Mr. Real Caoueite (Pontiac):

Mr. Speaker, we were shocked to learn this morning of the dreadful fire which broke out last night at Rouyn, a city in the constituency I have the honour to represent in this house.

Fortunately, the anxiety of the citizens was not heightened by any loss of life.

Many families have not only sustained severe losses but are now homeless. At noon, I was informed that losses will total well over a million dollars.

May I, Mr. Speaker, tender my deepest sympathy to all the victims of this disaster, be they landlords or tenants, and may I also congratulate the dauntless firemen and citizens of Rouyn who now have the fire entirely under control.

(Text):

Hon. Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence):

Yesterday the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) asked a question about civil defence, having regard to proposals put forward in the Ontario legislature by the attorney general. The hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) has given notice of an inquiry of the ministry as to the same matter. I am glad to make a brief statement in reply to both questions.

Some time ago Major General F. F. Worthington was appointed civil defence adviser. As such he has been working with the various federal departments and agencies that might be concerned, and has visited the United States, Great Britain, and other countries, to bring our information up to date as to what is being done or proposed in those countries.

The vast extent of Canada and the nature of the problems involved in civil defence make it clear that suitable safeguards require close working arrangements among the various

agencies of government, federal, provincial and municipal, as well as transportation and communication services, and national and local organizations. Moreover, many of the matters relating to civil defence fall within the ordinary jurisdiction of the provinces and municipalities of Canada, which are responsible for municipal services such as fire fighting.

On my instruction Major General Worthington visited all the provinces, and at each place saw either the premier or a member of the cabinet, at which time arrangements were discussed in a general way. I should like to say that all provinces showed a most co-operative attitude. These preliminary discussions are being followed up.

In considering civil defence, it is apparent that one of the actions which would be desirable would be that the couplings and attachments of fire equipment be standardized as far as possible. While some progress has been made, I am informed that there are no less than two hundred types of 2J-inch fire hose coupling having either different threads or outside diameter which would make it impossible, or at least more difficult, for the fire equipment of one locality to be used in another. This is an objective which could be attained only over a period of time by the provinces agreeing on certain standards and working towards them. Clearly it is in the general interest of the people in the various parts of Canada that fire equipment be capable of being used in neighbouring municipalities.

Beyond these general discussions, no arrangements have yet been made with any of the provinces. Until today I had not seen the legislation proposed by the Ontario legislature. Of course I have not made and do not make any comment on that measure.

Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved

the first reading of Bill No. 83 (from the Senate) respecting the application of the national trade-mark to commodities and respecting the true descrip. tion of commodities.

Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

Questions QUESTIONS

(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Harkness:

As of February 15, 1949, how many Canadian army personnel have been qualified as parachutists (a) of the P.P.C.L.I.; (b) of other units?

Mr. Claxlon:

As is well known, it is not the practice here or in the United Kingdom to give the strength and other detailed information about individual units of the armed forces. If the information were to be given about one unit, there would be no reason for withholding it about others, and thus the entire battle order and fighting strength, which are matters any prospective enemy would take a great deal of trouble to find out, would be disclosed. Even though individual figures may not have any immediate significance, the fact that some were given and others withheld would give information or create ground for speculation.

Changes in the strength or locations of individual units might have the utmost significance. It may be interesting to observe that in the soviet union the giving of such information as is sought here is a crime punishable by ten to twenty years in prison. Few figures could be given which would be of greater interest to the only possible aggressor than the information sought in answer to these two questions.

Accordingly it is not in the public interest to give this or similar information in reply to this and the next question. However, I shall be glad to give the hon. member the information for his own private use, if he wants it.

Mr. Harkness:

I must protest against the refusal of the minister to answer these questions. I doubt very much the validity of the arguments that he has advanced.

Mr. Speaker:

Order. The hon. member has had an answer to his question.

Mr. Graydon:

The minister made a speech.

Mr. Harkness:

What was the strength of the active force Canadian army brigade group as of February 15, 1949, or nearest date to that for which returns have been made?

Answered.

No.

Mr. Speaker:

Answered by the answer to the previous question.