1937-02-22

QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).
^MILITARY SERVICE ACT
['1.\tApproximately $17,400,000.\n2\t. 300 refrigerator cars, 300 gondola cars,\n3,000\tbox cars, 15 snow ploughs, 14 flat cars of 40 tons capacity, 44 flat cars of 50 tons capacity, 50 first-class coaches, 10 mail and express cars, 10 baggage cars.\n3.\tCanadian Car Foundry Company, Eastern Car Company, National Steel Car Corporation, Canadian National Railway shops.']
Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, may I give an oral answer to this question? The same question is asked almost every session, although the answer is very clear. The Military Service Act, 1917, is spent. It ceased to be in force after demobilization, following the conclusion of the war and the completion and fulfilment of the consequential provisions of the act. It is noted as being spent in the revised statutes of Canada, 1927, volume 5, appendix 1. The French word is perimee. I do not see why periodically this question is being asked.
So far as the second part of the question is concerned, Sir Wilfrid Laurier died before the first session following the war, so that he could not make any statement about it. Sir Robert Borden may have made statements, but I do not know about them.



Mr. LACROIX (Quebec-Montmorency):: 1.	What revenue was received by the government during the year 1936 from the -06 wharfage per ton on grain received into the private elevators of Sorel?
fMr. I. Mackenzie.]
2.	Since when have wharfage charges been made on grain received in the port of Sorel, and what amount was collected in this connection during 1936?
3.	What are the rates of wharfage charges
on grain in the ports of: (a) Sorel; (b) Quebec; (c) Montreal?	_
4.	What revenue was received by the government during 1936 from wharfage on grain received in the ports of: (a) Sorel; (b) Quebec; (cl Montreal?
5.	What quantity of grain, in bushels, was
received and stored, during the year 1936, in the ports of:	(a) Sorel; (b) Quebec; (c)
Montreal?
6.	What is the storage capacity for grain,
in bushels, in the ports of:	(a) Sorel; (b)
Quebec; (c) Montreal?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	$8,696.18.
2.	October 1, 1936. $8,696.18.
3.	(a), (b) and (c). Six cents per ton of 2,000 pounds.
4.	(a) Sorel, $8,606.18; Ob) Quebec, $12,019.14; (c) Montreal, $138,574.70.
5.	(a) Sorel, 22,751,693 bushels; (b) Quebec, 6,111,765 bushels; (c) Montreal 79,404,903 bushels.
6.	(a) Sorel, 3,000,000 bushels; (b) Quebec, 4,000,000 bushels; (c) Montreal, 15,162,000 bushels.


HUDSON BAY ROUTE INSURANCE RATES
Mr. TUCKER:: 1.	What were the original insurance rates on cargo and ships on the Hudson Bay route?
2.	When, and by how much have such rates been reduced up to the present?
3.	How do such rates now compare with similar rates on the St. Lawrence route?
4.	Is the government taking any steps to have the insurance rates on the Hudson Bay route reduced to a parity with those on the St. Lawrence route?


Mr. HOWE:: 
UNLOADING OP COAL AT PORT OF MONTREAL
Mr. FOURNIER (Maisonneuve - Rose-mount) :: 1.	Has the government reached a decision upon the question of permitting coal dealers to unload, in the port of Montreal, at points between Boulevard Pie IX and the works of the Canadian Vickers Company, or further east?
2.	Have there been negotiations upon this question?
3.	If so, with what results?


Mr. HOWE:: No representations have
been received.


DEPARTMENT OP NATIONAL DEFENCE-PURCHASE OP AIRCRAFT
Mr. MacNICOL:: 1.	How many airplanes have been purchased by or for the Department of National Defence from Great Britain, i.e. from the government or British manufacturers, in the twelve months previous to February 1, 1937?
2.	How many of the said airplanes were sent to the Dominion air force at Trenton, Ontario?
3.	How many flying hours have been credited to each of the said planes that were sent to Trenton?
4.	Are any of the said planes defective? If bo, how many?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: 1.	(a) Four Blackburn "Shark II" torpedo-spotter reconnaissance aircraft were ordered in 1935 but were delivered during the twelve months previous to February 1, 1937. Three aircraft of the same type were ordered in April, 1936; delivery of these has not yet been made.
(b) Six Westland "Wapiti IIA" day bomber aircraft (used) were purchased from the air ministry in 1935, and delivered in Canada during the twelve months previous to February 1, 1937.
2.	Three of the Shark aircraft referred to in (a) above.
3.	Eight hours, six and one-half hours and five hours respectively for the three aircraft.
4.	Some not unexpected difficulties have arisen, partly due to the Canadian winter climate and partly to inexperience of this equipment on the part of the Royal Canadian Air Force personnel. These ipatters are being righted.


PENITENTIARIES-NUMBER OF PRISONERS AND COST OF MAINTENANCE
Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: 1.	How many prisoners are there in each of the penitentiaries in Canada?
2. What is the cost of maintenance, per capita, of prisoners in each penitentiary?


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: 1.	On January 31st, 1937, there were the following number of prisoners in the respective penitentiaries, exclusive of those on the register but not actually in the penitentiary:
Kingston	 719
St. Vincent de Paul	 883
Dorchester	 364
Manitoba	 291
Saskatchewan	 390
British Columbia	 275
Collin's Bay	 202
Total	3,124
In addition to the above there were 123 convicts on the register of the different penitentiaries but not included in the above
total, as follows:
Kingston	 41
St. Vincent de	Paul	 45
Dorchester	 13
Manitoba	 4
Saskatchewan	 15
British Columbia	 5
Collin's Bay	 0
Total	 123
Questions

2.	Kingston	$1.74
St. Vincent de Paul	 1-85
Dorchester	 2.11
Manitoba	 2.84
British Columbia	 3.58
Saskatchewan	 2.56
Collin's Bay	 4.43
All Penitentiaries	 2.33
Year ending March 31st, 1936.


BORSTAL SYSTEM
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Was an investigation made into the workings of the Borstal system in England by the Department of Justice?
2.	If so, with what results?
3.	Are any steps being taken this session to give effect to the installation of such a system for the youth of Canada in order to improve present antiquated conditions as to youth.


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: 1.	Yes.
2.	The report and study of the Borstal system in England is contained in the annual report of the superintendent of penitentiaries tabled in the House of Commons, February 10th, 1936.
3.	It is not anticipated that such steps will be taken to give effect to the installation of this system until the report of the commission to investigate the penal system of Canada has been presented.


ANTHRACITE COAL COMMISSION
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	What was the total cost of the Tory commission to investigate coal in Canada?
2.	What sums were paid to commissioner, counsel, and other officers connected therewith?
3.	What is being done to give effect to the findings of the said, report?
4.	Why did not such an inquiry cover a policy of a national coal supply for Canada as adopted by resolution of this house in 1926-27 .


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	$22,246.50. (To February 18th, 1937).
2.	Remuneration and expenses of commissioner, $9,364.95; of counsel, $2,903.77; of other officers, $5,320.91.
3.	Consideration is being given to recommendations made in report which was received on February 3rd, 1937.
4.	The inquiry was held to deal with complaints that conditions prejudicial to the public existed in connection with the importation and distribution of anthracite coal.


NEW BRUNSWICK, UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF
Mr. BROOKS:: 1.	Has the federal government contributed $33,000 monthly to the New Brunswick provincial government in lieu of relief during the year 1936?

2.	If not, what amount was contributed?
3.	How was the above amount apportioned to the different counties, towns and cities in the province?


Mr. ROGERS:: One and two. The amounts of the monthly grants-in-aid authorized for the purpose of assisting the Provinoe of New Brunswick in discharging its responsibilities relative to the relief of necessitous persons within its borders for the fiscal year 1936-37 are as follows: April, May and June, $37,187.50; July, August and September, $33,468.75; October, November and December, $33,468.75; January, February and March, $33,468.75.
3.	The apportionment of the monthly grant-in-aid within the province is left to the discretion of the provincial authorities and is not a matter of record with the dominion.


BIG BRAS D'OK, N.S., WHARF
Mr. BROOKS:: 1.	What was the total amount of expenditure in respect to wharf construction at Big liras d'Or, Cape Breton, Nova Scolia, in 1936?
2.	Who was the foreman, and who was in charge of the work?
3.	To whom, and what amounts were paid for the following: (a) wages; (b) materials; (c) supplies?
4.	If any balance remains unpaid, what is the amount of such balance, and to whom is this, if any, owing?


Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	$5,575.70.
2.	(a) K. McKay, (b) Work done under supervision of District Engineer at Halifax, N.S.
3.	(a) K. McKay, foreman, $505; John Squires, $29137; J. F. McDonald, $192.75; J. A. McDonald, $178.35; Edward Squires, $9.60; Alister McDonald, $9.60; A. Stephenson, $2.40; R. McKenzie, $1.80; Archie Dunlop, $52.80; Jack Squires. Jr., $15.45; John McDonald, $50.40; J. F. McKenzie and team, $28; John Morrison, $70.80; John Campbell, $60.60; Abel Stevens, $106.80; Nelson Morrison, $32.40; James Campbell, $41.40; Alex. McRae, $34.80; Norman Morrison, $8.10; Fraser McLean, $21; Malcolm McAulay, $3.60; Gordon Stevenson, $7.20; Alex. McLean, $30; D. M. McKay, $2.40; Edmund McDonald, $14.40; John McLennan, $14.40; James Morrison, $7.20; total, $1,792.62.
3.	(b) and (c), Norman McLean, ballast poles, $13; Malcolm McAulay, spruce, etc., $43.44; Willie McDonald, ballast poles, $25; Alex. Y. Morley, trucking, $51.38; Neil McKinnon, lumber and trucking, $169.86; Canada Creosoting Co. Ltd., lumber and freight, $1,994.69; Alex. McRae, ballast poles, $9; Alex. Morley, trucking, $12; Bethune's

Questions
Garage, trucking. $25; Frank A. Bill & Son, Ltd., hardware, $401.08; J. F. McKenzie, logs, $52.64; W. D. Grant, trucking $27.15; William Faye, hauling ballast, $212.50; John Squires, Jr., hauling stone, $215; The Sydney Foundry & Machine Works, $59.90; R. J. Fife, planks, $53.85; R. Musgrave & Sons, blacksmithing, $408.86; Gordon Stevenson, car hire, $3.50; Rod. McLeod, 'hiring of boat, $2; K. McKay, disbursements, $3.23; total, $3,783.08.
Grand total, $5,575.70.
4.	Work completed; no balance remains unpaid.


MOOSE JAW, SA.SK., ARMOURIES
Mr. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle):: 1.	Have the armouries at Moose Jaw recently been, in whole or in part, destroyed by fire?
2.	If so:	(a) what are the details of the
damage; (b) what arrangements are being made for repairs; (c) have tenders been called for in respect of such repairs; (d) if so, by w'hat firms or persons were tenders submitted, and w'hat are the details of such tenders; (e) have any contracts for such repairs been awarded, and, if so, to whom?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: 1.	Yes.
2.	Preliminary report received is to the effect that the north end of the building is completely gutted, and estimated structural damage involved about $40,000.
Further details yet to be reported, and as soon as received, the question as to what steps required to carry out the necessary repairs will be immediately considered.


CANADA GAZETTE-LIST OF REGISTRARS OF ELECTORS
[Stage Direction]
Mr. WERMENLINGER;
1.	By whom was the king's printer requested to insert the list of registrars of electors in Canada Gazette of January 16, 1937?
2.	What w'as the date of this request?
3.	Was the king's printer requested to hold the publication of the list of registrars of electors until the month of March next?
4.	What were the actual expenses incurred in the printing of the list of registrars of electors in the Canada Gazette of January 16 last, for (a) typesetting (b) paper, presswork, overhead, etc.?
Mr. RINFRET;
1.	Dominion franchise commissioner, but no date requested for insertion;
2.	January 12th, 1937.
3.	No.
4.	(a) and (b)-cost not appreciable in amount and not susceptible of calculation in items stated.

Mr. WERMENLINGER:: When, and where was the inquiry held, relative to the dismissal of E. Levesque, postmaster at Mont-Joli, Rimouski county, as mentioned in the minister's answer, reported in Hansard of February 4, 1937?


Mr. ELLIOTT (Middlesex):: Decision to change postmaster was reached following an enquiry conducted by the district director of postal services, Quebec, March-April, 1936, in connection with a parcel mailed at Mont Joli prepaid with previously used stamps, and related irregularities.


NATIONAL HARBOURS BOARD
Mr. GARIEPY:: 1.	Has the governor in council, under section 6 of the National Harbours Board Act, 1936, transferred to the National Harbours Board any ports for administration, management and control, other than those of Halifax, Saint John, Chicoutimi, Quebec, Three Rivers, Montreal and Vancouver?
2.	If so, what are these other ports and upon what date were they so transferred?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


*ST. LAWRENCE RIVER MARINE EMPLOYEES
Mr. GARIEPY:: I [DOT] V hat are the names, occupations and domiciles of the individuals employed by the Department of Marine, during 1936, on the St. Lawrence river, on dredges or icebreakers?
2.	What is the number of persons employed, in said department, in any capacity, either temporarily or permanently, during the same period?
3.	By whom was each of these individuals recommended for employment?


Clarence Decatur Howe: This question involves names and records of over 5,000 employees in the Department of Marine. It would be necessary to search the records for the last thirty or thirty-five years to ascertain who recommended these employees. This would be a practically impossible task, one which certainly could not be completed for presentation at this session, and probably not at the next.
Question dropped.


RICHELIEU RIVER IMPROVEMENTS
Mr. GARIEPY:: 1.	Has the government spent the full amount contained in the special supplementary estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1937, and reading as follows: "Richelieu river; improvement of river and Chambly canal system, $560,006"?
2.	If not, how much of same was spent?
3.	By what department of the government w-as that expenditure made?
4.	Was the wmrk done by day labour or by contract?
5.	If by contract, was it allotted by tender?
6.	If by tender, who were the tenderers, and what was the respective amount of each tender?
1086	COMMONS
Questions as Orders jor Returns
7.	Who were the successful tenderers, and what is the domicile or head office of each?
8.	Has the work contemplated by such tender been completed?
9.	If not, how much of that work remains to be done?


Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	No.
2.	$9,844.90 to February 17, 1937.
3.	Public Works.
4.	Preparatory work done only, such as surveys, borings, preparation of plans, etc.
5 to 9. Answered by No. 4.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-NEW EQUIPMENT EXPENDITURES
Mr. ELLIOTT (Kindersley):: 1.	What sum of money is being spent by
Canadian National Railways for new equipment?	.
2.	What are the different classes of equipment and quantities of each?
3.	With what companies have the orders been placed?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	Approximately $17,400,000.
2	. 300 refrigerator cars, 300 gondola cars,
3,000	box cars, 15 snow ploughs, 14 flat cars of 40 tons capacity, 44 flat cars of 50 tons capacity, 50 first-class coaches, 10 mail and express cars, 10 baggage cars.
3.	Canadian Car Foundry Company, Eastern Car Company, National Steel Car Corporation, Canadian National Railway shops.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	How many commissions have been appointed by the present government since they took office, under the Public Inquiries Act?
2.	Who are the commissioners in each case?
3.	What was the approximate cost of each commission ?
4.	Were any of the findings of any of these commissions given effect to?


DISMISSAL OF CIVIL SERVANTS
Mr. WERMENLINGER:: 1.	How many civil servants were discharged from their duties from November, 1935, to January, 1937?
2.	How many in each department?


SEASONAL STAFF AT CHURCHILL
Mr. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle):: 1.	How many men were employed between the 1st day of June and the 31st day of December, 1936, on the seasonal or temporary staff at the port of Churchill?
2.	What were their names and home addresses, and on whose recommendation were they appointed?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Return tabled herewith.


ROYAL COMMISSIONS
Mr. HYNDMAN:: 1.	How many commissions appointed by the present government are there in Canada at the present time?
2.	What different matters are they inquiring into?
3.	What has been the cost of each to date?
4.	What have the legal fees of each commission amounted to up to the present time?


Mr. RINFRET:: This question is similar to question number 15, in the name of the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Churoh), which was allowed to stand to-day as an order for return. I ask that this one also be allowed to stand, both questions to be answered together.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Edgard Jules Wermenlinger: For a copy of the report of the investigation relating to the dismissal of Etienne Levesque, postmaster at Mont Joli, Rimoueki county.



WHARFAGE DUES AND CHARGES

Wilfrid Gariépy: For a copy of all regulations, resolutions, orders in council, passed by the government since September 1, 1936 to date, relative to wharfage dues, and all charges in connection with wharves or properties belonging to the national ports, or to any other port or wharf owned, administered or controlled by the government or the national harbours board.



EUROPEAN WAR PENSIONS TO GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

Mr. ELLIOTT (Kindersley):: For a return showing:
1.	The complete list of European war pensions paid to government employees in Ottawa, with class rating.
2.	In what department employed, and at what salary or wage.
3.	The complete list of army officers holding permanent appointments, with their officia. title, who are receiving European war pensions.
4.	What salary, separate from pensions, is paid to each.


Mr. POWER:: I submit that it would be almost impossible to comply with an order such as this. I have before me an extract from page 590 of Hansard of February 15, 1934, dealing with a question almost identically the same which had been asked by the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Girouard). In 1933 a return had been brought down by the then Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan), and when the question was repeated in 1934 the hon. gentleman said:
Mr. Cahan: A year ago the hon. member made a similar inquiry and an order for return was made. It has been impossible

Farm Placement Scheme
during the year to obtain anything like a satisfactory return to that order, although to-day I have laid on the table of the house the best information we could obtain. During the present session I have laid on the table of the house sixteen portfolios containing the names of between 99,000 and 100,000 persons receiving pensions. To ascertain who of all those in the public service of Canada are receiving such pensions is impossible by mere comparison of names. It means that each department must send to every employee in the public service, permanent or temporary-
Mr. Bennett:	Including those in foreign
countries.
Mr. Cahan:	-to ascertain whether that
person is one of those 99,000 or 100,000 persons whose names are mentioned in the sixteen portfolios I produced. It is impossible to answer the question now, and the departments report that it is impossible to prepare an answer in less than ten or twelve months or perhaps more. Therefore I ask the hon. gentleman if he would drop that question under the circumstances.
In view of the fact that an attempt has been made already to secure similar information which it was found impossible to obtain at the end of one year, I suggest that the hon. member drop his request for this order.


Mr. BENNETT:: I desire to point out that the return showing the names of all persons in this country receiving pensions was filed after much consideration. I think the original motion was made by Mr. Lucas.


Charles Gavan Power: No, by Mr. Garland of Bow River.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I thought it was Mr. Lucas. In answering the question it was necessary to table sixteen portfolios. The suggestion was made at that time that any hon. member who had any particular name in mind could refer to the return in order to obtain the information he desired. It was only after much consideration and grave doubt that this return of the names of all those receiving pensions in Canada was filed.


Mr. POULIOT:: The present government will decide for itself.
Question dropped.



GERMAN REPARATIONS

Otto Buchanan Elliott: For a return showing:
1.	What amounts, if any, were paid as reparations to Canada by Germany under annex I to section 1 of part VIII of the treaty of Versailles: (a) to civilians; (b) to civilian corporations; (c) to Armenians; (d) to ex-prisoners of war.
2.	If the fund has been depleted.
3.	What balances remain to be allotted.
4.	Under what status the fund is presently held.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I shall endeavour to give the hon. gentleman the information he seeks, but I must make a reservation in connection with the way in which his question is put. These reparations were not paid by Germany exactly as the hon, member suggests in his question, nor were the payments distributed in the manner indicated. However, I shall endeavour to give the hon. gentleman exact information covering the subject.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. N. J. M. LOCKHART (Lincoln):: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are called I should like to refer to the approval given on February 1 for a return of certain papers from the Post Office Department. That was twenty-two days ago and I was wondering if the Postmaster General (Mr. Elliott) would be kind enough to check up this matter.


John Campbell Elliott: I shall be very glad to look into the matter immediately. I understood this matter was taking some little time but I hope to be able to table the information very soon.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: No searching should be required, because all the papers should be on file.



FARM PLACEMENT SCHEME

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers). Information continues to come to me that certain farmers who come under the farm placement scheme have not yet received the remuneration agreed upon. I would like to ask the minister if he can give any assurance to the house that immediate steps will be taken to reimburse these people.
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) was good enough to give me notice of this question. I may say in reply that all payments to farmers in connection with this plan are made directly by the provincial governments. I am sure my hon. friend appreciates the difficulty of administering such a plan over such a wide area. The subject matter of this question has already been brought to the attention of the

Supply-Defence-Cadets

government of Saskatchewan. On February 9 a report was received that all payments due up until December 31, 1936, had been forwarded where the recipients had complied with the regulations, and further assurance was given that all future payments would go out regularly.



DEPARTMENT OP NATIONAL DEFENCE

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
Cadet services, $140,000.
Mr. HEAPS:: May I ask the minister to tell us how much of this money is spent in each of the provinces?


Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Minister of National Defence):: I have the numbers enrolled in the different provinces; on August 31st, 1936: Nova Scotia, 1,789; Prince Edward Island, 860; New Brunswick, 2,130; Quebec, 50,193; Ontario, 22,029; Manitoba, 1,607; Saskatchewan, 1,243; Alberta, 1,118; British Columbia, 1,758; total, 82,727.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Does the government exercise any supervision to see that this money is spent for the purposes for which it is voted?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The
moneys are payable on the certificate of the inspecting officer. Instructors in the permanent force are in contact with the school instructors, and the grant is based on the number of cadets who qualify. It applies to cadets between fifteen and eighteen years only.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I was wondering if any supervision was exercised by the government over the expenditure of the money. Are any reports made to the department showing how the money was spent, or is an examination made on behalf of the department?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The district officers commanding get reports from the officers of every unit in the dominion, and these reports come to the department here.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The other day the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church), who is not present at the moment, asked a question, and I think it might be well if the minister would explain that the government's curtailment of the grant this year from $150,000 to $140,000 is not a matter of government policy but is because the larger sum is not required through municipalities having declined further to utilize cadet services. If that were on the record the hon. member for Broadview would have the explanation he sought the other day.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The
right hon. gentleman is correct. The government has not been responsible for the disbanding of one single unit this past year. Several units have been disbanded, but not at the instigation of the government, and although several units have been disbanded the actual number enrolled at the present time is about 400 in excess of a year ago.


Jean-François Pouliot: What about the suggestion made to increase the vote by $10,000? Apparently nobody would have any objection to that.


Mr. SPENCE:: Had this item passed I would not have had a word to say about it. I am not condemning the minister for reducing the item by $10,000 because I assume the explanation is that there is no demand from the public schools for the money. I should be delighted to see the minister increase the grant by $500,000, if for no other reason than to assist private schools and colleges. Take, for instance, the De la Salle organization and St. Andrew's College in Toronto, two of the best drilled corps in this country, equal almost to the Kingston cadets. They are well dressed and well drilled, and are an inspiration to everybody who sees them on parade. We are not spending half enough money on cadets. The cadet services should be encouraged, and if the public schools do not want the money let the private schools in any part of this country have it. The militia regiments should also get a little more money to encourage them to have a cadet corps in connection with every regiment. I repeat, Mr. Chairman, that cadet training should be encouraged because it is the sort of training that makes men out of the boys. To see them on parade is a beautiful sight, and everyone who sees them applauds them. I do not think we are spending nearly enough money on the cadets, and anybody who criticizes the expenditure of a few dollars for this purpose has very little to do. I understand that only about one dollar per head is given to the cadets.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Not for all cadets, only those between fifteen and eighteen years of age.


James Houston Spence: It does not work out to one cent an hour for the training they put in, and their uniforms are not paid for by the defence department but by private interests, I believe. Does this department provide the uniforms for the cadets of De la Salle or St. Andrew's College in Toronto? They are the two organizations I know best.

Supply-Defence-Cadets


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am very glad indeed to hear the observations of my hon. friend. May I say that the department does not purchase the uniforms, and the cadets do not receive the one dollar. It goes to the instructors.


James Houston Spence: Yes, I realize that.


Miss MACPHAIL:: I should like to know what explanation the minister has to offer for the fact that there are 400 more cadets and yet the vote is $10,000 less.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The increase in numbers is from 82,373 to 82,727. A number of units have been disbanded. It is probable they were very small units, and it is possible that some of the larger units may have more cadets this year than a year ago. May I assure my hon. friends who have made inquiries, that the total amount voted last year for this purpose was not expended, and the same amount of training will be carried on under this reduced vote as was done with the larger vote last year. There will be no curtailment whatsoever in that regard.


Jean-François Pouliot: On Friday last the hon. member for Broadview or some other member suggested that this vote be increased by $10,000, and the minister said he would think it over. I wonder what he has decided in the meantime.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am sorry that my hon. friend misunderstood me. I did not say I would think it over. If I were satisfied that we could not give the same service with this reduced vote I should gladly think it over, but $28,307 of last year's vote was unexpended. We can therefore give the same service and the cadets will have the same opportunities under this vote as under the larger vote last year.


Abraham Albert Heaps: No requests for cadet training last year were turned down?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: Mr. Chairman, if this vote were for physical training I would not object to it. Indeed I would like to see not $140,000 but something like a million dollars divided among the provinces for physical training, either under the Department of National Health or under the provincial educational departments. I am speaking from experience. I know as a matter of fact that this is not used for physical training, that the cadet grant is very largely looked upon simply as found money, and the boys who parade often do so just for a month or two in order to qualify for the grant.
31111-69J
The question which I rose to ask is this: Last year in the province of Saskatchewan, with which I am familiar, the number of cadets was 1,243. I should like to know what the expenditures were in salaries for military district No. 12 in connection with the cadet services. What salaries did the employees of the Department of National Defence receive in connection with cadet services in military district No. 12?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The
amounts are not broken down in the figures that have been supplied me by the provinces. I have only the number of cadets in each province. I shall be very glad, however, to get the information as far as possible for my hon. friend later on.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: Does the minister know what the expenditure was in military district No. 12 for supervision and inspection of cadets apart from the grant made for the number of cadets per 'head? We know, of course, that at one dollar per 'head it would be $1,243.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It was $5,711 for pay and allowances for three instructors.


Mr. COLDWELL:: Where were the instructors located, what amount was paid to each of them, and what are their names?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Sanderson, A. R., $2,153.50; Cummings, W., of the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, $1,642.50; and Joyner, C., of the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, $1,916.25.


Major James William Coldwell: Were there any travelling expenses in addition?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.
They are included in these total estimates. They are not shown individually.


Mr COLDWELL:: How many corps would they inspect, and where were the corps located?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I understand that twenty-eight units is the total in Saskatchewan, and between the three instructors they would, I assume, all be inspected.


Major James William Coldwell: I just wondered how many days were occupied in inspecting these cadet corps.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I cannot answer that. When the instructors were not discharging this particular duty they would be engaged in other work whether for cadets or district headquarters.
Supply-Defence-Cadets


Mr. COLD  WELL@: I may tell the minister that when they inspect corps in the cities they can hold six or seven inspections a day. Some hon. member says they can do no such thing, but I know that an inspection in my institution used to last about three-quarters of an hour one day a year, so I know precisely what I ana 'talking about. Whait I am trying to point out is that in my opinion this grant is a wasteful one, that if it is to be used for physical training we could use it to much better advantage in another connection. I am objecting to 'the expenditure not only on the ground of military training but in the public interest on the ground of wastefulness, because I am convinced from my own experience that as used now it is a wasteful expenditure.


Jean-François Pouliot: I agree to a certain extent with what was said by the hon. member who has just spoken. If this vote is not for military purposes, I do not see why it should not be transferred to the Department of Pensions and National Health.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Could we have the location of these twentyjeight corps in Saskatchewan?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I have not that information with me, but I shall be glad to get it for the hon. member.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: From what parts of Canada have requests for grants ceased to come?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The
decreases in cadet detachments are: Alberta, three; British Columbia, one; Nova Scotia, five; Ontario, seventeen; Prince Edward Island, one; Quebec, twenty-five; Saskatchewan, eight; Manitoha, two, or a total of sixty-two detachments.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Those are discontinued?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Major James William Coldwell: Is Mr. Sanderson the physical training instructor in the Regina normal school, and is this payment really for the work he does there? I may say that the work Mr. Sanderson is doing in that institution is excellent, but it is not only military work. I think that point should be made clear.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am unable to answer the hon. member's question. The instructor is shown here as "sergeant-major instructor A. R. Sanderson of the R.C.R." My hon. friend will probably know better than I whether Mr. Sanderson is doing other things as well.


Mr. MacINNIS:: Have there been any
increases in units, and if so in what provinces?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, in three provinces: New Brunswick, one; Ontario, one; Saskatchewan, one.


James Houston Spence: 
Agnes Campbell Macphail: The fact that seventy-two units throughout Canada have been disbanded-
Mr.	MACKENZIE	(Vancouver):	Sixtytwo detachments.Miss	MACPHAIL:	I think the	minister
said seventy-two-that sixty-two units have been disbanded throughout Canada goes to show that there is a lack of interest in cadet training. I have many times carefully argued the matter. I do not think that this is good physical training, and if it is military training it would be better that it should be definitely military training in one of the military units. This vote, it seems to me, comes in between those two positions, and it would be well to get rid of it as soon as possible. I therefore move, seconded by Mr. Coldwell:
That item 60 in the estimates be reduced by $139,999.


Jean-François Pouliot: Speaking to the amendment, some years ago I supported the view of the hon. member for Grey-Bruce when she moved a reduction of a similar item. At that time I said that I was ready to support her in order that the vote should be set at a reasonable figure. It seems to me that it is now nearer that level, although not precisely so, because it should be $150,000. At the time we protested against the vote it was several hundreds of thousands of dollars, but it is now much less. I regret not to be able to support the amendment moved by our charming colleague. On the other hand, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that every member would approve of the transference of that vote to the Department of Pensions and National Health, if the purpose of the vote is what it is said to be, and were that done, I am sure the hon. member for Grey-Bruce would withdraw her motion.


Angus MacInnis: In my opinion the hon. member for Temiscouata gave the best reason why this vote should be eliminated: he intimated that a few years ago it amounted

Supply-Defence-Cadets
to $700,000 and that it is now down to $140,000. If there were any great demand in the country for this service, there is no doubt that hon. members would be receiving letters and resolutions asking them to support a larger grant. But all the resolutions and all the letters we get are in opposition to any grant whatever.


An hon. MEMBER:: No, no.


Angus MacInnis: The hon. member for Parkdale says "No, no."


James Houston Spence: I did not say "no, no," but I will do so now.


Angus MacInnis: That reminds me that when he suggested that this grant or an increased grant be given to any school, public or private, that requested it, he was on very dangerous ground, because if grants are to be made to private schools there will soon be received sufficient applications from such schools to absorb a very much larger vote than this, and one could have no assurance that the money would be used to the advantage of the people of this country. There is a considerable demand throughout Canada for physical training; it is something that has been neglected for a great many years. To say that this grant is given for physical training is foolish. This instruction is not physical training; it continues for a very short period in the year, in fact for only a few months, whereas the children are in school for ten months. If we are to have physical training it should be given over the ten months during which children are in school. If the federal government wishes to contribute to physical training it can do so in a much better way and one that would be much more beneficial to the various municipalities who have difficulty in finding money for school needs. It can be done much more satisfactorily than by means of this grant, which is not required or needed. If it were not a free gift from the government there is not a school in the west that would accept it.


Mr. MacNICOL:: I wish to make a few observations in sppport of this vote, or at all events of the minister's intentions. I said the other night that I was sorry to see the vote cut down, but the minister's explanation was satisfactory and I wish to express my approval. I have had something to do with cadet training but it seems to me that the cadet training with which I am acquainted is something different from what my hon. friend (Mr. Coldwell) has been discussing. Instead of training for two months the cadets that I am speaking of receive training throughout the year. Every week in the twelve months they are thoroughly trained. I am now
referring to the sea cadet corps at Halifax and in all the principal cities of the country. In Quebec and Montreal there are splendid corps; I have seen the cadets in Ottawa, and I have seen them in Toronto and in Oshawa. There is a splendid corps in Winnipeg. I am not so sure about Regina. My hon. friend from Rosetown-Biggar tells me that there is one there. I know that there used to be one and I am glad to hear that it is still there. I know there is a fine corps in Vancouver.
These cadets are given thorough physical training every week and are taught a great many things that will stand them in excellent stead as they go along in life. I sometimes go to see them train and I know they are taught all sorts of useful vocations in connection with cadet work and so on, all of which makes them real men. I am proud of the work that is done for young Canadians by the cadet corps with which I am associated. These particular cadets are also trained in connection with shipping. I have not by me at the moment the number of Canadian boys trained in the cadet corps supported by the Department of National Defence under this vote and now serving on ships throughout the world. I believe the boys are sent from Toronto to the ship Conway in England and are there given excellent training, graduating to the merchant marine. I know of a large number of young Canadians who are now serving on ships of the empire-not particularly warships, though I see no reason why they could not graduate to that branch of naval service. I am speaking of cadets that finally go on merchant ships. The Canadian Pacific and other shipping companies have them.
This is good work the department is doing for Canada and I like to see these young men trained. They are altogether different from the young fellows one sees standing around the street corners. I have not an unkind word to say about the boys that stand around street corners because they have not the same opportunities that you and I had when we were boys; and if the minister had double the appropriation he could train a good many more boys and take them off the corners in the evenings.
When I go to the Navy League headquarters on the lake shore in Toronto I see there in training, on Tuesday nights, I believe, anywhere from a hundred to a hundred and fifty of these boys, and it is interesting to watch them. They are taught civility; they are encouraged to think quickly and to be prompt in action and in formations. And that is what the young folk want to do instead of standing around the street corners
Supply-Defence-Cadets

learning nothing. I am not so familiar now with what goes on in the schools and I cannot speak from experience, but I know that in 1936 the physical instructor of the collegiate institute in Belleville-I believe his name is James Willis Howard gave a fine discourse to Ithaca university in New York on the value of cadet training. It was so well thought of that it was quoted in Ameri-man newspapers and journals throughout the country. That is one physical instructor in a collegiate institute in Canada who fully endorses this movement. It is with great pleasure that I shall vote against the amendment when it is submitted to the committee.


Jean-François Pouliot: Before the vote is taken on the amendment may I ask the minister whether he is prepared to consider transferring this vote from his department to the Department of Health? If the Minister of Pensions and National Health is not ready to consider taking over this item in his own department-


An hon. MEMBER:: That's just as bad.


Jean-François Pouliot: May I tell the hon. member for Parkdale, after the interesting speech just delivered by the hon. member for Davenport with regard to the health of the boys who receive special training under the Department of National Defence, that these healthy boys should be transferred to the Department of National Health so as to keep up the name of that department; otherwise if they are all sick there, we shall have to sail it the Department of Sickness.


Mrs. BLACK:: It is certainly not my intention to say much this year on the subject before us. I am able to speak from experience as to what cadet training does. In the Yukon in the very early days we had a cadet corps taken charge of voluntarily by an officer of what was then known as the Royal Northwest Mounted Police, and the boys in the city of Dawson at that time fairly scrambled over one another to get into that little corps. It was an honour to join and be kept on and a decided dishonour when a boy was let out. It trained the boys mentally, physically and morally. As I say, I can only speak from experience, having had three boys disciplined in that way-a very small number; I should have had more. It is interesting to me to know that the school cadet movement, the object of which is to impart mental, moral and physical training to the youth of Canada and to develop in them the principles of patriotism and good citizenship, was first authorized by an amendment to the Militia Act for the province of Canada, assented to at

Quebec on June 9, 1862, under which authority was granted for the formation of associations, for purposes of drill in universities and schools. Enrolment in a school cadet corps, in so far as the department is concerned, is a purely voluntary matter on the part of the individual school boy. During the past summer twenty-nine cadet corps held private camps for their members, without expense to the government, receiving on loan from the department various articles of camp equipment. Under the provisions of the Strathcona trust and in accordance with an agreement entered into by the Department of Militia and various provincial educational authorities the Department of Militia agreed to supply qualified physical training instructors for duty at normal schools.
I do not see how anyone who watches the boys of the present day, out of work, with very little to amuse them and in many cases, no money, can possibly object to this cadet training. The boys in this country, the children in this country, need more and more every day mental, moral and physical training. By joining the cadet corps they are brought in touch with people who are interested in the youth of the country, and if we do not bring up the youth of the country as we ought, what is going to happen in the future?


Mr. COLD  WELL@: I am afraid that several things are being confused. No one is objecting to physical culture. Indeed I should like to see a much larger grant for physical training. But I am pointing out that cadet drill is not the best kind of physical culture. In fact most of the progressive countries of Europe, including the old land, have to a very large extent abandoned cadet training. Cadet training is military training, not physical training. You can if you wish give physical training in small doses, but I think all the drill sergeant's idea is to get a number of boys out on parade and see how quickly they can obey him without thinking particularly of what they are doing.
Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs but to do and die.
On the other hand physical training should make a child alert and well balanced physically. If you want to make a grant for physical training, of which I am thoroughly in favour, then I suggest it be taken from under the Department of Defence and placed under the Department of Health or the educational departments of the several provinces. Then we could adopt modem systems of physical education.

________________Supply-Defence-Cadets
There is no one in this committee more interested in physical education than I am. I have taken a great deal of it myself and have given a great deal from time to time. The poorest form of physical training is the kind that is given in cadet corps. If we want to continue to pay $5,000 a year for the supervision of twelve hundred cadets in Saskatchewan, when that money could be scattered over a large number of schools to aid in giving physical education, well and good; but in my opinion this country cannot afford to spend money wastefully. I would rather see $1,000,000 spent efficiently than this $140,000 spent, as I regard it, wastefully. I am not saying that the men in charge of this work are not doing their best; they are. But the system under which they work is in my opinion wrong. We should consider more modern methods of giving organized supervised games and physical education.
The hon. member for Davenport spoke of the naval cadets. I doubt whether naval cadets are included in this appropriation.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Sea cadets are.


Major James William Coldwell: He tells us it is much better to have the boys drilling in the evening than standing around the street corners. But let me point out that in all the cases of which I have knowledge the training is given not in the evenings but during school hours, usually at the close of the school day. It does not take anyone off the streets; all it does is to take a group of boys out of their regular classes for a certain length of time. If we are to make a grant for physical training let it be for physical training, and let it be for girls as well as for boys, and then we can get it under the department of health. Followed to its logical conclusion, the argument we have had this afternoon would simply mean that what we ought to do is to put everyone in military uniform and give him physical training. Then indeed we should have a situation comparable to that in Germany and Italy under Hitler and Mussolini.


Mr. BROOKS:: I did not intend to say anything with reference to this matter, but some arguments have been brought up with which I do not entirely agree. I had some experience in cadet work as inspector of schools for a number of years in New Brunswick and I must say that my experience was that wherever you found a cadet corps in a school you always found a school where the discipline was good, the physical training good and the children more alert than in other schools. Cadet training is physical training, and the very best physical training. Physical
training of course comes entirely under the school curriculum, and the school curriculum, as we know, is made up by the educational department for the different schools. As to military training, as militia officer in the past I have found that young men coming in from the towns and country districts after even ten or fifteen days in a militia camp show a great improvement in smartness and the way they carry themselves. I do not think that either military training or cadet training hurts anyone. Those who had experience with men coming in from all sections of the country in the early days of the war must have observed the great improvement in physique after a short period of training. I am sure we cannot estimate in money the value to the young men of the Dominion of Canada of the training for which this money is voted. I am very much in favour of it. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar says it teaches men to move automatically; my experience is that it teaches them to think quickly, makes their minds more alert. I make these few remarks because I believe in this kind of training and regard it as a great asset to the young manhood of Canada.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: There has been much stress laid on making minds alert. If that is a result of cadet training, it might be a good idea to have a corps from the membership of the house on the grounds in front of this building. Much of what was said by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar expresses what I would say in regard to the speech made by the hon. member for Davenport. He talked a great deal about getting the boys in uniform and off the street corners-


John Ritchie MacNicol: Pardon me; I did not mention the word uniform.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Well, the hon. member told us how smart they looked in their uniforms as he saw them being paraded, so that they must have had the uniforms on. I think we ought to be careful about that, because some people get so enthusiastic about getting boys in uniform, as in Germany and Italy for example, that they have got it down to little chaps about ten years of age. They get everyone into uniform and then say that they are curing unemployment. But getting people into uniform does not mean that the real problems of unemployment have been solved.
Many who have spoken have argued that cadet training makes boys more alert and quick to meet the problems of life. I think world 'authorities are agreed that it does not do that. The Last speaker (Mr. Brooks) referred to the change in the physique of men
Supply-Defence-Cadets

trained at the beginning of the war, but that was not all due to cadet training. A great deal of it was due to physical training, as every one knows, because cadet training is not good physical training. In order to have the men in good physical condition, physical training, which had nothing to do with cadet drill, had to be added.
I have said all I intend to say this year or other years. The vote should be transferred to the Department of National Health, or to the department of education, where it could be used for purposes of physical training, in which case it could be made much larger than it is to-day, and we could have training not only of boys, but of girls as well. If we are !to have physical training there is no reason why we Should take one part of the human race and train it to be physically fit, leaving the other part untrained. I shall continue to move that it be reduced until, some day, we will come to that conclusion.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I do not wish to talk at cross purposes. All hon. members want some type of training which will make our young people as healthy as possible, and make it possible for them to have exercise and physical development. We are trying to decide the best method of accomplishing that end, and upon that subject there seems to be some difference of opinion. I believe the figures the minister gave on Friday evening afford the best contradiction of what has been said by the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) and others.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The hon. member for Davenport is experienced in this.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: For a number of years I was a member of a cadet corps, and from first-hand information I think I know something about cadets. From the very fact that sixty-two units have ceased to exist during the year it is apparent that cadet training no longer appeals to youth. Surely the hon. member for Davenport does not suggest that, because there are two and a half times as many cadets in the province of Quebec as there are in Ontario, there are two and a half times as many healthy boys.


John Ritchie MacNicol: There is not so much socialism and communism in Quebec.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I think we ought to keep to the subject.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I do not propose to be intimidated by hon. members shouting " question." The fact remains that the young boys are not accepting this type of training

as they used to; they are going into boy scout work and the Canadian standard efficiency tests.


An hon. MEMBER:: What is that?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: When the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Plaxton) introduced his resolution suggesting a ministry of sports, and the Minister of National Health replied, it was the general consensus of opinion that there was room in Canada for some organized type of physical training and recreation, and that it should come under the departments of education in the provinces. This parliament could make grants to the provinces for that purpose. I should like to join with hon. members who have preceded me in saying that the vote should be transferred to the Department of National Health, with amounts allocated to the respective provinces to carry on cultural and physical training for the improvement of the youth of Canada. It should not be associated with the Department of National Defence, as it 'has been in the past.


Jean-François Pouliot: What does the Minister of National Health think about the transfer of the vote? I ask him in the mildest manner if he will kindly give his answer to that question.


Charles Gavan Power: I do not know that I should object strenuously to having this branch of the Department of National Defence transferred to the Department of National Health. Of course, if parliament decides that it shall be done, there is nothing to do but to obey. But before undertaking any such task we would have to ask very large subsidies to provide for staff, instructors and other people who would undertake to carry out the training of the cadets. That is not so simple or easy as it would appear to the hon. member for Temiscouata. It is not practicable in one day to transfer from one department to another a branch of training which has been carried on for many years. I am sure that in any case nothing could be done this year, but I am willing to tell the hon. member for Temiscouata and other hon. members who have been so kind as to be willing to give me further responsibility, that during the interval between this session and the next I shall be only too pleased to study the possibilities of the situation.


James Houston Spence: I do not agree with the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Miss Macphail) or the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) much as I should like to at times. Sometimes the hon. member for Grey-Bruce makes

Supply-Defence-Cadets
a very pleasant speech, and I feel like supporting her. However on this particular occasion may I say she has always had a hatred of cadet corps, and always shows a desire to reduce the vote. I am not blaming her for her attitude, but I must endorse the sentiments expressed by the hon. members for Yukon (Mrs. Black) and Royal (Mr. Brooks), who have had considerable experience. Why hon. members around me persist in saying there is no physical training in cadet corps work I cannot understand, because that is absolute rot. The cadet corps in Toronto about which I speak-and I assume they are the same in Vancouver, Winnipeg, and other large cities-shows evidence of physical training. Watching them passing on the street one can tell distinctly that they are well trained physically, or they would not be in the condition they are. Hon. members talk about training for ten days or two weeks. May I say that the boys in St. Andrew's College and De La Salle are training all the time; otherwise they would not be in such good condition.


Mr. HAYHURST:: Mr. Chairman, I was
a cadet instructor for nine years, and I believe I should know something about cadet work. At the same time I feel there is a belief on the part of people in the different provinces that the cadet instruction should be entirely revolutionized. Military training or regimentation as it has been practised in the past leads to only one or two good effects. So far as I can ascertain, the ability to think rapidly is not developed by cadet training. It is developed more readily by organized sports than by the regimentation brought about through cadet training.
The best feature in connection with cadet training, as I have known it, is that it encourages leadership. Cadet instructors, corps commanders and platoon commanders develop the ability to lead. Although this principle may be found in boy scout training, I should like to see it remain in the cadet movement. On the other hand I believe the principle under which cadet corps are organized is entirely wrong, because the municipalities and school boards need that money. The corps of which I was instructor happened three years in succession to win the shield given by the right hon. leader of the opposition. The members of the corps were mostly of Ukrainian parentage. It is said that people of that race make the most disciplined soldiers, although of that I am not certain. Napoleon once said that the Czechs were the best soldiers, because they were willing to
obey. No doubt the same conditions exist in some of the central European countries. I should like to see increased facilities provided for the development of the cadet idea. I am against the reduction in this amount, in fact I should like to see it raised to SI,900,000. If cadet training cannot be placed under the department of health this year, perhaps consideration will be given to this matter. The town in which I live was not able to provide any money for sports and we used the cadet money for that purpose. To-day the sports activities of the town have suffered considerably because the cadet corps has been disbanded and no more money is coming in for that purpose. I should like to see this vote increased to SI,000,000 in order that grants could be made to each of the provinces which in turn could divide up the money for the purpose of providing facilities for sport in the different towns and villages by which health and physique of the young people, both male and female, could be improved and developed.
Some one said that cadet training is the poorest form of physical training there is. I suppose he was referring to the mere handling of rifles and so on, but that is something that can be learned by any man who wants to be a soldier, in two weeks. To do that requires no mental discipline or cadet training. Many of our young men have no facilities by which they can develop themselves along mechanical lines. Many of these boys would like to be aeroplane mechanics as they have no liking for ordinary regimentation. A new and better outlook by society would lead to a cleaner and saner world.


Mr. MacNEIL:: I have given a good deal of attention to these cadet corps and I have come to tire conclusion that they are obsolete. I think we should pay more attention to providing proper methods of physical training for our young people, to be carried on under the direction of those who have taken advantage of the world's experience in this regard. I believe the results obtained would be much better as far as the physical and mental development of our young people is concerned. We should not be spending this amount to carry on physical and military training which is obsolete and merely a disguised form of recruiting for the military units. Facilities are needed everywhere for vocational and technical training which would prove of infinitely more value to our younger generation. My chief objection to this vote is the fact that it does not reach the young men who need it most. The benefits of this vote reach only a comparatively small number of young men, and I agree thoroughly with
Supply-Defence-C ade ts

the views expressed by the lien, member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) that this money is wasted.
Amendment (Miss Macphail) negatived: yeas, 11; nays, 85.


Mr. STIRLING:: Am I right in understanding that this vote covers the naval cadets?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, the sea cadets.


Grote Stirling: I am a very strong supporter of these sea cadets. There is a corps in my city with which I have been intimately connected for many years and I am very grateful for the good work which has been done. It is gratifying to see the characters of these boys being moulded by the instructors and the petty officers. This work has been going on for several years and good results are being obtained. It is not a very easy thing to do when you are located three or four hundred miles from the coast, but we have been able to get some of these boys placed in the marine service. As far as the boys in the corps at Vancouver and the ports on the Atlantic coast are concerned, they are practically all absorbed into the merchant service and itheir record has been very good indeed. About half a dozen years ago it was necessary to reduce this vote almost to the vanishing point, and I should like to have the minister tell the committee to what extent these grants are now being made to the sea cadets, and whether he will consider increasing them.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The sea cadets are on exactly the same footing as the other cadet corps. Fourteen corps are affiliated with and six are not affiliated with the division of 'the Royal Canadian Naval Volunteer Reserve.


Abraham Albert Heaps: When this vote was first brought before the committee I asked the minister a question with regard to supervision over the grants, and the minister explained that these grants were properly looked after by the department. However, after listening to the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Hayhurst) I am inclined to think 'that something must be wrong somewhere when the money supposed to go to the cadets has been spent for the purposes of sport and other recreational facilities. I should like to know how these funds are being used in other parts of the country and I am just wondering whether something should not be done to provide proper supervision and inspection. Perhaps the people in other districts could be given t'he same latitude in spending this

money as apparently has been given to the people in the district of 'the hon. member who spoke a few moments ago.


Donald Elmer Black: I can speak from knowledge of one officer who trained a corps, and I know that every cent he earned was used for the purchase of boxing gloves and footballs which he provided with his own money.


William Hayhurst: I should like to clear up this question of where the money went. The cadet instructor is supposed to put most of it in his own pocket, but in this particular case he gave it for the benefit of the community.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: In connection with the sea cadet work, have any representations been made to the minister or the department in connection with an extension of this work? I know something about cadet work myself, and I know there are many limitations. Is the money paid to instructors in sea cadet work the same as is done in connection with the land cadet services?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Has any thought been given by those in charge of the sea cadet services that the service might be extended a little to make it more interesting to the boys and develop them a little more? It provides one of the most marvellous trainings in the country, and I was wondering if the minister had received representations for an extension of this work, and if so, will he give them his serious consideration?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Numerous representations have been received praising the work carried out by the sea cadets. Very recently representations were made for an extension of this work, particularly on our coasts. Private citizens have made very strong representations to the department in that regard.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister gave the number of cadets by provinces for 1936. Could he give us the amount that was spent in each province?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It has not been broken down in that way.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It is not available by provinces?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Is any training still given in marksmanship in any cadet corps?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.

Supply-Defence-Engineers


Charles Grant MacNeil: What type of institutions are qualified for assistance on account of marksmanship? Are instructions in marksmanship given under the supervision of militia units or under the cadet instructor attached to the school?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The instruction is given by the instructor who receives pay for these services, just as for the ordinary training of cadets.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Are the rifles and ammunition supplied by the department from assistance given for instruction purposes?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Rifles are issued and ammunition is supplied by the department.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The sea cadets vote would not in any sense cover the training in the ship that is being built down in Nova Scotia?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Nothing to do with this vote?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No. That ship will not be finished until towards the end of this fiscal year.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That will not be covered by this vote?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Not under this vote at all.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Contingencies, $28,800.
Jean-François Pouliot: Is there anything here about the pensions being paid to General McNaughton and Colonel Steel?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Not
under this vote.


Grote Stirling: Would the minister explain this vote?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: This vote is to provide for the cost of telegrams and telephone calls, postage, and so forth for militia services at headquarters. It includes guards of honour and the expenses of the Bisley team, the latter item being estimated at $1,200.


Major James William Coldwell: What did guards of honour cost last year?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: So far this year, $3,244.75.


Jean-François Pouliot: In order to save time, may I ask the minister which is the item relating to the McNaughton and Steel stuff?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The pension is purely statutory under the terms of the Militia Pensions Act. I forget the exact section, but it is the one dealing with officers seconded from the Department of National Defence to any other department.


Jean-François Pouliot: I wonder if I shall have to block all the estimates in order to get some information about these fellows. I understand the pension is statutory, but the money must be provided somewhere in the estimates like every other statutory expense.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Such pensions are payable by the Department of Pen sions.


Charles Gavan Power: They are statutory anc are not voted by this parliament.


Jean-François Pouliot: Then the whole law should be repealed.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Engineer services and works, $2,816,950.
Mr. GREEN:: The minister, sipeaking in the house last week, stressed time and again the necessity for defending our ports and harbours. May I ask what provision is being made for the defence of our ports on the Pacific such as Prince Rupert, Victoria, Vancouver, New Westminster, and Alberni?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think it would be better to answer that question in detail when we come to the various items, rather than make a general answer. There is a question, of course, how far it is advisable to go in giving details, but I shall be very glad to give all the information I have myself in reference to what is in contemplation. The question I think had better come under the items for aircraft and naval expenditures; also in connection with general stores under another vote. There are certain items for gun emplacements and things like that in this vote.


Howard Charles Green: Are there to be any coast defence batteries to protect the cities of New Westminster and Vancouver?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If my hon. friend will wait until we reach that item I will give him all the details I can with reference to it. I question very much the wisdom of going into too much detail, but if my hon. friend insists I shall be glad to give him what I know myself.


Jean-François Pouliot: May I ask the minister if there is a statutory appropriation of expended money which is not mentioned in the estimates, and if so what it amounts to?

Supply-Defence-Engineers


Charles Gavan Power: If my hon. friend is referring to pensions for officers of the Canadian militia, he will find that at page 47 of the estimates under the heading "Militia Pen-tions Act, 1901," and the amount is SI ,400,000.


Jean-François Pouliot: Exactly. It is authorized by statute, but it has to be voted each year.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The amount for engineer services and works is three times the amount of the item last year. Can the minister give us a break-down of the item, and the reasons for the increase?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I had better give the items to my hon. friend: Installation of air conditioning system, Ottawa, $6,000; salaries, temporary civilian employees, engineers, architects, Ottawa, $40,000; Petawawa, continuation of building program, $25,000; military district No. 1 ordnance clothing store, $5,000; Barriefield R.C.C.S. depot, $30,000; Barriefield, central heating plant, $75,000; garage and workshop, $45,000; miscellaneous services, $20,000; St. John's, Quebec, conversion of old married quarters to barracks, $8,200; Valcartier, completion of works and services, filling group, dominion arsenal, $50,000; Valcartier, construction of three additional magazines, $30,000; rebuilding of fortification walls, Quebec, $30,000; Valcartier camp, continuation of building program, $10,000; Halifax, surface exterior walls, military hospital, $5,000; Halifax, construction of garage, $14,000; Winnipeg, Manitoba, additional garage accommodation, Fort Osborne barracks, $25,000; radio beacon building at Winnipeg, $5,000; Shilo camp, continuation of building program, $12,000; Shilo camp, providing a tank for water supply, $8,000; coast defence, Pacific coast, $895,000; Esquimalt, British Columbia, new ordnance store building, $175,000; Esquimalt, British Columbia, continuation of construction program joint service magazine, which was commenced last year, $100,000; Kamloops, British Columbia, procurement of site for magazine, and preliminary work, $36,000; Dundurn camp, Saskatchewan, providing tank for water supply, training area, $8,000; Dundurn camp, Saskatchewan, additional magazine building and heating plants, $39,750; Calgary, Alberta, new barracks, miscellaneous services, $40,000; a total of $1,736,950. I omitted two items: military district No. 2, purchase and construction of new rifle range at Hamilton, Ontario, $100,000; Military District No. 4, Montreal, Quebec, purchase and construction of new rifle range, $150,000; a total for that purpose of $250,000.


Mr. HAT  HURST@: The grant for Alberta is pretty small.


Mr. RAYMOND:: I should like to get some information. In the bluebook which contains the estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1937, the total amount for national defence
militia and naval services-is shown as $13,377,000. In the bluebook which contains the estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1938, reference is made to the estimates of the previous year, the fiscal year 1936-37, and I find that the amount therein stated is $14,677,000. Will the minister state which amount is correct?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Details of the vote for 1936-37, including cadet services, contingencies, engineer services, general stores, non-permanent active militia, the permanent force and the Royal Military College, make a total of $12,018,926. For the same items the total in 1937-38 is $17,850,428, or an increase of $5,831,502.


Donat Raymond: But, referring to the blue-book which contains the estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1938, I find that the total, in the column 1936-37, is $14.-
677,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I believe that does not cover supplementary estimates.


Donat Raymond: My reason for asking
this question-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I believe I know what the hon. member is referring to. He will recall that last year we had the main estimates, we had the supplemen-taries and the special supplementary estimates, and in some of the supplementaries there were certain votes under the Department of National Defence approved for unemployment relief purposes which were then under the control of this department, and also a certain amount-as I recall, $2,601,000- which should not really have been charged to defence but was at that time administered by this department; that should be deducted from the total for the year.


Donat Raymond: And this includes all
the supplementary estimates for last year?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes. I
should add for the information of my hon. friend that there is an amount for two destroyers which have been purchased from the British admiralty which is not in the estimates now before the committee, but will be in the special supplementary estimates for the year 1936-37 and will be something over $2,000,000.

Supply-Defence-Engineers


Donat Raymond: Do I understand that these are the only supplementary estimates that the minister intends to bring before the committee?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Except
that it may be necessary, towards the end of the session, to introduce amounts by way of revotes for projects now under construction and not yet completed, there will not be any further amount this session for defence purposes.


Donat Raymond: Only revotes?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Only revotes.


Mr. GAUTHIER:: Mr. Chairman, for the
very reasons which I have set forth during the debate on the amendment presented by the hon. member for Vancouver-North (Mr. MacNeil), I intend to oppose this increase in the National Defence estimates, and therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Lacroix):
That item 62 of the National Defence estimates be reduced by $1,867,850.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Lacroix) whether he wishes to eliminate the items concerning Valcartier, which are included in this vote?


Mr. LACROIX:: I may point out to the
hon. member that this is not a matter of patronage, but of principle.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That argument should be conclusive.


Donat Raymond: The minister has stated that the estimates were, first, for the maintenance of internal security and the preservation of law and order within our territory, and second, for protection against any exterior aggression. Is the minister able to say what portion of these estimates is for the maintenance of internal security and the preservation of law and order within our territory, and what portion is for protection against any exterior aggression?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am
afraid that is a very difficult question to answer to-day, but every cent of these estimates is to be used for the inside defence of the Dominion of Canada. As I stated in the main debate, it is not the intention to use any of these amounts for any purpose outside of the Dominion of Canada. That is as clear as I can possibly make it. This particular increase of $1,867,850 which we are now discussing is all for absolutely necessary
purposes within the Dominion of Canada, to try to make efficient the very small militia force we now have.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Some of the material will have to be bought outside of Canada, Mr. Chairman.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, but very little of this vote provides for buildings and works.


Donat Raymond: I understand the minister to say it is for the defence of Canada, but it may be important to know where is our first line of defence. In view of the declaration made in the other chamber that our first line of defence is in Europe, may I ask the minister if he believes that our first line of defence is in Canada or in Europe?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That, Mr. Chairman, is a question of major policy, and possibly the hon. member is asking me concerning something that really should belong to the Prime Minister and the government as a whole. I believe it became very clear during the course of the debate last week that all the amounts asked for at this time in this vote are for the protection of Canadian territory or Canadian territorial waters, and under the items referred to in that debate there was no consideration of using any of this money for extraneous commitments or enterprises of any kind. I think that was made abundantly clear in the debate of a week ago. As to where the front line of Canada's defence is, I doubt if anybody here can with accuracy forecast. All I can say is that all the items in these estimates are intended only for the protection of Canada, of Canadian neutrality and of the territorial waters adjacent to our coast.


Donat Raymond: In other countries expenditures for similar purposes are spread over so many years. Has the minister anything of the kind in view here, or are these expenditures only for ;his year's program.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is correct.


Donat Raymond: This does not contemplate anything in the future.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No; no specific plans have been laid down for next year. The estimates for any subsequent year will depend upon the conditions existing at that time, but no plans have been prepared for next year.


Donat Raymond: And can we expect that next year the estimates will be about the same as they were last year.

Supply-Defence-Engineers


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The estimates next year will depend on the conditions prevailing in the world at that time.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Of the total increase more than half is for the defence of Vancouver?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Not Vancouver, but the Pacific coast.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I have no doubt the matter was given very serious consideration before the increases were made, but what expert opinion was obtained, and was the defence program for Vancouver decided upon as the most efficient that could be devised?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Very
careful consideration was given to the general plan arrived at in this connection. Perhaps I had better give some details with regard to this item of $805,000. This item is for the first stage of construction of emplacements, observation posts, defence light emplacements, power house, et cetera, in the vicinity of Esquimalt, Victoria, Vancouver, off Johnstone strait and off Prince Rupert. It will provide for the acquisition of property and for suffi-cent construction work to enable protection guns and other equipment to be mounted in case of necessity. It does not provide full protection and accommodation. The total estimated cost of the works contemplated would be about double the amount asked for this year.


Angus MacInnis: If that is so, am I right in saying that these estimates, so far as the Pacific coast is concerned, are only a prelude to estimates of a similar kind to be brought down next year and the year following and for many more years to come?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is not correct. It would probably mean that the same amount might be asked for next year, because $895,000 is roughly speaking about half the amount estimated as necessary for the particular purpose.


Howard Charles Green: How much of that is for the protection of the lower mainland in British Columbia?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is all designed for the same purpose; the protection of Vancouver island is not separated from the rest. It is all one coordinated plan of defence worked out by experts of the department and by others whose advice they have taken. I do not believe the final details have yet been worked out with reference to the vicinity of Vancouver. Plans are now being drawn up in connection with Vancouver island and the northern portions along Johnstone strait and off Prince Rupert.


Howard Charles Green: Is there any special report in connection with fortifications around the city of Vancouver?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: A special report has been prepared in connection with Vancouver, Victoria, Esquimalt and Prince Rupert.


Mr. REID:: Is anything being done in the defence program in connection with Queen Charlotte islands?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That
situation has been very carefully surveyed and reviewed in the last six months.


Jean-François Pouliot: It seems to me that there are two kinds of works contemplated in this item; there are historic works and military works. I have no objection at all to the work that is to be done on the citadel at Quebec, which is a great historic monument, but I do not believe it is worth much from the military point of view, because a shell might destroy it. Those old walls which could resist the cannon balls of days gone by are not so impregnable now. I will not ask the minister to tell the committee where they are located, but I should like to know whether this includes some anti-aircraft defence?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: This particular vote deals with emplacements in connection with coast defence, batteries or antiaircraft guns, et cetera. The guns themselves will be under another vote.


Jean-François Pouliot: Can the minister tell me, roughly speaking, what will be the total in connection with so-called historic work, rebuilding or military construction?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The
amount is small, $30,000.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What amount is being spent on coastal defence in the east as compared with the Pacific?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I speak only from memory, but it is about $3,500,000 as against $7,000,000. It is about $11,000,000 altogether.


Mr. PARENT (Quebec):: What amount is being spent for the improvement of the walls in the city of Quebec? Is the amount spent there considered a military work in the national defence scheme?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is not in the slightest, but during recent years when the administration of unemployment in connection with the camps was to a certain extent under the Department of National Defence this work was carried out. In my opinion this

Supply-Defence-Engineers
vote should not be under the Department of National Defence but under some other department. It has been cut down but we are trying to do the best we can.


Major James William Coldwell: What appropriation has been made for the defence of the prairie country through Churchill and Hudson bay?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That question also is being considered, but no specific developments have yet taken place.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Am I right in assuming that this amount now voted represents about fifty per cent of the program contemplated?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, but in regard to one specific item only, that for $895,000, which deals with the preliminary steps that must be taken with reference to certain emplacements and defences in four or five places along the Pacific coast. The amount asked for this year-that is, only for work that can be done this year-is $895,000, and it is expected that a similar amount will be required at some future time.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Who prepares the plans? Is there in the department a council or a general staff on whom the minister relies for advice as to suitable plans and so forth? Will he inform the committee as to the personnel of any such council.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That
question was carefully considered by some of the officers from headquarters in Ottawa in consultation with officers in the various districts and also with an outside expert who gave their opinion with regard to Pacific coast defence.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Does that include officers on exchange from Great Britain?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: One officer came out especially in connection with this work and was here about two months.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: What points in eastern Canada does the minister propose to defend, and particularly what ports in the maritime provinces? What is the nature of the defence?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Speaking generally the reply would be that mostly in the vicinity of the leading ports of the maritime provinces these plans are under consideration. Of course the full development cannot take place with the amounts now asked for.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I noticed there was nothing in the estimates but engineering services for New Brunswick. I was wondering if they proposed any defences for the harbours.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That
question is being considered at the present
time, I have had correspondence on that, and when I have a reply I shall be glad to let my hon, friend have a copy.
Mr. MacNlEIL:	In view of the fact that
experts of the British war office have advised the department in regard to these fortifications, is it fair to assume that our coast defence plan is part of an empire defence plan, and that provision is being made for establishments in Canada as bases for imperial forces?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No, it is not. These services were asked for by the Department of National Defence, and before this officer arrived our own officers had worked out plans, and speaking broadly and generally the recommendations agreed in each case.


Jean-François Pouliot: Did Major B. D. C. Treat have anything to do with it?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: He is
the gentleman I have been speaking of for the last ten minutes.


Jean-François Pouliot: I like so much to hear of him. But I do not see the use of having him here if he has only repeated what others have said. Probably he spoke only after having heard the good Canadians-I know there are some in the department-and then repeated that, and so he was a great man. Why does not the minister leave him outside of this country?-because he is of no use at all.


Donat Raymond: I understand the minister said the other day that an amount of $2,600,000 voted last year was not spent during the year.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No, that is not correct. It was voted last year for purposes which this year are not included in the estimates of the Department of National Defence.


Donat Raymond: That money was spent?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes,
much of it was.


Mr. DUPUIS:: To clarify the atmosphere
could the minister tell us from the point of view of experience and of science whether it is feasible for a belligerent to come from Europe to Canada with aeroplanes and attack the cities of this country?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I certainly do think it possible, not only with long range aircraft of modern types but also

Supply-Defence-Engineers
through the development of aircraft carriers. It is quite possible under modem conditions to have a raid on Canadian coasts and cities.


Vincent Dupuis: I should further like to
know this. I understand that if war is declared this country is concerned in seeing our trade continue, our goods shipped overseas and our avenues of trade kept open. Am I correct in saying that ships loaded with our goods could not go outside the three mile limit, otherwise we would become belligerents? If so, we must have warships to protect our merchant shipping, and after our shipping goes outside the three mile limit it must be protected by the British navy.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That of course raises the very difficult general question of neutrality in war time. Anyone will realize at once in view of Canada's very modest naval strength that it would be entirely impossible for us to protect our own trade routes. All we can hope to do is to protect the focal areas, that is, the points at which the trade routes from other countries converge upon our harbour mouths and shipping terminals on both coasts. Our defence against raiders or aircraft carriers must of necessity be limited, in view of the modest forces we have, to our own territorial waters.


Vincent Dupuis: I thank the minister for the information, which I think it is well that the people should have, especially those who oppose this estimate, so that they may know what the situation would be if war were declared.


Wilfrid Gariépy: War declared by whom, and between what nations?


Vincent Dupuis: By any European country or by any American country, in which European countries might become involved. I think it my duty to declare now the reason I am bound to vote for these estimates. It is, first, for the reasons which have been explained by the minister, and, second, because, having asked my constituents to tell me what to do,-because after all I am only their spokesman in the House of Commons-they held a general meeting and passed a resolution by a large majority in favour of this government spending that amount of money for national defence. The resolution has two other paragraphs, in one of which they state that in case of war they want this parliament to ask the people through a referendum whether they are willing to take part in any European war. And if there is such a referendum they ask that nobody be permitted to vote except those residing in Canada. But for the time being I am perfectly free and I am in duty bound to vote for these estimates.


Donat Raymond: I assume this program has been prepared under the advice of the minister's military experts. May I ask if they were Canadian officers or imperial officers?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They
were all Canadian officers except the one to whom I referred. An officer was asked for by the department, to come from England especially to advise on coast defences. He was here about two months and he acted in cooperation with our own officers of all three services.


Grote Stirling: And he had information on this very subject, which was technical information that the government desired.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Exactly. He is supposed to be, and I believe is, one of the leading specialists on fortification works.


Major James William Coldwell: If the danger from aircraft is a determining factor we should examine more closely the minister's statement. He gave it as his opinion that we are in danger from air raids. There are two ways in which such raids could be made, as he suggested. One is by a return flight of aircraft from Europe, which I think it can be stated generally is at present a practical impossibility. A ship would have to refuel on this side. Where would it refuel?


Vincent Dupuis: It might go to the hon.
member's house.


Major James William Coldwell: It would not find gasoline in my house with which to refuel. The second way would be by aircraft carrier. In the event of war and aircraft carriers being used, if we are to prevent air raids we shall have to prevent the coming of the carrier. How could two destroyers possibly cope with that situation? We have to bear in mind that in any war we should be involved largely on account of our association with some other country. It might be because of proximity to the United States, or because of our connection with Great Britain, even if we declared neutrality. We must remember that either of those nations has a navy powerful enough to prevent the passage of aircraft carriers across the Atlantic, and would be prepared to stop them for their own protection and the protection of their trade routes. I believe the endeavour to frighten people with the thought that we are defending ourselves against air raids is making the house rather ridiculous, especially when we examine the matter in the light of cold reason. We are not in danger of air raids, and I was greatly amused to read that

Supply-Defence-Engineers
following the discussion in the house last week an official in the department suggested that a special department should be installed in McGill university to teach people how to look after themselves in the event of air raids. That sort of thing, it seems to me, is an attempt to play upon the nerves of people who have not thought the matter out. I suggest that we examine the minister's statement in the light of actual physical possibilities.


Jean-François Pouliot: The vote of $2,816,950 for engineer services and works must be considered without fear or favour. So long as the king of the United Kingdom is the king of Canada, and so long as we are linked with Great Britain and are a part of the British Empire I shall have no objection to a reasonable expenditure in the defence of Canada. As Canada is part of the British Empire, in looking to our defence we are to a certain extent defending the British Empire. That is my humble view, and the opinion I have reached after having visited my home and having discussed the matter with sound-thinking Canadians who hold a similar view. They are interested in the defence of Canada from coast to coast, but they do not want to go further than that. I shall not object to voting for the defence of Canada, so long as my mind is satisfied.
In this instance I am asked to vote $2,816,950, representing a two-thirds increase. We must consider, first of all, that except in the event of civil war any attack must come from the outside. In that event would it come from Europe or from Asia? We do not know. It may or it may not come; I am not ready to discuss that point. It would take a technician, possibly an officer of the army, a man of great experience or a university professor to discuss it. In my view, however, if a thing is done it must be well done. I do not say that money should be wasted, and in this connection I would apply the same reasoning as I do in connection with the dragoons. Their work was not well done, and it might better have been dispensed with. I hope in future the guard will have better horses, or will not parade before the parliament buildings.
Defence must be appropriate. This is not a matter of voting money for the relief of unemployed; it is not something to be done by the Department of Labour or the Department of Public Works. This is a vote for the defence of Canada, and a serious matter. I have no objection to defence, provided we have reasonable grounds for believing that an attack can be made and that the amount 31111-70
voted will provide improved works, and a defence sufficient to prevent an enemy from entering the country.
There is something else which strikes me, but which I have not yet expressed. I make this observation as a Liberal, and following the principles laid down at the St. Roch hotel by my Quebec leader, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe). I wonder whether this is not part of the H.I.P.-the home improvement plan-with Mr. Purvis at its head. I find it a great mistake to have him in charge of the unemployment business. He is the man who controls the manufacture of explosives, and also eelanese and cellophane. I wonder whether he is not the nigger in the wood pile in that business. He may have done much more than B. D. C. Treat from Surrey, England. I should like to have this point clear. Notice that the man in charge of unemployment relief in Canada, the head of the employment commission, is our own little Zaharoff-a most incredible thing-our pocket edition of Zaharoff. He is head of the employment commission. I ask the minister honestly to tell the committee if Purvis had anything to do, directly or indirectly, with the increase in the votes for the Department of National Defence?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I have pleasure in informing the hon. member that I never had the privilege of discussing any items in the defence estimates with Mr. A. B. Purvis.


Jean-François Pouliot: So much the better.


Donat Raymond: Are the expenditures inr-volved in this item for the purpose of defending Canada against exterior aggression?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is all
for purposes within Canada, and for no other purpose.


Donat Raymond: But could the minister make a distinction, and state whether the expenditures are to protect Canada from exterior aggression?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Certainly, they are all for that.


Donat Raymond: I ask that because I recall the words of the Prime Minister. After reviewing our friendy relations with other countries, recalling our geographical position and drawing a picture of the international situation he said, as reported at page 1048 of Hansard:
On the whole there has been some improvement, a less tense strain in the international situation.

Supply-Dejence-Engineers

He described Canada as the most secure of all countries, and then said, as reported at page 1050:
It is not contended that danger is great for us. There is a danger but so far as Canada is concerned it is, as I have already pointed out, an incidental contingency. Relatively our danger is small.
I said before, and I now repeat that I am ready to vote every dollar which I believe necessary for the protection of Canada, but for the protection of Canada alone. Although I have full confidence in the words of the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence, I cannot convince myself that so large an increase is necessary for the protection of Canada, and Canada alone. I may be wrong in my fear; I hope I am. I would rather be wrong than have others wrong. Although I would be willing to support the item, I am reluctant to support so large an increase, particularly in this year when we need every dollar to run the country. I do not know what deficit will be shown when the budget is brought down on Thursday. We may foresee, however, that it will be large, and that we may have a further deficit next year. I believe the Prime Minister said that the defence force had been neglected during the last few years, for reasons of economy, and that this program was not presented last year on account of the European situation due to the Italian war with Ethiopia. But economies are just as necessary to-day as they were during the last five years and unless it is absolutely necessary, I do not think there should be any increase in the military estimates.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I think this increase is merely the thin end of the wedge; it is just an illustration of what future governments will be asking for. The present government is asking for approximately $1,000,000 to carry on the defence of a small part of our Pacific coast line. The minister has informed the committee that next year a similar amount will be required in order to complete the defences of one portion of the Pacific coast. If approximately $2,000,000 is required to provide this limited defence, no one knows what amounts we may be asked for in future years in order to provide a complete defence of both our Atlantic and Pacific coasts. I am not a military expert, but speaking as a layman I contend that it is impossible for any Canadian government completely to defend our Atlantic and Pacific coasts with the resources at their disposal. In making this statement I am taking into account that our air defences may also 'be considered as part of our coastal defences. In a matter of this kind the minister is entitled to have the best expert advice available, and I ask him if it is his opinion
/"Mr. Paymond.]
or the opinion of his expert advisers that this $2,000,000 will provide adequate defences for that part of the country to meet any contingency the government might have in mind.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I do not prebend to be an expert on these matters, but the beet advice which I have received as minister of the department from those competent to give advice is that these amounts will afford reasonable protection.


Abraham Albert Heaps: What does the minister mean when he says, " will afford reasonable protection "?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The
money being voted this year and what will be necessary next year.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Therefore, unless something unexpected develops, these amounts will be sufficient to take care of the defences of the country so far as the minister's department is concerned?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I would not commit myself as to any development in the future.


Charles Grant MacNeil: In discussing the coastal defence plan for the Pacific coast- the minister stated in the neighbourhood of Esquimau there would be some concentration of defence in the nature of gun emplacements and various kinds of fortifications. I do not think we should overlook the fact that Esquimalt is a British naval base. Is it fair to assume that the British naval authorities will place British naval guns in these emplacements in order to repel capital ships? It is difficult for me to believe that the Department of National Defence will be in a position to place at that point guns sufficiently powerful to repel raiders of any first class power, considering the range and calibre- of the guns usually found on the capital ships of the grea-t powers. In concentrating our defences at Esquimalt -are we not asking for trouble? Are we not -adopting a provocative measure of defence? Will we not be involved in any conflict in which the British Empire may be involved?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Esquimalt is a Canadian base and is Canadian controlled. There is no suggestion whatsoever, so far as my knowledge goes, that the British government will place any guns for the defence of Esquimalt. We have -had some 9.2 guns at -this point for some years. These guns were ordered relined and remounted last year -and it is intended to supplement the number of guns during the present year.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Is not Esquimalt the base for the Pacific squadron of -the British fleet?

Supply-Defence-Engineers


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: At one time it was a regular base but it is no longer. It is used now only for stores and coaling purposes.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Is there any arrangement between the Canadian and British governments whereby a British warship may come into that port at any hour and for any purpose? Is there any understanding 'that in the event of hostilities Esquimau will be defended by the British navy?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I do not think the latter observation is quite justifiable. For years naval stores have been kept at Halifax and Esquimalt, to 'be used when desired.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: The hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil) has made a point which we should remember. He stated that unless our coasts are adequately defended, any defences will be simply provocative. We must either go the whole hog or remain in such a position as not to be a menace to any other nation. The minister says that he does not anticipate large expenditures in future years. A short time ago I asked the minister if it was contemplated to defend Churchill, and he told me not this year. If we are going to defend our coast lines adequately, these key points will all have to be defended. If we once put our feet along this path of providing gun emplacements. coastal defences and so on, we must realize that we may be led much farther than we are given to understand today we will be. I am thoroughly convinced of that, and that is one reason why I am opposing this estimate. I believe that with a coast line such as we have, to do as the government intends will mean embarking upon a course which will be more or less provocative and interfere with any neutrality we may desire to observe in the future.


Mr. LACOMBE:: Is it the intention of the Minister of National Defence to ask for increased estimates for national defence year after year?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: As I said before, I cannot state at the present moment what the estimates for next year will be. They will be governed by conditions prevailing at that time. However, I can tell my hon. friend that at the present time there is no plan to provide for increased estimates. This matter will be decided by the government in the light of conditions existing at that time.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Are our coastal defences designed to repel naval vessels and aircraft?
31111-70}


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: To repel one or the other or both.


Wilfrid Gariépy: So far I have not made
any declaration on this important matter and before doing so I wanted to hear what explanations the minister had to make. I have just one or two remarks to make before 1 declare definitely my intention to vote for this amendment. Whether or not we like it,, we must face the state of affairs which exists-at the present time. I am not at all satisfied with the explanations which have been given for this large increase.
_ The other day mention was made about internal protection; the communists were after us; we were all to be smashed between Calgary, Fort William and Montreal. But to-day it is all different. It is aeroplanes now. I agree with the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) that the protection which we are providing against the danger is ridiculous. Next it is the protection of air ports. I agree with the statement which has been made that the money to be spent in that regard will be a mere drop in the bucket. The hon., member for Ghambly-Rouville (Mr. Dupuis), in putting a question a moment ago, said, "If war is declared." I asked him by whom and between whom, and he did not reply. The reply we had received a few minutes before from the Minister of National Defence was that we must prepare for the future. He did not know what would be done next year. "Conditions prevailing throughout the world," he said, "would have to guide us." Now is it not remarkable, Mr. Chairman, that at the very moment when we are jumping into an increased military expenditure of a couple of millions, the other side decides not to spend anything on colonial protection. As the hon. member for Beau-harnois-Laprairie (Mr. Raymond) said the other day, it is a mere coincidence, but a coincidence which should open our eyes.
We are gradually getting into war, and we may as well face the issue. For my part, that is what I say. I say it is a question not of local defence, but a war defence. I am against war; I am going to take my stand against it right now. I have not forgotten what took place from 1914 to 1918. There were heroes, there were great soldiers, there were friends of mine who went to the front and wrote their names in history. I had two brothers there, one of whom was wounded, who spent three and a half years at the front and fought with courage. But during the last twenty years we have been in the grip of an agony as a result of the war, and we wasted money the repayment of which will be a 'burden for generations to come. We go into our cities
Supply-Defence-Engineers

:and we see men starving and seeking work. They ask for local expenditure. The women ^nd children want fair protection, and here [DOT]this government comes with an increase of two million dollars for armaments. I appeal to the country from this house; I do not think the government's request is fair. The province of Quebec is in the confederation and m the British Empire, and we are ready I speak for my riding-to shoulder our proper responsibility, 'but this is not a request that should come at this time, and for my part I am going to vote for the amendment.
Amendment (Mr. Gauthier) negatived, yeas, 17; nays, 91.


Grote Stirling: In the list which the
minister read at the commencement of the consideration of this item, the amount appeared to me to total about SI,750,000. Then the minister gave two subsequent items amounting to about $250,000, so the total was about $2,000,000.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am
ready to give the details:	Repairs and upkeep to departmental properties, $830,000 military district No. 1, $37,805; military district No. 2, $53,375; military district No. 3, $49,125; military district No. 4, $41,125; military iistrict No. 5, $74,375; military district No. 3, $20,625; Halifax garrison, $99,375; joint service magazine, $13,375; military district No. 7, $23,135; military district No. 10, $69,375; military district No. 11, $42,375; military district No. 12, $12,775; military district No. 13, $40,000; Petawawa camp, $25,000; Ottawa services, $10,000; Connaught rifle range, $20,500; rifle ranges generally, $20,000; travelling and freight, $20,000; headquarters reserve, $77,600; alterations to armouries upon reorganization of the non-permanent active militia, $80,000 or a total of $830,000.


Grote Stirling: This vote would not
cover any new equipment required for the reorganization in the non-permanent active militia?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No; that :s in general stores vote.


Grote Stirling: Will the minister explain vhat the air-conditioning item for Ottawa s for.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: This item is for the provision of air-conditioning equipment in certain rooms of the photographic building at Rockcliffe, in which it is essential that certain conditions as to temperature and humidity should be maintained in order to prevent distortions and scale changes which affect the accuracy of the completed work seriously.


Grote Stirling: Would the minister give
rather more of a description of the development that is being carried on at Valcartier? There was an amount given of $50,000 towards the expenses at the filling group. How nearly completed is the filling group?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: This will complete it. There is $50,000 for the completion of works and surveys, filling group of the arsenal at Valcartier.
The second item for Valcartier is $30,000, for construction of three additional magazines. With the contemplated accommodation of the filling group at Valcartier in 1937, the magazine accommodation now under construction will be sufficient only for the storage of raw materials, but three additional magazine buildings will be required for storage of finished products and for storage of ammunition now in unsuitable accommodation at Levis.
A third item for Valcartier is $10,000 for continuation of the building program. Work in this connection will be undertaken on the hospital building, improvements for roadways, the engineers' compound and other small items.


Grote Stirling: And if the filling group is now just about complete, could the minister say when the transference of the work will take place?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: As I am informed, during the course of the present year, 1937.


Howard Charles Green: This item is largely for construction work. Would it not be possible to give a great deal of that work to the unemployed veterans? I understand that about
33,000	of them have already registered with the veterans' assistance commission, and of that number approximately one-half are employable. Surely this would be a good opportunity to provide work by day labour for quite a large number of these men.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In all
departmental contracts there is a clause to the effect that there must be a reasonable quota of ex-service men employed on these works.


Howard Charles Green: Would it not be possible, in view of the fact that this vote is for defence purposes, to employ a larger number of returned men?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I shall be glad to take that into consideration.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Is all this work to be let by contract?

Supply-Defence-Engineers


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Last year it was practically all let by contract.


Abraham Albert Heaps: On what principle is the
letting of contracts determined?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In every case, to the lowest tender.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Did the lowest tenderer get the contract in every case last year?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Except
for one small contract in Nova Scotia, where it was decided that local coal should be used in preference to imported coal.


Grote Stirling: I wanted to ask the
minister to amplify the remarks he made in his speech last week with regard to the investigation he has been carrying on to find out what industrial units could be utilized for the supply of equipment and munitions and so on.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That matter comes under the general stores vote. I shall be glad to deal with it at that time.


Mr. QUELCH:: For what sizes of guns are the emplacements being built on the west coast?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The guns that are now there, but were outmoded, were 9-2 guns, but they are being reconditioned, relined and remounted and will be as good as new when that work is completed. It was commenced last year. It is intended to supplement them with some six-inch guns and also, I believe, with some others.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Is much to be spent by way of expropriation of properties?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I could not give a definite answer. I should not think the amount would be very large. So far as possible we are proceeding by expropriation or negotiation-preferably by expropriation.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Is there much property to be bought out of the amount that is to be voted at the present time?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I should think the amount will include the purchase of properties, but I do not suppose it will be very extensive, because in any case it is hoped these properties will not be located in congested areas.


Charles Grant MacNeil: One matter causes me
concern. In going over the reports of the Department of National Defence I find that amounts ranging from around $300,000 to approximately $1,000,000 have been voted each
year in succession for this particular purpose, engineer services and works, and I assume that the same men who are now planning our coastal defences have been aware of the dangers with which, it is alleged, we are threaten,ed at the present time. How does the minister account for the fact that notwithstanding these expenditures extending over a. long period of years he now states plainly that no coastal defence exists? Why was no provision made, when the department was first made aware of war preparations in Europe and on the Pacific, for the defence which is now being planned?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Of course my bon. friend will realize that I cannot answer for any of my predecessors. I can tell him that within one week of coming into office I took action to ascertain the present condition of these matters.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Another question: Could the minister roughly segregate the amount of this vote that is being spent on the Atlantic and the Pacific coasts and the amount that is being devoted for purposes inland? To what extent is money being expended on the further construction of armouries and training grounds?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There is not a single cent for armouries, except a small amount for reconditioning. Not a cent is included in these estimates for new armouries.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I assume that the minister is planning adequate protection against aircraft. Is the department taking into consideration the danger of air raids from over the arctic circle-which may not be as incredible as at the moment it may sound? In all seriousness, it has been shown by aviation experts in recent years that the shortest route to this country from some of those countries which we are led to believe may now be threatening Canada is over the arctic circle into the very centre of Canada. Is the defence plan taking into consideration protection against aircraft raids from that directiop?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Provision in that respect is being considered and, I believe, a report on the matter will be made to the department.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
General stores, $6,060,699.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Clothing and necessaries, an increase of $35,000; miscellaneous stores, increase $97,950; artillerv stores, increase $2,858,616; equipment and
Supply-Defence-Stores

maintenance, increase $120,900; medical stores, increase $1,000. Inspection stores and ammunition, salaries and wages, maintenance and services; increase on 'the former of $54,900, on the latter of $141,650. Dominion arsenal, Quebec, $140,388. Other expenditures, $113,155. Extension to the gauge plant at the dominion arsenal, Quebec, $150,000; machinery, $15,000. For the dominion arsenal at Lindsay the increase is $950. Total increase $3,729,509, with a decrease of $220,010; or a net increase of $3,509,499.


Mr. THORSON:: Where will these stores, particularly guns and munitions, be purchased?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: As far as possible we are endeavouring to have them purchased in Canada.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: To what extent will that be done?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We have a committee now surveying all resources, both public and private, in the Dominion of Canada, with that purpose in view. We have not yet reached the stage of production of ammunition to any extent in the dominion, but the decided objective is, on account of the difficulty of obtaining these supplies outside the country, to have them manufactured in Canada.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Is it intended to encourage the production of these stores in Canada and to set up factories for that purpose?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Of course it would take some time to establish public factories for that purpose. At the present time, for the immediate emergency, it has been decided to cooperate with private industry, exercising proper supervision and control.


Major James William Coldwell: Are General Motors making or proposing to make munitions or equipment for the department? Let me explain what I have in mind. There has been a rumour, for example, that the assembly plant at Regina is to be converted into a munitions factory by the General Motors corporation. I have read that in western papers.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I have no information in that regard, and I do not believe that is the case. The only work which that corporation is doing for the department is trying to develop a tractor; as I recall, the sum of $4,500 has been expended in that work.


Major James William Coldwell: Of course many of our industrial plants could be readily converted into munitions factories, and I believe that a good deal of the urge for rearmament is coming from industrialists who see the prospect

of profit. That is the reason I should like to see something done to curtail possible munitions profits. One other question. I notice that in this item is included ammunition and guns and supplies. Following the question of the hon. member for Selkirk, may I ask, are we buying munitions from abroad? To be more specific, are we experimenting with any guns produced in Czechoslovakia? I have in mind the Bren machine gun. If so, what are we paying for these guns?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I believe it was the year before last that two were ordered by the department; ten more are now on order. The Bren is a new automatic machine gun which up to now has been manufactured in Czechoslovakia. I understand that the rights of the manufacturer have been purchased by the British government and that they are to construct as soon as possible a factory in the United Kingdom for the extensive production of that type of gun. The department has been looking into the question with a view to having the gun manufactured in Canada.


Major James William Coldwell: What are we paying for these guns?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I believe we paid $1,000 apiece for the first two.


Major James William Coldwell: Anyone who has seen one of these guns and compared it with an automobile realizes that there is very little mechanism about it. These guns are manufactured, particularly under mass production, very cheaply, and here we are paying $1,000 apiece for machine guns from Czechoslovakia, probably from a factory owned by a gang of international munition makers, possibly to practise slaughter upon other nations who are using exactly the same gun to slaughter Canadian boys. It seems to me that if we are going to buy guns we ought to buy them without encouraging these enormous profits that are being made by the munition companies, and I call attention particularly to this gun from Czechoslovakia. We are paying $1,000 each for these guns and I venture to say they can be made for at least a quarter the cost of a Ford car.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I have nothing to add to what I said the other day by way of protest against this program of increased armaments. I accept without hesitation, of course, the statement made by the Prime Minister that we have not made any commitments, but it is not always within the power of one individual to decide what the future will bring, and I am afraid that this policy now initiated with the best of motives will

Supply-De jence-Stores
lead us in the wrong direction. I am opposed to it for the reasons I stated the other day, and therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Lacroix), that item 63 of the estimates of the Department of National Defence be reduced by $3,509,499.


The CHAIRMAN:: I may point out that an amendment such as this does not require a seconder.


Donat Raymond: The other day the Minister of National Defence, speaking on the motion of the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil), said:
We have reduced the military establishment of this country from 135,000 to 90,000; in fact we have done that within1 twelve months. All we are doing now is to see to it that this small force shall be properly equipped.
I understand that the item now under discussion is to provide for some equipment.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is correct.


Donat Raymond: I am surprised that there is an increase. If the military establishment has been reduced from 135,000 to 90,000, the cost of equipment should be reduced. Will the minister be kind enough to explain?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There was no equipment to speak of before. We have reduced the paper strength, as it is called, of the militia forces from 135,000 to a total of about 90,000. The actual training strength will not be very much changed, but under the old form there was very little equipment available. What equipment we had was largely obsolete, and we are now endeavouring to get some modern guns and machine guns, and other things necessary for an effective and efficient militia force in the dominion. This is to replace equipment that has become obsolete and worn out and to obtain more adequate equipment for our forces.


Donat Raymond: How was the money voted last year under a similar item spent?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It was spent for the same purpose, but it was not nearly sufficient to proceed with the mechanization of the reorganized forces of Canada.


Donat Raymond: Is this just for the present year?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It was preliminary to what we are doing now.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The minister must realize that both in this house and outside there is a strong volume of opinion against this vast increase. It is coming to be realized more and
more even in this chamber, as we have seen this afternoon, that the vast amount of money we are asked to spend on these items will not make Canada any more secure against attack than it was last year and that these increased expenditures on armaments will not secure our neutrality to any greater extent. A certain number of people who stand to gain by these expenditures will be heartily in favour of this vast increase. The armament manufacturers or those who intend to manufacture armaments and those who have to deal with war materials will all be glad to see this increase, and in my opinion the increase this year is merely the prelude to greater increases to be asked for in this chamber in future years. I believe this is merely the thin end of the wedge, and the minister has more or less admitted it. It is my experience that those who run departments are always anxious to have the most efficient and the greatest department anywhere. In municipal affairs I have found the same thing. The head of the fire department wants the greatest fire-fighting apparatus to be found anywhere in the world, and the same applies to the war department. Now we are setting up a war department we are entering upon a vast expenditure for armaments.
I wish to refer to a statement made by the minister with regard to the purchase of munitions. I think it would be better if he did not go outside to purchase munitions. If the government is going to go into the purchase of armaments, in my opinion it should, as far as possible, establish its own munition plants. I do not think the minister has far to go at the present time. There is no need at this stage, for him to go to private armament manufacturers and ask them to put in bids, for in the last war the railway shops of Canada were able to turn out munitions, and I was told that they did so as efficiently and as cheaply as the private manufacturers could produce them, if not more so. If such is the case I want to take the profits out of this whole manufacture of munitions, if we can do it by the government owning, controlling and operating the munition factories. Then perhaps the pressure from outside by those who produce these goods would not be as strong as it is now. I should like to know whether the minister has canvassed the situation recently to see whether the government itself could not undertake the manufacture of munitions in plants in which they were manufactured during the last year. I have reference to the railway shops.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I find
myself in agreement with much of what the hon. member has said, and the government took action some time ago along the lines he
Supply-D efe nee-Stores

now suggests. An interdepartmental committee was appointed some months ago to make an industrial survey of the whole of Canada. That committee has been functioning. There is also in the Department of National Defence under the master general of the ordnance a joint army, navy and air supply committee, and that committee has already surveyed about sixty or seventy industrial plants throughout the dominion. It has also been instructed to survey the public plants of the kind to which my hon. friend has referred with a view to making an up to date report as to how far, in the event of an emergency, these plants could be used for public purposes. So that what my hon. friend advocates has been carried out for the last several months.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The minister says that in case of emergency these plants will be utilized. But I am not now referring to a case of emergency, unless he calls present conditions a case of emergency. I am referring to the money which we are asked to vote in this item, which is to go for the purchase of munitions. I want to know whether the minister can give an undertaking that the supplies for which this money is now being voted could not be manufactured in the railway shops, in plants which are partly or wholly under government control and ownership. A survey may have been made, but I want to know whether there is going to be a start made and these shops owned by the government and people of Canada kept in operation, because from these shops I am sure he will get just as good an article as, if not better than, that produced under private ownership.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: A considerable amount under this vote we are considering will go to the government-owned institutions at Valcartier and the dominion arsenal at Quebec. In addition we are surveying the plants to which the hon. member has referred to see how far they can be used for the purpose.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Are there government-owned plants outside the railway shops capable of manufacturing munitions?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Where are they?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There are factories in Canada which did produce munitions during the war and would be willing to do so again if given the opportunity.


Abraham Albert Heaps: But those are privately-owned institutions?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Abraham Albert Heaps: But what I want is to get the manufacture of these munitions entirely out of private hands. What I am asking is a complete survey of government-owned institutions capable of manufacturing munitions required by the government. If the minister could have that survey made, it would meet with the approval of people inside and outside this house.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is being done at the present time, in regard to both publicly and privately-owned plants.


Mr. FINN:: Let me say to the hon. member who has just spoken and to hon. gentlemen opposite who supported the motion of want of confidence in the government, that they cannot blow hot and cold. They must either stand b}' their guns or desert their guns. Having found that a vast majority of this house and a tremendous body of public opinion in this country are favourable to the policy of the government as brought down by the Minister of National Defence, he asks the minister, in whom he votedi want of confidence, whether he will give an undertaking. I ask him what good that undertaking would be to him after having voted no confidence in the minister.
Then the hon, member referred to defences on the Atlantic and the Pacific and asked what good were they. I did not speak on the amendment, but let me remind him that the country to the south of us is the United States. There is to-day what is called an imaginary boundary line between this country and that, extending from the Atlantic to the Pacific. If the hon. member goes out in front of this building he will see carved deep in the stone over the main entrance these words: The wholesome sea is at her gates,
Her gates both east and west.
Is it the responsibility of the government, is it the responsibility of this house, is it the responsibility of this country to defend these gates? If we do not defend them, then we are vulnerable to any enemy which may attack the United States, and then what happens? The enemy will enter Canada through these gates, and not only shall we be at once in the position of becoming belligerents, but the Americans will have to defend themselves against enemies invading their country through ours. Therefore the American government will have to fortify that imaginary boundary line from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Let my hon. friends opposite who voted want of confidence in the government on this most important and vital matter answer that question as to whether they are in favour of

Supply-Defence-Stores
reasonable defence of the gates of this country both east and west and the great St. Lawrence river, or whether they are in favour of a do-nothing policy, and simply telling the government which is in power to-day, You are no good for the fricassee; you are no good for the soup, and like the rabbit that ran away, you are no good at all. That, Mr. Chairman, is the position of my hon. friends led by the hon. gentleman in the front seat who is laughing on the front of his face. But the people of this country understand the situation, as does this house.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. McNEVIN:: Mr. Chairman, my object in rising is to point out to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) that in connection with securing a supply of arms and munitions sufficient to meet the requirements of the dominion, serious consideration should be given to using the facilities available in the constituency of Victoria, Ontario, which I have the honour to represent. With respect to overseas orders for arms and munitions which are coming to Canada, I do not believe the government would be justified in interfering with the private corporations which are filling these orders for arms and munitions. Yet, in connection with the supply of these materials for use, if needed, in our own country, the question is entirely different, and I believe it would be a sound policy for the government to manufacture arms and munitions for our own defence, when required. This policy would prevent private corporations from making exorbitant profits, as happened during the great war.
If present government facilities are operating at full capacity, and are not adequate, then we should carefully supervise any additional contracts for war material. I referred in my opening remarks to the dominion arsenal number two located at Lindsay, Ontario. This is a plant covering several acres, the buildings of which are in a reasonable state of repair. It is true some additional material and machinery of the newer type would have to be acquired. Yet the amount of money necessary to place the plant in perfect running order would not be an unreasonable sum. It should not be forgotten that in order to provide sidewalks, roads and other necessary civic services for the arsenal, the town of Lindsay spent from $75,000 to $100,000, a large amount of money for a town of only eight thousand people. This
has added materially to the burdens of the corporation, which at the present time is receiving very little in reit-urn. The plant is the property of the dominion government. The item under discussion contains a substantial expenditure for arms and munitions, and I desire that the department supervised by the Minister of National Defence give consideration to reopening this plant in the present emergency, and that the manufacture of these materials be carried on at this plant under the direct supervision of the Department of National Defence.


Mr. LENNARD:: I do not agree with what the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Heaps) said just before six o'clock. There are in Canada firms equipped to make the various items required, and they have no connection whatsoever with international munitions makers. One firm I have in mind is John Bertram and Sons Company, Limited, of Dundas, Ontario. That firm is one hundred per cent Canadian, employs Canadian workmen and is fully equipped to manufacture either big guns or munitions.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Mr. Chairman, in reply to the hon. member for Victoria, Ontario (Mr. McNevin), may I say I had the pleasure of visiting Lindsay during the last year, and accompanied by officials of the department made a thorough inspection of the buildings and properties there. The government of Canada has in the properties at Lindsay a very considerable investment, amounting to about $800,000 for the land and $800,000 for the buildings, or a total of $1,700,000. I can assure the hon. member that this year the department will make a careful survey of the possibility of utilizing the property now in possession of the government, in connection with projects being developed.
May I tell the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Heaps), that there is no suggestion of any pressure in regard to any government policy, so far as firms in Canada are concerned. This is entirely regardless of any pressure or suggestions by any firms of any kind in Canada.


Thomas Bruce McNevin: I wish to thank the minister for his explanation. I am satisfied the government will give consideration to the matter.


John Ritchie MacNicol: May I say a word or two in comment on what the minister has said in reference to the Lindsay arsenal. I know he was there, because I made a thorough inspection of the plant myself. In my view Lindsay is particularly well situated. I am
Supply-Defence-Stores

familiar with the town and the surrounding country, and I believe it is well situated for the work the minister had in mind.
When he was speaking before the dinner recess the minister said that the department intended to do similar work at Yalcartier and, if I remember correctly, at Montreal-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: At Quebec.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Yes. At that time I noticed he did not mention Lindsay. I had intended to bring the fact to his attention, because of all places mentioned I believe Lindsay has the best location. Valcartier could be blown off the map by aeroplane invasion, but it would take an aeroplane different from what we have to-day to cross the sea and then go as far west as Lindsay. Besides, the topography of the land about Lindsay lends protection, and its waterways offer points of landing for seaplanes. The buildings are as the minister described them.
May I now say a word on behalf of the minister's staff, at the Lindsay arsenal, because they all strike me as being competent men. I saw that they had covered all the equipment with grease, which is a first class protection, and I believe a word of commendation now and then from the head of the department would mean a great deal to men who take care sufficient to protect the valuable equipment in the plant. My understanding is that the machines could be put into instant operation. During the great war large quantities of munitions were made there, and ample testing places are available. I should like to encourage the minister to go the whole way in providing work for Lindsay workmen along with those of Yalcartier and Quebec. Lindsay is so far removed from possible attack that anything done by the department at that point would be safe from attack by sea.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In connection with the survey made of the plant at Lindsay, may I say to the hon. member that to put the plant into shape for production of small arms and ammunition would cost in the neighbourhood of $400,000. To equip the plant with the necessary new machines to produce small arms and munitions would cost perhaps a million dollars.


Major James William Coldwell: The minister seems to be of opinion that we may be subject to air attack. I shall not argue the point with him, but shall ask him this question: In the defence estimates what provision is being made to secure supplies to reassure the civilian

population that sufficient preparations will be ready to keep communities safe from air attack?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The only answer I can make is that by the cooperation of the three branches of the service we hope to be in a position to meet any such aggression, if it comes. I did not get the drift of the hon. member's question, and I do not know if he was referring to food supplies.


Major James William Coldwell: No, I am referring to actual defence from air attack. I think it is generally realized that an air raid would consist largely in the dropping of bombs. There are three types of bombs, namely the explosive bomb, the gas bomb and the incendiary bomb. Of the three I believe the last is by far the worst. It is all very well to say that the three branches of our military defence will cooperate to ward off attack, but I would direct attention to the fact that the Prime Minister of Great Britain told the British House of Commons that aeroplanes were not meant for defensive purposes and that it would be impossible through the use of planes to defend a city from aerial attack. If these are defence estimates, what defence are we providing for the people of Canada? Are we going to rely upon a few guns stuck here and there? I contend that that is no defence whatsoever. If the minister is right, our real defence lies in our preparedness to meet conditions which will arise should an air attack occur. I believe the purpose of such an attack would be to strike panic into the hearts of the people so that they would compel whatever government may be in power at the time to sue for peace. This brings me back to the point I made this afternoon, that armaments such as wTe can provide are simply provocative and would in my opinion invite a potential enemy to strike terror into the hearts of our people. What defence is the department providing in the event of air raids?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: As I said before, I do not pretend to be a superstrategist like my hon. friend, but I do suggest that aeroplanes provide the best defence against air raids. The only defence my hon. friends are willing to provide is no defence at all; they are ready to leave Canada entirely defenceless. We are making a reasonable effort to meet any possible aggression and 1 think we are all united in the hope that there will never be any need for these defences. We intend to provide on our coasts a few high speed aeroplanes which will work in cooperation wdth the other services.

Supply-Defence-Stores


Major James William Coldwell: That does not answer
my question. I want to know what preparations the department is making to protect our people from incendiary and gas bombs. I realize it would be almost impossible to provide protection against explosive bombs. As we all know from our general reading, the defence program of Great Britain has been concentrated upon this particular problem.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The best methods which the combined skill of the technical advisers of the department can devise will be taken and these will be used in conjunction with the precautionary measures already taken.


Mr. MAYBANK:: For the convenience and education of the hon. gentleman, perhaps the minister could have all the plans of strategy published in the Canada Gazette.


Charles Grant MacNeil: As the minister is well
aware, it does not require a superstrategist to answer the question asked by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). In the event of an air raid the civilian population will suffer. The minister is well aware that military strategists of the first rank agree that the only defence against air attack is retaliation and we would have no opportunity to engage in such retaliation. I think special provision should be made to protect the women and children in the principal harbours on both our coasts. The minister should consider the building of bomb proof and gas proof shelters in order that the civilian population will not suffer. Is this defence merely for the small number of troops who will be actually manning the guns at these points? This matter is being considered in other countries and I cannot understand why the minister brushes our suggestions aside with derision, particularly as they concern the women and children of this dominion.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I may
say that every single cent of these estimates might possibly be used for the protection of the women and children of Canada. I do not think my hon. friend is very helpful when he suggests that there should be no protection whatsoever.


Charles Grant MacNeil: My question still remains
unanswered. Is any provision being made for the construction of shelters in the event of air raids?


Frank Exton Lennard: It does not require a
military strategist to realize that should any country attack Canada by air, it would first of all establish an aeroplane base somewhere
in Canada. If we did not have planes available to attack that base, we would be powerless.


Jean-François Pouliot: This item of $6,060,699
covers "the purchase, inspection, maintenance and repair of stores, clothing, necessaries, mechanical and water transports; cost of material and labour for the manufacture of ammunition; inspection of output; maintenance of and repairs to arsenal buildings and plants; freight, cartage, transport and travelling expenses and other services generally." Does this item include anything for the purchase of ordnance, or is it just for the purchase of rifles and cartridges?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: As I
said before, there is in this vote an item amounting to $3,795,331 for artillery stores, or an increase of $2,858,616.


Jean-François Pouliot: About one-third of this vote will1 be used for the purchase of ordnance?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: More
than one-third for artillery stores.


Jean-François Pouliot: Will this item cover the purchase of anti-aircraft guns?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There are two sections of anti-aircraft artillery, including munitions for mobile units and excluding coast defence but available for these purposes which would cost about $350,000.


Jean-François Pouliot: Items 62, 63, 64 and 65 are closely connected. One covers the building of fortifications and the providing of bases for guns. If I am not mistaken, that would be under item 62?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Quite
right.	.


Jean-François Pouliot: Then the guns and
ammunition would come under item 63, general stores. These things would be used by the non-permanent and permanent militia, covered by items 64 and 65. I voted for the reduction of item 62 for several reasons, one of which was the fact that it covered the maintenance of historical buildings which I felt should be placed under the control of our parks commission. This shows that there is little order in the departments of government Will the minister tell me if the final say in the purchase of the items covered under general stores will be left to him or will that be decided by a commission? I should like to know also if item 63 is under his control?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes,
under the control of the governor in council.
Supply-Defence-Stores


Jean-François Pouliot: Thank you. This is how I understand government, Mr. Chairman, that every minister shall be boss of his own department, and shall not be bothered by commissions around him on which he can lean to escape responsibility. There is one thing that struck me in the minister's explanation a few moments ago with regard to Mr. Purvis. I am very much concerned about this item for general stores; I was very much afraid, and I think I still have reason to believe, that Mr. Purvis might be the nigger in the wood pile, but I will take the word of the minister that he has never spoken to Mr. Purvis about the increase in the military vote. I think that is a fair interpretation of the minister's words. I do not need to tell the committee that soldiers cannot fight with wooden guns or air rifles,, like children. They must have real guns, and real ammunition for them, I admit. If the first item had been reduced, I would have voted for a proportional reduction in item 63, because as there would have been less engineering services and less work, the material required should also have been less.
But I will go the limit. I will take the word of the minister this time, but I promise that I shall scrutinize the other items very closely. Undoubtedly if we are to have a permanent and a non-permanent force, our soldiers should be reasonably well equipped; otherwise let us dispense entirely with the Department of National Defence. If we have soldiers, they must have clothes, be protected- against the cold in winter and be well cared for while they serve in the army; otherwise let us reduce the whole vote for this department to one dollar or one cent. But if we are to have an army, we must look after our soldiers in peace time as well as in war. That is my humble view, and therefore I shall vote against the amendment to this item. I do not know what I shall do on the others.


Mr. BARBER:: What is meant by mechanical water transport?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The
operation and maintenance of mechanical transport vehicles with the Royal Canadian Army Service Corps. The increase this year is $416, the amount being $25,401 this year as compared with $24,985 last year; other vehicles, last year $12,845, and this year $16,935, or an increase of $4,090. In the item for the purchase of motor transport vehicles there is a decrease from $33,263 last year to $28,757 this year. The amount for operation and maintenance of Royal Canadian Army Service Corps water transports is $7,450.


Angus MacInnis: The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Finn) before the dinner recess tried to make it appear that our attitude over here was not consistent with the attitude we took the other day. I maintain that it is absolutely consistent, and that in fact we are taking very much the same attitude as the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) took just a few moments ago. He said that if we were going to have soldiers we could not arm them with wooden guns. All things are relative, and it is just as logical to arm soldiers with wooden guns as to try to protect this dominion by expending the appropriations that are now before the committee. It is as impossible to do the one as the other. Our geography and our long coast line make it impossible for us to defend ourselves by making these expenditures.
Referring to the question we were discussing a moment ago as to the manufacture of munitions by the government or by private enterprise, I understand the minister stated that surveys had been made. I should like to ask how much of the supplies at present being used by the government was manufactured by government works, how much was supplied by private industry within the dominion, and what proportion we imported from other countries?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Is my hon. friend speaking of munitions only, or of all supplies?


Angus MacInnis: Of all supplies.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Until the present year quite a lot of the supplies required by the department, ordinary supplies which any department might require, like clothing-


Angus MacInnis: Leave out clothing.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: So far as the supply of munitions is concerned we have been limited in recent years to the production of the Quebec arsenal, but now we have just about completed the filling group at Val-cartier, which is a dominion-owned institution operated in conjunction with the ammunition group at the arsenal in Quebec. We have had to import some munitions from other sources. It is hoped now, especially in view of the delay there would be in obtaining supplies from overseas, that most of our supplies can be manufactured in Canada. That is why the survey is now being made in regard to publicly-owned and private plants, the supervision of private manufactures or the utilization of available government-owned institutions.

Supply-Defence-Stores


Angus MacInnis: That point is a very important one. If we have to have armaments and munitions of war for offence or defence, so far as possible they should be manufactured by the federal government rather than by private firms engaged in the manufacture of arms. To turn the work over to private enterprise would mean that we would be continually subjected to pressure to buy supplies. There are rumours floating around at the present time that are disquieting, and we should be very careful that we do not give occasion for such rumours to arise, or put ourselves into the position where we shall be subject to pressure in the future.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Did I understand from the minister that the survey is now almost completed?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It will take at least another year.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Assuming that it does take another year, there must be in the possession of the government at the present time quite a number of facts pertaining to sites now under government control and as to facilities which the government could command in the immediate future. Could sufficient arms and munitions be supplied in the government's own factories to meet present needs?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There
are two principles involved. The first would be to decide the question of complete public ownership of these utilities; the second, their capacity to produce sufficient quantities to meet requirements. My hon. friend will realize that it takes some time to instal new machinery-new jigs and dies and all the necessary implements of production-in any factory, publicly or privately owned. At the present time it seems essential to expedite as much as possible the production of these necessary supplies. There may be an immediate policy and a long range policy. A long range policy would doubtless, as it did in England, combine government-owned arsenals and institutions with the cooperation, attended by strict supervision, of private industries.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Has the minister at hand the contracts that were placed outside Canada for light and heavy artillery, small arms and tanks, et cetera, the countries in which they were placed, and the firms with which they were placed?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I do not think that in recent months we have placed any contracts of the kind my hon. friend has mentioned.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Do I fake it that no contracts were placed outside Canada?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There
were for aeroplanes, but that was twenty-four months ago.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: None for small arms or artillery or 'tanks?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No, not recently.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Ls it proposed, in connection with the amount we are voting in the present estimates, that these arms and munitions be manufactured in publicly-owned plants here in Canada?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The hon. member will find very greatly increased amounts for production of these articles in arsenals which are now government-owned in the Dominion of Canada. It is a question whether these will be sufficient to meet the increased amount provided for in these estimates, and therefore it may be necessary, during this year at any rate, to cooperate with private industry, with, as I said before, the most rigid supervision. After all, with regard ito profits there are three elements: in the first place, supplying our own necessities in our own country in peace time; in the second place, the control of exports from Canada, and in the third place, the measures that it might be necessary to take if an emergency arose. The first one can be handled in two ways: in the first place, with reference to about eighty per cent of our supplies, where the principle of competition can be utilized one can, I think, safeguard the public interest. But the duty of the government becomes evident when you deal with the remaining ten o.r fifteen or twenty per cent, where the production is highly specialized, and it is in oases such as these that in England they now are using a very rigid system of inspection and of audit, and have introduced the principle of reasonable remuneration, thereby eliminating excessive profits from the production of armaments or munitions. In regard to export to other countries, I think my hon. friends will find, before this session is over, that the provisions of sections 290 and 122 of the Customs Act will be stiffened so as to give the government more control over the export situation.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Has the minister any idea what proportion of this vote is likely to be spent in Canada for the purchase of these supplies? Or will it be spent in England?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Except
with reference to, probably, some guns which could not possibly be made in Canada, by
Supply-Defence-Stores

far the greater proportion, probably eighty per cent, of the amount, will be spent in Canada.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Have any purchases been made or any contracts placed for the purchase of anti-aircraft artillery or heavy guns?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Charles Grant MacNeil: If so, from what sources?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think an order was placed by my predecessor for anti-aircraft guns from England. Of course we are amplifying that order by providing in these estimates for some more anti-aircraft guns.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Could the name of the firm be given?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: All orders were placed through the British War Office, as in the case of the Bren guns. I think I probably misled my hon. friends this afternoon. Although those machine guns were made in Czechoslovakia they were ordered through the British War Office.


Jean-François Pouliot: Are they on trucks or to be put on foundations?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am
informed that anti-aircraft guns are mobile units.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Have any purchases been made or contracts placed for tanks or armoured motor vehicles?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No; in the estimates we are now considering there is provision for some few light tanks. In the reorganization of the militia which was effected on December 15 last there are six tank battalions created ; each one is to be supplied with one light tank for instructional purposes, and the tank depot at London, Ontario, will have three tanks for instructional purposes.


Charles Grant MacNeil: What purchases have been made or what contracts have been placed for the purchase of machine guns?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Twelve Bren light automatic machine guns, two of which have arrived in Canada, were ordered from the British War Office. There is provision in these estimates for twenty-one more guns of the same kind for instructional uses in the various units throughout Canada; there is also provision for a substantial further number. It has not yet been decided whether they will be obtained from England or manufactured in Canada. An endeavour is being made to see if they can be manufactured here.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: What company has secured the manufacturing rights of the Bren gun?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: None so far. Several have been endeavouring to do so.


Major James William Coldwell: The gun is still under the control of the Czechoslovakian company?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No; the British War Office.


Vincent Dupuis: I assume that the government was authorized under previous estimates to place orders for such guns in England?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.
Orders went out last year and the year before.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Do I understand the
minister to say that so far as small arm munitions are concerned, we are in a position to manufacture all our requirements in Canada?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No; I said this, that we are endeavouring through inquiries to find out if we can so do. Last year we certainly did not have the facilities in this country, and as far as I know we do not have them yet. Various people have been endeavouring to obtain the rights for manufacturing machine guns, but so far there is absolutely-


Richard Bedford Bennett: No-small arm munitions. I gathered-and I want to be sure I am correct-that we have facilities in this country to manufacture all the small arm munitions we may require. Is that right?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is right. We have the facilities here .for manufacturing small arm munitions, and we are providing in these estimates for the augmentation of the productive capacity in the arsenals with reference to small arm munitions.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Small arm munitions are manufactured at the present moment, I suppose, at the arsenal at Quebec?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What will the Valcartier arsenal manufacture?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is another operation of an exactly similar kind to the Quebec arsenal production, an extension of it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And what about the Lindsay arsenal?

Supply-Defence-Stores


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The Lindsay arsenal is at the present time used only for the storage of equipment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I know that.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The Lindsay arsenal, as my right hon. friend knows, was used for this purpose before and could be so used again. We have made investigations of the cost of so doing. According to the estimates we have received, it would cost $400,000 to place the Lindsay arsenal in a position again to manufacture small arm munitions.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The equipment was not taken away?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No; it was stored there.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And I suppose it is obsolescent as compared with current equipment; is that the position?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And those are the three places at which we manufacture small arm munitions?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is quite correct.


Richard Bedford Bennett: When we come to shell cases, we of course manufactured shell cases in large quantities in this country during the war. Are we in a position to manufacture shell cases in Canada now?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I believe that to a small extent that is now done in the dominion arsenal at Quebec. But my right hon. friend may know that recently a private corporation in Canada is carrying out at Hamilton an order for shell cases for the British government.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. That is the National Steel Car Corporation.


Thomas Bruce McNevin: In view of the fact that Lindsay arsenal has been mentioned, I might state that while some of the machinery is obsolete and out of date, a large number of machines are still fit for certain operations.


Liguori Lacombe: Speaking this afternoon on item 62, I asked the minister if it was the intention of the department to come every year before parliament or before the committee and ask for such an increase in the vote for national defence. To make my position perfectly clear, I ask the minister if his answer is the same as regards item 63.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes; my answer must be the same. I am not in a position at the present time to announce what the
policy of the government may be next year; that must necessarily depend upon conditions then prevailing. However, I should hope that no increases would be necessary. After all, a minister of the crown has responsibilities in connection with his department and I simply could not make, I would refuse to make commitments now with reference to what may be done next year.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If I understood the minister correctly, I understood him to say that the British war department had the right to manufacture certain machine guns, and that certain companies were trying to secure these rights in Canada. Would it be possible for the government to secure them?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, I think so.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am not inquiring about government policy, but that seems to be the wise course, knowing as I do the minister's attitude towards taking the profits out of war manufacture. Would the government give consideration to such a step?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No decision has been made in that regard, but I want to leave this thought with my hon. friend. In connection with the installation of these factories the preliminary cost is tremendously heavy. The cost of the machinery is heavy, and if in a year's time we could dispense with it there would be an enormous economic change resulting in the throwing out of employment of a good many people. The economic argument must be met. I realize the force of the argument for having these things publicly owned; but if we require some supplies within a reasonable time we may have to cooperate with private interests.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Would not the same argument apply to private concerns? They would have to get equipment, and if it were no longer required the same argument would apply to their staffs, who would no longer be needed.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: But it would not cost the private concerns as much.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Why would it cost the government more?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: A private concern could turn its plant to a good many other uses.


Victor Quelch: Are the manufacturers of war material in Canada subsidized?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No, at least not by the Canadian government.
Supply-Defence-Stores


Charles Grant MacNeil: Does this provide for the purchase and use of chemicals in warfare?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No.


Charles Grant MacNeil: No thermite?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Would this be the appropriate item under which to discuss the question of aeroplanes?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That
comes under the next vote, vote No. 69 or No. 70 on page 26.


Grote Stirling: There is a considerable quantity of machinery stored at Valcartier in storehouses and sheds. I do not remember whether it was for the manufacture of guns or what it was for, but when I inspected the machinery it was all in excellent order, capable of being used again. For what purposes would it foe used?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am not familiar with that situation.


Charles Gavan Power: That must be the machinery taken from the Ross rifle factory when it was dismantled years ago.


Grote Stirling: I thought it was in connection with heavy guns.


Charles Gavan Power: I believe it has to do with the manufacture of Ross rifles, abandoned since about the middle of the war. That is the machinery now stored in the immigration sheds in Quebec.


Frederick George Sanderson: It has been moved
by Mr. Thorson that item 63 of the estimates of the Department of National Defence be reduced by $3,509,499.
Amendment negatived: yeas, 26; nays, 113.


Grote Stirling: Will the minister go into a little further detail with regard to this investigation that he is carrying on? I understand that a departmental committee of officers is considering the factory possibilities throughout Canada. How do they know where to go? Are lists submitted? Are applications made, or does the minister send this committee to certain places?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: As I
said this afternoon, there was created by order in council an inter-departmental committee from five government departments in connection with an industrial survey in case there might be an emergency, and in the Department of National Defence there has been formed a departmental supply committee called the army, navy and air supply committee. They are making a survey of the

general requirements of the nation industrially. In regard to applications for examination, no application has been refused but in some cases they have not yet completed inspections asked for. Requests have come from public bodies such as boards of trade, firms, from members of parliament and others. As far as I know, in no case has a request been refused. The idea is to make this survey as comprehensive as possible so that there may be on file complete information with reference to all industrial plants in the dominion.


Grote Stirling: Did the minister publicly intimate that it was desirable to have applications? Is he sure that all factories with possibilities have got into touch with the department?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I do not
believe that was done, and possibly it should be done, because a request came from the committee itself the other day for more publicity in order that all those who are interested may immediately file applications for inspection.


Charles Grant MacNeil: What is the name of the
firm to which the minister referred a minute ago-the firm having contracts with the British government for the manufacture of shellcasing in Canada?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I have
no official knowledge, and can speak only from hearsay, but I believe it was the National Steel Car Corporation of Canada, Limited.


Charles Grant MacNeil: With reference to stores,
to what extent has the minister accepted the advice of experts from the British War Office?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I do not think they were consulted with reference to the stores vote.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Might we have a clearer
explanation of the duties to which these officers have been assigned in Canada? I understand there are twelve. What particular duties have they undertaken in connection with the reorganization of the Canadian military forces. What are the plans for coastal defence?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I do not know of any separate organization in connection with the reorganization. The only organization established is the one I mentioned in reply to the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling) with reference to the industrial survey. They have obtained the

Supply-Defence-Stores
services of Colonel Ogilvie of the Department of Mines, but the personnel has not yet been decided upon.


Grote Stirling: The minister mentioned that in the case of the Bren machine guns, they were obtained through the war office. They were actually manufactured, I think, in Czechoslovakia?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, by the war office.


Grote Stirling: In connection with the shell cases which were also ordered, or to be ordered through the British War Office, how will that operate? Will they be made in Woolwich?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We have not ordered any so far.


Grote Stirling: I understood the minister to say they probably would be obtained-[DOT]


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No, just ihe few machine guns.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister said a moment ago that certain guns were ordered through the British War Office. He mentioned two or three items. What is the modus vivendi in connection with that? How is the British War Office used and what are its functions qua our department?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The first thing, of course, is to get an order in council authorizing the purchase from either the air ministry in regard to certain aeroplanes or the war office, and I think the high commissioner's office in England was used. They are practically acting as agents for the Canadian government in getting supplies for us and thereby assuring us that we are getting good equipment at reasonable prices.


Grote Stirling: At the present time the British government we understand is working full time and overtime to supply its own requirements. I remember instances when we endeavoured to purchase this and that and found it was impossible to get delivery for two, three or four years. Is the minister not going to run into that difficulty?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, I
quite agree. The average time for the supply of aeroplanes from England is twenty-four months, and it would be longer than that in regard to munitions. I think some equipment ordered by my hon. friend long before he left office has not yet been delivered. That is why it is going to be absolutely necessary for us to supply our own requirements.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is why I was asking the minister whether or not he believed that this appropriation of $6,000,000 could be spent during the twelve months.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is going to be very difficult.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, it is not for me to suggest what the path of wisdom would be.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The main thing is to get the appropriation through first.


Charles Grant MacNeil: To what extent does this vote provide for the purchase of mines and depth charges for the protection of our harbours and also chains necessary to intercept raiding craft.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There is nothing in this vote. I think there is in the naval vote provision to a certain extent for the equipment mentioned.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: The hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil) asked the minister about ten military officers from Great Britain. They have been mentioned a number of times. Are there ten or twelve, and what are their names and duties?


Jean-François Pouliot: And experience.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The interchange officers from Great Britain in Canada are as follows:
Capt. and Bt. Major G. H. A. MacMillan, M.C., Argyl & Sutherland Highlanders at Royal Military College;
Capt. E. F. B. Cook, R.E., at Royal Military College as instructor in engineering;
Capt. T. C. Thompson, M.C., Royal Signallers to signal training centre, Camp Borden;
Capt. J. B. Gordon-Duff, Rifle Brigade, to
P.P.C.L.I.;
Lieut. J. S. Symons, R.H.A. to R.CA.;
Lieut. H. A Prince, Sixth Gurkha Rifles, to R.C.R.
That is a total of six, and we have also six officers interchanged with these officers, who are on various duties in England, for instance:
Major J. C. Murchie, R.C.A. at War Office;
Capt. & Bt. Major W. C. Thackray, R.C.A. to Royal Artillery;
Capt. N. J. W. Smith, R.C.E. to R.E., Aider-shot;	[DOT]
Lieut. H. F. Cotton, P.P.C.L.I. to First Battalion Rifle Brigade;
Capt. G. W. Smart, R.C. Signallers to Fourth Division Signallers;
Lieut. R. M. Crowe. R.C.R. to Fifth Battalion 12th Frontier Force Regiment, India.
This practice has been going on for many years; it is no new departure.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: Have we any similar exchanges with other countries?
31111-n



Supply-Defence-Active Militia


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No.


Mr. MUTCH:: Can the minister tell us whether these officers imported from England have been vaccinated?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Non-permanent active militia, $2,578,740.
Jean-François Pouliot: Does this item include disbanded regiments, and, if so, how many?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think what my hon. friend is referring to is that in the reorganization some of the old regiments have to be disbanded because new units have to be created. There was an increase of artillery units and engineering; some infantry and cavalry units were disbanded, and these were shown on the returns for some time.


Jean-François Pouliot: I did not catch the minister's answer. I should like to know the definition of a disbanded regiment. Besides that, I wonder whether any of those are considered as non-permanent active militia, or if they will be revived in case of need.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Necessarily a disbanded regiment ceases to exist, but if there should be a change of policy a regiment could be revived with its old name.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: A resurrection, in other words.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank the minister for his explanation, but may I refer you, sir, to the fact that an hon. gentleman here to-night is an honorary colonel of three disbanded regiments. Most foolish. However, I shall not insist on that. But the minister has just told, us about the officers who have come from England, all captains and one lieutenant, no honorary colonels, no honorary lieutenant-colonels. No one hears of such a thing in Great Britain, but here we like what is fictitious, and we think a lot of these honorary officers. I would ask the minister, for his own peace and security, to drop all appointments of honorary officers. We do not need them. 'Some people are fond of brass hats and so on; I do not care for them, I say that openly and no one will prevent me from saying that I am against brass hats and honorary colonels and honorary lieutenant-colonels. What is most stupid is that there are only two full colonels in active service, and I think forty-six honorary colonels.
Let us be serious. As we have a large country, vast in area, we must have efficient transportation for every unit. May I quote the example of the United States where special officers are trained with great care, possess great skill and will be ready within
[Mr. Coldwell.l
a very brief time to form regiments and battalions. They have the knowledge required of leaders in the army, and with a small group of officers the United States have a very practical non-permanent active militia. I ask the minister whether the officers of his department are aware of the facts as to how the officers are trained at West Point and elsewhere, and whether Canada is to act on similar lines.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I tell the hon. member that we have the Royal Military 'College, one which is reputed to be as good as any in the United, States or England.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank the minister.
Might I ask him the number of officers and men, and their pay, in the non-permanent active militia. While he is looking for the information, may I say that we now see the waste of money in connection with the League of Nations. 'Canada, subscribing to the league, has spent millions of dollars. We are one of the few countries which has honoured bills received from Geneva. What is the result of that? It has been more expense for the Department of National Defence. This is not the only country in that difficulty; every country is in, it. I believe these facts show that the moneys voted for the league are pure waste.


James Houston Spence: The hon. member for
Temiscouata seems to have a grudge against honorary colonels. May I convey to him the fact that if it were not for some honorary colonels, many of the militia regiments today would not be in existence. The money they get from the government would not keep them long. I know of one honorary colonel who contributed $20,000 in the last two years. They should receive a great deal of credit, and should not be criticized so much.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank the hon. member for Parkdale for his kindly interruption. May I ask him how much money the honorary colonel of three disbanded regiments must subscribe to those disbanded regiments to keep them going on, disbanded?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In reply to the hom. member may I say that in the non-permanent militia there are 6,812 officers and 42,080 other ranks, making a total of 48,892 as of June 30, 1936.


Jean-François Pouliot: How long do the officers and other ranks serve during the year?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: As a rule they serve exactly the same length of time. They do their training with their units. In

Supply-Defence

Active Militia
some cases they do their annual training during the summer months. The period of training varies from ten to fourteen days, according to the militia unit concerned.


Howard Charles Green: How many anti-aircraft
batteries are provided in the reorganization?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That has not yet been finally decided upon. The exact location of the anti-aircraft batteries has not yet been decided, but is being considered.


Howard Charles Green: Placing of some of the units has been announced, but I can find no reference to anti-aircraft batteries on the lower mainland of British Columbia. Will a battery be placed there?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: This
might come under the heading of coastal defence, as apart from the reorganization of the units of the non-active militia.


Angus MacInnis: Are any militia officers retiring on pension owing to the amalgamation or disbandment of militia units?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No; no officers would be affected, because no pension is payable to non-permanent active militia in that way.


Frank Exton Lennard: I have heard reference to-night to the pay received by officers of the non-permanent militia. I know a little about what goes on in the non-permanent militia forces, and I have yet to hear of one officer in the non-permanent active militia who has received any of the salary allotted to him. It goes into battalion funds.
Mr. MacNEilL: To what will the increase be devoted?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: 
Richard Bedford Bennett: I want to mention one matter to the minister. Be said that the total number of men in the n'on-active militia was some 48,000. How many were there last year?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Of course the paper strength last year of the militia, before reorganization, was 130,000 in round numbers.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes; that is what I am coming to.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The training strength last year was 39,000 in round numbers, and this year we are making provision for a training strength of about 46,000.

Supply-Defence-Active Militia


Richard Bedford Bennett: The point I am trying to make was that when I heard him use the figure the other day I was not unaware of the fact that a report was made to the former government with respect to the matter. Reorganization involved a reduction from 143,000 paper strength to 90,000 paper strength. But paper strength had no value; it was the strength actually on the rolls, and the strength on the rolls last year was a little less than
40.000.	Do I understand the strength on the rolls now is some 48,000?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The
strength on the rolls for training purposes. The paper strength on the rolls this year is about 87,000. We can train only 46,000 of these.


Richard Bedford Bennett: When I use the term "paper strength," I mean the actual men attached to the units. They had 140,000 at one time. That was paper strength, pure and simple.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: At that time there was a discussion as to the reorganization of eleven divisions with one division of cavalry, as the possible thing. After the Washington conference we reduced that to six divisions with one cavalry division. It is upon that statement the minister is now proceeding with his operations.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It was prior to the disarmament conference, in 1932.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, no; there were two separate things. I happened to have received the same secret report as the minister is talking about. It provided for eleven divisions, besides the cavalry division. After the Washington conference of 1921-22 we began to readjust our situation. Finally, because of our being called upon to make a report to Geneva for the purposes of the disarmament conference as to what we would regard as our effectives, we made a report which contemplated an effective and paper strength of about
90.000.	I understand it is upon this figure that the minister now proceeds. He contemplates the training of a little more than half that number.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is right.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The difficulty about the situation is that the paper strength is no indication of the real strength. You can with some degree of certainty say that if you undertake to train 48,000, you probably will be able to train that number. In the breakdown of item number 64, how much is it contemplated to spend on training?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The total amount to be spent on training is $1,785,800.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is that training for seven days or ten days?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It varies according to the unit. Certain arms of the service get more training, especially the coastal defence batteries and the artillery units.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The infantry training is for seven or ten days?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Artillery, field army, 12 days; coast defence, 21 days. Engineers: units other than fort companies, 12 days; fortress companies, 21 days. R.C.C.S., 14 or 21 days. C.O.T.C., 12 days. Cavalry and infantry, 10 days. R.C.A.S.C. and R.C.A.M.C., 10 days.


Jean-François Pouliot: I suggest that officers and non-commissioned officers in the non-permanent active militia should be Canadians. A Canadian is more patriotic and makes a better soldier than anyone else and there is no excuse for other than Canadians being in this branch of the service.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I move that vote number 64, non-permanent active militia, be reduced by the amount of $220,640. I move this amendment because of the facts disclosed by the minister during the previous debate. There is every indication that the major part of these appropriations will go to the creation of a mobile force, an ideal arrangement for the dispatch of an expeditionary force overseas. As was intimated, no great attention is being paid to the development of coastal defences or of what might be strictly described as the defence of Canada. There is also every indication of very close cooperation between what has been termed the Canadian war department and the British War Office. I believe our Department of National Defence was rightly described as our war department by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Heaps). We have often suspected that department of being the Canadian branch of the British War Office.
There has been no indication that this department has attempted to achieve any greater efficiency or to overcome the obsolete methods which have been adopted in the past. I directed the attention of the minister to the fact that since the armistice this parliament has voted millions for the purposes of national defence and he has admitted in this house that at the end of that period actually no defence exists, that nothing has been accomplished. The suggestion has been made

Supply-Defence-Active Militia
that we are unchivalrous in attacking the officers of the department, but I would remind the committee that the same practice has been carried out by both sides of the chamber in connection with men who were unable to defend themselves. I think it is quite permissible to question the competency of a department which has shown no results over a long period of years. It is the same staff made up of the same so-called experts *who will be called upon to expend these additional amounts, and there is no definite assurance that under a reorganization the department will achieve a more efficient defence. We have had no assurance from the minister that an adequate plan will be evolved to restrict war profits in advance of the outbreak of war or upon the outbreak of war. There has been no definite assurance from the minister that there will be a proper organization of war industry.
There has been no indication that the department will assume any greater responsibility in the expenditure of these sums in connection with the development of the physiques of the young men who may be called upon to serve in these various units. We may yet be involved in a struggle without any opportunity being given to this house to express the will of the Canadian people. Under the Militia Act as it stands to-day the governor in council may dispatch troops abroad by declaring an emergency, and this would be an accomplished fact when parliament met within fifteen days. In moving this amendment we want to make our position clear that in opposing the increase in these votes, we do not take the position that Canada should be entirely without defence. We believe that the ordinary amounts made available to this department should be sufficient to provide adequate protection for our coasts without creating additional forces and storing large amounts of war materials. I am very much alarmed by the admissions made by the minister that this vote simply indicates the commencement of a program which in five or six years will increase the votes to-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I must correct that statement; I never said anything of the kind.


Charles Grant MacNeil: The minister said that he would make no commitment with regard to the future but that undoubtedly similar expenditures would be necessary in succeeding years in order to complete the program. I think it is a reasonable inference to make that the general program will necessitate the increasing of these estimates from year to year until our armament project reaches a
possible expenditure of $100,000,000. Under these circumstances and in the absence of suitable explanations from the minister, I believe we are fully justified in protesting against the increase in this item.


Jean-François Pouliot: What is the percentage of Canadian-born and Canadian residents in the non-permanent active militia, as compared with English-born? I am referring to officers, and non-commissioned officers.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am sorry, but that is not known. However, I may say that all the members of the nonpermanent militia are good Canadians.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister, in replying to the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot), gave the number of officers and other ranks in the non-permanent forces. Did he also give the amount of money paid to these men?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I did not have that information under my hand, but I shall get it.
Amendment (Mr. MacNeil) negatived: yeas, 26; nays, 92.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: The minister has said there is to be an increase in the non-active militia forces during the coming year. Could he state where these increases will taka place?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They are distributed all over the country. The authorized peace establishment on December 31, 1935, was 9,010 officers; other ranks, 124,925, or a total of 133.935; 1936, officers, 8,670; other ranks, 117,920, or a total of 126,590. Then the actual strength by military districts is as follows:
Strength by Districts Numbers all ranks
	1936	1935
District	June 30	December 31M.D. No. 1.. ..	. . 4,290	4,290M.D. No. 2.. ..	.. 10,835	10,543M.D. No. 3.. ..	.. 6,094	6,160M.D. No. 4.. ..	.. 5,450	5,757M.D. No. 5.. ..	.. 2,559	1,907M.D. No. 6.. ..	.. 3,639	3,654M.D. No. 7..	.. 2,727	2,787M.D. No. 10..	.. 3,687	3,753M.D. No. 11.. ..	.. 3,261	3,215M.D. No. 12.. ..	.. 3,433	3,366M.D. No. 13.. ..	.. 2,917	3,329Item agreed to.	48,892	48,761Permanent force,	$5,848,039.


Jean-François Pouliot: May I ask	the minister
how many militia	councils there are, who	
compose them, and have all		members of
3124	COMMONS
Supply-Defence-Permanent Force
"these militia councils been in the line in a theatre of war? If not, who are those who have never been there? When I speak of a theatre of war, I speak of any theatre of war.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The defence council is as follows: the minister is the president; the deputy minister, the vice-president; the chief of the general staff, the director of naval service, and the senior air officer are members, while the adjutant general, the quartermaster general, the master general of the ordnance and the judge advocate general are associate members.


Jean-François Pouliot: And the names?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The minister, the hon. member knows. The deputy minister sits in front of me, Colonel La-Fleche; the chief of the general staff is Major-General Ashton; the director of naval service is Commodore Nelles; the senior air officer is Air Commodore Croil; the adjutant general is hi aj or-General Constantine, the quartermaster general is Major-General T. V. Anderson; the master general of the ordannee is Major-General Caldwell, and the judge advocate general is Colonel Orde.


Jean-François Pouliot: Oh, Colonel Orde. Has he over been in the line in a theatre of war?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Jean-François Pouliot: Did he get an increase in pay last year, and are there many other officers in the drill shed or armouries at Ottawa who have had an increase in pay?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I believe his classification was changed.


Jean-François Pouliot: An increase of $600, was it not?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, approximately.


Jean-François Pouliot: Are there other officers in the drill shed who have had an increase in pay?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There
are bound to be every year because there are promotions and retirements every year.


Jean-François Pouliot: Speaking of the permanent force, may I draw your attention, Mr. Chairman, to sessional paper 160 reference No. 41, tabled on February 10? A wonderful resume has been made of it by the correspondent of the Canadian Press, who found that there are 95 officers and 215 other ranks in the department 37 years of age or older, and 34 officers and 377 men younger than 37. Then, dealing with those 37 and over, he found there were 68 officers and 119 men who had served
[Mr. Poufiot.l
in the line in an actual theatre of war; 4 officers and 9 men who had been stationed farther than twenty miles behind the fighting line; 9 officers and 18 men who had been stationed in England; 14 officers and 60 men who did not leave Canada on active service overseas. Of the total departmental staff, 92 officers and 345 men were bom in Canada; 37 officers and 246 men were born outside Canada.
For that reason, sir, I shall vote against this item, because I do not see why men bom outside Canada should be on the headquarters staff of the department. There are now 246 of them, and that does not include non-commissioned officers, as to whom I shall have the figures later on because the house has passed an order for a return of that information. I do not see why we do not have good Canadians at departmental headquarters at Ottawa. We have some, but they are not all Canadians. There is no excuse for not giving a chance to Canadians to enlist in the departmental staff as men, as non-commissioned officers, and as officers. It is clear this is something that should be done, and there is no excuse for the contrary. So long as there is one man born outside Canada in the Department of National Defence I shall vote against this item. There should be a general clean-up there.


An hon. MEMBER:: What about the
minister?


Jean-François Pouliot: We have adopted him. I
was speaking of the men. The minister is a good Canadian by adoption. Canada is his country by adoption and, I would say, by predilection; besides, he has been elected by the people, and therefore he is all right with me.


An hon. MEMBER:: And he is a good
Scotsman.


Jean-François Pouliot: And he is a good Scotsman. There are many good things about him. I know the minister is not responsible for the state of affairs that exists in the department. What I said the other day I meant. I am not going to move an amendment, but I am ready to vote for an amendment to reduce the vote to the figure at which it stood last year, just on account of the state of affairs in the department and also because of red tape. I am strongly opposed to red tape. Red tape must disappear from the Department of National Defence. I am in favour of a good army to defend our country, but I want no red tape and I want no other people than good Canadians to defend our own country. That is where we should find real patriotism. When I say Canadians, I mean Canadians at

Supply-Defence-Permanent Force
heart; some of them, like the minister, may not have been born in this country, but the majority should be Canadians. As I have said, however, I do not blame the minister or the deputy minister for the present state of affairs; I blame the bureaucracy that has been established there a long time. The minister and the deputy minister have served in the fighting line, but there are some in the department who were hiding themselves when the others were fighting,-and now they are the bosses and try to run the whole show. Enough of that; it must stop. Representatives of the people must bring them to their senses.
There is something else. I ask the minister by what process an efficiency medal is granted to any man in the army. I ask him also if a man has not to be in active service for twelve years before becoming entitled to receive the efficiency medal, and if it is not against King's Regulations and Orders to award that medal to anyone who has not been on active service but who is just an honorary officer. I suggest to the minister that he should read that part of the regulations which relates to the efficiency medal.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The
Canadian efficiency decorations are awarded to officers who have completed twenty years of service in the non-permanent active militia and have been certified by the responsible military authorities as being efficient and thoroughly capable officers. Service in the ranks may count as half time, war service as double time, providing the officer was serving in the non-permanent active militia on or before August 4, 1914. Honorary colonels and lieutenant colonels who have qualifying service are also eligible. In all cases the granting of this decoration is purely a matter of routine affecting those who have qualified through the necessary length of service.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Would the minister give a
more detailed statement as to how this amount is to be spent?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes. The increase is $234,713. Administration takes $3,998. Provision is made for one officer previously included in the general allotment. There are also minor adjustments of pay and allowances. As regards training, there is an increase of $28,000. That is consequent upon reorganization being carried out in the nonpermanent active militia. A larger number of instructors will have to be provided by permanent force units; there will be additional unit training, and courses in Canada, with new equipment recently received and more which will be available during the coming year.
Combined training of the permanent force units at a central camp calls for some small increase in addition to the normal courses abroad. Instruction in coast defence, tanks and armoured cars will have to be carried out by eight officers; $11,563 is due to the provision for increased personnel and new building accommodation. An increase of $191,152 is shown under a general heading in which provision is made for an increase of twenty-two officers and one hundred and seventy-three other ranks. This includes nine officers and eighty other ranks who were previously engaged in connection with civil aviation, and also a small increase in other charges incidental to the increase in strength.


Abraham Albert Heaps: How many men and how
many officers are involved in this item?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There are twenty-two officers and one hundred and seventy-three other ranks. Of these, nine officers and eighty other ranks were previously paid under the vote for civil aviation-they probably belonged to the signal corps; they are now paid under this vote.


Abraham Albert Heaps: What is the total number of men and the total number of officers?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: December 31, 1936, 419 officers and 3,617 other ranks, or a total of 4,036.


Jean-François Pouliot: And what is the pay of
each, please ?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Colonel, on appointment, $9.20 per day, after three years in the rank, $9.60; after six years in the rank, S10. Lieutenant-colonel, on appointment, $7.70; after three years in the rank, $8.10; after six years in the rank, $8.50.


Jean-François Pouliot: I do not wish to interrupt the minister, but what I want to know is the total amount to be paid to officers, on the one hand, and men, on the other; also the amount to be paid to non-commissioned officers.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I regret that it is all shown as the total of pay and allowances.


Jean-François Pouliot: What I want is the total for officers, non-commissioned officers and men. I will also ask the minister if the number of non-commissioned officers was included in the number of other ranks that he gave before.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes. The pay and allowances for 362 officers is $1,029,-Osi; for 3,595 other ranks, $3,504,091.
1126	COMMONS
Supply-Defence-Permanent Force


Jean-François Pouliot: Thank you. May I ask the minister also if there is any militia council besides the one he has mentioned.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No. In the old days, I believe, it was called the militia council. It is now called the defence council.


Jean-François Pouliot: Would the minister tell us who are the members of that council besides himself and his deputy, whom we all know, who have been in the fighting line in an actual theatre of war? Who are the other members of the council who have been nearer than twenty miles to the firing line, and for more than a week?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am informed they all saw service either in this war or in former wars.


Jean-François Pouliot: In both wars? Not any war. In the South African or the great war? Just a minute, Mr. Chairman, the minister is ready to answer.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I have answered.


Jean-François Pouliot: Were there any who did not go to any war?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No.


Jean-François Pouliot: I do not mean officers who have gone to England. That does not interest me. That an officer has been stationed in Canada or in the rear in France does not interest me either. I want to know if every member of the council has been in the trenches, in France, on the Salonika front or elsewhere, or at sea, for more than a week during any war? If there are some who have not, I should like to know their names.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Mr. Chairman, I have no personal knowledge touching the hon. member's question. My information is that they all saw service.


Major James William Coldwell: The minister began to give us the per diem rates of pay for the various ranks. Will he complete that?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: These are
the rates:
Rank	Pay
Colonel-on appointment	 $ 9.20
after 3 years in rank	 9.60
after 6 years in rank	 10.00
Lt-Col.-on appointment	 7.70
after 3 years in rank	 8.10
after 6 years in rank	 8.50
Major-on appointment	 6.50
after 3 years in rank	 6.90
after 6 years in rank	 7.30
Captain1-on appointment	 5.20
after 3 years	in rank	
5.60after 6 years	in rank	
6.00
[Mr. I. Mackenzie.!
Rank	Pay
Lieut.

promoted from ranks.. ..	4.00-
after 3	years	in	rank	
4.40after 6	years	in	rank	
4.80after 8	years	in	rank	
5.20Lieut.-on appointment	
3.60after 3	years	in	rank	
4.00after 6	years	in	rank	
4.40after 8	years	in	rank	
4.802nd Lieut	
3.00
Warrant Officer Class 1
Staff Sgt.-Major, Regtl. S.M. and other S.M. of equal rank and
appointment	 $ 3.70
after 3 years in rank	 3.80
after 6 years in rank	 3.90-
Other W.O's Class 1-*
on appointment	 3.40
after 3 years in rank	 3.50-
after 6 years in rank	 3.60
Warrant Officers Class 2 Regtl. Quarter Master Sergeant Staff Q.M.S., Q.M.S. and S.M. of squadrons, batteries or companieson appointment	
after 3 years in rank	 2.90
after 6 years in rank	 3.00
Squadron, Battery or Company Sgt.
Maj. other than aboveon appointment	 2.50
after 3 years in rank	 2.60
after 6 years in rank	 2.70
All Other Ranks
Squadron, Battery or Company Q.M.S. and Staff Sergeanton appointment	 2.20
after 3	years	in	rank	
2.30after 6	years	in	rank	
2.40Sergeant-on appointment	
1.90after 3	years	in	rank	
2.00after 6	years	in	rank	
2.10L-Sgt., Corporal and Bombardieron appointment	
1.60after 3 yeans in rank	
1.70after 6 years in rank	
1.80L-Corporal and L-Bombardieron appointment	
1-40after 3 years in rank	
1.50after 6 years in rank	
1.60
Private (over 18 years old)-
on appointment	 1.20
after 3 years in rank	 1.30
after 6 years in rank	 1.40
Boy (until 18 years of age).. ..	.60


Major James William Coldwell: Are these amounts inclusive of rations and quarters?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No.


Major James William Coldwell: Are there allowances for married officers?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes. In every single case mentioned there are allowances for single and married officers and men

Supply-Defence-Permanent Force
of other ranks on a corresponding scale. There is a graduated scale of allowances according to whether they are single or married.


Major James William Coldwell: Can the minister give
the allowances?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: These are the allowances:
Rank	Single	MarriedColonel	$3.20	$4.40Lt.-Colonel	3.00	4.20Major	2.70	3.80Captain	2.30	3.20Lieut, and 2nd. Lieut. ..	1.80	2.60


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What	men of	different
ranks in the three arms of the service are in training in Great Britain? The minister said that there were six officers. This summer I met a number of Canadian officers from the air force who are training in London.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I shall have those under the various votes.


Jean-François Pouliot: It has been said that the increases in these votes are due to the spread of communism. That may be so; that may be one of the reasons why there is an increase in these votes. But, Mr. Chairman, would you like to have a recipe for the prevention of communism, something that will result not in an increase but in a decrease in expenditures? There is one thing against which I have always. protested and will always protest, and as soon as I have an opportunity to do so I will try to introduce legislation in that regard. For the present, however, I will say that one thing which is shameful is the fact that some members of the Department of National Defence have one foot in that department and the other foot in some other department and on that account they get a pension when they hold a job for which there is no pension. One case is that of General McNaughton. It is a shame. That man, who belongs to the permanent force for which there is a vote here, is no longer chief of staff. He was entitled to a pension of $4,800 in June, 1935. He was not transferred but was seconded or loaned to the Department of Trade and Commerce as head of the National Research Council although he is not qualified for that position, and he receives a large salary, a salary of $15,000-$15,000 too much

and will be entitled afterwards to a pension which will be double the pension to which he is now entitled. He is entitled to a pension as former chief of staff. Let the government send him back to the Department of National Defence and appoint to the National Research Council a good man like Sir Frederick Banting. It would be an honour to him and a great boon to humanity to have
Sir Frederick Banting replace General McNaughton as head of the National Research Council. I am willing to go the limit with regard to the permanent force and to make any concession I can. But when a man is no longer necessary in one department and chooses to go to another, he should go there with his two feet; he should not keep one foot in the National Defence department and the other foot in some -other department. If the Department of National Defence agrees to the change, it is because it no longer requires him, and if he is not needed in that department I do not see why he should be given this advantage. I cannot understand it. I submit, therefore, that the law in connection with the permanent force should be amended in the very near future, because such a salary paid to a man who is not qualified to receive it is a direct provocation to communists and to all those who are against social order in the country. I am strongly opposed to such salaries being paid to nonentities, to men who give pink teas day after day in an effort to make those whom they entertain forget that they are nonentities. But they are nonentities and they will offer people a glass of wine or a cup of tea, a piece of toast or a piece of cake. And that piece of toast, that piece of cake, that glass of wine, or that cup of tea is an investment they make to keep their job. This is the way in which some people in high office in the civil service carry on. It is bureaucracy at its worst; I denounce it again in this year 1937, the centennial anniversary of the year 1837, and 1 do not denounce it for McNaughton only, I denounce it for all those who are in the same class of suckers of the civil service, who try to run the whole show. I hope that notice is sufficient to those concerned.


Major James William Coldwell: The minister quoted a number of allowances just now. In the auditor general's report there is something called a flying allowance. What is that, and to whom is it paid?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That
comes under the Royal Canadian Air Force vote. I shall be glad to give the information then.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Sometimes this item appears in addition to ordinary pay and allowances of officers attached to headquarters. How many of the officers attached to the permanent force are entitled to the flying allowance?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am informed that when a militia officer is attached to the Royal Canadian Air Force and is instructed to fly, he gets an additional allowance of $2 a day for the period so employed.

Supply-Defence-Permanent Force


Jean-François Pouliot: May I direct the attention of the committee to a mistake which is frequently made in the English language. It is that when an hon. member judges anyone in the pay of this country, the papers say that such member has attacked such high official. I do not attack McNaughton, any more than I would be attacking my bootblack if I said he had given me a bad shine. This man is in the pay of the dominion government, He is a servant of the servants of the people. Therefore I did not attack him; I judged him, as I have a right to do. By tolerance we admit people in the gallery; we could discuss the case of any civil servant in camera without letting anyone hear our remarks, but as we live in a free country people can listen. This is no attack, and those who say it is an attack make a mistake in the use of English; it is just a judgment which we pass.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In reply to the question of the hon. member for Wey-burn (Mr. Douglas), there are four officers of the staff at the staff college, Camberley; two at staff college, Quetta; one at the imperial defence college, London; one at the senior officers school, Sheerness; two at the gunnery staff course, Woolwich; one at the anti-aircraft defence school; two at the school of military engineering, Chatham; one at the London City Guilds college; one at the ordnance officers' course, Woolwich, and one at the small arms courses, England.


Grote Stirling: In Quetta, India?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I move in amendment:
That vote No. 65, permanent force, be reduced by $234,713.
I do so for the reasons I have stated before, and also because the minister has shown no justification for this increase. I protest against preparations for an overseas expeditionary force in Canada at this time without full disclosure of our policy in that regard.


Jean-François Pouliot: If my hon. friend does not say too much, I shall vote for his amendment. If he says too much, I shall not.
Amendment (Mr. MacNeil) negatived: yeas, 22; nays, 83.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does General McNaughton at the present time receive any pension of any kind from this country?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: As far as I know, not a cent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I desire to ask further whether the minister is aware that General McNaughton receives the salary which the

Prime Minister fixed for the head of the National Research Council and which was paid to his predecessor?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is my understanding.


Jean-François Pouliot: Now I shall have to give some more explanation on account of what has just been said by the leader of the opposition. Here was Doctor Tory, one of the clearest minds of this country, a man who had been the principal of a great university in the west, a man of great knowledge and a scientist. When he left he was refused a pension by the right hon. leader of tlhe Tory party, the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Bennett). He refused Doctor Tory a pension; then he appointed his pet McNaughton to that high position, and I remember that you, sir, took exception to the matter yourself when you were on the other side of -the house. So did I. But never an answer from that moribund government. We wore being asked to save money to this country. By sending McNaughton back to the Department of National Defence there would be a saving of thousands of dollars to the Canadian exchequer. But the previous government did not listen to that; they gave a deaf ear to that wise advice, which came not only from St. Mary and Temiscouata but from nearly the whole opposition. McNaughton who had a salary of $9,000 as chief of staff in the Department of National Defence was entitled to a pension of $4,800, or $1,000 more than members of parliament receive now for their arduous duties; he was entitled for the balance of his life to a pension of $4,800; surely that was enough. But although he had apparently no scientific training since the day he left McGill, three score years ago-or one and a half score years ago-lie was appointed as head of the National Research Council. To the surprise of all of us that great military genius was put there. We find McNaughton on the National Research Council, Steel on the radio commission, and MacBrien in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police-a fine trio. And afterwards we hear about peace! Mr. Chairman, McNaughton was not transferred; he was loaned. He was loaned by the previous government. He was loaned to the Department of Trade and Commerce. Why? To serve the purpose of the high-ups, of tiheir bureaucracy at its worst. Knowing nothing about the progress of science, he was placed in the National Research Council. He was there ait a salary of $15,000. In spite of the fact that the commission does not command any pension, and due to the fact that he has

Supply-Defence-Permanent Force
not been transfetred but 'has been seconded and loaned by the Department of National Defence, instead of having only $4,800 for his pension he will have $9,000 yearly when he retires, and that will be in three or four years at the most. It is shameful, sir, and I strongly protest against it. I maintain that man is not competent, that it is a case of shameful favouritism which anyone must denounce bitterly, because it is a provocation to those who suffer hunger and who complain that they have nothing to eat. It is a provocation to all. I have no animosity against Mr. McNaugibton; I do not care about him. For me he is a nonentity and not a man ait all, but I do not want any Canadian citizen to ask me. " How is it I can have nothing to eat, while that man has too much, much more than he deserves "? That is all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, I desire to point out that it is an error to state that Doctor Tory was refused a pension. Doctor Tory was in the service of the country for several years under an appointment which did not enable him to pay into the superannuation fund. He was not eligible, nor was it suggested at any time that he was eligible for pension. I desire to point out, further, that all those who do receive pension under the civil service pay a premium during the period of their term of office, for the purpose of receiving the pension which is awarded to them by law and not as a gratuity or as a charitable act. It is something for which they pay, as we pay for endowment insurance. They pay a premium, and in the estimates the government supplements it to the extent of $2,000,000 each year. That is a right which is accorded by an act which was not made by any of us, and which has been on the statute books for many years.


Jean-François Pouliot: One word: I said that Doctor Tory had no pension. He had none. This is a well known fact, and the record is to that effect. That is one point. The second point I know very well, namely, that according to the Militia Act a man from the Department of National Defence may be transferred to another department. That is all right. But this enactment is all wrong, and I will take the first opportunity to have it repealed. The other point is that a man has to be defended when he is a pet. The reason McNaughton was appointed to such a high post at such a high salary was not because he was competent but because he was a very dear pet. That is all.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Could the minister give us the distribution of the permanent force, as he did the militia?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I have it by military districts.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: All right.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They are these:
Permanent Force Strength by Provinces as of December 31, 1936
Other
Officers ranks Total
Ontario-
Headquarters, Ottawa..	79	355	434M.D. No 1	26	224	250M.D. No. 2	52	564	616M.D. No. 3	50	421	471R.M.C	14	57	71Petawawa military camp	1	1	2Quebec-	222	1,622	1,844M.D. No. 4	25	234	259M.D. No. 5	27	252	279Nova Scotia-	52	486	538M.D. No. 6	35	431	466New Brunswick-	M.D. No. 7	7	48	55Manitoba-	M.D. No. 10	43	512	555British Columbia-	M.D. No. 11	29	274	303Saskatchewan-	M.D. No. 12	10	54	64Alberta-	M.D. No. 13	21	190	211Totals	419	3,617	4,036


Charles Grant MacNeil: In the	plan of reorganiza-		
tion has consideration	been	given	to the
abolition of some military districts? It seems to me that we now could concentrate our effort on the development of coastal defence, and that in the interests of economy we might abolish some of the thirteen military districts for which headquarters are now maintained. Under the new plan of reorganization will that be possible?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: From
time to time the question raised has been discussed, but it has not come to my attention recently in connection with reorganization. Suggestions are coming in from time to time, and it has been discussed at headquarters.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Royal Military College, $377,200.
Major James William Coldwell: What is the staff of the military college, and what are the rates of pay for instructors in the institution?
1130	COMMONS
Supply-Defence-Royal Military College


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The rates of pay are:
Appointment-Hank-N ame-Amount Commandant, RM.C., Brigadier, H. H. Matthews, $6,000.
G.S.O.I., Lt.-Col., K. Stuart, $3,723.
Staff Adjutant, Major Bvt. Lt.-Col., C. R. S. Stein, $3,248.60.
Instructor, Air Force, Sqdn. Leader, G. E. Wait, $4,200.
Assoc. Professor Engineering, Major, R. A. H. Galbraith, $2,883.50.
Assoc. Professor Tactics, Captain, Temp. Major, H. O. N. Brownfield, $2,883.50.
Assoc. Professor Artillery, Captain, Temp. Major, D. R. Agnew, $2,883.50.
Administrative Officer, Captain, Temp. Major, H. Stetham, $2,883.50.
Instructor, tactics, Captain Bvt. Major, D. A. Grant, $3,358.
Works Officer, Captain, W. N. Bostock, $2,613. Weapon Training Officer, Lieutenant, Temp. Captain, D. B. Buell, $2,226.50.
Inst. Equitation, Lieut., C. F. Wolfe, $1,934.50. Medical Officer, Captain, J. L. Sutherland, $2,000.
Nursing Sister, Lieutenant, F. H. Wylie, $2,044.
Two officers abroad and one accountant (paid at N.D.H.Q. and charged to R.M.C. vote), $9,052.
Total, $51,933.60.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: I was more interested in the civilian teaching staff. Is there superannuation for the civilian teachers, and, if so, what contributions are made to it?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes; they are under the civil service commission. The names are as follows:
Professors:
Senior professor and mathematics, L.
N. Richardson	 $ 5,045
Modern languages. W. R. P. Bridger 4,680 Physics and chemistry, J. L. McKee..	4,365
Civil engineering, O. T. Macklem.. ..	4,365
Associate Professors:
Surveying, H. H. Lawson	 3,780
Mathematics, L. A. Brown	 3,780
Mathematics, P. Lowe	 3,150
Mathematics, J. P. Twigs	 3,150
Civil engineering, L. F. Grant	 3,780
Physics, C. C. Cook	 3,465
French, C. A. Chabot	 3,780
English and history, T. F. Gelley.. ..	3,780
Instructors:
Physics and chemistry, W. R. Sawyer 2,700 Chemistry and French, A. Bleau.. ..	2,940
Engineering, G. G. M. Carr-Harris..	2,940
French, H. P. Emond	 2,730
Modern languages, F. H. Rand	 2,670

Less current salary deductions..	..	3,055
Total	$58,045


Major James William Coldwell: What are the academic standards required for students entering the Royal Military College?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They
are as follows:
A candidate must be a British subject, and his parents must have resided in Canada for the two years immediately preceding the date of entrance. A son of an ex-cadet of the Royal Military College of Canada whose residence is anywhere in the British Empire, or a son of a member of the Canadian civil service or the Canadian diplomatic corps, shall not be disqualified on the grounds of non-residence.
At the discretion of the minister, the provision in regard to residence in Canada may be waived in favour of sons of:-
(i)	members of the Canadian militia or exmembers of the Canadian permanent force or the Canadian expeditionary force, who, for reasons of health are residing outside of Canada.
(ii)	British subjects employed temporarily abroad by purely Canadian commercial or industrial concerns.
In such cases, an affidavit, setting forth the circumstances which require the applicant to reside abroad, must be submitted with the application.
A candidate must have attained the age of sixteen years and not have attained the age of nineteen years on the 1st January in the year in which entrance to the college is desired. In special cases, where a candidate has passed honour or senior matriculation and is physically well developed, he may, on the recommendation of the selection board, and with the approval of the Minister of National Defence, be admitted if not more than two months under the minimum age.
Educational qualifications - The minimum qualification for entrance is as shown hereunder. Any superior qualification (e.g. senior matriculation or partial senior matriculation in addition to junior matriculation) which candidates may submit will be taken into consideration in determining the order of merit of candidates.
To be qualified for admission to the Royal Military College a candidate must have completed a "pass" standard in the examination for any one of the following, provided such examination includes the compulsory subjects algebra and geometry:-
Nova Scotia-Grade XI certificate, provided it covers the requirements for junior matriculation in arts or science at any of the recognized universities in the province.
New Brunswick-Provincial junior matriculation.
Prince Edward Island-Second year certificate of the Prince of Wales' college.
Quebec-The junior matriculation of McGill university, Loyola college, Laval university or L'Eeole Polytechnique, Montreal; or a certificate from the authorities of Laval university that they accept the educational standing of a candidate as the equivalent of their matriculation.
Ontario-Provincial junior matriculation or the matriculation of the University of Ottawa.
Manitoba-Provincial junior matriculation.
Saskatchewan-Provincial junior matriculation.
Alberta-Grade XI diploma.

Supply-Defence-Royal Military College
British Columbia-Provincial junior matriculation.
Abroad-The school certificate of the Oxford and Cambridge examination board or the University of London, which will be accepted, subject for subject, as equivalent of the junior matriculation of McGill university.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: W'hat was the enrolment last year at the college?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The
number of vacancies allotted by the department for the school term ending September, 1936, was 44. Three additional vacancies occurred after the allotments by the selection board, so the total would be 47.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What was the total number attending the college?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Two
hundred is the total number allotted, and I think they were up to strength last year.


Grote Stirling: Would the minister break up that forty-seven into the different provinces?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Ontario, allotted quota, 14; candidates admitted, 16; Quebec, French-speaking, quota, 9; admitted, 5; English-speaking, quota, 2, admitted, 7; Nova Scotia, quota, 2; admitted, 3; New Brunswick, quota, 1; admitted, 2; Manitoba, quota, 3; admitted, 3; British Columbia, quota, 3; admitted, 4; Saskatchewan, quota, 4; admitted, 4; Alberta, quota, 3; admitted, 2; Prince Edward Island, quota, 1; admitted, none; Abroad, quota, 2; admitted, 1. The total quota was forty-four and the total admitted, forty-seven.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What fee do the students pay?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: First
year, annual fees, $100, outfitting allowance $250 and expense allowance $200; second year, $100 and expense allowance, $200; third year, $100 and expense allowance, $200; fourth year, $100 and expense allowance, $200.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: What is meant by expense allowance?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I suppose it is what we would call spending money.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Does the $100 tuition fee cover board and room?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I understand that is the total with the $200 expense allowance.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: This seems to be a good scheme for the people who can get their children into the college. It has been stated often in this h-ouse that the federal government has nothing to do with education, but
here we are maintaining an institution where history, mathematics, algebra, geometry and all the things that go to make up education are taught. We vote considerable sums of money in order that a certain group may have their education spoon-fed. This small group of 200 aTe really educated at the expense of the dominion government. They get their spending money; they get their fees and they get- their board and room paid for with only a small expenditure on the part of their parents. They are practically kept by the state. I am not going to say any more about it other than that this is a part of the whole mistaken scheme of always preparing for war.


Mr. VIEN:: I think the faon. member is mistaken. The expense allowance is provided by the student in addition to the tuition fee of $100.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The total cost to a student for the four year course is $1,500.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Why was the minister referring to spending money? What has that to do with the item under consideration?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I was giving the expense to a student attending the college.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Is that spending money provided by the government for the student or by the student for himself?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is provided by the student.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: What has the Department of National Defence to do with the amount of spending money a student provides for himself?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I was
giving an estimate of the cost to a student attending the Royal Military College.


Major James William Coldwell: This $250 is really the minimum amount of spending money a student must have? We are everlastingly talking thrift to our children and yet we provide $250 a year as spending money. That seems to me to be quite thriftless.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I should like to see scholarships provided for needy students all over Canada who cannot afford to pursue their studies. I do not expect that my suggestion will be acted upon, but I would like to see this total amount of $377,200 made available to students in Canada who have not the means to pursue the studies they are well qualified to pursue. I have always thought that the Royal Military College was a part of the war machine in Canada; I still think
1132	COMMONS
Supply'-Defence-Royal Military College
so, and I resent the fact that while, ordinarily, education cannot be touched by the federal government, yet in circumstances such as these the federal government hires professors and they go on teaching these students. We do this in one field, but in another field we cannot teach young Canadians because the field of education is controlled by the provinces. I protest against that.


Angus MacInnis: We have here an item of nearly $400,000 which is spent for the education of approximately, I think, 200 students. I wonder whether the minister could give us any information as to the occupation these men follow after their university career is finished.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think I had better give the percentage taking commissions. The balance would go to civilian occupations, mostly to different branches of the engineering profession. The percentage taking commissions from 1919 on was 18, 5, 14, 9, 28, 30, 29, 18, 29, 12, 23, 30, 17, 47, 35, 49, 44 per cent. So 56 per cent last year would go into civilian occupations, and 44 per cent took commissions in various services.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Why does the military college train students for private vocations?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The military college provides excellent instruction in various branches of the engineering profession, and when the students graduate, if there are not openings for them in various branches of the service, naturally they go into different professions.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I know of cases where students have entered the Royal Military College, when the opportunity presented itself, in order to obtain a civilian training. If we are going to have a military college, why should it not be maintained strictly as a military institution? Not that I am anxious to maintain military institutions, but if we are going to maintain this one, that seems to me the efficient way to conduct it. Would the minister tell us whether there would be vacancies in our permanent militia for 100 per cent of the students upon graduation.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am
informed that there would not necessarily be.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Complaint was made a few moments ago by one hon. member that a large number of officers with the Canadian militia have come over from Great Britain. I do not know to what extent that is true, but the statement has been made, and other members have the same impression. Perhaps the minister would give us information in that regard.
I Mis? Macphail.j


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Is my hon. friend speaking of the non-permanent militia or of the permanent force?


Abraham Albert Heaps: The permanent force.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There are quite a number in the permanent force who are British-born, but in the permanent force there are no officers from England except for temporary periods of attachment in Canada.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On what basis are the Royal Military College students selected?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: On a quota basis from the various provinces of the dominion.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Fixed by statute.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, fixed by statute.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I know there is a quota for each province; but how are the students selected? Is it by examination?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The
board of education for the province makes a report on the educational standing of the applicants, and then selection is made on the basis of comparison and merit.


Thomas Vien: I would like to suggest an amendment to the course of tuition given in the Royal Military College. Prior to two years ago the student who graduated from the Royal Military College could enter a university of the province of Quebec for any profession, but last year the Quebec law with respect to the bar, the Quebec Bar Act, was amended, so that to-day a graduate from the Royal Military College is not admitted to the study of law in the province of Quebec unless he follows an additional course in philosophy. I would suggest, in order that graduates of the Royal Military College might be able to enter any liberal profession, that philosophy should be added to the course of tuition.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Thank you.


Richard Bedford Bennett: May I direct attention to one thing, which I thought the minister was going to deal with? The hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Miss Macphail) asked why we should maintain the Royal Military College. It is maintained under the provisions of head 7 of section 91 of the British North America Act. Under that section, as perhaps all members know, exclusive jurisdiction to deal with the militia, military and naval service, and defence was vested in this parliament, and under that provision we have established that school. That answers to some extent the question put by the last member, as to why the course of instruction is as it is.

Supply-Defence-Royal Military College
On the question of education generally I was surprised at the question being asked in the form in which it was. Section 93 of the British North America Act provides:
In and for each province the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to education, subject and according to the following provisions-
And those provisions respect the rights of minorities and matters of that kind.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: 
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: 
Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: In view of the increased activity in aviation, are any arrangements being made at the Royal Military College to have the curriculum include instruction in this field of work to encourage and develop our young men who may be going through the college? Is any special provision being made for the young men to develop in that field?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: At the present time we have- in the college an instructor in aviation. But I think what the hon. member means is to make special facilities available for these boys, on graduation, to enter the air force. That is being done.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: The reason I inquire is that I know quite a number of the boys who are attending the Royal Military College, and there is a feeling among them that a number would like to enter the aviation field. I wondered whether that wish could be met to the extent of special training and other inducements to them to enter that branch of the service.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: At the present time graduates are offered commissions in the Royal Canadian Air Force, but I assume the same conditions apply here as obtain in other branches of the service, and that all cannot get commissions who wish to obtain them.


Mr. MARTIN:: 
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I might
sympathize very largely with the views of my hon. friend, but they raise, of course, a question of government policy upon which I
am not competent at the present time to pass.


Mr. CLARKE (Rosedale):: Are there any
aeroplanes or is any equipment of that type available at the military college for the education of the students? If so, what amount of this money is set apart for that kind of training?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My information is that they are instructed at the Royal Military College in the theory of aviation and subsequently go for training courses to Camp Borden or elsewhere.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member for
Essex East (Mr. Martin) overlooks one fact. All the students who go to the Royal Military College, Kingston, go there on merit. I remember a former minister of militia, Colonel Ralston, saying that perhaps it was the one institution left in all the world in
1134	COMMONS
Supply-Defence-Royal Military College
which merit determined the right of a student to attend. There is no question of financial position at the time the examinations are held; if a student who is very poor tops the list he will have the opportunity of going, and in most cases there have been found in all communities men willing to assist such students to go to that college. I have in mind a case that came to my own attention through a friend who was deeply interested in the welfare of a young man who had passed at the top, and who succeeded in graduating although he came from a very humble home and had no money of his own. lit is not unusual for boys of humble circumstances to graduate at the top of their class, but the point I desired to make was that it is perfectly clear there is no question of riches or poverty at the time the preliminary examination is passed; choice is made on the basis of merit and not on the financial or social circumstances of students.


Vincent Dupuis: But in the case of these
poor students who are at the top of their class there is, I understand, no government appropriation to help them to attend the Royal Military College.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is right.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They are not debarred from going, except that the number of students who can be accommodated is limited to two hundred, and of course that makes the number available from each province comparatively small.


Vincent Dupuis: But supposing it is only possible for the young man's parents to pay the $100 fee; the balance of money required will not be paid, I suppose, by the military college administration?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No. It costs $450 the first year and $350 each year thereafter until the student graduates.


William Hayhurst: As I understand it, the body that chooses the students selects them on the basis of merit, but I must point out that in many parts of Canada, and certainly in my own district, nothing is known of the Royal Military College and no one from our community has ever been accepted in the college. At least one hon. member has spoken this evening as though it made some difference where a man is born. In my constituency it happens that most people come from central or eastern Europe, but it does not matter whether they are born in England, or Ireland or eastern Europe or Quebec or Ontario or elsewhere, they all receive the same consideration at the hands of our people and, I may

add, at the hands of the Alberta department of education; so that I take issue with anyone who raises in this house any question of racial superiority or even suggests that because, for instance, one man was born in Scotland and another in England there may be some difference in their calibre or abilities. I have always held the idea that, no matter where a man or a woman is born, he or she is to be judged wholly by his or her integrity, character and intelligence. The same considerations, in my opinion, should apply to admission to the Royal Military College. It happens that in Alberta two boys were chosen for the British navy. We know why they were chosen, because a competitive examination was held and thrown open to applicants from Alberta. These two boys, one from Lethbridge and one from Vegreville, were selected and entered as cadets, and they are now serving as lieutenants in the British navy. As I have said, this was a competitive examination, and selections were made on the basis of ability, irrespective of race, creed or colour.
It would seem that knowledge of the Royal Military College should be more widespread, so that we may be assured of recruiting boys who have ability, without special consideration to those: whose financial circumstances may enable them to get the best type of training, which I believe must or should be given at the college, if they can get $1,700 per pupil. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) stated that in Saskatchewan many schools are run for a quarter of that amount. In Alberta we consider ourselves lucky if we get a similar amount. What we need is a more equitable deal for all the people of Canada, without regard for this race superiority complex, which should not be voiced in this chamber.
At times one finds it difficult, when listening to these debates on defence, to separate what is intended to be serious from what seems to be futile. As a matter of fact, a whole lot of it is purely political propaganda, perhaps for the purpose of raising our status as politicians. We are one of the British peoples, though some hon. members seem to hate to admit it. After all, we are all a part of the British Empire, and although I represent a part of Canada more thickly populated than any other by new Canadians, I am not afraid to make that statement. I repeat, we are all a part of the British Empire, notwithstanding the fact that there are people who perhaps feel it is a terrible thing for us to have the British fleet behind us. I do not suppose that in Britain they mind saying, the fleet is behind us. I do not think there should be any

Supply-Defence-Royal Military College
objection to having aeroplanes to protect our own coasts in order to safeguard our democracy. I feel keenly about democracy because it is the greatest asset we have. It is something to be prized, to be able to come here and speak our minds freely and listen to the different statements that are made. Some hon. member from Toronto said that Canada resembled a Balkan state, but as a matter of fact each province is part of the great dominion, and whether we were bom in England or anywhere else, we should all be loyal to the dominion.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Are the students required to have a recommendation from the minister or from any other person in order to be admitted to the college?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The minister has no say, except in certain cases where the quota is not filled; then the selection is made from a general list by the selection board, and the appointments are made on merit.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Is that determined by competitive examination?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: According to the ratings they have previously established in their respective provinces. If one province did not fill its quota, there might be a vacancy and that would be filled after a comparison of qualifications and on the basis of merit.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Suppose in a particular province there are four vacancies and of the persons entitled to go one or two decline, Would an opportunity be given to the students in that province to fill the vacancy or vacancies?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No; it is done from the general list if the province does not fill its quota.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Are graduate students, not granted commissions on the forces, kept on the reserve of officers?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They join the militia.


Mr. McCANN:: Has the Royal Military College any degree-conferring power?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No.


James Joseph McCann: It is unfortunate that it has not. I have known something of the institution for a number of years and have known a great number of distinguished graduates. I feel, at times when there is a good deal of criticism of the institution, that we 31111-72
do not stop to think. There is not in this country a university which, through the tuition fees paid by its students, would be in a position to educate them. We forget entirely that our universities are aided either by private philanthropy, endowment funds or provincial grants. The Royal Military College could not for a moment carry on if it were not given some aid from the federal government, and it being the only institution of its kind in Canada carrying on its particular line of work, I submit that it is entitled to the aid it receives from the federal government. It is too bad that this government, who run the Royal Military College, do not arrange that a degree should be conferred upon those who graduate-a degree which would entitle the graduates to be placed in exactly the same position as are men in universities who take a similar course.
A number of those who graduate from the Royal Military College take out commissions in the imperial army and follow that particular career. There are others who take a course in engineering, and who, in order to enter the competitive field in engineering, in this or in any other country, after leaving that school, find it necessary to take a year at some recognized university which has the degree-conferring power. I suggest to the minister that this institution should have a charter as a university in order to give its graduates degrees just as universities do that pass students in the different lines of science. I know, having been educated in the city in which the Royal Military College is situated, that although a good deal is said at times about its students assuming that they have a higher social standard because they belong to that particular school, because they wear a pill-box hat, and although there is supposed to be some snobbery among them, it was one of the duties imposed upon us attending Queen's university to take some of that snobbery out of them-and we were usually successful-so that they were better off for having been in a town where there was another university. However, that is aside from the point I wish to make, which is that the Royal Military College holds in Canada a unique position. It has trained a large number of men who have reached prominence in the military and scientific departments of the country and it is doing a very useful work. I submit, therefore, that it should continue to have the federal subsidy provided for in this vote.


Frank Exton Lennard: Referring to the question of snobbery among the cadets of the Royal Military College, I should like to say that



Employment and Social Insurance
they show a distinct politeness to their elders which is lacking in some of those attending our universities.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I had hoped that the minister would answer the very pertinent inquiry made by my hon. friend from Renfrew South. The fact is that I asked the question myself when I first knew of the college. The reason no degrees are awarded is that it is not intended that the college should give a civil education, if I may use that term, and the justification for its existence is found under the head of section 91 of the British North America Act. If it were awarding degrees for academic distinction, it would be placed in such a position that it might be regarded as violating the provisions of section 93 of the British North America Act. It is therefore, a purely constitutional reason why no degrees are awarded. The institution can exist only as a military school. Essentially that characteristic must dominate its life, and if it departs from that and becomes a civil educational institution under the provisions of the provincial legislatures, it can receive no federal aid. That is the real reason.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Lapointe (Quebec East), the house adjourned at 10.55 p.m.
Tuesday, February 23, 1937.