Mr. G. F. Higgins (St. John's East):

I have a question I should like to ask the Minister of Justice-I sent him notice, but I do not know whether he received it-in connection with an item which appears in the Montreal Gazette of this morning, stating that the Canadian peace congress has asked-

Mr. Speaker:

Order. Will the hon. gentleman ask his question?

Mr. Higgins:

Has the Canadian peace congress asked parliament to pass a law for the protection of peace, and if so, what is the meaning of it?

Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):

As my hon. friend has stated, he sent me notice of his question, which was handed to me just a few moments ago as I came into the house very hastily after attending a cabinet meeting. The question which the hon. gentleman has just asked is different from the one of which he gave notice. When he asks me what the Canadian peace congress submissions mean I am afraid I cannot tell him, because I have not yet had the opportunity of reading them. I have been advised that mimeographed submissions have been made by this organization, and I can say that in due course they will be given such consideration as they may appear to deserve.

Mr. Speaker, when the house rose last evening we were discussing the subamendment which had been put forward by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low). It was my intention this afternoon to point out how the official opposition had suddenly become supporters of government policy, but I find it is not necessary to do so, because the Ottawa Citizen has done it quite well. I shall content myself at this point with reading the heading in the Ottawa Morning Citizen of February 16, which I think is quite appropriate and should be on the record. The heading

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious from the statements that have been made, particularly those of the last speaker (Mr. Johnston), that there is a great deal of confusion in the minds of some members of the house as to what is actually under consideration at this time. In the first place, it would seem hardly necessary to point out that what is being debated at the moment is the speech from the throne, and primarily the amendment which I introduced in the early stages of the debate. The subamendment, also under discussion now, adopts our amendment and adds another clause which has been discussed by

424 HOUSE OF

The Address-Mr. Drew many hon. members during the past two or three days. To the extent that we are discussing the subamendment, it is necessary to emphasize, and apparently to re-emphasize, that the subject we are dealing with is not national selective service but a very limited form of service. The subamendment refers specifically to service in the reserve forces for home defence.

I must say that I would have thought it difficult for anyone with a reasonable appreciation of the English language to place an interpretation upon the views expressed on behalf of this party by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) which would suggest that they in any way changed our position or indicated any different point of view with respect to the way in which this subject should be dealt with. I suggest that perhaps there are reasons why some of the comments made about the remarks of the hon. member for Nanaimo might better not have been made. The amendment I moved is an unqualified criticism of the government's lack of leadership at this critical time in our history, and that very amendment, which is adopted in the subamendment, places that criticism before the house. That amendment stands, and we will vote for it. We intend it to convey all the criticism that we have expressed. s

We have indicated that the amendment we have moved is intended to express condemnation of the government for its failure to provide the armed forces in being which are required to defend our country and meet our external commitments. The subamendment now under consideration embraces that, and adds by way of specific reference a demand for compulsory service in our reserve forces for home defence. We have presented arguments in support of our amendment, and those arguments stand. What we are now discussing is the proposal that our reserve forces be brought up to strength by a form of selective compulsory service limited to home defence.

The hon. member who has just spoken says that we do not want a repetition of the things that happened during the last war. We do not, and we do not want some compulsory form of service that creates an apparent pool of men who are not really available for whatever service may be required' in the defence of this country, wherever that defence should take place. We are not discussing the principle of national selective service. That issue is not before us. No matter how or when it may be adopted, the principle of national selective service, it seems to me, has been settled. The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has sought to leave no doubt, as I understand his words, that he will introduce national

selective service when the evidence supports that course. Having regard to the commanding majority in this house supporting the government, that statement of government policy amounts to a declaration of settled principle. To the extent that those wordfs of the Prime Minister indicate that this subject is no longer to be made a political football in Canada, I am confident that the people of Canada will strongly approve what has been stated in this house.

We are not asked, therefore, at this moment to consider the principle of national selective service. We are asked to support a demand for a limited form of selective service. That raises very simple questions. If these next few months are to be the most critical months in modern history, as we have been told by the Prime Minister; if there is real danger of war, as was stated only two days ago by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), what is it we want with which to defend our freedom and, if humanly possible, to preserve peace by the collective action of the nations of the Atlantic community? Do we need hundreds of thousands of young men and women training a few hours a week in reserve forces, or do we need combat forces in being in the shortest possible time, ready to undertake any military task which may be imposed upon them?

Surely the last is what we need; surely the last is the only thing which faces reality at all. If that is so, compulsory service in the reserve forces would be of no help whatever in meeting that immediate and urgent demand. In fact, it would greatly hinder the effort to create, in being, naval, air and land forces in the shortest possible time, making the best use that our vigour and ingenuity and intelligence can make of the human and material resources now available to us. That, it seems to me, is the urgent task. It is not only days and hours that count. Minutes count, and at this moment there is no time to waste in any diversion of our resources from that immediate problem, no matter what may be the long-term objective or how important that long-term plan may be to the nation as a whole.

Let us in these critical days deal with first things first. The first thing is to get on- belatedly, it is true; nevertheless let us get on-as quickly as possible with the job of creating defence forces in being, not two years from now, not three years or four years from now, which would be the earliest possible hope by training young men and women for a few hours a week in reserve forces. We can tackle that job calmly and effectively and satisfactorily when we have made sure that we have created the forces

which are necessary to meet the immediate tasks we may be called upon to face two months from now, three months from now, or in fact any month between now and next November, when the world will have passed its first great climacteric in this immediate threat of Soviet world conquest.

Let us make no mistake as to the threat that is before us. It is nothing less. The threat is real; it is tremendous, but it is something that can be faced, and something that can be held back. Peace can still be preserved if with all their energy and spirit and determination, which are themselves attributes of freedom, the free nations of the world leave no doubt in the minds of any of the men in the Kremlin that every ounce of strength we have will be put into this great effort of building the bulwarks of freedom wherever those bulwarks may be needed within the next few months.

I regret that anyone in this house should have displayed such bad taste, or in fact should have had the temerity to suggest, that the hon. member for Nanaimo was afraid to face the issue and was straddling the fence. Fear is not a word that has ever been properly associated with his name. Certainly there are differences of opinion, and very sincere differences. My own conviction is that many of those differences are based upon some misinterpretation of what we are really discussing; but let us accord a full measure of sincerity to those who express these different opinions, no matter what party they belong to and no matter what view they express. It is my belief that those who oppose this subamendment are in no way avoiding the immediate and urgent issue that is before this house and the people of Canada. I think the subamendment does avoid the issue. I believe it evades the real and urgent issue now before every Canadian; that is, how are we going to make up for the neglect of our defence forces, and do so in the shortest possible time?

Compulsory service in the reserve forces is not the answer to that immediate, that driving and compelling need. It would establish the very inequalities it is said to avoid. Just let us consider some of the problems it would create. What would be done with the scores of thousands of young Canadians who do not live near any reserve unit capable of giving military instruction in a manner which would justify their attendance? Would you make them move and live in places where there are reserve units? If you would, that in itself would create a substantial measure of inequality, because most certainly it would impose a special obligation upon those who did not happen to live near reserve units, which would not R0709-28

The Address-Mr. Drew be imposed upon those who did live in communities which have active and well-organized units.

That is only one of the inequalities it would create. What of the fact that some communities have as many units as whole military districts in other parts of this country? Are you going to bring the same number of men to every unit now organized? If you do, again you create grave inequalities. Then, what are you going to do in regard to the units which at the moment are so lacking in trained personnel that even now they are not able to send men to camp? Are those units to train men to defend this country? What is it we are really talking about? The statements that have been made would suggest that it is in the minds of some people that by compelling young men-and I presume young women

to train in our reserve forces, we are going to train forces capable of defending the land mass of Canada. There is not a man in this house who has had any experience in training with the reserve forces who does not know that it would be three years at least, training a few hours a week, before you could hope to make young men and women capable of bearing arms in the immediate defence of their country, in the face of the trained forces which might be attacking our soil. In fact, what has happened in the past is that, whenever reserve forces have come into the active forces, it has taken several months of the most intensive training to qualify them to go into action. Although we had very effective reserve forces in this country before the last war, it was two years before those forces had been brought to a state of training that indicated their readiness to go into active service against modern forces with the type of training that those forces get today.

If we need men and women for the defence of the land mass of Canada, then let us not play around with this slow method of training. Let us adopt another course entirely. This is not a system that gives us combat forces ready to go into action. This is not a system that would begin to give that type of training that would defend our soil if, by any unhappy chance, large numbers of enemy forces should make a landing here. Surely it is not without some significance that, although most countries today have a form of national selective service, not one of them, so far as I am aware, has, compulsory service for what would correspond to our reserve forces.

In case anyone may be under the misapprehension that that does not apply in Britain, may I say that the territorial forces in Britain are not raised by compulsory

The Address-Mr. Drew selective service. It is quite true that the reserves of the active army are compelled to take a certain amount of training in the territorial force, but the territorial force is a voluntary one. There are similar forces in other democracies. The moment national selective service is made to apply to units now embraced in the reserve force, it ceases to be a reserve force and becomes a new type of force. It should be approached in that manner if that time comes.

What is the situation with which we are confronted today? Let me review some of the real objections to what is put forward-and, I know, put forward with good faith, with sincerity, and with earnestness. Let me summarize briefly. One: we have not the training staff available to carry this out. Two: we have not the drill halls. Three: it would create a false sense of security wholly unrelated to the urgency of the situation. Four: it would divert attention and divert manpower from the immediate and urgent task of creating forces in being. Five: it would mean an immense withdrawal of manpower at a time when this country is short of manpower to produce those things which nature has made it possible for us to produce for our allies as well as for ourselves. Six: we have not before us in this house, outside of the government, much of the information which is essential to an adequate consideration of this problem. Seven: as I have already pointed out, no other country with a similar dual type of force has yet adopted, and I believe for good reasons, a form of compulsory service in the secondary force.

I pointed out that we have not the essential information. Let me indicate the essential information to which I refer. This government has the advice of its trained general staff. That advice is not available to the rest of the members of this house. There is a general staff for the navy, for the army, and for the air force. In the discussion which has been taking place, we have obviously been discussing the army more than any other branch of the services. May I, for one, say I am convinced that the recently appointed chief of the general staff is one who will command the confidence of every serving soldier and every veteran in Canada. The government has the advantage of the advice of a man who is not only highly regarded by officers and other ranks in this country, but who is equally well regarded in the United States, in Britain and in France. I make that statement with personal knowledge that there is this regard for him.

His advice is something which has a direct bearing on what should be done. The government has the advantage also of the advice

given by General Eisenhower, who was here such a short time ago. May I, as an individual member of this house, express the belief that there could have been no better choice, and that there is no more inspiring commander in the free world today, than the man who has been chosen to lead the Atlantic forces, and who left yesterday for that task. The government has secret information in regard to the allotment of tasks which has been made as a result of the discussion amongst the military representatives of the twelve member nations of the Atlantic community. This is all information which must have a direct bearing on the decisions that are to be made. I, for one, should like to have some of that information. I would hope that, with the appropriate safeguards over such information as might conceivably convey anything useful to the enemy, this house would have a summary of that information to guide our thinking as to the manner in which we should face these tasks.

May I refer to another reason why it seems to me that this is an impracticable suggestion at this time. Last night it was pointed out that in the document prepared by the Legion urging a measure similar to that now before us, the most conclusive reasons were given why it could not immediately be put into effect. In common with some of the other members of this house, I have been a member of the Legion since the first day it was formed. I have an extremely high regard for the Canadian Legion. I certainly wish to commend the effort that the Legion has made to arouse public interest in a subject that is of such importance to the people of Canada. Nevertheless, as was also pointed out last night, the recommendation the Legion now makes is not strictly in accordance with the resolution that was adopted in the full meeting of the Legion at Winnipeg. That, however, is a detail; it does not in any way limit the value of all that has been done in bringing before the people of Canada the vital importance of this subject. But on page 1 of the Legion recommendation there is the answer as to why this particular suggestion would not be practicable at this time, and I quote it to bring into sequence in my remarks my own reasons for believing that it does not meet the situation today.

I quote from the booklet prepared by the Legion under the title "Operation Preparedness":

We have reason to believe that the chief obstacles in the way of implementing the Legion's demands are a shortage of ships, planes, equipment, and even boots and clothing, and the admitted absence of adequate trained personnel, accommodation, and other facilities necessary to any immediate appreciable expansion of the reserve forces.

The Address-Mr. Drew

It seems to me that this statement conclusively demonstrates how ineffective it would be to bring large numbers of young men and women into the training centres of reserve units, because, according to the Legion's own statement, there is not the equipment. There are not the boots, and there is not the clothing to meet the requirements of training of this kind. For these reasons I am satisfied that this proposal would be impracticable. I am satisfied also that it is confusing the minds of many people as to what the immediate and tremendously urgent problem is.

To some extent the suggestion has been made that even if this does not do what should be done, it is at least a gesture. Mr. Speaker, this is no time for gestures; this is a time to face the cold reality that the very survival of western civilization is now at stake. The only thing that will stem the tide of Soviet aggression and preserve peace is preparedness, but it is preparedness of forces that can go into the field, and not a form of preparedness that simply deludes the public into a sense of security that would not actually be afforded.

We agree.

Mr. Drew:

I am glad. We shall probably have a unanimous vote against the subamendment. That does demonstrate the value of discussion and the possibility of conviction.

It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that one of the things that has perhaps been overlooked in the discussions which have been taking place is the most important factor in any military or other preparation of this kind, namely, the spirit of the country and the faith behind the steps that are taken. It seems to me that what is suggested now is like trying to prescribe a plaster cast for a man suffering from a severe form of neurosis. There is a severe neurosis in this country at the present time. It is caused by uncertainty and doubt. May I answer the suggestion of the hon. member who spoke last, that far from endorsing the policy of the government and giving it a clean bill of health in regard to what it has done, we have made it perfectly clear that we think there has been shameless misrepresentation of the real situation. We believe, however, that it is the duty of all of us now to try to persuade the government to take the steps that should be taken to meet the situation which has arisen as a result of their own neglect and their own failure to create the equipment, the supplies and the trained forces we need.

What are they?

Mr. Drew:

An hon. member asks, "What are they?" I know he asks that with the idea that he is still sticking to this subamendment. They are not forces that are trained a couple of hours a week in remote centres around Canada, but forces that we know are ready to go into combat. They are forces not only equipped to go into combat. They are forces that have the spirit to go into combat. That is the thing that is greatly needed in this country at this time. What is needed most in this country at this time is a faith in our own ability to meet the situation; a conviction that Canadians are able to undertake these tasks just as they have always done in the past, and that young Canadians will not shirk their responsibilities whenever the demand is really made upon them.

In making these remarks I wish to leave no doubt that, as we present our amendment to be voted on after the subamendment is dealt with, it is intended to convey criticism of the government, and we hope that the protest that is expressed will convince the government that steps should be taken with greater urgency and a greater sense of the need for action than has so far been demonstrated.

Certain statements that I made were read into the record, and I wish every one of those statements to remain there as a criticism of the deplorable situation with which we are confronted.

We were told in this country nearly two years ago that the Canadian government had decided to adopt the American calibres of rifles and machine guns and other American standards for our own defence forces. It must have come as a shock to the people of Canada to learn a short time ago that instead of making the rifles and machine guns we needed of the 300 calibre-for that was the decision of the government as announced nearly two years ago-some of the arsenals which should have been making them were making shotguns and other sporting equipment to be sold to the public through the ordinary private channels. It must also be a matter of some concern to the people of this country to know that at the present time, while we have been shipping arms and equipment to other countries, some of it even into the hands of the Chinese communists, we have not all the equipment and the weapons that we need here in Canada. No; we want this problem tackled with the utmost urgency.

Having made these criticisms, however, for the constructive purpose of trying to emphasize the need for action, we do say, and we re-emphasize, that no matter what has happened, the need is great, the need is

428 HOUSE OF

The Address-Mr. Fair urgent, and I am satisfied that every hon. member in every part of the house will support the government to the extent that the government demonstrates, even now, that it is really prepared to get on with the job.

I believe that hon. members do want to get on with the job. Just as soon as possible we want to have brought before us the facts in regard to national defence, so that we can discuss them in an orderly debate on national defence and seek to improve the defence preparations of this country by the joint and collective expression of opinion of all hon. members who have ideas to offer.

Perhaps we need not be too repentant about what has happened. In some respects our weakness is our strength. The unwillingness of our country, and other free countries, to abandon the paths of peace is not because of any lack of courage. We cherish freedom so much that we are reluctant to give it up. When we recognize that freedom is threatened, that freedom may he destroyed, I am sure Canadians will show the same spirit and the same courage they have always shown in the past.

We want the government to give the country leadership, not only in the House of Commons but Outside of it-inspiring leadership. Show us the vision and the courage of our forefathers; then there need be no concern about the response of our people in meeting the tasks before them.

I believe with all my heart that our people are ready to face and to surmount whatever trials may be before us in these very critical days, so long as the public is taken into the confidence of the government, and so long as no doubt is left as to the urgent demands being placed upon them. Arouse' in the people of Canada a true spirit of sacrifice; arouse in the minds of our people, particularly in the minds of our youth, the spirit that built Canada from a forest in such a comparatively short space of time. I am satisfied, Mr. Speaker, that we shall see in that spirit of sacrifice the spirit of a great regeneration of the country that we love, the country we are now striving to protect and to defend.

Mr. Robert Fair (Battle River):

Mr. Speaker, I am really surprised that a large man should waste time putting up the straw men that have been put up during the past five or ten minutes, and then attempt to knock them down again. I have never heard as many attempts to misrepresent words as I have since the moving of the subamendment by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) on the 13th of this month. I have never heard as many trying to get away from a hot spot, if one may call it that, as I have

(Mr. Drew.]

in the past few days, when I have witnessed hon. members twisting and attempting to put into the mouth of the mover of the subamendment certain arguments he never advanced, and never even intended to advance.

For the information and for the enlightenment-if such is possible-of those who have taken part in the debate and have attempted to argue against the subamendment, let me read it again:

That the amendment be amended by adding thereto the following as clause 4:

4. To ensure that a complete program of preparedness including compulsory training in the reserve forces for home defence be executed with the greatest possible degree of equality of sacrifice and service.

That amendment does not suggest even one item of detail as to how this should be put into effect. That is the government's business. It is entirely the government's business and, as the majority of the members of the official opposition appear to endorse the government's policy, perhaps the government will have their assistance also.

Time and again during the last few days we have heard members read into the subamendment many things that were never intended to be read into it. It is the government's responsibility. Instead of reading those things into the subamendment I suggest that those members should pass on that information to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) and his colleagues.

I have no intention of prolonging the debate. I have tried to point out some of the main misrepresentations hon. members have attempted to put across during the past few days in connection with the subamendment.

Mr. G. S. White (Haslings-Pelerborough):

Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak briefly with respect to the subamendment, and state at the outset that I am opposed to it. I concur in every way with the remarks just made by my leader, and with those of the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes).

The hon. member who has just taken his seat has read the subamendment and pointed out that there is nothing in it to show how it should be put into effect. That is true. I do suggest to him however that both he and I are in opposition to the government, and that if those who are in opposition make criticisms or proposals, then the very least they can do is to offer some suggestive reasons as to how and why certain things should be done.

The hon. member, if he is fair-

Hear, hear.

Mr. While (Hasiings-Pelerborough):

-will have to admit that the proposal is not feasible nor could it possibly be put into operation.

If he will compare the subamendment with the amendment moved by the leader of this party he will find that the second paragraph of our amendment covers the subamendment, with the exception of the words, "compulsory training in the reserve forces for home defence." In the subamendment the mover has included the words "equality of sacrifice and service." Any hon. members who have served in any capacity in the army, in an active theatre of war, do not need any explanation as to what equality of sacrifice and service means. How could anyone say that in world war II there was any equality of sacrifice and service between the man serving in Ottawa, probably enjoying more comforts than he had ever had in his life before, and the troops serving in Italy?

I would say that today there could be no equality of service or sacrifice by having compulsory training in the reserve forces two or three nights a week, on Sundays and holidays, and going to camp for two weeks in the summer, as compared with the sacrifice and service of the Princess Pats who are now going up to the line in Korea. I think it is all too likely that by putting in the words "equality of sacrifice and service"-

Mr. Fair:

Read the whole thing.