Advanced Search

Search within full text, speaker names, parties, and topics of Hansard proceedings.

Additional Filters:

Exact match
Exact match

Date Range:

Sorting Options:

Search Results

Showing 215 total results (11 pages) for National Defence Act other place:

February 21, 1950

PC

Harry Oliver White

Progressive Conservative

Mr. While (Middlesex East):

...act, I sometimes think we have two ministers of agriculture, namely the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) and the Minister of Agriculture. As you will recall, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Trade and Commerce came back last May and said he had a $25 million contract for Canadian products. I have never yet been able to find out whether or not we sold that extra $25 million worth; and until it has been proven to me, I am going to say that it was a phony contract. When he comes back this time, he had better bring something more than a suntan with him. During the war years when we could get a fair price for our products in other markets, embargoes were placed on many primary products so that they could not go to the best markets. When cheese and other things became scarce, they were requisitioned to fill those contracts. We did not have a chance. d2 HOUSE OF The Address-Mr. H. O. White But now the government says: We will hand the problem back to them and see what they can do with it. This is a serious problem. I do not want you to think that I am dealing with it lightly. The United States is lacing a problem with regard to floor prices; and from articles appearing in the press it appears that the officials of the Department of Agriculture here are going to set a floor price, but the indications are that the price is going to be low. It is going to be a bargain basement price, I am afraid; and that was not what the farmers had in mind in 1945 or again in 1949 when the Agricultural Prices Support Act was dangled before them prior to the election. But now they are told that the situation has changed; the officials point to the United States with their accumulation of potatoes and other products and so they are saying: We cannot set this floor too high or we are going to get into difficulties, so we will put in a bargain basement floor. As long as I can remember I have heard tariffs talked of. Some have said that a floor price for farmers is a subsidy. If tariffs are not a subsidy, I do not know what they are. I believe that farmers and others are quite prepared to do away with subsidies if all the rest of our economy is prepared to do the same thing. I think possibly it would be better for all of us if we gave some serious consideration to that matter because it is, no doubt, one of the things that are stagnating trade. I have here a resolution passed at the last annual meeting of the Middlesex County Federation of Agriculture, and I should just like to read it: Whereas the future market outlook for farm products is uncertain; and Whereas farmers in this country produced and sold farm products during the war years below world market prices; and Whereas promises have been repeatedly made that farmers would be sustained by satisfactory floor prices; Be it therefore resolved that proper measures be taken to implement the provisions of the Agricultural Prices Support Act whenever the need arises. This resolution was carried unanimously at that meeting. For a moment or two I want to deal with the proposal in the speech from the throne to set up a committee to look into the national health plan, along with old age pensions and other things. This is going to take some time, and it looks to me as if it was a delaying action. If we examine these national health proposals, we shall find that they were first put forward as a policy of the Liberal party in 1919, and they have been brought out at the correct time practically ever since. In one of the throne speeches mention was made of the house committee on prices. We received three copies of it, it is true; but that is all that was ever done. It had the effect of drawing people's attention from the government's shortsighted policy to the troubles they were in; and in this way got the government out of the hole at the time. Nothing was ever done. That is about what is going to happen with this national health program. It has one purpose only, to attract attention and delay action. Mention was made of the cold war. I just want to refer back again to the fact that if we are to fight an effective cold war we must have a healthy economy not only in Canada but in all the rest of the signatory nations tf> the Atlantic pact. People are quite prepared to pay heavy taxes to maintain and strengthen our defences; but they also feel that there is very little to show for the $400 million that was spent on national defence last year. In the speech from the throne we find the following: The measure to consolidate existing legislation respecting our defence forces . . . will be re-introduced. I have made some reference to that, and reference was made to it in the two previous speeches. During the recess I heard more criticism back home of the Department of National Defence than I had heard in any of the past four or five years. I was asked such questions as these: What are you doing with the $400 million? What have you to show for it? We have one aircraft carrier that we are not able to keep in operation all the time. We have very few of the jet aircraft that we were taken to Rockcliffe to see some years ago. We have few of them today. A veil of secrecy has been cast over that $400 million of the people's money. Our people are worried about national defence. I should also like to refer to the fact that all the various branches of the service have a dental corps. One dental corps should be able to take care of the teeth of all the men that we have in the forces. We need a realistic approach to the world's needs. We hear of people needing food. We know that there is a seridus dislocation of distribution. We need a convertible currency, not a controlled currency, in the western community of nations. We cannot be strong militarily if we are weak economically. I think the whole thing can be summarized in what is taking place at the royal mint. They are making a new silver dollar. On the old silver dollar the good ship Matthew appeared, commemorating the entry of Newfoundland into confederation. On the new dollar they are taking to the canoe. The Address-Mr. Mclvor

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Full View Permalink

March 14, 1950

PC

Alfred Johnson Brooks

Progressive Conservative

Mr. A. J. Brooks (Royal):

...defence committee of this house. I think the house is indeed fortunate to have a member such as the hon. member for Nanaimo, who has a wide knowledge of defence matters. I might say also that the house is fortunate in having so many other Proposed National Defence Committee men, especially those from the last war, who are well qualified to give advice and sit on a committee of this kind. There is nothing more important to the people of Canada, and in fact to the people of the whole world today, than this question of defence. I am sure that there is nothing more complicated, and nothing which gives the government of this country more concern, than this question of defending our country. Wars of today are not like the wars of the past. Perhaps they would compare slightly with the last two wars, but in former wars, before the first and second great wars it was just a matter of armies getting together and fighting it out. The civilian population had very little to do with it. As has been stated by one hon. member, time for preparation would be very short in the event of a war breaking out. Today a nation must be prepared. In the first great war we in this country had time to wait for months while France, Great Britain and the other countries held the line, as it were, for us. What was true of the first great war was also more or less true in the second world war, but I am sure everyone is convinced that should another war break out the time will not be a matter of months or weeks. It may possibly be a matter only of days until we shall have to have our army and our defences ready. There are many matters which could and should be discussed by a committee. I do not wish to repeat what has already been said. For instance, a matter which might be discussed by a defence committee is that of the dispersal of munition plants. As we know, they are more or less in vulnerable spots throughout the country. In the event of bombing there is no question in my mind but that our munition plants would be the first to suffer. The matter of the dispersal of munition plants could and should be considered and acted upon long before war comes. Then there is the matter of supplies and storage of food. If a war comes we shall require large quantities of food, and the food will have to be stored at different points throughout the country. That is a matter that a committee could very well discuss. A committee on defence does not necessarily discuss only the air force, the navy or the army; but it could and should discuss practically every phase of our life. Civilian defence, which was mentioned this afternoon by the hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Harkness) and the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright), is a matter about which I intended to say a few words. I find it is not necessary for me to do so except to point out that the United States has made. and is making today, extensive preparations for civilian defence. I think they are paying proportionately far more attention to that very important matter than we are. I hold in my hand a clipping from the Christian Science Monitor of a short time ago-I am sorry I have not the date-written by Josephine Ripley, called "Civilian Defense Rolls Quietly", and which reads in part as follows: This planning is going on quietly, but not secretly. It is not necessary that it should be secret. The people should know what is going on. I continue: It is going on calmly, and without hysteria. It is going on without frantic haste, but at a steady pace -a pace admittedly speeded up, however, since President Truman's announcement of Russia's possession of the atom bomb. Since then, of course, we have had the report on the hydrogen bomb and the suggestion that the Russians know as much about the H-bomb as we do. Some of the things which the United States is planning for is a dispersion of government department's from Washington. They are also giving attention to the dispersal of munition plants and other important manufacturing plants. In the matter of aircraft spotters this article says: One of these is the call for 150,000 volunteer aircraft spotters to augment the mechanical "seeing-eye" of the radar screen. These spotters will cover 25 northwestern and Atlantic coast states and stand ready to scan the skies around the clock, if necessary. This sky-watch will eventually be nationwide. I suggest we can very well learn from the United States in this matter. Another matter worthy of consideration is the special training they are giving to combat radiation injuries, and like conditions. I believe we in Canada are doing something along those lines, but I feel that probably more should be done. Every city and town in Canada which might possibly be subject to bombing attack should at the present time-not at some later date-be prepared to look after matters of this kind. This article also states that it is not only at headquarters in Washington that this is being done, but that there are state representatives, and that every state in the union is being made conscious of the necessity for civilian defence. Ido not think it is necessary for me to labour that point further; but I do believe, as I said a moment ago, that a committee might well look into and study these matters. A study of that kind would be of great advantage to the government and, I am sure, to the people generally. Then, again, I was quite concerned not long ago when I read about the quality of arms being supplied to Europe. It is important, of course, that the allies we might expect under-the Atlantic pact should be supplied with proper arms and munitions. I read an article which appeared in The Ensign of January 21, a paper published in Montreal. The headline reads, "Europe doubts quality of expected arms from United States. Experts believe special tank should be designed to meet unknown situation." This article, dated at Amsterdam, goes on to say that the supplies of secondary munitions for Europe are not good enough. It states the view is that the supplies from the last war would not stand up or be sufficient to meet any onslaught which we might have from Russia. The people in those countries feel that there should be set up some sort of western European arms industry, so that they would not have to rely too much on secondhand arms they are receiving from the United States and Canada. This is a question which I am sure a committee could look into with great value and benefit to ourselves and to our friends. Speaking on the subject of defence last year, the minister set out as his sixth point the following: Since an attack on Canada could only be made by air or by sea, emphasis must be placed on defence forces: by air-radar stations and communications, backed by interceptors and a relatively small mobile brigade group; by sea-anti-submarine and antimine vessels for protection of shipping and coastal waters. The best place to defeat the enemy is as far away from Canada as possible, and1 our forces should also serve as the nucleus for the development of our maximum potential. That is an ideal with which I am sure we all agree. The best place to defeat an enemy is as far away from Canada as possible. But I think the minister himself, the government and the people of Canada are beginning to realize that probably it will not be away from Canada at all that we will have to meet the enemy. His suggestion, for instance, that a small and relatively mobile brigade group is all that is necessary, I am sure would not meet the situation at all. I was much concerned to read an article not long ago dealing with a probable attack on this country or on the United States. After all, if Russia ever goes to war, it will be against the United States, and I am satisfied her first attack would be against that country. If it is made against the United States it must and will be made through Canada. This article mentioned the fact that in Siberia, a country comparable to Alaska which adjoins the northern part of Canada, there are 25 million people, and that Russia has today some 20 divisions in that part of the world. It was pointed out that these people are not carrying out Sweetbriar operations of 4,000 or 5,000 Proposed National Defence Committee men, but that they are training many thousands of men for long periods who are well inured to the cold and hardships of that climate. That is something else about which we in this country should be concerned, namely the training of our men in the north. I commend the minister upon the start he has made. It was small, involving 4,000 or 5,000 men over a period of ten days. My understanding is that it was experimental, and I am sure that the department and the United States authorities gained much valuable information. I am satisfied however that as time goes on the department will realize that our northern areas are the most vulnerable, so far as this country is concerned. There was a time when we thought our north country, because of the snow and ice, and the hardships which would be encountered by men who would fight in that area, was impregnable. Today we realize it is our most vulnerable point. I believe a committee could assist the minister greatly in studying the situation as it applies to that part of the world. I shall not take further time in this discussion, but I do believe the minister and the government would be well advised to set up a committee of the house to study not only the navy, the army and the air force, but every phase of defence, which includes within its ambit practically the whole life of the Canadian people.

Topic:   PROPOSED SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL DEFENCE
Full View Permalink

November 24, 1949

PC

George Alexander Drew (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Drew:

...act meaning of the remarks because I am not aware of what earlier speaker offended against the rules. I may have been out when it happened. During the remarks that I have been making I have been discussing the subject that has been before the house, and I had just asked a question of the Minister of National Defence when the hon. member for Temiscouata made certain statements which I think I should comment on briefly. I find myself in agreement with a great deal that the hon. member for Temiscouata has said. I most certainly am in complete agreement with him when he says that the question of national defence should be decided by the members of the House of Commons and the Senate. That has been my contention since these estimates were called on November 11. The remarks I have been making have been directed to the hope that we might have the information which would make it possible for members of the house and members of the Senate to reach a decision with some knowledge of the facts. I do not want to have any exchange with regard to the individuals who have been mentioned which would in any way divert the discussion from what is before the house, but I would point out that no reasonable interpretation of any remark I made could under any circumstances be suggested as a comparison, favourable or otherwise, between the hon. member for Nanaimo and any other hon. member in his capacity as a member of the House of Commons. What I pointed out was that in this particular field of responsibility the member who advocated such a drastic change in emphasis in the organization of our defence forces is a man with very wide experience. He started his service as a private, went through every N.C.O. and officer rank, and as a result of that very process as a regular soldier has a wealth of experience which he is able to pass on to us. No remark that I made was a reflection in any way upon the service of the Minister of National Defence who served most gallantly in the artillery in the first world war. May I say that it is a matter that demonstrates the quality of his service that in that war he was awarded a decoration which I think most members will regard as second only to the V.C. in its recognition of valour. No remark of mine was intended as an unfavourable comparison, and I hope no hon. member will suggest that. I think, however, that when we are discussing agriculture perhaps a skilled farmer knows a little more about agriculture than somebody else, although we must all exercise what judgment we can when we hear the farmers tell us what the facts are. I also think when it comes to the subject of health, although we must all pass judgment in regard to what is appropriate in the provision of health measures, it is proper that we should have some regard to the experience of those doctors whose qualifications enable them to express an expert opinion. We all must pass judgment. I would make this comment as to a remark made by the hon. member for Temiscouata which it seems to me is the strongest supporting argument I have heard yet in favour of the whole problem being discussed by a committee. He said: If you were dealing with a question of electricity and you were putting it before a judge you would not expect the judge to be an expert electrical engineer. No, we do not; but we do not expect the judge to pass judgment without hearing experts. We do not expect any judge to pass judgment unless he has had the opportunity of having evidence placed before him by those who are able to express an expert opinion in regard to that peculiarly technical subject. At the present time we are dealing with one of the most complex problems that have ever confronted men and women who are called upon to exercise their judgment, because today the defence forces of this or any other country combine the skill of electrical engineers, metallurgical engineers and engineers of every type, of industrial experts and producers as well as military men in their military formations. Today the defence forces are a combination of every productive and physical capacity of the country. It is for that very reason that, of all the subjects with which we are called upon to deal, no subject so clearly demands expert information before those of us who are not experts are in a position to pass judgment in the high court of parliament. Let us take a few of the examples. During the last war science brought all its strength, all its skill and all its energy to the production of new devices, and it has not stood still. Today, if we assume our responsibility, we will make sure that within whatever defined field of responsibility we accept the task of preparing defence forces, they will be efficiently equipped in the most economical way, and with the very finest type of arms and equipment that can be supplied. When I say that I would emphasize the fact that in the last war Canada demonstrated that there is no intricate mechanism of war or of peace which the skilled workmen of this country, associated with our technicians and our management experts, are not capable of producing. For that reason we do need expert advice, and that is why I still press my suggestion that a committee would be the appropriate place. I have interjected these remarks in relation to what has been just said. I would return now to the question I asked before those remarks were made: in the case of the army, what are the arms of that service today?

Topic:   COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENTS RESPECTING INSTITUTION AND CONDUCT OF PROSECUTIONS, ETC.
Full View Permalink

March 28, 1949

CCF

Major James William Coldwell

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

Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roselown-Biggar):

...act as a treaty within the meaning of article 51 of the charter, which provides for regional co-operation for the preservation of peace, and for political, social and economic co-operation among nations. In the third place, our approval of the resolution will signify agreement that Canada should be represented at the conference for the completion of an acceptable treaty based on the proposed text. In the fourth place, it recognizes that any treaty which is there approved shall be placed before parliament for final approval and ratification. In other words, the adoption of the resolution now before us gives authority to the government to negotiate, but reserves to parliament the right to make the final decision. That, I think is in complete accord with the best traditions of democratic procedure. As has been said already, no new obligations are involved in this understanding. The obligations which are implicit in the document now before us are those we undertook when we signed the charter of the United Nations. But the object of the negotiations which have been in progress for some months now is to provide democratic nations with an alternative form of collective security within the orbit of the United Nations, but made necessary by the failure of the security North Atlantic Treaty council to take effective steps for the preservation of peace and the prevention of aggression in the manner agreed upon and outlined in the charter. I shall endeavour to point out in a few minutes why a regional pact is necessary, even though we all regret that the failure to establish universal collective security has produced this necessity. Before doing so, however, I want to emphasize a point which appears to me and to my party to be of supreme importance. This point was made in the statement by the C.C.F. national council which I placed before this house on January 31 last. That statement said: The C.C.F. Is convinced that mere military alliances cannot guarantee peace. Economic recovery must continue to be the primary objective. I believe this is absolutely true. Nothing done or arranged through this proposed pact should be allowed to interfere with the rebuilding of the economy of western Europe and the world. Some rearmament is essential in the present circumstances and in view of the world situation, but surely it would be sheer folly to believe that armaments, at the expense of economic recovery or economic well-being, can serve as a basis for peace, even though armaments may still be necessary to guard it. The C.C.F. therefore urges our government to stand firm on this point; and when the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) rises to speak I hope we may receive some assurance that this will be done. Those of us who were at the San Francisco conference hoped and believed that the victorious nations would unite to prevent aggression, to end the threat of war, and to lay the foundations of that permanent peace for which men and women of good will hoped and prayed. But even whilst we were at San Francisco and the conference was in progress, indications were not lacking that understanding would be difficult. The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon), and others who were at the San Francisco conference will remember the reported disappearance at that time of sixteen members of the Polish resistance movement who had proceeded to Moscow under safe conduct to discuss the Polish situation, an incident which in conference circles caused very grave concern. The Prime Minister and others will probably remember also that every inquiry made at that time of the soviet delegation was met either by silence or by a shrug of the shoulders, and there were grave misgivings on the part of many of us who learned of the circumstances. Shortly after that a Labour government was elected in Great Britain. As we know, they [Mr. Coldwell.l believed absolutely there was every possibility that they would be able to reach understandings with the soviet union on basic problems. It was not long, however, until it became obvious that the communist government and its parties throughout the world had launched a vicious offensive against democratic socialist governments and their parties everywhere. Because of that and the bitter attacks on countries with democratic socialist governments, to which we listened with grave and growing concern at Lake Success in the autumn of 1946, it became evident that far greater difficulties faced the world than were anticipated at San Francisco. Every attempt to reach agreement in the security council and to settle international disputes coming before it was thwarted, more often than not by use of the veto; and again, may I say, those of us who were at San Francisco will remember that it was with a good deal of apprehension that the Canadian delegates, at their private meetings, finally came to the conclusion that we had to accept the veto in order to get a United Nations organization. This afternoon the Prime Minister placed on record the statement I so well remember, the appeal by Canada and the small nations to the security council at the general assembly in October, 1946, to call together the military staffs as provided for in the charter, because, as he said at the time, otherwise there would be national defence commitments anew, and perchance the very recovery of all our countries and their rehabilitation would be interfered with and perhaps postponed indefinitely. I remember those appeals, particularly by Canada and the other smaller nations, for a meeting of the general staffs of the great powers to arrange for the joint international police force, and how those appeals failed to elicit any response from the soviet delegates. Attempts to provide for the control of atomic energy as a potential threat to mankind also have been without effect, as everyone knows. I listened carefully to the debate in the assembly early in December, 1946, when proposals for disarmament were blocked by Russia's refusal to agree to international inspection of armed forces and potential war industries. I heard Sir Hartley Shawcross's dramatic offer to hand over the keys of British industries and to lay bare all information with regard to the United Kingdom's war potential if Russia agreed to be equally frank. Unfortunately the U.S.S.R. has consistently refused to allow international inspection, to which other nations were ready to agree. She has maintained a vast army but insists on the destruction of the atomic bomb, even though at the time that insistence was first made the western democracies were completing the demobilization of their wartime armies and disposing of their wartime factories and equipment. Because of these failures to reach agreement in the United Nations and the necessity for the prevention of further aggression and for the maintenance of peace, the western democracies have been compelled to consider regional security pacts. No one will deny that regional pacts are poor substitutes for universal security based on universal national disarmament and reliance upon a truly international police force. It is indeed a second best. Believing this, we must make every effort to leave the way open to all other nations to join with us and the other parties to the Atlantic agreement in strengthening the United Nations as opportunities occur. The pact now before us recognizes the existence of a division in the world and emphasizes that there are two opposing power blocs. Unfortunately in the present world situation there appears to be no alternative to that recognition. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, the reason the western European democracies moved closer together for joint defence was that they viewed with grave alarm and misgiving the formation of a solid communist bloc under the leadership of the soviet union. It is not too strong a statement to make to say that the eastern bloc is under the complete control of Russia. Proof of this, I think, can be seen in the attitude of the cominform in its treatment of Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia has proved beyond the possibility of a doubt that no nation under communist domination is free to pursue a policy which differs in any respect from that of the soviet union. Events in Czechoslovakia last year, to which reference has already been made this afternoon, only emphasized the alarm which western European nations had felt during the preceding years. They watched the occupation first and then the absorption of the Baltic states, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. They saw the democratic institutions of those countries destroyed, and the leading social democrats as well as the leaders of other political parties disappear into captivity into Siberia. To this day their fate with that of many thousands of others is largely unknown. They watched the unilateral seizure of part of Poland and of Bessarabia. They saw the breaking of the promises made at Yalta and Potsdam regarding the future of Poland, Yugoslavia, Albania, Bulgaria and Roumania. As I have already said, the coup in Czechoslovakia just over a year ago frightened the western European nations into conferences and action for defensive purposes. Since then the institution of a completely totalitarian North Atlantic Treaty regime in eastern Germany and eastern Europe, together with the Berlin blockade, have underlined the fears which they then felt. Then, too, every attempt was made by communist parties to prevent the success of the European recovery program without which there could be neither hope for the European peoples nor economic recovery for any part of the world including North America itself, which has been the main source of supply in connection with this program during the past year. The western European nations, realizing that under the best of circumstances they were too weak to resist aggressive pressure or an armed attack should it threaten their freedom and their democratic institutions, endeavoured to arouse the British commonwealth and North America to what they considered to be a very dangerous situation. I want to say this because of the propaganda that is heard from one end of this country to the other. Contrary to the propaganda against the proposed North Atlantic treaty, the proposal is not an attempt on the part of so-called American imperialism to bring western European democracies into an alliance for the purpose of destroying the soviet union. It originates in the anxiety of western European democracies to persuade North America to support them in a defensive union. They believed this would halt a threat of aggression and provide the necessary defensive strength so that if the soviet union has aggressive plans against them she will be turned from that course and thus make possible the peaceful solution of existing difficulties and problems. In order to give some support to that statement, let me quote from the March issue of the Socialist Commentary, published in London, England, but representative of western European socialist thought generally. In a few paragraphs which I want to put on record, it sums up the concept I have just given. These paragraphs read as follows: The overwhelming military superiority of Russia in Europe and the realization that within Russia no powerful forces exist to modify or restrain the possible ruthless intentions of her rulers, present the decisive reasons for joint western defence plans. Even in its necessarily inadequate form the Atlantic pact is an important expression of the idea of collective security which can deter aggression and restore some confidence among weaker nations. For this reason, and not because of any illusions about perfect defence guarantees, it was right that the Brussels powers sought to commit America in advance. They were justified in doing this because American policy had been defined in the same spirit that animated the western European statesmen. In his inaugural address, the President re-affirmed this when he said: North Atlantic Treaty This article quotes the President's statement as follows: The primary purpose of these agreements is to provide an unmistakable proof of the joint determination of free countries to resist armed attack from any quarter ... If we can make it sufficiently clear in advance that any armed attack affecting our national security would be met with overwhelming force, armed attack might never occur. The article continues as follows: Too much has been made of the constitutional difficulties which prevent definite American assurances of military help. In essence, they are not uniquely American, but are common to all democratic sovereign nations. This difficulty will only disappear with the establishment of a well-organized world security system in which an international police force functions as do the police now in a single civilized state. What matters for the present is that the United States is committed to Europe, and from a long-term viewpoint. That America became involved in so short a time, despite deep traditions of isolationism, is one of the most startling things in contemporary history. It happened largely thanks to Russian policy, though this was far from Russia's intention. It is also Russian policy that has compelled socialists reluctantly to accept the need for a degree of rearming and a military alignment with the United States. As a matter of fact, this quotation summarizes also the main reason why the C.C.F. in Canada is giving its support to our country's participation in the conference to consider proposals for a North Atlantic defence treaty. I hope and believe that when the treaty comes before us, we shall be able to support its ratification. We emphasize that the treaty is, in large measure, a defensive instrument made necessary by the failure of the security council to give the protection against aggression which we had the right to expect. The regional pact imposes upon the nations entering into the agreement the obligation of supporting every move in the direction of universal instead of regional security. The preamble of the proposed treaty makes that abundantly clear. We must bear in mind that in some ways more important than the military aspects of the treaty are those which obligate the nations to promote the economic wellbeing of their own countries and of the world. The proposed treaty, in article 2, pledges the parties to contribute toward the further development of peaceful and friendly international relations by strengthening their free institutions, by bringing about a better understanding of the principles upon which these institutions are founded, and by promoting conditions of stability and well-being. They pledge themselves to try to eliminate conflict in their international economic policies and to encourage economic collaboration between any or all of them. Indeed, in the opinion of the C.C.F., as it was of those who formulated the United Nations charter, plans for military aid and security are of little value unless based upon a determination to build by mutual agreement the positive social and economic conditions of peace which involve wide measures of international planning for the common good. Every proposal to increase and distribute food supplies and other necessities of life is a proposal to remove the causes of discontent which, in turn, cause men to grasp the promises of dictators whether they are of the fascist or of the communist variety. It was out of unbearable conditions of poverty, unemployment and want, that Mussolini and Hitler arose after the last war. It is because of intolerable conditions in Italy, Greece and elsewhere, that communist propaganda has been able to make such headway in those countries. In Britain, Norway and Denmark, for example, where farsighted social and economic policies have already been put into effect, communist propaganda is so weak that it is almost nonexistent. I wish to emphasize, then, that while the reasons for the security pact for military co-operation have been made necessary by threats of aggression, the future of peace depends equally, perhaps more, upon the determination of the nations in the North Atlantic security pact to assist in economic and social development in their respective countries and to help each other in that regard. Indeed, economic co-operation among the democratic nations has preceded, not followed, the military proposals embodied in the proposed treaty. As soon as the war ended, the United Kingdom depleted her food reserves to feed the people in the liberated countries. The United States, Canada and other parts of the British commonwealth sent enormous quantities of food, raw materials and machinery to Europe for distribution by UNRRA. For several years to come the recovery of western Europe will be made possible, as it has been during the past year, by the European recovery program in which North America and the other signatories to the proposed pact have already joined. Thus, economic co-operation for the removal of the causes of discontent and of poverty, which are fruitful causes of war, has preceded the proposals for defence and security under the proposed treaty. Then, too, under the pact the use of armed force is not necessarily involved in meeting a situation which might threaten peace. A joint diplomatic protest, backed as it would be by overwhelming economic and military resources, might be sufficient. Indeed, we hope and believe it would be, because that is largely the purpose of the pact. The treaty recognizes the sovereign right of each nation, through its own parliament, to decide what shall be done in a given eventuality. This would also enable an informed public opinion to decide whether or not a reported incident is an overt act that would justify action under the treaty. Parliament will have the obligation to obtain and consider all the information which it can possibly get bearing on the matter, and to make its decision according to the facts. The recognition of sovereign rights no doubt has been accepted particularly because of the constitutional position of the congress of the United States. They are indeed implicit also in the constitutions of all democratic nations. This fact was recognized in the United Nations charter and will only disappear when government at the international level has been established and when a single police force can operate in the world to protect peace-loving nations just as police forces now operate in all civilized states to protect peaceful citizens. Before I conclude, let me add that the C.C.F., at its national convention in August, 1948, approved the idea of a western European union for economic co-operation and security. Our national council, in January, carefully considered all that was then known of the extension of that union into a North Atlantic security pact, and gave its approval to the principles involved. The principles now before us do not differ from those foreshadowed before the terms outlined in the proposed treaty were made public. Speaking in the House of Commons on January 31 last, I placed on the record, after consultation with our caucus, the entire statement of the national council which had met a few days before. The statement included these words: The C.C.F. believes that Canada should support and join a North Atlantic security pact. Today we reiterate this statement as the official position of the C.C.F. party in this country, arrived at through thorough discussion in the most democratic manner. The nations joining together in the North Atlantic treaty have in their resources, both industrial and human, an overwhelming superiority in strength. This superiority in strength does not threaten war anywhere on earth. Our peoples are peace-loving, in the best sense of the word. The fear that is widespread-and I admit that it is widespread in our own country-that this security pact may be a step in the direction of a third world war, is in itself an indication that the people of the democracies will not permit their governments to wage aggressive warfare, even under great provocation from any other nation or group of nations. The very strength that lies in the nations agreeing to the North Atlantic security pact North Atlantic Treaty will enable us to act in a firm but conciliatory manner toward the soviet union and its satellite nations or toward any other nation which commits aggression by the use of armed force, or threatens aggression in any regard. If we do this, as I believe we shall, then the Atlantic security pact will be indeed a pact of peace enabling the world to move steadily toward the kind of world security which was contemplated in the United Nations charter. The hope of mankind lies in universal peace. This, it seems to me, can best be secured at the present time by joining with other free and peace-loving nations in expressing a determination to resist all threats of aggression. At the same time we must insist that universal peace and security will depend in the final analysis on the extent to which poverty, misery and want are banished from the world. In such a security system Canada can play an important role. The world is divided into two blocs. We have no warlike ambitions. We desire peace for ourselves and for all mankind. That, I am convinced, is the desire of the masses everywhere. It is that desire which has brought into the North Atlantic security pact such nations as Norway and Denmark, nations which are adjacent to soviet Russia, much nearer indeed than the distances which were noted this afternoon. I am certain also that neither the American nor the Russian people want war. Working in co-operation with the western European peoples who would be the first to suffer in an armed conflict, Canada can do much to preserve peace and to promote understanding. By agreeing to a satisfactory regional security pact we have at least a chance of influencing the course of events and maintaining our national independence. Isolation would deny the one and jeopardize the other. Of course there are dangers in such a regional security pact. Russia and her European allies have, it is believed, fifty divisions ready for war. It is estimated that she could put an additional fifty divisions into the field within a month. The western European democratic countries have only ten divisions amongst them. The danger is of course that, in equipping western Europe with modern war equipment, recovery may be deferred and a dangerous armament race promoted. That is a danger we must guard against. It is because of this danger that we hope the determination of the North Atlantic nations to stand together against aggression may bring about a real attempt to eliminate all potential causes of war and to establish world security at last, within the United Nations. In any event, without the security North Atlantic Treaty pact and under present conditions, the burden of armaments and the threat to recovery would be greater if the western European nations alone, and one by one, attempted to arm against the overwhelming manpower of the cominform nations. Then, too, because of our own geographical situation, our military preparedness would be a crippling burden to us. As a part of the North Atlantic fraternity both our danger and our burdens should be lessened. But whatever burdens in the field of defence are involved-and let me say this to the government with all the emphasis that I can give it -no one must be allowed to profit in the production of instruments of war. We urged before the last war that all munitions industries should be nationalized. We reiterate that now and demand that profiteering in related industries must be eliminated by every means at our disposal. However, history alone will record whether the North Atlantic security pact will succeed or not. Failure will mean the end of civilization as we know it. We must, therefore, in our strength seek understanding, friendship and co-operation with all nations so that the men and women who sacrificed, suffered and died in the two great wars which have plagued our generation will not have been sacrificed in vain. It is in that spirit, Mr. Speaker, that we support Canada's participation in the conference to be held at Washington, and we hope that the representative of Canada will endeavour to bring back to this house a document and treaty to which this house can accord unanimous ratification.

Topic:   NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY
Subtopic:   COLLECTIVE SELF-DEFENCE WITHIN UNITED NATIONS CHARTER CANADIAN PARTICIPATION IN WASHINGTON CONFERENCE
Full View Permalink

March 7, 1950

PC

George Alexander Drew (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Drew:

...place at Lake Success. General McNaughton cannot divest himself of his official position. He is there as an official appointed by the Canadian government, and he is still Canadian representative on the atomic energy commission of the United Nations. He still is the chairman of the Canadian section of the permanent joint board on defence. He occupies these official positions, and he cannot on one occasion wear the cloak that indicates his responsibility in that respect, and on another occasion divest himself of it. The Secretary of State for External Affairs says that General McNaughton was referring to the discussions of a group dealing with atomic energy questions. General McNaughton was referring to the walkout of the Soviet delegates and of the delegates of the satellite nations-and this was not just once; there were fifteen walkouts from different committees. When the Secretary of State for External Affairs indicates that Canada is not concerned, I should think Canada should be very much concerned about this pressure that is being exerted to have the other nations bow to their will in a matter of this kind. It is not something that might take place; it is something that has taken place. And when we talk of the position that Canada would be in if they did it, I say they have done it. They have walked out, and they have walked out for the particular purpose of asserting their position in regard to the Chinese situation. External Affairs What I said the other night, and what I repeat now, is that this is a form of blackmail; and if the other nations accede to that procedure, then the discussions there will become practically meaningless. I said the other night, and I repeat today, that Russia has a way of presenting its case. It can make arguments; it has a right to make arguments if it does not think that the present Chinese representative should be there and that the representative of Mao should be there, and that that is the way they should proceed. No; I never suggested that Canada should walk out. As the Secretary of State for External Affairs has said, it would be an absurd suggestion; and frankly I think it is absurd for him even to indicate that anyone would think of it. We do not suggest that for one moment. What was being suggested was that this is a new set of events since Great Britain and India recognized the Mao regime. Let me come back to the statement of General McNaughton. The Secretary of State for External Affairs has read it. It states: Unfortunately the further progress of these meetings has been held up by the Soviet refusal to participate as long as the Chinese delegate represented the nationalist government. However there is reason to expect that the meetings will again be resumed shortly when this difficulty has been overcome. What I said when I mentioned this before, and what I say again, is that General McNaughton's words on that occasion have no meaning unless they were intended to imply that this difficulty, the presence of the present Chinese representative, would only be disposed of by his being replaced by a representative of the Mao regime. The Secretary of State for External Affairs nods his head in seeming approval. That is exactly what I said the other night, and it is what I say now. General McNaughton was saying that the Soviet delegate and those supporting him were pointing out that we were holding things up. The Secretary of State for External Affairs says nothing is being held up. General McNaughton said, "further progress of these meetings has been held up." Well, perhaps he does not know, but he is the Canadian representative at those meetings. He is referring to a situation which relates to fifteen separate acts which were part of a common pattern. The Secretary of State for External Affairs went on to deal with the question of recognition. He said we have to distinguish between a government whose authority is being challenged, and a government which has just been formed; also that there is a difference between the recognition of a state and the recognition of a new government. He said 522 External Affairs what we can see taking place almost before our eyes in this house, and what can be seen in similar parliaments, I think at this time there should be an urgent appeal to wake up before it is too late and act together to save the peace for which so many men and women have died.

Topic:   ANNOUNCEMENT AS'TO RATES OF PAY FOR STENOGRAPHERS AND AMANUENSES
Subtopic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sub-subtopic:   S18 HOUSE OF COMMONS
Full View Permalink

September 29, 1949

PC

Douglas Scott Harkness

Progressive Conservative

Mr. D. S. Harkness (Calgary East):

...other members of this chamber, that you will both discharge your high and important functions with dignity and justice. I should like to compliment the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, and all of the other new members of this house who have so far taken part in this debate. Their speeches have been excellent and indicate that they all have something of importance to contribute to this house. Today there are several matters on which I should like to make brief comment, the first of which is the revision of the Indian Act. This act has not had any main revision for something over fifty years. As a result, it is greatly out of date, a fact which makes it difficult for the officials of the Indian affairs branch to administer that department in the best way possible for the Indians of this country and in a way which is in conformity with the general advance in ideas that has taken place over that period of time. This fact was recognized, and in 1946 the following resolution was passed in this house: That a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons be appointed to examine and consider the Indian Act, chapter 98, R.S.C., 1927, and amendments thereto and to suggest such amendments as they deem advisable, with authority to investigate and report upon Indian administration in general and, in particular, the following matters: And the matters are listed. As a result of that resolution a committee was set up. This committee held long sessions throughout 1946, 1947 and 1948. It received evidence from several hundred witnesses. A great deal of work on the part of departmental officials was devoted to the committee and to the securing of information for it. As a result of the sittings of that committee a series of recommendations were made to this house. They were adopted, and as a result I think a considerable improvement took place in the administration of the Indian affairs branch. For one thing, a large number of day schools have been and are being built at the present time, to improve the educational facilities for our Indians. Hospital and medical care have also improved considerably. However, the main purpose for which the committee was set up, namely, to amend the Indian Act, has not been carried to fruition. In spite of OWr. Knight.] the urgings of myself and a considerable number of hon. members at the last session of the last parliament, the government did not see fit to introduce the suggested amendments to the act which had been made in previous years. Only a day or two ago the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Gibson) asked the government whether they intended to introduce at this session legislation to amend the Indian Act. The answer of the minister, as reported at page 232 of Hansard, was as follows: A draft bill to amend the Indian Act is in the hands of the Department of Justice, but I am not able to say when it will be available for consideration by the house. That was the situation in 1948. After the committee had spent this long period in debating the suggested amendments to the act the thing was put into the hands of the Department of Justice, and apparently it has remained there ever since. Surely the officials of the Department of Justice have had time to look into the matter and have it ready for presentation to the house. I strongly urge upon the government that a revised Indian Act be introduced into the house just as rapidly as possible. If the government is still not satisfied with the draft bill that was prepared by the committee and revised by the Justice department, then I would ask that the joint committee be reconstituted just as quickly as that can be done, so that the work can be gone on with. The Indians of the country, and a large number of other people lyho are interested in their welfare, hoped for great things from the setting up of the committee on Indian affairs and the revision of the act. The government has a moral duty to have this matter brought to completion just as soon as it can possibly do so. I should now like to say something about a matter which was brought up by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), this afternoon, and earlier this week by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes), namely, the difficult situation in which imperial veterans now find themselves as the result of the devaluation of the British pound. I hold in my hand a resolution which was forwarded to me by the Calgary branch of the Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans Association, urging this action upon the government. The exact way in which this could be done I do not wish to suggest. One thing which would help considerably, as far as some of these men are concerned, is the extension of the war veterans allowance to them. Apart from that, some arrangement might be come to between this government and the British government in the matter of bringing these men's pensions back to the The Address-Mr. Harkness level at which they were before the pound was devalued or when the pound was at the normal rate of exchange; or, as suggested in this resolution, this government might supplement the British pensions in order to bring them back up to what the normal rate would make them. Another matter along that line which I should like to mention is the plight of the superannuated civil servants. I have had several pitiable letters from ex-dominion civil servants who have been superannuated on extremely small pensions. I should like to bring them to the attention of the government and request that something be done particularly for those men who have pensions smaller than the old age pension paid. Quite a number of these people, although they worked for many long years for the Dominion of Canada, have pensions considerably smaller than that to which they would be entitled if they were able to draw old age pensions. In most cases these men are in the age bracket of from 65 to 70. Since there has been a great deal of talk and, as I remember, quite a few promises by the government that the old age pension age would be brought down to 65, they could very well start to redeem these promises by giving to these superannuated civil servants allowances at least sufficiently large to bring them up to the scale of the old age pension. So far in this debate we have heard considerable talk about irrigation. There is one phase of that matter that I should like to say something about. In western Canada we are beginning to use the sprinkler system of irrigation, in which a pump and a system of pipes, and so on, are used to put water on the land rather than levelling it off and putting it on by means of ditches. It possesses many advantages over the levelling and ditching system. It means that a great deal of land, which could not have been irrigated otherwise, can be brought under irrigation. One of the difficulties in connection with it is that the machinery needed-the pump, the pipes, and so forth-is subject to duty and tax. I know of two farmers in the area east of Calgary who, being desperate because of the drought conditions there in the past summer, imported this, machinery from the United States and they had to pay a tax of over $1,100. Their contention, which I think is perfectly justifiable, is that this type of equipment should be classed as farm machinery, and as such not subject to tariff and taxes. I would ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), who fortunately, I see, is sitting across from me, to bear this fact in mind when he is making up his budget resolutions. I may say that I took this matter up with the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) The Address-Mr. Harkness and asked him whether it would be possible for his department to make a ruling that this type of machinery was indeed farm machinery, as it is, and thus not subject to duty and tax. His reply, however, was: To permit of the duty free entry of such apparatus, a tariff change would be necessary. Amendments to the tariff do not come under my department, being rather the responsibility of the Department of Finance. It seems to me this is a matter in which the Department of Finance could move immediately, and in doing so could bring aid in irrigation to considerable areas in western Canada where water is available and can be used by means of this sprinkler system. I should now like to say something on the subject of defence. During past years we in the official opposition have made repeated efforts to secure information in regard to the state of the defences of this country. In many instances these efforts were far from successful. The information was denied to us. However, a general picture was always built up by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton), both here and throughout the country at large, that our defence situation was excellent; that we had a small but mobile highly trained hard-hitting defence force, which was capable of dealing with any eventualities it was possible to foresee arising. It was well adapted to deal especially with the only thing that we could reasonably expect in this country, at the start of a war at any rate, namely, diversionary raids particularly on our northern airfields. Well, during the past summer an exercise was held in the Peace river valley to test, apparently-at least that was what was given out in the newspapers-the ability of our defence forces to meet a diversionary raid of this nature. It was known as Exercise Eagle. The result has been rather unfortunate. The chief feature which strikes me in this connection is that the exercise showed a tragic lack of proper equipment on the part of our defence forces. This is the sort of thing which appeared in the newspapers all across this country-and I shall proceed to read a few extracts to show what these correspondents, most of whom were men who had seen service overseas, thought of the equipment of our defence forces. The first of these is from the Vancouver Daily Province of August 8. This is an account by Ross Munro, stating- The exercise clearly revealed some startling weaknesses in our defence picture. The most alarming feature is the almost-complete inadequacy of the R.C.A.F. operational aircraft to meet attack. The combat planes are too old and too few. Further on in the same article he speaks about the good performance put on by the tMr. Harkness.] P.P.C.L.I., an infantry regiment stationed at Calgary, which has now been trained as a parachutist regiment. Referring to that unit he says: But even the P.F.C.L.I. need more equipment; for example, they had to borrow most of their parachutes from the joint air school at Rivers, Manitoba, for this scheme. They also borrowed 150 jump tunics. And further on, referring to the aircraft used in the exercise, he states: In regard to the types of planes, the most astonishing thing was that there wasn't a single jet fighter in the whole exercise. They weren't put on "Eagle" because they had been worked hard during the two-week summer camp of the western reserve squadrons and maintenance problems were too tough for operating up here. The most modern plane was the Mustang fighter and the R.C.A.F. even had to call on Rockcliffe and Trenton stations in Ontario to make up a nine-plane squadron. But the bulk of the "fighters" were the old Harvard trainers. Then there were obsolete Mitchell bombers-six of them. The majority of the pilots were civilian reserve officers and they showed they could do a job. But again they had so little to work with. The air force staffs also executed their tasks of planning and directing extremely well. The "tools" of war were lacking. The R.C.A.F. and exercise "Eagle" foundered on that point in its application to air force performance in an emergency at this time. And here is an article by Paul St. Pierre which appeared in the Vancouver Sun of August 8: Russia could play havoc in our northland today if she successfully launched an airborne .attack of sacrifice troops. H any Canadian officer disagrees with this he is not among the dozen with whom I spoke. And later in the same article he says: But it was a distressing sight to see a young, enthusiastic paratrooper trotting about the battle scene with an alder stick with a tin can nailed on top. "That's a trench mortar," an officer explained. There were many other newspaper accounts along the same line. In one of them, I remember, there was a complaint that the heavy machine guns used by the P.P.C.L.I. in this exercise-or at least some of them-were not equipped with sights. They did not have the sights for them. What all this leads us to is the fact that during the past three years we have voted large sums of money for the defence forces. We in the official opposition have tried to And out the purposes for which the money was being used, if it was being properly spent, and if we were getting the efficient and effective fighting force to which the expenditures entitle us. We were denied that information and told that everything was fine. When an exercise of this sort takes place we find everything is not fine. The accounts sent out by the correspondents who were there indicate that the men were all right. The P.P.C.L.I. put up a magnificent performance. Fighter pilots and other air crew did excellent work. The staff work was all right. The thing that was wrong and which caused the exercise to fail was the fact that proper equipment was not there. We did not have it in this country. We have maintained right along that a defence committee of the House of Commons should be set up to which full information could be given respecting the state of our defence forces. The situation brought to light by Exercise Eagle reinforces that contention, and points up strongly the fact that the house needs a committee of that kind which could get more information about defence. It is our duty to see that the moneys voted for defence purposes are properly spent. From what we can make out, they may have been properly spent, and they may not. At any rate we have not got what we paid for. We have not an effective fighting force. In theory we are supposed to have an airborne [DOT] brigade which could stop any diversionary raid on this country. We are supposed to have an air force which would transport them to the place where they would be needed. This exercise demonstrated that we have not those things. We have not the equipment which would make it possible for our men to do the job. In my view the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) should, in fact must, make a full explanation to the house as to exactly what did happen, what the situation was in this exercise, and just what the situation is at the present time, so far as defence preparations are concerned. In particular we should be told the situation from the standpoint of equipment, one feature in connection with which we appear to be especially weak. There is one other phase of defence matters upon which I should like to touch briefly, namely passive defence measures against atomic warfare. I discussed this matter last February in the debate in reply to the speech from the throne, and at that time requested the minister to make a statement as to what passive defence measures this country had taken. I have not yet received an answer to that question. I know that over a year ago the government appointed General Worthington, a most capable officer, to survey this situation. Whether his survey has been completed or not, or what he has recommended, has never been made public so far as I am aware. As for this country's being protected in the event of another war, I think perhaps it is The Address-Mr. Harkness more necessary to take proper measures of passive defence than to do anything else, including the building up of our actual defence forces. The news which came last week, that the Russians now apparently have atomic bombs, makes this more urgent. It brings the matter into sharp focus and makes it imperative that steps be taken to protect the civilian population in the event of war breaking out. That is not so very unlikely, although we hope, trust and pray that it will not take place. In my opinion there is no question that long before this we should have been taking a considerable number of measures to protect the general public in the event of the dropping of atomic bombs. These would be measures planning for the evacuation of people from our larger centres of population. I suggested last February that in considering its housing plans and various schemes to aid the construction of houses the government should make it possible for those who wanted to build houses in the smaller centres to obtain the same assistance given to those who were building in the more densely populated areas. It would seem that a reverse policy has been adopted. From what I can make out it is much easier to obtain help under the National Housing Act for the building of houses in the larger centres of population than it is for the building of houses in the smaller centres. At that time I pointed out, and I still am strongly of the same opinion, that efforts should be made through the industrial development bank to bring about a dispersion of industry which would carry with it a dispersion of population because people will go where they can get work. I shall come back to both aspects of this matter of defence to which I have referred when the estimates are before us, but in the meantime I ask the minister to be prepared, either during this debate or when his estimates are before us, to make a full statement and answer the questions which have been posed here.

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Full View Permalink

September 15, 1949

LIB

Elie Beauregard (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. Speaker:

...action in all parts of the country that the steady improvement in the health of the King has enabled His Majesty to resume most of his customary activities. The opening of the twenty-first parliament is marked by the presence for the first time of the representatives of the new province of Newfoundland. It is a pleasure for me to welcome their participation in the national affairs of a greater Canada. With the admission of the new province of Newfoundland the Canadian nation attained the geographical limits planned by the fathers of confederation. You will be asked at the present session to approve measures designed to facilitate the attainment of the constitutional limits of our nationhood. To this end, a bill will be introduced to amend the Supreme Court Act so that the Supreme Court of Canada will become the final court of appeal for Canada. You will also be asked to approve addresses praying the parliament of the United Kingdom to vest in the parliament of Canada the right to amend the constitution of Canada in relation to matters not coming within the jurisdiction of the legislatures of the provinces nor affecting the constitutional rights and privileges of the provinces or existing rights and privileges with respect to education or the use of the English and French languages. My ministers will seek to arrange for early consultation with the provincial governments with a view to agreeing upon an appropriate procedure for making within Canada such other amendments to the constitution as may from time to time be required. The hopes held four years ago for world peace and security under the aegis of the united nations have not yet been realized. The menace of communist totalitarianism continues to threaten the aspirations of men of good will. It is, however, gratifying that the North Atlantic treaty has been brought into effect and is already proving its worth in lessening the risks of armed aggression. The defence needs of Canada both as a separate nation and as a signatory of this treaty are being kept constantly under review. Good progress has been made in the co-ordination and unification of our armed forces and conditions of service are being improved. Special attention is being given to research and development intended to provide the forces with the most modern equipment suitable for present requirements. A measure will be introduced to consolidate the legislation respecting the defence forces and the Department of National Defence. It is the view of my ministers that the economic health and stability of the nations of the north Atlantic community must be the real foundation of their ability to resist and, therefore, to deter aggression. Although the nations of western Europe have made substantial progress towards recovery from the ravages of war, they have not been able to restore completely their economic strength. Their shortage of dollars continues, and international trade remains in a state of unbalance. The government is seeking by all appropriate means to cooperate in measures to restore economic equilibrium. The achievement of a pattern of world trade in which the trading nations can operate together within one single multilateral system continues to be the ultimate aim of my government. Since parliament last met the international wheat agreement has come into operation. The agreement together with the other arrangements made to dispose of our surplus agricultural products will provide additional economic security for many of our farmers. At home we continue to enjoy prosperity. Agricultural production generally continues to be high. Private capital investment and employment have remained at high levels. Relations between employers and employees have, with few exceptions, been satisfactory. As a result of legislation passed at the last session of parliament, new agreements with respect to old age pensions have been completed with nine of the provinces, and increased pensions have now been made available to the aged and the blind in those provinces. The completion of a similar agreement with the province of Newfoundland awaits the enactment of the required provincial legislation. The continued co-operation of the provinces in the implementation of the national health pro- gram has resulted in further progress being made towards the desired objective of improved health facilities and services for the people in all parts of Canada. While more housing units are being built this year than ever before, the demand for housing continues. Following discussions with the governments of the provinces your approval will be sought for legislation to broaden the scope of the National Housing Act. A bill to provide for the continuance of functions now vested in the Department of Reconstruction and Supply, including the ministerial responsibility for the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, will be placed before you for your approval. You will also be asked to approve a measure to enable the government to assist in the provision of a transcontinental highway. The government has concluded new air agreements with the United Kingdom and the United States. The agreements provide new routes for our international air services to the United States and to the Orient, and additional traffic stops in United States and United Kingdom territory for our present international services on the north Atlantic, to the Caribbean and to the south Pacific. Measures demanding your consideration will include a bill respecting a national trade mark and true labelling; a bill respecting forest conservation; a bill to incorporate the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation; a bill respecting assistance to the shipbuilding industry and merchant shipping; a bill to extend the life of the Export and Import Permits Act; and bills to amend the Exchequer Court Act, the Industrial Development Bank Act, the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act, the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, the Customs Act and the Veterans Land Act of 1942. Members of the House of Commons: You will be asked to make provision for the public service for the current fiscal year. The budget resolutions introduced at the last session of parliament will be submitted for your approval and the enactment of the appropriate legislation. Honourable Members of the Senate: Members of the House of Commons: I pray that Divine Providence may bless your deliberations.

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Full View Permalink

May 16, 1950

LIB

Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence)

Liberal

Hon. Brooke Claxion (Minister of National Defence) moved

...Act and change the title thereof. He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill is based on a resolution which was adopted by the house without any preliminary statement from me. I believe I gave some assurance that such a statement would be made. The Militia Pension Act which this bill would amend provides for pensions and gratuities for members of the regular forces of Canada on their retirement, and for their dependents on their death. Amendments proposed in this bill would simplify administration, expedite payment and correct certain anomalies. All the proposed amendments will, I believe, be found to be in the interest of the officers and men of the fotces. The Militia Pension Act enacted in 1901 applied only to the army. This is part I of the present Militia Pension Act. In 1928 parts II and III were added to extend the act to the Royal Canadian Navy and the Royal Canadian Air Force. In 1937 part IV provided that pensions granted in accordance with parts I, II, and III would be paid in monthly instalments. In 1945 a committee under the chairmanship of Mr. G. D. Finlayson, C.M.G., then superintendent of insurance, was set up to recommend amendments which would make provision for members of the armed forces similar in principle to the Civil Service Superannuation Act. The status of members of the regular forces to whom parts I to IV applied was not to be disturbed but they were given the right to elect to come under part V. This new part came into operation on the 31st August 1946 end applied to members of the regular forces enrolled after 31st March 1946 and to those who prior to 31st March 1948 elected to become contributors under this part. Part V will become the only part of the act in effect when the 3,234 servicemen to whom parts I to IV apply will have died or have been retired from the forces. It is expected that this number will be reduced if the option to come under part V is extended as proposed by this bill. Under parts I to IV of the act, members of the regular forces who serve for 20 years or more and are retired for reasons other than their own misconduct are granted a pension for each year of service of one-fiftieth of their pay and allowances at the time of their retirement if they were appointed to the forces prior to May 1, 1929, or if appointed after May 1, 1929, on the average annual rate of pay and allowances for the three years preceding retirement. Officers and warrant officers pay a contribution of five per cent per annum of their pay and provision is made for a pension or other benefits for widows and dependents. In the case of ranks below warrant officer no contribution is paid and no provision is made for widows and dependents. All members of the regular forces to whom part V applies contribute to the pension fund and the benefits on retirement or to their dependents upon their death are similar to those granted to members of the civil service. The first clause of the bill would change the title of the act from the Militia Pension Act to the Defence Services Pension Act. This, I believe, is more appropriate for an act which applies to all three services. Persons to whom parts I to IV applied who wished to come under part V had to elect to do so before March 31, 1948. It has been found that a number of persons who wished to come under part V did not make application before that date and the amendment to paragraph (b) of section 43 would extend to December 31, 1950, the time within which election may be made to come under part V. Under the present part V, a contributor who wishes to reckon for pension purposes his service prior to his becoming a contributor has to elect to do so within one year after becoming a contributor. The purpose of the amendment to subsection 1 of section 45 is to extend the time within Which such an election can be made to a period of six months after the coming into force of the amendment. The amendments to subsections 12 and 13 of section 4, as set out in clause 4 of the bill, and to paragraph (fa) of section 53, as set out Defence to such a committee. If that committee can appropriately deal with this limited in clause 12 of the bill, would place on the same footing officer pensioners under parts I to IV or part V who, subsequent to retirement, accept employment in the public service of Canada. I have attempted to indicate very briefly to the house the major points involved in the proposed amendments. Any further explanation which hon. members require will be given when this bill is discussed in committee. It is proposed that the bill would be referred to the committee to be set up to deal, with the national defence bill, and the prize money bill which will be introduced following the resolution. I should like to give some illustrations of the pay and pension of married men with 35 years service to indicate to hon. members the pensions that are payable under the existing provisions. These are as follows: Pay Pension Sergeant $2,532.00 $1,772.40 Warrant officer, class 1 Tradesman class group 4... 3,468.00 2,427.60Major 5,232.00 3,662.40 I believe that those provisions will be found to be more liberal than those in force in the armed forces of any other country. The main purpose of these amendments is to make still more liberal, not in the rates of payment but in the provisions under which men may qualify. The bill also aims to bring about a more efficient and simplified working of the act. The act as amended in 1946 has been in operation for some four years and the anomalies to which I have referred and the improvements which are thought to be necessary have come to light during that time. Our hope is that it will be possible to enact before too long a much more simplified pension act along the lines of the provisions existing in part V and providing for the residual group in parts I to IV in much more simple terms. Until we have taken this interim step that would be a difficult thing to bring about because of the different categories of officers and men affected. If the house adopts the proposals that are now made it will enable us, say within a period of a year or two, to reintroduce a completely new Defence Services Pension Act providing substantially the same provisions but making the administration and application much more simple. I regard this interim step as essential in order to extend to some men who have been excluded by cut-off dates from some of the conditions that they would like to have under part V. For Defence Services Pensions all these reasons I commend the bill to the favourable consideration of the house.

Topic:   DEFENCE SERVICES PENSIONS
Subtopic:   METHOD OF COMPUTATION
Sub-subtopic:   CREATION OF SERVICE PENSION BOARD
Full View Permalink

October 11, 1949

LIB

Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport)

Liberal

Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):

...National Railways. Mr. R. C. Vaughan, who has been president since 1941, and chairman of the board of the Canadian National since 1942, reached the normal retiring age in December, 1948, but, at the request of the board of directors and with the approval of the government, consented to remain in office until such time as a successor was appointed. It is with deep regret that I announce to the house the retirement of Mr. Vaughan from the post of chairman of the board and president of the Canadian National Railways, to take effect as of January 1, 1950. There is no need for me at this time to remind the house of the most loyal services performed by Mr. Vaughan, not only to the Canadian National Railways, with which he was closely associated since its inception, but also to the whole of Canada. In the summer of 1939 the government appointed him chairman of the defence purchasing board in Ottawa. All Canadians will recall the numerous problems that had to be solved at that time in order to prepare industry for the war effort, and the defence purchasing board was the first agency on which this responsibility was placed. In appreciation of his distinguished services, not only with the government, but for his guidance of the largest transportation system in Canada during the war years, Mr. Vaughan, in 1946, was made a Companion of the Most Distinguished Order of St. Michael and St. George. Mr. Vaughan, when he retires at the end of this year, will terminate a career entirely devoted to transportation. He will have completed fifty-one years of service, having been successively with the Canadian Pacific Railway, the Grand Trunk Railway, the Canadian Northern Railway, and the Canadian National Railways. His first official appointment was in 1910 as assistant to the vicepresident and general manager of the Canadian Northern Railway. He became vicepresident in charge of purchases and stores and steamships of the Canadian National in 1920. He was appointed president in 1941, and chairman of the board in 1942, at a time when the Canadian National Railways, along with the other railways in Canada, were called upon to transport men and materials in quantities unheard of before in the history of our railway transportation system. This house will agree with me when I say that our national system, under the guidance of Mr. Vaughan, contributed in no small measure to the great achievement made by Canada during the war. My colleagues in the cabinet and the members of this house will, I am sure, join with me in extending to Mr. Vaughan our very best wishes for happiness and peace of mind for many years to come. By virtue of the Canadian National-Canadian Pacific Act, 1936, the board of directors of the Canadian National Railways have appointed Mr. Donald Gordon to replace Mr. Vaughan as president of the railway company, and the governor in council has today approved their selection and has also appointed Mr. Gordon chairman of the board of directors, both positions effective January 1, 1950. I would like to take this opportunity to say the government is most gratified that Mr. Donald Gordon has accepted the invitation of the board of directors of the Canadian National Railways and of the government, to assume the heavy responsibilities of these positions. Mr. Gordon is, of course, well known to most of the members of this house. His wartime services as chairman of the wartime prices and trade board made his name a household word throughout Canada, and gave him as well an international reputation. He was a key figure in the mobilization of Canada's economic resources in war, and played a leading administrative role in the subsequent orderly transition to a peacetime economy. In these great tasks, and also in his position of deputy governor of the Bank of Canada, Mr. Gordon has had a wide experience and an intimate knowledge of Canada's financial and economic affairs, domestic and international, in addition to which he has been in close working contact with the day to day problems of industry, labour and agriculture. His qualities of leadership, his gift for organization, and his ability to inspire 650 Industrial Relations loyalty and affection among his working colleagues, are well known to this house; and I am glad that his outstanding talents are to remain at the service of the public of Canada in the position of high responsibility he is shortly to assume.

Topic:   CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Subtopic:   RETIREMENT OF PRESIDENT AND CHAIRMAN OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS-APPOINTMENT OF MR. DONALD GORDON
Full View Permalink

December 9, 1949

LIB

Louis Stephen St-Laurent (Prime Minister; President of the Privy Council)

Liberal

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):

...acts of the situation are fully set forth in the report of the Canadian maritime commission; since that report was prepared an increasing number of Canadian flag ships have been laid up. The government proposes to deal with the matter promptly. The problem stated in simple terms is this. Canadian flag vessels are no longer able to pay their own way. This situation is not new. Not since the beginning of this century has the business of owning and operating deep-sea vessels really prospered in Canada. In fact from 1900 to 1919 there was very little Canadian participation in deep-sea shipping. However, the building of ships in Canada during the first world war led the government of that day into a post-war venture of a government-owned merchant fleet. That fleet proved to be uncompetitive in the world market, and when the Canadian government merchant marine was finally liquidated in 45781-189 1936, the total loss to the government, exclusive of interest on capital and other advances, amounted to over $82 million. During the second world war it again became necessary for Canada to build ships to carry essential supplies. In 1946 the Canadian merchant fleet was the fourth largest in the world. The Canadian government at that time, instead of continuing to operate a government-owned fleet in a period of high freights, decided to dispose of its vessels. In 1946 there was a strong demand for ships both in Canada and abroad. Companies in Canada were most anxious to purchase ships, and under these circumstances it appeared only right and proper to give to our own people the first opportunity to buy. Thus the bulk of the war-built fleet was sold to Canadian operators at reasonable prices and on favourable terms, but they purchased these vessels at their own risk. On the 16th day of June, 1947, my colleague, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, then Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Howe), in addressing this house said: Hon. members are well aware that a merchant navy is basically an industry which, like other industries, has to pay its way if it is to survive. During the years 1946 and 1947 ocean freight rates remained at high levels and Canadian owners were able to operate their vessels profitably and successfully. About the middle of 1948, however, Canadian ships began to experience greater difficulty in obtaining dollar cargoes and freight rates began to decline from their high wartime levels. In March of this year a steady decline set in which has continued and at present rates and at Canadian costs Canadian vessels cannot be operated without substantial losses. As I have said, the Canadian government has sold all its ships, the majority of which have been purchased by Canadian owners. At the present time we have 118 dry-cargo vessels operating under Canadian flag, and an additional 58, which likewise have been sold, are due to be returned from United Kingdom flag to Canadian registry next year, making a total of 176 ships which we must take into consideration. I am advised that, in order to enable those ships to operate competitively in the world market, over $25 million in annual subsidies would be required. The maintenance of a Canadian flag merchant fleet can be justified only on the basis of one or both of two assumptions: (1) that Merchant Marine the fleet is a net economic asset to the community, or (2) that the fleet is important for purposes of national security. In considering the studies which are available to us on the subject, we have concluded that we are not justified from an economic viewpoint in maintaining a Canadian flag fleet by artificial means. It is not the intention of the government to maintain an industry at the expense of the taxpayer, and of other export industries, by the unhealthy method of subsidies, unless these countervailing considerations are very strong indeed. There are many objections to shipping subsidies. They do not tend to promote a healthy and efficient industry. They constitute a steady and usually increasing drain upon public funds. In a world in which some types of ships are already in oversupply they represent a waste of the taxpayer's money. I do not propose to go into all the difficulties involved in shipping subsidies, since the government's basic objection to a policy of subsidization rests on wider grounds. The world is still suffering from the effect of two great wars. Dislocation resulting from such wars has disrupted world trade to an extent that nations are taking extraordinary steps for the preservation of their economies. Our view has consistently been that it is not possible to seek a solution to our trade and currency difficulties on a purely national basis. Canada has goods to sell, but our European customers lack dollars to buy them. They cannot acquire such dollars unless we do our share of buying from them. In other words we must seek to encourage imports from countries to whom we desire to sell our goods and in this sense shipping services of other countries represent an import. We must not adopt measures which would hinder the revival of world trade and defer the achievement of balance between dollar and non-dollar trading areas. If we were to adopt a policy of subsidization of national shipping, it would be a protectionist measure disabling other countries from trading with us. The problem of preserving some part of the fleet for national security purposes deserves further consideration. In a world at peace with itself, this would not be necessary. Each nation would perform those functions which it could carry out most efficiently and economically, and if Canada were unable to conduct deep-sea shipping operations as well as other countries, such operations would be abandoned. Safeguards would have to be set up to prevent countries engaged in shipping from discriminating against countries which had no shipping. However, we must regard the world as it is and make a realistic approach to the problem. Safeguards to prevent discrimination have been set up under the machinery of the United Nations, and the constitution of the intergovernmental maritime consultative organization is designed to prevent unfair shipping practices. But although Canada has ratified the IMCO convention, it has not yet received the agreement of sufficient nations to bring it into operation. Furthermore, unhappily, we cannot say that war is not a possibility. I am strongly of the opinion, however, that arrangements should be made between the peace-loving nations of the world to pool their shipping resources in the event of war. If proper assurances were received in this respect, it might not be necessary for those nations who cannot operate ships economically to continue to maintain merchant fleets to meet an emergency. The maintenance of adequate ocean-going shipping, shipbuilding capacity and ship repair facilities is fundamental to the defence organization of the North Atlantic treaty. It is, like defence proper, a collective responsibility which the partners must share in relation to capacity, aptitude, and relative efficiency. An increasing degree of specialization along the lines in which each country can make the greatest contribution to the common defence and welfare is the natural complement of the principle of integration in defence planning which we, together with our partners in the North Atlantic treaty, have accepted and have begun to apply. The implications of this approach are plain. The experience of two wars has made it plain that allies have to pool their shipping resources. This lesson has not been lost on the countries which are now associated, for purposes of common defence, in the North Atlantic treaty. It is our hope, to further which we shall use our best endeavours, that arrangements can be completed in peacetime which would ensure the prompt, fair and efficient use and allocation of all available shipping in any emergency. Conversations to this end are already under way. In particular, discussions on this subject have taken place between officials of the government of the United Kingdom and Canada. Those discussions have not yet been completed, but I believe that if Canadian ships are transferred to United Kingdom registry, arrangements can be made to treat such ships as part of the Canadian contribution to any allied shipping pool in the event of war. Similar conditions would govern any transfer of registry for operating purposes to the flags of other countries upon whose close co-operation in mutual defence we can confidently rely. By proceeding along these lines and within the framework of security which we are building up, it should no longer be necessary for each individual country to risk the waste of its national effort in duplicating facilities and services which can be more efficiently carried out in peacetime by their partner countries, and which will be available to serve the needs of all should a war come. The government has therefore decided that, for the next year-and I stress "for the next year"-while an allied defence shipping pool is being created, it is advisable to maintain some proportion of the present fleet under Canadian flag. For that purpose the government has decided to recommend the provision of a sum of $3 million as an aid to the Canadian ocean shipping industry for one year only. It is estimated that over 500,000 deadweight tons of dry-cargo shipping will remain under the Canadian flag, but it may be that not all vessels comprising that tonnage will receive assistance. The number of ships to be assisted, and the amount of assistance required by each, will be left to the Canadian maritime commission, who will administer the fund under the provisions of the act, if parliament sees fit to pass it. It is recognized that the reduction contemplated in the fleet will compel a number of seamen to find shore employment. In order to assist them in this transfer, the government has decided to extend the vocational training scheme to admit eligible men applying on or before the 30th day of September, 1950, and commencing their approved training before the 31st day of January, 1951. The ministers of transport and veterans affairs will have discretion with regard to the restricting provisions respecting age and the granting of allowances as at present set out in the merchant seamen vocational training order. Hon. members know that the terms of that order restricted training to men under thirty years of age.

Topic:   MERCHANT MARINE
Subtopic:   CANADIAN DEEP-SEA SHIPPING INDUSTRY- STATEMENT OF GOVERNMENT POLICY
Full View Permalink

May 16, 1950

PC

George Randolph Pearkes

Progressive Conservative

Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Nanaimo):

...National Defence I repeat now that we will give our most wholehearted co-operation in trying to help the minister produce the very best possible legislation to meet the circumstances. When we were at the resolution stage I did suggest that since the hour was late when that discussion took place, we should be given the opportunity to have a full discussion, if that were required, on the motion for second reading, and to that suggestion the minister gave his consent. Before making some reference to the bill itself I should like to join the minister in extending my congratulations, and perhaps to a certain extent my sympathy, to the judge advocate general who is retiring this week after so many years of service. I know that when one has spent the greater part of a lifetime in the service it comes as a bit of a wrench to enter different fields in civilian life. I do not know whether the judge advocate general has any intention of following in my footsteps and perhaps entering public life in any sphere, but I am sure all hon. members will wish him every success and all happiness. As -the minister said, to a large extent this legislation is a consolidation of various existing acts. It is designed to bring about unification between the services, unification in the administration of the services, and also to establish a distinctly Canadian code of discipline which as far as practical may be uniform in the different services. As the minister has pointed out, at the present time the three services are administered under separate acts, the Militia Act of 1927, the Naval Service Act of 1944, and the Royal Canadian Air Force Act of 1940. I do appreciate the tremendous task with which those who drew up this bill were faced in order to bring together all -that legislation into one measure. This bill has been divided into thirteen parts, but generally speaking it consists of three divisions. The first deals with organization, the second with the code of service discipline, and -the third with general provisions such as aid to the civil power. A few moments ago the minister indicated that the bill contains some 251 clauses, which replace more than 600 clauses in these other acts. When this bill is sent -to committee I do hope it will be appreciated that there may be sins of omission as well as sins of commission, and that after compressing so many sections into a comparatively limited number of clauses it is possible that something may have been left out. So I hope the committee will be permitted to consider the sections of the previous acts that have been left out, and not have its activity and discussion confined to the limited number of clauses in this bill. Before this bill is sent to committee I hope the minister will give us that assurance. In dealing with the first -part, covering organization, in the very beginning one comes across a clause which was in the old Militia Act but which, as far as I can see, is not in this new bill. I refer to section 4 of the Militia Act, which provides that the command in chief of the Canadian army is declared to continue and be vested in the king and shall be exercised and administered by His Majesty or by the governor general as his representative. I must confess to some surprise at finding this clause left out of -the present bill. Oh, I know no one would expect His Majesty to take command of a cruiser, or to appear on parade and give an order to a troop of cavalry, -but all -soldiers, sailors and airmen are king's men, and they have valued the fact that His Majesty is -their commander in chief.

Topic:   IS, 1950
Full View Permalink

April 23, 1948

PC

John George Diefenbaker

Progressive Conservative

Mr. DIEFENBAKER:

...Act. 5. If the plan were not compulsory there would almost certainly be a tendency for the park belt area of the three western provinces to participate while the high risk areas of the prairie would not. 6. Many farmers would object to such a plan on the grounds that it "cost too much" and that the "protection was too low." 7. Some farmers would not engage in such a plan, if on a voluntary basis, believing that even if this crop did fail they would be assisted by relief. 8. At present no yield data exist for individual farms. The American experience has shown that such yield data can be secured but that they will perhaps be highly inaccurate in many cases. It is obviously folly to base an insurance scheme on the experience of too short a base period. It would be especially difficult to go into the yield experience of some farms which have been farmed during recent years by a series of operators. 9. It w-ould be difficult and inadvisable to assure each farm in a district for the same yield. Few enterprises respond so greatly to proper timing of operations as farming. If one farmer, assured of 7 bushels per acre, manages to achieve a 7 bushels per acre yield in a poor year by very efficient farming, and his neighbour, as a result of less efficiency, secures a yield of 3 or 4 bushels per acre, the fairness of paying the second farmer sufficient to bring his returns to the equal of the first may well be doubted. The basis of insurance would have to reflect the actual yield experience on each farm during a base period. Even such a basis would contain unfairnesses when the present operator of a farm differed in efficiency from the farmer -who worked the land during the base period. 10. Any system of crop insurance would likely have relatively high administration costs, for the first few years at least. Especially would this be so in a voluntary plan. There are a number of recommendations I should like to make with respect to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, they epitomize some of the views expressed in letters I have received from rural municipalities and others. I feel that the amendments provided in Bill No. 204 are unimportant in the light of the larger issues that might well be determined once and for all in a comprehensive manner. The inclusion of settlement or river lots, however, does represent an advance. It represents the suggestions made last year by various members, including the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Miller), the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross), and others. I say this because in a radio speech last evening one of the ministers of the crown, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton), apparently was in a state of high dudgeon over the fact that we in the opposition believe in placing proper criticism before the house and the country. Our criticisms represent the viewpoint of the people. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) has never objected to suggestions, but apparently his colleague the Minister of National Defence last evening indulged in some, I do not know how to designate them- silly claqueries would probably designate them best-as to the duties of an opposition. We place these viewpoints before parliament and the government in order to secure changes. That is the position which an opposition must take. First it must criticize where it believes things are wrong, and it need offer no apologies for doing so. At the same time it ought Prairie Farm Assistance Act to be constructive and bring to the attention of the government and the country the changes which in the opinion of the opposition ought to be made. I resent, sir, the remarks made last evening by the Minister of National Defence. If he would spend more time in looking after the matters concerning defence than in criticizing those who endeavour to be of assistance by making suggestions, things would be a lot better in this country. The amendment making river lots eligible is a good one, also the further one regarding eligibility of areas adjoining qualifying townships. But these changes do not go far enough. I have brought the matter to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture on previous occasions. I realize the difficulties involved in an attempt to make an act cover all the anomalous circumstances and conditions that may arise during its operation. I have never refrained from criticism where I think criticism is due, but I believe that when commendation is due it should be given. I have found the officials of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act administration, when matters are brought to their attention, willing to give every consideration to representations made with a view to having injustices removed in so far as the law will permit. I shall refer to just one case which is peculiar to my own constituency and other constituencies along the Qu'Appelle valley. As I said last year in the house, speaking of the rural municipality of Dufferin, in Saskatchewan: Year by year a portion of that municipality, by reason of a valley which runs alongside of it, must suffer continuing drought; yet because it is not contiguous to a municipality declared eligible under the act, the farmers there resident are denied any consideration. From year to year contributions are made; from year to year the contributors are denied any return. I again bring this to the attention of the ninister. There is not only Dufferin municipality but there are other municipalities along the Qu'Appelle valley where like conditions prevail, and where, as a result of climatic conditions peculiar to areas smaller than a township, the farmers are being denied the payment of a bonus. I ask the minister, will he not even now give consideration to reducing the area of qualification provided under the act? As I understand the situation, it is a full township or a contiguous rectangle of nine sections.

Topic:   PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE ACT
Subtopic:   AREAS SURVEYED AS SETTLEMENT OR RIVER LOTS- LAND IN ELIGIBLE AND INELIGIBLE TOWNSHIPS
Full View Permalink

March 17, 1950

LIB

Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence)

Liberal

Hon. Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence):

...place regarding defence which I am sure will be of interest to the house. . Before the last session was concluded I left by R.C.A.F. North Star for the meetings of the military committee of chiefs of staff and the defence committee of defence ministers under the North Atlantic treaty. These meetings took place at Paris on November 30 and December 1. On the military committee we were represented by Lieutenant General Charles Foulkes, chief of the general staff and chairman of our chiefs of staff committee, and we were accompanied by other officers representing all three services. It will be remembered that the first meeting of the defence committee held at Washington in October created the various agencies to plan and co-ordinate collective action under the North Atlantic treaty. These agencies included a standing group consisting of representatives of the chiefs of staff of France, the United Kingdom and the United States; also five regional groups. Canada is a member of both the north Atlantic ocean group and the North American group. She is an observer on the western European group. Since the Washington meeting all the groups had been established and made good progress in their planning. The defence committee meeting at Paris received reports on this work and arrived at unanimous agreement on the following: 1. A strategic concept for the integrated defence of the north Atlantic area. 2. The means to be taken to arrive at a program for the production and supply of armament and equipment. 3. Co-ordination of planning between the various regional groups. 4. Additional steps to further defence planning of the North Atlantic treaty organization. Since the Paris meetings, further action has been taken in the various regional groups. Arrangements were approved at Paris to merge the day-to-day working of the western European group and western union, both of which have the same membership. As western union came into existence on March 17, 1947, the plans of that group are well advanced. Work in the north Atlantic group is being carried right along as Canadian-American cooperation has continued without interruption since our wartime partnership. In connection with the North American group, the United States and Canadian chiefs of staff met together at Washington for the first time on January 17 of this year. The north Atlantic ocean group is making good progress with its important problems. Further meetings of the military production and supply board, the military committee and the defence committee will take place at The Hague on March 24, March 27 and April 1 respectively. I expect to leave for The Hague on March 25, accompanied by the same officers who went to the Paris meetings. Our representatives on the military production and supply board will already be there. Under the North Atlantic treaty we have not made any specific commitment, but we have given the general undertaking contained in article 3 of the treaty to take such action as we deem necessary by means of continuous Supply-National Defence and effective self help and mutual aid to maintain and develop individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack. A second undertaking, as contained in article 5, comes into effect in the event of an armed attack against one or more of the signatories. That undertaking is to take such action as we deem necessary to restore and maintain the security of the north Atlantic area. It is important to recognize that the fundamental contribution each partner in north Atlantic security must make in the event of an emergency is first to ensure as far as it can the security of its own territory, and then to make the maximum contribution to common defence. With the circumstances of the world as they are today, the defence of Canada, the defence of North America, the defence of the whole north Atlantic area are inseparable parts of the same problem. During and following the North Atlantic treaty meetings in Paris, I took every opportunity to discuss defence arrangements with my opposite numbers from other countries and accepted invitations to visit defence establishments and to have talks in France, Belgium, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, as well as in the United Kingdom. In all these countries we received the warmest possible welcome, visited establishments of various kinds and obtained information of great value. Altogether during the whole trip we travelled 10,000 miles in the North Star and Dakota aircraft of the R.C.A.F., and despite bad weather we were able to fulfil every engagement in a complicated and full program. I was pleased the other day to hear the high praise of the R.C.A.F. by my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), and to find that the experience of his party confirmed my own in travelling many thousands of miles in R.C.A.F. aircraft over the last three or four years. They are a fine service doing a great job. The objects of our discussions in all these countries were: 1. To familiarize ourselves with defence problems, possibilities and programs in the western union countries. 2. To get to know better the defence ministers and ranking officers with whom we would have to work in connection with the North Atlantic treaty. 3. To secure information about the experience and practices of other countries by which to examine our own defence plans and to improve the efficiency of our own defence forces. Supply-National Defence 4. To examine the work and inspect the establishments of our military attaches and the Canadian joint staff in London. Here are four general conclusions: 1. Neither war nor peace is inevitable, and it is plain that pending the proper operation of the United Nations, which still remains a main objective of our efforts, the best guarantee of peace is the collective strength of the north Atlantic powers. 2. The steps taken to implement the North Atlantic treaty, particularly the attitude of the United States, have increased the improbability of military aggression and strengthened the faith of the western European nations in the possibility of preventing aggression by collective action. Such improvement as there has been in the general outlook is shown by changes in the complexion of their governments. When I was last there in 1946 most of the countries visited had communists in their cabinets; today not one of them has a single communist. 3. Parallel to the organizational work, the exchange of information between countries is already resulting in increased co-operation as well as greater efficiency within each country. Progress is being made in the adoption of standard battle procedures and communications practices. The standardization of equipment is necessarily a longer job. 4. The greatest shortage is equipment as other commitments have so far prevented much production in quantity. We appear to be spending in proportion more on equipment than the other countries. I saw much that will assist us in the further development of our own program and it was interesting to observe that we have made as much progress as any of these countries with regard to organization, officer training, defence procurement machinery, integration of defence research, reserve organization, equipment, training and recruitment, and, finally, conditions of service as regards pay, allowances, pensions, food, clothing and quarters. In the United Kingdom, in addition to numerous talks with members of the government and high ranking officers, I spoke to the Imperial Defence college, visited the army cadet school at Sandhurst, the staff college at Camberly, a fighter station at Odiham, and the great naval establishment at Greenwich. Continuing dividends from this kind of visit are the personal friendships formed which lead to further co-operation. In this connection I have an announcement to make which will be of considerable interest. One of the purposes of the trip was to look into the question of officer training and to see if there was a way in which the considerable facilities which we have in Canada could be utilized for the benefit of the North Atlantic treaty organization in general. Canada has had a unique experience of joint training. The British commonwealth air training plan produced 131,000 aircrew, of whom 71,000 were Canadians, the rest coming from the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand. It has been described on many occasions as one of the great contributions to allied victory in the air and everywhere. In addition, we trained considerable numbers of personnel from France, Belgium, The Netherlands and Norway. The son of our good friend, Mr. Pierre Dupong, the prime minister of Luxembourg, served in the Canadian forces. At the present time we have reciprocal arrangements for training officers of the United States, the United Kingdom, France and Australia. The recruiting of officers and men in our own active forces has been most satisfactory, and very soon we shall recruit and train officers and men only to replace normal retirements and discharges. On this trip, therefore, without commitments on either side, I asked the defence ministers of the countries visited whether or not they thought it would be desirable for us to offer to have some of their officers come to Canada for part of their training. Several of the countries already have similar arrangements for training in other countries, though on a smaller scale than we had in mind. The replies received from ministers and service heads led me to recommend to my colleagues that we should make the offer. It was recognized that this and other similar arrangements already in effect would give opportunities for officers to add to their professional knowledge and to get to know personally officers and men not only of Canada but also of the other countries with whom they would be working in the future. They would get to know something about this country, its geography and potentialities. This work would add to their knowledge of common procedures, and it would give them an opportunity to improve their knowledge of either of our two languages. In my discussions I was struck by the fact that almost all the people with whom the idea was discussed recognized that it would have a very considerable psychological force in bringing home to us all the unity of purpose and the necessity for working together that we must all have if the full strength of the north Atlantic powers is to be fully developed. Accordingly we have forwarded, through the representatives in Ottawa of the countries concerned, letters to the defence ministers of the north Atlantic powers offering to train a total of 150 officers of the ground forces and 100 officers of the air forces from the various countries. It is assumed that the training proposed would last about a year, and that if the number of members of the other forces are available to come the plan would continue so there would be a continuing offer to train a total of 250 officers each year. The arrangements proposed do not contemplate any payments between countries. Later a reverse operation may be worked out whereby Canadian personnel would do training in other countries on a similar basis. This arrangement will be combined with the existing reciprocal arrangements that we have with the United Kingdom, the United States and France. Hon. members will appreciate that the training in Canada of 250 officers from a number of different countries would represent a big program in training staffs, personnel and establishments compared with any similar peacetime arrangements. Training together would be an exercise in practical co-operation of the particular kind for which we in Canada are well qualified by experience and for which we in Canada have a proud record of achievement. Turning now to events within Canada, a major event in Canada's defence and industrial history was the first flight on January 19 of the twin-engine jet all-weather fighter, the CF-100. This aircraft was specially designed and built in Canada, with a range and navigational instruments suited to Canadian conditions. The aircraft is at present fitted with two Rolls-Royce Avon engines. If flight tests prove successful, we propose to replace the engines with our own Orenda engines. It is believed that the Canadian-designed and built Orenda engine may be the most powerful in existence. The successful conjunction of the CF-100 and the Orenda engine would put our country some years In advance of any other in respect of meeting requirements for a long-range all-weather fighter. Those of us who were able to see the first Ottawa flight of the CF-100 last Saturday must have been struck by its powerful performance, and say with the test pilot, Bill Waterton, formerly of Camrose, Alberta: "We have an aircraft". The development of the CF-100 is a remarkable achievement of designers, engineers and industry, in A. V. Roe Canada, Limited, working together and in fullest co-operation with the R.C.A.F. It is also a vindication of our faith in Canadian industry and Canadian skills. We invested a good many million dollars and, in an accelerated program, pressed Supply-National Defence on to develop a Canadian aircraft to meet Canadian conditions well in advance of similar efforts in other nations. The first test flight of the CF-100 in Toronto last January was for me immediately followed by an inspection tour of the principal defence establishments in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. On this trip I found that good progress was being made by both active and reserve units. Most striking was the fine co-operation between the navy, army and air force, the new teamwork between active and reserve as members of a single force, and the understanding support of veterans and others in the civilian community. Three weeks ago I paid another visit to the west, this time to witness Exercise Sweet-briar. Leaving Rockcliffe on the morning of Monday, February 20, we travelled over 6,500 miles, returning Saturday night, February 25. Our object was to observe the closing stages of the exercise and to discuss at first hand with officers and men of the United States and Canadian forces their impressions of the food, equipment and training, as well as the strategical possibilities of the far north and the lessons learned from their work together. The exercise has been very fully reported in the press of both countries, and I shall confine myself to a brief summary. I should like, however, to express appreciation to the press of the fair and full account they gave. The main object of the exercise was to develop doctrine and procedures for the employment of combined Canadian and United States forces operating in the Arctic and under Arctic conditions and to test in the field the latest developments in clothing, food, aircraft, vehicles, weapons and other equipment and material. The exercise began on February 13 and concluded on February 23. Over 5,500 personnel of the United States and Canadian armies and air forces took part, about one-half being Canadians. The tactical assumption was that an aggressor force had captured the air field at Northway in Alaska and had moved down the northwest highway almost the whole 350 miles to Whitehorse. The task of the allied force was to drive the aggressor back and recapture the air field. In preparation for the exercise, the great majority of the 1,457 Canadian army personnel involved had trained at Wainwright under even more severe conditions than those prevailing during the exercise. The period of training altogether covered about seven weeks. For all of the eleven days of Exercise Sweetbriar, and for most of the even longer period at Wainwright, the troops lived out 854 HOUSE OF Supply-National Defence under the most severe winter conditions. Those of you who were in the prairie provinces this winter will recognize what this meant when I say that every day, at some time or another, the temperature was below zero and reached a low of -58 degrees. Moreover, throughout the exercise they lived on their original issue of supplies, supplemented by food, fuel and equipment brought in by airlift. You can appreciate something of the size and complexity of modern military operations when I tell you that there were no less than 978 motor vehicles, of which 428 were Canadian, and more than 100 aircraft, of which some 60 were ours, and all these were serviced on the spot and generally out of doors. The exercise concluded at 12 noon on Thursday, February 23. At this time the troops were given their first meal indoors since its commencement. The airlift to take the troops home was already starting. While I was having my first experience of a flight in a jet, the great four-engined aircraft were shuttling backwards and forwards, so that that afternoon they brought out 423 of our men and the first convoy of 120 motor vehicles was moving off. Two days later, by Saturday, all the aircraft, motor vehicles, equipment and men had been efficiently dispatched on the long way home and Northway was again alone with the northern lights. It will be some time before detailed reports are considered. It is possible, however, to make the following interim report: 1. The exercise was valuable in training personnel and testing doctrine and equipment of every kind. 2. The results confirmed the basic concept of Arctic warfare already held by the staffs of both countries so that there will not be any major change. 3. Military operations in the far north can only be successful if keyed in to one of the existing systems of transportation-airways, the highway or water. The distances a potential aggressor would have to go from any base favour the defence but only if the defence can stop any leap-frogging operation such as from air field to air field. Fighting in the north we know requires specially trained personnel of high morale and top physical condition with first-class equipment and air supremacy. These have been our targets and we are making good progress. Our new aircraft, the CF-100, is specifically designed to have the added range to do the job, and it has been speeded along so that it is years ahead of any aircraft having similar performance. 4. While aircraft and some motor vehicles and equipment proved even better than expected, the exercise confirmed the necessity for having tracked vehicles in bigger quantities. For example, we should probably have one bulldozer for every infantry company. The experience gained will lead to further developments in new equipment for preheating motor vehicles, ventilating tents, and so on. 5. In respect of food, cooking, accommodation, clothing and other personal equipment, physique, leadership, staff planning, weapons, motor vehicles, aircraft', and all-round performance, the Canadians showed that they were in every way equal to the fine forces of our good neighbour, the United States. On my return I sent the following message to the chiefs of staff of the forces employed: "On the conclusion of Exercise Sweetbriar, will you convey to all officers and men who contributed to its success my hearty congratulations and thanks for a job which was a credit to themselves and in accordance with the best traditions of the Canadian forces. Co-operation between army and air force, Americans and Canadians, was one of the principal objectives of the exercise and that co-operation at every level left nothing to be desired. We can be proud that in personnel, equipment and performance generally, the Canadian forces acquitted themselves well." At the request of Major General Penhale and Air Vice Marshal Dunlap, who were the Canadian officers directly concerned, and on the recommendation of the chief of the general staff and the chief of the air staff, all of whom deserve great credit for their part, I approved an extra week's leave for all men engaged on the exercise. A number of these men had been away from their homes or their home camps for several months. I do not think it is generally appreciated that from the beginning of the training at Wainwright on January 3 until the close of the exercise at Northway on February 23, that is, during a period of seven weeks, the great majority of the Canadians lived out under conditions as severe as could be found anywhere; that they travelled under these conditions over 4,000 miles; that this was done over country as rugged as can be found; and yet when I visited the base hospital at Whitehorse there were not more than six cases due to accidents and twenty-five due to various types of respiratory troubles, not very many more than would be expected on a summer vacation of a similar group of civilians. At the end of the exercise their physical condition was good and their spirits high. Throughout the exercise the R.C.A.F. maintained their sixty aircraft with a serviceability at the high level of eighty per cent, although all servicing of aircraft in the area was done under battle conditions. The air transport command lifted into Whitehorse 1,198 passengers and 366,766 pounds of freight. Mustangs, Vampires, Mitchells and Lancasters of the R.C.A.F. flew a total of 174 sorties. On the conclusion of the exercise the combined forces lifted out from Northway to Whitehorse on two days, February 23 and 24, 1,596 passengers with 50 pounds of baggage per passenger. The R.C.A.F. then lifted from Whitehorse to Edmonton 995 passengers, mostly personnel of the army, and 160,073 pounds of cargo, the job being completed two days ahead of schedule. The most important single result of the exercise is that, of the armed forces that were engaged there, there are now over 5,000 United States and Canadian personnel who hold the Arctic in a healthy respect but no fear, who know that they can live there provided they meet the tough and challenging conditions. Among the objects of the exercise was to get training and experience in staff work and administration. Planning which began last May covered such things as special Arctic clothing, pack rations, arcticization of aircraft, vehicles and equipment. A lot of this was the result of research and development carried on at Churchill and elsewhere over a number of years. The main camp for training had to be opened at Wainwright, with five other major camps and twelve staging camps, where construction was carried out at below-zero temperatures. At all of these there had to be supplies of food and fuel and men competent to do the job. Altogether 102,000 spare parts and other articles of equipment were issued, and 642 Canadian vehicles were prepared. There was no fatal accident attributable to the exercise. A doctor parachuted down with the Princess Pats in their magnificent drop, followed in the next descent by a paymaster to ensure that the troops had money to buy what they wanted at the PX stores. Primary attention was naturally focused on the fine work of the Princess Pats under Lieutenant-Colonel D. C. Cameron, D.S.O., E.D., and the battery of the Royal Canadian Artillery. The various servicing corps constituted the largest proportion of personnel involved, and the way in which the Royal Canadian Engineers, the Royal Canadian Army Service Corps, the Royal Canadian Army Medical Corps, the Royal Canadian Ordnance Corps, the Royal Canadian Electrical and Mechanical Engineers and others did their job, reflected great credit on their training, organization and ability. Supply-National Defence In addition to the lesson which we learned from Exercise Sweetbriar, that we could live and work in the north country, we had additional confirmation of our ability to work with the American forces. The senior Canadian administrative officer who, during wartime, had a close association with the troops of Great Britain, Belgium, Poland, The Netherlands and Czechoslovakia, which at one time or another were under Canadian command, had this to say in his report about his experience in working with the Americans on Exercise Sweetbriar: I should like to state that the co-operation and co-ordination of administrative effort between Fifth U.S. army and western command has been nothing short of phenomenal: on countless occasions I have often wondered with which headquarters I was serving, and I know from experience that this applies to many officers, both Canadian and U.S. There has been a wonderful demonstration of our ability to work together to achieve the common objective. I should add that I have had the most friendly messages from Hon. Louis Johnson, Secretary of Defence, His Excellency Laurence Steinhardt, United States ambassador, who accompanied me on the exercise, and Lieutenant General S. J. Chamberlin, the exercise commander, who, like Air Marshal Curtis, Major General Penhale, most of the press and myself, suffered what were called "minor respiratory troubles" from which the troops who lived out were singularly free. The exercise and everything about it brought home the magnificent vastness of our country. We must come to realize that Canada is just as big from south to north as she is from east to west. From Ottawa to Winnipeg the distance by air is 1,058 miles. It may surprise some hon. members who are more accustomed to the fenced-off farms of the east when I say that the distance from Edmonton to Snag on the Alaskan boundary is 1,327 miles-that is, nearly 300 miles further than the distance from Ottawa to Winnipeg. I know it will interest hon. members of the committee when I say that at Whitehorse I saw my good friend George Black, who sent his greetings to all his old friends in the House of Commons. I only wish that it might have been possible for all hon. members to be present. Had they been there, I am sure that they would feel the same pride that I do in our armed forces today. To support these forces we are seeking from parliament this year an appropriation of $425 million, an increase of $42 million over principal estimates of $375 million, and supplementary estimates already voted of $8 million. To this, since the tabling by the Minister of Finance yesterday of the further supplementary estimates, there should be added, if 856 HOUSE OF Supply-National Defence the sum is voted by the house, an additional $4 million, which represents the cost of our acquisition from the British government of the British admiralty properties in Newfoundland at a cost of $7 million, reduced by a carryover, which we estimate will be unexpended from our estimates and supplementaries, of $3 million. This figure of $425 million is many times greater than our expenditure on defence in the years before the war. This sum of $425 million is allocated among navy, army, air force and defence research, among construction, equipment and personnel, among active, reserve and cadet services. The same dollar as I said earlier this week cannot be spent once on construction, again on equipment, and a third time on personnel. This allocation is worked out, subject to the approval of the cabinet defence committee, between myself and the chiefs of staff. The chiefs of staff act jointly as regards overall division on matters having interservice implications, and separately with me as regards matters concerning only their own service. Our planning must look several years ahead. On the one hand we must start work in time to produce the results in personnel and equipment when they are likely to be needed. On the other hand, we must avoid starting things now which might involve us in future commitments for the expenditure of money which might then be needed for other defence purposes of greater priority. We must use the money appropriated in the best way to meet an immediate threat and also to develop our full potential. We must maintain a force in being and the means necessary to develop our full potential as quickly as possible. This is a question of emphasis-of planning and timing. Our target must be always to become more and more operational. That is what we are doing. The proposed allocation of this appropriation of $425 million as between the various defence functions provides that the expenditure for the Royal Canadian Navy be increased from $67 million last year to $82 million for the coming year. This increase is mostly attributable to the cost of implementing the previously announced program of construction of three new anti-submarine escort vessels, one arctic patrol vessel-ice breaker; a gate vessel, and four minesweepers. The Royal Canadian Air Force expenditure would likewise be increased from $138 million to $169 million to cover the costs of manufacture of the F-86A fighter aircraft and the CF-100 all-weather fighters, as well as radar equipment. The expenditure for the army is being decreased from $135 million to $130 million because of the urgent requirements of the other two services for equipment. The provision of major items of new equipment for the army is being deferred in view of the relatively large present holdings of fighting equipment of this service. The increase in administration is largely due to the increased activities of the inspection services to enable them to take care of the increasing flow of new equipment. In 1948, 12 per cent of the total appropriation was spent on equipment; in 1949, 24 per cent and in the coming year it will be 28 per cent. This trend reflects both the increasing cost of fighting machines and the importance which is attached to having up-to-date weapons in the hands of our services. It is, I am sure hon. members will agree, a desirable and proper approach. For the convenience of hon. members I have had a chart prepared comparing the allocation of the defence dollar by services and also by requirements for each of the years 19481949, 1949-1950 and 1950-51, which, if the house will consent, I shall be glad to put on record. (The chart appears on the page opposite.) As at January 31, 1950, the total strength of the three services-that is, the active force- was 47,163 officers and men, representing 93 per cent of the present establishment and an increase of 2,004 over the figure for September 30, 1949, given in paragraph 93 of the white paper. At January 31 the strength of the navy was 9,322, which is over its establishment of 9,047. We are continuing recruiting for the navy to replace normal retirements and discharges, and also to increase the establishment, probably to 9,600. The strength of the army today is 20,601, and of the air force 17,240. In addition to the replacement of those retiring or discharged in the normal course, we shall be continuing to take on a limited number of single men between the ages of seventeen and twenty-five who have good education and can pass the physical requirements. The number of men desiring to retire from the armed services at the termination of their engagements or leaving for other reasons is very much smaller than anticipated and planned for. Accordingly we expect to have a waiting list for all three services within a matter of months. For the reserve forces the figures have continued to improve. As at January 31, 1950, the navy had a strength of 3,555; the

Topic:   IMMIGRATION
Subtopic:   GERMAN NATIONALS
Full View Permalink

November 24, 1949

CCF

Major James William Coldwell

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

Mr. Coldwell:

...Act is concerned, we of the C.C.F. party are thoroughly in accord. As I said in the letter which I wrote to the present Prime Minister on December 4, 1947, we believe not only that the act needs strengthening but also that the combines investigation commissioner should have sufficient staff to deal with what we believe to be the large number of cases of price fixing and combinations we find in this country at the present time. Incidentally I might remark that the act does not deal with the question of monopolies as the anti-trust legislation of the United States, the Sherman Act, does. We have long felt that if the government and the house believe in competition and free enterprise there should be legislation on the statute book to prevent private monopolies and combinations. I want to be specific; I do not believe the anti-trust legislation of the United States has been successful in meeting the needs of that country in relation to combines and monopolies. The only way to deal with a monopoly is to bring it under some sort of public control. As my colleague, the hon. member for Kootenay West, said yesterday, when an industry reaches the stage where it can exploit a community, at least it should be brought under effective control, which I believe involves national ownership of that monopoly. On the other hand, the majority of the members elected to the house do not believe that; consequently either the act should be strengthened or another act should be placed on the statute book to deal specifically with the matter. I want to make one or two brief comments about some of the points that have been made in connection with what the minister has said, and what I have said, in this debate. The minister's defence of the non-observance of a vital clause of the act is based entirely on wartime experience and alleged wartime agreements. That is not the point. The point is that the activities about which complaint is made in the report stem from the years before the war. The practices about 45781-138 Combines Investigation Act which complaint is made were carried through the wartime period, and we believe into the period that followed the war. Consequently I do not think his contention if it were accepted is a valid one. There is no documentary evidence to support the contention that immunities existed. There is nothing in the record except one interesting memorandum of June 21, 1943, indicating that a discussion occurred between the minister, the chairman of the wartime prices and trade board, and certain officials, about the position of the subsidies, their implications, and so on. Let me refer to the paragraph reading in part as follows: ... it may be desirable or necessary to place a minimum price on sales of flour in order to prevent any miller from taking undue advantage of the arrangement to reduce domestic flour prices at the expense of the government. There is nothing in the record indicating that this was actually brought to a final conclusion. Moreover, I say again, as I have said several times-and I think it has been overlooked-that if the milling industry had told the combines investigator, and had presented substantial evidence of it, either documentary or oral, to the commissioner, that an understanding had been reached during the war concerning these matters and concerning the immunity of the milling industry under the Combines Investigation Act, at that point all further investigation would have stopped, and a report would not have been made of the kind which was to be placed before the people of Canada by the combines investigator. I have not seen Mr. McGregor since long before this controversy began, but I am satisfied, from what I know of his past work and his reputation in the civil service, that if that had been done, this report would not have been made. I want to be quite clear about that, because it is vital to the discussion. There is one paragraph in the memorandum of June 21, 1943, which I still find puzzling, and as a matter of fact I think the minister did too. There are these words: The foregoing is to be treated very confidentially and not made known to either the Administration, or to the industry at this time. In this document, which the minister was good enough to send across to me- it is the one that was omitted from the return-"administration" has a capital "A". Mr. Donald Gordon was present at this conference, and he was the chairman of the wartime prices and trade board; consequently it cannot refer to the wartime prices and trade board. The only interpretation I have been able to place upon it is that "Administration" means that this tentative understanding, Combines Investigation Act which was never brought to a final conclusion, should remain confidential and not be made known to the flour milling industry or the government. If that is so, surely it is exceedingly strange. If the treasury board and the government were to be protected as alleged, why on earth should such an understanding be withheld from the government of the day. Surely if this was in any measure -and I mean the suggestions made in the memorandum-an understanding with a view to protecting government expenditures, why should it be kept secret from the government of the day? I ask the minister to explain that, because if I am wrong I want to be corrected.

Topic:   COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENTS RESPECTING INSTITUTION AND CONDUCT OF PROSECUTIONS, ETC.
Full View Permalink

March 17, 1950

?

...National Defence army 41,855; the air force, 3,467, making a total of 48,877 as compared with 45,126 at September 30, 1949. In every way we are endeavouring to emphasize the importance of the reserve forces. Here one of the greatest needs is increased accommodation, and a commencement has been made on a program to construct armouries, with the contract for the first new major armoury to be erected for the 49th Heavy Anti-aircraft regiment at Sault Ste. Marie. This construction program must be fitted in to the continuation of our program to press forward with the construction of married quarters. We have done in three years what we originally planned to take six, greatly to the benefit of the physical comfort and moral welfare of the married members of the forces and their wives and children. In connection with recruiting, it is interesting to know that as we have released the pressure, the net increase for the active forces, which was 8,261 for the twelve months ending September 30, has dropped to the figure 7,346 for the twelve months ending January 31. It will, of course, as planned drop considerably further. Similarly the number of approaches has fallen from 54,814 for the twelve months ending September 30 to 53,092 for the twelve months ending January 31. We employ today 23,087 civilians in the department, the majority of whom are employed at prevailing rates as dockyard and shop workers. This is compared with the figure of 24,359 at September 30. Altogether, therefore, we have in round figures 47,000 in the active forces, 49,000 in the reserve forces and 23,000 civilians, making a total of just under 120,000 engaged part time and full time in national defence. Training as officers at January 31 we had 1,403 for the university naval training division, 2,700 for the C.O.T.C., 632 for the university air training plan, 319 at the Canadian services colleges, and 606 others under various arrangements, making a total of officer candidates of 5,760, most of whom are training to standards equivalent to a university degree and a year's practical work. We have not issued a white paper at this time, because only four months have elapsed since the last was issued on November 11, and I believe that it would be the wish of the committee to incorporate in the next, paper material which may result from the meetings at The Hague, and also the results of a longer period of operation. There are some additional matters to which I should now refer. We are continuing to place great emphasis an the air force, but not to the point where the proper balance between the three services is ignored. Air force equipment is immensely expensive, and we are spending very much more on the air force than on the other two services-it may surprise hon. members to learn, a far greater proportion than is being spent in other countries. In the current year there is being spent on the air force in the United Kingdom 29 per cent, France 30 per cent, United States 34 per cent, but in Canada 42-6 per cent. This proportion will be further increased to 44-8 per cent for 1950-51, if the house votes the present estimates. So far as we can see ahead, if there is a likelihood of attack on Canada, it would probably come by air. Consequently the air force is an important element in the defence of our own territory, which is the primary task of any defence force. One reason for this is the size and geographical position of Canada. We have 34 million square miles of territory, occupied by 134 million people. That a war can be won by air power alone is not the view of reputable experts; but no expert believes that a war can be won without air supremacy. This was certainly one of the lessons of Exercise Sweetbriar. Let me give you brief notes on some further developments in the air force. 1. The first of the new type of reserve units, No. 1 radar squadron, was set up in Montreal and has achieved a strength of 450 in a little more than a year, reflecting the utmost credit on the unit. This augurs well for the success of similar units which will be progressively set up as accommodation becomes available. One of the first of these new units will be set up in Toronto, others in Halifax and Vancouver. 2. This development with regard to radar is being accompanied by the formation of units for training a variety of key personnel in both technical and administrative trades. 3. We hope to work out arrangements for reserve pilots to obtain refresher training on light aircraft. 4. We have in training for commissions in the air force, active and reserve- University air training plan 632 Canadian services colleges 94 University undergraduates 79 University postgraduates 1 Active force 324 1,1*0 5. During the year, flying time increased by 60 per cent, the number of hours flown per man on strength compared closely with the U.S.A.F.; we had the first wings parade of university flights; and the ceremony at Trenton demonstrated fine organization and training as well as the fact that the R.C.A.F. stood as high as ever in the eyes of our country and of other nations. 6. We have in the R.C.A.F. two interceptor squadrons in operation, and the equivalent of seven other squadrons of one kind or another. 7. We shall continue steady development until we shall have at least five interceptor squadrons and the equivalent of about six other active squadrons immediately ready for action, the fighters being equipped with the latest type aircraft. In addition, we have ten squadrons of auxiliary, with another soon to be activated. Several of the auxiliary squadrons, by their excellent performance in various exercises have shown well-advanced preparedness. Another service which has shown a substantial increase in the appropriation is the navy. As I have indicated, this is largely to meet the costs of the new ships which will be under construction this year. In the R.C.N. we shall have in commission on the west coast the cruiser Ontario; the destroyers Athabaskan, Cayuga and Sioux; the frigate Antigonish; the Algerine escort vessels Rockcliffe and Sault Ste. Marie; the auxiliary vessel Cedarwood; and the patrol craft 724. On the east coast we will have the aircraft carrier Magnificent; the destroyers Micmac, Huron and Haida; the weather ship St. Stephen; the frigate Swansea; the Algerine minesweeping vessel Portage; and the motor minesweeper Llewellyn. In addition, six training vessels will be in commission on the great lakes during the summer. Of the destroyers, Cayuga, Sioux, Micmac and Huron have been recently commissioned following extensive refit to improve their capabilities as anti-submarine vessels. Similar refit will be completed shortly on Athabaskan. In addition to the above improvements, many changes in accommodation, including introduction of cafeteria messing and separate dining and sleeping quarters, have been carried out in Sioux and Athabaskan. This is the first time that either Canadian or British destroyers have had this improved accommodation. Effective training is being given to the officers and men in the twenty-one divisions of the R.C.N. reserve. In accordance with the Mainguy report, courses for officer cadets are now all being put on the same four-year basis in the Canadian services colleges. Supply-National Defence During the last few months the navy has had a number of useful exercises with United States and other forces. Everything that we are doing in the navy is directed to meet its clear and unmistakable role to protect our coastal waters and trading routes against mine and submarine attack. The role of the army is equally clear. It is to provide the forces necessary to meet an immediate attack on our country any time and any place. To do this we have organized a brigade group, a highly mobile, hard-hitting unit. More than half of this group consists today of well-trained, experienced, tough soldiers. The remainder are undergoing training of various types from recruit training to the more complex unit training. While the proportion of fully trained troops will increase, there will always be some in the brigade group who have just joined. No unit is ever fully trained, because its personnel is never static and officers and men are taking courses of various kinds virtually until the day of their retirement. In addition to seeing to the immediate defence of our own territory, our forces must act as the organizational and training nucleus for the development of the largest forces we can develop to play our part where they may be needed. A large part of the personnel of the army-all the reserve units and a very large portion, certainly more than two-thirds of the active forces-are concerned with this side of the job. Defence research activities have been carried on on an increased scale, maintaining close co-operation with research activities in other countries and with other research activities in Canada. In civil defence we have completed the stage of planning at the federal level. Civil defence depends on close co-operation with the provinces, the municipalities and other agencies at every level. Following earlier preliminary discussions we are now in a position to make further progress. Our over-all plan we believe meets the strategical needs of Canada and makes the best use of the resources available. The factors involved in the speed of development of our maximum potential are organizational staff, trained officers, qualified tradesmen, equipment, accommodation, and, finally, trained personnel. Any plan which involved the immediate full-time employment of many more men would not be the best way to use the money made available. What I have said with regard to the development of the forces in being to the maximum potential applies to the navy and the air force as well as the army. In the case of these forces, however, the largest controlling 860 HOUSE OF Supply-National Defence factor determining the speed of development is the supply of equipment, particularly ships and aircraft. By the time we could build any ship or any aircraft, we could recruit and train the crew. You will see, from what I have said, the reason for our emphasis in our program on the building of ships and aircraft. This question of equipment is extremely important, particularly in view of the close relations between the United States and Canada. The integration of industrial capacity under the Hyde Park declaration helped to win the war. A similar arrangement is in the interest of both the United States and Canada in peacetime. The continuation of the general principles of the Hyde Park declaration was accepted in an exchange of notes in May, 1945, and the joint declaration of February 12, 1947. I may say that our friendly discussions with members of the administration in the United States and with their highest service officials show that they hold the same view as we do. It makes sense for Canada and the United States to co-operate industrially and economically with relation to defence as well as in training and command and battle practices. Unfortunately there are statutory obstacles in the United States which make it difficult for us to purchase, military equipment there and make it even more difficult for them to purchase military equipment in Canada. But in consequence of discussions I am glad to say that, pending a more satisfactory permanent solution, temporary arrangements have been worked out which permit purchasing of some equipment in the United States, but there is still the problem of finding the United States' dollars. We think it is in the best interest of collective defence to have diversified sources of production. We can make many types of things just as well as United States manufacturers and, given reasonable markets, often more cheaply. There are some things which it is not in the interest of Canada to make at all, for example, tanks, heavy motor vehicles, large calibre guns. It is not in the interests of Canada to make these things provided that there is an adequate and fair amount of specialization. On the other hand, we think there is great merit in Canada specializing in the production of certain items, which it cannot do if dependent on domestic consumption for outlet. In these circumstances we believe the sensible thing for both countries would be to work out an arrangement whereby certain items of United States military equipment are bought in Canada in order to maintain defence productive capacity here, and in order to permit of specialization in production.

Full View Permalink

May 4, 1948

PC

Wilfrid Garfield Case

Progressive Conservative

Mr. CASE:

...act, and along with others we have agreed to go to the assistance and defence of any nation which may be attacked. I consider that the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) did a fine job this afternoon. I was anxious to learn what formula the government proposes to use in order that we may honour our obligation. Surely we are not going to drift along until the fatal day comes when we shall be faced with the responsibility of our obligation to meet a challenge wholly unprepared. In other words, the speech of the minister was a clear challenge and a ringing declaration, but it must be supported by some show of strength. I do not feel that Canada could put on an exhibition which would frighten anyone particularly, but we have the resources to meet the issue in part. With our vast expanse of territory and our far-flung frontiers, it would be almost impossible with our limited population properly to guard against possible invasion. But there is a method which we could employ and which I would recommend to the government. I believe that if we were to address ourselves to one particular arm of the service we Supply-External Affairs could seek to make it as nearly perfect as possible. We have at hand the resourcefulness of the young men who served in a particular branch of the armed services during the war. We could make a tremendous contribution, not only to the defence of our own land but on behalf of the others with whom we have joined in a common obligation. I refer to the ability we have to build up a substantial and sizeable air force. Such an air force could be the eyes of Canada; it could cover our vast expanses of territory, and we would constantly know what was taking place, even in our hinterlands. While we may feel that we are not large in number, I think we have that sense of responsibility to guard our country and to train our people to defend themselves. The art of selfdefence lends a sense of confidence to anyone, because it is only in knowing how to defend yourself that you may survive. It is not my intention to detain the house at great length, but I wanted to make these observations, the challenge and to accept our full share of responsibility within the limits of our ability to meet them. I should like to offer encouragement to the C.C.F. socialist party who in my opinion are sincere in seeking to hold off the inroads of communism. I ask them to think seriously and carefully before that disruptive force overwhelms them, before whatever contribution they seek to make will be lost. After all, every idea is worth something. There is much to be gained from ideas. If we exchange ideas we are always richer. I am one who always listens to the voice of reason. I respect other people's opinions even though I act on my own. In the main I believe that the opportunity is here. There has been no voice raised in opposition to the minister's pronouncement of policy. I think it is a great tribute to the common sense of Canadians and to this House of Commons. In meeting that one main challenge, we are on common ground, determined to play our part with credit and honour to ourselves and with distinction to those who are responsible for formulating policy. I hope we shall always be as closely agreed on foreign policy as we are at this moment. As a matter of fact, Canada is entering a new field, breaking new ground in foreign policy. In days gone by, when the holocaust broke and we were actually engaged in conflict, it was part of our duty to lend aid and we were more or less advised what was required of us. But now we have representation on the councils of the world where we can have some appreciation of what is taking place and guide and govern ourselves accordingly. Come what 5849-229 may, let us be proud and prepared to meet the challenge and to accept our full share of responsibility within the limits of our ability to meet it.

Topic:   RAILWAY ACT
Subtopic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Full View Permalink

March 30, 1950

LIB

John Decore

Liberal

Mr. John Decore (Vegreville):

...national affairs. The pillars on which our western civilization has been constructed were those of freedom, truth, mercy and justice. We find that during our time and in recent years two monstrous regimes have emerged which have not only challenged the principles of our civilization but also have gone out to mock and to defile them. The first was Hitlerism which, after a bitter struggle which brought a great deal of bloodshed, suffering and misery to millions of people, has been finally subdued and, we hope, eliminated for all time to come. The second was communism, which also defiled the virtues of our civilization, even before the second world war, and which has as a result of the last world conflict emerged much more aggressive, much more powerful and much more arrogant than ever before. Today it threatens our very existence and our way of life. The world today is divided into two camps with two opposing ideologies: our western world with our way of life as we have shaped it through centuries of struggle for freedom, starting as far back as Magna Carta; and on the other hand, communism with its headquarters in the Kremlin, and which although purportedly championing the cause of the working class is doing nothing but carrying on a clever form of propaganda for the extension of Muscovite imperialism. During the course of this debate practically every hon. member who has participated has indicated a keen desire for peace and for some definite understanding with the Soviet regime. I share the same views and the same feeling. The sentiment of the Canadian people, I think, was ably enunciated by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) when he spoke on March 3 on the floor of this house; as reported in Hansard at page 430, he said: Certainly this government would give every support to any new beginning which gave any promise of success. Let us not forget, however, in our determination or desire, our anguish to do something, that the road ahead will in any case be long and difficult. We shall have to walk it with patience and with caution, with persistence and with realism. If a new approach, for instance, did not get us anywhere-there is always that possibility-we must not even then give way to the inevitable reaction of despair which would follow. In our efforts to seek a solution to our position as a nation in international affairs, it is worth while that we be reminded with whom we are dealing, based on the actions of the Soviet regime. It is the ardent desire of the Canadian people and, indeed, of all the people of the western world, to come to some understanding or devise some formula which would dispel the fear now existing and which would ensure us a lasting peace. In our attempt to find some solution and to come to some understanding with comrade Stalin I think we should pause and examine some of the characteristics of communism and how it has operated to achieve and maintain the mighty power now held by Mr. Stalin and his advisers. In bringing out certain facts pertaining to communism, and in making certain suggestions, probably a diplomat would do it in different form. However, I do not pose as a diplomat. External Affairs If a businessman wants to enter into a contract or some agreement with another person, he endeavours to find out all he can about that other person. Therefore let me, with a great deal of indebtedness to Dr. Watson Kirk-connell, president of Acadia university in Nova Scotia, who has made a similar enumeration at a public address recently given in Winnipeg, show instances of how Mr. Stalin and his group have operated. This, I say, will indicate with whom we are dealing. After completing a gangsters' agreement with Hitler in September, 1939, Stalin's army occupied eastern Poland, and the communists then proceeded to liquidate all educated and politically conscious elements in the population. Stalin ordered to be shot or transported from eastern Poland to Siberia 1,700,000 people who were either Jews, Poles or Ukrainians. Of these, approximately half a million were repatriated, and the Russians now report that there are no others left. Another instance: A great many of the officer personnel of the Polish army in the last war, consisting of ten thousand officers, were mercilessly killed., most of whose bodies were found in the Katyn forest. These officers were official prisoners of war, protected by the Red Cross convention, and it is significant that the nazis were not found guilty of this crime at Nuremberg as the evidence points directly to Stalin's personal orders. A further instance: Details of Stalin's type of genocide are available with regard to the three Baltic states, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, which the Soviet armies occupied and incorporated into the U.S.S.R., not as a strategic move against Germany but in fulfilment of the agreement made between Hitler and Stalin. Let me quote again from Dr. Watson Kirk-connell in this regard, with reference to the three Baltic states: Between August, 1940, and June, 1941, over 200,000 men, women and children from these little countries were shot or deported in cattle-trucks to perish in slave camps in Siberia and central Asia. In every known case, husbands were separated from wives and children from parents. After the Russian retreat in 1941, thousands of corpses of murdered citizens were dug up in jail yards and elsewhere and identified by their friends. Many of those whose photographs I have seen had been bestially mutilated by the communists. Gregory Aronson in his book called "The Jewish Problem in Soviet Russia" summarized by Clare Boothe Luce before the House of Representatives, July 6, 1945, says: Approximately 50 per cent of the Jews who, before the revolution, had engaged in trade or in the professions, were physically exterminated. Partially this extermination was direct and violent; partially it was by the means made familiar to the world in German slave camps-the control of wages and of food and the forcing of labour to a point External Affairs which prevented those marked for liquidation from obtaining enough food for their bodies . . . Likewise the cost of survival included the abandonment by Jews of their moral principles, their religious beliefs and practices. From Dr. Watson Kirkconnell I again quote: In other words, Hitler massacred those who were racially Jews; Stalin massacred those who were spiritually Jews. In Soviet Russia only the apostate Jew could survive, the atheist who had renounced morality and religion as bourgeois prejudices, the recreant who had spit on his Jewish faith and had become a rootless revolutionary. Not a single Jewish newspaper remains in Russia today. Another group that has been exterminated is the Greek community of the Kerch peninsula. The entire population, men, women and children, were shipped to perish in an Arctic slave camp and Russian colonists took their place. A further instance: The Russians in the second world war began their fighting by liquidating five supposedly autonomous republics within the Soviet republic, namely: the Volga-German Soviet republic; the Kal-muk Soviet republic; the Crimean Soviet republic; the Chechen-Ingush republic and the autonomous national region of Kara-ch'ayev. This was confirmed in an official Russian statement on June 25, 1946. The murder of these national groups, equal to the population of Canada's maritime provinces, had been disclosed in the Manchester Guardian as early as March 23, 1945. Everything points to the fact that today the extermination of entire social groups is in full swing in Czechoslovakia and Roumania. But by far the greatest victims of Stalin's mass murders and extermination have been the Ukrainians. Between 1926 and 1932 there was a complete extermination of the Ukrainian Orthodox church, with all its clergy and its leaders. Between 1928 and 1930 the extermination of the Don and Kuban Cossacks, with all their officers and intelligentsia, took place. Since the occupation by the soviet armies of western and Carpathian Ukraine, during this last war, the soviets are effecting the extermination of the Ukrainian Catholic church in that area. Stalin's supreme victory in mass extermination and annihilation, an achievement which he can look upon with pride and satisfaction, was in the period between 1930 and 1935 when he liquidated the Kulaks, and then exploited a famine for political reasons, which resulted in the death of millions of Ukrainians from starvation. It is difficult for me to understand why so many people in the United States and Canada fell for that communist propaganda, when this famine was explained by the politburo as social engineering. We have heard of famines at various times, but never was more bestiality displayed than this famine exploited by Stalin and his commissars. Again using an expression by Dr. Watson Kirkconnell, "as a murderer Hitler was a small time operator compared with Stalin." The legal term "genocide" had been invented by an American professor, R. Lem-kin, in 1944, and was used in the indictment of nazi war criminals at Nuremberg. The crime of genocide is defined as an act committed "with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national ethnical, racial or religious group as such." It was intended to define Hitler's, liquidation of the Jews, but the irony of the Nuremberg trials was that during such trials soviet judges participated, whose master comrade Stalin far surpassed the acts of any person in the history of mankind in wholesale murders and exterminations. Hitler murdered the Jews as Jews, but Stalin never murdered the Jews as such, or the Poles as Poles or the Ukrainians as Ukrainians. His explanation is that he was liquidating these people as class enemies, as saboteurs and as traitors to the spiritual homeland of the workers of the world. To him the Soviet union is the fatherland of all progress, and all acts of mass extermination through shootings, famines or slave camps are for the benefit of the bourgeois world, acts of social engineering. Again I quote from Dr. Watson Kirkconnell, where he says: But let us look at the evidence a little more closely. We may note that it is precisely as Jews that more than half the Jews in the Soviet Union were exterminated. Those who were prepared to abandon their Jewishness and become atheistic communists were spared; but Jewry as a religious community was marked down for destruction. The same was obviously true of two other religious communities-the Ukrainian Orthodox Autocephalous church and the Ukrainian Catholic church. It was not a recalcitrant individual here and there who was seized upon. The whole community had to be destroyed. The same is true of many national communities-the Ingrians, the Kerch Greeks, the Crimean Tartars, the Volga Germans, the Cossacks of the Don and the Kuban, the Kalmuks, and the peoples of the Karachayev and Chechen-Ingush autonomous regions. These people have disappeared forever from the map of the world. On the long lists of electoral districts of the U.S.S.R. published in Pravda of January 12, 1950, one will search in vain for these vanished communities, most of them formerly listed even in the Stalin constitution. I have enumerated only a few instances of Stalin's modus operandi, and as based on the research work of Dr. Kirkconnell. I have done it for two reasons: Firstly, in our ardent desire for peace let us know with whom we are dealing and how our potential enemy operates. Let me remind you that we are now in the midst of a cold war. We must not fall into that fatal fallacy whereby we want peace at any price and lose our self-respect. We certainly want peace but we want to have it with honour based on freedom, mercy, truth and justice. My second reason is for defence purposes, and on this I shall elaborate. Although we must not underestimate the Soviet union's strength, we must also for defence purposes not overlook her weakness. It is my submission that the manner in which the thirteen men in the Kremlin, with Stalin as the chief, acquired strength, is the source of their weakness. We may think for a moment that in exercising his acts of genocide on the Poles, the Ukrainians, the Jews, the Latvians, the Estonians, the Lithuanians and other national minorities as well as on religious groups, Stalin's problems within the Soviet union have come to an end. We realize that, within the Soviet union, effective resistance to Stalin and his advisers has ceased under the circumstances. However, it should not be overlooked that there are certainly millions of people still living who have not yet forgotten the famine in the early thirties and the mass murders and extermination during the last war. It is my submission that there are today millions of potential fifth columnists within the Soviet union who, although helpless at the moment, are waiting for the opportunity. Even today a certain force known as the Ukrainian insurgent army, UPA, is operating against -the communists. Under date of February 22, 1950, in the New York Times as well as the Toronto Globe and Mail there appeared a news item concerning these insurgents. I quote the following from the Globe and Mail: Russian troops sent to Ukraine to quell revolt. Units of Soviet troops in Germany have been ordered to the Ukraine recently to assist in putting down an insurrection there, according to a front page article in today's Der Abend published in West Berlin. Der Abend today asserts that this story has been confirmed by Finns who have just been sent back from Russia and also by Stockholm reports. As in its account of the Leningrad plot, Der Abend's current version of Ukraine events declares that the participants include numerous Soviet officers who have deserted to the partisans because they believe that the politburo is preparing to war against the western powers. . . Estimates of the number of individuals active in resistance in the Ukraine total 20,000 to 30,000 Der Abend reports. They are, the story says, actively supported by a great part of the population. We realize how difficult it is to get any real information from behind the iron curtain. I am not suggesting that the Department of External Affairs External Affairs is not informed on this situation. It is my submission however that the Canadian government, as well as other governments of western democracies, should be prepared to take advantage of this weakness within the Soviet union for defence purposes, should the time arrive and we had to resort to all defences at our disposal. It is therefore my further submission that the Secretary of State for External Affairs should have in his department the type of assistant who could keep him fully informed on this matter. When we consider the Kremlin's position outside the borders of the Soviet union, then it is apparent that Stalin's main difficulty at the moment is with his satellite nations. I now quote from page 111 of James Burnham's recently published book, "The Coming Defeat of Communism": The Soviet union has not yet succeeded in integrating the satellite nations into the communist system. The great public expression of this failure is Tito; but potential Titos and potential Titoism have been widespread throughout the satellite nations. Purges, liquidations, mass exilings to Siberia, trials, denunciations, have had to continue and multiply. Vice-premiers, generals, ministers, party members and non-party members, as well as cardinals and priests, have had to be dismissed or tortured or imprisoned or shot. Agricultural policy has had to tack and veer in trying to hold its course against the stubborn and sullen peasants. We are hardly in a position to overstate the importance of Tito's defiance of the Kremlin even though he should eventually capitulate or be liquidated. Titoism is present in all satellite states-Gomulka in Poland and Markos, head of the Greek guerrillas, Hoxha in Albania, Rajk in Hungary and Kostov in Bulgaria. Interesting developments are taking place in Czechoslovakia today. Those who have made a study of communism as directed from the Kremlin realize that the ultimate goal is world domination. There is no question that the long and continued existence of Titoism would create a backbreaking strain within the communist movement and empire. Professor Burnham in his book with reference to Titoism says at page 112: From the point of view of the communist high command, there is this peculiarity to the Tito issue. If Tito succeeds in maintaining his independent position (which he can do only by aid from and links to the west, and a correlated wider political separation from the Kremlin) and if other Titos arise, then the communist plan for world domination cannot succeed. We must realize that the threat of Kremlin world domination in its threat to our way of life and our very existence is startling and real. We appreciate the menace and we have taken certain defensive steps. The North Atlantic pact is an example as well as the External Affairs huge budget appropriations for defence this year. Probably we would not worry too much about the means test, concerning which we have heard so much lately, and other forms of social security which we Canadians would like to have, if we did not have to appropriate these huge sums of money for defence purposes. There are, however, very few Canadians who, realizing our position, have any quarrel with the government's huge appropriation of money for defence purposes. It may be that the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) may not see eye to eye with the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) as to how the money should be spent, but I do not think there is any question on the part of the Canadian people as to the amount of money we appropriate for defence purposes. We are doing so because we are realists, because we cannot completely rely on wishful thinking that some day we will come to a definite and amicable understanding with comrade Stalin on the question of peace. The same principle applied when Canada took such a leading part in bringing into effect the North Atlantic pact. Being realists, our defence should not lie merely in the amount of moneys appropriated for guns, planes, tanks, submarines or other war material, although that is very important. We must also rely on other things that are available for defence purposes and especially take full advantage of the weaknesses of the potential aggressors. I have endeavoured to point out some of these weaknesses within the borders of the Soviet union as well as within the satellite states. I should like to draw your attention briefly to our internal position in Canada. In doing so I should like to quote a portion of an article appearing in the Financial Post of March 18, 1950, which reads: Already a lot of organizations with fine democratic names have been exposed as ideological boiler shops. A lot of unthinking liberals and do-gooders who didn't investigate what they were getting into have been left holding the bag. Today there are three or four world-wide communist sales organizations. All are selling a highly marketable and desirable product, peace. The line is this: "If war comes it will be the fault of the Trumaniacs. The Soviet Union wants to ban the bomb. The others refuse to do so." In other words, condition our minds to accept the big lie, that if war does come, it will be of our making, not Russia's. Then the article deals with a certain convention that took place in Budapest and it reads as follows: Recently the communist youth movement staged a world youth and student festival in Budapest behind the iron curtain. A young American who attended, writing in a United States magazine article, said he was "appalled'' by what he called the "defamation" of the west. Among the hundreds of young delegates were thirty-two Canadians representing these organizations. Then the organizations are listed, and the article continues: At least twenty of the thirty-two delegates were known communists. Some were members of the "Beaver Brigade". This is a communist youth shock troop group. Since the war they have made annual trips behind the iron curtain to work with pick and shovel on communist work projects. My reason for reading this article is to point out that, although there is the iron curtain, we in Canada allow Canadians to enter the Soviet union and her satellite states where they receive training and instructions in the art of communism and how to conduct a revolution. When they return to Canada we accept them, and naturally they act as leaders of potential fifth columns and continue to spread communist propaganda. I am not going to suggest what we should do, but I am leaving this matter with hon. members for their consideration. It may be, however, that our conception of freedom may go a bit too far. The recent election in Great Britain has aroused world-wide interest and concern, not so much because we were interested in the victory of the Conservative party as such, or the British people's experiment in socialism, as because of the stand with regard to the Kremlin which that great wartime leader, Churchill, took after the second world war. Mr. Churchill was the first important statesman to warn the world at Fulton as to the intentions of Soviet Russia. He was widely criticized at the time but now four years later we know that he was right. He was roundly condemned for his stand on Greece when he was still prime minister of Great Britain, but subsequent events have proven that again he was right. I do not wish to create the impression that I am a calamity howler so far as our relations with the Kremlin are concerned, but let me remind you of Mr. Churchill's speech approximately a year ago at Boston when he made this statement: I must not conceal from you the truth as I see it. It is certain that Europe would have been com-munized and London under bombardment some time ago but for the deterrent of the atomic bomb in the hands of Bthe United States. I am sure I am expressing the sentiment of all in the house when I say that I hope Mr. Churchill was wrong when he made that statement. Nevertheless he was right on so many other occasions. As a leading statesman of the world he probably knows Stalin better than anyone else in the western democracies. Since he made his speech at Boston we have learned that the Soviets have the secret of the atom bomb. If Mr. Churchill was right in making that statement, then the interesting and at the same time breathtaking question arises as to how long we have to wait, now that the Soviets have the secret of the atom bomb, before they choose to bombard London or Edmonton.

Topic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Subtopic:   REFERENCE OF ESTIMATES OF DEPARTMENT TO STANDING COMMITTEE
Full View Permalink

November 24, 1949

LIB

Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence)

Liberal

Mr. Claxton:

...acter over a period of three days, during which a number of hon. members have expressed various points of view. On November 18 the remarks of the leader of the opposition covered pages 1934 to 1943 of Hansard; he took over an hour of the time of this house to go through the white paper, without disagreeing with a single proposition in it. In his opening remarks this evening he said the minister had indicated his readiness to answer the questions that had been asked, and as far as I am aware up to this time no single question has been left unanswered. No single question has gone unanswered during the course of this whole debate, and I am prepared to answer all reasonable questions hon. members may put forward with respect to the defence forces of Canada. But if I am to be put through an interrogation respecting the arms manual and other things that are available to people at various levels, then I suggest we are wasting the time of this committee. The leader of the opposition referred to the hon. member for Nanaimo. I can assure this committee that my respect, and I am sure the respect of all other hon. members, for the member for Nanaimo will not be reduced by anything the leader of the opposition said Supply-National Defence this evening, because we hold the hon. gentleman in the highest regard. The hon. member for Nanaimo laid great emphasis on the air force, and I agree with him. That is the point; I agree with him. I just differ as to the practicability of providing an appropriation for the air force three times that of the army, at this time or in the immediate future. In that connection I would point out, as I did before, that in the United States the proportion of expenditure as between the army, air force and navy, is 33'6 per cent for the army, 34 per cent for the air force and 32-4 per cent for the navy. In our estimates for this year, exclusive of defence research and provisions for pensions, our provisions on a comparable basis are for the army 36-4 per cent, for the air force 42-6 per cent and for the navy 21 per cent. In other words while in the United States they have made provision on an almost equal basis, in Canada we have recognized the position of the air force to the extent of giving it prior place by a very substantial margin. It is interesting to note that in the United Kingdom the defence pound is divided as between the army, air force and navy in the proportions of 43 per cent, 29 per cent and 28 per cent. There the air force is in the middle position. It is also interesting to note that in the second world war Canada's great contribution in men was roughly divided in this way: 600,000 to the army, 300,000 to the air force and 100,000 to the navy. So I submit that when the hon. member for Nanaimo, supported by the leader of the opposition, urges greater support for the air force, they are falling through an open door, because we are already doing what they ask and we are doing it to the full extent we believe possible within the limits of these estimates. In future appropriations I would hope, as I indicated when this matter came up on November 18, that this emphasis may be further increased. This is indeed a complex problem, as the leader of the opposition has said. It has been found to be complex in every country, particularly at this time. We do not claim to know all the answers. We do not claim that anything we do may prove to be ultimately right, because we cannot look into the distant future. All we can try to do, with the help and support of this house and of the Canadian people, is to provide the funds which you and the people think desirable, and then allocate those funds among the three services as best we can. But I do submit that in our recognition of the very important place of the air force we have gone further than the other two countries with which we are so closely affiliated and associated in the most friendly fashion, and we are prepared to go even further.

Topic:   COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENTS RESPECTING INSTITUTION AND CONDUCT OF PROSECUTIONS, ETC.
Full View Permalink

May 17, 1950

LIB

Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence)

Liberal

Hon. Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence):

...place I should like to assure the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) that I made most careful inquiries of the navy and at national defence headquarters, and it was not possible to find that in any recruiting publicity the holding out of the possibility of prize money was used as an inducement to men to enlist. Therefore, so far as we have been able to ascertain, there was no holding out of such an inducement. I should like to suggest to the hon. member with all respect that the nature of his own comment on this subject indicates how little seriousness there is in the opposition to the move we are now making when it is put in terms, even facetiously, that payment to individuals would be justified because in a sense it might equalize the possibility in the army of obtaining some loot. I hope the hon. member was not very serious about that. If I may say so, it indicates the level of the arguments put forward by those who have opposed this measure. I venture to say I have seen more of the officers and men of the Royal Canadian Navy during the last three years than most hon. members, and I have taken every possible opportunity to discuss with them what was their own desire with regard to this measure. I can assure hon. members that I have not as yet come face to face with an officer or man who felt that the right way to deal with this was a way which everyone in this house admits is out of date. The resolutions and letters that have been sent to us are very largely limited to one locality in Canada. I do not believe for a moment that any principle whatever is involved in this. There has been no holding out, no inducement; the question is how this money, which is a windfall, may be best disposed of in the interests of the officers and men of the Royal Canadian Navy. In adopting this course we have not satisfied everyone, but we have proceeded as the great majority of the men who served at sea would like us to proceed; that is, for the benefit of those of their comrades who are less well off than some of the others.

Topic:   CANADA PRIZE ACT
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR PAYMENT AND DISTRIBUTION OF PRIZE MONEY
Full View Permalink

January 26, 1949

?

...act. The treaty when concluded will be laid before you for approval. The North Atlantic treaty will supplement the treaty of mutual guarantee signed by the western European nations at Brussels last year. Such regional arrangements are provided for in the united nations charter. Despite unsettled conditions and the disruptive activities of international communism, the nations of western Europe are making progress toward recovery. Aid from North America is contributing substantially to the restoration of economic activity, thereby increasing their ability to resist internal and external aggression. At home we have been blessed with good crops. Industrial expansion is taking place at an unprecedented rate. There have been few differences between employers and employees leading to stoppages in work. Inflationary pressures are less pronounced. Employment is at higher levels than ever before. In striking contrast with communist countries, the free economy of our country is demonstrating its ability to provide for all a high standard of living, social justice and individual freedom. It is the view of my ministers that a steady advance toward the goal of social justice for all is an effective safeguard against the influence of subversive doctrines. The people of Newfoundland, by a majority vote in a referendum, expressed their desire to enter confederation. The precise terms of union were subsequently negotiated with an authorized delegation from Newfoundland. You will be asked without delay to approve the agreement, signed on December 11, and to make provision for the entry of Newfoundland as a province of Canada on March 31. I am confident the union will be of mutual advantage to Newfoundland and Canada. Amendments to the Supreme Court Act to make the Supreme Court of Canada the court of last resort for Canada will be submitted for your consideration. i You will be asked to approve, subject to the approval of the United States authorities, the agreement concluded in 1941 for the development of navigation and power in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence basin. You will be asked to make the further legislative provision necessary to implement the agreements for the sale of agricultural products to the United Kingdom. With a view to assisting in the restoration of world trade, so vital to general security and our own prosperity, Canada participated in formulating the charter for the international trade organization and the general agreement on tariffs and trade, which will be submitted for your approval. Within the next few months Canada will engage in further negotiations with thirteen other countries to broaden the scope of the tariff concessions which we obtained at Geneva in 1947. The government will continue to press vigorously for the lowering of tariff and other barriers and, as quickly as possible, the expansion of trade on a multilateral basis. Meanwhile the government is seeking to remove specific obstacles to the continued sales of Canadian products in our traditional export markets, and to that end is co-operating closely with the nations concerned in the implementation of the European recovery program. The continuing committee established by the governments of Canada and the United Kingdom to review the progress of trade between the two countries is presently meeting in London. In the interests of both domestic and foreign trade, legislation will be introduced with the object of promoting extensive and adequately safeguarded use of the national trade mark "Canada Standard" associated with goods which conform to prescribed standards, and of requiring proper labelling of goods to prevent deception of the public. Improvement in our United States dollar position has resulted in the removal of certain restrictions imposed in November, 1947. Further restrictions will be removed as the position improves. So long as trading and financial conditions remain unstable, a degree of control over foreign exchange will be required. You will, accordingly, be asked to extend the Foreign Exchange Control Act for a further period. The report of the royal commission on prices will be laid before you as soon as it has been submitted to the government. Your approval will also be sought for legislation to continue in force steel control and a limited number of price controls, including control over the rental of housing accommodation. You will be asked to make legislative provision for governmental assistance by loan to the producers of basic steel for the purpose of increasing production. The governments of the provinces have been advised that the federal government is prepared to discontinue rent control in any province in which the government expresses the desire to assume the jurisdiction. The provision of housing has received and continues to receive close attention. More new housing units were provided during the last calendar year than ever before. Your approval will be sought for the establishment of a department of reconstruction and development to continue the functions now vested in the Department of Reconstruction and Supply, including the ministerial responsibility for the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. A measure for assistance in the provision of a transcontinental highway will also be laid before you. A royal commission has been appointed to inquire into and report upon all questions of economic policy within the jurisdiction of parliament arising out of the operation and maintenance of national transportation. Together with the findings of the investigation by the board of transport commissioners, the report of the royal commission should furnish parliament and the government with the basis for a sound transportation policy. The national health program, inaugurated by the government last year, is receiving co-operation from all the provinces. In supplementing provincial health measures, the program has already made a contribution to the health facilities of Canada and will thereby bring increasing benefit to our people. A bill will be introduced to broaden the scope of the Family Allowances Act, as a further instalment of the policy of the government to provide a national standard of social security and human welfare designed to assure the greatest possible measure of social justice for all Canadians. The organization of the armed forces to provide for unification and co-ordination has been pressed forward. Steady progress has been made in the recruitment and training of officers and men of the active and reserve forces, so that the navy, army and air force may be in a position to meet the defence needs of Canada as these may change from time to time. Conditions of service in the armed forces are being further improved, and as rapidly as the results of research can be adequately tested, additional equipment is being made available. Amendments to existing legislation with respect to the armed forces will be recommended for your consideration. Other measures to which your attention will be directed include bills respecting forest conservation, overseas telecommunications, the control and regulation of interprovincial and international pipe lines, and assistance for the Canadian shipbuilding industry. Your approval will be sought for measures to amend the Industrial Development Bank Act, the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act and the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. Speech from the Throne It is the view of my ministers that there should be an examination of the activities of agencies of the federal government relating to radio, films, television, the encouragement of arts and sciences, research, the preservation of our national records, a national library, museums, exhibitions, relations in these fields with international organizations, and activities generally which are designed to enrich our national life, and to increase our own consciousness of our national heritage and knowledge of Canada abroad. For this purpose, the government intends at an early date to establish a royai commission. Members of the House of Commons: You will be asked to make the customary provision for essential services. Prosperous conditions now prevailing are being, reflected in the buoyant level of national revenues; a condition to which due consideration is being given by my ministers in the preparation of forthcoming budgetary proposals. Honourable Members of the Senate: Members of the House of Commons: The birth of a son to Their Royal Highnesses Princess Elizabeth and the Duke of Edinburgh has been the occasion of widespread rejoicing. Happiness over the birth of the Royal Prince has been tempered by regret over the indisposition of His Majesty the King. The people of Canada hope and pray for the complete recovery of the King's health. Since the close of your last session, Mr. Mackenzie King has retired as Prime Minister. I feel it is the hope of all Canadians that Mr. King will be spared, over a long period and with less exacting responsibilities, to continue his distinguished and devoted service to Canada and the free world. May Divine Providence bless your deliberations.

Full View Permalink