CANADA HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATES OFFICIAL REPORT SECOND SESSION-TWENTY-SECOND PARLIAMENT 3-4 ELIZABETH II BEING THE 97TH SESSION FOR THE PERIOD 1867-1955 VOLUME V, 1955 COMPRISING THE PERIOD FROM THE TENTH DAY OF JUNE, 1955, TO THE SIXTH DAY OF JULY, 1955, INCLUSIVE INDEX ISSUED IN A SEPARATE VOLUME EDMOND CLOUTIER, C.M.G., O.A., D.S.P. QUEEN'S PRINTER AND CONTROLLER OF STATIONERY OTTAWA, 1955 4621 HOUSE 0F COMMONS Friday, Jun. 10, 1955 The house met at eleven o'clock. HOUSE 0F COMMONS TABLING 0F CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION REPORT RESPECTING STAFF Mr. Speaker: I have the honour to lay on the table of the house the report of the civil service commission respecting the organiza- tion of the staff of the House of Comm'ons. EXPLANATION 0F MAP 0F CANADA IN RAILWAY COMMITTEE ROOM Hon. George Prudham : Mr. Speaker, several hon. members have been asking about the new large map which is haniging in the rail- way committee room. It takes the place of the former map which had become obsolete. The new map, which is now in place, is 15 feet by 16J f eet, being much deeper than the former map in order to show the far north.*It required a very special paper, which had ta be welded and mounted on a large sheet of canvas. There was no firm in this country capable of doing that work; it had to, be dune in Great Britain. It took two years to, complete the map. The work was done by skiiled craftsmen of the Department of Mines and Technical Services, assisted by other skiiled technicians, several of whom are new Canadians. The new map is on the scale of 20 miles to the inch. It has been photographed and re- duced to a scale of 25 miles to the inch, to be used by civil and national defence author- Rties. Ail railway Uines are marked, including new extensions such as the new line from Terrace ta Kitimat in British Columbia. The highways are also marked including the trans-Canada highway, the Mackenzie high- way and the Alaska highway. [Later:] On the orders of the day: Mr. Paul E. Gagnon (Chicoutimi): 1 should like ta ask the Minister of Mines and Tech- nical Surveys what was the cost of the map now in the railway committee room? Hon. George Prudham presented the third report of the standing committee on privileges and elec- tions, and moved that the report be con- curred in. Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): Mr. Speaker, it is nat my purpose to debate this motion. I trust the house wiJl pass it and that the governmnent will meet the recommendation that- Mr. Speaker: Order. This motion is flot; debatable. Mr. Icnowles: On what basis, Mr. Speaker? Mr. Speaker: On the basis that it is not; a motion about which the necessary notice was given in Votes and Proceedings. The hon. member rnay abject ta its passing, by leave, but- Mr. Knowles: Since I do not abject, I shall not do sa, Mr. Speaker. I arn glad ta see the motion pass. Motion agreed to. NATIONAL REVENUE QUESTION 0F ALLEGED ANOMALOUS POSITION 0F MINISTER On the orders of the day: Hon. George A. Drew : Mr. Speaker, I wish to, direct a question to the Prime Minister. Having regard ta the code 0f rules placed on record by the Minister of Finance, wiil the Prime Minister tell the house what he is going to do about the anomalous position of the Minister of National Revenue under those rules? Right Hon. L. S. Si. Laurent : When I have any information to communicate ta the house i that regard I shail do it on my own initiative. TRANSPORT RAILWAY AGREED CHARGES-REPRESENTATIONS BEFORE STANDING COMMITTEZ On the orders of the day: Mr. A. M. Campbell : Order. I tbink the whole house recognizes the unwritten rule that objection is flot taken to certain interjections from the floor. I think perhaps the Urne bas corne when the Chair should also indicate to the house that too mucb advantage can be taken even of that particular rule. I tbink it would also be fair to say at this Urne that there bas been provocation frorn both sides of the chamber, but I would now ask the bouse to permit the Leader of the Opposition ta continue bis address. Mr. Drew: May I assure Your Honour that tbe noise does not dîsturb me, because it is a most gratifying sign that for the first tirne hon. members are paying some attention ta the discussion. It wouid be a healthy tbing if some hon. member on the opposite side wouid get up in this house and indicate that be stili recaîls what parliarnent means, and still recalis that it will be the vote of those opposite wbich wiil determine whetber or not this bill goes into force. An hon. Member: The majority. Mr. Drew: Yes, the mai ority, representative of a minority of the voters wbo sent tbern here. One tbîng, Mr. Speaker; I arn prepared ta take just as long as bon. members opposite want. An han. Member: Don't stop now. Mr. Drew: The termination of my remarks wiil be determined by the opportunity tbey afford for orderly debate. Mr. Speaker, we see the Minister of Defence Production leav- ing, as be does Sa regulariy during the course of this debate. We are fortunate in having the Prime Minister here- Mr. Si. Laurent: I do not prornise tbat it Mr. Herridge: That is not fair. will iast farever. Sorne han. Members: Hear, hear. JUNE 13, 1955 4738 Defence Production Act Mr. Drew: What a lovely sight it is to see the socialists on both sides of the house applauding at the same time. An hon. Member: The next coalition gov- ernment of Canada. Mr. Drew: No wonder there is such ap- plause from the socialists for this socialist measure that bas been placed before this house. An hon. Member: Mr. Speaker, I believe- Mr. Drew: The bon. member who is seek- ing to interrupt does believe in a kind of dictatorship, which was well laid down by a very distinguished member of the socialist party. For that reason perhaps I had better recall what is the real socialist doctrine, and why the socialists find this legislation an ac- commodating act. Mr. Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My point of order is very simple. The Leader of the Opposition said we ought to debate this measure. Surely that rule applies to both sides of the bouse. The Leader of the Opposition so far bas not addressed himself to the bill at all. Mr. Rowe: It is a socialist measure. He has talked about socialism. You have con- tributed nothing but applause. Mr. Drew: Mr. Speaker, I am deeply moved by this interruption by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Mr. Pickersgill: It was a point of order. Mr. Drew: It is appropriate and very proper, in view of the statements that have been made by the socialists-that is, the declared socialists-as to what pleases them so much about this act. Sir Stafford Cripps made it perfectly clear that there was a course that would be followed by socialists, and these are his words. Surely no one amongst the socialists on either side can com- plain if I quote his exact words. This is in a book called "Problems of a Socialist Gov- ernment", published by Victor Gollanez Limi- ted of London. An hon. Member: What year? Mr. Drew: Nineteen hundred and thirty- three. The socialists laugh. If they have abandoned these doctrines, let them say so. I propose to place on record what he said: The government's first step will be to call parliament together at the earliest moment and place before it an emergency powers bill to be passed through all its stages on the first day. This bill will be wide enough in its terms to allow all that will be immediately necessary to be done by ministerial orders. These orders must be incapable of challenge in the courts or in any way except in the House of Commons. [Mr. Herridge.] This bill must be ready in draft beforehand, together with the main orders that will be made immediately upon its becoming law. It is probable that the passage of this bill will raise in its most acute form the constitutional crisis. Mr. Speaker, that is a clear statement of exactly what we have before us now. This bill, when it was originally introduced, was badly drawn. Naturally it was badly drawn, because the Minister of Defence Production said he was responsible for drafting it. Today he said a Tory drafted it. This is the first time in this house he has declared himself a Tory, in my hearing. Nevertheless he did state that at the request of the Prime Minister he had supervised the drafting of this bill. There- fore we need not be surprised at the dis- regard of the rule of law which is evident in most of the sections. Of course the very appropriate chapter has already been refer- red to, "Can Socialism Come by Constitu- tional Methods?" An hon. Member: Yes. Mr. Drew: You disagree with Sir Stafford Cripps, because Sir Stafford Cripps said it could not. He said you had to circumvent the constitution by an emergency measure, and that is exactly what this measure does. There is, of course, a tremendous difference in this country. Mr. Knowles: Tell us what the Tories were doing in this country in 1933. Mr. Drew: I shall deal presently with some remarks that have been made in this debate by the socialists. Mr. Pouliot: And in 1917. Mr. Rowe: They never did anything like this. Mr. Drew: Mr. Speaker, if the members will just be patient for a moment- Mr. Pouliot: When you smile you are at your best. Mr. Drew: I find it difficult not to smile every time I look at the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot). I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that this concept of the arbitrary powers was clearly stated by the Right Hon. Clement Attlee, who was here not long ago. This is what he had to say: There must be a five year plan drive put into the work. This can only be done by associating the party in the actual work at every stage. Thus I conceive the district commissioner as something more than a public servant. He is the local energizer and interpreter of the will of the gov- ernment. He is not impartial. He is a socialist, and therefore in touch with the socialists in the region, who are his colleagues in his campaign. It may be said that this is rather like the Russian plan of commissars and communist party members. HOUSE OF COMMONS4740 I arn not afraid of the comparison! We have ta take the strong points of the Russian system anld apply thema to this country. Mr. Speaker, 1 thought it wouid be well for the Minister of Fisheries ta have that with him when hie goes ta Russia shortly, s0 he wil be able ta see that the socialists have a certain sympathy for the methods that are in force there. 0f course there is this en- cauraging fact, that when the socialists have some responsibility-and that wouid be such a meiiawing thing for the sociaiists here, if they ever had responsîbiity-they will find that it produces a great change. An hon. member says, "What about the Tories?" I wouid remînd haon. members opposite, who are stiil saturated with the Liberal mythaiogy, that there have been only two parties in this country that have had the responsibiiity of government, the Conservative party and the Liberal party, and they have shared that responsibiity for just about the same iength of time. Mr. Pickersgill: Not in the twentieth century. Mr. Drew: Whatever it is that is irritating the Minister of Citizenship and Immigra- tion- Mr. Pickersgill: Nothing is irritating me except the hon. member's speech. Mr. Drew: It looks like the seven year itch. We were told this afternoon that a right han. member of the sociaiist party in Britain was calied upon ta draft legislatian in Britain along lines that were laid down. Right Hon. Herbert Marrison was caiied upon ta draft the legisiation. He points out in his book, "Governmnent and Pariament", that it was not necessary for thema ta do this because when they came inta power in 1945 they inherîted the emergency acts which were in force bath here and there, and in other coun- tries with similar responsibilities. But hie points out that he was asked ta draft a revision of the act. If haon. members wiii look at what Mr. Morrison says they wiil find how responsi- bility modified their position. Mr. Morrisan was careful ta point out that in drafting the bill they sought ta define the ternis under which orders in cauncil couid be passed. That gaes much further than the bill now bef are us. It is quite obviaus that neither Herbert Morrison nor the saciaiists ini Britain wauid have gone as far as this gov- ernment goes in trying ta make the present act part of the permanent legisiation of thiç country. Oh, no; after some measure ai responsibiiity they had actuaily came ta set the necessity for certain restraints. Dejence Production Act The Prime Minister introduced this bill in the flrst place; that is, in 1951. He explained why it was being introduced. The members of this house should be told today by the Prime Minister why this government want these powers, which we were toid in 1951 shouid not be carried on in the form in which they were then placed before us. Why the change? We have flot had one word which gives any satisfactory expianation. When this measure was before the house three months ago we urged the government to recail what they said in 1951, ta recal the discussion that had taken place at that time and to redraft the bill. As to those hon. members who have been making the fatuous speeches that some have made about our being opposed to the defence production department, may I remind them that we pointed out three months ago that we wanted the defence production depart- ment made permanent. We also pointed out that we wanted the powers re-examined and that, in so far as the powers were properiy defined and couid be shown to be necessary, we would support them. At that time we had reason ta believe that this proposai wouid be consîdered. In fact we were toid that it would be considered. We now find this bill brought before us without any attempt made ta modify it in any way. It was only today, after debate had taken place, that an attempt was made ta suggest that some concession was being made. This morning, at the opening of the house, the minister responsible for this department stated that when this bill is in committee an amendment wiil be proposed which will have the effect of calling upon the goverfi- ment ta table ail orders in council and ail directions made by the minister under the powers conferred by this act. He then went further and stated that upon the petitiofi of ten members presented within seven days of the tabling of the order or direction, there wouid be a debate at a canveniefit time within four days. Mr. Speaker, that proposai does not help in any way. It does not limit the powers, nor does it give any effective opportunity ta deal with the exercise of those powers. We have seen what this government wiil do. We have seen power added on power. We bave seen a new forma of guillotine intro- duced by this government. Whenever there is before the house some resolution they do not like they wait for one speaker, then a member of the government rises and maves the adi ournment of the debate and that is the end of it. Ail this proposai means is that someone wouid have the doubtful satisfac- tion of rising, making a statement with 4741JUNE 13, 1955 HOUSE OF COMMONS Defence Production Act regard to the order or direction, and then having the guillotine applied and the discus- sion put away in the appropriate place for anything that has been guillotined. This proposal is ineffective. It does not in any way deal with the fundamental problems before us. There is no issue whatever with regard to the continuance of the Department of Defence Production, but there is a funda- mental issue with regard to the introduction of an act that would confer these wide and uncontrolled powers. I point out to the Prime Minister that the Minister of Defence Pro- duction, who sits next to him and who is regarded as his righthand man, told this house that the measure now before us is more restrictive than is the measure in the United Kingdom or the measure in the United States, which provides for the same general powers. The Prime Minister knows that the statement made by the Minister of Defence Production is not correct. The Prime Minister has a duty to this house to correct one of his ministers who, obviously through ignorance of the effect of the other statutes, has misinformed the members of this house. I point out to hon. members opposite that they are being asked to support this measure on that statement. In so important a discus- sion as this, with so important a consideration, I trust they are paying attention to what the minister says and that they have noticed his statement to the effect that this is a more restrictive act. It is nothing of the kind. The act in the United Kingdom similar to this one is the ministry of supply act, 1939, as amended by the supplies and services act, which was passed in 1945 and which has had certain minor amendments since then. That act is known as the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945. It is an act of ten sections which confers powers to deal with supplies and services. It contains few of the broad, unlimited powers contained in our act. There is no similarity whatever. I do not believe that an act such as ours would be supported by the socialists in West- minster, after the educational period they had in government. I do not believe for one moment that they would now support it. Mr. Herbert Morrison made it clear that he has changed his mind about irresponsible legisla- tion of this nature. The act is on the statute books in the United Kingdom. I believe the Prime Minister should tell the members of this house, and particularly hon. members opposite, just what is the effect of the sup- plies and services act in Britain. Then let us look at the act in the United States, which has well over 600 sections and [Mr. Drew.] which sets forth in the most exact detail the powers that are conferred upon the gov- ernment. No other powers can be exercised. There are no loose powers such as those that are conferred in this act; there are no loose powers broadly cast around in this way. We have been given no reason why we should at this stage write into the law of this country, without any time limit and without any improvement in the definition of the powers, an act which the government itself stated contained powers which should not be continuing ones. What stronger argument could we have than the statement of the government itself that these powers should not be continuing ones? There is also a question of good faith which the Prime Minister should not disre- gard. Hon. members opposite should be the first to point out that fact. They supported this act with the assurance that in it were powers that should not and presumably would not be continuing powers. What explanation have we for the disregard of the assurance upon which this act was brought forward? Let it also be remembered that we accepted this assurance, as well as hon. members opposite. We pointed out the dangers of this act, but we made it clear that because it was limited as to time and also because of the emergency which had suddenly come upon us we were not going to vote against the act, though we made it quite clear that we thought it was badly drawn and contained powers that should not be in legislation in any democratic country. We come now to this bill. The Prime Minister indicated there would be considera- tion, but the legislation was placed before us without change and without real explanation. Then certain statements were made which indicated that, strangely enough, we felt the government should abide by its earlier state- ments. Then listen to these words of the minister responsible for the act, the Minister ot Defence Production, as found at page 4511 of Hansard: Either you have a defence production act with these powers, and all these powers, or you have no act at ail. If there is anyone who has threatened the survival of the Department of Defence Pro- duction, Mr. Speaker, it is the Minister of Defence Production, because he has said it is all or nothing. In these days when theme songs are popular, would it not be gratifying to have the minister open his initial remarks each day with that song from "Oklahoma", "With Me it is All or Nothin'". It would be an appropriate theme song. Mr. Dickey: With you it is nothing. Mr. Drew: That is the attitude of the gov- ,ernment. Here is the act; yours not to reason why. As f ar as the Liberals are concerned it is a case of yours but to do and die, at some appropriate point. By ail means in the inter- vening stages do not challenge the authority of the government by stating principles that have so clearly applied to legislation of this kind. Then we have that modest statement of the Minister of Defence Production: "I do not propose to be told now by any hion. member just when I will liquidate it." Rernember, that does not just mean the members opposite. He did not say: "I will not be told by any member opposite." That means you and you and you, every one of you on the other side, including the Prime Minister. He will not even be told by the Prime Minister what he will do and what he will not do. No, hie is the boss. He is going to say when this act will be deait with. An hon. Member: He is the boss. Mr. Drew: Yes, as one hon. member opposite says, he is the boss. They recognize the boss in this house, and that is the trouble with members opposite. It would really be a great thing for the parliamentary system if they would go back over the assurances that were given them. It would be a very healthy thing if sorneone on the other side would get up and say, "I do not intend to be told by any min- ister in this house that I cannot say what I think should be said in the course of the con- sideration of this or any other act." It applies to you with much more force than it applies to anyone on this side, because if the legisiation goes through it will be you, the members opposite, who have accepted the statement that the minister is flot going to be told by anyone what will be done with legislation in this house. There is a reason, of course, why the legis- lation commends itself to the declared social- ists. I want to deal with some of the state- ments that have been made that should not be allowed to pass unchallenged. The hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis), with justification, holds the esteem of the members of the bouse. An hon. Member: Watch out. Mr. Drew: It is unfortunate that he should have become the mouthpiece for the kind of socialist claptrap that we have heard from some of the other members. When he was speaking the other day I knew, with the interruptions that were taklng place, that there was littie use in attempting to interject an orderly comment on what he said. But I want to remind hon. members of the house Defence Production Act of the kind of thing that has been going on and that went on today when the hon. mem- ber for Moose Mountain (Mr. McCullough) made his remarks. Incidentally, I do not include the hon. member for Moose Mountain in the earlier remarks I made about the hon. member for Cape Breton South. 1 do say that, so far as the hion. member for Cape Breton South is concerned, I arn sure it was inadvertent but I hope hie will take the occasion to correct it because when hie was speaking in the house the other day he re- ferredta Right Hon. Arthur Meighen-he nods assent-and said this with respect to hlm, as found at page 4576 of Hansard: His attitude ta the war was-and this statement was made publicly in the Senate-that I and some of my associates are riding on our oars; if there are not profits to be made out of war there is nothing ta fight for. The hon. member knows that Right Hon. Arthur Meighen neyer made that statement at any time. Mr. Gillis: Mr. Speaker, I know the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) is always fair and wants to be accurate, but as far as the quotation hie has just put on the record is concerned, I neyer mentioned the name of Arthur Meighen at that point. Mr. Drew: At that point. Mr. Gillis: Right now you are putting words in my mouth that I did not use. Mr. Drew: Mr. Speaker- An hon. Member: Oh, sit down. Mr. Drew: Mr. Speaker, these words applied to Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, and the fact that they applied ta him was clearly indicated because I chaflenged the hion. mem- ber to place on record the Hansard reference to what he had said, and as recorded at page 4579 he put it on record. It was handed to hlm by one of the other members, and he made it clear that they were the words of Right Hon. Arthur Meighen. These are the words of the hon. member for Cape Breton South at page 4579: These are the words of Right Hon. Mr. Melghen Then he read from Senate Hansard a pas- sage in support of what hie had said earlier when I raised the question. He knows per- fectly well that the earlier statement referred to Right Hon. Arthur Meighen and to no one else, in the light of his subsequent reading of the quotation f rom Senate Hansard. Mr. Winch: Read Senate Hansard. Mr. Drew: I arn merely pointing that out. 4743JUNE 13. 1955 HOUSE OF COMMONS Defence Production Act Mr. Gillis: I want to make it quite clear that the Leader of the Opposition is abso- lutely incorrect when he states that in my first reference I mentioned the name of Meighen at all. All the Conservatives jumped to conclusions as to whom I was talking about. Later on I put the actual quotation on the record. Mr. Drew: No, Mr. Speaker, this interjec- tion is unworthy of the hon. member, because before and not after this is what he said- Mr. Gillis: I am keeping the record straight. Mr. Drew: I am keeping the record straight. The hon. member said, as found at page 4576: I am not unmindful of the fact either that during the process of fighting the war one very prominent gentleman who sat in the Senate and was at one time a leader of the Conservative party, made the statement . . . There was only one man to whom that could apply. That was Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, and the hon. member knows it. He made that statement, but shortly afterward he quoted the words of Right Hon. Arthur Meighen which did not say that at all. Mr. Gillis: Because you asked for it. Mr. Drew: Certainly. Mr. Gillis: If Meighen's name went on the record you were responsible. Mr. Drew: This is unworthy of the hon. member and I regret that instead of apologiz- ing for his error he should seek to evade responsibility for the statement he made. Mr. Gillis: There was no error. Mr. Pouliot: Poor Meighen was crucified by everybody. Mr. Drew: Mr. Speaker, Right Hon. Arthur Meighen was prime minister of this country and was leader of the Senate. Some of the members opposite who are making these interjections- An hon. Member: We are not. Mr. Drew: -should remember that our system demands some respect for the position of prime minister, no matter who the individ- ual may be. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear. Mr. Drew: Yes, hon. members shout, "hear, hear". Their idea of respect- Mr. Dickey: Yes. Mr. Drew: The senior member for Halifax interjects, and I shall have something to say about him later. When the senior member for Halifax interjects in this way he knows quite well that I have never at any time made any comment about the Prime Minister of [Mr. Drew.] Canada, as Prime Minister or in his personal capacity, which is not in keeping with the proper wording of debates. I have never suggested any such rotten implication as is contained in the words that were put on record here the other day in regard to a former prime minister of Canada. Mr. Winch: It is on the Senate record. Mr. Drew: I am not going to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member who has just risen correct his statement because I would not expect him to keep the record straight. Mr. Winch: Are you challenging the record of the Senate? Mr. Drew: It is already on the record of the Senate, and those words show that there was no justification for the words used by the bon. member for Cape Breton South. I hope that at the appropriate time the hon. member for Cape Breton South will correct the improper impression he has left. Mr. Gillis: Mr. Speaker, I think the Leader of the Opposition's blood pressure is going up a bit. Mr. Drew: Not a bit. Mr. Gillis: I am taking this opportunity to tell the house that the Leader of the Opposi- tion is absolutely incorrect in the statement he just made. The Senate Hansard bears out. in the context in which I used it, the absolute accuracy of the quotation put on the record of the Senate by the right hon. gentleman. When I quoted it I had no intention of reflect- ing on any particular person. I avoided using his name until such time as the Leader of the Opposition asked for the actual quotation. Mr. Drew: I am once again going to make it quite clear, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member stated- Mr. Gillis: You are getting more tangled up. Mr. Drew: I am not getting tangled up. I regard the hon. member as unworthy of the reputation he bas maintained in this house- Mr. Knowles: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is about the fourth or fifth time the Leader of the Opposition has refer- red to my colleague the hon. member for Cape Breton South, saying that he has done things that are unworthy of him or unworthy of his reputation in this house. I confess, Mr. Speaker, that those precise words are not in the book of rules within quotation marks as being out of order, but there are suggestions very close to it, to the effect that you cannot refer to members as doing things unworthy of their position in this house. 4744 JUNE 13, 1955 Mr. Drew: Mr. Speaker, I only want to put Nesbitt Patterson Pearkes Perron 479ô Quelch Regier Robinson Rowe Small Stanton Starr Anderson Applewha Ashbourn Batten Benidicks Bennett Blanchett Boisvert Boivin Bourget Bourque Breton Brown ( Brown (I Buchanan Byrne Cameron Campney Cardin Caron garrick Cauchon Cavers Croll Deschatel Dickey Dumas Dupuis Enfield Eudes Fairey Forgie Fraser (S Gagnon Garland Gauthier Gauthier Gingras Gingues Gour (Ru Gourd (C Habel Hardie Harris Healy Henderso Henry Hosking Houck Howe (P Huffman Jutras Kickham Kirk (An Guysbo Kirk (Sh Yarmou Lafontain Langlois Lavigne Stewart (Winnipeg North) (Bruce) Thomas Tustin White (Hastings- Frontenac) Wylie-56. NAYS Messrs: Leduc (Gatineau) Ite Leduc (Jacques e Cartier-Lasalle) Leduc (Verdun) on Lefrançois Legare e Lesage Lusby MacDougall MacEachen MacKenzie MacNaught Brantford) Macnaughton ssex West) McCann McCubbin McCulloch (Pictou) (High Park) McDonald Mcllraith McIvor Maltais Marler Masse Meunier Michaud ets Mitchell (Sudbury) Monette Philpott Picard Pickersgill Pinard Pommer Poulin t. John's East) Pouliot Power (St. John's. West) Proudfoot (Lake St. John)Purdy (Portneuf) Ratelle Reinke Richard (Ottawa East) ssell) Richardson hapleau) Robertson Robichaud Robinson (Sincoe East) Rouleau Roy Schneider Shipley, Mrs. Sinclair Stick t Arthur) Stuart (Charlotte) Trainor Tcker Valois Rtigonish- Viau Rough) Villeneuve eSburne- Weir th-Clare) Weselak White (Waterloo (Gaspe) South)-115. International Rivers like to point out that the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) moved the second reading of this bill to which an amendment was moved by the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker). Then the hon. member for Assiniboia moved an amendment to the amendment to the main motion. I hesitated when I put the question because it struck me that an hon. member cannot amend his own motion. See Beauchesne, third edition, cita- tion 351. It is true that once an amendment has been moved and a subamendment is moved, then the amendment is tantamount to a substantive motion. See Beauchesne, third edition, citation 360. Therefore one would assume that by moving an amendment to the amendment the mover of the main motion, which is set aside for the time being, is not amending his own motion. It strikes me that if the amendment to the amendment were carried and then the amendment as amended were carried, then in fact the mover would be the mover of the main motion which he would have amended. What happens then to the prin- ciple that an hon. member should not amend his own motion? I raise the question merely because it is rather unusual that an hon. member should move the main motion and then later move an amendment to an amend- ment that has been moved. It being after six o'clock the bouse will resume at eight o'clock the business which was under consideration at five o'clock. Is it agreed that I do now leave the chair so the chairman may call it six o'clock? Some hon. Members: Agreed. INTERNATIONAL RIVERS PROVISION REQUIRING LICENCE FROM GOVERN- MENT OF CANADA TO CONSTRUCT, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN ANY IMPROVEMENT The house resumed consideration in com- mittee of Bill No. 3, respecting the con- struction, operation and maintenance of international river improvements-Mr. Howe (Port Arthur)-Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair. At six o'clock the committee took recess. AFTER RECESS The committee resumed at eight o'clock. The Chairman: When the committee rose at five o'clock we had been discussing clause 1 as amended. Shall clause 1 as amended carry? Clause 1 as amended agreed to. Clause 2 agreed to. Mr. Goode: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Hahn). Mr. Speaker: So that in future this instance may not be raised as a precedent, I should 50433-303J 4791JUNE 14, 1955 HOUSE OF COMMONS Municipal Grants Act On clause 3-Regulations respecting river improvements. Mr. Green: Clause 3 is the clause which has to do with the licensing. Could the minister tell the committee under which department the licensing is to be done? Mr. Lesage: The Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Mr. Green: Applications will be made to the minister's department? Mr. Lesage: That is right. Clause agreed to. Clauses 4 to 11 inclusive agreed to. On the title: Mr. Green: An amendment to the title was suggested in the committee. What happens to that? Mr. Lesage: It is the amendment to clause 1, Mr. Chairman. The Chairman: The amendment to clause 1 is to the short title of the bill. Title agreed to. Bill reported, read the third tine and passed. MUNICIPAL GRANTS ACT EXTENSION OF BENEFITS-CHANGES IN ADMINISTRATION Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution: That it is expedient, in the proposed measure to amend the Municipal Grants Act, Bill 258 now before the house, to provide for the amendment of clause 6 so as to add a new section 8 to the main act as follows (the proposed sections 8 and 9 of the main act to be renumbered 9 and 10) : "8. (1) A grant may, pursuant to this section be made to a municipality in respect of real property that Is (a) owned by Her Majesty in right of Canada, (b) leased to or occupied by a person who is an employee of Her Majesty in right of Can- ada or a member of the Canadian forces, and (c) is used by such person as a domestic estab- lishment. (2) Subject to subsection (3) the amount of a grant made pursuant to this section shal not be greater than a fraction of the accepted value of the property in respect of which a grant may be made under this section, such fraction to be determined as follows: (a) the numerator is the total amount of the real estate tax levied in the appropriate tax year, and (b) the denominator is the assessed value of ail taxable property in the municipality. (3) Where in preparing its budget for any tax year a municipality has not taken into account the amount of a grant that may be paid under this section the denominator of the fraction re- ferred to in subsection (2) shall be the assessed [The Chairman.] value of all taxable property and the accepted value of the property in respect of which a grant may be made under this section in the munici- pality. (4) The minister may, in determining the amount of a grant under this section, deduct from the amount that might otherwise be payable an amount that, in his opinion, represents the value of a service that would customarily be furnished by the municipality to the property in respect of which the grant is made and that Her Majesty does not accept in respect of that property. (5) No grant shall be made under this section in respect of (a) property in respect of which a grant has been made under section 5, (b) property described in subparagraph (iv) of paragraph (c) of section 2, or (c) property in respect of which a real estate tax has been levied on a person described in paragraph (b) of subsection (1). (6) In applying paragraph (a) of section 2 to this section, the words "federal property" shall be construed as meaning property in respect of which a grant may be made under this section. Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair. Mr. Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few comments on the proceed- ings in the committee, if it is in order at this time. I believe the report on the bill raises a question as to the nature of the proceedings in the committee, which were in my opinion very narrowly conceived. We tried in the committee to get permission to call repre- sentatives of the municipalities and introduced a resolution to that effect, but we got no- where. In our opinion that was a great mistake. The chairman gave us the amplest assurance that we could ask any questions and they would be answered, but there is not much point in asking questions when you do not have the proper people there to ask them of. We felt that in view of the impor- tance of the matter it should have been pos- sible for us to have representatives of the mayors and municipalities there. I just wish to record the fact that we feel the matter was quite improperly and narrowly dealt with, since that was not done. The attitude of the minister is shown on page 12 of the report: I am quite prepared to answer any questions with respect to the past administration of the Municipal Grants Act and what this bill proposes to do, but not at this stage to hear representations from any other body. That is the complaint I make, Mr. Chair- man. I do not propose to discuss it at length, but I just wish to say again that it seemed to us, having regard to the importance of the matter and the many interests involved, that it was taking a very narrow view of the duties of the committee to refuse to have those representatives. On other questions which the banking and commerce committee h as discussed, questions o! no greater impor- tance than this-for example, the Bank Act itself-the widest representations were received from. ail manner of bodies, and the matters were f ully discussed on their merits. That is the comment I wish to make. Mr. Gillis: Mr. Chairman, I should like a littie information on the proposed amend- ments. There are quite a f ew of them. I raised a question when Bil No. 258 was before the house, before it went to committee, with respect to Canadian National Railways property. It was in connection with a town, city or municipality billîng the railway for curbs, Zutters, sewers and so forth-quite an expenditure a city has to make-on property belonging to the C.N.R. The law previously was that Canadian National Railways property was not taxable. I suggested when the bill went to committee that this matter might be considered. It is a long-standing grievance, and I am wonder- ing now whether in the aniendments that are proposed here that particular problemn could be taken care of. Personally I cannot see that it could. I arn wondering if the minister who is proposing these amendments would not consider Canadian National prop- erties for the purposes I have enumnerated. I read into the record, at the time I spoke on the bill, a grievance that goes back to 1901 as far as the city of Sydney is concerned, with an itemized account of the amount of money that is outstanding at this stage. The city soicitor admitted that in law the C.N.R. were right in their decision that the property was not taxable under present legislation, but I think they have a legitimate grievance. I am wondering if the minister might not con- sider working in something that would take care of that kind o! situation. Mr. Harris: Mr. Chairman, I must apologize to the hon. member for not having considered it in committee. As a matter o! fact I did not know he had specific reference to the Cana- dian National Railways. I understand they pay their own taxes, but perhaps by arrange- ment with the municipallty. It may mean, however, that while the particular railway to which he is referring is part of the Cana- dian National Railway systemn, some other rules may be applicable to it. I shaîl be glad to look into it. I did not know of the com- plaint that is referred to. If the hon. member wrnl let me have the details o! the dlaim I shail be glad to consider it in that connection. Mr. Gillis: Thank you, sir. Mr. Hanseil: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask one question. Is this bill confined to Municipal GTants Act the payment of grants in lieu of taxation, or does it go beyond that and grant moneys for reconstruction purposes? Mr. Harris: I did flot hear the hon. member. Mr. Hanseli: I was asking the minister if these grants were given merely ini lieu of taxes or whether they w-ere granted for other purposes such as construction. I believe the original act grants money for certain public works, does it not? Mr. Harris: No. They are just in lieu of taxes. Mr. Murphy (Lambion West): I should like to make two or three observations, Mr. Chair- rnan, if I may. First, I think the minister might clarify for me the statement he made in committee, at page 27, with respect to Indian reserves. This question was asked by the hon. member for Peace River: Mr. Low: With respect to Indian reserves being excluded in this clause. why was that done? What experience have you had with municipalities dlaim- Ing grants in lieu of taxes? Hon. Mr. Harris. Indian reserves are oftefl situated in several municipalities. s0 that it is a llttle difficuit to decide which municipality provides the best service or the most service for the government-owned property In the reserve. There- fore. it was decided to exclude them from the bill and to permit the Department of Citizenshlp and Immigration to make whatever arrangements they consider appropriate. Mr. Low: That provision ls being maintained. Hon. Mr. Harris: Yes; the Department of Citizen- shlp and Immigration will look after the grants and payments from now on. When the minister speaks I hope he wil clarify that matter. As I understand it, in the city of Sarnia, and no doubt the same thing exists in other areas, we have an Indian reserve that is serviced by the city-I think it was taken in just two or three years ago- with police and fire protection and, I believe, whatever other services it has. It might entail some other responsibillty by the city o! Sarnia with respect to what is required by the reserve. I also have two or three more questions; maybe the minister can answer themn ail at the same time. The next one I have in mind is ini connection with military camps. Many counties have military camps within their boundaries. I have one rather peculiar situa- tion in the county of Lambton. Ipperwash camp formnerly was an Indian reserve in the township of Bosanquet. It was taken over by the department and made into a military camp. The Indians who were on that par- ticular reserve were moved two miles to another reserve. What concerns the people in that particular township is the maintenance of roads from. the different villages or towns which are easily accessible to the occupants of that particular camp. 47"JUNE 14, lobs HOUSE OF COMMONS Municipal Grants Act In addition to the roads there is a matter of drainage respecting that camp. Just today I received a letter from the township clerk. I am wondering whether under this act an approach can be made by the township to the Minister of Finance or the Minister of National Defence for what may be considered to be their share of the responsibility for road maintenance, or whether the government is subject to payment for these services. If so, what approach is being made? Up to now I understand from the clerk of the township that no moneys have been paid into any fund for road maintenance. The other point in connection with that particular camp is this. Some two or three years ago or so, or maybe longer, they had drainage problems in the township and the outlet had to go through the military camp. From what the clerk said I gathered that the government assumed no obligation or responsibility for this drainage problem, not- withstanding the fact that the works would also drain part of Ipperwash Camp. At the moment I think there is an application for an extension of the drainage scheme which must have the camp under consideration. They are now wondering what responsibility the government assumes in cases of that sort. I am now going to say this, and I could have said it earlier. I believe this approach is sound. I think the government, with respect to their contribution to the munici- palities, have a very fair precedent to go on in their formula introduced in 1949 respect- ing the payments in lieu of taxes on crown corporations or crown companies, such as Polymer in the city of Sarnia. I am quite satisfied of this. I hope I speak for others as I speak for the city of Sarnia when I say that formula has been regarded as very fair since it came into effect. The unfortunate part is that it was late coming in. Had we had the formula from the time Polymer was constructed, the city of Sarnia would have received probably $1 million between the time of its construction and the time pay- ments were made in lieu of taxes. I am now suggesting that that formula should apply to all crown property. While this is a step in the right direction, I sin- cerely hope that in another year the govern- ment will see fit to introduce further legislation so that no crown company property or no crown property in any part of Canada will be exempt from taxation. Or I might put it this way. I hope the gov- ernment will see fit to introduce legislation so that all crown property will make pay- ments in lieu of taxes on a basis that is fair and equitable, under the same principle that is applied to crown corporations. [Mr. Murphy (Lambton West).] I do not think there will be any disagree- ment by any member in the House of Com- mons on this point. Today home owners are being taxed very heavily all across this country until the situation has almost reached the state where it is a hardship, in many cases, to own a home. Special pro- visions have been made for the city of Ottawa-and I say this with all deference to government policy-but up until the recent enactment whereby the city gets a greater share than it formerly received, these addi- tional amounts that are now being paid by the government on its property were a burden, as you might say, on the small home owner. I do not think this government or any other government should, because of crown property, impose upon veterans or small home owners obligations which, after all, should be shared by all the taxpayers of the Dominion of Canada; and they would be so shared if crown property were to pay on the same basis as any individual or any company. In connection with increased taxes I should like to refer to a problem I have mentioned before, which is not local but national. I refer to the increased cost of education. We will have to face the situation, because no one is going to agree to any suggestion that we lower our standards of education. In receiv- ing information from different municipal bodies it has amazed me to find that over the last ten years the cost of education has risen in many cases from 10 mills to 30 or 40 mills. In the last ten years it has doubled or trebled. While the measure before us will alleviate to a certain extent the heavy re- sponsibility of small home owners to their municipalities, I submit that additional legis- lation should be introduced at the earliest possible moment to make all crown proper- ties subject to the same payments to munici- palities as are now applicable to crown com- panies. I trust the government will consider it advisable to do so. Mr. Regier: Mr. Chairman, there are three minor points I wish to mention at this time. I notice that the resolution does not com- pletely meet the desires of municipal officials across Canada in that it still provides a loop- hole or means whereby the minister is able to compensate municipalities on a lesser scale than if the municipalities were given outright powers to tax real estate owned by the federal government. I see no reason what- soever why the federal government should not pay its full share of the municipal tax load on any real estate it owns within the borders of a municipality. In the western part of Canada at least the provincial gov- ernments are very slowly coming around to 4794 assuming their share of the municipal tax load on property they hold within munici- palities, and I think the federal government is being just a little slow in acknowledging its responsibility. We often ponder ways and means of helping municipalities. Here is one way we could help them much more than we are doing now, and we would be able to do so without violating any consti- tutional provision or any other prohibition that may be in the way. There is another matter I think should be raised at this time. I refer to the burden imposed upon municipalities by people build- ing bouses or shacks on federally-owned land within a municipality. We usually call these people squatters, although they may or may not like to have that name applied to them. However, these people add to the burden of the social welfare departments of the municipalities concerned. I think the federal government has a responsibility here. They should either move these people into adequate housing somewhere else, hous- ing these people are able to afford, or they should compensate the municipalities for, in some cases, the hundreds of squatters who are allowed to live on federally-owned land and become a burden to the municipalities in which these federal lands are located. I think it is an unfair imposition to allow people to live on these lands. Another cause of worry to some munici- palities arises out of land held by the fed- eral government that is not being properly looked after. In the middle of a rapidly growing suburban or metropolitan area you may have an acre of land which is crown property owned by the federal government. Possibly it was purchased 40 or 50 years ago as the site of a potential federal building. Perhaps its purchase was the result of an election pledge away back in 1911 or around that time. Everybody in the city uses this vacant land as a garbage dump, and again there is an imposition on the municipality because it has to maintain the appearance of the property and look after the upkeep of this federal real estate. I think such real estate should either be disposed of on the market or the municipality should be given adequate compensation for looking after it so it does not depreciate the value of nearby property. Mr. Macdonnell: I want to raise one point, and I hesitate to do so because it is very technical. The minister may ask me to abandon it on the ground that it is contrary to common sense. I refer to the wording of the new clause 8, subclause 2 (a), where reference is made to the numerator, and 4795JUNE1 4, 1955 Municipal Grants Act subclause 2 (b), where reference is made to the denominator. Has the minister got it before him? Mr. Harris: Yes. Mr. Macdonnell: These subclauses read as follows: (a) the numerator is the total amount of the real estate tax levied in the appropriate tax year, and (b) the denominator is the assessed value of aU taxable property in the municipality. Does the minister think a technical lawyer might suggest that subclause 2(a) should read that the numerator is the total amount of the real estate tax levied "in the nunic- ipality" in the appropriate tax year? Mr. Murphy (Lamblon West): I have, one question I should like to put to the minister before he answers. Take the situation in the city of Sarnia, where we have 187 Central Mortgage houses. Some of these were prob- ably built for employees of the Polymer Corporation, and some were built under the regular plan. I know an agreement was entered into between the municipality and Central Mortgage, the agent of the govern- ment, for the payment of a stated amount, something like $70 or $75 per unit, I believe. That was several years ago. The revenue is about $12,000 per year. As a matter of fact, taxes in our area have risen considerably since the arrangement was made, and I would think the amount should probably be about double, according to the city manager. When the minister speaks will he tell the committee to whom the approach should be made in order to have a discussion of munic- ipal costs and taxes, at the time the agree- ment was entered into and at present? Should the approach be made to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation? I hope there are precedents for such alleviation. Mr. Harris: Mr. Chairman, I could not carry the details of the last matter in my mind, but to deal with the other questions raised by the hon. member for Lambton West, it is a fact that the grants to be made in the future with respect to Indian reservations will be made through the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. No doubt they will be calculated on the basis of the services rendered and probably paid, in the particular instance he has in mind, to the one munic- ipality. But I think he will appreciate why in many cases there will be more than one municipality concerned. In the case of the former Indian reservation which has now become a military camp, of course under the new formula we shall have to re-examine the municipal corporation to see if it now Municipal Grants Act qualifies with the change, and if it does there will of course be grants made in lieu of taxes. As to drainage, that is a special grant often made by national defence. In answer to the question as to where the application might be made, I think it would be simpler if my hon. friend had the application made to me and I will see that it is dealt with by either national defence or finance. With respect to what the hon. member for Greenwood read out, I see the point in what he- Mr. Murphy (Lambion West): Would the minister comment first on this Indian affair? Would the fact that it was an Indian reserve prior to the government taking it over as a military camp make any difference? Mr. Harris: First I shall complete my answer to the hon. member for Greenwood. I can see the point in what he has said, and between the resolution stage and committee of the whole stage I shall consider whether the words he mentioned ought to be added. I understand the former Indian reserve ceased to be a reserve at least 12 to 14 years ago. I should think in view of the fact this act came into force in 1950, it would have to apply under the condition then obtaining. Mr. Jones: I should like to ask one technical question of the minister. It is in connection with the fact that a grant may be made on real estate owned by Her Majesty in the right of Canada. Is it not a fact that municipal roads, once they are gazetted, become the property of Her Majesty? Mr. Harris: All roads-I did not catch the last part. Mr. Jones: All roads within municipalities, once they are gazetted, become the property of Her Majesty. .Do they come under that clause? Mr. Harris: They are not the property of Her Majesty in the right of Canada. Mr. Jones: But the property of Her Majesty? Mr. Harris: Yes, but this says "of Canada". Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. The house in committee on Bill No. 258, to amend the Municipal Grants Act-Mr. Harris -Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair. The Chairman: The house in committee of the whole on Bill No. 258, together with the resolution which has just been referred to this committee. I may say that the bill was [Mr. Harris.] considered by the standing committee on banking and commerce and reported without amendment. Clauses 1 to 8 inclusive agreed to. Bill reported. Mr. Depuiy Speaker: Shall this bill be read a third time now? Mr. Harris: In view of the fact that these amendments were made I suggest that third reading might stand. Mr. Depu±y Speaker: Next sitting. CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS PROVISION FOR REFUNDING OF FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS AND ISSUE OF SUBSTITUTED SECURITIES Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of Bill No. 450, respecting Canadian National Railways and to provide for the refunding of matured, maturing and callable financial obligations. Mr. Macdonnell: Is the parliamentary assistant going to give us a word of explanation? Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Finance): The purposes of this bill were explained on June 6, Mr. Speaker. It is not an unusual bill. I believe we have had six or seven similar bills in relatively recent times. During the resolution stage on June 6, I outlined the securities of the Canadian National Railways that would become due between now and 1962. The references are at pages 4455 to 4457 of Hansard for June 6, 1955. Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood): I really have only one question to ask. As explained at the resolution stage, this measure is to provide for the calling of certain securities which were set out in the schedule to the resolution, as I recall it. I would ask the parliamentary assistant whether it would not be wise on another occasion-I am not going to press him now-to have these securities set out as a schedule to the act itself. I take it that the authority is clearly confined to that list which was given at the time the resolution was before the house. In other words, the effect of this bill is exactly the same as if that list of securities were made a schedule to it, and that being so I suggest that' it be considered whether in future it would not be wise to have the list appended to the act itself. Mr. Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, I certainly assure- HOUSE OF COMMONS4796 Mr. Deputy Speaker: I should point out that when the parliamentary assistant speaks he will close the debate. Mr. Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, I can cer- tainly assure the hon. member for Greenwood that very careful consideration will be given to his suggestions. I do point out, however, that we have had six or seven similar bills in recent years. Without giving proper and exhaustive consideration to his suggestion, it does occur to me at the moment that some of the refunding that would be open would be for securities of the Canadian National Rail- ways that could be callable and not neces- sarily maturing in the period outlined in the schedule I provided on June 6. I would think that to make a commitment as certain as the hon. member for Greenwood suggests would be unwise and might be just a little too rigid, in view of the opportunity to call certain additional securities if the market were favourable. Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair. Clause 1 agreed to. On clause 2-Power for refunding. Mr. Macdonnell: I should like to return to the point I mentioned when Mr. Speaker was in the chair. I am not clear as to whether the parliamentary assistant has agreed with me that this clause 2 applies to the llst of securi- ties maturing or callable, and to them only. Mr. Benidickson: Yes, I believe it does. Clause agreed to. Clauses 3 to 7 inclusive agreed to. Bill reported. Mr. Deputy Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time? Some hon. Members: Now. Mr. Knowles: By leave. Mr. Harris moved the third reading of the bill. Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed. PROVISION FOR CAPITAL EXPENDITURES, ISSUE OF SECURITIES, ETC. Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of Bill No. 451, to authorize the provision of moneys to meet certain capital expenditures of the Canadian National Railways system, etc. Canadian National Railways Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the louse went into committee thereon, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair. Clause 1 agreed to. On clause 2-Defnitions. Mr. Macdonnell: With reference to clause 2 and following clauses, I would ask the parlia- mentary assistant to go through them and assure us that they follow the budget as presented by the officials of the Canadian National Railways and approved by the committee. Mr. Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, replying to the hon. member for Greenwood, I would confirm that the capital expenditures items as outlined in the bill do relate exactly to the budget presented to the committee on railways and shipping. While I was not a member of that committee I am very pleased to have with me my colleague, the parlia- mentary assistant to the Minister of Trans- port, who was a member of the committee, as was the hon. member for Greenwood. So far as capital expenditures are concerned there are no deviations from the information and tables given to that committee. The only new feature in the bill, and the only deviation from last year's bill, is in respect to the clause relating to the appoint- ment of auditors of the Canadian National Railways. Clause agreed to. Clause 3 agreed to. On clause 4-Issue of securities. Mr. Barnett: I wonder if the parliamentary assistant would explain a certain part of the explanatory note. It gives details as to how the sum mentioned in clause 4 is arrived at. I see a notation which indicates that this sum must be considered, less certain indicated amounts. I notice among these amounts is an item of something more than $20 million for the retirement of equipment. How does this enter into the calculation? Do the rail- ways expect to realize this amount from the sale of old equipment? Mr. Benidickson: No, it is related to the C.N.R. system of depreciation. It is a retire- ment item referring to equipment purchased many years ago and going out of service. Clause agreed to. Clauses 5 to 10 inclusive agreed to. On clause 11-Auditors. Mr. Knowles: I take it that clause 11 appears in the bill to avoid, as has been 4797JUNE 14, 1955 HOUSE OF COMMONS Prairie Farm Assistance Act necessary in previous years, introducing a special bill for the purpose of appointing auditors for the Canadian National Railways. I do not have the text of the annual bills of previous sessions before me, but I believe the wording of clause 11 in this bill is sub- stantially the same. Mr. Benidickson: That is right. Mr. Knowles: I rise simply for the purpose of saying that I still agree with the position taken some years ago by the Minister of Fisheries, that the auditing of the accounts of the Canadian National Railways might well be done by the Auditor General of Canada. Clause agreed to. Bill reported. Mr. Deputy Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time? Some hon. Members: Now. Mr. Knowles: By leave. Mr. Harris moved the third reading of the bill. Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed. PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE ACT AMENDMENTs RESPECTING CERTAIN BENEFITS Hon. W. E. Harris (for the Minister of Agriculture) moved that the house go into committee on the following resolution: That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Prairie Farm Assistance Act with respect to certain benefits under the act. Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair. Mr. Charlton: Is the parliamentary assist- ant going to make a statement? Mr. McCubbin: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a short statement in respect to these amendments. It is proposed to amend the Prairie Farm Assistance Act to, one, make provision for payments on land which cannot be seeded or summerfallowed on account of natural causes beyond the farmer's control; and, two, require that the blocks of six or more sections which are excluded from payment, or paid, under sec- tion 6, be rectangular in shape instead of irregular. Over widespread areas in the prairie prov- inces these last few years it has been im- possible to seed, and in some cases even to summerfallow, lands which had been farmed for many years. It is considered that [Mr. Knowles.] such lands should qualify for assistance under the act the same as other lands do at present. At present the act provides for the exclu- sion from payment within eligible townships of certain blocks of six or more sections which had an average yield of ten or more bushels of wheat and for the payment within ineligible townships of similar blocks which had an average yield of less than eight bushels. Prior to 1950 the act required that such blocks be rectangular in shape, but this requirement was removed that year. Since that time, and particularly during the last crop year, administrative difficulties have arisen in many instances when setting up irregular blocks, in that discriminatory dis- tinctions as between neighbours show up to an extent not foreseen when the amendments were made. It is therefore proposed to revert to the provisions regarding these blocks of sections as they were prior to the 1950 amendment. As it has been impossible to seed or culti- vate over widespread areas this year these amendments should be made effective for the 1955 crop season, and it is desirable that they be introduced at the present session of par- liament. Mr. Bryce: Mr. Chairman, I do not know what is in the bill that will follow this resolu- tion, but if it contains anything that will help the farmers in my district I certainly welcome it and will be glad to see it pass. Mr. Argue: Mr. Chairman, the part of the announcement by the parliamentary assistant that land that cannot be seeded because of natural causes will be eligible for prairie farm assistance is welcome, but that portion of the announcement that the provision with regard to six sections will be changed from the present provision whereby the block of sections need only be contiguous and not necessarily rectangular is a backward step. I would like to have seen a really impor- tant amendment made to this act, namely to increase the size of the payment. The act is a good act, but nothing has been done about the size of the payment since it was first passed in 1939. I see the Minister of National Health and Welfare smiling, and I know be will recall that I used the same argument in reference to family allowances, which come under his department. Mr. Martin: I was smiling at something else. Mr. Argue: The Prairie Farm Assistance Act passed in 1939 provided for a maximum payment in time of crop failure of $500. The purchasing power of $500 in 1939 would 47988 perhaps equal that of $1,200 today, so if the Prairie Farm Assistance Act is to be made as valuable in 1955 as it was in the late thirties, when first passed by this parliament, the size of the payment will have to be more than doubled. Certainly we welcome any provision that brings in areas which have been flooded. The farmer who is unable to seed his land because of flooding should be considered under the act to have had a crop failure on that acreage. I take it that is the provision to be written into the act, and with that we are certainly in agreement. The six-section provision, that it is to be made a rectangular block of land, in my opinion merely means that more farmers having high yields will be getting the bonus when they should not be entitled to it because they do not need it, and more farmers who have a crop failure in the sense that they have a yield of less than four bushels to the acre in one category or less than eight bushels to the acre in another category will be denied the bonus. The more irregular the area on which the payment can be made the more likely it is that the farmer with a crop failure will receive the payment. Another provision which I should like to see in the bill is the deletion of subsection 3 of section 3 of the act, namely that part of the act which bars certain crown lands which have been disposed of since 1940. There is some merit in doing everything possible to see that submarginal lands are not made eligible for prairie farm assistance, but to discriminate against land merely because it was in the name of the crown previous to 1940, although it may be as good grain- producing land as there is in« any part of western Canada, is not fair. When the minister presented this proposal some years ago he intended to take out a great deal more land than was finally taken out. The bill proposed at that time went to the agriculture committee, and the minister put back under the act much of the land that he intended to take out. My only regret is that he did not go all the way and put it all back under the act, so that all land might be eligible no matter whether it had been in the name of the crown previous to 1940 or not. We shall look at the bill when we receive it, and perhaps at that time discuss it in more detail. Mr. Quelch: Mr. Chairman, the proposal to change back to a rectangle the shape of the block of six sections I think perhaps is a good amendment, because it has caused a tremendous amount of hard feeling and hard- ship in the past. When the department would Blind Persons Act establish a block of six sections within a township as being eligible, this often denied farmers in those six sections the right to receive the bonus. Of course where the purpose is to establish a block of six sections in an ineligible town- ship for the purpose of allowing those six sections to obtain the bonus, then the change will be to the disadvantage of the farmer. On the other hand, if we take six sections out the change will help the farmer. If you pro- pose to establish a block of six sections, it will deny certain farmers the benefit they might otherwise receive. But I believe on the whole that it works both ways, whether you take a block in or out and, in the long run, it will be a good thing to make the change. As the parliamentary assistant has pointed out, it is very difficult to explain to farmers that they should be denied the bonus when their neighbours are receiving it. They do not understand that a block has been formed in the shape of a pair of steps, and it does not make sense to them. It will be easier to explain to them when it is back in a rectangu- lar block. Some farmers will lose as a result of the change and some will gain. On balance I do not see that there will be any disad- vantage to it. Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Harris (for Mr. Gardiner) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 481, to amend the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. Motion agreed to and bill read the first time. FISHERIES MEASURE TO PROVIDE GUARANTEE ON LOANS TO FISHERMEN Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of Bill No. 452, respecting loans to assist fishermen engaged in a primary fishing enterprise. Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce. BLIND PERSONS ACT AMENDMENTS LOWERING ELIGIBLE AGE TO 18 YEARS AND INCREAsING MAXIMUM ANNUAL INCOMES Hon. W. E. Harris (for the Minister of National Health and Welfare) moved the second reading of Bill No. 350, to amend the Blind Persons Act. Miss Margaret Aitken (York-Humber): I just want to rise to say that we on this side JUNE 14. l:1955 HOUSE OF COMMONS Blind Persons Act of the house give wholehearted support to this bill but, like other hon. members, we would prefer to see the age limit for the recipients lowered. The family allowance stops at 16. We feel that blind persons should be given this allowance at 16 rather than 18. That two-year period between 16 and 18 can be the most expensive of all for blind persons. It is certainly the most expensive period in the educational life of a normal student, and how much more so it must be for a blind person. The minister has explained that 18 is the eligible age for disabled persons. Under the Blind Persons Act it was 21. Bringing the age down to 18 means that blind persons are being put on the same basis as disabled persons. The minister indicated that the age could not be lowered for blind persons unless it was also lowered for disabled persons. That, of course, is a fair way of looking at it; but it just so happens that we are discussing a bill to amend the Blind Persons Act. I feel that Canadians would be making a good investment in lowering the eligible age to 16, an investment that would help blind persons to help themselves. Those hon. members who have had anything to do with blind persons know that a special measure of courage and cheerfulness seems to be bestowed upon them. They themselves strive for an independence which is inspirational to all of us; and I am sure the minister will agree with that. Last year I watched a golf tournament of blind persons, and it was an unforgettable experience. I do not think any golfers ever enjoyed themselves more. More recently I called upon Canada's famous spokesman for all blind persons in this country, Colonel Eddie Baker, head of the Canadian National Institute for the Blind. Colonel Baker was himself blinded in world war I and since then has devoted his life to the rehabilitation of blind persons. It was before the minister had brought this bill to the bouse that I called on Colonel Baker, and the purpose of my visit was quite removed from this bill or the fact that I might some day speak on this subject. I had heard that Colonel Baker had a workshop in his base- ment and I wanted to see that workshop. I never saw more vicious looking tools, and to watch that man handicapped by blindness pursuing a hobby that sighted people could not enjoy more was a great inspiration to me. Blindness has not deterred him in his choice of a hobby or in his usefulness to Canadian citizens. I mention these two things because I feel they emphasize the spirit of independence with which blind people face life. They do [Miss Aitken.] not sit back and say the world owes them a living. They want to earn their own living, and they want to make their own contribution to life. I feel that we who have eyes to see have a great debt to these people who do not ask anything of us. I feel we must hold out a helping hand with generosity. The bon. member for Lanark (Mr. Blair) suggested that a guiding allowance should be granted, and this suggestion also came from the Canadian Council for the Blind. I hope in future the Minister of National Health and Welfare will look with favour on this sug- gestion. I know he is sympathetic in these matters, and I am in no way offering any criticism. I am just expressing my own and my party's tribute to these people who make a great contribution as Canadian citizens. There is unanimous support in this bouse also for an increase in the maximum annual income. I should like to see the bill go even further. I should like to see us put the maximum annual income at the very top for these people. I hope the minister will take another look at that suggestion in the not too far distant future. I congratulate the minister upon this bill. I hope that before very long be will accept and have enacted the further suggestions that have been made from this side of the house. Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): Mr. Speaker, as the bon. member for York-Humber (Miss Aitken) has just indi- cated, when legislation improving our enact- ments respecting the blind is brought before us, that legislation bas the unanimous sup- port of this bouse. While the hon. member made that statement with reference to one particular aspect of the bill, I do not think I am being unf air to ber when I take it that the members of ber party and of all parties in this house are happy to see any improve- ment at all in the legislation affecting the lot of the blind people of this country, so this bill will pass this house unanimously. We welcome the reduction in the eligible age. We too feel that this age should be set at 16 rather than 18. In other words it should be at the point where the family allowance breaks off. Indeed, we made that same point with respect to the disability allowance. We also feel that the limits of income allowed to the blind, which this bill increases to a certain extent, might not only be raised to the highest possible limit, as was suggested by the hon. member for York- Humber, but indeed that this is a piece of legislation with respect to which the means test might be abolished altogether. JURE 14, 1955 I know there are those who still, bring forth arguments in defence of means tests in cer- tain cases. But I rernind hon. mnembers that we have in this country a few pieces of social legislation from which means test pro- visions have been removed. I think in par- ticular of the Old Age Security Act and the Family Allowances Act, under both of which payrnents under the heading of social security are made to Canadians without any means test. So f ar as those under old age security are concerned where persons are already in receipt of substantial income, the answer is that any additional incorne that cornes from a rneans-test-free old age pension is subject to income tax. If there are those who want to argue that there are a few blind persons who are fortunate enough to have a bit of income, I would point out that the payment of a means-test-free pension to them would be treated in the sarne way. Actually we know there are not many of these persons who are able to earn an income of any size; rather the fact of the matter is that even with all the spirit and initiative these people have they are under a handicap that I feel we might well recognize by the payment of a blindness allowance or blind pension without any means test whatsoever. I arn satisfied that the day will corne when we will remove the means test frorn the Blind Persons Act. I urge the governrnent to give the matter favourable consideration and not to let that day be too far in the future. While speaking in support of this resolu- tion I also wish to indicate that we feel that consideration should have been given toth request of organizations representing te blind for a guidance allowance. I hope that even yet that request will be considered and met by the governrnent. So, Mr. Speaker, I conclude with these few words indicating our keen desire to do any- thing we can to help these people, and indi- cating that, while we feel that there are further improvernents that should be made with the least possible delay, we are neverthe- less glad to give our full support to the second reading of Bill No. 350. Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough): Mr. Speaker, I quite agree with what has been said by the hast two hon. members who have spoken. The fact that the famlly allowance stops at the age of 16 years and that there is a gap between 16 and 18 is flot the only reason the age himit should be reduced to 16 years. It should be reduced to that age for this reason also. Persons who are bllnd mnust learn the different things they can be taught when they are young. When they gel older and get into set ways, it is hard to Blind Persons Act get thern to learn and in many cases they wr n ot be taught. When they are 16 years of age, or between the ages of ý116 and 18, their fingers are sensitive and they can be taught braille quite easily. At that age they also must have a typewriter, which. costs money, as does the equipment for that type- writer. There are also braille siates to be bought. Just within the last year ini the United States a drawing board has been brought out and developed by an American. It is a plastic siate. On top of that siate there is rubber. On top of that rubber is placed a cellophane sheet. The blind person can draw on that siate and when it is turned over he can f eel the outline of that drawing; or on it a person who has sight can give a blind person direc- tions as to streets and one thing and another, and it can be turned over and the blind person can follow thern. Ail these things cost money. The blind person is therefore put to quite a bit of expense. Just lately-within the last six months or so, or perhaps less than that-the talldng books that are distributed to blind persons who have these talking book machines have been changed. There is a new needie that must be used on these machines. In order to use these tallcing books these blind people rnust have a machine that has an arin on it so that they can turn it. I arn not sure whether it is a 78 r.p.m. needie or a different kind of needie. H-owever, there are two kinds of records. If you use the wrong needie it will spoil the record. Ail these new records that are coming out are marked with the letter "M" on them. It is a large, raised letter so blind people can feel and read it. What I arn getting at is the fact that these talking books and all this equipment run into money. I doubt whether a blind person could afford to buy these things unless his parents or some friend were able to buy thern for him. I therefore feel that this age limit should be reduced to 16 years so the blmnd person would have that extra rnoney with which to go on and be better prepared when he became 18 years of age. Mr. W. G. Blair Mr. Langlois granted powers contrary to the spirit of the constitution. Mr. Langlois : I would ike to Mr. Fulton: Who is the distinguished ask the minister one question. I understand scholar you have referred to? that under this bil a librarian is to be Mr. Sinclair: The name is so well known appointed, and then there will be authority to the honourable and studious member for for the appointment of an associate librarian. Kamloops that I am sure there is no need Does the minister feel that neither the librar- to repeat it here. ian nor the associate should be a qualified Mr. Fulton: Who is he? hibrarian? He mentioned a minute ago that Mr. Sinclair: My main reason for putting these others were stili deputies in the differ- this question to the hon. member- ent departments. The hon. member for Mr. Fulton: Who is he? Answer. Timiskaming mentioned the Minister of Na- tional Healtb and Welfare, and suggested thatMr. Sinclair: My main reason for writing he had done an excellent job. this note to the hon. member for Greenwood, knowing his devotion to the university, is Mr. Pickersgill: That is right. that he could name the present librarian of Mr. Fraser CPeterborough): That is ahi very the Bodleian library, an old fellow classmate fine; but do you tbink be could have done of his, as I have no doubt he will say when that job if be had not had a fuhly qualified he stands up to reply, after having received man as bis deputy? my note. Mr. Sinclair: Under him. Here, for the first time, we have the Tory Mr. Fraser (Peterborough): I am referring party endorsing the principle of the closed to Dr. Cameron. He is the man wbo bas shop; because apparently anyone who is belped the Minister of National Healtb and going to get the job as librarian of parlia- Welfare do a good job, as the hon. member ment must have the endorsation of the Cana- for Timiskaming bas said. Does the minis- dian library association, another trade union. ter feel that neither the hibrarian nor the Mr. Charlton: Did I understand the minis- associate sbouhd be a quahified person? Surely ter to say that certain people would have to one of ther at least sbould be qualified. have a college education. Mr. Pickersgill: I think tbey should both Mr. Pickersgill: No, I said that they must be quahified. have a professional degree. Mr. Fraser (Peterborough): Quahified hibrar- Mr. Charlton: That is the same thing. ians? Mr. Pickersgill: I do not think the hon. Mr. Pickersgill: But I do not think the member for Greenwood would agree with only or indeed the major qualification for a you on that. good head or associate bead of a hibrary is Mr. Charlton: "A professional degree"- necessarily that be be a man with a hibrary what does that mean? science degree. I think we wouhd be makinga great mistake in this bouse if we himited Mr. Pickersgill: Well, I have several appointments to these two positions to such degrees, and no profession. a comparatively smahl part of the whole [Mr. Pickersgill.P Canadian population, particularly when their salaries are being paid out of everybody's taxes. Mr. Drew: Mr. Chairman, let us keep the discussion on a reasonable basis. The sug- gestion made in relation to the Minister of National Health and Welfare has no applica- tion whatever to this. A comparable sug- gestion would be to put a mining engineer in charge of a hospital, and you would not do that, of course. So far as a medical position is concerned you would appoint a skilled medical prac- titioner. If it were a legal position you would appoint a lawyer. And as far as administra- tive posts are concerned in the ordinary course of events governments call upon men or women to administer departments without regard to technical qualifications. Even the Minister of Fisheries may learn something about fish after he has spent some years with that department. The fact that he might not have known a plaice from a haddock in the first instance does not mean that he could not do a good job, so long as the administra- tive task was well done. The comparison is not there. A very serious attempt has been made in Canada in recent years to bring the position of librarian into the field of responsible pro- fessions. Everyone has agreed that this is an important task. In order to attract people to this profession it is necessary to give them the feeling that the training they get will be recognized. I have heard no suggestion made which would offer any reason why this amendment should not be accepted, having regard to the length of time which has already been devoted to the training of librarians in this country. Perhaps ten years ago, fifteen years ago, it could not have been done because this is a comparatively modern development. Now we have plenty of trained librarians. Unless there is some reason that has not been indicated by the minister it would be a desirable thing to offer the encouragement that would be offered to those who have been training as librarians by making this profes- sion a requirement under the act itself, and I am supporting the amendment on that ground. Mr. Ellis: I am quite surprised that the government is apparently refusing to grant professional status to the many graduate librarians throughout Canada. What the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration said a moment ago was, if you require that the persons who are given these jobs must have professional qualifications you will be limit- ing the field. That is precisely the situation 50433-307J Library of Parliament Act that obtains in other professions. One would not think of filling a post that required a medical doctor unless the appointee was prop- erly qualified. The same thing applies to members of the legal profession. I suggest that qualified graduate librarians across Can- ada are professional people. They have professional standing. Apparently the gov- ernment is seeking to deny librarians profes- sional status. It may be true that the bill refers to a deputy minister. I suggest that simply grant- ing deputy minister status to a librarian does not make him any less a librarian. He is still a librarian. Primarily he is the chief libra- rian, whether you give him the status of a deputy minister or not. Notwithstanding the arguments that have been advanced, the only method of filling positions of this kind, in order to create an atmosphere of fairness to librarians across Canada, is to fill them with personnel who are fully qualified librarians. No arguments on the part of the minister are going to get around the arguments that have been put up by the opposition. I sug- gest it is a very simple matter. There are many hundreds of quálified librarians throughout Canada. For the minister to suggest that there is not in Canada a suffi- cient group to draw from is an insult to librarians throughout the country. Mr. Pickersgill: I did not suggest that. Mr. Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, I was unavoid- ably absent during the first part of this dis- cussion. Will you kindly read the amend- ment? The Deputy Chairman: It was moved by the hon. member for York-Humber: That section 1 of the bill be amended by adding the following as subparagraph (4) to the proposed new section 5: No one shall be eligible to be appointed as parliamentary librariàn or associate parliamentary librarian hereunder, unless such person is fully qualified as a librarian holding either the bachelor's or master's degree in library science, of any school or university awarding degrees in library science, recognized by the Canadian library association. Mr. Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, speaking to that amendment, I find it absurd. I will tell you the reason. I am one of the members of parliament who have used the library to the utmost. All of those who are there, the whole staff, are A-1, perfect. I wonder whether they have any degrees from anywhere. I do not believe in degrees; I believe in efficiency, and they are all efficient. I hope the appointments will be made from people who can compare with those who are in the library of parlia- ment at the present time, and who are in the library of the Supreme Court of Canada. JUNE 15, 1955 4855 HOUSE OF COMMONS Library of Parliament Act Miss Aitken: Mr. Chairman, to answer a few things that have been said, I must say I became a little confused as the debate went on. Before long the Minister of Citizen- ship and Immigration was talking back to his colleague the Minister of Fisheries. That really tied me up. First of all, I want to assure the hon. member for Macleod that in this amendment there is certainly no reflec- tion on the present librarians. If there were any reflection in the amendment then the bill itself would be a reflection on the librarians, but everything points to the future, not to the past. The minister has made much of past appointments by governments to the post of librarian, and pointed out they were not trained librarians. We did not have any library schools or library -courses at the universities in those days. It is a -compara- tively new and struggling profession. I feel the minister has been extremely scornful of librarians as professional people. He read a letter in which it was said that many quali- ties were needed in a parliamentary librarian, and I would gather insinuated from that letter that probably those qualities could not be found in a trained librarian. This bill, without the amendment, is an insult to all professional librarians across Canada, and that is why we on this side are supporting the amendment. Some hon. Members: Question. Mr. Churchill: No; this is too serious a matter to decide in such a hurry. Let us see what is happening. The Minister of Citizen- ship and Immigration informed the house that he was bringing the bill before us just as a courteous gesture to carry out the recom- mendations of the joint committee of both houses. After having made that remarkable statement he went on to make a biased political speech. He could not refrain from that, and he extended it a little later on by casting a slur on Sir John A. Macdonald. He said he made two appointments to the library staff because the library was a joint library, not a parliamentary library. Subsequently in the course of his remarks he said that was done just for political purposes. That was the type of speech the minister made in introducing the bill, and it was exactly what I expected. He has been doing that all along. He is following the practice of other ministers. He raised the big stick. Immediately the amendment was read he jumped to his feet to say the government was fMr. Pouliot.] opposing it. He said nothing about the joint committee, which had not even considered it. No; the government was opposed to it, and of course when the government is opposed to anything, then we are all supposed to quail and go creeping around. I suppose we should bow three times to the east before we approach this minister. Not content with that, he then introduced the red herring. This amendment, if passed, would affect the present incumbents of the office. All he had to do was bring in the hydrogen bomb and we would have had the thing complete. He tried to scare us out of our wits. Then he suggested that the person appointed to the library would be deputy head of the department. No such thing. He may be occupying a position which is recognized as being equivalent to the deputy head of a department, but it is not a department of government. It is just one of those nonsensi- cal arguments put forward with the intention, it seems to me-I hope not, but it appears to be the intention-of misleading the committee. I hope the minister did not have that in mind. However, that is the way in which this bill has been introduced to us. The minister can lay it at his own feet if this measure is delayed. The Depu±y Chairman: Order. I must draw the hon. member's attention to the fact that it is six o'clock. Clause stands. Progress reported. BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow and Friday we shall take the estimates of the departments of national defence, fisheries, secretary of state and justice. However, on Friday we shall take as the first order of business third reading of the Canadian National Railways bill and then, as I said the other night, the second reading of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. Mr. Drew: Mr. Speaker, as has been pointed out, the government has of course the re- sponsibility for deciding the business but, having regard to the vital importance of the Department of National Defence, I had hoped that when this debate started it would carry right through, because certainly the discus- sion will be carried on in a much more orderly manner and that will expedite the debate that will undoubtedly take place on the first item, as is usually the case. I would hope the minister will reconsider that and carry the debate right through. 4856 JUNE 15, 1955 Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, I quite appreciate the point the hon. member has made but, as I explained the other night, the Minister of Agriculture will be here and, to be frank about it, 1 do not belleve there will be very rnuch debate on the Prairie Farrn Assis- tance Act, from what I arn told. With respect to the other bill, we do not think there will 4857 Business of the House be very much debate on third reading. I understand it may be the intention of hon. members to move an amendment on third reading, but I would suppose that could be disposed of very quickly. At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order. 4859 HOUSE OF COMMONS Thursday, June 16, 1955 The house met at eleven o'clock. QUESTIONS RADIOACTIVE FALL-OUT Mr. Knowles: 1. On how many occasions has there been radio- active precipitation or fall-out in Canada follow- ing experimental tests of atomic or hydrogen bombs or weapons by the United States or by any other country? 2. What are the dates of such radioactive precipi- tation or fall-out and where in Canada did the same occur? 3. What was the extent of such radioactive precipitation or fall-out in Canada on each such occasion? Mr. Robertson: 1, 2 and 3. The level of radioactivity is of interest to the Department of National Health and Welfare which has access to all data available to the Department of National Defence on this subject. The defence research board does not systematically, or as a matter of routine, measure the extent to which radioactive debris, resulting from nuclear explosions, falls on the surface of the earth in Canada. The defence research board does measure, at various points in Canada, the radioactive content of precipitation in the form of rain or snow. While these measurements are made on a continual basis, they can only be made when rain or snow occurs. Complete data on the extent of radioactive fall-out in Canada cannot be obtained by this method. Furthermore, the clouds of radioactive debris, which ascend rapidly into the upper reaches of the earth's atmosphere after nuclear explosions, drift around the earth, intermingling, and fall-out may continue in an irregular pattern for many months. Thus it is difficult during a test series to relate fall- out on a particular day at a particular point to a specific explosion. Moreover, rain or snow is radioactive when it reaches the sur- face of the earth because of the natural radioactive particles always present in the atmosphere, although this natural radio- activity disappears fairly rapidly. The important fact is not the occasion on which radioactivity has been noted at a particular location, but the total accumulated level of radioactivity resulting from all causes, including nuclear explosions. Defence research board data are incomplete on this point but have recently been supplemented by information obtained from the U.S. atomic energy commission. At the request of the U.S. weather bureau, and on behalf of the U.S. atomic energy commission, certain Department of Transport weather stations have been making daily collections of fall- out in Canada during the past year. These collections have been measured by the U.S. atomie energy commission and, as a result, it has been determined that the highest measurement of accumulated radio- activity in the heavily populated zone of Canada, resulting from all nuclear tests carried out anywhere during 1954 was 80 millicuries per square mile on January 1,1955. This corresponds roughly to a gamma dose rate of 3/10,000,000 of a roentgen per hour. Natural radiation corresponds to about 1/100,000 of a roentgen per hour and in- dustrial workers are permitted to receive, ifnecessary, a constant dose of about 2/1,000 of a roentgen per hour. As an example of specific fall-out at a location in eastern Canada, during the middle of March a measurement of 1,000 millicuries per square mile was made on the day of fall-out. Other studies have shown that the amount of fall-out which accumulates over a period of time is much the same in all the populated parts of Canada, the maximum being somewhat less than twice the minimum. In other words, the variation from point to point is not significant. This fall-out decays rapidly and the amount of radioactivity measured on the day previously mentioned will be only 5 millicuries per square mile on January 1, 1956. AIRPORT SITE SURvEYS, EDMONTON Mr. Holowach: 1. How many sites were surveyed for the con-struction of a new airport at Edmonton, Alberta,and what are the locations of these sites? 2. Were these contracts for surveys let by tender?3. If so, what methods of advertising were used?4. Was advertising made through newspapers? If so. on what dates and in what papers? 5. What firms. submitted tenders and what wasthe amount of each tender? 6. What firm or firms were awarded the contracts?7. When is it expected these surveys will becompleted and construction of the airport com-menced? Mr. Langlois (Gaspe): 1. Preliminary investigations have been made by Department of Transport inspectors HOUSE OF COMMONS Inquiries of the Ministry and engineers of areas located as follows: Southwest of Ellerslie, northeast of Ellerslie, northwest of Leduc, northwest of Nisku, southeast of Ellerslie, northwest of Big Lake, northwest of St. Albert, northwest of Josephburg, southeast of Winterburn. 2. No tenders have been called for and no survey contracts have been awarded. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. Answered by No. 2. CIVIL DEFENCE FAILURE TO PARTICIPATE IN CONTINENTAL TEST -REQUEST FOR INQUIRY On the orders of the day: Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that during a continental civil defence test yesterday Canada's two largest cities and this capital were unable to take part because of lack of any effective organization, I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether he is prepared to consider having an appropriate inquiry conducted into the reason for this failure in our civil defence program. Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any necessity for an inquiry. It was in- tended to have Ottawa participate in this function. However, it was found that, with parliament being in session, it would have taken a good part of the day and it was felt that it was not sufficiently urgent to have it take place at this precise time and to devote that good part of the day to removing us and the whole civil service from these public buildings. Mr. Drew: Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the Prime Minister that the head of the government and the government of a coun- try of 160 million just to the south of us thought it sufficiently important to take part in this exercise. Mr. Si. Laurent: I would point out to the hon. member that it is Canadians who deter- mine what will be done in Canada. Mr. Hees: In view of the fact that it is Cana- dians who decide these things for themselves, is it the government's plan that Canada shall carry out a similar civil defence exercise in the near future? Mr. St. Laurent: Canada will consider and act upon the advice received from those who have been organizing civil defence in Canada. Mr. Drew: There is no effective defence in the larger cities. Mr. Martin: To supplement what the Prime Minister has said, as he has indicated this matter is receiving consideration. It is the [Mr. Langlois (Gaspe).] intention to provide for a similar evacuation here. The exercise yesterday, in so far as Canada was concerned, was a success. Mr. Hees: Does the minister have in mind when this exercise may be expected to take place? Mr. Martin: Next Thursday the civil defence director of the United States is coming to Canada- Some hon. Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Drew: You are going to get your orders then, are you? Mr. Martin: I think my hon. friends had better listen to the rest of my statement before taking the satisfaction which this partial observation may have given. A repre- sentative from the civil defence organization in the United Kingdom is also coming. Some hon. Members: Oh, oh. An hon. Member: Laugh that off. Mr. Martin: They are then going to discuss with us certain phases not only of operations in this country but elsewhere, and I think the fact they are coming to Canada indicates that they feel they can learn something from us. Mr. Hees: Just how unprepared a country can be. Mr. Rowe: They would not learn it this morning. SUPPLY The house in committee of supply, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair. DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE Defence services- 236. To provide for the Canadian forces, the defence research board and other expenditures relating to defence, including contributions toward the military costs of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization; to authorize expenditures in the current year out of the amount hereby provided, not exceeding $175,000,000, under the provisions of section 3 of the Defence Appropriation Act, 1950, and to provide that, notwithstanding subsection (3) of that section, where equipment or supplies acquired by the Canadian forces after March 31, 1950, are transferred, the estimated present value thereof shall, if the governor in council so directs, be credited to this vote instead of being paid into the special account mentioned in the said sub- section (3), and when so credited may be expended for the purposes of the Canadian forces; and not- withstanding section 30 of the Financial Admin- istration Act to authorize total conrnitments for the foregoing purposes of $4,269,726,540 regardless of the year in which such commitnents will come in course of payment (of which it is estimated that $2,443,441,346 will corne due for payment in future years), $1,729,285,194. The Chairman: May I inform hon. members that this resolution will be found on page JUNE 16, 1155 42 of the blue book and the details will be found commencing at page 306. Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence): Mr. Chairman, ail our thinking about defence today must be profoundly affected, I am sure all will agree, by recent developments in the field of atomic and thermonuclear weapons as well as in the range and speed of modern jet bombers. I am sure that all members will agree that this applies not only in the military fields of strategy and tactics but also in the wider fields of the defence of our civilian population and of the preservation of our industrial potential. These new developments also give to our foreign policy a greater importance and a greater sense of urgency than ever before. There is today no absolute defence against atomic and thermonuclear weapons in the quantities in which they could be aggressively brought to bear on this or any other country. That does not mean that we may not blunt and minimize such an attack. That does not mean that we could not survive such an attack. The powers of resistance and the ingenuity of human beings are very great indeed, as we saw in the last world war. We may lessen the effectiveness of such an attack by such powers and measures as we can contrive, but we cannot wholly prevent damage to a country geographically as large as Canada. In other words, there is no 100 per cent perfect defence which will prevent such an attack from meeting with some degree of success if it is made. It follows, therefore, that since Canada, by herself, can provide only a limited though substantial amount of defence, and since other free countries are in the same position, greater assurance against the risks of war can be attained only by collective security. That is, of course, the meaning of NATO-of fifteen nations working to one end-a great joint defence effort on the part of all for the protection of each. I should like to say at this point that Canadians, generally, welcome the German people as our full and equal partners in NATO. The accession of the Federal Republic of Germany is important, not only because it will eventually strengthen the defence forces of the free world, but also because time may well prove that this enlargement of NATO is in itself a significant milestone along the path to the ultimate brotherhood of nations and the abolition of war. Within this NATO team, Canada has the role of providing some measures of defence at home and some abroad. It is to this end that we are providing sea, land and air forces But we do not, and we cannot, provide Supply-National Defence weapons and forces of all types and in the numbers which might be required for the complete defence of all Canada in a global war, if that should come. It would be quite beyond the resources, both physical and financial, of a country embracing such a vast area as ours does, and relatively so sparsely populated, to carry out such a tremendous undertaking by itself. One of the great advantages of the NATO alliance is that it permits each of its mem- bers to specialize in the roles for which it is best fitted, and, while providing such specialized help to other members of the team, to rely likewise on assistance from them in other fields of defence in which they are most proficient. And it is folly in any event for us, or for a potential enemy, or for anyone, to talk today about "winning" a war. The tre- mendous powers of death, destruction and contamination of thermonuclear warfare today simply beggar description. Our hope under such circumstances would simply be not to lose the war, rather than to expect to win it. And in this case there is a vast difference between "not losing" and "winning". That is why the central concept of Canada's defence policy today is the maintenance of peace-peace assured by such overwhelm- ing collective strength that no potential aggressor will dare to put the issue to the test. We must seek increasingly, by every means within our power and in conjunction with our friends, to prevent the outbreak of a major war, which, if it came, could only bring chaos and catastrophe for everyone involved. Together with our allies we must make it abundantly clear that violent aggression will be answered instantaneously by all-out retaliation throughout the homeland of the aggressor. And we must show as well our determination and our capacity to survive a sudden attempt at a knock-out blow and to fight our way back to stability and freedom as quickly as we can. That is why we have the lst Canadian air division in Europe with twelve squadrons of first-class fighter planes. That is why we have the lst Canadian infantry brigade there to help defend free- dom in Europe. That is why we have fighting ships and planes ready to patrol the North Atlantic sea- lanes against the submarine menace. That is why we have here in Canada a mobile striking force of three airborne bat- . talions ready to meet possible local attacks instantaneously. HOUSE OF COMMONS Supply--National Defence That is why, working with the United States, we are extending a complex radar warning network across this land's vast dis- tances, and out into the neighbouring oceans. That is why, in the North American air spaces, Canadian and United States intercep- tor planes, aided by radar and ground obser- vers, are constantly watching and checking unidentified aircraft. And that is why, since NATO was formed six years ago, Canada has contributed military aid to our European friends to a value sub- stantially in excess of one billion dollars, and is training year by year approximately 1,000 air crew for our allies. All of these vital elements of our defence effort here and in Europe are to help make the nations of the north Atlantic community capable of checking an aggressor and of strik- ing back so vigorously as to destroy his war potential. The balance between our forces in Canada and our forces beyond our borders is based on the sound judgment of our military ad- visers as Io where, in present circumstances, Canadian fighting men can best maintain our freedom and that of the free world. While no special arrangements exist for provision of forces to meet commitments which may be made from time to time in sup- port of the activities of the United Nations, we have, I think, demonstrated in the support given in the Korean war that we can, when the necessity arises, carry out our proper part promptly and effectively. The great field of the United Nations, gen- erally speaking, lies, of course, in the realm of negotiations, the development of under- standing and the peaceful solution of difficul- ties, rather than in the provision of armed forces. I said a few minutes ago that the central concept of Canada's defence policy was the maintenance of peace, and I said further that the best hope of maintaining peace lay in the maintenance by the free nations of over- whelming strength. I am concerned, of course, with the military aspects of this strength, but there are, of course, other important ways in which we may make sincere efforts toward establishing permanent peace. Whatever we are able to do through the exchange of ideas, the devel- opment of understanding, the extension of friendly trade relations, the assistance ren- dered to underdeveloped lands, will cumula- tively prove perhaps more important than we sometimes realize. In recent months there appears to have been a lessening of tension in the cold war- certainly in Europe. We hope the friendly [Mr. Campney.] gestures from behind the iron curtain are genuine and sincere. But in the light of experience we must proceed with caution and with hope until we can more definitely assess the import of those gestures-their motivation and their real objective. There is also another side of this matter which was mentioned in this house only a few days ago by my colleague, the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe). It is briefly this: while the outbreak of war now seems less likely, the imperative need for success in our policy of deterrence has in- creased very greatly. The order of magnitude of this increase is, I suggest, directly related to the tremendously greater consequences of war, and is roughly proportional to the de-structive power of the H-bomb as compared to the A-bomb. I have sought in my remarks thus far to emphasize that the plan of Canada and ourallies is not to win a third world war butrather to prevent it, and-in the alternative- to prepare ourselves to survive any sudden attack and then to fight back hard and atonce. These are our objectives and these are the objectives of our allies. I cannot hope to touch on more than a few of the highlights of our own defence program in the time at my disposal, but I have endeavoured in the white paper, tabled onJune 7 last, to give hon. members as much detail as possible to supplement my remain- ing observations. Perhaps I might now run over some high- lights of the armed forces picture. The principal role of the Royal Canadian Navy is, of course, anti-submarine warfare in all its aspects. That is the NATO concept as it is ours. In that role our light fleet carrier, H.M.C.S. Magnifßcent, our destroyer escorts, our frigates, coastal escorts and mine- sweepers all have their related parts to play. While our cruisers may not be directly con- cerned with anti-submarine work, they are important nevertheless as enabling us to give a substantial number of officers and men essential sea-going experience. As part of our shipbuilding program in 1954 we completed our Arctic patrol vessel, H.M.C.S. Labrador, which has been giving such an outstanding account of itself in Arctic waters; we commissioned eight new coastal minesweepers; we completed the conversion of ten frigates and constructed a number of auxiliary vessels as well. And good progress was made with many other vessels under con- struction or undergoing conversion, including H.M.C.S. Bonaventure, our new up-to-the- minute light fleet carrier, which will replace Magnificent next year. JUNE 16, 1955 This year the ten destroyer escorts we now have in service will be joined by H.M.C.S. St. Laurent, the first of the fourteen new type destroyer escorts being built in Canadian ship- yards. Construction of these new destroyer escorts has been a long process, as is always the case whenever a new and advanced type of vessel is laid down, but as I have indicated, they will begin to come in late this year with the commissioning of the St. Laurent. From what I have seen of the highly modern equip- ment being installed in these new warships they will be very fast, formidable and effective submarine killers, not excelled elsewhere at the present time. This year we will be procuring new equip- ment for the navy to the extent of $150 million and we estimate that a further $19 million will be required for repair and upkeep of equipment. Operationally, it may be of interest to hon. members to know that we have made arrange- ments with the Royal Navy whereby its No. 6 submarine squadron will assist in anti-sub- marine training for the Royal Canadian Navy and the Royal Canadian Air Force. The sub- marine, H.M.S. Astute, arrived in Halifax in April and has since been working with ships of the Royal Canadian Navy in the Bermuda area. Last month a second submarine, H.M.S. Ambush, arrived in Halifax and has since been operating in the western Atlantic with H.M.C.S. Magnifßcent, two destroyers, four frigates, and units of the Royal Canadian Air Force. Reports to date indicate that these exercises are proving of very substantial value. In this connection, the R.C.A.F. is now tak- ing delivery of Neptune medium-range recon- naissance aircraft-the P2V7's which some of you may have seen at Rockcliffe last Satur- day. These new aircraft are modern in every respect and particularly well equipped to dea with hostile submarines. The strength of the Royal Canadian Navý is now more than 19,000, having increase by 261 officers and 1,991 other ranks durini the last fiscal year. May I now turn to the army. We hav heard a good deal of arrant nonsens recently with respect to abolition of th army. We have heard also a good deal mor by way of innuendo and suggestion that th army has no longer a useful role to performn that it is redundant in a thermonuclea world, that its days are numbered. Suc talk is not only nonsense, it is hurtful t the morale of the army, hurtful to recruitin and hurtful to our whole defence effort. Our own best military advice and th advice of the highest military chiefs NATO is that the need for ground forces Supply-National Defence the highest calibre will be continuing and urgent throughout the foreseeable future. Within the NATO system the role of the Canadian army is primarily, of course, an infantry role. Our regular army today con- sists of some 5,600 officers and 43,000 other ranks. It comprises the 1st Canadian infantry division, consisting of the lst, 2nd and 3rd .brigades; the mobile striking force, con- sisting of three airborne infantry battalions and supporting arms; and the 4th Canadian infantry brigade; together with supporting armour, communications, engineering and other units and installations necessary for the training and administration of the army as a whole. The emphasis in NATO forces has for some time now been on qualitative improve- ment rather than on increased numbers and our army is today highly trained, efficient and forward-looking in its outlook. Canada's army has made significant advances within the past few years in adapt- ing itself to the changing conditions of modern warfare. Last fall, in exercise "Battle Royal" in Westphalia, Germany, which I attended and which involved 140,000 troops of the NATO northern army group, our troops gave an excellent account of themselves and won high praise from senior officers present. These manoeuvres were carried on under simulated atomic warfare conditions and gave our troops the opportunity to encounter in the field problems which they would meet in actual atomic warfare. Moreover, this exer- cise provided a practical background for studies being made of future organization and tactics of ground forces. Others of our troops are becoming special- ists in winter warfare. Re-equipment of the army with the latest l weapons continues. By way of examples: An all-Canadian developed and produced y anti-tank weapon, the Heller, has proven d itself and is now being issued to our troops. g It will enable our infantry to engage enemy armour with much more accuracy and effec- e tiveness than ever before. e User trials of the FN automatic rifle have e now been completed by the Canadian army e and it has been decided to adopt this most e modern type of small arms weapon as the 1, standard rifle for the Canadian army. Similar r steps have already been taken by the United h Kingdom, Australia and, of course, Belgium. ;o During the present year we plan expen- g ditures for army equipment of approximately $100 million, including tooling for produc- Le tion in Canada of the FN rifle, for which of standardized drawings have already been of prepared. -39t HOUSE OF COMMONS Supply-National Defence I might here refer briefly to the militia, It was our intention until recently to equipalthough I must admit that until the period our auxiliary squadrons with CF-100's, butao summer training has been completed, it I should now like to advise the house that,wauld be perhaps too early to attempt a based on experience, the feasibility of doingcamprehensive evaluation of the reorganiz- this is being reassessed. Both in our ownatian which began last summer and has now air force and in the air force of Greatbeen practically completed. Britain it has been found that complexBy and large, the response to the reorgan- modern interceptors of the latest types areization has been good. I am advised that not wholly suitable for auxiliary squadronreports indicate generally that the attitude service. within the militia has improved, that morale There is no refiection in this on the per-is better and that there has been a corres- sonnel of auxiliary squadrons who haveponding increase in efficiency. proven themselves to be both keen and The reorganization has resulted in better capable. But it bas become, in the lightca-ardinatian a militia training. Admin- of experience, increasingly doubtful whetheristration has alsa impraved and better use it is practicable and fair to expect that menis being made ai vailable equipment. who have full-time regular civilian employ-I tun noe o the aqirfe. Forment can also put in the requisite numberI turn naw ta the air force. For of hours of fiying to become and remainreasans which I think are obvius ta mast adept at handling these fast heavy jets and ai us, ln the light ai warld events, increasing their bigbly camplicatea equipment an aemphasis is being placed on the development fuly aperational basis. of our air arm. This year we expect to spend We are, cansequenty, giving intensive studyon the Royal Canadian Air Force nearly $880 ta the future rao e ai auxiliary fiying unitsmillion, or approximately as much as the and the effect which any change in theircombined expenditures for the army, navy an wffec have an a ne ine and defence research board. formation would have on our home defencesituation and what steps will necessarilyBut I shauld like ta add and ta underline, have ta be taken ta meet that situatian.particularly for the benefit of some of our critics, that this increasing emphasis is not Our 12 squadrons in Europe are, as hon.at the expense of the other services. If w, equipped with Sabre V jetyou compare last year's actual expenditures aircraft with the Orenda X engine. A num-by services with those in the estimates now ber of further improved Sabre VI's with thebefore us you will see that the amount more powerful Orenda XIV engine have nowprovided for the navy is up $8 million this been flown overseas and the re-equipping ofyear, that the amount provided for the army our squadrons there is currently due to begin.is up $39 million and that the amount for the The Sabre aircraft pragram bas pravendefence research baoard is up $6 million. an excellent program since the date of itsSimilarly, the amaunt for the air force is inception. The Sabre proved to be a fineup $61 millian. plane to begin with and it has developed im-The R.C.A.F. now has a total of 41 proved performance with every change. Insquadrons and 2,968 aircraft of some 21 fact, the improvement to date has been suchdifferent types in service. During the past as to set back the date af obsalescence byfiscal year the R.C.A.F. regular increased its several years. There is no better day inter-strength by 684 officers and 3,181 other ranks ceptor in operational service in Eurapeand now stands at 49,500. today. We have nine regular squadrons and ten The CF-100 pragram was an all-Canadianauxiliary squadrons for interception duties project ta meet Canadian needs and thishere at home, and 12 squadrons of day lang-range all-weather aircrat, with whichfighters serving with the NATO integrated our aperatianal squadrans in Canada areair forces in Europe. being equipped rapidly, is praving ta be The nine regular squadrons here at home a bigly satisfactary aperatianal fighter. Itwill be completely equipped with all-weather is well wartiy a the further impravementslong-range CF-100 jet aircraft by the end whic are planned far it, and will continueof this year. The remaining squadrons of ta bc effective for same years yet.our total of 41 provide logistic support, mari- time reconnaissance for our east and west The need to keep pace with the rapidcoasts and support for our mobile striking advances which characterize modern combat force. In addition, we have an increasing aircraft bas made it necessary in our natural number of helicopters as well as other air- progression to undertake the design and de- craft for search and rescue duties and for velopment of a new all-Canadian aircraft de-service duties in connection with radar and velopment project, the CF-105, which is toearly warning hnes in northern Canada. be a supersonic delta-wing interceptor for[Mr. Campney.] JUNE 18, 1955 long-range all-weather duty. However, as it will be some time before we have proven resuits, I do flot consider that I should say more at present. The department has also graduaily in- creased its emphasis on defence research and development. The defence research board is producing increasingly important resuits i this field. Hon. members will find a fuller report this year on the board's activities than heretofore, commencing at page 36 of the white paper. It is the policy of the board to co-ordinate its work with similar projects in allied coun- tries in order to avoid duplication of effort and to reduce costs wherever possible. Generally speaking, the board concentrates its efforts on projects which are of specific interest to Canada or for which this country has unique resources or facilities. Good results, for example, have been achieved in Arctic warfare experiments, espe- cially in the development of clothing and equipment for use in the north. The electronics equipment for the mid- Canada line and for the D.E.W. line owes much to Canadian inventiveness. Other im- portant Canadian developments are a new stronger but iighter mortar base plate and the new anti-tank weapon, the Heiler, to which I referred earlier. One of the new major elements of the board's current program is the construction at an estimated cost of $Si million of a hlgh speed wind tunnel for the national aeronauti- cal establishment at Uplands airport. And then, of course, we rely on the defence research board to keep us abreast of the latest developments in the science of warfare gen- eraily. Up to the present, the board's interest in guided missiles, which is related to our over- ail role and our defence capabilities, has been mainly in air-to-air and air-to-ground missiles. So far as ground-to-air guided missiles in their present stage of development are con- cerned, we believe that for the next f ew years all-weather interceptor aircraft will probably provide a more satisfactory answer to Canada's defence than this type of missile. We are nevertheless following developments of this type of missile in the United States and the United Kingdom and a limited num- ber of our servicemen have received training in the U.S. on those missiles which are f arthest advanced in their development. In this connection, the Canadian Army has co- operated with the United States army and scientists in experimental trials of the "Nike" missile at Fort Churchill. Supply-National Defence In the field of air-to-air missiles we have an especial interest, particularly in one type for use i conjunction with our interceptor aircraf t. Our development tests to date have yielded some very good resuits and much highly valued experience which is perhaps ail I should say about it. As about one-third of our defence costs are for manpower, this subi ect deserves care- f ui attention. In the interval since the figures for the white paper were prepared, the strength of our three regular forces, including officer cadets and apprentices, has increased by approximately 1,000 and was 117,999 on April 30 last-comprised of navy 19,292, army 49,187 and R.C.A.F. 49,520. Each of the forces is close to its approved maximum strength. These strengths have been set at 20,000 for the navy; 49,000 for the army and 51,000 for the air force. To- gether, they total 120,000, with a smal addi- tional percentage for seasonal variations in enrolments and releases and an allowance of 3,000 for officer cadets and apprentices. Since the winter of 1953-54, which is gener- ally referred to as the beginning of "the long haul", the emphasis has been lncreas- ingly on qualitative improvement of forces- in-being. It is easy enough to say that our forces must be maintained ini the hlghest possible state of operational readiness, but there is a great deal involved in military training under conditions of modern warfare. In recent years there have been tremendous changes in the complexity of ail kinds of equipment, tactical doctrines and the whole tempo of modemn military operations. I am told that the changes in the past ten years have been at least as great as i the previous f orty years. Having these circumstances and considera- tions in mind, I think that this country is fortunate i having in our forces officers, men and women who reaily want to be in the forces, because the task of military pre- paredness in the mid-twentieth century is far more a fuli-time job than ever before and demands flot only willingness to serve, loyalty and integrity, but also requires technical aptitude and ability, resourcefulness and pro- fessional skills, which can only be developed -and maintained-by intensive training. As an essential part of our manpower pic- ture, I have noted the considerable lnterest shown in recent months in the number of civilians employed by the departmnent. As a matter of poicy, in support of our uniformed personnel, we are employing sub- stantial numbers of civilians, both fuIl-time and part-time. HOUSE OF COMMONS Supply-National Defence This policy of employing civilians in sup- port of the armed forces is one which is followed by most modern nations because it is a policy which results in substantial econ- omies of time and money. The average civilian salary today within the department is approximately $2,600 a year. The pay and allowances of an average uniformed man is of the order of $3,600 a year, or, if the cost of travel is included, about $4,000 a year. I think it is obvious that it is very much in the public interest that civilians be em- ployed, wherever possible, and subject to a limitation which I shall mention in a moment. As a matter of fact, our ratio is about 1 civilian to 2-1 uniformed personnel. This ratio follows closely the experience of the United Kingdom and of the United States. In the United Kingdom the ratio is exactly the same as ours. In the United States the ratio is slightly lower-1 civilian to 2-9 uniformed personnel. Unless our ratio is to change substantially, it is obvious, I think, that the number of civilian personnel will grow proportionately as the numbers of the armed services increase. The limitation which I just mentioned re- garding the rule of employing civilians to support the armed forces is this-the armed forces are organized to fight, if necessary, outside the territorial boundaries of Canada. In order to fight under active service condi- tions, supporting personnel-logistic, medical, etc.,--must be immediately available and they must be military personnel. This means that there must always be in peacetime a uni- formed nucleus of the required supporting organizations ready to proceed into action. Our aim is to keep a proper balance between military and civilian personnel within the department on the basis of the work being performed. Perhaps hon. members would be interested if I were to refer briefly to the way we check the creation of civilian positions. To ensure that ample care is taken and the creation of civilian positions is checked, we have service complement committees which review period- ically every position, existing or proposed, both military and civilian, and screen every application for additional staff as well. Mem- bership on the service complement committee is an exacting and full-time job. As an added check the findings of the complement com- mittees are further screened by the civil service commission and treasury board staff before approval of any new position is auth- orized. I should like now to say a special word about the defence of the Canada-United States region-generally referred to as con- tinental defence. [Mr. Campney.] For nearly a century and a half, there has been no fighting of any consequence on Canadian territory; but we can no longer count on being an ocean away from war. Working closely with the United States we must now be ready to reckon with attacks right here on our own continent. To meet this threat a closely integrated system of air defence, comprising early warn- ing chains, a network of communications and intercepting forces, air and ground, has been evolved in full agreement with our neigh- bours to the south and is now being built up. This is a huge, difficult and expensive task for the defence of both countries. As an example of the costs involved, I might say that the present estimated cost of the mid- Canada line, which will be wholly borne by this country, is approximately $170 million. With this estimate for the mid-Canada line, and it is still only an estimate, and Canada's share of the cost of the "Pinetree" system, which will be approximately $151 million, it is seen that this country is contributing on these two counts alone nearly one-third of a billion dollars to the joint Canada- United States warning and control system. In this task of continental defence there are those who urge that Canada should be wholly responsible for all defence installa- tions on Canadian soil, and there are also those who argue that since these installations are largely for the benefit of the United States, that country should find the men and money to make them possible. I should think that the right balance prob- ably lies somewhere between these extreme positions. It is difficult to foresee the future nature and extent of these joint defences, but up to the present we have succeeded in finding a mutually agreeable basis for shar- ing responsibility in these projects as they arise. I am confident, as in the past, the friendly co-operation between our two countries will continue to be an example to the free world -an example of great concern to the free world because in addition to our own imme- diate defence we must never forget that the safeguarding of the strategic air forces of the United States and the industrial potential of both countries is of vital importance to every member of NATO. I feel that in our thinking about defence matters today, the crying need is for realism. Let us not fool ourselves: absolute security cannot be purchased, and any reasonable measure of security comes high. And Canada's defence program must be kept within some sensible money limits if we are to be able, year after year, to sustain it. By further streamlining our administrative practices, we can also effect some economies, but it is, let me assure you, quite illusory to think that very substantial cuts can be made in our defence estimates without weakening our defence effort. We hear, almost daily, suggestions that Canada should undertake increased defence activities of numerous sorts, many of them, no doubt, desirable, if we could afford them. We rarely hear it argued, however, that we should spend more on defence than we are spending today. In peace, and in our common pursuit of the abundance that science and human ingenuity and hard work can provide for the great masses of humanity, no thinking person wants to see war delay or turn aside mankind's long and patient pilgrimage towards a bet- ter life. While our hearts cherish the hope of a world without war, in these uneasy years our defence preparations give the best sub- stance to this hope. The present climate of international affairs appears to be moderating, but we cannot be sure that the better weather of recent months will endure. Our objective remains fixed be- fore us-to make peace permanent. With this in mind, the free nations are willing to negotiate with the U.S.S.R.-at the summit, at any level-but we must negotiate from strength. Defence is costly and will no doubt con- tinue so. But standing resolutely and to- gether with the other free peoples, Cana- dians are willing to pay dearly to maintain their way of life. To do this, we must go on so far as we can see, year after year, investing a substan- tial part of our national production in defence. After all, the reward for our defence pre- paredness is immeasurable: for what we do to guard against the possibility of war is our best guarantee that our time will be a time of peace. Mr. Pearkes: In commencing a review of these 'estimates for national defence, Mr. Chairman, I would call attention to the fact that once again the appropriation for this department is the largest single appropria- tion in the whole of the estimates for the carrying on of the essential services of this country. There is some $1,775 million allo- cated for the Department of National Defence, to which must be added some $200 million which is the special credit accounts. We are asked, therefore, for some $65 million more than was actually expended last year. With the credits, as I have said, of some $200 million the estimates for this department amount in total to $1,975 million, to which Supply-National Defence must be added the estimates in kindred departments such as the Department of Defence Production of somewhere in the neighbourhood of $23 million and civil de- fence of some $7 million. This makes a grand total for national defence and its kindred departments of over $2 billion. We do not criticize the amount of money which is being allocated for what the minister has described this morning as the preservation of peace. This party never has criticized the amount of money which the government, over the past ten years, bas been asking for that purpose. We are just as anxious as those who sit on the other side of the bouse for the preservation of peace and to make peace permanent. Before I start offering some comments on the policy which is being adopted for the expenditure of these vast sums of money, I should like to extend my congratulations to the bon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Campney) on assuming the appointment of Minister of National Defence. The present minister took over this portfolio on July 1 last year. Though we may from time to time differ on questions of policy, and particularly matters of detail, I can assure him that we all wish him well in his extremely difficult task. I do want to say one word about his pre- decessor. Canada has been fortunate in the years gone by in that whenever there bas been a national crisis we have found a man with the capacity to fill the important position of national defence. When the Hon. Brooke Claxton took over that responsibility there was a national crisis before this country. War seemed imminent, and war did break out in Korea very shortly. The defences of Canada were at a low ebb. They had been reduced to that low ebb by a policy of rather hasty demobilization after world war IL. It was no light task which confronted the Hon. Brooke Claxton, and in that critical situation he was able to build up Canada's forces to meet that immediate situation and to lay plans for a three or five year defence program which, in large measure, has been fulfilled and which certainly met the needs of the intervening years. I think that the Hon. Brooke Claxton, although there were many times when I felt it was desirable to criti- cize his policy and the details of the way in which that policy was carried out, will go down in history with his name parallel with the names of other great Canadian ministers of national defence. His passing from the house to take over a civilian position really brings to a close an era. He met the immediate situation which confronted the country at the time. He devised JUNE 16, 1955 4867ý HOUSE OF COMMONS Supply-National Defence a pattern of our defence forces which was designed to meet similar emergencies. As I said, that program is nearly completed; that era is finished. The new minister starts off with a clean slate. He starts off to meet new and very difficult problems which face the country today. I say that an era bas been completed, because there has been no event of greater importance during the last 12 months than the emergence of the thermo- nuclear bomb, and the knowledge we possess that other countries also have developed that bomb. Therefore the new minister is posed with a set of entirely new problems the solution of which will require a great deal of courage. Such problems were reflected in the speech he made this morning, when he placed increasing emphasis on the part we must play in the continental defence of the North American continent, in the hope that world peace may be preserved. He emphasized the sentiments which were expressed by Sir Winston Churchill at Westminster not so long ago, when he expressed the hope that the emergence of the H-bomb would contribute more to world peace than to world war. We sincerely hope that that will prove to be the case. But we are not in a position at the present time to be lulled into any false sense of security, any more than we should be paralysed by fear that no absolute protection can be found against this terrible weapon. In the white paper, to which the minister has referred, he mentioned on several occa- sions the appalling destructive power of these new thermonuclear weapons. At page 3 of the white paper, following the con- tents page, he refers to the fact that in addi- tion to certain changes which had already been mentioned- -appraisals of new weapons, new tactical and strategie concepts, and demands for increased mobility and flexibility of forces make it evident that changes in emphasis must be made from time to time within the defence programs of the NATO member nations. Then he goes on to say: Canada will continue to make such adjustments in her defence program. Current developments in the build-up of air defences on this continent, which are changes of emphasis of this order, enable Canada to make a highly important contribution to NATO as a whole. And later on he says: In co-operation with the United States we are providing additional warning networks and in- creasingly effective and co-ordinated air defence forces on this continent. By so doing we are of course meeting a common need for home defence and, beyond that, we are also assisting in the protection of the industrial potential of North America. He has reiterated those principles during his remarks today. We concur in them. We [Mr. Pearkes.] believe that Canada is making a contribution to NATO by taking part in the joint defence of this North American continent. We believe we must share in that team play- and it must be team play-for the develop- ment of the defence of this continent. We are not a country which can provide all the defences required. We are in partnership with the United States of America in provid- ing defences here. But we do want to play our fair share in that team; we do not want to be considered as a very indifferent player. We feel we have as important a role in the defence and the protection of this North American continent as has any other country; and we cherish certain sovereign rights which we feel are ours, although we recognize as a fact that to a certain extent sovereignty must be surrendered in order to play our part in the continental defence of the country, and to expect the other country that is vitally interested in the defence of this North Amer- ican continent to provide her part. Those are the sentiments which were running through the minister's speech this morning, and they are certainly the principles and the opinions expressed in the first two pages of the white paper. As I say, in the main, we concur in those principles. But when one comes to look through the other pages of this white paper, one is appalled by their emptiness and by the barren attempts to implement the policies which have been described in the first two pages. Canada's position is unique. Canada lies across approaches-and the approaches are only by air and by sea-to -the great indus- trial centres of this North American con- tinent. The minister said, in effect that it was more important that we should not lose the war rather than ·to win it, and that perhaps more emphasis should be placed upon not losing the war than upon winning it. The only place where a war against democracy could be lost is on this North American con- tinent; and Canada is in the position where she must play her part in guarding the ap- proaches to that one vital area. The threat of course is that of an attack coming by air over the roof of the world, using the approaches from Europe across the Arctic and down through the eastern por- tions of Canada to the great industrial centres of eastern United States, and also that of using similar approaches in the west from Siberia to the great industrial centres of western Canada and western United States on the Pacific seaboard. The only major threat which can come is an airborne threat. It is fantastic to think that large armies could be landed on the Arctic shores of Canada and advanced 4868 through the barren lands of the great north, even though in -the future those areas may carry a much greater population than they do today. The approach is by airborne troops, with a minor approach on the sea lanes lead- ing to the east and west where perhaps some minor diversion might be carried out by sub- marines. But we have to be realistic, as the minister says. The first thing that we must realize is that Canada's great role in the preservation of peace is guarding those air approaches to the only places where the war could be lost. The threat of airborne forces will be mainly directed against the centres of industry. It will very largely be an airborne bombing attack, but it is possible that attempts may be made to seize certain airfields in the north, or to hold for a period or to destroy certain vital centres such as important mining areas where vital minerals are being produced. To meet that airborne attack we must have strong air forces to cope with the air forces of any potential enemy. We must realize the fact that Canada cannot produce by herself all these air forces. We must rely to a cer- tain extent on the air forces of the United States because the United States are playing on this team with us. In the general plans it is not Canada's role to spend money-and I do not think we have the money to spend- on any fleet of strategic bombers; therefore, let us concentrate on the protection of those air approaches. Oh, a good many statements have been made recently and in the past couple of years on the fact that greater emphasis is being placed on the air arm of Canada. It is well for us to take a look and see how much greater emphasis has been placed on the air arm of Canada. I looked at the distribution of the defence dollar in 1951-52 when this program was first brought into effect. In that year the proportion of the defence dollar allocated to the R.C.A.F. for air defence was 46.6 per cent. Today, after two years during which we have been told that greater emphasis is being placed on the air arm of Canada, the amount of the defence dollar devoted to the air force is 42.2 per cent. Is there any increasing emphasis being placed on defence in the air? Are we trying to fool ourselves and to believe that just because more men have been taken irito the air forcE than there were previously there has been any considerable reorientation between the various services? Are we really being realis- tic? May I ask the minister, Mr. Chairman is he really being realistic when he reduce. the percentage of the defence dollar placed in the air from 46.6 per cent in 1951-52 to 42.2 per cent this year? Supply-National Defence Then there was talk about increased amounts of money. In this year's estimate there is the total sum of $880 million odd allocated to air. I think that is the figure the minister gave today and is the figure con- tained in the book of estimates. Last year's total amount allocated to air was $989,551,000, making a reduction of $109 million. I fail to understand what the minister was talking about when he said there was an increase of some $65 million. It may have been purely on equipment; I do not know. Mr. Campney: That was on the actual amount spent. Mr. Pearkes: On the actual amount spent; thank you. But in the actual amount allocated for last year and the actual amount allocated for this year-we trust that the amount allocated this year will be spent during the year-there is a reduction of $109 million, I regret to say. Regarding the strength of the air force, we have in the air defence command nine squadrons of regular R.C.A.F. squadrons for the defence of Canada, which are to be equipped by the end of this year with CF-100's. Today I believe there are only some three of those squadrons actually equipped. Reference was made to the ten auxiliary squadrons. I am pleased that the minister acknowledged the difficulties. It was the first acknowledgment that has been made in this house, although I and others have pointed out the difficulties there would be in getting personnel of the auxiliary squadrons trained so that they could take part in the role which they were now called upon to fulfil, namely, manning modern aircraft for the defence of Canada to be ready at a moment's notice. Last year and the year before I remember stressing the necessity of very considerably increasing the number of regular personnel who were attached to and carried on training with the auxiliary squadrons. If the auxiliary squadrons are to be the backbone of the defence of Canada, then we must have a very large number of permanent personnel attached to them. I do not believe it is practical for the auxiliary squadrons to carry out the role assigned to them. I think we had better be realistic. I think we had better say that we have to carry these ten auxiliary squadrons as regular squadrons in addition to the nine squadrons that we have. We are told in the white paper that the 41 squadrons which were called for in the program are now being organized, and 1 reference is made to the fact that they are being maintained. I am not at all clear as to what is meant by the words "being 4869JUNE 16, 1955 HOUSE OF COMMONS Supply-National Defence organized" and "being maintained". They can be organized on paper and they can be maintained by skeleton crews. Are we to understand from the statement in the white paper that personnel ready to man these various squadrons are now available, in being and in uniform and that they have been allocated to the various duties which they would have to perform if they were going to operate these various squadrons? I think that that point must be cleared up because on it hinges a great deal regarding our man- power problem. I would call attention to the fact that we feel-I feel anyway-that the greatest danger to this continent lies in the northern approaches by air and that we must meet that air threat with airborne troops. We only have four transport squadrons of the R.C.A.F. to carry out the tasks connected with the north in supplying not only the R.C.A.F. but any army troops that might be in the north, as well as to carry out neces- sary supply duties in Europe. I feel that we have to be realistic again. The number of transport squadrons must be increased if we are to carry out those duties. A heavy burden will fall upon the transport squadrons of the R.C.A.F. when the mid- Canada and the D.E.W. lines are established and maintained. I have no doubt that they are now being used to carry out some of the construction work but permanent main- tenance work will be required. If we have not the transport squadrons to do it then another country will have to supply them. The minister referred to the army and outlined the army establishments. As an old soldier I was delighted to hear that he did not agree with the statements which have been made by his own department about scrapping the army. That is not a thought that has ever entered my head. No, the army should not be scrapped but the army must adjust its organizations to its principal role. I do not believe in maintaining yesterday's establishments in order to fight the war of tomorrow. There is a danger that we keep to time-honoured traditions and formations which have now become time-worn. I have made similar expressions over the years. I was looking over some of my previous re- marks which I had intended to read, but I do not think it is necessary for me to do so. In the debates of 1946, 1948 and 1949 I stressed the need for taking a new look at the army organization and organizing our army for the needs which confront it or for the role which it has to fill in the future. We are told that the army consists of the lst Canadian division, consisting of the lst, [Mr. Pearkes.] 2nd and 3rd infantry brigades, supporting arms and auxiliary troops, and a fourth brigade in addition to those three brigades. The order of battle of that division is very similar to the order of battle of a division which took part in the fighting on the Somme in 1915 or in the early part of world war II in 1940 and 1941. There is very little change in the proportions of infantry, artillery, en- gineers, army service corps and so forth. I wonder whether our organization has not been based more on tradition than on the needs of today. We have a brigade in Germany which no doubt is carrying out the wishes of the NATO commanders that there should be an in- fantry brigade in Germany equipped with the most modern weapons to let the people of western Europe know that Canadian soldiers will if necessary be fighting in West Ger- many. That was all right four or five years ago and it is necessary for us to keep up replacements for that brigade, but does it fit into the new picture? When the divisions of West Germany are fully organized and equipped it is questionable whether we shall be required to keep one brigade there. Even supposing one brigade is kept there we have three other brigades as well as a mobile striking force of the three bat- talions the minister mentioned in his speech here in Canada, plus all the divisional troops. I do not believe that that is the kind of army which fits into our role of defending the air approaches to the North American continent. I cannot believe that we shall be sending divisions of infantry, divisional artillery, divisional engineers and divisional army ser- vice corps into the north country to deal with the type of attack ta which I have referred, that is airborne attacks with the idea of seizing some point of strategic im- portance. The emphasis over and over again is that the principal role for Canada to play in this team for the preservation of world peace is to organize our army so that it can play that role. I think our whole army in Canada should be a straight airborne army, that our forces should not be built up on the establish- ments which were so valuable in world war I and world war II. They should be designed so that they can be rapidly moved from their home stations to deal with the problema of recapturing or defending some area which might be attacked. Let us remember that if an attempt is made by an enemy, for instance, to seize northern airfields, the use of bombs by the R.C.A.F. and the United States air force will be more effective than an attempt to move mechanized artillery up there to support any JUNE 16, 1955 counter-attack. I am firmly of the opinion that if we are to keep any army there are certain things we must do. I believe we should keep it. I do not subscribe to the idea of scrapping the army but I believe you will find that the army will be scrapped if it is not brought up to modern conditions. I believe it will die because the average young Canadian, who is an intelligent man, will realize that he is being asked to serve in an army which was effective years ago but which is not designed with any realistic interpretation of the role it has to carry out today. As to this talk of lowering the morale of the army because there is criticism of it, may I say that I do not believe a word of it. I believe that you will raise the morale of the army and that you will bring recruits into the army if you make it clear that it has a modern role to fulfil and not a role which is time-worn. There must be an entirely new concept of our army formation. In the British white paper reference was made to the army being organized along the lines of fire brigades. That is the sort of thing we want, namely fire brigade formations. I do not mean fire brigades to extinguish fire and I do not wish to equip them with fire engines, but I mean fire brigade formations ready and available at a moment's notice, as soon as the warning goes out, to concentrate from various areas with highly mobile airborne forces in order to destroy any enemy that may have landed from the air. I was pleased to see that the minister is perhaps thinking along those lines when ne stressed that our arrny was rnainly an infantry ary. I think it is becoming more and more an infantry army equipped with the latest possible weapons. I cannot see our army being eployed in Canada on any large divisional formation basis. So much for the army. I turn now to the navy role to which the minister referred. He again, as was his pre- decessor year after year, was optimistic as to when the destroyer escorts would be avail- able. In the white paper of 1951-52, pub- lished on June 30, 1951, we were told thal the keels of four escort vessels had been laid two in Montreal and one at each coast. ThE white paper goes on to say that these four vessels are expected to be launched in 1951 or early in 1952. I am encouraged to hear the minister saý that he hopes that by the end of this yea they will be commissioned. I hope so too. realize the difficulties which have confronte this shipbuilding program. I should like t refer to the Minister of Defence Productiol and tell him to use some of these power that he has had for so long- Supply-National Defence Mr. Howe (Port Arthur): That is why I need them. Mr. Pearkes: -to produce these vessels. However that may be, I realize that changes come about, and that alterations brought about by the changing role of the navy have caused delays in connection with the commissioning of these vessels. I feel that there is a changing role. In 1951 I think our principal role was that of convoy escort and an anti-submarine role. I do not place the same emphasis on the convoy role as I did in those days or as the government did. I cannot see the likelihood of large forces of Canadian troops or United States troops having to be convoyed during war across the ocean. But I do think that there is an important role, as far as anti- submarine work is concerned, in guarding our shores. We have sea approaches as well as air approaches to this continent. Modern submarines can come within a reasonable distance and from those submarines can be launched missiles or even aircraft which could carry some of these thermonuclear bombs. But encouraging experiments have been car- ried out elsewhere with atomic depth charges and perhaps the submarine menace may not be as great in the future as it has been in the past because these atomic depth charges may make it extremely difficult for a hostile submarine to come within our area. In try- ing to locate a target, the degree of accuracy required in the use of an atomic depth charge would not be nearly as great as that required in the use of an ordinary depth charge. I therefore feel that there is perhaps a new role appearing for the navy. I urge the im- portance of flexibility in that service and of making the fullest possible use of reconnais- sance planes and helicopters working with the fleet air arm. Possibly the greatest dan- ger we may have to face will be the mine of the future, and our efforts must be con- centrated on meeting that danger. So much for the general outlook and the sort of policy that I think should be followed in order to preserve the peace of the future. I believe we must face up to the problem now. , I believe the minister must take into consid- eration now what the future pattern will be. I said he was starting with a clean slate and that we are starting on a new era. I believe we are starting on a new era in y which there will be uncertain peace rather r than cold war and the fear of outbreaks of I small wars al over the world. It is going d to be a long time before the final day of o peace comes. We must now pattern our n forces on a long-term basis. The problems s which faced the minister's predecessor-those of having to meet the immediate future and HOUSE OF COMMONS Supply-National Defence to meet an emergency at once-have now passed. I referred to the army. We must give consideration to the size of the army for the reason if for no other reason than that we must consider the construction and housing problem. In the white paper the minister referred to the permanent home stations. I notice that over the years some $800 million bas been spent on construction, mainly for the pro- vision of barracks and married quarters. Ac- cording to the figures given in the white paper there are today something like 27,000 married quarters constructed, under construc- tion or immediately planned. Are we going to keep up in peacetime this army of one division, plus one brigade, plus the striking force of three battalions, plus ail the addi- tional troops as well? Are we going to build permanent quarters for a force of that size? The amount of $161 million is allocated for construction this year. I believe it is impera- tive that we should provide proper barracks and accommodation for our regular troops but we cannot afford to build more accommoda- tion than is required-not accommodation required for today but accommodation re- quired for the future. Now that the Korean affair is over, nowthat there is a lessening of tension in Europe, as the minister says, now that our attention has to be directed to the defence of this con-tinent, I think we have got to re-examine ourconstruction program. Reference is made topermanent stations at Chilliwack, Calgary,Edmonton, Rivers, Shilo, Winnipeg, Borden, Petawawa, Barriefield, Gagetown and many other places. Do we need ail these? We doif we are going to maintain the kind of arry outlined in the white paper. From the man- power aspect I wonder whether we can main- tain the army at its present strength. I have already raised the question whether the man-power requirements of the air force are actu-ally being met. I am pleased to see that therehas been a slight increase in the number offmen in the R.C.A.F. since the 31st of Decem-ber and that all the figures are reaching theceilings that have been indicated. But I wantto have the assurance that the ceilings, par- ticularly as far as the air force is concerned, are realistic and that they provide the per- sonnel to man the squadrons indicated in the blue book. I want to know whether "now organized and being maintained" means that these squadrons are actually in being with the personnel there and that the ceiling of 51,000 c will actually meet the requirements at ail t times. I want to be assured that if there are 1 not enough personnel to take over the ten t [Mr. Pearkes.] auxiliary squadrons of the R.C.A.F. there are at least sufficient numbers to give them enough personnel to make these squadrons effective. There is reason for some concern. I am not relying merely on rumours and statements that have been made outside the house, butwe have been told that it has become neces- sary for United States personnel to man some stations on the "Pinetree" line, that they will be supplying the personnel to man in part, if not wholly, the D.E.W. Iine and the mid- Canada line. In the past I have emphasized the necessity of designing our forces to meet the needs of the defence of the country. I do not believe it would have been necessary for us to have imported 3,000 Americans to man these unes if we had trained soldiers for those particular duties instead of training them for a European campaign. I do not care whether these radar stations are manned by men wear- ing blue or khaki uniforms. It does not make any difference. You will find that there is going to be a much closer merging of the army and the air force than there has ever been before, and it may be that in the future they will wear the sarne uniform. A soldier can man a radar station just as well as an airman, and it is immaterial as long as the work is being done. When it comes to the question of manning our own warning system I think that the principal responsibility should rest on Cana- dian rather than American forces. Yes, the growing need so far as this matter is concerned is to be realistic. Have we got enough men in sight to provide an effective air force, aneffective army and an effective navy as designed in the white paper? We have heard statements made by various organizations ponting out the difficulty of raising the neces- sary men. The Canadian Legion has urged a form of national service in order to meet the needs. I have not heard the government declare its position regarding the desirability or otherwise of national service or a form of conscription. I do not believe it is necessary at the present time if proper application of the manpower available is made. But we have got to face the fact that in order to raise the 117,000 men now in the regular forces the sum of $5,854,580 has been spent on recruiting during the past twelve months. That is a pretty large amount of noney to be spent for that purpose. I should like to say a word regarding the juestion of civil defence which was raised by the minister. I realize that the civil defence appropriations are not administered y his department, but civil defence is closely inked with the whole defence of the con- inent and, as it has already been referred to, I trust, Mr. Chairman, that you will alow me to make a few observations regarding the matter at this time. I think that the armed forces must play an increasing role in civil defence and that you cannot divorce civil defence entirely from the rest of the defence of the country. I believe that part of the training of all regular personnel, and of all reserve and auxiliary personnel, should be in civil defence duties as well as military training. It should not necessarily take second place in their training. Due importance should be attached to the training of regular personnel in civil defence duties. After all, a lot of these men will be taking their dis- charges and then they will go into civilian life. If they have had a thorough training in elementary -civil defence problems, they will be a valuable contribution to the civil defence organizations of this country. Of course, many of the duties in which men in the forces are trained will be invalu- able. One only needs to think of the valuable assistance that signallers would give, that engineers would give or that the army service corps units could supply to civil defence. The one thing about which I am surprised is that when our militia was being reorganized more emphasis was not placed upon retaining those units as a mobile civil defence corps. Last year when I was speaking on the civil defence estimates, I called attention to the fact that mobile corps were being established for civil defence in the United Kingdom. I believe that not only could many men have been retained in those units which were scattered throughout the country, which in many cases were disbanded or amalgamated with others, if they could have been allocated to civil defence duties, but a greater use could have been made of the training which these men had had in the past. By the very fact that in such localities there was an organization of disciplined men, even though they had been trained as gunners, infantry- men or in any other branch of the service, if they had been changed over to a militia corps for mobile civil defence, I believe it would have kept that organization alive and vital in these areas and they would have been of better service than breaking them up or disbanding them. I think that in the future greater emphasis should be placed by the militia of today, as it is now called, or the reserve army of a year ago, in civil defence duties. I would go so far as to say that the prime role of the militia in the future should be civil defence. I do not know whether the minister will agree with that. I realize that certain of the Supply-National Defence reserve army units may have to be ear- marked to meet a strategic reserve or some- thing of that nature, but in the majority of the reserve army or militia units I believe the primary role should be civil defence duties. I feel they should be worked into civil defence organizations. Their equipment should be allocated to them with that object in mind, and this would give some reality to the reserve army or militia training. Of course, I believe that these remarks apply not only to the army but also to the auxiliary forces in the air force and the navy. All men in the services from now on should receive civil defence training. We have got to raise the importance of civil defence. It must be realized that it is very definitely a part of our whole defence program. Now, Mr. Chairman, that brings me to the end of my remarks on the general policy of this department. When we begin to deal with the various items there will be questions we shall require to ask. I have no doubt you intend to follow the procedure that has been followed in recent years of calling the various items as given in the details in the back of the blue book. This will enable us to have an orderly debate and an orderly question period. That, I believe the minister will agree, will save time. I finish up where I started by again wish- ing the minister success in his great respon- sibilities. I hope he will, as a previous minister in another department used to say, take my remarks in a kindly fashion because they are intended to be constructive rather than critical. I believe we have got to work as a nation in order to carry out the very important role that we have. If I differ in some respects from the policy which he has outlined, I do so sincerely because I believe that he has a great opportunity and he has great responsibilities in a period of time when we face an entirely new set of conditions as a result of the introduction of these thermo- nuclear bombs. This has resulted in a greatly increased emphasis on the defence of the approaches to this continent. He starts with a clean slate, and I wish him well in fulfilling his important role. Mr. Jones: May we call it one o'clock, Mr. Chairman? At one o'clock the committee took recess. The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m. Mr. Jones: Mr. Chairman, I was very pleased this morning to hear the minister placing emphasis on collective security and on peace. He was followed by the hon. mem- ber for Esquimalt-Saanich, who pretty well 4873JUNE 16, 195 4874 HOUSE OF COMMONS Supply-National Defence placed his faith in the same moral and physic- Canadian troops who could take part in war- al features of our defence. I do hope the fare where these moder weapons would be minister will continue to lay stress on peace used. There is no question that these wca- as the only possible solution to the troubles pons wiil be used in the event of another war. of the modern world. I am satisfied that no other way can be found to have real and permanent happiness and security, except further military strategy is to be based on the through our efforts on behalf of world peace. assumptien that atomic weapons wiii be em- pioyed tactically in the event of Russian Taking part in this debate, I realize the aggrcssion. Field Marshal Montgomery, handicap that is common to all hon. members, deputy supreme aliied commander in Europe, namely the lack of information, intimate in- has declared: formation particularly, about Canada's de- I want te make it ahsolutely cloar that we at fence program. Therefore I must depend supreme headquartcrs are basing ail sur operationat largely upon what information can be gleaned planning on uaing atomie and thermenuclear from the press, and some from the white wcapons in cur defence. With us t is ne longer paper-although I think they should have They nay possibly ho used". il ie very definitely carried the theme right through and made it They will ho mcd", if wc are attaeked. perfectly white, leaving the printing off. Had The United States aiso has been outspoken they done so, we would have had just as regarding the use cf thermonuclear weapons, much information. should another war occur. I shouid like to The estimates now before the committee quote Hanson W. Baldwin, the weil-known are to my mind the most important that will ilitary authority, who states in the New be placed before us at this session. The cost York Times of March 20 this year: of Canada's defence is almost 50 per cent Washington indicated last week that Americanatornic weapens might lie used like bullets againsi of our total budget. It is the duty of mem- miîîtary targets in case cf cemmunist aggression bers to see that such a vast sum of money anywhere in the world. This doctrine of so-called is spent in an economical and practical way limited atomic strategy was flrst enumerated by for the defence of Canada.and was immediatelyfor he efene o Canda.supported hy President Eisenhower. It follows Some of us have wondered if we are carlier decisios hy the national security council getting value for our money. Others have and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. Taken collectively these decisions imply not an wondered if Canada has a defence system irrevocable ani general decision to use atomic worthy of the name. This group is prepared wcapons under any and ail circurastances, but it to support any realistic and practical pro- does show a very clear trend toward prinary gram for the defence of Canada; but we dependence upon atomic atrategy. shall take issue with the government if they We are told lu the same article that in the continue the present policy of manufacturing, United States the organisation and tactics cf and training troops with, obsolete weapons. the army, navy and air force are being The need for defence is possibly as great to- changed te integrate these weapons inte that day as at any time in our history. Indeed country's offensive and defensive plans. For the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. exampie, the United States army has aircady Howe) indicated the other day that the situa- carried eut tests cf so-cailed atomie age divi- tion is worse than it was three years ago. siens, both armoured and infantry, which The most singular and startling develop- streamie the present division, reducing it ment since the defence estimates were voted in size and making it more mobile, strength- here a year ago has been what all the experts ening its communications and trainîng it for call a technological break-through in the de- quick dispersing and assembiing. velopment of nuclear weapons. In the past The United States navy is aise taking part two years, and more particularly in the last in this deveiopment. They arc commission- year, warfare has been completely revolution- ing at the present Urne two cruisers to be ized as a result of the sweeping technological cenverted into guided missile ships. We are changes in battlefield weapons. These wea- pons no longer exist merely in the minds of aied at te me inirafore in planners, nor are they still on the drawing erg boards. Many of them are in actual produc- tacticaliy, prîmarily for atomic war. tion, and some have already been used to Therefore, Mr. Chairman, in the light cf equip American, British and Soviet armed these revolutionary developments by our good forces. neighbour te the south, how can any conven- Military experts indicate, as the minister tienal weapons program play anything but a and the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich minor rele in the new strategy cf warfare? indicated this morning, that with these wea- Yet, according to the littie information that pons has changed the whole strategy of war- has been made available, Canada continues fare. We are dubius if there are any trained to folow suc an mbsoete program. uMr. JonTs.h JUNE 16, 1955 Let us try to examine what type of weapons Canada is now producing. The white paper recently placed in our hands does not assist us a great deal on this score. But in the Canada Year Book of 1954 we find more specific information as to the type of weapons program we have been following. According to this source of information our major pro- duction project has been the 3-inch 50-calibre naval guns and mountings. Browning 0.5- inch machine guns were produced for use in Sabre and CF-100 jet fighters. There are 3-5-inch rocket launchers for use by the Canadian army. Arrangements, apparently, have also been made to produce 155-millimetre and 105- millimetre howitzers, the 105-millimetre re- coilless rifle and 81-millimetre and 60-milli- metre mortars. Contracts for small arms were limited mainly, I understand, because these weapons have not yet been standardized. Ammunition requirements altered with the change-over to the United States types of equipment. This made Canada decide to produce ammunition for the army's 155-mm, 105-mm, and 90-mm artillery. According to this same year book, naval requirements to be met from domestic sources include ammunition for 3-inch 50-calibre 40- mm Bofors guns, depth charges. That indi- cates a very conventional weapons program carried out by our defence department espe- cially in comparison with the new weapons developed by the United States such as nuclear depth charges for use at sea, atomic shells for use with 280-mm guns with a range of about 18 miles, atomic war-heads, the army's guided missile with a range of about 75 miles, atomic war-heads for anti- aircraft and air-to-air missiles, as well as the war-heads for the Matador and Regulus pilotless bombers. The recent tests in Nevada have added another milestone to the development of these modern weapons, making our Cana- dian program that much more obsolete. The tests the United States conducted there have led to the development of a whole family of fission and fusion, and combined fission- fusion weapons of different sizes and shapes, designed for many purposes. Strangely enough, the United States has been giving out this information on the de- velopment of modern weapons while our government has given parliament almost no information at all on the progress of our defence, using the pretext of national secur- ity, when, in fact, national security was not involved. For example, in reply to questions by the member for Assiniboia as to whether Supply-National Defence Canada possessed atomic weapons of any kind, the Minister of National Defence stated, at page 1643 of Hansard of March 2, 1955: The first and second parts of this question, deal- ing respectively with the possession by Canada and the transportation in Canada of atomic bombs and atomie weapons, obviously cannot be answered for security reasons. Such an answer serves no purpose unless it is to hide the weakness of our defence policy. It is well known and very widely publicized that the United States, the United Kingdom and the Soviet union are producing such weapons, and they make no effort to hide the fact. Our neighbours to the south seem to delight in an almost daily bulletin reporting the pro- gress of atomic weapons. Even Great Britain, in its statement on defence last February, was quite outspoken when it stated that the United Kingdom also has the ability to pro- duce such weapons, after commenting on thermonuclear weapons in possession of the United States and the Soviet governments: After fully considering all the implications of this step, the government have thought it their duty to proceed with their development and production. But here in Canada it is totally different, as indicated by the answer given by the Minister of National Defence. To me, it would appear that the minister's answer con- firms what has long been suspected, namely, that Canada's defence program consists of conventional, or perhaps I should more appro- priately say obsolete, weapons. It also indi- cates that we have not begun to adopt the new weapons and the new strategy for fight- ing iii the new kind of war that we may be involved in. This appears to me to be an extremely serious situation, if for no other reason than that, for the past four years, more than 40 per cent of our total budget expenditure has been for defence. If this government con- tinues to spend such large amounts for weapons that will never be used in any war because of their obsolete nature, then it is guilty of wasting the Canadian taxpayers' money for which we get no return in the form of effective protection. Much of our expenditure has been just pure unadulter- ated waste. It seems to me that the government are relying for protection on the great distance between us and our potential attackers, the U.S.S.R. I would, however, point out that distance is no longer protection because fast Russian planes have the ability and power to deliver these devastating explosives on any Canadian or United States target. HOUSE OF COMMONS Supply-National Defence In this connection, I would like to quote briefiy from an article which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen on May 17, this year, written by Stewart Alsop, of Washington. He deals with the reaction in the pentagon after Moscow's May-day celebration: For what really shook the pentagon was the two formation flights of apparently fully operational B-52-type heavy bombers. This means that we are at best neck-and-neck in the race for the intercontinental jet bomber, which will certainly be the decisive factor in the air-atomic balance until the arrival of the intercontinental missile. And what shook the pentagon even more was the appearance of the entirely new all-weather fighter. For the existence of such a plane argues the existence of an immensely complex weapons system of which an all-weather fighter Is only a part, including early warning and ground control systems. The intelligence confirms the probable existence of a fully mature Soviet air defence (which this country will not have at least until the summer of 1957). Against a Soviet air defence built around all-weather fighters, this country's reserves of comparatively slow B-36 heavy bombers must be virtually written off as a factor in the air-atomie balance. The author goes on to say: But the most disturbing aspect of the situation is the technical brilliance displayed by the Soviet air engineers. Both the type 39 and the type 37 do the same jobs as our B-47's and B-52's with half the number of engines. This means that the Soviet engineers have developed jet engines with twice the thrust of any jet achieved in this country. More- over, their B-52 type plane took just four years from drawing board to operational unit, whereas our B-52 took six and a half years. This article furnishes further evidence of how obsolete our defence equipment is. Despite the accelerated defence program in the last four years, in which more than $61 billion were spent on the defence ser- vices, the defence of Canada is totally in- effective and only just begun. I would point out that some of the best informed military experts cast grave doubt on the validity of air or any other defence in the present era. The Canadian and Amer- ican military experts appear to be convinced of the need for radar fighter screens. For the moment, let us look at what has been accomplished to date. The only completed radar screen in existence is the "Pinetree" radar line which straddles the United States-Canadian border. It was begun in 1950 and, I understand, is now completed. Canada contributed one- third of its total $250 million cost but, for the life of me, I cannot see how it affords much defence to Canada since any attack from Russia would come from the north. Indeed, its effectiveness, even in terms of United States defence, is often seriously ques- tioned. [Mr. Jones.] Time magazine, of December 20, 1954, commenting on this particular radar line, warns that its 200-mile range provides very short notice of attack. The air defence com- mand will not now guarantee any warning time at all. Coastal radar runs from Vancouver to San Diego in the Pacific, from Labrador to Savan- nah on the Atlantic, with navy radar ships patrolling offshore for added warning. Some radar nets have been built around critical targets and large cities but mostly the radar line is very thin and sometimes stations are closed for repairs. Another point that was recently made by military critics is that the radars are beamed high for maximum range, leaving gaps for low level attack. Canada is now in the process of building the mid-Canada line of small semi-automatie, electronic-detection stations along the 55th parallel which is roughly 500 miles north of the United States border. Only last fall did Canada and the United States jointly decide to construct a distant early warning radar line, the D.E.W. line. This will be some 1,800 miles north of Chicago and is far enough away to give a three-hour warning. But unfortunately it will be another two years or more before this line is completed. If such significance is attached to radar fighter screens against attacking bombers, why is it that Canada is only now beginning to construct such a defence, although the defence program has been under way for more than four years? To make these radar lines effective there should be sufficient modern guided missile-equipped jet fighters. And yet, Mr. Dave MacIntosh, writing in the Montreal Gazette on March 30 last, has this to say: A high government source says the federal administration must decide before long whether Canada will supply the money and manpower for a huge air defence build-up in this country or whether American forces will be permitted into Canada to do the job. Mr. MacIntosh, continuing I presume with information from the same high government source, said that by the end of this year there will be only some 200 Canadian fighter planes CF-100 all-weather jets ready to meet an air attack on this continent. To all Canadians who have been relying on the efficiency of the radar fighter screens to ward off attacks it must come as a real shock to learn that after all these years of defence building we have only one screen, "Pinetree", which provides little warning before western or eastern cities are under attack, and also that the two northern lines which will give more warning are still JUNE 16, 1955 f ar from being campleted. Even when com- pleted, the prospect of having sufficient modern Canadian planes ta give them effeet appears remote. We in this group dlaim that the high level of defence spending cannot be justified because of the obsalete weapons that make up our defence program. I have not referred ta the reserve army because the effectiveness of this body has been reduced ta a minimum because of their still more extremely obsolete equipment. The Canadian defence program was arigi- nally determined in 1950-51 *by the require- ments of NATO in meeting the passible aggressian by cammunist; farces in Europe. Therefore let us briefiy review what NATO has accamplished from a military point of view in the last four years. When General Eisenhower assumed com- mand of SHAPE in early 1951, he had com- mand of 15 active divisions. Today, four years later, these have grown ta 46 divisions whose fire power is much greater than the flue -power af the best equipped division in world war IL. This is largely attributable to the new weapans provided by the United S'tates. Added ta this, West Germany will add another 12 active divisions withîn the next two years. The build-up in NATO's air strength has been just as significant. In 1951 NATO had anly a handful of planes, some of them of doubtful quality. Taday NATO has approx- imately 6,000 fairly modemn aircraft. Now that West Germany is a member of NATO it plans ta contribute an additional 1,500 planes ta this total. Impressive as this build-up has been, it is avershadowed 'by even mare spectacular achievements by most of the NATO countries themselves. The real patential power of NATO lies in the total farces at the disposal of its member nations not necessarily assigned ta the NATO comimand. In this cannection I would point out that the defence expenditure of the fourteen NATO countries totalled less than $20 billion in 1949, but since 1953 they have averaged mare than $60 billion a year. Probably the mast pawerful protection against cammunist aggression is outside of NATO. I refer ta the United States strategic air command with long-range B-47 stratojets able ta carry atom and hydrogen bombs ta any target i the U.S.S.R. It is under the direct control of President Eisenhower. The strategic air cominand of the United States has wings of B-47 stratojets in Britain and Morocco. While not under NATO's com- mand, they are available ta support NATO 50433-308 Supply-National Defence in the event of an attack. Possibly this is the strongest force for peace in the world today. The sense of urgency which was respon- sible for our defence program, following the outbreak of war in Korea no longer applies; for in the interim period Russia has been completely encircled by American air bases, manned with air power capable of swift re- taliation against aggression. Such precautions, to my mind, have reduced the chance of a major war almost ta the vanishing point. The facts that I have just mentioned clearly indicate that the optimum military build-up has been achieved. The massive military strength of NATO, together with the indi- vidual NATO countries and especiafly the United States, is, accarding to milltary authorities, many times greater in terms of destructive potential than was ever arrayed against Germany at the peak of the allîed power in world war IL. In view of these accomplished facts, it is extremely difficuit; for me to understand why the Canadian government is maintainîng appraximately the same high level of defence expenditures that it undertook during the period of the crash pragram when the western defence situation was entirely different. Even the United States has reduced Uts defence expenditures considerably more than Caniada, as the following comparison will show. Peak spending in both countries was for the fiscal year 1952-53. That year the United States spent on defence $43 -6 billion. For the fiscal year 1955-56 the United States plans to spend $34 billion, or a drap of 22 per cent. On the other hand, Canada's defence ex- penditure was $1,846,916,817 in 1952-53, whereas for the current fiscal year, 1955-56, we have budgeted an amount of $1,729,285,194 for aur defence services, or a drap of 6 per cent. If we had undertaken the samne re- duction in aur defence spending as aur neighbours ta the south, aur budget would be reduced by a further sum of close ta $300 million. We are convinced that this country could reduce its defence expenditures by $400 million without in any way impairing the effectiveness of our present defence program. .In view of the statement I have made, that we are still stackpilîng absolete equipment and materials-equipment that will neyer be used ini any war-we strongly recommend that the government make sharp reductions in defence expenditure, particularly the moneys now being spent on obsolete equip- ment, and mhat a complete reappraisal of our defence program be undertaken i the light Supply-National Defence of the development of a new kind of warfare for which our present defence program is totally inadequate. Indeed, we are still producing equipment that has been on exhibition in war museums across the country for several years. In fact, we have sufficient museum pieces in our stockpiles to supply more than all the war museums in Canada require. We of this group also recommend that a greater percentage of our defence appro- priations be allocated for research work. Canada is lagging far behind other countries in this connection. The Hoover commission in the United States, in a recent report on the research and development work carried out by the defence department in that country, goes to the heart of the matter when it says: The armed forces are not sufficiently daring and imaginative in their approach to radically new weapons and weapons systems. The commission concludes that the pace for applying new scientific knowledge to weapons simply cannot be left to the informal proddings of civilian technologists. It urges the creation of a committee of outstanding scientists to work continuously and closely with the assistant secretary of defence for research and development. While what I have read referred to the need for research in the United States-a country that has already developed a whole family of nuclear weapons-just think how much greater is the need for similar research in Canada at once. Finally, I would suggest that the minister explore the possibilities of co-ordinating the activities of the reserve army and the civil defence units. In my opinion, this would enhance the morale of these units and of the public as these activities would be directly related to the defence needs of the local region and local population. The time has arrived when parliament- that is, we common members-should take a more active interest in defence matters. To my mind, there is only one way in which this can be done, namely, by the establishment of a standing committee on defence expendi- ture. In view of the fact that parliament, to date, has been se ill-informed with regard to defence matters, also because our defence expenditures comprise over 40 per cent of our total budget, it is imperative, to my mind, that such a committee be set up immediately, to be in operation for the next session of parliament. I hope the minister will take the suggestions I have made as being made in the same good faith as those made by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich, with [Mr. Jones.] a view to being critically helpful to the end that we may build up the greatest defence we can possibly afford for our common protection. Mr. Thomas: Mr. Chairman, I should like to join with the hon. member for Esquimalt- Saanich in congratulating the minister on his appointment to the portfolio of defence. We realize that he has inherited a department which carries with it a tremendous amount of work and a tremendous amount of sacrifice. It is also a department which carries with it very little thanks. As a matter of fact, I think the Minister of National Defence takes more abuse and more criticism than does any other minister in the cabinet. While I am on the subject of congratulation I should like to do as I have done in the past and offer a word of congratulation to the armed forces of this country. Wherever they have gone, I think they have built up an enviable reputa- tion, not only as fighting men but as men and gentlemen. They have always served with distinction in every field in which they have been engaged and in every battle in which they have fought. They have always been well known for their courage, their ability and their resourcefulness. In these times of at least partial peace I think that those in our services overseas have served as ambassadors of good will and have earned the friendship of people wherever they may be. I want to make it perfectly clear also that any criticisms I might have are directed not toward the personnel of the armed forces but toward the department and the policies of that department. This morning the minister gave us a de- tailed survey. While I am on that matter, I might just ask the minister-as I did last year-whether he would consider, in future years, making his statement on one day and then adjourning the debate until the next day in order to give the members of the House of Commons the opportunity to make some sort of study of the subject matter of that statement. The minister spoke for about an hour this morning. He put forward a great deal of information. It is practically impossible for anyone to absorb all of it as it is being given and it is imperative that we have a fairly good understanding of what the minister is saying before we make any attempt to criticize or to comment on that statement. I offer that suggestion to the minister for what it is worth. The minister indicated that the world situa- tion and the tension is easing somewhat and that we probably now have a little bit more hope for peace than we have had in the near past. But let us face up to the fact that the situation is serious and that it will probably HOUSE OF COMMONS4878 continue ta, be seriaus for a good number a! years. We hope-as does every member o! the bouse and every persan in this country- that we shahl not be called upon ta face another ail-out war. But we always have that possibility hanging over aur heads as long as the threat of cammunismn is on the face o! the earth. As has been painted out, any war between communismn and the western democracies is different from any other war that has been fought. This is a battle between two ways o! life: between communist dhctatorship on the one hand and democracy on the other, between the forces of freedom and the forces of slavery. We must not under any circum- stances be lulled by any peace avertures that are made by the communist counitries. We must always remember that they have told us many times that world domination is their ultimate aimi and that they will be satisfied with nathing else. We certainly hope that the peace moves that have been made by the new regime in Russia in the last few years are sincere. But we must always keep in the back of aur minds the fact that it has been made plain by the communists, ever since the days o! Marx and Engels, that they intend ta rule the world and ta conquer it by one means or another. As 1 said, possibly the new admin- istration in Russia bas had some change in heart, some sof tening of attitude. We hope that they are sincere. But in the event that there is no sincerity, we believe that Canada should and must carry an a defence program ta the very highest possible degree. I think the minister will agree that we in this group have always supported defence spending in any amount that we feit was necessary for the conduct of aur defence pragram. We have always done this and we shall continue ta do so because it is all- important. Any criticisms that we have had in the past or may have now or in the future came as a result of aur disagreement with the handling of the department and the handllng of the money rather than the spend- ing itself. We think that the aimis of the departmnent are undaubtedly worthy but that the resuits sometimes leave much ta be desired. We feel that, in many cases, the people o! this country are not getting dollar value for the expenditures that are made. I think the defence expenditure committee that we had for twa years in the last parhia- ment did an inestimable job and proved that there were many ways in which the methads of spending defence moneys could be im- proved. In that regard I would urge the government ta consider setting up the defence expenditure committee agaîn early in the 50433-308J Supply-National DeS ence next session Sa that we can continue the good work done by that committee during the two years of its existence. I should like to join the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich and the minister in wel- coming the Federal Republic of Germany into NATO. We think it means a whole lot more than the addition of a certain number of fighting men and equipment. It means that throughout the whole of western Europe we now have a unity among the people, a unity of aims, desires and defence. In my opinion it means a great deal, not only from. the point of view of the manpower situation but with respect to the morale of ail the peaples of the free world, ta know that the Federal Republic of Germany has joined us and wil give us the support that we feel we should get. In other words, the Federal Republic of Germany is now more than a buffer state. She is an ally and we welcome her. There is one piece of information I should like ta get from the minister. I know there is no possible way of obtaining the actual figures but no doubt approximate figures are available. 1 belleve NATO headquarters have issued statements f romn time ta time on the approximate strength of the Russian land, sea and air forces. I think such figures were put on the record in 1953, and if it is possible for the minister ta do so, I should like him to bring the figures up ta date so that we can make somne comparison, see the headway that the NATO countries are making in their de- fence projects, whether or not aur defence programi is sufficient and whether or not we are doing all that we should be doing in the name of security. The minister said so much this morning that I had trouble trying ta follow it all, but I think he said that we were maintaining aur productive superiority as far as the arms race is concerned. I hope that is sa. We must remember that Soviet Russia does have a tremendous productive potential. 'Unlike the western nations, Russia is not; too inter- ested in how well her awn people are getting along, and they are quite willing ta sacrifice the needs and wishes a! their own people ini order ta advance their defence productive effort. I hope the minister is right in be- lieving that we are maintaining productive superiority over the Soviet union and ils satellites. In referring ta air attack on Canada, the minister indicated this morning that there was no sure defence against an atomic attack. I can certainly agree with him. on that point. In my opinion we have too few industrial centres in Canada. That brings me ta a point that has been raised on many occa- sions, the decentralization of industry. I thinv JUNE 16, 1955 4879 HOUSE OF COMMONS Supply--National Defence that a dozen atomic bombs dropped on stra- tegic positions in Canada could practically wreck our entire economy. The fact that could happen emphasizes the need for decen- tralization of our industries and spreading them throughout Canada so that there will not be such a small number of strategic tar- gets. I would hate to see an atomic attack on Toronto or Montreal. Two attacks, one on each of these cities, would cripple us tremendously. In my opinion the minister and the government should consider strongly placing more of our defence construction and production in the maritimes, throughout the prairies and all across the country. We must under no circumstances become complacent and feel that we are not going to be attacked but that if we are we can continue to carry on. The "it can't happen here" complex is a very dangerous thing, and I suggest that the only way we can overcome any concentrated A-bomb or H- bomb attack is by the absolute decentraliza- tion of our war industry. The question of decentralization also brings up a matter that has been mentioned in years past and debated many times in the house. In a day when warfare involves highly mobile and fast-mov- ing fighting units, we definitely need a trans- Canada highway system across the country for the transportation of troops to any part of the country in a short time. We need a highway system that could substitute for our rail system in the event of our major rail centres being bombed. I do not refer simply to a trans-Canada highway but a trans- Canada highway system which would prob- ably mean three or four trans-Canada highways right across the country, including, of course, the Yellowhead route to which many members have referred in the past. On page 7 of the white paper the minister mentions that the navy now has 154 ships in commission, but I notice that of that number there are only 22 which can be considered first-line ships. Of that number nine are frigates which, unless they have been radically redesigned and re-equipped, would be absolutely inefficient so far as pres- ent-day anti-submarine operations are con- cerned. Twenty-two ships would of course give us something like three convoy escort groups. As the minister has often said, we would be primarily an escort or convoy navy. I suggest to the minister it would be ex- tremely unwise for us to allow our first-line ships to become so few that we could not handle more than three convoys going across the ocean. This morning the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich said that he could not see us convoying troops across the Atlantic in the same way as we did in world war II. [Mr. Thomas.] I took him to mean that he was presuming that maybe the next attack would be made on this continent. If that is so we would need our convoys not to take troops from this side over to Europe but to bring troops and sup- plies from Europe to this country, and I do not think that under any circumstances we should allow the strength of our first-line escort vessels to deteriorate. We must keep them up under any circumstances. I should like to make an appeal again to the minister, as I have done in past years, to consider the construction of what, in the second world war, we used to call merchant aircraft carriers. Without those small con- verted aircraft carriers, I doubt very much if we could have won the battle of the Atlantic. Many, many times those small reconnaissance planes took off from the decks of these carriers and discovered wolf packs of submarines far in advance of the convoy. We were able to dispose of them before the convoy went by. I cannot think of any cheaper way of assuring the safe conduct of a convoy across the Atlantic than by the con- version of some of these merchant ships into carriers that will carry a small, light plane capable of submarine reconnaissance. They did a marvellous job during world war II, and I see no reason why they could not continue to do just as effective a job under present conditions. I want to say one word about the acquisi- tion of submarines from the Royal Navy. I sincerely hope that the only purpose of those submarines is to train Canadian personnel. I would hope that the Department of National Defence would not consider trying to build up an operational fleet of submarines. I do not think they are necessary. We have a definite job to carry out in naval warfare and I do not believe the placing of men on submarines would further our defence effort in any way. So far as training exercises are concerned, it is the only way the personnel of the navy can be properly trained. I realize that. I have worked with some of the Royal Navy sub' marines during the war, and gained a great deal of invaluable experience as a result of those training exercises. No matter how hard you try to simulate a submarine search it is impossible to get the real feel of it until you are working with an actual submarine. I do congratulate the min- ister on bringing these submarines over to train with the Canadian fleet. They are needed, and the training exercises we will get with those submarines will certainly be an asset to the Canadian navy. Under no cir- cumstances, however, could I agree that Can- ada should ever have any submarines for operational work. I should like now to mention the air defence plan to which reference was made by both previous speakers, aur radar screens and our air support plan. I arn going ta agree with both previaus speakers that, although the radar screens when completed will be an asset ta the Canadian defence effort, I also agree that I do not beieve we have the air power to back up any warnings we might get of mass air attacks across the polar regions. I wonder if we could stop a squadron or two of hostile enemy bombers before they could do a tremendous amount of damage to, the productive capacity of tis country. A while ago the minister mentioned that a great deal of experimentai work was being conducted with guided missiles. He men- tioned both air-to-air and air-to-ground missiles with which the Canadian forces were dealing. I would suggest to the minister that is not the proper way of going about it. I would think that in view of the tremendous waste tracts across aur north, and the fact there is a possibility of air attack across the north, it might be advisable if we were ta specialize an ground-to-air guided missiles rather than the others. Such missile bases could be placed somewhere near the early warning limes and used to attack any bombing force which might endanger this country. 1 cannot think of a cheaper or a more reasonable way of assuring our safety against air attack than the use of these ground-to-air missiles. One more thing, Mr. Chairman. I should like to agree with the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Pearkes) in his plea that the reserve units of this country be trained for civil defence. I feel it would be of great value to this country ta have a group of men who are well trained and who could be mobile, to, handle any emergency that might arise in the event of attack on this country. These men would be gathered in every large centre and couid be moved ta any other centre where their services were needed to supplement the civil defence portion that they have in most cities. It would be wonder- fui training for them. In addition, it would give the people 0f Canada a good deal of reassurance to know that trained civil defence personnel would be available as weil as the civil defence people who are trained in these variaus cities. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, 1 should like to say that many times in the liae couple of years we have heard reports over the air or seen them in the newspapers that someone in the armed forces has been killed in an aircrash or an accident at some training establishment and the names are being with- held until the next af kmn have been notified. Supply-National Defence I know that the reason for withholding the names is undoubtedly to, ensure that the de- partment is the party that notifes the next of kin This prevents the neighbours hearing the news over the air and running over with the story. But I wonder how kind that whole procedure is? It may be protecting the feel- ings of the next of kmn, but how much agony is being caused to the relatives of servicemen who are at the base from which the report cornes? I have known of cases where accidents have occurred, shahl we say, at Gimli or Camp Borden, and people who had boys at those establishments suffered the agonies of the damned while they were waiting to, find out whether or flot their boy had been in- volved in the accident. I arn wondering if the minister could not ask the co-operation of the news services in withholding reports of fatal accidents until such time as the next of kmn have been notified, because I think it is a shame that so many people should have to suifer from lack of knowledge ini order to protect the next of kmn of the boy who was killed. I do not suggest any type of censorship; I do not think that would be the answer. I think the news services would be glad to co-operate in withholding that news until such time as the next of kmn had been notîfied. Then, the names could be published along with the news story clear across the country without causing worry to so many people across this country. I should like the minister to consider that phase of it, be- cause I have feit very strongly in -the matter. I have had many people mention to me, when they have heard this news, "I wonder if it is rny boy who has been killed." It is a matter involving only a few hours, and surely the goverumnent and the news services could co-operate i withholding that infor- mation for the number of hours necessary to notify the next of kmn. Mr., Stick: Mr. Chairman, I should like to join with hon. members who have preceded me in congratulating the Minister of National Defence upon the statement he delivered this morning. To me it was the most comprehen- sive statement on defence affairs we have had in the House of Commons for a number of years. Unfortunately, for security reasons, with which I have no quarrel, he could not give us ail the details we want. The defence of Canada and defence matters generaily have been the subi ect of public attention in the last three or four. years, and particularly in the last three or four weeks. The fear of atomic and H-bombs has brought to the attention of the public as neyer before the need for the defence of -the people in this country. 4881JUNE 16. 1955 Supply-National Defence I do not want to enter into a discussion of one service as against another, but I should like for a few moments to deal with one or two aspects of the naval service, and possibly the army, and then I shall confine my remarks chiefly to the air force. At page 6 of the white paper under the heading "Royal Canadian Navy" the minister has this to say: On the west coast the 2nd minesweeping squadron and a reserve training squadron were formed last year. There is no mention in this white paper as to what reserve squadron or what mine- sweeping squadron we have on the Atlantic. I would ask the minister to give that informa- tion, if he can, when he replies. Much has been said today about the need for Canada's defence. I believe we will all agree that the first duty of the government and of every member in the house is the defence of Canada and the protection of her people. Mention has been made by one or two previous speakers about the Atlantic, and I wish to touch on that subject because I come from an Atlantic province. As hon. members are no doubt aware, the last war was very nearly lost on the Atlantic, and it was just touch and go as to whether we would win. No one has paid greater tribute than has Sir Winston Churchill to the work of our naval and air forces, which contributed to the victory on the Atlantic. In his war memoirs he was most emphatic in saying that if we had lost the battle of the Atlantic we would have lost the war. In the last three or four years I have drawn the attention of the house to the need for protecting our convoys on the Atlantic. I have drawn the attention of hon. members to the up to date submarines the Russians possess, and the doubtful defences we have to combat those modern submarines. I would not want to say anything in the house that would give comfort to the Russians or to any potential enemy. I do want to say, however, that three or four years ago manoeuvres took place between Bermuda and Newfoundland in which 14 surface vessels were pitted against three submarines. Quoting from a memorandum appearing in the New York Times of that date it was demonstrated that at the close of this exercise all 14 vessels had been destroyed, though they had not even contacted one of the three submarines. I believe that since that time we have developed better devices to combat the sub- marine menace; but I have seen nothing and I know of nothing even up to this time which would lessen that danger. It must be kept in mind that I come from a province which is open to submarine attack, and that to [Mr. Stick.] obtain supplies the shipping lanes must be kept open. Two or three enemy submarines around the coast of Newfoundland would close off supplies completely. In this event Canada would be placed in the position that she would have to supply Newfoundland by air. That is a possibility that must be taken into consideration, and I stress it here today. We know about the submarine menace in Newfoundland because we had submarine warfare right at our front door. We feel strongly about it because it was brought home to us with great force. With this in mind I advocate now, not in any political sense whatsoever but strictly from a knowl- edge of our requirements as a province of Canada, the building of another airport in Newfoundland. Whether it be a joint effort between Canada and the United States or an effort on our part alone is immaterial. Such airports should be built, however, to take care of the air traffic which will flow back and forth across the Atlantic in the event of hostilities. This is a vital necessity. Gander, big as it is, cannot handle the traffic. Harmon Field cannot handle it; neither can Torbay; neither can Goose. The possibilities involved should be taken into consideration immediately, and I believe our American friends would be receptive to the suggestion. While stalled at Gander for 24 hours some two or three years ago because of weather conditions I discussed the possi- bility of increasing the facilities, as I have indicated, and it was urged upon me by many people there. Just as Gander was established before the last war to take care of the possibilities the British saw coming, I say we must now take into consideration the building of another airport to take care of the air traffic. It would be too late to make such arrangements after hostilities began. That is all I am going to say on the subject of airports. Mention has been made of the need for greater protection for our convoys. May I say to the hon. member who last spoke that convoy protection by air during the last war was carried out principally from Newfound- land, Nova Scotia, Iceland and Northern Ireland. Our bombers, having a greater range, permitted us to have cover from Halifax right across the Atlantic. I have one suggestion to add, and it is that we need not only closer protection than we had before, but we shall need protection for convoys in all kinds of weather. This cannot be sup- plied frorn the points I have just mentioned. May I suggest to the Royal Canadian Navy, in all humility, that what we need are heli- copters to be carried on the decks of mer- chant ships, from which they can take off, 4882 HOUSE OF COMMONS JUNE 16, 1955 go alof t and land. These helicopters could give air protection to convoys when weather conditions were bad and when the long- range bombers froin Newfoundland and other places would not be able to afford that protection. In my opinion that is a necessity. As I said, I offer the suggestion in all humility. I believe it could be carried out at very limited expense, and that preparations should be made for it. I do not want to get into any controversy as to which of the services should have priority. I believe that in the last two or three weeks irresponsible statements, which do flot make for partnership in the services, have been made in the press. When one reads that the army should be abolished entirely and ail our efforts devoted to the air force, one wonders just why such statements are made. There is no doubt about it; under modemn conditions the army has a limited role to play. There is no doubt that the air force is the predominant force in Canada today; but to say that the army is finished, that it is obsolete and useless, is going too far. The army will have a part to play, even if it is only a subsidiary one. I say that quite frankly. I said it here four years ago. If any priority is to be given to one service it must be given to the air force. I said tliat four years ago, and it is more evident today than ever before. I hold in my hand a book entitled "Air Power and National Security", fromn which I should like to quote a few passages. The parts I wish to quote bear out the point I arn trying to make. Usually I do not quote very much. The reason I am quoting today is that I find the quotations ini this book very pungent and very apropos of the times in which we live. The writers of these articles have put their points in much bet- ter language than I could. Let me quote from an article "Some Fallacies concerning Air Power": In the air are no streets. no channels, no point where one can say of an antagonist, "If he wants to reach my capital he must corne by here." In the air an directions lead everywhere. And again: It must seem strange that the sky, too, is about to become another battlefleld no less important than the battlefields on land and sea. But from now on we had better get accustomed to this idea and prepare ourselves for the new conflicts to corne. The struggle for the conmmand of the air wlIl be bitter; and the so-cahled civllized nations will strive to, forge the most tening means to wage the conffict. I think we have reached that stage today. For the flrst time in the history of Canada and the United States we are vulnerable to Supply-National Defence attack fromn the air. That is the opinion of miiitary-minded people today, and also of civilians who foliow this reasoning. Today air power will either win or lose a war. We ýcould nlot have won the war of 1939- 1945 if we had nlot air predominance. The battie of the Pacifie was decided by air power. Japan was brought to her knees by air power. We couid nlot have landed on the Normandy beaches if we had nlot air power and a predominance over the enemy. This air predominance finaily brought down Germany. It is more important today. Air power is more in evidence today than ever before because of the hydrogen and atomie bombs. We are living in fear of a nuclear war which threatens us today, and every precaution must be taken to guard ourselves against it. We have no defence against it except the warning lines we are building and our own air force, and possibly guided missiles. It is a recognized fact that if the enemy attacks us in force a certain proportion of his bombers wili get through. If they carry the hydrogen bomb it wili take very few bombs to destroy the war potential of this continent. That is the danger under which we live, and we have to face it whether we like it or nlot. Therefore when we are ap- propriating money for the services we must of necessity give priority to the air force. We must build Up our defences so we can protect our cities and our inhabitants against this potential attack. There is no doubt about that in the minds of those who have spoken here today, and there is certainly no doubt in my mind that this potential for destruction faces us today as neyer before. May I quote further from this book. During the first war Great Britain set up a com- mission to study air power. This com- mission was set up in 1916-1917 by Mr. Lloyd George, who was then prime minister. The head of the commission was the late Field Marshal Jan Smuts. In the official report, which was called by some the magna carta of British air power, we find the following: The day niay flot be far off when aerial opera- tions with their devastation of enemy lands anld destruction of Industrial and populous centres on a vast scale rnay becorne the principal operations of war to which the older forma of rnllitary and naval operations rnay become secondary and subordinate. It is important that we should not only secure air predorninance, but secure it on a very large scale; and having secured it in this war (1914-18) we should make every effort and sacrifice to main- tain it for the future. Air supremacy may in the long run become as important a f actor in thie defence of the empire as sea suprernacy. Supply-National De! ence Further on it says: For good or Mi, air mastery la today the supreme expression of mulitary power, and fleets and armies. hawever necessary and important. must accept subordinate rank. This is a mnemorable milestone in the march of men. That statement was made by Sir Winston Churchill when he spoke in Boston in 1949. It was seen by men of vision and men who looked toward the future. The thing we have to remember, so far as this world is concerned, is the dominance of air power. Since we have developed the atom bomb and the bydro- gen bomb the powers of destruction have increased tremendously. We have to take every precaution we possibly can to keep such bombers away from our shores. It will be too late when it happens. Military strategists say that whoever gets in the first bombing attack will do much to win the war. In talking about home defence and beyond that, the wbite paper says on page 4: We are also assisting in the protection of the Industrial potential of North America and the retaliatory capacity of the United States strategie air force, both of which are of the greatesi significance ta ail nations mn the free world in the deterrence of aggression. The only force tbe free nations have to deter aggression is the United States strategic air force. I arn glad the minister put those remarks in the wbite paper and said we are assisting in the development of that strategic air force about which we have heard s0 much and about whicb so mucb comment has been made in the capitals of different countries. The potential enemy bas been getting bis propaganda going, decrying the potential retaliatory effects of the United States strategic air force. Along with many people I believe that if we did not have this strategic air force we would not be in a position te, talk to Russia on anything like equal ternis. Second, we would not be in the position in which wc have been lately in seeing Russia take coun- sel of ber fears regarding this air force and meeting together in con! erence with our statesmen to work out some conclusions for peace. Since the Austrian peace treaty, Russia bas gone to Yugoslavia, and bas extended an invi- tation to Chancellor Adenauer to, visit Russia. Ail this bas come about because of the air power we have. We are in a position to bit back, and that is the only thing deterring the Russians today. It is the greatest guarantee we have today for peace in the world. I shall elaborate on the statement o! the minister by quoting from. this book again: Today we live in an age in which force has become the determining factor in international relations. wars that once were considered a contest between professional groups and forces. suddenly have completed the evolution to total [Mr. Stick.] war between civilizations. Air POwer has broken down cultural and national barriers and becomeS increasingly important in everyday life. In other words we are living in a time of total war. The future-peace or chaos-ta man's choie. Within one haur af detecting red bombera in free- world skies, the west'a nuclear-armed strategic bombera would begin taking off f rom bases ail over the world. hundreds of them. with one destination -Russa. Attacking Soviet aircraft would find the west's bases empty. No international canferences, not even a quick general staff meeting. The gun is loaded. It is as automatic as pushing a button. It could take even less ta set it off; an accident, for example. An unavoidable risk. That is the power we hold to deter Russia or China or anyone else from starting a third world war. It is our great safety valve, and we must support it by every means in our power. This is the ahility of the west. It is costlY. It is unavoidable. For until the politica of reason finda the way to peace in the world, the politica of power is the only known means of a stalemate. The central force of that power today is air power. Mr. Drew: Mr. Chairman, this is the first opportunity we have had during the current session to discuss at any lengtb the problems of defence. Already the minister and others who have spoken have given f ull emphasis to the importance o! this subi ect to every Canadian and to ail people living in the western world. So far as we in this bouse are concerned, we have the responsibility not only o! attempting to assure in every way we can as members o! the House of Commons the maximum efficiency of our armed forces to meet whatever responsibility they must accept, but also to make sure in every way we can that the money spent on national defence is well spent and to the best effect. Some $2 billion goes !rom tbe public treasury to meet the requirements of this single department; therefore we must look at this botb from the point o! view of the effectiveness of our defence and tbe possibility of any practical economy wbich would be consistent with the demands made upon us. I do not think it is necessary to emphasîze that we ail proceed from the same basic assumption in dealing with this matter. On whatever side o! the bouse we may sit, and to whatever party we may belong, there can be no difference about our desire to see that our defence forces are as effective as possible and that those who are in the uniform of those forces are well trained, are well treated, have a feeling of confidence in their leader- ship and also bave tbe assuranc e that tbey will be as well equipped as it is witbin the power o! this nation to equip them. 4884 HOUSE OF COMMONS JUNE 18, 1955 However, it would be inconsistent and in fact it would be a neglect of duty for any hon. member of this house to refrain from making any comment which may be directed to the increase of efficiency and effectiveness, or to withhold any criticism that may appear appropriate in relation to any aspect o! this great problem. Before I proceed to deal with national defence as it bas been set before us today and as it bas been outlined in tbe white paper, I wlsh to deal with a subject which has been under discussion and which was mentioned in the bouse as recently as yester- day., It is necessary that it be mentioned because of the way a recent announcement was made whicb was designed to create un- certainty in the minds of the people of Canada generally and tbose in the armed forces particularly, in regard to certain steps that had been taken by tbe Department of National Defence. It is only natural when discussions of this kind arise tbat there can be misunderstand- ings about what is at issue. May I make it perfectly clear that there can be no question about the rigbt and duty of the goverament to decide wbat officer shall occupy any par- ticular position at any time. If there is one principle that should not be cbanged it is the supremacy of the executive over the armed forces and the right and duty of the government o! the day to determine what course will be followed, wbat plans will be made and what political decisions are appro- priate, using the word "political" in its widest sense. It would not be appropriate nor would it be in keeping witb the best traditions of the armed forces if we were to precipitate a debate in this house in regard to the compara- tive merits o! any officers of the armed forces. However, that does not preclude the desir- ability of making sure that whatever is done in connection with members of the armed forces is done in a way that neither creates unnecessary uncertainty in the mmnd of the public nor in any way creates an atmosphere o! uncertainty la the minds of those in the armed forces about the way in wbich. de- cisions are made. The announcement a short time ago of the retirement of tbe chief of the general staff was no ordinary decision. It came at a time when there had been a good deal of specula- tion about various questions which bad been disturbing the government; it came at a time when the goverament itself had taken under consideration certain statements that had been made; At came at a tîme wben the role of senior officers in the matters under public 50433-309 Supply-National Defence discussion was very much in the thoughts of the members of the Mouse of Commons as well as of the public generally. That being so, it was most desirable that when an announcement was to be made that could only cause spedulation, an explanation should have been given to the members of this house and through the press gallery to the public, which would have avoided any un- certainty. There was also a precedent be- cause the very day before the announcement was made with regard to the retirement of the chief of the general staff, it had been re- garded as desirable to make a statement in the House of Commons with regard to certain other matters under consideration. It is perfectly true that the statement made was in response to certain comments which. had been made in the house. Also, of course, questions have been raised in the House of Commons with regard to the circumstances under which the announcement was made with regard to the chief of the general staff. The point I made when this happened was, first of ail, that while the house is sitting it is important that hon. members have these important subjects explained to them; and second, that the explanations given shail be understandable explanations which in them- selves do flot create f urther uncertainty. I submit that the statement that the retire- ment of the chief of the general staff was merely in the course of ordinary rotation of appointments is hardly adequate under the circumstances. General Simonds is unques- tionably the outstanding field officer produced by Canada during the last war. That was a matter of common agreement amongst senior officers in Canada, the United Kingdom, the United States and other allied countries. That being so, there was in the minds of .hon. members a natural question as to why the services of a man who is strnl comparatively young, who is in the full vigour of excellent physical condition, and who has a great accumulation of experience, were flot being employed ia one of the several posts wbere skill of that kind and the experience he had acquired could be made use of in full measure. There is no suggestion that anythlng General Simonds may have said at any time is in issue on this occasion. That cannot be so. Any of the things be has said which have perbaps had some controversial content were said sufficiently long ago that they could not possibly be the basis of the action which has Just been taken. I think that consideration should, be borne ini mind. The government would have been remiss if they had not acted much earlier, if ini fact their decision was in any way related to anything said by this very distinguished officer on an earlier occasion, HOUSE OF COMMONS Supply-National Defence whether or not the government or anybody on this side of the chamber may disagree with what he said. After all, he would not be the first senior officer who has made statements that perhaps have gone slightly beyond the bounds of rigid military restraint. I think there have been cases when Field Marshal Montgomery has been known to make statements which went slightly beyond the narrow limits ordinarily imposed on senior officers in such a position. Unquestionably such statements can be and are embarrassing. The best way to avoid that situation is to make perfectly clear what statements can and cannot be made. If any embarrassment has been caused by any state- ment made by any officer, I submit that the government itself must accept responsibility for the situation which has developed. On too many occasions it has encouraged, from senior officers as well as from senior civil servants, statements which would be helpful when certain subjects were being discussed. When encouragement or silent acquiescence leaves the impression that statements of that nature are welcome, it is only natural that they are bound to proceed from one stage to another and ultimately become embarrassing to the government itself. Some of those statements-I am not refer- ring to General Simonds in this case- undoubtedly have been embarrassing to the government. I would suggest, however, that the government look back over some state- ments that have exceeded the bounds of proper restraint which have been made and which were employed with some measure of satisfaction by the government when subjects of a controversial nature were under con- sideration in this House of Commons and elsewhere. I suggest that the way to avoid anything of that kind in future is to have a clear understanding that senior officers should con- fine their remarks to the discussion of the non-political aspects of military affairs. I suggest that this can be donc without any implied criticism of any officer; because if criticism is due, I repeat that I believe that criticism should be directed to the govern- ment itself which has encouraged the situa- tion. Clear instructions along that line will avoid future embarrassment either to the government or to any officers. Also instruc- tions to the effect that the government no longer encourages statements by unnamed or "highly reliable" sources would be very helpful. How often have we had read state- ments in the press from "reliable sources" dealing with some subject that is under active [Mr. Drew.] discussion at the time. It is not possible to deal with those statements because no name is attached. We had one of those statements just the day before yesterday. I repeat what I said before. Whether orally or in writing, a state- ment was certainly given to the Canadian Press, because the Canadian Press is not in the habit of giving in quotes statements that are a figment of somebody's imagination. There may be uncertainty about statements that are simply speculative reports, but I do not think there is one of us who believes that the Canadian Press, with its great traditions, would place in exact quotes statements of some military official unless they had received them from a military official to whom they had reason to look for an authoritative statement. I can only express regret that the minister's inquiries brought him so little information. I even wonder whether he was as persistent as he might have been in his inquiries, because there are those who are rather under the impression that they have an idea where that statement came from. Perhaps a little further inquiry would inform the minister as to where that statement came from. I realize that it perhaps would not be appropriate to ask the Canadian Press from whom it came, because they undoubtedly were following a practice that has grown up. However, I think it would be a healthy thing if the words of the Prime Minister were observed, when he said the day before yesterday that he greatly deprecated statements of this kind given without the name of the person making the statement. It should be understood that this will not be repeated, and that instructions will be given to that effect. There should be clear instructions to senior officers, as well as to senior civil servants, that while their state- ments are welcomed with regard to the sub- jects with which they are well acquainted, it is not appropriate for them at any time to cross into the realm of what are regarded as political decisions by a government. Before I leave this subject, may I simply express the hope that General Simonds' training will be used in some capacity where it will be available to the public. It is not enough to say that a young officer at the age of 52 now automatically comes to the point of retirement. Other officers have continued in employment of different kinds. General McNaughton, who was at one time chief of the general staff, has been in the public service in different capacities for many years. General Foulkes on his retirement as chief of the general staff became the chairman of the chiefs of staffs committee. General 4886 Worthington, who was not a chief o! the general staff but a very distinguished staff officer, has been in the public service in different capacities since then. I only mention these as examples. I would point out that the younger an officer is, the more reason there is to employ his services. After ail, there is a very practical, material aspect to this. We are informed that General Simonds' pension will be in excess of $10,000 a year. His life expectancy would be in the neighbourhood of 25 years. That is a sub- stantial sum. involved in pension payments. Therefore both !rom the point of view o! his skill and fromn the point of view of the two-thirds o! whatever is paid by way of pension which will corne out of the public treasury, because officers pay approximately one-third, 1 think we should ail hope that the opportunity will be sought to use his highly skilled services in somne capacity. In any event, I know all hon. members will join in expressing their admiration for the high standard of service which has aiways characterized General Simonds' service in the armed forces. I want to deal now with the white paper even more than with the statements that have been made today, because the fact is that the minister's statements have not added anything to what he has placed before us in the white paper. He did emphasize again today a statement made in the white paper which. reads as follows: ... appraisals of new weapons, new tactical and strateglc concepts, and demands for increased mobility and flexlbillty of forces make it evident that changes In emphasis must be made from time to, Urne within the defence programns of the NATO member nations. Then the white paper goes on to say on page 4: During the past year the United States has made considerable progress in the production of atomnie and thermonuclear weapons. The U.S.S.R.. after carrying out hydrogen bomb tests. has indicated that production of a stockpile of nuclear bomba is under way. More receatly Uhe government of the Uaited 1Kingdom has announced its decision to, proceed with the development and production of thermonuclear weapons. Then I quote paragraph 7 on page 4: For North America the possibflity appears for the flrst time of an attack that could cripple Uic military and Industrial potential of Canada and the United States. Should we ever be attacked with thermonuclear weapons, it Is plain that our inimediate probleni would be national survivai. Everyone not directly involved in an urgent military role would immediately be caught up in the problems of rescue, rehabilbtation, and the maintenance of essential services. It seems, Mr. Chairman, that this ominous and forceful statement with regard to the circumstances with which we are now con- fronted will not be seriously chaiienged by 50433-3091 Supply-Nationai DeS ence any hon. member. I ask hon. members, how- ever, if the statemnents in the white paper or in the house seemn consistent with the warning given, and particuiarly with the emphasis on the need for appraisal of new weapons, new tactical and strategic concepts. Ail our thinking about defence has been changed by recent events. Now we know that we may be attacked here in our own home- land. That has created the fundamental change which the hon. member for Esquimait- Saanich pointed out this morning, and the younger memnbers of the house may not fully recognize the change. In the days before the first world war even the remote possibiiity of an attack on the North Amnerican continent was neyer con- templated. The whole idea of military organi- zation and preparation was based on the idea that Canadian forces would be a segment of European continental forces. Our divisional organization contemplated our participation in an army organization that might be engaged on the European continent. In very large measure that frame of mind continued after the first world war. As has already been pointed out, there was not much difference in the general organization of the units employed in the great batties o! the first world war and the units employed in the second world war, except for the enor- mous changes in equipment and in the emphasis, to some extent, on certain types o! weapons. Until quite recently, and in !act stili, in the minds of many people there is the thought of large mass formations of which we formi simply an integral segment. I sug- gest, Mr. Chairman, that to an extent we have not; yet been prepared to accept it as necessary for us to break away from that idea and have a distinctly Canadian concept o! the organization of defence forces. We are the third largest nation in area in the world. Only China and Russia are larger. Russia, with a land area nearly twice ours, has a population of somne 220 million people. China, with nearly 500 million people, is only a littie larger than Canada. We are the third largest land area with 15 million people. It is ue~wise and ixnpractical for us to ap- proach the problems of military and defence organization generally f rom the point o! view of countries in Europe of the same population but with very small land areas, or of coun- tries such as Britain, France, Germany, Italy or any o! the other European countries with larger populations but with lànd areas only a small fraction of ours. JUNE 16, 1955 4887 HOUSE OF COMMONS Supply-National Defence Surely if our thoughts are now directed to the defence of Canada and our participation primarily in the defence of the North Ameri- can continent as part of a general defence plan, then our thoughts should be directed to the method by which we can, with the utmost speed, bring to bear whatever military power is necessary at any given point, whether it be by air forces, by units of the army or by naval units. It is obvious that a country the size of Canada already so dependent on air transport through much of its great, developing north, cannot hope to provide the necessary military services by any conven- tional method. This does not mean the abandonment of conventional forces. When it was said not long ago that we would be better off if the army disappeared entirely and those now in the army were put in the air force, I wonder if there may not have been a misinterpreta- tion of what was said, or perhaps even the speaker may not have made sufficiently clear what he really intended. There is some confusion in many people's minds between the air forces and forces carried by aircraft. Already today the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich has pointed out to us the immense importance of extreme mobility for all our armed services. I believe Canada should have a type of army organiza- tion that is unique in the world today. I believe our enormous land area and our small population call for the organization of an army in which every single unit will be airborne. Suppose, for the sake of argument, there was a landing of paratroops at the radium mine on Great Bear lake. It would not be much use to start planning for the move- ment of land forces by train to Edmonton, then from Edmonton to the railhead on the Peace river, and from there by boat down the Mackenzie and across the Great Bear river to Great Bear lake. This would be a long, tedious and ineffective movement of armed forces. The kind of armed forces we would need for a situation of that kind would be the type of units that could be transported imme- diately-when I say "immediately" I mean exactly that-to Great Bear lake where the necessary units made up of such services as would be required for the task could deal with whatever forces had been reported by wireless at that particular point. The same thing would be true at the mouth of the Mackenzie, at the mouth of the Coppermine, on Hudson bay, over in the mines in eastern Quebec or in Labrador, at Whitehorse or anywhere in the Yukon. [Mr. Drew.] If we were to deal with such a situation we would have to have extremely mobile, hard-hitting infantry, engineers, medical services, artillery units and other forces that could be moved without delay by great trans- port planes which can now carry units of that kind. Let no one be in any doubt that transports adequate for that task already exist. At Farnborough last September I saw the new Blackburn transport actually carry two 25- pounder field guns and all the essential equip- ment that went with them. I also saw a fully loaded lorry driven into that huge transport. Whether or not that is the appro- priate design, the fact is that transports of a size adequate for the purpose of carrying tanks, armoured vehicles, artillery weapons or anything of that kind are now available. They could be obtained or built here in the aircraft factories we already possess. I would go so far as to say that this should apply not only to the permanent army but to the militia as well. I do not believe we have had enough information placed before us concerning the present position of the militia. It is far from satisfactory. The enlistments do not tell the story. The number of men on the roll do not tell you how effective militia training is. It is the number of days trained and the number of those trained at local headquarters who go to camp that measure the effectiveness of our militia units. Under all the circumstances it is really remarkable that our militia units have retained the keen- ness which has been shown by the officers, N.C.O.'s and men who have been training. I do hope no hon. member is under the impression that our military training today is adequate, or that our military units are training in the way they should train in the face of the kind of emergency which has been impressed upon us by the Minister of Defence Production in the past few days. Let us take the case of artillery units which must train at camp if their training on the guns is to be really effective. Throughout Canada this year the average regiment of three batteries will not train more than one battery at camp. That is far from a satisfactory situation, at a time when we are told that we must con- template the necessity of being prepared to meet an urgent situation of this kind. In substantial measure the same is true of the training of other units, particularly units of a technical nature which require skill in handling vehicles and instruments of various kinds. The minister has mentioned figures that apply to the permanent force. We have before us also figures relating to the militia. Mr. Chairman, those figures have a meaning that can be interpreted in practical 4888 terms only if, with the militia units, we are told accurately what training those units have which would fit them to accept the responsibilities that might be imposed upon them in a very short time, in the event of difficulties. Much has been said about the problem of manning these units. Much has been said about the problem of raising the necessary manpower for the different branches of the service. I arn convinced that the thing which wiil best assure an adequate enlistment in the different branches of our service-par- ticularly the militia, which is stiil the back- bone of our general training and which must be the pool from which a permanent force in the end will always be drawn-is to give to the training a sense of reality which it does not possess today. Give to the young men in the infantry, in the armoured force, in the engîneers, in the artlllery, in the army service corps, in the medical service, in the reconnaissance units and in the other units of our army, the knowledge that they are reaily taking part in a modern, up to date force, and you wiil see them, flocking to the units in the way they have done on other occasions. I do not believe there is any difference in the attitude of our Young people toward the military services. Like many other hon. mem- bers in the house I can recaîl times when our problem, upon going to camp, was not that of not having enough men but what we would do with the extra men we found on the train when we were leaving for camp. And I can tell you there was a lot of very ingenious work done in order to work that out without too much financial strain on the officers involved., That was actualiy the problem, and the reason was very simple. There was a sense of reality. I amn speaking with direct knowl- edge of the artiilery more than of any other branch of the service; but what I say with regard to the artillery was equally true in regard to other branches of the service. One of the main reasons for the desire of young men to go to camp with those units was the opportunity for competitive firing and competitive training; and that competition was between aIl units in the whole of Can- ada. The spirit of competition appealed greatly to Young men and they reaily worked to win one of the numerous prizes open to units right across Canada. It was very notice- able that the units which won most of the prizes were those with the largest enlistment. Unfortunately, though it is now ten years after the last war, competitive firing of that Supply-Nationai Defence kind has flot been instituted in the artillery; nor has similar competitive training been instituted i the other branches of the armed services. This is the kind of thing that appeals to our young people. Give them a sense of reality. Give them a sense of competition between the units, and I think you will see plenty of Young men enlisting in those units and the problem of manpower met adequately and satisfactorily in that way. You will flnd the young men anxious to take part if there is reorganization that recognizes the need which has been stated in the white paper where, on the first page, it refers to "Inew tacticai and strategic concepts". Make ail our army units airborne units, and Young men to whom the appeal is made will know that they are taking part in the most modemn force that is in training any- where. We do flot need to look to any other country to devise the most effective use of manpower for the kind of force that will be needed for Canada. This statement appies to the militia as well as to the permanent force. Nor need titis involve enormous ex- pense in the first instance. Special transport aircraft would be required for the permanent force; but so far as militia units are con- cerned, these mock-ups of transport aircraft, made simply by joining the frame to the body of the aircraft, would be adequate for the purpose of giving training of that kind. Then selected units could be given training in regular transport aircraft of the type required. I submit that, having regard to the imagi- nation, having regard to the new concept required, as stated by the minister, what he has said to us today and what is said i the white paper is not only noncommittal but is extremely uninformative from the point of view of what we may hope for in the future. We are stili going to require conventional units in the Canadian army. We need con- ventional units, used in an unconventional way. With ail earnestness I urge the minister to contemplate the possibilîty of giving immnediate instructions to organize the army completely s0 that this huge country, with its 15 million people, may have the kind of hard-hitting, mobile airborne army units which could be put down at any, point in Canada to meet whatever demands might be imposed upon them. Then the question arises, as to what the situation would be as a member of NATO. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that our most effective contribution to NATO wiil be to have the kind of combined force that is most effective for Canada. We are building an air force, flot yet on the proportionate basis that would seem to be required for the JUNE 16, 1955 4889 HOUSE OF COMMONS Supply-National Defence special position Canada occupies. But we have an air force of which every Canadian can be proud. I do want to say that twice in the last two years I have seen our squadrons overseas, and I can testify to what the minister has already said about their high standing among the squadrons now in Europe. At Zweibrucken last summer I saw Cana- dian squadrons that were not only equal to but I think a little better than any other service squadrons in Europe at that time. It is unquestionably true that the new Sabre V jet with the Orenda engine, which gives that Sabre a higher speed than its corresponding United States counterpart, has not only given our squadrons an enviable reputation over there but has also given a very high morale to ahl the members of our air units in Europe at this time. Nevertheless, the situation is changing rapidly over there. Germany's entry into NATO is soon going to change our require- ments. It was essential that Canada should take its part in sending air and army units to Europe during the period Germany was disarmed completely and while there were uncertainties as to the course Germany might follow. Certainly, at a time when Russia was seeking to win Western Germany over to her point of view, it was essential that the people of West Germany be offered positive evidence that the nations united in NATO were joined in their determination to protect the soil of Western Germany from Russian invasion. However, it will not be long before Western Germany will be rearmed to such an extent that she will be able to assume full responsi- bility for her own territory. In fact, Chan- cellor Konrad Adenauer only last Saturday stated in Bonn, just before his departure for Washington, that one of the three main objectives of the German government is to reach a point where it will be possible for the United States forces to withdraw from Ger- many. Obviously when he spoke of the United States forces he also had in mind the forces of Great Britain, France and Canada as well. Therefore our plans should be made with the knowledge that not only the army brigade now in Germany but also the air force units now in Germany may in the not too distant future be withdrawn. Whether they are or not, the fact remains that stage by stage the need for Canadian army units in the protracted period of un- settled peace before us which, please God, may merge into a period of stable peace, is going to require fewer and fewer units from the North American continent. We therefore [Mr. Drew.] can begin now to plan the type of units that would be needed. What, then, of our obliga- tions to NATO? I submit, Mr. Chairman, that if we organ- ized here in Canada a unique Canadian army set-up of small, hard-hitting, compact units, able to move with the utmost speed to any threatened point, we would not only be devising the kind of unit best suited to meet any threat to this huge land area of ours, but we would also be devising the best type of force needed in the years ahead. I am one of those who find a great source of confidence in the extent of the mutual danger which now threatens the nations on both sides. The extent of the destruction that would come from any thermonuclear war in itself offers the greatest possibility of avoid- ing a general world conflagration in which the main antagonists would be Russia on the one hand and the western nations on the other. We ahl recall the typically imaginative words of Sir Winston Churchill only a few months ago when he placed before the House of Commons in Great Britain ail the menace of thermonuclear destruction, and then said, "By a strange anomaly it may appear that peace is the sturdy child of terror." That is a possibility. After ail, we have certain things in com- mon with Russia. One of these is the desire to live. Not long ago in New York I saw in a great photographic exhibition there a pic- ture of a Russian family gathered around a table, and at the end of the table there was a picture of a young man in uniform with a black border around the frame. There in an exhibition that had photographs from ail over the world I could not help thinking that there were similar photographs from France, from Germany, from Italy, from the United States and from Canada. We ail like to think of our young people growing up and living normal lives. Whether they may place the same value on life as we do is only a comparative question. The Rus- sians want to live and they want their child- ren to live. The mere knowledge that their precipitation of a thermonuclear war would mean devastation of their own country and the death of their own children will be a deterrent even to the most terrible dictator in the Kremlin. For that reason I share the opinion of those who see great hope of the avoidance of another world war in the very fact that there is this terrible fear of destruc- tion which could in fact end human life on this globe. That does not end the possibility of war. At the time the war broke out in Korea al the terrible, destructive power of the atomic bomb was already available. At the time the Russian-supparted attacks in Indo-China were being carried on by the Viet Minh farces there were atomic bambs, as there were atomic bombs while there was fighting in Malaya, in Kenya and elsewhere throughout the warld. The existence af these terrifying weapons has not stopped fighting with canventional wea- pans in Gaza; nor has it stopped flghting in ather isolated areas in ather parts of the world. Nevertheless it would appear that there are those who think they can affard the privilege af a war of their own without the danger of precipitating the use of those terrible Weapons. Let us hope that up ta a paint this is true. Whatever any of us may think about the decision not ta bomb the Chinese bases fram which the Chinese air force was attacking the traops af the United Nations in Korea, let us be quite sure of ane thing. The fact that they were nat bombed has undoubtediy en- couraged the thaught that it is passible to wage conventianal war without inviting re- taliatian by these terrible weapons. For that reasan there must be conventional units, and we must have our own type of canventional units for the future. Therefare the thing far us ta do ta the best of aur ability is devise the kind of farce that wauld meet nat only aur own requirements but couid play its part as one of the members of the United Nations in an autbreak of that kind. How best can Canada be a partner lin dealing with ane of these conflagrations? Will it be by the slow movement by rail and ship af old-fashioned army units or by the sudden mavement, perhaps within 48 or 72 hours, ta Asia or Africa or Indo-China of the kind a! hard-hitting mobile units we have been sug- gesting? I am satisfled that when it came ta a discussion af Canada's participatian, if we said we were cancentrating an army units af that type and that we would assume aur responsibility within the NATO organization by the mavement of units of that type, they would welcome the possibility and possibly other countries might themnselves follow the same course. The picture befare us is by no manner of means dark and hopeless. There are great reasons for hope. There are reasans far hope that under the overhanging threat a! mutual destruction the largest nations may nat pre- cipitate the kind of war that would make that kind a! destruction a reality. Perhaps we may be moving dloser than we think ta the very time when the threat they face will impose some measure of sanity and frankness and hanesty upon the representatives of com- munist Russia. Perhaps the very fact that they realize the danger ta their own home- land will give us some reasan ta hope that Supply-National Defence beyond the doubtful gestures we have already seen will be real gestures toward mutual disarmament which will end this mad race which is costing Canada over $2 billion a year, and which is imposing such heavy burdens upon the whole warld. In the mean- time let us ha sure flot oniy that we have the most economicai force but that we alsa have the most efficient force for aur awn requirements. I regret that the minister has made no positive statement which would offer a new understanding of the intentions of the department. They 'have had such a statement in Great Britain. When the white paper was placed before the members of parliament in Britain a very dramatic statement was made with far-reaching significance. [t was said there that they have decided definitely that battleships are now primarily launching bases for guided missiles. That revalutionizes the movement of naval forces. After ail, the huge battleships simply provided a necessary metal base for the large rifled guns that would be flred. It needed enarmous ships ta carry 15-inch and 18-inch guns. Guided missiles will require a much smaller base; therefore we may look ta the time when the most effective ships will be fast, lighter ships launching guided missiles, nat only against other ships, not anly against aircraft, but also against such targets as they may be called upon ta engage on land. That would revalu- tionize naval warfare, and bring us perhaps to the time where our awn particular raie would be much less costly than it is taday. Let us know ini Canada if Canada accepts the same concept. I wish the minister had tald us samething about the fact that Cana- dian artillery has already flred a cantrolled missile. I would like ta knaw what the con- cept of the army is in regard ta land-to-land missiles and land-ta-air missiles flred by artillery units. Already the Canadian artil- lery has accepted the guided missile as a future weapan. Undoubtedly the canventional artillery weapons wlll remain for some time, but these are things that should be discussed step by step. We are moving ta a completely new concept of weapons and the employment of the different technical services within aur army. Step by step the air farce is moving taward a greater mabilîty and a greater carrying power. Let us in Canada have an army of the future. Let us be no mere reflection. of the armies either of the United States, of Great Britain, of Germany, of France or af any other country. Let this be the army of tomorrow. I urge the minister ta challenge the Imaginatian of yaung Canadians by affer- ing. them a picture of a force which will be JUNE 18. 1955 4891 HOUSE OF COMMONS Supply-National Defence designed particularly for the needs of Canada. When that is done I submit that we can expect with confidence that young Canadians will man the weapons and join the forces required for that service. Mr. Campney: Mr. Chairman, I do not rise at this time to answer all those who have spoken already. It is probably much too early for me to do that. But I do rise to make some observations about the first mat- ter discussed by the Leader of the Opposition, namely the retirement of General Simonds. I must say that I was pleased that the Leader of the Opposition was very mild and generous in the statements he made today. The reason I am intervening in the debate is that, unfortunately, because of the fury and dust which has been created in the last week-I think I must say mostly by the activities of the Leader of the Opposition-I think I should say something in relation to the retirement of General Simonds, as his responsible minister and in view of the fact that he cannot speak here for himself. I think quite a residue of doubt bas been left in the public mind and a great deal of embarrassment and confusion must also obtain in respect to General Simonds, his position and his retirement. I suspect also that perhaps the Leader of the Opposition started out to ride a political horse and fell off or possibly was pulled off. In any event he may have read the editorial in the Ottawa Journal about the danger he might en- counter in- Mr. Drew: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege- An hon. Member: Sit down. Mr. Drew: I rise on a question of privilege. An hon. Member: There is no privilege. Mr. Campney: What is the question of privilege? Mr. Drew: If you will permit me to state it. Mr. Sinclair: It was not a horse he was riding, it was a jackass. Mr. Drew: I would think the hon. member who bas just interjected that asinine com- ment would have made enough such com- ments to- Mr. Sinclair: It was not a horse you were riding, it was a jackass. Mr. Drew: I would point out that I have asked for information. The first comment I made in regard to this matter was in this house, after the whole problem had been precipitated into the open by a statement issued by the Minister of National Defence [Mr. Drew.] an hour before we met in this chamber. Nothing I have done has contributed in any way to any uncertainty. Mr. Campney: That probably is a matter of opinion, but in any event I still suspect that the Leader of the Opposition has had second thoughts, which probably were best thoughts. I do not know that any good pur- pose would be served by continuing the debate on that point. I think most hon. mem- bers realize that the change was made and announced in the normal way. Yet the Leader of the Opposition said, in a statement which he issued to the press outside of the house: Parliament and the people of Canada have a right to demand that so important a subject should not remain shrouded in a cloak of mysterious secrecy. That is what he said, if he was correctly reported in the Globe and Mail. Mr. Drew: I am hoping the minister will remove it. Mr. Campney: There is no mysterious secrecy in the matter whatever. I think I might make a few observations in the interests of the chief of the general staff, myself, the public and everyone in the coun- try who may have an interest in this matter. The chief of the general staff, as the Leader of the Opposition has said and as we all realize, is a very distinguished soldier. He is a very brave and able officer and had a splendid career throughout world war II. He was appointed chief of the general staff on the lst of February, 1951, and when he retires he will have been chief of the general staff for four years and seven months. There has been some discussion about the four-year rule, as it is called, and the rota- tion of senior officers. I think the simple fact is this. Although there is no law or no regula- tion, it is generally regarded in the Depart- ment of National Defence that senior officers -and certainly the very top ones-should be retired on approximately a four-year rotation. There is a reason for this feeling. The goal of any career military man, if he goes up the ladder sufficiently fast, is some day to be chief of the general staff. If you keep men for long periods in top positions, you naturally hold up promotion or rotation. Therefore, in the department it is generally agreed that four years is a good tour of duty. From such experience as I have had in the department, I agree with that view. I do not think there is any doubt about it. On February 1 last General Simonds had been for four years chief of the general staff. Some time after that date-that is, some time in February-I discussed with him the matter 4892 JUNE 18, 1955 of tenure o! the position of chief of the general staff, and I expressed the view which I have expressed here, namely that four years was a reasonable period, as far as you could establish a general rule, and that such was my feeling in respect of al chiefs of staff. General Simonds expressed the view that he thought it would be unques- tionably in the best interests of the service that no chie! should exceed five years. We then discussed the most suitable time at which a change might be made, and we agreed that, as the end of August or the first of September marked the break between the carrying out o! the operations of the previous summer and the planning for the next year, August 31 would be the most suitable date. We therefore agreed on that date. This was in February. It was a very frank and pleasant conversation. There was no mysterious veil o! secrecy surrounding it or anything of that nature. The reason the retirement was announced at the time it was announced was that the newspapers were starting to speculate and were beginning to name successors and fix dates of retiremient. As we were maklng another important announcement we thought it might well be made at the same time, and that was done. 1 want to make it clear that the timig of the prospective retirement of General Simonds on August 31 had nothing to do with any o! the subsequent events to which the hon. member has referred, and subsequent events have had nothing to do with that retirement. It was a normal and orderly dis- cussion of retirement at the conclusion of bis period as chief of the general staff. I may say that General Sixnonds has been a very able, loyal, helpful and co-operative chief of staff. At the end o! bis tour he will have served four years and seven months. I do flot know whether the Leader of the Opposi- tion sees anything mysterious in these events. In any event I can assure him that there was not any element o! secrecy or mystery about it. Mr. Drew: Then, Mr. Chairman, may I ask the niinister whether there is any intention O! employing General Simonds i some other capacity? Mr. Campney: That you will have to wait and see. Mr. Drew: There is no decision at the moment? .Mr. Campuey: There is no decision at the moment. Supply-National De! ence Mr. Enfield: I want to take this opportunity to address a few remarks to the committee, particularly on the question of defence re- search. Before 1 continue I want to congratu- late our Minister of National Defence. I feel that he has achieved a fine grasp of the details of his department; and as we have seen, he is ready to take prompt executive action when- ever hie feels the need for it arises. A further point I want to mention is that as associate minister of national defence and also since he has become Minister of National Defence he has always shown a conscientious and considerate interest in members of par- liament in respect of the arrangements he makes for our visits to defence establishments. 1 arn sure these visits have broadened the knowledge of members with regard to defence to a considerable degree. Looking at the figure in the estimates we see that there is a total of somte $1,769 million appropriated for defence generally. 0f this a surn of $52J million, in round figures, is set aside for the defence research board. The latter figure represents almost exactly 2.9 per cent of the total figure to be budgeted for in respect o! defence expenditure. Although we In this country are, of course, still ex- tremely vuinerable to enemy attack, inter- national tensions have eased to a certain extent, and perha-ps it might be an appropri- ate time to examine the money spent on research in relation to total defence expendi- ture, taking a realistic view. We have here a country with a very large land mass but comparatively thinly popu- lated, backed by a more than adequate store- house of natural resources. Although we can contribute our fair share to any joint defence effort by the free nations, we cannot obviously supply sufficiently large armies, navies and air forces to undertake continental defence on a large scale independently of the other countries, involving huge areas of land and for a long period of tixne. Perhaps our most effective contribution to defence would be to specialize ini some Particular field, and this course has been suggested by many of those hon. members who have spoken i this debate today. Whatever we may conclude in that respect -and one is tempted to conclude that we certainly could look twice at specializing in air power-we can arrive at this conclusion. There is one field to which. we are perfectly suited i this country, and that is the field o! research as applied to our defence effort. I arn more particularly interested in two fields, namely atomic fission and electronics. As to the first, the field of atomic energy and atomic fission, presumably most of our re- search is carried on by Atomic Energy o! 4894 HOUSE OF COMMONS Supply-National Defence Canada Limited, operating at Chalk River this will provide the necessary space in which under a budget of some $18 million. This people may work. It does fot look as though program is carried on under the aegis of the that would be a continuing expenditure on Minister of Trade and Commerce. research. The money is to provide space I thought perhaps we might consider a where people can work and will fot neces- parallel program carried on under the Depart- sarily be applîed to the actual work of ment of National Defence to study a different research. The money actually going into though related field. For example, we do the work of research would therefore be not appear to have done much, if any, work in soewhat less than the $52 million indicated the field of propulsion of vehicles, both on in the estimates. We must take this into land and on sea, by atomic energy. The consideration. United States has had some experience in this Looking at the comparison between expen- field. We know they have constructed a sub- ditures on research and total defence expendi- marine powered by an atomic engine and have tures we should also consider one further another one under construction. We also point. Money spent on research brings a know they are contemplating the construc- double reward. On the one hand it contrib- tion of a freighter to be propelled by atomic utes to the security o! the country by assist- energy. ing the fighting forces. On the other hand It would seem from the white paper that it provides knowledge which, when made our research is limited to a study of the effects public-and it is made public-creates oppor- of thermonuclear explosion, and it would not tunities in civilian fields of endeavour. Thus, appear that we have undertaken any separate while on the one hand providing security or distinct attack on this field by way of and hence the opportunity to go on living, atomic research other than studying the effect through research you also bring about a of the explosion of atomic and hydrogen situation whereby further opportunities are bombs. Perhaps we should broaden our base. created, resulting in the long run in paying If we could achieve success in the field of the dividend of increasîng the standard o! propulsion of vehicles by atomic energy, living. That is extremely important. certainly the effect on our defence forces A concrete example of this sort of thing would be very salutary indeed, and would was made apparent on our visit to Fort give us a tremendous advantage in so far Churchill. We were shown the research work as other countries are concerned. that had been done by the branch of the Let us look at the field of electronics. In defence research board there. Investigations this respect the white paper indicates on page lad been made into conditions of life in an 37 that the defence research board's pro- Arctic environment. Types of clothing were gram of grants in aid at Canadian universities devised. Methods of constructing buildings continues at a scale that has levelled off at with a permafrost foundation were worked $1 million annually. Again, on page 38 the out. Investigations were made into the type white paper indicates that the board's sup- o! food one should eat and how to heat port of physical electronics research at uni- buildings. Ail this material was the work of versities continues. In other words, it would the defence research board at Fort Churchill. appear that electronics research is confined On the other hand, when private companies to work at universities supported by grants go up there for the purpose of constructing in aid totalling $1 million annually. The such installations as the D.E.W. une, ail the white paper goes on to say that a compara- material collected through careful research tively small scientific staff at the defence by the federal government is avaîlable free of research telecommunications establishment is charge, I was told, to these private companies doing research in special fields, particularly in order that they May carry out their work with regard to the application of electronics f0 the best advantage. Therefore the research to the mid-Canada radar warning system. undertaken provides information for private From a casual perusal of the estimates and civilian organizafions, and we reap a double the white paper it would appear to me that reward from the money spent. I fhink that the sum of $1 million annually devoted to is an exfremely important point. It is a this wide and complicated field of electronics chance to more or less have our cake and research as applied to defence measures is eat if too, somefhing we do not encounter quite inadequate to press forward the advance foo often. of pure knowledge. I would suggest that the I therefore submit respectfully that at this minister give some consideration to that time we can afford fo perhaps change the situation. emphasis on our defence planning to the point Of the $52 million appropriated for research, where more money will be channelled into $28 million is for the construction of buildings the vital field o! research. My submission, and the acquisition of equipment. Apparently and 1 ask the minister f0 consider it, is that [Mr. Enfield.] if the money spent on research were tripled, increased to say $150 million, it would not involve too great a departure frorn accepted principles. It would not impair the present de! ence effort; it wouid give impetus and breadth to our research program, and it wouid still amount to less than 10 per cent of total defence expenditures. Mr. Hamilton (York West): Mr. Chairmnan, 1 find myseif in the rather unusuai position o! being an army veteran and having the job o! speaking more specifically today on ques- tions involving the Royal Canadian Air Force and defence requirements from the air stand- point. However, before I limit myseif to that aspect o! defence I do have a few general observations I shouid like to make. I do not think anyone seriously questions the trend toward the proportionate increase in the size o! the budget for the defence o! the country by air as compared with defence by land and sea. Frankiy, however, I believe some surprise miglit be occasioned by the fact that the increase dollarwise, as indicated in the minister's white paper, is only very slight percentagewise in the money being spent on the air force for the corning year as compared with the past year. Those figures are 41-4 per cent for iast year, 1954-55, with a pro- jected 42-2 per cent for 1955-56. This may indicate one thing, especially in view o! the fact that air force personnel has now increased to the point where it outranks the army. It may, in fact, indicate an actuai decrease in the amount allocated for the pur- chase o! strategic materials and newly developed weapons o! all kinds, at a time when every indication would appear to point to the necessity of Canadians leading in technical developments. In the over-ail picture o! the services it wouid appear that this is an increasing trend, according to the estixnates. I do not think I need to refer to thern specifically, but in the estimates dealing with ahl three service departments there would appear to be a decrease in expenditures in connection with the procurement o! materials o! a strategic type and otherwise. Whiie personnel costs are rising, and while the numbers are rising, there seems to be a fairly drastic reduction in the amount of money being spent on technical equipment and improvernents. This, I believe, is contrary to the establishment o! a good defence program. It is essential that we keep in the forefront frorn the scientific standpoint. I mention these cases specifically as I note them from the estimates. I would think as well that there could be conisiderable savings in the defence esti- mates. The *hon. member for Esquimaît- Saanich said that at no Urne did we advocate Supply-National Defence a cut in defence expenditures at the risk of our national safety, but we appear to be continuing the well-defined program. that is ever present in the defence services. In look- ing over the estirnates it would appear we are holding the line on top level appointments, but the empire builders are stili at work. The estimates dîsclose a continuai increase in the number of office boys, stenographers, cleaners, helpers, clerks of ail grades, chauf- feurs and messengers. In one place I even noticed an increase i the helper coiumn from 422 to 1,220. Sureiy if it is the intention to replace army service personnel with civîlians on the basis suggested by the minister, that is a civilian empioyed at an average of $2,600 a year, while $3,600 is the cost of service personnel, with a rîse to $4,000 inciuding travelling expenses, we could expect a significant reduc- tion in travelling expenses and items of that kind throughout the services. I am thinking that if the policy is to replace army person- nel in the various districts with civilians there shouid be a consequent reduction in that type o! expenditure, but apparently there is no such saving. I can only suggest, Mr. Chairman, that we must conclude that the civilians being hired are flot in fact repiacing service personnel but are in addi- tion to service personnel. I feel that a reai determination o! the efficacy o! a ratio as between civilian and military personnel can oniy be ascertained if the percentage is in fact related to a figure ind.icating the number of people in the services who actuaily could be piaced on the firing uine. Otherwise it becomes a totaliy misleading figure. I arn wiiling to chance the statement that in the case o! the United Kingdom the percentage, which was indicated -as being the same as in Canada, would pro- duce a greater number of personnel who might be reieased for front uine service as a result of the employment o! civilians than is the case in connection with our own services. I arn particularly interested in the esti- mates as they relate to the procurement o! essential aircraft and supplies for the air services. When I think back to the time when sorne of these programs were outlined initi- ally, I wonder if the people o! Canada would have been happy if they had had any indica- tion that during this period, in so far as defence requirements are concerned, we would only be able to build up three squadrons o! CF-100's as o! December 31 last year. I arn quite sure that if such an indication had been given to them, at the time o! the introduction o! such a programn back i 4895JUSE 16. 1935 HOUSE OF COMMONS Supply-National Defence 1950, they would have been very dismayed that this was going to constitute the main line of our fighter defence. As I look at the program I find it very difficult to believe that, in fact, it is the intention to complete, and to equip with CF-100's before the end of the year, ail the squadrons listed for home defence. This statement certainly does not seem to tie in with the indications given by the production schedule of the company which produces the planes. I believe it indicates also that we may have missed the boat in connection with the savings we might have secured by a steady and constant program of fighter plane production. I think people in business in Canada are justified in saying that for each dollar spent they expect to get a dollar of value. In an article in the Toronto Telegran of April 21, 1955, I notice that Mr. J. A. Calder, president of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, indicated he felt that a penny's value for every penny spent by the govern- ment was needed. He went on to say that the objective of the government, to lower the relation of taxes to productivity, can be accomplished by a reduction in government expenditures or an increase in industrial productivity. I do not think it is necessary to detract in any way from our air defence in order to save money in connection with some purchases of aircraft and materials. According to an article in the Globe and Mail of May 13, 1955, it was indicated in reply to some questions asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that the contracts with Avro are on the basis of a fixed fee plus an incentive bonus on savings under a target arrangement, with a total profit limitation of 10 per cent of target. The article goes on: A departmental official- That may be a very dangerous type of person to quote in this debate. -- said later this system means that apart from a fixed fee, the price of each plane is determined on the basis of production cost plus a certain proportion of the amount by which the cost is reduced under a fixed target cost. Under those circumstances it would appear that we are buying planes on the basis of a cost plus contract. My reason for stating that I have doubts as to whether there is any real intention to complete the program involving ten squad- rons is that we have continual information from the A. V. Roe plant indicating slow- downs in production, or a stretching out of the production of those planes. At the same time there have been lay-offs in employment which, apparently, are building up to a point where they involve almost 3,000 people. [Mr. Hamilton (York West).] It is well known that production costs of all types are tied down to production schedules. My understanding is that in a plant of the type operated by A. V. Roe we could count on a production of about 25 aircraft per month from the production line. Using as an example an over-all cost figure of $275,000 for each plane produced, we find that the ratio of administration and over- head to the cost of plane production would be about $1 for plane production to $1.75 for administration. I believe that is a fairly sound proposition on a production line of that kind. Then if we reduce the production schedule-and I understand it has been reduced-of course the proportion of adminis- tration expense as against production cost or aircraft dollar becomes something entirely different. We are then placed in a position where we may have to increase the ratio to a point where instead of having $1 as opposed to $1.75 it might be $1 as against $3. And with a plane which might have cost $285,000-that would be the stripped-down figure, without engines or accessories-such a figure could easily be increased by about $150,000. If the contract is as I see it, then any tendency to slow down the production line would result in an increase in the cost of a plane of that type amounting to about $150,- 000, such cost having to be borne by the people of Canada. I believe if there were a little more planning, a little more foresight in connection with the over-all air program and the procurement of various types of aircraft, this kind of wastage of money- and that is the only way to describe it-could be avoided. Therefore, what type of program should be recommended? Well, most certainly in this country we should have a considerable increase in the number of our transport type aircraft. As has been suggested by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich, I believe it is necessary in planning to integrate the new types of forces he envisages with an expanded program of transport type aircraft. It is understood, of course, that we require this type of aircraft for commercial purposes as well. At the present time we have going on in northern Canada the largest mass airlift of equipment that has ever taken place in the world to date. At the same time we must realize that type of airlift may become common procedure in the future. Nor is there any indication that the various warning lines, in thiemselves, will do the job we expect them to do for more than a few of JUNE 16, 1955 the years ahead. We must face the fact that flights into the northern area of this country will continue to increase. It happened that at the time of the institution of the operation of distant early warning lines we found ourselves in Canada with about two aircraft of the Bristol type, but with very few other multi-engined trans- port planes available. The air industry and the air transport association certainly did their best to bring together the various civilian operators into a working force capable of carrying out this great project. Notwithstanding their efforts, and the fact that many planes were brought into the country under a leasing arrangement, as recently as two or three days ago the associa- tion had to send a telegram to its members stating-and I believe this is the wording- Memo re our aircraft for eastern section D.E.W. Urgent requirement for Beavers, Otters, Norse- men or Cessna 180's on floats for mid-Canada and D.E.W. Wire association office if you can commit any of these types for full summer contract, stating date available, minimum guarantee and tariff rates. Obviously this is an indication of the great need in this country for transport type air- craft. In other words we are getting pretty close to scraping the bottom of the barrel. In the United States they have made use of service requirements in that respect to build up a reserve of transport aircraft. This would seem to be a move that might be followed logically here in Canada. As a matter of fact I have here an extract from the American Aviation Daily of June 6, 1955, stating: Air co-ordinating committee made its long awaited report on the navy cargo aircraft lease plan to commercial carriers on Friday, following a special meeting called by chairman Louis S. Rothschild. The report affirmed a previous one that the rates would be set high. It states: "The lease arrange- ments should . . . provide for rental rates in line with costs of commercial ownership, based on reasonable estimates of acquisition price (includ- ing all necessary equipment), accepted rates of depreciation, rates of return and allowances for taxes." Reasons set forth are to "avoid any element of subsidy"; to avoid makling lease preferable to ownership; and to avoid generating cargo expansion "on an unstable basis by facilitating the develop- ment of a substantial volume of cargo lift capability with minimum financial commitment" . . . It proposed that allocations go to carriers who have shown "an historical interest" in air cargo operations by: (1) actual participation in air cargo carrying; (2) air cargo promotion, advertis- ing and solicitation; (3) possession of, "or earnest efforts to secure", certificates authorizing cargo carrying; (4) "substantial participation" in cargo charter or irregular air cargo operations; and (5) "demonstrated requirements for additional com- mercial cargo". Preference should be given to domestic operations. Here is a plan whereby the armed forces in the United States take advantage of an opportunity to build up a reserve of air transport cargo planes. These aircraft are Supply-National Defence not mothballed, but are made available to commercial air carriers on a leasing basis, thus providing a number of air transport cargo planes which most certainly would become vital in a time of emergency. The indications of the requirements for the D.E.W. line certainly show a far greater need in this country for that type of plane. I believe they indicate an opportunity as well for the Department of National Defence and perhaps the Department of Defence Produc- tion to ease the hills and valleys of a produc- tion schedule which is devoted entirely to the production of fighter or bomber type aircraft. This may be old history, but the facts are that we are facing a serious problem in those aircraft plants which are devoted entirely to the type of production to which I referred. We had an opportunity to go on with work of that kind, an opportunity to provide a production line type of aircraft which might have been used under the exact conditions which have arisen in connection with the construction of the D.E.W. line. It is brought very forcibly home when we read in the Globe and Mail of June 1, "Obsolete Jetliner probably will be Flying Testbed". In the Globe and Mail of June 8, one week later, we read "Douglas plans swift Jetliner". At Canadair we are embarking on limited production of a plane which I believe, with very little modification, would meet ordinary commercial air cargo specifications. There is an opportunity to let that type of contract, whether it be with that particular firm or with others, to cover the interim period until the production line slows down on the fighter type of aircraft and before development work on a new type brings the production line back into being at an accelerated rate. That interim period does two things. It brings about the laying off of skilled workers, some of whom have been trained at great expense, who will not return to the production line. I submit this very sincerely. It also means that if we are buying planes on a cost plus basis-and that seems to be indicated from the informa- tion we have-the people of this country are paying much out of proportion for the product they are getting. If we are talking about air help and air assistance, we should also be considering what help we are giving to those outside our own country along those lines. Actually it is very difficult to understand the statements one gets from the department. In connection with procurement of aircraft and items of that kind for supply to NATO countries, the estimates indicate that there is a reduction in the amount of money being spent for that purpose. I am not exactly sure what the true plans are in that respect, or what is the 4898 HOUSE OF COMMONS Supply-National Defence intention. The various pronouncements from are fot coming forward. Certainly it would three ministers, sir, the Minister of Defence appear that some new type of approach must Production, the Secretary of State for Exter- be used to justify the expenditure of that nal Affairs and the Minister of National amount of money as against the number of Defence, seem to go along different lines. air crew recruits obtained. In the first instance we were told there In the over-ali picture Canadians have was every indication that the plane which always responded very quîckly to the call of was being produced here was required and the air force, and the Minister of National desired by countries in the NATO group. The Defence is a shining example of that state- Secretary of State for External Affairs said ment. There seems no reason, if the program in the house that he did not know of any can be outlined to the young men of this country that did not want or could not use country in a manner which indicates that it this type of plane, but the Minister of Defence is not only a job from the patrîotic stand- Production said that there were no orders point in connection with the defence of our for such a plane. If aid to others is an essen- country, but also an opportunity to fit them- tial part of our air defence program, here selves into the over-ail air picture where again was an opportunity of making use of their services will always be required, why our defence production line so our factories there should be any failure to obtain the did not lag. If these planes were suitable for requisite numbers. Again, that seems to be the purpose, then obviously there was a a reason why we should pay some attention place to put them to work. to expanding the force on the basis of the I am indeed surprised to find that the straight transport requirements which exist indications here, as in other respects, are today in the country. that we plan to spend less money on that Mr. Nesbii±: Mr. Chairman, in the white type of assistance. Indeed, they indicate that paper issued by the minister's department there is no intention of making use of the there are set out on page 3 the objectives of products of our factories in the production of Canada's defence program. I presume they aircraft for that particular purpose. are set out there in order of importance, and I would think there might be one or two if I am incorrect in that assumption I know other observations in connection with the the minister will correct me. First is the R.C.A.F. relationship to the estimates that defence of Canada; second is co-operation might be given consideration. The indication with the United States in the joint defence here, as in connection with the other services, of Canada and the United States; third, co- is that we face a tremendous turnover in operation within the North Atlantic Treaty personnel. As a matter of fact last year there Organization, looking toward the checking of were enlistments of approximately 11,000 aggression; and, fourth, the carrying out of and discharges of approximately 5,000. But undertakings by Canada as a member of the by far the most serious aspects were shown United Nations. Bearing those in mmd as the in the answers to my questions concerning general defence objectives of Canada, I should the actual recruiting program for air crew. like to relate my remarks for the next few You will recall, sir, the figures which were minutes to the defence objectives of Canada given to me. We had 5,570 applications for with particular relation to the navy. air crew in 1954. We had 4,121 rejections. I It wm be recalled that in the days of world gather that somewhere in the neighbourhood of 1,400 were acceptable applicants for air crew in the R.C.A.F. On the basis of total of the navy was on escort and convoy work, enlistments this would approximate 10 or 12 and hon. members know that in that war per cent. That seems a very small figure the Canadian navy did the great bulk of when we compare it with the well over $2 escort duty in the north Atlantic. Since million that was spent by the service on a world war II it has become rather apparent recruiting program. There must be an under- that the objectives and purposes of the naval lying cause for the failure of the service to program have been directed along these saie obtain more than that number of suitable young men. wou d t Ia d larely I am wondering also whether it means appear the emphasis is still that because of specializing in the produc- on this objective, namely escort work. I would tion and flying, or the putting together of refer hon. members to page 15 of the white squadrons of the fighter type, as against the paper, paragraph 47, which reads: opportunity for young men to become quali- In January. 1952, for the protection of vital fied over a period of years to fly the latest and sea communications between Europe and North best types of transport planes and thereby America. a supreme allied commander, Atlantic(SACLANT), was appointed and headquartersrefit themselves into civilian life, young men established at Norfolk, Va. [Mr. Hamilton (York West).] JUNE 16, 195 That particular item refers to part 3, Canada's role in defence abroad. I gathered from the minister's remarks this morning that the work of the Canadian navy was largely anti-submarine work ini particular relation- ship to escort duty. Another objective of Canadian navy policy has been the defence of Canadian waters and harbours. While this has been an important aspect of the work of the navy ini the past, I think somewhat less emphasis has been placed upon this aspect of naval work more recently. My feeling is that at the present time this is ini a some- what secondary position to the escort and convoy work. Due to modern and changing conditions since world war II I think the emphasis on the work of the navy should be re-examined. It was pointed out this morning by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich that condi- tions in the world have greatly changed, and that our whole policy could quite properly be re-examined. My view is that emphasis should be placed upon the defence of Canadian waters, Canadian harbours and Canadian inland cities. This may seem a rather strange job for the navy to be doing, that is protect- ing Canadian inland cities and the industrial heartland of Canada, but I shahl elaborate on this a little more in the next few moments. On page 4 of the white paper and also in his remarks this morning the minister has brought home most forcefully the danger of nuclear war, and there is the plain statement that if such an event takes place there is no real defence against it, that the only thi.ng we can hope to do is minimize the resuits of such an attack. I think there is littie doubt in the minds of most people that if war of this type takes place it will occur very suddenly and unexpectedly. A great deal of emphasis has been placed in the last few years, particularly this year, on the danger of an attack on North Arnerica by aircraft coming ini over the north pole or f rom. the north Atlantic or from the Pacific. In view of this the "Pinetree" and mid-Canada defence lines, and now the D.E.W. lUne, have been set up as radar warning systems to warn the industrial heartland of Canada and the United States of the approach of enemy aircraf t. While these are extremely important, we ail know there is another way by which air- craft and missiles could be directed at the industrial heart of North America. This would be quite apart from, direct attacks by any enemy craft based in Europe or Asia. I refer to the possibility of the launching of guided missiles or even small jet aircraft from Supply-Natiomal Defence submarines. I do flot thing there is any argu- ment that this possibility is great; but be- cause of the emphasis placed upon possible attacks by aircraft from bases in Europe or Asia it is possible that this matter has been overlooked or has not been emphasized as much as it should be. At six o'clock the committee took recess. AFTER RECESS The committee resumed at eight o'clock. Mr. Pearkes: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege or a point of order. I do not think we should go on with this dis- cussion until the minister arrives. I believe we should wait until he is here to hear the discussion on his estimates. I think we must object to going on with the discussion with- out the ininister being present. Mr. Harris: I think he will be here in a moment, Mr. Chairman. The Chairman: I might point out that the parliamentary assistant to the minister is here. Some hon. Members: Carried. Mr. Pearkes: No, Mr. Chairman. We are not prepared to go on with the discussion without the minister being present. Mr. Harris: I arn informed that he is on his way here. The Chairman: The minister is now in the chamber. Mr. Nesbili: Mr. Chairman, prior to the recess I pointed out that, in the work of the Royal Canadian Navy, I believe the emphasis should be shifted from escort work to defence of our home waters, for reasons I shahl out- line in the next few moments./ I agree with the hon. member for Esqui- malt-Saanich that, because of changes in the world military situation owing to nuclear weapons and other advances, our whole defence concept ought to be changed. I also agree with the hon. member for Esquimait- Saanich that the only effective enemy attack on Canada or on the United States or both would be made by air. But at present ail the emphasis is on the fact that this attack mlight be made by land-based aircraft coming from. either Europe or Asia. We have, of course, the three radar defence lines that have been much discussed in the last day or so, but attacks by air can also corne from other sources than land-based aircraft in Europe or Asia. By that I mean there is a fairly strong possibility-indeed a probability-that an attack could be made on HOUSE OF COMMONS Supply-National Defence industry in the heartland of North America by either guided missiles or jet planes launched from submarines. We have been accustomed to thinking, for example, of Hudson bay and James bay as a large, cold, inland sea belonging to Canada, and a very innocuous place; but I should like to point out that I believe Hudson bay and James bay could very well be the dagger pointed at the heart of Canada and North America generally. We have had samples of things such as this in the past. I think every hon. member here well remembers that England built a mighty fortress at Singapore. They were sure an attack would be made by the Japanese fleet. Great guns 18 inches in diameter were set up to repulse any such attack. As nearly everyone remembers, the Japanese captured Singapore, but they never used their navy. They used small numbers of troops landed behind, where nobody thought any attack would come from. We may have a D.E.W. line, a mid-Canada defence line and a "Pinetree" line to warn us of attack by land-based aircraft, but I do not think sufficient emphasis has been placed on the possibility of attacks being made on our heartland by submarine-based aircraft or guided missiles coming from submarines that could easily invade certain strategic waters around Canada. First I mention Hudson bay, just as a matter of interest. The distances I shall give are only approximations. They may be a mile or two out one way or the other. I also mention a submarine in James bay launch- ing guided missiles or aircraft. I also put in a further qualification. While we have heard of guided missiles that may be able to travel from one continent to another, I am assuming that guided missiles can travel only from 300 to 500 miles. I have no doubt they can travel much farther, but I am basing my assumption on the smaller guided missiles and from experience of the last war. We know that guided missiles undoubtedly exist. If they were launched from a sub- marine in Hudson bay they could certainly hit important areas in Canada. I would point out that the cities of Port Arthur and Fort William are only approximately 350 air miles from James bay. The Sault Ste. Marie canal area is only 300 miles away. Sudbury, with its great nickel mines and refinery, is only 300 miles away, and Ottawa about 400. The great dam at Des Joachims, up the Ottawa river, which furnishes the power for a great deal of the industrial area of Ontario, is about 400 miles distant. Montreal is 450 miles away, and the Toronto, Hamilton, Niagara area is approximately 500 miles away, or slightly better. The new St. Lawrence seaway will be [Mr. Nesbitt.] about 400 miles away. I think these thoughts are at least worthy of note, and to my mind and the minds of other people with whom I have discussed the matter they are disturbing. Another body of water from which attacks of this type could be made is the gulf of Maine. I know full well that the defence of the waters of the gulf of Maine is primarily the responsibility of the United States govern- ment, but because Canada could be affected too I feel that we also have responsibilities. Some of the air distances from the gulf of Maine to central Canada are not too great. Montreal is about 300 miles away, the seaway project about 300 miles away, Ottawa about 350 and the Toronto, Hamilton, Niagara area about 450 miles away. I have often heard people say that if sub- marines were to get into the gulf of St. Lawrence they might, by attacks such as I have already outlined, cause a great deal of destruction. That is no doubt true of certain areas, but I think the Hudson bay and gulf of Maine areas are much more likely because they are closer. The gulf of St. Lawrence is about 400 miles away from Montreal and about 300 miles away from Quebec and Arvida with its aluminum plant. There are also other areas in Canada that could be attacked which are very obvious. In the east there are the cities of Halifax, Saint John and Moncton and on the west coast there are Van- couver and Kitimat, though I understand the Kitimat project is supposed to be proof against attacks such as these. Another interesting fact is that the radium mines at Great Bear lake are only about 300 miles from the Arctic ocean. In certain months of the summer the Arctic ocean north of Canada is ice free and quite navigable by submarine. In these strategic waters, and I refer particularly to Hudson bay and the gulf of St. Lawrence, there are narrow entrances. Hudson strait, the entrance to Hudson bay, is about 100 miles wide. While the strait is about 400 miles long, it could well be de- fended. The distance across Cabot strait and the gulf of St. Lawrence is somewhat less than 100 miles. Of course the gulf of St. Lawrence can be entered by way of the strait of Belle Isle, but it is very narrow and would not present too much difficulty from the point of view of defence. I have already mentioned the coastal waters off the maritime provinces, Labrador, the gulf of Maine, and the west coast. The question arises, can we defend these areas adequately at the present time? With respect, Mr. Chair- man, I think not. In order to guard these coastal waters against sneak attacks by sub- marines I think some type of patrol would have to be established. When I think of 4900 JUNE 16, 1955 patrols first of all I refer to the navy and its ships, but one has also to think of air patrols. To deal first with ships, with our present and contemplated navy I think it would be very difficult to patrol all these areas ade- quately with our own ships or even with ships which no doubt would be available to us from the United States. On page 5 of the white paper I notice a reference to home defence and Canada-United States co-operation. Cer- tainly nothing specific is mentioned about joint operations between Canadian and American ships for this purpose, although I am sure it must be in mind and ships are probably available for this type of work. On page 7 of the white paper I see that at the present time we have in commission ten destroyer escort ships, one undergoing con- version and 14 under construction. Those under construction are of course the new St. Laurent class, the first of which I under- stand is to go into commission probably late this year. That will eventually make a total of 25. There are also a number of frigates in commission, though there seems to be a slight discrepancy as to the actual number. On page 7 of the white paper it is set out that there are nine in commission with eleven in reserve and one undergoing conversion, but on page 41 it says that there are ten in com- mission. I dare say this minor discrepancy can be explained. In any event, the fact is that we have very few ships in commission, held in reserve or under construction to deal with the very large area to be covered. In addition, certain areas from which sub- marines might launch attacks, such as the bay of Fundy and the gulf of St. Lawrence, are difficult areas for technical reasons from the point of view of anti-submarine protec- tion. There are currents in the waters and temperature changes that cause some difficul- ties in certain types of detecting equipment. At least they did in the last war and immediately afterward. These difficulties may have been overcome, but if they have no doubt it is secret and of course could not be told. Regarding patrols by aircraft, as every hon. member knows weather conditions necessarily limit the type of patrol work that can be done adequately by aircraft. It is true that we have aircraft equipped with radar and other devices, and that in very bad weather patrol work can be done by helicop- ters and other types of reconnaissance planes such as the new Neptune to be used by the air force, which I had the pleasure of seeing at a distance recently, but despite this the Supply-National Defence major proportion of the work of patrolling strategic waters will have to be done by ships of some sort. There are of course other dangers. There is what I consider the relatively minor dan- ger of mine-laying in certain waters by enemy submarine. However, I see we have eight new minesweepers and six more under construction. No doubt these may be adequate for the purpose for the immediate future. I was very glad to note in the minister's com- ments earlier today that the Royal Navy had lent us two submarines to carry on anti- submarine detection exercises. I am glad to hear this because it is certainly difficult for crews in training to know how to operate their instruments if they do not have the real thing to work on. However, I have one reservation. I rather imagine the submarines that have been lent us for this purpose by the Royal Navy are not of the newest variety. They are probably somewhat ancient, and not the type of sub- marine the Canadian navy would be com- pelled to deal with in the event of an attack. Undoubtedly the submarines Russia or any other potential enemy might have would be much larger and speedier. While exercisps in detection using what I imagine are older types of submarine are better than nothing at all, they are necessarily limited by that fact. I should also like to touch briefly on the question of manpower and recruiting. On page 22 of the white paper we see in the first paragraph that the maximum strength for the navy is 20,000. At present, as the minister informed us, and as I also learned from the answer to a question that recently appeared on the order paper, there are approximately 19,000 men in the Royal Canadian Navy. The question arises in my mind, in what way is the figure of 20,000 men related to the ships and equipment planned at present and to be completed within the next few years? That seems to me rather vague. Are these 20,000 men designed to equip the ships and shore establishments we have at the moment, or are they designed to equip the ships we will have within the next three or four years when the new St. Laurent class destroyers are added. I might point out when these 14 new destroyers are added they will have approxi- mately 270 to 300 men each. Is this figure of 20,000 men also related to these frigates which are held in reserve or in dehumidifica- tion, I think the term is in the white paper? As I recall it, frigates formerly had a comple- ment of 150 to 160 men. No doubt with all the improvements more will be required. If 10 or 11 of these are to be kept in reserve, HOUSE OF COMMONS Supply-National Defence are they to be manned? Will there be adequate personnel available to man these ships included in the 20,000 figure? Those are questions about which I am curious, and I should like to have an answer from the minister later. I come now to the question of recruiting and recruiting costs. I notice that again these costs are related to this figure of 20,000. I see that the estimates for recruiting costs are slightly less this year than last. As hon. members know, each year a certain number of men leave the navy for one reason or another. At this point I should like to refer to some figures contained in an answer to a question put on the order paper on February 28 last by the hon. member for Calgary North. According to this answer the naval strength on December 31, 1954 was 18,806. Enrolments during 1954 were 4,703 and releases were 2,262, making a net gain of 2,441 men. This would appear to be quite satisfactory. The costs of recruiting were also shown in the answer to this question placed on the order paper by the hon. member for Calgary North. The cost of recruiting for the navy last year was $943,300. This amounts to approximately $200 per man, but I think this is a rather misleading figure and illustrates the story about the statistician six feet tall who drowned in a river whose average depth was four feet. These figures can be misleading, because I suggest that a large number, perhaps more than half, of the men who enlisted in the navy would have enlisted without any costly advertising. This figure probably includes the cost of recruiting centres and so on, which are constant costs. I am considering such things as advertising costs and teams going around recruiting people. A large number of the recruits probably would have entered the navy without any of that. Actually the high cost of recruiting is related to the amount expended for the last 30 or 40 per cent of the recruits you get each year. So far as the actual costs of advertising are concerned, the total cost last year was $290,000. This works out to about $60 per man, based on 1954 enlistments. Again I suggest this is misleading, as a large per- centage of these people would have entered the service anyway. The advertising costs per man are probably related to the last 30 or 40 per cent of your recruits. The cost per man, therefore, would probably be closer to $125. My suggestion is that a lot of the advertis- ing in the newspapers might very well be cut out. It is very expensive, and I think it can be done by other methods. A great many people do wish to join the navy. It is a very [Mr. Nesbitt.1 fine service, as some of us know personally and others know by repute. People who wish to join can obtain information from the numerous divisional headquarters which are scattered around the country. I think the best type of advertising for the navy is the type of advertising illustrated not very long ago in the city of Peterborough. The hon. member for Peterborough may wish to make some further remarks about this, so I hope he will pardon me for bringing it up at the moment. The naval veterans' associa- tion held a meeting in Peterborough. There were over 2,000 naval veterans present, repre- senting nine of the ten provinces of Canada. There was a very fine program for two days, to which a great deal of free newspaper publicity was given. The event was talked about by everybody, and it was very successful. I feel this is one of the best types of advertising. Instead of spending a lot of money on newspaper advertising which, like election advertisements, a great many people do not read at all, the money might very well be spread out over some of these naval vet- erans' associations for Sunday church parades, financing naval bands and that sort of thing. Everybody likes a parade; and while I would probably receive some chal- lenge on this, I believe the naval service and the naval veterans certainly march as well as any of the other services. I believe that from the point of view of the naval bands it would be good for their morale to get a chance to go around and play for the public more than they do. I think this is a more effective type of publicity than any newspaper advertising, and more recruits might well be gained. Another thing that might well be consid- ered are these travelling teams who go around trying to get recruits for the navy. I see that last year the cost of these travelling teams amounted to $138,091, and other costs of recruiting for the navy amounted to $499,683. Apparently some of these amounts were joint costs which had to be shared with the army and air force recruiting teams. It seems to me that while we might run into objection in some quarters, some of these recruiting teams explain the advantages of naval and other service life to students and those in industrial plants. It should be a good way of getting the first-class recruits who are necessary to maintain the present high standard of the naval service. There is another suggestion I should like to make in this regard. It concerns the number of people who are expected to come into the navy, who belong to the university naval training division. There are a great 4902 JUNE 10, 1955 many students who take this university naval training who get summer cruises and have a pleasant time. This is a good way ta absorb the atmasphere of the navy and no doubt acquire a certain amnount of valuable training. Perhaps I have been misinformed on this and if I have I amn sure the minister will correct me, but I wander if those summer cruises cauld be confined ta thase wha intend ta make a career o! the navy rather than include thase who might be going alang for the ride, so ta speak. The last item upon which I should like ta touch very briefly is this matter af naval research, referred ta on page 39 o! the white paper. This is the part af the white paper which deals with defence research generaily, and there is one very small paragraph touch- ing on naval research. No doubt some o! the other types o! research will directly affect the navy, but this smnall paragraph indicates there is very littie research being conducted directly for the navy. I see accarding ta, a newspaper dispatch that the new St. Laeurent class of destroyer escarts are casting about $15 million each. I arn not suggesting we are nat getting value for what is being paid out. Sa far as de- stroyers are cancerned the cost o! the prototype or ifirst destroyer in the class is great because many alteratians have ta be made. But it would be a pretty sad thing, after building ships costing that much money and manned by about 300 men, ta lose such ships and men. It would be a heavy loss of men and material. It seems ta, me naval research might very well be directed ta finding out if there is flot same less expensive but equaily effective device for detecting sub- marines in the strategic waters surraunding the Canadian coast, particularly thase I men- tioned earller in my speech. Possibly this would involve sorne srnall vessel which cauld carry adequate detecting equipmnent, but which. would not be expected ta destroy enemy submarines. Larger ships or aircra!t cauld be used for that purpase. Possibly use cauld be made of modified or advanced types of detectian cables. Han. mnembers knaw these were used in the last war ta pratect the harbours. These could be used ta good effect, it seems ta me, at the entrances ta such waters as Hudson bay or Cabot strait. Canada is not a country that can affard much higher defence coats. If naval research could find approved methads of pratecting ourselves, withaut greatly increasing the cast, it seems to me samething that wauld be desirable. We all know the extent ta which the incarne tax dollar is eaten up for defence Supply-National Defence purposes. For this reason I ar n ot advocat- ing greatly increased expenditures, unless they are absolutely necessary. It seems to me a substitute method of protecting our waters might very well be f ound through increased naval research. Mr. Churchill: Mr. Chairman, it is not easy to discuss matters of defence at a time in the history of warf are when things are changing as rapidly as they have in the last few years. Modern scientific inventions, new types of weapons and the growing effective- ness of air power are making it very difficuit; for those in charge of defence matters to keep abreast of developments. The minister is aware of that f act, of course, and his advisers know it only too well. Nevertheless 1 thaught in the course of the minister's statement earlier today he showed some la*ck of imagination with regard to the present state of affairs. It was a cautious statement; perhaps it had to be. On the other hand I thought the problem might have been approached a littie more vigor- ously. The minister has had two years of experience in the department. Before be- caming minister he was associate minister for a year, sa hie is not unfarniliar with the task. What struck me was that too much o! what he had to say closely resembled what was said by the previous minister the year before. Incidentally, unless I heard the minister incorrectly, I thought he was out a bit in his history when he was talking about the importance a! defence in Canada. I under- stood him to say that for a century and a haif there had been fia fighting an Canadian soul. If he said that, I hope he will not object to rny rerninding him that there was con- siderable fighting an Canadian soul between 1812 and 1814. Then there was some fighting in 1837 and 1838, with rather serious casual- ties arnong the forces involved. The Fenian raids o! 1866 and 1870 caused great distuùrb- ance among people engaged in defence in Canada, and rather serious casualties were suffered. As many as from 10,000 to 20,000 militiamen were called out and put under arms for varying periods a! time during those troubles. Sa we have flot been alto- gether free fromn disturbances on Canadian soil. I have noticed, in reading the history of that period, that the problem of de! ending *Canada loomed as large ta, the men of that day as the present prablem does ta us. For those who are interested I would recornmend *a baok by a mast campetent historian, *"Canada's Soldiers, 1604 to 1954", whieh 4904 HOUSE OF Supply--National Defence gives the picture of the early days in Can- ada's defence. This book is written by Professor Stanley of the Royal Military College at Kingston. A hundred years ago people examining the problem of defending Canada estimated that because of the size of the country-and it was much smaller to them than it is to us-and the long border between Canada and the United States, 150,000 men would be needed effectively to man our defences. So the prob- lem has been a pressing one throughout the greater part of Canada's history. It is only since our relationship with the United States has become very friendly that we have been able to ignore the southern border. Other members speaking in the debate have pointed out how our thinking has changed to the point where we are now stressing a more complete defence of the North American continent, which is open to attack both by air and by sea. As the hon. member for Oxford pointed out a few mo- ments ago, even in the Hudson bay area sub- marines might launch missiles against our cities or other places. So we have to take a new look at Canada's defences. For several years members of the official opposition have been advocating greater mobility of Canada's forces. This applies at the present time, when you are thinking only of the Canadian scene. And it is here I believe the minister lacked imagina- tion. Several members who have spoken have drawn attention to the possibility of air attack and the means that should be taken to meet such attack. For several years we have had a mobile striking force which from time to time has been exercised in part in its peculiar role. But I do not think it is a complete mobile attacking force. I believe it needs other arms added to it. In addition to infantry, artillery, and engin- eers which are now dropped by parachute, along with their artillery and other wea- pons and supplies, I wonder if thought has been given to carrying by air small tanks to assist a force which had to land and dis- lodge an enemy. The minister has not dealt with that. I do not know whether the glider has passed out of use, or whether it has been developed beyond the excellent stage f it reached during the second world war. Helicopters, for carrying supplies to forces, have come within the ken of the defence department, because I see that some have 2 been purchased and are going to be used on these northern radar lines for carrying sup- 1 plies. So perhaps experience will be obtained 1 there. [Mr. Churchill.] COMMONS Considerable mention has been made of the radar warning lines now under construc- tion. The minister has drawn our attention to the fact that dependence is being placed on the interceptor planes of the air force, rather than on ground-to-air missiles which, I judge from what I have been reading, have not reached that stage of development where they could be safely relied upon in time of emergency. I find that many United States cities are ringed with batteries of these ground-to-air missiles, which prompted a competent observer to say that it is the last defence weapon. The range is limited, and the attacking bomber might be destroyed too close to the populated area to afford any effective defence. In considering the defence of Canada along those lines, I think we would find more satisfaction here had the minister given us a better picture of the defence of Canada. As far as I can remember, the situation is exactly the same as it was several years ago. We are to have a mobile striking force with an increased number of planes. We are now placing our dependence on the radar warning lines. Last year, when we heard about the one that was in existence, we made some inquiries of the former minis- ter of defence in regard to the effectiveness of that warning line. Now we are to have three. I do not recall that the present minis- ter was overly confident as to the value of radar defence lines. That is the great problem. No sooner are these things constructed and put into opera- tion than they become obsolete. The same thing applies to the planes and the guided missiles that are developed. However, in addition to considering the defence of Canada along those lines we have other commitments. Our commitment overseas with NATO in- volves the use of conventional weapons. We also shall not be free from responsibility, I suppose, if some war breaks out after the fashion of Korea, in which case the United Nations would expect member nations to participate. Despite the fact that we are iving in this atomic era, conventional weapons may be required in conflicts of that nature. The minister has indicated to us that the ormation of the defence force is still just about what it was a year ago, two years ago, hree years ago. The hon. member for Esqui- nalt-Saanich has pointed out that it is largely an infantry force that has been provided. )uring the time I have been in the House f Commons I have done everything in my ower to urge that armour be given more rominence in the Canadian army, so long s we have to prepare to use an army such JUNE 16, 1955 as we know now and have known in the past. My remarks along that line were not received very acceptably by the present min- ister's predecessor; but I hoped we would have a new look at the problem with a new man on the job. Imagine my disappointment to find that in the minister's statement de- scribing our present forces he devoted one sentence to mentioning that we had two armoured regiments, and that was it. In the white paper I do not find much mention of armour except under the heading of militia, so there we are. The great demand of modern times in the type of force that is in Europe is mobility, and you get mobility from armoured vehicles and from tracked vehicles, which can go across country. I hope ten years after the second world war we are not still depending on wheeled vehicles tied to the road for the forces in Europe. But I judge that the Canadian brigade is. Wheeled vehicles tied to the road extend for such an immense dis- tance, are so easily blocked and pile up so easily behind one another that it is very hard to keep an army supplied. Modern thinking on forces such as we have in Europe is that supplying should be done by way of helicopter or some type of plane that can leap over and drop those supplies, or land with them in the area where they are most needed, rather than get them only from the wheeled vehicle in the supply column. Of course I have time and again suggested that supplies, particularly of ammunition and petrol, might well be taken forward in a tracked vehicle which would have cross- country performance. Despite this emphasis on armour; despite the fact that leading generals continue to comment on the need for mobility, as General Montgomery did last year-and I have an article here by General Gale also emphasizing the same point -the Canadian army is out of balance with regard to armour. The armoured corps, which was of such great importance in the second world war, and continues or should continue to be of great importance at this time, is suffering from neglect in the Canadian army. I notice that in the tests carried out in Nevada, upon which the minister did not dwell, armour including tanks and armoured personnel carriers were used much closer to ground zero than the infantry troops who were sheltering in trenches. Those armoured vehicles were just 12,000 feet away from ground zero, if the diagram in the Globe and Supply-National Defence Mail of April 25 is correct. In the report of that experiment in the same paper I find this statement: On the mllitary side, there was staged the first atomie-explosion exercise by an armoured task force. It involved 450 men, 57 tanks and 24 armoured personnel carriers. The task force executed an 8-mile breakthrough manoeuvre in an hour immediately after the detonation. This indicates, Mr. Chairman, that armour has a place even on the battlefield where atomic weapons have been exploded, and that it will provide safety for the gunners, the drivers and the infantry in those vehicles. In view of the continued importance of armour, I cannot understand why the Depart- ment of National Defence neglects it in the Canadian army. I am not going to repeat the arguments I used last year, but to my mind they are the most effective of all. One of the arguments I used last year was that unless we build up the armoured corps within the Canadian army, and train the high command in the use of armour, we shall pay a very severe penalty sometime in the future if we are compelled to engage in war; for as I said last year, the training of the high command is of greater importance, in my own experience, than almost anything else. I notice we are informed in the white paper that the tank is to play the anti-tank role, and in the militia the artillery is being accordingly reduced. If that is being done in the militia why is it not being done in the regular army? There is no mention of that in the white paper. The tank is considered by the Canadian army to be a difficult offensive weapon against which infantry may have to defend them- selves, and a new type of infantry anti-tank weapon has been designed under Canadian direction. Credit is due to those who have effected that improvement. It is an improved version of the Piat or the Bazooka and is called the Heller, which indicates a surpris- ing lack of vocabulary in naming a new weapon. But it is considered a much more effective anti-tank weapon for infantry than its predecessors. I am always amazed when I see pictures of these anti-tank weapons in the hands of infantrymen. The infantryman is shown as either standing or kneeling. That is a good way to go underground permanently, to stand or kneel when using an anti-tank weapon if there are tanks in the vicinity. I think the public are confused by pictures of that nature. I believe with a little imagination the people who display weapons like that for the infor- mation of the public might show a picture of the weapon by itself, or show the men in a HOUSE OF COMMONS Supply-National Defence trench with a bit of concealment or cover. Don't fool yourself; you can have an anti- tank weapon twice the size of the Heller, and if you stand or kneel to fire it, a little specula- tive firing from the machine guns on the oncoming tank will wipe out such infantry- men. The defence department considers that the tank is still going to be used, because it has provided a weapon against it. It has indicated that it would use tanks against tanks, so the tank is not an obsolete or outmoded vehicle. Yet the defence department fails to give the importance to armour in the Canadian forces that it should. Other countries have built up their armoured forces and are continuing to emphasize their importance. This brings me to a topic on which I have spoken frequently in this house, the armoured personnel carrier. I do not want to cover again ground that I have covered before, but I do want to ask the minister the same ques- tion I asked his predecessor. If you are going to fight with conventional weapons, if you are visualizing an army engaged on a battle- field as in the second world war; if the terrain over which the army is going to be engaged will permit the use of tanks, which means you are not fighting in a swamp or jungle,then we should provide armoured personnel carriers for the infantry. Do not repeat the experience of the first and second world wars by condemning infantrymen to walking across open ground to take up a position. I regret to say that I think that is the type of training still being given in the Canadian army. I raised this question with the minister's predecessor on more than one occasion, and I always received the customary brush-off. The armoured personnel carrier was men- tioned on page 39 of the white paper of last year, where it was stated that the army was developing a new tracked carrier for the infantry. I questioned whether that was really an armoured personnel carrier. In the white paper of this year, on page 42, they have come up with this statement: In addition, the Canadian army is conducting trials on British and United States army types of armoured personnel carrier to determine their suitability to meet the needs of the Canadian army. It is only ten years since the last war, and perhaps I am getting a bit impatient. The armoured personnel carrier was the product of Canadian ingenuity, and credit is generally given to General Simonds for conceiving the idea. It was developed by Canadians to a certain pitch of efficiency and it saved hun- dreds and hundreds of lives in the second world war. My plea is, can we not continue [Mr. Churchill.] that type of training in the Canadian army? I had hoped that, with that experience, within this ten-year period Canada would have been foremost in the use of that particular vehicle. It was not fully developed in the second world war. There were other ways of making use of the armoured personnel carrier. For the information of those who are not familiar with it may I say that in the second world war it consisted of the Ram tank, which was made in Canada, with the turret removed. The interior could then take a section of eight infantrymen with their weapons, and they could be carried from the concentration area to the assembly point, the starting line or right to the enemy's position without any casualties whatsoever. The proof was in the second world war. I read many interesting stories of the second world war, and I wonder why with that type of vehicle available the high command has been a little slow in making use of it. There was a good story in the Legionary of March, 1955, dealing with an attack on the Hochwald forest. This particular battalion crossed 500 yards of open ground. It was a brilliant and courageous attack, but a very costly one because of heavy casualties involved. We were there; I know the ground, every inch of it. We were there with armoured person- nel carriers and they were not used. Of course the reason was beyond my knowledge because I was not sitting in the seats of authority of the corps or the division or the army. But that is the type of story you read about the second world war and the first world war; gallant actions, but so waste-. ful of life. I urge the Minister of National Defence to investigate .again this problem of the armoured personnel carrier. The British are using them and so are the United States. I do not know the particular types and they may not be effective, nevertheless they are using them. The United States used them at the recent exercise in Nevada with appar- ent success and I think we should have them. The minister drew our attention to the great exercise last year in Germany, the "Battle Royal" it was called, at which our brigade acquitted itself admirably, as Cana- dian troops do on all occasions. He did not say whether they just walked on their flat feet as their predecessors did in the second world war, in the first world war and in the Boer war. Let us advance with the times. The armoured personnel carrier can be used for battalion work; it can be used for company work; it can be used for a mopping- up action by a platoon. My contention is that the army should give close attention to this. I fear they have not done so, because I read in the white paper that they are just investigating to see whether these United Kingdom or United States vehicles may be suitable for Canadian conditions. 1 do not like to appear too critical of the service in which I spent quite a bit of my life, but I do draw attention to this lapse in the thinking of the Canadian arrny. We all know that it is important not to prepare for the next war on the basis of the last one and without any new ideas, but at the same time it is essential to draw from experience and make as effective a flghting force as you can with the knowledge you have. I appreciate the immense problem. there is ia these times. The hydrogen bornb and the smaller atomic weapons seemed to change things so completely and make thern very confusing. But it is not beyond the capabîli- ties of our experienced army commanders to devise ways and means of coping with these new problems. After ahl, when we are discussing national defence we are thinking of two or three things. We are thinking of the defence of our own country. We are thinking of co- operative defence under the NATO organiza- tion. We mnust thînk of how efficient our navy, army and air forces are, and we mnust think in terrns of the men who man the ships and the airplanes and who serve in the artil- lery and the armoured formations of the infantry. We mnust think in termis of ensuring their effective training so they will be com- petent fighting men, and we must aiso think in terns of saving their lives by every pos- sible known device. It is only for that reason that 1 have taken the time of the committee to stress once again the importance of armour as protection for our fighting men. Mr. Harkness: Mr. Chairman, we have had today a considerable amount of discussion of rnany of the important aspects of defence. I do not wish to be repetitious; therefore I shahl say littie or nothing about rnany of these matters as to sorne of which I hope the min- ister wili provide answers. In the four years previous to this, Canada's defence objectives were stated in the same terrns. They appear in last year's white paper -that for 1954-55-at page 6, and read in this way: The objectives of our defence pollcy remaia the sarne as heretofore: (i) the ixnmediate defence of Canada and North Arnerica fromn direct attack; (il) inplementatioil of any undertaclngs made by Canada under the charter of the United Nations. or under the North Atlantic Treaty organization. or other agreenment for collective security;, . (iii) the organization to build up strength in a total war. Supply-National Defence Those objectives were absolutely definite. They were clearly stated. There was no arnbiguity about them. Anyone could read them and be sure what was meant. This year there is a change in these defence objectives. To begin with, I should like to make it clear that I arn not against change, and that I arn not necessarily against this particular change. However, I should like to know what the ex- planation is and what the change in this year's objectives really means. I will read this year's objectives from this year's white paper. They appear at page 3 thereof. You will note the difference, Mr. Chairman. The objec- tives are stated to be as follows: Canada's defence program continues to be planned for the immediate defence of Canada- That was the same as last year, but now we begin to get into the differences: -for co-operation with the United States in the joint defence of the Canada-United States region, for co-operation within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization looking towards the provision of a collective force capable of deterriniz aggression, and for carrying out undertakings by Canada as a member of the United Nations Organization. Instead of having objectives numbered 1, 2 and 3, absolutely clear and simple, we have one long sentence this year in which the objectives are not set out very definitely and in which they are merged into one another. I should like to consider just what some of these changes are in detail and ask the minister about them. When he cornes to reply he can perhaps answer the questions. 1 should like to ask what these changes mean and why they are there. Why is it that, instead of having as the first objective, as we have had for several years previously, "the immediate defence of Canada and North America frorn direct attack", we now have "the immediate defence of Canada"ý-that is the same-and then "for co-operation with the United States in the joint defence of the Canada-United States region"? We ail realize that co-operation with the United States in the defence of North America is essential. We cannot defend the continent by ourselves. We cannot defend our owrn country from air attack by ourselves. We mnust do it in alliance and in co-operation with the United States. We ail agree with that. However, does the change in these objectives and stating them in these termis indicate, shaîl we say, a quiet way of intro- ducing into our defence objectives and de- fence policy the idea that we are to be more dependent on the United States? Is that the implication or the rneaning of that change? As was stated by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich this morning, we already have in this country sorne 3,000 United States troops and, judging by what we have been 4907JUNE 16, 1955 4908 HOUSE OF Supply-National Defence told, we are to have many thousands more to man this distant early warning line which is now under construction. As I say, is this change in our defence objectives or in the way they are stated an indication of increas- ing dependence on the United States and on their defence plans and so on? Is it, shall we say, a first indication of an over-all command which Air Marshal Slemon in his speech not long ago indicated was a necessity as far as North America's air defence was concerned? Perhaps most Canadians are not going to be too much opposed to these things if that is the case, but I think it is up to the Minister of National Defence to tell us. I do not think we should be left in doubt as to what is the situation, or as to what are the plans in that regard at the present time. The next phase in these objectives for this year is this: -for co-operation within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization looking towards the provision of a collective force capable of deterring aggression,- Previously this objective was not "co- operation within NATO" but it was "imple- mentation of any undertakings made by Canada . . . under the North Atlantic Treaty Organization". Does this change indicate our commitments under NATO have now changed? Does it indicate that rather than having commitments under NATO which it is one of our defence objectives to implement, it has now become a matter of no commit- ments but that we are merely going to co- operate with NATO in regard to our joint defence? That change in wording may mean nothing or it may mean a good deal. I think the minister should tell us what it means, particularly as there is no such change as far as the United Nations is concerned, because our present objectives go on to read in this way: -and for carrying out undertakings by Canada as a member of the United Nations Organization. In other words, one of our objectives is still to carry out undertakings under the United Nations; but whereas the objective used to be "the implementation of under- takings under NATO", it has been changed to "co-operation within NATO". It seems as though a distinction has been made between our position under NATO and our position under the United Nations, which was not there previously. It was "implementation of" in both cases previously. We now come to what was the third of our objectives previously, namely "the or- ganization to build up strength in a total war". What has happened to that objective? It has disappeared altogether. I do not think the minister would say that objective has [Mr. Harkness.] COMMONS been reached. I do not think he would say that we have built up all the organization required to meet the demands of a total war. I therefore wonder why that has been dropped as one of our objectives. As a matter of fact, I would say you never really reach that objective. It is one you keep working toward constantly, but you never actually reach it. It seems a little peculiar that this objec- tive, which has been there for the last four or five years, has now suddenly been dropped and does not appear any more. Mr. Philpoft: Why put it in if you cannot reach it? Mr. Harkness: It has been in for the past four years. It is just the same as complete air defence of the country. You can never achieve complete air defence of the coun- try. On the basis of your argument we should not have a plane, we should not man a radar station, we should not have any defence at all. I think that interjection is an indication of the type of thinking of some people with respect to defence matters, and it is extremely shallow. I should like to ask the minister particularly about the drop- ping of this third objective, the organiza- tion to build up strength in the event of a total war. Does this mean less interest in the reserves? I am going to come back to the reserves later and have something more to say about them, but in the white paper and the min- ister's speech I noted that not very much was said about the reserves. After all, the reserves are one of the big factors in what has been called the organization to build up strength in the event of a total war. They are one of the big factors in that field in all three ser- vices, navy, army and air force. I hope this does not mean the reserves are going to be sort of gently pushed aside and there is going to be far less interest taken in them. We have reason to fear that from the fact that so little has been said about them in the white paper and by the minister in this debate. In the white paper the emphasis has been placed on the danger of thermonuclear attack. Every member who has taken part in the debate has referred to that. Every speaker has stressed it, and I think properly so. I should like to read part of what is said in connection with this matter. On page 4 of the white paper there is the following: For North America the possibility appears for the first time of an attack that could cripple the military and industrial potential of Canada and the United States. Should we ever be attacked with thermonuclear weapons, it is plain that our im- mediate problem would be national survival. I agree with the latter part of that state- ment only toa fully. However, I must point out that the government has been extremely slow in coming to a realization of the danger facing us. This is the first white paper in which any real cognizance has been taken of the danger a! atomic and thermonuclear attack. As far as thermonuclear attack is concerned, the possibility has been there for upwards of two years. As far as atomic attack is concerned it has been there for con- siderably longer. This is flot a new thing at all. For several years past it has been quite possible for us to, be attacked with atomic weapons. The government should have re- alized this fact long ago, and attempts should have been made to meet the situation long before now. It is only this year that any real attempt is being made to meet the extremely great danger. It is quite true that an atomic attack would flot have been as bad as an attack by hydro- gen bombs. However, it still would have more or less crippled our military and in- dustrial potential, inflicting damage which. would have required quite a long time to repair. It is quite true that the hydrogen bomb is much more destructive. It is true that the Russians have jet bombers that are faster and capable of fiying greater distances than they had two, three or four years ago, but it is really a matter of degree more than anything else. The basic danger is greater but it existed before and, as I say, I think the government is culpable in that it did not take the necessary steps earlier to meet the danger. The belated recognition of the danger of this country's entire l! e being crippled by atomic and thermonuclear weapons has appar- ently led now to a realization o! the necessity for a change in defence policy. It is quite apparent from what the minister has said that the governmnent believes greater empha- sis must be placed on the air arm, and espe- cially on radar warning screens and fighter aircraft ta back Up the screens. I should like ta point out to him that a great deal of the discussion last year was on these very points. We pointed out that the existing radar screen, the "Pinetree" line, really constituted only point defence and was far too close ta targets to be o! any real good. We also pointed out that aur fighter defences to back up the warn- ing screen were almost negligible, and that what was required was an extension of the screens and a very considerable increase in our fighter strength. As a inatter o! fact, same of us suggested hast year that until the fighter strength in this country could be built up, some of the fighter squadrons then in Europe shauld be 50433--310 Supply-National Defence brought back here to look after the defence of Canada. In my opinion that is something that should stiil be given serious considera- tion, because it is going to be a considerable length of time before our fighter strength is built Up sufficiently to give us even a semi-defence, may 1 say. As the minister said several times this morning, complete defence is impossible. Everybody recognizes that, but we certainly should have the best defence against atomie and thermonuclear attack that the economy of the country can provide and that our whole defence activities can make possible. The unfortunate fact is we have not got it. In fact we have, and have had right along, lamentably littie. Last year and in previous years the former defence minister always attempted to luil the country into a false sense of security by assuring us that everything was pretty well ail right and we did not need to worry. I arn sorry to say that a certain attempt along the same line still seems to be apparent. I had hoped the present minister would not faîl into the same great error of trying to luil the house and the country into a false sense of security, but from some of the statements in the white paper it would appear that the temptation was a bit too much for him. For example, on page 5 we find the following: Nine regular squadrons and ten auxiliary squad- rons of the Royal Canadian Air Force are main- tained in Canada to provide fighter aircraft; for interception duties. By the end of 1955 ail nine regular squadrons will be completely equlpped with long-range, ail-weather CF-100 jet aircraft. I think that gives the casual reader a totally wrong impression. We of course have flot fine squadrons naw. I hope the minister is right in saying that by the end of this year these nine squadrons will be com- pletely equipped with CF-100 jet aircraf t, but if so it will be a different story from what was the case with the promises we received wîth respect to naval vessels, referred to this morning by the hon. member for Esquimaît- Saanich, which we were promised first in 1951 and have flot received yet. Unfortunately that has been the case with respect to many o! the promises contained in white papers and ministerial statements on defence. The promises were not lived Up to. Things came alang later than we were led to expect they wauld. The real difficulty involved in the statement I have read is the fact that the ten auxiliary squadrons are not effective squadrons, and of course the minister knows that quite well. They really should not be counted as part of the fighter defence o! 'Canada at the present time. The aircraft they have are obsolete. The number JUNE 16, 1955 4909 4910 HOUSE OF COMMONS Supply-National Defence of aircraft they have is limited. In many I think there is no doubt that great dit- cases their establishments are below strength, ferences cf opinion have existed on the part and so on. In other words, they are not of the senior officers of the three services, effective fighter units which could go up and they have been in the process of being and meet jet bombers. threshed out lately. It would be extremely The minister recognized this in the state- peculiar if there were fot these great dit- ment he made this morning, when he said ferences of opinion. The speech I referred that the position of these auxiliary fighter to earlier, made by Air Marshal Siemon, and squadrons was being reconsidered, and the the speech made by Air Vice Marshal Plant, question of supplying them with the CF-100, 1 believe are indicative of the arguments about which we were told last year and the that have been taking place and the dif- year before, was being reconsidered. Perhaps ferences of opinion with regard to policy it was not feasible for these squadrons to which must necessarily exist in a time of handle the CF-100. change such as this. It would seem to me I should like to strongly reinforce what that the retirement of General Simonds and was said by the hon. member for Equimalt- the other personnel changes which have Saanich and by the leader of this party, that taken place recently are probably indicative if these ten auxiliary squadrons are not to be of the same thing. What we would like to supplied with the CF-100's, if they are not know is, have these differences been to be supplied with sufficient regular air resolved? Has any clear, definite policy been force personnel to make it feasible and pos- decided upon? If s, what is it? That is what sible for them to operate as CF-100 squad- I should like to hear from the Minister of rons, then there is a strong necessity to have National Defence before this debate con- them replaced by or converted into regular cludes, and particularly before the considera- air force squadrons. tion of the estimates is finished. What the minister said this morning, and It has been apparent for years that we the way the white paper reads, is a sufficient needed greater air defence for Canada. The tacit admission that nine fighter squadrons minister mentioned that. A considerable are not sufficient to back up the radar improvement along this line is apparently screens and defend some of the likely targets, now under way through the provision of such as the big cities and industrial areas these radar screens and the increase in the of this country. Since this reconsideration is number f fighter squadrons. As bas been taking place, I would hope it might result stated, our first defence responsibility is to in something definite that would provide us prevent, so far as possible, air attack on with at least ten additional effective our cities with thermonuclear and atomic squadrons. weapons. Everybody agrees with that. We agree that the only practical means are the Now, Mr. Chairman, the question arises, radar unes and the fighters, and, we hope, what is the present defence policy? We have greund-to-air guided missiles. not been told either in the white paper or in what the minister has said. We have heard The minister spoke briefly about those, and read a great many words, but we have and I thought somewhat discouragingly. From not been definitely told what the defence what I had read cf the experience in the policy is. The white paper contains a very United States and Great Britain these ground- apparent truism on page 3 in connection to-air guided missiles had been reasonably with policy: satisfactory. A considerable number have A cetra pre]emin al crren mmaryalready been installed, particularly in theA central problemn in all current military planning is the nature of the balance to be maintained United States. It wnuld seem t me that between conventional forces and weapons and those unless there is some serious difficulty in con- for atomic and nuclear warfare. nection with them, about which we have not I think we could all agree with that. It is heard, we should be getting some of them certainly a very critical problem. How does around our most important targets in the government propose to solve it? We have Canada. not been told, and I think perhaps that is Cennected with this prime danger which the crux of the whole defence policy. We faces the country, cf course, and the prime are still in complete ignorance on that very responsibility cf defence, is that cf warning important point. We know, of course, that the population cf this country cf any im- changes in emphasis are necessary. The pending air attack, te have a civil defence minister has said that, and we have been erganization and plans for the evacuation saying it for years. There is nothing new in of our large cities. 0f course there sheuld that. The big question is, what are these be plans for handling and feeding cf the changes? What is the general concept to be. population of these cities once they are I think the minister should suggest that, but evacuated. I was very glad te see the he has not done so thus far. emphasis that was placed on civil defence [Mr. Harkness.J JUNE 16, 1955 in this white paper. I hope that much more of a concrete nature will be done so far as civil defence measures are concerned than bas been the case in Canada up to date. We have chiefly talked about civil defence and done very little about it in a concrete way. The dominion government has refused to face the situation, and bas refused to meet its responsibilities along that line. When civil defence was moved from the Department of National Defence to that of health and welfare a few years ago, many of us hoped it might result in a considerable improvement in civil defence measures. This hope bas been to a large extent unrealized. As is stated in this white paper, the present threat is the complete crippling of the military and industrial potential of this nation. It would appear to me that possibly a serious mistake was made in moving civil defence from the Department of National Defence to health and welfare. It seems to me now that civil defence is an integral part of defence, and there is just a difference be- tween military defence and civil defence. The two are tied so closely together that military personnel are perhaps going to have to take a large part in what is called civil defence. Probably we should move the civil defence section back under the defence department, and have all our defence activi- ties thoroughly integrated. After providing for the prime need of defence against air attack-and this, of course, in close co-operation with the United States, which is essential-we might ask, what else is required in our defence? Many people, including Mr. Churchill, who is a most emi- nent authority, have stated that they believe an atomic stalemate may have been reached. I hope that is correct, and I think there is a fair amount of reason for that hope, that we have reached a situation where both sides have a large atomic and thermonuclear stock- pile, the use of which, so far as each side is concerned, would be so totally destructive that neither would use it. The hon. member for Okanagan Boundary who spoke for the C.C.F. quoted Mr. Hanson Baldwin and others, including General Mont- gomery, to the effect that in the event of war it was definite that atomic weapons would be used. He said we must take it for granted that this is so. I would point out, however, that those statements were made some time ago; they were not made within the last few months. I would be much more inclined to accept the appreciation of the situation by Sir Winston Churchill, who says there is a good chance of reaching at least an atomic stalemate, and that as a result we will never have the wholesale 50433-3lo Supply-National Defence destruction of the world which would follow an atomic or hydrogen bomb attack by one side against the other. Nevertheless that is a prime danger. That is the thing we must guard against; and I do not for one moment suggest that we should relax our defence efforts in the slightest degree. That is the thing, above all others, which we must guard against and must be prepared to meet. However, if Sir Winston Churchill's appreciation of the situa- tion is correct, what it means is that future wars may be small wars, such as we had in Korea. Or it might amount to a third large world war, but fought with conventional weapons, fought to a great extent with armies, navies and air forces using older types of bombs and the like. It seems to me quite apparent that so long as that possibility exists to any great extent, this country must continue to be equipped with an army and a navy along somewhat conventional lines. No country has done away with its army and navy. We have seen no evidence of the push-button warfare which some people have been talking about. I take it that our commitments to the United Nations and to NATO require us to have a certain number of these conven- tional forces. As the leader of this party said this after- noon, what we need is conventional forces used unconventionally. It seems to me that what has been said by other members in this party is correct when they point out that the organization of our conventional forces 'is out of date and should be brought up to date. We must improve their mobility and their hitting power. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre has spoken this year and in other years about a greater use of armour. Tests which have been made with atomic weapons indicate that armoured vehicles give a very high degree of protection. If we are going to have atomic warfare, probably the only troops who will survive anywhere near the point where the atomic bomb is dropped will be those protected by armour. The hon. mem- ber has pointed out that the use of such armour would have the effect of saving the ives of troops using conventional weapons such as machine guns and rifles. It seems to me quite apparent that in our present armed forces we place far too great dependence on straight infantry of the old style. - It is true that we have one air- borne brigade; but the rest of the army, in- cluding the division and the other brigade, are the conventional 1939-45 style of infantry, to a large extent armed with the same or Supply-National Defence similar weapons. There have been some changes, of course, but the weapons are very much the same. This is out of date and should be changed so we would have mobile forces, which would be better protected and would hit harder. Let me say something with regard to the manpower question. The maximum strength of our forces has been set at 120,000 and that strength has been almost reached, with an enlistment of 117,000. It is evident from the white paper and from what the minister has said that the air arm is going to need more men. It will not be able to man these addi- tional squadrons and the increased number of radar stations without a considerable in- crease in the number of men. From what the minister said I take it there is no idea of securing these men. He did not admit that more men would be needed, but that seems evident. He did not say they were going to be taken from the army and the navy, and that those services were going to be reduced in order to provide the increased number required by the air force, but I am wondering if that is not so. I wonder if that is not the point to which we are moving. I suggest it is quite evident that with this 120,000 men we have not enough manpower because, to begin with, we have several thou- sand Americans in Canada at the present time, and many thousands more are coming when the D.E.W. line is built. There is no question that the Americans will get the greatest benefit from these radar lines because they are farther away from the possible enemy than we are. Therefore they will have a longer period of warning than we would have. It is clear therefore that their proportionate benefit is greater than ours, because they will receive a longer period of warning. And of course these warning lines are just as essential to them as they are to us, in fact even more so. I think everyone would agree they should pay the major portion of the cost of those lines, and apparently they are going to do so. As I understand it, they are going to con- struct this D.E.W. line pretty much at their own expense, and will man it. They have also paid a good proportion of the cost of the "Pinetree" line. I believe there will be no argument as to the equity of that arrangement. They are getting great benefit from these lines and should pay a major portion of the cost. But I submit that is a totally different matter from having their troops man these lines. That would not be consistent with our sover- eignty and our independence as a nation, un- less it were a matter of absolute necessity. J understand one of these lines will not be [Mr. Harkness.] ready for a long time, and we could probably have men trained to man it. Once we have the trained personnel it seems to me we could man those lines ourselves. It is not consistent with our general national preten- sions to do otherwise. It seems to me peculiar and rather unrea- sonable that while the United States and most of the other NATO countries have a greater proportion of their manpower in the services than we have, at the same time we are asking one of these countries, namely the United States, to bring in men to man one of the radar lines in our country. I should like to ask a general question, Mr. Chairman. What relation do the 120,000 men in our forces actually bear to our real defence needs? It seems to me that is an arbitrary figure. I cannot see any real relation of that figure of 120,000 to our defence needs. It is a figure we have had now for some time. I should like an explanation from the minister as to how that figure is arrived at. Why not 110,000 or 150,000? It seems to be purely arbitrary, as I say, and it needs to be explained. I should like to say something about our reserve forces. They continue, as was stated by the leader of our party this afternoon, to be one of the chief bases for the recruitment of the regular forces. People are attracted into the reserve. As they become interested, many of them go on to recruit into the regu- lar forces. It is most important to carry on our reserve forces. They are the basis on which we must organize in the event of a total war. As was stated in all previous white papers, they are the basis upon which we must mobilize, and it does not seem to me that nearly enough attention is being paid to them. As I indicated earlier, I am afraid the general idea is getting around: oh, well, the reserve forces are all right, but still we have the regular forces and therefore we do not need to worry too much about the reserves. If they gradually wither away it is too bad, but it is not too important. I would be afraid, even from what the minister said about reassessing, that these ten auxiliary squadrons are going to do that. Perhaps they have in mind just to let these auxiliary squadrons run downhill, shall we say, or disintegrate. Therefore I should like the minister to make a more definite state- ment than bas been made in regard to policy so far as the defence forces are concerned. I think the defence forces are very neces- sary from another point of view. The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich indicated that they could be tied in with civil defence. It is essential that they should be tied in with civil HOUSE OF COMMONS4912 defence, but there is another feature o! civil defence particularly. Perhaps it should not really be called civil defence, as it is. If we had an atomic bombing attack on this country one of the greatest dangers, as f ar as sur- vivors are concerned, would be the matter of panic, chaos and so f orth. It would give an opportunity for enemy agents, saboteurs, fifth columnists, and so forth, to go ahead and destroy what was left, and it would also provide opportunity for the criminal fringe of the population, which is normally held in check by the police force, to indulge ini what wouid be their normal activities if we did flot; have the usual police and security forces to stop them. Therefore under these circumstances a very considerable security force would be needed, and that is a job which, the reserve forces, if they were in good shape, if they were in any sort of reasonable numbers, would be admir- ably equipped to do. It is a job which would be necessary if complete chaos were not; to continue for perhaps quite a long time in the terrible event of an atomic attack. Therefore, from that point o! view alone, the providing of security forces which would be scattered throughout the whole country, the reserve forces should be maintained, should be brought up to strength as f ar as possible, should be encouraged in every way. Mr. Pearkes: Might I suggest that this would be the proper time for the minister ta reply to some of the questions. We might then be able to start on the more detailed questioning later. Mr. Campney: At the outset, before trying to answer at least some of the questions and points which have been raised, I should like to thank hon. members on the other side of the house for the helpful remarks they have made today, for the way they have approached this debate and the keen interest they have shown, which of course one would expect, in our national defence effort. It has been a first-class debate. I think I have learned some things; I hope we all have. If I might, without making an invidious comparison, I should like particularly to complinent the hon. member for Esquimalt- Saanich on the excellent speech which he madle this morning. There is not too much I can disagree with in his speech, but there are a couple o! points I might possibly refer to. One had to do with a remark he made, if I took him down correctly. He intimated that the only place in which the war could be lost was on the sea and air approaches ta this continent. He was developing, I think, the importance of continental defence. He de- veloped it in this way. He said our entire Supply-National Defence defence effort should be designed from now on with one point in mind, naniely the defence of the approaches ta this continent. He may flot have intended to emphasize that phase of it so much, but I should like to remind hlm and the committee that this of course mini- mizes, if flot ignores, the concept of NATO. Our position wou]d be very difficuit if, with our immediate sea and air approaches guarded strongly, we were confronted with a western Europe in enemy hands. It is a vision that we would flot like ta contemplate. While it is true that the last battIe in any future war would certainly be f ought for the control of this continent, I think we cannot for a moment in our defence effort consider leaving western Europe inadequately de- fended, because we ail know that we are one organization,- and the protection of each is of course for the benefit of us ail. There was one other point which was aIso mentioned by the hon. member for Calgary North with respect to the first Canadian divi- sion. He referred to the nature of its com- position and training as flot being suitable for the defence o! this country. 1 shouId Iike to, point out to hon. members that the first Cana- dian division is, of course, a division under NATO primarily for the defence of Europe. Our own mobile striking force is the primary force for any diversionary attacks on this country. It is highly trained, well-equipped and airborne. It is a strong hitting force that we would utilize in this country. The Leader o! the Opposition, the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich and the hon. member for Calgary North made very proper inquiries as to whether or flot the internat organization, the functional set-up of the army, is such as to be in touch with modern developments and to meet new situations. I might say that considerable studies are going on here and, also, there is a good deal of co- operation with military authorities in the United States and in the United Kingdom who are making intensive studies o! the set-up of army units and army formations in the light of modemn conditions and, the new types of warf are. This summer at Gagetown our own troops will be trying out new dispositions and new tactics in the light o! our present knowl- edge of the use of atomie weapons. The changes that are taking place and that will take place are bound to be o! a graduai nature. I think I can say that we are keeping reasonably well abreast of developments as they are being worked out in other countries and as new conditions make it necessary for our services to meet thema. The hon. memober for Esquimalt-Saanich, the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary, the hon. member for Wetaskiwin, the hon. JUNE 18, 1955 4913 Supply-National Defence member for Calgary North and possibly some others referred to the utilization of the forces, particularly the militia, in connection with civil defence operations. We are in fact co-operating to an increasing degree. The G.O.C.'s of all our army commands have formulated plans for each of their units to render assistance should need arise. Ar- rangements have also been made for per- sonnel from the civil defence college at Arnprior to visit the militia units and conduct courses in civil defence for militia officers. The army, and indeed all the services, :are stressing the need of being in a position to render whatever assistance we can, with- out of course intruding on the primary func- tions of the services. I think the experience following "Hurricane Hazel" and the other major disasters show a disposition on the part of the services to be most co-operative. The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich, the hon. member for Trinity-Conception and, I think, the hon. member for Wetaskiwin ex- pressed some worry about the role of the navy; as to whether it was to be simply a convoy navy in the narrow sense of the phrase. I should like to tell the hon. members that while convoy duty is one of the navy's important functions, it is also trained and organized for the hunting and killing of submarines apart from convoy duty. I think it was the hon. member for Oxford who referred to helicopters, and I might tell him that we have an experimental squadron of helicopters in the Royal Canadian Navy which is developing suitable tactics for sub- marine hunting. Mr. Nesbilfi: I said I was glad to see we had that. Mr. Campney: I have it here that the hon. member asked if we had it. The hon. member for Oxford and also the hon. member for Trinity-Conception asked for additional in- formation with regard to the mine-sweeping activities of the navy. I might tell them that there is a mine-sweeping squadron on the Pacific and on the Atlantic coast whose duties are tied in closely with harbour defence ac- tivities, protecting the main ports on each coast. The hon. member for Okanagan Boundary seemed to have the idea that all our equip- ment was obsolete or obsolescent. On listen- ing to him I gathered that he had obtained his information from a variety of sources, and there seemed to be some confusion as to the weapons he was discussing. At one point he mentioned a weapon which I happen to know will not be coming into use until 1960. He mentioned also as being obsolete, among other things, the 3-inch 50 calibre [Mr. Campney.] naval gun which is now actually in produc- tion simultaneously both for the Royal Cana- dian Navy and the United States navy. In the view of the United States navy this gun is certainly not obsolete. While I would not say that all our weapons are the very latest, any more than those of any other country, still I do not think the obsolescence factor which the hon. mem- ber alleged is anything like as prominent as he sought to make it. I am afraid also that I cannot agree with the hon. member that the chances of war have been reduced almost to the vanishing point. I think the danger of war is still very great, and this is a per- tinent factor in our thinking. It is only as long as we are able to continue to lead from strength, and with all our fellow nations in the free world working with us, that we can hope ultimately to remove that danger. I should like to say to the hon. member for Oxford and the hon. member for Wetaski- win that we have no intention of establish- ng a submarine arm in the Royal Canadian Navy. We have, however, made arrangements for training with submarines for personnel of the Royal Canadian Navy. I think it was the hon. member for Oxford who wondered whether the submarines we were getting from Great Britain were old and antiquated. I understand that those now serving with the Canadian navy were built since world war II and are considered to be modern and up to date. The hon. member for York-Scarborough is to be commended on his interest in electronics research. I have noted with interest the suggestions he made. I think his suggestions are rather ambitious, but I do appreciate his interest in the subject. The hon. member for York West made many helpful comments with regard to the air force. I think I should read his speech in order to follow his formula for cost figures in producing aeroplanes under different con- ditions. I shall be glad to study his plan. I must admit that I perked up my ears when I heard him say, or at least thought I heard him say, that the alternative method would save about $100,000 a plane. If I find that I did hear him correctly I shall certainly pass that on to the Minister of Defence Production. The hon. member for Oxford raised the question whether the figure of 20,000 officers and men for the Royal Canadian Navy took into account the personnel requirements for the 14 destroyer escorts. The answer is yes. I always listen with interest when the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre produces his favourite military child. He always puts HOUSE OF COMMONS4914 forward his case with great feeling and per- suasiveness and I think he has almost per- suaded me to look at it closely again. Mr. Churchill: That is the most remarkable change that has happened since I came here. Mr. Campney: The hon. member for Cal- grary North seemed to be unduly exercised when he analysed the objectives set out i the white paper and compared themn with the objectives set out in the previous white paper. I think the changes are merely changes of phraseology made ini the hope of approxi- mating a situation which has changed some- what. I think there is no basic change in our objectives; I certainly am sure there is no basic change in the NATO relationship and in the NATO set-up. He referred to the fact that the build-up for total war had not been mentioned, but I should suppose that by now would be understood. Af ter ail, the whole objective of our defence effort is to build up strength, not necessarily strength that we along with our NATO allies will use, but nevertheless sufficient joint strength to make it unnecessary to use. There are a nuniber of other points which I have noted here but on which I have not specifl.c information. However, perhaps I could keep a note of these matters and deal with them on the detailed estimates. Most of themn are smaller points. I could do that if it would be satis- factory to hon. members. Supply-National Defence Mr. Ho..: Will you eall it ten o'clock, Mr. Chairman? The Depuly Chairman: Shall I report pro- gress and ask leave to, sit again. Mr. Camnpney: Could we cali the first item? Mr. Ho..: No; we will call it ten o'clock. The Deputy Chairman: Before calling it ten o'clock, may 1 say that we have called the first item in the committee. It is item 236. My understanding is that we shall now start calling that item for question and dis- cussion purposes only under the five major headings which appear in the details, it being understood, of course, that item 236 must be put to the ýcommittee as one resolu- tion. Mr. Hees: No, Mr. Chairman. I have a f ew views that 1 should like to express when the debate goes on. I should like to have the privilege of doing so. Item stands. Progress reported. BUSINESS 0F THE HOUSE Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, in order to facili- tate the progress of this debate, perhaps we could confine the other work tomorrow to third reading of the C.N.R. bill. It being four minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pur- suant to standing order. JUNE 18, 1955 4915 4917 HOUSE OF COMMONS Friday, June 17, 1955 The house met at eleven o'clock. COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE Second report of special committee on broadcasting.-Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf). Sixth and seventh reports of standing com- mittee on miscellaneous private bills.-Mr. Fairey. Sixteenth report of standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.-Mr. McCulloch (Pictou). PRIVATE BILLLS FIRST READINGS-SENATE BILLS Bill No. 483, to incorporate the Provident Assurance Company.-Mr. Eudes. Bill No. 484, for the relief of Real Perras. -Mr. Hunter. Bill No. 485, for the relief of Izrael Szer. -Mr. Hunter. Bill No. 486, for the relief of Mary Made- leine Collings Bell.-Mr. Hunter. Bill No. 487, for the relief of Joseph Flavien Denis Rheo Baillargeon.-Mr. Hunter. Bill No. 488, for the relief of Susan Wald- man Ruttenberg.-Mr. Hunter. Bill No. 489, for the relief of Andre La- breche.-Mr. Hunter. Bill No. 490, for the relief of Alfred Sevi- gny.-Mr. Hunter. Bill No. 491, for the relief of Beatrice Mac- donald Stewart Pasmore.-Mr. Hunter. Bill No. 492, for the relief of Georges- Etienne Cartier.-Mr. Hunter. Bill No. 493, for the relief of Kathleen Dallas White Barnes.-Mr. Hunter. Bill No. 494, for the relief of John Tilga. -Mr. Hunter. Bill No. 495, for the relief of Edwin Albert Verge.-Mr. Hunter. Bill No. 496, for the relief of Aline Sauve Page.-Mr. Hunter. Bill No. 497, for the relief of Helen Mar- garet Robb Woods.-Mr. Hunter. Bill No. 498, for the relief of Jean Louis Larose.-Mr. Hunter. Bill No. 499, for the relief of Molly Wine- berg Fishman.-Mr. Hunter. 50433-211 IMMIGRATION BRENT CASE-QUESTION AS TO APPEAL On the orders of the day: Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops): I should like ta ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immi- gration if he is in a position to advise the house as to whether a decision has yet been taken regarding an appeal in the Brent case. Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration): I understand, sir, that an appeal has been entered. I am not quite sure because, of course, it would be taken by the Minister of Justice and not by me. FREIGHT RATES GRAIN-REPORTED CONSIDERATION OF 10 PER CENT INCREASE On the orders of the day: Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia): I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trans- port arising out of a Canadian Press story in this morning's newspapers. Can the minister say whether the board of transport commis- sioners are considering a 10 per cent increase in freight rates on certain grain shipments? If so, will the board of transport commis- sioners hear evidence in opposition from farm organizations and other affected parties? Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Trans- port): I have no knowledge that the question is under consideration by the board of trans- port commissioners, Mr. Speaker. The only information I have had on the subject are the newspaper stories that appeared last night and again this morning about which the hon. member for Assiniboia and Moose Mountain have communicated with me. I can only say I am unaware of the matter and I shall have to make inquiries. (Translation): CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION INDIAN AFFAIRS-PUBLICATION "INDIAN NEWS" On the orders of the day: Mr. J. Wilfrid Dufresne (Quebec West): Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Lesage). For the past year his department has been publishing an inter- 4918 HOUSE OF Inquiries of the Ministry esting periodical called Indian News. Would the minister tell me whether he intends to have it published in French? Hon. Jean Lesage (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources): Mr. Speaker, I will look into the matter raised by my learned colleague. [Later:] Mr. Lesage: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question put by the hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Dufresne) may I call his attention to the fact that the publication to which he refers, Indian News, is issued by the Depart- ment of Citizenship and Immigration. (Text): Mr. Dufresne: In the light of the answer given by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, may I direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration regarding his publication called Indian News. Is it the intention of the minister to have this published also in French? (Translation): Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Citizen. ship and Immigration): Mr. Speaker, I will look into the matter. Mr. Langlois (Gaspe): That is a good lesson. (Text): INQUIRY FOR RETURN TRAVEL BY MINISTERS OUT OF CANADA On the orders of the day: Mr. W. M. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace): Can the Secretary of State inform the house as to the reason for the long delay in bringing down an order for return passed on March 10 regarding ministers' travelling expenses? Hon. Rach Pinard (Secre±ary of State): This return, Mr. Speaker, calls for more informa- tion than the hon. member may think. It is expected it will be tabled early next week. Mr. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace): That is why I asked for it. CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS CONSOLIDATION OF LEGISLATION-AUTHORIZATION FOR OPERATION OF TELECOMMUNICATION SYSTEM, ETC. Hon. George C. Marler (Minisier of Trans- pori) moved the third reading of Bill No. 351, respecting Canadian National Railways. [Mr. Dufresne.] COMMONS Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, there is no occasion on the third reading to repeat the legal argu- ments which have been made in regard to section 27 of this bill. It is sufficient to re-emphasize that there is a wide difference of opinion as to the effect of section 27. Perhaps it is sufficient to say that legal experts, whose field is directly related to this subject, have expressed the opinion that sec- tion 27 has the effect of completely reversing the application of the Motor Vehicle Trans- port Act, in so far as the Canadian National Railways would be concerned if this section passes. I have conceded already, and I con- cede now, that legal arguments in regard to the application of a section of this kind are ultimately determined only by the courts. I do recognize that the minister has himself accepted the proposition that it is never safe to say with complete finality that a section of any act produces one result or another. There are too many decisions in our own courts and in the privy council which have upset emphatic declarations of that kind for anyone to be completely confident that his own interpretation must be the final and correct one. Nevertheless there has been uncertainty. My own opinion is very definite that section 27 is both improper from the point of view of its legal application, and completely un- necessary. I do believe it is proper to point out again on the motion for third reading of the bill, which is for the purpose of con- solidating a great many provisions relating to the Canadian National Railways, and which have nothing whatever to do with the purpose of this section, that there are other legal provisions which give the Canadian National Railways all the power it needs to operate motor vehicles of any kind. I would point out again that the subsidiary company of the Canadian National Railways, set up for the purpose of operating motor vehicles, has, under its charter granted under the company laws of Canada, just as wide powers as has the Canadian Pacific Railway Company or any other railway company in Canada to operate motor vehicles. I submit at this stage that there has not been one word which really justifies this addition under an act which is primarily for the purpose of consolidating general provi- sions of the Canadian National Railways Act. In fact, this section is an orphan among the general sections which are being consolidated. We agree entirely with the purpose of con- solidation. We agree entirely with simplifica- tion of the numerous acts which are brought JUNE 17, 1955 together in this way. But section 27 is some- thing new; it is outside the scope of these other sections. I repeat that section 27 is unnecessary. Either there is some purpose not yet dis- closed to this house for which section 27 is being introduced, or it has no weight at all. The subsidiary company has all the powers needed, and the Canadian National Railways now operate motor vehicles with the name "Canadian National Railways" on them. They are free to operate those vehicles in any way that might be desired, within any declarations made by the minister. I submit therefore that this section should not be included in this general consolidating act. There is another point. Just over a year ago, at the time that the privy council had decided that all control over motor vehicle transport between provinces came exclusively under federal jurisdiction, this government invited representatives of the provincial governments to come to Ottawa to discuss that subject. Contrary to the decision which they had sought and had obtained from the privy council, they then invited the provinces to take full jurisdiction over the operation and supervision of motor vehicle transport of this kind. Since that was done a year ago, after the decision of the privy council, I submit it is appropriate, proper and in keeping with the right kind of relationship between this government and the govern- ments of the provinces that the represent- atives of the provinces should now be invited here to discuss this and to indicate their opinions in regard to the application of section 27. Already statements have been made publicly that this section is questioned. All hon. members must be aware of it. That being so, it would avoid future disputes, future questioning and any uncertainty about the willingness of this government to abide by its implied undertakings to the provinces, if this section stands. If it does stand, no operation of the Canadian National Railways will be held back in any way. The consoli- dating section goes forward. There is no appropriate resolution that can be introduced that would call for the government to invite the provinces. I am going to introduce a motion which will not have the effect of holding up the legislation, but it will ask that the bill go back to the committee of the whole house with the specific instructions that section 27 be deleted. Then the government could invite the prov- inces to have their appropriate legal repre- sentatives meet here to discuss the effect of the section, and if they saw fit they could then introduce this section separately later on in this session, if they thought it was 50433-3111 Canadian National Railways important, and have it dealt with in the light of the discussions which have taken place. I would point out there is a special reason why there need be no delay. The repre- sentatives of the provincial governments are meeting here on Monday. It would be very easy for a telegram to go out this morning to all the provincial governments suggesting that they bring a legal adviser with them qualified to deal with this particular subject, if those who are coming here feel that they need any additional staff to deal with the question raised. My motion is for the purpose of seeking the deletion of section 27, not to hold up the act. I recognize that I cannot make a motion which would give that specific instruc- tion, but I want it clearly understood that along with the deletion of the section because of its legal application-that is, in my opinion and in the opinion of certain others-I also am making my motion with the express request that if it were accepted and, might I add, even if it is not accepted, the govern- ment immediately invite the provincial gov- ernments to bring any legal officials or other ministers they regard as appropriate to the meeting on Monday to have a separate meeting in some other room that could discuss this very subject while the other important subjects are under discussion on Monday and succeeding days that have already been announced. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green): That Bill No. 351 be not now read the third time but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole with instructions to amend the said bill by striking out section 27 thereof. Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Trans- port): I shall be very few minutes. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, it should be perfectly clear to hon. members that the points which have been raised by the Leader of the Opposition are in fact without foundation. It seems to me the first point is that the C.N.R. can exercise all of the powers that are contemplated by section 27 because it has a subsidiary with extensive powers with regard to transportation, and therefore by means of this subsidiary can exercise powers with regard to bus transport or highway transport. Mr. Drew: Mr. Speaker, just so that the context may be clear, may I say that what I said was that they can exercise all the powers they require unless there is some purpose which has not yet been disclosed to this house. 4920 HOUSE OF COMMONS Canadian National Railways Mr. Marler: In fact I think that that is the of Canada would fot faîl within the jurîs- fourth time that the- diction of the provinces but would be under Mr. Drew: Obviously it needs to be the jurisdiction of parliament. With respect repeated. to the exception in paragraph (c), I can only say that clause 18 of the bill makes it ex- Mr. Marler: I think that is the fourth time pressly and explicitly clear that any opera- the Leader of the Opposition has spoken of tions carried out under clause 27 would not this bill as having an undisclosed purpose. be for the generai advantage of Canada. It All I can say is, and I say it for the fourth seems to me that it is abundantly clear time following the example of the Leader of that operations which are carried out wholy the Opposition, that there is no undisclosed within a province therefore do not fail under purpose concerning clause 27 of the bill. I paragraph (c), and if they are whohly within have said on four occasions-this will perhaps the limits of a province they must necessarily be the fifth-that the purpose of clause 27 is faîl within provincial jurisdiction under to enable the railway company itself, the section 92 of the British North America Act. parent company, and every railway company There remain the interprovincial opera- comprised in the national company, to tions which may be carried out by the C.N.R. exercise the power necessary to carry on under clause 27. I think it is perfectly clear delivery and pick-up services in the metro- that whether they be carried out by the politan centres, and to carry on bus or C.N.R., by another railway company or by a transport services in substitution for rail company entirely outside the provisions of lines which are abandoned. the bil, if they are interprovincial operations There is no undisclosed purpose. I think they will be subiect to the provisions of the I have made that point abundantly clear on Motor Vehicle Transport Act. each occasion on which I have spoken in Therefore the situation is this: Either the connection with this bill. It is not sufficient operation must be under provincial jurisdic- merely to say that Canadian National Rail- tion because it is carried out wholly within ways may exercise these powers through its the province, or it must be interprovincial subsidiaries. I explained, I think on second because it is carried out between points in reading, that particularly in the case of rail two different provinces, in which case it line abandonments it was the wish of the would be subiect to the jurisdiction which the national company itself that it be in a posi- provinces now have under the terms of the tion to operate bus and transport services Motor Vehicle Transport Act. In these cir- where it is necessary to abandon rail lines, cumstances, Mr. Speaker, the purpose of and to be in a position in proceedings before referring the bil to the committee of the the board of transport commissioners to give whoîe in order to delete clause 27 obviously in the name of the national company an un- fails. We have at ail times said that we dertaking to operate such services in lieu of wished the operations under clause 27 to be rail lines being abandoned. carried out subiect to the rights of the prov- The second point is the concern which has inces and subject to their jurisdiction. It been expressed by the Leader of the Opposi- seems to me that we are effecting that under tion as to whether the Motor Vehicle Trans- clauses 18 and 27 of the bll, and that no port Act is going to be applicable to opera- conference could add further to the bil or tions carried on by the national company or make it clearer that the rights of the prov- any other railway company forming part of inces are being safeguarded in every respect. the national company pursuant to clause 27 of the bill. It seems to me that the situation mr. Dre mrSea is perfectly clear. If the operations carried out are carried out wholly within the limits Bore han. Members: Order. of a province, then it seems to me there is no doubt that the operations would be a local . work or undertaking which under section 92 ieh case. See standing order 43. The hon. of the British North America Act, clause 10, bo of the Opposition has already spoken, falls within the limit of the legislative power amendm ent. of the provinces. There is of course the exception contained Mr. Drew: Very wehl. in paragraph (a) of clause 10 of the section Mr. Stanley Inowies (Winnipeg North which speaks of interprovincial works, and Centre): Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak for I shall come to that in a moment. Then there it a few minutes to indicate the reasons is also the exception contained in paragraph why we feel there is no need for the amend- (c), where works which are local and which ment that bas been moved by the Leader of are declared to be for the general advantage the Opposition, ut should be put on the record [Mr. Drew.J JUNE 17, 1955 that no one has indicated any opposition to the Canadian National Railways, either through its subsidiaries or in its own name, operating motor vehicles. If there is any opposition to that, it is as yet undisclosed so far as members of this house are concerned. Everyone knows that both the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway already operate motor vehicles, both trucks and buses, so that no new power is being conferred by clause 27 of this bill. If that point is not in dispute, the only question that arises is as to whether or not this bill causes any loss of provincial juris- diction over trucks or buses operated by the Canadian National Railways within the boundaries of any of the provinces of this country. We had some concern, in view of the way in which the bill was originally drafted, lest that might be the case-lest there might be some interference with the jurisdiction of the provincial governments over these buses and trucks operating on provincial highways. However, we feel that the amended clause 18, in the form in which it came back from the committee on railways, canals and teelgraph lines, fully takes care of this situation. One is not being completely fair to the legislation if be draws attention to clause 27 without at the same time drawing attention to all the subclauses of clause 18. It is clause 18 which declares the railway and other transportation works in Canada of the Canadian National Railways to be works for the general advantage of Canada. If it stopped there, there would be a problem; there would be questions which members could legitimately raise. But one must also read subclause 3 of clause 18 as amended, which says: For the Durposes of this section, the expression "railway or other transportation works" does not include any works operated under the authority ofsection 27. And section 27 is the section that permits the Canadian National Railways to operate motor vehicles. I am not a lawyer, but I think I can under- stand plain English. It seems to me that that makes it abundantly clear-clear enough that even lawyers ought to be able to understand it-that motor vehicles operated within a province are not works for the general advantage of Canada and therefore they come under provincial jurisdiction. Since the disclosed point which has been raised by the Leader of the Opposition-if he has any other objection he has not indicated it-has been abundantly met by the amendment to section 18 of the bill, we see no reason for delaying further the passing of the act con- solidating the various statutes with respect to Canadian National Railways the Canadian National Railways. Therefore we shall vote against the amendment and for the bill. Mr. Roland Michener (Si. Paul's): Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker has over- looked the possibility that a matter can be the subject of federal jurisdiction for other reasons than being declared to be a work for the general advantage of Canada. That is the point which the lawyers perceive and which perhaps some other members of the house have not noticed. It is a very simple matter to resolve the question. If, as the minister says, clause 27 is intended to be subject to the Motor Vehicle Transport Act in so far as interprovincial traffic is con- cerned, the simple addition of those words to the section would solve the whole matter and make it unnecessary to go to the courts after the bill has been passed. Mr. B. R. Leboe (Cariboo): Mr. Speaker, I understand thoroughly the minister's stand in trying to get the parent company in the position where it can carry on these services. On the other hand, I can readily understand that there is a possibility of the carrying on of these bus and trucking services being ruled by the courts to be part of the opera- tions of the railway system and therefore works for the general advantage of Canada coming under clause 18. To my mind that is the only point in the debate, and in this case I think the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) has a point. I believe the possibility is there as long as the legislation remains in ius present form. In the committee I in- quired of the minister what effect anything that had been said in the committee or in the bouse would have on any court action, and he assured me it would be a matter of interest but that was about as far as it would go. That leads me to believe that what is said here in the house is of no effect and that it is what is written in the act that counts. That being the -case, we must be ready to look at all sides of the question and be absolutely sure in our own minds that if the legislation should be tested in the courts the resuit will not be contrary to what we in the committee are trying to get across. In that sense I feel that we must support the amend- ment. The house divided on the amendment (Mr. Drew) which was negatived on the following division: YEAS Messrs: Bell Blackmore Brooks Cardiff Charlton Churchili HOUSE OF COMMONS Canadian National Railways Drew Michener Dufresne Mitchell Fraser (Peterborough) (London) Fulton Montgomery Gagnon Nesbitt Green Nowlan Hamilton Patterson (Notre Dame de Grace) Pearkes Hamilton Quelch (York West) Robinson (Bruce) Hansell Stanton Harkness Thomas Hees Trainor Hodgson Tustin Leboe White Macdonnell (Middlesex East) McBain Wylie-37. McLeod NAYS Messrs: Applewhaite Argue Arsenault Ashbourne Balcom Barnett Batten Bennett Blanchette Boisvert Bonnier Bourget Breton Brisson Bruneau Bryce Buchanan Byrne Cameron (Nanaimo) Campbell Campney Cardin Caron Carrick Cloutier Demers Deschatelets Deslieres Dickey Dumas Dupuis Ellis Enfield Fairey Forgie Garland Gauthier (Portneuf) Gingues Gour (Russell) Gourd (Chapleau) Habel Harris Hellyer Herridge Hollingworth Howe (Port Arthur) Huffman James Johnson (Kindersley) Jones Jutras Kickham Kirk (Antigonish- Guysborough) Knowles Lafontaine Langlois (Gaspe) Lapointe Lavigne Leduc (Gatineau) Leduc (Jacques Cartier- Lasalle) Lefrançois Lesage Lusby MacDougall MacEachen MacKenzie MacNaught McCann McCubbin McCulloch (Pictou) McCullough (Moose Mountain) Marler Martin Michaud Mitchell (Sudbury) Monette Murphy (Westmorland) Nixon Noseworthy Philpott Pickersgill Pinard Pommer Purdy Ratelle Regier Richard (Ottawa East) Richardson Roberge Robertson Robichaud Robinson (Simcoe East) St. Laurent Shipley, Mrs. Sinclair Stewart (Winnipeg North) Stick Stuart (Charlotte) Thibault Tucker Viau Weir Weselak Winch-104. Mr. Goode: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for New Westminster. tMr. Leboe.] Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed. SUPPLY The house in committee of supply, Mr. Applewhaite in the chair. DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE Defence services- 236. To provide for the Canadian forces, the defence research board and other expenditures relating to defence, including contributions toward the military costs of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization; to authorize expenditures in the current year out of the amount hereby provided, not exceeding $175,000,000, under the provisions of section 3 of the Defence Appropriation Act, 1950, and to provide that, notwithstanding subsection (3) of that section, where equipment or supplies acquired by the Canadian forces after March 31, 1950, are transferred, the estimated present value thereof shall, if the governor in council so directs, be credited to this vote instead of being paid into the special account mentioned in the said sub- section (3), and when so credited may be expended for the purposes of the Canadian forces; and not- withstanding section 30 of the Financial Admin- istration Act to authorize total commitments for the foregoing purposes of $4,269,726,540 regardless of the year in which such commitments will come in course of payment (of which it is estimated that $2,443,441,346 will come due for payment in future years), $1,729,285,194. Mr. Hees: I should like to hear the minis- ter express his views on the very excellent suggestions presented to the house yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich as to the need for Canada's armed forces to be com- pletely airborne. As they so clearly explained to the house, this is the only kind of force which would be capable of protecting Canada against the only kind of attack which could possibly be effective against this country, namely an airborne attack against our air- fields or our key installations. To meet this kind of attack, troops would have to be moved to a danger area far more quickly than would be possible by conventional methods of transportation; and this makes our present formations which are not air- borne, and which comprise the great majority of our army formations in Canada today, ineffective to defend this country against the kind of attack we could expect. In addition, as the Leader of the Opposition said, an airborne force of this kind would be the best possible kind of contribution we could make to our NATO allies. What was suggested yesterday was that our forces should be made up of air-army combat teams, capable of moving on very short notice to any part of Canada to protect airfields and other key installations against apprehended attack, or to re-take those instal- lations after attack has taken place. 4922 The bion. member for Esquimalt-Saanich 'Mr. Pearkes) described very correctly the kind of force we would need, as a fire brigade. I tbink tbat lits tbe description apthy, because an attack en Canada would be a very fast strike, and wouid require the kind of remedial treatmnent that a fire brigade applies to a fire-the abillty to move imme- diately, and to go into action immediately upon arriving at the scene. I believe tbe establisbment of men and equipment whicb would be necessary for these combat teams would bave to be worked out carefully to obtain tbe best possible mobility and striking power. Yesterday tbe bon. member for York West (Mr. Hamilton) very aptly suggested tbat we would need a great many more transport planes tban are available today, or would be avail- able under ordinary military planning. He suggested we sbouid follow tbe procedure adopted in the United States, tbat of building many transport planes and leasing them out to air transport companies, with the under- standing that tbey would be returned to the government in case of attack, and could be used to transport troops. I believe these combat teams could be based upon a combination of an air transport wing, and an airborne battalion, together witb tbe required supporting arms. I do not believe it is good enough simply to bave airborne battalions capable of being trans- ported by air, because in the kind of defence we will need bere, the effectiveness of any defence force would depend upon the speed with whicb the force could be delivered to the required area. If there was 'the necessity to wait until the troops and their transport were linked togetber, after an alarm had been given, the purpose of tbe attack would bave been achieved long before troops could arrive on the scene of action. In order to, ensure that we bave the maxi- mum speed of movement and effectiveness of action, I think we must work out a very high order of teamnwork between the air f orce and the army well in advance of the time these components would be needed to work together. The time to, start planning and working is rigbt now. This kind of team work, wbich. was worked out so effec- tively among the ground forces of the last war, at whicb time there were combat teams made up of components of armour and in- fantry working together, can only be accomplished if the air-army components train together constantly, work together, get to know eacb other, and almost live together. One couhd not; expect tbat kind of teamwork if the air-army components were simply thrown together at the time tbey might be needed to repel an attack. Supply-National Defence These combat teams would flot require the same kind of supporting arms as conven- tional formations do today. For instance, 1 believe that the artillery support which a force of this kind would receive would be provided .by bombers Und mortars, both heavy and light, in place of the conventional artillery pieces. Perhaps it migbt be f ound desirable to include a light tank in each of these combat teams, or perhaps ligbt tanks. And of course supplies would be delivered by air instead of by conventional metbods. If we go in for an airborne army, such as was suggested yesterday as being the most effec- tive, we must reassess the needs of Canada and the needs of our armed forces, 'both as to manpower and equipment. We have also to start thinking in terms of the air force and the army training ta- gether as combat teams, rather than as two separate services. Indeed, the goverinent seemed to be on the way to working out this kind of operation between the air force and the army wben it established tbree airborne battalions some time ago. The plan seems suddenly to have been laid aside, and I would be interested in hearing the minister tell us later why this bas bappened. Another point I should like to, discuss is the abrupt and premature termination of the services of the army chief of staff, General Simonds. In taking the action it did take, the government is, in effect, saying that General Simonds, at the very early age of 52 years, can give no furtber usefulness ta our armed forces. I would point out, Mr. Chair- man, that the age of 52 is very young indeed for the retirement of a top executive-and the chief of staff in the army is just exactly that: a top executive. He works witb bis brains, not with bis muscle. I think it is important to remember that after the chief of staff bas been retired for eight years, and bas been drawing goVern- ment pension for that length of time, he will then, and only then, be exactly the same age as the present Prime Minister when be decided to embark upon bis present career in the service of bis country. That was 13 years ago. I think tbe minister, and an bon. members, would agree that the Prime Min- ister is stilipretty effective. And to consider that the army chief of staff, General Simonds, is ineffective at an age 21 years youmger than the present Prime Minister, is, I suggest, somewhat ridiculous. If General Simonds were just an ordinary soldier, bis retirement might be understand- able. But in my opinion be is the most outstanding soldier Canada bas produced ini many a long year. Those who bad the privilege of serving under him, during the hast 4923JUNE 17, 1955 HOUSE OF COMMONS Supply-National Defence war knew him as a brilliant strategist; and there is no one better able to judge the ability of a commander than the troops who serve under him, and who have to take the rap if he makes a mistake. In General Simonds, the troops who served with him felt that they were serving under a man whose judgment could be relied upon. When they went into battle following a plan he had devised, they felt they had the best chance of winning, and of survival. And that is very important to troops entering a campaign. It does much for their morale, as well as for the effectiveness of the force concerned. General Simonds plan for the break-out from Caen to Falaise is conceded to be one of the most brilliant operations in the last war. To discharge this man of such ability at the age of 52 is, I suggest, an inexcusable waste of military ability, a waste of the kind of military ability our forces need today. General Simonds is, and always has been, a soldiers' general. I believe that he is far more capable than any other soldier in Canada today of leading Canadian forces into battle. His ability to prepare these forces for battle would be invaluable to this country for a number of years to come. I do say it is extremely regrettable that his services are to be completely discontinued from August 31. His services are being dispensed with because he simply refused to become a politicians' general and be willing to be a rubber stamp for the government's views in opposition to what he considers, from his very great experience, to be right. For that reason he has been cast aside at a time when his knowledge and his ability are at their very peak. Another thing I want to speak about very briefly is the deplorable state of our civil defence. You have only to read the papers of the last few days to realize just how deplor- able is the state of our civil defence, and also to know how seriously the United States takes this whole matter. We have all been very impressed by the civil defence operation car- ried out in the United States during the past three days. As hon. members know, the President, his cabinet, chiefs of staff, and all key personnel, were whisked away to some secret headquarters after the alarm had been given on Tuesday, and for the past three days they have conducted the affairs of that country just as though an atomic attack had taken place. The President of the United States, his cabinet, the chiefs of staff, key officials and the people generally do not like to be moved about the country any more than anybody else does; but if they take this thing that [Mr. Hees.] seriously, it is important that we should con- sider doing exactly the same thing. The President, by his action and by the serious way in which he has acted in this whole matter, is giving leadership in civil defence in the United States, and by this exer- cise that has taken place over the last three days, has demonstrated to the people of the United States that civil defence is an impor- tant defensive measure and one which must be taken seriously. If we followed that same principle here in Canada, people would stop taking civil defence as a joke, as they do today, and would start preparing under gov- ernment leadership a proper plan to be used in case of an attack. The Deputy Chairman: Order. I realize that civil defence has been mentioned and discussed by previous speakers in this debate, but they have all quite noticeably connected civil defence with the possible parts of the armed services in civil defence, and I am going to ask the hon. member who has the floor to do so now because, except in so far as the part of the defence forces in civil defence is con- cerned, it would not be right for any reply to be made to criticisms which opposition members may feel justified in bringing up. In other words, what I cannot permit at this time would be a debate between critics and the minister responsible for civil defence when we are really discussing the estimates of the minister responsible for national de- fence. I think the hon. member for Broad- view will appreciate the difference. Mr. Hees: I had just about finished. If I may conclude my remarks, I would urge the government to take this matter as seriously as the United States government obviously does. Mr. Martin: In view of the fact that the hon. member does not want to obey your ruling, Mr. Chairman, I want him to know that the government does take this matter seriously, and so do the 10 provincial governments. Mr. Hees: Mr. Chairman, since the minister bas interrupted, may I ask him what is the explanation- The Deputy Chairman: Order. That is exactly what I do not propose to permit being asked or answered at this time. As hon. members know, there will be ample oppor- tunity to discuss civil defence on the estimates of the Minister of National Health and Wel- fare, who is responsible for it. If any hon. member wishes to suggest, criticize or discuss the part which is being taken or should be taken by the armed services, for whom the Minister of National Defence is responsible, in connection with civil defence, he will of JUNE 17, 1955 course be in order; but the attitude of the gavernrnent toward civil defence and the organization of civil defence generally, un- fortunately perbaps for the continuity of the debate, cannot be discussed on these estimates. Mr. Hees: Might I urge the Minister of National Defence ta do all he passibly can ta get civil defence back under bis departrnent wbere I believe it belongs. ]Perhaps we rnight then bave leadership instead of the sbocking lack of leadership we bave had over the past five years. Mr. Martin: After tbe observation of my bon. friend, may I congratulate him on bis 45tb birtbday. Mr. Pickersgill: We hope be will soon reach maturity. Mr. Hees: Well, wbat do you know? Mr. Fraser (Peterborough): Yau bave corne out of your short pants, then. Mr. Camneron (Nanaimo): Mr. Chairman, if the mature memnbers of the bouse would care ta corne back ta their onions, I should Jike to get back ta the question of defence estimates. Perhaps they are the rnast difficuit of ail esti- mates for bon. members ta discuss, far two reasans af caurse. One is the beavy veil af secrecy that is thrown over the details of defence expenditures, a veil af secrecy that is excused on the ground of national security. Perbaps one migbt question at times the validity of that veil of secrecy when he contrasts it with the habits of every other government. Hawever, there is of course a certain measure of secrecy that bas ta be imposed. Perhaps more important, bon. mena- bers are inbibited from discussing these esti- mates because of a feeling af, shaîl we say, incapacity, lack of technical knowledge with regard ta those expenditures. But it does not excuse hon. members fromn their respansi- bilities. That is tbe trouble. We have ta assume responsibility for thase expenditures, and when tbey are of the colossal size of Our present defence expenditures, then we bave ta do our best ta discuss the nature of those disbursernents. Perhaps the first thing we have ta get straight in our minds is just what we have in mind with regard te defence. It is a very wide and embracing term, and it sorne- Urnes creates in people's miAnds pictures that are not in accord witb reality. If we were ta decide where and in what ferra a possible attack on Canada might take place, then I think we have ta eliminate from aur thinkcing certain alleged passibilities. 'Yesterday, the hon. member for Esquimaît- Saanich was very sound in bis suggestion that Supply-Natio&al Dejence in the final analysis the task of Canadian defence is defence against aerial attack over the north pole. We have to discard from any realistic thinking any possibility of an attack by ground forces on the area of Canada either by air or by sea. Anyone who bas any knowledge of the terrain of the outlying parts of this country will realize that such an atternpt would be worthless and useless and is not likely to be part of any aggressive plans which rnay be launched against Canada. There is another thing we have to con- sider, namely, that any attack on Canada wil be in essence part of an attack on the United States. I think we can accept that as vir- tually a fact; that an attack on Canada will be part of an attack on the United States. Ail of us have very clearly in our minds just what the nature of that attack rnight be. It wauld be an aerial attack on our industrial centres from the Arctic regions. We would have to discount the suggestion made yester- day by the Leader of the Opposition of the possibility of airborne attack, for instance, on our uranium mines. I doubt whether that is a feasible possibility for an aggressor. I cannot see exactly what tbey would gain by such an attempt. 0f course, the obvious suggestion is they would seize aur sources of uranium; but of course tbey would be seizing the sources of supplies that would have to be used some considerable time la the future and would not in any way cripple, if that was their intent, the capacity of the United States and Canada at that im- mediate time. It seems to me that any sudden airborne attack would be merely part of a major aeriai attack designed to destroy our existing industrial centres. The next thing we have to consider is haw well equipped we are ta provide a defence against such an aerial attack. In the first place we have to examine the variaus types of military organizations which we have for that purpose. I arn quite sure triat the minister will agree with me wben 1 suggest that ground forces of the army are of littie consequence as defence frorn aerial attack. I notice that the Canadian Arrny Journal contains an article by the director of artillery a+ arrny headquarters here in Ottawa which bas considerable bearing on this matter. I was interested in the comments made as ta the limitations of conventional artillery. Witb regard to anti-aircraf t guns he had this ta say: At a range of five miles, a fast plane will fly over two miles after the sheil leaves the gun and before it arrives at the Plane. Even if the aircraft does not deliberately change direction. very few pilots are sufflciently skilful ta fly that distance accurately enough ta be hit by a perfectly aimed .shell. HOUSE OF COMMONS Supply-National Defence Rather a sardonic way of placing the prob- lem before us. Therefore except at short times of projectile flight, predicted fire weapons do not provide atruly effective anti-aircraft defence against modern high-speed aircraft. There are guided missiles in production now thatcan effectively engage manoeuvring, high-speedtargets at far greater heights and ranges thanconventional guns. They possess the capability ofout-manoeuvring any planes that may be con- structed. That would seem to me to indicate that our conventional anti-aircraft defence would be of no particular value. I think we can wipe out the army on that score, with regard to that part of our defence. I imagine that the same argument applies to the navy. I do not think anyone will suggest that we could send an aircraft carrier to Baffin Land during the few weeks when the water would be navigable to shoot down approaching aircraft. More serious are the statements by some outstanding military experts of the world which present us with a rather grim pic- ture, one that apparently we are not yet ready to accept. I should like to quote from a speech made by Field Marshal Montgomery before the California Institute of Technology in November last year when he said: There is at the present time no sure defenceagainst the aeroplane or ballistie rocket. Indeed,so far as we can see today, trying to get a secure defence against air attack is rather like tryingto keep the tide back on the seashore with apicket fence. In addition to Field Marshal Montgomery we had a statement early this year by the famous Captain Liddell Hart, who has been military adviser to successive governments of Britain. He had this to say in January of this year: Big savings could be made in ordinary bomber forces, navies and air defence, since none iscapable of preventing "a catastrophic penetration by 'hydrogen bombers' or bombardment by atomic missiles." Last year Sir John Slessor, chief of the air staff of Great Britain, gave two addresses over the B.B.C. which were later reported in the Listener, the organ of the British Broadcasting Corporation. Sir John pointed out that today it is not a question of stopping a percentage of attacking aircraft and wear- ing down the enemy by that means. He points out that because of the nature of modern bombs we would have to have vir- tually 100 per cent defence to have any effective defence at all. I suggest that that presents us with a rather grim picture of the possibilities of defending our territory. We should not de- lude ourselves that we have any defence or [Mr. Cameron (Nanalmo).] that it is possible to have a defence in the accepted traditional sense of the word. Of course we have the early warning lines which are now being constructed in northern and central-northern Canada. Last year I think it was the leader of the Social Credit party who asked the Prime Minister if these early warning lines would be effective in giving a warning of the approach of guided missiles travelling at speeds of up to 1,000 miles an hour. I remember that the Prime Minister gave an extremely witty answer, but an extremely unsatisfactory one, to the effect that as he was not capable of think- ing in speeds of up to 1,000 miles an hour, he was not able to answer the hon. member. As I say, he gave a very witty answer but a most unsatisfactory one because it did not deal with a serious question which was asked of the government. If these early warning lines had been con- structed several years ago they might have provided us with a certain measure of warn- ing and defence, but it is perfectly obvious that the new developments taking place in the United States, and we must conclude also in the Soviet union, render these early warning lines as worthless for defence as more conventional methods. I remember last year listening to the former minister of national defence, who is reported on page 362 of Hansard of November 26, 1953, as having said: In the last few months there bas been a lot of talk in the press and elsewhere about continental defence. The realities of the subject have some- times been obscured by the sort of Buck Rogerish features like intercontinental pilotless aircraft, long-range guided missiles, flying saucers and even death rays, but the realities are stili very real and very serious. The disturbing thing is that at the very moment the minister of national defence for Canada was dismissing as Buck Rogerish such things as intercontinental guided mis- siles those things were actually in the experi- mental stage in the United States. In Janu- ary of this year one of the United States experts in ballistic missiles when speaking with regard to the latest type of inter- continental ballistic missile now in experi- mental production in the United States had this to say in a United States periodical: When the Soviets successfully engineer this near- absolute weapon (intercontinental ballistic missile), our elaborate and costly radar-fighter screen will not be effective against it. Faced with hydrogen- headed missiles of meteoric re-entry speed, our cities will be virtually defenceless. We cannot dismiss the statement by Colonel Leghorn of the United States air force reserve as being unrealistic. Since that time even greater advances have been made, which 4926 Tender dubious at least the methods of de- fence we now have before us. The serious ýnature of this problem was brought out early last year by Hanson Baldwin, a well known ~military writer for the New York Times, -who had this to say in April, 1954: Within four or five years-- That would be three or four now. --after technological developmentS now under way are completed and our air defence reaches optimum efficieney we cannot expect to intercept and shoot down more than 65 to 80 per cent of an enemy's pzloted bombers. Against intercontinental guided missiles the percentage of estimated kills would be fractional. Since one plane with one bomb wiUl be able to wipe out New York there is no security in defensive measures. I think we have to face that fact and real- ize that we are now placed in the position -where, as many have been saying for years, the oniy defence is the fear in the minds o! a potential enemy o! effective retaliation. -I submit to you, Mr. Chairman, that, so far at least, Canada has not proved capable of -producing the means of providing that effect- ive retaliation. I myseif am very doubtful as to whether the resources of Canada are capable of placing us ln that position-not only our limited resources, but the severe restrictions that have been placed on the exchange of technical information by our chief ally, the United States of America. It .is no doubt very wounding to our national pride and vanity to face the fact that today mwe literally have no effective defence against the only direction and type of attack that is feasible or possible, aerial attack, with modemn weapons approaching our centres and -the centres of the United States across the -Arctic regions. That happens to be the plain f act o! the matter, and I do not think anyone can get around it. When the early warning lines are built, we xnay have the means of warning our people that destruction is due to arrive within an bour or so, but we have not yet any means -and responsible authorities suggest there is no possibility of achievir'g any effective means-of providing that 100 per cent pro- tection which responsible people tell us is necessary in this day and age. It may be a little frightening to face that prospect but, paradoxically enough, it may carry with it our very best hope, the hope that was expressed by the Leader of the Opposition when he quoted Sir Winston Churchlfl% tamous dictuxn that we might perhaps find security la the shelter of possible mutual destruction. Whle we are contemplating the unhappy tact that we have no means of defending our hall of North America and that the United States has no means o! defending its hall ol North America in such a way as to prevent Supply-National Defence catastrophic aerial attack, we can comfort ourselves with the thought that our possible Russian aggressors are facing, with the same anxious eyes, the deficiencies of their own defence system, which. brings us back again to the necessity of relying on other means for our security in this world. I suggest that Canada will be very well advised to face up to this fact, whicl> is of course known to al possible aggressors, who are perfectly well aware of our situation. The rather dramatic veil of secrecy that is drawn over our prep- arations is a littie amusing when we consider the frankness with which the United States discusses its defence preparations and the frankness with which the British government discusses its preparations. We may be quite sure that our potential enemies are weil aware of our situation ln Canada and wel aware, moreover, that It is not a feasible economic or industrial possibility for us to develop the only type of defence, which is the power of immediate and effective retalia- tion. I will admit that there is, of course, a very important argument in favour of maintaining at least a very high level of defence ex- penditure at this time. I remember-and possibly you may recail it, Mr. Chairman- that last year an earnest seeker after truth at the banking and commerce committee asked a question of a very important officer of the government with regard to the con- tention that the prosperity of Canada's econ- omy was dependent on the level of our defence expenditures. This very important officiai said that it would be difficuit for hlm. or for anyone else to assess with any great degree of accuracy the effect of Canada's defence expenditures on our economy, but he had no hesitation in saying that any severe curtailment of those expenditures, let alone their abolition, would have the most dis- astrous economic results. So one can see that there is definitely at the present time an argument for continuing our expenditures, even on equipment and material which obviously is obsolete and about as useful as bows and arrows. But it is time we began to consider the question of d.iverting those expenditures into more use- fui -and valuable channels than at present. One could set, of course, any figure as the desirable one by whlch to reduce them, for instance, $300 million, $500 million, $600 million, $700 million or $1 billion. On the other hand-and I should hate to be ln the minister's shoes-one could not make out any really effective case for anything more than a very small proportion of our present ex- penditures except on the lines I have just mentioned. But I do suggest that now is the 4927JUNE 17, 1955 4928 HOUSE OF COMMONS Supply-National Defence time to start laying the plans for transfer- he has to ring those expenditures into other spheres. important At this session and the last ,session sugges- the hope t tions have been raised in this house for large of parliam capital developments in Canada. We have people and had such proposals as the South Saskatchewan ing will SO dam and the projected Columbia river author- of his dep ity and Fraser river authority, all areas of and decisio development that are crying out for the vast in thîs gro expenditure of public funds. I suggest that corridors this government should now be laying active now being plans for the diversion of a very large pro- reaîism. portion of our present defence expenditures into such avenues of public disbursement. Mr. Broc We should no longer beguile ourselves with Mr. Her delusions of grandeur and pretend that, because we have an elaborate, traditional, tha ge outworn military establishment, it is in any way relevant to any possible war that may take place. It is time we became sufficiently thought h adult and mature to face the fact that we the situatio have no defence and it is doubtful whether We also lis it is within our capacities to build any mili- est to the tary defence. There is only one field in group by which some hope in that line lies, and that Boundary. is in the field of research. I have read sug- ous consid gestions that it might be possible in the cisms made future to develop some scientific device that It is not would be a real defence against aerial attack. deal with t The only way to achieve that is by vast their use. expenditures on research. Our expenditures respect. T on research at present are of a rather modest with, and h nature in comparison with the $l billion of years, ar or more we are spending altogether on defence and things disbursements. you attack It is time that we in Canada began to I am willin face realities, and some of the realities are questions t good. One of the realities mentioned by the that field. Leader of the Opposition yesterday is an extremely hopeful one, and that is that out However, of mutual fear of destruction we may be able subjects wl to seize the opportunity of building satis- administrati factory lives for our people. It is time, shall Defence an we say, to beat our swords into plowshares, members of particularly since our swords are very ob- press ail t viously tin swords and it seems very doubt- we have th ful whether we can get any more effective type of fighting weapon, and we have a deal of plowing to be done in Canada before members o we shall be worthy of the trust that was know that placed in the people of Canada for the devel- cerned abou opment of this half of North America. members of Mr. Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I have just The first arrived at the appropriate moment, as I had briefly is t been detained in my office, but I am very supremacy glad to have the opportunity to say a few the admini words on these estimates. National De I must say we listened with a great deal opposition, a of interest yesterday to the remarks of the many memb Minister of National Defence, and I wish to unnecessary inform him that all members of this group National De are fully aware of the heavy responsibility have had cor [Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo) .i bear in the direction of this very and key department. We express hat his ability, his understanding ent and his understanding of the what they are thinking and say- on reflect upon the administration artment. In view of recent events ns on the part of the minister, we ip have high hopes that the musty )f the defence headquarters are ventilated with the winds of ks: What a flight of fancy. ridge: The whole house listened at deal of attention, Mr. Chairman, considered a statesmanlike speech member for Esquimalt-Saanich. e gave a very complete outline of n and most constructive criticisms. tened with a great deal of inter- presentation on behalf of this the hon. member for Okanagan I hope the minister will give seri- eration to the constructive criti- by both these gentlemen. my intention, Mr. Chairman, to the development of weapons and I am a complete novice in that ie only weapons I am acquainted ave been over a very long period e the mattock, the axe, the shovel of that sort, weapons with which nature rather than human nature. g to leave the discussion of such o those who have knowledge in I wish to deal with two or three hich are directly related to the on of the Department of National d are of serious concern to many the house. Members do not ex- ieir opinions in the house, but e opportunity to discuss matters ers of other parties, including f the minister's party, and we many of them are quite as con- t the matters I shall raise as are the opposition. matter I want to deal with he necessity of maintaining the of parliament when it comes to stration of the Department of fence. The second is our vigorous nd I think I can include in that ers of the house, to any waste or spending in the Department of fence. The third question-and I nversations about it with members of all parties-is that we should make cer- tain that justice is administered to all ranks in our armed forces regardless of their rank, background or prestige. Before proceeding to deal with these three texts, which are the subject of my few hum- ble remarks this morning, I want to pay tribute and give credit to the officers, war- rant officers, non-commissioned officers and men of all three services and of the reserve forces who take their duties seriously and are playing an essential role in the defence of this country by giving their time and services for this purpose without any hope of receiving the feudal rewards that can result from a class and caste system. As I said, Mr. Chairman, my first text is that the supremacy of parliament must be maintained. When dealing with this ques- tion, and particularly with matters relating to the army, I always have in mind the re- marks of the late president Clemenceau of France who said on one occasion that war is too important a matter to be left in the hands of generals and admirals. I have remembered that remark throughout the years because I think it is a very great truth, and that is why we are so keen on the supremacy of parliament. In addition, it is possible that I am a little bit prejudiced as far as generals are concerned. I am not referring to the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich, for whom I have the greatest respect, and I am sure he will support many of my remarks. However, I may be a little prejudiced be- cause of one or two unfortunate experiences I have had with generals in my brief military career. I shall never forget-and I am quite sure the minister will know the person to whom I am referring-having to take part in a series of very heavy infantry attacks in the battle of the Somme in 1916 and, in the latter part of November, in snowy and bitterly cold weather, being fortified prior to the attack commencing with a ration of cold pea soup as the result of what most of us considered to be the pigheadedness of the general commanding our brigade who insisted that there was much more inspiration in cold pea soup prior to an attack than in the normal stimulant given to men who are facing rather unpleasant circumstances. Mr. MacDougall: Would that be the Chris- tian general? Mr. Herridge: I am not going to mention any names. He was a very good general in many respects, but we did feel put out about the pea soup. Supply-National Defence Mr. Philpoit: Would the hon. member permit a question? Mr. Herridge: Yes. Mr. Philpoit: Perhaps the general was getting you in a properly indignant frame of mind for the attack. Mr. Herridge: Possibly, but we were so indignant we very nearly marched backward. Anyway, Mr. Chairman, I am glad that the minister's actions in recent days and his statements indicate that he is not going to be the parliamentary apologist for the blun- ders and indiscretions of the senior officers. I have heard quite favourable comment on the minister's administration to date not only in the house but through having received short comments in letters. I have the hon- our and the pleasure of representing a most intelligent electorate who read Hansard and the newspapers and who, in writing to me, frequently make comments on current hap- penings in parliament. I have had several favourable comments concerning the min- ister's administration to date. But in dealing with this question I do wish to refer briefly to several public statements made by senior officers prior to recent days which in my opinion indicate their lack of understanding-I hope their understanding has been developed as the result of events- of the fact that in a democracy parliament is supreme and only the government makes and announces policy. In that connection I want to remind members of the discussion of the Currie report and the consideration of that report by the committee on defence expenditure. I think all hon. members will recall that at that time General Guy Simonds published an article in the Canadian Army Journal of December, 1952, in which he said: In recent weeks and months the army bas been the target of unremitting attacks from many sources. The sources he was indicating are quite obvious. We have been criticized for the indiscipline of Canadian soldiers. We have been criticized for too much discipline. We have been criticized for extravagance and criticized for nat providing a whole host of things which cost a very great deal of money. We have been criticized for lack of morale and accused of complacency and arrogance when we have shown or proclaimed a pride in the Canadian army. The general went on to say: The Canadian army today is certainly not perfect and in several respects falls far short of the stand- ards which I hope and believe we can attain. I have made our policies and objectives abundantly clear to general officers of commands and ta commanders abroad. Then he continued further: Anyway, there were quite a number of people at that time who thought it was most improper for the 4929JUNE 17, 1955 HOUSE OF COMMONS Supply-National Defence chief of the general staff to write an article which clearly implied a criticism of the persons who were criticizing a section of the administration of the Department of National Defence, and that criticism of course was largely concentrated in parliament and was coming from members of parliament. I see that according to the Montreal Gazette, of Tuesday, January 18, the general made a speech. I might say this would not be tolerated in Great Britain for one moment. They have a very strong tradition in that respect. In any event, the general is speaking in Montreal and according to the Gazette he said: "I would like to see every young man in Canada given two years military training." Lt.-Gen. Guy G. Simonds, chief of the general staff of the Cana- dian army, yesterday told the Canadian Club of Montreal. "I have spent all my life in the army or in association with the army", General Simonds de- clared, "and I have yet to meet a man the worse for that association. A system of compulsory nilitary training would be good for the boy, for the army and for the country." Now, it is quite right for General Simonds to have these opinions, but it is quite im- proper for him to deal with the matter in a public address. It is definitely a matter of government policy and a matter of consider- able debate and discussion in this country and upon which there is some cleavage of opinion. Then, I see that according to the Gazette of the same date, General Simonds said: "In any future war, however," General Simonds declared, "the United States will be in it from the beginning and will make a heavy demand on Atlantic communications. In two world wars, Can- ada was in for two years before the United States and had Atlantic communications almost to her- self." "The next time we will be much more re- stricted," he said. "It will no longer be useful to send men to Europe for training. Our troops must be ready for battle when they leave." General Simonds also said the army must be expanded by echelons to keep training at the highest possible level. In this way the acute problem of accommodation in Canada can be met. There again is a speech which gets very close to the field of policy. There is an article in the Montreal Gazette of January 24 and I strongly suspect this was written by Mr. Blakely, who has no love for the ideas of the members of this group. I may say, therefore, I shall read it with greater relish. Report is that Lt.-Gen. Guy Simonds, chief of the general staff, has been quietly cautioned to leave controversial defence policy references out of his public orations. Reason is his recent Montreal speech suggesting that it was high time Canada embarked on a policy of compulsory military service. The government defended the reference in public as having been a vague and harmless generality, but is anxious, it is said, to avoid a repetition. Parliaments are traditionally sensitive when military leaders enter the polic*y field. M.P.'s who agree with General Simonds' views on conscription are among those most critical of his public plunge into the controversy. [Mr. Herridge.] I think in that respect the writer of the article was quite correct. Then, in the Toronto Daily Star of Friday, June 3, we have a report of the unfortunate and inappropriate remarks of Air Vice Marshal Plant. We are very pleased to know the result of those remarks. It is the first time since I have been a member of this house, the first time in a good many years, a senior officer who had made inappropriate and'improper remarks was promptly dealt with. We congratulate the minister on his effective and prompt action in that respect. In that connection, I just want to urge upon the minister that he continue his good work in maintaining the supremacy of parliament so far as his department is concerned. He has made a very good start indeed. Now, I return to my text. One of my grandfathers was a Methodist minister and the other one was an Anglican lay reader, and it is for that reason, I presume, I am inclined to speak from a text on occasion. Now, my next text- Mr. Knowles: You know what real minis- ters do with texts. Mr. Herridge: -concerns our position with regard to waste and needless spending in the Department of National Defence. According to the newspapers I have read and public speeches by various people, Gen- eral Simonds is given credit for three major accomplishments. The first is the present army form of organization, the army we have today; second, the organization of the Regi- ment of Canadian Guards; and third, the consummation of the small-bore arms agree- ment. I want to deal with those three accom- plishments briefly. In so far as the general's accomplishment in designing and organizing our present army is concerned, I cannot do better than quote the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich. In his very interesting speech yesterday he had these comments to make. He said that Canada was maintaining yesterday's army to fight tomorrow's war. Then again I notice the hon. member, as an old army man him- self, said that the army which regarded itself as time-honoured was really time- worn. He said that the army of today had changed very little from the army that fought on the Somme more than 35 years ago. I was under the same impression when I had a look at the weapons on display in the front of these buildings the other day, with the exception of the guided missile which I am told confidentially was a dummy made of wood. The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich goes on to say that the whole army should be an airborne army. Well, I do not know how this Regîment of Canadian Guards wrnl do their goose step when they get into aero- planes. Then hie went on ta say that this army was entirely unrealistic and there had been an entirely new concept of the armny formation and role. I should say that I can- not quote any better authority than the hion. member for Esquirnalt-Saanich. Mr. Knowles: Except yourself. Mr. Herridge: No, I certainly regard the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich, as a resuit of his experience and his rnellowing experience in the House o! Commons, which does have a beneficial effect on generals, as a good authority. In any event, I think it is safe ta conclude from the observations made by the hon. member that aur army organiza- tion is completely obsolete and as a resuit in recent years a great deal of the taxpayer's money has been wasted. That is the first accomplishment o! General Simonds, the organization of an obsolete army which even the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich indicates should be reorganized on com- pletely different lines. I now turn ta a favourite topic of some members in this house, some members of the arrned forces, a good many mernbers o! the Canadian Legion and a good many people in this country, and that is the organization of thxe Regiment of Canadian Guards. The organization of this regiment has been criti- cized in the House o! Commons, criticized in officers' messes, in military formations throughout this country, criticized in the Canadian Legion and criticized in public places everywhere. According ta General Simonds there were two reasons for !orming this regiment. The first was to give Canada a truly national regiment, as aur other regi- ments had somewhat parochial connections. Well, their parochial connections did nat prevent them !romn bringing credit ta them- selves when they were serving overseas in the defence of this country. The second reasan was ta glarify and glamourize the plain foot-slogging infantry. According ta the hon. member for Esquinialt-Saanich, we do not want any foat-slagging infantry. We are gaing ta have themn riding around in aeroplanes. I do not believe, therefore, the arguments in favour of the formation of this regiment are very sound. I was rather intrigued by an advertisement published by the Department of National Defence in an effort ta secure recruits for the Regiment of Canadian Guards. I have same interest ini this question because during a short periad in the first warld war I was attached to the guards, but I jolly well asked Supply-National DeS ence ta get back to my own unit as soon as pos- sible. The advertisement reads as follows: Applications now being accepted for the new Regiment of Canadian Guards. Second to none on the parade square. That is the place to which most of our generals relate their activities, the parade square. Incorporating the colour and smartness of mili- tary tradition at its finest. the Canadian Guards ranks first among the arny's regular infantry regiments. Ranks first! Why, it was formed in 1953 and has fought a defensive rearguard action ever since. Right now there is a requirement for young men who would like to share in the colourful dress and ceremoniai activities of the new Cana- dian Guards. Do you think the taxpayers of this country can afford to pay for the luxury of maintain- ing a regiment the principal purpose of which is colourful dress and ceremonial activities? Can we afford this, when already we have two regirnents of guards in this country who have been active and performed many battie duties? What do they do? Well, I will tell you what they are doing: They are trying to ape the British Brigade of Guards at Peta- wawa and that does flot go down with Canadian society. If you go out ta the parade, ground you will find that their steps are being timed with a metronorne and measured by a pace-stick so that they will maintain the exact distance of pace and number of paces per minute that is traditional with the number of paces per minute and the length of pace of the brigade of guards in Great Britain. I arn just wondering how much this drill will assist in the defence of Canada. Now, in our opinion, in the opinion of members of this group-and in this I arn speaking for this group or, shall I say, on this occasion I arn supported by members of this group-we find in this instance a return ta the feudal conception. Do we want the glamaur of uniforms and ail that sort of* thing, coupled wlth ceremonial drill? We, suggest you would do better to leave that sort of thing ta Hollywood. It is dane better there, and people will pay ta see it, but it is entirely out of place in the Canadian democracy. We maintain, first, that it is a reflection an regirnents in Canada which have rendered long service at home and abroad. It has caused a great deal of unnecessary friction in that respect. Second, it is a complete waste o! public funds, as it serves no useful purpose in the defence of this country. And aur feelings in this respect are heartened JUNE 17, 1955 4931 HOUSE OF COMMONS Supply-National Defence by the comments yesterday of the hon. mem- ber for Esquimalt-Saanich. Third, it is the breeding ground of class distinction, a mili- tary class system and snobbery. And we do not want any of these things in this country, in a Canadian democracy. Further, it is a complete waste of splendid Canadian manpower and material resources. In the opinion of members of this group, ours should be a citizens' defence force, one composed of citizens who have offered their services to defend Canada on sea, land and in the air, without any thought of feudal rewards that are indicated in class dis- tinction, in rank or in preference of position. Therefore we urge the minister to stop this waste of public funds. Listen to the plea of the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich for reorganization, and in addition disband this unnecessary, inappropriate and most unpop- ular Regiment of Canadian Guards. The third major accomplishment of General Simonds was the consummation of the small- bore arms agreement which, I understand, is to cost Canada, in the tooling process and purchasing of rifles, about $100 million. I suppose it is correct to say that there is a necessity for some small arms at this time. But I am wondering how essential a part small arms will play in an effective defence of this country. Anyway, those are the three accomplish- ments of the chief of general staff. I want to be fair about General Simonds, because he is a man with a distinguished military record. But so often you find men who are successful under war conditions cannot become adjusted to civilian conditions, or those of peacetime. I think his opinion is rather well summed up by Mr. Austin Cross in the Financial Times of June 17. Let me say quite frankly I do not agree with Mr. Cross fully. In fact, about three issues ago he made some very caustic comments about me, all of which I take in my stride. But I understand that his whole family has a Liberal black- ground- Some hon. Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Knowles: "Blackground" is right. Mr. MacDougall: What about your own "blackground"? Mr. Herridge: However, he does write some rather pungent and caustic comments in the issue I have before me. I have heard these comments repeated almost verbatim by a good many other pressmen. I find the Department of National Defence is not any too popular with the gentlemen of the fourth estate. I think they have been a bit snubbed on occasion. [Mr. Herridge.] Anyway, Mr. Austin Cross has been snubbed and he takes it out in this article. He sums up his opinion when he says this: Well, that's the end of gabby guys on parliament hill. The bouncing of chief of staff Guy Simonds sees the end of a gallant soldier but an insuffer- able civil servant. Surly, irascible, non-co- operative, I was glad I was able to duck anything to do with this fighting cock. Simonds retired after a period I regard as hopeless. A brave man, he had no idea of how to get along with people. I would have written him off as a total loss were it not for my friend Leslie Mutch, the former MP, and soldier in two wars, whose opinions I value. Mutch had nothing but praise for Simonds and that to me is the only kind word I ever heard about this professional soldier. A pro-conscriptionist; a fellow who was con- temptuous of our politicians; a guy who could not care less about the taxpayers; Simonds would have made a great soldier in the German army. He had courage, he had physique, he could do things, but in a peace loving country like Canada, he was lost. He is succeeded by a fellow who is bound to be better, because he could hardly be worse, from my standpoint, at least. He is Major General Howard Graham, an amiable middle of the roader and a dark horse. We may perhaps return in army circles to the days when Charlie Foulkes, a gentle soul and effective soldier, was boss. I might say General Foulkes is a very popular officer. I have heard almost nothing of Graham but people here think he will be an excellent appoint- ment. However, I suppose you know why Simonds was told to move on. He too had made too much yakety-yak. Like his fellow Canadian Air Vice Marshal Plant, he was too loose with the lip on more than one occasion. Now he can fight the brave fight from our best clubs. There they can conscript to their hearts content over the whiskey and sodas, or if abstemious, over their cakes. I do urge on behalf of this group that con- sideration be given to the disbanding of this Regiment of Canadian Guards, which has caused a great deal of criticism. When I say "disbanded" I do not mean a dismissal of the troops in question; they could be utilized along lines suggested by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich. But let us stop all this unnecessary and wasteful expenditure which is now made for the development of ceremonial drill and glamour among the foot- slogging infantry, who are already disappear- ing from the scene. At one o'clock the committee took recess. The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m. Mr. St. Laurent: Mr. Chairman, might I ask you to rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again this day so that when you are in the chair I can ask for the indulgence of the house to make an announcement and to table a copy of an order in council? 4932 The Chairman: Is it agreed that I rise, report progress and ask leave ta sit again later this day? Borne hon. Members: Agreed. Progress reported. THE CANADIAN ECONOMY AN?4oUNCEMENT 0F APPOINTMENT Or ROYAL coMMI5SION-TABLING OF ORDER IN COUNCIL Righi Hon. L. S. Si. Laurent Simonds that the minister bas just now ex- t pressed. We feel that it is entirely unwar- - ranted and f ar from. the best traditions of this bouse thât any member should get Up 4935JUNE 17, 1955 Supply-National Defence and attack a publie servant of this govern- ment. General Simonds is not responsible for creating the brigade of guards. It was the government which formed the brigade of guards, and if there is any criticism-and criticism has been voiced on this side of the house-regarding the formation of this bri- gade, it is criticism directed to the govern- ment, not to the chief of the general staff. While I am speaking of the guards regiment of Canada, I recall that my name was men- tioned on several occasions in the speech made by the hon. member for Kootenay West. He said that I had urged the dis- bandment of that regiment. I did not urge the disbandment of that regiment but I sug- gested that, like the other units of the Cana- dian army, they should be reorganized and they should have an airborne role. Then the hon. member for Kootenay West began to ridicule the idea of guardsmen being air- borne, and he cast slurs upon the tradition of the brigade of guards of the British army, a tradition which we in Canada share with the rest of the countries of the British com- monwealth. I do not think it is necessary for me to elaborate upon the very glorious tradition in battle that the brigade of guards of the British army cherishes, dating back for several centuries. I would call attention to the fact that numerous regiments of the brigade of guards have rendered valuable service here in Canada and, in reference to the ridicule which was heaped upon these men when it was said that it was impossible for them to adopt modern conditions, I would call attention to the fact that the commander of the first airborne corps during the last war was Sir Frederick Browning. I happen to have known General Browning for a number of years. It may interest the hon. member to know that General Brown- ing started his service as an ensign in the Grenadier Guards in the first war. During the period between the first and second world wars General Browning commanded not only the King's Company of Guards but also the first battalion of the Grenadier Guards. When the second world war broke out he com- manded the brigade of guards and from that command he was called by the war office to organize the first airborne brigade. He drew the personnel for the airborne brigade mainly from his own brigade of guards. From there, as the airborne forces expanded, he went on to command the first airborne division and finally the first airborne corps. I should like to put that on the record because I feel that an injustice has been done to a very gallant corps. Mr. Herridge: On a question of privilege, I am quite sure the member for Esquimalt- Saanich misunderstood me, I did not say [Mr. Pearkes.J that he recommended the disbanding of the Regiment of Canadian Guards. I said that his criticisms of the present organization would indicate a necessity for disbanding the Regiment of Canadian Guards. There was no intention on my part to ridicule the traditions of the British Brigade of Guards- in fact, entirely otherwise-or to ridicule the traditions of the regiment of guards we have had in Canada for many years. It was just the opposite. I suggested there was no necessity for this new-born organization and that our present regiments could quite prop- erly perform the functions they are atttempt- ing. Mr. Blackmore: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Macleod has asked me to dis- sociate this group completely in the course of my remarks from the remarks and the general attitude of the hon. member for Kootenay West in respect of General Guy Simonds, and also to express our intense dis- approval of such remarks. I do not know what incentive there is for a man to strive upward through the ranks of the army, to do his duty and risk life, limb and health all the way, to assume the highest responsibility in the army with all that means, and to hold the highest post of honour for four years, if at the time he is removed from his position he is to be the object of such an unjustifiable attack as the one we heard this afternoon. I want to be perfectly fair to the hon. member for Kootenay West. I know he bas been in the army himself and has had a dis- tinguished military career. If it were not for that, my words would be stronger still, but I cannot see how he could use such terms of contempt and ridicule and still not mean to express contempt and ridicule, be- cause ordinarily the member is very accurate in his language and has no difficulty in ex- pressing exactly what he means. I leave that point with the general observation that this country is not finished yet with the need for great military leaders. Every race in the world that has the sense it was born with is still prizing great military leaders and hon- ouring them, and must continue so to do as long as the troublous times in which we are living continue. Some of us have allowed all the talk about coexistence, peace and all that sort of thing to go to our heads. We had all better try to keep our feet on the ground, even those who are most ardent in support of this eternal peace, with Russia in charge of the world. That is what it amounts to. Apparently it does not matter a particle who rules the wvorld so long as it is Russia and China. If we talk about the British being distinguished at all, that is "racism", but it is all right for 4936 HOUSE OF COMMONS China ta rule or Russia or the Mongolian outflt that are in charge o! Russia. We will run right to them and kneel before tbem. We have got to the point now where we do not dare speak up for the great, noble and wonderful Anglo-Saxon race of wh.ich we are a part and whose history has placed us in this house with ail the advantages we have, has even given us this parliament, the fiag, the Queen, the crown and the commonwealth. We have no time for that in the house, so much so that I arn getting homesick for someone to get up and give a word of credit .to the Anglo-Saxon race. By that I do not mean to dissociate the .splendid people from France who are joined with us in this country almost as if in a marriage relationship-and we are proud they are. We are proud of them. We want them to go along with us in unity and under- standing, having inherited the great traditions *of both their country and ours. I wish to say one or two things along a lUne that more or less arises right out of what 1 have just said. I do not; want to be ýcritical o! the minister, but I arn not sure that the ktnd of thing being taught to oui boys in the forces is the best thing for them. I have seen one or two pamphlets which were .apparently part of a series being issued regularly in the forces. Those pamphlets were subtly poisonous through and through, sub- tly poisonous to everything that would make for the greatness of our race. I know the minister will agree with me that in preparing for war we are preparing to defend ourselves against Kari Marx and the people who believe in Karl Marx. It is .just as wefl to be frank about it. The Lenins -anid Manuilskys have said positively tâne and again that they will not stop until they have utterly destroyed capitalism. That means every one of the nations of the British commonwealth, and the United States. They have been working industriously and with astonishing success in the direction of the achievement of just that objective, and with the servile co-operation o! far too many people in public life in Canada. Before we finish the discussion of the minister's estimates I should like him to give the bouse an assurance with respect to the kind of thing that is being taught to our boys and girls in the forces. I want to know whether in the information that goes out through pamphlets and through lectures whieh they hear-heaven deliver them from a lecture by Brock Chisholm, for example- they are being taught to believe in God, to believe in the Bible, to believe in the Queeu and the British fiag. By that I do not mean what is called colonialism. I mean a reverence Supply-National Defence for the Union Jack, the fiag of our fathers, the fiag that has been laid over the breast of every hero who has died for the British cause for a thousand years, either the Union Jack or the cross of St. George which was the flag of our ancestors before the puttIng together of the cross of St. George and the cross of St. Patrick. I want to know whether they are taught to realize the importance of that fiag. Mr. Campbell: They are taught to fight. Mr. Blackmore: If they were merely taught to fight, I would not be worrying about it. The point is they are taught ail this other subversive material. I know they are, because I have had three boys in the service and I know what they were being taught. I do not want a boy of mine gÔing away from home believing i God, believing in the Bible, the fiag and the Queen, the importance o! the British commonwealth and the Anglo-Saxon race, then coming back to me a communist. I do flot want that to happen; that is a very poor reward to me for raising my boys. There are men ini the house who would be quite happy to have that happen to their boys. They are welcome to have it happen to their boys. Mr. Campbell: You say there are such members in the house? Name one. Mr. Blackmore: I am flot naming one but there are three or four with smirks on their faces which make it easy to see what they think. This is terribly serious for two or three reasons. In the first place, if we can keep preparing fur war for 10, 15 or 25 years and send splendid generations o! young Canadians through courses which turn them out commu- nists or sympathizers with communism, when they coame back, we wili surrender this nation by de! auit through the back door o! the education oui boys obtained from the services. That ought to be obvious. The supporters of the Kremlin can see that, and they had it al planned years ago. Apparently we are too stupid to see through that device. Now, some of my connections when they came back I will wager had been indoctri- nated by men who had been very closely con- nected with the communist conspiracy i Moscow. Let us not suppose that men of that kind are not right in the public service o! this country, probably right in the armed services and even in the defence department itself. While I am on the point, I should like to know who it was originated the brilliant idea of discontinuing the singing or playing of l'Rule, Britannial" on Canadian ships. This ruling was announced by the previous min- ister of national defence, and announced as 4937JUNE 17, 1955 HOUSE OF COMMONS Supply-National Defence an accomplished fact. I would wager that he could not have obtained the passage of such a measure through this house in 10 years of debate, but he just did it through his almighty power as minister of national defence. Take it or leave it, I don't care; that was the attitude. Well now, that was something serious, because Britannia does not happen to mean just Great Britain: it means the whole of the Anglo-Saxon race and the British commonwealth. I am going to take just a minute or two to go back to Karl Marx. Karl Marx laid down these two principles. He said that in order to have communism prevail in the world we must destroy the Bible and the British Empire. Mr. McCullough (Moose Mouniain): May I ask the hon. member a question? Mr. Blackmore: Yes, any number. Mr. McCullough (Moose Mountain): Are you now speaking for the Social Credit party? Mr. Blackmore: Personally I speak for the patriotic men of Canada, wherever they are and whoever they are. If all the members of the Social Credit party are patriotic and interested in the welfare of this nation, then I speak for them. I do not know because I have not discussed it with them. Mr. Ellis: And all the racists, too. Mr. Blackmore: What is the word, I cannot figure it out? Mr. Ellis: All the racists. Mr. Blackmore: One more of the absolutely stupid interruptions by the hon. member for Regina City. I should like to know, Mr. Chairman, I should like to have the minister give us a positive assurance concerning all these mat- ters. Just to show how very pertinent this matter can be, let me recall a passage from Time magazine which was put on the record by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin on April 6. I quote from page 2885 of Hansard of that date. Time wrote of a certain man that he just became too much of a socialist altogether for his employer, the manager of the Ottawa Citizen, and was relieved of his position. I read this passage: woodsworth was admired in Ottawa for his biting wit, sharp writing and occasional Donald Duck editorial rages. lis portside politics evidently never troubled Canada's ruling Liberals. Last year, the department of defence flew him on a two-month junket through the Far East and invited him to lecture on Asian problems to troops of the 25th brigade in Korea. He was also a frequent lecturer at Department of External Affairs briefing sessions. with some lecture and television dates ahead . . Now, you can imagine the kind of indoc- trination the boys from Canada received [Mr. Blackmore.] when that man spoke before them; the false- hoods they were told about Korea; the false- hoods they were told about Formosa and its significance; the falsehoods they were told about the conspirators of the Kremlin; the disrespect they were taught to have for the flag; the disrespect for the Queen and for the empire. Just the very minute we begin to talk about the British Empire, the British commonwealth and the Anglo-Saxon race, then "racist" comes to the lips of the hon. member for Regina City. Mr. Knowles: Would the hon. member permit a question? Mr. Blackmore: Yes, I will, any number. Mr. Knowles: Just to pick out one of his points, has he anything in writing or any evidence at all to indicate that Mr. Charles Woodsworth advocated disrespect for the Queen? Mr. Blackmore: The only reply I would give would be this. The pro-communist line follows right down the line- Mr. Knowles: Then you have no evidence. Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo): Answer the ques- tion. Mr. Blackmore: I am making this speech and I will give an answer to this question when I choose to answer it. I will give an answer, without a lot of silly communist claptrap. There is a definite communist line, and all I need to do is lay down the facts. Karl Marx said in order that his ideas prevail he would have to destroy the British common- wealth. If you wanted to go about destroying the British commonwealth, what would you do? You would first of all cast reflections on the king or the queen and the crown. You would cast reflections on the British Empire and the British commonwealth. You would raise a doubt as to whether or not the Bible was true, because the Bible is full of references to the British people. Mr. Campbell: Which Bible are you talk- ing about? Mr. Blackmore: The King James version; it is too bad my hon. friend is so deficient in respect of the Bible. Mr. Knowles: The hon. member will admit that I am not one who indulges in any clap- trap, as he says. I am asking just a straight- forward question, as our friend across the way did when he was speaking the other night. Since he has made the statement that Mr. Charles Woodsworth indulged before the 4938 Canadian troops-when he was travelling at government expense, by the way-in dis- respect- Mr. Blackmore: No, I did not make that statement. Mr. Cameron op as a man like Mr. Charles Woodsworth among a company of young servicemen. Now I amn concerned that the minister make clear to us- Mr. ICnowles: Some people certainly like to tell the world the k.ind of men they are. Supply-National Defence. Mr. Blaclcmore: Including the kind of men he is opposed by. I don't hesitate to tell the world about that, too. An hon. Member: Put the truth on Hansard. Mr. Blackmore: I have put so much truth on Hansard that my hion. friends, ta save their lives, cannot absorb it. Just as a simple illus- tration I would refer to ail the lies told about Chiang Kai-shek by their leader on March 24, ail absolutely disproved by the speeches I gave on April 21 and May 5 of this year. Mr. Knowles: No, no. Mr. Elackmore: It shows the shallowness. of their minds. I leave it to the minister to give us some evidence or to assure us that when our boys go into the armed services they are going to, be taught Canadian patriotism and not Russian patriotism. Mr. Philpoit: Mr. Chairman, as a member of 33 years' standing in the press of Canadla I think it would be extremely unfortunate if the most unjustified and unfair remarks which have just been put on the record by my hon. friend, the hon. member for Leth- bridge (Mr. Blackmore), were allowed to go, uncorrected. Neither in the way in which Mr. Charles Woodsworth's services with the Ottawa Citizen were terminated, nor in anything, so> far as I know, that hie has ever done either in public or in private if e is there the slightest suggestion of any justification for the unfair and libellous statements made in this house this afternoon by the hon. member for Lethbridge. I think it is extremely unfair that a journalist of long standing wîth the Southam press in this country- The Chairman: Order. Perhaps I might have interrupted the hon. member for Lethbridge. I had understood that he was referring to instruction in the armed services, but the debate seemed to expand into a discussion of doctrine. I did not interrupt the hion. memn- ber for Lethbridge, although perhaps 1 should have done so. However, I believe I should now inform the hon. member for Van- couver South that we are discussing defence estimates, in particular item No. 236, and i really do not think that this phase of debate should extend much further. Mr. Philpoit: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I had no intention of prolonging it further, except to make that correction, one which I think is due and which I think, on sober second thought, will be agreed to by the hion. member for Lethbridge. I was glad ta see that today the hon. member, talking about world conspiracy, confined it to Mongolians 4939JUNE 17. 1955 HOUSE OF COMMONS Supply-National Defence and left out the Turks, which shows that his thoughts have progressed a bit since last year. Without any desire to hold up the debate, I should like to make one or two comments. I could not agree with the hon. member for Nanaimo this morning when, as I under- stood him, lie suggested that our defence ex- penditures were entirely useless. I believe lie quoted some American authority to sug- gest that with a proper air defence of North America it might be possible to shoot down up to 85 per cent of the attacking Russian planes, if and when such Russian planes ever attacked. Surely, with the destructive capacity which each plane would carry, it would be well worth while to shoot down even 85 per cent of the attacking Russian planes, assuming that 15 per cent of them did get through. I agree with some hon. members when they say that there is no real defence against the destructive devices of today. But after listening to some of the criticism in the last couple of days by hon. members opposite- and I exclude from this my very good and genial friend from Esquimalt-Saanich, whose masterly answer to the minister was I thought just as good as the minister's masterly pres- gntation-after listening, as I say, to some of that criticism in which they suggested that all of our equipment is obsolete, and that we are thoroughly prepared for the last war instead of the next one, I must conclude that they are not in touch with the facts. It seems to me that if this division which we now have concentrated in New Brunswick is there for a very good purpose, it is because it forms part of our obligation under the NATO treaty. I should like to express one or two opinions on other matters. One is that no one has mentioned thus far in the debate the impor- tance of the ground observer corps that has been so admirably built up all over northern Canada, in which tens of thousands of civilians are enlisted to detect enemy aircraft which cannot be detected by radar devices. Arrangements have already been made for the instant transmission of information to filter centres. I have seen some of the tests and I have been astonished by their efficiency. So I believe that our defence, as it is now shaping up, is well worth while. I believe some hon. gentlemen opposite who suggest that all of the billions we are spending on defence have been utterly wasted would be the very first to complain if there were a Russian attack and if we had not managed to stop at least half those planes getting through. The most ominous comment I have seen on what would happen in the event of an [Mr. Philpott.] attack was given by no less an authority than our Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) when, at the opening of the recent dominion- provincial conference, he said: If a major war commences we cannot but expect at its very beginning-that is, in the very first few hours-heavy attacks on North America with large nuclear weapons. These attacks would likely take place on Canadian targets as well as on those in the United States. The potential damage to Canadians and to the material fabric of our country in such event is so enormous that we must approach the whole problem of war and defence in the most deadly seriousness. Now, without criticizing in any way the admirable reorganization of the forces that is now under way, and has been under way for some time past, I would like to suggest to the minister that perhaps some greater emphasis should be given in the future on the new type of training that will be necessary for our reserve units or militia units, as we now call them, in the light of the situation which would actually result in the event of a bombing attack. Because in the event of a Russian bombing attack there will be de- struction of great Canadian cities. And I think we are living in a fool's paradise if we do not realize that fact. Because of the terrible destruction that would take place in some Canadian centres at least-perhaps the most dangerous feature would be the aftermath-it would be neces- sary to move from their homes scores of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of people, some wounded and some suffering from the effects of nuclear attack. It would be necessary to move them, and the civil defence authority we have set up, or con- template setting up, would be totally inade- quate to deal with that particular situation unless our militia units were very carefully trained to take care of the situation which would then exist. As I suggested a few months ago, Mr. Chairman, I believe the time has come when we must have a much more ambitious system of training for our reserve units in Canada than we have had in the past many years. In this connection, I should like to submit that if for any reason we have manpower problems that are not easily solved by the methods we have used in recent years, I for one hope we go back to the old fashioned militia act that was on the statute books of Canada for many scores of years. I believe that if, instead of adopting the type of con- scription we tried to adopt in the first world war and the second world war, we had gone back to the old fashioned militia act, that was almost as old as this Dominion of Canada-actually older by that time-and was a combination of voluntary enlistment and selection by lot of the reinforcements necessary to bring militia units up to 4940 strength, we would have avoided the great national tensions we had in both world wars. But in the light of the Prime Minister's statement, which certainly must be the last word in authenticity as to what would happen in this country in the very first hours of an attack, I for one believe much greater emphasis rùust be placed on the training of militia units to handle the potential chaos which might result immediately after the first bombing attack, and that we should take whatever steps are necessary in peace- time to see that we have a fully effective army to do that job. Mr. Barneit: Mr. Chairman, some of the remarks which have just been made by the hon. member for Vancouver South have turned the current debate a little in the direction in which I have particular interest, and that is why I rise at this time. The relationship of the militia and civil defence work was mentioned by the hon. member. Reference also was made to this subject yesterday by the Minister of National Defence. I have a somewhat related matter in mind which I would like to touch upon briefly. I suppose the closest parallel one can draw to the place the various armed forces occupy in our society is that of the fire fighters at various levels of government in our country, such as cities and municipalities. I do not propose to enter into the aspects of the debate which concern the effectiveness or otherwise of the armed forces as a protective group, or upon the likelihood or otherwise of our having to use them to put out the kind of fire which all of us hope will never start. But I should like to suggest that since we are maintaining a force of fire fighters that is costing us billions, any auxiliary use we can make of this force during what we hope will be virtual idleness for a long time to come should be considered as something desirable. I was interested in the reference on page 10 of the white paper which was put out recently by the Minister of National Defence. Search and rescue work is described very briefly in paragraph 35. Mention is made of the fact that elements of the R.C.A.F. are participating, and it is suggested that the R.C.A.F. has been acting as a co-ordinating agency. I am sure the minister will recall that on two or three occasions during the last session of parliament the question of a coastguard service for Canada was discussed. If I recall the discussion correctly, the then minister of transport suggested that in effect this search and rescue arrangement which is referred to on page 10 of the white paper 50433-312 Supply-National Defence was, so far as he and the government were concerned, a substitute for a coastguard in Canada. That may or may not be so. I do know that a good many people in Canada, particularly those living in the coastal areas, are not entirely satisfied that it is so. It would be useful if there were a more detailed under- standing of just how that function is being fulfilled, if it is being fulfilled, by this organi- zation. I notice that in the white paper no particular reference is made to any participa- tion in this arrangement by the Royal Cana- dian Navy. In this connection I should like to relate my remarks to the situation on the western coast of Canada, about which I do know a little. I must confess that the absence of any mention of participation by the Royal Cana- dian Navy in this arrangement does raise some questions in my mind. The Chairman: Order. I wonder whether the hon. member would forgive me if I inter- rupt him at this time on a matter of proce- dure. The hon. member will recall that last year we had an arrangement for dealing with this department that seemed to work very well and that apparently met with the ap- proval of all parties in the house. The arrangement was to have a general discus- sion when the first resolution was called. When the general discussion concluded, the chairman was then instructed by the com- mittee to call the main headings in the blue book, which this year commence on page 306. These headings were called one by one for purposes of discussion, and when the dis- cussion of all headings had been fully con- cluded, the resolution was put and carried. It occurs to me at this time-and I ask the hon. member to forgive me for interrupting him-that these remarks are now directed specifically to search and rescue. That is one of the specific headings that will be called. Hon. members will find it on page 341 of the blue book. As I say, I ask the hon. member's pardon for being forced to interrupt him, but it seemed to me that if, as appears to be the case, he intends to direct his remarks specific- ally to search and rescue, he might find that it would better be done at a later date. How- ever, if he feels that his remarks are of a general character I shall of course say nothing more. Mr. Barneit: Mr. Chairman, I must say that perhaps I had not searched the details of the estimates carefully enough, and felt that I would have to raise this matter on the first item if I were to be in order in raising it. I did not observe any other hon. member of the committee attempting to rise JUNE 17, 1955 4941 Supply-National Defence when I rose, and I thought perhaps this might be an appropriate time to bring up this matter which I readily agree is some- what apart from the general debate which has taken place. I did not have a great deal more to say on the matter and perhaps, seeing that I have gone as far as I have, I might be allowed to conclude and then I might raise the matter again when we reach the particular item. By way of illustrating the point I was raising I was merely going to draw to the attention of the minister and the committee the apparent need which has been suggested to me on a number of occasions for more in the way of a patrol on the west coast. I am referring particularly to the west coast of Vancouver island, which is exposed to the open Pacific and which I happen to know in more detail than other parts of the coast. There is a need for a larger and better type of patrol vessel than apparently has been available there up to the present time. I feel that greater use might perhaps be made of the existing or contemplated naval services. For example, it has been pointed out that the type of boat provided on that coast by the Department of Transport is not adequate to meet some of the situations which arise in that area. When we reach the item to which you have referred I would hope the minister would be prepared to give us in some detail the manner in which this program is being carried out, and some indication as to whether further participation by other elements of the armed services might not come into being, which would create a more effective substitute than we have had heretofore so far as the equivalent of a coastguard service is concerned. I am raising this matter because it is of great concern to the people on the west coast. The question of a coastguard service has been raised from time to time. If a satis- factory substitute could be created by utiliz- ing the elements of the armed services which are in a position to maintain anything of that nature; if that type of arrangement could be arrived at, then perhaps those who live near the sea can be effectively served with greater economy as far as the over-all tax picture is concerned. Mr. Blackmore: Mr. Chairman, just before we get too far away from this question which the hon. member for Vancouver South raised a few minutes ago may I read a little quota- tion bearing on the matter of this man Woods- worth who was permitted to lecture for the department of defence, according to the [Mr. Barnett.] excerpt I read a few minutes ago. What I intend to quote appeared in Time magazine about three weeks before April 6. On that date the hon. member for Wetaskiwin was quoting from Time magazine, and he quoted it correctly. I should like to give his quota- tion from Time magazine, as reported on page 2885 of Hansard of April 6: Even after cautiously conservative Robert Southam, 40, took over as publisher two years ago, editor Charles James Woodsworth, 45, crusad- ing son of J. S. Woodsworth, founder of the C.C.F. (socialist) party, continued to pursue his vigorously left of Liberal policy. But when Woodsworth came out against the rearmament of West Germany, publisher Southam got fed Up. Word leaked out last week that he had quietly sacked his editor. Whether Time is correct or whether it is not, the simple fact is that it is easy enough to find, by reading the Ottawa Citizen edi- torials while Mr. Woodsworth was editor, evidence of his extreme left of Liberal policies. The Chairman: Having interrupted the hon. member for Vancouver South on the same point, I waited until I understood the tenor of the remarks of the hon. member for Lethbridge, and I now fail to see that this connects with the item under consideration. Mr. Blackmore: Mr. Chairman, I am glad you raised that question, because I do not under any circumstances want to be out of order. But a man cannot fight with the fervour with which they fought 50 years ago unless he believes 100 per cent in what he is fighting for. When men are fighting, how can they fight as their fathers fought on the fields of Waterloo and the other great fields of battle on which our freedoms have been won and preserved, unless they believe? That is my point. What I am saying now goes right to the root of the very matter of morale. Anyone knows that if an army is not strong in morale it will not be as successful as it would other- wise be. My position is that we want our men to be strong in morale. We want them to feel that they are fighting on the side of God; we want them to feel they are fighting against the devil. That is all there is to it. Unless a man is fighting for everything that is righteous and good, and fighting against the devil and everything that is unrighteous, then he is not fighting 100 per cent. They will not be able to do that if they listen to men like Charles James Woodsworth or if they read articles written by men who think the way he does. That is why I raise this question at this time. I happen to know whereof I speak. I do not wish to go into detail, but I think probably the very minute that the present 4942 HOUSE OF COMMONS minister took over, things in that respect began to change. I want to be as fair to the previous minister of national defence as I possibly can be, but I had the impression all through his administration that there was subversive activity going on, possibly without his knowing of it. We want no more of that, and that is why I spoke. The hon. member for Vancouver South mentioned Mongolians, but the proper term is Turko-Mongolians. The men who origi- nated, and are in charge of, communist activ- ities are Turko-Mongolians; they are not true Russians; they are not Chinese; they are enemies of everything that pertains to the well-being of the Anglo-Saxon race. Mr. Knowles: I wonder if the minister could answer a question relative to what the hon. member for Lethbridge has said both now and in his utterances earlier this after- noon. Earlier today when a certain attack was made the minister felt obligated to make an immediate reply. This afternoon his whole department has been attacked with the charge that it is responsible for pro- communist education and pro-communist teaching within the armed services. Has the minister not some comment to make in reply to that charge? Mr. Blackmore: Before the minister is tempted to reply, let me straighten out the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. He says I have charged. I did not charge, I raised the question as to whether or not it was so. The evidence I have I got from varlous sources including three sons who were in the services, two of whom fought right through the services in world war II and one of whom gave his life over Germany; and from three brothers, one of whom went right through into Germany. These men can tell what went on. I base what I say on that on the fact that I have had other indica- tions which lead me to suspect that, at least up till last year, subversive pamphlets were issued-subversive in a very mild way, but nevertheless subversive pamphlets. What I ask the minister is that he will give this house the assurance that he will see to it that his house is cleaned if there is any such thing in the army. Mr. Knowles: Whether it is a charge, a suspicion or an innuendo, will the minister comment on these remarks concerning pro- communist education in the armed forces under the direction of his department? The Chairman: Before the minister replies, I wonder if I might take it that the period of questioning has begun, or are there other members who wish to speak in the general discussion? 50433-3121 Supply-National Defence Mr. Drew: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make it quite clear before we leave this that one question has been raised with which we wish to deal, but I do not want to interfere with any discussion that is now under way and I have no desire to break in on the comments that have just been made. Mr. Campney: Mr. Chairman, I think we should proceed with the general discussion. It seems to me, if I may say so, that as we are getting more extended in time we are getting farther afield in scope, and unless we are getting into a detailed discussion item by item I shall not make any further com- ments on the generality of the debate until it is completed. Mr. Drew: Mr. Chairman, I am satisfied that the subject with which I propose to deal comes appropriately at this point. It arose out of a statement made by the minister last night just before the house rose. There- fore this affords me the first opportunity of dealing with something that goes to the very root of our whole method of organization. In Hansard for yesterday, at page 4913, the minister is reported as saying: I should like to point out to hon. members that the first Canadian division is, of course, a division under NATO primarily for the defence of Europe. Mr. Chairman, that is the first time that statement has been made. It is a statement of the utmost importance. It places clearly on record the fact that the first Canadian divi- sion is a division under NATO primarily for the defence of Europe. The discussion yesterday hinged very largely on our proposal that we should get away from the old concept that the Canadian army in training, whether permanent or militia, is a segment of a European continen- tal land force. We emphasized that because it had been pointed out by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich that, in spite of changes in weapons, there has been a great similarity continuing through the first world war and the second world war in the unit formations. He pointed out that really today there is very little difference in the general structure of our army from that which was engaged in the great battles of the Somme or the other battles of the first world war and, later, the battles of the second world war. In advocating, as I did, after it had already been put forward in very clear and under- standable terms by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich, that we should accept the proposition put forward in the white paper at the outset that there must be a new concept of Canada's military organization, we proposed that we should really bring about JUNE 17, 1955 4943 HOUSE OF COMMONS Supply-National Defence sweeping changes in organization consistent with the inescapable fact that we have a population of only 15 million people in the third largest country in the world, a country of nearly 3 million square miles. We urged that the army continue to be made up of conventional units of infantry, artillery, armoured forces and other organizations of that kind. We urged, however, that these should get away from the continental concept of organization, and that we should have a unique, completely distinctive Canadian organization that would be suited to the de- mands here in Canada itself. It was with that thought in mind that we proposed that all units be airborne. There is in fact no other way in which our units can be effective. I would point out that the hon. member for Vancouver South him- self brought to our attention the attitude of the Prime Minister which, of course, must be the attitude of the government, that if a major war commences Canada will be involved in that war. If that is so, what is the use of training units which would be called upon to leave by road, by train, by boat, to travel long distances? The early, deci- sive stages would be passed before they would even become engaged with whatever enemy units had been employed. The idea put forward that it would be unlikely that land forces would be employed by the only possible enemy we have in mind is not, of course, consistent with the history of recent wars, even of the last war. In the last war we saw cases of mass air attacks and at the same time airborne forces dropped at strategic points. In fact, at the time the Normandy invasion was taking place, key points were seized by paratroops-British, American and Canadian-who dropped from the skies to seize the strategic points well in advance of the actual movement of the conventional land forces. It is inevitable that, along with a mass air attack, there would be the use of paratroops to seize key points. Can anyone with recognition of the im- portance of aluminum in military production be in any doubt for a moment that among the points in any Russian plan is the seizure of Kitimat, the seizure of Shipshaw and the surrounding plants, the seizure of the great iron mines at Sept Iles, and the seizure of the various power plants through the northern area that supply the vital power to our industry? It is obvious that this would happen. It is obvious that any employment of conven- tional troops in a conventional manner would be utterly ineffective. It is with that thought [Mr. Drew.] in mind that we have urged that there be a bold reorganization of the Canadian army so that it may be completely mobile. We were urging that in the face of the premature statements by the minister, but we urge it with new force when the minister in his clos- ing remarks last night for the very first time in this house or elsewhere laid down the policy of the government that our first division, our main army overseas, is a division under NATO primarily for the defence of Europe. That is in conflict, Mr. Chairman, with every statement that has been made since it became necessary for Canada to revise its whole army concept after the ou{break of war in Korea. On February 5, 1951, when the discussion of the army was before the house for the first time that year, the then minister of national defence had this to say, after outlining Canada's program generally, as found at page 90 of Hansard: That program is intended to provide, as Canada's part of an effective deterrent against aggression, what is considered necessary at this time for the defence of Canada against attack and to carry out Canada's undertakings under the charter of the United Nations and the North Atlantic treaty to the full. That force at that time was of course en- tirely different from that which is now con- templated. Again at page 93 of Hansard for the same date we find this statement by the minister: The defence plan for the first time set out particulars of the requirements for defence; it showed to what extent those requirements could be met; it also showed the allocations of forces that might be contributed by each of the member nations. Then at page 94 we find this statement by the minister: The force we propose to send will initially be a brigade group or regimental combat team . . . That was the statement as to the force we were contributing under NATO. Then in the white paper for 1954-55, tabled last year, we find this statement on page 11 immediately after the word "army": Since November, 1951, Canada has maintained a brigade group in Germany in fulfilment of Can- ada's commitment to the armies of the NATO integrated force in Europe. May I emphasize the fact that last year's white paper not only emphasized that the brigade group was the fulfilment of Canada's commitment to the armies of NATO but that it was also our commitment to the integrated force in Europe. Then on May 20, 1954, the then minister of national defence, Mr. Claxton, had this to say as reported at page 4908 of Hansard: So far we have carried out rotation in Korea and Germany exactly as planned, and we intend to continue to do so, but to do it will require very considerable numbers of forces in Canada. Altogether, to provide for the brigade In Korea, the brigade in Germany and mobile striking forces and units for rotation forces with the forces neces- sary to malke up a first Canadian infantry brigade, it wifl take a total of 15 infantry regiments. Those regiments now exist and they are well up to strength. They are well officered and well manned. Then we come to the white paper for the present year and we find in the very first words of that white paper under the heading "Defence Objectives" this statement: Canada's defence program continues to be planned for the immediate defence of Canada, for co-operation with the United States in the joint defence of the Canada-United States region, for co-operation within the North Atlantic treaty organization looking towards the provision of a collective force capable of deterring aggression, and for carrying out undertakings by Canada as a member of the United Nations Organization. That, Mr. Chairman, is the statement of our defence objectives in the white paper. There is no suggestion that there is a com- mitment of a division, no suggestion that our primary purpose with the army is the defence of Europe as part of the NATO commitment. On the contrary, the very first statement is that our defence program contemplates the immediate defence of Canada and, in fact, the last of the several purposes declared is the fulfilment of our part in the joint under- takings of the United Nations. The statement now made presents an entirely new picture, inconsistent with state- ments that have been made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Prime Minister. It will be recalled that the Secretary of State for External Affairs was questioned in the house after his return from Lisbon, where there was a meeting of NATO as to whether there had been any additional com- mitment beyond the brigade, and it was emphatically stated that no additional com- mitment existed. After the Paris meeting, which paved the way for the entry of Germany into the fellowship of the free western nations organized within NATO, the Secretary of State for External Affairs was asked if this involved any additional com- mitment for Canada, and he stated that there was no additional commitment. That state- ment, of course, was not made here because we were not sitting at that time. It was made in an interview. We have constantly been impressed with the fact, Mr. Chairman, that there have been no commitments in addition to the commit- ment to provide a brigade as part of the NATO organization. Now we are told in the exact words of the Minister of National Defence that the first Canadian division is of course a division under NATO primarily for the defence of Europe. That is exactly the point we have been seeking to emphasize. Supply-National Defence We need an explanation regarding the real function and purpose lying behind the train- ing of our army. We have emphasized our belief that the army organization should be a distinctly Canadian organization, and that it should conform to the statement made in this year's white paper to the effect that the first purpose of the Canadian defence forces is the immediate defence of Canada. What we contend is that the kind of organization that will be able to take part in the immediate defence of Canada in case of an attack is, in the case of the army, an organization made up of compact, hard- hitting, mobile groups, all of which can be moved immediately by air to any threatened point, whether it be a hydroelectric power station, a mine where vital minerals are being produced, a harbour, or any of the key positions which would naturally be in any plan now in the possession of the Russian general staff. I do submit, Mr. Chairman, that be- fore we proceed with any detailed discussion regarding the army we should have a clar- ification of that point. I submit that it would be a very useful and, in fact, a very necessary thing for the Prime Minister himself to clarify this point, because if the statement of the minister last night was correct then we have assumed obligations of which no honourable member of the house was aware. We need to know exactly what our obliga- tions are, and we repeat our request that our army shall not be trained merely as a seg- ment of European continental forces but that, having regard to the fact that the first demand of our training should be the im- mediate defence of Canada, we should have a distinctly Canadian army organization suitable to the needs of Canada in the event that an attack should ever come. We have said and we repeat that such a mobile, hard-hitting, compact army organiza- tion would not only be an effective organiza- tion for the defence of Canada in the un- happy event of any outbreak of this kind, but would also be the most valuable contri- bution we could make to NATO itself, be- cause it would be the kind of force that we could move to any danger spot anywhere in the world as part of our general commitment to NATO. I leave the subject there, in the hope that not only the Minister of National Defence but also the Prime Minister may clarify the uncertainties which have now been created by the Minister of National Defence through his declaration for the first time in the house that we have a commitment of one division as part of our NATO obligation for the defence of Europe. JUNE 17, 1955 4945 HOUSE OF COMMONS Supply-National Defence. Mr. Harkness: Last night, Mr. Chairman, I asked the minister if he would clarify our defence policy, and I asked a few specific questions about that. He did not have time before ten o'clock to answer those questions, so I should like to have him do it now while we are still on this general discussion. The minister did give a partial answer in regard to the matter the Leader of the Opposition has just raised. He said that the first Cana- dian division was primarily a NATO force for use in Europe. That was something we did not know before, and I believe it is a very important addition to our general knowl- edge as to what is our defence policy. One of my chief criticisms yesterday was that we did not know what our defence policy really was. I hope the minister will make it clear. It was indicated particularly in the minister's speech and in the white paper that changes in emphasis were in pro- gress or were contemplated. I think we should know what are those changes in emphasis. We should know what is the general concept of defence. We now know what is the primary function of this first Canadian division. I wonder if we could not have information along the same lines so far as the other important components of our defence forces are concerned. In addition I asked a specific question about manpower; that was how this 120,000 ceiling was arrived at; to what was it related, and has it any real relationship to our national defence needs? In view of the fact that it is quite evident the number in the air force is going to have to be increased if we increase the number of squadrons, the radar screens and so forth, how are these extra people to be acquired? Are they to be acquired by reducing the army and the navy, or by increasing this total of 120,000? I wonder if the minister can answer some of these questions in addition to the one posed by the Leader of the Opposition before we go on to any of the details. Mr. Brooks: Before we go on to the details there is one remark I wish to make which is perhaps of a particular nature, but I think it applies to the general discussion. As every- one knows there is being opened in New Brunswick, Gagetown camp, the largest mili- tary camp in the dominion. This camp hap- pens to be in part of my constituency, and when these many thousands of young men from all over Canada are concentrated in this section of New Brunswick I feel that the people in that area would like to welcome them to that part of our dominion. I might say we hope and feel that this camp will be a great success in our province. We wish all those troops who come to New Brunswick at [Mr. Drew.] this time, and in the years to come, an enjoy- able stay with us and very profitable training. I was a little surprised when Gagetown was selected a few years ago as the training area. It was one of the best farm sections in New Brunswick, a very old, settled part of the province. I had always advocated and pressed for a training camp in New Bruns- wick. At that time I felt it should have been in some other section. People have been moved out of that area, some 1,100 families or over 3,000 people in all. I believe they have been moved to other parts of New Brunswick and other parts of Canada, and now they are fairly well settled. As I say, I do hope that this camp, for the sake of the people of New Brunswick and for the sake of Canada, will be a great success. I agree with my leader and the hon. mem- ber for Esquimalt-Saanich that today our army must be trained as a mobile unit. In training these men as a mobile unit, it would seem to me that this camp, particularly as a new camp and the largest in this dominion, should have airfields associated with it. I should like to point out to the minister, and I hope he will give it consideration, that in the vicinity of Camp Gagetown there is an airfield known as Blissville. It belongs to the Canadian government, and it seems to me that for the training of the men at Gage- town that airfield should be developed. At the moment it is not used and the buildings and runways have deteriorated. It does seem like a great waste of money, if the field could be used to a good purpose. Also not more than about 25 miles away there is Pennfield, another airfield which belongs to the Can- adian government. I believe that in the future those airfields should be used in con- junction with the development at Camp Gagetown. When the camp was being discussed for New Brunswick I thought Utopia in the vicinity of Pennfield was an area which would be selected. It was near the sea, and it had this airfield belonging to the government nearby. There was a great area of land in the rear which was clear, and it would not have been necessary to take over land which had been settled. However, the Department of National Defence in its wisdom decided to take the Gagetown area. I hope these matters I have mentioned, Pennfield and Blissville, will be given consideration by the government because I believe these airfields would be complementary to a modern camp such as Gagetown must be. While I do not wish to advertise our se- vere winters in New Brunswick, I must say that we do have some winter weather. How- ever, the winters in any part of Canada are 4946 severe and they are no more severe there, possibly not as severe as here in Ottawa where the temperature goes many degrees below zero. I hope Gagetown will be used for the training of men in winter exercises. It can be done there just as well as in the areas farther north. If this is to be a great training area for Canada it must be used to its full capacity, and developed as a place where airborne troops and mobile units can be trained. Airborne troops could be trained in exercises related to the far northern part of this country, which experience they may find necessary. I see the Minister of Defence Production in his seat. While this might not have to do altogether with national defence, we have in that area of New Brunswick supplies which could be used for national defence. We have a splendid farming area in the country sur- rounding this camp. It is a small fruit grow- ing area, and the apples and other fruits could be used. I hope this will be done. I was pleased to hear that coal, which comes also from the area in which this camp is located, is to be used in heating Camp Gage- town. I might say to the minister that we are pleased with the development of what is practically a small city in what is known as Oromocto. To give some idea of the size of the town, I have an article which says that it contains 85 stores, a hotel, five large department stores, four schools and offices for professional men. As a matter of fact a city of from 8,000 to 10,000 people is being built at Oromocto. However, I pointed out in the house before, and I would point out again, that those who suffer most from the establishment of this camp at Gagetown are the people along the fringe of the Saint John river, between the camp and the river. I have in mind towns like Gagetown, Hampstead, and Upper Gage- town which have lost practically all the busi- ness they had in the back areas. Those areas for years supplied our sawmills and our cheese factories. They supplied the mills and the stores with customers. That is now all gone. I did speak to the former minister of national defence, and I appeal ta the present one, to see that in the establishment of hos- pitals, the construction of garages or other buildings, where men would be employed, places like Gagetown, Hampstead and Wels- ford will not be ignored. I do not think all the construction should be in one area, that is at Oromocto, just below Fredericton. As I say, these other places have suffered most from the establishment of the camp. While Supply-National Defence the people in the area were well paid for the farms they gave up, others still have to try to make a living in this fringe area, and they receive no compensation whatsoever. I do believe the department and the government owe these people some consideration. I have nothing further to say at the moment, though I shall have some questions to ask later in the discussion. I do hope the minister will keep in mind this question of airfields at Pennfield and Blissfield, which I think must be complementary to the Gage- town training area if it is to be a modern and up to date camp. I hope also that he will take into consideration assistance to these places I have mentioned on the fringe of Camp Gagetown. I repeat that the people of New Brunswick would wish me to welcome the thousands of young men from across Canada who have come to New Brunswick, and we hope their stay will be mutually beneficial to the young men and the people of that province. Mr. Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I wish to deal with only two matters at this stage of the discussion, one of which may be less interesting than anything that has been dis- cussed up to now, because it is a technical point. I suggest to the minister that next year, when his estimates are brought before the house, item 236 should be broken down into 20 items, and that the department should be treated in the book of estimates just as other departments are treated. This would obviate the necessity, which we have had in recent years, of arriving at an agreement to deal with item 236 as the first item, and then go on to the various headings in the details at the back of the book. Why item 236 should be all-inclusive I do not understand. No other department is dealt with in that way. The other depart- ments are set out more clearly, and each item can be taken up in an orderly fashion. This department, dealing with expenditures of about $2 billion, and divided into such marked divisions as the navy, the army and the air force, could more easily be treated as I have suggested than some of the others. I make this suggestion to the minister. I have been here long enough to know that it takes about four years for a suggestion to seep in. Therefore I shall repeat the sugges- tion next year and the following year and, if I survive the next election, I shall keep at it. Although the hon. member for Esquimalt- Saanich has dissociated this group from the remarks made this morning by the hon. mem- ber for Kootenay West, as one who served JUNE 17, 1955 4947 HOUSE OF COMMONS Supply-National Defence under General Simonds in northwest Europe on several occasions I feel I cannot let this opportunity pass without expressing my regret that his name should have been raised in the House of Commons in the way it was during the course of this discussion. I should like to express my admiration for him as a great commander. During the course of my lifetime it has been my experi- ence to serve under seven or eight generals, and out of earshot of most generals I have had occasion to criticize them. During the course of my career, having been fortunate enough not to be mixed up with the staff, I have been able to form more definite opinions of the exalted position of general than have perhaps some others who came more closely in contact with them. Most certainly I recognized, and every per- son who served in northwest Europe in the last war recognized, the outstanding qualities of General Simonds as a field commander. He could not have risen to that position, or maintained it under the grim conditions of the second world war, without outstanding ability. Generals are always on the edge of a precipice; normally one mistake in the field is enough to promote a general upstairs. The fact that General Simonds survived indicates that he must have had marked ability. I would like on some other occasion to express my criticism of the policy of the government of Canada during the course of the war in the way it dispensed with the capable services of distinguished and high- ranking officers on the paltry pretext of age, whereas the Americans and British were much more sensible along that line. I shall offer those remarks on some other occasion when I feel some annoyance toward the Department of National Defence and the government in general. But let me add with regard to General Simonds that those who served under him respected him as a great field commander, and I would simply like to pay that tribute to him on this occasion. I realize that when generals get into conflicts in the political field they find themselves in an entirely different kind of life that sometimes leads to difficulties. At the same time I think it is incumbent upon Canada to pay its respects to those who have served in high command with the distinction that was the lot of General Simonds. Mr. Casileden: Mr. Chairman, in the few remarks I make this afternoon I wish to dis- cuss a line of defence which has not been dealt with up to this time. The history of man, the rise and fall of nations, can be traced to their ability to adapt themselves to changing weapons of war and destruction. [Mr. Churchill.] Today we have reached an age when for 10 years we have had atomic and nuclear weapons. Thus man's ability to destroy him- self has developed so rapidly that we are having difficulty in keeping pace with the modern weapons, some of which are obsolete by the time they come off the production line. This is one of the problems facing us today. As we look at the expenditures of the Department of National Defence in 1955 we wonder how long a nation can go on spend- ing money in this fashion, how long it can use its national production and its power to produce things which very soon become obsolete and have to be discarded. I wonder whether the cost may not ultimately break us, or whether a war would not annihilate us. The duty of members of parliament is to investigate and question the expenditure of money which the government is spending in its administration, and this is one of the important departments. The amounts spent on defence today are almost as great as those spent by all the other departments of govern- ment put together. On page 57 of the white paper we are given some figures which will astound a good many people, and which would have been thought impossible a few years ago. On the navy we are spending some $290 million; on the army some $346 million; on the air force some $923 million. On mutual aid we spent some $320 million, but we get some of that back in refunds. Then on administration and pensions we spent another $48 million. We cannot be given the full details of all of the expendi- tures for security reasons. Probably that has to be accepted. Someone has pointed out that this is why it is difficult for members of parliament effectively to question and give adequate consideration to all the details of these expenditures. The minister's statements at the beginning of this debate were rather interesting. We welcomed his frank statement with regard to the effectiveness of our defence expendi- tures. His statement was that there is no 100 per cent defence against thermonuclear attack if it should be launched against Canada. That was the reason we had to go in with such groups as NATO. It is rather significant also to learn that it is folly for people to talk in 1955 about winning any war. All mankind would lose if war were to break out today. Therefore our best defence is our ability to deter such an attack. How long are we to continue in this race? How long are we going to be able to continue in it? I suppose time will tell, but I do think one thing might be said. In this fight our ability to find out what modern warfare can do and what we can do to deter the opposi- tion is largely a matter of what research can do. To be up to date in modern research is surely one branch of national defence which should be emphasized. If we are to continue in this race we must continue research. Canada's ability in research has been well proven in years past, particularly in time of war. If a real assessment of the efficiency of the department were made, and some of the facts looked at with regard to the ability of industry to produce weapons which will be up to date at the time they are delivered, compared with what we might be spending in research, we might be surprised. I suggest that production research is very important. There was a change-o~ver in the use of Canadian small arms and ammunition. That change-over at this time might be question- able. We might even question the effective- ness in a war of the future of certain types of rifles, artillery, machine guns, certain types of depth charges, anti-aircraft ammuni- tion and so forth. What can nations produce in the way of modern weapons which would be effective in a nuclear war? Let us look at the situation in a broad way. Perhaps the people of the world are going to have to look for other ways of preventing war, other ways of meeting what we believe is the enemy today. I wonder whether we are doing our part in looking forward to the real fight, which is a fight for the minds of men. Research and studies under the United Nations, the Colombo plan and the food and agriculture organiza- tion reveal that about a billion people in the world are living in hunger and poverty, dis- ease and malnutrition. These are the people who are being won over by the enemy with respect to whom we are spending this money on defence. I wonder whether there is not another line of defence. Should we not be spending more money than we are spending today to win these people over to the democratie way of life? If we can spend almost $2 billion a year, which was more than the whole annual wartime expenditure in the first world war, on this kind of defence, I wonder whether we might not be doing well to spend money to win these people to the democratic way of life, to show them that democracy has something more to offer to the world than hoarding up our own abundance. Surely if there are a billion people in the world who need assistance, food and human compassion, we cannot say that there are any such things as food surpluses. If we spent a few hundred million dollars to provide these people with food, with 50433--313 Supply-National Defence assistance and with education as to the im- portance of sanitation, training them how to use the land and the resources they have, might it not be an action of broader vision than some of the waste which I believe must exist in the defence program as we have it today? That food and assistance might be a more effective weapon than all the weapons we can produce. Ten years ago atomic bombs were dropped by our allies on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and monuments have been erected on the spot where those bombs fell. The simple message that has been placed on that spot is the hope that mankind might never again be guilty of dropping an atomic bomb. With respect to dropping atomic bombs on man- kind, the thought we might throw out to governments today, not only here but else- where, is that which has been expressed in the United Nations, namely that no nation can win a war. The possibility in going along the road we are travelling is that man- kind may be annihilated if war, which we hope to deter, breaks out. If that should happen, half of mankind would be wiped out. If we are trying to win the war for the minds of the peoples of the world, to show them that democracy has something to offer other than $2 billion a year spent on modern warfare, I humbly suggest to the government that the spending of a few hundred millions of dollars on bread, assistance and human compassion for the free people who are being won over to the other side would do a great deal more good. I am looking at it from the point of view that this government might thiiik of the possibility of another line of defence. The government should look upon these fellow men of ours, a billion of them, who are living in want today, as people who might be won over to our side. If we can win them to our side in a real way perhaps this defence race, which is costing us so much and leading us we know not where, might be terminated successfully. The Depuly Chairman: Is it the pleasure of the committee that we should now turn to the details? Mr. Drew: No, Mr. Chairman. A discussion of the detailed items would be meaningless without a statement from the minister in re- gard to this completely new statement that was put on the record last night about our commitment to NATO and the purpose of our army division in Europe. Mr. Campney: Mr. Chairman, I do not think there is any real ground for misunderstanding about our commitment. The phrase I used JUNE 17, 1955 4949 HOUSE OF COMMONS Supply-National Defence may have been an unhappy one, but it was accurate. The record shows that the lst division is for NATO defence purposes. That is not new and it is not secret. I shall possibly be able to explain the meaning of it a little later. At page 9 of the annual report of the department for 1953-54 under the heading "NATO" we find the following: As a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Canada continued to assign con- ponents of the three fighting services for duties with NATO forces. In addition, substantial quantities of mutual aid were given by Canada to other member nations. Highlights of Canada's role in fulfilment of her NATO obligations were the formation of the lst Canadian infantry division with headquarters at Petawawa, Ontario. Then again at page 41 of the same annual report, the second paragraph under the head- ing "Formations Abroad" reads in part: During the latter part of 1953 the lst Canadian infantry division was formed in accordance with our NATO commitments. And on page 16 of the white paper which was tabled this year on June 7, we find the following in paragraph 53: Towards the end of 1953 and in accordance with our NATO commitment, the lst Canadian infantry division was formed with headquarters in Can- ada. Two-thirds of the division are stationed in Canada and conduct their training here; the re- maining third, the lst Canadian infantry brigade, proceeded to Germany and relieved the 27th brigade there in November, 1953. I am somewhat at a loss to understand the difficulty of the Leader of the Opposition. I think the facts of the practical application of these commitments are and always have been understood to be that our commitment in peacetime is to have a brigade group across the Atlantic as part of the integrated force under SACEUR. That was the case at the outset and I think my predecessor explained it on a number of occasions; in fact the Leader of the Opposition quoted him to that effect. Rotation forces are needed. The brigade proceeds to Europe and remains for a two- year tour of duty. Then it must be replaced by a duplicate brigade organized and trained to fit into the SACEUR forces before depar- ture from Canada. For this reason forces re- quired for NATO must be kept separate. For the defence of Canada we have the mobile striking force of three airborne para- chute-trained battalions. These are the forces which would be utilized in the event of any engagement with the enemy which might take place in Canada. I might say in addition that we are committed, as are other nations in NATO, to pool our resources and work to- gether for mutual safety and protection. As I mentioned, of the battalions which make up the lst division all but one brigade [Mr. Campney.] are located in Canada and are here if needed. In order to keep a brigade continually in Europe in peacetime, and yet allow the per- sonnel a reasonable period at home in Canada, we must have further brigades for rotation. There has been a great deal of discus- sion--the Leader of the Opposition initiated it and the hon. member for Calgary North and other members referred to it-that our Canadian forces should all be airborne. While that may sound rather attractive I must say that I am of the view, on the advice of my military advisers, that, having regard to the long distance we are from our potential enemy and the fact that any men landed here would be far from -any bases, the likelihood of invasion by persons in numbers has decreased, as the power of the bomb, which would otherwise be carried by these long- distance planes from far away, has increased. It is felt, and I am so advised, that the three battalions which comprise the mobile striking force are adequate protection for that type of warfare should it arise. To have troops airborne is an expensive matter. I made a rapid calculation this after- noon of what it would cost. One element of cost is the aeroplanes necessary to move the division, to make the division airborne. I think as good a transport aircraft as we could expect to have is the C-124, which can lift 120 men, but without anything except their personal arms. To lift a division of 20,000 men would take 175 of these aeroplanes which cost approximately $2 million each. If you wanted to move the division in one lift, you would have to have $350 million worth of planes, plus the cost of the planes needed to carry equipment, plus the cost of the more expensive planes needed to carry tanks, artillery and that sort of thing. The other side of the picture would be this. If you did have a great number of airborne troops, more than you needed, where would you take them? What is the purpose? I think what we have meets the situation as it is both with regard to our NATO defences in Europe, to which we contribute, and the defence of Canada, which is our respon- sibility. Mr. Pearkes: No one has said that we would be lifting a division at one time. Mr. Campney: You can divide it up as of ten as you like; you can divide it by four or five, and you are still in the millions. Mr. Pearkes: We have not been talking about the movement of a division. Mr. Campney: Maybe I misunderstood, but my understanding-if I am wrong I can be 4950 JUNE 17, 1955 corrected-of the statement yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition was that all our troops should be airborne. Mr. Drew: That is right. Mr. Campney: The question of how many may be debatable or that our whole army should be made airborne. May I now deal with some of the other questions? Mr. Pearkes: Before the minister leaves that point, may I ask, in order to complete the picture of the organization, what is the role of the 4th brigade? Mr. Campney: The 4th brigade would be used, I presume, as reinforcements or in support of any other troops or in any other connection in which we might need to use them. Mr. Pearkes: Is that also committed to NATO? Mr. Campney: No. Mr. Drew: Mr. Chairman, if it would be more convenient to deal with this particular subject now there are some comments I should like to make, but if the minister would prefer to deal with other points there are certain comments I should like to make in regard to what he has just said. I had hoped that my own remarks, to say nothing of what I thought were the extremely clear remarks of the hon. mem- ber for Esquimalt-Saanich and the hon. mem- ber for Calgary North, had made it clear that we were talking about an entirely new type of army; we were talking about the use of conventional forces reorganized into much more compact, hard-hitting and mobile units. At no time was any suggestion made by us that the present massive form of our division would be simply taken up bodily as it is now formed and moved by air. An examina- tion of what we said makes it perfectly clear chat that is the very opposite to what we were suggesting. We are suggesting a unique Canadian army organization. It would in- volve a smaller number of men of higher hitting power and of immense mobility. May I again also point out that the remarks the minister has made are no answer to the comments that have been made about the statement he made last night. I would point out that it is only today that we have had a chance to deal with this, because this is the very first time it has been put on the record. It is true that reference was made before to the fact that there was the formation of a division so we could take our part in the NATO activities. It was also clearly stated that our commitment was one brigade for the de- fence of Europe, and it was explained in 50433-313J Supply-National Defence this house and outside the house that we required the division so we could maintain the brigade with the rotation mentioned in the quotation I have put on the record from the speech in the House of Commons by the former minister of national defence. What the minister said last night was that the lst Canadian division is, of course, a division under NATO primarily for the defence of Europe. That means that the whole division is under NATO; and it also means, if the words mean anything, that it is primarily for the defence of Europe. The minister has said that the troops here are primarily for the defence of Canada. They cannot be primarily for two different pur- poses. If the statement of the minister last night is what he really means, then this is a new statement. If the minister wants to say that in the course of the debate last night he made a statement that did not correctly put the facts before us, that would be a differ- ent thing. But if he stands by the statement made last night, then we have had for the first time 'in this house the statement that our division is a division under the control of NATO, and these are his words: "primarily for the defence of Europe". That is his statement. Unless he with- draws that statement it is obvious that we need not one division but at least three divisions in Canada if we are to carry for- ward the same general practice. We would need a division available for the defence of Europe and two divisions available for the purpose of rotation, consistent with the plans that have already been made. That, of course, would be an entirely new concept of army organization, an entirely new de- mand, that would involve figures that go far beyond any suggestion we have made. I state most emphatically that the proposal we have made for a reorganization of the army forces into airborne units embracing not merely airborne battalions, but airborne units of artillery, of armour, of medical services, of army service corps, of every other component branch of the army, would be much less costly than the present cumbersome type of division which is simply a segment of a European army. On that basis I have been asking, and other members have been asking, for a Canadian army formation equal to the Canadian demand. We point out that the kind of force that is suitable for the Canadian demands, immediately mobile, ready to be put into action within a comparatively few hours at any point in Canada, is also the kind of force that would be most valuable to NATO, because it could be moved within a matter of 24 or 36 hours to almost any threatened point in the world. 4952 HOUSE OF COMMONS Supply-National Defence Instead of that the present organization can I can assure the bon. member for Leth- only be assembled slowly, then moved slowly bridge that we neither teach nor encourage and ultimately carried to some destination by communism or Marxism in the armed forces. ship. That is not the kind of force suitable As a matter of fact we have a good system of for the defence of Canada, nor the kind of aduit education and a good system of cur- force that will make the most effective con- rent events education. I do not have time to tribution to the joint demands of all the mem- read ail the material, but I du read a good bers of NATO. deal of it. I think it is a very fine type of I ask the minister to explain to us what material and I am sure the troops find it he did mean by the statement he made last very helpful. As a matter of fact I have night or else explain that-as all of us must had considerable favourabie comment from reasonably do from time to time-in the representatives of other nations as to the exchange of debate a statement has been efficacy of our efforts to keep Canadian forces made which did not correctly convey what well informed. he meant to say. Unless he is prepared to Mr. Knowles: Many of those Current Affairs state that, we have a new statement, and bookiets are excellent publications. one which demands close attention. Mr. Campney: Mr. Chairman, I think I The Depu±y Chairman: It being five o'clock, explained what I meant. If I did not express the house will proceed to the consideration of it clearly in Hansard or if it was subject to public and private bills. two meanings, the position is as I have just Mr. Marris: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I sbould stated it and as it has been stated many times. not say this, but I understand the minister is Mr. Drew: Was the statement made last jusi finishing bis comments on the first item. night wrong? Would it be possible to complete that so we Mr. Campney: I think you can take a may pass the item before we go on witb wrong interpretation of it, as you obviously private members' bills? did. Mr. Drew: I am not taking a wrong inter- pretation of it. The Depuy Chairman: Order. I regret Mr. Campney: I still maintain that the to have to point out to the cornittee that division is related to our NATO commitments the arrangement we have made is that which I have just set out. But if it was not we xiii discuss the component parts of the clearly expressed, I have tried to clear it up first item, item No. 236, in their order wben this afternoon. it cores to the question and answer period. Mr. Drew: I am not seeking to anchor the But, as I have already stated, item 236 can- minister to any particular set of words, but not be carried in sections. As it is one there is a vast difference between being resolution the whole of the item will have related to NATO and the division being to be carried at the same tire. I am also primarily for the defence of Europe. That is afraid that I shah have to say to the minister what we are trying to clear up. that I do not feel the committee of supply, Mr. Campney: I think I have cleared it up even by unanirous consent, can interfere this afternoon. If the words of the text of with tbe rules of the bouse. Therefore I last night's Hansard do not conform to that, ar afraid I must eau it five o'clock. they are not an accurate expression of the state of affairs. Mr. Drew: I wauld earnestly hope, in view Mr. Chairman, may I now refer to a few af tbe importance of this debate, that unless of the remarks that have been made today? there is sametbing of very special signifi- The hon. member for Comox-Alberni this cance, those wha bave any items on the order afternoon initiated an inquiry to which I paper wauld permit them ta stand, because shall probably come back later, with regard I believe most members are very anxious to to R.C.A.F. search and rescue operations. The proceed with this subjeet. R.C.A.F. is very closely tied in with the Department of Transport and other services Mr. Marris: Mr. Chairran, I agree that having facilities for search and rescue work, the committee of itself cannat direct the particularly on both coasts. We are quite bouse wbat to do, but if you were ta take cognizant of the need and we co-operate, but the chair I think you would flnd there would we do not maintain anything approaching be unanunaus consent to continue. what you might call a coastguard service in At five o'clock the Speaker resumed the the accepted sense of the term. chair. [Mr. Drew.] PRIVATE BILLS The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite): In view of wbat was said in comrnittee of supply, rnay I say tbat I believe the bouse bas the power by unanimous consent ta do as it wishes. Is there unanirnous consent that ail matters on the order paper under the beading of bath private and public bis be allowed ta stand? Same hon. Members: Agreed. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite): The business under private and public bills having been disposed of, tbe bouse wili revert ta, cornmittee o! supply. SUPPLY The bouse in comrnittee of supply, Mr. Applewbaite in the cbair. DEPARTMENT 0F NATIONAL DEFENCE Defence services- 236. To provide for the Canadian forces, the defence research board and other expenditures relating to defence. including contributions toward the military costs of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization; to authorize expenditures in the current year out of the arnount hereby provlded, not exceeding $175.000.000, under the provisions of section 3 of the Defence Appropriation Act, 1950. and ta provide that, notwithstandîng subsection (3) of that section. where equiprnent or supplies acquired by the Canadian forces after March 31, 1950, are transferred, the estimatecl present value thereof shall, if the governor in council so directs, be credited to this vote instead of being paid into the special account mentioneci In the said sub- section (3), and when so credited may be expended for the purposes of the Canadian forces; and not- withstanding section 30 of the F'inancial Admnin- istration Act to authorize total cornritments for the foregoing purposes of $4,269.726,540 regardless of the year in which such cornmitrnents will corne in course of payment (of which it is estirnated that $2.443,441.346 wifl corne due for payment in future years), $1,729,285,194. Mr. Campney: Mr. Chairman, the bon. member for Calgary North reiterated today a number of requests whicb hie made last nigbt. He asked a number of general questions wbicb I do nat think can be dealt witb easily in the form that tbey were asked. They have aiready been dealt with in a general way whicb is about the anly way yau can deal witb tbem. He asked wbat is aur defence palicy, what is the disposition af aur troops, and bow did we arrive at the figure a! 120,000 as a ceiiing af manpawer. As ta the number of per- sonnel, aIl I can say is that it was feit that 120,000 personnel were sufficient ta discbarge our present tasks. If new tasks arise or present ones are extended or decreased the ceilings will again have ta be cansidered. They are nat permanent. They have been Supply-National Defence changed a number of times, but they repre- sent aur best judgrnent as ta the number of personnel required for the duties we have laid out. As ta where we wili get new men if we need more rnen for the air force-and the bon. member says hie thinks we will-these are problems I arn not going ta try ta decide here and now. If tbey sbould arise they will be deait with ta the best of aur ability and judgment. I have noted the observations of the hion. member for Winnipeg South Centre on the break-down of the estimates. I ar n ot too familiar witb the bistory of this rnatter, but 1 have a feeling that they were set up in Ibis way ta conform with the desires of the Department of Finance or some branch thereof, s0 they rnigbt be systematicaliy arranged like the other estimates. I think that is the reason tbey were changed sorne years ago, but I rnay be wrong. I wish ta thank the hon. member f or Vancouver South for bis reference ta the ground observer corps. Because of the nurn- ber of matters ta which I had to refer yester- day I did not have time ta make reference ta it. The ground observer corps stretches across Canada now and consists of about 80,000 civilian volunteers at 5,000 posts and witih 12 filter stations. We feel it is perform- ing very useful work. I should like ta say that we are most appreciative of the number of people who have corne forward ta volun- teer and who are actually following Up and taking part in this very useful service. I think that about cavers the points that have been raised today, and if hon. members agree perhaps we couid now proceed with the details of the estimates. Mr. Harlcness: Mr. Chairman, I arn by na means satisfied that the questions I asked have been answered. The minister bas brushed thern aside as being of a generai nature and bas said they cannot be answered any mare than they have been answered. I do flot think that is the case. One definit e thing he did tell us yesterday about the infantry division bas, I think, clarified aur defence palicy ta some extent, particularly in view af the further explanation he bas made today. I believe wbat I have asked is quite reas- onable and simple. I bave asked that we be given further clarification regarding the raie of the other elements in aur defence farces, and particularly that we should be to id-1 bave already asked this twice-wbat changes ini empbasis are taking place. It is indicated in the white paper that changes in empbasis are under way. What are thase changes? I think- the minister shauld be able ta, tell us JUNE 17. 1955 4953 HOUSE OF COMMONS Supply-National Defence what changes are contemplated if they are not already in being. I believe we are en- titled to that answer, and the minister should be able to give it to us. In connection with the ceiling of 120,000 as the maximum number of persons in the regular forces, we have had that figure now for some considerable time. It was not arrived at just this year. We have had it for the last two years at least, and I think longer than that. In spite of the fact that we have had that figure for this length of time, we now find that very considerable changes are tak- ing place in the general organization of the forces and in the emphasis to be placed on the roles of the different arms. That is why I asked what relationship the figure of 120,- 000 bears to defence needs now as compared with three years ago. Three years ago the Korean war was on. It is not on now. I think the minister could give a much more definite answer than he has given. Then there is another matter. We now have in the forces some 3,000-odd women whom we did not have a few years ago when we also had a figure of 120,000 as the maximum. What proportion of the 120,000 in the regular forces are going to be women? Is it planned to have 5,000, 10,000, 15,000 women in the forces, or merely another thousand or two? I think that is a definite part of defence policy as far as manpower is concerned, and we should know. As I say, I should like the minister to be a little more definite with respect to the figure of 120,000. He said he could not say how it had been arrived at, except on the advice of his military advisers. If they ad- vised 120,000 three years ago, surely they are not still advising the same number in the light of changing conditions. There must be some other explanation unless, as I said last night and as it appears to me, it is a purely arbitrary figure. With respect to the role of the 4th brigade, in answer to the hon. member for Esquimalt- Saanich I understood the minister to say that as far as he knew it was for reinforce- ment purposes. That is no role at all. Surely the brigade has some other role than to serve as reinforcements. If that is the only role it has surely it is an extremely bad thing for the morale of the brigade. If I were in the brigade and knew that the only role I had was that of reinforcement I would not be too interested in the development of the brigade, no matter what my position was. I would think I was only going to be there temporar- ily and was going to be sent some place else [Mr. Harkness.] as a reinforcement. Why would I be inter- ested in building up unit spirit, a good pla- toon, a good company, a good battalion or whatever it might be? I could not imagine any statement which would be worse for the morale of that brigade than the one the minister has made, ta the effect that its chief role is to provide reinforcements and so forth. As a matter of fact I hope that brigade is going to be con- tinued, and it should perhaps be trained in the same way as the airborne brigade is trained. The people in it should be given airborne training, and perhaps some of them should receive parachute training and others training in landing aircraft. Certainly I would say that the present situation is very unsatisfactory. In any event, I think it must have some more definite role than just rein- forcement. I would think that for the welfare of that brigade the minister should perhaps correct that statement. I do not think I have been unreasonable in asking the minister to give more definite answers than he has given concerning this change in emphasis in so far as the role of the various air force units is concerned, par- ticularly in view of the fact that the number of these home defence squadrons equipped with the CF-100 is going to be increased to nine and the role of the auxiliary fighter squadron is to be reassessed. Mr. Campney: I think if the hon. member would look carefully at my statement yester- day he would find that I developed to some extent the question of reassessment. If he will compare the figures of the units and the forces, he will see there is a changing emphasis from the army, for example, to the air force. I was only making an observation about trends. There is nothing permanent about the figure of 120,000. There have been some variations in the figure and it may have to be varied again. As regards the auxiliary air forces, I think I said very frankly yesterday all that could be said about the matter at the moment. In view of the nature of modern planes, heavier planes and more intricately equipped planes, the role of the auxiliary air force is being reassessed to see how its services can best be utilized. Our air defence might have to be reviewed and revised as a consequence, but I do not propose to try to spell out every change in detail. I do not think I should be expected to do that. There is nothing static about these things. They change with chang- ing conditions, as they are bound to change. As I say, generai questions of this nature are not easy to answer in specific terms. I do 4954 not think that is an unreasonable answer to what my hon. friend referred to as a not unreasonable question. Mr. Drew: I would point out that one of the difficulties with which we are confronted is the very large group of figures embraced in this single item 236, calling for a total expenditure of $1,729,285,194. The second point with which the minister bas not yet dealt, and one which has an important place in these general items, is the training of the militia. Will the minister indicate to us whether any change is going to be made to give effective training to the militia at these great camps we have estab- lished? I dealt with one particular type of training, the artillery training. We have great camps, wonderfully equipped, suited for the training of artillery units, yet the fact is that this year, which we are told is such an important year from the defence point of view, only a fraction of the artillery units are going to go to camp. In addition to that, no plans have been made for competitive firing or other compe- titions or other activities in Canada as they were in the past. Will the minister tell us something about what the prospects are of getting back to a really effective form of militia training in our camps? Mr. Campney: I have been informed on a number of occasions that the reorganization of the militia, which has been proceeding during the past year, and which includes the artillery and the other arms of the service, has progressed steadily, including training activities. I am surprised at what the hon. member has said. I am told the training is better, more use is being made of equipment and that generally the whole training of the militia is being conducted in such a way as to improve the activities of these services. I have been informed that a good deal of progress has been made in the past year in improving the training. Mr. Drew: I can only express more than surprise, I can only express amazement if the minister is surprised at the statement I have made. Al he needs to do is obtain a list from the officials concerned of the number of artil- lery units in Canada and the number that will actually be carrying out firing practice at the camps this year. Mr. Campney: I am obtaining them. Mr. Drew: If the minister bas that he will find that only a fraction of the units in Canada will actually be carrying out firing practice. I have used the artillery as an illustration because I happen to know something about it Supply-National Defence from personal contact. The fact is that with- out firing practice artillery training is largely useless. Any suggestion that at this time we have militia forces that could be used in the event of an emergency would be com- pletely remote from the facts. I can only express my admiration for the men who are carrying on under the difficulties they encounter. When this huge sum of money is being spent, we are not getting results from the units in our reserve forces. I think before passing on from this item, which embraces all the training items of this kind, we should have some explanation, not only in regard to the artillery but in regard to armour, the engi- neers and the other services. We should be told what percentage of the men actually enrolled in local units are going to get train- ing in camps this summer. Hon. members are wholly unable to even express an effective opinion in regard to the adequacy of our training methods unless they know that simple fact. An hon. Member: Carried. Mr. Drew: It cannot be carried until we have some indication as to what is contem- plated from the point of view of training. Surely the minister can, possibly within a few minutes, obtain a statement of the units of infantry, artillery, the armoured forces and the other services, with the number of men enlisted and the number of men from those services that are going to camp this year. Those figures are now available because plans are made. Can the minister get that for us? Mr. Campney: I shall endeavour to do so. I do not think I can get the full information for all the different services within a few min- utes, but I shall endeavour to get what the hon. member wants. Mr. Drew: I should like the minister to tell us about plans for the training of the militia. After all, it has been represented to us over and over again that the militia is the back- bone of our defence training. Can the min- ister tell us exactly what the plans are for the training of our militia, and to give them the kind of training at camp that will at least to some extent prepare them for any possible emergency they might be called upon to face? Mr. Campney: I am certainly not in a posi- tion to give the details of the training schedules of all the services at this time. I think the Leader of the Opposition is rather unfair in suggesting that. The training offi- cers of each of these branches have organized their training plans, and I have discussed them generally with them. But I have not any detailed knowledge as to how many people 4955JUNE 17, 1955 HOUSE OF COMMONS Supply-National Defence are going to these camps, for what periods they are going, or the details of the training syllabus. I do not think I should be expected to have such material here. I shall get what the Leader of the Opposition wants; but most certainly I do not have it with me. Mr. Drew: Mr. Chairman, let us just see exactly where this leads us. The minister suggests it is unfair that we should ask him to tell us the percentage of men on the strength of the militia units who will get camp training this year. We have great camps in this country, camps on which mil- lions and millions of dollars have been spent. Not far from here is one of the greatest artillery camps in the world, at Petawawa. That camp is capable of training every artil- iery unit in eastern Canada and of taking the fullest establishment permitted for training. Surely the minister should be able to tell us what the relationship will be between the number of artillery units in eastern Canada that are actually active, and the number of those units which will take men to camp this summer. Anything less than that would make our discussion of militia estimates a farce. Surely that is the basic information we require. That camp is for the purpose of training artillerymen. We have a great infantry camp at Gagetown, and other camps for infantry and other branches of the service. We have camps at Shilo and Valcartier and camps farther west across Canada, all created at great expense. Surely the first information we should have before we can express an understandable opinion as to the adequacy or otherwise of the preparations being made by the Depart- ment of National Defence in regard to what is considered as the backbone of our whole defence system is to bc told how many infantry units, how many artillery units, how many armoured units, how many engineering units and how many units of other kinds there will be. If the minister tells us he cannot give us that information now, then perhaps he will say that at a later date or at a later point in the discussion, when the officials of his department are here, he could give it to us. Can the minister assure us that this will be donc? Mr. Campney: Yes, certainly. Mr. Drew: Then we may count upon having the officials present when the militia esti- mates are dealt with? Mr. Campney: The officials who are usually here will be here. [Mr. Campney.] Mr. Drew: I know that; but I am pointing out that this is basic information. Will the minister give us the assurance that there will be officials here who can give us infor- mation in regard to the number of units of the various services actually-to use the army term now being used-activated, and the number of men from that enrolment who will be at camp this year? Mr. Campney: I shall undertake to get the information. That is all I can say. The Deputy Chairman: Without taking part in the debate, may I point out to the committee that item 236 for $1,729,285,194 is, in the details, broken down into five major headings, namely departmental administra- tion, navy, army, air and research. If by consent we proceed to the discussion of those five major headings, one at a time, thus per- mitting questions and answers, by proceeding with that discussion in that way we are not in any way approving or carrying item 236. As I understand it we are just enabling the minister to have before him the proper group of officials to deal with each subheading. Then when the discussion is finally concluded it will then be necessary for the Chair to go back and put item 236 to the committee. Mr. Drew: If it is donc in that way it will be entirely satisfactory. I had understood from an earlier statement that you did not feel it should be donc that way. However, if this is donc we can proceed with the details under those headings, and then deal with the single item. The Depu±y Chairman: Then I would point out to the committee that the details are to be found at page 306, and that the first head- ing is that of departmental administration. Mr. Pearkes: Under this heading I see there is no great change in the amount. The civil staff has gone up, and that was to be expected. But we had always questioned, from this side of the house, the necessity of employing a large number of professional and special services. I note with some con- cern that while the amount in this particular item is not so large, there has been an increase in professional and special services from $25,000 to $35,000. In view of the large number of professional men in the various services, can the minister explain why it has been necessary to engage this outside assistance? Mr. Campney: The major item in this increase is for the services of a consulting engineer in connection with planning for new accommodation for the department. He has been engaged to work on that project. The remainder of the item is $25,000, the same as it was last year, for the bureau of current affairs. Mr. Hamilton (York West): I note at page 307 that the department has listed a librarian, grade 3, and a librarian, grade 1. Do the requirements for those positions necessitate the holding of a degree in library science? Mr. Campney: I cannot answer categoric- ally, but I am reasonably satisfied the answer is no. Mr. Nesbiit: I note at page 306 an item for a real estate appraiser. What are his duties? Does he go out to all parts of Canada appraising the value of real estate the depart- ment is considering purchasing or leasing? Mr. Campney: I understand most of our appraisal work is done by local people in the areas where we are operating. This man is the co-ordinator of their efforts. Mr. Harkness: I note that while the salary of the deputy minister was $15,000 last year, it is $20,000 this year. I am not making any implications, nor am I suggesting that the present deputy minister is not worth that much. As a matter of fact I take this oppor- tunity to pay tribute to him for the work he bas done in the Department of National Defence. We read in the press that in a short time he will be leaving the department to engage in a different occupation. I believe he has great gifts and bas exercised them with energy in the post of deputy minister. I rise, however, to point out this increase from $15,000 to $20,000. Looking through the estimates I find different amounts in different departments. While in the Department of Finance and the Department of Justice the deputy ministers are to receive this year this same amount of $20,000, in the Department of External Affairs and the Department of Agriculture they receive $17,500, in the Department of Fisheries the amount is $15,500, and in the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources it is $15,000. Then in one branch of the Department of National Revenue the deputy minister is to receive $15,000 and in the other branch $16,500. How were these increases arrived at, and why is there this very considerable variation? Mr. Campney: The salaries of the deputy ministers and of other senior officials are approved by the government. They are based on the recommendations of the treasury board after a very exhaustive study, and they have recommended varying rates. Mr. Harkness: This is a change. They used to be all the same. Supply-National Defence Mr. Campney: Ever since I have been familiar with the matter there have been changes from time to time, and the salaries were at varying rates some years ago. Mr. Harkness: There is another matter in this particular detail. I notice on page 307 the total personnel under departmental administration last year was 769, and this year it is 791. There is a small increase; but when we turn to page 30 of the white paper, where there is a break-down of civilian em- ployees at national defence headquarters, we find that instead of these figures of 791 this year and 769 the year before the figures of 756 and 647. What is the explanation of those figures? Which figure is actually correct? Mr. Campney: The figures in the blue book are the number on the establishment. The figures in the white book are the actual num- ber of personnel. In other words, some of the positions on the establishment were not filled last year; some of them are not filled now. Mr. Harkness: The minister estimated for them last year and he is estimating for them again this year, in spite of the fact that the positions are not filled? Mr. Campney: I understand they are not always the same positions that are not filled, but generally speaking it bas been the history of the establishment of the department over some years that it normally runs somewhat below the actual numbers of the establishment as fixed. Mr. Harkness: In this instance there is a difference of 124 out of a total of 769, as far as last year was concerned. That is shown in the blue book. In the white paper only 647 are shown. Surely there were not 120-odd positions in this group which were not filled. Mr. Campney: I see that the establishment last year was 769 and the actual positions filled were 756, which is a difference of 13. We have not the final figures for this year to put against the established figure of 791. We will not have that until the end of the year. Mr. Nesbiti: On page 307 I find the follow- ing: "Publication of departmental reports and other material". Last year the estimate was $146,300. This year it is $156,300. Can the minister give us just exactly what these departmental reports consist of, because I see that the individual services have enormous amounts of money put aside for that purpose. The navy had $500,000 set aside for depart- mental reports. I have not actually checked the army and the air force, but I presume there are proportionately large sums set aside for those reports. Is there any particular JUNE 17, 1955 4957 HOUSE OF COMMONS Supply-National Defence reason why this amount should be increased by $10,000, and what is the "other material" that is referred to? Mr. Campney: The principal item in this vote for the publication of departmental reports is the expenditure for the bureau of current affairs. It issues a regular series of publications throughout the year which account for $140,000. Then there are the annual reports of the department in English and in French and the white paper, adminis- trative amendments to directive documents and small matters of that kind. The major part of this, however, is for the publications of the bureau of current affairs. Mr. Nesbii: To follow that up, what is the distribution of the publication of the bureau of current affairs? Is it distributed to all members of the armed services? Mr. Campney: Some of the pamphlets that are published by the bureau of current aff airs go to all members of the forces, some go to officers and some go to units as a group. Some of them are reserved by the queen's printer for sale to libraries, who make in- quiries for them. The bulk however go to the troops. Mr. Nesbiti: Are any of these pamphlets monthly or bimonthly publications, or are they individual publications? Mr. Campney: The standard practice is to put out two a month. In addition to that they publish a news report monthly. Mr. Harkness: I am not yet satisfied in regard to the matter I was speaking of a few minutes ago because on December 31, 1954, the white paper shows the number of these administrative personnel as 647. The number provided for in the estimates in 1954 was 769, or 122 more; but the number provided for in this year's estimates is 791, which is 144 more. I do not think the fact that a certain number of positions were not filled can be the real explanation of that. When we get these figures, I like to think we can rely on them. This puts us in a difficulty. I do not know whether to take the figures from the blue book or from the white paper, or just what the situation is. It leaves a certain amount of ambiguity. It seems to me the department is estimating for many more people than it should be estimating for; otherwise the figure in the white paper is not correct. Mr. Campney: I must apologize to the hon. member. I looked in the wrong column. The figure of 756 which I gave should have been 647, as the member stated. I understand there were a great number of vacancies, and [Mr. Nesbitt.] they are being filled gradually. As of May 31 this year the figure had arisen to 699; the rest are still unfilled. Mr. Harkness: Are any of these positions still not filled? Mr. Campney: If we continue to find suit- able people for these positions at the present rate they should all be filled by the end of this year. We have difficulty getting certain types of people for certain jobs, and they may remain vacant for quite a while. Mr. Harkness: How much of the amount of $2,529,601 which was voted last year was unspent? Mr. Campney: The actual expenditure was $2,438,000. Mr. Harkness: That appears to be an ob- vious discrepancy. The difference between the two amounts is less than $100,000, but we are told that there were between 120 and 140 fewer people than appear on this list. Mr. Campney: I think the discrepancy in last year's figures is explained by the fact that there was a general salary increase after the estimates had been prepared, and therefore it took more of the available money for fewer people. Mr. Nesbiti: There is a question I should like to ask the minister with regard to the details on page 308. The Depuly Chairman: Has the committee any further discussion on departmental administration? Mr. Churchill: Would this be the proper place to discuss the historical section? Mr. Campney: Is the hon. member referring to the army historical section or to any particular service? Mr. Churchill: It would refer more particu- larly to the army, but what I have to say would affect the other two services as well. Mr. Campney: I think the hon. member might as well make his observations now. Mr. Churchill: In the first place I want to say that those responsible for the publica- tions issued by the services deserved credit for what they have produced. The Canadian Army Journal for the army, the Roundel for the air force and the Crowsnest for the navy are all well-produced publications and I think serve a very effective purpose. How- ever, I am more concerned with the material produced by the historical section which comes directly under the army. A first-class piece of work has been done under the direction of Colonel Stacey in 4958 JUNE 17, 1955 providing a history of the services during the second world war. Beyond what Colonel Stacey and his assistants have produced in this connection they have contributed in- numerable articles dealing with other aspects of Canadian history during other periods of time. The point I should like to take up with the minister may not at first make any great appeal to him, but I do present the case on this occasion for his consideration. Along with the hon. member for Green- wood, about three years ago I interviewed the minister of national defence of that time and discussed the possibilities of producing a short history of the first world war. He agreed to discuss it with the historical section but noth- ing further was heard of the matter. I bring this matter to the attention of the present minister and ask him to give consideration to it. When I raised the question before it perhaps was not a suitable time, because the historical section was busily engaged in com- pleting its work with regard to the second world war, but I understand that this bas now reached completion. They have a most competent staff and I suggest that before it is too late for the gener- ation to which I belong some action might be taken to correct a grave deficiency that ex- isted between the two wars, when steps were taken to produce a history of the first world war which did not get beyond one volume, after which apparently the project was dropped. Perhaps at this stage it is too late to talk about a detailed official history of the first world war running into several volumes, and that is not what I have in mind. What I have in mind is something like the volume Colonel Stacey produced in 1948 entitled "The Canadian Army 1939-1945. Official Historical Summary." This volume relates the activities of the Canadian army during the course of the second world war to matters of general importance concerning Canada's war effort. The volume runs to about 350 pages and is an admirable publica- tion serving the very purpose for which it was designed. I think that something along that line might very well be done with regard to the first world war. The historians might consider that it should be somewhat more elaborate, perhaps running to two volumes, but I would accept their advice in that regard. The reason I raise the matter at this time is that the period of the first great war, from 1914 to 1918, represented for Canada its first such effort on a national scale. It was as a result of the effort of the Canadian people at that time that Canada achieved in the inter- national field full recognition as a nation, though she had enjoyed this to a degree be- fore. Had it not been for Canada's effort in Supply-National Defence the first world war we would not have been represented at the council table when the peace treaties were signed, nor admitted as an independent nation to the league of nations. The argument for treating Canada as a sepa- rate nation was based upon her effort during the first world war. So without going into too great detail, I suggest that is one of the highlights in the history of the Canadian nation which is deserving of great attention. I would say to those who think the first world war is over and forgotten that articles are appearing continually in the Canadian Army Journal, the Legionary and other magazines with reference to the first great war. Histories of Canada are being pub- lished at frequent intervals in which atten- tion must of necessity be paid to the first great war. But for those who write with regard to that period there is no official Canadian history available. In addition I would say to the minister that there are surviving in Canada several hundred thousand of those who served in the first world war. They look with envy upon the valuable books which were produced after the second world war concerning the navy, army and air force, and they express regret that the history of the period in which they were so active has not been written and presented to the Canadian people. Consequently, for those and other reasons I might bring forth, I would ask the minister to give serious attention to this particular matter. I believe the historical section has the research material available. They have the trained staff ready and willing to em- bark on such an enterprise. I would hope that Colonel Stacey, if he is still actively engaged wtih the historical section, would be given the opportunity of directing the vwork, and the result would be a first-class contribution to Canadian history and Cana- dian military history. We sometimes tend to play down military matters in Canada a little, as if we were not much interested in such matters and as if we were not a military nation. Yet when you read the history of this country you find that too frequently our destiny was determined by some military activity. In that connection I would draw the atten- tion of hon. members to the book published by Professor Stanley, of the Royal Military College at Kingston, on "Canada's Soldiers, 1604-1954", a period of 350 years, to which he gives the subtitle "The Military History of an Unmilitary People". In that history he brings f orth for the first time a great deal of material which is not usually found in the histories of Canada, certainly the ones that have come to my attention. That volume is HOUSE OF COMMONS Supply-National Defence a great contribution to Canadian military history, is well worth the study of those who are in the national defence department, and is of interest to the public generally. We all are or should be aware of the value of a knowledge of the history of one's country. It so happens that part of that history at times has to concern itself with war. War is a destructive force in civilization and should not be played up from the stand- point of glorification or anything of that nature; but from the very fact that war in- volves sacrifice, and that as a result of the wars in which Canada has been engaged our country has gained in strength and our freedom has been maintained, there is no need for us ever to be ashamed of having histories of Canadian effort in wartime pro- duced in this country. I grant that there is as much interest in the history of other activities in a country; and as one who has always had an interest in history I get enjoyment from reading of other activities that Canadians have under- taken in building up this country over the centuries. Nevertheless there have been war activities, and the neglected portion in Can- ada's historical record has been the first great war. I hope now, before it becomes too late for this generation, the history of that war might be written. It is fair to say that it will be written eventually, perhaps 20 or 50 years from now. People have an insatiable desire to know what has happened in the past. We read with interest nowadays stories about the Napoleonic wars and other wars that occurred in much more ancient times, and there continue to pour out from the printing presses histories of England, histories of the United States and histories of Canada. So, as I say, eventually the history of the Cana- dian effort in the first great war will be written. I simply propose to the minister that he give consideration to having it done in the near future, because lie has a very able staff available to undertake this task. Mr. Carnpney: Mr. Chairman, I should be very glad to take the hon. member's sug- gestion under consideration. As one who had some part in world war I, I have often received the same complaint he is making of not being able to find information about some phase of that war. Mr. Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I should like to come back to the matter I was discussing a few minutes ago. There seems to be a t further discrepancy in the amount of t $2,438,000 paid to 647 employees. The reason given as to why the amount spent was almost as much as the total arnount provided for f [Mr. Churchill.] 769 employees was that there had been a salary increase after the estimates had first been prepared. Has any increase in salaries taken place since the preparation of these estimates now before us listing the salaries referred to, particularly that of the deputy defence minister? Are those increases in salary not provided for or shown in the present list we have before us? Are they the present salaries? Mr. Campney: Yes, they are. Mr. Harkness: If that is the case, why is it that $2,438,000 was paid out for 647 people in 1954-55, whereas $2,631,108 is the amount now projected to be paid out for 791 people? It is a difference of less than $200,000, but there is a big difference in the number of personnel. Mr. Chairman, it is about six o'clock. Possibly the minister could get that state- ment during the dinner recess. After recess lie might also be able to say something about another question which is worth looking into. The white paper shows the total of these civilian personnel at December 31, 1954, as 54,795. I should like to know how many of these civilian employees are shown in the estimates for 1954-55 and 1955-56. In other words, I should like to know what discrep- ancy there is between the numbers for whom we voted salaries in the estimates and the numbers shown as actually being on strength in 1954 in the white paper. The Deputy Chairman: I understand that this is notice of the question. At six o'clock the committee took recess. AFTER RECESS The committee resumed at eight o'clock. Mr. Harkness: Mr. Chairman, immediately before the recess I had asked the minister a few questions regarding the civilian strength at headquarters and lie was going to produce some figures in connection therewith. Mr. Campney: In response to the hon. member's question, I cannot give definite figures but I am informed that, as far as departmental administration is concerned, the difference between the 791 personnel at a cost of $2,631,000 and the cost of the positions during the previous year is due to two factors. One is, as I have already stated, hat actually a number of these positions are not filled or were not filled at the begin- ning of the year. Some of them will not be illed during the year. JUNE 17, 1955 The second factor is that these figures do not take into account the statutory increases which a great many of these people receive. The over-all figure of the cost of these posi- tions is arrived at without regard to the statutory increases of the various employees, which amount to quite a large sum if the increases are granted and if the positions are occupied. That is the imponderable. Some of the positions are occupied and some are not. Mr. Harkness: It seems to me what that comes down to is that we are being asked to vote $2,631,000 for a group of positions outlined here, and at the salaries outlined, and we should be able to take it that the amounts are absolutely definite. But then the minister tells us that some of these posi- tions are not filled and as a result they think the sum of $2,631,000 will be close to the amount they are going to expend. Surely we can get something more definite than that. Mr. Campney: Perhaps I might say, as I have already mentioned, that there are a number of imponderables in these computa- tions. The estimators who made up the estimates for 1954-55 estimated a sum of $2,529,000 on the same basis as the $2,631,000 was estimated this year, making some allow- ance for positions that probably could not be filled, statutory increases, and so on, and we actually spent $2,400,000 odd. Therefore the over-all picture is pretty closely parallel. It is very difficult to give specific figures for items such as statutory increases when we do not know how many of a given classi- fication are entitled to them, and when we do not know how many vacant positions there may be in a given classification at any par- ticular time. While we have vacant positions when we start the year, there are also vacant positions which arise during the year and they are not filled right away. It is pretty difficult to lay it down right on the line, but I should think the amount spent in the previous year in relation to the estimate for that year would indicate that by and large we are fairly close to the mark, and it is on the same basis that the amount of $2,631,000 is estimated. Mr. Harkness: I would say just the reverse of what the minister said. As a matter of fact they laid down definite salaries for 769 persons and they only had 647. That is 122 less, but they spent within less than $100,000 of the amount estimated. When I asked for an explanation of why 647 people got as much money as we had voted for 769, the minister said that to begin with quite a number of the positions had not been filled. Then he came along with another explanation Supply-National Defence that there had been increases in salaries in the meantime. But then I pointed out that for the present 791 positions the vote is only $2,631,000, less than $200,000 more. Sub- tracting 647 from 791, there are 144 more people at increased salaries. Therefore the explanation just does not add up arithmetically. There is something wrong with it. If the list of amounts shown here is completely wrong, then I would say we are being asked to vote money under false pretences. The list includes a deputy minister at $20,000, two associate deputy ministers at $12,000, and so on. Is the minis- ter trying to tell me these are not the present salaries of these people, and the same thing right down the line? I do not think he will try to say that. I would say the explanation he has just given really does not hold water, and that from what we have been told so far you cannot reconcile the amount of $2,438, 000 paid last year for 647 people with a vote of $2,631,000 for 791 people. Arithmetically it does not add up, and we have had no answer so far to show what the correct situation is. I would not be surprised if there was a perfectly logical explanation, but we have not heard it so far. Mr. Campney: I have given a number of factors which, put together, I think make a very reasonable explanation. The hon. mem- ber referred to the deputy minister's salary. This is one of the 791 positions. The deputy minister is getting a salary of $20,000 a year. He wil be retiring on the lst of July. Another deputy minister at a lesser salary will be coming in on the 15th of August. These are imponderable things that you cannot reduce to dollars and cents. After all, you have nearly 800 positions and a great many of them change. In addition, these are only estimates; these are not the sums that will necessarily be paid. All I am saying is that for the reasons I gave before dinner and the one I added since dinner, the fact is, as the estimates indicate, that 1954-55 was fairly close to the mark. I do not think it is possible, and I do not think any good purpose would be served by continuing to try to reconcile specifically each of these 791 salaries, with all the im- ponderables of the positions filled, the posi- tions vacant, the positions which cannot be filled, the statutory increases and so on, and try to reduce it to dollars and cents. If the hon. member can do that he is better than I am. I can only leave it in that position. Mr. Harkness: I am not in a position where I need to do it, but I think the minister is in a position where he needs to do it. HOUSE OF COMMONS Supply-National Defence Mr. Campney: I am in a position where I need to be sure that I am paying a man what he has earned and what he is entitled to get. Mr. Harkness: When we have certain fig- ures presented to us in the committee and we are voting money to pay these people, we should be in a position to know that there are 791 people and that their total salaries amount to so much. We should vote that amount. However, now we discover that is not the situation. Some of these people are not there at all, and some of them may not be receiving these salaries at all. As I said, I believe in effect we are being asked ta vote money under what really amounts to false pretences. Mr. St. Laurent: The hon. gentleman should know how this operates. The civil service commission approves the establishment and approves the scales of salaries. The statutes provide that if the chief of an employee who has been engaged under civil service regula- tions, and who has given satisfaction during the statutory period, certifies that he is en- titled to an increase of $5, $10 or $15 per month, then that increase is granted. How- ever, it is conditional upon there being a certificate submitted to the treasury board from the chief that the man has given satis- factory service. I happen to know that, be- cause I have to sign these certificates for the employees in the privy council office. They are brought to me by the immediate chief of the person concerned, and it is only when I have signed a certificate which goes to the treasury board that the increase is authorized. Now, if we were voting money to pay for past services it would have to be absolutely precise. But as the minister has said, he is asking parliament to appropriate money that will be sufficient to pay these salaries under conditions as they may develop. It may be that there are, and it usually is the case that there are, some of these amounts that are not expended. It happens that there are some who do not get the certificates which, if they got them, would entitle them to the increase in salary. Then these certificates are not issued at any one period during the year. They come at the anniversary of the entry into the service of the civil servant concerned. It may be that he will have for a part of the fiscal year a salary of so many dollars per month, and for the last three, four, five or six or eight months of the fiscal year a larger salary than he had in the previous months. Those are what the minister has referred to as the imponderables. [Mr. Harkness.] The deputy minister who will replace the retiring deputy minister will commence at the initial salary fixed under the establishment that has been set up and will, from anniver- sary to anniversary of his entry into the service, if his minister recommends it, get the approved statutory increases. The maximum for the position is $20,000 and the initial salary is, I believe, $17,500. I have no doubt, from my personal knowledge of the capacity and devotion to duty of the gentle- man who has been appointed to the position of deputy minister, that at each anniversary of his entry into the service, his minister will certify that his services have been of a character to warrant the so-called statutory increases. The treasury board has been called the watchdog, and it is the watchdog. It requires written certificates with respect ta the appli- cation of these provisions that apply to the statutory increases in salary. Mr. Harkness: The Prime Minister was not here during the whole of the discussion, and therefore is not apprised of the sort of basic discrepancy about which I have been com- plaining. The imponderables about which he has spoken would amount to possibly a few thousand dollars, and I quite understand that. But there is a basic discrepancy which the imponderables, changes in salary and so forth, would not explain in any case so far as this particular vote is concerned. It is for that reason I have been pressing this thing for some considerable time. It seems to me that these votes which are presented to us should be as close, both so far as the individual items which make them up are concerned and so far as the total amounts are con- cerned, as it is possible to get them. Last year we voted for 769 positions at definite salaries, and then we find from the white paper that actually there were only 647 people. Mr. Campney: There were 714 as of Decem- ber 31. Mr. Harkness: As of December 31, the white paper shows 647. Mr. Campney: That is at headquarters, but not for the whole category. They are in other places besides headquarters. Mr. Harkness: That is the vote we are talking about. Up to this minute the minister never disputed the figure of 647; that is the figure we have been talking about, and he has never raised any question about it. Per- haps that is the explanation. As I said before, I was sure there must be some other explana- tion than the one that had been given, and perhaps that is it. There are some people who appear on pages 306 and 307 of the blue book who do not appear in the list of 647 at page 30 of the white paper. That may be the logical explanation, but certainly we have not had any explanation up to date. It would appear this is a quite serious discrepancy in the amount of money paid and in the number of people employed. An hon. Member: Carried. Mr. Harkness: No, Mr. Chairman. Is the minister going to say there are more than 647 people covered? Mr. Campney: I said that as of December 31, 1954, there were 714, including all those people in this particular category. The figure the hon. member has been quoting is for headquarters, and the administrative offices are not all at headquarters. Mr. Harkness: I think perhaps we have finally obtained an explanation of what looks like a quite serious discrepancy. In addition to the 647 shown on page 30 of the white paper there are enough more in other parts of the service to make up 714, and whose jobs appear under departmental administration at pages 306 and 307? Mr. Campney: The figure is at the bottom of page 29 of the white paper. Mr. Harkness: At the bottom of page 29 is shown the total number of people, 714, in administration other than inspection services. If the minister is stating that is the total number of people covered here, and the num- ber who have been paid, then that may be a reasonable explanation. But it has taken a long time to get that far. Then the white paper at page 29 shows 54,795 civilian em- ployees. How many civilian employees are shown in the estimates for the years 1954- 55 and 1955-56? Mr. Campney: The positions for which salaries were detailed in the estimates for 1954-55 numbered 47,678, and for the present year 51,608. Those are positions detailed in the estimates. The figure of 54,795 as of December 31, 1954, at page 29 of the white paper, is made up of (a) casuals, not detailed in the estimates and (b) staff of the defence research board, likewise not detailed in the estimates. These are not handled in the estimates in the same way as the rest of the staff. Mr. Leboe: I should like to mention a local problem in my own riding having to do with a road. Mr. Campney: I think the hon. member is out of order, because we will have an item under which that could be discussed. I know Supply-National Defence the matter the hon. member is referring to. I would have no objection to discussing it now, but it deals with a road to a radio station and is connected with the air force. Mr. Leboe: Very well; we shall discuss it later. Mr. Nesbitt: I notice at page 306 of the estimates an amount for a director of public relations. Are there any civilian employees under the director of public relations, or are they all service personnel? If they are, then how many service personnel in each of the services come under the jurisdiction of the director? Mr. Campney: Each service has its own director of public relations in that service, and his staff are members of the service. The director of public relations is a civilian who correlates and co-ordinates the work of the other public relations officers. Mr. Nesbiti: Does the head of public rela- tions in each service come under the chief of staff or under the director of public relations? Mr. Campney: Each public relations officer in each service is under his own chief of staff. However, they also work in close co-operation and co-ordination with the director of public relations. Mr. Nesbiti: Is it the chief of staff or the director of public relations who has final authority over public relations staff? Mr. Campney: Technically speaking I would say that each public relations officer is under his own chief of staff. Some of the publicity comes to me, and it always comes through the co-ordinator. They all work together. They work with him and he works with them. But technically speaking I would say that each public relations officer is under his own service. Mr. Nesbi±t: How long has the office of director of public relations been in existence? Mr. Campney: It was instituted during the war and bas been almost continuous ever since. Offhand I could not give the date. Mr. Nesbiti: Perhaps I might ask my other questions when we reach the various services. I would still like to know the number of personnel in each of the services, but I will be content to ask those questions later, if desired. Mr. Hamilton (York West): Information at the bottom of page 307 would indicate that there has been a gradual increase in the number of stenographers, typists and clerks. I know that in certain cases reclassification takes place so that the increase shown may not be as great as would appear at first JUNE 17, 1955 4963 HOUSE OF COMMONS Supply-National Defence glance. But at pages 307, 309, 313, 325, 337 and 338 we note a considerable increase in this kind of help in the department. It would seem that the combination of typists, stenographers, clerks and publications would indicate a continuation of the paper war. I note that the amount spent for publications in 1951-52 was $71,000; 1952-53, $103,000; 1953-54, $126,000; 1954-55, $146,300 and 1955-56, $156,300. in each year over the past four or five years there has been a steady increase in this type of expenditure. What steps are taken within the department, or what control is exercised by the senior officials in the depart- ment, in connection with the type of appoint- ment which is reflected by this increase in numbers and by the increase in expenditures on this type of publication, and so forth? Mr. Campney: I think I outlined fairly clearly in my remarks yesterday the pro- cedure for establishing a new position. First of all there is the committee in the depart- ment which screens the prospective position, studies it and makes such recommendations as it sees fit. When that has been done, the report, if favourable, goes to the civil service commission, and they do their own studying and screening of the request for the position and make their report. When that has been made, if the report is favourable, then the question of the position goes to treasury board, and they are the final authority who authorize or do not authorize its establish- ment. Therefore it can be taken that positions are not lightly created and, in fact, are not approved unless there is genuine need for them. The department has grown; I think the figures will indicate that the growth in the numbers by categories is not out of line with the growth in civilian personnel in these offices. Mr. Hamilton (York West): Will the minis- ter indicate where the actual request for appointments on this level is initiated? Does it come from the upper brackets of the officers of the department? Where is the actual request initiated? Mr. Campney: The initiation of a new position in a branch comes to the head of the branch from the particular person who seeks to have the position established. The head of the branch then considers it, and if he thinks it has merit he sends it to the assistant deputy minister in charge of per- sonnel, who then looks into it, and if he approves then it goes to the committee I have mentioned. [Mr. Hamilton (York West).] Mr. Hamilton (York West): Has the minis- ter ever considered the appointment of a board within his own department to review what appears to be continuing applications of this type for increases in personnel? Mr. Campney: There are a number of these committees. In fact there is one in each service. They are all competent committees and they sit from time to time. In addition to reviewing the applications of which I have been speaking, they also review existing positions to see if they are still needed and if they are being utilized. Therefore we keep as close a check in the department on the growth of the staff as can reasonably be expected. Mr. Hamilton (York West): Has that work been extended at al into an investigation into departmental procedures from the paper standpoint? I have illustrated a continuing increase in expenditure of one type. Is there any over-all committee which is conducting any check on this type of expenditure? Mr. Campney: There is no over-all com- mittee which covers the whole field, as the bon. member has suggested, but committees are set up from time to time to make specific studies where it looks as though they should be made. For example, we had one not long ago studying publications. But there is not an actual over-all committee that surveys the whole department in one operation. Mr. Hamilton (York West): I would suggest to the minister that if this type of expendi- ture continues to increase in this way we might consider appointing a committee to look into the work of that other committee. The Chairman: Is the committee through with departmental administration? Mr. Macdonnell: I should like to ask a question supplementary to the one asked by my colleague. The question of outside inves- tigation by efficiency companies has been raised before, and the predecessor of the present minister pooh-poohed it and would have no part of it. I am interested to learn, from what the minister has just said, that there apparently is no over-all committee surveying the question of employment, the allocation of duties, and so on, notwith- standing that, if my memory serves me there are over 30,000 civilian employees in the department. I understand there are merely these ad hoc committees surveying various problems from time to time. That is my understanding of what the minister said. That seems to me to leave the possibility of gaps, and to fail to grapple in a compre- hensive way with what appears to be a huge problem of organization. 4964 The Chairman: Shall we pass to inspection services? Mr. Macdonnell: I wish the minister would comment on that. Mr. Campney: I think I have said all that I can say. There are complement committees -a number of them-which together cover the whole field. There are other matters in the department that ad hoc committees deal with from time to time, such as publications. But on the personnel side the complement committees, who sit all the time and who are specialists, taken together-one committee could not do it all-cover the whole field. Mr. Macdonnell: The minister speaks about the committees being specialists. Will he explain how they become specialists in this kind of organization? In the first place, are they service officers whose primary duties would presumably be in organization on the military side? Mr. Campney: I understand that they are composed of service personnel and civilian personnel who have been trained in per- sonnel work. Some of them are graduates of the Harvard school of business. They are all well trained in the type of work in which they are engaged. Mr. Macdonnell: But the co-ordination apparently is more or less accidental, or at any rate there is no body which co-ordinates the various ad hoc committees which are dealing with special problems. The Chairman: Shall we pass to inspection services? Mr. Macdonnell: May I have an answer to that question? Mr. Campney: I understand the co-ordina- tion work is done by an officer on the deputy minister's staff who is known as the super- intendent of establishments. Mr. Hamilton (York West): One other ques- tion in connection with this particular aspect of the estimates; has any survey been con- ducted throughout the whole department as to the use of various new mechanical means of handling the massive paper work that must be handled by the department? We read daily of large corporations which make sconsiderable savings in personnel and ex- penses by utilization of mechanical devices in office work. Has the department looked into questions of that kind? Mr. Campney: There is a man under the assistant deputy minister, administration, who is a specialist in the field to which the hon. member has referred, and who spends his time in an effort to shorten procedures Supply-National Defence and save paper work and do the various things that the hon. member has suggested. Mr. Hamilton (York West): Does the minister feel that from the office standpoint his department is up to date in connection with the new types of equipment that are available? Mr. Campney: I would say reasonably so, yes. The Chairman: On inspection services. Mr. Nesbitt: Mr. Chairman, there are one or two questions I should like to ask under this heading. I will outline what I have in mind and then perhaps the minister can give an answer. Set out on page 308 are four categories of inspectors. There are inspec- tors, grade 1; inspecting officers, grade 3; inspecting officers, grade 2; and inspecting officers, grade 1. There are between 40 and 50 of these. Then a little further down the page we find inspectors of stores, grade 4, of which there are 79; inspectors of stores, grade 3, of which there are 327; inspectors of stores, grade 2, of which there are 466; and inspectors of stores, grade 1, of which there are 117, making a grand total for inspectors of stores of 989. Then when we refer to the various services specifically we find that the air force has 25 inspectors of stores and the navy 16. These are of varying gradations, grades 1, 2 and 3. In all the defence estimates there seems to be a total of 1,069 inspectors of stores, which is a formidable total. I was wondering if the minister could give us an outline of what these inspectors do and where their duties are carried out; how long they work, exactly what is their work, and so on. Mr. Campney: The members of the inspec- tion service of our department include highly- trained engineers, chemists and technicians who are located at various points across Canada. The services maintain six chemical laboratories, a very complete electronics laboratory, a physical testing laboratory, two gauge laboratories, three proof ranges, a tire testing laboratory and many other incidentals. The direct value of the stores still to be inspected as of March 31 of this year was $518 million, with the number of contracts being 5,111. These men are placed in their positions on qualifications established by the civil service commission, which account for the different grades. The different grades depend on the type of work in which the men are engaged. This work represents a major effort of our department, as naturally we have to have everything inspected before we accept and pay for it, and a good deal of the inspection 4865JUNE 17, 1955 4966 HOUSE OF COMMONS Supply-National Defence has to be done in laboratories, much of it similar items will be found on pages 319, 329, while the commodity is being produced. 333, 334 and 340. I assume that this covers Mr. esbh±:If he iniser as lotthewater services, probably sewer services and soMr. Nesbiti: If the minister has not theonfrihdb ucpatesnwihinformation now possibly he can give it the onfrîhdb uîiaiisi hcinfomaton ow ossblyliecangiv itthedefence department buildings are located. Arenext time his estimates are being considered, these payments based upon the tarifs of thebut I should like to have a sort of break-down of what these people do. The word "inspector" municipalits or ar he a t e o n to is a vague sort of word and would seem to the grants made to municipalities in lieu of suggest someone who was inspecting stores taxes as provided by the Municipal Grants periodically. I take it from the minister's Act? remarks that this category would include people who test materials received by the Mr. Campney: This vote represents sums various services; materials being used in paid to municipalities for water and services building contracts and so on. The personnel of various kinds. Such sums are taken into set out on page 308 under inspection services consideration when grants are being made represents a cost of nearly $3-5 million, under the Municipal Grants Act. There is anwhich is a tidy sum indeed for inspection adjustment made 50 we are not paying twice purposes. for the same thing, or for something we do I should like to know how many of these not get. In certain circumstances we make inspectors actually go around checking stores contracts for the services from the municipali- on hand in the various establishments, how ties as any customer would. many are actually testing materials, and so Mr. Hamilton (Yark West): In other words on. I think that information would be most you are paying for the services based on the helpful. tarif of the municipality. Is a capital con- Mr. Campney: I cannot at the moment give tribution ever made toward the establishment the details the hon. member has requested, of these services, in the same way that an but perhaps I can give him some idea of owner of real estate must make capital pay-what is snvolved. ment for the establishment of services?This service is charged with the responsi- Mr. Campney: Yes, we have in some cases,bility of ensuring that materials and equip- under certain circumstances where it seemedment ordered by the armed services are fur- to be in our best interests. It is the onlynished in accordance with the specifications, thing to do in certain cases, depending on thefS 8 s'ugg ia s LIdJJ ~S mi specifications to situation. We have made capital contribu-bring them in line with manufacturing prac- tions for the services that we use jointly withtices, for investigating facilities of firms to the municipality, such as a water plant, or aproduce specific requirements, for interpret- sewerage or desposal plant.ing to the contractor goverCment specificationsand the technical requirements of the con- Mr. Hamilton (York West: I understandtract, for recommending for or against design there are cases where simply the cost of thechanges requested by manufacturers and to service is paid and no capital contributionrecommend cancellation of a contract when is made.it is determined that the manufacturer is notmeeting his commitments. In addition to the Mr. Campney: That is correct.above, reciprocal inspection is carried out on Mr. FulIon: I should like to ask the minis-behacf of the United States armed servicesuiia and in connection wth the NATO and r ion or t I te dColombo plans. losses that have occurred in No. il worksThat is a general statement of the work company, R.C.E. I assume it would be appro-they do. priate to pursue those inquiries under "In- spection services", or would it be more appro- Mr.Nesitt Pssily he ex tie teownaer of rea state mt amk cital ay committee meets the minister will be able to et o r the ie?give us a further break-down, because there Mr. Campney: If the hon. member doesseems to be an extraord:narxîy large number not mind, I would rather deal with thatof persons involved in this particular branch under the army. of the defence departmen. I for one wouldlike to have further explanation at a later Mr. Campbell: Are these inspectors wedate. have been discussing living in camp or do Mr. Hamilton (York Wes±): There is an they have to supply their own domicile onitem on page 310 covering payments for these salaries? Some of the salaries are rathermunicipal and publie utility services, and low. [Mr. Campney.] JtJNE 17, 1955 Mr. Campney: For the rnost part the inspec- tors, except those who work in the labora- tories testîng materials, as I have mentioned, are appointed ta ensure quality. They do flot live in mîlitary camps. Most of them live in proxlrnity ta plants where they are sta- tioned, where there are contracts for de- fence services. They are sent ta plants frorn which we would buy production. Mr. Campbell: Two hundred dollars a month does not seem ta be a very large salary for an inspector who has to find his own living quarters. The Chairman: On Royal Canadian Navy- active force and general. Mr. Pearkes: A year ago concern was ex- pressed regarding the supply of officers for the Royal Canadian Navy. In order to meet what was then a seerning shortage, a new scheme known as the "Venture plan" was introduced. I had the opportunity of visiting that Venture college, and it is an extremely well run college with an excellent type of young men coming into the service frorn all parts of Canada. But I arn stili rather con- cerned regarding the supply of officers for the Royal Canadian Navy. I notice in a return which was included on page 27 of last year's white paper that the number of men in training in the various schools for officers in the Royal Canadian Navy arnounted to 1,287. That did not include the Venture scbeme. When I look at the simi- lar return on page 26 of this year's white paper I notice that there are 1,241, a decrease of 46, in spite of the fact that Venture college has been established and I believe there are in the neighbourhood of 100 young men taking that training. Sa it looks ta me as though the situation has not been met yet, and that the sources of supply of officers for the Royal Canadian Navy are not irnproving. I arn also concerned regarding a return which was tabled in the bouse on March 7 showing the graduates of the variaus service colleges. Over the past six years the young men entering thase colleges have averaged 220 a year. But out of that number, in the last two years-and I arn dealing only with the last two years because the calleges have not been operating much longer than that and would not be turning out graduates-in 1952-53 only 11 of these 220 went into the Royal Canadian Navy and last year, 1953-54, there were only 12 commissioned inta the Rayai Canadian Navy. It daes not; seem ta, me that the navy is getting anything like its fair proportion of the young men entering the service calleges. If from ahl sources there is a reduction in the Supply-National Dejence. number of those under training this year, in spite of the fact that Venture college has been started, bas the situation deteriorated or do these figures not really represent the supply? We are getting only il frorn the naval college. Eleven or twelve per year cer- tainly will not take care of the wastage. I wonder if the minister could say how rnany young officers were commissioned into the navy last year, that is out of this total of 1,287 who were in training in the various intakes. Mr. Campney: I arn sorry that I have not the figures set up in that way, but I shaîl be glad ta get them. Mr. Pearkes: Could the minister inform the committee as to the situation? I ar n ot; s0 concerned regarding the numbers, but I have given the numbers to illustrate the reason for rny concern. It seems that the situation is deteriorating. If that is not so, perhaps the minister would inform us. Mr. Campney: The figures the bon. nern- ber quoted are not quite complete, owing ta the fact that the executive officers after the second year go directly into the navy, wbereas engineers for example continue on. I have flot the figures here, but 1 arn told the situa- tion is rather tight. Mr. Pearkes: I realize that executive officers go out in the second year, and I have included those in the two years. Fromn the service colleges seven went who passed last year, and five frorn the four-year group. 0f course that is only a trickle, and there rnust be a rnuch greater dernand. Mr. Harkness: Each year for several years -at least six or seven-I expressed consider- able concerfi at the proportion of service personnel in each of the services engaged in administrative and other jobs of that sort, as compared wîth the number of people in actual figbting units. Ordinarily we have had a f air amount of discussion about that. Perhaps as a means of meeting that criticisrn, in last year's white paper a breakdown was given on page 23 for each of the services, showing how the service personnel were employed. As far as the navy is concerned it was as follows: Navy Units for NATO, Korean force and defence of coastal waters..................... 5.900 Training staffs and trainees ............. 6,200 Commands and administration ........... 1,500 Dockyards and bases .................. 3,3w0 16.900 I note that in this year's white paper the breakdown of the ernployment of navy, army and air force personnel has been omitted. HOUSE OF COMMONS Supply-National Defence I wonder whether the minister could give us comparable figures for the same date this year as last. That would be December 31, 1954, instead of December 31, 1953; or if he has figures for a later date that would be even better. Mr. Campney: I shall have to get the breakdown set up the way it was last year. Mr. Harkness: When the minister is getting that information will he also get it for the army and air force, because I shall be asking the same question in connection with those services. I should like to observe at this time that I think it was a mistake that the breakdown was dropped from this year's white paper. I do not understand why, once the giving of such figures had become estab- lished, they were omitted, because it just takes more time to get the figures during the period we are discussing the estimates. Mr. Nesbitt: I have three questions I should like to put to the minister with respect to the naval service. The first is a general one. Looking through the estimates, it is rather surprising to me to see the vast number of civilian personnel used by the navy. Going back to the days when I was an active member of that service, it would seem to me that a great many of these positions now apparently filled by civilian personnel were filled by service personnel. I suppose the question naturally arises, what difference does it make? As I see the matter, it makes this difference. For example, let us take some of the figures on page 317. At the very top there is an estimate for 11 pipe fitters, the same number as there were last year. The difference in the estimated cost between last year and this year is the difference between $28,465 last year and $42,463 this year. I presume this is due to the increased cost of hiring civilian personnel, which does not arise if the personnel are in uniform. You will find the same thing all the way down the page, in practically every item. Take refrigeration mechanics. There are two in the estimates for this year and last year. Last year the cost was $7,894 and this year it is $8,808. The next item is one repair main- tenance man at a cost last year of $2,631 and this year $3,318. Further down we have stewards and steward cooks. One would normally expect to find the people doing these jobs in uniform. Last year there were four stewards at a cost of $8,748. This year there are the same number and the cost is $9,672. On page 316 we find that there are a great number of messmen, an increase from 130 to 164. Then there are such items as [Mr. Harkness.] "painters, brush hand", "painters, finish", "painters' helpers", and a great many others. One could go on for 15 or 20 minutes, but I do not intend to take the time of the house to do that. However, I point out that many of these jobs, as I recall them, were formerly carried out by service personnel and I see no reason why they cannot be carried out by enlisted personnel. The main advantage would be saving the increases in wages which I am sure, if you add them all, amount to a tre- mendously large sum of money. That is the first question on which I should like some comment. The second has to do with a particularly interesting item I find at the bottom of page 314. I see that this year we have an increase from 267 to 270 in the number of civilian chauffeurs for the navy. On the face of it one would wonder what on earth the navy could do with 270 chauffeurs. I have no doubt it may be a somewhat ambiguous term and covers certain other duties that one would not normally expect of a chauffeur. However, I am sure the minister will give us the explanation. The item below is "chauf- feurs, motor truck drivers", and there is an increase this year from 26 to 51. I can quite understand why the navy would require motor truck drivers, but I am a little curious as to why the number should be just about double. As far as chauffeurs are concerned, we have 270 this year and there were 267 last year. On page 313 we find there are four chauffeurs in the United Kingdom. I should like to hear an explanation of what the Royal Canadian Navy is doing with four civilian chauffeurs in England. My third question is one I previously put to the minister. How many naval personnel are engaged in public relations? Mr. Barnett: I would not want the minister to think the hon. member for Calgary North and the hon. member for Oxford are the only members interested in how the navy spends its money. When the minister is answering some of the questions that have been asked, will he tell the committee why the navy spends $3,340 a year on a man for holding on. The item will be found on page 315, being the sixth from the bottom. Mr. Campney: I wonder whether the hon. member would let me deal with these other questions first. Mr. Barneti: He receives $3,340, which is an increase over last year. Mr. Campney: I understand that the navy does not have naval drivers for cars; they use civilians. Therefore the drivers, in this case called chauffeurs, are simply the drivers 4968 of the various vehicles that are utilized by the navy or else they are motor truck chauffeurs for navy trucks. With regard to the other question as to civilian artificers and trades- men, to whom the hon. member referred first, and as to why they are not in uniform, I understand when men whose skills are required on shore, and there is no necessity for them to have sea duty or fleet experience, civilians are engaged. Mr. Nesbiti: I suggested that many of these personnel should be in the navy because of the great increase in cost this year over last year involved in employing civilians. As we all know, the cost of civilian labour is increas- ing from year to year. If a lot of these people were in the service that extra cost would not necessarily be involved. Then, too, if they were in the service they would also have the advantage of a retirement pension in due course, plus certain other advantages that service personnel enjoy. That is particularly noticeable in the case of the chauffeurs. This year there are 270 and last year there were only three fewer. Last year the estimate was $621,000 and this year, with only three chauffeurs more, the estimate is $717,000, almost $100,000 more. If naval personnel were used as drivers there would be a saving of very close to $100,000 right there. I would be interested to hear the minister's comment on that and also on the size of the naval establishment in the United Kingdom that requires four chauffeurs. Mr. Campney: I cannot answer the last question, because I do not know how their classifications run in regard to civilians em- ployed as against uniformed personnel. The fact is I am informed that notwithstanding the increases in these civilian posts in the last few years, the difference between the pay of civilian employees and uniformed service personnel is still quite great. I men- tioned yesterday that the reason we use civilian employees in so many positions is because there is a wide difference between the cost of maintaining a serviceman and the cost of a civilian in this type of employment. I think ordinarily a civilian earns around $2,600. These 270 chauffeurs costing $717,206 work at about $2,600 each, and a serviceman of the same type or class to do the same work costs about $3,600 per year. Mr. Nesbit±: In so far as these chauffeurs are concerned I see below this item mention of motor truck drivers-what sort of vehicles do they operate? Are they staff cars or what? Mr. Campney: Well, they have an assort- ment of vehicles. The chauffeurs operate ail the types of vehicles used around a dock- yard, and by the navy. There are passenger Supply-National Defence cars, station wagons, buses, jeeps, trucks, ambulances and various other types of vehicles. Mr. Nesbitt: The minister has said, I think, that they have certain comparable figures in relation to civilian and uniformed person- nel. He pointed out that something had just been worked out with respect to the cost of the serviceman as a chauffeur versus a civilian. Has there been an actual, careful survey made throughout all these classifica- tions to see whether it is really cheaper to hire a civilian, despite the greatly increased cost of labour, or to bring a man into the service? If so, has that survey been made recently? There does seem to be a great difference in the cost between the estimates of this year and the estimates of last year. This matter of chauffeurs may seem rather trivial. Perhaps the hon. member for Green- wood would correct me if I am mistaken, but I understand that many a mickle make a muckle. It seems to me that surely the department could dispense with a great number of these chauffeurs. I understand that senior officers, for prestige purposes, have to have chauffeurs, but it would seem to me that many of the more junior officers might very well drive their own cars. It is a small item, but the number does seem rather large. Mr. Campney: I understand that the vehicles which are utilized by ail branches of the navy, and by other services, and types of drivers are matters that are considered by a committee. This committee says whether or not they are justified. In connection with the other point raised by the hon. member, I think it has been found more economical to have one man assigned to drive a car than to have different people driving service cars intermittently. These men are engaged full time. Under the pool arrangement a man is responsible for his car or truck, or whatever vehicle he has been entrusted with, and is closely checked. Mr. Nesbitt: Probably the minister over- looked the other question I had asked. What is the number of personnel engaged in public relations in the navy? Mr. Campney: Perhaps while I am giving the figures for the navy I could give the figures for the other services, since I have them here now. In the navy the total number is 13 service personnel and 9 civilians, a total of 22; in the army, 55 service personnel and 9 civilians, a total of 64; in the Royal Canadian Air Force-this includes those in Europe-45 service personnel and 7 civilians, a total of 52. JUNE 17, 1955 4969 HOUSE OF COMMONS Supply-National Defence Mr. Nesbi±: I thank the minister for that information. In so far as public relations men are concerned, could the minister give a brief outline of their duties? Are they re- quired to write certain releases for the press or are they required to go out and speak at public gatherings? What type of work are they generally given? Mr. Campney: The duties of a public rela- tions director are to maintain a flow of ordinary news items of interest from his particular service to the public; meet repre- sentatives of the press, radio, and television; prepare reports on training and on new equipment; issue press releases and from time to time feature stories of their service; to oversee publicity photography for the service; to prepare radio tapes for use in making the service known, and the usual contact work in the establishment of press relations. Mr. Knowles: I should like to say a few words on behalf of one particular group of civilians who work for the Royal Canadian Navy. I refer to the prevailing rates em- ployees at the ammunition depot at Renous, New Brunswick. The matter I have in mind is one which is well covered in a letter dated June 13, 1955, copies of which were sent to ten or a dozen members of this house in- cluding the Minister of National Defence. I would ask him to look at that letter of June 13, which was sent by the Renous federal union No. 239, to see if something cannot be done to meet the complaint of these em- ployees. In my experience here, Mr. Chair- man, it is a frequent grievance of prevailing rate employees, and it is one about which complaint apparently has to be made. I know one of the answers I may get-and the minister may get the same answer from his advisers, because I have had it before-is that this is a matter in which any other department takes guidance or advice from the Department of Labour. We are told that they ask the Department of Labour to go into the area and find out the prevailing rates for people doing the same or a similar kind of work. But it seems that the com- parisons are made with the poorer paid rather than the medium or better paid workers doing what the workers feel is a comparable kind of work. I shall not take time to go into the various details involving hours of work, superannua- tion benefits and other points which are covered in the letter to which I have referred. It does seem to me, however, that the Minis- ter of National Defence has some responsi- bility to deal with the matter. I hope he will give me the assurance that he will look at [Mr. Campney.] the letter and see if this complaint cannot be met without further delay. He will recall that on a previous occasion the hon. member for Cape Breton South raised this matter. On his behalf and my own, as well as on behalf of these employees, I am asking the minister to take another look at it. Mr. Campney: In principle, the hon. member answered his own question when he said that in the matter of prevailing rates we rely on the Department of Labour. I am aware of the letter to which the hon. member refers, and I shall be glad to do what I have been doing upon occasion, namely, discuss the situation with the Minister of Labour. I do not try just to pass all responsibility to that department, but we must be sure to keep some sort of rate basis that will be appro- priate to the particular part of the country. But we do not take the primary responsibility for the fixing of those rates. In this particular case I have read the letter and I shall discuss the matter with the Minister of Labour. Mr. Mitchell (London): Mr. Chairman-, I would like to change the subject by referring to page 319, where it deals with the acquisi- tion and construction of buildings and works. Perhaps in the interests of brevity we might consider at the same time army buildings. A problem is gradually developing in cities and towns across Canada in connection with property on which are located buildings used by the Department of National Defence. Many of these buildings were constructed many years ago as barracks and armouries, at a time when property was comparatively low in value. Those buildings are now located in the midst of cities and towns, with a resultant loss of revenue to the municipalities con- cerned. They do not serve any particular purpose, so far as the forces are concerned. As an example let me refer to my own constituency of London, which the minister visited recently and with which he is familiar. We have in London a naval depot known as H.M.C.S. Prevost located on perhaps the most valuable downtown piece of property in the city. We have also an armouries located on equally valuable property, and we have an area headquarters for the army. What is the policy of the department with respect to these properties when the buildings erected thereon outlive their usefulness? The minister is no doubt familiar with the area headquarters building. It is antiquated, as is the naval headquarters. We have in London Wolseley barracks, which has ample property on which to consolidate at least the army part of the set-up. Surely other 4970 JUNE 17, 1955 property equally suitable but less valuable could be found for the naval headquarters. I am asking the minister to comment generally as to the policy of the department concerning the removal of such buildings from valuable downtown property as and when they become outmoded. What are the department's plans for the area headquarters in London, and for the building now occupied by the naval division? Mr. Campney: As most hon. members realize, the question of administration accom- modation is constantly before us. It is never fully resolved because its priority in the matter of the allocation of money is of a relatively low order. We are trying to improve conditions in various places as fast as we can, but we are very much in arrears due to the fact that very little was done during the war; and because of our high expen- ditures for defence purposes at the present time. At the present time we are endeavour- ing to obtain a site for H.M.C.S. Prevost and I can only say I hope we will succeed. In regard to the other matter the hon. member mentioned, let me say that I cannot make any promise because there are many similar situations. The only thing I can say is that we are trying to remedy the most urgent cases first. Mr. Mitchell (London): Is the minister's answer a statement that the policy of the department is, wherever possible and as money is available, to release valuable down- town property for commercial purposes rather than to occupy it for military purposes. Mr. Campney: If we do not need the property we certainly will not endeavour to hold it. But that raises the whole question of downtown properties, particularly armour- ies. Most of the major facilities in our cities are downtown, and these properties have become valuable. Many of the buildings are still in good condition, and we would suffer a heavy loss if we were to undertake to replace at today's costs those buildings which do not require replacement. However, if it is property we do not really need we try always to co-operate with the municipalities. As I have pointed out, the governing fac- tor is money. Downtown property is high in price, but so is the cost of new buildings to supplant downtown buildings. It is just a case of adjusting the money we have avail- able to those places which need it most. Mr. Hamilton (York West): May I ask a further question in that connection. I shall mention a situation which falls within the four corners of the minister's statement, but Supply-National Defence concerning which we have had no action for a considerable length of time. I refer speci- fically to the Long Branch rifle ranges in the county of Peel. I am convinced that the price that could be obtained for the property by the department would replace, in a slightly more distant location, all the facilities the department now enjoys. Undoubtedly the procrastination of the department in answering the request of the municipality in that area is proving a very great hardship. That property now is cer- tainly among the most valuable lakeshore properties left in the district of metropolitan Toronto. I would seriously suggest to the minister that if the policy he has laid down is the one to be pursued by the department, then the Long Branch situation can be fitted squarely into the four corners of the policy and some relief might be granted to that particular area in the very near future. Mr. Campney: I think I can assure the hon. member that there has been no procrastina- tion since I have been minister, because I started to look into this situation as soon as I became minister. The facts of the situation are that while it is a very valuable property, it is also the only rifle range we have in that whole area. As Minister of National De- fence I have had to take the view that, until we can find a suitable area for a rifle range, I cannot very well give up the present site. I have not stopped there but have had a study made-I must say unsuccessfully-of other alternatives that might be available close to Toronto. We are now engaged in preparing the necessary facilities and ranges at Camp Borden. When they are completed we shall not be requiring the Long Branch area, and I presume that under the usual crown procedures it will be disposed of. From the last report I have received, which was some weeks ago, that will not be until pos- sibly next spring or summer. Mr. Hamilton (York West): Does that mean the minister may be in a position to commit the department to a date not later than the summer of 1956 for disposal of the Long Branch range It seems to me that would be adequate time. After all, Camp Borden has been in existence and used for that particu- lar purpose we are talking about since early in the first world war. In addition, there will be no sacrifices required by the members of the militia units. The changes in methods of travel since the building of the Long Branch rifle range I am sure place Camp Borden almost within as easy reach of the centre of Toronto as Long Branch was at the time of the construction of the range there. As a matter of fact, with the construction of HOUSE OF COMMONS Supply-National Defence highway No. 400, even keeping within the speed limit I would estimate that Camp Borden is only 1, to 1 hours away. Therefore I hope the minister can make a definite com- mitment as to when that land will be avail- able to the municipality. Mr. Campney: I do not want to be put in the position of making a definite commitment. I have seen too much of construction since I came into this particular office to make prom- ises or fix specific dates. All I was endeavour- ing to do was state with frankness what I am trying to do. If everything comes to pass which I have mentioned I would hope that by next summer or fall we shall be in a posi- tion to take up new quarters, and I would not want to go beyond that. I think my hon. friend will have to rest his case there. I have the figures for the breakdown of the services by categories for the hon. mem- ber for Calgary North. These show the employment of the active forces on December 31 last. The total is 117,000. The navy is divided in this way: units for NATO, Korean force and defence of coastal waters, 7,600; training staffs and trainees, 6,900; commands and administration, 1,600; dockyards and bases, 2,700; total, 18,800. The army: units for NATO, Korean force and defence of Canada, 28,000; training staffs and trainees, 8,000; commands and adminis- tration, 2,900; service units, 10,500; total, 49,400. The air force: units for NATO and the defence of Canada, 16,800; air transport, search and rescue, 4,400; training staffs and trainees, 21,000; commands and administra- tion, 2,100; service units, 4,500; total, 48,800; grand total, 117,000. Mr. Michener: If I may supplement the question the hon. member for York West has asked, it seems to me the minister's answers today show some advance with respect to the Long Branch situation. As I recall the answers I received last year to the same questions, an effort was being made to find an alternative rifle range in the vicinity of Toronto but not so far away as Camp Borden. May I take it that now the department has decided that Camp Borden will be used instead of Long Branch, and the department have given up the search for an alternative and have settled on Camp Borden as the new site for the rifle ranges which were at Long Branch? Mr. Campney: Yes. We spent considerable time searching without success for a suitable site nearer to Toronto. I suppose we could be searching yet, but I decided that we had [Mr. Hamilton (York West).] covered the field and that something should be done about the matter. We are now com- mitted to Camp Borden. Mr. Hamilion (York West): In connection with the item for aircraft and engines on page 319, which is also referred to on page 42 of the white paper in paragraph 157, can the minister tell us how many airplanes were acquired for the navy last year, whether they were purchased in Canada, whether the engines listed were purchased in Canada, and if they were not purchased in Canada, was any attempt made to obtain suitable aircraft in Canada? Mr. Campney: We always try to procure aircraft and engines in Canada if we can find suitable ones for the purpose for which we are acquiring them, and we go outside Canada only when we feel that it is not rea- sonably possible to obtain them here. I think it has not been the practice, and I am sure it should not be, to give out the numbers of planes acquired for the services. Mr. Hamilton (York Wesi): Were these planes acquired in Canada, or were they pur- chased outside? Mr. Campney: I understand that planes for the navy are being manufactured in Canada, but we did purchase a number of helicopters outside of Canada. Mr. Hamilton (York West): Were the motors manufactured in Canada? Mr. Campney: The question of manufac- turing engines for aircraft in Canada is being considered by the Department of Defence Production, and that department has not decided whether they will be made in Canada. Mr. Hamilton (York West): What company is manufacturing the planes? Mr. Campney: The de Havilland company. Mr. Thomas: During the general discus- sion yesterday I mentioned the merchant aircraft carrier which was used for escort work during the last war. Would the minis- ter comment as to whether the construction of aircraft carriers of that type has been considered by the department and, if so, why has it been decided not to go into the construction of that type of ship? Mr. Campney: I understand that any con- sideration that was being given to the proposal mentioned by the hon. member has been suspended for the time being. Studies as to the usefulness and acceptability of helicopters are now engaging our attention. Mr. Nesbiti: At the top of page 319 is an item covering films, displays, broadcasting, advertising, and other informational materials, $316,000. Can the mini.ster tell us how much money was spent on advertiaing, which I presume would be for recruiting purposes? Mr. Campney: Practlcally the whole of this vote wrnl be for recruiting advertising in one way or another. The largeat item is advertising in publications, $123,000, and then there is an item of $25,000 for radio advertis- ing. Another item which. may be only indirectly related ta recruiting advertising is the cost of exhibition displaya, whidh rima ta $23,000. Then there la an item of $60,000 for a mobile recruiting unit. AUl the expenditures under this item are directly or indirectly connected with recruiting. Mr. Nesbiti: Has consideration been given ta greatly reducing this expenditure on newa- paper advertising in connection with recruit- ing? In my general remarks on these esti- mates I pointed out that it was my feeling, which la shared by a large number of other people with whom I have discussed the matter, that ads ln newspapera and periodi- cals ta join the navy and see the world, s0 ta speak, are largely ineffective. A great number of the persans joining the navy would do so without this advertising. It la my contention that many of these ada are neyer loaked at. If a persan la really interested lu joining the navy, and many are, he can flnd out how ta, go ab~out it from divisional head- quartera or other recruiting centres. It is my feeling that much of this advertising reaches only the last 30 per cent of the recruits obtained. My feeling la that consideration. should be given ta greatly reducing this item. Mr. Campney: The hon. member will notice that it la reduced fram. $360,000 ta $316,000, and the total for the three services has been reduced from $2,820,000 ta $2,317,000, or a reduction of $503,000. Mr. Nesblii: That is a step in the right direction. Mr. Hamilton (York West): Perliaps I may be forgiven for referring again ta municipal and public utility services, which item is ta le found on page 319. I asked some questions previously about this item. Arn I correct lu assuming that there are municipaities which provide services to the department which are paid for on a tariff basis only, with no capital assistance given either directly or under the Municipal Grants Act? Mr. Campney: I hesitate ta say dýefinitely, but I feel quite sure there are. I know that an a number of occasions we have negotiated on a straight basis of tariff rates for services ta be provided and have concluded some arrangements in that regard. 50433-314 Supply-Nationai Defence Mr. Hamilton (York West): Would the minis- ter give some thought to providing some assistance, either ln the way of capital grants under this item or under the Municipal Granta Act? Obviously it means that in some cases the ordinary home owner is paying more than lis proper proportion to provide these services. Mr. Philpot: I should like ta correct the low opinion of the hon. member for Oxford of the value of newspaper- advertising. That opinion la certainly flot shared by the success- ful premier of Ontario, and it is certainly flot shared by many of the successful busi- nessmen who are the backbone of the support of the Conservative party. As long as there is anythlng ta advertlse, ail business experi- ence is that newspapers provide the beat medium. Mr. Nowlan: Does the item "Repaira and upkeep of equipment" on page 319 cover repaira to ships, or would that be under the Item "sb.tps, $73,000,000"? Does the minister's department designate where ship repaira wil be carried out, or does that came under the maritime commission? Mr. Campn.y: The item of $ 18,890,000 covering repaira and upkeep of equipment covers repaira ta shipa, whereas the item of $73,000,000 under the heading major procure- ment of equipment, ships, refers ta the acqlui- sition of new ships. In answering the second question may I say that we lay out a work plan in the navy for repaira and maintenance of ships, and then the Canadian maritime commission of the Department of Transport is charged with aflocating the work. We let them know what we want done and where the ship is located and they determine, I think in the interests of keeping as many yards active as possible, where the work should be done. They are able ta judge this because they are aware of what civillan. work is being done as weil. Mr. Nowlan: We are certainly nat golng ta finish these estimates tonight, and when they are again before the committee I wonder if the minister could give us a breakdown of the expenditures last year on repaira. Can he give us the breakdown as between the different places in Canada? Perhaps he can do it now. Can he also give us the number of jobs and where they were performed, and the breakdown showing the expenditures, up ta as recent a date as possible? Mr. Campney: I would suggest that the han. member could more readily get this information from the maritime commission. We keep the accounts, of course, but we do :îot keep a running accaunt of the amounts JUNE 17, 1033 4978 4974 HOUSE OF Supply-National Defence paid at different locations. The maritime commission has those figures at its fingertips, and you might get them more quickly from the commission. Mr. Nowlan: I am not interested in getting it at my fingertips. I suspect that the navy has a fairly accurate picture of the expendi- tures made on the various ships that come within the department, and I should like to ask that next week the minister give us whatever information fie has. If it is not satisfactory, we can take up the question with the maritime commission. Mr. Harkness: Mr. Chairman, in connection with the big item in the naval estimates, which was $93 million last year and is $73 million this year, for the procurement of ships, could the minister tell us what propor- tion of those two amounts will be spent on the long-building 14 naval destroyers? We have had these 14 destroyers or destroyer escorts appearing in the estimates for a long period now. I believe it would also be very interesting to the committee to find out how much these destroyer escorts are going to cost. What is the present estimate of the total cost per destroyer escort? Mr. Campney: I shall have to endeavour to get that information for the hon. member. Mr. Nowlan: Would the minister give us the information as to where they are being built at the same time? Mr. Nesbit: Mr. Chairman, on a point of privilege, in view of the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver South I thought I should like to get something quite straight in his mind and for the record. It is this. The remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver South indicated to the committee that I had no knowledge of the value of advertising. I am as fully aware as the hon. member for Vancouver South of the great value of news- paper advertising for many commercial pur- poses, but I still seriously doubt the value of newspaper advertising in selling a commodity such as the Royal Canadian Navy. In selling furniture and various other commercial prod- ucts, yes; but the Royal Canadian Navy, I am afraid, no. The Deputy Chairman: We now proceed to the Royal Canadian naval reserve. COMMONS Some hon. Members: Carried. The Deputy Chairman: Royal Canadian sea cadets. Some hon. Members: Carried. The Deputy Chairman: Canadian Army- regular and general. Some hon. Members: Carried. Mr. Nowlan: No. It is five minutes to ten, and I certainly have some comments to make on this item which will take a little while. The minister might feel fairly happy about what he has done today and call it a day. If there is any disposition to have this carried, Mr. Chairman, I might simply suggest that it is easy to call it ten o'clock, if the minister agrees. An hon. Member: It is cooler here than outside. The Deputy Chairman: Is it agreed that I call it ten o'clock and report progress? Mr. Campney: I do not think we should begin on the army tonight. Item stands. Progress reported. BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Mr. Harris: On Monday we shall begin with the Defence Production Act, then take the Library of Parliament Act, the resolution with respect to judges' salaries, the resolution with respect to the Criminal Code, and the committee stage of the Canada Elections Act. Then we shall take the customs resolutions. Mr. Green: Is it the intention to carry on with that list on Tuesday? Mr. Harris: The intention is to carry on with legislation on Tuesday and Wednesday, and estimates after that. Mr. Drew: I do not wish to extend this too much but so we may understand I should like to ask this. Since the Defence Production Act debate will not be finished on Monday, will it continue on Tuesday? Mr. Harris: No, we shall take the other items I mentioned. At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order. JUNE 17, 1955 4975 Royal Commission on Canadian Economy APPENDIX P.C. 1955-909 Certified to be a true copy of a minute of a meeting of the committee of the privy council, approved by His Excellency the Administrator on the 17th June, 1955. The committee of the privy council have had before them a report from the Prime Minister stating that it is desirable that the Canadian people should be more fully in- formed of the long-term economie prospects of Canada, and that it is in the national interest to initiate, examine and publish studies of Canada's economic potentialities, including developments in productive capa- city, the growth and distribution of the population, the direction and nature of our internal and external trade, progress in standards of living and expanding require- ments for industrial and social capital. The committee, therefore, on the recom- mendation of the Prime Minister advise that Walter Lockhart Gordon, Toronto, Ont.; Omer Lussier, Quebec, P.Q.; Albert Edward Grauer, Vancouver, B.C.; Andrew Stewart, Edmonton, Alta., and Raymond Gushue, St. John's, Nfld., be appointed commissioners under part I of the Inquiries Act (chapter 154 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952) to inquire into and report upon the long-term prospects of the Canadian economy, that is to say, upon the probable economic development of Canada and the problems to which such development appears likely to give rise, and without limit- ing the generality of the foregoing, to study and report upon (a) developments in the supply of raw materials and energy sources; (b) the growth to be expected in the population of Canada and the changes in its distribution; (c) prospects for growth and change in domestic and external markets for Canadian productions; (d) trends in productivity and standards of living; and (e) prospective requirements for industrial and social capital. The committee further advise: 1. That the commissioners be authorized to exercise all the powers conferred on them by section 11 of the Inquiries Act; 2. That the commissioners adopt such pro- cedure and methods as they may, from time to time, deem expedient for the proper con- duct of the inquiry and sit at such times and in such places in Canada as they may decide; 3. That the commissioners be authorized to engage the services of such counsel, staff, clerks and technical advisers as they may require at rates of remuneration and reim- bursement to be approved by the treasury board; 4. That the officers and employees of the departments of the government of Canada render such assistance to the commission as may be required for the inquiry; 5. That the commissioners be directed to report to the governor in council; and 6. That Walter Lockhart Gordon be chair- man of the commission and Douglas V. LePan be secretary and director of research. R. B. Bryce, Clerk of the privy council. 50433-314J 4977 HOUSE 0F COMMONS Monday, June 20, 1955 The house met at eleven o'clock. ATOMIC ENERGY TABLING 0F AGREEMENTS PROVIDING FOR CO-OPERATION BETWEEN CANADA AND UN~ITED STATES Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance): My colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs has asked me to table copies in English and in French of the following agreements: Agreement for co-operation con- cerning civil uses of atomic energy between the government of the United States and the governiment of Canada; agreement between the government of the United States of America and the government of Canada for co-operation regarding atomnic information for mutual defence purposes. These agreements were signed i Washing- ton on June 15, 1955, and are the ones to which the Secretary of State for External Affairs referred in his announcement to the house on that date. The Minister of Trade and Commerce intends in a few moments to make an explanatory statement on the agree- ment concerning civil uses of atomic energy and the Minister of National Defence on the agreement regarding atomic information for mutual defence purposes on another occasion. Copies o! these agreements will be avail- able in the joint parliamentary distribution brandi. STATEMENT CONCERNING AGREEMENT ON CIVIL USES 0F ATOMIC ENERGY Righi Hon. C. D. Howe : Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport supplementary to that asked by my colleague the hon. member for Moose Mountain (Mr. Mc- Cullough). When this subject was raised on Friday by my deskmate the hon. member for Assinibola, and when he asked whether the board of transport commissioners was considering this 10 per cent increase, the minister said he was unaware of the matter and that he would have to make inquiries. My question is the obvious one. Has he made inquiries and does he now know whether the board of transport commissioners is considering such an increase? Mr. Marier: Mr. Speaker, ail I can say in answer ta the question of the hion. member is that I believe the matter is under con- sideration by the board of transport commis- sioners at the present time but that no order has yet been issued. HOUSE 0F COMMONS INQUIRY AS TO POSSIBLE COMPLETION 0F SESSIONAL WORK On the orders of the day: Mr. Daniel McIvor (Fart William): Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon, leader 50433-315 Inquiries of the Ministry of the house, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris), if he has any good reason. to tel us that he thinks this bouse will complete the work of this session by the lst of July. Mr. Fleming: Hope springs eternal in the human breast. Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, the legisiative program is almost complete, and I arn hopeful that hon. members will find it possible to dispose of the items on the order paper with dispatch but at the same time with the caution and consideration that they deserve. Whether or not tis will mean that we will get out by the lst of July, 1 do not know. Mr. Mclvor: Thank you. [Later: 1 WELCOME TO HON. MEMBER FOR VANCOUJVER- KINGSWAY ON HIS RETURN FOLLOWING ILLNESS Mr. Speaker: I think it would be the wîsh of every hon. member that I express the pleasure of the house at seeing the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Maclnnis) back in his place again. Mr. Angus MacInnis (Vancauver-Kingsway>: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I arn glad to be back. As far as 1 arn concerned this is home. CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS QUEEN ELIZABETH HOTEL-ALLEGED BREACH 0F COMBINES ACT IN AGREEMENT On the orders of the day: Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice>: Mr. Speaker, while I was absent in Alberta last week, the hon. Leader of the Opposition asked the following question, and I quote from page 4813 of Hansard: In the absence of the Minister of Justice, Mr. Speaker, 1 should like ta direct a question to the Prime Mlnister. In vlew of the fact that the Conrad Hilton chain te now operating under a contract with the publlcly owned hotel which la in process of construction in Montreal-in the absence of the minister the Prime Minister may prefer ta take this as notice-has consideration been Riven ta thxe effect under the Combines Investigation Act of the agreement made between the Canadian National ltailways and the Conrad Hilton chain £romn the point of view of the restrictive practices outlined in that agreement? May I say, Mr. Speaker, that the answer to the hon. gentleman's question is as follows. The combines branch bas noted the reports about a management contract between the Canadian National Railways and the Hilton hotel group. Since the information before the branch does not indicate that the Hilton group bas other hotel interests in Canada, any such contract would not appear to give rise to inquiry under the Combines Investigation Act. JUNE 20i 1855 4991 Inquiries of the Ministry In other words, in so far as Canada is con- cerned this would seem to be a case of sub- stituting one independent management for another, rather than a combination or merger between two groups already in the country. There is also doubt that hotel accommoda- tion could be considered an article or commodity, within the meaning of the anti- combines legislation, which refers to combina- tions and mergers in respect of articles and commodities. Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, supplementary to the reply just given by the Minister of Justice, might I ask if it is not correct that there is an agreement between the Conrad Hilton group and the Canadian National Railways to the effect that no agreement shall be entered into by the Canadian National Railways with any other hotel chain that might compete with the Conrad Hilton group? Mr. Garson: Mr. Speaker, not having seen the agreement, I am sure that I could not say whether a clause of that kind is in it or not. In any event I do not know whether that would affect the validity of the answer I have just given. Mr. Drew: Mr. Speaker, might I ask, if the Minister of Justice does not know what is in the contract, how does he know whether it infringes the Combines Investigation Act? Mr. Garson: Mr. Speaker, I thought my answer made this very clear. In case the import of my answer has not sunk home, perhaps I had better repeat it: Since the information before the branch does not indicate that the Hilton group has other hotel interests in Canada, any such contracts would not appear to give rise to an inquiry under the Combines Investigation Act. In other words, so far as Canada is con- cerned, this would seem to be a case of sub- stituting one independent management for another rather than a merger or combina- tion between two groups already in the coun- try. That is to say, in order to make it abundantly clear, if the contract simply relates to the management of one hotel and is not an understanding as to prices to be charged between two competing hotels, there would not seem to be any possibility of con- flict with the statute, regardless of any clause contained in the contract, such as that refer- red to by the hon. Leader of the Opposition. Mr. Drew: May I ask the minister if he does not recognize that he has just raised a question as to competition between units of the Conrad Hilton hotels. That is not what we have in mind. It is restriction on the [Mr. Garson.] right of the Canadian National Railways to enter into other contracts with other organiza- tions which may compete with the Conrad Hilton hotels. If that is not restriction I do not know what it would be. I must confess that I do not know how the minister can express an opinion if he does not know what the contract says. TRADE DUMPING-REFERENCE TO ACTION TAKEN BY UNITED STATES On the orders of the day: Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton): Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the Min- ister of Trade and Commerce? Has the gov- ernment given consideration to the new regu- lations issued by the United States treasury with respect to the establishment of fair value on imports in relation to dumping, and also to the bill that was produced in congress last month on the same subject? Is the gov- ernment satisfied that these measures do not contravene the provisions of the general agreement on tariffs and trade? If the gov- ernment is of the opinion that they do, what action is the government taking in the direc- tion of making representations in regard to either the regulations or the bill before congress? Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce): Mr. Speaker, I shall take that question as notice. I shall need to con- sult my officials before I give a reply, but I shall try to reply tomorrow. IMMIGRATION BRENT CASE-QUESTION AS TO APPEAL On the orders of the day: Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops): May I ask the minister whether, with respect to the Brent case,-that is the case involving a deportation order which was raised in the house last week-he is in a position to say whether a decision has been taken to appeal: and if so, whether he expects that appeal will be dealt with in the near future? Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice): In reply to my hon. friend's question I may say that preliminary steps have been taken toward the launching of an appeal. We anticipate that the appeal will come on for hearing at the October sittings of the Supreme Court of Canada. HOUSE OF COMMONS4982 DEFENCE PRODUCTION ACT AMENDMENTs RESPEcTING SALARY OF MINISTER AND EXPIRY OF ACT The bouse resumed, from Monday, June 13, consideration of the motion of Mr. Howe, Port Arthur (for Mr. St. Laurent) for the second reading of Bill No. 256, to amend the Defence Production Act. Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I continue this debate today with a good deal of encourage- ment. As I pointed out during the time when this subject was under discussion, the problems of parliament demand vigilance not only from parliament itself but from the press and from the public generally. That is, in fact, the very essence of a vigorous and vital democracy. At fIrst, as we must all recognize, little interest in this measure now before us was shown by the press generally. So far as many of the newspapers were concerned, this was simply another piece of legislation. Now the press and the public are showing interest and I trust that the government-and above all the members opposite who will be responsible if this bill passes-are showing an interest in what the press is saying. If we believe in the value of a free press we must also, I think, attach some importance to a general sentiment that is being expressed with regard to the legislation we are asked to consider. In addition to that letters to the press, which express public opinion and are in themselves a reflection of public opinion, show growing concern with regard to the extension of these wide-open powers without any limit as to time or other restriction. I recognize the rule against quoting editor- ials which would reflect upon the govern- ment, and I do not intend to do so; but under the rules I am permitted to summarize the effect of those editorials and it is uni- formly-with only two or three exceptions- one of condemnation of the attempt to make these wide and arbitrary powers a permanent part of our legislation. There were two very understandable exceptions. One was the Montreal Star and the other the Winnipeg Free Press. I menti.on these because they are very responsible newspapers with a substantial circulation which naturally affects the general thinking of many people. If I have omitted any others which have shown a lack of interest in the dangers inherent in this measure, then I apologize because that would be simply based upon the fact that they have not been drawn to my attention. May I point out that even these editorials indicate the need for extended debate. At 50433-315J Defence Production Act first it was obvious there was little under- standing of the dangers inherent in what we are asked to do. Then, as the measure was examined and the effect of an extension of these powers was better understood, a vigi- lant press and a vigilant public began to indi- cate their opinion. Nevertheless, the need for further discussion and further emphasis is placed before us clearly by the editorials to which I have referred. In the case of the Montreal Star, they refer to the need for con- tinuing the emergency powers act. They point out that it may well be accepted as the minimum that is required. It says, without quoting the exact words, that without the emergency powers act the government would be forced to invoke the War Measures Act. It is necessary for me, Mr. Speaker, to point out to the Montreal Star that the emergency powers act was repealed last year. At that time when the ordinary consideration of that bill was before the house the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) clearly indicated that while there was still some reason for concern the situation had reached a point where it was not necessary to continue the emergency powers act. We are not being asked to con- sider that. We are being asked to consider an act which does not declare an emergency but merely tries to write into our permanent law wide powers which would have the effect of actually cutting right across the powers of parliament and the rights of provincial gov- ernments in relation to property and civil rights. I would refer to the editorial in the Winni- peg Free Press. On some occasions I have not agreed entirely with the Winnipeg Free Press, but on this occasion I must say that this is one of the most amusing editorials that newspaper bas produced. It points out that it is silly of the Minister of Defence Produc- tion to introduce this bill. Those are the words of the Winnipeg Free Press, not mine. It points out that he has offered no reason for a continuation of these wide powers. Then, of course, just so that everything will be balanced fairly, it says that the opposition is silly in its insistence upon the position we take. It points out we are silly because we do not understand the motives of the govern- ment. Well, Mr. Speaker, I concede right away that we do not understand the motives of the government. Ever since the resolution was introduced in March which declared that it was expedient that such a bill be intro- duced, we have been trying to understand the motives of the government in introducing this measure this year. The Defence Production Act will still be on the statute books un- touched in any way, unlimited in its powers and fully effective until July 31, 1956. We JUNE 20, 1955 4983 4984 HOUSE 0F COMMONS Defence Production Act certainly do flot understand the motives of the government in introducing this measure. So that everything wiil be fair ail round, may I say that I think this is the silliest editorial I have ever read. It does flot even attempt to understand what the issue is. Oh, how I wish that some of the Liberais who have read this editorial would look back to the liberalism of the Manchester Guardian. What a wonderful thing it wouid be if in the Winnipeg Free Press we heard the authentic voice of iiberalism such as is expressed on the pages of the Manchester Guardian. I mention that because the Win- nipeg Free Press does purport to express the true brand of undiiuted iiberalism. Mr. McIvor: Progressive. Mr. Drew: No, Mr. Speaker, the liberaiism that is being put forward in this act is flot liberalism nor is it progressive. This is a reversion to something that has flot happened since the days of the Tudors and the Stuarts. This is an attempt to take away from parlia- ment the authority of parliament over the whole economy, except to such extent as the goverilment secs fit to leave this in our hands. The Winnipeg Free Press does go on t0 give some practical advice. Perhaps this comes closer to the voice of the Manchester Guardian. It says that while it is siily for the Minister of Defence Production f0 want these powers, nevertheless if will not be s0 bad if the other members of the government will only exercise some supervision over this minister who is making a silly dcmand. It is important that we realize that the goverfi- ment is not able f0 exercise supervision; that this measure not only takes away the auth- ority of parliament but if also takes away the authority of the govcrnment in most cases, and that it leaves to the pure, untram- melled discretion of the minister hirnself, the decision as to how far we shall remain as a parliament. Actually, when the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Melvor) spoke about the true sentiments of liberalism, I could not help recalling the occasion when people were not vigilant, and they saw their rights disappear under the most earnest demands and under the most intense religious appeal. 1 think, as a matter of fact, there is a speech that would be worth rereading by a number of hon. members opposite, and I arn placing this argument forward in ail earnestness. This was a speech made exactly 300 years ago. I know that there are those who say, oh, do not bother about these old, dusty arguments out of the distant past. But let us remember that in January of 1655 Oliver Cromwell made a very important speech in [Mr. Drewv.] the House of Commons in Britain. Hle was urging wide powers that were flot restrained by parliament, and he put forward the samne idea that the people should trust hlm. Then, hie used these significant words: And the people being the blessing of God, they will not be so angry but they will prefer their safety to their passions, and their real security to formns... The protector, as hie described himself, but the dictator as hie became known in his- tory, in the naine of God decided that if was in the interests of the people that they should not bother about forms like the mace, which he cailed a ýbauble, and decided they should have the kind of security that cornes from arbitrary power. And so having dccided that in the naine of God if was wise that hie should no longer be disturbcd by that nuis- ance of parliament, hie then closed that very famous speech with these words: I think it my duty to tell you that it is not for the profit of these nations nor for common and public good for you to continue bere any longer. And therefore I do declare unto you that I do dissolve this parliament. Now, it may not be in the minds of any hon. members to go that far. But the fact is that the measure before us, which we are asked to embed, for ail practical purposes, in the permanent laws of Canada, places if in the hands of the government to say exactly what Cromwell said 300 years ago last January. Now, I stili hope that hon. members oppo- site wiil examine this carefully, and that both the goverfiment and the members sup- porting it will take the advice of the Win- nipeg Free Press in this instance. I know that many of them pay a great deai of attention f0 the Winnipeg Free Press, whcther if is speaking the authentic voice of Canadian liberalism or the Manchester Guardian brand. But the fact remains that I wish they would pay attention f0 the need for super- vision of the actions of any minister, and that they would therefore examine this act carefully and sec just how far if goes. 1 hope that, with the change that has taken place in the thinking across thîs country, many hon. members will reread this act carefully. This act would be continued indefinitely by the amendments now before us. And, Mr. Speaker, in a world in which hope stili springs eternal, I wonder if if is f00 much to hope thaf the Minister of Defence Pro- duction may actually have some liffle doubt about bis own infallibiiity. Thaf wouid be a wonderful and encouraging sign, that this debate and discussion have produced some resuits, resuits which we are seeing have some impact outside the house. 4984 I have already pointed out what editorials are saying, one in a very responsible news- paper in eastern Canada which thinks we are discussing the Emergency Powers Act, and the other which agrees that the minister is silly in demanding these powers but thinks that the opposition is silly in criti- cizing the continuation of those powers. For that reason every hon. member should realize how uncertain the govefrhment's posi- tion is. And obviously of course the minister is uncertain-and as he is leaving the chamber now I must direct my remarks to hon. members opposite, because it is their vote that is of importance and their decision that is of importance. Because we have seen so far-and I am glad to see the minister is now returning- Mr. McIlraith: He did not leave. Mr. Howe (Port Arthur): My hon. friend is always ready to put false information on Hansard. Mr. Drew: I am glad to have the minister back with us, because we are always hopeful that as a result of a vigilant press, a vigilant public, and a vigilant House of Commons, the minister may decide that he is not in- fallible, and may decide that an act for which he was responsible, and for the draft- ing of which he has told us he was mainly responsible, may be reviewed and revised. There is one thing about the Minister of Defence Production, and that is that he always provides an interjection that is worth looking back to. The other day he said that it was drafted by a Tory. It is interesting to have the Minister of Defence Production describing himself as a Tory. I do not under- stand that remark. He added that, at the request of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) he was responsible for the group which drafted this act, and then on another occasion he said that he drafted it. There is of course no argument that has been made by the minister or by any mem- ber of the government, or indeed by anyone on the other side of the bouse, which bas told us why this bill we now have before us that gives powers to the minister indefinitely, which gives powers that will continue per- manently on the statute books, should be continued beyond July 31 next-that is, unless we are not going to be permitted to meet before that. There is one argument however that is clear, and that is the argument put forward by the socialists. They do not leave any doubt as to what they think this act should mean. They have made it clear that they think this act is an attack on capitalism. Defence Production Act They think this is an act which should be used as a club over the heads of private enterprise. Well, I am just waiting for a single mem- ber of the government to repudiate the explanation given by the socialists for their support of this act. In this case I agree with their argument, although I do not agree with the decision they make as to how they will vote. I can understand their vote. They believe in putting socialism intd effect, with- out even having to consult parliament-and under the terms of this very act we are now discussing they can do so. The government has not said, "We repudi- ate completely the explanation given by our socialist supporters. That is not the reason this act is before us". We are still waiting to be told why it is that they want to make this a permanent part of our laws. Now, we should have not only an explana- tion from some member of the government, but we should have an explanation from the Prime Minister. I know of course that the Prime Minister is at the moment engaged in a conference. However, I am perfectly certain that the discussion here will be drawn to his attention; and as this debate will not be terminated for some time there will be opportunity for him to consider what is being said. I hope the Prime Min- ister will recognize that he should speak in this debate. We have been told that this act is more restrictive than that in the United Kingdom or in the United States. Even the most cursory examination of the act will show just how remote from reality is that state- ment by the Minister of Defence Production. The Prime Minister is a lawyer, and as head of the government he is the individual entrusted by the Queen's representative for the responsibility of government; and he should clear away that misapprehension which is in the minds of hon. members. There is another misapprehension in the minds of hon. members opposite, one w/hich lias been indicated in the speeches of those who have spoken. The principle at issue i the measure now before us is not that of the setting up of the Department of Defence Production. The bill now before us, as was pointed out by the minister-and it seems to have been forgotten by many hon. mem- bers-is a bill containing only two clauses. The first clause simply changes the salary of the minister from $10,000 to $15,000. That is merely a formal change, to make the pay- ment of salary to the minister coincide with the salaries of ministers in other departments. There is no question of principle involved there. It is merely a formal adjustment. JUNE 20;' 1155 4985 HOUSE 0F COMMONS Defence Production Act It is the second clause that raises the whole principle, and the only principle, be- fore us in this debate. Clause 2 is the clause we must examine. It is a very short one stating that "section 41 of the said act is repealed". That means only one thing, and it raises the whole principle we are discussing. This clause, if accepted, would strike out section 41 in the act, which reads as follows: This art, except subsection (6) of section 4, shall expire on the 31st day of July, 1956. Therefore, the principle involved is whether or not we shall embed in the permanent laws of Canada ail these wide powers that were placed before us in 1951 when there was so much uncertainty in the mmnd of everyone at the tîme of the very severe wnr in Korea. It wîhl be recalled that on that occasion we had suddenly been forced to change our whole course. We had been giving up many of the military machines and weapons ar- cumulated after the war. We had, in fact, been advancing into what we thought was a period of increasing peace. Then suddenly war, and bloody war, broke out in Korea in June of 1950. Then we were called upon to reverse our whole trend; we were ýcalled upon to change our thinking about defence. Suddenly we were called upon to improvise once again, as we have been called upon to do on other occasions. A hastily drafted bil was placed before us. At that time we made it abundantly clear that we thought the bill was badly drawn, and why would it not be badly drawn wben it was drawn by the Minis- ter of Defence Production? I say that simply because we know bis attitude toward parlia- ment. He has told us hie thinks that some people think it is a good thing to have a forum for discussion, but hie does not like that. He does not like parliament, and leaves no doubt about it. He drafted the bill witb the idea that hae would not have to bother too much about parliament. We pointed out the dangers. They are on record. Hansard shows exactly what we saîd at that time. We hef t no uncertnînty. When any lion. member on the other side suggests that we are opposing simply for the sake of opposing, I suggest tbat they look back to what was said in 1951 when this hastily drafted bill was before us. We made it clear then that we wanted a Departmnent of Defence Production, and we made it clear that we were not going to oppose the actual implementation of the request for a Depart- ment of Defenre Production, and that we were not going to vote against the bill, and we did not because there was a definite time [Mr. Drew.] To that extent we took the assurance of the government that this bihl contained powers that they would flot continue. That was their statement; that was the assurance upon which 1 assumed-and I certainly have the right to assume-that hon. rnembers op- posite voted in support of this measure. We did not oppose the adoption of the measure at that time because the governiment had insisted that this was only a temporary measure. I made our position clear. I wilh briefly refer to, what I said on March 2, 1951, as reported at page 847 of Hansard: In so f ar as the bill sets up a departmeflt of defence production and gives proper authorty to carry out the appropriate duties of that depart- ment, I feel sure there is approval throughott the whole of the house. Now, Mr. Speaker, what possibly could be clearer that that-approval throughout the whole of this house of the setting up of a departmnent of defence production? That is not an issue before us. Nothing that is before us bas anything to do with the continuance of tbe Departmnent of Defence Production. We pointed out, however, that while agree- ing to tbe Department of Defence Production, we believed that at a time when we were fighting for democracy the very foundation of democracy shouhd be preserved here in tbis parliamerit. We urged tbat there be a recognition that the measures in this act cballenged the supremacy of parliament and the rule of law upon wbîch our wbole theory of parliamentary democracy rests. Wben the motion came before the bouse tbree months ago tbat it was expedient to introduce the measure now before us, we urged the government to, redraft the bill so that tbe Departmnent of Defence Production would operate under clearly defined powers. This is what I said on March 14 of this year, as reported at page 1987 of Hansard: I would hope that the Prime Minister would seize this opportuflity to carry out the statement which was made on behaif of the government in 1951 to the~ effert that some of the powers in this bill are special powers which should not be of a continuiflg nature, and to find how best the powers that are needed can be deflned and de- scribed withotit leaving the wide, unlimited powers whirh have existed over these past few years. It is not enough to say that these powers have not been employed. The very fart that these powers might be used to persuade somebody to do somne- thing, without the actuai formai exerrise of those powers, is in itself a suffirient exerrise of those powers to put us on our guard at this time. Other members in the bouse argued that the original bill should be redrafted, and tbat in any event it sbould not be renewed witbout some time limit. We bad reason to behieve that the government had listened ta those arguments and wns going to act upon tbem. Before tbe debate was closed that day and JUNE 20, 1955 the motion was adopted the Prime Minister assured the house that the government would give consideration to the views that had been expressed. Since the Prime Minister gave the assurance that consideration. would be given, surely he owesit to the house to say what the decision was and why, after due consideration, with three months to do it, no atternpt has been made to redraft this bill. Some hon. members opposite dismiss the whole discussion as though it were a discus- sion that had no relation to the problems before us. If that is so, why did the Prime Minister assure the house on March 14 that consideration would be given to these discus- sions? We want to know from hlm exactly why it is that this bill is now before us to perpetuate those powers without any restric- tion to the extent; of their application. The strongest argument against the adop- tion of this bill cornes from the government itself, Mr. Speaker. Again it seerns necessary to repeat. When this bill was before us in the first instance in 1951 the government ernphasized that they would not ask the house to make this permanent law because it contained powers that should not be con- tinued. Their argument is the strongest argument why this amendment should not be adopted by this bouse. If that assurance means nothing, if the assurance on which hon. members permitted this bill to pass in 1951 means nothing, if those words are to be cornpletely disregarded, how can any assurance which the govern- ment now gives have the slightest value at this Urne? If their assurance then con- stituted nothing upon which we were to rely, then how can we rely upon any state- ment now as to what they propose to do? I submait, Mr. Speaker, there are several rea- sons why the government should not proceed with this bill. I arn raking these arguments now in ail seriousness to the government, to hon. members opposite and aiso in the hope that it may correct some of the misapprehen- sions which obviously stili exist outside of this bouse. These are the particular reasons why it seems now that the government should not proceed with this bill. First, it does not need to be dealt with i any event at this session. The present act continues, as I have pointed out already, until July 31, 1956. Surely it would be much better to wait until next session and in the light of conditions as they are at that time to place before this house an appro- priate measure carefuliy drafted by legal draftsmen in keeping with conditions as they actually are. Defence Production Act The second reason why this bill should flot be passed is that the act was adopted on the assurance that the governrnent recog- nized that these powers should not be con- tinued. Third, it should not be passed because no tirne liniit is placed on the duration of the legislation. Fourth, the act as it stands is a denial of the supremacy of parliament and the rule of law. Fifth, the only legisiation necessary is legisiation continuing the flepartment of De- fence Production. If the Departmnent of Defence Production is continued and these loose and indefinite powers are omitted, then automatically the governiment can bring into effect a statute already on the statute books, the Defence Supplies Act, which. is similar to the act in the United Kingdorn to which reference was made by the Minister of De- fence Production when he drew an incorrect interpretation that it was as wide ini its poweris as this act. I urge upon hon. members opposite to pay attention to the things that are being said outside this house. After ail, why do we support the principle of a free press? We support the principle of a free press because a free press is expected and I think has the duty to interpret public sentiment and to indicate what it believes the public wants and demands. Surely no one reading the editorial comment across Canada today can be ini any doubt that the mai ority of the newspapers in Canada have corne to the con- clusion that the powers in the Defence Pro- duction Act should not be embodied in the permanent laws of this country. An ingenlous argument was put forward on the other side of the bouse. The hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) made an extraordinarily interesting argument when he argued in effect that n lot of this bull was ultra vires anyway. He argued that if some of these powers were exercised the courts would not permit them to be exercised. In case hon. members opposite are being beguiled by that argument and have any idea that the courts will protect them against the effect of this act because no emergency is declared in the act, I suggest that they should go back and examine the legal history of legisiation of a similar nature. If the court concludes that there was an ernergency and that it can be understood from the discussion which took place at the Urne the act was being put into effect; if hon. members think that the courts will declare that the act cornes under the general provisions of peace, order and good govern- ment, then I suggest that the hon. member Defence Production Act for Rosthern and any hon. members who may have taken to heart the argument he made as perhaps salving their consciences to some extent in supporting legislation of this kind should examine a case which was de- cided in 1946 by the privy council. I understand that it is not yet an offence to recite judgments of the privy council in view of the fact that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) still carries cases there al- though he has indicated that he does not think it is in keeping with our sovereignty to do so. He still goes back there, and then having gone back there he does not pay much attention to the judgment which he gets, as was the case last year. There was a case decided in 1946 by the privy council and the judgment is to be found at page 193 of Law Reports, Appeal Cases, 1946. That case involved the attorney general for Ontario and others, appellants, and Canada Temperance Federation and others, respondents. I am not going to go into the details of that case except to say that it had to do with the Canada Temperance Act which was enacted many years ago by the par- liament of Canada. All hon. members will realize that in the ordinary course of events the supervision of the disposition of spirits and the supervision of the conduct of those who have absorbed spirits come under pro- vincial administration. The parliament of Canada passed the Canada Temperance Act in 1878 and that statute, amended or replaced by subsequent amendments, is still on the statute books of Canada. Rightly or wrongly, certain pro- vincial governments thought that it would simplify the administration of their liquor legislation and the control of the results of the sale of liquor if there was not conflict between the Canada Temperance Act and the provincial acts dealing with the same sub- ject. This particular case was fought out in the courts and carried to the privy council which decided that although there was no declaration of an emergency in the Canada Temperance Act, having regard to what was said at the time and the nature of the act that was introduced, the court must assume that there had been something in the nature of an emergency in Canada in 1878 in regard to the consumption of spirituous liquors. That is an interesting bit of ancient history, but nevertheless the court decided that the government of Canada felt that there was an emergency with which they must deal and therefore they passed an act to deal with something that would ordinarily be under provincial jurisdiction without any question. They held that they were bound to take the position that the members of parliament [Mr. Drew.] . of that time must have dealt with the act in the belief that an emergency actually existed. That is on all fours with the present case. Although there is no emergency declared by the statute, this act was introduced with statements that indicated the belief that there was an emergency. We have had the state- ment of the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe) that there is an emergency and that the situation is more critical than it was in 1951 when the Defence Production Act was originally passed. Of course at that point it does seem to become necessary to recall that although the Minister of Defence Produc- tion had that opinion the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Campney) did not share the same opinion. Just four days ago the Min- ister of National Defence, on more than one occasion in his speech, on at least three occasions, clearly stated that there appeared to be a lessening of the tension in the cold war. In fact, he used the rather appealing words toward the end of his speech that the present climate of international affairs appeared to be moderating. Last year, before the minister of national defence at that time was prepared to make any such statement, the government permitted the Emergency Powers Act to lapse. Now the Minister of Defence Production says that the emergency is greater than in 1951. If, at some time 40 or 50 years from now, a court were called upon to interpret this act, they could not overlook the statement of the Minister of Defence Production that this act was being put forward with that thought in mind. Just as the privy council decided, in the case to which I have already referred, in 1946, that there must have been an emergency in the minds of the members of parliament, a court at some distant date in the future would be bound to hold the same opinion and would say that the Minister of Defence Production, who had most to say about this act on behalf of the government, regarded the emergency as greater than it had been in the early stages of the very severe war in Korea. Mr. Howe (Port Arthur): Mr. Speaker, will my hon. friend permit a question? Mr. Drew: Yes. Mr. Howe (Port Arthur): Did he note this statement from the speech he has just quoted, that there is today no absolute defence against atomic and thermonuclear weapons in the quantities in which they can be aggressively brought to bear on this or any other country? That statement has never been made in this parliament before to my knowledge. How- ever, my hon. friend says there is no emergency. 4988 HOUSE OF COMMONS Mr. Drew: Mr. Speaker, that is a typical statement by the Minister of Defence Produc- tion. Mr. Dickey: Typically correct. Mr. Drew: If the hon. member who is sit- ting next to him would contain himself, he might perhaps listen to an explanation of the act which would have prevented him from making some of the extraordinarily inaccu- rate statements he made in this house a few days ago. Mr. Dickey: Such as? Mr. Drew: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Defence Production does not have to be bound by the words he spoke in 1951. He forgets what he says during the present session. On March 11 of this year, as reported on page 1967 of Hansard, he said: I quite agree that al the powers set out in the act should not be continuing powers. What powers should not be continuing powers? We have not heard yet. If he agreed on March 11, 1955 that the powers in this act should not be continuing powers, why is he asking us- to continue these indefi- nitely by the bill of two sections before us? On the basis of the argument of the minister himself, no hon. member opposite, if he still purports to exercise his own judgment, should disregard the statement of the Minister of Defence Production on March 11 of this year that all the powers set out in the act should not be continuing powers. Mr. McIlraith: Read the rest of the sen- tence. Mr. Drew: The hon. member opposite has plenty of time to be heard; and we have plenty of time to be heard. Mr. McIlraith: Why don't you quote it accurately? Mr. Drew: I am quoting it perfectly accu- rately. Mr. McIlraith: No, you are not. Mr. Howe (Port Arthur): Half a sentence. Mr. Drew: As a matter of fact, the addi- tional words only strengthen my case. Mr. McIlraith: Then read them. Mr. Pickersgill: Hon. gentlemen opposite are very fond of using halves of sentences. Mr. Drew: The hon. minister who has jusI spoken is in the habit of speaking from his seat. He is obviously more comfortable sitting than standing. Mr. Speaker, I shal Defence Production Act read what was said, because it strengthens the argument that was made: I quite agree that all the powers set out in the act should not be continuing powers; but I do maintain that if they were necessary in 1951, they are just as necessary today. Do you forget that this act is in force today and it will be in force tomorrow and it will be in force up to July 31, 1956? Mr. Howe (Port Arthur): And 1958 and 1959. Mr. Drew: Mr. Speaker, the minister does not understand the meaning of statute, nor apparently the meaning of his own words. The law is there. What he is asking us to do is not to exercise the powers that were put on the books until July 31, 1956. He is asking us to continue indefinitely into the future powers which he said on March Il should not be continuing powers. That is his statement. No, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Defence Production cannot even remember the effect of what he says. Yet he asks you to support him in the continuation indefinitely of powers which he said should not be indefinite. Now, this act, of course, is an act that is part of a general trend which all hon. members should recognize. The hon. mem- bers opposite should not take so much to heart the contention that it is a time for us to reverse our course. The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Dickey) did some fantastic special pleading the other day. He said that what we have before us is the question of whether we are going to have defence production or not. Well, there is not a parliamentary word that describes that state- ment of the senior member for Halifax. There is not a word that would be permitted by the Speaker within the rules of parlia- ment that would adequately describe in its fantastic nonsense the statement by the hon. member that the issue before us is whether we are going to have defence production. Where in the bill before us is there any suggestion of that kind? Where in those two sections is that to be found? On the contrary, he has on Hansard, as every other hon. member has, the unreserved statement that all of us-every hon. member-want a Department of Defence Production. He bas the fact that we supported that, when that was in fact the principle, as we pointed out. That is not the principle now. The only principle before the members is whether or not this parliament is going to submit meekly to the demand of the Minister of Defence Production, "With me it is all or nothing". Mr. Diefenbaker: In perpetuity. An hon. Member: He has said that before. 4989JUNE 20, 1955 HOUSE OF COMMONS Defence Production Act Mr. Drew: Yes, I said that before, and obviously the hon. member needs to have it repeated, as some hon. members do, because that is the only argument that has been made. The hon. Minister of Defence Produc- tion is demanding his pound of flesh. He has not been happy about the way things have gone. With him it is all or nothing. Well, I should like to think what would have been said by some hon. members of the Liberal party of earlier days if they had been told this-and it is they who are being told, because it is their vote that is going to put this into effect along with the socialist vote, if it goes into effect. They are the ones who should be the most critical, and I should like to think of some great Liberals of other days sitting quietly in their seats and being told, "I don't care what any other hon. member thinks; with me it is all or nothing". That is the actual effect of this measure, and that is exactly what the minister has said. He wants the whole hog or nothing. I hope the hon. members opposite will realize that the principle involved is the writing into our permanent laws in perpetuity of an act that by-passes parliament, and in a substantial measure by-passes even the supervision of government itself. This problem of dele- gated powers is not one unique here, and the hon. members opposite should not be sensitive about discussion of this subject, because this is a subject which applies to all parties and in all countries where there is parliamentary democracy. Under the demands of war, starting with the first world war, it became necessary under the immense pressures created to adopt measures which were not consistent with our parliamentary traditions. However, every hon. member who did recall the great traditions of parliament made it clear that we should drop those powers and powers of that kind just as soon as an orderly way of life-no matter what the pressures might be-made it possible to return to true par- liamentary democracy. The same thing has happened in Britain. The same thing has happened in Australia, in New Zealand and elsewhere. The subject has been discussed. In Britain a strong com- mittee was set up to examine this question of delegated powers. This government does not like setting up committees that really have the power to act. It prefers a committee where the guillotine can be employed at the appropriate time. Unfortunately, the real effectiveness of committees has not been recognized. At Westminster operations are carried on with some regard for the commit- tee system and a committee was appointed to examine into this question of delegated [Mr. Diefenbaker.] powers and the authority of ministers under those delegated powers. I should like to read some words of Lord Justice Scott, who was the chairman of that important committee: When a government bill is brought before parliament in a form which, even in regard to merely executive or administrative matters, gives a wide or unlimited discretion to a minister, and objection is made, the answer is sometimes given that the minister may be trusted by the house to use his powers with a wise and reasonable dis- cretion. The answer may be oerfectly bona fide; but tempora mutantur, and another minister or another government may use the unlimited powers indiscreetly or oppressively. It is obvious that in the United Kingdom, as here, no matter what the law is, there are those who are prepared to say, "We trust the minister". Lord Justice Scott was pointing out that it is not enough to trust any minister but that our parliamentary system demands that we examine what any minister at any time can do under measures passed by parliament and that when there is delegated authority we should be particularly careful to remember the ancient legal doctrine delegata potestas non potest delegari. The ancient legal maxim that a person to whom powers have been delegated cannot delegate them to others rests upon the clear idea that if someone delegates power to a particular individual, then it should not be permitted for that individual to delegate them to some other person, a person wholly unknown to the person who has delegated the original powers. This act flies right in the face of the ancient legal maxim. It delegates power and it per- mits the minister to delegate power and it writes into the law in perpetuity the delega- tion of those powers. The very fact that we now, in June of 1955, are called upon to make permanent an act which will not come to an end until July 31, 1956, is the best possible evidence that this government intends to make these powers permanent. I want to point out another significant statement because this subject is one that should be of concern to every hon. member. This tendency has been a general tendency. When can we better discuss it, when can we better reverse the trend, than when we see it carried to this extreme point in this way? In a comparatively recent book en- titled "Government by Decree" written by M. A. Sieghart we find these words, which have a direct application to what is under discussion: The democratic method of law-making by a representative assembly is being superseded in many fields by the autocratie method of govern- ment legislation. Though this legislation is dele- gated and controlled by parliament, it can no Longer be described as subordinate as it is usually equipped with the force of law. Owing to the JUNE 20, 1955 'wide discretionary powers conferred by the instru- ments of authority, it aiso enjoys to a great extent immunity from ludicial contrai. The governifent is thus being instituted as a second legisiature and the ordinance changed into a law. Whatever are the reasorts for these changes At would be futile ta minimize the dangers which result from the present laclc of constitutions'. balance. These dangers are real dangers. desPite the fact that they are so far not of an actual. but of a potential danger only. Those words rnight have been written to apply directly to the problem 110w before us, but the very tact that those words were written in relation to the general problem of delegated authorit>' indicates that members opposite need not be sensitive when we dis- cuss this subject, when we argue that the time has corne for ail members to recognize what they are doing, and that this legislation provides the best possible opportuiiity that may ever be afforded to us to reverse this dangerous trend. As was said in the words I have quoted: The dangers are real. despite the f act that they are sO f ar not of an actual. but of a potential danger only. We believe that these real dangers threaten the system of which. we have every reason to be proud, that of parliamentar>' responsibilit>' and the rule of law. What is the act that we are cailed upon to make permanent, Mr. Speaker? Let us remember that the act before us wipes out the limitation of time and makes the Defence Production Act permanent. Therefore let us see what we are asked to make permanent. We are asked to make permanent powers which have neyer before been conferred upon any individual since the famous Henry' VIII clause so rnany years ago. That clause gen- erailly known to constitutional lawyers as the Henry VIII clause was the act of proclamation wich made it possible for King Henry VIII actually to make orders which had the effect of legislation. We have now advanced into a more dernocratic period and instead of an act of proclamation giving powers to the king, we are asked to give thern to an individual- not; to the governrnent but to an individual- the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe), in most cases even without the super- vision of his own coileagues. I arn not going to go into detail about what is provided in the interpretation section but it would be well for sorne of the hon. members to read sorne of the definitions. Just to indicate how 4vide are the powers that are specificaily given, we find that "defence supplies" means anything that can be used for defence. Here is a definition De! ence P'roduction Act which is important and I arn gomng to read it. It is found in section 2, subsection (f), para- graph (iii): (f) *'defence supplies" means (iii) articles. materials. substances and things of ail kinds used for the production or supply of anything mentioned in subparagraph (W or (il) or for the construction of defence projects; Now, Mr. Speaker, that means one thing only, that at any point where the words "defence supplies" are used in relation to the words "articles, materials or substances", those are things of ail kinds which can be used in defence production. It is not just the guns or tanks or vehicles; it is the raw material that goes into them. Under this provision any mine in Canada can be taken over. Under tis provision any forest prop- erty can be taken over. Under this act any operation of any kind producing things that are needed to, go into defence production can be taken over. In other words, food products that go into the rations of the armed forces can be taken over. Then, let me go down to another word definition, "investigator". We do flot need to go to distant lands to find out how inves- tigations can be carried out by people flot responsible to parliament. Tis act gives the min ister power to appoint an investigator wlthout the members of the government even knowing who are the investigators. Are they trained investigators? Are they civil servants answerable to an oath of office and with their duties defIned by law? Under section 2, sub- section (k) we find this: "investigator" means a Persan appointed by the minister to conduct an inquiry under section 29. Anyone he names rnay be an investigator. Then, there is a very interesting definition wich I do urge hon. members to read care- f ully. It is tis: "essential service" means the carrying on of any commercial activity including the generation or distribution of electrical energy, designated by the governor in council under section 30 as an essential service: Well, in that case the government would know that; that is one of the few cases where the minister even has to go to the goverfi- ment. Let us look at sorne of the sections and what they provide. Section 5 provides that the minister may do certain things on his own, without an order ini council. Section 7 (2) provides the minister may do certain things without an order in council, and sub- section 3 gives ver>' wide powers to the minister. It permits the minister to remove an>' members, directors or officers of a cor- poration incorporated under tis section at any time, and rnay appoint others in their stead or ma>' appoint additional persons or HOUSE OF COMMONS Defence Production Act members. This applies to directors or officer of corporations set up under this act wh engage in any activities that might b described as defence activities. What power that is in a democratic country! Wha a power for influence the minister couic exercise if he just called up and said, "Mr Brown, I do not like what you are doing Please look up section 7, subsection 3 oi the Defence Production Act, and I do not need to do more than tell you that I should like you to carry out certain instructions you will receive." These are powers which a vigilant parliament should examine and exa- mine carefully. Then, section 9 is one in regard to the administration of the department and under which the minister can exercise certain administrative powers. That, of course, is strictly an administrative section. Then, section Il is a very interesting sec- tion. Section 11 begins as follows: The minister shall examine into- Not under an order in council- -organize, mobilize, and conserve, the resources of Canada contributory to, and the sources of supply of, defence supplies and the agencies andfacilities available for the supply of the sameand for the construction of defence projects andshall explore, estimate and pravide for the fulfil- ment of the needs, present and prospective, of thegovernment and the community in respect theretoand generally shali take steps to mobilize, con-serve and co-ordinate aIl ecanamie and industrial facilities in respect of defence supplies and defence projects and the supply or construction thereof. May I ask members opposite, in all earnest- ness, to read that section and to realize that this does not say that the minister may, it says the minister shall. I do not know whether or not he has carried out his duties, but under this he is called upon to do all thethings that the royal commission on Canada's economy is being asked to do. Why set up the commission? If the government is going to make this section permanent, then the minister is bound to inquire into all these problems. He is bound to conserve our resources. Why not do away with the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr.Prudham)? All those things come under this section, which is going to be made a permanent provision, and the act does not merely saymay". Since fish is such a delectable item of food, he may even do away with theMinister of Fisheries under this provision, although of course his services would be too valuable to be dispensed with, I have nodoubt. The fact remains that this act simply sets up certain duties that do away with the need for a number of the ministers. Why bother with the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Lesage)? [Mr. Drew.] s Mr. Howe (Port Arthur): This is not very o amusing. Mr. Drew: This is the act that has been t described by the Winnipeg Free Press as silly-and of course they are not my words. They say the minister is silly to try to have this acf- Mr. Howe (Port Arthur): The hon. member's speech has been described by the press as an amusing speech, but it is rapidly losing its power to amuse. Mr. Drew: I did not start out with the idea of amusing the minister. I have no intention of amusing him, but if I can at least attract his attention I have achieved something that had not appeared possible on earlier occa- sions. Now, let us see what powers are conferred by section 13. This section reads: Where a government department has, under or pursuant to any act, power to obtain, for any purpose, information as to matters with respect to which the minister is empowered to require returns to be made, that department shall, if so .required by the minister, exercise that power for the purpose of assisting the minister in obtaining any such information. Perhaps the Minister of Defence Produc- tion could get information from the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) that we have not succeeded in getting as yet. He would have the power, and in this case the records would be available, to request the information. If the Minister of Defence Pro- duction makes a demand upon the minister of another department, he may secure such information. Really, this could be a very useful provision as long as it ended as soon as it had been used. Then, we have section 15. This is another section in which the minister has the power to do a whole series of things without the knowledge of the government and without any order in council. I ask bon. members to read section 15 carefully and then ask them- selves if these powers are powers which have ever been conferred upon any minister, with- out even the restraint of the supervision which would be afforded by a discussion in cabinet council. The section says that the minister may, on behalf of Her Majesty and subject to the provisions of this act-well, the provisions of this act simply tell him be can do almost anything. He may go ahead and take over almost any material or service. He may- -purchase or otherwise acquire, sell, exchange or otherwise dispose of real or personal property. Oh, what a wonderful power that is! What an interesting club that could be under certain circumstances. Then he can- -make loans or advances- Would you not like to know that the minister, at the appropriate time, if he has those powers permanently, and the act is not going to terminate, can set the account- ing date? And then, generally, if he has not enough power already, he can turn to para- graph (g) of section 15 and he can- -do all such things as appear to the minister to be incidental to or necessary or expedient to the matters mentioned in the foregoing provisions of this section or as may be authorized by the governor in council with respect to the procure- ment, construction or disposal of defence supplies or defence projects. And may I urge hon. members opposite not to think that this means that the minister must go to the government. He can do all the things that "appear to the minister to be incidental to or necessary". Or, if he finds that not enough, he can then go to the governor in council. But that is not all he is asking to con- tinue under this act. I turn now to section 17-again, another section where there is no government control but where it is simply at the whim of the minister. That section says: The minister may, on behalf of His Majesty, enter into contracts for the carrying out of any- thing he is authorized to do under section 14 or 15 and the following provisions apply with respect to every such contract entered into by the minister on behalf of His Majesty. And the act specifically provides that under subsection 1 (e) of section 17- A contract may be entered into by the minister without the approvai of the governor in council if (i) in the opinion of the minister, the contract must be entered into immediately in the interests of defence. Oh, what could stop him! The minister has said, "What is going to stop me?" Well, what could stop him? Whatever he does may be done without going to the governor in coun- cil; so that protection, which was illusory, is wiped out. And then: (ii) the estimated expenditure, loan or guarantee does not exceed twenty-five thousand dollars, or (iii) competitive tenders have been obtained and the lowest tender, involving an estimated expendi- ture not exceeding fifty thousand dollars, is accepted. And of course the government has the chance to do some reading after. It states that the "minister shall make a report to the governor in council in respect of any con- tract". Well, that is nice of the minister! He drafted the act, and he is really going to report to the governor in council what he does under section 17! And then, under section 20-here again the government has no supervision. He has not been quite so kind to them in this case, because it says: The minister may, on behalf of His Majesty, contract with any person that His Majesty will Defence Production Act relieve that person from any claims, actions or proceedings for the payment of royalties for the use or infringement of any patent. And so on. The minister has wide powers, without even asking the cabinet if they think it is appropriate. And yet this is the minister who rather boasts about the fact that he does not think too much about legal draftsmen. Then, section 21-and this is another one under which the minister has very wide powers: - 21. (1) A person who bas entered into a defence contract shall keep detailed accounts and records of the cost of carrying out the contract and shall, or demand, produce to any person thereunto authorized by the minister every account, record or document of any description with respect to the contract- And just listen to this. -and with respect to his other business that may be required by the person so authorized and shall permit him to examine, audit and take copies of and extracts from the accounts, records or docu- ments. Someone suggests that they might get photostatie copies. It would not be necessary for us to wait as we are waiting now for the answers to some of the questions on the order paper. The minister would just say, "Tom, go down and visit-" a certain company whose name has been heard of-"and just find out if there is anything they are doing that we are interested in; and then also just get a few photostatic copies of some records there that I am not very satisfied about, my- self, because I have not been able to find out." And then turning to subsection 3 of sec- tion 21-and again, this is something the minister can do without any reference to his colleagues- Where a person is a party to two or more defence contracts the minister may- And this is known as an expediting provi- sion. -(a) by one order reduce the total amount that be is entitled to retain or receive under any two or more or ail of the contracts to such amount as the minister may fix as the fair and reasonable cost of performing the contracts together with a fair and reasonable profit thereon; And do not let us be told that this is a necessary order to protect the public purse. We want every protection for the public purse, and we want a great deal more pro- tection than this minister has ever afforded the taxpayers of Canada. But we do not want powers of this kind in the hands of any minister, even with the authority of the government, by order in council -and most certainly we do not want it without any supervision of any kind. 4993JUNE 20, 1955 HOUSE OF COMMONS Defence Production Act And then we look at section 23 and we flnd that the minister-not the governor in -council-may do a number of things. This is one of them: -the minister may direct that person to produce, deliver or store, or to construct, as the case may be, on such terms and conditions and within such period as the minister considers to be fair and reasonable in the circumstances, the defence sup- plies or the defence project or projects that would have been the subject-matter of the contract if it had been entered into. And then section 24: The minister may, where he deems it necessary for any of the purposes of this act, by notice in writing to a person who owns or bas in his pos- session, custody or control defence supplies, requisition the supplies on behalf of His Majesty. And then we go on to section 27, under which the minister may- -authorize another person (in this act called a "controller") to carry on, until the minister other- wise directs, the whole or any part of the business of that person. Then we find that under section 29 the minister may- -whenever be deems it expedient, cause an inquiry to be made into and concerning any matter relating to or incidental to or arising out of a defence contract or any group or series of defence contracts or any dealings in or with defence supplies, and may appoint a person or persons by whom the inquiry shall be conducted. Along with this we have the Inquiries Act, under which the government can act, and under which it ordinarily sets out the terms of reference. But oh no, that is a thing of the past! Section 29(2) says that an investigator- that is, anyone appointed by the minister- -bas all the powers conferred on commissioners by sections four and five of the Inquiries Act or which may be conferred on commissioners under subsection one of section eleven thereof. And then we come to the really interest- ing part of the act which deals with essential materials and services. This is section 30: The governor in council may. from time to time, (a) designate as an essential material any material or substance the control of the supply and use of which is, in his opinion, essential to ensure the availability of adequate defence supplies or for the construction or operation of defence projects; or (b) designate as an essential service the carry- ing on of any commercial activity, including the generation and distribution of electrical energy, the control of which is, in his opinion, essential for the adequate production or use of essential materials for defence supplies or defence projects; to meet the requirements of the defence forces of Canada or for co-operative efforts for defence being carried on by Canada and associated gov- ernments. When we read this section we know that the bill now before us should be called an act to suspend the constitution of Canada. Sorne hon. Members: Oh, oh! [Mr. Drew.] Mr. Drew: I hear laughter from the other side, Mr. Speaker. I hear laughter from the other side which is the kind of laughter- Mr. Howe (Port Arthur): From your allies down there. Mr. Drew: I know the socialists laugh with you because they want this act. Mr. Howe (Port Arthur): No, it is not the socialists who are laughing. Mr. Drew: Because it is a socialist act. Mr. Howe (Port Arthur): It is the Social Crediters. Mr. Drew: Why would they not want it? This is exactly the kind of act that, if they ever have any hope of forming any govern- ment, they would devoutly pray would be on the statute books when they came into power, because they would not need to come back to parliament for anything. They could place the whole of our economy under com- pletely socialist doctrine and they could nationalize anything under this section. Re- member, the governor in council may from time to time designate anything that it re- gards as an essential material and then it could take it over. Have we by accident stumbled on the real reason why this amendment is being put be- fore us while the Defence Production Act is still on the statute books? Every lawyer here knows what is called the ejusden generis rule, the rule that where something is pro- vided, things of a similar nature are included in the terms of that provision. By no manner of means is the governor in council limited to hydroelectric plants in taking over what might be regarded as essential services at any time. It can take over any essential service. and the inclusion of the words "including the generation and distribution of electric energy" just makes sure that there is no reservation as to the kind of things that can be taken over. Gas, oil, could also be taken over and the pipe lines which would distribute them. Let there be no uncertainty about that. Why is it that at this stage of the session we have heard nothing about the pipe lines which are to carry the gas from western Canada? Why at this stage of the session, when questions are being asked whether this house is to adjourn by June 30, something which is very unlikely, why, at such a time have we not heard one word to explain what the govern- ment proposes to do in regard to pipe lines? Are they to be declared an essential service, and is the government now making sure that there will be permanently on the statute books legislation which will make it possible for them ta take over this cantrol? Oh, the minis- ter will ridicule that, but he can do it, and we have not heard any other explanatian a! the silence. Mr. Hawe

HOC Debates Vol 5, June 10 to July 6, 1955

Object/Artifact

AVRO Museum

Name/Title

Entry/Object ID

Description

Category

Web Links and URLs

General Notes

Note