May 9, 1951

LIB

POSTAL SERVICE

CHICOUTIMI AND LAPOINTE COUNTIES, QUE., MAIL CONTRACTS


On the orders of the day:


IND

Paul-Edmond Gagnon

Independent

Mr. Paul E. Gagnon (Chicoutimi):

Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege.

[Mr. Fulton.)

Some time ago I placed two questions on the order paper. The first one was:

1. Who has the contract for carrying the mail between Chicoutimi and Grande Baie via the offices of Bagotville and Port Alfred, Quebec?

2. What is he paid for this service?

3. When does the contract expire?

Here was my second question:

1. Who has the contract for carrying the mail between Saguenay airport at Bagotville and the post offices of the counties of Chicoutimi and Lapointe?

2. What is paid for this service?

3. When does the contract expire?

On April 30 last, the parliamentary assistant to the Postmaster General (Mr. Langlois) replied as follows:

These two questions refer to the following service: Jonquiere-Kenogami and airport at Bagotville, via; Arvida, Chicoutimi, Bagotville, Port Alfred, Grande Baie.

I regret to inform the parliamentary assistant to the Postmaster General that his answer applies only to the second question and that the first has remained unanswered.

I really would like to know who has the contract for carrying the mail between the C.N.R. station at Chicoutimi and the post offices of Grande Baie, Port Alfred and Bagotville.

Topic:   POSTAL SERVICE
Subtopic:   CHICOUTIMI AND LAPOINTE COUNTIES, QUE., MAIL CONTRACTS
Permalink
LIB

Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret (Postmaster General)

Liberal

Hon. Edouard Rinfret (Postmaster General):

Mr. Speaker, I have made a note of the remarks made by the hon. member and I shall see to it that he gets a reply in due course.

(Text):

Topic:   POSTAL SERVICE
Subtopic:   CHICOUTIMI AND LAPOINTE COUNTIES, QUE., MAIL CONTRACTS
Permalink
LIB

Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works; Leader of the Government in the House of Commons; Liberal Party House Leader)

Liberal

Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works) moved

that the house go into committee of supply.

Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Dion in the chair.

DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE Defence forces-[DOT]

245. To provide for the defence forces of the navy, army and air services and defence research and development, and to authorize total commitments for this purpose of $3,831,270,000 including authority notwithstanding section 29 of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, to make commitments for the current year of $1,924,170,835 and commitments against future years of $1,907,099,165 against which commitments it is estimated that actual expenditures in 1951-52 will not exceed $1,595,050,000 of which $183,050,000 will be provided from section 3 of the Defence Appropriation Act, 1950, as supplemented by item 246, $1,412,000,000.

Topic:   POSTAL SERVICE
Subtopic:   CHICOUTIMI AND LAPOINTE COUNTIES, QUE., MAIL CONTRACTS
Permalink
CCF

Owen Lewis Jones

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Jones:

Mr. Chairman, just before

eleven o'clock last night I had quoted an extract from a statement made by General Worthington to the effect that the next war would be fought in our own back yard. When

General Worthington made that statement I think he fully believed it. It is a serious statement to make, and we are compelled to agree that if war does break out it will be in our own back yard. Therefore the question of protection of that yard becomes a matter of paramount importance to every one of us, and I claim that today it is totally inadequate. No one knows that better than the gentleman whom I have quoted. To my mind we need a master plan immediately under which every citizen of this dominion can contribute efficiently his time, skill and effort to the protection of that back yard. Every citizen should be given a clear analysis of all the risks involved, and should be clearly informed of the personal responsibility within the defence plan of his particular community.

With proper information and clear instructions given to our citizens, we could avoid the confusion that otherwise must necessarily prevail. I think it is very important that the government should commit itself immediately to seeing that proper instruction is given. Confusion is responsible for more casualties than would occur from the actual bombing by a potential enemy. I shall not deal with civil defence needs in detail beyond urging the government to speed up the work of organizing nursing and other health services, air raid wardens, rescue squads, communication workers, ambulance, telephone and transportation services, light, power, and a thousand and one other things that are of primary importance in case of an attack by a potential enemy.

I would further urge upon the government that it should clarify its position with respect to its plans, if any, for aiding provincial governments to carry out their part of the over-all plan. Dissatisfaction is general in this regard. Practically every province is kicking about the present arrangements and is not satisfied with them. I think the position was forcibly expressed by the province of Ontario as reported in the Globe and Mail of February 23 last. I should first like to refer to the words of Premier Frost. The article reads as follows:

"We have a right to know what are the facts," said Mr. Frost. "How can the federal government leave this matter hanging in the air? This is a matter for national direction, for expert attention. If Ottawa does not want to spend any money, why not come out in the open and say so? We'll sacrifice gladly if we are told what to do. I'll prune my budget before next Tuesday to cut out every nonessential item if I am told it is needed. But we want to know: we feel we are entitled to clarification and guidance."

The report continues:

C.C.F. leader Jolliffe agreed that this was mystification in a high degree. If Mr. Welsh's report

80709-182J

Supply-National Defence

accurately covered the accomplishment of a conference of ten provinces and the dominion, it showed nothing but a lot of vague implications that the federal government would do a little in some cases, maybe a bit in others, and hadn't even considered some. He felt that no "half-baked" program should be launched by anyone; on the other hand, Ottawa had knowledge not held by others and it should impart that to the provinces in sufficient degree to assure them of what must or must not be done. Actually, he felt, Ottawa was about three years late in calling a conference; civil defence planning should have been started when the director of such work was appointed more than three years ago.

The article goes on to say:

Liberal leader Oliver agreed that Ontario was left very much in the air, and Mr. Frost's comments were very reasoned. He felt that the over-all direction of civil defence should fall within the jurisdiction of civil defence, despite what arguments might exist as to jurisdiction regarding property rights and damages assessments. "We will go along with the premier and leader of the opposition in expressing the belief that the situation must be clarified," said Mr. Oliver. "After all, the problem of civil defence arises as a result of international policies over which province and municipality have no control. This house should press for clarification of civil defence policy, and I feel it should come from the federal sphere."

I quite agree with that article. It puts in a concise form my argument that the federal government must clarify its position so that the provincial governments and municipalities can co-operate to the fullest extent while there is still time.

While it is true that the greatest need is to protect our larger cities and more vulnerable manufacturing towns, at the same time we must not forget the rural areas. In the event of -evacuation becoming necessary, the rural areas would be a very important cog in the scheme of civil defence. I believe steps should be taken now to investigate and list all available accommodation in rural areas so the information would be available in case of need. First aid classes should be started in those districts immediately, and the residents should be trained to take care of evacuees so that they would be able to play their part if such an evacuation should take place.

Naturally the question will be asked, who is going to pay for all this? To my mind that is clear. This is plainly a matter for the federal government, which under the British North America Act is entrusted with the care and protection of the people. In any event the cost would be very small if the co-operation of municipal and provincial governments were sought at once. Such things as welfare services, nursing services, fire fighting services and so on, already established within the municipalities, could be improved

Supply-National Defence and expanded through federal aid and assistance. In the event of war, failure to act now could be far more costly, not only in money but in human lives as well. So I urge the government to give this aid and assistance as quickly as possible. I believe the cost would be a fair charge on the billions we have already voted for our national defence program. If suitable plans for the welfare and protection of our people in the event of attack were prepared and made known, it would go far to reassure and give confidence to our people. I make this suggestion not on a political basis but as a Canadian seeking ways and means to protect our homes and our people from the danger that threatens.

Naturally the next thought that comes to mind is whether we are doing all we can for our protection, particularly from air attack, should another war break out. I am not satisfied that we are doing all we can. I am not satisfied that we have sufficient jet fighters ready to take to the air to keep the enemy from this country. I am not satisfied that they are strategically placed to carry out that task. Their distribution has been too haphazard; they are bunched in large centres and not strategically placed across the country. I feel that we have to step up our defences by means of speedy jet interceptors and jet fighters, together with a complete radar screen right across this dominion. We have been led to believe that we can rely completely upon our air force, and that we need not worry; but I was alarmed, as no doubt other [DOT]hon. members were, by an editorial in the Globe and Mail of yesterday, which I should like to read. If the minister has not already read it I think he should hear it read so that he may reply to it and reassure the people. If the position is not as set out in the editorial, the minister should tell us that something is being done, because I am more afraid than ever that we are not properly protected. The editorial states-

Topic:   POSTAL SERVICE
Subtopic:   CHICOUTIMI AND LAPOINTE COUNTIES, QUE., MAIL CONTRACTS
Permalink
LIB

Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence)

Liberal

Mr. Claxion:

I do not want to be technical, Mr. Chairman, but I call your attention to the rule against reading editorials.

Topic:   POSTAL SERVICE
Subtopic:   CHICOUTIMI AND LAPOINTE COUNTIES, QUE., MAIL CONTRACTS
Permalink
CCF

Owen Lewis Jones

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Jones:

Then I will not read it, but I direct the minister's attention to this editorial in which his department is charged with providing totally insufficient protection for this dominion; with promises that have been made and not carried out, and so on. We are told that we have not the air force we should have, that we have not the men, the planes, or the equipment. I believe such a charge should be answered. If the statements are

true, the minister should admit it and take steps to remedy the situation. If they are not true, this article should be answered and the public should be given some reassurance that something substantial is being done.

I am quite prepared to pass this editorial over to the minister, and I should like to hear his reply. I assure him that as a citizen of Canada I am anxious to co-operate to the fullest extent to bring our protection to the highest level possible within our means and capacity as a nation with a small population.

I repeat that in my opinion if we have full co-operation on all sides we can bring about a system of protection that will reassure our people and permit them to sleep in peace without worrying about Russian domination.

Topic:   POSTAL SERVICE
Subtopic:   CHICOUTIMI AND LAPOINTE COUNTIES, QUE., MAIL CONTRACTS
Permalink
CCF

Major James William Coldwell

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Coldwell:

There is a point, Mr. Chairman, which I believe should be clarified immediately. The minister objected to the reading of an editorial. If an editorial reflects upon the proceedings of this house of course it should not be read; but citation 265 at page 108 of Beauchesne, third edition, says:

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.

I submit, Mr. Chairman, that while I do not know what was in the editorial, if it does not reflect on the proceedings within the house -the hon. member should have beer, permitted to read it. I am raising the point because I would not like the minister's objection to remain on the record without some challenge.

Topic:   POSTAL SERVICE
Subtopic:   CHICOUTIMI AND LAPOINTE COUNTIES, QUE., MAIL CONTRACTS
Permalink
LIB

Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence)

Liberal

Mr. Claxton:

Perhaps I was wrong; I will look it up later. I have seen the editorial.

Topic:   POSTAL SERVICE
Subtopic:   CHICOUTIMI AND LAPOINTE COUNTIES, QUE., MAIL CONTRACTS
Permalink
LIB

John William Gordon Hunter

Liberal

Mr. Hunter:

Mr. Chairman, as I have listened to the speeches in this debate, some informative and some merely interesting, I have sometimes wondered whether those speaking have tended to lose sight of what we are attempting to do, why we are arming and to what extent we should arm at this time in view of the international situation.

As we all know, Russia has two alternative plans, either of which it can slip into from the other. The first obviously is to take all it can get by armed aggression when it chooses to use that method. The second is to take what it can get by infiltration and propaganda. At the present time we are not fighting Russia physically, and it would be silly, unnecessary and inadvisable to arm to the point where we would be prepared to carry on an all-out conflict. That is not what we are aiming at. We are aiming at putting ourselves into such a position that if war should

come we would be able to make a maximum effort within a short time afterwards. We are placing ourselves in a position to rearm. In other words in three years, including this year, we hope to be rearmed, so that from that time on, provided no war breaks out, we can maintain a state of armament which would permit us to go quickly into full production should an actual war occur.

I sometimes think some of those who keep saying we are doing too little too late fail to keep that objective in mind. Russia has those two alternatives. One is to beat us by force; the other is to beat us by propaganda, by fear; to convince us that we must have an all-out war effort and must maintain that all-out effort for a period of years, so as to bring about an economic break-down. Then, when our standard of living is reduced, they hope to be able to achieve what they desire without having to go to war. That is obvious to everyone. Most people see it, but they sometimes tend to lose sight of that fact. We in Canada do not intend to lose this struggle either way. We do not intend to lose it through armed force, nor do we intend to lose it through an economic break-down engendered by fear and helped along by people who cannot quite understand what we are attempting to do.

Canada's policy in Korea is clear and extremely simple. We are trying, through the United Nations, to stop aggression there in order to prevent it elsewhere later. Nothing could be more simple. People are criticizing the United Nations for having got themselves into a hopeless mess by resisting this aggression in Korea; that they see no end to this fighting for years-we certainly hope that will prove to be incorrect. Nevertheless we shall have accomplished something if we can stop them from going into Indo-China, or by this resistance stop them from going into India or any other country. Such an event would more than justify the expense and the loss of human life, for which we all grieve, in Korea. The action is so transparently advisable.

There is a tendency to criticize the United Nations and say the organization is washed up; that they are not able to enforce their demands. Surely we have gone through this situation often enough in the history of Canada and in the history of the world to realize that any international organization has to creep before it can walk, has to walk before it can run. You do not develop an international organization overnight. It may never really develop to the point that we hope it will during our lives; it may not develop under the auspices of the United Nations, but the thing will continue. It is an ideal that is going to continue, and that is irresistible.

Supply-National Defence

Until people thoroughly understand that international law is not only desirable but has been established, we shall not have achieved what we hope to do under the United Nations or through any other international body. Sooner or later, just as the common law crept up in England and was adopted by Canada, an international common law and statutory law will creep up. When that day arrives, we shall have achieved something. You do not do that overnight, nor would it be advisable to give those powers to the United Nations now. The United Nations lack the experience in the administration of international law. It will only get that when, with international law behind it, it has gained the experience and confidence of the peoples of the world.

There has been some criticism of our defence effort, and I should like to quote a few figures for the year 1951. Comparisons are sometimes misleading, and sometimes they are odious; nevertheless I do not think these figures are unworthy of quotation in this house.

First of all, the defence expenditure expressed as a percentage of the gross national production for 1951 is as follows: France, 7-2 per cent; Belgium, 4-4 per cent; United Kingdom, 9-0 per cent; United States 15-3 per cent; Canada, 9-4 per cent. Canada is second only to the United States. The 1951 defence expenditures per capita expressed in Canadian dollars are as follows: France, 51-9; Belgium, 35; United Kingdom 75-9; United States, 330-6; Canada, 138-4. It is true that while we are second we are a considerable distance behind the United States, but we are also a considerable distance ahead of the other three nations named. I believe those figures are interesting. They may have some significance, but it is difficult to know what significance to attach to figures of that sort. I do believe, however, they have just as much significance as, and probably more than, many of the adverse figures which I have heard quoted.

There has been a criticism that we have rearmed far too late. Mr. Chairman, may I suggest that is a question of opinion. I do not know how anyone can prove whose opinion is right until the event happens. The event has not yet happened. We hope we are right, and we are sincerely trying to do what we consider to be right. The suggestion of the hon. member for Nanaimo may be perfectly correct. It may be that we should have rearmed more heavily two or three years ago. On the other hand, it may be that five years from now the hon. member for Nanaimo and others may be suggesting we have armed too early. I do not think this is

2852 HOUSE OF

Supply-National Defence something that can be defined accurately as a mathematical problem can be defined. It is a very difficult question, but it is one upon which we are acting with the best advice possible. I suggest it would be a strong criticism to keep telling us that we have armed too late. The situation is not one that is capable of accurate calculation.

The hon. member for Nanaimo suggested also that if we had armed three years earlier, it might have curbed the present inflationary trend which has been caused by our intensive rearmament. I am not an economist, although I studied economics at the university. The only thing I gained from my study of economics was a suspicion of economists. While I regard economists with great interest and I like to read what they say, I would hesitate to adopt what they recommend in my business for fear the Bankruptcy Act would apply very shortly.

Another one of the criticisms that is often aimed at the government by all parties in opposition is that they have too little information, and that from the little information they are able to obtain they are unfortunately strangled to the point where they cannot make proper criticisms. Well, that is what I call a negative argument. It is an excuse that I have seen from my earliest school days. It is an excuse that has been used I think since the time of the Greeks. If people are not willing to work sufficiently hard to digest the information which is furnished to them, then they say: We have not the information, so we cannot criticize. Mr. Chairman, what information do they get? First of all, they get the estimates, which are in some detail. They can have a great deal more detail any time they care to ask for it. Second, they have the public accounts. It is rather enlightening if one looks at the attendance of the Progressive Conservative members on the public accounts committee. There does seem to be a certain reluctance on their part to attend meetings.

Then, there are questions. Any hon. member in this house is entitled to ask a question, unless the information is top secret and should not be given in public. Members may ask any number of questions and receive answers accordingly. That is a method that provides a lot of information. This year the estimates were tabled early in order to meet the convenience of the leader of the opposition and others who requested that that be done. When they were tabled the leader of the opposition was asked whether he wished to proceed with them immediately, and his answer was in the negative.

The form of government which we have is not one which allows the government to

delegate authority. It is true that in certain other countries the cabinet is not representative of the people, but is appointed. In our own country the cabinet is composed of elected representatives. The Minister of National Defence has the responsibility of discharging the functions of his cabinet post. His task is not to govern with the consent of the opposition or with the advice of the opposition. Having been appointed as a minister of that department by the party which has been elected to power in this country, he is given that responsibility and he must exercise it. He is not supposed to throw it into some committee and say: "Here, what do I do?

I have seen nothing so far-and others may agree with me-put forward by the members of the opposition that would lead me to believe the forming of such a committee would be to the advantage of Canada. The criticisms and suggestions they have made, if incorporated in one small volume, would not seem to me to justify the appointment of a committee. I suggest that they write them on a single piece of paper and send them to the minister. I suggest that, under the form of government which we have, and having regard to the manner in which our defence department is set up in this country, there is actually available to the opposition member who cares to put some work into it far more information than is available in the United Kingdom. I would say there is available far more information than one gets in the United States. This government provides the members of the opposition with more information about what is happening in national defence, I believe, than any other government in the world.

It is not my task, Mr. Chairman, to suggest things to members of the opposition, but I would just ask the leader of the opposition to consider this one thing and to consider it seriously: Is he not confusing lack of information with his lack of assimilation thereof?

Topic:   POSTAL SERVICE
Subtopic:   CHICOUTIMI AND LAPOINTE COUNTIES, QUE., MAIL CONTRACTS
Permalink
CCF

Clarence Gillis

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Gillis:

Mr. Chairman, I feel diffident about taking part in this discussion after the lecture we have just had, inasmuch as I am not an economist nor a lawyer. To me as a member of an opposition party it sounded as if we had no business to be talking at all. But in order to justify our existence we must express opinions on matters that come before parliament, and that is what I am going to do at this time. I think the Minister of National Defence gets a great deal of value out of the suggestions that are made here.

Topic:   POSTAL SERVICE
Subtopic:   CHICOUTIMI AND LAPOINTE COUNTIES, QUE., MAIL CONTRACTS
Permalink
LIB

Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence)

Liberal

Mr. Claxton:

That is quite true.

Topic:   POSTAL SERVICE
Subtopic:   CHICOUTIMI AND LAPOINTE COUNTIES, QUE., MAIL CONTRACTS
Permalink
CCF

Clarence Gillis

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Gillis:

During the period in which I have been a member of parliament I have

seen enacted a great deal of legislation that had its origin on this side of the house. In the task that the Minister of National Defence has today I am reasonably sure that he welcomes the opportunity of spending a little time in sitting down and listening to members who have not much to do except to think about these matters. As hon. members know, the minister is a busy man; he is the minister for air, for naval affairs and for the army. He also has a great deal to do with civil defence. The matters that he is required to go into, dealing with the problems of organizing defence in this world today, are such that a great deal of thinking is required. It is for that reason that I am going to say a few things to the minister at this time.

I should like to emphasize once again what has already been emphasized on two or three occasions in this debate, namely, that you cannot divorce national defence from external affairs. The two matters are closely bound together. Our defences today go all over this world, and the external policies of the government can either buttress or upset the defence plans of the country. I think the truth of that statement is clearly indicated by the MacArthur incident in the United States. Unless those who administer external affairs and those who plan defence inside and out of this country are close together and much in agreement about what is to be done at a given time, one group can upset the other.

There is one thing that I should like to emphasize in this debate, in which members are rather restricted because of lack of information. As I see it, the thing that has not been emphasized by the government or by anyone else-and definitely not by the press-is the question whether we are justified in spending $5 billion over the next three years in preparing the defences of this country. Anyone who gets out around in the country and talks about this matter of defence-the huge expenditures, and the inflation that we are experiencing at this time-will find that the people in the country have little knowledge of it. One opinion is that it is just another way of keeping out of a depression; that if it was not for the defence spending at this time we would be in a depression; that it is only an alibi. Not many people in this country are convinced that there is any danger or that there is any necessity for spending that large amount of money on defence. One thing that I think the government should do, and should continue to do, is to keep before the people the dangerous aspects of the present international situation.

Supply-National Defence

For the purpose of pointing up that suggestion, I should like to give a few figures that were put on the record of the House of Commons in Britain in February of this year. What are we up against? What has our potential enemy? What are his possibilities of overrunning the territory facing him? What are -his chances ultimately?-because ultimately the goal is this continent. If the situation develops as it is developing, then the final battles of this present era will be fought out on this continent. What is the strength of the people against whom we are today aiming to protect ourselves by arming?

According to Prime Minister Attlee, speaking recently in the House of Commons in Britain, the military strength of the Soviet union is as follows: He stated that Russia had an army of 2,500,000 men, or 176 divisions. These divisions were dispersed in the following manner: Eastern Germany, 22; Austria, 2; Hungary, 4; Poland, 5; Roumania, 3; western Russia, 49; central Russian front, 20; the Caucasus, 21; central Asia, 19; the Far East, 31, including 4 divisions in Manchuria. There were an additional 600,000 men in the MVD and another 600,000 men in the air force. While there are no figures for the navy, it is known that that country has one of the largest submarine fleets in the world.

That is merely the strength of the Soviet union as such. That is not saying anything about the satellites she has around her. You will notice that the Soviet armed might is dispersed in strategic spots from which she can step off in any direction at any time, with terrific force. In my opinion those figures alone are something that should be pounded into the minds of the Canadian people generally, and of the members of the House of Commons particularly. I do not expect the Minister of National Defence or his officials to be propaganda agents trying to put that kind of thing over. I think that every member of parliament has a responsibility, regardless of where he sits; and if he is trying to build up the idea, as many are, that there is no hurry about this matter of arming, he is making a mistake. The hon. member for Parkdale did that a moment ago. He said: We will just take our time; we will do it for three years. This fellow, our potential enemy, is ready; let us not make any mistake about that. Our_ enemies have a timetable. They know exactly what they are going to do this month, next month and next year; and when they figure that the time is ripe for them to step off, they will do it. As the Minister of National Defence said in his statement on his estimates, we do not know whether we have three years; we do not know whether we have

2854 HOUSE OF

Supply-National Defence a week. That is absolutely correct. But the other fellow has a timetable. He is working on it every day.

We often hear it said that there is no war. That is another statement that is made quite loosely. In 1914 a man was shot and a war was started all over the world. Today men are being shot all over the world. There are four or five wars going on in Asia at the present time. There is a major war going on in Korea. In Germany there are armies facing each other with all the weapons of destruction that are known; a fire could be lit here at any moment. There is a war on all over the world. Let us not make any mistake about it; the communist party have a timetable and they are working on that timetable week by week. They are marching on, taking over where they can without bloodshed, as they have done in Czechoslovakia and in many other countries, and they are fighting it out where they have to, as they are doing today in Korea. We talk about there being no war. No; there is no shooting at the present time in Canada, but all the moves that are being made today in places such as Tibet, Indo-China, Korea and other countries are merely strategic moves that are bringing them closer and closer to the time when they may be able to step in and hit this continent. That is the ultimate goal; do not make any mistake about it.

That answers the question whether these defence expenditures are necessary or not. They are necessary. We should be driving every day and every hour of the day in preparing the people of this country psychologically to realize that they have something to fight against, and that is an invasion of this continent; because our final preparations are for the defence of this continent. I should like to leave that thought with the minister and with the members of the house.

There was a time when I thought we might avoid an over-all conflict, but since the United Nations declared China an aggressor I have not that hope any longer. When you declare a country an aggressor and start to fight a war with it, then you have to continue until one side or the other is defeated. Fighting a war presupposes that somebody is going to win and somebody is going to lose. There is no such thing as stopping in the middle. We must understand that and make our preparations accordingly.

Another thing I should like to emphasize to the minister is that we should not have any timetable as to when we are going to start this or when we are going to stop it. The defence program upon which we are embarking is in my opinion a long-term program. I can see the defences we are

building today continuing, and the men we are putting into uniform today being in uniform perhaps for the next fifteen or twenty years. It is a long-term program; and when we are thinking in terms of raising a brigade and that brigade going to Europe and another brigade going to Korea, we may be just picking up enough replacements for casualties. I do not think it is a realistic approach to the thing at all. The government has to start thinking in terms of equality of sacrifice in the business of defending this continent, and that is what we are preparing for at the present time.

I believe the minister's department or the government should consider a survey of our manpower and of our resources. That is one of the main requirements in preparation for defence. You may call it national registration, you may call it what you wish, but a survey of our resources and our manpower is necessary. The government is also going to have to start thinking in terms of this question: are we going to put a certain small percentage of our people in uniform and keep them there for the next ten or fifteen years at the pay they receive and at the inconvenience of being separated from their families and all that will entail, and are we going to leave everybody else back in Canada who is not in the services to go along with business as usual, making money for himself? If we are to embark on the kind of program that we feel is necessary, then everybody in this country should understand it, and there should be equality of sacrifice. Everybody should be obliged to pull his weight. That is another matter on which the government has not done very much thinking. It is about time we started to do some very serious thinking on this point.

When we talk about this business of democracy, our attitude to the people in the countries into which we have gone to liberate them requires considerable overhauling. For example, our record in Europe, in Germany and in Holland after the liberation was not good. According to reports, we were not the democratic gentlemen that we should have been. A lot was wrong with our attitude toward the people. Reference was made last evening by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar to an article that appeared in the Ottawa Citizen a few days ago in the form of questions and answers which left much to be desired. The attitude indicated there was: Well, you came in to liberate us, but instead of liberating us you exterminated us. The people of South Korea have been walked over and run over five or six times in the last year. Our attitude toward the people in selling democracy to them has left much to be desired. It is not very good. We must be

careful, in using democracy as a slogan, that we do not get back something which we have been fighting against for the last ten years.

Take a look at the elections which took place in Germany just a few days ago. Along with the United States and Britain we have been in western Germany selling democracy to them. The recent elections in that part of Germany showed that the nazi party is coming back very strongly in western Germany. On the other side, in eastern Germany you have the totalitarian set-up that is indoctrinating all the people in that part of the country; but on our side, where we should have been selling democracy and exemplifying it to them and building a democratic country, all we have succeeded in doing is to bring back the nazi party. In that election the three different nazi parties were able to capture at least twenty per cent of the votes. Political observers consider that a pretty bad development.

You pick up a press report and you find that under the guise of fighting communism and maintaining democracy, dictatorial powers are assumed to combat reds in Panama. The president throws over the democratic government and assumes dictatorial authority. He has a little revolution on his hands there today. We cannot sell democracy, in these countries that have never had it, by the use of semi-dictatorial powers and by pushing people around.

Another thing we have to be careful about-and apparently we are not sending the right kind of people into these areas to sell democracy-is this. Great emphasis has been laid on the question of economic aid. That is important, but it does not solve the whole problem. It seems to have been assumed that if we can build up these backward countries, give them plenty to eat, raise their standards and all that kind of thing, they will be our friends and will go along with us. A very good example is Korea itself, because that country was given a lot of aid during the time it was under the United Nations commission. The sum of $98,775,000 worth of economic aid was given to these people. One-third of it went for fertilizer to help them grow more food. Fourteen million dollars went for raw cotton; $7 million for coal, and other millions for wheat, flour and so forth. Yet, in the face of that huge expenditure, that huge gift in the way of economic aid, whenever the North Koreans were well fed and well armed they did not consider for a moment which side they were on. They attacked South Korea. They lighted the fire that is raging there at the present time.

Supply-National Defence

While I am in favour of helping to feed these people in backward countries under the Colombo plan, I think that assistance should be properly supervised and distributed. We must not forget that billions of dollars worth of economic aid was given to China, and we are now being repaid for that. We should be careful not to make the mistake we did in building up China, in arming her, so that she could come back and fight us when it suited her. We should have that aid in the hands of our friends, not in the hands of our enemies. I want to emphasize that point most strongly.

Let us not forget for a moment that today we are facing guns. Unless we can get as many guns handled by people who are just as efficient with them, we are not going to come out of this with a whole skin. We did not start this business. Canada and the United States have always been peaceful nations. As Mr. Mackenzie King said at the outbreak of the last war, he was reluctant to declare war and send young Canadians to Europe every generation to rescue countries who apparently were not able to look after themselves. That was a realistic statement to make. That war was'forced on us, and what we are up against today was forced on us. I do not think the people of this continent want to fight. But if a war is forced on us, we should fight with everything we have. There should be no quibbling about it. If we are to get in there to the full, then let us get in to the full.

I do not want anyone to assume that I am objecting to anything this government is doing by way of economic aid. But I contend that it should be organized, supervised and distributed in such a way as to bring returns to this country. It should not be placed in the hands of people who will use it to build up machinery in an attempt to bring about our ultimate destruction.

One thing we should watch very closely is the device being used by Soviet Russia- they know quite well how to use it-of splitting the allies who indicate a willingness to fight her. If hon. members have been following press reports for the last few weeks they will know that that device has been used quite successfully. In my opinion the MacArthur incident was a great victory for the communists. When they could get Truman and MacArthur in a public battle on vital issues in Korea, when they could cause such turmoil within the United States, they achieved a great victory. In my opinion they probably had a lot to do in bringing that about.

Many divisions have crept into the United Nations in connection with the Japanese

2856 HOUSE OF

Supply-National Defence treaty. The North Atlantic pact countries do not see eye to eye on this, nor do they see eye to eye on an arms embargo against China. Ever since the supposed end of the last war the communists have used the United Nations as a sounding board and as a means of dividing the allies. That war was never really ended; the shooting has never stopped.

I think the officials of the Department of External Affairs are levelheaded, and they should assume leadership in. the United Nations and step in whenever they see these divisions cropping up. They are No. 1 on Mr. Stalin's list. He wants to divide the allies and take them one by one. That was Hitler's technique, and the technique used today by Stalin is no different. Hitler's theme in the last war was never to fight again on two fronts, but the aim of the communists today is to divide the allies and get them fighting on as many fronts as possible. Stalin has sat back and has used none of his own men. He is using the satellites all over the world to start little wars here and there in the hope that he can get one going that will be big enough to involve the United States and Canada in particular and deplete the economies of these countries. If he can do that, there is nothing left to fight for. The Department of External Affairs can make a contribution by preventing differences between the North Atlantic pact countries.

I think the limiting factor in this country in connection with our defence program is the idea that we should have business as usual. No one thinks that he has to make any sacrifices. Everyone feels that he is going to have the same supplies of civilian goods, and that he is going to get more money for them. Everyone feels that we are going to equip and build' new plants for the purpose of turning out peacetime goods. That is the limiting factor. No one is pushing the program.

I was glad to hear the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar indicate yesterday that the Ford Motor company had been refused a permit to establish an auto parts plant in Windsor, a project which has been under consideration for at least -a year. I was glad to hear that the Department of Defence Production had refused this permit, because it would take such an enormous amount of steel. I know that at the other end of the scale a very small building requiring a small amount of steel was treated in the same way just a week or two ago. No building requiring steel is given a permit by the department. The priorities branch of the Department of

[Mr. Gillis.l

Defence Production is limiting the construction of anything that will take steel from essential defence requirements.

I was glad this permit was refused. This particular controversy indicates that the Ford Motor company are not co-operating very much when they want to start this peacetime project rather than tool up for vehicles and machines of war which are needed at this time. The argument is that they have no contracts, but at least a year ago I heard that they had contracts for many things which they should have been tooled up for at this time.

The supply of machine tools may be a big problem in this country. I have in my hand a report published in one of our local papers indicating a labour shortage in the machine tool industry. Machine tools are the very basis of our defence production program. If you are going to swing over twenty-five per cent of peacetime industry to a war economy, one of the first things you have to have is machine tools. Without machine tools you cannot tool up for the new production. It is an industrialist who is being reported in this news item, and he points out that there is a terrific labour shortage in the machine tool industry. You cannot develop a toolmaker overnight. He must serve an apprenticeship of nine years, even longer than a medical doctor. We should have had an apprenticeship program going for some considerable time.

While it is all right to find fault about the fact that there is no plane production, no tank production, or no production of this and that, the fact is that we should have a manpower and resources survey to pinpoint exactly what we are short of and what we should be giving priority to. That is one of the main requirements of an effective defence program. Unless that is done you are working in the dark. All of your planning is haphazard because you do not know what you are doing, and it is not going to be done from the ivory towers in Ottawa. You have got to get somebody else outside working with you. As I suggested to the Minister of Labour on his estimates, one of the things he should have is industrial councils covering the auto workers, mine workers and steel workers, the men who work in these plants and who can tell you what to do. They are the only people who can tell you.

Mr. Sale, the head of the Ford Motor Company of Canada, is a member of the manpower committee, but he did not tell you very much except that from the standpoint of his own organization he wanted to build a big

peacetime plant in the lace of defence production shortages in steel. If we had had industrial councils covering our industries the machine tool makers could have told us a year ago when we were talking defence that unless we did something about the developing shortage in that particular trade there would not be very much that we could do about defence, but we did not have anyone to tell us about that. The Department of National Defence should get together with the Department of Labour and form industrial councils. I am not objecting to what you have now. They are all right. Let them stay there, but augment them by men direct from the plants and shops who do the actual work and know what work has to be done.

I should like to say a word or two about standardization of arms, something which I think is very important. Other members have mentioned the matter but nobody stated very definitely whether they favoured standardization on the United States pattern or on the British pattern. As I heard it, the suggestion was that we should stick with the United States pattern where we are fighting with the Americans, and that our brigade to Europe perhaps should follow the British pattern. I am no expert on the matter, but I have read something about it. I have read what was said in this house in the years before the last war. The argument always has been that we should standardize on the United States pattern. Many years before the last war this matter came up in the House of Commons and very good arguments were made for following that course, but I think that today the reasons are much stronger why Canada should standardize on [DOT] the United States pattern.

Topic:   POSTAL SERVICE
Subtopic:   CHICOUTIMI AND LAPOINTE COUNTIES, QUE., MAIL CONTRACTS
Permalink
CCF

Percy Ellis Wright

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Wright:

Why not one pattern for all?

Topic:   POSTAL SERVICE
Subtopic:   CHICOUTIMI AND LAPOINTE COUNTIES, QUE., MAIL CONTRACTS
Permalink
CCF

Clarence Gillis

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Gillis:

I would say that if the North Atlantic pact countries mean business, if they are going to stick together, if it is going to be a case of when one is at war the others are at war, then no matter where these countries are engaged they will be fighting together, and there should be the one standard of equipment for all the North Atlantic pact countries. Of course the commercial aspect enters into the picture, and every country will want to do the manufacturing. That could be farmed out. No priority should be given any one country. Every country should manufacture an equal share, but there should be complete standardization for the North Atlantic pact countries.

Topic:   POSTAL SERVICE
Subtopic:   CHICOUTIMI AND LAPOINTE COUNTIES, QUE., MAIL CONTRACTS
Permalink
SC

John Horne Blackmore

Social Credit

Mr. Blackmore:

Would my hon. friend permit a question?

Topic:   POSTAL SERVICE
Subtopic:   CHICOUTIMI AND LAPOINTE COUNTIES, QUE., MAIL CONTRACTS
Permalink
CCF

Clarence Gillis

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Gillis:

Yes.

Supply-National Defence

Topic:   POSTAL SERVICE
Subtopic:   CHICOUTIMI AND LAPOINTE COUNTIES, QUE., MAIL CONTRACTS
Permalink

May 9, 1951