of our armed forces. Here is what the minister stated with respect to that. It is found on page 936 of Hansard for January 13, 1953.
Now, let me point to another fact in the organization of the Canadian army which has some importance. The Canadian army, as is the case in most countries, is divided into corps. There are fourteen in all, and they include armour, infantry, signallers, etc. One of the corps is the Hoyal Canadian Engineers. The engineers, in turn, have two components, the field units which do the engineering work in the field and the army works Services which have to do with accommodation and services at static establishments. The Currie report has, of course, to do with this latter branch, that is the army works services and this branch only.
After listening to some of the speakers on the government side of the house, one would think that Mr. Currie had made an investigation info all branches of the army and that only in the case Of the camp at Petawawa were any irregularities discovered. That is not the case at all. His investigation covered only a small part of the army. I believe that this particular works division spent only about $150 million in the year 1951 out of about $1,725 million voted for the army in that year. This year they are spending a little bit more of the $2,100 million voted for the army during the past year. But there are other corps in the army, and to say that everything is lovely in all of the other branches in the army is something which I do not think can be justified by the findings of the Currie report itself.
Committee on Defence Expenditure Here is what Mr. Currie had to say with regard to that matter, as appears at page 712 of Hansard:
The conclusion I have come to is that, while there has been a general breakdown in the system of administration, supervision and accounting, it was only at Petawawa that extensive irregularities over a prolonged period of time took place. The contents of this chapter are chiefly based upon my studies there, because of the existence there of a combination of factors; lax control, poor discipline and the presence of dishonest personnel. The combination proved disastrous.
It is perfectly evident that there was lax administration not only at Petawawa but in government departments and that there was poor accounting in the defence forces right across the Dominion of Canada; but only one branch, namely the works services division, has been investigated to date.
To say that in the defence expenditure committee we can have a thorough investigation of the other branches is, in my opinion, just nonsense. It takes a chartered accountant to do that work. It takes a great deal of close investigation to dig out the facts in these cases. That fact was evidenced by Mr. Currie's report as to what took place at Petawawa. He said out of five thousand different articles being purchased for that camp, he took one, namely cement, to try to make a thorough investigation into what happened with regard to the disposal and the purchase of cement in that camp. He said he chose that example because, in his opinion, it was the easiest one to follow. Yet, with his accountants, he said it took him three weeks of continuous work to trace what happened to one article in the camp at Petawawa. What chance has a defence expenditure committee, composed of members in the proportion of three government members to one of the opposition, to dig into the thousands and thousands of articles which are being purchased for the army right across Canada today? What chance have they to make a thorough investigation? It is just nonsense to talk of it, Any member of this house who has sat on these committees knows that it is only when you have competent chartered accountants to check the books and to follow through that such a thing can be dope.
This defence expenditure committee would be sitting here for the next three years before they could complete an investigation; and I do not think we are going to be here for three years. I rather expect that something will take place inside of the next three months; and as far as the investigations of this defence expenditure committee are concerned, I rather expect that they will be kept busy considering something that has already been investigated- The Minister of

Committee on Defence Expenditure National Defence (Mr. Claxton) moved that the first thing that should be investigated by that committee was the Currie report. He cannot have it both ways. In one instance he says that the Currie report is a report about incidents that have already happened and have already been investigated and corrected. Then he says that he wants the committee to spend its time doing further investigation on the Currie report. What nonsense! It is as if there was nothing else to be investigated in the Department of National Defence except the report of Mr. Currie which indicates right through that there is something else which should be investigated. That is indicated not only in the Currie report. The Auditor General in his report to the house, which was just tabled the other day, also indicates that there are other things in the Department of National Defence which should be investigated with regard to the auditing and the accounting system used in that department. Let me read just two or three of his recommendations. At page 24 of his report he states:
(a)	No clear distinction has been drawn between stores procured for stockpiling or the equivalent, and those for normal peacetime needs;
(b)	Long-term usage is to regard stores as service property with responsibility for accounting and custody vested in various components of the service forces. The consequence is that no civilian authority answerable to parliament exercises direct control after procurement;
(c)	Each service accounting system has forms for similar purposes but the forms, generally, are not standardized throughout the services;
(d)	Practices governing service promotions are not such as to safeguard against officers with insufficient accounting experience being placed in accounting control of large inventories. A like situation exists with respect to those responsible for warehouse management-
It is quite evident that the Auditor General agrees with Mr. Currie that the auditing systems being used in the army are not what they should be and that further investigation and correction should take place with regard to them. That is all our amendment suggests. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) moved the following amendment:
That the amendment be amended by adding thereto the following words:
"and to give consideration to the desirability of recommending that Mr. Currie be asked to conduct a further inquiry into any other expenditures and commitments covered by the terms of this resolution".
That is simply asking that Mr. Currie be authorized to go ahead and investigate these thirteen other corps in the army in order to see whether the accounting systems there are what they should be. Yet the Prime Minister indicates that he will not support that recommendation "to give consideration".


What does that mean? It means that I shall be greatly surprised if every Liberal member in the house does not support the Prime Minister. I shall be surprised if the committee will, of their own initiative, go ahead and ask Mr. Currie, in the face of an adverse vote here in the house, to investigate further the other departments in the army. It is just ridiculous to think that they would do so. Yet it is quite evident that that investigation is necessary. It is quite evident that the accounting systems are not what they should be in departments of the army other than the Royal Canadian Engineers works services division. Not until some outside authority goes in, inspects those accounting systems and sees that they are operating effectively will the people be satisfied. Only then will the taxpayers of this country, who are providing the huge sums of money that are necessary for our armed forces at this time, be satisfied and feel that their money is being spent in a proper manner in the Department of National Defence.
Another point raised by the Prime Minister yesterday was with regard to the conduct of the chief of the general staff in this country, and whether he had or has the right to go into print and comment on a matter of political importance which is being discussed in this house. I just cannot agree with the Prime Minister in what he had to say in that regard. I do not see why the chief of the general staff, if he has some statement to make, or if he thinks that there are reports in the press which would reflect on any part of the army, cannot make his protest through his minister here in the House of Commons. I think it is a terrible precedent to set in a democratic country, to allow the heads of our armed forces to enter into a political discussion on a matter which is being discussed on the floor of this house. If we allow that, where are we going to stop? Are the deputy ministers of other departments, when their estimates are before this house, when something is being discussed with regard to their estimates, going to be able to go to the press and issue statements which might have political implications in them? Surely the Prime Minister did not mean that when he made his statement yesterday in the house.
We all respect the part that our armed forces played in this country during the last two wars. There are many members in this house who belong to the armed forces, and who are just as jealous of their rights and privileges as is the Prime Minister; but to try to use that-as a shield against maladministration in the Department of National Defence is wrong, in my opinion, and I am surprised that the Prime Minister should attempt to do that in this house. During the

war there were many things that might have been discussed by the heads of the army, navy and air force, but not in one instance that I can recall did they go to press. If they had something to say they said it through their ministers here in the House of Commons, because they had confidence in those ministers, because they knew that those ministers could and would defend them in the House of Commons, and defend them against any imputations which might be raised either in the press or here with regard to their efficiency or to their honest administration of the departments. But apparently today they have not got that same confidence. Apparently today the chief of the general staff feels that he has to go to the press or that he has to issue statements. Why? The only conclusion one can reach is that he has not confidence in the Minister of National Defence and his ability to defend the army here in the House of Commons. That is a sad state of affairs. I would say it is a state of affairs that only the Prime Minister can correct here in this House of Commons. He has given no indication to date that he intends to correct it. He has given no indication that he intends to take any action that would effectively clean up some of these incidents that are happening.
We heard the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Shaw) in a speech earlier during this session indicate that in his opinion certain construction contracts at Penhold, Alberta, were not just everything that could be desired. Other hon. members have indicated what they believe to be irregularities. But what action have the government taken? None. The excuse given by the Minister of National Defence, by the Prime Minister and by the backbenchers on the Liberal side of the house, is to try to cover up, to try to make little of the incidents which have happened. Well, if that is to be the attitude of the government, then I am afraid that the taxpayers of this country are going to think twice before they vote for a government that spends the amounts of money that the government are spending today on our armed forces without having the proper supervision of the spending of that money, without having proper accounting systems in all corps of the army to see that that money is being used to the best advantage to secure the maximum of defence for this country. It is only when that takes place and when this government shows more initiative in the taking of the proper action, that we can hope to have the maximum of national defence in this country. It is nonsense to talk of it otherwise, and I would strongly urge that every hon. member support our motion, support the motion that Mr. Currie be given 68108-68
Committee on Defence Expenditure the authority to investigate all branches of the army, in their expenditures and in their accounting system since March 1, 1950, as indicated in this subamendment.


Mr. G. M. Murray (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a word at this time on behalf of the printers of Canada, a craft with which I have been associated all my life. Whether or not this document was stolen does not concern me so much as this, that some printer may have violated the ethics of the printing office by allowing a copy of the Currie report to go out of a printing office without authority and wrongfully.
I say that the printers of this country observe a very high code of ethics, and they will learn with great regret of the removal of this document from the Montreal printing office. If this office is under the International Typographical Union I assure you that I will expect the executive of the union to make a most careful inquiry and to fix on their behalf the guilt in this matter.
As I say, there are no finer craftsmen in Canada than the printers, and upon no group of people do we rely so much as upon the printing industry. The affairs of this parliament could not be carried on without the co-operation and service of these men, who work diligently handling the documents of the country, some of them very secret documents and very valuable, and who take care of them and go to every length to preserve secrecy and decorum in handling the documents of this house. If we are to tolerate the removal of an official document, such as the report mentioned in this house, what is to prevent some printer, on the eve of the delivery of the budget speech in this house, from extracting a copy of the budget speech and using it for his own profit or for the profit of those about him? The speech from the throne setting forth the policies of the government would not be inviolate. Under this system, if persons are allowed to use these documents, a certain political or financial group would be able to procure a copy of the speech from the throne hours before it was delivered in this house and exploit it. Similarly, financial statements of banks, mining companies and other industries would be open to those who would desire to make gain by wrongfully securing news and information in advance. And, as I say, official documents of a secret nature between nations would not be safe. Therefore to condone this sort of thing is to follow in the best pattern of communism, where the extracting of plans, drawings and documents is reduced to a fine art, as has been exemplified in the recent
1062	HOUSE OF
Committee on Defence Expenditure trials in Ottawa and at Washington where enemies of the country were brought to book on charges of espionage.
The very press of the country would be handicapped if the character of the printers was not such that documents are released on a certain date for publication. And there is not one printer from one side of this country to the other, from one coast to the other-not one publisher-who would think of violating an official speech sent out by leaders of the nation to be released at a certain hour on a certain day.
I say the whole tradition of the printing industry in Canada is the very highest, and that there has always been that desire to safeguard confidential information and to make the printed word a sacred thing in this country. So much for the printers.
I am one who has not been swept off his feet by these revelations from Petawawa. They are serious, of course. I would be the last to condone wrongdoing such as has been shown at Petawawa. Each member in the house has been placed in the position where it is necessary for him to express himself with respect to the charges which have been made against the Department of National Defence. At the same time I think we should keep the picture in proper focus.
For the most part the crimes and misdemeanours at Petawawa were not to be compared with those committed elsewhere in Canada not so long ago. The opposition seeks to shake the very foundations of the country because some junk dealers made off with certain materials from Petawawa. I desire to tell this house of wrongdoing which overshadows the whole story of Petawawa.
In the wake of war-and the very spirit of war is waste and destruction-there have always been revelations of this kind. Speaking in this house on December 1 the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) drew attention to scandals associated with the Crimean war. Then he came along farther to the South African war, and referred to the waste associated with that conflict, and the aftermath of that unfortunate war, which took a good many Canadian lives, too.
I am old enough to have been in Ottawa in 1908 when there was another Petawawa scandal. Certain officers were charged with this, that and the other thing. I think it all simmered down to the fact that a lot of moth-eaten uniforms, and so on, surviving from the South African war, which the army service corps had in storage, in warehouses in Ottawa, had been surreptitiously removed and sold, or something else. That was a


seven-day scandal in Ottawa, and was an aftermath, as I say, of the South African war.
The hon. member for Nanaimo did not go on to refer to world war I. If he had, he could have told, from firsthand knowledge, of the profiteering and waste which was tolerated. This is no time to revive references to those events-the horse deals of that era, the thefts and pilfering that went on. I am inclined to believe that Petawawa is merely incidental to the conclusion of world war II and the cold war era, in which we have existed these last few years.
Perhaps this house has never heard some of the revelations concerning the Alaska highway. I bring that up today, because I represent the riding through which the Alaska highway was constructed, and I feel it my duty, as an independent member of parliament, to bring forth the truth wherever it is possible to do so.
"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." I would like to give some of the facts regarding the Alaska highway, of very recent memory. Violent death was too often recorded in connection with the building of that highway. There the plunder, and the outright theft and destruction of goods, from 1942 onward, was such as to cause Canadians to hide their faces in shame, to think that anything like that could happen in Canada. Fortunately things did not get into the press and were not kicked around in the House of Commons for political purposes, as have been the comparatively trivial crimes and misdemeanours at Petawawa.
Let me draw attention to one thing that happened on the Alaska highway in February of 1943. Two truckloads of TNT explosives were driven into the town of Dawson Creek and, through the utter carelessness of the contractors responsible, and the army officials who had control of the contractors, an explosion occurred which killed 21 persons, wounded an unknown number and wrecked most of the town. Two soldiers were burned to death in the Dawson Creek jail, like animals caught in a trap, as a result of the fires that spread from that explosion.
Well, one might say that that was a war period, that the Americans were on the Alaska highway, and that we had no responsibility. The Alaska highway was farther away from any theatre of war in 1942 than it is today. It was a scandalous thing, and responsibility for it has never been officially fixed, although large sums of money were paid in damages and many buildings were rebuilt to replace those destroyed. A modern

hotel has been built upon the ruins of the one destroyed by that explosion, an explosion which resulted from the sheer negligence and carelessness of those in charge.
I was at Fort Nelson on a certain occasion when five thousand gallons of high octane gasoline were wasted through the neglect of army personnel. This was in 1944, and each gallon would be worth at least $4 at that time and at that place.
In 1942 two bulldozers, valued at $35,000 each, were being transported across Charlie lake on the Alaska highway. The boat tipped over and 17 men were drowned.
Two truckloads of groceries, two complete lorries loaded with groceries-and these were army lorries, driven by Canadian soldiers- were stolen from the officers' mess at Fort Nelson, along with the trucks. The groceries were sold by the soldiers, and cached at a certain farm at Fort St. John. Arrests followed, but I do not know what happened- whether the prosecution was carried out, or whether the men went to jail. I venture to say that those two truckloads of groceries were probably worth, in dollars, as much as all the miscellaneous junk stolen from Petawawa.
It was stated by persons who should know that fourteen thousand pieces of equipment at an estimated value of $10 million disappeared on the Alaska highway from 1942 until 1945. This included acetylene torches, Delco lighting units, and other units for lighting army camps, lathes, power drills, electrical equipment, transformers, automotive accessories of all kinds, automobile and truck tires, and all the other gear used in road construction and in the building of airports.
It was said that 500 trucks disappeared, along with certain gasoline shovels and other heavy equipment. In one place a hundred large cast-iron stoves, army stoves, for heating army barracks, were thrown over the bank and covered over by bulldozers, so that they could be removed later by the thieves.
Sugar and other food supplies, which were of great value at that time, and particularly at points hundreds of miles from the railhead, were stolen or disappeared. Army blankets and clothing disappeared; and Indians and others are still digging up loot along the Alaska highway, as the result of the epidemic of that time.
When authorities proceeded to investigate alleged irregularities at a large repair depot at Mile 49, where $100,000 worth of equipment such as lathes, hammers and drills were installed, the building was mysteriously burned down overnight, along with all records. In 1942 and 1943 free gasoline was
Committee on Defence Expenditure pumped at all stations for all comers, contractors, tourists, visitors, and everyone. The trucking contractor made the most of this flood of free gasoline. At Fort Alcan an entire building 120 feet long, and probably the same width-I might say that this building included the jail-was stolen along with all its contents.
The Alaska highway spree continued right under the noses of the top brass of the Canadian army. You might say that the Americans who were there were responsible, that the United States army was in there and they were responsible, but nothing of the kind was the fact. We did not surrender to the United States army any authority whatsoever respecting law enforcement. In keeping with the epidemic of plunder and corruption, there was a total lapse of law enforcement at certain points.
Ace-away games were the order of the day. This game is very popular in my part of the country. Dice are used and anyone who has shaken craps is just a novice in the use of the ivories as they have to be used in ace-away. This game flourished right along the highway and it was not unusual to see a man risk a hundred dollar bill on a throw of the dice. In fact, thousand dollar bills were risked on a throw of the dice throughout the Northwest and Yukon territories. The hon. member for Yukon-Mackenzie River (Mr. Simmons) will be able to confirm this. Whisky was $80 a bottle at Watson Lake and there was lots of it. Here is something for the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann). United States cigarettes could be had at five cents a package or fifty cents a carton. There was a direct violation of the Canadian customs regulations.
I do not propose to discuss the Canol project as that was paid for wholly by the United States government. Hon. members will remember that a Truman commission in Washington investigated this project. The waste, the theft and the sabotage associated with that project was on a superlative scale. Steamboats and barges disappeared entirely from the possession of the authorities. Most expensive technical equipment was plundered and scores of motor trucks vanished along with bulldozers and accessories and equipment. I was at Fort Norman and personally saw acres of buildings piled high with tractor parts worth millions of dollars. These were later sold or disposed of, but the world will never know how much was carried away unlawfully.
Let me quote just one incident. At Fort Norman some of my friends sought to purchase a refrigerator unit which was attached

Committee on Defence Expenditure to a barge. This was a large unit and in good condition. The farmers thought that they could acquire it as it would be a good place in which to store beef, dairy products and so forth on the farm. But the hinges of the door had been destroyed. Soldiers, in order to fasten the door in its place, the hinges having been broken off, had taken sides of Swift Premium bacon and spiked them in place as a substitute for the hinges. On the highway and on Canol carloads of the most valuable tinned goods, such as tinned hams, disappeared.
Some may think that I am out of order in bringing these facts to the attention of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, no.


An hon. Member:: Join the opposition.


An hon. Member:: Keep on going.


George Matheson Murray: I would remind the house that the young army captain who was sentenced at Petawawa, a man with a most brilliant record, received most of his training on the Alaska highway. That goes for many of the other men from Petawawa who have been sent to the penitentiary. They worked on the Alaska highway and many of them saw, at first hand, these terrific examples of wrongdoing which went unchecked by their superior officers.
I have a certain feeling of compassion for some of these men. I do not wish to see wrongdoing condoned. The law has taken its course and they must abide by the decision of the court. But I have a feeling that these young men were exposed to temptation on the highway long before they ever came to Petawawa. Probably they came there after the episodes which I have mentioned, but you cannot discuss Petawawa without recalling the chapter relating to the Alaska highway.
I am not accusing any of the senior officers of wrongdoing in this connection, but I am one who believes that a man should not consider himself holier than anybody else. The hon. member for Nanaimo was the general officer in command of the Canadian army for the Pacific in the years that I mentioned, 1942 and 1943.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Pearkes:: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the hon. member will want to keep the record straight. The Alaska highway was not under the Pacific command in those years.


An hon. Member:: Just keep the record
straight.
fMr. Murray (Cariboo).]


George Matheson Murray: The hon. member was general officer commanding the Pacific command in 1942 and 1943 and that was in the Pacific area. General W. W. Foster was appointed as a special liaison officer. It got so bad up there that they had to appoint General Foster to take charge so that he could report direct to the war cabinet at Ottawa. So the hon. member for Nanaimo was not held responsible after that first year of construction. Anyway I do not think he should be held responsible and I do not charge him with anything. But I do think he should have a little compassion for those who are being so viciously attacked over Petawawa.
I do not say that he knew what went on on the Alaska highway, but I will say that the outrages on the Alaska highway resulted primarily from the presence in the country of the United States army which introduced a system of ethics which were at least startling to Canadians.
At the same time, had there been charges in parliament over the Alaska highway disgrace in the years 1942, 1943, 1944 and thereafter, the hon. member and other senior officers in the Canadian army would have been greatly worried over matters which had got out of hand, certainly through no dereliction of duty on their part. Worried also would have been Mr. G. S. Currie, author of the Currie report, who was deputy minister of national defence throughout the period I mention when these crimes and misdemeanours were committed.


Mr. Hees:: What government was in power at the time?


George Matheson Murray: I am not going to saddle the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton), a young man with a great career ahead of him and a great record back of him, with crimes and misdemeanours which were committed long before he took office.


George Harris Hees: This government was in power. It is the same old government, the same old stuff.


Mr. Gardiner:: Where were you at the time?


George Matheson Murray: It is clearly evident that the shouting and tumult over Petawawa is for political purposes chiefly. It is unfortunate that the House of Commons should be compelled to pause for so long a period to hear debates which have become so bitter and so unprofitable. We have the great task of NATO on our shoulders; we have heavy responsibilities in Korea and on the continent of Europe. We have a list of national problems facing us which call for attention and solution. And yet we sit here day after day in

the midst of bitter accusations, the hurling of epithets, personal charges and so on, over something trivial by comparison to the things I have mentioned here. It is indeed trifling. I am afraid that some of the language used in this house will greatly discourage our participation in the United Nations war effort and it will discourage enlistment in the armed forces for Europe. By exaggerating Petawawa we are playing into the hands of our enemies.


An hon. Member:: You mean the opposition?


George Matheson Murray: I express the opinion of a good many people across Canada when I say to this parliament: Let us get on with the job.


Mr. Nickle:: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Mr. Fulton:: I understand that the hon.
member for Calgary West (Mr. Nickle) wishes to ask the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Murray) a question.


George Matheson Murray: I will be glad to
answer.


Carl Olof Nickle: Is it your intention, sir, to indicate that the responsibility for the failures in proper handling of defence funds in Canada rests with the United States army?


Some hon. Members:: Don't answer.


George Matheson Murray: The United States army is a great and powerful force for good in the world today. They make their mistakes, as the Canadian army does, but they keep on with the task.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, it is going to be extremely difficult for me to make a more effective case in dealing with Mr. Currie's report and the necessity for continuing the investigation started by him than has just been made in the speech so carefully read and eloquently delivered by the member for Cariboo (Mr. Murray), who has just taken his seat. Because never was there more clearly shown-and for the first time in this parliament-just what has been going on in this country over a period of many years as a result of lax administration of the defence department.
I shall use the words used by the member for Cariboo himself. To quote him, under this Liberal administration-and this government is a direct descendant of the government then in power-during the war and during the period of events which he described on the Cariboo highway there was an "epidemic of plunder and corruption". Mr. Speaker, I am quite sure if any one
Committee on Defence Expenditure of us in the opposition used those words, accurate and apt as they are, to describe some of the things which went on, we would be called out of order.


James Garfield Gardiner: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? Did he not use much of this kind of argument in connection with the campaign in which he won his seat and came into this house?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I most certainly did not.


James Garfield Gardiner: It was the issue of the campaign.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not know what the purpose of the hon. minister's question is, but it shows that he knows as little about the political atmosphere in British Columbia as he does about agricultural conditions there.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I know plenty about both and my hon. friend used all this information.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Let me tell the minister that what he states is not so, and-although I know that others are not particularly interested in this-I will say for his benefit, that neither my campaign nor, so far as I know, the campaign of any other Conservative in British Columbia, was carried on on the basis just described by the minister. It is of course the minister's purpose to distract attention from the fact that one of the members who support the government in this house has described what took place under a Liberal government, of which this government is a direct descendant, as an "epidemic of plunder and corruption", but those words will stand.
Yet when we suggest not that the Currie report has shown an "epidemic of plunder and corruption", but merely that the Currie report should be taken at its face value as demonstrating that there was a fundamentally loose situation with respect to the administration and control at the top level in the Department of National Defence, when we say, just take those words-very much more moderate than the words used by the member for Cariboo-at their face value, and go on from there and try to see what can be done to remedy that situation, we are accused of making arguments for political advantage. We are accused of gross exaggeration and it is stated that we are taking a minor incident at one camp and trying to make a major issue of it.
Mr. Speaker, I think that the member for Cariboo has done a great service to this parliament and this country by placing this matter in its proper perspective. Surely no members on the government side, unless they deny completely the accuracy of what has just

Committee on Defence Expenditure been said by one of their own supporters, can now be heard to say that Mr. Currie's report was not fair, reasonable and accurate in the words he used to describe the situation which he found-or to deny that-it is now a certainty that if what went on in this administration as described by the member for Cariboo is correct, then the situation described by Mr. Currie is established as fact.
That brings us very directly to what I think this house should devote its attention to-a twofold question. Firstly, where does the responsibility lie for the situation which the Currie report disclosed and what is to be done about that responsibility? Secondly what is to be done to clear up the situation which that report describes? It is significant and disturbing that, in connection with this matter of where responsibility lies, the government still seeks to evade its ultimate responsibility in connection with conditions which exist in the administration of the department-where there is such a laxity of control that these events could take place. It is true that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) says that he accepts responsibility. But, Mr. Speaker, those words themselves, not followed by action on his part or on the part of anyone else, mean nothing. Simply to say, "I admit responsibility", and then to continue a situation which is exactly the same as it was before makes the words and the utterance of those words a completely meaningless gesture.
When we consider this question of responsibility it is most important to recall what Mr. Currie's report establishes so clearly, namely, that this was not a situation about which the minister had had no chance to inform himself and no chance to take remedial action. On the contrary, it was a situation about which he could have been and should have been fully informed long in advance of the time when it actually came to his attention.
The situation revealed by the Currie report is a most serious and complete indictment of the administration of the Department of National Defence. That department is concerned perhaps more vitally than any other not only with the security and welfare of Canada but also with the economic wellbeing of the country-because of the fact that it spends approximately half of all the money which is now being taken from the Canadian people as a result of the huge burden of taxation they are called upon to bear. Yet, when this house is discussing a matter of


this importance, a matter where the responsibility so clearly rests with the government-and the whole government-we find that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) does not even bother to speak in support of his own resolution. Surely, it must be unique in the annals of this parliament, Mr. Speaker, or of any parliament, for the leader of a government, which is under such justifiable criticism on the subject of its lack of protection of public moneys, to move, without any explanation at all concerning that situation, a resolution which he knows will launch a thorough discussion of the whole question- indeed, a resolution designed for that very purpose-but to give it only a nod of the head; and to think that the people of the country would be satisfied with that fleeting show of interest. Yet that is what happened. Oh, it is true that the Prime Minister was yesterday provoked into speaking on an issue completely irrevelant to the main matter before this house and before the country, that is, the question of how this extraordinary situation arose and what is being done to deal with it or prevent its recurrence in the future. On that subject the Prime Minister was, and still is, completely silent.
When we consider the question of responsibility for this situation, and the denial of responsibility by the government, it is well also to remind ourselves of the attitude first shown by government supporters when the report was tabled in the house. You remember that attitude, Mr. Speaker. I do not think there is a member in this house who will not recall with a sense of shame that it was an attitude of seeking an immediate scapegoat, and it found expression in the words of the members on the government side blaming the "brass hats". We all remember the disgraceful and degrading efforts of government members to suggest that the army staff alone was responsible for this situation and, by seeking to make that staff the scapegoat, to relieve the Minister of National Defence and the government of a responsibility which was justly theirs.
I think that the house and the country will recall with interest an article which appeared in the press on December 16. It was written by a correspondent for whom I have the greatest respect as a well-informed member of the press gallery, and a responsible writer. But it is well known by all that he happens to be a member of the gallery who is particularly close to influential and well-informed sources within the Liberal party. I refer to Mr. J. A. Hume, the parliamentary correspondent for the Ottawa Citizen. In an article

in the evening Citizen of December 16, under the heading "Findings anger Liberals", he said this:
The Currie report on lax administration by the Department of National Defence and works services branch of the Canadian army has aroused the chagrin and anger of Liberal M.P.'s.
A long standing distrust of defence department "brass hats" has been revived and with it suspicions of lack of energy, alertness and waste and extravagance of some of these officers.
The fear that billions in tax money has been improperly administered in peacetime is felt-
I may interject that it may well be felt, and it might well be treated more seriously by some hon. members on the other side in this house.
-and with it embarrassment that similar huge sums were handled during world war IX without any misdemeanours being uncovered.
Those misdemeanours have, of course, just now been uncovered by the revelations made by the hon. member for Cariboo here today.
Government supporters are depending on the Prime Minister and the cabinet to demonstrate to those lax in their responsibilities that inefficiency and perhaps worse will not be tolerated by the taxpayers.
Well, Mr. Speaker, if government supporters were, in fact, depending upon the Prime Minister and the cabinet to demonstrate that attitude, how disappointed they must have been. In that respect, they would share the disappointment of members of the opposition because the prime responsibility stems right through from the Minister of National Defence to the cabinet. But the whole government has refused to accept responsibility, and nothing has been done. Of course, this article was referring to the hope then felt by the Liberal members of this house that this anger would be taken out on the brass hats, as they were calling the senior staff officers, and members of the army generally. That is what they were hoping. Some of them appear finally to realize the unfairness of that attitude.
For this situation does not involve criticism of the army itself. This situation, as is made so clear by the Currie report, stems from a fundamentally loose control at the top levels of departmental administration. The responsibility for that, Mr. Speaker, rests only in one place and that is on the minister of the department and through him on the government of this country.
Just in passing, Mr. Speaker, some reference should be made to the statements of General Simonds. I want to make it clear, to emphasize and re-emphasize, that there is, on the part of the official opposition, no criticism of the army for this situation. The
Committee on Defence Expenditure responsibility rests on the failure of departmental administration to function properly at the top. While I believe that General Simonds pursued an unwise and incorrect course in making the statements that he has made, I am very definitely of the opinion that he may have felt that he was forced to do so by the fact that no one on the government side said what should have been said immediately, namely, that the responsibility rested on the government at the ministerial level, and not on the staff. He may have felt himself forced into making this statement by the fact that no responsible government member came forward to say what is true, namely, that the responsibility for this situation is at the very top level.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, when this improper and shameful campaign was being carried on in the house which suggested that brass hats were responsible, the government benches maintained complete silence. This suggestion was condoned by the Prime Minister and all the members of his cabinet by their silence.


Mr. Fulford:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, and just to get the record straight, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) has taken responsibility. He was not here when this matter was first brought out, because he was doing NATO work.


Edmund Davie Fulton: But the Prime Minister was here, and others, but nothing was said. I should also draw to your attention now that the government is so uninterested in this matter, and so little prepared to assume the responsibility which properly rests on its shoulders, that there are three-I was going to say three but a fourth has just come into the house-ministers present at this time.


An hon. Member:: That is because you are speaking.


Mr. Cruickshank:: They have nothing to listen to.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Neither of the ministers responsible for the defence department is in the house during this debate.


James Garfield Gardiner: May I inform my hon. friend -I know he does not want to be unfair- that there is a council meeting going on which, of necessity, had to be held this afternoon. Perhaps the three of us who are here should be at the council meeting instead of listening to this nonsense.


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: I walked out of the
council chamber-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.
1068	HOUSE OF
Committee on Defence Expenditure


Mr. Speaker:: On a question of privilege.


Alphonse Fournier: I walked out of the council chamber one moment ago just to listen to my hon. friend.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I can well understand-


George Alexander Cruickshank: You are wasting your time here.	.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I can well understand that the remarks being made would be unwelcome enough to the Minister of Agriculture. But if there is anything in them which is nonsensical, I think that in a matter of this seriousness and importance it would be more appropriate, if I may suggest it, that the minister, rather than just make that broad and unfounded assertion, would advance his own views and demonstrate why the views now being advanced are, as he describes them, nonsensical.


James Garfield Gardiner: If I think there is anything worth while in the remarks to answer, I will answer them.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I suggest that the minister may do that in his own time, and that in fact this matter is important enough to justify more than the type of interest which the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) has just demonstrated he takes in a matter of this seriousness.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Talk sense, not nonsense.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, there are some people to whom, unfortunately, sense will always be nonsense.


George Alexander Cruickshank: It is too bad that the hon. member did not get the British Columbia leadership.


Edmund Davie Fulton: This particular effort on the part of government members to deny the government's responsibility and, somehow or other, to fix responsibility on the army, and particularly to suggest that those who criticize the government on the basis of this report are criticizing the armed forces, has unfortunately been continued by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) himself. But he does it in a more subtle way. In his speech the other day dealing with this matter, he showed himself to be an extremely subtle gentleman indeed. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that he suggested that to make criticisms on the basis of the Currie report is to criticize the armed forces. This is the way in which he did it. As reported at page 932 of Hansard the minister said as follows:
Perhaps I have been overenthusiastic in the defence of the armed forces against what I felt to be unjustified charges, and sometimes I may have been overoptimistic; but it is pretty hard to work with the armed forces of Canada without having


high admiration for their fine record of achievement and without having faith in their capacity to do what is expected of them.
Mr. Speaker, with that statement as it applies to the armed forces, we all agree. What we go on to say is that it is unfortunate that the country is not as well served at the top level of departmental administration as it is by its soldiers, sailors and airmen in the services. But notwithstanding this attempt to suggest that those who criticize the government on the basis of the Currie report are criticizing the armed forces themselves, parliament should not allow itself to be led away by this attempt at diversion by association. Parliament should continue its direct criticism of the situation which prevails at the top in the department and which permitted this situation to arise.
Then further in assessing this question of responsibility, it is important to observe that there were many opportunities to discover the situation and to take effective action earlier in order to remedy it. I am not going to read again that portion of the report found at page 712 of Hansard where Mr. Currie makes it so clear that the minister and his immediate associates had plenty of opportunities to realize that there was this laxity in control. I refrain from doing so because it has been quoted frequently in the house. It can be found at page 712 of Hansard. However, what I want to emphasize is this. In addition to the frequent reports made by the department's own chief auditor, the official opposition had repeatedly requested an opportunity to examine the whole question of the efficiency of the Department of National Defence and the matter of its control of the moneys which it was spending to prepare the defences of this country. We had repeatedly asked for a committee of this house on defence. Your Honour will recall that that request was not met until last year when a committee with extremely limited powers- and one whose powers were further limited by the attitude taken by its chairman, supported by the government majority on that committee-was set up. It was not until last year that such a committee was appointed.
It is interesting to note what the Minister of National Defence himself said in reply on those previous occasions when we requested that such a committee be set up. As I say, we had asked for it nearly every year until it was first granted last year. I have taken only some extracts from three successive sessions of this house and here we find the Minister of National Defence on those occasions admitting his responsibility and the responsibility of the government for everything-not just for some things, but for

Committee on Defence Expenditure
everything-that went on in the Department of National Defence. Here is what he said as reported at page 2323 of Hansard of April 4, 1949:
We have responsibility, through parliament, to the people, and we face that responsibility every day.
And a little later:
I say it is a fundamental concept of our constitution that we meet parliament every day, answer questions, deal with problems of administration. We are responsible through parliament to the people-
"We, the government", in the minister's own words, are responsible for matters of administration. Again, as reported at page 1946 of Hansard of November 18, 1949, answering the request for a parliamentary committee he said this:
In other words ultimately this parliamentary committee in effect would have to do with the management of our defence forces and their administration and planning, as is the case in some ways in the United States, rather than that being done ultimately, as it is now in Canada, by the cabinet itself, with a responsible minister.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to note those words:
-the management of our defence forces and their administration and planning ... by the cabinet itself, with a responsible minister.
Again, on March 14, 1950, as reported at page 757 of Hansard, the Minister of National Defence said:
Here the members of the government are appointed because the party they represent holds a majority in the House of Commons. They meet parliament every day. They are responsible collectively for the exercise of the functions of government, and they are responsible through parliament every day to the people.
It is therefore obvious, Mr. Speaker, that in 1949, 1950 and all the preceding years, on every occasion when we asked that parliament should be given the opportunity to look into the question of departmental administration, the minister refused it on the ground that he and he alone and his cabinet colleagues were responsible for these matters of administration, and he gave us the assurance that everything was perfect in that respect. How different is the tune today. Does the minister now accept the responsibility? Does he now say that and prove it by acting in accordance with his words?


George Alexander Cruickshank: He said that yesterday.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The hon. gentleman is a little bit impatient and perhaps a little bit hard of hearing.


George Alexander Cruickshank: The hon. member is
making statements that are not correct.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Perhaps the hon. member is a little bit hard of hearing. I have drawn 68108-69	.
attention to the fact that the minister had said the other day "I take responsibility," and just how meaningless those words were. What about his cabinet colleagues? And what is he doing about that responsibility?


An hon. Member:: He told you.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What is he doing about that responsibility? How is the minister discharging his responsibility to make sure that those events cannot recur? I shall have something to say about that matter in a moment when I come to the question of what is being done to cure the situation which this report reveals. But the minister now seeks to take refuge behind the fact that the job of managing his department is too big. As reported at page 939 of Hansard of January 13 he had this to say by way partially of excuse of what had gone on:
Naturally it is not possible in an operation of this size for these reports or correspondence to be handled or even seen by the minister, or for that matter even by the deputy minister himself. It is only the really serious cases that the deputy minister can be expected to review personally.
But, Mr. Speaker, that does not alter the fact that the minister nevertheless is responsible for the organization of his department, and that the government is responsible if the minister does not handle that organization properly, or if he does not tell them that the department has grown too big for one minister to control. And the government are doubly responsible if, when it is suggested that the department has grown too big, they do nothing about it. It is well known-, Mr. Speaker, to you and to all other hon. members, that for a period of a year or more the suggestion has been made from well-informed sources that the task of handling and controlling the Department of National Defence had grown too big for one minister. The government are doubly responsible because, with that knowledge, they did nothing and allowed this situation to develop.
It is no excuse, either, to say it is too big for one minister, because they knew that or should have known it, and it is particularly no excuse to say, my staff-whether the civil service or the armed forces-did not tell me what was going on. Because whether the staff in that sense be civil or military, Mr. Speaker-, the responsibility is the same. The responsibility is that of the minister at the head of the department, not that of the staff.
Because the matter has come up I want to quote an authority in reference to what the Prime Minister said about the position of the chief of the general staff in making statements, as well as in connection with this whole question of responsibility for the situation which the Currie report reveals. The authority I am referring to is the work

Committee on Defence Expenditure entitled "The British Constitution" by Professor Jennings, one of the best-known authorities on that subject, who says at page 143 and following:
The responsibility of ministers to the House of Commons is no fiction, though it is not so simple as it sounds. All decisions of any consequences are taken by ministers, either as such or as members of the cabinet. All decisions taken by civil servants are taken on behalf of ministers and under their control.
I pause, Mr. Speaker, to interject that in this connection the military heads are in exactly the same position as the civil service in connection with defence matters and the administrative set-up of the Department of National Defence. Professor Jennings goes on:
If the minister chooses, as in the large departments inevitably he must, to leave decisions to civil servants, then he must take the political consequences of any defect of administration, any injustice to an individual, or any policy disapproved by the House of Commons. He cannot defend himself by blaming the civil servant. If the civil servant could be criticized, he would require the means of defending himself. If the minister could blame the civil servant, then the civil servant would require the power to blame the minister. In other words, the civil servant would become a politician. The fundamental principle of our system of administration is, however, that the civil service should be impartial and, as far as may be possible, anonymous.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I regret sincerely that I cannot. My time has practically expired, and I would prefer, if I may, to continue without interruption.
One has only to remember that in this connection the military, in their relation to the minister in matters of departmental administration, and in matters of that kind, are in exactly the same position as the civil servants to realize the important implications of that principle:
The fundamental principle of our system of administration is, however, that the civil service should be impartial and, as far as may be possible, anonymous.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we are left with the question: What is the Prime Minister going to do by way of accepting the responsibility which rests upon him for this extraordinary, this serious situation, which the Currie report has disclosed? What is he going to do to discharge the responsibility not only to the House of Commons but to the people of Canada, the taxpayers of Canada, whose money is thus being wasted and who are without any assurance that steps are being taken, and will be taken, not only in the works services department reported on by Mr. Currie but in the other branches of the Department of National Defence, to make sure that these situations

will also be cleared up? I maintain, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister owes an apology to the taxpayers of Canada, firstly, for allowing this situation to develop, allowing money to be wasted, and secondly, for taking so little interest in the matter as he has shown so far in the course of this debate, and for taking no effective steps to deal with that situation.
What do we see? There is no sign that action is to be taken. The Minister of National Defence says that there is not even a breakdown. He criticized Mr. Currie. In a most extraordinary passage in his remarks on page 939 of Hansard he says:
The breakdown to which Mr. Currie referred was, after all, a breakdown-if it was a breakdown-in keeping accounts, and not a breakdown in providing services and doing the essential work for which the army works services exists.
What an extraordinary defence to the Currie report to say that this breakdown, if it is a breakdown, is not a breakdown, although it is a breakdown of accounting. What does the minister think that accounting methods are set up for but to protect the financial interests of the people of Canada and to control the administration and the location of the property which their tax moneys have purchased? Then the minister says that the irregularities do not matter anyway. He takes defence in the fact that an army is not a Sunday school and soldiers are not saints. He says at page 942 of Hansard:
There are in this house a great many veterans of the two wars. They know, and the veterans all over this country-and there are a lot of them- know, and I think the public has a pretty good idea too that an army is not a Sunday school and soldiers are not saints.
The minister should remind himself that veterans-and there are a good many of them in this house and throughout the country-are also taxpayers. Veteran taxpayers will not be very much impressed by the minister's arguments that these irregularities do not matter, that the fact that their money is being squandered, wasted to the extent permitted by a fundamentally loose system of administration at the top levels of the department, does not matter because armies are not Sunday schools and soldiers are not saints. The veterans and taxpayers of this country will not be satisfied with inaction; they will want a continuation of the investigation which Mr. Currie has shown himself to be probably the most highly qualified man in Canada to undertake, and they will want action to rectify maladministration where it may be disclosed to exist. They will not be satisfied with what the government offers them, a reference to a

committee, a review of a review, to have the Currie report referred to a committee-and that by way of an amendment introduced by a member of the government to the government's own motion.
What an extraordinary situation, typical of the government's inability to act to clean up this whole situation. The Prime Minister introduced a motion, which stood on the order paper for many days, indeed, over the Christmas recess. We all knew its purpose. Certainly, the government knew its purpose. They had lots of time to think about it, and yet, when it is introduced in this house, when the time comes to discuss it, the Prime Minister, with that extraordinary indifference which he has shown in this matter, as though he were a superior being standing on a lofty pedestal, with naughty grandchildren running around his feet, really no concern of his-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Alexander Cruickshank: You are from British Columbia; don't be as low as that.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


George Alexander Cruickshank: "Order", my foot! That is pretty low, coming from British Columbia.


Edmund Davie Fulton: So he merely gives it the nod, and leaves it to somebody else to speak in support of his own motion. And then we find the extreme of indifference in that that minister, one of his own colleagues, introduces an amendment to his Prime Minister's motion that the committee should review the Currie review. What a most extraordinary spectacle-a government going all ways at once. They are trying to ride too many horses, and riding them in opposite directions. That is a situation which will not give satisfaction to the people of this country-


George Alexander Cruickshank: Every horse has two ends.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -who wish to see some assurance ' that their tax dollars are spent wisely. They will not be satisfied by the spectacle of a government too complacent to be consistent, too arrogant to explain its inconsistencies, and too weak and confused to know where it is going. But the people of Canada know what they want.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Yes, they showed that at the last election.


Edmund Davie Fulton: And they will show you at the next. They want to see an investigator who has shown his qualifications, as has Mr. Currie, given a free hand to continue that investigation into the Department of National Defence and its administration, so that he 68108-69i
16. 1953	1071
Committee on Defence Expenditure may bring to light further ways in which the money of the taxpayers can be saved, and then action taken to implement his recommendations so that we may know that we will get a dollar's worth of defence for every dollar that is spent.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Thank God we haven't too many Rhodes scholars.


Mr. R. R. Knight (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, I intend to make no attempt to analyse the Currie report, or to discuss that whole matter, serious as it may be. As a matter of fact I had my inspiration for saying a word or two at this time from the speech made last night by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Ferrie).
It is not likely that that gentleman would flatter himself that anybody would pay any particular attention to his speech. However, he did devote a certain amount of attention to me, and therefore his speech holds some interest for me at least.
It is fortunate that the house has its lighter moments, and I think we experienced one of them when the hon. member spoke last night. Amidst the serious business and the frustrations of debate in the house, with which we are bedevilled, we do need a member, like the hon. member for Mackenzie, who will make a speech occasionally and give us cause for laughter.
During the greater part of his speech I was attempting to understand what he meant. However, his words, like his comprehension, seemed vague. I shall give the house now a sample of his logic. I would direct the attention of hon. members to what appears at page 1049 of Hansard, because I think they will find it interesting. It would seem that the hon. member for Mackenzie is interested in psychology, because he makes an analysis of myself and two of my more important colleagues. This is what we find in Hansard:


Mr. Ferrie:: Let us analyse these three gentlemen.
The three gentlemen are my honoured leader, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), and myself. He refers to me, at one point of his speech, as "one man in Saskatoon"-and that is an interesting title. He said:
Let us analyse these three gentlemen. One of these gentlemen read it.
The "it" refers to that mysterious copy of the report which, one way or another, came into our hands. Then he goes on:
The hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight) read it.
1072	HOUSE OF
Committee on Defence Expenditure
That is a bald statement, I must point out, a statement with no attempt to produce evidence to support it.
The hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight) read it-
And then, this is the logic.
-because he is reported in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix as having said that the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) was the man who threw the bomb into the Liberal party.
That, sir, is his idea of logic. As I said last night, I did not use the expression that Mr. Knowles, or anybody else, had thrown a bomb into the Liberal party because, as I said yesterday, that was not necessary. It had already been done, by themselves- by a bomb which exploded among them, at their own feet, and which is causing the disintegration of this government, and of the Liberal party upon which it is based. That surely is evident, and becomes increasingly clear during the course of this debate.
However, to go back to what my hon. friend said-and this caused me some amusement, because I was interested in how he distinguishes the various characteristics of the professions. He said that there were four classes of men who never betrayed a confidence, and listed them as doctors, chartered accountants, lawyers and bankers.
These, said he, were all pledged to secrecy.
Then he comes forth again, with the kind of logic to which I have already referred, and says that because Mr. Currie is one of those who, as it were, are sworn to secrecy, and yet allowed some information in the form of a report to leak out of his office, therefore Mr. Currie and the whole report must be condemned.
I am flattered by the hon. member's reference to me. He even dignified me by allocating to me some promotions. This is what he said:
The hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight) was also a teacher and is supposed to be a professor.
Well, I did not like to interrupt him, but I could have said that I have never been promoted to that high degree of eminence. It flattered me, nevertheless, when he referred to me and to my leader as exschool teachers. Referring to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre he used the word "preacher", and suggested that a man of that type, of that high calibre, knew that the report should have been sent back immediately.
He said at one place I should have sent the report back to its place of origin.
The one man in Saskatoon-
Says he-
-according to his statement, must have read the document.


And so, in line with his logic, the man from Saskatoon should have sent the report back. He neglected, of course, to mention one trifling matter, one which I suggest is relevant to the argument, and that is that in the first place the man from Saskatoon does not know the origin of the report; the man from Saskatoon has not even yet read the report; and the man from Saskatoon saw it only once -and that at a distance, in the hands of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. Of course, that is just a trifling detail to the hon. member for Mackenzie.
Then there was the interesting matter of the bombshell. Mr. Knight, according to the Star-Phoenix-and this appears to be the view of my hon. friend-is reported to have said that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre threw the bombshell into the Liberal party.
Let me say that I did make a speech in Saskatoon. Let me say to my hon. friend that it was a well attended meeting of very interested people. What I was doing was simply describing the dramatic situation which took place in the House of Commons. I said that the throne speech debate was dragging along; nobody was paying too much attention. And then, suddenly, into that lethargic situation my hon. friend threw a bombshell-the bombshell, of course, being the disclosure of the report which at the moment he had in his hip pocket. But there is no reference whatever to throwing bombshells into any party.


Mr. Smith (Moose Mountain):: Was it stolen?


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: That is a sample of what took place in connection with the bombshell.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: Why did you say that a bombshell was thrown, if you had not seen the report and did not know anything about it? You say you were ignorant of the fact that it was in existence. Yet, why did you say anything about the bombshell?


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: My hon. friend has simply misinterpreted my words-


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: Oh, we always do, according to you.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: -as he misunderstood the meaning of them last night. Before my hon. friend came into the house I had just pointed out that he was somewhat weak in logic when he says that I must have read the report. Forsooth, because I said that my hon. friend had thrown a bombshell into the quietness of the house. I submit that my hon. friend's statement is not logical. In any case, I have just explained the incident and if my hon. friend will read Hansard tomorrow perhaps he will be able to understand it.

I come now to more important people and I want to say a word or two about the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). I speak more in sadness than in anger in regard to the Prime Minister. I do not care to what party he may belong, the prime minister of this country is my prime minister. I expect the prime minister to have dignity, honesty and integrity; I expect a degree of culture and a degree of dignity. I thought that he fulfilled those conditions and I have been trying to think it today. I have often so maintained, even among those who are his political enemies and upon the public platforms of this country. I had placed him upon a pedestal. I think those who have heard me speak in public will endorse that statement.
I am most reluctant to knock him off that pedestal. I have not knocked him off that pedestal; he has of his own volition stepped down to a lower level than that on which I had placed him.
When he stepped down into the mud he entangled his feet in the mire that has entangled the feet of lesser men. When he stooped to pick up a handful of mud to cast at the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Cold well) the only result was, not that the mud remained upon the recipient but that some of it stuck to the hands of the thrower.


Mr. Studer:: Better get washed up.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Except for the notable speech which he made last night, the hon. member has made a name for himself in this house chiefly through the medium of vulgar interjection. No man in this country can throw mud and make it stick on the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. The hon. member has served his country in this house for many years. He is known to all of us as a man of unquestioned integrity and honesty.
I am reminded of an attempt of this sort which was made once before when my Liberal friends across there cast their eyes at the floor in shame at a speech which was made in this house by the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. Stewart). Even though that matter had been burning in his mind and heart for twenty years, even if it was the result of old feuds and old spite, it was no more true on that account.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege-


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Is my hon. friend asking a question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member is speaking on a question of privilege.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: -I think it is most unfair to speak of a member who is so sick that he cannot come here today to defend himself.
16, 1953	1073
Committee on Defence Expenditure


Mr. Knowles:: What was the Prime Minister doing yesterday?


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member for Mackenzie has not been long enough in the house or sufficiently observant to know that in these cases we do not speak personally. I am speaking now of a member of the Liberal party who undertook at one time to let loose a diatribe against the hon. hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar of which Liberal members in the house were particularly ashamed. As far as I am concerned, if the hon. member for Yorkton is sick, I am sorry to hear it. I wish him good health and every other good thing and I trust he will be quickly restored to this house. But that does not alter the fact that, while we do not engage in personalities, we are concerned at the moment with the breakdown of the government of this country.
If I can bring that to the attention of the people of this country so that they will change the government, then I am justified in doing what I am doing. There is a lot of talk in this country to the effect that we of the opposition groups are glad to take advantage of any point in order to make political capital at the expense of the government. What would you expect us to do? I say to the right hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), a gentleman whom I respect: If you were sitting in opposition on this side, what would you and your cohorts be doing? Is it not the proper function-


James Garfield Gardiner: May I ask a question in view of the fact that I have been referred to?


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Wait until I have finished my sentence.


James Garfield Gardiner: In view of the fact that I have been referred to-


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: May I finish my sentence?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It would appear that the hon. member who is now speaking is not giving his consent.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: If in the course of showing the failures and inconsistencies of this government, if in the course of propounding constructive and alternative policies to the government of the day, we of the opposition parties can win the good will of the people of this country and gain for ourselves a few votes and ultimately replace the government which we are now criticizing, is there any blame to be attached to us? Is not that one of the immemorial functions of an efficient and vigilant opposition?


James Garfield Gardiner: May I ask a question?


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I should like to deal with one other thing and perhaps when I am finished the right hon. minister will not waffi
1074	HOUSE OF
Committee on Defence Expenditure to ask any questions. I should like to say a word or two about the late Mr. Mackenzie King, and I do not intend to say anything derogatory about that right hon. gentleman.


Alphonse Fournier: Is this in order on a motion to set up a committee?


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I shall say nothing against the late prime minister. De mortuis nil nisi bonum. If you can imagine that he succeeded as he himself was sure he would succeed, in being able to communicate as it were between two worlds, I can see him shaking his head in sorrow and shame at the actions-


Alphonse Fournier: On a point of order. This house is discussing a motion to set up a committee to examine national defence expenditures and I submit the hon. gentleman is out of order.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: On a point of order.-


An hon. Member:: Horses.


Alphonse Fournier: I have no objection to horses.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight) wishes to speak about certain decisions made or positions taken by the former prime minister, it is probably in order. I do not think he wants to do anything else.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: What I propose to do, and it is relevant to the question, is to show what the former Prime Minister would have done in this particular instance which, may I say, he would not have allowed to occur or at least to reach the stage it has. I can see him in my imagination out behind the curtains, shaking his head at the political ineptitude of his successor and his cabinet.


Some hon. Members:: Temper, temper.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: What would he have done? Although I have never yet been at a cabinet meeting-


Mr. Dewar:: You never will be there, but you can dream.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I can see him at the head of the table with that stubby little pencil writing the first draft of the resignation of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) as soon as these things came out, as soon as there were reports of inefficiency and maladministration in this Department of National Defence. That resignation would have been written out and my hon. friend the Minister of National Defence would have been asked to sign it. Then the late prime minister would have gone out and chopped off the two top heads of the army administration. Then he would have come into this house and made the speech of his life.


Austin Edwin Dewar: That is the first thing they do in Russia.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: He would have said that he had personally saved this country from military rule. He would have said that no military authority must be allowed ever to have influence on the civil rule of this country. He would say that he had saved this country, and then he would have done what this government has not the courage to do. He would have dissolved this house and gone to the country and won an election, something that this government knows it cannot and will not do.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I shall simply close my remarks by saying that the Currie report is a terrible indictment of this government; and that no whitewashing in the committee or anywhere else will cover up the dark shadows. The committee which the government propose to set up is not to investigate the crime but to investigate the investigator. Let the government go to the country now, and the public will decide.


James Garfield Gardiner: I said that I still wanted to ask a question when my hon. friend finished. Have I his permission to ask it now?


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Certainly.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, for my own benefit, and I think the benefit of some others, I would like to be clear on one point.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Is it a question or a speech?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is a question-perhaps two but one anyway. Are we assured that the leader of the C.C.F. party would have followed exactly the same procedure which was followed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) in connection with this matter? The whole argument is based on the idea that the leader of a party is of a particularly high type politically. Does the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) take responsibility for all that is being said with regard to this matter? He has not been in the house at all since it came up.


Mr, Knight:: Mr. Speaker, as I say I do not know too much about the details of the incident.


Mr. Dickey:: You have proved that, but answer the question.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: That is what I propose to do. The right hon. minister has asked me, as I understand it, if the member for Winnipeg North Centre has followed the same course that the member for Rosetown-Biggar would have done had he not actually been ill, but had been in the house. Is that right?


James Garfield Gardiner: It was the reverse, but either way will do.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: It is the same thing. My answer is that as a member of our caucus I know that the member for Winnipeg North Centre has been in constant consultation with the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar and has received his approval-in most cases ahead of time-for those subjects on which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was to talk in this house.


James Garfield Gardiner: Might I ask a second question?


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: No.


James Garfield Gardiner: I wish to ask a second question as a result of the answer received to the first.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I submit that the minister has no right-


Austin Edwin Dewar: Don't be afraid.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I am not afraid. Let him make a speech; he has forty minutes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight) does not wish a question to be asked, it is his privilege.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, it is my privilege to make a speech and I have the floor for the moment.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I am asking you, sir-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: How can I hear anything if I have two members standing on the floor of the house both trying to speak? I recognize the member for Saskatoon.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I am asking you, sir, for a ruling, as Speaker of this house, whether the Minister of Agriculture has the right to ask that a question be put on the record when I refuse to answer.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Saskatoon had the floor. When he resumed his seat after concluding his speech he agreed that the Minister of Agriculture might ask one question. That question was asked.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: And answered.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Now, as a result of the answer which was given, the minister requests permission to ask another question. To this request the hon. member for Saskatoon answered in the negative. The minister pursued his attempt to put his question or to obtain consent from the hon. member and the latter persisted in refusing. Now the minister says that if he cannot ask a question he is entitled to make a speech.
Committee on Defence Expenditure
However, I am confronted with this position. Before the hon. minister rose the hon. member for York West (Mr. Adamson) stood and asked to speak. Is he going to speak or is he going to yield to the minister?


Mr. Adamson:: I wish to speak.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Very well.


Agar Rodney Adamson: This rather amazing debate in which we have the spectacle of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) calling the leader of the C.C.F. party a receiver of stolen goods and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) his fence, rather suggests from what has already happened that he, the Prime Minister, like Laocoon, is becoming entangled. I trust that his fate will not be that of the Greek of old.


An hon. Member:: What about Confucius?


Agar Rodney Adamson: Confucius merely played a musical instrument. He did not throw a spear even at a wooden horse.
Now, Mr. Speaker, what is a defence committee for? Surely we must consider that it is to investigate, examine, question, and if necessary advise the government and members of the Department of National Defence, both in and out of uniform, on the vital problems of the defence of Canada. If we in this parliament, and as members of the defence committee, do not do a job in this regard we are not fulfilling our duty to the country and to those who elected us.
My objection to this proposed amendment by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) is that it shows that the government has a conception that we are called on to fight a limited war. This is suicide for Canada. The one overwhelming and dynamic fact, unpleasant as it may be, is that we must be prepared to fight an unlimited war. There is no such thing in the modern world as a successful limited war.


Mr. McCulloch:: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the hon. member is supposed to be reading his speech. He should be adhering to the rules of the house.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I am not, of course, reading my speech. For the aggressor to be successful, the war must be unlimited. Let us not fool ourselves that the Russians do not realize this. Russia has always lost limited wars and always won unlimited ones. She knows this and did not forget the lesson of the Russo-Japanese war, which the Japanese unfortunately did.
I contend that the job of a defence committee is to deal with the whole broad problem of national defence, and not to be hamstrung
1076	HOUSE OF
Committee on Defence Expenditure by having to concentrate on one small noncombatant branch of one service. The Currie report has been made. The facts are known. The report deals with a series of matters and has some serious implications, yet the sums admitted by the minister are small compared v/ith the over-all cost of defence which approximates $2 billion this year.
The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) complained that to provide guards for a place like Farnham would cost a great deal more than the value of the place so guarded. Now, he has admitted that the Currie report established defections of some $50,000. Actually Mr. Currie, in his report, stated that the amount of defection and thievery could not be adequately and completely calculated, and it might be greatly in excess of this.
Let us assume that the minister admits the $50,000. He is sending this report, which is past history and every word of which has been investigated, to the defence committee. The defence committee sits once a day. The cost of one sitting of this parliament is in the neighbourhood of $10,000. Therefore to send this report to the defence committee is to add at least $10,000 a day to the cost of the investigation. Now, Mr. Speaker, a similar situation might be the case of a man who has had a bad accident. He has a broken leg, a ruptured appendix, a coronary thrombosis, a blood clot on the brain, a gunshot wound in his back, and an ingrown toenail. When the doctor comes, the doctor deals with the ingrown toenail first. Something similar to that is being done by sending the Currie report to this committee.
Mr. Currie mentioned also the case of military security. It is impossible to place a dollars and cents value on military security. When a department store loses goods from its warehouse, there is a finite and calculable value of the goods lost. The theft of a piece of military equipment, which may have little or no commercial value, could disclose methods which our armed services intend to use in combat as well as the type of equipment to be employed. If information like this is compromised it may cost the lives of many Canadian servicemen, and also the loss of a future major operation. It is quite wrong, therefore, to regard military security only as a dollars and cents matter.
It is useless to say that security cannot be provided. The atomic energy commission in Chalk River has provided adequate security, and the area is extremely large. I am convinced also that no one but an atomic scientist could obtain much useful information from Chalk River. However, a 15-year-old boy picking up a proximity fuse, an unexploded bomb, a guided missile or a new type of shell,


could quite easily give our enemies a great deal of information about our production methods and the type of weapons we were using.
War is a hideous waste, but this waste of our capital and materials becomes even more hideous if it does not produce the sinews of war which will enable our men to fight and win. To fight and not win is far worse than not fighting at all. Let us look, therefore, at our arms production and particularly our production of aircraft.
The policy of the Canadian government with regard to air is a purely defensive one. It is Canadian policy not to have bombers but to concentrate on interceptors and fighters. This decision takes into consideration our industrial capabilities, and possibly has some merit. With the cost of some of the new bombers being as great as pre-war battleships, it would probably place too great a strain upon our economy to expect Canada to produce large numbers of the latest type bombers. Yet the logistics of the decision could, I feel, have been profitably discussed by the chief of the air staff or his technical officers with the defence committee. If we are, therefore, producing an air force which, apart from an anti-submarine section, has the sole function of stopping enemy bombers, we had better look at the sort of job we are doing.
Our defence is based on two aircraft, the F-86 Sabre and the CF-100, both of which are good aeroplanes. According to a press story this week the F-86 is being produced at the rate of approximately forty a month at the Canadair plant in Montreal. The CF-100, we are told, was to be produced by this time, that is January, 1953, at the rate of twenty a month at the Avro plant at Malton. The production figures for the Sabre have been made known and published, but not those for the CF-100. What I think the committee should know is how many CF-lOO's have actually been produced and are being produced per month at this time. Have we, in fact, produced twenty from the production line-not from the special hand-tooled assembly line, but from the actual production line? There can be no question of security here as the figure for the Sabre is given quite openly in the press. The only reason for withholding the information with regard to the CF-100 can be that the production figures are shocking.
There is an even more serious question in the matter of production, and that is the question of effectiveness. The modern bombers such as the Avro 698 or the new Boeing or the other United Kingdom type called the Monarch are all capable of speeds approaching that of sound. Their effective operational

altitude is from 40,000 to 50,000 feet. Therefore, to intercept them, we must have an aeroplane which can climb to those altitudes and fly at and maintain speeds considerably in excess of that of sound. Neither of the two fighters we have at the present time can do this, and they would be practically useless as effective barriers to such bombers.
The United Kingdom and the United States now have these delta-winged craft. How long will it be before Russia has them? We cannot safely count on over five years. What are we doing to design and construct a fighter with the characteristics necessary for successful combat? If our sole aim in the air is to be protective, surely it is fundamental that we should have some idea of what sort of protectors we are going to have. Is it not the function of any defence committee to be informed-yes, to demand to be informed-about such a basic matter?
I feel that no parliament can divest itself of the responsibility for national defence. The old days of the professional soldier are over. Today every citizen is part of the defence of his country, and the better he is informed the more effective he can be. These basic problems therefore must be discussed and studied.
I suggest that men like Air Marshal Douglas Smith, the air member for technical services, with his engine and airframe specialists, and Dr. J. J. Green, as well as Dr. Solandt, could most profitably come before the committee.
The design, construction and production of such a plane with a mach. rating of 1-3 to 1-5 is a difficult problem because it will require an entirely new profile and new engines. It could possibly take up to eight years to get one into production. We have known of the Avro 698 probably for at least two years, that is if there is any liaison between the R.A.F. and the R.C.A.F. Have these two years been wasted, and the job of providing a counter to this aircraft not yet begun?
I mention these figures about aircraft because they strike at the very fundamentals of the job of providing national defence for this country. If the committee on national defence is to do anything, it must see that the country gets adequate national defence. Otherwise of what use at all is it? Why should it be called? If it is to see that we get adequate national defence it must deal with these problems-technical ones, if you like- such as the basic one of whether we can produce aircraft which will do the job of protecting us and our allies from attack.
In the committee we have to see whether this is being done. There is no question of security. The people of Canada must understand the difficulties of the job ahead. We 68108-70
Committee on Defence Expenditure have been given too much soothing syrup in the past. We have been treated with a sort of continuous effusion of Dr. Pangloss that everything was perfect in this most perfect of all worlds. If the Currie report has done nothing else, it has opened the eyes of the Canadian people at least to the dangers of national defence and the problems which lie ahead. There should be no excuse for any committee on national defence not going into these problems.


Mr. Harris:: Who is delaying it?


Agar Rodney Adamson: The minister is delaying it by the device of putting the Currie report before the committee on national defence. He is delaying it every single day, as we were delayed last year in the committee.
I now come to another question which must be given consideration and must be decided. I refer to the question of ordnance. The policy followed has been to divest ourselves of United Kingdom type artillery, in particular the 25-pounder. We were told that, for the sake of unification of arms, we were to send our 25-pounders to NATO countries, which we did, and to be supplied with United States 105 millimeter guns. We divested ourselves of the 25-pounders-enough for three divisions, I think. When our troops went to Korea, because of United States policy we found that there was a critical shortage of ammunition. Instead of our own gunners having our own guns and our own supply lines for ammunition, we found ourselves to be hostages to United States policy. The tragic reports of two rounds per day per gun, which have been authenticated over and over again, are a result of this policy.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Five o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I shall be through with this matter in just a minute, Mr. Speaker. This question of artillery and the question of the unification of arms were decided by the government without any discussion with the committee and, in my opinion, it has led to tragic results.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock, the house will proceed to the consideration of private and public bills.



PRIVATE BILLS

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On the order paper I note that, as items No. 45 and No. 46, there are two bills which have been reported by a standing committee of the house. Shall I take the two in the same motion? Is it agreed that the two bills, one respecting Interprovincial Pipe Line Company and the other to incorporate Peace River Transmission

Private Bills
Company Limited, be considered at the same time in committee of the whole?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 41, respecting Interprovincial Pipe Line Company.-Mr. Bennett.
Bill No. 42, to incorporate Peace River Transmission Company Limited.-Mr. Murray (Cariboo).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There are several divorce bills on today's order paper. Shall they all be taken under the one motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. H. W. Winkler (Lisgar) moved: that the following bills be read the second time:
Bill No. 94, for the relief of Jane Louttit Dormer.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 95, for the relief of Roger Loiselle. -Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 96, for the relief of William Oscar Gilbert.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 97, for the relief of George Magner. -Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 98, for the relief of Teodora Szablity Szentirmai.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 99, for the relief of Arthur Piche. -Mr. Winkler.
Motion agreed to and bills read the second time.



DIVORCE JURISDICTION


Stanley Howard Knowles: the second reading of Bill No. 3, to provide for the jurisdiction of the Exchequer Court of Canada in matters of divorce.
He said: Mr. Speaker, as the house will realize, this bill is identical in form to one which I have moved on two or three previous occasions. The purpose of the bill is to free parliament from the necessity of processing divorce bills. I am sure it is correct for me to say that no one in this house likes or approves of the fact that we are handling divorce in this parliament of Canada at all.
I readily recognize the opinions that have been expressed on former occasions about divorce, and as to whether or not the passing of this bill would seem to be an acceptance of the fact of divorce; but I would point out that, whether we like it or not, we already have a divorce court in Canada for people
[Mr. Deputy Speaker.}
in those provinces where there are no provincial divorce courts. The provinces concerned of course are Quebec and Newfoundland. I for one respect the desire of the majority of the people in those provinces that there should be no divorce within the confines of those provinces.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that we in this parliament also have certain rights. In particular I feel that we have the right to be free from the necessity of constituting ourselves as a divorce court. I am sure that we are not proud of the manner in which we conduct our court proceedings when we become a divorce court. As a matter of fact unless some of us, particularly in this group, choose to make an examination of these cases, they go through in batches. We have not really got into high gear yet, so far as this session is concerned. If my arithmetic is correct, I believe that so far we have given second reading to only 74 of these divorce bills. However, we did 38 of them at one crack, 30 at another, and just a few moments ago we gave second reading to six more. As the session goes on this number will probably amount to 250 or 300, if the records of former sessions are any indication.
Now, as I say, Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that we have in Canada, here in the parliament of Canada, a divorce court, to which persons of the provinces where there are no divorce courts have access. Hon. members concur in that fact every time these divorces are put through in this House of Commons. It seems to me that it would not be altering that situation by one iota, so far as principle is concerned, so far as recognizing the fact of divorce is concerned, if we were to decide, on the one hand, that we are not going to establish divorce courts in the provinces where they do not want them- the fact of the matter is we could not do it, but let it be clear that we do not want to- but on the other hand, let us exercise what is our undoubted right to transfer the handling of these divorces out of this parliament, out of this building, and put them into some other court, some other building, right here in the city of Ottawa. In other words, my suggestion is that the place where this job is done should be transferred from this building to another building a few hundred yards away, at the same time making it crystal clear that we do not ask that this be done within the boundaries of the provinces where divorce courts are not desired.
It is on that basis that I make again, through the medium of presenting this bill, the suggestion that the Exchequer Court of Canada be given authority to deal with divorces from the provinces where divorce courts are not established.

As everyone knows, the exchequer court is for most, if not all, of the rest of its functions a circuit court. That makes it possible for it to sit in various parts of Canada. To make sure that if this bill passes the exchequer court would not sit within the provinces of Quebec or Newfoundland when hearing divorce cases, there is a section in the bill which provides that the Exchequer Court of Canada, in dealing with divorce cases, would do it only here at the city of Ottawa. In other words, Mr. Speaker, there is clearly no change so far as the basis of divorce is concerned. There is no change so far as the accessibility of a divorce court to citizens in those two provinces is concerned. The only difference is the place where these people would go who are faced with what they feel to be the unfortunate necessity of seeking a divorce.
I recognize, Mr. Speaker, that on former occasions there has been strong criticism of this bill by some hon. members, and on one or two occasions we have had a vote and it has been defeated. There has not been much change in the make-up of this house since the last vote, and I do not suppose that one should expect a radical enough change in opinion that on this occasion the bill would pass. However, I hope that by continuing to bring this measure before the house, sufficient attention and consideration will be given to it so that, one of these days, a way will be found to deal with divorces which is less reprehensible and less offensive to all of us than the manner in which we are now doing it.
I suggest that if there are those who feel that the procedure here suggested, of referring divorces to the Exchequer Court of Canada, is not a satisfactory one, an obligation and responsibility rests upon them either to stand in their places and say that they are satisfied with doing it here in the House of Commons, or to suggest some other way.
It is not often that when a member moves second reading of his own bill he suggests to other hon. members a procedure other than that of simply voting for it. But, knowing how hon. members feel about this question of divorce, I would not feel at all badly if someone were to move, as an amendment to my motion for second reading, that the bill be not now read a second time but that the subject matter thereof be referred to a committee. It would indicate at least some progress if an amendment of that kind were moved and carried, because it would make it possible for us to go into this matter in detail, and to have a thorough discussion as 68108-70i
Divorce Jurisdiction
to what would be the best way of solving a problem which, I am sure, is felt deeply by all of us.
This is not a question of where we stand on divorce, or whether we approve of it. As a matter of fact, no one really approves of divorce. There are some in the house who feel that under no circumstances should it be entertained. There are others who disapprove of it just as much, but who face the fact that there are situations where there seems to be no alternative.
And so I say I would welcome the reference of this bill, or even the subject matter of it, to a committee so that it might be discussed fully. I am not going to offer any such amendment. I could not, in any case. And let me make it clear at once that I have not done what was done by the government the other day; I have not arranged for one of my colleagues to move an amendment to my own bill. But if anyone who is interested in the matter feels that that is a suggestion worthy of consideration, let me say to him that I would not object to that procedure. In other words this is not an issue of the kind one wants to see resolved in line with his way of thinking, and his way only. Rather I believe I am doing a service to parliament in bringing before hon. members of the house a suggestion dealing with a problem which concerns all of us. I hope it will be looked upon in that spirit, and that we will consider whether on the one hand the bill should be passed and consideration of divorces referred to the Exchequer Court of Canada or, if that is not acceptable to the house, at least that its subject matter should be referred to a committee so that serious consideration may be given to this problem.
Hon. members will recall that at the close of the last session I gave the house some statistics as to the amount of time we had spent considering divorce cases. All told, the aggregate of time so spent has been considerable. However, when it is divided among the number of divorces we deal with it amounts to only a few seconds for each divorce put through this parliamentary divorce mill.
Hon. members will recall that I have given a picture of the tremendous pile of printing involved, so that if one stacked up all the copies of divorce bills and evidence prepared for us, and for members in the other place, it would make a pile considerably higher than the peace tower. Add to that the fact that these cases involve matters that surely are not the business our constituents sent us here to deal with, and I am sure it is

Divorce Jurisdiction
fair to say that all hon. members would like to get rid of this business from the House of Commons.
I earnestly hope the house will give serious consideration to finding a way to implement what is the desire of all of us. I believe the solution contained in the bill is the best one; I have not heard a better one. Therefore from my point of view I would like to see the bill passed. But if there are those who feel that there should be some discussion, and that some better way could be found, I should like to hear from them. At the moment, however, I place the bill before the house in the hope that serious consideration will be given to it.
(Translation):


Mr. Andre Gauthier (Lake St. John):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to assert immediately that I am strongly opposed to the bill moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) because, in my opinion, it would facilitate applications for divorce and increase their number, especially in the provinces of Quebec and Newfoundland.
I take that stand because my conscience compels me to do so and because I want to justify the confidence placed in me by the people of Lake St. John county who, thank God, still consider marriage indissoluble and the home sacred.
Before speaking on the merits of the bill before the house, I would like to say a few words about divorce itself. As a Catholic I am opposed to divorce. I am against it for reasons of a religious, social and family character. Marriage is a divine institution that cannot be dissolved by human justice. Our civil law, sanctioned by the constitution of 1867, asserts that marriage is indissoluble.
The family is the moral structure of the nation and every citizen must consider it his duty to resist any attempt to weaken the cornerstone of society, to oppose any measure which might undermine the very foundation of the Canadian nation. Statistics show that countries with the lowest birth rates are also those where divorce flourishes and the first victim is the child who is consequently deprived of the enjoyment of a home where harmony prevails, where husband and wife respect each other, where good example and the practice of sound Christian virtues are to be found.
The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), summing up the situation, said in this house, on March 24, 1944:
In Quebec not only is there no jurisdiction to deal with divorce, but there is a pre-confederation law which was continued in force by the British North America Act, and which will remain in force

until this parliament chooses to deal with it, as it has jurisdiction to do under section 91 of the British North America Act. This pre-confederation law declares that marriage is dissolved only by the natural death of one of the spouses. Whatever the authority you [DOT] set up, as long as this law holds good in that province, no court will be able to grant any divorce.
The confederation act gives the federal government the right to legislate in so far as divorce is concerned. For obvious reasons, none of the lawmakers who have succeeded one another since 1867 has deemed it proper to enact a general divorce law. Every petition for divorce submitted to parliament is an exceptional case. The legislator retains his absolute right to accede to or to refuse the petition of the person who wishes to obtain a divorce.
From a legal point of view, it would be an entirely new situation were we, through general legislation, to delegate our powers to the exchequer court. It would be the admission of the principle at stake and the interested parties would no longer have to seek passage of an exceptional bill, to seek a privilege, but would go to a court of law to claim, with due proof, the exercise of a right, of an absolute right enjoyed by every citizen of this country. There is no doubt that the federal parliament has a right to hand over to the exchequer court divorce bills for Quebec or Newfoundland.
But if it were to do so, we would have in our statutes two conflicting texts, the one authorizing the breaking off of the marital tie, the other, that is section 185 of the civil code, proclaiming the indissolubility of marriage; faced with the obligation of making a choice, I do not hesitate to decide in favour of the application of the principles of divine right which were sanctioned by our civil law long before confederation.
Those who favour divorce courts seem to entertain a mistaken view of marriage and the law pertaining to it. Marriage is not a mere personal question, but a public one also. It concerns the prosperity of the nation and its effects may have far-reaching social consequences; that is why the lawmaker must be careful when preparing any measure tending to condone the granting of divorce.
The law must be concerned with the common welfare and not merely with the practical side of things. The sponsor of the resolution or those who support it tell us that they were not elected to pass divorce laws, but the federal parliament has had jurisdiction in this matter ever since 1867 and it is their privilege to vote in favour of such bills, as it is mine to oppose them.

If the people of Quebec and Newfoundland are opposed to the establishment of divorce courts, why do the representatives of the other provinces seek to force this system on them?
Finally, I should like them to understand that they will not succeed in having accepted a divorce court for the province of Quebec, because in my opinion, such a measure is anti-social, anti-Christian, and directed against the family, and the remedy will not be found in the establishment of a court, but in the suppression of divorce itself. That is why I shall vote against any divorce bills presented in this house and against any measure such as this, which tend to condone it.


Mr. P. L. Dube (Resligouche-Madawaska):: Mr. Speaker, every session we are faced with a number of divorce bills which we are supposed to pass or to reject.
Mr. Speaker, I am expressing my personal opinion and that of my constituents in congratulating those members who have protested against the institution of a divorce court in those provinces -which, up to now, have refused to insert such legislation in their statutes. You have spoken for a logical and sensible cause. Did not our gracious Princess, who has now become our beloved Queen, addressing a group of 3,600 mothers, tell them that divorce has become a dangerous scourge of society?
Here are the words which Princess Elizabeth spoke in London on October 18, 1949:
(Text):
"We live in an age of growing self-indulgence, of hardening materialism and of falling moral standards. X would go so far as to say that some of the very principles on which the family, and therefore the health of the nation, is founded, are in danger.
When we see around us the havoc which has been wrought above all among the children by the break-up of homes, we can have no doubt that divorce and separation are responsible for some of the darkest evils in our society today.
I do not think you can perform any finer service than to help maintain the Christian doctrine that the relationship of husband and wife is a permanent one, not to be lightly broken because of difficulties or quarrels."
The princess urged the mothers to help others give their children that "sound Christian teaching which is essential to us all, but which is sadly lacking in so many homes today."
"As we all know", she said, "a child learns by example and therefore it is not only most important for us to see that our children say their prayers and go to church, but also to practise Christianity in our own lives. We surely cannot expect our children to do what we are too lazy or indifferent to do ourselves."
(Translation):
There we have, Mr. Speaker, the advice given to her subjects by a young mother who
Divorce Jurisdiction
was then 22 years of age and is now our sovereign and Queen of a great empire. Her advice is as sound as it is excellent and it shows great foresight for a person of her age. She wisely unfolds before us the disaster that divorce has in store, not only for those who claim legal separation but also for a whole nation.
It is not surprising that there is so little understanding between nations. In my opinion, if we want peace, we must begin by having it in the family. When we have learned to love one another, to respect one another, man will no longer seek to separate what God has united.
In closing my remarks, I would add that while the world is allowed to go to ruin, we must be strong enough to fight against the current. Let us be the bold defenders of family life. Let us make other people understand the grandeur and beauty of the Christian marriage. We shall thus help ensure, in a constructive way, the prosperity of our country, the happiness of our brethren and the salvation of the whole Canadian nation.


Mr. Armand Dumas (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, several hon. members have repeatedly criticized in the house the manner in which we deal with divorce bills. However, many of those who criticize that procedure believe that it is yet the better way of dealing with them and that we should not change it.
Soon after the opening of this session, as during the previous sessions, a bill was introduced which, according to its mover, would aim to correct a situation that does not please anyone, that several would like to do away with but that many prefer to tolerate. The bill would enable the exchequer court to pass judgment upon applications for divorce from the provinces of Quebec and Newfoundland which, according to the law as it now stands, must be dealt with by the upper house.
I have listened to and read with great attention the numerous speeches on the matter. It is only reasonable to expect that the majority of those speeches should be made by members from Quebec and Newfoundland.
Mr. Speaker, I have yet to hear a representative of those provinces say that he approves the bill as it now stands. That means that the parties concerned do not want it. Have we not there sufficient grounds for insisting that the provinces concerned be given the right to decide for themselves whether they want divorce courts or not.

Divorce Jurisdiction
Upon reading debates of previous years, one finds that several members are of the opinion that under our legislation it seems that divorces may be too easily obtained. Consequently, many young people get married without giving enough thought to what they are doing. They marry without due consideration, thinking that if things go wrong it will be easy to remedy the situation; people get the idea that they will be able to obtain a divorce easily and start over again. Unfortunately, in several cases, the husband or the wife, and often both of them, have already been married two, three or four times if not more often.
Even then, I say that the passing of this bill would not be justified. On the contrary, I hold that divorces could then be more easily obtained in the provinces concerned.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said in this house that we might be called upon to grant a considerable number of applications for divorce, 250 maybe. As a matter of fact, in the years gone by, applications for divorce which have been granted by us have reached approximately that figure on the average.
On the other hand, according to statistics, in the province of Ontario, for instance, applications for divorce reached 2,400 in a single year. With due allowance for the difference of population between Ontario and Quebec, one can easily imagine what would be the number of applications for divorce in the province of Quebec if we were to pass an act setting up a divorce court in that province.
One must bear in mind that divorce is fatal to the family. The hon. member for Lake St. John (Mr. Gauthier) made this point very clear. We are all agreed that the family is the pillar, the cornerstone of civilization.
I would like, Mr. Speaker, to quote a few lines from the collective pastoral letter of Their Excellencies the archbishops and bishops of the civil province of Quebec on [DOT]the labour problem, under date of February 14, 1950:
Man is born, grows up and is reared in a family, which he leaves only to get married, to give birth and education to other human beings.
It may be that since the last world war young married couples have had many reasons to want a divorce, but the passing of the bill now before us will not provide us with a solution to the problems which beset these unfortunate young couples.
What I have just said is borne out by another excerpt taken from the pastoral letter I have just mentioned. I quote:

During the last war especially, young girls, married women and even mothers were attracted by industrial or business occupations. They found there an opportunity to get their share of prosperity and thus forget the hard times of many years of unemployment. Even after the war, a great many of them have carried on their work, either because they were money-greedy, or because they found it necessary to supplement an all too meagre family income. The results have been a lowering of standards, as far as paternal authority, marital faithfulness, domestic harmony and stability of family principles are concerned; and yet those are the things which have safeguarded our people's integrity and which should always be considered as the basic factor of the prosperity and moral strength of every nation.
If there exists some means to enforce the laws, I am all for it. But within our reach, there is a much more efficient method; I refer to the education of children and young people. When children are very young, their parents assume the easy task of their education; but with the passing of years, they are often left to their own devices. Why should we not demand with some insistence that our educators drill into the minds of our young people the deep meaning and the importance of marriage and of the responsibilities it implies, that is to say to teach them what are the duties of married couples.
Mention has already been made in the house of those clubs which offer courses to those who wish to prepare themselves for matrimony. Those courses are intended for young men and young girls. Such a method of education should be popularized among our young people.
This week, in a church here in Ottawa, I learned that lectures would be given to those who are engaged, in order to teach them the Christian principles of marriage. We must teach these young men and these young women the true meaning of marriage. The calling of the married woman is such a noble one; she must be a good wife and a good mother. The married man plays just as noble a part, for it is he who must protect the family and earn its livelihood.
Mr. Speaker, I repeat that the way in which the divorce petitions from Quebec and Newfoundland are heard is unpleasant, it is repugnant to a great many people and there are some who assert that it is to be condemned. But that is no reason to replace it with another method which would produce still worse results.
The number of divorces is already too high in these two provinces; we should not contemplate a system which would only increase it.
Never shall Quebec accept the principle of divorce. The mover of the bill and his friends imagine that they have hit upon the right solution; they are convinced that this

legislation can, in no wise, affect the religious beliefs or the rights of the provinces concerned.
But this is just where they are mistaken. At the present time, the exchequer court is not authorized to hear divorce cases from Quebec and Newfoundland, unless some bill like this one allows it to do so. If the bill were adopted by parliament and became part of our statutes, it would lay down a rule according to which, in Quebec and Newfoundland, marriages might be broken on grounds of adultery. It would thus imply a recognition of the principle of divorce and of the dissolution of marriage-a thing which no real Catholic could accept with a clear conscience.
Quebec's civil code stipulates that only death of one of the spouses may release the other from the promises exchanged during the marriage ceremony. This legislative text supersedes all other texts, including the British North America Act.
When the provinces affected wish to recognize divorce, they can take the necessary steps. I declare that our mission is not to impose upon them a measure which they do not want.
The majority of the population of Quebec is against divorce but there is a minority which wants to have access to divorce. The rights of that minority have not been encroached upon and it does not deem to have been discriminated against, for, since 1867, it has the right to petition parliament for a special act granting the right to a divorce.
I believe that this minority should not be deprived of this right; that is why I believe we must maintain the present procedure, however reprehensible it may be.
I am strongly opposed to the adoption of the bill introduced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
(Text):


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the hon. member permit a question? Could he say in what way the handling of divorce by the exchequer court would be any more offensive to the views of the people of Quebec, or any more offensive to the British North America Act, than is the handling of divorce session after session here in the House of Commons?


Armand Dumas: Mr. Speaker, I shall say to the hon. member that by agreeing to the passage of this bill we would recognize divorce.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You recognize divorce three hundred times every year.


Armand Dumas: This procedure is permitted by the British North America Act. It has been recognized, and is the law, that wives
Divorce Jurisdiction
and husbands can come to the other place and explain their case. A bill can then be sent here. Since 1867 this privilege has been extended to those who want a divorce. In the case of Quebec it is a privilege of the minority, and this procedure is the only way we can protect the rights of the minority.


Mr. Maurice Boisvert (Nicolel-Yamaska):: Mr. Speaker, I had no intention of taking part in this debate. In doing so I am sure of one thing, and that is that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Cnetre (Mr. Knowles) has not a copy of my text, because I have none. I shall speak in French about this very important matter which concerns1 Quebec. I am opposed to this legislation, and the hon. member knows quite well why I am opposed to it.
(Translation):
First, as far as the principle of the bill is concerned, section 2 states as follows:
The Exchequer Court of Canada hereinafter referred to as "the court" shall have jurisdiction to entertain an action for dissolution of marriage from a person domiciled in the province of Quebec . . .
We are opposed and always will be opposed to the dissolution of marriage, because it destroys the most essential element of our society, the family. Dissolution of marriage wrecks not only the home but the family, upon which rests the kind of society in which we live and wish to continue to live.
The family has been defined-and I know that my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is a Christian, like the rest of us-as a society based upon natural law and formed according to a God-made pattern for the reproduction of the human race.
I do not have to demonstrate that divorce has become a plague in every country of the world. In contributing to the increase of divorce we are not rendering any service to society and the family.
Let us examine the figures given in the Canada Year Book for 1951. Before 1900, divorces in this country averaged approximately twenty a year. For instance in 1918, we see that there were 114 divorces in Canada, and 608 in 1926. We also see that in the province of Quebec, 177 divorces were granted in 1945; 290, in 1946; 348, in 1947; and 292, in 1948.
On the other hand, considering the number of divorces in provinces where divorce is granted by a court of justice, we find in Ontario 1,940 divorces, in 1945; 2,639, in 1946; 3,509, in 1947; and 3,107, in 1948.
We also find that divorces are granted by the thousands where special courts have been set up, while in the provinces where divorce

Divorce Jurisdiction
is still under the jurisdiction of this parliament, the number is so much lower that it should open our eyes.
Therefore, to be logical, my learned friend would have to admit that the bill of which he is the sponsor would lead to an increase in divorce cases in the province of Quebec proportionate to the one recorded in the other provinces.
Now, since we are opposed in principle to the dissolution of marriage in the province of Quebec, we do not wish to make any step in a direction which would likely increase divorces in the province where we live; in fact, if we could even legislate in such a way as to restrain the number of divorces in the other provinces, I think we would render a service to the whole country in helping the Canadian family which has to be assisted, protected and defended by the governments of this country.
There is another reason why we must, we from Quebec, object to divorce under any disguise, before all courts of justice and even before this parliament. It is that in the province of Quebec, under our civil code, it is recognized that marriage is indissoluble. Therefore, if we adopted a federal legislative measure which would conflict with the provisions of our civil code, we would be treading upon very dangerous constitutional ground.
We know how much we had to fight to protect the autonomy of the provinces. We know that, in all our provinces, people wish for an ever-increasing autonomy.
We try to respect the autonomy of the provinces, and were we to pass the legislation introduced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, we would have in the province of Quebec a constitutional conflict which would not make for Canadian unity nor for the good relations which should exist between the provinces and the central government of Canada.
If my learned friend could convince this parliament that his bill would bring about a decrease in the number of divorces, I am sure he would find in the province of Quebec supporters for the legislation he puts before this house year after year. But so far he has failed to say, let alone to prove, how such legislation could bring down the divorce rate in the province of Quebec.
On the contrary, every time our learned friend speaks to the house on this matter, we can hear, in the other provinces, some people asking that grounds for divorce be made more numerous and divorce easier. The legislation suggested by my learned friend is such as to

give hope to those who entertain these ideas. It is more difficult to go before parliament than before a court of law.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I wish to quote what the Right Hon. Prime Minister of this country (Mr. St. Laurent) said on this subject. I am quoting Hansard lor June 20, 1950, page 3891:
The matter to be dealt with consists of a fundamental declaration of the law and that is why the hon. member who introduced this bill took the precaution to declare that the exchequer court would have jurisdiction and would have the right to dissolve a marriage. That, however, would be legislating for the province of Quebec. It would be within the power of this parliament, but still it would be legislating on a matter which is extremely distasteful to the large majority of the people of that province.
To sum up my remarks I would say that on the question of principle I am opposed to this proposed legislative measure which is again being introduced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in order to facilitate the dissolution of marriage. As a citizen of the province of Quebec and in view of the laws under which we are governed in that province, I am opposed to this bill and I shall vote against it if it comes to a vote.


Mr. Wilfrid LaCroix (Quebec-Monimo-rency):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened attentively to the superb speeches delivered by the members for Lake St. John (Mr. Gauthier), for Villeneuve (Mr. Dumas), for Restigouche-Madawasba (Mr. Dube) and for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Boisvert). They have made use in this house of arguments which, from my personal viewpoint, are irrefutable.
The member from Nicolet-Yamaska has established, with adequate proof, that the creation of a divorce court placed under the jurisdiction of the exchequer court would bring about an increase in the number of divorces in the province of Quebec; my colleague has based his thesis on statistical data, referring to the number of divorces granted' in other Canadian provinces which have their own divorce court. If you care to study this data for a while, you will see that the divorce petitions from the province of Quebec, which are directly addressed to parliament, are those of immigrants who have just entered Canada and are imbued with ideas prevailing in certain parts of Europe. Only very occasionally is it possible to find among the divorce petitions from Quebec a few submitted by people who have long been residents of the province. Most of the petitions are signed by newcomers who are not familiar yet with the traditions of our old province, and who do not know about the things which have built up the strength of our ethnical group.

Committee on Defence Expenditure
When New France was ceded to England, there were approximately sixty thousand French-speaking Canadians. There are now more than four million of them. This increase has been made possible by the respect we have held for our family and our religious traditions. These traditions of ours are dear to us because they are based on common sense and on the undeniable fact that a nation reaches its fullest maturity only if it shows respect for the fundamental cell of any society or any country, that is, the family, as one of my colleagues was saying a few moments ago.
An examination of the explanatory notes printed alongside the text of the bill the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has introduced show's that-
It merely transfers the hearing of divorce petitions, in the case of persons residing in these two provinces, from parliament to the Exchequer Court of Canadg and it provides further that the said court shall hear such divorce cases only at Ottawa.
This is childish! It is well known that Ottawa is not far from Montreal, nor is it far from Quebec city. The adoption of such a bill would mean in principle the establishment of a divorce court for the province of Quebec on the border of that province.
I note that it is six o'clock and I end my remarks satisfied that I have prevented the passage of the bill.
(Text):


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. St. Laurent for the appointment of a committee to examine defence expenditures and commitments, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Claxton, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Knowles.
Agar Rodney Adamson: Mr. Speaker, before the debate adjourned at five o'clock for the house to consider private bills I was discussing the adequacy of our aircraft production, in view of the very special job which we as Canadians
had elected to do, and I was endeavouring to point out the problem of producing fighter and interceptor aircraft which would be effective against modern bombers.
My point, and I wish to repeat it, is that I believe these matters, technical though they may be, involved though they may be, difficult of solution though they may be, are subjects with which this parliament, and particularly the defence committee, should deal. I think it was a defect of the set-up of the committee last year and, particularly in view of the amendment moved by the Minister of National Defence, more so this year, that the defence committee will be dealing with matters of expenditures, and more particularly with the misappropriation of sums of money. I am of the opinion that the job of a defence committee is to see to it that the defences of this country are adequate. We represent the people of Canada; we in this parliament have a responsibility which we cannot delegate to experts or others. While under the British system of government and opposition the executive must take responsibility for the decisions made, nevertheless those decisions and the reasons for them are a subject on which we, and particularly the committee, must share responsibility and must be informed.
In the United Kingdom there is a device by which a technical member of the armed services reports not only to the committee but directly to the cabinet on matters of a technical and operational nature which the British government has discovered is too much for the minister who has the political responsibility in the house to deal with. These questions which I am bringing up tonight are technical questions which should be dealt with on the technical level. It is unfair and unwise to expect the minister to have all the answers to all these questions.
We now come to the question of whether members of the defence services should speak, where they should speak and how they should speak. I believe that under our system, flexible as it is, there is a place for the technical members of the defence services to speak on these problems, and that is in the committee. It is for that reason that I have raised the question of the effectiveness of our air protection.
To deal with it in detail, these are the sort of questions which are asked me and for which I have no answer. My constituents feel that there should be some answers to them. With regard to the Avro I was asked: How seriously has the production lag of the
1086	HOUSE OF
Committee on Defence Expenditure CF-100 affected R.C.A.F. training, and have our NATO squadrons been equipped with them? Much has been said about our NATO squadrons. The CF-100 is a particularly useful aircraft for that sort of service. Another question is this: Why have so many Canadian engineers and technicians left Avro, men such as Edward Aitkin, who was the designer of the CF-100 and the jet liner; Paul Dilworth and Winnett Boyd, designers of the Orenda engine; Richard Fairthorne, who was the industrial relations manager; John Berry, who was the director of manufacturing, and Elwood Butler, who was the treasurer. These men have all left this company which, if not our major producer, is at least our second largest aircraft producer in Canada.
Why has that happened? Why have these head men left, these technical men who helped to design and bring into early production one excellent engine, an extremely useful medium range commercial jet aircraft, and a very good long distance interceptor? Nearly all the original staff have left. My friends and those with whom I talk question me as to what is wrong with this concern.
I have heard-and this is general talk-that there is considerable resentment, that the Canadian personnel are being supplanted by United States and United Kingdom personnel when the Canadian personnel did the pioneering and brought the three types of aircraft into production the whole way from the drawing board. I think the defence committee is entitled to an answer to the problem of Avro Canada. I am a booster of Avrb Canada. We have produced three first-class pieces of equipment, the jet liner, the CF-100 and the Orenda engine. Yet what is the production? Why was the jet liner production stopped? There must be an answer. It is not a matter of wrongdoing; it is a matter of national interest. Probably hundreds of millions of dollars of the taxpayers' money have been put into this concern. What are we going to do about it? If we are to have a committee to look into defence expenditures, then surely this would be one of the first things we should inquire into.
This becomes especially true when right next door is de Havilland, where three types of aircraft have been designed. These are all Canadian types, and are known as the Chipmunk, the Beaver and the Otter. When I visited that plant the 421st Beaver was on the production line, being prepared for the United States air force. It is the only Canadian firm producing a Canadian-built aircraft for the United States air force. It is a firm that has sent aircraft to forty different countries; bear in mind that I am referring to de Havilland of Canada, not the parent company.
tMr. Adamson.]

It has sent its product to forty different countries and eleven different air forces. Yet not one of those aircraft has been ordered by the Royal Canadian Air Force. What is the reason for this? The United States air force has paid the de Havilland company the compliment of stating that it is the only aircraft producer in North America that is up to date and on schedule in its deliveries.
Here is a Canadian company with Canadian personnel, using Canadian designs, Canadian engines, Canadian materials and Canadian workmen, and situated right next door to Avro, or at least comparatively near. Why on one side of the town line do we have this very successful aircraft company and, on the other side, an aircraft company which is constantly running into difficulty? Is it because of government interference?
These are matters which the defence committee should discuss. Let us, consider Cana-dair, which is a subsidiary of the Electric Boat Company, now known as General Dynamics Corporation. Canadair is a very successful aircraft producer. Admittedly the company is producing aircraft of United States design with United States engines, and has open to it the advantage of a pipe line of United States machinery and instruments. For this reason it does not run into many of the difficulties confronting Avro. Nevertheless it is producing as was announced in the press at a rate of approximately 40 per month. Under the circumstances that is an excellent record.
It is also producing the T-33 trainer, which is a jet aircraft. Canadair is a private company. As a matter of fact when it became a private Canadian company I availed myself of the privilege of buying a few shares of its stock. Let me say that, even as a small shareholder in the company, I get infinitely more information about it than I do as a member of parliament or of the defence committee. I pay taxes and my constituents pay taxes to support this great company and pay for the production from it. Yet I, as a member of the defence committee, do not get as much information about details of production and the problems connected therewith as I do in the role of shareholder in the company.
Surely that is wrong, Mr. Speaker. This is one of the things the defence committee should consider, and one of the blind spots in our whole defence mechanism. There is no wrongdoing here, nothing like that. It is simply a matter of giving proper information, and having proper discussion of the problems with the people's representatives. We are supposed to answer to our constituents. We are not supposed to return to our homes and say that we are satisfied with what we

are told across the floor of the house by a minister and his deputy, who cannot possibly have all the details of the problem.
I earnestly hope that when the committee is set up the terms of reference will be broadened so we will know not only that the money being expended is adequately and properly expended, but that it results in fighting material which will be useful and effective. If we do not do that we are not only negligent in our duty, but it may almost be said that we are traitors to our cause.
For that reason I protest against the amendment by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton), which would confine the discussion in the committee to a matter which although serious has already been reported upon. Why not let the committee proceed immediately to a discussion of the real defence problems of Canada? Remember this, that last year Russia produced 22,000 aircraft and 63,000 aircraft engines. They were good aircraft, and good aircraft engines. We are not playing this game for marbles; we are playing it in deadly earnest. And if we do not produce an effective fighting machine we might as well wash the whole thing out, and surrender now.


Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, on December 15, and for a day or two following, we in this chamber had a somewhat unusual experience. For the moment-no, not for the moment; for two or three days-that spirit which we see across the gangway, and with which we are so familiar; that spirit which has been described in an old phrase becoming somewhat abused and a little hackneyed but still, I think, very descriptive, "that tranquil consciousness of effortless superiority" to which the government treats us so frequently-that, for the moment, was absent.
There was a considerable amount of hurrying to and fro. In plain words the Currie report had been a bit of a bombshell. The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) in his opening remarks took it very seriously. He did not pretend that he was not unhappy, and he spoke of it in terms which I think were calculated to make us all feel that it would be taken very seriously. Speaking of the report he said, as reported on page 640 of Hansard:
In cases where action has not already been taken along the lines of such recommendations, the government and the department are acting with dispatch, and will give most urgent consideration to these recommendations.
So far that was good. I think we were [DOT]entitled to believe that this was going to be taken seriously, but that did not last very
Committee on Defence Expenditure long. It was not very long before the old self-satisfaction and what I can call only arrogance and disregard of the usually accepted rights of parliament were back and in full play. As a matter of fact, on the 15th itself that attitude was brought back from a rather unexpected quarter, by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), who is usually a man one can do business with and talk to in a reasonable manner. The Minister of Finance stepped out of his usual quality and put closure on us. I shall explain in a minute what I mean by closure. I think in fact that it was closure.
We had been debating the motion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). The hon. member had spoken, and then the minister spoke in what I thought was a most reasonable manner. However, he gave no indication of what was to follow, and then at the end of his speech he said that he thought there was not any need of discussing this any further at the moment, and moved that the debate be adjourned. I managed, perhaps with a little forbearance on your part, Mr. Speaker, to ask him if he really did want to apply closure. But apparently he did; therefore that was-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Would the hon. member state how he connects what he is referring to now with the motion before the house?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am just giving this as an illustration of the return of government arrogance to which I was referring. I was just giving this as a means of laying a foundation.


An hon. Member:: It may be in the sand.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: 
It is not surprising that people were uneasy because after all the seed of the Currie report fell on fertile ground. There is not a single member of this house, there is really not a single person who goes about the country who has not heard story after story of serious extravagance in defence expenditures. One hardly knows what to believe and what not to believe. You know that a great deal of it must not be believed; yet when serious statements are made, such as were made in this house by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Shaw) with regard to the air station in Alberta, and when the suggestions that he made have never been answered so far as I know, a situation arises in which it is almost impossible to know what not to believe. In other words, without much stretching of your imagination you are ready to believe almost anything.
As I said a moment ago, these mistakes, this chaos, this disorganization were widespread. The grave words which Mr. Currie used at the very outset of his report were such as to make even the most thoughtless stop and think. I should like to read briefly from the report as set out on page 712 of Hansard as follows:
The conclusion I have come to is that, while there has been a general breakdown in the system of administration, supervision and accounting, it was only at Petawawa that extensive irregularities over a prolonged period of time took place.
A breakdown in the system of administration, supervision and accounting! Now we come to the speech of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton). Before he spoke he had the benefit of knowing what had been the reception of the report throughout the country. He had seen the fertile wit of the cartoonists in full play. He had read the strong statements in the press. As a result, the Minister of National Defence did not attempt to brush off this report. He suggested there were certain errors in it. He did it in a rather nice way. Although there was a rather considerable amount of what I can only call smearing of the report, nevertheless he made it clear that he had not taken it lightly and that he had already adopted a good many of the proposals and was going to adopt more.
His excuse in effect was a very simple one. The minister said that when there suddenly had come upon them the pressure caused by the war in Korea and so on, they found a great accretion of work and that they really had a choice between getting the physical work done-the buildings built and so on- and the carrying out of this construction with ordinary business prudence and ordinary business methods. He said in effect they were not able to do both.

It is only fair to say, and I wish the minister were here to hear me say it, that the minister had previously-notably in September of 1950, I think-given us a most glowing account of the work of the department. It was like a department made in heaven. There did not seem to be any defect of any kind that could approach it. Nevertheless the minister did say in this house last Tuesday quite frankly that certain things had had to be neglected. I do not suppose that the minister found it pleasant to say that. It was making a certain concession which the minister has not been very good at making. I say that it is very much as if the chief executive of a company had been given a job to do, had been authorized to go and make certain expenditures and so on, and had come back at the end of the time and said: I have made these expenditures. The building is built, but I cannot tell you how much it cost because we could not follow ordinary business procedure. I do not know how much it cost; I do not know how much material was wasted, and I cannot tell you anything about it except that we did get the building built. Now, Mr. Speaker, I believe that if in civilian or business life the chief executive came back and made such a statement to his directors-well, let us say that he would be in some difficulty; leave it at that.
The Montreal Star had something to say about this, and the Montreal Star is not exactly unfriendly to this government. It made what I would call a valiant attempt to come to the minister's assistance. It praised his speech and said it had lifted the subject onto a higher plane. Nevertheless it seemed to admit and did admit indeed that there were very serious questions that needed looking into. It said this:
It is Mr. Currie's belief that this failure to keep accounts properly opened the way to waste and inefficiency which might be far more costly than anything actually stolen by a handful of crooks. This is the point on which the opposition can most usefully direct its fire and a debate on that level should be welcomed by all sides.
I hope to confine myself to that, Mr. Speaker, except that I wish to point out that in Mr. Currie's report there is a suggestion that the task to be done goes far beyond anything that the Montreal Star seems to have thought of, far beyond what the minister seems to have thought of, which puts this problem in its position as a tremendous problem which needs all the energy, knowledge and ability that we can put into it.
First of all it needs a full investigation of the facts so that we know where we start. That, incidentally, is one of the things which
Committee on Defence Expenditure we on this side of the house have been asking for, and I find it utterly impossible to understand why it should be denied.
Coming to the set-up of the committee, the first thing I shall refer to is the fact that the committee is going to be asked to operate without the assistance of the man who has already made this inquiry and who apparently is going to be stopped from going any farther. I want to read what Mr. Currie said about the broad over-all problem which we face. It states the problem in language so clear that no one can possibly misunderstand it. I just want to point out that I think the idea is getting more and more abroad that this problem is far more than the problem Mr. Currie covered. It is hard, as I shall point out, to assess that problem in terms of money because Mr. Currie told us that he found it impossible to find out how much money had been spent. I read now the part of the report which I think sets out the real problem, and it is a problem of magnitude and importance that is hard to exaggerate:
What is needed now is the creation of a system-
Mark the words "the creation of a system"-not the remedying or alteration or modification, but "the creation of a system".
-designed to fit the economic and efficient administration of a large and long-sustained preparedness program inside a national economy operating at full blast.
I doubt that words can make that clearer. I doubt if it is possible to make it clearer that it is a tremendous problem. We on this side of the house have always contended that it was a tremendous problem and that those who sit on the other side have never understood that problem. I think we have clear-cut evidence now that they never did. I will go on:
This involves the abandonment, by all administrators of the program, of the war psychology with its emphasis on speed with resultant wastefulness and extravagance, and the substitution of an alert, economic and efficient operation, flexibly designed, to be sure to meet emergencies, but designed also to become a more or less permanent part of Canadian life and government.
I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that this goes far beyond the task given to Mr. Currie at Peta-wawa, but it is presented by him as a result of his experience and with his knowledge of the need that we have today. N'ow, if there is any doubt whatever as to the gaps in our organization, as to the want of organization, let me turn for a moment to the report of the Auditor General. In section 56 of his report under the heading "Service Forces Accounting" he says:
Stores. Surveys made of accounting systems- there are at least eight-
1090	HOUSE OF
Committee on Defence Expenditure
And I repeat, Mr. Speaker,
-there are at least eight-indicate that no sustained effort has been made to achieve uniformity in systems within the services. The result is that mandatory directives are specialized, particularly with respect to the army.
I asked the Auditor General to inform me further about these eight systems. I understand that the navy has one and the air force has one. They were much later in creation, of course, and their system is more modern; but there are six in the army. I asked the Auditor General what the phrase "mandatory directives" meant. I will repeat his statement:
The result is that mandatory directives are specialized-
He explained to me that it refers to printed instructions. Remember that there are six different systems, Mr. Speaker. There are huge books of instruction, and I could hardly believe my ears when he told me that they ran into literally thousands of pages.
One of the difficulties is that a man trained under one of those six systems does not become readily transferable to another. He will find himself not at home there. I point out that I think the Auditor General, in his own way, is underlining what Mr. Currie has told us about this need for the creation of a system.
I want to read a word from the Winnipeg Free Press of January 3, because it grapples fairly firmly with the question of economy in military expenditures and I think it is worth repeating what they say. Economy is very much in the minds of the people to the south of the line and very much in the mind of the Winnipeg Free Press. I always read the Winnipeg Free Press with the feeling that it won't be unduly unfair to the government. The Free Press says:
Recently in these columns it was pointed out that the most promising field for economy at Ottawa was the $2,100,000,000 voted for defence. It was noted with regret that members of the government from Mr. St. Laurent down all set aside this item of $2,100 million as untouchable . . . This attitude, of course, is unrealistic . . . General Eisenhower, in promising large scale economies in federal expenditures, relied almost entirely upon the savings which he knew could be made in the United States defence expenditures. On this score. General Eisenhower must be considered to know what he is talking about. Not only does he propose to cut billions of dollars out of the United States defence appropriations, but he has repeatedly declared that this can be done without reducing the defence force by a single front line soldier or effective weapon.
The extract I am quoting winds up by saying:
Hitherto the St. Laurent government has taken a discouraging and non-cooperative attitude with respect to economy.


Now, Mr. Speaker, I have been trying to remind the house that the Currie report indicated a general breakdown in the system of administration, and that correcting the irregularities is only part of the job of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) and the government. I have drawn their attention to the broad comprehensive statement of the task as indicated by Mr. Currie in the extract I read about the creation of a system. At the present time the members of this house have no means of judging the facts, and for this reason we in this party moved a subamendment designed to have Mr. Currie continue and broaden his work. This subamendment was ruled out of order, but the C.C.F. have now moved a subamendment which is in order. The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) says he will vote against it. I know it is unparliamentary to suggest that you can predict how members of the Liberal party are going to vote, but on the face of it I shall be greatly surprised if there are any defaulters, except possibly the genial member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Gibson) who seems to flit about at times from one party to the other.
What I want to know is, why is the government against this amendment? Is it conceivable that they would vote against it if they thought a further report by Mr. Currie would reveal a good state of affairs? I suggest that it is not conceivable. If they felt confident a further report by Mr. Currie would reveal a good state of affairs I believe they would have no objection whatever. The only reason they are against it is that they fear there will be further unpleasant revelations. Now, if I am justified in saying that-and I certainly say it with the fullest conviction- and if this government refuses to allow a further investigation, I believe the government has forfeited the right to be respected by the people of this country. Remember, we are not talking about small things, we are talking about big things.
I thought the reason the Prime Minister gave for voting against this subamendment was trivial. I was surprised that a man of the Prime Minister's standing would give such a reason. What he said was that he felt the committee should be left to its own good judgment after they have had an opportunity of hearing the witnesses, including Mr. Currie himself.
Well, Mr. Speaker, was the committee left to its own good judgment with regard to consideration of the Currie report, or is there an amendment now before this house virtually giving a directive to the committee? Does anyone suggest that if this subamendment is voted down the committee, in its

own good judgment, will extend the investigation by Mr. Currie? No one will seriously suggest that.
Let us look for a moment at the reasonableness of this request. As I said a moment ago, it is difficult to determine the amount of money involved in the area dealt with by Mr. Currie. I believe it would probably be well up to the mark if I suggested the amount involved might be $20 million or $25 million. If anyone with knowledge wishes to correct me I shall be happy to be corrected. I am just pointing out that if it is $20 million, then it is one-hundredth, and if it is $25 million it is one-eightieth of the total of $2 billion. I am suggesting that it does not make sense, having got a report on this one-hundredth or one-eightieth or one-fiftieth or one-twentieth, for the government now to say that we will not have this investigation extended. I believe there is only one interpretation the people of this country will place upon that. The people of this country will resent it just as much as I resent it.
We listened to an interesting speech by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Applewhaite) that indicated a fair attitude with regard to the committee. I want to say this, without at the moment contradicting anything the member for Skeena said but reserving all rights, of course: that it is pure self-deception to suggest that a committee holding occasional meetings can get to the bottom of these matters. Let me read a little extract from wljat Mr. Currie said just to show you the job he had, and then ask yourselves whether a committee which will meet twice a week, and the members of which have a dozen other things to do, could do anything but scratch the surface, particularly when they lack the benefit of the expert assistance we wish to have.
Let me read what Mr. Currie said about his difficulty and then picture the committee, even assuming all the members of the committee were single-minded and wholehearted in their desire to find the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Assume that, and then listen to this from Mr. Currie:
It was apparent from the beginning of the investigation that the accounting methods were in a chaotic condition.
Later he says:
It is impractical and perhaps impossible, regardless of the time which might be spent examining records, to try and determine by this means the amount and value of the deficiencies-
This conclusion is based upon the results of a single determined effort to ascertain by accounting methods the extent of the shortage existing in the case of a single item of stores. Cement was chosen as a test case, largely because the number of suppliers of that commodity were few in number and easy to find. Six weeks were spent in the effort-
Committee on Defence Expenditure
The over-all shortage appeared to be some 18,000 bags, much of which may have gone into unauthorized projects of one kind or another. It was impossible to ascertain exactly what had happened.
We have an area, Mr. Speaker, say twenty or fifty or a hundred times as large as the area Mr. Currie worked in, and it is seriously suggested we are going to be able to really do an effective job on, let us say, $1,900 million when Mr. Currie took weeks and months in a smaller area.
I have long ceased to hope that anything I or anyone else in the opposition can say will make a dent in the government mind. Even in the few years I have been in this house I think the situation has changed. I think each year that goes by that tolerant, and sometimes not so tolerant, feeling regarding the opposition grows-"Oh, after all we are just a lot of boys doing our best". The idea that we could ever, by any stretch of the imagination, take the place of the people across the way seems to them beyond the realm of practical thought.
We are used to that attitude, Mr. Speaker. I suppose we have to take it as we find it. I am sure that when one cannot question the independence of government members one certainly cannot question their sanity, but there is an old adage which one could quote which runs this way:
Whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad.
I suppose that arrogance, in a way, is a form of madness-one of the lesser forms- but I never think it is any less dangerous because it is exhibited by people whom, in our day to day relations, we like. In fact I think it is much more dangerous when it is exhibited by people of this nature than it is when exhibited by people whom we dislike; because if they were people who were utterly impossible in every way, not just in this way and a few others, as I say, they would be much easier to deal with.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that I have now spoken as long as I should. One of the great difficulties of this business we are in is, of course, that most of the articulate people in this country, most of the people you hear much from and about, are inclined to be yes-men. Over the years I have been terribly depressed to find out how often that is true. You know what I mean, Mr. Speaker. Everybody knows what I mean. I refer to the number of people whom you meet who say, "Yes, yes; that is true. Yes, they have been there too long; I hope you turn them out, but of course I do business with the government. You must not quote anything I say."
Happily, however, there are in this country a great many people who are not widely known. What they say does not come to the ears of the government. They do not make
1092	HOUSE OF
Committee on Defence Expenditure money out of the government, and they can still think their own thoughts. I have a feeling that they may have some thoughts about this report. I have the feeling that if the thing is stifled here and now-however pleasantly it is done-a great many people up and down the country will not like it. I think they will say, "Couldn't take it, eh?" I do not think they will like the hush-hush and cover-up, and that is what we face here so far as we can see. There has been nothing to indicate that that is not the line to be taken.
All I can say is this. We know, Mr. Speaker, that the government have all had halos made for them. The less important ministers have little halos, the more important ministers have bigger halos and the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has a great, resplendent halo. We know how those are made. We know the publicity methods. We admire the skill of those publicity methods, Mr. Speaker, and sometimes I suppose we wish we were as good at them ourselves. But they are there; they are built up; they are swollen up. You can see them puffing themselves up now. They say, "This poor fellow will never get anywhere; he is only a member of the opposition." But, Mr. Speaker, I have a feeling about these people who are not much seen, and whom nobody knows much about-they will have a vote, and I think they will rub some of the tinsel off those halos unless something is done to investigate this thing properly.


Mr. J. A. Ross (Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take part to some extent in this debate on the motion of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) that a select committee be appointed to examine national defence expenditure. That resolution was on the order paper for some time prior to the Christmas recess. Two or three days prior to our rising for the Christmas recess the much anticipated Currie report was tabled in this house; that was done on December 15. As I said, this motion of the Prime Minister had been on the order paper before the recess; and when it was proposed the other day, the Prime Minister presented the motion without elaborating upon it himself. However, the Minister of National Defence, who had been away in Europe on government business when the report was tabled, made an extremely lengthy speech and wound up by moving an amendment to this government resolution giving to this proposed committee a directive that they should investigate Mr. Currie and his report.
In this motion it is pointed out that the committee shall consist of some 26 members. A similar committee last year consisted of


that number of members, 17 of them being supporters of the government; that is roughly a majority of two to one. It was the desire and the wish of this party, because of conditions prevailing throughout the defence department as a whole and throughout various parts of this country, that Mr. Currie might be given the job of investigating the entire Department of National Defence and its ramifications. The hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes), when speaking on this motion and the amendment, moved an amendment to the amendment which would have brought about this result. However, it was ruled out of order by Mr. Speaker. Since then we have had another amendment to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), which asks that Mr. Currie should continue the investigation into the entire Department of National Defence.
I think we should remember that Mr. Currie's instructions, to begin with, were to survey a small portion of the Department of National Defence, namely one branch known as the works branch. When the Prime Minister spoke the other day, following the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, he was rather angry and wound up his remarks by stating that he certainly would vote against this amendment. I think it would be safe to guess that he will be followed by most of the government supporters in this house. That means the government are opposed to a proper and thorough investigation of the Department of National Defence and the conditions that now prevail in this country.
As to the report, I think it has justified the request made by the leader of this party and other members during the past three years. They have pointed out the difficulties in the organization and administration of this department and the many shortcomings therein, and in the past by resolution have asked that a committee of this house should be set up dealing with the Department of National Defence in general, its organization, administration and other matters; and on every occasion this committee has been refused by the Minister of National Defence speaking on behalf of the government. I think the leader of this party has been justified in this report.
To deal with the report itself, which is contained in the appendix to Hansard of December 15, on the first page in part I Mr. Currie points out as follows:
The conclusion I have come to is that, while there has been a general breakdown in the system of administration, supervision and accounting, it was only at Petawawa that extensive irregularities over a prolonged period of time took place.

Then over in the next column he states:
Before reciting the irregularities and their circumstances uncovered by the R.C.M.P.-with the assistance later of the provincial police and the army provost corps-it must be said that internal warnings had not been lacking in the Department of National Defence. 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.
He then goes on to point out that situation. He says:
The deputy minister in each case had directed the quartermaster general to investigate and report. Lack of adequate action at this point had, however, caused a progressive deterioration in the situation. Aside from reports being delayed for considerable periods of time, the record shows the next audit revealing conditions similar to those previously reported and, in some cases, worse. The process is then again repeated.
In the next column on page 713 he goes on to point out that-
A dam was built on Tucker creek at a cost estimated at some $3,000 or $4,000. Its utility is not clear to me, and it was, in any event, not authorized by army headquarters.
In certain cases, persons buying army material were asked not to make cheques in payment (in whole or in part) to the receiver general but to individual army personnel. The amounts thus paid did not reach the public treasury.
On page 714 he deals with the attempts to estimate losses. He says:
These, then, represent the ascertained cases of irregularity at Petawawa. How many more there may have been will never be known. It was apparent from the beginning of the investigation that the accounting records were in a chaotic condition and would be of little use in determining the nature and extent of irregularities. It is impractical, and perhaps impossible, regardless of the time which might be spent on examining records, to try and determine by this means the amount and value of the deficiencies.
In his next column on the same page he states:
The over-all shortage appeared to be some 18,000 bags.
He is dealing with cement. It has been pointed out that he picked this item out of some 5.000 items and carried on an investigation which took some six weeks, which disclosed a shortage of 18,000 bags, roughly eighteen cars, or a trainload of cement, that had disappeared from the Petawawa camp alone. He says:
It was impossible to ascertain exactly what had happened.
Then he goes on to state:
No reliable estimate of the total loss can be prepared.
In the next paragraph he deals with the breakdown of the accounting system. He said:
The fault did not lie in the accounting system, which was a good one had it been operated prop-
Committee on Defence Expenditure
erly. It was a new system, based on American and British as well as Canadian experience, and embodied features which, theoretically, would have quickly checked irregularities as they appeared.
On page 715 he deals with the failure in security and says:
There was in addition a serious collapse in security. There was little to prevent or to detect the organized plundering of military stores on a systematic scale, though apparently comparatively little of it took place. If there is excuse for inefficient accounting, there is none for the failure of security which is, after all, a prime military consideration. I take a serious view of this breakdown. If it is easy to pilfer military stores, then, by the same token, it is easy to sabotage military equipment. My recommendations in this respect are fully outlined later.
There are many more pages in the report. When the report was tabled in the house by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) he also tabled a report from the chief of the general staff, General Simonds, which in itself was proof that General Simonds had had access to this report before the members of this house and before it was tabled in the house. I am one of those who believe that was quite improper. There is a difference of opinion right now as to whether the members of the armed services should be ordered to keep quiet about this matter, as they have been. Apparently at this particular time the chief of the general staff issued an order to the members of the army that they must not discuss this report, or matters pertaining to it. I think that is rather unfair. If the members of the armed services are to be so dumb, are not to be allowed to speak on these matters, then I think the chief of the general staff is exceeding his authority by playing politics in the way he is now accused of doing.
In this respect a rather interesting editorial appeared in the Gazette of January 14 under the title: "This appears somewhat irregular". It deals with the manner in which the chief of the general staff issued his orders to those serving under his direction. It states:
When the Currie report was tabled in the House of Commons a most extraordinary thing happened. Also presented was a bitter attack upon the report, or parts of it, written by the chief of the general staff. If any attack was considered called for, it ought to have come from a member of the cabinet, preferably from the minister concerned with defence. It is no part of the duties of the chief of the general staff to enter into controversy with those he may conceive to be his critics.
This is a lengthy article, which goes on to point out how improper this matter is. It states:
If he feels that there are grounds to resent or refute any charges that have been made, it is his duty to present the matter to the member of the cabinet under whom he serves. And it becomes the duty of the member of the cabinet to bring his case to the attention of the house, if he considers it sound. But it is not for General Simonds. or
1094	HOUSE OF
Committee on Defence Expenditure
any other military officer, under our form of constitutional usage, to engage in controversy with any critic.
And more especially the elected critics of this house. The editorial goes on:
Quite possibly in all this there is only fumbling, and a failure to recognize clearly what is happening. But if matters are permitted to proceed in this manner, the government cannot escape the charge that it is either permitting the chief of the general staff to play politics, or it is playing politics with the chief of the general staff.
That is a situation which should not prevail in connection with a matter such as this. If there was any doubt cast upon the efficiency of the Department of National Defence in the general findings of the Currie report, then I think the facts are pretty well borne out by the public accounts of Canada and the Auditor General's report for the year 1952 which was tabled in the house the other day. The first item on page 24 of the Auditor General's report was referred to by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) who just took his seat. It deals with service forces accounting. Section 56 on page 24 states:
Stores. Surveys made of accounting systems- there are at least eight-indicate that no sustained effort has been made to achieve uniformity in systems within the services. The result is that mandatory directives are specialized, particularly with respect to the army. Various other special problems also exist, in particular:
The hon. member for Greenwood pointed out these eight different systems. I think he said there was one for the navy, one for the air force and six for the army. The section goes on:
(a)	No clear distinction has been drawn between stores procured for stockpiling or the equivalent, and those for normal peacetime needs;
(b)	Long-term usage is to regard stores as service property with responsibility for accounting and custody vested in various components of the service forces. The consequence is that no civilian authority answerable to parliament exercises direct control after procurement;
(c)	Each service accounting system has forms for similar purposes but the forms, generally, are not standardized throughout the services;
He deals at considerable length with this matter of accounting in the services. Then in section 62 on page 25 he says:
On February 11, 1952, the state of the army pay accounts was drawn to the notice of the department as it was felt corrective action should immediately be taken. The department has acted, but the basic problem remains-that of adjusting an accounting system, designed after the recent war for a permanent force smaller than it now is, to a widely scattered and relatively large number of accounts.
Then in section 63, page 26, he points out that another case was in connection with the assignment of pay to the wife of a soldier. It was put into effect; but after some $508
(Mr. Ross (Souris).]

was paid it was ascertained that (a) the soldier had not signed the form, (b) he was not married and (c) $508 had not been deducted from his pay.
Then in section 65, on the same page, we find this:
A presumption would be that a serviceman on becoming a civil servant is not eligible to receive two pay cheques for his services. However, in the audit five cases were noted where officers continued to receive service pay after they became civil employees of the Department of National Defence. One case will be used to illustrate. A brigadier was posted at Ottawa and during 1951 was in status of seconded to civil duties under the deputy minister of the department. Order in council P.C. 44/5733 of October 27, 1951, founded on a recommendation of the civil service commission, created an $11,500 civil position and authorized appointment of the brigadier without a public competition being held to fill the position. From January 1, he has received civil pay at the $11,500 annual rate. From January 1 to March 31 he was also paid the pay and allowances for his rank, he being treated for service purposes as on service special termination leave. As a result, in the three months period he received $2,790 from the army and $2,875 as a civil servant.
An order in council of the government permitted this condition. Other irregularities are listed in this Auditor General's report. That, in itself, is a far greater indictment than the Currie report. Hon. members will realize, of course, that the Auditor General is responsible to parliament, rather than the government. Had he not been directly responsible to parliament I presume the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton), or someone on behalf of the government, might have urged him to change his report and recommendations as, admittedly, the Minister of National Defence hoped to have Mr. Currie do in his report to the house.


Mr. Hosking:: He did not say that.


James Arthur Ross: He said he had discussed it with Mr. Currie, and that Mr. Currie thought he should report direct.


Henry Alfred Hosking: What page is that on?


James Arthur Ross: In the minister's speech the other day. If the hon. member will look up that speech he will see where he mentioned this matter, and that it was the wish of Mr. Currie that he should not adjust these paragraphs in his recommendations.


Henry Alfred Hosking: I do not want the hon. member to make any mistakes.


James Arthur Ross: There is credit coming to Mr. Currie for having wanted to make an independent report. Yet by some manner of means some changes were made in his recommendations.
When he was appointed to investigate the works services branch his very fine qualifications were pointed out by the minister. It

was said that he had a fine reputation, that his company was a good one, and that he had had valuable experience in the Department o f National Defence. Indeed, I think it was agreed throughout the country that he was an outstanding individual. Certainly he has all those qualifications which would enable him to make a further investigation throughout the whole department, in its various branches. If such an investigation were carried out I am sure other shortcomings and instances of inefficiency in the department would be shown.
On November 26, as reported at page 105 of Hansard, a speech was delivered in the house by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Shaw), in which he set forth what, in his opinion, were many irregularities at the Penhold camp. He asked quite pointedly at that time for an investigation into that whole situation. Since then he has received no answer from any responsible member of the government. It is strange indeed that someone has not made a statement in the house on this matter.	.
We hear of many other such cases at different points throughout the country. I think the taxpayers of this country, many of whom have difficulty, on ordinary salaries, making provision for their families, in view of the present inflation, should be given an explanation. The taxpayer's dollar is now worth slightly less than 50 cents. Tax deductions make it difficult for him to provide for himself and his family; still he must listen to these reports concerning gross extravagance, waste and inefficiency in this important department of government.
Certainly this condition displeases many people throughout the country. On that point, and directing attention to the degree of dissatisfaction with the government's attitude on this report, let me say that in the mail this morning I received a letter from a friend of mine who, in the past, has been a supporter of this government, and who states:
It might be well to advise the government, for their own security, that in future all commissioners be warned as follows: Commissioners, in order to curry favour, must ask Mr. Howe to write their report.
I presume that has reference to more than the Currie report because, as I listened last night to the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Applewhaite) pointing out the rights of parliament, and the majority the government now has in the house as a result of the election in 1949-


Henry Alfred Hosking: Have you not heard that before?
Committee on Defence Expenditure


James Arthur Ross: I have heard it many times. When I heard it this time I was reminded of the fact that in the general election of 1949 the majority of electors in Canada cast their ballots, not for this government, but against it; and the statistics will prove the truth of what I say, if any hon. member wishes to check it.


Henry Alfred Hosking: Are we all here dishonestly?


James Arthur Ross: I am not saying it was done dishonestly; I say it happens this way because of the electoral system. If the hon. member has any doubts he may check with the chief electoral officer.


Henry Alfred Hosking: Do you say we should not be here?


James Arthur Ross: I say that the majority of electors who cast their ballots at the 1949 election did not support this government.
At that time we had the illegal withholding for a period of ten months of the flour milling report of the combines commissioner. This was done with the full authority and knowledge of the Prime Minister, and on behalf of the cabinet, thus making the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) the number one law breaker in this country. The public were not given that information during the election campaign.


Henry Alfred Hosking: You would not say that in Manitoba.


James Arthur Ross: A lot of things happen in parliament which are not too charitable, may I say to the hon. member for Maple Creek (Mr. Studer).


Agar Rodney Adamson: Pay no attention to the Mau Mau back there.


James Arthur Ross: I am sure the citizens of Canada will find it difficult to understand why the Prime Minister and his supporters will find it necessary to vote against the request for a proper investigation into all phases of the operations of the Department of National Defence. I think everybody realizes that there is great inefficiency in the administration of that organization. They want a better answer than has yet been given by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) or the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton). I was amazed at the arguments of the Prime Minister with respect to this Currie report. As has been pointed out before, I think he owes an apology to Mr. Currie and what is more important, he owes an apology to the citizens of Canada for this state of affairs.
1096	HOUSE OF
Committee on Defence Expenditure
Along with others who have made some study of this matter I believe that the Department of National Defence with its three branches of army, air force and navy, with the tremendous amounts of money it spends in procuring equipment and training men, is altogether too large for one minister. This has been pointed out to the government in the past year or two but no action has been taken with respect to that problem. I think that is most unfair to the overburdened taxpayers of Canada at a time such as this.
I doubt if there has ever been a time in the history of this country when greater inefficiency has been exemplified in any department of government than has been shown by this department, quite apart from the scandal brought to light by the report. I hope that the Prime Minister will still change his tactics and adopt a different attitude. The government owes a great deal more to the citizens of Canada than they have received since the tabling of this report or in the handling of this department which is responsible for the expenditure of so much money.
I repeat the words of the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) that never have so many Canadians paid so much in taxes for so little defence. I shall continue to fight for a greater investigation into these gigantic expenditures and inefficiencies.


Mr. F. D. Shaw (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to speak until ten o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Frederick Davis Shaw: To those hon. members who say "hear, hear" I suggest that they remain within earshot of the bell because as far as I am concerned there will still be an opportunity to vote before ten o'clock. I feel that on this occasion I must register a protest in order to give expression to the strong convictions I hold in connection with the course of procedure which the government has asked this House of Commons to adopt with respect to the defence expenditure committee.
When this session of parliament opened on November 20, 1952, there appeared upon the order paper a resolution calling for the establishment of a select committee of this house to continue the examination of all expenditures of public moneys for national defence and so on. I examined that resolution most carefully at the time and was wholly satisfied with it. It suggested that the committee might examine commitments for expenditure for national defence and indicated that the committee would be expected to report from


time to time its observations and opinions thereon, and in particular what, if any, economies consistent with the execution of the policy decided by the government might be effected therein.
Those terms of reference are very broad. There is absolutely nothing in that resolution which would prevent the committee deciding to consider the Currie report. For many years I served on the defence expenditure committee, or the war expenditures committee or the defence expenditures and economies committee as it was called from time to time. I found that the committee always exercised pretty good judgment in ascertaining which field of investigation it should undertake. One of the first things done when the committee meets is to determine the matters into which it shall examine; it then proceeds to examine them, following which it makes its report or reports to the House of Commons.
To me the government action in moving an amendment expresses lack of confidence in the personnel of this committee. In my opinion it is almost an expression of condemnation of previous committees which have been set up to do the same type of work. I think I know why this amendment was moved. On December 15, before the house had had an opportunity of considering this motion to set up a defence expenditures committee, the Currie report was tabled.
If in referring to the Currie report I happen to call it the Murray report by mistake,
I hope you will understand my reason for making that error. This afternoon I listened with a great deal of surprise to the speech delivered by the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Murray). As a matter of fact I was seated behind the curtains, and I could not believe my ears. I came into the chamber and I still could not believe I was hearing what was being said. Of course the hon. member for Cariboo did not tell us very much that we did not know already. But I am still confounded as to why he said what he did, except that conceivably he intended toward the end to pin responsibility for the whole thing upon one member of this House of Commons. When he was informed that any attempt to pin responsibility on an individual member of this house was literally impossible, the whole thing blew up squarely in his face.
I trust that the government will suitably reward the hon. member for Cariboo for his contribution. In fact if you are going to present him with a plaque you might come to me and I will suggest what should be put on it. I cannot tell you now because I doubt if the expression would be parliamentary.

When the Currie report was tabled, not only were the Canadian people dumbfounded; they were shocked. There is just no question about that. When expressions such as "fundamentally loose situations", "accounting records in chaotic condition", "general breakdown in the system of administration", "serious collapse in security" and "lax control and poor discipline" appeared in the press the tax-burdened Canadian public were shocked.
They were shocked for two reasons. First, they realized that probably Canada's defences were not what they had been cracked up to be. Second, as tax-burdened Canadians who, as the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Thomas) indicated yesterday, were paying almost $5 for every $1 they paid in 1939 for defence, not only were they shocked; they were very angry. No discussion here and apparently no amount of explanation is going to dissuade the Canadian public from this feeling which has become so firmly held by them. Not only is it a matter of the Currie report; there is evidence upon evidence quite apart from the Currie report indicating that all is not well with respect to Canadian defences.
I will even go so far as to repeat something of what I said on November 26 last in connection with defence construction. At that time I was obliged to devote a considerable part of my speech to a situation which had surprised and shocked me regarding defence construction. Since that time a good deal of additional information has come to me which indicates further reason for investigation, and also serves to confirm what I said on that occasion. I am not normally a suspicious type of person, but I can only conclude in my own mind, Mr. Speaker, that this amendment by the government has as one of its-I dare not say "purposes", but I will say "effects"-the sidetracking of an investigation which in my estimation would cause the Currie report to pale into insignificance.
The Currie report, as we have been advised, indicates-although chaotic conditions would not enable the investigators to determine it exactly-a loss of something in the neighbourhood of $50,000. Mr. Speaker, I dare say that at Penhold alone that sum would pale into insignificance when compared with what I am personally convinced was the situation. Incidentally, it has been corrected to some extent. One of my principal efforts was its correction, and I am not unmindful of the fact that things began to move in a hurry about the time this was brought forward and that the situation has improved a .great deal. I do not hesitate to say that
Committee on Defence Expenditure because, after all, I have as my guiding principle with respect to that matter the desire to see the Canadian taxpayer get a dollar's value for a dollar spent on defence.
I could have handled the situation in a different way if I had had other purposes in mind. As I say, I am glad that certain things began to happen and that certain corrections began to be made, but I am still not entirely satisfied with the situation. It is just too bad that the horse in this case got out before the door was closed. There was no reason for certain things occurring which did occur at that airport or air station, things which I know have happened at other establishments in Canada.
After the Currie report was brought down and after the house adjourned for the Christmas recess, we were informed by the press-and sometimes they come very close in their indication of what is going on behind the scenes-.that the government was desperately seeking an out as far as the Currie report was concerned. I personally have come to the conclusion that they think this is the out: We will move an amendment so that the defence expenditure committee will not be allowed to go into whatever field of investigation it desires, and so that it will be pinned down to the Currie report.
The rather startling thing is that Mr. Currie did make a report and we have his report with respect to the conditions which prevail. We have his 44 recommendations. The minister asserted that 27 of them were already being carried out before the report was ever received, and I assume that he wanted us to believe from his observations that probably all 44 were being carried out now. I hope they are, but that is all the more reason, Mr. Speaker, for this being a rather strange procedure.
The minister brought in the amendment at the end of his speech on Tuesday last. He did not go into detail as to what he actually had in mind in respect to the work of the committee in relation to the Currie report, although I do recall that in referring to the dam he did indicate that it might be one matter they could go into. But the minister himself gave an explanation there which I hope was the correct one.
Now, do they simply want the committee to endorse what the minister said was already being done? After all, just what is the purpose of the amendment? If there are to be further inquiries with respect to the Canadian army works services, then I for one am absolutely convinced that if it is to be worth -I was going to say a tinker's dam but that I imagine is unparliamentary-we should have a judicial inquiry. The Minister of
1098	HOUSE OF
Committee on Defence Expenditure National Defence (Mr. Claxton), after having received an anonymous letter back in 1951 indicating that there were irregularities, did appoint Mr. Currie. I have every reason to believe that Mr. Currie was extremely competent and had a competent staff under him to conduct the investigation. We have heard time, time and again of the extreme difficulties which were encountered by Mr. Currie in trying to obtain the information which he finally was able to .secure. Anyone who has served on the defence expenditure committee must conclude that, as far as the committee is concerned, it will become hopelessly bogged down. It cannot expect anything else.
I repeat that if Mr. Currie, with all the help he had, encountered all these difficulties, the problem will become utterly impossible as far as the defence expenditure committee is concerned. But it may have one value, Mr. Speaker. It may kill time. It may kill a lot of time and an election may take place before it has finished killing time. Maybe that is to be the great value of it.
I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that if the government actually want to go into this whole situation as far as defence is concerned, and clean it up, there are two things they can do. They can arrange to have a judicial inquiry made as far as the army works services are concerned, and they can set up the defence expenditure committee. I would be very much surprised if, in the light of what I said in my speech of November 26-although I hate to refer to my own speech-they could [DOT] not save the taxpayers of this country scores and scores of thousands of dollars by inquiring into defence construction.
On November 26 I pointed out one thing which I considered highly irregular, and I notice reference to the same thing is made in the Currie report. I do not intend to hash over any ground I covered last November but recommendation No. 30, Mr. Speaker, says:
Prohibition of loans of materials, stores and equipment to civilian contractors is desirable.
Last November I stated there was plenty of evidence to indicate that there was not a contractor at Penhold, for example, who had sufficient or adequate equipment to carry out his contract, and that they were using certain R.C.A.F. equipment.
That is bad from two points of view. First, it is costing the Canadian people far more than they are aware of to have certain defence projects completed. Second, one can see the position in which it puts the prospective bidders for contracts if one contractor who desires to bid knows that he is going to be allowed to use government equipment. The other fellow does not know, so the first


fellow can underbid him without any difficulty at all. I have reason to believe that situation prevails. That is one of the very bad features of it.
Then, of course, there is this question of extras paid to contractors. It is a matter that has to be straightened out sooner or later. The government calls for tenders through its appropriate agency. We are led to believe that if a contractor bids $3 million for a certain contract and is given the job, that is what the project will cost. But, Mr. Speaker, that is far removed from the truth because of the policy of paying extras. As I say, I could continue speaking about this for some time; evidence I have received since November makes me feel very keenly about the matter.
The effect of the government amendment will be that this committee, I would bet my bottom dollar, is not going to get near this matter. If they do not get near it, they are missing one of the grandest opportunities to save the taxpayers of this country, as I said a moment ago, a greater amount of money than some hon. members in this house may at the moment believe.
Let me repeat what I said earlier, Mr. Speaker. My prime consideration in this whole matter is to see that we get our defences in shape, and to see that the Canadian taxpayer gets a fair shake, as we say, with respect to the expenditure of his money. We are confronted with a situation in Canada today where, as I said, we are carrying the heaviest tax burden we ever carried in our history. At the peak of the war we were taxed for defence about $2.80 for every $1 we were taxed in 1939, and it is now in the neighbourhood of $4.80 or $5. The Canadian taxpayer also knows from experience that his dollar is devalued, his savings are gone and he is having an extremely difficult time to get by.
My experience with the Canadian taxpayer is that he knows we have to have defences. He knows of the threat that confronts us. He is prepared to pay the shot for defences and I, as a member of parliament, am prepared to vote those moneys which are essential for adequate defences. But if these people come to the conclusion-and I am afraid that many of them are coming to the conclusion-that it is costing them about 30 per cent more for their defences than need be, then there is going to be a far more powerful reaction than the government has experienced up to this time. It is significant that in my particular part of the country where Penhold is located-then the Currie report comes on top of that-some of the

most severe critics of the government are the persons who have always derived some pleasure from calling themselves Liberals. When I was home during the Christmas recess they were the ones who were most vociferous in their condemnation of what was going on. As I say, the reaction to these things will pale into insignificance in comparison to what the reaction might be if action is not taken, first to clear up this Currie situation in the right way, and then to go into that field of defence construction where we can save the Canadian taxpayers plenty of money.


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Resources and Development):: I can assure hon. members, Mr. Speaker, that I do not propose to make a long speech at this stage of the debate, but I do believe I should say a word in reply to the speech just made by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Shaw). I should like also to refer back to an earlier speech he made on November 26, and to assure him and hon. members that what he said at that time did not fall on deaf ears, as he may perhaps think and as some other members indicated in speeches, made in this debate. The reason I am taking part in this debate is that the construction operations in question are carried out by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, acting as agents for the Department of Defence Production, which in the first instance is assigned responsibility for carrying out these projects for the Department of National Defence.
From time to time reports have reached me about what have been termed irregularities at Penhold, Namao and Cold Lake in Alberta, as well as other areas where construction projects have been carried out in Canada. In each instance we try to get to the bottom of the matter and ascertain whether the rumours are true, and to make corrections where there are irregularities or defaults. Hon. members will, therefore, be pleased to know that following the speech by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Shaw) I had a number of meetings with my colleagues, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton), the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe), the Minister of Mines and Technical
Committee on Defence Expenditure Surveys (Mr. Prudham), who is of course immediately interested, the Solicitor General and their officials. We examined each of the points raised by the hon. member. I was satisfied that in the vast majority of instances there were logical explanations with respect to the points he raised. In a number of other instances there were corrective actions that could be taken; and where it was indicated, corrective actions were at once instituted.
I was pleased to hear the hon. member say tonight that he noted some improvements following the speech he made in the house. I hope he will take that as an indication that his speech did not fall on deaf ears, and that we are interested in making corrections where corrections are indicated. In our meetings we considered that, with respect to these projects in Alberta as well as elsewhere, the points could be effectively answered, and that the place to do so was in the committee once it has been set up. My only point in rising tonight was to assure the hon. member that when this general subject matter is before the committee, his points will be dealt with in a manner that I hope will meet with his complete satisfaction.


Mr. G. C. Nowlan (Annapolis-Kings):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Shaw) said he would sit down before ten o'clock. It is a fact that I shall not sit down before ten o'clock, so if Your Honour wishes to call it ten o'clock now we could adjourn this debate. Otherwise, we can carry on until ten o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the wish of hon. members that I call it ten o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
On motion of Mr. Nowlan the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: the adjournment of the house.
He said: Mr. Speaker, Monday is private members' day, so we shall proceed according to standing order No. 15.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 9.50 p.m.



END OF VOLUME I