[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs) presented the second report of the special committee appointed to prepare and report lists of members to compose the standing committees of the house under standing order 63, as follows:
PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS Messieurs:
Baker
Benidiekson
Brooks
Brunelle
Casselman
Coldwell
Cote
(Matapedia-Matane)
Cruickshank
Diefenbaker
Fair
Fournier (Maison-neuve-Rosemont) Graydon Green
Harris (Grey-Bruce)
Jaenicke
Knowles
MaeNicol
Manross
Marier
Marquis
Martin
Miller
Mutch
Parent
Pouliot
Raymond (Beauharnois-Laprairie)
Richard (Ottawa East)-Richard (Gloucester) Winters-29
(Quorum 10)

[Stage Direction]
Archibald
Ashby
Aylesworth
Beaudoin
CANALS AND TELEGRAPH LINES Messieurs:
Beaudry
Belzile
Bentley
Bertrand (Terrebonne)
37C
Standing Committees
[Stage Direction]
Black (Cumberland)
Blair
Bonnier
Bourget
Breithaupt
Brooks
Campbell
Chevrier
Church
Douglas
Emmerson
Eudes
Farquhar
Gagnon
Gauthier (Portneuf)
Gauthier (Nipissing)
Gourd (Chapleau)
Hatfield
Herridge
Hodgson
Irvine
Johnston
Lafontaine
Lesage
Little
May bank
Mayhew
Mclvor
McCulloch (Pictou)
McKay
Michaud
Miller
Mullins
Mutch
Pearkes
Picard
Pouliot
Probe
Robinson
(Simcoe East) Robinson (Bruce) Ross (Souris)
Ross (Hamilton East) Shaw
Smith (York North)
Stephenson
Timmins
Viau
White (Hastings-
Peterborough) White (Middlesex East)
Whitman Winters-59
(Quorum 20)
MISCELLANEOUS PRIVATE BILLS Messieurs:
Black (Yukon)
Bonnier
Boucher
Bowerman
Brown
Cleaver
Cloutier
Cote (Verdun)
Cournoyer
Croll
Dechene
Dorion
Dubois
Ferguson
Fournier (Maison-neuve-Rosemont) Gariepy Gladstone Grant Halle Hazen Healy Hlynka Knight Laurendeau Lennard
Little
Lockhart
McCuaig
McGarry
McGregor
MacLean
Matthews (Brandon) Matthews (Kootenay East)
Maybank
Mayhew
Miller
Murphy
Nixon
Parent
Picard
Richard (Gloucester)
Ross (St. Paul's)
Sinclair (Ontario)
Sinnott
Stokes
Timmins
Townley-Smith
Webb Whitman Wylie-50. (Quorum 15)
BANKING AND COMMERCE Messieurs:
Abbott
Argue
Arsenault
Beaudry
Belzile
Black (Cumberland)
Blackmore
Bradette
Breithaupt
Cleaver
Cote (St. Johns-Iber-ville-N apierville) Dechene

Dionne (Beauce)
Dorion
Fleming
Fournier (Maisonneuve-Rosemont)
Fraser
Fulton
Gour (Russell)
Hackett
Harkness
Harris (Danforth)
Hazen
Ilsley
Irvine
Isnor
Jackman
Jaenicke
Jutras
Lesage
Low
Macdonnell (Muskoka-Ontario)
MacNaught
Mcllraith
Manross
Marquis
Maybank
Mayhew Michaud Nixon Picard Pinard Quel eh Rinfret Ross (Souris) Sinclair (Ontario) Stewart (Winnipeg-North )
Strum (Mrs.) Timmins Tucker-50
(Quorum 15)
PUBLIC ACCOUNTS Messieurs:
Arsenault
Beaudry
Black (Yukon)
Boucher
Bradette
Burton
Case
Cleaver
Cockeram
Cote (Verdun)
Cloutier
Cruickshank
Dechene
Denis
Diefenbaker Dionne Ferguson Fournier (Hull) Fournier (Maison-neu ve-iRosemont) Fraser
Gibson (Comox-Alberni) Gladstone Golding Grant Green
Hamel
Harris (Danforth)
Homuth
Howe
Isnor
Jackman
Jaenicke
Johnston
Kirk
McCubbin
Marshall
Maybank
Picard
Pinard
Raymond (Wright) Probe
Richard (Gloucester)
Rinfret
Rowe
Smith (Calgary West) Stewart (Winnipeg North)
Stuart (Charlotte) Thatcher Warren Winkler-50.
(Quorum 15)
STANDING ORDERS Messieurs:
Bertrand (Prescott) Marier	
Brunelle	Murphy
Cardiff	Pinard
Daniel	Robinson
Denis	(Simcoe East)
Hamel	Sinnott -
Jaques	Smith (York North)
Knight	Stokes
Knowles	Stuart
Lapalme MacLean	Tustin-20 (Quorum 8)
MARINE AND FISHERIES Messieurs:	
Archibald	Cote
Arsenault	(Matapedia-Matane
Ashby	Farquhar
Baker	Gibson
Belzile	(Comox-Alberni)
Benidickson	Gillis
Blair	Hazen
Bridges	Kirk
Brooks	Kuhl
Bryce	Lafontaine

Indian Affairs
Langlois
Leger
Lennard
Little
Maclnnis
MacNaught
McDonald .
(Parry Sound) McLure
Merritt
Pearkes
Reid
Sinclair
(Vancouver North) Sinnott Stanfield Stirling
Stuart (Charlotte) Winters-35
(Quorum 10)
MINES FORESTS AND WATERS Messieurs:
Adamson
Black (Yuko*)
Blackmore
Boivin
Cockeram
C'aouette
Dion (Lake St. John-Roberval)
Gariepy Gour Gourd Hodgson Lacombe Lafontaine Lalonde Lapalme Little MacNicol McCann McCulloch McCullough
boia)
McDonald
(Parry Sound) McGarry McMaster Maloney
Matthews (Kootenay East)
Moore
Raymond (Wright) Ross (Hamilton East) Ross (Souris)
Sinclair (Vancouver North)
Sinnott
Viau
Webb
White (Hastings-(Pictou)	Peterborough)
(Assini-	Zaplitny-35
(Quorum 10)
Cote	Leger
(Matapedia-Matane)	Low
Croll	Maclnnis
Diefenbalcer	MacLean
Fleming	Marquis
Fraser	Mayhew
Graydon	Mutch
Green	Picard
Hackett	Pinard
Isnor	Raymond (Beauharnois-
J ackman J aenicke	Laprairie) Reid
Jaques Kidd	Sinclair (Ontario)
Knowles	St. Laurent
Lapointe	Winkler-35
(Quorum 10)
Mr. MACKENZIE moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved:
That the standing committees of this house shall severally be empowered to examine and inquire into all such matters and things as may be referred to them by the house; and to report from time to time their observations and opinions thereon; with power to send for persons, papers and records.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Messieurs:
Adamson
Archibald
Baker
Beaudry
Black (Cumberland)
Blackmore
Boivin
Case
CSiarlton
Cote (Verdun)
Croll
Dechene
Gauthier (Nipissing) Gibson (Comox-Alberni)
Gillis Gingues Homuth Johnston
Lalonde
Lapalme
Lockhart
Maclnnis
Mclvor
Maloney
Maybank
Merritt
Mitchell
Moore
Pouliot
Raymond
Ross (Hamilton East) Sinclair (V ancouver
North)
Skey
Smith (Calgary West) Viau-35
(Quorum 10)
Barrett
Brown
Desmond
Dubois
Hlynka
Knowles
[Stage Direction]
Messieurs:
Matthews (Brandon) Pouliot
Richard (Gloucester) Richard (Ottawa East) Rinfret Rowe-12.
(Quorum 7)
EXTERNAL AFFAIRS Messieurs:
Beaudoin	Bradette
Benidickson	Breithaupt
Boucher	Coldwell

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved:
That the name of Mr. Robinson (Bruce) be substituted for that of Mr. Hackett on the standing committee on agriculture and colonization.
Motion agreed to.


Hon. J. A. GLEN (Minister of Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, with the consent of the house I should like to introduce a motion for the appointment of a committee to consider Indian Affairs. I make this request for the reason that, as I understand, the Senate will adjourn tomorrow and there is a joint committee appointed by the Senate to act in conjunction with the committee of the House of Commons. The motion is in substantially the same terms as those of the motion of last year, but there is a slight change in personnel, one hon. member having been substituted for another. I move:
That a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons be appointed to continue and complete the examination and consideration begun by a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons, pursuant to a resolution
Redistribution


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 18, to readjust the representation in the House of Commons.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill is to provide for redistribution under the provisions of the British North America Act as amended1 in

1946. The bill itself is in the form in which it has been since 1903, but is not identical with previous bills owing to the fact that the number of constituencies is now fixed at 255 and not subject to change as heretofore. As in the past it is intended to set up a special committee of the house composed of members of all parties to consider and recommend the boundaries of the constituencies to be adopted. When the bill has received second reading it will be referred to this committee with the schedule in blank. When the recommendations of the committee have been approved by the house, it will be incorporated in the schedule as a part of this bill.
It is my intention to ask my colleague, the Secretary of State, to take charge of the bill on second reading.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader of the Opposition):: In view of the large accumulation of questions on the order paper, I should like to ask the Prime Minister if the government will give favourable consideration to having these questions answered at an early day, say tomorrow or perhaps Monday.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister.):: It might be arranged to have the questions answered on Monday. I should like to take advantage of the moment to say to my hon. friend that no question has been raised by the government thus far in regard to the many questions which have been asked on the orders of the day, for the reason that we have recognized that questions were not being answered from time to time during the week as they ordinarily would be. But I think I should direct the attention of the house, as I did last year, to the fact that a great deal of time is taken up in the asking of questions requiring oral answers, when the questions should be placed on the order paper and answered in the regular way. I hope the house will feel that it is in the interests of all hon. members that the number of questions asked on the orders of the day should be limited as much as possible.


Mr. COLDWELL:: May I aSk the Prime Minister if notices of motion for the production of papers as well as questions might come before the house at the time he has indicated?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I see no reason why that should not be done.

Inquiries of the Ministry____


Mr. GRAYDON:: With regards to questions on the orders of the day, may I ask the Prime Minister if he will adopt a different attitude from that which has been adopted in the past? In the British House of Commons, as the Prime Minister knows, the first hour is given to the answering of questions orally and in writing. In one hour during which I watched the British house in operation eighty-two questions were answered, as well as supplementary questions arising from time to time. In this house we have gone to the opposite extreme. As a matter of fact I think the only criticism of this house is that we do not ask the government enough questions. The government get off far too easily in matters of this kind. I should not like the Prime Minister's words to be regarded as indicative of the policy which will be pursued from now on, because it is in the interests of the country that these questions be asked freely and that plenty of latitude be given. After all, that is how the people find out about the business of the country.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to my hon. friend the government is not objecting in any way to any number of questions. The point is as to the time at which and the manner in which questions should be asked and answered. Like my hon. friend, I have been in the British house and have followed its proceedings. My recollection of the questions being asked there is that all appear on the order paper and are answered by the ministers from the order paper, much as we do here. There is no limit to the number that may be asked, provided that they conform to the rules. It happens that in London there are likely to be very many more subjects touched upon during a question hour than there would be here. I would point out that the questions which are asked orally and which are expected to be answered orally are those which are asked as supplementary questions growing out of answers made to questions which are already on the order paper. They are not new subjects; that is the point I wish to make. The ministers are not expected to answer questions of which notice has not been given and which do not appear on the order paper, unless, as I have stated, they are questions arising from questions on the order paper or dealing with some matter of great urgency of which prior notice has been given to Mr. Speaker. Again may I say there is no desire to limit the number of questions but simply to have the questions asked and answered in a manner which will ensure accuracy and which will help expedite the business of the house.



THE SENATE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: I should like to call the attention of the government to the fact that those meeting in another place propose to adjourn tomorrow for two weeka Will the Prime Minister kindly state if more work could not be assigned to the other place this session, in view of the large amount of legislation to be dealt with? I do not expect an answer today; it could stand as a notice for a reply next Monday.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I might as well reply at once to my hon. friend and say that an effort will be made to assign considerably more work to the other place to which he refers.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour, a copy of which I have sent to him. It is for the purpose of getting clarification of what appears to be an ambiguity in P.C. 302. Paragraph 8, section 7, of P.C. 302 establishes penalties generally the same as in P.C. 402 of June 6, 1941, contained in section 5, subsection 2, but were applied only on the matter of union discrimination. Do the penalties provided in paragraph 8, section 7, of P.C. 302 apply only to discrimination by the employer for union activities, or do they apply to the whole of paragraphs 6 and 7 of P.C. 302?


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: For the information of my hon. friend and the house, I should like to say that paragraph 8 of P.C. 302 covers exactly what was provided in subsection 2 of section 5 of P.C. 4020. Does that answer my hon. friend?


Clarence Gillis: It applies only in the matter of union discrimination?


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes.



THREATENED STRIKE OF COAL MINERS IN NOVA SCOTIA-REPORT ON NEGOTIATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Humphrey Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I would like at this time to make a report to the house on
Inquiries oj the Ministry

negotiations with respect to the threatened strike of the coal miners of Nova Scotia.
On Friday night, January 31, the miners, about 13,000 in number, belonging to district 26 of the United Mine Workers of America, went on strike, closing down operations of the Dominion Steel and Coal Company, Acadia Coal Company Limited, Old Sydney Collieries Limited and The Cumberland Railway and Coal Company. The miners returned to work for the night shift on Monday, February 3. The strike was called off in view of the appointment of Mr. Justice W. F. Carroll of the supreme court of Nova Scotia as a commissioner to look into the merits of the dispute between the men and the companies. The arrangement was that the men would remain at work until February 15 in order to give Mr. Justice Carroll time to make his investigation and report to myself as Minister of Labour.
Mr. Justice Carroll's report was received on Tuesday, February 11, and I now table a copy for the information of the house. It contains recommendations as follows:
(1) That an increase of $1.40 per day should be paid effective from and after February 1, 1947, of which $1 per day would be provided by an agreement based on production as proposed by the companies and the remaining 40 cents by other means.
2.	That a welfare fund be created1 by paying into a special account three cents per ton on the coal produced, the same arrangement put into effect in regard to the western Canada coal miners.
3.	That a request for the -inception of a pension fund be deferred until there could be an actuarial check and conferences with the government of Nova Scotia.
I table also copies of:
1.	Telegram sent to Mr. Justice Carroll dated February 12.
2.	Telegram received from Mr. Freeman Jenkins, president, district 26. United Mine Workers of America, dated February 13.
3.	Telegram received from the Nova Scotia government, dated February 13.


Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: May I ask the minister whether the recommendations of Mr. Justice Carroll have been reviewed by the workmen and the operators in the maritime provinces, and if so, whether they were found acceptable? If not, when shall we get a report on whether or not the recommendations of the commissioner will be complied with?


Humphrey Mitchell: Well, Mr. Speaker, I did this deliberately. As soon as copies of the report were in the hands of the parties con-
cerned I thought it well that a copy should be placed on the table of this house. I have no knowledge of the attitude of either the mine workers or the employers in regard to that report, but my hon. friend may rest assured that no stone will be left unturned by the dominion Department of Labour to prevent a walk-out on February 15.



&quot;WARTIME LABOUR RELATIONS REGULATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Humphrey Mitchell: Yesterday the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) asked a question in reference to labour relations. At that time I read a telegram that had been dispatched to the respective provincial governments.
In my wire of January 28, I proposed repealing schedule A to P.C. 1003 on March 31 next "which would have the effect of bringing jurisdiction in the matter of labour relations back to a peacetime position. All replies received agreed to this proposal. Certain provinces, namely, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia adopted the dominion regulations and1 made them applicable to provincial industries, and in my wire I asked the provinces if it would be any advantage to them to continue the existing arrangement, including joint administration, until May 15, 1947, subject to the provinces having the option of discontinuing the arrangement at an earlier date if they so desired; and replies indicate the provinces desire this be done.
All provinces have formally replied to my telegram of January 28 except the province of Manitoba, and verbal advice has been received from the minister of labour for that province to the effect that he intended to recommend to his government that it request the extension until May 15, 1947.


Mr. BROOKS:: The minister spoke about coal mines in Nova Scotia. I believe the coal mines at Minto, New Brunswick, are under district number 26. Do Mr. Justice Carroll's recommendations apply to those mines and miners, the same as in Nova Scotia?


Humphrey Mitchell: The president of district 26 negotiates with both Nova Scotia and New Brunswick collieries. I would assume that under those conditions whatever settlement is made will cover the whole district, which includes New Brunswick as well as Nova Scotia.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The minister mentioned only certain mines.

Inquiries oj the Ministry



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. KNIGHT (Saskatoon City) :: I
wish to address a question to the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply as the result of a wire I received this morning. Has the minister been advised of a complaint by the trade unionists of Saskatoon against the use of non-union made material in wartime houses to be built in Saskatoon, and what action is the minister prepared to take in the matter?


Mr. G. J. McILRAITH (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply):: The answer to the first part
of the question is no.



RESIGNATION OF TIMBER CONTROLLER- REPORT ON CEILINGS AND CONTROLS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. DONALD M. FLEMING (Eglinton):
I intended to direct a question to the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply; perhaps in his absence his parliamentary secretary will take note of it and bring it to the attention of the minister for answer later. When does the resignation of Mr. T. F. Flahiff as timber controller become effective, and will the minister table the report made by Mr. Flahiff on lumber ceilings and controls?
George James McIlraith: I will draw the attention of the
minister to the question which has been asked. The matter of tabling a report from an employee in the public service to the minister of course raises a question; I should think it would be open to objection.



OLD AGE PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. C. GREEN (Vancouver South):: Press dispatches of today indicate that old age pensioners in British Columbia are to receive a monthly payment of $35 instead of the $30 they have been receiving. I should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether this is merely a matter of an increase in the provincial government's supplementary payment.


Hon. PAUL MARTIN (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: With regard to Premier Hart's statement, which I saw but a short time ago, announcing that a bonus is being
given for a temporary period pending revision of the old age pension arrangements by the federal government, I wish to say that the federal government's intentions with respect to amendments to the Old Age Pensions Act, as forecast in the speech from the throne, will be made known to this house in due course.



NAVAL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. GROTE STIRLING (Yale) :: In this morning's papers the Canadian Press is responsible for a report that it is the intention of the government to decommission H.M.C.S. Naden and to remove the training personnel to Halifax. Could the Minister of National Defence say whether that is the case?


Hon. BROOKE CLAXTON (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, this question was asked also by the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Mayhew). I assured him, as I assure the house, that there is no truth whatever in the story.



H.M.C.S. &quot;GIVENCHY&quot;

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. PEARKES (Nanaimo):: I
should like to ask a question supplementary to the one asked by the hon. member for Yale. Has H.M.C.S. Givenchy been disbanded. or is it about to be disbanded; if so, would that disbandment have any effect on the reduction being made in H.M.C. dockyard at Esquimalt?


Brooke Claxton: I would have to make inquiry and answer later.



RAIL TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday last the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) asked the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Howe) whether Canadian Pacific Airlines have received special permission to operate the emergency shuttle service which they have been operating for the last day or two on a western section of the transcontinental line.
The answer to that question is: Yes; special permission was given by the air transport board.


Mr. KNOWLES:: The thin edge of the wedge.
National Defence Act



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT OF GOVERNMENT POLICY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ROBERT FAIR (-Battle River):: May I ask the Minister of Agriculture whether the government has yet arrived at a policy with respect to the growing of barley this year?


Right Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture):: The government will make
known its policy as soon as it is arrived at.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, February 12, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Claxton-Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair:
That it is expedient to amend the Department of National Defence Act to provide for the appointment of not more than three associate deputy ministers of national defence and to give the governor in council power, by regulation, to administer the service estates of members of the forces who die on active service or while receiving hospital treatment or institutional care under the Department of Veterans Affairs on account of any disability suffered or incurred during their service as such members; to provide for the establishment of a defence research board charged with the duties of conducting and coordinating research and development tor defence and of establishing scholarships and making grants in aid; and to provide further for salaries, remuneration and expenses of the board and of a pension or superannuation fund tor the benefit of employees out of moneys appropriated by parliament.
Mr, PEARKES: A sentence in this resolution refers to the administration of service estates of members of the forces who die on active service or while receiving hospital treatment or institutional care under the Department of Veterans Affairs. Would not the administration of those estates come more properly under the Department of Veterans Affairs, or some department of government other than National Defence, which at the present time is concerned with the training of live soldiers and with looking to the future?
-f suggest that the one minister under whom administration of the three services is now combined will have all his time fully occupied with matters of administration both in the piesent and in the future. I question the necessity of encumbering him with the estates of deceased soldiers.
for any purpose he is struck off strength. Lnder normal circumstances a soldier who is struck off strength is considered a veteran, and as such comes under the Department of

Veterans Affairs. Would it not be advisable to have the estates of soldiers who cease to be on the active list administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs? Why is it considered necessary that the minister's department should administer service estates?
Brooke Claxton: The proposed bill will apply only to the service estates of members of the active force. The reason why the Department of Veterans Affairs is brought in is that a considerable number of soldiers are in hospitals operating under that department.


George Randolph Pearkes: The resolution refers to the estates of deceased soldiers, soldiers who have died^ on active service or while in institutions administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs. My contention is that the estate of any man who for any reason-death or otherwise-has ceased to be a soldier, is hardly the concern of the Department of National Defence, a department which is preparing for the future.


Brooke Claxton: While I may be anticipating the presentation of the bill, perhaps I may be permitted to say that it applies only to the estates of members of the naval, military or air forces in Canada who died during their service as such members.


George Randolph Pearkes: That is it; they died.
Mr. ADAMSON; The Minister of Veterans Affairs may recall a case I brought to his attention respecting a soldier who died in Christie Street hospital while under treatment, and it was the Department of Veterans Affairs which looked after it. The proposal in this measure means that the Department of National Defence will now take care of such cases. Formerly a death in a military hospital, or one operating under the Department of Veterans Affairs, was looked after by that department. Is this now to be done by the Department of National Defence?
Mr. CLAXTON; The proposed legislation makes no change in the position. Service estates are now administered under P.C. 3617, which was passed on August 27, 1946, consolidating various measures which preceded it. There is no change in the practice. The new measure will apply only to the service estates of members of the services. If at the time of their deaths they happened to be in hospitals operated by the Department of Veterans Affairs, then the same machinery will be used, but it would probably be put into effect through an officer from that department who may be on the spot, but who would be acting as an agent for the Department of National Defence.

National Defence Act


Thomas Langton Church: This measure is a big surprise to people who are interested in the welfare of members of the three branches of the armed services. I can tell you this, that while the present minister has been in his department only about two months, this is a wide departure for him to make. It starts off quite well, but I think it goes a little too far. The bar associations of this country have set up a committee to take care of the affairs of veterans, and many lawyers work for nothing to aid veterans and their estates.
It is intended to administer from Ottawa, and under three deputy ministers, the service estates of members of the forces who die on active service or while receiving hospital treatment or institutional care. A man may be up in the new Sunnybrook hospital for many reasons. A man may be on active service in one of the camps or he may be overseas. He may have a motor accident in which he is killed instantly. Why take the administration of his estate out of the hands of the local legal profession which has set up various soldier agencies and committees to handle these things? You, Mr. Chairman, were on one of those committees of the Canadian bar association which did this sort of work for nothing. It is intended to create a large department and we are going to repeat the mistake that was made between the two wars in connection with the settlement of estates, small accounts and pensions by the department.
It is intended to centralize this in the city of Ottawa when it should be spread out in the local cities and towns. This sort of work should be the duty of the municipal councils and others. The city of Toronto has a large department to handle work like this and other branches of soldiers and veterans affairs. I do not know where the government got this idea. It is going to be an expensive plan and it will not meet, the individual cases. Members of parliament will be deluged with requests for information.
There is a large department at 55 York street in Toronto. That department has done very good work no doubt. Possibly some improvements have been made, but there are still a large number of officials there. When I go there I find I have to start at the top floor and go right down to the basement. At one time there were ijbout 1,400 officials there.
When you have such a large department it will be impossible to find out what you want to find out. A veteran may die who has owned a house which he cannot get into. This man may have served in the last war and in the meantime he has spent on a house his credits and gratuity. Let us take a concrete case.
He is knocked down by a motor car. Over 102 were killed last year and nearly 10,000 were injured, many of them soldiers and soldiers' children. What are you going to do about his estate? Are you going to wait until you get the service money that is coming to him? Many of these soldiers cannot get into their own homes. This will be imposing a burden on the government which they should not have to carry. It is going to mean a large expenditure of money in research, and it certainly is not the right way to approach the question. These things should be handled close to the home of the soldier. Many of these boys are getting home after being away for a long time.
This resolution should have gone to a committee. I cannot understand the government hoping to get it passed in the twinkling of an eye. A large department is to be set up in Ottawa to handle these estates and research. That is interfering with property and civil rights and surrogate wTork which come under the jurisdiction of the provinces. This will interfere with the work being done at 55 York street, and with the work of No. 2 district. It will mean duplication and waste.
Then there is to be a defence research board established. That will be another organization as high as this building. It will just fulfil some of the duties that are being carried out elsewhere by universities and national research departments. I suppose this board will take holidays in the summer and we will not get replies to any letters that we write. The work done by the veterans committee last year was very commendable. This research board is to be charged with the duties of conducting and coordinating research and development for defence. That is another matter. Our universities are already doing some of this and there will be duplication and overlapping of work.
Then the board is to establish scholarships and make grants in aid. The universities and colleges and boards of education have done a great deal in providing aid in the Toronto district in the way of scholarships and so on. Some of these young soldiers have been unable to complete senior matriculation; they cannot get into universities, and I am glad to see that the welfare minister is trying to cure this condition and enable all to do so.
Provision is made for the salaries, remuneration and expenses of the board. If there is duplication it is going to be all board and no security or relief. We will see the result of this in the civil estimates. Wait until you see next year's estimates for this new organization. I understand the minister was a soldier and has been only two months in the depart-
National Defence Act

ment, but this whole thing should go to a committee. The resolution should be considered most carefully. It covers almost everybody-the man who enlisted in the last war, the man who enlisted in this war, the men in the different branches of the new defence services and those who may be out of the country. If a man is injured, if he wants to go to a university or if there are other things he wants to know, in many cases he will have to run down to Ottawa. I know of soldiers who have wasted a lot of money coming down here on one or two little matters which they should have been able to have fixed up at home. They wasted money on their train fare, they could not get in an hotel and when they got here they could not find out anything about what they wanted to know.
I understand there is not to be a general veterans committee this session. Veterans affairs and the care of their estates are going to be most important matters in the next twelve months, and I submit that this resolution should go to some committee made up of veterans where these different things could be considered. This is a matter in which there should be no partisanship. If the minister will agree to sending this to a select committee he will make some progress and we will be able to get on with other bills.
The other place is going to take a holiday because there is no work. There is no use taking holidays when there is work to be done. Some of those who are working today no doubt will run away and take a holiday and come back to work another day. This is a matter which a committee of this house should consider. We should be able to have the advice of the officers in the various military districts, the soldiers' organizations, the hospital officials, and so on. Once the facts are laid before us the bill will go through the house in no time at all.
Hon. members should recall the way the veterans legislation was handled1 last session. It is with deep humility that I speak on this subject because I am not a soldier. I do think that we should not go over the heads of the soldiers' organizations and pass this resolution on the eleventh day of the session. I would like to see the other government bills go through quickly and if the minister will consider between now and Monday the setting up of a small committee I think it will bring results.


Mr. HACKETT:: Will the minister define the meaning of the words "service estates"? Is that something distinct from the total estate of the demised soldier?


Brooke Claxton: Yes, I thought I made that clear yesterday. It is defined- by the regulations as meaning:
. . . that part of his personal estate which consists of balance of pay and allowances and other emoluments emanating from the crown, which at date of death are due or otherwise payable and effects issued by the crown, which under regulations he is permitted to retain, and all personal belongings found on the deceased and in camp, quarters or otherwise in the care or custody of the service authorities, including cash on hand and personal articles and effects.
This property is disposed of by handing it over to the executor, if the soldier has made a will and appointed an executor, or to the legatee if the soldier has made a will and has no executor, or to the administrator if one has been appointed by the courts. In other words this is simply machinery whereby the property is passed on to the next of kin or the heir or executor of -the soldier. This only applies in respect of those who are in the active forces. Soldiers who have ceased to be in the active forces and are therefore exsoldiers and who are receiving treatment from the Department of Veterans Affairs are dealt with by that department.


Mr. PROBE:: A good deal of this debate could have been avoided I think had the minister made a full explanation of what was intended by the bill to follow the resolution. Without having seen the bill, and having heard only the minister's explanation, it looks to me as if his purpose in the first section of the resolution, which provides for the appointment of three associate deputy ministers, is to synchronize and unify the three branches of the service. To the extent that that is done I think the members of the house are in agreement.
With respect to the administration of service estates, I would ask the minister to give some indication whether the purpose is to save expenses to the estate, and whether, should accounts be presented against the estate during the course of its administration, the department will see to it that counterclaims by the estate against those presenting claims will not be jeopardized.
With respect to the establishment of the defence research board, one phase I think deserves commendation, and that is the establishment of scholarships and the making of grants in aid. I should like the minister to indicate to the committee whether these scholarships will be issued generally across the dominion or whether military strings will be attached to them; that is, will they be held for military personnel, or be open to the general public provided they follow a certain line of research?

National Defence Act


Brooke Claxton: Answering the first question. the effect of handling service estates of service personnel in this way will undoubtedly be to save expenses to the beneficiary of the estate. It is done very simply and very easily. 'No provision is made to protect the claim of any claimant against the estate, because no claims may be made against the service estate of service personnel. They are exempt from seizure; therefore that question does not arise.
With regard to the establishment of scholarships by the research board, the purpose of securing power to give scholarships is to enable the board to ensure that research work is done by competent people, and in order to do that it may be necessary to train research workers or to give a fellowship to assure that a. job is done in a university or other teaching institution.


John Oliver Probe: Will the applicants for research scholarships be considered on a broad basis provided they have the required research qualifications?


Brooke Claxton: Oh, yes.


Mr. MERRITT:: Reverting to the original question of the hon. member for Nanaimo, this is a bill to put into statutory form an order in council respecting service estates. I can well understand that when the defence department as it now stands was set up, and the Department of Veterans Affairs was just coming into being, it might have been difficult to transfer jurisdiction over this matter from the defence department to the veterans affairs department. But here we are dealing with the administration of service estates; undoubtedly gratuities for service will be involved, and apparently this provision will apply in the case of the death of a soldier who is under the care of the veterans affairs department. Therefore it seems to some of us that this might be the time to put the order in council in statutory form and under the jurisdiction of a different department. That is the point we are raising.
In the first place, if the purpose is as the minister has just stated, simply to pass the estate over to an executor or civil administrator, no great department is required1 for that; it is a physical job. But if the job is really to administer these estates, a professional staff will be required, thus increasing the expenditure of the Department of National Defence. At a time when the economy axe is being applied to that department I think its minister would be only too glad to get rid of any expenditure that was not for the purpose of building up our future armed forces. W e
have not yet heard the minister say it would not be a better idea to transfer this jurisdiction to the Department of Veterans Affairs, and that is the point we would1 like answered.


Brooke Claxton: I am sorry I did not appear to make myself sufficiently clear. This legislation does not apply to veterans at all. It applies only to men who are in the active army and who die while in the service.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: On that argument it
might be said that the administration of pensions to widows of deceased soldiers should be under the Department of National Defence. The mere fact that they are not veterans but were in the service at the time of their death does not imply that their service estate could not be better administered by the veterans affairs department, which looks after pensions and grants and gratuities. As this provision stands, apparently the Department of Veterans Affairs will have to pay over to the Department of National Defence sums of money standing to the credit of the deceased soldier.


Brooke Claxton: No.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: That must be so if the soldier has built up any gratuities for service. We suggest that the reverse should be the case.


Brooke Claxton: Gratuities are paid by the Department of National Defence; so is pay, and the man's credit standing on his pay account when he dies is in the hands of the Department of National Defence, so that much the simplest way of disposing of it is to have someone in the defence department pay it over in accordance with the directions in bis will, or, if he has not a will, to his next of kin. Why should we in the defence department dispossess ourselves of the money and transfer it to veterans affairs, who never had anything to do with the man, in order that they might do the job?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Could it not be done through the paymaster's branch of national defence without special legislation?


Brooke Claxton: There is a director of estates who works in close cooperation with the paymaster's 'branch and with the judge advocate general, and there is no big set-up. It is simply a device to facilitate settlement in connection with estates for service personnel who die in the service.


Mr. McMASTER:: I think this is a good idea; it is something which has been in effect much longer than since last August.


Brooke Claxton: Yes, that is right.
National Defence Act


William Alexander McMaster: In fact, it has been in effect for some years. It allows the department to administer only that portion of the estate of the man who has practically no other estate except such as appertains to his service. It is done without expense, and if the estate is of any size the department will not handle it. If there is insurance, for example, they do not want to handle it; they want the widow or next of kin to take it over. As I recall it, it is simply done by a solicitor of the department who understands the work, and it has been of benefit to a great number of people who had relatives who died in the last war. It will apply in the future only to a few. We do not expect, that in a comparatively small army very many will die, and as regards those who die it is a cheap way of disposing of their estates. I am not saying anything as to whether the Department of Veterans Affairs or the Department of National Defence would "best administer the estate". The act will apply only to estates that are very small and it is not an important matter.


Brooke Claxton: I am very much obliged to the hon. member for his understanding assistance.


Mr. COCKERAM:: The question of
scholarships comes up under this resolution. Can the minister tell us how much money is involved? We approve of it, but we think some definite amount should be stated as the maximum to be spent in the matter.


Brooke Claxton: All expenses of the defence research board will be paid1 out of moneys appropriated by parliament and will be under full parliamentary control.


Mr. LOCKHART:: It is significant that the first part of the resolution refers to the appointment of not more than three associate deputy ministers of national defence. Will the minister make quite clear whether the three branches of the armed services, as we understood them under wartime conditions, are to be continued as more or less separate and distinct branches, or is the whole sendee of national defence under one head? Are these associate deputy' ministers to have everything to do with all the different services of national defence, or will there still be a differentiation between the different arms of the service?


Brooke Claxton: The question was raised yesterday afternoon. The present intention is to have the department work as a unit with one deputy minister, the associate deputy ministers dealing with the affairs of the whole department and of all the services.


Mr. FRASER:: Yesterday on the orders of the day I asked a question in regard to motor

vehicles. I intended to leave it until the minister's estimates came up for consideration, but looking at the explanatory note in the bill, I see the purpose of the bill is to amend the militia act. I suggest that when the act is amended it should take into consideration the motor vehicle belonging to the civilian, which it does not do at the present time.


Brooke Claxton: I am sorry, but at present we are discussing the resolution to amend the Department of National Defence Act, and not the item to which the hon. member refers.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: When will that come up- not under this?


Brooke Claxton: No.


Howard Charles Green: I should like to ask the minister questions about two matters. First of all, this resolution refers to a defence research board and the establishing of scholarships and making grants in aid. I take it that everyone in the house is in favour of the defence research board and of giving them every possible assistance in view of the increased importance of research in matters of defence, but would the minister explain in a little more detail than he has done so far what is intended in the way of scholarships and grants in aid? Are these scholarships to be in the various universities in Canada, and perhaps abroad, and to what type of institution will the grants in aid be paid?


Brooke Claxton: Dealing first with the grants in aid, hon. members will appreciate that it would be a good thing for any defence research board to use the agencies that exist today to do research work as far as they can. There are the universities and industries and a limited number of institutions in Canada equipped to do research of any kind, including defence research, and frequently defence research has a very close association with research for civilian purposes. It will often happen that a piece of research that is being done either in an institution or in some industry could be broadened out or be specially directed so as to cover some point of research which the defence research board wishes to cover. Those are the conditions under which grants in aid will be given.
With regard to scholarships or fellowships, the answer is very much the same, but here we are dealing with the individual rather than an institution or industrial concern, and the payment would be made either to equip him to do defence research or to get him to do a particular bit of defence research work. This provision would be exactly the same as the

National Defence Act
provisions already in existence with regard to civilian research undef the national research council.


Howard Charles Green: Will the defence research board have anything to do with research into the development and use of atomic energy?


Brooke Claxton: As hon. members know, atomic energy is being dealt with under the atomic energy control board by virtue of legislation which was passed by the house last year. I should think the defence research board would be interested in any developments in that connection, but it will not have directly to do with the atomic developments.


Howard Charles Green: As the minister knows, the atomic energy control board was set up without any representation from the defence forces. Apparently there will be some connection between the work of that board and the work of this defence research board. Could some plan not be devised whereby our defence people will have a direct part in the development and use of atomic energy? Has the government in mind any such change, and if not, will consideration be given to the matter?


Brooke Claxton: Certainly, consideration will be given to the hon. gentleman's suggestion.


Howard Charles Green: Yesterday the hon. member for Kamloops suggested setting up a committee of this house on defence matters. The minister said that he would look into the suggestion and make a statement. I hope he can tell us something about that today. Something should be done along that line. It was proposed in 1945 and again in 1946, and in 1946 the Prime Minister made this answer to the suggestion as found at page 406 of the daily edition of Hansard'.
I think the suggestion of my hon. friend is a very good one and, as the Minister of National Defence has just said, it is one that he is prepared to consider sympathetically. But once again the house will have to ask itself how many committees it can stand. We are enlarging the number and it will have a bearing on the attendance in the house. I think my hon. friend's suggestion of that particular committee is a very good one.
I fully realize the weakness in having many committees. A number are set up under the rules of the house which are of no use at all. Some of the standing committees never even meet; others meet only once or twice. These committees make very little contribution to the work of the house. But I am afraid we are drifting into the position that the people and the house are losing interest in the defence problem, which is a very serious one, far more serious than it has ever been before. That is so because of the importance of the
north country and the development of new weapons, such as the atom bomb and rocket projectiles. It is therefore important that the members of this house know what is going on in order to be able to understand the problem and give support to the defence forces. If members from every party knew the difficulties in connection with building up an adequate defence, they could keep their fellow members in their party informed, and I am sure that far more generous and understanding support would be given to the defence forces. In addition, we could go out and explain to the people what steps have to be taken. As it is now, both the house and the people are largely in the dark on this question, and I am afraid that condition will become worse from year to year. It looks as if the defence department is being made to take most of the cuts demanded for the sake of economy. In any event, there is a great deal of merit in having a committee of this house on defence matters. There is one in the United States senate and house of representatives, one for the army and another for the navy. I hope the minister is in a position to say something about that suggestion.


Brooke Claxton: I appreciate the very reasonably stated suggestion made by the hon. member for Vancouver South. As he says, the question of defence is one of great importance and concern. I cannot yet tell the committee what the estimates will be; but when they are made available, as they will be in a few days, I hope the house and the country will be gratified by the reductions from wartime levels, just as I believe they will feel that the sum provided for is not anything like on a pre-war basis, but is appropriate to meet the defence needs of Canada at this time as well as we can.
With regard to the suggestion made by the hon. member for Kamloops that we should have a committee of this house on military affairs, I may say that since he made that suggestion again last night I have looked into the debates to which the hon. member for Vancouver South has referred. There is, of course, a very reasonable case to be made for having such a committee. However, I should state to the committee some reasons why I believe it would not be desirable, particularly at this time.
In the first place, the hon. member referred to the fact that in the United States there are committees of both houses on army and navy matters. That is or was correct, although I think there is to be some consolidation of their functions. However, as hon. members know, in the United States there is a totally different
National Defence Act

parliamentary system from that which we have. Ours follows very closely the British system; and it is a striking fact that in Britain there is no committee of parliament on military affairs or defence. It has often been discussed and suggested but it has always been decided against.


Howard Charles Green: They have none on external affairs either, have they?


Brooke Claxton: That is quite correct. I think a case can be made against having functional committees. Last year, when it was suggested that there should be a committee on health and security, I believe I made the same observations. I am still of the same view, that it is cutting across our parliamentary system to have committees on functional matters. It is based on a different concept of government than from that which we have. In the United States, as hon. members know, committees of congress have an important part and a positive role in formulating policies, and, in fact, carrying on government; whereas here that is the responsibility of the administration, and it carries out that responsibility as long as it can keep the support and confidence of the house.
Quite apart from these general remarks, I should like to point out to hon. members the rather difficult position we in the Department of National Defence are in this year. I think it is just two months ago today that I was appointed as the first minister of a single department since the war, and we decided at once to try to merge the three civil establishments in the three existing departments. In order to bring that about I thought it desirable to get the whole department, including the headquarters of the three armed services, in one physical location, and just four weeks ago we started the move from the various buildings in Ottawa in order to get the department into the three buildings on Cartier square. That has been an immense job, very creditably carried out. It had to be carried on simultaneously with the ordinary work of the department, and at a time of year when the estimates were being prepared. It has involved the physical dislocation of virtually everyone in the department. That move will not be complete for another month or more; it has to be done by steps. Then, the physical move having been completed, we will be engaged in the work of merging the civilian branches into one set of branches, and consolidating and coordinating the branches of the three services. That will be going on steadily throughout the year. This operation of establishing an organization on a sound post-war basis will take a considerable period 
of time. It is easy to speak about it; it is fairly easy to draw a blueprint of it, but it requires literally thousands of changes to be worked out in practice. If this work is to be carried on as rapidly and as effectively as I believe all hon. members would like us to do it, then it will be necessary for us in the department to give a very great part of our time and attention just to that job.
As hon. members know, the establishment of a parliamentary committee means at once that the minister and the senior officials of the department, as well as considerable numbers of the staff, become fully engaged in attending to the work of servicing the committee, securing information and that kind of thing. In a time of very quick change and development that is a difficult operation to perform, more difficult than at any other time. For that reason I believe that if a committee on military affairs is desired by the house it would be greatly preferred that it should not be introduced this year. In this matter we are in the hands of the house, which of course has control of the rules of procedure, but my hope would be that we would not have a committee on military affairs, certainly not this year.


Mr. LENNARD:: A few moments ago the minister stated that there would be a deputy minister and three associate deputy ministers. Can the minister say whether these associate deputy ministers will be responsible directly to the minister, or through the deputy minister of defence?


Brooke Claxton: They will be responsible through the deputy minister of defence, but of course will have access to the minister at any time.


Gordon Graydon: Originally I did not
intend to enter this discussion, but decided to do so when the minister mentioned the standing committee on external affairs which was set up a year ago last September, at the first session of this parliament. It seems to me the relationship between the questions of external affairs and defence is now closer and more integrated than at any other stage in our national development and our national history. It took session after session before the government were persuaded to set up what we thought, and what we now know, to be a most vital standing committee in our parliamentary structure, that on external affairs. The work of that committee during the last two sessions has justified all the arguments which we had previously advanced from time to time and which I may say went unheeded by the government for a long

National Defence Act
period. So it seems to me that now, when defence is so closely connected with the whole problem of international affairs, any possible argument the minister may advance for postponing the setting up of a committee on defence is largely eliminated. Actually I do not think there is much time to be lost in setting up such a committee.
If I may say so, it is useless to argue that because they do not have such a committee in the United Kingdom we should not have one here. As an hon. member has pointed out, in the United Kingdom they do not even have a committee on external affairs. The situation in Canada was certainly emphasized in the public mind by the statement made yesterday by the Prime Minister with respect to collaboration between this country and the great republic to the south; and if ever there was a time when the public were connecting two great matters facing the Canadian parliament, those of defence and external affairs, that time is the present. I believe the minister is entirely wrong in suggesting that this question should be left over even for another session. Events do not wait, and parliament must keep abreast of events. For two sessions now we have had an external affairs committee in operation. Surely we cannot let a third session go by before the collateral committee on defence is set up, so that the work of the two committees may if necessary be coordinated from time to time.
Just before I sit down may I deal with one other matter raised by the minister-the servicing of such a committee by those in the department itself. I think that is a worn- out argument. We heard it advanced with respect to external affairs; we have heard it with respect to almost every government department. In any event, we can hardly expect a government to be very anxious to display to the public all the things that go on behind the scenes if they can avoid doing so. On the other hand1 it is the job of His Majesty's Loyal Opposition to bring out these facts so they may be appreciated by the public; because after all it is public money that keeps all these things going, not the minister's money, or mine, or yours, Mr. Chairman; it is the money of the millions of Canadian people who are paying their taxes to this government. They have a right to know the policy underlying the whole question of defence, and whether or not their dollars are being spent to the very best advantage to the country. So I say to the minister that bringing men from the defence department before a parliamentary committee in the final analysis may mean that changes in policy will come about after close investigation and study of existing problems and policies, which in the years to come may save much of the time of those in the department and at the same time save many dollars to the taxpayers in greater efficiency and1 the carrying on of public business with greater dispatch.
As I see it, in peace time the question of the servicing of a committee by departmental officials should not be raised. Surely the officials have had the experience of five or six years of war. Perhaps in those times we had a perfect right to say that these men should not be brought before a parliamentary committee except under the most extraordinary circumstances, because we were at war; but surely it cannot be argued now that the reorganization of a department should require the same amount of time, the same energy, the same attention or the same application to the task as the fighting and winning of a war itself. Still that would seem to be what the minister is attempting to suggest this afternoon; and I want to put it in the most charitable way I can with respect to him. But I do want to say, with every bit of emphasis at my command, that the experience we have had with external affairs should teach us a lesson with respect to the defence committee which is now suggested. The minister should not leave it for another year; I urge upon him that he appoint the committee before the close of the present session.


Mr. BOUCHER:: I note in the latter
part of the resolution that permission is sought to provide for the salary, remuneration and expenses of the defence research board, and for a pension and superannuation fund for the benefit of employees out of moneys appropriated by parliament. Is it the minister's intention that officials and employees of the defence research board, operating under the Department of National Defence, are to be members of the civil service, governed by the Civil Service Act and the Civil Service Superannuation Act? Or does he propose setting up a new civil service superannuation provision under this resolution, and giving control of salaries and remuneration to a different group?


The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. Golding):: I believe the hon. member is out of order.


George Russell Boucher: I am speaking to the
resolution. What is the purpose of the last part of it?


Brooke Claxton: Our object is to set up this board in much the same way as the national research council is set up, but on a much smaller scale, and with as little adminia-

National Defence Act
trative personnel as possible so that its top people can be free to work at planning and research. The national research council does not come under the civil service commission. I understand the national research council has not yet a superannuation fund, but it is proposed it should have one. If so, the officers and employees of the defence research board would probably make arrangements with the national research council to come under their fund, one which would probably be better suited to the needs of scientific and technical workers than would a fund operating under ordinary civil service arrangements. That is being worked out.
The expectation is that to a considerable degree the defence research board would be staffed by people seconded from other institutions or government departments, or from industry. The hope is that the board will be able to make arrangements satisfactory to the institution or branch lending the personnel, so that such people will not lose pension or superannuation benefits. Thus it will be possible to secure the services of personnel on a temporary basis to do specific jobs.


George Russell Boucher: From what the minister has said this afternoon it would appear it is now government policy to get as far away as possible from the Civil Service Act and the Civil Service Superannuation Act, to allow crown companies to form their own superannuation acts, to allow the national research council to have its own superannuation act, and, by this resolution, to allow the defence research board to form its own superannuation provisions.
We are coming to the point where on the one hand members of the civil service whom we describe as career civil servants receive their rights, privileges and benefits under one act, and persons connected with crown companies, boards and commissions receive similar or additional benefits under different acts and out of different funds. This tends fo the creation of a chaotic condition in the civil service. Members of the House of Commons, with the esteem they have for the loyalty of our permanent career civil servants and the service they have given to our country, should hesitate before they set up other institutions making provision for benefits, privileges and rights established on a different basis.
It is my belief that the government as an employee of man-power should not permit boards and commissions which operate independently of parliament to care for their employees in a better or different manner from that employed by the government in looking after its own career civil servants.

We should consider what the results may be as affecting the career man who sees the government setting up boards, crown companies, departments and commissions on a different basis, and giving their employees special privileges which the career civil servant does not have.
The minister should consider the chaotic condition and the dissatisfaction he may create if he persists in permitting this condition, under which he is getting away entirely from the Civil Service Act and drifting to the old state of political patronage-because we are heading in that direction. The political patronage and favouritism within crown companies and boards may be greater than the political patronage we had before the Civil Service Act was passed.


Mr. ADAMSON:: As the minister knows, I suggested before the formation of a defence committee of the house. He should not have any apprehension that such a committee would upset the functioning of his department. I believe he would1 find, as did the Department of Veterans Affairs last session, that such a committee would be of definite assistance to the functioning of his department. Not only did the committee which dealt with veterans affairs bring forward many recommendations, and not only did it review all the legislation connected with veterans, but a great many suggestions for the improvement of the department were made in committee.
There is one point which must not be forgotten in the matter of defence, and that is that in the defence of this or any other country in any future war there will be less and less time to prepare. The time factor is ever shortening. Parliament's primary duty is the safety of the state. Generally the estimates for the Department of National Defence are brought down in the last days of the session, when the weather is extremely warm and members want to go home. The whole business is being rushed through perhaps in less than a day. It is impossible to get expert information. I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, and through you to the house, that since the external affairs committee has been taken out of politics, since we have representation at the united nations and on other international tribunals made up of members of all the parties in this house, the matter of defence should be considered in a non-political light.
I do not believe we could have a debate on defence in this house without taking sides, and I think the day has come when we should realize that this is too vital a matter to be the subject of a partisan dispute.

National Defence Act
There is one further matter. If a committee were set up, experts and other members of the Department of National Defence and hon. members of this house could be called upon to give testimony. I am thinking of people like General Crerar, who made an important pronouncement quite recently in this city, and of men like Doctor Solandt. There could be given in the committee information which it might be considered unwise to have generally debated. If the committee knew of the new weapons and the frightful possibilities of mass destruction that are possible should another war occur, we would then have in this house a body of expert or improved opinion which would have a most salutary effect upon the debating of our whole defence programme.


Mr. SKEY:: I should like to support the stand taken-


William Henry Golding: I hope there will not be a general discussion on this resolution. Hon. members should confine their remarks to the resolution.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: The suggestion has been made that a committee should be set up to study the defence of Canada and that is the point I wanted to speak on. I support the stand taken by the hon. member for York West, and if I may address myself to the minister for a moment, I should like to point out that there is a great apprehension in the country as to what is happening in the Department of National Defence. That is why the minister is met with all these suggestions on the part of the opposition. I think they are helpful and in the main they are not intended to be political. They indicate that there is a feeling that things are not going as they should in the Department of National Defence. The minister has just said that he took over the office only two months ago and decided at once that the services should be combined, but as a consequence of that there has been extreme physical dislocation in the department.


Brooke Claxton: Not the services, the lepartment.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: The opposition certainly are not responsible for that decision and I do not see why there should be any delay in setting up a committee such as has been suggested. As the hon. members for Vancouver South, Peel and York South have pointed out, when committees of this house have been set up to consider legislation there has been less trouble and less partisan discussion in the house than there was on other matters in connection with which the members of the opposition were 83166-25
denied information, and in connection with which sometimes the people of Canada have been denied information.
We do not know at this moment what cuts the minister has made in the Department of National Defence. We do not know whether there is to be a squadron of aircraft on both the east and west coasts. We do not know anything about the cadet situation. That is why the minister is met with these inquiries, and it is high time such a committee was set up in order that the experience of government and opposition members might be made available to the department. That is all I wanted to say on that point.
Will the minister make another statement in the near future in connection with setting up a committee? Will the minister tell the committee how the defence forces will be tied in with the research board to which this resolution refers?


Mr. JACKMAN:: I do not suppose there has been a resolution as important as this one which has been introduced to the committee with so few remarks by the minister in charge. I did not hear what the minister said yesterday, but on looking over Hansard I find that he has not given us much help. I should like to ask a question or two about the research board. I notice the minister said that this board will have to do with direction and coordination, but the resolution states that it will be charged with the duties of conducting and coordinating research and development for defence.
Will the minister tell the committee just what the research board intends to do? Is it to concern itself with applied science, or will it concern itself with basic science? Those two divisions in the scientific field are quite distinct. Is it to have its own facilities for research along basic lines or along applied lines, or is it merely to give certain directions to those who are conducting research along defence lines and perhaps along basic lines in other fields?
I think the committee would also like to know how much the minister appropriated in his last defence estimates for research activities or, in the alternative, how much he intends to ask for in the forthcoming estimates for this important activity. Will there be a coordination committee to work with the national research council? Why does this board have to be separate from the national research council? Will the head of the board in the Department of National Defence, Doctor Solandt. have a board of independent advisers, or will it be set up as it has been set up in the United States? I understand that in con-

National Defence Act

nection with the United States legislation certain fears have been expressed that some of the scientists appointed to their research institution have been appointed for political or patronage reasons rather than from the point of view of purely scientific knowledge. If the minister would be good enough to enlighten the committee on these general points before we have the bill in front of us I think we would all have a better idea of where we are going.


Brooke Claxton: The hon. member for Rosedale referred rather caustically to the brevity of my remarks when I introduced this resolution. As he and the committee know, more resolutions are introduced without any remarks at all than are introduced with preliminary remarks. The practice since I have been here has been to have a brief statement on the resolution, which is followed by a brief debate, and the house then gets down to work on the bill, which is the most profitable way, I suggest, of dealing with the matter.
The hon. member asked how much would be appropriated for defence research. As he and the committee know, the amounts to be set. out in the estimates are first made available to parliament when the estimates are tabled by the Minister of Finance, and that will be done in a very short time.
As to the composition of the board, it is under the chairmanship of the director general of research, Doctor 0. Solandt, a person with a distinguished scientific record, especially during the war, in many fields of research. On the board, in addition to Doctor C. J. Mackenzie, president of the national research council, are the three chiefs of staff, or their representatives, representing the three services; also representatives of industry and experts in the field of research itself. The reason why the board is created separately from the national research council is that this has been found to be the best form of organization by everyone engaged in it, and has the support of Doctor Mackenzie himself. It is felt that in that way there will be much closer coordination with the armed services themselves, and through that coordination it will be more possible to keep the services research minded, which I think is a desirable aim.
Coordination with the national research council will, of course, be very close. In fact a considerable amount of research in defence matters will continue to be carried on by the national research council in close cooperation with the defence research board. I think, for example, of its work on aviation which has

had great value for civil flying as well as military. The defence research board will also carry on directly defence research activities through such agencies as that carrying on the work being done in Toronto on aviation medicine, which has also been of great value as regards not only flying in war but flying in peace.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Will the research be strictly of an applied nature, or will the board go into basic scientific research?


Brooke Claxton: There I am getting out of my field, but I think most of the work will be in the field of applied research, although there will be some fundamental research.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Claxton thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 19, to amend the Department of National Defence Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



MILITIA ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. BROOKE CLAXTON (Minister of National Defence) moved the second reading of Bill No. 14, to amend the Militia Act.
Howard Charles Green: Is the minister not making any statement?


Brooke Claxton: As hon. member's know, the governing statute for the army of Canada is the Militia Act, chapter 132 of the revised statutes of 1927. The act was first enacted in 1868. It has been amended since on very few occasions. I should tell the house that we aim, just as soon as it is possible, to introduce a bill to replace the Militia Act in toto, as was done in the case of the Naval Service Act, but it will take a good many months to prepare such a bill and we would also like to have the experience of this year behind us. It will not be possible to introduce that bill at this session, but work is already being done on it.
The amendments proposed in the present bill are largely changes of a textual or drafting nature designed to bring the act up to date and to provide for the post-war organization of the Canadian army on a sound basis. Sections 1, 6, 7, 9, 10, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 30, 31 and 34 are almost entirely confined to making changes in the words used in order to bring the language into line with present practice. Some of the changes are the following: For "Canadian militia" we substitute "Canadian

Militia Act
army"; for "permanent force" we substitute "active force"; for "non-permanent force" we substitute "reserves". The word "corps" becomes "unit" because now thete is a military formation known as a corps, and the old expression "corps" has been replaced in common practice by the word "unit". "Military district" becomes "command"; "officer for the time being commanding the militia" becomes "adjutant general or an officer commanding a command", and the "adjutant general" becomes "chief of general staff."
Then, too, as hon. members know, when the Militia Act was enacted, means of transport available for the militia were described as- and I quote from the old act-"horses, mules, oxen or other animals". Those were indeed the horse and buggy days. Now war has become quite a different matter. Three sections of the bill-2, 23 and 28-deal with "vehicles, aircraft or other means of transportation" in addition to horses, mules, oxen or other animals. Section 3 is intended to clarify the position regarding the enlistment of boys under eighteen years of age. Section 4 takes account of the fact that when the Militia Act was enacted there was no Canadian navy or air force, in making provision for the members of these forces being exempted from service in the army. Sections 5, 6, 8, 11 and 16 deal with matters of organization and command, and sections 22, 24, 25, 29, 31, 32 and 33 deal with matters of military law and the laws applicable to the Canadian army.
With this brief explanation, I hope we shall proceed to discuss the clauses of the bill one by one. As I have explained, the changes are for the most part of a drafting or technical kind, designed to bring the language of the act into accord with present-day usage, I repeat that the reason why more fundamental changes are not made at the present time is that it is the intention as soon as possible to introduce into parliament a complete revision of the Militia Act. What we are now asking parliament to do is to make the changes necessary to carry on the active and reserve forces on the basis developed in consequence of our experience in two wars.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: The minister, in introducing the bill to the house, has given us the impression, that the amendments are only of a procedural and textual nature. I suggest to you Mr. Speaker, that that is very far from being the case, and that in this bill in several instances there are fundamental changes which need to be carefully discussed on second reading and also after we get into committee.
The first thing I have to say is this. Here was, par excellence, on second reading of the bill to amend the Militia Act, an opportunity for the minister to give the house and the country a complete statement on what has happened in the Department of National Defence and in the services since he took office two months ago. But he has not taken that opportunity.
I want to call to your attention, sir, the debate that took place only this afternoon when speaker after speaker pointed out to the minister the great advantage which would accrue to the services and to himself if he took the house into his confidence on matters affecting the army by the appointment of a defence committee. The minister has indicated that he will not appoint a defence committee this session, and that only heightens what I say is his duty, namely, to take an opportunity like this to tell us what he is doing, why he is doing it, and to enlist our support instead of incurring our criticism.
The minister said yesterday, in answer to a question, that he did not believe there was confusion in the country over the future of the cadet forces except on this side of the house. I believe that there is grave concern in the country not only about the cadet services but about the whole status of the defence forces, and) it is one and only one of a long succession of reasons why in our opinion, the country has no confidence in this government.
We have no confidence in the government because we think the government has failed in many of the things it has undertaken. We believe that this government has failed in its task of constructing a satisfactory defence force for Canada. We believe, too, that it would have been possible under a different policy to provide a satisfactory defence force within the means of the Canadian taxpayers.
If I were to try to put my finger on the basic trouble in the policy of the government, I would say it is the fact that ever since the end of hostilities there has been an uncertain purpose behind our forces and an uncertain amount of money wherewith to carry out that uncertain purpose. If there had been certainty in the government's mind as to the purpose of the post-war army they were to set up; if there had been an indication over a certain period of years of the minimum fund which the defence forces might have at their disposal, then I do not think there is any doubt that the soldiers could have designed a satisfactory force.
But if the policy remains uncertain; if the amount of money jumps around, from very large sums last year to very small sums this
Militia Act

year, and so on; if the minister intervenes even down to the size of units, instead of thinking only in terms of the whole force, then I say that the soldiers who have the military responsibility will not be able to do their job, and any force so constructed will be a weak compromise between political and military judgments. If there is concern in Canada, as many of us believe, over the future of the armed forces it is, in our opinion, because that weak compromise has occurred.
This bill gives no relief. We have had no statement of policy, and in these provisions, apart from the textual changes which the minister mentioned, I suggest that we shall find an intensifying of the sections which make for uncertainty as to the purpose and command of the force and as to the allocation of responsibility between the political head of the force and the military-head.
It is intended in the bill to repeal section 27. That section empowers the governor in council to appoint a commander of the Canadian militia. The repeal of that section will leave the minister-not a soldier, although he is a veteran-as the commander of the Canadian armed forces. That in itself is a matter we shall hope to discuss at some length when we have section 27 before us.
Having looked at the question of command for a moment, I wish to look at the army itself; and I say to you, sir, that uncertainty in policy has been the watchword since V-J day. Time after time in this house in the last two sessions we on this side pointed out the danger of continuing that uncertainty and asked the then minister, in the interests of the forces over which he had supervision, to state definitely the policy and purpose, to >et the forces know what it is they are supposed ;o do and to let the country know why we maintain armed forces. Since we did not get that statement of policy, I have always felt that we got off to a very shaky start, even in the old programme. Not only had we a lack of policy, but we had a lack of leadership of an organization which has been accustomed to good leadership, which thrives on good leadership, but which will not function without being certain of what it has to do and of its commanders.
In any event, we went along. The size of the force was set without a determination of its purpose and without any tie-in between that size and the results it was supposed to attain, and it is not surprising that it was not recruited as quickly as many of us might have wished.
Then some by-elections took place in the recess, and the government realized the truth of something we on this side of the house

had been urging all during the last session. They realized that there was a limit to the amount of money they could spend; and when they were brought to task by the people in these by-elections they started to think of economy in a w'ay they had not done before. With the thought of economy in mind on this whole matter of defence, they just wrenched the wheel hard over and brought an already uncertain programme into greater uncertainty than ever. For these reasons we must have in this debate certain information from the minister. We want to know whether this reduction of an already minimum-size force down to seventy-five per cent of what was agreed on all sides to be an irreducible minimum, w'as dictated by failure to get recruits, by economy, or by what I might call the parsimony of political panic, because there is a great deal of difference between true economy and the last expression that I uttered. We want to know also whether Canada's needs for defence are actually met by this new programme, because there are many of us who doubt whether that is in fact the case. There are many of us who believe, as I certainly do, that this reduction of twenty-five per cent from the figure set last year is dictated only by economy and without regard whatever to military necessity.
We want to know whether the responsible military officers believe that Canada's defence requirements are adequately met under the new programme. We should1 like to know whether this is a decision of the minister who commands the force or whether it is a decision of the defence council. We should like to know whether seventy-five per cent of a previous establishment will be as efficient as ICO per cent of a lesser establishment. We should like to know whether it would not have been better, in view of the need to save money, if the whole original plan had been scrapped and a new set-up employed which was within our financial means. We should also like to know how long it will be before we shall go back to 100 per cent of what was thought last year to be a minimum. If in fact, in the opinion of the government, this country cannot afford adequate national defence or cannot provide for it and at the same time have tax reductions, then we think the minister ought to tell us that. He ought to take the country into his confidence and explain that, although he would like to do much more he cannot do so for economy's sake, although he does not consider the present establishment sufficient for our defence. But it is important that we do not mislead the country into thinking that what we have is adequate if, in fact, it is not adequate.

Militia Act
Therefore in this debate we need more than just- this bill. We need a decisive declaration of policy from the minister and an explanation of the reasons behind the major changes he has made since he took over this department. Again I think it is high time that a member of this government, and preferably the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton), made a statement to the country as to what is the duty of the Canadian people toward the maintenance of our armed forces. In my opinion, service in the Canadian forces is no longer the kind of hobby it was before the war. We have had from the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) cogent reasons why the first purpose of our defence forces is for the defence of our own soil. I am sure that, if the minister were to agree with him and were in this debate to tell the people that Canadians have a duty of service to their country, either in the active force or in the reserve, he would get all the men he would ever need for this or an- even larger army. I have talked to people who are concerned with getting recruits, particularly for the reserve forces. I am sure that, without a statement of that duty, we shall not get recruits in the numbers in which we could so easily get them if an appeal were made to young Canadians in the name of Canada.
I wish to say something more as to what should be the purpose behind Canada's armed forces. We have had it several times from the previous minister of national defence and, I believe, from the present minister, that no great decisions can be made until a decision has been made by the security council as to what forces will be required from Canada. That policy of awaiting the decision of the security council will just perpetuate the uncertainty which has dogged- our forces ever since the end of the war and will make the minister's problems very much more difficult indeed. Interestingly enough, I have in my hand a Canadian press report of January 30, according to which the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin), who has been in New York, of course, made some comments about the security council. The minister apparently said this:
Mr. Martin reiterated Canada's view that the security council had failed to do the task entrusted to it. "The security council has been used as a propaganda agency. Our stand was that it should be a means for promoting settlement of disputes as well as a means to reduce the occasions for such disputes."
If the Minister of National Health and Welfare feels that the security council has failed to carry out the task which was allotted to it, are we to await further action by that body before deciding what kind of defence force
we should have in Canada? I say we should not. I say that the defence of Canada, the defence of Canadian shores against outside attack until our friends can come to our aid, has always been and always will be the first responsibility of the military forces of this country, and that no obligation to the united nations or to anyone else can supersede that responsibility, which is as old as history. I should like to refer to what the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) said in this house yesterday, as reported at page 360 of Hansard, when lie quoted what he said in reply to President Roosevelt in 193S, in these words:
We. too, have our obligations as a good friendly neighbour, and one of these is to see that, at our own instance, our country is made as immune from attack or possible invasion as we can reasonably be expected to make it, and that, should the occasion ever arise, enemy forces should not be able to pursue their way, either by land, sea or air, to the United States across Canadian territory.
The right hon. gentleman repeated that thought yesterday, on the same page of Hansard, where he said:
Each nation must therefore consider what steps it should take in the meantime to defend itself against aggression . . .
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that there is no longer.any need to await any decision of the security council, but that the purpose of our force is clear now and can be announced by the minister.
This very discussion I have been presenting to the house, as to where lies the dividing line between economy and military necessity, brings into clear relief one of the problems I think we should resolve before this debate is concluded. That is, what is the line of division between the military and political command of our forces. If we have a clear statement of that division of responsibility and a clear statement of the purposes of our forces, together with the assurance of at least a minimum fund for a certain period of years so that the soldiers can plan with some certainty in view of what is required of them, then I am sure that the armed forces can get away to a good start; but the time has come when we must have that statement of policy.
All those matters can perhaps be gone into in more detail when we come to the sections of the bill in committee; but I must raise one point now, a point of much more fundamental importance even than what I have been talking about heretofore. In this bill a constitutional issue of first magnitude is raised. The present section 22 of the Militia Act, which this bil! proposes to amend, places a limit on (he total number of the permanent force which may be maintained. That total number is 10,000 men. In the amendment proposed
Militia Act

by the bill before the house, there will be no limit placed by parliament on the size of the active force, but rather the size of that force is left to be determined by the governor in council. This change, were it enacted by this house, would be in breach of a convention of our constitution which has existed since the Bill of Rights in 1089; and before this debate concludes and we give second reading to the bill, we must have an assurance by the minister that this constitutional breach will be mended as soon as we get into committee. Otherwise I for one will be forced to oppose the passage of the bill.
I want to enlarge a bit upon the constitutional question here involved. By the Bill of Rights in 1689, following the revolution and bloodshed of 1688, it was determined once and for all that the army should be the army of parliament and not the army of the crown. This is the principle which is being breached by this proposed amendment. Since the war. we have had an extraordinary and alarming succession of breaches of constitutional duty on the part of this government. In the first session of the 20th parliament we started with the emergency powers act, when a bill much wider than was really needed by the government was brought in. Thereby the principle of the supremacy of parliament, which had been established since the days of the civil war in 1640. was broken. Then last February the liberty of the subject was invaded in the conduct of the spy inquiry. The order in council which invaded the freedom of the individual was based upon the emergency powrnrs act. which I have already said was too wide; and magna carta, which has been in existence since 1215, was given a great blow. Now, by this proposal the Bill of Rights of 1689 is to be abrogated. I might point out to the house that in all three of these cases these conventions of our constitution were established after bloodshed between rival parties, when it was decided that, for the preservation of our freedom and the avoidance of civil strife, it was necessary that these three principles, which have been broken by this government, should be written into our constitution for all time.
In Great Britain., as hon. members I am sure know, that practice and that constitutional principle were applied by the device of passing each year the Army Annual Act. The declaration of the Bill of Rights, namely that the raising or keeping of a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with the consent of parliament, is against the law, was repeated annually in the Mutiny Act, and then later in the Army Annual Act. The British House of Commons has never

been willing to leave to the crown the size of the standing army; and the raising, control and payment of the army have always been expressly sanctioned by parliament, and only for a period of twelve months at a time. In Canada, since we never had any great force, that was not considered necessary, but the constitutional principle was preserved by writing into section 22 of the Militia Act an upper limit of 10,000 which would ensure that the size of the army was always within the control of parliament.
In Canada we do not have a written constitution. as they have in the United States. We have kept it flexible and unwritten so that it could grow with the times, and we have always felt that we had a great political instrument at our service in this unwritten constitution.
It was kept unwritten and flexible so that it could evolve and grow, not so that it could be breached by any government in power at any one time. Although the opposition can point out these breaches, and will continue to do so as we have throughout this parliament, I say to the house that there is a prime responsibility upon any minister introducing a measure to ensure that his bill is within the four comers of our constitution. If that is not a responsibility of the ministry, then I am sure our constitution and our system of government will not be able to withstand attacks from within.
I am perfectly certain that in this instance there has been an oversight. I must say, however, that oversights of this importance should not be made. I assure the minister that if he will consent to the placing in this new section of an upper limit upon the size of the force, I for one will be perfectly satisfied with his undertaking so to do when we get into committee. I wish to assure him that neither I nor, I am sure, anyone on this side of the house, wants to be ungenerous in the fixing of that limit. We want to be certain that we have adequate armed forces. The figure that he is likely to name is not likely to cause any alarm on our part. But hon. members on this side of the house would be derelict in their duty if they did not call attention to this most important point, and require, before we are asked to vote, that a change be made. If we have that assurance we can go on in committee to the other important points of policy and command which I have outlined to the house. Therefore I shall say no more at the moment.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say at once that I agree with the hon. member for Vancouver-

Militia Act
Burrard (Mr. Merritt) when he says that when motion for second reading was made a comprehensive statement should have been given as to the policy which lies behind this bill. I believe that opportunity should have been seized, particularly since the minister is aware that both at this session and at the last one a great deal of attention has been given by various members to the matter of defence. I believe it would have facilitated and probably shortened debate, had we had a comprehensive statement at the outset, so that we might have understood the policy behind the bill.
It seems to me that this opens up the whole matter of Canada's defensive system. This is really Canada's defence bill, which is now to be amended in a good many particulars. It is perhaps true, as the minister has suggested, that in many respects amendments to the Militia Act are largely technical. But no matter how technical some of the amendments may be, there are others which involve matters of policy. This afternoon, for example, the hon. member who has just taken his seat discussed-briefly, it is true-the relationship of our defence forces with the united nations organization. Yesterday the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) made a statement to parliament involving not only the whole matter of the defence of our own country, but the defence of the region in which we live-the whole problem of North American defence. Hence in my opinion the minister would have been well advised to have made a comprehensive statement regarding suggestions for the improvement of the department over which he presides.
I wish to take this opportunity to say something about the defence of the region in which we live, and to comment upon some of the statements made yesterday by the Prime Minister. I welcome the statement that anything we do in Canada must be based upon the united nations, and particularly upon the arrangements that are to be made with the security council for the preservation of peace. As the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard has said, it is perfectly true that there has been considerable disappointment that the security council of the united nations has not been able to assemble the military staffs of the united nations-that is, the general staffs of the five principal powers-and to have come to some conclusion regarding the taking of effective precautions for the preservation of world peace.
I was proud of the fact that at New York the spokesman for the Canadian delegation, the present Secretary of State for External
Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent) was the first representative of any nation at that assembly who drew attention to this fact, urged upon the security council the necessity for fulfilling the obligations which had been imposed upon it by the charter, and urged that immediately the responsibility should be carried out, that the general staff should be assembled, that a plan should be laid down and that an appropriate agreement should be negotiated with each of the fifty-one-later fifty-four-nations involved. This has not yet been done. Nevertheless I think that whatever we do in the matter of defence we must do in the light of our obligations under the united nations charter. And, may I add, the sooner that can be done, the better it will be for all of us; because I do not think anyone living in the world as it is today can fail to recognize the need for preparedness for any eventuality which may arise.
On the other hand, no one living today can view, except with misgiving, the tremendous amount of money and of productive effort to that extent wasted, which is being expended on armed forces, when it might be used for the building of our society, the building of homes and the provision of a better condition of life for the people in every country of the world.
Consequently I think it is to the advantage of everyone in Canada that our government continue to press upon the united nations organization, and particularly upon the security council, the necessity for speedily carrying out the provisions of the charter it is obligated to carry out in connection with international security and peace.
Having said) that, I wish to turni for a few moments to the Prime Minister's statement of yesterday. It was a very important one. I do not suppose a more important statement has been made to the house for some time. Certainly it is in many respects the most important made at this session of parliament thus far, because it brings before us the whole problem of Canada's relationship to the great country to the south and, perchance, in the minds of some, the possibilities of our relationship with the great country which is right across the pole from Canada. Consequently we must endeavour to get from the government exactly what this declaration means. I submit that in some respects it is a reorientation of policy. In days gone by, we always regarded Canada as being part of the British commonwealth of nations; we still do, and any defensive plans we establish should be more or less related to the military policies of Great Britain and the commonwealth. We now have a statement made to the house which
Militia Act

indicates clearly and perhaps realistically that the problem now is largely the integration of our defence forces with that of another great nation on this continent.
It is proposed that we go a long way in regard to that integration. It is suggested that there be an interchange of selected individuals so as to increase the familiarity of each country's defence establishment with that of the other country. If we are to do that with one country we ought to do it with other countries that may be involved in the defence of North America. After all the United States and Canada are not the only two countries in North America. To my mind, it is regrettable that we have to consider this before we are in a position to consider our obligations to the security council and to the united nations.
Then we are to have general cooperation and exchange of observers in connection with exercises and with the development and tests of material of common interest. That, of course, is to be expected under the arrangement that has been made. But again I suggest that we should follow a different policy. We should follow the policy which, I understand, was followed in connection with some other northern exercises and not only invite observers from the United States, or have them invite observers from the Canadian forces when they are held in Alaska, but invite representatives of the other powers. That was a policy followed in connection with the northern exercises held, I believe, two years ago. There are other great powers interested in all kinds of Arctic development. France is still one of the great powers and our associations with France are very close.
Then we are to have the encouragement of common designs and standards in arms, equipment, organization, methods of training and new developments. It is said that, since certain United Kingdom standards have long been in use in Canada, no radical change is contemplated or practicable and that the application of this principle will be gradual. May I say immediately that in the preparation for modern war a nation the size of Canada could not in its own factories and of itself provide all the varied types of equipment that would be needed. Consequently standardization is logical, but if we are to have a united nations organization, a security council acting for the protection of the world with force behind it to ensure peace, then I submit that we should consider standardization on a much wider scale than merely - between the United States and Canada. There should be standardization for the security force.


Mr. SMITH (Calgary West):: How wide?
IMr. Cold well. 1


Major James William Coldwell: As wide as the united nations.


An hon. MEMBER:: Including our enemies?.


Major James William Coldwell: There are no enemies associated with the united nations; enemy countries are excluded from the united nations.
Then there is to be mutual and reciprocal availablity of military, naval and air facilities in each country. I regard that as a very important provision. May I say to the minister and to the government that I hope the following clause will be observed strictly. It is:	.
As an underlying principle all cooperative arrangements will be without impairment of the control of either country over all activities in its territory.
If we are to have air bases in Canada, if we are to have naval bases in Canada; if we are to have any kind of base in Canada, then I say they must be owned by Canada, controlled by Canada and operated by Canada. I *would remind the government that prior to the war, parliament supported the present government when they refused permission even to the United Kingdom to establish air training bases in this country.


An hon. MEMBER:: Shame.


Major James William Coldwell: I did not say the whole parliament. When I speak of parliament, I mean a majority of parliament.


John Thomas Hackett: That was in 1937 when war was inevitable.


Major James William Coldwell: I am just pointing out that parliament did not-


John Thomas Hackett: -not know about the war?


Major James William Coldwell: Parliament did know about it and parliament did not censure the government when the announcement was made to the house. As I say, we did not give that permission to Great Britain in 1937 and I do not think we should give that permission to the United States in 1917. That is the point I was making. Whatever is done under this joint defence plan should be entirely within the control of this parliament, of Canada herself. We are still a nation.
I hope that this integration of defence forces will not mean that we are to be controlled to any extent by either the ambitions or policies of our great neighbour to the south. We have the highest respect for the United States, but we were a long time in getting rid of control by Downing street and I do not

Militia Act
want to see Washington substituted for Downing street. Let us see that we do not have United States control of our country.
We must maintain complete independence of action. I believe that we should do nothing in this regard to weaken our contacts with the other commonwealth countries. There is a disposition in some quarters of this country at the present time to look toward the United States instead of to our old associations within the commonwealth of nations. As economic and social developments go forward in western Europe we may note once again, as we did in 1849, that certain people are looking to the United States rather than to the old associations because of their own economic interests.
With regard to the statement made yesterday, I am not sure whether the timing was as good as it might have been. We know there are suspicions among the nations and the announcement that was made yesterday in Washington and Ottawa may create further suspicions. I hope not. I do not think these suspicions would be well founded, but we have to do everything we possibly can to see to it that we do not give cause for suspicion. This should not give cause for suspicion, because in doing what was done yesterday Canada did everything within the orbit of the charter itself. Those familiar with the charter will know that under it regional arrangements for security may be made, provided that they are reported to the secretary-general of the united nations and circulated among the member nations. Consequently, what was done yesterday was done in accordance with the charter and should not give rise to suspicion. But in the state of the world today, policies of this nature may give rise to suspicion, and I am wondering whether the timing was as good as it might have been. Suspicion, as I said a moment ago, pervades the international scene. Again may I repeat that we should let it be known to the world that what we do with the United States in regard to the standardization of equipment and the exchange of personnel and as regards every other matter involved in this understanding, we are prepared to do with all the nations of the world within the organization of the united nations and under the security council.
We noted with a good deal of interest a short time ago Field Marshal Montgomery's visit to Moscow and his invitation to the Soviets for an exchange of certain types of personnel. That was all to the good, and I am sorry that the Soviets did not see fit to accept that invitation and arrange for mutual exchange, because I think it might have been beneficial to an understanding between these 83166-26
great powers. But our principle must be as far as possible to relate the plans we are making to the united nations.
Just a word about the bill itself. The hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard has well made the point to which I intended to draw attention immediately, that the size of our forces will no longer be limited under the provisions of the amending bill before us, and1 I agree with all that he had to say on that point. Parliament must not give up the right of complete control of the army. It is an age-old right and we must retain that control to the fullest possible extent.
The other point is this, that in this bill, in the event of an emergency, the calling up of men to defend the country is still left entirely in the hands of the governor in council. We know that has been the law, I was going to say for years, but in reality it is for centuries, ever since the right was taken to call out the male population against raids by Indians or other threat of danger. I believe, however, that the time has come when the right of the governor in council to call out the now large male population of Canada on any basis laid down in this bill or in any other bill should be subject to the direction of parliament, and that, before it is put into effect-there is no reason why the active forces and reserves should! not be called together in an emergency-parliament should be summoned at once and the power to conscript, because that is what it really is, should be in the hands of parliament. The governor . in council should act with the authority of parliament and only with that authority. That,
I think, is a reasonable provision which should be in any such bill.
I had one or two other matters of minor importance I was going to raise but I can do that in committee. Before I sit down, may I express the hope that the minister will introduce a complete army act for Canada. References are made in this bill to the army act as in effect in the United Kingdom, but we live undter different conditions from those in the United Kingdom; our disciplinary needs are different from theirs, and the sooner we can have our own army act controlling our own army enacted by this House of Commons, the better it will be for all concerned.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Alan Cockeram: Mr. Speaker, I have no hesitation at the beginning of my remarks in referring to the

Militia Act

constitutional question, which was brought up by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Merritt) this afternoon, and in that regard I should like to read one paragraph from the "History of the Forces":
But the raising, government, and payment of the army have always been expressly sanctioned by parliament, and only for a period of twelve months at a time, so that it is a statutory, and not a prerogative force, and the crown is under the necessity of annually asking for the consent of parliament to its maintenance.
Before the last session, of parliament, the then minister of national defence made a pronouncement at the Canadian club at Ottawa with reference to the armed service, and in the course of his speech he made this statement:
As I announced a short time ago, the initial organization for our post-war army will proceed on the basis of a plan which contemplates a permanently embodied force immediately available to meet minimum peace-time obligations.
And later on, he said:
The Canadian army will consist of an active force of approximately 25,000 and a reserve force of six divisions, with a total authorized strength of approximately 180,000.
We know that in the last two months we have had a new Minister of National Defence, and I bring this matter up in connection with the constitutional question involved in the amendment now before the house. This parliament approved the plan as outlined by the then minister and voted the money for the maintenance of a force of the size indicated. The present minister took office two months ago, -and since that time the force has been slashed and the security which some men thought they had when going into the reserve army and into the permanent force or active army has gone by the board. In doing that, the minister has flouted the will of parliament, and therefore, if we allow these amendments to go through as they are printed today, we shall be putting more power into his hands than has ever been put into the hands of any minister of militia in the past.
Let me ask the minister this question: What has occurred in the last year that has made such a change of policy necessary? Have the world problems eased? Is it because he cannot get men? Why is it, that, in spite of the fact that parliament approved the army requested, he has made these cuts? I am sure that the people of Canada do not know to what extent these cuts have been made.
You will notice, Mr. Speaker, that the then minister of national defence said that he desired1 to have a reserve army of 180,000, and the money vras granted by parliament for that purpose. I have in my hand the new establishment of one of the outstanding units in

Canada, whose members gave excellent service in two wars. It is a remarkable document. The total strength of privates is cut down to sixty-six men, and it may be interesting to see how those sixty-six privates are to be employed. Three of them are at battalion headquarters; twenty-six, headquarters company, the majority of whom are signallers; and the remainder are in the support company, including the mechanical drivers. In the rifle company, which is the fighting arm of the regiment, there is no allowance for any privates at all. They start off at the rank of corporal. How does a man become a corporal if he is not a private in the first place? I suggest that, in! view of this establishment the minister should explain to the house the establishments of all regiments throughout the country.
In my opinion, it is a serious matter at a time when the ex-minister of national defence pleaded with men to go back into the reserve army and build up t-heir regiments, that they should have no security, the government having cut everything from beneath their feet. The fact is that officers, non-commissioned officers, do not know whether they will have a regiment or not, and when it comes to summer camps, the only people who will be on. the strength to go to the camps will be officers and non-commissioned officers. Who will do the batman's job and: look after latrines, cookhouse fatigue, and all the other activities that go with camp life? I submit that the minister ought to make a statement during this debate, telling us why it has been deemed necessary to make these cuts to the extent that he has.
I cannot see any use in passing this bill in its present form if. directly parliament prorogues, the minister takes complete power over the armed forces. It seems to me, as the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard said, that the minister is now constituting himself the commander in chief of the Canadian forces, and when you make a politician commander in chief it is a very serious matter.
I wonder if the minister can give us some -idea about the ability of the Dominion of Canada to carry out its obligations in relation to the united nations organization and its undertakings under the mutual arrangement which the Prime Minister announced yesterday afternoon. The hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes), speaking in this house the other day, said that in case of war it would take a minimum of six months to prepare a division for action. I would say to the minister now that, under present conditions, you would not get a division in a year, because in the first place there would be no trained privates

Militia Act
in the Canadian army, and they are the men who will be needed. It is all very well to say that we can train the officers and noncommissioned officers, but the minister knows that the men in the ranks have also to be trained. He served in the army and he knows that you cannot have an army without privates in the ranks, because eventually it is the private who has to get down and hold the ground that has been won.
The minister's action since he has taken control of the department, would lead me to think he was put there for a definite purpose and that was to cut the militia and the permanent force down to the level at which it stood before the war, if not lower. Does he realize that a great deal of work has been done in M.D. No. 2 to build up a reserve army? It has taken a great deal of persuasion to get officers, non-commissioned officers and men back to their old units to keep the regiments going.
Here is a unit-and it is not the only one in M.D. No. 2 that is in this position, because they are all the same-with three hundred to four hundred men on their strength, which will have to have a muster parade and muster out fifty per cent of their men. I would ask the minister whether he thinks that is playing the game with the men who are trying to build up the forces, devoting their time and spending their money in the interests of the country. If he wants to destroy the Canadian army and the reserve army, I know of no better way of doing it. I have no doubt that the treasury board has had something to do with this action. Treasury board officials seem to be able to go into any department of government, regardless of whether we in parliament voted money for some special purpose, and say, "You cannot have the money".
I would ask the minister to explain to us why the money that we made available last year is not available for the purpose for which it was voted.


Brooke Claxton: I should say at once that nobody is going to be mustered out of anything.


Alan Cockeram: That is very fine. If the minister will look up the instructions that have gone out over the last two or three years he will find that in city units, where the men served in the interests of the regiment, they assigned their pay to the regiment, This is not permissible today, unless there has been another change in the orders. If a regiment cannot get pay for the total number of men on its strength, the men. cannot be kept on the strength, because men cannot go to camp 83166-261
if they are not going to get their pay and allowances during t^ time they are there. Is the minister saying that any regiment can take to camp this summer any number of men they wish to? Those are not the orders that have gone out. Because of the haphazard way in which this bill was presented to the house, I think the minister owes it to the house, before we go any further, to make a statement as to what the policy of this government is regarding defence. We hear about exercises up at Churchill. I read in this morning's paper that a group of newspaper men are going up to Churchill to see the exercises taking place there. Their expenses will no doubt come out of the money we voted, but we did not vote money for that purpose. We voted money to train men to defend this country. I think the minister owes it to this house to make a definite statement about this matter.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Mr. Speaker, if on the first occasion when I presume to address this august body-and it looks like one tonight. I deal with something you may say is territorial or parochial, I hope to convince you, before I finish, that it is a matter of the nation's business and not merely that of the area from which I come.
I intend for only a moment or two to devote myself to what has gone on in the province of Alberta. Military district No. 13, the headquarters of which has been in Calgary since the district was created, has now been eliminated, cancelled, nullified, or you can use any word you wish. I wish to ask the minister this very simple question which comes under section 7 of his bill. I want to know under what legislative authority that was done. I make this charge: There is no power in Canada which permitted him or his predecessor to do what has been done. May I say that I am not speaking personally at all. There is no power under this act to support what has already been done by this government. If you look at the oldi section 7 you will find- that you can divide the district, you can cut it in pieces but you cannot eliminate it. This government naturally, with the war complex which they have always had, have just eliminated it. They did not bother wondering whether they had power to do so. I suggest to the minister that he read his act, and I say that what he has done or what his predecessor has done has no authority in the world to support it. He is a lawyer and so am I, and I think he will agree with me if he reads it with any care at all. In fact, there are two very good lawyers sitting together there. I hope they will read it together and
Militia Act

I hope they will tell us before they are through, what authority by legislation or by order in council

if yoiP call that legislation and it has been called that for a great many years-there is for having done that to us in the place whence I come.
I said that this was not a local issue, and I intend to try to convince the house that I am right. I make the charge, flatly and boldly, that what has happened in Alberta is purely a political move. I was pleased the other day to hear my colleague the hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Harkness) take up this question. We are not suggesting for a moment that we know all the strategic reasons which may be behind it. However, I know the minister, in writing to the board of trade in Calgary and in writing to my colleague the hon. member for Calgary East, said that it was done for a strategic, economic and practical reason. That board of trade has invited him or some officer or someone from the treasury department to come and support that statement. He has refused that invitation. In fact, he has not even answered the letter. Wre are still waiting, and we are still pretty good Canadians. If there is a real reason for this, we will accept it. But I say again that the answer lies where I have indicated. I am sorry about this, because the greatest friend I have in this House of Commons is the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon). I am sorry he is not in the chamber at the moment. We have been friends for more years than I would care to mention; and, incidentally, I am sixty-one years of age today.


Humphrey Mitchell: You do not look it.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Thank you. The reason I said it was a matter of national interest is this. The only solid reason for putting that thing in Edmonton is that my old pal, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, lives there. If that is not a charge, I do not know what is, and I am making it just in that way. I am not suggesting for one moment that my old friend, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, would do anything that he should not do. But I remember reading, when I was a child, "Little Jack Horner sat in a corner, eating his Christmas pie; he pushed in his thumb and pulled out a plum, and said 'What a big boy am I' ". If the Minister of Trade and Commerce had been sitting beside little Jack Horner and had pushed in his acquisitive thumb he would have brought out a plum of a size Jack Horner never heard of. He would have been right off the slate altogether.


Mr. GRANT:: Like the Tories are in
Alberta.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I can take care of you in a minute. Do not ask me to or I will take care of you properly.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Order.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Do you want to hear something about the Liberals in Alberta?


William Ross Macdonald: Order. I must remind hon. members that they must not talk to one another. AH speeches must be directed to the Speaker.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I trust that was not an admonishment directed to me, because I am quite sure the hon. gentleman who interrupted me meant it in good part and I accept it in exactly the same way. The difficulty with some of us is that we live in the past. That applies to an old fellow like me. The young men, like my hon. friend, live in their imagination. I will let it go at that.
The minister has been invited by the Canadian Legion, by the board of trade and- by the two members of parliament for Calgary to give us some' reason for this; and the hon. member for Calgary East is not a bad military man himself. Be gallantly won and modestly wore through Sicily, Italy, France, Germany and Holland one of the five George Medals issued to Canadians at the time of issue. They are not exactly dumb. I have discussed this matter with everyone in the army who would-talk to me; and, strange as it may seem, a number of them do. I have yet to hear from anyone any economic ground or any practical ground for this change.
Why is it of importance to the Dominion of Canada? This thing will cost at least half a million dollars in the next few months. Furthermore, the other day my colleague the hon. member for Calgary East placed a question on the order paper. He asked: first, has the headquarters in Calgary been sold; second, if so, at which price, to whom and so on? It was made an order for return. Why? If the answer was "no", they did not need any order for return; that ended it right there. There are only two reasons I can think of, and I have an imagination as good as that of my hon. friend over here from Prince Edward Island. One is that it has been sold; the other is that the government is stalling for time. There can be no other answer, and that is the position of this government on that problem at the present time.
I am not suggesting for a moment that the Minister of Trade and Commerce would go out

Militia Act
of his way to get anything like this. I remember raising this question when, he was in the west. He gave an interview to a newspaper, in which he said it was not in his department. I never knew the minister to make a statement that was not absolutely correct, but I also have never known him to make a statement that did not leave a way out the back door. So what has happened is this. Years ago I used to play bridge. We have all played a little bridge, and we all have a little trouble playing it, but the minister is one of those lucky players. No person ever trumped his ace. So our district headquarters go to Edmonton; it just happens to him. He is one of those chaps to whom things happen just in that way.
I realize that I am not qualified to discuss the strategic position of headquarters in Alberta, but I know that on the economic side this move is silly. As to the strategic side, I knowr that a couple of months ago it was reported in the newspapers that the general staff had advised the cabinet there was no danger of invasion from the north for at least five years, that matters of supply made it impossible. I am glad the general staff came to that conclusion, because those of us who live out there knew it anyway. So there can be only one other strategic reason, and that is liaison between the army and the air force. Well, they have a pretty good liaison today. It takes three and a half hours to drive from Calgary to Edmonton if you do not get arrested for driving at that speed; it is 200 miles, and the road is good. They have every means of communication one can think of.
This change will take 600 people from Calgary, and they have no place to live in Edmonton. In Calgary we have a headquarters building second to none, and I compliment the government on it. They bought this place and took six months to renovate it. So I close with this statementThey have not done anything like this in any other province.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: They did the same thing in New Brunswick.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I charge that the closing of headquarters of military district No. 13 in Calgary and the opening of command headquarters in Edmonton is purely a political move. There can be no doubt about the charge I make.
Mr. J. 0. PROBE (Regina City): Mr. Speaker, I have been listening very attentively to the last couple of speeches in the hope that I might catch some of the philosophy with which members of the party to my right are approaching the matter of Canadian postwar defence. I must confess I am still waiting to get that information from another speaker, because to me it is still involved in a bit of a cloud.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: It is not your 1939 philosophy.


John Oliver Probe: We shall discuss that later, and perhaps very shortly. Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, in anticipation, I believe, of the discussion likely to take place today on this militia bill, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) made a rather lengthy statement to the house in which he corroborated details of Canadian and United States relationship in the defence of the northern half of this hemisphere. Following that statement, I went over the various clauses of the united nations charter dealing with such arrangements. Outwardly there is no question but that the arrangements of which the Prime Minister spoke in the house yesterday are in harmony with part 1 of article 52 of the united nations charter, which makes provision for regional security arrangements, of that his statement of what has occurred is in harmony with articles 54 and 102 of the charter, whereby proper notice is to be given to the security council and the secretariat of the united nations. While, however, it is true that apparently there is harmony in that regard, I would have felt much better had the Prime Minister added the further statement that this was to be a transitional security arrangement and that it would be in effect, as he stated Canada's position to be, based upon the united nations charter as its cornerstone.
On August 19 last, I stated to this house the position approved by the C.C.F. on the subject of Canadian defence, and in discussing this bill I should like to repeat one or two observations I made at that time. The party to which I have the honour to belong stands solidly behind the early implementing of article 43 of the united nations charter, which calls for the setting up of a united nations protective force under the security council. In that address, I urged that Canada press for speedy action by the security council in setting up that force; and, as was explained this afternoon by our leader, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), the Canadian delegation, through the right hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent), did take the initiative before the united nations assembly and did draw emphatically to the attention of that assembly the need for an early implementing of article 43.
I bring up the matter of this statement nearly a year ago of our policy in the matter
Militia Act

of adherence to the united nations charter because, following the speech I made at that time, certain of the leading political interpreters in Canada, the newspapers, and notably the Winnipeg Free Press, cast doubt on the intentions of the C.C.F. party with respect to the defence of this country. I wish to quote from an editorial which appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press of September 19 last.
The position of the C.C.F. with respect to these paramount obligations was summarized m parliament on August 19, by Mr. Probe, the C.C.F. member for Regina:
"While no indication has been given to the members of this House of Commons as to agreements, as mentioned in article 43 of the united nations charter from which I have just quoted, respecting Canada's role in an international protection plan, and while no such agreements have as yet been presented to this house for ratification, the C.C.F. members of the house are prepared to support a negotiated contribution by Canada to such a protective force, and are prepared conditionally to approve the mustering of suitable armed components in anticipation of such agreements being secured and ratified by the House of Commons."
Then- the editorial comment on my statement is as follows:
Running right through these conditions is the philosophy of the C.C.F. with its emphatic oppo: sition to conscription, its socialist criticism of army training methods, and its socialist formula for the future organization and use of the three armed forces. No one questions the right of the C.C.F. to submit its own proposals on the domestic programme to be followed by Canada's military establishments. What is indefensible, however, is making acceptance of these proposals .-which all spring from the party tenets of the C.C.F. and which are certain to arouse the most widespread and sustained criticism and disagreement-conditions precedent to haying Canada honour her full obligations to the united nations.
In that editorial which I have just quoted from the Winnipeg Free Press of September 19 there is in the same way as springs so frequently from our hon. friends to the right, a deliberate attempt to misrepresent the position of this party with respect to our attitude toward defence obligations. In the words of my speech, which I have here quoted. I stated, using the language of the united nations charter, our adherence to the principle of that charter whereby the security council was given authority to negotiate with each country for an appropriate proportion of armed components to make up a security force.
Our party stands solidly behind that, regardless of the Winnipeg Free Press. I said, too, that the C.C.F. was prepared to support interim national defence commitments, reserving to ourselves the right to criticize the details, based on. our attitude toward modern concepts of military needs.

In the last session, while the appropriations for the armed services amounted to nearly half a billion dollars, in the house we did not have the benefit of responsible statements from ministers of the crown as to the situation in respect of our military needs or commitments, but rather we had to rely upon press statements at a time when the house was in session.
The Mininster of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) has still to make a statement on the bill introduced this afternoon. Up until now he has evaded the issue as to whether his department is setting up some form of interim defence policy which will be dove-tailed into the agreements being arrived at with the military staff committee of the security council, or whether it is purely and simply a commitment in respect of a national army. To my knowledge, he has not indicated whether his department has had negotiations with the military staff committee of the security council.
As usual, the Tories have criticized-and vigorously-the government's policy with regard to defence. But in spite of listening carefully, I find they are conveniently vague with respect to their own defence policy. They rely upon questions, instead of coming out with a statement as to where they stand in the matter of defence. I chuckle inwardly when, hourly and daily I hear them in the house talking about economy of government expenditures, and then hear the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) and others talking about more and more commitments where their own bailiwicks are concerned.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: On a point of order; the hon. member for Calgary West said nothing about further commitments.	.


John Oliver Probe: Well, I had intended to confine myself strictly to my notes. However, as I understand the situation in Alberta, as set out by the hon. member for Calgary West, it is that insufficient expenditures of national funds on defence appropriations are being made, so far as Calgary is concerned.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


John Oliver Probe: My hearing is adequate. I know it is tied in with an increased expenditure on behalf of the city of Edmonton, one of the representatives of which is the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon). Nevertheless the plea of the hon. member for Calgary West was for an increased expenditure in Calgary.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: 
John Oliver Probe: I should like once again to make myself perfectly clear as to the statement of the hon. member for Calgary West, who is now in his seat. I am sure he will have to agree that what I say is correct. At the present time, according to his statement, Calgary is receiving an insufficient expenditure of national moneys through the Department of National Defence.


James Arthur Ross: He did not say that at all.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I never said that, anyway.


John Oliver Probe: The record speaks for itself. I regret I was thrown off my train of thought by the old red herring. I was saying, however, it is perfectly1 clear that while, on the one hand, the party to my right is insisting that there be economies in normal expenditures, their questions in the house and those they asked the Minister of National Defence lead me to believe, although they have not so stated, that they are anxious to have considerably augmented expenditures made by the Department of National Defence, provided, of course, that they are made in the proper constituencies.


Arthur Leroy Smith: You are not only easily led; you are silly.


John Oliver Probe: I resent the implication that I am silly. There cannot be two of us in the same house at the same time. I suggest that the hon. member withdraw that implication.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I refuse to withdraw it. It is completely silly; let us have that clear.


John Oliver Probe: Mr. Speaker-


Arthur Leroy Smith: Where do we go from here?


James Arthur Ross: He chokes on it.


John Oliver Probe: I may choke on it, but I insist that what the hon. member has said is personal and unparliamentary, and that he should withdraw it.


Arthur Leroy Smith: You have your cheer section working all right.


An hon. MEMBER:: Withdraw.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I will not withdraw.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The hon. member who has the floor should not attribute to the hon. .member for Calgary West a statement which
he has not made, but I would ask the hon. member for Calgary West to modify the language he is using in reference to the hon. member who has the floor.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Very well, sir, I shall be very happy to modify it. May I just say that the hon. gentleman has no judgment. I will put it that way.


John Oliver Probe: I thank the hon. member for his kind statement. Since it comes from the hon. member for Calgary West in that form I think I can give it its proper interpretation.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Clever.


An hon. MEMBER:: You boys from the prairies get along.


John Oliver Probe: While the members of the party to my left have thus far not taken part in the present debate, I should like to have it noted that the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore), speaking last year in connection with the defence of Canada, opposed the united nations defence principle as being impracticable. I am hoping to hear a further statement from that party and I trust it will contain a revision of their point of view in that regard.


An hon. MEMBER:: You worry about your own party.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: You will have plenty to worry about.


John Oliver Probe: We will do our own worrying.
I	come now to our own point of view with reference to Bill No. 14, which is now before the house. I regret that there is no reference in this bill, by way of preamble or otherwise, to article 43 of the united nations charter in order to tie in the terms of our Militia Act with the principle of support to the united nations protective force. We feel that there has been a patching up of this act, which is roughly fifty years old. The changes in the act do not provide for the integration features of the army, navy and air force, although this afternoon the minister, when speaking on another resolution, indicated that such was indeed contemplated. It seems to me that we should have a Militia Act, a naval act and an air force act brought forward simultaneously, so that the whole question of integrated defence could have been discussed as a unit.
We in this corner of the house consider that the present amendments to the Militia Act remove the control of the Canadian army still farther away from parliament. We find that the size of the active and reserve armies are no longer limited by statute. We find

Militia Act
that the period of training for the reserve army is no longer limited to thirty days each year. We find that the application of the British army act is to be in the hands of the governor in council. Some of these contemplated changes may be all for the good, such as the extension of the training period for the reserve forces beyond thirty days, but the fact remains that the implementing of them is not dependent on the will of parliament, it is dependent upon the decision of the minister.
The authority for conscription remains with the governor in council. Our view is that this authority should be exercised only when parliament has authorized such action. There is no change in the exemptions in connection with compulsory service. During the last war or the preceding war, man-power did not serve on an equal basis. I should like to refer to one or two particulars with respect to equality of service. I suggest to hon. members to my right as well as to those on the other side that there was no equality of service as between the workman with the dinner-pail who stopped off at the hospital or the clinic, after his day's work was done, to donate his blood to the blood bank and the man who directed government contracts at $1 a year. There was no equality of service as between the wives of the private soldiers who worked in the factories making munitions or who knitted socks in the evening and their more privileged sisters, the wives of the generals of our army-


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That is enough of that.


Mr. FERGUSON:: That statement is not
correct.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: They worked as hard as
anybody else.


John Oliver Probe: I have no doubt they did; I was not discussing that feature of it. They were privileged to go to visit their husbands when they were on the other side of the water, a privilege which was not accorded to all.


Mr. MASSEY:: No; nonsense.


John Oliver Probe: Nevertheless that is true.
There was no equity of sacrifice as between those, and this group includes many members of my party, who made outright gifts or lent money to the government without interest for the prosecution of the war rather than contaminate their hands with profits derived from the blood of their fellowmen-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Oliver Probe: -and the actions of Mr. Justice Archibald and Mr. Justice O'Connor who refused to do necessary war work unless expenses were received for their wives, and

money was paid out two years ago by the people of Canada to the tune of approximately $15,000. Your industrial services did not sacrifice on the same basis as man-power, as is indicated by the financial statement. They came out of world war II, as they came out of world war I, greatly enriched.
The bill provides that the minister, acting for the governor in council, may regulate the nature and the pattern of equipment. The leader of my group spoke this afternoon about standardization. In my opinion, the standardization of military equipment should be done only with the approval and under the direction of the united nations. The British army act will still apply to the Canadian army under certain conditions and we feel that it is time the Canadian parliament drafted its own manual of military law.


Mr. D. S. HARKNESS (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend, in my speech tonight, to make any mention of the removal of military headquarters from Calgary to Edmonton, but in view of the statement made by the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. Probe), I should like to direct his attention to my speech during the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. If he will read what I said he will find that his remarks tonight could not have been more wrong. I advocated that this matter should be considered and that the move should not go forward chiefly on the ground of economy, to save several hundred thousands of dollars of the taxpayers' money rather than ask the government to spend more money. It is a sad commentary on defence matters that a member of the C.C.F. party should rise in his place here tonight and, when he is supposed to be speaking on the second reading of the bill to amend the Militia Act, should have devoted most of his time to carping at members in our party, at certain officers and at the wives of certain judges, and so forth. If that constitutes criticism or has anything to do with the amendments to the Militia Act I need to go back to school.
I should like to elaborate on certain points which have already been brought to the attention of the house by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Merritt) and the hon. member for York South (Mr. Cockeram). The bad effect on recruiting and on morale in the reserve force which has been brought about chiefly by the lack of any definitely stated government policy on defence has been mentioned. Not long before I came to Ottawa, I attended a conference of commanding officers of the reserve units in Calgary which took in all the commanding officers in southern

Militia Act
Alberta, and last Friday and Saturday I attended the meetings of the artillery association here in Ottawa. I was disappointed and discouraged to find that the general attitude amongst those officers representing a very large number of units was that, unless the government came out very soon with a definite statement of what their defence policy is and kept reiterating it in order to convince the people of Canada that a defence force, particularly a reserve force, is necessary, we would soon have no reserve force. Nearly all those officers were experiencing tremendous difficulty in recruiting, and a large proportion of them were almost prepared to give up. Their attitude was: If the government does not want this, all right; why should we go ahead and spend time and money on it? If they do not want it, let them say so. They wanted a statement of government policy which would convince particularly the young men of the country that such a force is necessary. Then, they said they could get the young men to join, but until that is done they said they cannot get them in. I would urge the government, as numerous other speakers have done, to make a definite pronouncement on defence policy, and if they want a reserve force let them say so and encourage the men to join it.
In addition to the bad effect on the reserve force that the lack of a government statement of a defence policy has caused, there is also the bad effect on the active service forces, for two reasons. First, the members of the active service forces do not know what their function is or where they are heading. Secondly, the chopping about and changing of plans which has been going on during the last two months has produced a feeling of insecurity and discouragement on the part of both officers and men. The announcement of the minister that the active forces were to be cut to three-quarters of their previously authorized strength could have no other effect than one of discouragement and insecurity. Since that announcement was not accompanied by an explanation of how this twenty-five per cent cut in man-power was to be made, the feeling of insecurity was deepened. As I understand it, some of the establishments were already up to full strength in the ranks, and the men naturally wondered what was going to happen to them. To allay this feeling of perturbation which exists in the active forces, I think the minister should tell us how it is proposed to make this twenty-five per cent cut in manpower. Are some authorized units to be done away with altogether, or are all authorized units to be recruited only to three-quarters of their strength, or is there to be a combination
of these two ways in which the reduction might be made? In any event, what is the pattern or principle that is to be followed?
Particularly I should like to know what is to happen to the brigade group which we heard so much about last session. It was to be a strong and highly mobile force, well trained and well equipped, Which would be ready to move into action almost at a moment's notice. Is that brigade group washed out altogether? Or is that also to be cut down to three-quarters of its strength? That would mean that it would not be able to work effectively. Anyone who has had any experience in fighting knows how difficult it is to carry out a task which is a battalion's task, be it attack or anything else, if you have only three-quarters of a battalion to do it.
The feeling of uncertainty which exists is also found to be causing a great deal of waste effort in the active forces. That, of course, means a loss of time and money. Last spring it was announced that every reserve force unit was to be recruited up to strength and that they could take all their men with them to camp. Shortly before I came to Ottawa, every reserve force unit, in our area at any rate, got notice that they could take to camp only a minute portion of their men. My own regiment with an authorized strength of 800 was authorized to take only twenty officers and men to camp. 'And so it went. The active forces must, during the past several months, have been making plans and administrative arrangements for the training of these reserve forces; but now that the numbers to be trained are suddenly and drastically reduced, it means that the time spent in formulating these plans has been wasted. Since arriving in Ottawa, I understand that a still further change has been made. The result is that the reserve forces do not know where they stand, and a great deal of the time and efforts of their officers has been just wasted. So much for that.
One objection I have to this bill is on general principles, in that it makes the minister the general officer commanding the militia. In the act as it has stood to date, such an officer is provided for, but in actual practice, so far as my knowledge goes, such an officer has not been appointed in recent years, and the fact that he was not appointed has been a defect in our present system. It resulted in orders being issued from several sources and in confusion and a multiplicity of red tape. In the army no one knows at the present time who is the actual head of it, and no one knew during the war. The chief of the general staff issues orders in connection with certain matters such as training and opera-
Militia Act

tions, and other officers issue administrative orders of various sorts. Which officer is the head of the army or whether the minister is the head of the army is an open question, and it is time that that situation was brought to an end. Take the case of orders being issued at the battalion level. What confusion would arise if you had the adjutant issuing certain orders and the quartermaster issuing his own orders and the medical officer issuing his own orders, and so forth! When orders are issued by the commanding officer of the battalion the result is correlation, and confusion with its attendant difficulties is avoided. If in a battalion you had the situation which prevails at army headquarters you would have the adjutant ordering the company to report for training three miles away at nine o'clock on Monday morning, the quartermaster ordering them to report at nine o'clock in connection with stores, and the medical officer ordering them to report at the same time for medical inspection and so forth. In other words, you would have a mess, and in many ways that is what we have now, confusion and difficulties of all kinds.
The present amendment, in doing away with the position .of general officer commanding, also changes certain provisions of the act so that the minister will discharge many of the functions which should be carried out by the army commander. It seems to me that this will involve making politics the overriding consideration in army matters, which ought to be as completely as possible removed from politics.
It has been an accepted principle for many years in this country that the military services and the civil service should be completely divorced from politics, but this amendment seems to be a complete reversal of that very proper concept. It provides for powers to be exercised by the minister which make him the military head of the army, thus inviting political interference in military spheres where such interference should not exist.
In that connection, I have here a brief entitled "Thoughts on the Command and Administration of the Canadian Army," which expresses clearly and in better terms than I can some of the ideas with reference to this subject which I should like to put on record. I quote:
I doubt whether one could get from the government today a clear statement as to where the command of the army rests.
Until within the last half century in Great Britain there was a commander in chief responsible to the secretary of state for war for everything which pertained to the army. The government of the United Kingdom substituted for the commander in chief an army council, which collectively commands the army.

In Canada we have imitated the outward appearance of the United Kingdom set-up, but that is all.
Further on:
It would be possible, as in Great Britain, to have an army council in command in which case the orders are issued in the name of, and with the authority of. the army council, and should be signed by the secretary of the army council.
This is not the case in Canada, to outward appearances, at least. There are only two possible alternatives. One is that there is no one actually in command and that the four senior staff officers issue orders on their own authority and in their own name, getting along together as best they can. The other alternative is that, while it may not be openly so stated, actually the minister exercises the power of command without accepting in full the responsibility for it.
The situation is not clear, plain or frank, right at the outset. Ostensibly the army council commands the army, but in actual practice the minister does.
I quote further:
Political command is had, as has been demonstrated many times in many countries, but it is not as bad as uncertainty as to who actually does effectively command. Anyone with any sound military knowledge and capacity for observation who served for any length of time at national defence headquarters in Ottawa during the war would, I think, agree that delays, vacillations, passing the buck, reluctance to accept responsibility and lack of any clear-cut policy on any large issue were the rule rather than the exception.
Political command is not bad because politicians are bad-
Many of us will be glad to hear that.
-or because they are incapable. They are as good and as capable as people likely to be found in the army or in other professions. Political command or control in detail of the army is bad because the army must always necessarily be of secondary importance to the politician. A member of the House of Commons-


James Horace King: Order. I regret to have to interrupt the hon. member but I would call his attention to section 306 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, page 101, which reads:
It is not in order to read articles in newspapers. letters or communications emanating from persons outside the house and referring to, or commenting on, or denying anything said by a member or expressing any opinion reflecting on proceedings within the house.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I will not quote any more. Mr. Speaker. I will state in my own words the substance of the opinion expressed. The opinion is that political command is bad because political considerations must always be the overriding considerations, and the winning of an election in a particular constituency, or the winning of an election by the government as a whole, must, in the minds of the politicians, rank in importance above the proper administration of the army.

Militia Act
I think there is a great- deal of truth in the passages I have quoted, and it is time that the anomalous situation in which we have been for many years should be cleared up. Let us be straightforward and honest about the matter. Let us have either a commander in chief or an- army council which actually commands the army, or, if the government supported by parliament wishes to have the army commanded by the minister, very well. Let us say so frankly. But do not let us have the situation we have been in for years, in- which the army generally felt, and believed it had grounds for the suspicion, that in many matters the minister actually was the army commander and that political considerations were being used to push the army and the military men about.
Perhaps one of the greatest evils, one of the greatest destroyers of morale in any army is the feeling of lack of trust in the commander, lack of trust in the government as far as the conduct of the army is concerned; and that is the situation which I am afraid we have had to a great extent and one which, when we are amending the Militia Act, we have an opportunity to get rid of.
I have another criticism of these amendments. It is that in some cases a legislative power is delegated by the act to the governor in council or to the minister. The act has been so drawn as to perpetuate in defence matters government by order in council or ministerial regulations, which we have had to submit to in time of war but which, I think, all believers in democracy are now trying to get rid of. Most of us consider that we have had enough government by order in council and ministerial regulations. Let us put the powers back into the hands of parliament where they belong and keep them there, instead of delegating some and making the situation worse than it has been.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: Mr. Speaker, with your permission I shall take a few moments to address myself to these problems of defence as they affect the Canadian air force. Before I do so, I should -like to say a word to the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. Probe). However, I see he is not in the house at the moment, so I will not bother.
First, may I say that I hope I shall in part answer his criticism that there are no policies forthcoming from the Tory party. In saying that, may I also refer him to the remarks made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Merritt) and many other hon. members on this side of the1 house, which have been most constructive.
As I see this problem of national defence, it is imperative that the government should immediately prepare an appreciation of what defences Canada needs; once they have done that, they should then endeavour to tailor their conclusions to the size of Canada's pocket. The government must have a clear idea of the role and the aim the defence forces have and of their interdependence. In other words, those of us who served in this war know the army cannot fight in these days without an air force and without supplies. We know the navy cannot sail without an umbrella. We in turn know the air force is in a hopeless position unless its main base is defended by the other forces. I suggest that the government should charge the able men of its defence forces who have served in this war actively, with the task of preparing a real military appreciation of the defence- problems of this country, and then endeavouring to put their conclusions into operation for the good of Canada; and I should include there, in order to fulfil our proper commitments to the united nations. As I see it at the present time, putting it in political language, Canada has decided) to take a free ride at the expense of the United States and the United Kingdom.
My colleague the hen. member for Calgary East (Mr. Harkness) mentioned leadership and the importance of leadership. Mr. Speaker, as a returned man and as a former soldier, you will appreciate that without leadership a force is useless. As we go back into history, we find that the leadership and discipline of the Roman legions once secured an empire for them and secured the peace for many long years. The defence forces of Canada are incapable of fulfilling any task if they are not led; they are incapable of fulfilling any task if they are not first given the task, then the example, and finally the opportunity to do the things they know should be done. Leadership should come from the heads of these services and go down through them to the officers and non-commissioned officers. Through you, Mr. Speaker, may I say directly to the minister that if any of the heads of our services are not leading, are not representing directly to him the things which they feel are best for their forces and for the defence of Canada, they should be removed. If these men cannot lead, if they are overcome with political considerations or are overridden by timidity when they approach the government, they are not fit for their jobs. No man would want anyone on his staff who was not able and capable and who did not have the courage to express an independent opinion. If there are such men at the head of our services today in Canada the
Militia Act

government, and the minister in particular, should dismiss them. If there are any senior officers who are not capable of presenting a true and accurate picture to the minister, and of leading their forces, they should be dismissed. I am not speaking of anybody in particular. I have no one in mind when I say this. My only thought is that the forces must be led and must be given a policy to follow.
The hon. member for Calgary East also mentioned the necessity of continuity of plans. In dealing with that, may I say that the minister has in his Department of National Defence vast numbers of men; he has a tremendous machine, a tremendous organization. No businessman would step into a new business and completely tear it apart with one stroke. He would adopt the proper system, which would be gradually to change its policy without tearing off the cylinders of a working engine. That is evolution, and that is what should have happened as far as the defence forces of Canada are concerned. The whole new scheme should have been allowed to evolve, instead of allowing a major operation to be performed on the moving body of the defence forces of Canada.
With regard to the Royal Canadian Air Force, we want to know and the country wants to know just what is to be left after this twenty-five per cent reduction. I have been told, and I believe on good authority, that we need an air defence force in Canada of at least 24,000 men. That is not an arbitrary figure. As I understand it, with a force below that figure we have nothing that can be called an efficient air force. If we have that figure, we have the skeleton, the framework of an efficient one. There are many things that we in Canada need as far as an air force is concerned. We need duplication. We have to have two of everything. We have to have exactly similar forces, or almost exactly similar forces for the east coast and for the west coast. Those two similar forces should in both cases look northward toward our polar regions. We must have army cooperation. As any man who served in the army will know, the air force did a good job for them in this last war with their tactical air force and their fighter cover. We must have a force that will work with the navy, and that applies to both coasts. We must have a transport force and a reconnaissance force. We must have photographic machines, bombers, fighters and, above all, we must have an efficient staff on which to base such a force.
The country does not know how many squadrons there will be in Canada or what the roles of those squadrons will be. The

people do not know where the aircraft are to be obtained. They do not know whether they will be the newest type in design or whether they will be antiquated machines; and, as was mentioned yesterday, they do not know whether Canada will be part of the producing machinery of any standardized arms to which we should agree. To me that is a most important point. I am afraid Canada's present position ties her defence forces to the production machinery of other countries. I feel that we should have within our own country the means, to the extent we can develop them, for producing our own armaments; and if we are to standardize on United States or British types, we should be producing. The auxiliary squadrons of this country are inter ested in what type of equipment they are to have. They are also interested in learning when they are to be paid, when the minister and his department are to pay the officers so that they can begin supporting their squadrons.
Then we come to the position of cadets. As I understand it, a tremendous air cadet programme has been developed. These boys have been promised flying lessons; they have been promised camps; they have been promised equipment on which to learn. I believe now that these cadets are to be taken out of the secondary schools and the whole programme is to be curtailed so that perhaps one in a thousand will get air training, the thing they want. The leaders of the air cadet movement in Canada have been allowed to go out among their squadrons and make promises to young people, which promises are not to be kept. So that I hope we may have an early statement from the minister as far as the cadets in Canada are concerned, because I am sure neither the minister nor I shall be fit to fight another war, and it is the younger people who will have to do it.
The hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Harkness) also dealt with the problem of morale. If I could make a comment on that now, it would be that the recent changes in the Department of National Defence have gone a long way toward taking away from our defence forces the finest quality any defence force can have; that is, high morale. They are not being led; they do not know where they are going, and their morale has been sapped.
I should like to ask the minister one thing having to do with equipment. In some ways it has to do with war assets also, but I shall not enter upon that phase of it because I am sure you, Mr. Speaker, would stop me if I did. During the last war, as I understand it, we in Canada purchased all our own aircraft

Militia Act
and all our own equipment in addition to paying our forces. At the end of the war we brought back to Canada a few Lancaster bombers; but, so far as I know, they are the only paid-for machines that ever returned to this country. I am very much interested to learn what happened to the many aircraft Canada paid for and why they were not brought back to this country to be sold through War Assets Corporation, or to be broken up so that the equipment could be used for future training or farmed out to universities and air cadet squadrons.
I have practically finished, except to make one further comment. Apparently there is one member of the government who does know something about the defence of Canada, though I know that one member is fully occupied with the problems of his own department, which is the Department of Labour. At page 326 of Hansard he said:
If you have something that the other fellow wants and you are not prepared to defend it, you will lose it.
There is a very clear statement of what we are driving at today. We do not want to lose what we have here, and we are prepared to defend it. We want a government that is also prepared to defend it.


Mr. H. G. ARCHIBALD (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, tonight we have been discussing the instrument of national defence, so-called. I think it can be stated that in our experience of the past when we have run up against the crisis of war we have always been prepared for the last one. In other words, at the time of world war I we were prepared1 for the Boer War. When world war II broke out we were prepared for world war I. As things stand at the present time. I would say that the General Braddoeks have the situation well in hand.
The net result of world war II was that every army established on the basis we are now discussing wound up behind barbed wire fences or sitting on a beach. It was tragic and nearly cost the democratic nations of the world their freedom. But during that war instruments were forged, through necessity, that still work efficiently. I am speaking of the people's armies that were in the fields of Great Britain armed with shotguns, pitchforks and old spears to protect them from airborne invasion, the people who guarded buildings against air attack, from fire bombs and so on. I should mention also the underground of France, the civilians of Warsaw and especially those gallant Greek guerillas who defeated the Germans by their own efforts, using German equipment that they captured with their own
hands. The entry of the British army at the end of the war was unnecessary from the point of view of driving out the Germans. Now these instruments which were created out of necessity have been done away with, and once more we are building up our defence forces on the same old basis; and I imagine we are to suffer the same experiences.
We should be building up our forces for national defence around the factory and the field, because the next attack will be airborne. This "expedition frigid" or whatever it is called up in Alaska, has found that it is impracticable to move land equipment through those regions. Electric wire snaps like kindling; tires chip away to nothing in the intense cold. So we are going to be subjected in the event of war, to air attack, and all our cities are open to it. No preparation is being made to defend our people. Under our present civilization, we either live like rooks in a rookery or like rabbits in a rabbit warren. We are stuffed into huge centres willy-nilly and the government refuses to put through a decent housing programme. as is well known, with no preparation being made for decentralization of the economy. In no sense could this be called national defence from the point of view of safeguarding the lives of the people or safeguarding the machinery of production that eives us the standard of living we have today. We are repeating the mistakes of the past.
Now we are to be thrown upon the mercy of Uncle Sam; he is going to help us defend ourselves. This agreement that has been entered into could very easily be the Munich of 1947. and this with no understanding of what the situation may be in the United States tomorrow. Their political structure is unstable; it is riven with race hatred, even class hatred, as much as in any country in the world today. The general drift of our time has been toward forms of dictatorship. If they had masses of unemployed in that country, who could stop the leaders of that nation from leading them into an imperialistic adventure? That country has the most backward political leadership in the world today, and it is trying to ram down the throats of the rest of the world, against its will, a method of trade that was antiquated fifty years ago. The United States is the only country in the world having that conception of world trade, and its people are bringing confusion to the rest of the world by their antics.
United States military strategists do not stand out, and United States military analysts are still trying to outmanoeuvre the Seminole Indians. They are depending upon wealth, and wealth alone: and today wealth is a poor
Militia Act

substitute for ideas. Wars of the past have been imperialistic, in the sense that those who fought them wanted more land areas. But wars of the future are going to be wars of ideas. The country to the south of us is bankrupt when it comes to ideas. If we are going to defeat our enemy today, we must disarm him by producing a higher faith among our people in our institutions than we have at present.
We have educated people; we have highly developed resources.


James Horace King: Order. I would call the attention of the hon. member to the fact that we have before us Bill No. 14, to amend the Militia Act. The purpose of the bill is to amend the Militia Act so as to enable the present plans for the reorganization and training of the Canadian army to be effectively carried out. I would ask the hon. member to confine his remarks to the principle of the bill.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: Very well. Mr. Speaker. It is my understanding that the amendments are intended to make the defence of Canada more efficient, and it is with that thought in mind that I have spoken along these lines. The discussion today has rambled everywhere, from Calgary to Edmonton, from east to west, and covering every imaginable subject. I thought I would have the opportunity to speak generally as did the other hon. members.
However, I have very little more to say. The setting up of a. purely offensive national force is aggravating rather than helping the situation as we have it today. The form of national defence suggested is impractical, because it is not national defence and will defend nothing. Therefore, so that history may not be permitted to repeat itself, I urge that we have a little original thinking in the Department of National Defence.


Mr. FREDERIC DORION (Charlevoix-Saguenay) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, may .1 be permitted to state briefly my position on this bill. I am firmly opposed to it. I anticipate that a vote will be taken on the principle of the bill and as I shall have to take the same stand as the Progressive Conservative members, I do not wish to be misinterpreted. Let no one think that I am moved by the same reasons as those set forth by members of that party. On the contrary, if only the base principle of the bill were involved, namely that the governor in council instead of the general staff be granted rather extensive powers, I would gladly support the measure, because I believe that we must prevent the formation of a military caste in our

midst, which in most cases constitutes the first step towards military rule. But I am firmly opposed to any legislation which allows the governor in council to establish conscription in this country, even in peace time.
I have no doubt but that the Quebec members who have been elected in 1945 as Independent Liberals or anti-conscription Liberals will vote against this bill.
For my part, I have clearly stated my position: I am firmly opposed to it, as I said before, because I am against any brand of conscription, whether it be passed by a Liberal or a Progressive Conservative government.
(Text):


Mr. NORMAN JAQUES (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak only briefly. I cannot claim any special military knowledge; neither can I claim to have any first-hand knowledge of the united nations organization to which reference was made this afternoon.
The party or movement to which I have the honour to belong has never been favoured with an invitation to sit with or to take part in any deliberations of the united nations organization. But were I a member of the united nations organization I would ask this question:	When is it proposed that the
150,000,000 victims of appeasement living behind the iron curtain will have their liberty restored to them? Perhaps the leader of the C.C.F. would be good enough to ask it on my behalf.
Various opinions have been expressed as to the correctness of the government's defence policy. As I said, I am not qualified to discuss the military side of the matter. I thought that perhaps some of our Conservative friends were a little-what shall I say?-.political. I suppose that is their time-honoured role.
The leader of the C.C.F. spoke as to fundamental policy. I have to credit the government, which is charged with the responsibility of safeguarding the country, with doing the best it can under the circumstances. I cannot believe that men evil enough to jeopardize the safety of Canada could ever become ministers of a Canadian government. Therefore I must credit the government with using its best judgment, under the circumstances. It is charged with the responsibility of the defence of the country.
Hon. members on this side who have criticized fundamental policies of defence are not charged with that responsibility, and perhaps for that reason they are apt to be less particular in their remarks. Listening to the leader of the C.C.F. this afternoon-and if I did not understand him correctly, perhaps I may revise my impression after reading his speech tomorrow-it would seem to me that

Militia Act
he represents the opinions of those in the British parliament who signalled their election to the House of Commons by singing the "Red Flag." I should say he represents those hundred or so members of the Labour party in Great Britain who refused to give Foreign Minister Bevin a vote of confidence.


Mr. WRIGHT:: You should have waited until you read his speech.


Norman Jaques: He represents those political Zionists who propagate hatred such as I have witnessed of Americans against the British in order to enforce their claims for the setting up of a Jewish state in Palestine. The best defence for Canada and for world peace would be to present a united front against the forces of totalitarianism.


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, if a feeling should exist that this debate has rambled over a wide field I suggest it is because the minister has failed to take advantage of the opportunity given him today to make a clear statement on defence policy.
I feel he should have taken advantage of that opportunity because he must know that the country as a whole is anxious to have such a statement. This afternoon he did make a brief statement which contained one important fact, namely, that he and his department were considering introducing a Canadian army act in the near future. It is high time that such an act was introduced. Canada has reached the stage in her national development where she should be free to govern her own forces. She has adopted a naval code of her own and it is time that she had her own army code. It is quite conceivable that regulations passed under the army act of Great Britain might be repugnant to Canada and, if the Canadian parliament were not in session, we would have to conform to those repugnant regulations.
However, the new act is not ready, and in the meantime the minister has submitted a series of amendments to the existing Militia Act in an effort to bring that act up to date by changing the nomenclature of the various units and providing for the speeding up of the putting into effect of regulations which might be made. The minister pointed out that the majority of these amendments are of a trivial nature and I suggest that there was no necessity to put these trivial amendments through at the present time. They could have stood over until the Canadian army act was produced.
But there is one amendment which is of fundamental importance, an amendment which challenges the very structure of our government and our democratic institutions. I refer to section 22. As was brought out clearly by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Merritt), in ancient days the armies of Great Britain were raised at the will of parliament or of the king as the case might be. After the motherland had been through several years of civil war and had experienced the restoration of the Stuart dynasty, there was a clash of interests and certain minority groups had to be protected. In. the reign of King James II, an attempt was made by the reigning monarch to introduce armed forces without the consent of parliament. There was a struggle over the Bill of Rights in the seventeenth century. That Bill of Rights laid down that armed forces should not be maintained in peace without the consent of parliament.
That was one of the fundamental principles for which our forefathers fought and died and that is one of the freedoms which we feel should be protected today. It is one of the freedoms which grew out of the struggles in bygone days. After all, our democratic institutions represent the results of struggles which date from early days. As a result of that particular struggle, such bills as the mutiny bill, the annual army act and so on were introduced into the mother of parliaments. These defined clearly year by year, for twelve months only, the size of the force which could be maintained by the crown.
In Canada we adopted a slightly different principle. Our standing army has never been large. The militia was permanently enrolled, mainly for the instruction of the non-permanent militia, for running the schools, to man certain forts and to look after warlike stores. We have never had anything in the nature of a standing army, but now it is suggested that there may be a field force, an airborne brigade and a mixed brigade; all very small, but in the nature of a standing army of regular troops.
At the same time, this parliament is being asked to give up its right to protect the people of this country. It is being asked to hand over to the governor in council the sole authority for increasing that force to whatever size the governor in council may desire. That is one of the fundamental principles for which the British people have struggled for centuries. It is one of the principles that we in this parliament cannot surrender.
This bill to amend the Militia Act is simply a series of unimportant amendments which hide and cloak one vital, fundamental principle. I submit that it is unnecessary at this time and we of this party will oppose the
Militia Act

second reading unless the minister is prepared to say that he will establish a limit to the size of the forces which are to be permanently or regularly enrolled and to be known as the active army. That would only be following out what has been the principal practice of Canadian policy for the last fifty or sixty years.
I ask the minister to state definitely in his closing remarks whether he is prepared to amend section 22 so that there will be a definite ceiling. I do not ask him to amend it now; it can be amended when we are in committee. If he gives us the assurance that he will agree to setting a ceiling so that the constitutional practice of government of the military forces by the parliament of this country will be continued, then we can discuss in committee any amendments that we may suggest to the minor clauses. But if he will not give us that assurance now, we are opposed to the passing of the second reading of this bill.


John Horne Blackmore: Mi'. Speaker, the minister knows the facts. He knows much about the international situation, much which is not available to the members of this house, much which, by reason of the responsibilities attached to his office, he finds himself restrained from revealing. The minister knows what are the plans devised and the preparations made looking toward emergent eventualities. The minister knows the part which Canada likely will feel it her duty to play in case of emergency.
I was impressed with certain words of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), as recorded at page 347 of Hansard. I quote:
As the joint statement points out, the charter of the united nations is the cornerstone of the foreign policy of both governments. Certainly, the Canadian government holds that its obligations to the united nations are of overriding importance. In time, it is to be hoped that there will emerge-apart altogether from reduction and limitation of arms and elimination of weapons of mass destruction-a system of international security which will be adequate to preserve the peace of the world. The ultimate objective is not joint or regional defence, but collective international defence as the guarantee of national security.
It must be recognized, however, that much progress has still to be made before a system of international security becomes effective.
May I draw particular attention, to that last sentence. He went on:
Each nation must therefore consider what steps it should take in the meantime to defend itself against aggression, while bearing constantly in mind that these steps should contribute to the development of general security in accordance with the charter of the united nations. I should like to make it entirely clear that, so far as the Canadian government is concerned, 
and I am sure the United States government also, defence cooperation between Canada and the United States is intended to support and strengthen the united nations.
The minister knows the facts behind those words; the members of this house do not. I do not. He has the responsibility. Social Crediters ask of him that he discharge that responsibility ably and well. We do not presume to dictate to him how he shall proceed, as I notice so many members of the Progressive Conservative party have done this afternoon and evening, telling him how to run his job when they do not know what his problems are. It amazed me. Social Crediters merely remind the minister that the Canadian people will expect results.
We make of the minister two requests: first, that he shall make Canada strong; second, that he will keep Canada free. So long as we are satisfied that he is doing his best to achieve these results, we Social Crediters will give him our earnest support.


Mr. C. E. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, just before the debate closes, I wish briefly to say that I agree with what the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) has just said in regard to the defence of Canada. I well remember the great anxiety that was in the minds of all members of this house back in 1939 when we were ill prepared to go to war. I shall not for a moment attempt to pit my judgment against that of some hon.. members who have spoken on this question today. Some of them are great soldiers and took a distinguished part in the last war; but they, along with us, will remember the condition of our defence forces in Canada at the beginning of the last war. I am fearful that, if there is any great reduction in our defence forces, they may be useless in an emergency, and no one would want to see that happen.
I rose particularly to join with the two other members from Calgary, the hon, member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) and the hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Harkness), since my own constituency starts from Fourth street east in that city, in protesting strongly against the government's announced intention to remove the headquarters of military district No. 13 from Calgary to Edmonton. It has been pointed out that, if the government wishes to economize in military expenditures, a good place to start is by leaving the headquarters of military district No. 13 in Calgary. It will be recalled by all hon. members here that the government has gone to great expense in building the headquarters in Calgary. A great deal of money was spent only recently in completing in Calgary what is now one of the best

Militia Act
headquarters of alii the military districts in the west. The headquarters should remain in Calgary and not be moved to Edmonton. In Calgary there is wonderful housing accommodation for the headquarters, a wonderful personnel and great efficiency in their office operations.
We three members from the district of Calgary have received communications from practically all the organizations in the west, including boards of trade and even political organizations, vehemently protesting against the removal of the military district headquarters from Calgary to Edmonton, and I join with the other two members in protesting strongly against this proposed removal.


Mr. T. J. BENTLEY (Swift Current):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to say anything on this bill until we got into the committee stage, but I should like to make a few observations before the second reading passes. I wish to disagree with the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Jaques), and I hope he will agree that I should disagree with him when he reads the statement of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) a little more carefully than apparently he listened to it. It is not a question of this group waving a red flag. Nobody in this group waves a red flag. But we do recognize that there is in this world a nation over which the red flag flies and which is tremendously powerful. It may be a very good friend and possibly at some time it might be a very powerful enemy of this country. I do not know what history is going to bring. But we are very much concerned to see that our own independent national life in this country is maintained.
I agree with the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) on two counts:	first, that we
should have a Canadian army act. There is no necessity for having any part of our Militia Act subject to the operation of the British army act. I agree with him on another count most heartily, and that is that these amendments would hand over to the government powers which should be in the hands of parliament itself to determine the size of our army.
There is another feature of the bill which I look upon with alarm. I know, Mr. Speaker, that we are not supposed to pick out particular sections of the bill and discuss them on the second reading, but I think it is in order for me to say that, within the amendments proposed, there are possibilities of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) having a very big hand in shaping Canadian foreign policy, in that he is permitted to do certain things which, coupled with the Prime Minister's
statement of yesterday, would give him tremendous powers in the formation of Canadian foreign policy. I do want to see friendship with the United States. I do want to see friendship with every single nation in the world that wants to be friendly with us and to join the united nations and assist that organization in bringing about the peace for which we all hope. I do not want to see Canada at the present time, within that united nations organization or outside it, make military or other alliances or commitments which may in some future year prove to have been wrong.
If some of the things I foresee in this are done-and they can be done-we may find ourselves in the position of having said at this time, without any occasion for it, that, regardless of what happens in the future, we are definitely committed to fight on the side of another nation even though she is wrong. I believe there was once a man who said, "My country, right or wrong." I would like to be always able to say, "my country right." I do not want us to be wrong if we can avoid it.
These things can happen. I remember when I was a young man, young enough to be in the last war, we thought Japan was a grand, courageous, democratic, cultural and progressive country. We almost exhausted the dictionary in our search for superlatives to describe the virtues of the Japanese. Thirty years later, we exhausted the same dictionary for superlatives to describe their iniquities. I can remember not so many years ago when this country and a great many others were very fearful of the role which the Soviet Union was going to play in world war II. I can remember also the victory loan drives of only a few years ago, in which I took an active part, where moving pictures were shown from the national film board and from departments of the United States government, where military commanders were quoted as saying that the great fight of the Russian army had saved civilization. Within a few years, there was a change from a feeling of antagonism to one of intense friendship, and now possibly to one, if not of antagonism, of suspicion and distrust.
This can happen with any nation again. Let me remind the house that conflict between this country and the friendly nation to the south is not unknown in our Canadian history. Conflict between that country and Britain is not unknown in history. I hope it never repeats itself; but it could happen, and if that situation should arise at some time, is Canada to be in the position of having been thrown into a foreign policy, a commitment which at that time, under the conditions that might arise,
Militia Act

would prove to have been very faulty and to have thrown us on the side we definitely would not want to be on?
I see no reason why we cannot be a nation by ourselves, friendly to every other nation that wants to be friendly with us, cooperative in every respect, but completely in charge of our own housekeeping, and if there are cobwebs in our house we shall take them out ourselves and let the other fellow deal with his.
I believe that in these amendments there are opportunities for these considerations to be disregarded and to give us too close a connection which we may sometime regret.


Mr. HUGUES LAPOINTE (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of National Defence) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I
should like to take up a somewhat strange statement of the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Dorion). In rising a moment ago to explain, or perhaps justify his intention to vote with the friends who sit on his right, the hon. member said he could not support this bill because it confirms the principle of compulsory military service in time of peace and gives the governor in council the right to establish conscription in this country.
After a close examination of the bill, for I have had occasion to give it careful study, I must state that no part of it grants such power to the governor in council. The explanatory notes, which are quite clear, state the reasons for its introduction. I note that in his statement, the hon. member was careful not to say what section confirms this principle.


Frédéric Dorion: I
had no right to say it, but will do so when the opportunity arises.


Hugues Lapointe: The hon. member will have such an opportunity when we take it up in committee, but I cannot help feeling that the hon. member would have acted with more fairness and honesty if he had explained his point instead of making such a gratuitous statement in the house.


Brooke Claxton: In the course of this debate, it has been suggested that it would have been more appropriate had I begun the debate with a comprehensive statement on defence policy and on the work that has been done in the department since my appointment two months ago today. My own view was that that introduction as well as the debate that would follow it would be premature in view of the fact that we had not yet before us the estimates of the Department of National Defence, which will be produced by the

Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) in a few days' time when he puts his estimates before the house. My thought was that, following their tabling, we could then have a more detailed and orderly discussion on the subject, and I must say with respect that the discussion that we have had makes me believe that that view was correct.
In the discussion, two points were made with regard to matters in the bill to which I should refer at once. In the first place, it was suggested that, in the proposed amendment to section 22 of the Militia Act, the bill was departing from the time-honoured principle that parliament should control the size of the standing army. Reference was made, and quite properly made in that connection to the Bill of Rights from which that constitutional principle, I believe, flows.
Hon. members will appreciate that it was necessary to amend section 22, which limits the size of the full-time permanent force of Canada to 10,000 men, because we have a full-time force of several times that, and we intend to have a full-time active force of several times that. Since it was necessary to make a change, the question was, what figure would be introduced as a ceiling on the size of the armed forces?
It occurred to us that it would be difficult to fix a figure which was neither so high as to be misleading of so low as to be cramping. In this connection, I would call to the attention of hon. members the fact that it has not been the practice in Canada to pass an annual army act, as they do in the United Kingdom, and that therefore it has not been the practice for us to say by legislation what the size of the permanent force will be.


An hon. MEMBER:: We have had a ceiling.


Brooke Claxton: We have had a ceiling but we have not fixed it each year. It also occurred to us, when considering this matter, that it might be necessary, if the international situation deteriorated and there was a real expectation of war, to increase the figure sharply. If that were done, then it would of itself tend to aggravate the bad situation. For that reason, we felt that the best way in which parliament would exercise control over the size of the permanent force was by its control of the money appropriated for the permanent force and, indeed, for all the defence forces of Canada, and that through that means parliament itself has the most effective control of the size of the armed forces of Canada. That was the view which led the government to draft the clause as it is. However, since this is questioned by two parties in the house, and there is no difference in principle, we are

Militia Act
prepared to do it the other way and to put in a ceiling. I will discuss with my colleagues what the ceiling will be, and I hope hon. members will realize that it will be difficult to fix a ceiling that really will be realistic. This ties in with what I said before about our intention to have in Canada an army act of our own. When we have that, I should think we might very well consider following the British practice of having an annual army act, so that the control of parliament would be exercised in exactly the same way as it is exercised there.
Another matter that wTas referred to was that raised with regard to the control by parliament of any force that may be placed on active service. This control is already in existence in the Militia Act. Section 66 reads as follows:
Whenever the Governor General places the militia, or any part thereof, on active service, if parliament is then separated by such adjournment or prorogation as will not expire within ten days, a proclamation shall be issued for the meeting of parliament within fifteen days, and parliament shall accordingly meet and sit upon the day appointed by such proclamation, and shall continue to sit and act in like manner as if it had stood adjourned or prorogued to the same day.
This section gives the most effective control to parliament that can be given.
In the course of the discussion, suggestions were made by some hon. members that the bill gave increases of power to the government or to the minister. I must say that the bill was prepared before I came into the department, but I have examined it carefully since then and cannot find any such increase of power given by any provisions. If there are any, we should like to see them and consider them when we reach them. The intention is not to give increases of power. The intention is, by this bill, to secure a more effective, appropriate and up-to-date statutory foundation for our armed forces.
I should now like to refer to a matter raised by the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith), in which he asked under what authority the change in the military district from Calgary to Edmonton had been made. He charged, with that great force and vigour to which we are accustomed when he speaks, that there was no statutory authority for this action. The authority is to be found in section 19 of the Militia Act, which is printed in the bill before us. It reads:
19. The governor in council may,
(a)	direct that any portion of Canada shall be a military district for the purposes of this act. and may alter the limits ot any such district;
(b)	cause two or more districts to be grouped together for the purposes of command and administration; and
(c)	divide any military districts into subdistricts, brigade, regimental and company divisions, as appears expedient.
That gives the fullest possible statutory authority for the action which was taken.


Arthur Leroy Smith: What you have read does not support that, does it?


Brooke Claxton: Yes, it does, completely.
Then the hon. member for Calgary West, with even greater inaccuracy, suggested, indeed charged, that this change in the military district had been made for political purposes. I say that is not so. This change was decided upon before I was in the department, but I have gone thoroughly into it with the officers. I find it was first suggested by the officers of the army for military reasons, and it was based on military grounds exclusively. It was part of a general plan whereby the twelve military districts of Canada were organized into five commands; and those commands were located in centres which took account of the strategic and geographical situation of the country. The commands were located in order that the most effective coordination and cooperation might be secured within a given area with not only the forces of the army but also those of the navy and air force. The location of the five commands had regard to the very considerable developments that have occurred during the war. In the case of Calgary and Edmonton, regard was had particularly to the existence of the Alaska highway, the northwest staging route and the development of the far north. As I say'-and I repeat it-this change was decided upon on the recommendation of the military authorities for strategic, geographical and economic reasons, and for no others.


Arthur Leroy Smith: What are they?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Brooke Claxton: The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) did not hear about, this change until it had been decided upon. I hope that the statement which I have made will put an end to charges for which there is no foundation whatever.
I should like to follow some of the invitations that have been extended to deal with the work of the department and the organization of defence in a general way. A good many statements have been made here today which are based on nothing but imagination, which misrepresent the situation and which, if left uncontradicted, will of themselves do the very thing which some of the speakers predicted, namely, affect the morale of the
Militia Act

forces and also the confidence of the people. It will be those statements that do it and not anything that has happened or is likely to happen in the Department of National Defence.


Arthur Leroy Smith: It was the minister's silence that was doing it.
Some lion. MEMBERS: Order.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: The minister's silence was doing it.


Brooke Claxton: In the two months during which I have been in the department I must say I have not made many speeches about atom bombs or guided missiles or jet-propelled planes or other things to make people's flesh creep. I thought it was my job first to do what obviously was wanted, not only by the government but by the people of Canada and by the members of the armed services themselves; that is, to endeavour to coordinate the three departments which had been developed separately during the war. The departments, as hon. members know, each had almost a complete set of civilian services, while the services themselves had three sets of almost everything. That was perhaps natural and proper during the war, but certainly it was not the soundest foundation on which to build good defence forces in peace.
At the end of the war-and I would remind hon. members that the war has been over for only eighteen months-we had an organization and departments which had been dealing with armed services which had increased a hundredfold. First, to be tackled was the work of repatriation, demobilization and rehabilitation. This immense job has proceeded rapidly and smoothly in consequence of the careful planning and fine cooperation by everyone concerned. That was the first thing the defence forces had to deal with at the end of the war, repatriation, demobilization and rehabilitation; and I say to this house and to the country that the job has been magnificently done, and reflects the greatest possible credit on the members of the armed services, on the transportation companies, on the officers of the government and on everyone else who had anything to do with that important work.
But not only was it necessary to demobilize the armed forces, the personnel; there was also a big job to be done in liquidating the materials of war that we had on hand at the end of hostilities. That work also has been pushed ahead. We had hundreds of millions of dollars worth of military equipment on hand in Canada at such places as the Longue
fMr. Claxton.]
Pointe depot, one of the great storehouses of the world, where there are twelve buildings, each 600 feet by 260 feet, with twenty-four miles of railway track, with munitions and materials of war of every kind. All that had to be gone over and prepared for disposal by War Assets Corporation if it was surplus to requirements, or put away to be used for mobilization reserve, or made available to the active and reserve armies. That job also is well advanced.
These two operations have required a very large staff of civilian personnel in the three departments. As the job is being pushed forward, we are able to reduce material!}' the civilian personnel, and we hope to get it down to a proper post-war basis in the course of the next year. But this operation of liquidation and organization will still take more than a year to complete. It is a reflection of the immense war effort of Canada that there should be so much to be done afterwards.
Then in the department itself it was necessary to set under way the job of coordinating the three departments. As a first step, it was decided to locate the department in the three buildings on Cartier square. The move began about four weeks ago and is already well advanced. The whole department and the defence headquarters are being established in the three buildings. The plan is that the minister and deputy minister, chiefs of staff and the policy-making and administrative organization will be in the front building, formerly the old naval building. The supply, equipment and engineering services of the three services will be in what was the army annex, and personnel and similar services will be in the Lisgar building, formerly occupied by the air force. We propose to merge all the civilian services that have been in the three departments and gradually to have the functions of the various branches amalgamated so that the civilian services for the entire Department of National Defence will be done by one group of officials and employees. Similarly it is proposed to consolidate a great many of the auxiliary services of the armed services themselves. This includes the chaplain, medical, dental, hospital, welfare, education, legal and public relations services of the armed forces. The exact way in which that will be done is still being worked out. With regard to matters of supply, transportation and the like, there will be a good deal of consolidation; and with regard to operations, training and planning there wall be close coordination under the direction of the three chiefs of staff who together form a committee.

Militia Act
I should tell the house that, in beginning these plans and in carrying them out, there has been nothing but the most splendid cooperation on the part of the officers of the department, the chiefs of staff and all those who have worked under them. They have carried on their work in difficult circumstances.
While this has been going on, we have had to consider again the post-war defence needs of Canada and what we should do during this year. Hon. members will agree-it is shown in the debate we have just had-that no one can say what the shape of the next war will be, if there is one; and certainly the best thing any of us can do about that is to use our utmost endeavours to prevent another war from ever happening. But it is necessary that we should have in Canada certain forces; and the size and extent of those forces will, of course, depend in part on the geographical situation in this country and its resources, and, above everything else, on what possible threat or danger we might have to meet.
I am in a postiion which, I think, is well understood by hon. members when I say it is difficult for any member of a government, and particularly the Minister of National Defence, to put before either parliament or the people all the considerations which enter into the making of a defence policy. In the very nature of things it is not possible to do that. But I should like to point this out, that if we at once recruited' our three services up to the ceilings that were announced by my predecessor last year, and) fill u.p the establishments on the basis set forth by him, it would be difficult at a later time to make any change which might be desirable in order to meet any changing situation. It seems to me that we are on much safer ground if, for this year, we limit the recruiting of the defence forces of Canada to seventy-five per cent, as I have announced. Then, at the end of the year we would be able to see better what the future holds for us, and how best we can plan expansion' in any direction or other changes which may seem necessary at that time.
The situation with regard to recruiting has been described as unsatisfactory by some hon. members. To the contrary, the navy has recruited to within seventy-five per cent of the ceiling. That is, it is at the figure of about 7,500. That is the permanent force navy. The air force is at about seventy-five per cent.
On this account for the time being we shall only accept recruits for the navy and air force if they have exceptional qualifications, or if required to fill up gaps in the various branches in respect of which there may be some shortages. That is a good position to be in. With regard to the army, recruiting has advanced well, and the active army is about fifty per cent recruited. Recruits are coming in without any campaign, at a rate which would indicate that we are very likely to achieve the seventy-five per cent during the course of the current year. The officers and men who are joining the armed forces are Canadians with good qualifications. They are splendid Canadians. They have good educational qualifications, good professional qualifications and good physical qualifications.
The rates of pay that they receive were put on an equal basis as among the three services last year, and they are paid at a rate which compares most favourably with rates of pay in civilian occupations. The Canadian- armed forces are good, and the men in it receive- food, clothing, and equipment as good as we can find, and in every way suitable for the good men they are. We do not aim to have anything second rate about the armed forces of Canada.
There has been almost an effort made to misrepresent the situation in respect of the reserves. The figure of 180,000 was announced as the establishment for the reserve forces of Canada. Before the war, in what was then known as the non-permanent active militia- it has since become the reserve army

there were approximately 46.000 soldiers. In no year did more than 15,000 attend camp. What we have proposed is that this year eighty per cent of the officers, 100 per cent of the non-commissioned officers and men of about the number there now are in the reserve force should have thirty days' training. Then there are fifteen days additional for tradesmen. That is much more than- was ever given before. No establishment of any reserve unit has been cut. Further, the reserve units are now furnished with full-time administrative and training officers. They are being given the most modern equipment. Adjustments are being made with respect to the contingent payments made to unit commanders to cover the general expenses of their units; and in every reasonable way we are endeavouring to meet the needs in this country of a reserve force.


Howard Charles Green: What is the present strength?


Brooke Claxton: It is over 30,000, which -is very fair when one considers that we are just eighteen months beyond the cessation of hostilities.
I mention the reserve army particularly because we realize its importance. Before seeing service overseas during the first world war, I was in a militia unit and also in the reserve after the end of the last war, and I
Militia Act

know something of the difficulties in connection with training and recruiting reserve units which were experienced after that war. I believe that this time we are setting about meeting those difficulties in a constructive way.
A few weeks ago I met the officers of the council of defence associations and discussed the whole situation with them. I promised them to make the statement which was mentioned by the hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Harkness), urging the people of Canada to support the reserve force.
Means are being provided for a very considerable amount of training, including flying, in connection with auxiliary air squardons. While I do not have in mind the exact number of days of training, it is about sixty days. The divisions of the Royal Canadian Naval Reserve will also be provided for.
With regard to cadets, the change announced is that we will bring the army cadet training into line with that for the navy and air force, and limit the training to the boys who can benefit from it. Those are boys between fourteen and eighteen years of age. On that account, instructions have been issued to stop the training of junior cadets under fourteen at the end of the present school year. The number of cadets provided for is the number of those aged from fourteen to eighteen. So that there will be no change in that respect, except that we shall not provide training for cadets in units of less than twenty.
In the air force and sea cadets, training will be available for those from fourteen to eighteen years of age, and on an even more extensive basis than in the army.
While discussing another matter today, I referred to defence research. All hon. members recognize its importance. Canada made great contributions in the field of research during the war, and it is our aim to continue that work. I believe Canada is the only country which has set up a defence research board with a director general who holds a position equivalent to that of a chief of staff. The director general of defence research is a member of the chiefs of staff committee and also of the defence council.
In addition, we recognize the importance of industrial organization. Hon. members appreciate the fact that of the materials made' by Canada, seventy per cent were used by the armed forces of other nations. Our contribution in the field of industry as well as of agriculture to the fight for freedom was astonishing and has been recognized as such by all other nations. We consider it important that industry should continue to be interested in defence
matters and that there should be cooperation and the closest possible relationship between industry which is capable of being used for defence purposes and the armed services therm selves. Plans are being worked out to continue that cooperation. There should be the very closest and most intimate relationship between the services and research and industry.
This has been a summary account of the general situation. I should like and I am prepared to develop all the different aspects of this matter when the defence estimates come up, if there is not an earlier opportunity. I should like the house to appreciate the fact that the kinds' of consideration which hon. members have had in mind during this debate have been in the minds of the government and of the department and of the services while plans were being laid during this difficult period.
We have had six years of war. During that time Canada enlisted something over a million men in the three armed services and, in addition, a large number of women. They formed a great fighting force and their contribution to the cause for which we were fighting was recognized everywhere as being a great contribution. It was my privilege to be in Paris at the conference on the treaties of peace with the five satellites of Germany and, while there, I had a good many opportunities of seeing the representatives of other countries who were attending that conference. I had a chance to visit the battlefields over which our troops fought during the war. AVe had in the armed forces of Canada the best ambassadors any country could have. They left behind them a reputation for hard fighting, yes, but also for decent conduct second to none. Everywhere I heard expressed admiration, for our armed forces and for the industrial effort of Canada and for the great contribution made by our farmers to meet the needs of Europe.
That was the story one heard everywhere. People expressed respect for what Canada had done in the war and for what she has contributed to the cause of peace since the war. Our view is that we can have in Canada a defence force which will live up to the great reputation made by those who served before them in two world wrars. Our belief is that we can have an effective and efficient defence force which will be of a nature to enable us to say with pride that they are carrying on in. the best Canadian traditions.
I have no need to assure this house that those forces will never be used except in the defence of Canada and Canada's vital interests. We will never enter into any war of aggression, and the suggestions sometimes made by others to that effect can readily be ignored.

Printing of Parliament
The suggestion was made by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) that we should cooperate with other nations in addition to the United States. Of course we shall be glad to do that; but when there are two nations which have such friendly relationships as the United States and Canada, which have such common interests, it is only common sense to expect them to cooperate together. With regard to showing the representatives of other nations what is going on, as hon. members know there is a testing station at Churchill. Arrangements have been made for the military attaches of other nations and for some members of the press to visit that station. That is desirable so long as we receive reciprocal treatment from the other nations, but it may be difficult to continue this kind of relationship unless treatment is given on a more reciprocal basis.
One further word with regard to the whole question of the north. There is a great deal of rather idle speculation about developments there and I hope the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mackenzie King) history making statement of yesterday will go a long way toward meeting that. There is to be the first public showing of the film "Exercise Musk-Ox" at the Capitol theatre at 3.15 o'clock on Sunday afternoon, and I hope hon. members who are interested in the subject will take advantage of this opportunity to see what was done on that trip when forty-seven Canadians travelled some 3,000 miles through the north. They will then be able to appreciate the nature of the problems involved in northern travel and exploration and they will see some of the civilian advantages that were gained from that trip.


John Bracken: I wonder if the minister will permit one question before he finishes, in view of the statement made by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) that we could not support the measure unless the government was prepared to amend section 9 of the bill? My understanding is that the minister said he would so amend the bill, but in order that there may be no misunderstanding I should like to state my question clearly. Am I correct in my understanding of the minister's statement-
Mr. MacIvINNON: Who wrote it?


John Bracken: The Minister of Trade and Commerce will get his in due course.


Mr. MacKINNON:: Thank you.


John Bracken: Am I correct in my understanding of the minister's statement that he is now willing so to amend section 9 of the bill in committee as to have fixed by statute
a ceiling on the number of the active forces rather than to leave that figure as is proposed in the bill before us to be fixed by order in council? If the answer is yes, we will support this bill. If the answer is no, we cannot support it.


Brooke Claxton: The statement I made was to that effect except that I added that parliament will have control. As I suggested before, we will consider whether we should not have in future years an annual army act as they have in Britain.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, this bill does not contain any fundamental changes. It only contains the changes that are necessary to enable us to carry on the affairs of the department, pending the time when we can introduce a fundamental revision of the whole act. On that account, for the reasons I have given, I commend the bill to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie the house adjourned at 10.55 p.m.
Friday, February 14, 1947