Mr. Green:

You must have been talking to somebody else.

Mr. Gillis:

I was sitting right here and I was listening very carefully. I said I hoped that that was not what he meant. It may be construed as meaning that by somebody reading Hansard. If that is what he meant I am opposed to it, and I think the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra is opposed to it also, because he and I sat on the same committee, the canteen committee, when the matter of a benevolent fund in the services was discussed.

I did not agree with the benevolent fund at all. I said it presupposed unemployment and charity. There is no reason why servicemen should be overcharged in canteens, because the profits that accumulate in a canteen and are later placed in a fund are overcharges.

Mr. Harkness:

Don't forget the swill

account.

Mr. Gillis:

Yes; you got a little of that. Not much of that-

Mr. Ferrie:

It sounds as if somebody has had something to do with it.

Mr. Gillis:

Not very much of that is placed in the fund. The officers generally gather that all up for their mess. I never approved of the benevolent fund to start with. The navy did not approve of it; at least their representatives before the committee did not. Nevertheless it was set up. In my opinion the overcharge that accumulated and is now in the fund should be used for the purpose for which it was intended, namely, for service personnel and their dependents who are in difficulties. It is earmarked for that purpose. The recreational facilities that the troops in Korea are entitled to are the responsibility of this country, and the cost should be borne by the people of this country.

There is not much we can do with the bill now, but I would suggest to the parliamentary assistant who is in the house listening attentively, as he always does, that he pay attention to the discussion this afternoon, and if this bill does not cover what we are asking for this afternoon that he bring in another bill to provide "the necessary services for the troops in Korea. I am sure that later on the 27th brigade will be demanding the same thing. Provide some place where they can go that has a Canadian sign hanging outside, Canadian goods and Canadian cigarettes available to the boys, with Canadian personnel trained in the field of recreation so that these men can get advice and guidance when needed. These men are entitled to that kind of a little bit of home in so far as it is possible in the countries where they are making great sacrifices.

I listened with interest to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) describe the cigarette that is being served to the troops in Korea.

I thought we had got over that. I hope that the soldier in Korea, or any soldier in any part of the world in the future, representing this country, will not be compelled to smoke the kind of cigarettes we smoked in the first war. Apparently the leader of the opposition who smoked them in the first war has had a package sent to him. He would know what they are. It is an atrocity. It was not so bad

94699-75J

Canadian Forces Act

with us. We did not know the difference. The standards of smoking were very low at that time. We smoked Macdonald's twist in an old pipe, and that kind of thing. I think the tobacco was manufactured in Prince Edward Island. They have got away from that and have gone into potatoes instead of tobacco. In this day and age when there is so much good tobacco available and it so easy to get cigarettes, there is no reason why we should inflict that punishment on our troops in any part of the world. I believe that particular item calls for an immediate order in council. If upon an examination of the evidence the Department of National Defence finds that our troops in Korea are being compelled to smoke the type of cigarette described by the leader of the opposition, I believe the department would be justified in assuming it is a secret weapon put out by the enemy for the purpose of breaking the morale of our troops. An immediate order in council should be passed prohibiting any of our troops in any section of the world from smoking that kind of cigarette, and the penalty should be immediate court-martial.

I have made these few remarks merely for the purpose of provoking further thought on the part of the parliamentary assistant to the minister. I was rather disappointed to read in the press that the minister is in Europe now. I would like to have seen him take the position that this controversy about Korea is not doing us any good. At the behest of some sections of the forces, some people have been sent there to see what is happening along recreational lines. The situation is still not clear. I would have thought the minister would go there and see the situation himself. Perhaps he does not have to go thfere because the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Mayhew) is there, and has been under fire. Perhaps when he comes back some immediate action will be taken by the department to take this discussion out of the realm of the press. It is not reflecting any credit on us, and it is not doing any good for the morale of our troops.

Mr. Ray Thomas (Wetaskiwin):

I do pot

believe I can add a great deal to what has been said this afternoon, except to say that I agree one hundred per cent with all those who have spoken so far. From my experience during the last war, I know that during the periods when we had very little to do we found the service canteens a wonderful place to go. If we desired we could have a little coffee and sandwiches, or sit around and read. Educational and recreational facilities were there. While in the canteen we could do pretty much as we pleased. During the last war, and I believe during the first war, these

Canadian Forces Act

canteens certainly served a purpose. There is no reason why they should not be able to serve the same purpose during this Korean conflict.

If there are no recreational facilities, Mr. Speaker, for troops on leave, they are going to make their own. Some of the recreation that troops on their own make is not good. If they cause any damage or disturb the people among whom they are billeted, it is rather inclined to give the troops a bad name. Boredom is one of the greatest morale breakers the army has to face. If there are no facilities to relieve them of that boredom, the morale of the troops is going to hit an extremely low point. When we had no place to go during the last war, most of us ended up in some kind of trouble, probably not very bad but not very good either. I would urge the government, therefore, to set up some board or committee to investigate the matter of welfare for the troops while they are not in the front lines. The government could ascertain whether or not it would be a good idea to allow the major service clubs to again render the same services as they did during the last war. I think it would be a great help to public relations within the country if our men did have a place to go so that they could keep out of mischief.

I am a firm believer in all of these service clubs and the job that they do, not only for the physical welfare of the troops but the moral welfare as well. We know that while they are having some sort of supervised recreation they are not getting themselves into trouble; they are not bothering anyone, and are probably doing themselves a lot of good. The recre.ation that they find within these canteens set up by the various service organizations is good, wholesome fun. As I said before, the men can have lunches, buy cigarettes or soft drinks, and many of the things that they miss from around home. As the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) has said, even if the service clubs give the boys Canadian cigarettes they would be doing a good job. I strongly urge the government and the minister to seriously consider accepting the offers of the service clubs so the boys will have something to do with their spare time.

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

Last week, Mr. Speaker, the largest single group of returned veterans from Korea arrived in Calgary. They were two hundred members of the second battalion of the P.P.C.L.I. In Calgary they were released on thirty days' leave. A good many of them were men who had been stationed at Currie barracks or were from the vicinity of Calgary. Since some of

these men have now been in Calgary for some days, there is a considerable amount of direct information available as to conditions in Korea. I have just returned from spending three days in Calgary, and a considerable number of the people with whom I was talking brought up this very question. They had been talking to these returned men and the people were hot under the collar over the lack of amenities and auxiliary services. Most of these people were urging me to bring the matter again to the attention of the house. The information indicated that the services leave a great deal to be desired, and that they could be easily improved.

Now that the Canadian people are becoming aware of the lack of amenities in Korea, they are going to demand that whatever improvements can be made shall be made immediately. I believe the Department of National Defence should not lose any time in taking action. In spite of what has been said concerning the difficulty in having the Salvation Army, the Legion, or any of the other people who carried on the auxiliary services during the last war, act in Korea, I believe they could do a good job in Korea. If the department is determined not to put them into Korea, at least some of the other suggestions that have been made could be carried out. The boys can be supplied with Canadian cigarettes. Canteen facilities and things of that sort can be set up by the army itself. It seems to me that this is not a matter about which we should have to do any more really than to bring it to the attention of the Department of National Defence in order to have it corrected. I am greatly surprised that the matter has had to be brought before the house here time after time and that every time there has been expressed on the part of the government an apparent lack of desire to do anything about it. I hope there will no longer be that lack of desire to take any action.

Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):

Mr. Speaker, I am just going to make one suggestion. It has already been alluded to by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis). I am not sure that we did not hatch the idea together and simultaneously, probably owing to our proximity in the house, as a result of the seating arrangement. It is that the minister might well take into consideration whether he should not go out and have a look at Korea himself. I make that suggestion not in any critical sense, because the minister referred to the fact that he had hoped and had intended to get out there but just had not found it possible to do so.

I accept without reservation his statement in that regard. But he is now in Europe where he is to meet the troops of the 27th

brigade which are arriving there. The men in Korea cannot, I think, help but observe the fact that the troops in Europe are only just arriving on the spot, and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) is over there now to make certain that the arrangements for their reception and so forth are all that the people of Canada would have them; whereas the Canadian troops have been in Korea for a year and a half, and while it cannot be denied that senior officials and officers have been over there-the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Mayhew) himself has just recently visited Korea-it is not quite the same thing as having there the minister in charge of the Department of National Defence.

Now that this controversy has arisen-and it can properly be described as a controversy-and in view of what the hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Harkness) has just told us as to the attitude of the soldiers returning from Korea, I think it would be most advisable for the minister to make the special effort necessary to get to Korea, even if only for a short visit, in order to see for himself what the position is and what the feeling of the troops is. With the minister's well known desire to get things done when he gets to the bottom of a situation and finds out what the problem actually is, I am sure that, if he goes there and finds out what the problem is, we will have every confidence, as will the troops, that a fair and proper solution will immediately be implemented. Unless something like that is done, there is bound to be left with the troops the feeling that the matter has not received sufficiently thorough consideration.

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?

Mr. Knowles:

Is the parliamentary assistant not going to reply?

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

The parliamentary assistant has already spoken. If he wishes to speak again he will have to obtain the consent of the house.

Agreed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?

Carried.

Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

Hon. Alphonse Fournier (for the Minister of National Defence) moved

the third reading of Bill No. 22, to implement the agreement between the parties to the North

North Atlantic Treaty

Atlantic treaty regarding the status of their forces, signed on the 19th of June, 1951.

Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):

Mr. Speaker, before this bill is given third reading I should like to say some things that have been on my mind since we have been considering it. The time in which we live is a time in which the utmost clarity of thinking is essential if our way of life is even to survive. In this bill are clauses that could cause Canada much embarrassment. It is not the kind of bill I like to see go into our statute books. The only justification this parliament could give for passing this bill is the hope that in the Atlantic pact arrangement, called NATO for short, we might find means of increasing our security from war, means of augmenting our striking force both in defence and in offence.

Let us be careful not to delude ourselves. We are in grave danger of deluding ourselves in Canada today and all over the North American continent. The mere signing of the Atlantic pact can avail us but little. Already the indications of possible ineffectiveness of NATO constitute reasons for genuine alarm. Hon. members will recall that not so long ago General Eisenhower was to have an army of sixty divisions. By November 8 the hoped-for army had shrunk to forty-three divisions, and by November 12 it had shrunk to twenty divisions. Russia alone is reported to have 14 million men ready to march. To meet that massive array even sixty divisions were pathetically inadequate. What must we concede in respect of only the twenty divisions that we are assembling now?

The question that ought to come, and must be coming, into everybody's mind is this: Why in the world is it that all these nations in Europe that, with us, have formed NATO, are unable to put into the field large forces of men whereas in world war I and world war II they were able to contribute tremendously? What has gone wrong? The reason, Mr. Speaker, is economic. They simply cannot produce the necessary goods. If they cannot produce the food, clothing and shelter to keep troops fit, and if they cannot produce the necessary guns and munitions of war, then certainly they cannot put the men into the field. What are we going to do about it?

I will say this in a general way. Unless the British nations, including the United States, can find means of bolstering the economies of such nations as France, Belgium and other continental countries-the NATO nations-then the passing of this bill is about as important to security through NATO as would be the addition of the five-hundredth bit of tinsel to a highly decorated Christmas tree. If Canada is to have any substantial

North Atlantic Treaty

chance of gaining security through NATO, we must adopt adequate economic measures to support the NATO nations of Europe, including Britain.

To support the validity of what I have just said, may I use Britain as an illustration. The other day I advocated that we should advance a credit to Britain. There were those who thought that my reason was that I was imperialistic and pro-British and all that sort of nonsense. Those people are simply deluding themselves. In the case of Britain there is a real need which we must face or we shall suffer, just as surely as we are sitting here in the House of Commons.

The facts of our time once more force Britain to call: "Send us the tools and we will finish the job." The job is there to finish. It is there, big, ugly, risky, lengthy-more so than it was before. For America, for Canada and for each Canadian-and I mean each-the question is easy to see and easy to understand. Shall we send Britain's boys the tools to finish the job, or shall we refuse Britain's boys the tools, through refusing economic aid to Britain, and then finally buy the tools anyway and send Canadian boys to deliver them?

Britain does not flinch; she does not quail; she does not shirk. Her head is bare, still bloody, but unbowed. Britain will do all she can; but she cannot fight her best without food, without clothes and without shelter to keep her people fit; not only her forces, but her people. She cannot fight MIG jets with hand staves, or Stalin tanks with ox-carts.

The war that now threatens-and this is a good thing for certain Canadians in Canada to keep in mind-is not of Britain's making. It is not of the making of the British commonwealth, either in whole or in part, directly or indirectly. Neither was world war II a war of Britain's making, nor was world war I a war of Britain's making in any sense or degree. In each and every one of these calamities we have been the victims of the scheming of others. Certain mighty international forces have rolled their muddy currents through the deeps of the world. Each of these forces aims to obtain full dominion over mankind. It aims to set up a dictatorship of the world.

That is the bare and ugly fact facing us all. Britain has aimed and still aims at freeing the world. She and her "company of nations," her dominions and colonies, have stood as an invincible Gibraltar, squarely in the path of each would-be tyrant; and she has stood there for generation upon generation. Britain therefore stands right in

[Mr. Blaekmore.l

the course of each of these mighty movements. The captain of each of these movements feels that, with Britain wrecked, his way to world conquest would be clear. Anyone who doubts the truth of that solemn statement had better make sure of his facts and details, because he is just mistaken.

What will Canadians do about this matter? On November 12 I proposed in the house that Canada give Britain a line of credit for each of the years 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955 and 1956. Rumours have reached me that some Canadians have begun to talk about opposing such material aid to Britain. I wonder if those Canadians have thought into this problem deeply enough; and I mean any Canadian in Canada, I do not care who he is, or what his language or his belief may be. Let every man in Canada realize that he is jointly responsible with everybody else in Canada for the defence of this nation and the welfare of this nation; and it does not matter what his prejudices are, or who his grandfathers or great-grandfathers were.

At mid-1945 in world war II Britain had in uniform, in the field, in the air and on the sea 5,090,000 men and women. That was with lend-lease and mutual aid in full operation, and of course drawing complete aid from Amerioa. As of July 1, 1951, she had 957,000. For that figure I refer hon. members to a pamphlet called "Britain's Defence Effort," issued in July of 1951 by the central office of information at London. The information in question is at page 17.

May I talk to our anti-aid to Britain Canadians for a while. I would talk straight to them, every one of them. Would our antiaid to Britain Canadians like to see Britain put and keep in the battlelines for freedom over five million fighters, as in world war II; or would they prefer to see Britain keep home four million of those men and women? Or would they still more prefer that Britain be forced to bring home 400,000 of her present

900,000 fighters? That is just exactly what they are asking for when they oppose aid to Britain. The thing would work just as simply as that.

Britain in world war II supplied and threw into freedom's cause prodigious quantities of goods and services. Over and above a general contribution well-nigh incalculable and incomprehensible, Britain contrived to give outright to Russia, and likewise to deliver, vast amounts of supplies. Do our anti-aid to Britain Canadians desire a British performance comparable with that in world war II for world war III, or do they desire that Britain shall be able to produce and put into the conflict far, far less than that?

If Britain is unable to obtain the means with which to produce goods and services, it is a sure thing she will not be able to produce them. The question has got to be asked and answered by every Canadian and every American. Where is Britain going to get the goods if we do not provide them for her, bearing in mind that Britain, as I said in my speech on November 12, has lost nearly all foreign investments upon which she relied for the provision of those goods in world war II? It is the plainest kind of common sense. There is no passion mixed up in it at all; it is just common sense, but of fearful urgency.

Britain for at least one hundred years has been gradually broadening the basis of freedom in the British empire and common-wealth.The British North America Act was one of the first examples. Have our anti-aid to Britain enthusiasts forgotten that it was the British parliament that passed the British North America Act? No more perfect constitution exists on earth than the constitutions of Canada and Australia. They are both British constitutions, both guaranteed by Britain and the British empire.

Have our anti-aid to Britain enthusiasts forgotten that constitutions like those of Canada and Australia need adequate protection-and just think of Australia during world war II, with Japan threatening her- by a power strong enough to protect yet wise and noble enough to guarantee perpetuation of those liberties?

Canadians from Quebec and other provinces cherish with jealous vigilance their provincial sovereignty, and rightly so. They prize their liberty to speak their own language, and rightly so. They would give their all at any moment to keep their privilege to worship almighty God according to the dictates of their conscience, and rightly so. They dread conscription with a violent passion, which is of course their right and which is strictly a British point of view, down through the hundreds of years. Have they forgotten that for over a century Britain has guaranteed them language and religious freedom?

Mr. Gauthier (Porineuf):

We fought for it.