1937-02-23

[Stage Direction]
Mr. JEAN FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 30, to repeal the Employment and Social Insurance Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am moving the introduction and the first reading of this bill to repeal the Employment and Social Insurance Act.. Last June this legislation was K.O'd by the Supreme Court of Canada and on January 28 the privy council gave it its coup de grace. Since February 1 this legislative corpse has been lying in state on the order paper. It is too late to revive it or even to embalm it. This bill is intended to be a grave digger as it is high time that this legislation was buried.
If I may be permitted, I should like to give a little experience I had just recently. Three commissioners were appointed under this act, and I was told the other day by the government that the judgment of the privy council

decided the status of these gentlemen. I drew your honour's attention to the fact that one of these commissioners had been canvassing from door to door among the members and I inquired if he had a licence as a parliamentary agent. I went up to my room and I saw him in the corridor speaking to a stenographer. He was probably trying to canvass her. He told me that he wanted to see one of my colleagues, whose office was beside mine. I happened to know from that hon. gentleman that this former commissioner, who had received a salary of $9,000 per year for doing nothing, was looking for another soft job paying at least $5,500. I called down to the main door to have a constable sent up. When the constable came up I asked him to ask this gentleman if he had a licence as a parliamentary agent. The gentleman gave no answer to the constable. I then went over myself and I said, "What are you doing here, bothering the members, running from room to room?" He saidi, "I want to see such and such a member." I said, "I know that is false because that member told me he wanted nothing to do with you, that you were just looking for a soft job." I said, "Have you a card as a parliamentary agent?" And he said, "No." I then asked the constable to escort him out of this parliamentary building, which he did. I had to do this thing myself, but I did it, and this gentleman is now out of the building. Therefore I want the commission put out of the picture also. I move the introduction of this bill, seconded by the hon. member for Hochelaga (Mr. St. Pere), the respected whip of Quebec.
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: Of course my hon. friend can insist upon introducing this bill and the others that follow it on the order paper, but I should like to say that the legislation which these bills are intended to repeal has no operative effect whatever and no purpose would be served by taking it out of our statutes. On the other hand, some of this legislation might be amended and by cooperation with the provinces be brought within the sphere of federal jurisdiction. As to the others there is the possibility of amending the British North America Act, still in cooperation with the provinces, to make the legislation effective.
As there is no purpose whatever to be served by repealing this act, which is a dead letter as it is, and as it may be useful in some way to keep it there, perhaps my hon. friend would agree to let the statute remain as it is now and allow the government to deal with it in the best interests of the house and of the people.

Business of the House


Mr. POULIOT:: Answering what my hon. leader from Quebec has said, I do not intend to kill that legislation, because it is dead now; I am only trying to bury it-that is the difference. If we have a dead letter on the statute book it is just as well to dispense with it, because otherwise when there is a revision of the dominion statutes these acts will be included.


Ernest Lapointe: No, never.


Jean-François Pouliot: I think it is just as well to allow this bill, which is only seeking to repeal another act, receive its first reading. Never did a government object to the first reading of a bill except when the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) was Prime Minister. I hope my hon. friend the Minister of Justice has no objection to the first reading being given.
Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East); I have no objection. The hon. member has a right to introduce it, but it is useless.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



WEEKLY REST IN INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKINGS ACT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. JEAN-FRANQOIS POULIOT (Ternis-couata) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 31, to repeal the Weekly Rest In Industrial Undertakings Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. JEAN-FRANQOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 32, to repeal the Minimum Wages Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. JEAN-FRAN QOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 33, to repeal the Limitation of Hours of Work Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. JEAN-FRANQOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 34, to repeal the Natural Products Marketing Act, 1934, and the Natural Products Marketing Act Amendment Act, 1935.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
31111-72^

[Stage Direction]
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 35, to amend the Dominion Trade and Industry Commission Act, 1935.
^ Hon. C. II. CAHAN (St. Lawrence-St. George): Mr. Speaker, in reference to these bills there is a great deal to be said on both sides. I presume that it is inopportune on the first reading of a bill to enter into a prolonged and detailed discussion, but the remarkable thing about this proceeding is that the leadership of this house has evidently passed to the hon. member for Temiscouata.
Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Speaker, with the
permission of the house I have just one word to say in reply to the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George. The other day he said that the decisions that had been given by the privy council were just opinions, and it is precisely on that ground that I am asking for the repeal of these bills, which are all wrong.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
FOR SITTING OF THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 25__

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:: .That standing order 28 respecting the committee of ways and means be suspended for the sittings of Thursday 25th February and Friday 26th February, 1937.
He said: Standing order 28, as hon. members know, obliges the Speaker to leave the chair on Thursday and Friday without question being put. It is the intention of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) to introduce his budget on Thursday next, and he wishes to do so with the Speaker in the chair.


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, this would
seem to be an appropriate time to ask whether the trade agreements between Canada and Russia and Canada and Germany will be laid upon the table before Thursday. I cannot recall that having been done, and I think it should be done before the budget is brought down.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should prefer to have the Minister of Finance answer the question. I shall ask him to do so to-morrow.

Business oj the House


Right Hon.   S@: Before this motion passes may I suggest to the Prime Minister that it should refer to Thursday only? It has been the custom for many years to adjourn the debate on the budget over Sunday in order to give members the opportunity to consider its provisions, and this practice should be followed particularly this year if there is to be submitted at the same time^ a new trade agreement between the United Kingdom and Canada. I do not suppose the Prime Minister wishes to give up the privilege of going into supply on Friday without a motion, and I would therefore suggest that this motion be amended to apply to Thursday only, with the understanding that the budget debate will not be proceeded with until probably next Tuesday. This I think would give ample opportunity to hon. members to consider it properly.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, may I say that the government had no intention of proceeding with the debate on the budget on Friday. It was intended that the debate should be adjourned until next week. As to whether it should be adjourned until Monday or Tuesday next, might be arranged when the Minister of Finance is here. I imagine that the minister will take no exception to having an adjournment made until Tuesday if that is the wish of hon. gentlemen opposite. As a matter of fact I had one copy of the motion amended in the form in which my right hon. friend (Sir George Perley) has just suggested, making it apply to Thursday only. I spoke to the clerk, a moment or two before the house met as to the advisability of the amendment being made in that way. It was thought that it did not very much matter, that in any event the house could go into supply on Friday. We do not anticipate any opposition to the motion to go into supply on that day. However, it may simplify matters if the motion is amended as suggested, and I so move that it be adopted with the words "and Friday 26th February" omitted.
Motion as amended agreed to.



PRECEDENCE FOR GOVERNMENT BUSINESS ON AND AFTER WEDNESDAY, MARCH 3

William Lyon Mackenzie King: With the consent of the house I propose, for the convenience of hon. members, to put a motion with respect to sittings on Wednesday of which notice appears in to-day's votes and proceedings. Tomorrow will be the last private members' day if the house so agrees. I gather there is an

understanding between members of the different parties in the house that this will be acceptable to them. If that is so, I would now move:
That on and after Wednesday the 3rd of March next to the end of the session, government notices of motions and government orders shall have precedence on Wednesdays over all business except introduction of bills, questions by members and notices of motions for the production of papers.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I should like to advise the house that the trade agreement between Canada and the United Kingdom was signed at noon to-day. The agreement was signed on behalf of the United Kingdom by Sir Francis Floud, K.C.B., High Commissioner for the United Kingdom, and on behalf of Canada by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) and myself. The agreement will be tabled on Thursday afternoon.



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: There is an extraordinary news item in the Montreal Gazette of to-day, to the effect that unemployed who desire assistance in settling on the land will be refused aid if they have "advanced ideas" or have been members of a communist or socialist organization ; that aldermen at the city hall were so informed yesterday by the Auger-Rogers foack-to-the-land plan forwarded them by the provincial ministry of colonization. The regulation reads in part:
The would-be colonist of "advanced ideas" who has previously taken part in a communist or socialist organization cannot be accepted.
In view of the fact that the opposition in the British House of Commons is a socialist opposition, and that New Zealand, a sister dominion, is under a socialist government, it seems to me an extraordinary thing that any regulation of this kind can be put forward in one of our provinces. I am aware that later in the article the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) is reported as saying he knows nothing

Labour Dispute
of the matter, but I do not think that that statement of his, as given to the press, is quite enough, and I ask whether the minister will give the house the assurance that the government will give no assistance to any scheme that discriminates against any individual because of his political affiliations or his religious beliefs.
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Minister of Labour): All agreements with the provinces concerning unemployment relief contain a provision that there shall be no discrimination with respect to race, religion or political affiliation. In my opinion no regulations under any agreement can be made which are contrary to that provision. I hope that will satisfy my hon. friend.



LABOUR DISPUTE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: I desire to direct a question to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) with reference to a situation in the port of Vancouver. I have received to-day a telegram, a copy of which has been sent, I believe, to the minister. It states that the motorship Bellingham, American registry, arrived in the port of Vancouver yesterday with a cargo of fish consigned to the Canadian Fishing Company Limited. The owners of the vessel wished to have the International Longshoremen's Association of Vancouver discharge the cargo. The Canadian Fishing Company will not allow that to be done at their dock. The owners of the vessel are willing to have the cargo discharged at any other dock. Mr. Burns, who I believe is the port manager at the government docks, advised the International Longshoremen's Association that he is not in a position to say that the facilities of the government docks will be available if members of the International Longshoremen's Association are employed to unload the ship. Could the minister give the house any information with regard to this matter, and state whether the shipping federation completely control the men who are to discharge and load ships in the port of Vancouver, and particularly on government docks?


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Transport):: I received notice of the hon. member's question and telephoned our port manager to-day. The facts are not exactly as stated by the hon. member. It is true that the steamship Bellingham arrived at Vancouver yesterday with a cargo of 250,000 pound? frozen fish
consigned to the Canadian Fishing Company Limited, but the contract for the carrying of this cargo calls for the running of the cargo at the dock of the Canadian Fishing Company Limited, Vancouver. After unloading about twenty-five per cent of the cargo the ship's crew discontinued servicing the winches,' thereby causing a stoppage of work on the part of the longshoremen. The reason given for this action by the ship's crew is that the longshoremen working the ship are not members of the International Longshoremen's Association. On the other hand, the Canadian Fishing Company Limited refuses to permit I.L.A. men to discharge cargo at its dock. It is to be noted that the Canadian Fishing Company Limited is not a member of the local shipping federation. Representatives of the local International Longshoremen's Association called upon Mr. Burns stating that the reason for the action of the ship's crew was that before leaving Ketchikan for Vancouver the crew had been assured that the cargo would be unloaded by I.L.A. men. They then wished to ascertain whether Burns would permit the unloading of this cargo at the harbour board's fish dock. Mr. Burns pointed out that this was quite impossible for the reason that the water depth of the fish dock would be insufficient, it being about ten feet only, to accommodate the steamship Bellingham. Moreover, the landing of the cargo elsewhere than on the Canadian Fishing Company's dock would create a breach of the contract between the vessel owner and the company under which the latter could refuse delivery of the cargo; in other words, before any arrangement could be made to unload the cargo at any dock, arrangements would have to be made for the disposal of the cargo. It is perishable cargo, and if it is unloaded at our docks and thrown out ihere it would belong to no one. We should like to know before it is unloaded what the disposition of it is to be, and who is to pay the charges.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE

[Stage Direction]
Naval services'-To provide for the maintenance of the ships and establishments of the naval service, including the Royal Canadian Navy, the Royal Canadian Naval Reserve and the Royal Canadian Naval Volunteer Reserve, $4,486,810.
Jean-François Pouliot: This vote is for naval services. Last year it was $2,654,000; this year it is $4,486,000 or an increase of $1,832,000.
1140	COMMONS
Supply-Defence-Naval Services
The government has decided that two new ships shall be purchased for the protection of both our coasts. I take it for granted that the government's views in this respect are sound, but on the other hand we must not forget that the coasts on both sides are hundreds of miles long and there are many bays on the Pacific as well as on the Atlantic seaboard, besides the gulf of St. Lawrence and the St. Lawrence river. It is necessary, therefore, for the new ships to be the most effective and speedy. Our entire fleet on each side will consist of one man of war only, and the life of that man of war is that of a dog, twelve years. I submit, therefore, that when the government decides to purchase one battleship for the defence of each coast the ships should be the most efficient and the speediest, and ships that can give the best service. I believe hon. members will agree with me in that. I do not object to the vote because it is too large-and I am wondering whether there will be an amendment to reduce it- but I do object to it because it is too small. We do not need second hand ships, and if the government is of the opinion that we must have ships to defend our shores they should be the very best. If we have a small ship let it be the latest one from the shipyards. I cannot therefore vote for any amendment to reduce this item, because I do not think it is large enough; and for that reason I cannot support this item in the estimates.


Mr. BARBER:: Will the minister explain
this vote and tell us what proportion will go to the Pacific?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: Perhaps
I had better break it down. The increase is $1,832,310, made up as follows:
Pay and allowances, $359,325.
Stores and allowances, $350,760.
Medical services, $3,500.
New ship building, in connection with four mine sweepers to be constructed in Canada, $700,000.
Repairs and maintenance, $128,400.
Works, lands and buildings, $200,000.
Miscellaneous effective services, $92,225.
There is a decrease of $1,900 in non-effective pay vote. May I make it clear that the vote for two destroyers purchased from England is not in the present increase; it is to be introduced in a special supplementary estimate for 1936-37. The main increase in this vote is for the four mine-sweepers and stores and equipment on both coasts.


Harry James Barber: What will be the total expenditure for naval protection? The estimates are divided into three parts; we have roughly $19,000,000 for land forces, and about

$11,000,000 for air forces, and I understand there is about $5,000,000 for naval protection. What will be the total for naval protection-$5,000,000 or $7,000,000?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The two destroyers were really under this fiscal year's expenditures because negotiations to purchase them were completed last year and they will be charged against expenditures for 1936-37. The total of $2,000,000 should be added to the figure shown for the present year.


Harry James Barber: Seven millions?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes in all.


Mr. HEAPS:: Can the minister give us any idea what the annual increase in the estimates will be to take care of this expenditure now proposed?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The
appropriations for 1937-38 are:
Ships-
Saguenay (destroyer), $296,925.
Champlain (destroyer), $25,000.
Skeena (destroyer), $295,525.
Vancouver (destroyer), $25,000'.
Crescent (now Fraser) (destroyer), $300,000. Cygnet (now St. Laurent) (destroyer), $300,000.
Armentieres (mine sweeper), $41,980. Vessels in reserve (Ypres and Festubert), $22,950.
New schooner, $28,650.
New construction (towards 4 mine sweepers), $750,000.
Fitting ships for R.C.N., $56,000.
Barracks-
R.C.N. barracks, Halifax, $436,500.
R.C.N. barracks, Esquimalt, $485,145.
Dockyards-
H.M.C. dockyard, Halifax, $102,225. Armament supply depot, Halifax, $168,0-50. H.M.C. dockyard, Esquimalt, $78,500.
Armt. supply depot, Esquimalt, $332,180. Port Defences, $42,300.
Naval Intelligence-
Headquarters, Ottawa, $13,650.
Halifax, $7,800.
Esquimalt, $6,900.
Naval headquarters, Ottawa, $54,625.
Officers and men overseas, $278,000. Cemeteries, $1,550.
Comox rifle range, $1,330.
Ottawa W/T station, $22,300.
General Account, $19,250.
Royal Canadian Naval Reserve, $43,500. Royal Canadian Naval Volunteer Reserve, $250,975.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I did not make myself clear. What I want to find out is what increase in the estimates will be necessary as a result of the expenditures we are incurring this year for increased naval armaments and new ships. Will that mean an increased future outlay each year?

Supply-Defence-Naval Services


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It will
be the difference in the number of ratings and stores necessary for the new destroyers as against the old ones. The new ships are considerably larger and will require an increased personnel. There will be an increase personnel for the new mine sweepers and training schooner. Otherwise there is no increase.


Abraham Albert Heaps: What will be the increase?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: About $300,000 or $400,000, but that is subject to correction.


Mr. DUBOIS (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, I did not take part in the debate which took place last week on the amendment presented by the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil), but the public and this house knew very well where I stood on this question of armament. However, I wish to avail myself of the present discussion of the military estimates to say once more that I am against any direct or indirect contribution to extraterritorial wars. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lake St. John-Roberval (Mr. Sylvestre):
That item 67 of the national defence estimates be reduced by $1,832,310.


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East) (Translation) :: Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to my hon. friend moving his amendment, but the reason he sets forth is not fair. He states that he is against extraterritorial wars, but these estimates which we are discussing have no connection whatever with extra-territorial wars.


Jean-François Pouliot: I want to tell the committee that I am entirely satisfied with the explanations given to me by the minister a moment ago. The committee will see in due course what to do with the supplementary estimates in regard to second hand ships.


Mr. STEWART:: What is the cost of the mine sweepers?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The
amount included in the estimates this year is three quarters of a million dollars. The estimated cost is one quarter of a million each, a total of one million, but it is not anticipated that they can be finished during the present year.


Mr. TOLMIE:: How many mine sweepers will be constructed on the Pacific coast?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That has not been finally decided, but at least one, possibly two.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Can the minister say when he expects the two new ships to be delivered to this country?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They
were commissioned as Canadian vessels a week ago and are expected to sail from England about March 12.


Mr. TREMBLAY:: What is the increase in the tonnage?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The details of the new destroyers are as follows:
Displacement, 1,375 tons as against 1,075 for the old Champlain and Vancouver which have been demilitarized. The dimensions of the ships are as follows:
Length, 317} feet as against 275} feet.
Beam, 33 feet as against 27 feet 5 inches.
Draft, 12 feet as against 11 feet.
Horse power, 36,000 as against 29,000.
Speed, 35-5 knots as against 36 knots.
Engines, Parsons geared turbines; boilers three admiralty, three drum type.
Fuel oil capacity, 470 tons.
Guns, four of 4-7 inches, one 3 inches, five smaller guns, and eight torpedo tubes, 21 inches.
They were completed April 5, 1932, and the purchase price was $1,000,000.


Jean-François Pouliot: What is the usual period of usefulness of a ship of that kind, and when were these ships completed?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The estimated life of a destroyer of this type is about twenty years. They were built in April, 1932, they are a little over four years old.


James Shaver Woodsworth: We are told that this is a part of the defence plan for Canada, which is supposed to be an adequate plan. What function are these destroyers, these new ships, designed to perform? What work are they particularly required to do under the plan set forth by the minister?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That I think is more or less obvious. It will be patrol and defence of our territorial waters, harbour mouths and shipping terminals on both coasts. I do not for the moment pretend that this is an ample naval force for that purpose, but it is at least a force which would cooperate with other forces in giving some reasonable protection.


James Shaver Woodsworth: There will be only these two destroyers doing that patrol work?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We shall have four modern destroyers when the other two are here.

Supply-Defence-Naval Services


James Shaver Woodsworth: But there are only two on each coast?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That has been the case so far.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Does the minister really consider that two patrol boats on each coast can defend this country or maintain our neutrality?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think they can do quite a lot in cooperation with the other services. It is much better than nothing at all.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Would the minister not think as a matter of policy that if the same amount were spent say for air defences it would give better results?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No, in
the cooperative work of the various services it is necessary to have surface ships as well as air services, and these as my hon. friend will agree are on a very modest scale indeed.


Angus MacInnis: In answering the hon.
member for Winnipeg North a moment ago as to the increased annual cost on account of equipment the minister said that there would be a certain increase in cost arising out of the increased ratings. I am not very familiar with these terms. What does "increased ratings" mean? Does it mean the additional number of men?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Angus MacInnis: Would there not also be an increase in cost arising out of the larger ships and more efficient equipment?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, possibly, that is so.


Mr. LACOMBE:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to reiterate my opposition to any increase in the national defence estimates, and I believe, moreover, that the hon. member for Nicolet (Mr. Dubois) has stated the reasons why just as well as I could do it myself. However, my attitude is based mainly upon the answers given to me yesterday by the hon. Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie), when he stated that he may, each year, ask for increases, depending on conditions then prevailing. That is why I am supporting the amendment presented by the hon. member for Nicolet.


Mr. HANSELL:: The minister said that
the maintenance of the two new ships will perhaps amount to $300,000 each. Is that included in the present estimate?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.
Amendment (Mr. Dubois) negatived: yeas, 18; nays, 117.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Royal Canadian Air Force

Expenses in connection with the general maintenance and training of the permanent and non-permanent active air force, and provision of facilities therefor, $11,391,650.
Harry James Barber: Does this vote include expenditures for landing fields? Have landing fields through to the coast been completed?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Landing fields would not ordinarily come under the Department of National Defence but, as the hon. member will realize, under the civil aviation branch of the Department of Transport. I presume the hon. member has reference to the matter we discussed last year.


Harry James Barber: Yes.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That was well under way some time ago. I do not know whether the Minister of Transport can answer it, but there was definite progress made with reference to it before the transfer from the Department of National Defence to the Department of Transport took place.


Harry James Barber: I just wish to remind the minister that a discussion took place last year with respect to a landing field at Chilliwack, and at that time he promised it would be proceeded with. The latest information I have is that nothing has been done, not even to the extent of securing the land.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think definite steps were taken before the transfer was effected, but I shall look into the matter, with my colleague, and inform the hon. member.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Would the minister tell the committee the number of machines the government has in service in the air defence of Canada?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: At the present time the total in Canada is 182 aeroplanes. There are 8 fighter Siskins now obsolete; 18 army cooperation of which 15 Atlas, now practically obsolete, and 3 Avro No. 626 ; 4 Vancouver flying boats, which are obsolescent; 7 new torpedo bombing Blackburn "Sharks," only 4 of which have been delivered so far, but which are modern service planes; 105 various types of training planes, many obsolete, and 40 transportation planes of different types used on various government services, particularly civil government air operations, making a total of 182.

Supply-Defence-Air Force
The present estimate provides for an increase of 102 planes, as follows: 12 fighter planes, 3 army cooperation planes, 7 flying boats, 24 bomber planes, of which 18 are used Wapiti planes, and 6 new Avro No. 626, 11 torpedo bombing planes, 18 coastal reconnaissance planes, and 27 training planes.


Abraham Albert Heaps: How many aeroplanes has the minister purchased since assuming office?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Since
April 1, 1934, the following were ordered: October 3, 1934, 10 Atlas airframes from the air ministry; on May 27, 1935, 10 Civet Fleet airframes; on November 18, 1935, 6 Wapiti airframes, from the air ministry; on November 28, 1936, 5 Stranraer aeroplanes, from Canadian Vickers; on September 22, 1936, 10 Fleet trainer airframes; on May 11, 1936,
1 Avro tudor aeroplane, from Armstrong Siddeley; on May 4, 1936, 7 Torpedo "Shark" aeroplanes, from the air ministry; on August 29, 1935, 3 Avro type "626" aeroplanes, from Armstrong Siddeley; on August 23, 1935, 3 Northrop Delta aeroplanes, from Canadian Vickers, for civil government air operations; on August 9, 1935. 2 super-71 Fairchild aeroplanes, from the Canadian Wright Company, and on January 11, 1937, 4 Northrop Delta aeroplanes for civil government operations.


Abraham Albert Heaps: How many of these machines are now being operated by the government?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: All the planes as required and suitable, namely 182 of them; but few are modern service planes.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Are any under repair?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Inevitably there are always some under repair.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Some are so obsolete that they could not very well be used by the government for flying purposes?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Not that I know of. Unless they are being repaired for purposes of training, I am not aware of any. Some are obsolete of course.


Mr. LANDERYOU:: How does the speed of these planes compare with those of similar types in other countries?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The new planes we are receiving compete favourably with the best in the world, and the new ones being ordered will be modern in every detail -speed, strength and range; in every way they will be the most modem available. In almost every case the types have been advised by the British air ministry.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The Blackburn machines are well known, but I understand that some of the machines purchased here in Ottawa are old and obsolete. Persons conversant with flying claim it would be hazardous for them to be utilized for flying purposes. I believe the matter was brought up last year by the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Mac-Neil). Eight machines weTe purchased last year, and I understand other machines not much better than those are being purchased.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: None of that kind has been purchased since last year. These machines were pronounced airworthy by inspectors whose duty it is to inspect them.


Abraham Albert Heaps: On what basis are they purchased? Are purchases made through tenders, or does the department simply purchase the machines it believes to be best suited for the purpose?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: With regard to service planes, technical officers in the air service consult with officials of the air ministry in England and endeavour, generally, to have the same type of machines as *is recommended by those officials. I have here the recommendations of the air ministry with reference to all the modern service planes which recently have been ordered in Canada.


Mr. DENIS:: Are they to be built only in Canada?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, so far as I know, and in so far as possible. With the exception of certain used machines for training purposes, 18 in number, which we are to obtain from the British air ministry, and are to be reconditioned here. With the exception of these, all machines, will be built in Canada this year, it is expected.


Mr. MITCHELL:: Have we any modern pursuit fighting planes, and, if so, how many, and when were they purchased?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The only modern service planes we now have are these Blackburn Sharks?


Archibald Hugh Mitchell: How many?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Seven
ordered altogether, but only 4 have been delivered so far. Three of them should be delivered before April 1, from England, bringing the total up to 7. Seven other flying boats are being constructed. These will have a very long range, will be used for coastal defence purposes and are recommended by the air ministry as being the best type for that particular work.


Archibald Hugh Mitchell: Would you mind telling-
Supply-Defence-Air Force


The CHAIRMAN:: The hon. member for Davenport 'has the floor.


Archibald Hugh Mitchell: How old are the Siskin fighters, and when were they designed?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They are as follows:
Siskin: 2 in 1927, 1 in 1928, 4 in 1929, 1 in 1931, total 8.
Army co-operation types: Atlas, 2 in 1927, 2 in 1928, 1 in 1929, 10 in 1934, total 15; Avro 626, 3 in 1935.
Flying boats, Vancouver, 4 in 1930.
Training types: Avro 621, 6 in 1930, 1 in 1936, total 7; Courier, 1 in 1928; Fairchild 51, 2 in 1927, 5 in 1928, total 7; Fleet, 17 in 1931, 10 in 1935, 10 in 1936, total 37; Moth, 18 in 1929, 14 in 1930, 1 in 1935, total 33; Tomtit, 2 in 1930; Wapiti, 6 in 1935; Blackburn Shark, 4 in 1935, 3 in 1936, total 7; Vedette, 4 in 1929, 8 in 1930, total 12.


Archibald Hugh Mitchell: Are the fighting planes all new?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Archibald Hugh Mitchell: The Siskins have formed the main arm of the Canadian flying corps for years and I should like to know if these machines were new when purchased.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am informed that they were, but have become obsolete.


Mr. MacNICOL:: For some time rumours have been going around the air field at Trenton that a number of the planes have not been giving satisfaction. A few days ago I put a question on the order paper with reference to this matter, which the minister answered yesterday. The minister stated that three Shark II planes were sent to Trenton and that these planes had flown only nineteen and a half hours. Then follows a rather significant remark by the minister: "Some not unexpected difficulties have arisen." Does the minister expect that these planes will give satisfaction? If not, is it the intention of the department to return them to where they came from?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I was not informed of this matter until I saw my hon. friend's question on the order paper. I understand that there were some technical difficulties in connection with the Blackburn Shark planes, having to do with the lubricating system, but I have been told that these difficulties are being successfully surmounted.
I do not think there is any question in the world that these machines are the most modern and up to date to be obtained, and there is every likelihood of their proving to be first class in every particular.


Mr. MACDONALD (Brantford):: How
many squadrons are now in existence in the non-permanent active air force, and where are they located? Is it the intention of the department to create additional squadrons?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The
squadrons are located as follows:
Toronto, No. 10, army cooperation squadron.
V aneouver, No. 11, army cooperation squadron.
Winnipeg, No. 12, army cooperation squadron.
Montreal, No. 15, fighter squadron.
Montreal, No. 18, bomber squadron.
Hamilton, No. 19, bomber squadron.
Regina, No. 20, bomber squadron.
Quebec city, No. 21, bomber squadron.
Calgary, No. 13, army cooperation squadron.
These are the squadrons authorized up to date, and their continuation will depend on the generosity of this house.


William Ross Macdonald: Is there a distinctive uniform for this branch of the service? Do the members of it have separate quarters, or are they quartered in the different armouries throughout the country?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: With
some of the newer squadrons there has been a little difficulty in getting suitable quarters, but the older squadrons have their own quarters. I think they all wear the air force uniforms.


William Ross Macdonald: I should like to bring to the attention of the minister the fact that in the city of Brantford there are between fifty and one hundred qualified pilots. There is no opportunity for these young men to enter a squadron although they do belong to the flying club established under the civil aviation department. They are a splendid body of young men, and I feel that there is ample personnel available to establish a squadron at Brantford. When additional squadrons are being established I trust the minister will not forget this city.
The question of uniforms should receive the careful attention of the minister and his department, not only with reference to the flying clubs but in connection with the nonpermanent active militia. The day of the khaki uniform has passed. It is a drab, unattractive thing and does not inspire any enthusiasm in the youth of our country. I believe there would be a greater urge to join the various units if our young men knew that they would be outfitted in colourful uniforms. We should get back to the days of the distinctive regimental uniforms. About the only attractive uniform at the present time is that worn by the Highland regiments. Other units should not be penalized simply because they

Supply-Defence-Air Force
are not Highland regiments. There should be an attractive walking-out uniform of which the members of the units would be proud.
There are many centres in Canada where proper facilities are not provided in the way of armouries for the various units. If I might be permitted to refer again to that great city which I represent, Brantford, I would remind the minister that while we have one quite modern armoury, the other building, known as Dalhousie Street armoury, could hardly be described as such. It is simply a commercial building consisting of a basement and three floors. There is supposed to be a shooting range in the cellar, but as that space is mostly taken up with the furnace and piles of storage, it is entirely inadequate for the purpose. The other floors are broken up into small sections, and in order to get from the ground floor to the second or third floors you must go outside and ascend by another stairway. As I said before, the so-called armouries is not in any way worthy of the name. In that armouries there have been located three units, an artillery unit, a machine gun unit, and a cavalry unit. One of them, the artillery unit, the 54th Battery, won the governor general's cup this year, which is the prize given for the very best shooting by any artillery unit in Canada, and I say that a unit that can win such honours is worthy of some consideration as to where they shall be quartered in their home town.
Speaking generally of armouries, I think more consideration should be given to the men in the units. What have we in our armouries to-day? We have a large drill hall containing the officers' quarters, which are usually fairly palatial, and I quite approve of that. I was pleased indeed to hear the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) refer in such splendid terms the other day to the brass hate. We have to have generals; we have to have officers. An army cannot function without generals and officers any more than a factory can function without managers and foremen. Then besides the officers' quarters and the drill hall there is what is known as the sergeants' mess, reasonably good quarters, but only reasonably so. We must pay due regard to the sergeants, the non-commissioned officers throughout the country because they are in many respects the backbone of every militia unit.
But what about the men? Often we find that the men are almost entirely forgotten. At the close of the parade the regiment is dismissed. The officers go to their quarters, the sergeants go to their quarters, and the men-well, only an army expression would describe what they do. They merely break
off and go on their way. I think that more consideration should be given to the men.
I have referred to the uniforms. The officers and the sergeants have dress uniforms but the men have nothing but khaki. They should have something bright and brilliant. When the parade is over, instead of being dismissed and sent on their way, they should have some quarters of their own to which they could go and mingle with their pals.
In conclusion, and to sum up, I would again draw the minister's attention to the fact that in Brantford we have enough men to form a squadron of the air force. I hope that a survey will soon be made of the quarters provided for the various units in Brantford, and generally I would most strongly urge that more colourful uniforms be given to all ranks. And in all cases where a new armoury is being built more consideration should be given to the accommodation which will be known as the men's quarters.
Mr. TO'LMIE:	Mr. Chairman, I should
like to call the attention of the minister to the unique situation in Esquimalt. Both the naval and military headquarters are located at Esquimalt. Esquimalt is a small municipality, and because of its close proximity to Victoria it does not derive a great deal of benefit from the purchase of the military and naval supplies required. The following resolution was recently passed by the Union of Canadian Municipalities:
Whereas Esquimalt is almost solely a naval and military station from which in times of peace or war the Pacific coast of the Dominion of Canada and its sea-borne commerce may be efficiently guarded;
And whereas in order to meet the requirements of the naval and military authorities and to provide facilities needed, a large proportion of the buildings and land have been acquired by the crown and are used for naval and military purposes which if taxable would exceed in taxable value all other assessed property in Esquimalt;
And whereas the cost of maintenance of all public streets, roads, lighting, public health and all other functions of a municipality have to be undertaken and financed by owners of private property within the municipality;
And whereas free education is given in the municipal schools to the children of all ranks in the army and navy;
And whereas the drydocks at Esquimalt are available for purposes of public trade of a revenue-producing nature, yet being government-owned are free from taxation, which would not be the case if they were privately owned;
And whereas Esquimalt is called upon to shoulder financial liability for essential services;
And whereas this liability is imposed upon the municipality by virtue of its geographical position, but which is incurred directly on behalf of the whole dominion;
And whereas by the Municipal Act, section 211, chapter 179, all government property is exempt from taxation;
Supply-Defence-Air Force

Therefore be it resolved in view of these special circumstances that the Union of Canadian Municipalities requests the dominion government to afford relief to the municipality of Esquimalt by means of an adequate annual grant.
The assessment on land in Esquimalt amounts to $2;134,756; the exemptions total 1892,705, leaving a taxable land assessment of $1,242,051. Crown properties equal 13-88 per cent of the total assessment on land. On improvements the total assesment is $10,227,095, and the exemptions on improvements, $8,218,650, leaving a balance remaining of $2,008,445, only 75 per cent of which may be taxed. Crown exemptions amount to $8,072,750, or 78-80 per cent of the total assessed value of improvements. The revenue lost on crown properties, calculated on the present rate of 40 mills levied on land and 50 per cent of the assessed value of improvements, exceeds the total present revenue of the municipality from all sources by approximately $88,000.
Owing to the proximity of Victoria, as I mentioned before, a large proportion of the
New Westminster North Vancouver.
Victoria	
Burnaby	
Saanich	
Oak Bay	
Esquimalt	
Esquimalt has 25-91 miles of roads and 18-98 miles of sidewalks. Roads and sidewalks are deteriorating fast owing to the lack of funds. Three of the main roads lead directly to the naval barracks, the military barracks and the dry docks. The greatest volume of traffic is over these three roads.
Members of the permanent force of Canada are part of ibhe active militia within the meaning of the Municipal Act, and are classified accordingly, thereby enabling them to exercise the municipal franchise. The payment of 'taxes or other moneys to the municipality is not necessary to secure this right, residence only being required. A recent statute of the province of British Columbia, namely the Public Institutions Indemnification Act, 1932, provides that the municipality must bear a portion of the charges for such institutions as public hospitals for the insane and tubercular sanatoria where a patient prior to his admission was a resident of such municipality. This is so in the case of the municipality of Esquimalt, where, if a soldier is admitted to an institution for the insane, the municipality must meet a certain proportion of the cost.

business goes to that city. The advantages derived from the presence of naval and military establishments at Esquimalt are outweighed by the cost of services, such as the upkeep of roads, education, and so forth, within the municipality. In this respect there is no comparison with the city of Halifax, which derives all the benefit from the purchases made by the naval and military establishments. Within a single year recently the supplies purchased in Halifax by the forces reached a total of $276,489. But as I have said, Victoria is so close to Esquimalt that Esquimalt derives little if any benefit from that source, as practically all supplies required for government establishments in Esquimalt are purchased in the larger cities.
I do not want to take up too much of the time of the committee, and with your kind permission, Mr. Chairman, I shall put on Hansard a tabulated comparison of the conditions existing in seven cities in the southern end of British Columbia.
Total taxable property $20,392,047 7,214,195 50,837,461 19,446,115 11,954.659 10,816,317 3,250,496
Exemptions $ 8,508,605 4,165,075 22,338,032 7,286.350 1,623,759 530,073 9,111,355
Population
17,524
8,510
39,082
25,564
12,968
5,892
3,274
The municipal council in 1934, in an endeavour to keep down excessive taxation, was driven to the floating of a six per cent loan of $30,000 to pay off an accumulated bank overdraft. However, vacant property continues to revert, with the result that taxes on improved property must be increased to a point which makes it impossible for the owners to hold on, in spite of the fact that expenditure has been reduced to a minimum. The situation is further complicated by cost of unemployment relief, social service costs and loss of provincial government grants.
The population of Esquimalt is 3,274. Hardly one thousand are ratepayers, and mainly of the wage earning class. Many of these people suffer from lack of employment. Unless relief is obtained the outlook will. be desperate. Under the circumstances, and in view of the fact that the municipality is almost solely a naval and military station and that the facilities provided by the corporation such as roads, street lighting, schools, et cetera, are of as much benefit to government establishments as to the private owner, it would not seem unreasonable for the dominion government to afford such relief by

Supply-Defence-Air Force
means of annual grant as is done by the British government under similar circumstances. For example, the city of Plymouth, in England, is given relief of taxation on this particular account; the government pays the same as the ordinary ratepayer. In Chatham the treasury makes a grant in lieu of rates, and the valuation is fixed by His Majesty's treasury. In Portsmouth, government property is rated, but a contribution is given in lieu of rates on figures agreed upon between the treasury valuer and the city valuer. So that in all these three cities a certain provision is made for the extraordinary condition to be found in these large naval and military ports. Esquimalt is in a similar situation, and I suggest that these circumstances be taken into consideration by the government with a view to giving reasonable relief to this particular municipality.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My hon. friend has made an excellent submission regarding the peculiar difficulties of Esquimalt. As a matter of fact he was good enough on several previous occasions to bring this matter to my attention, and also he and I were members of a delegation which discussed it some time ago in the city of Victoria. The question, of course, is one of considerable difficulty. The problem arises in other parts of Canada, although possibly not so acutely as in the case of Esquimalt. Some time ago I asked for a report with regard to the situation, and as soon as it is available I shall be pleased to take up the subject with some of my colleagues and further consider the representations made by the hon. member.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I should be glad if the minister will let me have a copy of that report.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Certainly.


Abraham Albert Heaps: When the report is received I trust that the minister will see to it that circumstances in other places similar to those of Esquimalt will be dealt with in a similar manner. I hope that no favouritism will be shown to any town on the Pacific coast or the Atlantic coast or in the interior. I know the minister will be flooded with requests from various quarters for special consideration.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is a difficulty.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I hope he will not give special consideration to any particular district. I realize that when Esquimalt advances reasons for special treatment, Brantford will do the same; Lindsay will want special consideration,
and Halifax, and Toronto, and probably a few other places, and there will be no limit to demands made upon the department by cities all of which, indeed, suffer to a certain extent. The result of that kind of thing has been described, and rightly so, as establishing a vicious principle, the principle of patronage. I notice that the minister (Mr. Power) who is sitting next to the Minister of National Defence does not agree that it is a vicious principle.


Mr. POWER:: I was going to say that it is the principle of the pork barrel.


Abraham Albert Heaps: It is fundamentally vicious, I suppose, while a minister is in opposition, but it is quite legitimate when he and his party have returned to office. My point is that I have always objected to any form of patronage, and I trust that with regard to the money that is to be expended under this item and the money which the house is voting for further estimates of defence, no consideration of that kind will be allowed to weigh with the department.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There is nothing here for it.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I know, but sometimes it seeps in by some back way which is hard to discover. Occasionally the ways of the department are very dark and devious; we have known of contracts going to persons who were associated with the party in power at the time.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is not the case with this department.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I would not say definitely that it is not. The minister must remember the statement made last year in this house by the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil) with regard to quite a number of aeroplanes. I have heard something again this year which I do not want to repeat on the floor of this chamber; I do not mind giving a statement privately to the minister.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I shall be very glad to have it.


Abraham Albert Heaps: These things do happen, and I object to this form of patronage, because where patronage creeps into any department, the department cannot be efficiently run. If we are to spend money by the millions, while I object to expenditure of this kind, my specific protest at this time is against the intrusion of any element of patronage. So that whenever hon. members, Whether on the Liberal or the Conservative side of the house, ask special consideration or special favours
Supply-Defence-Air Force

from the department, I hope no favours will be granted but that all expenditures will be made strictly on their merits.
Mr. MAiC'DONALD (Brantford): In reply to the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Heaps) I may say that I asked no special consideration for Brantford. I merely drew the attention of the minister to the fact that in Brantford we have between fifty and a hundred qualified pilots who are able and anxious to serve their country and at the present time have no opportunity to do so.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I too would like to assure the hon. member for Winnipeg North that I did not have patronage in view at all. I merely called to the attention of the minister a situation with which I acquainted him when he was visiting the city of Victoria. The situation in Esquimalt as I have described: it is a peculiar one; it does not exist anywhere else in Canada. I again draw to the attention of the hon. member for Winnipeg North the fact that in England the principle of a government contribution has been applied to three of their large naval bases. If there are other points in Canada which are in the same situation as Esquimalt, justice in this respect should be done to them.


John Charles Landeryou: I concur in the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North. I should like to know what type of plane will be stationed in or adjacent to the city of Calgary.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Does the hon. member mean1 the permanent force squadron or the non-permanent at Calgary? There was an idea of having a permanent force squadron at Calgary; provision also is being made for the organization of a nonpermanent squadron. To which does he refer?


John Charles Landeryou: What type of plane is being stationed there?


Mr. CRETE:: I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Verville):
That item 69 of the national defence estimates be reduced by $6,706,622.


Mr. THOMPSON:: How many fliers are in the force at the present time and to what extent does the government propose to increase the personnel? In my opinion there is no way in which we can more effectively help our defence in Canada than by increasing the air force.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The following are the increases in personnel provided for in the estimates. Taking the per-

manent Royal Canadian Air Eorce, the strength at January 31, 1937, was 147 officers and 958 airmen, or a total of 1,105; and in the increases provided for there will be added 48 officers and 540 airmen, or a total increase of 588, bringing the new strength of the permanent force up to 195 officers and 1,498 airmen, or a total of 1,693. Taking the nonpermanent force, the strength at January 31, 1937, was 76 officers and 455 men, and the increases are 42 officers and 491 airmen, or a total increase of 533, bringing the new total strength of the non-permanent force up to 118 officers and 946 airmen or a total of 1,064, making the new total personnel of the two branches 313 officers and 2,444 men or, altogether, 2,757.


Thomas Alfred Thompson: What length of training is given these men before they are able to fly their aeroplanes?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The degrees of training vary. There is preliminary training, the first months being devoted generally to instructional work on the ground, and also training on trainer aircraft, and there is defence training later on. At Trenton, Camp Borden and various schools instruction is given in different types of flying. The training is progressive, so many hours being given to flying, and so many hours to technical training on the ground and to other subjects.
An hon. MEMBER; Is there a training school?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes; there is Camp Borden, and it is intended to make Trenton the main school in the dominion.


Mr. POTTIER:: What portion of this is for th# purpose of air fields?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There is nothing definitely for air fields as such, but there is a considerable amount for stores and buildings and in connection with Trenton and other depots throughout the country. The air fields are under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Transport. There is nothing for air fields in this vote except for Nova Scotia and Vancouver island, provision being made for some aerodromes.


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: Where are these aerodromes located in the maritime provinces?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: At Dartmouth and other localities not yet determined.


Liguori Lacombe: Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to this increase in item 69 for the same reasons which I gave when discussing item 67, and the more so because after scanning the details of this vote I am wondering where

Supply-Defence-Air Force
these expenditures may lead us to. In fact, once we have acquired these war machines we shall have to provide for their maintenance, and increase the number of our aviators. I also wish to point out to the committee the many losses of lives that this aviation training school is liable to cause among our Canadian youth. I shall therefore support the amendment presented by the hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafleche (Mr. Crete).


Archibald Hugh Mitchell: I am going to oppose the amendment for this reason. Some years ago- it was either in 1931 or 1932-there was an air display across Canada demonstrating the acme of perfection in aviation in the dominion at that time, of which a squadron of Canada's best fighting aeroplanes formed a part. I believe the Siskin fighters took part in that. In conversation with some of the men in charge of the Canadian air force aeroplanes I was informed that these machines were built according to plans prepared shortly after the war and the opinion expressed by the men handling these aeroplanes was that they were obsolete and inadequate at that time, which as I say was in 1931 or 1932. I have no other authority than the opinion of the men who handled these aeroplanes. In my opinion it is high time that Canada had up to date equipment, certainly in our air defence.


John Ritchie MacNicol: What plans, if any, is the government making to ensure in Canada the further manufacture of aeroplanes? I might mention a rumour that was current last summer about the time the government took its stand on the question of sanctions, on which at the moment I have no comment to make, either for or against. It was rumoured in Toronto that there was a delegation of manufacturers there from Great Britain considering taking over the old boiler plant which had been operated by the John Inglis Company, a very large plant, quite satisfactory for making aeroplanes, but that owing to the stand taken by the government they crossed over the line and decided to have their planes made in the United States. I do not know how much truth there is in that rumour, but I dhould like the minister to tell the committee what efforts are to be made to see that the aeroplanes are manufactured in Canada.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am not acquainted with the plant mentioned by my hon. friend, but generally speaking the desire of the technical officers is to have as far as possible the same type of aeroplanes in Canada as are used in England by the air ministry there. The normal way of proceeding, apart from the possibility of the government
themselves manufacturing, would be that when our officials, with the advice they get from the officials of the air ministry in mind, decide upon a particular type, say a fighter or bomber, it would be up to whoever got the agency from the parent company in England, and probably paid for it, to get the licence to manufacture in Canada, provided they had the equipment for so doing. So far only one company is building service planes for the . dominion government, but during the year there is no question that other companies will have to undertake the work.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What company is that?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Vickers of Montreal.


Ernest George Hansell: I have been waiting for this amendment, and rather expecting it, in view of the fact that the increase in the estimates for the air force is larger than for any other department. I am going to vote against the amendment, and I want to record my reasons for so doing.
One of the best plans of national defence I believe to be defence from the air. I have been reading a good deal along this line recently, and expert opinion seems to be that there is no effective defence possible from land or sea, that both land and sea forces are vulnerable, but that the air forces are invulnerable except to attack from the air.
I am glad to notice that there are to be twenty-four bombing planes, but there should be several times -that number. It may he of interest to some hon. members to know that in the bombing raids upon London during the great war not one single bombing plane was ever brought down by antiaircraft guns. On the other hand we -are told that bombing planes can hit their mark both on land and sea with very close precision. Looking at these defence estimates from every possible point of view I believe there is no reason why we cannot vote for this increase in the air farces. As it is difficult to know just where civil aviation ends and military aviation begins, I wonder if the minister would mind giving his -opinion -as to -the advisability of building up a civil air force for transport or other purposes all the way across Canada, *and whether or not such an air force could be quickly Changed if necessary to military uses.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think in most countries nowadays the big planes used for civil -aviation are convertible, and some planes built for civil government air operations are convertible for purposes of national defence.
Supply-Defence-Air Force


Mir. ROSS (Middlesex):: Before the vote is taken I wish to ask a question or two of the minister. Before I do so, however, I Should like to commend him on the very efficient manner in which he placed before the house a few days ago the defence situation, together with an outline of his proposals for improving it. The minister has also defended his estimates in an admirable manner under heavy fire, not only from one section of the opposition; I notice that quite a few " shorts " fell in his direction. The Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence have made it very plain to everyone that the proposed increased armament is for defence purposes only. To me that seems largely self-evident. The scope of our defensive armaments as limited by the estimates precludes the possibility of their being used for offensive action overseas. In other words no serious percentage of the arms and equipment to be provided by this program could be moved outside of the country without weakening our defensive position at home to an extent almost inviting disaster.
Now, sir, our defence program, small though it be, should be viewed in the light of modern conditions. Methods of warfare have changed. They have very largely moved from the land and the water into the air. This condition invites from me at this time what may be considered in some quarters as a preposterous statement; however I give it for what it is worth. There is the possibility that at last the tide has commenced to turn, that modern world armament has reached or will shortly have reached, before the completion of the British defence program, the point where it defeats its own ends. My opinion is based upon certain facts. I repeat that offensive warfare has largely moved from the land and the water into the air. I refer to bombing, whether with gas, explosives, or incendiary and chemical materials. It is largely agreed among competent authorities that especially under weather conditions favourable to the attack no adequate direct defence against bombing has yet been found. But there is the important exception of indirect measures, in other words the fear of certain and effective retaliation. The German general staff-and I refer to it simply to illustrate my point -is quite well aware of what retaliation would mean. They realize that bombing attacks on London or the Midlands or important ports would probably be highly successful in themselves, but at the same time they are just as completely aware that even before their bombers in their hundreds-and there would be hundreds-reach England, as large or a larger number of British bombers

would 'be winging their way to Germany, probably actually passing the enemy squadrons, and would cause unparalleled damage to the cities, towns, ports and important centres in that country.
No one man is responsible for the tragic and utterly crazy military situation that exists to-day. It has grown to its present alarming proportions through factors largely arising out of the treaty of Versailles, and also, as has been mentioned here time and again, through the failure of the League of Nations to function as we all hoped it would. I submit that preparedness is reaching that ultimate point where there is a real possibility that it will defeat its own ends. As one surveys the political and military evidence as it now exists I think the conclusion can be fairly reached that preliminary overtures for some measure of disarmament may be under way before the completion of the British program.
At this point I would direct attention to certain remarks of the Prime Minister in his eloquent speech on Friday last. They were of importance, and cannot receive too much emphasis. At page 1048 of Hansard for last Friday the Prime Minister is reported to have said:
We know whatever the ambitions of their rulers may be that throughout the world the peoples as a whole are anxious to preserve peace. On the whole there has been some improvement, a less tense strain in the international situation, a balancing of forces, a growing recognition on the part of every government of the uncertainties of success and the penalties of failure, a growing readiness too to seek to remove the causes of conflict, the sources of friction, and to realize that in the end war settles nothing even for the victor.
Of course there is the other school of thought which holds the view that world conflict is inevitable. We may rest assured it will not be provoked or commenced by the British commonwealth of nations. Its position is now well known, and can be appropriately described in a sentence from Lincoln's first inaugural speech. I believe this sentence is as fitting as it could be:
This government will not assail you; you can have no conflict, without yourselves being the aggressors.
For the time being the English-speaking people must continue to do their part. This is a matter of first-class importance. As I see it, the British commonwealth of nations is like a chain girdling the earth, but at the same time it is no stronger than its weakest link.
In conclusion may I say that as I view it our minister is simply endeavouring to bring our defences to such a point of efficiency that,

Supply-Defence-Air Force
if a testing time should come, his hands will be clean and his conscience clear. In the short time the department has been under his care he has shown great courage, in the face of considerable pressure, in the reorganization and modernizing of the non-permanent service. I believe the results speak for themselves. He has shown great courage in laying all his cards on the table and asking for enough money to furnish a modest defence force with that quality and class of arms and equipment to which our Canadian soldiers, sailors, and airmen are justly entitled.
Is it the intention of the department to have considerable eoordinative training between our air squadrons and our naval units?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, that is the intention.


Duncan Graham Ross: I believe two destroyers will be reporting in April. Is it the intention of the government to have the two new destroyers manoeuvre together, or to have one join the obsolete destroyer on one coast, and the other join the other destroyer?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The
practice in the past has been to have the four destroyers meet annually in West Indies waters for naval training exercises. I presume that will be continued in the future.


Mr. MacNEIL:: The trend of the discussion confirms the suspicions I expressed the other day. We are not discussing preparations for defence ; rather we are discussing preparations for participation in a war of offence. This afternoon we have heard that we should have more colourful uniforms with which to arouse militaristic sentiment in our youth, and that we should have larger armouries instead of emphasis on coastal defence. We have heard the minister describe how the major portion of the expenditures will go for the purchase of mobile equipment, and no emphasis is placed on the necessary part it will play in actual coastal defence. Now we are calmly discussing-and it is being advocated- increased purchases of bombing planes, and it is suggested that bombing planes are necessary for defence. I am anxious to have someone explain to me how, under conditions of modem warfare, a bombing plane could be considered as a defensive weapon. Bombing planes are used to bomb, and surely it is not intended to drop bombs on our own territory. Evidently it is expected we shall engage in measures of retaliation, and drop bombs on innocent women and children in other parts of the world.


Mr. REID:: What about submarines?


Charles Grant MacNeil: The correct defensive
weapon against 'the submarine is the depth charge. It is inconceivable to me that in Canada we should plan an expedition to retaliate against other countries, and that we should make preparation on such a grand scale 'as to send flight squadrons across the Atlantic or the Pacific to drop bombs on the towns of other countries.


William Ross Macdonald: Suppose a foreign country established a base in Canada, what would happen?


Charles Grant MacNeil: That is a remote possibility, and for defence against it bombing planes are not required. To repel the attack of air raiders you must have fighting planes, and fighting planes .are not usually armed with bombs. The point I make is that the discussion indicates that the trend is not towards preparation for defence, but rather for offence, and that all-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Charles Grant MacNeil: -All the items presented by the minister indicate careful preparation under advice of experts of the British war office, so that we may take our place in the fine of empire defence. My views in that regard are confirmed by the remarks of the hon. member who has just taken his seat. In .that regard the assurances given by the government stand for naught; for all preparations indicate that steps are being taken in a contrary direction. For these reasons I support -the amendment, and have no scruples in .protesting against the increased expenditure for aviation, advanced largely at the expense of civil aviation, where our young men actually get their technical training. Clearly the expenditure is intended for purposes of offence rather than defence.


Mr. MARTIN:: So far I have not taken any part in the discussion of these estimates, but I do believe the observations of the hon. member who has just spoken (Mr. MacNeil) cannot escape the consideration of the committee. The Prime Minister, the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Justice have indicated in no uncertain terms that the program of the government, in these particulars, was actuated by no consideration other than one of national defence. In fairness to my convictions, which I believe are well known in some quarters, I could not possibly vote for any measure which would be for purposes of offensive action.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Why bombing planes, then?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member has made a very serious charge, one which is not only in contradiction to the undertaking given by



Supply-Defence-Air Force
responsible ministers but clearly involves an issue far out of proportion to anything already mentioned by the hon. member. As one member to another I would ask him if he can substantiate his charge that the estimates are for purposes of offensive action and not fo.r purposes of defence, and not in vague but in specific language, I would ask him to give some justification for his observations.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I will inform the hon. member that the information tabled by the minister during the discussion of the estimates indicates that the major portion of the expenditures is for weapons which may be considered weapons of offence rather than weapons of defence. Greater emphasis is placed upon mobile equipment, which may readily be used for purposes of overseas contingents, and not for coastal defence, as might be expected from the solemn assurance which was given the house. Sir, I am quite within my rights in questioning the assurance given by a minister in that respect.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will the hon. member permit a question? Against which country is the policy of Canada, in terms of offensive action, directed?


Charles Grant MacNeil: That is the question I
have been asking the government, and to which we have not yet received a satisfactory answer.


Mr. COLD WELL:: I am in agreement with the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil) when he says that bombing planes are offensive weapons of war, and I base this assertion upon the statement made last year by the Prime Minister of Great Britain when speaking in the House of Commons at London. The hon. member for Middlesex (Mr. Ross) also made that clear when he said that aeroplanes were weapons that could be used in retaliation; that their specific defensive use was for reprisal purposes.
As I said before, I do not believe that Canada is in danger of attack from the air. Under present conditions I do not think that such an attack would be feasible from a military point of view. Apparently the Department of National Defence and certain members of this house do not agree with that. If these estimates were for the purpose of protecting our women and children instead of buying bombing planes for retaliatory measures, we should be considering ways and means of protecting our people from possible attacks from the air.
Last night reference was made in a Canadian radio commission broadcast to the matter of defensive preparation from air attacks and

to a report issued by a group of Cambridge scientists dealing with the matter. It happened that a copy of this report came to me from Great Britain through the mail last evening. A distinguished group of Cambridge scientists examined the measures that might be taken as protection against attack from the air, and arrived at the conclusion that no absolute protection was possible. Because of that, they are opposed to this form of warfare- to war itself. Among the group is to be found some of the most distinguished scientists at the university of Cambridge. The group includes:
J. D. Bernal, M.A., assistant director of research in crystallography.
H. A. Harris, M.A., D.Se., professor of anatomy.
A. F. W. Hughes, M.A., Ph.D.
Joseph Needham, Sc.D., Sir William Dunn, reader in bio-chemistry.
N. W. Pirie, M.A., Ph.D., demonstrator in bio-chemistry.
J. S. Turner, M.A., Ph.D., demonstrator in botany.
D.	H. Valentine, M.A., demonstrator in botany.
E.	B. Verney, M.A., M.B., B.Ch., F.R.C.P.,
F.R.S., Shield reader in pharmacology.
C. H. Waddington, M.A., lecturer in zoology.
Arthur Walton, ALA., Ph.D.
W. A. Wooster, M.A., Ph.D., lecturer in the department of mineralogy and petrology.
There is a further list of other scientists comprising the group whose names I will not read. They indicate quite clearly the position in which nations taking measures of a provocative nature will find themselves. In my opinion nations that provide air and naval bases are provoking attacks by other nations. As we know, there is no defence from air attacks except retaliation. The question asked a few moments ago by the hon. member for Vancouer North has never been answered in this chamber. He asked: Against whom are we arming, and whom are we preparing to attack? If these estimates were in reality defence estimates, if the department and hon. members of this house believed that we were in danger of air attacks, the thing to do would be not to buy bombing planes but to build bomb-proof and gas-proof shelters for our people in our congested' centres and to teach them the proper measures to take in the event of attack by air. This is not my own conclusion; I am simply repeating the conclusions arrived at among others by the group of scientists referred to in the broadcast last evening. I regard their statement as one of the most authoritative that has been issued. Moreover, they say that there is no protection for children from air attacks.


Mr. DUPUIS:: Against whom does the hon. member protect himself when he locks his door?

Supply-Defence-Air Force


Thomas Miller Bell: Against the robber or burglar who may be in the vicinity of my home.


Vincent Dupuis: Name him.


Mr. COLDWELL:: I say against the robber who may be in the vicinity of my home.


Vincent Dupuis: There are many international robbers.


Major James William Coldwell: I ask the hon. member what robber is in the vicinity of Canada at the present time and against whom are we preparing these weapons?


Vincent Dupuis: Name yours first.


Major James William Coldwell: I should like to read from the report to which I just referred.


Vincent Dupuis: Scientists will never solve this question.


Major James William Coldwell: The following is an article which appeared in The Lancet of December 19, 1936:
Major Blackmore said little could be done for the child under five. From that age on, they could be persuaded to wear a respirator, but the resistance to breathing, though reduced to two and a half inches, was enough to inhibit small children. A pram cover has been designed to convert the perambulator into a gas proof room, and this worked excellently. The objections were the difficulty of manipulating a perambulator, and the fact that only 25 per cent of the population of the east end of London possessed perambulators.


Mr. McLEAN:: (Melfort): Does that article refer to conditions in Canada or to conditions in another country?


Major James William Coldwell: The city of Montreal is probably just as crowded as the city of Liverpool.


Malcolm McLean: But there is more space around it to which the people could be removed,


Major James William Coldwell: I imagine that gas would kill the people of Montreal just about as quickly as it would kill the people of Manchester.


Malcolm McLean: But I would point out that they do not have to stay in the city.


Major James William Coldwell: I quote further:
A gas-proof box had been designed for children under two and worked well, but the babies objected strongly and yelled. The sight of a mottled face through a yellow celluloid window always convinced the mother that the child was being suffocated and she took it out. Further possibilities were being explored. One of the difficulties was to find personnel for experiment.
And Major Blackmore is in charge of this particular work for the present government of Great Britain. The point I am making is this: 31111-731
We have heard a great deal in this house about the defence of our women and children. Today we are told that we need bombing planes for protection, for retaliatory measures if you will, but no appropriations are to be found in these estimates for giving any real defence for our women and children in the event of air raids. I say, Mr. Chairman, that these defence estimates can be construed only as offence estimates.


Malcolm McLean: In your opinion.


Major James William Coldwell: In my opinion. If we are looking for real defence for our people we should examine the scientific factors that will be brought to bear in the next war. If we believe that war is a possibility we should prepare ourselves for that. The hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil) last night mentioned the new bombs that have been perfected, the thermite bombs. I wonder whether the Department of National Defence has given any consideration to precautions which might be taken to meet the havoc and devastation that would be caused by aeroplanes dropping thermite bombs. There is not a chemical known that will extinguish fires started by that type of bomb because it burns without air. If hon. gentleman care to get the report to which I have referred this afternoon, they will find experiments in the use of thermite described therein, one of which was the dropping of thermite through a pail of water which resulted in burning out the bottom of the pail. To guard against the effect of aerial attacks would be a real defence measure. If we are buying planes because we fear air raids, then I say that the methods of defence which we should adopt are rather methods that would enable us to defend ourselves against the effects of the raids about which we are being continually frightened. I am asking the department to be logical. I have been logical. I have opposed this estimate because I do not believe we are likely to be attacked from the air. I ask the department to be equally logical, and if they believe that air raids upon us are possible, let them make some recommendations to this committee to meet the situation that would then arise, we will say, in a city like Montreal, Halifax, Vancouver or Saint John.


Mr. DEACHMAN:: Mr. Chairman, I have not said a word upon these estimates so far, but when the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) suggests that the only possible defence for the Dominion of Canada is a gas-bag, a fire hose and a funk hole, I must ask permission to make a brief reply.
You will recall, sir, that in 1914 there was a war. At that time the German cruiser

Supply-Defence-Air Force
Emden broke loose, and raided and sank thousands of tons of British shipping. Perhaps the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, or if he is not a naval or military expert, perhaps the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) can tell us what would have prevented the Emden, had it chosen to do so, from coming to Victoria, destroying the shipping there, passing on to Vancouver and repeating the same process there. Had we anything to defend ourselves with at that time? Was there a man, was there a ship, was there a plane which could have interfered? Am I right when I suggest that the defence upon which we relied at that time was two or three Japanese cruisers which happened by chance to be in the immediate vicinity? I am not a warrior. I do not want war; I deplore war as much as anybody in this house can possibly deplore it, but I submit that we must consider realities.
In 1914 there was also the cruiser squadron of von Spee attacking shipping in the south Atlantic. It met the ships of Cradock, defeated them and then moved towards the east coast of South America. That was a much greater menace than the Emden. What was there to prevent it from going up to Victoria or to the Atlantic ports? Could my hon. friend the Minister of National Defence state that we now have at Vancouver or Victoria or any other coast city, aeroplanes or antiaircraft guns with which one might stop such a squadron from attacking our ports? It is true that the squadron moved around the other way and there was met by a British squadron, but it is conceivable that in the next war conditions might not be exactly the same. It might be that British squadrons will not be .moving freely here and there in the Atlantic to chase German cruisers. History repeats itself, but not always on the same lines. It might be that for a time British warships would be compelled to remain near home and they might have to let a stray vessel of the enemy cross the seas, destroying what it will.
I ask my hon. friends, the military and naval experts in the southeast corner, this question:	Are you willing to say that this
country should go absolutely without defence? I answer that you are not, because you voted this afternoon time and time again for the expenditure of the same amount as we expended last year. You believe in defence, but you do not believe in efficient defence. You believe in fighting, but you believe in fighting with what someone has described as wooden guns. I want peace. I will do anything that is possible for peace. I have asked

this house, and especially the Minister of Finance, and I have appealed to the nation as a whole, that we ought to consider means of expanding our trade and developing our commerce with other nations of the world. But if you are not going to do that, are you going to face realities? Are you going to meet the exigencies of war, as you must do if war comes? Are you going to realize that in that case you must be prepared to defend Canada? And what are you going to defend it with?
I do not suggest to-day that these estimates are too high or too low. I am not competent to judge. All I say is that we have police forces in our cities. Will you withdraw the police? Would the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar who knows someone in his immediate neighbourhood who might be a robber hesitate to lock his door because he did not happen to be acquainted with the robber? I submit that we do not know the nation against which we may be engaged. The scene changes rapidly, and no one knows what may happen. But I want to mention one word that I received to-day in a letter from a friend in London. He said: "My friends here expect the storm to break before July.1' I hope he is wrong. I feel in my heart he must be wrong.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


Robert John Deachman: I do not believe the world can be so mad. Would we not ourselves be full of madness if we failed to take cognizance of the circumstances, if we failed to realize that when the storm breaks, we may in some measure be brought into close contact with it. When that storm comes, it may be necessary for us to do something, and we at least ought to be prepared, not for every eventuality, but surely for some.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Chairman, the
hon. member for Huron North (Mr. Deachman), whether he intended it or not, has really diverted the discussion from the point we were raising. He urges that we face realities. That is what some of us are trying to do. We are asking whether this greatly increased armament is adequate. The minister cannot say that it is. We are asking against whom are we preparing to fight. The minister cannot name the nation.


Vincent Dupuis: Any nation which may be
at war with us.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The minister and
the government are not facing the realities of the situation. If we venture to criticize anything, someone sneers that we are not military and naval experts. Hon. members

Supply-Defence-Air Force
who do the sneering are themselves not much more military and naval experts than anyone else in the committee. We have asked the minister again and again with regard to the advice of experts, but we are told that he must not divulge military secrets and strategy. I submit that although we members of parliament are not naval and military experts and make no pretence of being such, we are called upon again and again in the discussion of estimates to determine upon policies with regard to agriculture, as to which most of us are not experts, with regard to commerce, concerning which most of us are not experts, with regard to labour, with regard to legal matters, in which most of us are not experts. Then why should it be that the military estimates should be considered as quite different from any other? Though we may not be military experts, some of us have been trained in some degree in logic, and logical reasoning is not confined to either side of this house or any group in this house. As duly elected representatives we are asked to determine upon a certain policy, and it does not help to clear the situation When hon. members opposite sneer or pound their desks.
The hon. member for Huron North had a good deal to say about guns and ships and anti-aircraft. I submit that the vote we are discussing is not concerned with any of these things.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why not?


James Shaver Woodsworth: What we are now concerned with is planes, bombing planes. It is curious that although the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil) objected to this provision on the ground that essentially it would mean offensive rather than defensive warfare, the minister had nothing to say. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) supplemented what had been said earlier by quoting an authoritative statement, from men who are dealing with this very question at close quarters in England. Again, the minister has nothing to say in rebuttal of the argument. Only a few minutes ago an hon. member who sits just behind the minister distinctly made the statement, in supporting the government's policy, that bombing planes were practically useless except for retaliation. The minister has not indicated whether he accepts such supporting opinions as that. From all I have read, it is generally agreed that bombing planes are of very little value except as a means of retaliation. Yet the minister has nothing to say when we point to an argument of that kind, an argument put forward as one reason for supporting the estimate for an increased expenditure
on bombing planes. When, a few days ago, we were urged to accept these increased estimates and all that this program involves, we asked against whom we were arming. We pointed out that it was next to impossible for the Japanese on one coast or the Germans on the other to send an expedition to Canada. We were told in reply that occasionally raiders may come over here and that we ought to be able to repel occasional raids from whatever country they come. One would have thought that if we were facing realities the program would be one of coastal defence. Quite true, certain increases along that line have been proposed, but now the minister comes along with proposals for an increased expenditure well on to seven millions of dollars, the major part of which relates to this arm of defence, and we ask the reason for it. It is admitted that if a raider came across at this time, our bombing planes would not be much good, but the major purpose of the bombing plane would be retaliation. Let us come to realities. Is it suggested that if a German plane, we will say, came over here and managed, as the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) put it the other day, to drop a bomb on a granary in Saskatchewan, we must send our air force away over the Atlantic to drop bombs on Germany?


An hon. MEMBER:: No.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That is the logic of the proposal.


Vincent Dupuis: To protect us against such an attack.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Are we to understand that our only purpose in providing for such a large force of aeroplanes circling over this country or known to be somewhere available, is that the Germans will be afraid to come over here for fear that we then would go over to Germany? I suggest we are being driven to extreme and imaginary assumptions if that is the argument in support of the vote. Is it possible for us to accept that point of view without going contrary to the policy which we have been assured is the policy of this government? I could hardly but accept the statements of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), coming as they did from men who are sincere. I could hardly but accept the assurance they gave the other day that this defence vote was for purely defence purposes. But, Mr. Chairman, whatever they may think, I do not know exactly the means by which advice is passed on from one governmental body to another, from the United Kingdom to this country, but I do say that we have the right to be suspicious. We have the

Supply-Defence-Air Force
right to be suspicious when, we find that a major part of the increase is to be devoted, not to defence purposes-admittedly it would be useless for strictly defence purposes-but to what would be of value as a means of retaliation. That retaliation would undoubtedly carry our planes over to some foreign country. Again and again it has been admitted that we are not going to attack the United States. Then the only other foreign country would be overseas.. It may be that somewhere there will be a submarine upon which a bomb might be dropped. I admit that possibility. But essentially that would not deter a great nation from sending bombers over to this country. The effective use of bombers can mean only that we would send bombing planes to Europe or to Asia, and that means that we depart entirely from the policy which the Minister of Justice, the Prime Minister, and the Minister of National Defence himself have stated is the policy of Canada. I think we ought to be fair in this matter.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Hear,
hear.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I think we ought to be straightforward in this matter..


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am glad to hear the minister say, "hear, hear." Then the government should proceed with perfect fairness and frankness. Somebody said that the Minister of National Defence had laid all his cards on the table. I am not suggesting that he has some Machiavellian plan to put this program over on Canada, but I do suggest to him that the program which is being outlined is not one that will commend itself to a very great number of Canadians as being a purely defence program. And that is especially true of this item. It has been charged in some sections of the chamber that we in this corner have not been absolutely consistent. I do not know what other course we could have taken in order to be consistent. We have from the very first opposed the increase in armaments, and we are opposing it item by item. When our motion of lack of confidence was before the house, the Prime Minister suggested that we had some other end in view and that when it came to the estimates we would not vote against them. That was his suggestion in opposing our resolution. Well, we are voting against these increases steadily, item by item, and we propose to continue doing so; we are sincere in that. Some of us believe that we could settle the matter far better by other means than by
{Mr. Woodsworth.]
military defence preparations. I am convinced of the truth of that. As I tried to set forth in my resolution earlier in the session, I believe that if, in an endeavour to bring about better relations between Canada and the other countries, if necessary making financial sacrifices and refusing to ship our raw materials to be used in the manufacture of armaments in other countries, thus provoking yet other countries to retaliation,-if to that end we devoted one-tenth of the attention and one-tenth of the money that we give to military matters, it would be a surer defence than any other which could be provided. I have said that again and again. I should like to wipe out all these increases. But an item of this kind is particularly objectionable, simply because it seems to indicate that, if not in the back of the minister's mind, at any rate in the back of the minds of his officials-and we have no way of getting at them except through the minister-there is the idea that these military bombing planes may be used not in Canada but for some expedition outside Canada. They are mobile; they are the arm that could be most readily used if we were asked to send a military expedition abroad. One cannot but have the feeling that somewhere considerations of this kind are behind this program.
We are given a picture to-day of what will be involved, and if bombs are dropped in other countries it will be on other households, upon women and children as well as men. I can very well recollect, as can many hon. members, the consternation, the abhorrence, we experienced in the last war when the Germans began using gas. It was a horrible thing, we thought; never would we resort to any such thing. Throughout the world there was an outcry against it. Yet the horror has passed and the use of gas and gas bombs and bombing planes is being accepted as essential in. modern warfare. That is the picture to which we must look forward.
I wish to say as a Canadian-and I feel sure I represent the feeling of tens of thousands of other Canadians-that we would do anything rather than involve this country in fratricidal strife.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I think that is
true. I will not sneer at my hon. friends opposite, for I believe they would do almost anything to avoid such a state of affairs. But I do say that they are adopting a military program which will inevitably land us in that sort of thing. They do not want it any more than I do, but they are adopting a program which in the end means war, and not

Supply-Defence-Air Force
merely war for the defence of our own borders but war which will inevitably land us in some foreign country. That is the end of the road.


Mr. FRASER:: Does the hon. member
really believe that bombing planes are not used in coastal defence?


James Shaver Woodsworth: The best information that I can secure is, as was stated by an hon. member on the government side a few minutes ago, that bombing planes are almost useless for purely defensive purposes. That is my information.


Duncan Graham Ross: If the hon. member is referring to me, I object to that statement; I never said any such thing.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Hansard will show
it. He said that bombing was practically useless except as a means of retaliation. I believe that was the meaning of his words. I should not like to do him wrong but that is what I wrote down.


Mr. LENNARD:: May I ask the hon. member one question? What would he do in the event of an enemy nation sailing aeroplane carriers within a few hours' distance of our coast? What method of offence would he adopt?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I do not think I
am particularly called upon to answer that question. That contingency is so remote that we can very well disregard it.


Ernest Lapointe: There is one question which has been asked so often during the course of this debate, and which I regard as so preposterous, that I consider it my duty to answer it. Hon. gentlemen are asking us: Against whom are you arming? Can there be anything more ludicrous than that question? My hon. friend has just asked the same question, and I ask him: Can he cite any country in the world, any parliament in a civilized country where, when they organize their defence, they broadcast to the world that they are arming against this or that country? It is absurd to ask that question and my hon. friend knows it.
We in Canada are a peaceful people and we try to maintain friendly relations with all the nations of the world. We have no enemies, I hope; in fact I know we have no enemies. How can my hon. friend ask us to say that we are arming against somebody in particular? But we live in a world the conditions in which we cannot ignore. We live in a world which is arming everywhere and in a way we all deplore. At no time in history has there been such intensive arming on the part of every
nation as there is at the present time. Rulers of nations advertise themselves, as was done in two countries which I could name but shall not, as wanting by force to propagate their doctrines throughout the world. As I say, we are the enemy of no one, but we have to take into account the madness that prevails everywhere. And we try at least-at least, I repeat-to defend ourselves in case of need. My hon. friends themselves are voting for credits for defence. Some hon. members on that side, and even on this side, have moved amendments to reduce the items in the estimates, but they want to keep the amounts as they were last year or the year before; that is an admission that there must be some provision for the defence of Canada. If there must be some national defence, is it not proper that it should be at least a little efficient, a little effective? That is a question more logical and reasonable than the one asked by my hon. friend.
After all, the first law of life is that of selfpreservation. Every organism that lives seeks to protect itself, to make conditions so that it may live. The first duty of a nation is to defend its citizens; that I believe, no one will contradict. But my hon. friends say: Oh, we are in no danger, there is no need; we cannot foresee any. Well, to govern is to foresee. On a question like this we cannot follow our own personal fancies; we must take into account our responsibilities for our fellow men in Canada, and if unfortunately in a certain emergency something happens which my hon. friends say cannot happen, but which others say may happen, I could not justify myself to my conscience for neglect to take precautions by saying that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) or the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil) or the communist party of Toronto or some groups in my own province told me that we did not need any defence. We are responsible; we have to make provision, and that is what we are doing at this time, as members of the government and as members of parliament doing our duty as God has given us the light to see it. I have heard somebody say: These explanations are all right, but my electors in the sixth range of some township will not understand that. Mr. Chairman, we are not going to govern Canada on that basis. I am a member of this government, and we are going to govern Canada in the way which we believe is the straightforward, honest and fair way for the protection of our citizens. And let me also ask-for some hon. members come back time after time with the suggestion that we are preparing for participation in wars outside Canada-why

Supply-Defence-Air Force
should hon. gentlemen say this when they know that it is not the case, when they know that it is not true-


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Chairman, I
ask that that statement be withdrawn.


Ernest Lapointe: Which statement?


William Alexander Fraser: It is no worse than the
statement made by the hon. member a few minutes ago. Let him withdraw his own.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Chairman, on
a point of order. The Minister of Justice said that in expressing ourselves as we had done we made statements which we knew not to be true.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Which we knew to be wrong. I say that statement must be withdrawn.


Ernest Lapointe: I said
that they know these estimates are not for outside intervention but for the defence of Canada.


James Shaver Woodsworth: We do not know
that.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Frederick George Sanderson: The point of order of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) in my opinion is not well taken.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Chairman, I
appeal against your ruling. I have never allowed anyone to say that my motives were wrong, that I knew anything which I did not know. I appeal against the ruling.


Mr. CLEAVER:: But you will accuse any member of the government of that.


Ernest Lapointe: If my hon. friend wants to speak, I have the floor.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I have appealed
against the chairman's ruling.


Ernest Lapointe: I suppose my hon. friend does not insist on his appeal?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I have appealed
against the ruling of the chairman.


An hon. MEMBER:: Put it in writing,
according to the rules of the house.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I have the right
to appeal.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: But your appeal must be in writing.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That has not been the practice of this house. I am willing to put it in writing, but in the meantime I say that has not been the practice.


Ernest Lapointe: Does my hon. friend want me to write it for him?


James Shaver Woodsworth: No. But I have
been in this house for a good many years and I have never seen a member compelled to stop to do that.


Frederick George Sanderson: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre will be good enough to put his appeal against the ruling of the chair in writing, and present it to the table.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I know of no such rule. Perhaps the chairman will show me the rule. It is not the practice of the house. I submit we ought not to make a certain rule in one case and another rule in another case.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, speaking to the point of order, during the twelve years I have been a member I have never seen a motion which was not in writing. If the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre moves to appeal from your decision, he must put it in writing, in order that Mr. Speaker may take cognizance of his complaint. That seems clear and official, and there is nothing now before the chair. Mr. Chairman, you are ready to submit to Mr. Speaker the complaint of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, but you have nothing in your hand. What can you give to Mr. Speaker? It is just as clear as daylight at noon. Therefore it seems to me that while we were waiting for Mr. Speaker to receive your report the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre would have ample time to draft a short motion. More than that, I am ready to oblige him by drafting the motion, if he will tell me what he wants to put into it. That, however, is not an engagement to vote for it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Chairman, no hon. member is allowed to impute motives to another. The Minister of Justice has done that, and I have appealed. Ordinarily it is sufficient to appeal to the Speaker. I have never known of a case of this kind, and I say it is distinctly subversive of the law of order of the house, and of all sense of justice and fair play, if there is to be one set of rules for one party and another set for another party.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend is entirely wrong. If he thinks I was

Dionne Quintuplets
imputing motives, I am quite willing to give him satisfaction. I did not impute any motives to the hon. member.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That is all I asked for at the beginning.


Jean-François Pouliot: Speaking to the question of privilege, I would say it has just been settled.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend has been successful in one thing, namely to cut my speech short.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.
Amendment (Mr. Crete) negatived: Yeas, 22; Nays, 120.


Mr.   CHAIRMAN@: I declare the amendment lost. Shall the item carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Mr. DOUGLAS:: I understood the minister


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


An hon. MEMBER:: It is six o'clock.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock. PRIVATE BILLS



DIONNE QUINTUPLETS

[Stage Direction]
Mr. R. W. GRAY (Lambton West) moved the second reading of Bill No. 19, for the protection of the Dionne quintuplets.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Explain.


Mr. GRAY:: In 1935 the provincial legislature of Ontario passed an act respecting the guardianship of the Dionne quintuplets. Under this act the Minister of Public Welfare was appointed a special guardian and the lieutenant governor in council was empowered to appoint additional guardians. At the present time His Honour Judge Valin, Doctor Dafoe and the father, Mr. Dionne, are the active guardians of the quintuplets and in them is vested full power to look after the health and general welfare of the quintuplets.
An application was made recently to the patent office for the registration of the words "quins," "quints" and "quintuplets" as trade marks to be used exclusively in connection with certain articles. The application lists
some two hundred articles, but I shall read only a few. It was made by the Blossom Products Corporation, of Allentown Pennsylvania, in the month of January and asks the right to use these words in connection with panties, bloomers, stepins, undersuits of knitted and woven fabrics, pyjamas, bathing suits, corsets, combinations, slips, mufflers, mittens, knickers, rompers, creepers, ties, bibs, overalls, suspenders, wind-breakers, crossword puzzles, paper games, bicycles, tricycles, brooms, kiddy carts, wheelbarrows, scooters, checker boards, blankets, spreads, beddings, pillows, mattresses, quilts, sheets, scarves, alcoholic beverages, ale, beer, gin, whisky, brandy, dental cream, toothbrushes, lip and cheek rouge, mascara, eye shadow, eyebrow pencil, high chairs, baby chairs, tobaccos, cigarettes, pipes, patent medicines and sewing boxes, in connection with all of which wares the applicant is exclusively concerned. The commissioner of patents found' that he would be bound to grant the application of the applicants unless some protection was given. This bill proposes to vest exclusively in the guardians of the quintuplets the right to use the words "quins," "quints" and "quintuplets." Perhaps hon. members would like to discuss this bill and may have certain suggestions to make by way of amendment, and for these reasons I think it only right, should the house agree, that the bill should be referred to the private bills committee. I have discussed this matter with the commissioner of patents and he advises me that this is the only procedure by which the necessary protection can be given.


Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, as this bill is going
before the private bills committee I shall not discuss it at length at this time. I may say that I claim no experience in this matter, but I wish to confirm what has been said by the sponsor of the bill (Mr. Gray). Unless a bill of this kind is passed, the objects hoped to be attained can not be attained. Under the provisions of the Unfair Competition Act, which is a statute passed in 1932, dealing with the registration of trade marks, generally speaking trade marks in the form of a word may be registered only in association with specific commodities which are manufactured or sold by the person seeking to register the trade mark. On the other hand, there is nothing in the act giving the Secretary of State any discretionary power to refuse an application by any firm for the registration of the word "quintuplets" or other words of that kind. Although this is a common word, it has come to have great commercial value because

Divorce in British Columbia
of the great public interest throughout the world in the Dionne quintuplets. Commercial houses both in Canada and abroad have been anxious to register these words as trade marks, and, as the hon. gentleman has just said, some applications have been made to my department.
After consultation with the commissioner of patents we came to the conclusion that we could not refuse such an application or delay the grant indefinitely. The department has always taken the stand that it could not view favourably any legislation which devised to private or commercial firms special privileges, but it would appear that the circumstances in this case are such that the department would not oppose this bill. It will be sent to the private bills committee where all sides, if there are more than one, can be heard. Therefore, I ask the house to consent to the second reading and send the bill to the committee.
Right Hon. R. B. B'ENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, this is not a ease of sides or parties; it is essentially a question of the public interest. I venture to say that no such measure has ever before been submitted to any parliament. I wonder whether the house realizes just what this bill means? It means that the provisions of the law with respect to trade marks are to be set at naught. As the minister (Mr. Rinfret) has said, a trade mark can be registered only under certain conditions, but these conditions are not to be observed with respect to this matter. These words are to be declared trade marks without any obligation upon these people to comply with the provisions of the law with respect to trade marks. In other words, this bill is to prevent anyone else from using these words.


Ross Wilfred Gray: During the life of the quintuplets.


Richard Bedford Bennett: These words are declared to be the trade marks of five minor children incapable of holding property except through guardians. The guardians have given no indication of any intention to utilize these trade marks in accordance with the provisions of the law. In my judgment it is legislation which, in the public interest, we cannot entirely overlook. I cannot think of the use of the word "quints" causing any harm to these five children. What harm could possibly be done by someone using the word "quints" according to the terms of the law when they have to do certain things in order to maintain the validity of their trade marks? As the minister very properly observed, they

can be used only in connection with some specific matter.
We are now being asked to call these words trade marks and vest them in the guardians for purposes not at all related to commerce. This parliament is being asked to do something which I venture to say has never before been done by any parliament in connection with trade marks. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Gray), who has moved the second reading of this bill, has stated that it will be sent to the private bills committee, so there is no object in my directing the attention of the house to the facts I have mentioned other than to say that the public interest must be considered regardless of any sentimental or other considerations which may obtain. I venture to say that in the long history of the administration of trade marks there has never been such a bill as this one for the purpose of creating trade marks out of words of this kind and vesting them in the guardians of minor children who have no intention of utilizing them for commercial purposes. I only direct attention to that and will leave it at that because the bill is going to the private bills committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 24, for the relief of Joseph Neilson Blacklock-Mr. Plaxton.
Bill No. 25, for the relief of Erancis Hector Walker-Mr. Hyndman.
Bill No. 26, for the relief of William Edward Connor

Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 27, for the relief of Annie Nemchek Cohen-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 28, for the relief of James Gordon Ross-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 29, for the relief of Florence Anna Iverson Salberg-Mr. Jacobs.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, February 9, consideration of the motion of Mr. Green for the second reading of Bill No. 15, to provide for appeal to the court of appeal of the province of British Columbia in divorce and matrimonial causes.
Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I have always been opposed to divorce. A few years ago I fought strongly against the bill of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. FEBRUARY 23, 1937	1161
Supply-Defence-Air Force
Woodsworth) establishing divorce courts in Ontario. I stated at the time that it would facilitate divorce, and that the number of divorces would increase as a result, and unfortunately the statistics show that I was right. But this bill is altogether different. A divorce court is operated and now exists in the province of British Columbia.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It did before British Columbia joined the union.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, before it joined the union, but the courts have held that there was a doubt as to whether there was an appeal to the court of appeal of British Columbia and that appeals should go to the privy council. It has been represented to me, and I have the conviction, that divorce is rather more easily obtained under these circumstances, that perhaps it is not surrounded with the same safeguards there would be if there was an appeal court in British Columbia for divorce as there is in the other provinces. In other words, this bill, instead of facilitating divorce, will make it more difficult. It will assure more safeguards to the parties. Under these circumstances I do not oppose the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Appellate jurisdiction in divorce and matrimonial causes.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I ask the sponsor of this bill if this clause includes appeals on questions of fact as well as of law?


Mr. GREEN:: Yes; it includes an appeal on questions of fact.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
Aviation

Royal Canadian Air Force-Expenses in connection with the general maintenance and training of the permanent and non-permanent active air force, and provision of facilities therefor, $11,391,650.
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Just before recess I was about to ask the minister -a question. At the moment, however, I should like to make some observations with reference to remarks by the hon. member for Huron North (Mr. Deach-man), and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) to -the effect that we of this group
have hardly been consistent in that we voted for estimates equal to the amount of last year. We have not opposed defence. We have opposed the increase in defence, because we do not believe that any adequate reason has been shown for these increased estimates. The Minister of Justice made a strange remark. He said he did not propose to be convinced that the vote was a waste of money merely because that point of view was advocated by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil), the communist party in Toronto, and some sections of his own province.


Ernest Lapointe: That is quite true.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I would not go so far as to say that the minister intentionally lumped together all these groups for the purpose of inferring that the inspiration for this opposition came from the communist party.


Ernest Lapointe: It is a mere coincidence.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If such an interpretation should be put upon our action, I should like to state here and now that our opposition has been consistent with the policy and philosophy of this group. While it is not unusual to hear some hon. gentlemen associate us with the communist party, in order to cast somewhat of a slur upon our group, it is unusual to hear them include also any hon. members from Quebec who happen to differ from the government.
I think we are fully within our rights in asking two questions with reference to these increases: first, if they are needed, and, second, if they are to be used exclusively for defence. The minister said this afternoon that the question against whom the provision is to be made is totally irrelevant, because in other countries where rearmament is being voted no mention is made of the nation against whom they are rearming. That is hardly in accordance with the facts. As a matter of fact, again and again in the Japanese diet Russia has been cited as the nation against whom Japan is providing defence. Hitler has stated repeatedly that fear of communism is what causes his country to arm. The Prime Minister of Great Britain made the statement not long ago that the frontier for Great Britain was on the Rhine, and that Britain must protect the sea route to India, which is the life-line of the empire. I think these statements clearly show against whom those nations are arming. But no such statement has been made in connection with these estimates. We are repeatedly

Supply-Defence-Air Force
told that we have no enemies, and at the same time, that we must defend ourselves lest some time or another we should manage to develop enemies. There is no reason for some of the indignation that was displayed this afternoon merely because we asked, quite frankly, are these purchases that it is now proposed to make, in the best interests of defence, or are they such as will not give adequate defence but rather will lend themselves to the formation of a mobile unit for use elsewhere? In asking the minister to give that information, we are not being obstructionists, nor are we trying to be facetious. Therefore I ask the minister just what part would bombing planes play in actual defence in the event either of an attack by raiders or an invasion of our coasts.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: This is the first time during the discussion of these estimates that the minister in charge of them has been asked this question by any member of the group in the corner. All the members of the group other than the hon. member who has just spoken took it for granted, and so stated plainly in this committee, that these estimates were to be used for offensive purposes outside the Dominion of Canada, and they thereby broke the rules of the house, because not only my leader, the Prime Minister, but two or three of our colleagues and many others who are conversant with the policy underlying these estimates stated, not once, but time after time on the floor of the house that not one cent of these estimates is intended for any purposes of aggression outside Canada, but that the vote is intended solely for the defence of the dominion. I think my friends and my political opponents alike will agree with me that I have refrained from any provocative utterances during the discussion of these estimates. What has happened? My hon. friends of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation moved an amendment when Mr. Speaker was in the chair a week ago. The debate upon that amendment occupied the house for almost a week. During the discussion unequivocal assurances were given by the government that every cent of these estimates-air force, militia and naval estimates-was for the defence of Canada, of Canadian territorial waters and Canadian neutrality. Yet when we come to the items, hon. member after hon. member day after day rises in his place and refuses to accept the assurances which have been given. There is a rule that when an hon. member rises in his place and makes a statement his word is to be accepted, and I am very much surprised at the suspicion and distrust which

seem to have been engendered in the minds of my hon. friends opposite.
With reference to the use of bombing planes, I do not pretend to the wonderful knowledge that some of my critics appear to have, but the best technical advice I have received is that the most effective defensive weapon to-day is the aeroplane, the bombing aeroplane. My hon. friends, however, will not accept the assurances of those who give this technical advice. I desire again to assure the hon. member for Weyburn, if assurance is of any use to him, that every cent of these estimates is intended for the purposes that have been specified, for the defence of Canada.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I asked the minister a perfectly civil question. I hardly think it is necessary-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down. [DOT]


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I rise to a point of order.


An hon. MEMBER:: Take your medicine.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I asked a perfectly civil question. I refuse to have it imputed to me that I am not open to conviction, or that I am impervious to any explanation.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am glad to know that the hon. member is open to receive an explanation. I am 'trying to convince him; I trust that when I have finished my explanation he will be entirely convinced. At one time 'the members of the group to which he belongs argue that these defence estimates are not adequate for the defence of Canada; at another time they complain that these estimates are used for offensive purposes. They offer us two great policies, one a home policy -and the other a foreign policy. The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis), in reply, I believe, to the Prime Minister, said the other day that he was in favour of military sanctions with reference to the League of Nations.


Angus MacInnis: I dia not say anything of the kind.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I was in the house. The records of Hansard will confirm my statement.


Angus MacInnis: The records of Hansard will not show any such thing.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Mr. Chairman, if I am misquoting my hon. friend I will certainly retract, but I should like to

Supply-Defence-Air Force
refer to Hansard to substantiate what I 'have said, that he was in favour of participation with reference to any obligation existing under the League of Nations.


Angus MacInnis: Quite so.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That
means one thing and one 'thing only. It means military sanctions. And what would [DOT]that involve? I am neither criticizing nor commending the policy he advocates. But if Canada had sent a mobile division last year to Ethiopia, it would have cost this country in eight months over $100,000,000. That is the meaning of the foreign policy of the hon. member for Vancouver Bast; yet when we come here proposing a modest expenditure of $35,000,000 for defence of our Canadian homes and Canadian shores, ibhese hon. gentlemen do everything possible to retard and hinder and impair the passage of the estimates.
This is the quotation:
Mr. Lapointe (Quebec East) :	But suppose
the hon. member is wrong, and there had been a war, would he have been in favour of participating in that war?
Mr. Maelnnis:	Most certainly, in any action
which Canada as a member of the league would take to protect another member of the league.
As I said, I neither commend nor condemn
that declaration of policy, but I am stating its implications and its consequences. If Canada had been called upon last year to send a division to Ethiopia, the cost to this country would have exceeded $100,000,000; yet, though we 'have given repeatedly in this house most emphatic assurances that these modest estimates are solely for the defence of Canada, we have two declarations of policy from our critics across the way: one from the member for Vancouver East, which would mean an expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars of Canadian money; the other, from the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Goldwell), who would not allow us <a gun or an aeroplane or a warship or a torpedo-boat destroyer or a submarine, but who would have a national policy of dugouts for the Dominion of Canada. That is going to be 'the home policy of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group-overseas hundreds of millions of dollars; in Canada not a cent for the defence of the liberties and the security of the Canadian people. We muit not give to our Canadian boys, the finest fighters in the air the world 'has ever seen, decent aeroplanes to meet anyone who might assail us. Instead we must have a policy of dug-outs, east and west, north and south.
That is the policy of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. I have never seen such inconsistency, suspicion and mistrust in all my experience in the House of Commons.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I asked a question, and I am still waiting for the answer. I enjoyed the exuberant eloquence of the hon. gentleman,, but I should like to get an answer to the question which I asked.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The
question was with regard to bombing aeroplanes, and the answer is that according to the best opinion they constitute one of the most effective defensive weapons.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The minister accuses the group over here of holding up the estimates and prolonging the debate.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, no.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Oh, yes, he did. He said that day after day this discussion had gone on in the house, and he also accused us of being responsible for the debate which took place during the best part of last week. I would point out in the first place that those who spoke most on the question last week were members of his own party, and if he is going to point the finger of accusation at anyone for holding up the discussion he had better look around him among his own friends. There he will find the culprits. For, after all, the Conservative party did not participate in the discussion at all; only five members of Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group spoke on it, and they were not allowed more than forty minutes each; in fact I doubt whether they took up the whole forty minutes. But if they did, that would mean two hours on the part of this group in the discussion last week, while all the rest of the time the hon. gentleman's own supporters discussed the question. They were the ones who took up the time. And the same thing with regard to the amendments. The items under discussion yesterday and again to-day have been spoken to mostly by members on the minister's side. I do not know of any member of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group that has moved any amendments; possibly one may have done so. Most of the amendments came from supporters of the minister himself. Why, therefore, does he accuse us? As the hon. member for Weyburn said, his own exuberance ran away with him and he forgot himself, and possibly the same remark applies to some of the arguments he has used. I have not spoken a great deal on the question. I asked a few questions for information and I do not believe any of us in this group are entirely

Supply-Defence-Air Force
opposed to having defence. I realize that we must have some defence, just as it was pointed out that if we are to preserve order in any community, we must have the nucleus of a police force there. But there is legitimate room for differences of opinion on these estimates. I am of opinion that we could have had the same efficiency in connection with the defence forces of the country with the amount of money spent last year as we shall have with the money we are asked to vote on this occasion.


An hon. MEMBER:: Give the basis of your opinion.


Abraham Albert Heaps: It is my opinion though
it may not be worth much, and in a discussion such as this I do not suppose that it would be worth much, but I believe the opinion is shared by many others. As I have said here before, if only a tithe of this money spent for war purposes were spent in an effort to foster peace sentiments among the nations, we should get far more value for the money expended than we receive for the money spent on munitions and in preparing for some eventuality.


Angus MacInnis: The Minister of National Defence is greatly concerned about the inconsistency of the defence policies of the small group in this corner, but I am not sure that his own party are all at one on their defence policy. There is possibly more inconsistency on that side, not only relatively, but perhaps on the whole. When he has got rid of the inconsistency in his own camp, he can come over here and lecture us. Let us look at the situation we were dealing with last Thursday. I made some reference to sanctions-and remember sanctions were applied by the Liberal government against Italy in 'the war with Ethiopia. If those sanctions had led to war, would the government have taken part in that war or would they have backed out? That is a question we have a right to ask the government.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why don't you ask
us where the fire goes when it goes out?


Angus MacInnis: Judging by the look of
distress on the hon. member's face, I doubt whether he himself knows the answer to that. The question before the dominion is Still the question of foreign policy and we have not settled it yet, nor have we done anything towards settling it. Am I to understand, is the bouse to understand, is the country to understand, that in developing this defence policy we are withdrawing from the League of Nations and will take no further part in applying sanctions or in any other

phase of the work of the league? That is a question which must be answered satisfactorily to the people of Canada. If we are going to withdraw, what alignments are we going to make? For, after all, we must have some policy, a policy of collective security; either we must have a policy of association with the commonwealth of nations in a league of some sort or we must make some other arrangement. One of these alternatives is inevitable; which one are we going to choose?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I point
out to' the hon. member that this house has already agreed that with respect bo sanctions parliament will say what is to be done. That has been settled; my hon. friend was a party to it.


Angus MacInnis: Evidently not-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Oh, yes.


Angus MacInnis: [DOT]-because when the sanctions were applied to Italy this house was not consulted, and when Doctor Riddell was censured the house was asked nothing about it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: When I spoke on a previous occasion, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar asked me whether I would make a statement of our foreign policy. In that statement of our foreign policy I drew the attention of the house to the fact that the policy of the government with respect to sanctions was to allow parliament to decide. That was a clear statement and it was accepted by everybody.


Major James William Coldwell: The Minister of National Defence paid some attention to some remarks I made both last night and to-day with regard to what constitutes real defence against air attacks. I am not retracting anything I said in that regard. It may be called in derision a national policy of dug-outs, but I fancy that if the hon. gentleman will read Hansard and see what I actually said and the views I expressed, together with the authorities upon which I based those views, he will feel ashamed of that remark. If we are really in danger of attack, as the minister has constantly reminded us, I wanted to see that the women and children for whose protection these armaments are supposed to be obtained, shall be provided with some defences. And there is nothing in these estimates that will provide any such defence.
My point of view regarding armaments can be well stated in the words which I read in the debate of a week ago yesterday. I suppose there was no man in the British Empire more closely associated with the foreign policy of Great Britain in the pre-

Supply

Defence-Air Force
war years than the late Sir Edward Grey. Shortly after the beginning of the war, Sir Edward Grey used these words:
The increase of armaments that is intended in each nation to produce consciousness of strength and a sense of security does not produce these effects.
On the contrary, it produces the consciousness of strength of other nations and a sense of fear. The enormous growth of armaments in Europe, the sense of insecurity and fear caused by them-it was these that made war inevitable.
This statement, I believe, is absolutely correct. Last week we saw the announcement from Great Britain of a great armament program, and a day or two later there was a discussion in Germany regarding the matter, and a sense of greater insecurity engendered there. The result will be that Germany will adopt another great armament program. That will cause Russia to build up still greater armaments, and so the mad race goes on, until the time comes when one nation feels that it is in a position to bring the matter to a show-down. It is a tragedy for the world that collective security has broken down. I would be glad to see a reconstituted and reorganized League of Nations, with some power such as an international police force to enforce law and order in the world. But these individual national rearmament programs can lead only to ruin and chaos, and that is the reason for my opposition to these estimates. I have consistently preached this for years. What I have said in this house is what I have said ever since the war. And I am not in the position of some hon. gentlemen who perhaps did not make their position clear prior to the election. I did. And I had many friends among hon. gentlemen opposite who told me that I was not alone in that attitude, that it was the policy of the Liberal party. Consequently, when I see this rearmament program proceeding, I feel, rightly or wrongly, but conscientiously at least, that I must oppose it. Because I agree with the statement made by Sir Edward Grey when the war broke out, that a sense of insecurity will pervade the world and all the nations, it also seems to me that we in this part of the world, small in population, with a tremendous territory to protect, ought to weigh well the consequences of joining in such a race and of following a policy which may appear provocative. The item under discussion, that of bombing planes, is a provocative item. The Minister of National Defence and those advising him may believe that bombing planes constitute an arm of defence; I do not, nor, may I add, do those who have spoken of aeroplanes in the British House of Commons, including the Prime Minister of Great Britain. So we in this group are opposing these increased estimates because we believe they can lead only to further rearmament and to ultimate disaster. When the minister complains about obstructionist tactics, let me point out, as was done by my colleague from Winnipeg North (Mr. Heaps), that last week only five of this group spoke, for forty minutes each or less. But the debate went on all week. None of the group to my immediate right spoke; almost the entire debate was carried on by the supporters of the government. When I used to read Hansard before I came here, I marvelled how the present Minister of National Defence, when he was in opposition, could manage to keep up such a barrage on the ministers who were then in power. Consequently, it comes with rather poor grace from the minister that he should complain that we are examining these estimates thoroughly.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I did not complain.


Thomas Miller Bell: Then what was all the heat about?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It was all light.


Major James William Coldwell: I understood him to say that we had been obstructing the estimates.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No, I never said that.


Major James William Coldwell: Well, if I am mistaken, I am glad to withdraw the reflection upon the minister.


Jean-François Pouliot: May I ask a question of the hon. gentleman who has just spoken? Sometimes I may use provocative language-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, no, no!


Jean-François Pouliot: -especially when through the chair I reply to the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan). But my hon. friend who has just spoken said that this increase is a provocation. I ask him, whom do we provoke? Do we provoke the United States, which is spending billions for its army and navy? It provokes us. Do we provoke Japan? Japan is in the same case; she provokes us. Every nation is provoking each other; well, then, it is time to be careful and defend ourselves. If I voted for some amendment-I may vote for others in the future-I shall never vote for a motion or amendment on the ground of provocation, because it was made clear that this expenditure was for self-defence, and when it is for the defence of this country the government will find me just the same as before. I would ask the hon. gentleman who has just spoken, whom do we provoke by increasing the estimates of the Department of National Defence?
lies

Supply-Defence-Air Force


Major James William Coldwell: When I look at the late war I realize this, that the nations which were least armed were the ones which were not involved.


Jean-François Pouliot: Belgium, for example?


Major James William Coldwell: Belgium was armed to the teeth; its fortresses around Liege were the greatest fortresses that had been built.


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh, oh, you are obsolete.


Major James William Coldwell: They had just been completed under the direction of some of the greatest French and British engineers, when the great war broke out. Belgium was destroyed. I look at Denmark, and I see it practically unarmed when the war began.


William Alexander Fraser: A different thing, altogether.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Not now.


Major James William Coldwell: It had the most desirable naval bases for operation against the British navy which could be found on the Shores of the North sea. But Denmark was not invaded, because she provided no excuse

no provocation, if you like-for invasion. That is my view.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: To what extent was Canada armed before the last war?


Major James William Coldwell: Canada was not well armed before the great war, but Canada entered that war of her own volition.


William Alexander Fraser: And she will the next.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, I should like to change the subject for a moment, and get on a peace-time footing. I understand the plans of the Department of National Defence call for certain extensions at the Jericho air base in Vancouver. There is some suggestion that part of the extension will require taking over a portion of Locarno park, which adjoins the base, on the west. May I point out that the park is comparatively small, but that it is one of the most popular parks in Vancouver, has one of the safest bathing beaches for children and is one of the best parks for picnic purposes. It would be too bad if the department were to take over any of the park, because I believe in the vicinity there is vacant land which should be used, even if it is not quite so satisfactory. I suggest that the minister give the matter serious consideration before any of the park area is taken over.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The question raised by the hon. member for Vancouver South is one of negotiation at the

present time with the Vancouver city council and the Vancouver parks board. No decision has yet been reached; the matter is still under consideration.


Mr. CLARK (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Chairman, may I call the attention of the minister to the fact that Fredericton, the capital city in the province of New Brunswick, has no air port. In a defence program it would surely be regarded proper to have a landing field at each capital city, and I would ask that consideration be given to providing one for Fredericton.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Representations have been received from New Brunswick, and the matter is now under consideration.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The vote in question involves a large sum of money, and I do not believe the minister fully answered the question I put to him. I know he has had a grilling for two days, and perhaps he is a little irascible. But in asking him as to the usefulness of bombing planes for defence purposes, I do not think we are casting any aspersions on the word of the Prime Minister or on that of the Minister of Justice.


Jean-François Pouliot: The aspirations of ministers are always dangerous.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I was talking about aspersions, not aspirations. Emerson said: "Your actions speak so loudly I can't hear what you say." The only way we can judge the use to which any arm of the service will be put is to know the nature of that part of the service. I can imagine that a bombing plane might be used to attack an aircraft carrier or, in a remote instance, perhaps to attack a submarine, although depth charges would seem to be the logical weapon for that purpose. If there are any other uses, I think the officials should give them to us, through the minister. That is the only way we can judge whether the major part of this great sum of money is going to be used in a service which will actually constitute a defence, or whether it will be used for other purposes. I think that is a fair question.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I believe I replied to the question on at least two occasions. As I said, out of the 102 aeroplanes involved in the estimates, only 24 are bombing planes. As I said this afternoon, there are other types such as fighters, reconnaissance, torpedo bombers, bombers and also small training planes, which constitute 27 out of the total of 102. In the opinion of those whose advice is competent, bombing planes

Supply-Defence-Air Force
are most effective, with fighter and reconnaissance planes, for defensive purposes. That is as clear, as lucid and as precise as I can make my answer.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: One other question-and this is the last: If I understood him correctly the minister said this afternoon that some of the planes were being built in England because the British air ministry thought it wise to have planes of the same design and make. Is that correct?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No, it
is not exactly correct. The reason they were made in England previously was that we did not have resources in Canada for building them. Deliveries from England of some planes ordered have taken about twenty-four months, before they have actually reached Canada. So the hon. member can see that if there are immediate requirements-and there are

we must look to other sources for the production of the planes.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Did I understand the
minister to say that it was desirable to have planes of the same design as those in the British air force?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, certainly.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Why? What is the object of that?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Because it has been for many years the considered policy in all arms of the service that equipment in all branches shall be of a pattern identical with that used by the mother country if possible. That is the reason.
Mr. O'NEILL:	I was interested in the
remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North who appeared to object vigorously to some observations that had been made. Apparently he thought someone had said that the group to which he belongs was obstructing the passage of the estimates. Hon. members will recall that a resolution was introduced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and during the discussion of it all we heard was war, rumours of war, preparations for war, and so on. Then, a resolution was brought in by the hon. member for Winnipeg North, and the same thing hap-oened.


Thomas Miller Bell: No; I wish to correct that.
Mr. O'NEILL: The resolution was brought In by the hon. member for Weyburn, and the Valk was along similar lines. Another resolution was introduced by the hon. member for
Vancouver North, the discussion of which consumed a week, with the exception of Wednesday afternoon. Now we hear the game arguments to which we have listened on private members' days since the opening of the session. Since we have been here we have heard nothing but wars, rumours of wars and preparations for wars. The hon. member has said that only five members of his group have spoken. I imagine it would be a revelation to those hon. members if we were to take time to show them a comparison of the time those five members have consumed, as compared with any other five members, including the Prime Minister.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Do you include the hon. member for Temiscouata?
Mr. O'NEILL: I do not say they are obstructing passage of the legislation; I am not saying that. I would not say a thing like that. It seems to me, however, that a great deal of time has been consumed by those five members. Honestly, I should like to have the command of the English language and the powers of oratory possessed by those hon. gentlemen. Possibly, if I had such powers, I might be consuming a good deal of the time of the house. However, I really do not know what I can say now either for or against war, after listening to the remarks of members of the group to which I have referred.


Abraham Albert Heaps: May I say a word in reply to what the hon. member has just said?


An hon. MEMBER:: Just one word.


Abraham Albert Heaps: There seems to be an anxiety among some hon. members opposite to have the vote taken, and we hear hon. members shouting, "Carried, carried." When I hear that, I remember the time when some hon. members opposite sat on this side of the house, and I remember too, the days and weeks they consumed in the discussion of a small matter which was really of very little importance. I wonder now what some hon. members who are sitting opposite to-day would have said if the same estimates had been brought down by a Conservative government.


An hon. MEMBER:: We would vote for them.


Abraham Albert Heaps: It is easy for hon. members to say they would vote for them. I imagine that for every day which has been spent at this time, they took probably a week. The hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. O'Neill) has not been in the house very long and perhaps that is why he spoke in the way he



Supply-Defence-Air Force
did. Had he been a member of his party when they were in opposition he would have known that in connection with peace, order and good government more time was taken up by those who now sit to the right of the Speaker than has been taken up on this question, which I believe is of greater importance to this country. If the hon. gentleman who has just spoken will take the time and trouble to read Hansard, I can give him the names of five members of his own party-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I will let him take the names of five members of his own party and compare their speeches with those of five other members of this house to see how much time was taken in debate. I am willing to give him the names of ten members and let him see what happened. There is always a certain lack of restraint on the part of hon. members on the government side of the house, but I think what has happened in this debate shows a lack of appreciation of what this house means.


Ernest Lapointe: We did
not repeat the same thing all the time.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I am not repeating anything I have said before in this chamber. I would not be saying what I am saying now were it not for what the previous speaker said. It must be admitted that it is the right of an opposition to criticize estimates and that is the position his party has always taken. Now they are in power, hon. members opposite are denying us the right to elicit information. They say we should not speak because we happen to be in opposition. Let me say to the hon. member for Kamloops: Compare the number of speeches on this particular question delivered by members in this group with the number of speeches delivered by members of the Liberal party.
Mr. O'NEILL: That is what I am doing.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The hon. member must be
asleep; if he were awake he would see that only five members of this group spoke on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil).


An hon. MEMBER:: You only have seven members.


Abraham Albert Heaps: If each member spoke for
forty minutes, that would take only a little over three hours of the time of this house. How can the hon. member say that we have been responsible for keeping this thing going for a whole week? Is it not a little absurd to say that, when we spoke for only a little
[Mr. Heaps.)
over three hours? No member of the Conservative party took part in this debate, but thirty to forty members of the Liberal party spoke on the question. They wanted to express the views of their constituents on this matter, and that is only what we want to do. I do not think there is anything more I can add to the volume of speeches already delivered, and I am quite prepared to let the matter rest.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Mr. Chairman, I have a number of questions to ask in connection with this estimate which I think is of sufficient importance to warrant questions being asked and their being answered. I fail to understand why this group should have ricidule and sarcasm heaped upon it because its members view this matter very seriously. I think I have a right to view this matter seriously as I have a distinct recollection of many hour? of the time of this parliament being spent on subjects of less consequence, on matters of a, purely partisan and political nature. If we make a mistake in formulating a national policy, it may mean the lives of many Canadian young men. Of 'that there can be no doubt. We stand at an important point in our national affairs and there is little excuse for the levity which has been assumed by some members. While in the heat of debate provocative remarks may be passed, I do not think hon. members should question our sincerity. I think they should recognize that we are accorded the support of many thousands of our fellow citizens.
The hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) brought up a matter which has not yet been satisfactorily answered. The minister stated that he was relying almost implicitly upon the expert advice of the departmental staff. He suggested that we were questioning the good faith of himself and of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in giving certain assurances to this house. I do not intend to suggest for one moment that the Prime Minister or the Minister of National Defence has attempted to deceive this committee. I think the Minister of National Defence must admit that both he and his deputy minister, a man for whom we all have the greatest esteem, are so burdened with administrative details that they cannot give the necessary study to questions of a technical nature. The minister has admitted quite frankly that he must rely upon this expert advice.
The minister asks that we rely upon the advice of men who during the past eighteen years have received from this parliament approximately $300,000,000. That vast amount has been expended by these experts, and yet

Supply-Defence-Air Force
the Minister of National Defence rose in his place the other evening and said that at the present time we have no defence, that we must ignore all t'he activities of the past and start anew. This is the same staff of experts whose advice must now be accepted by this house.
It was shown very clearly that the most ghastly and stupid blunders were made by the general Staff at the outbreak of the last war. They said that bombs could not possibly be used in trench warfare, that the private soldier would have to rely upon rifles and bayonets. It was Tommy Atkins himself who discovered that if he was in a hole here and Heinie was in a hole over there, he could take a jam tin, fill it with guncotton and a few rusty nails and get at his enemy. That is what was done in spite of the advice of the experts on the general staff. The history of the general staff has been that of retarding development. We have in the evidence of the Minister of National Defence clear proof of the incompohency of the present staff, upon whose advice we must rely. The minister should not seek to answer our questions by stating that that is the best advice possible.
I think the experience in the last war was such as to give us the right to suggest that the general staff in Canada is acting in rather too close cooperation with the British War Office. The general atmosphere of the Department of National Defence is such as to suggest that they rely almost entirely upon the advice of the experts of the British War Office. It is quite reasonable to suspect that similar conditions exist to-day as existed at the outbreak of the last war when it was found that commitments, of which the British government had no knowledge, had been made in the name of the British Empire.
The minister alleged that this group was inconsistent because the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) stated that he would participate in a war in defence of collective security. I should like to point out one phase of that question which has not been dealt with. Under a genuine system of collective security, national increases in armaments would not be necessary. The genuine assertion of a policy of collective security without increased armaments would mean an overwhelming superiority of pooled armaments which would make increased armaments individually unnecessary. It is the abandonment of the policy of collective security and the resorting to a policy of individual rearming which has led us on our present mad course. I think these points should be borne in mind. The minister in his estimates this afternoon dealt with the increase in personnel in the
31111-74i
Royal Canadian Air Force. What proportion of that personnel will be stationed on the Pacific and Atlantic coasts, and what proportion at inland points?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Does my hon. friend refer to the non-permanent air force?


Charles Grant MacNeil: To both.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: At Vancouver there is at the present time No. 4 F.B. squadron and there is a fighters' squadron being sent out there from Trenton as soon as organized. So far as the non-permanent air force is concerned, there is No. 11 army cooperation squadron on the Pacific coast at the present time. In regard to the Atlantic coast, non-permanent air force, Montreal has got No. 15 fighter squadron and No. 18 bomber squadron. Quebec has one in process of organization. I think it is No. 21 bomber squadron. In the permanent force there is at Dartmouth, on the Atlantic coast, No. 5 F.B. squadron.


Charles Grant MacNeil: What is the proportion inland?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I had better give the personnel of the Royal Cana-dion Air Force as located: Total of all ranks at headquarters, 88; courses abroad, 11; Camp Borden, 205; Vancouver, 74; Trenton, 336; Ottawa, No. 1 depot, 91; Ottawa, R.C.A.F. station, 137; Winnipeg, 42; Dartmouth, 66; district headquarters, 9; permanent force detachments, 50; seconded, 5; total, 1,114 in the permanent air force. Now for the nonpermanent: Toronto, No. 10 squadron, 115; Vancouver, No. 11, 109; Winnipeg, No. 12, 111; Montreal, No. 15 fighter squadron. 7; Montreal, No. 18, bomber squadron, 7; Hamilton, No. 19 bomber squadron, 121; Regina, No. 20 bomber squadron, 7; total, 477; grand total, 1,591. May I point out that those stationed at Calgary and those in the east at Trenton would be almost immediately available for coast defence purposes.


Charles Grant MacNeil: What is the number of qualified pilots among the commissioned officers and other ranks? I ask that question for the reason that the rumour is abroad that only too frequently the sergeant pilots are the real experts in the force and that they do not gain the promotion they deserve from the skill they have acquired in the force.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My information is that all the general list officers are qualified but the actual number of sergeants and other ranks qualified to fly is not available.

Supply-Defence[DOT]-Air Force
Mr. MaeNEIL: To what extent is the training completed under the auspices of the British aviation authorities. Are the pilots finally trained in England or here?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Here,
except that in rare cases the officers proceed to take courses of instruction in England with respect to specific aspects of the training problems of aviation.
Mr. Mac-NEIL: The minister assures the committee that steps will be taken to restrict the making of profit in the purchase of equipment. To what extent is it intended to undertake the supervision of agencies established in Canada to assemble planes that are really manufactured abroad and merely assembled in this country-mere assembling agencies without assuming responsibility in regard to manufacture?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That will be done so far as possible by the department, and in fact it is now being done. The most effective way would be this: Most of the purchases made in the old days were made through the air ministry, and a comparison of prices paid by the air ministry, plus the cost of transshipping the planes to Canada and other similar factors, would give us the principle of reasonable remuneration which has been adopted in England. That is the course which will be followed.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister yesterday gave the number of officers training in England for the permanent militia. Will he give similar figures for the air force?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There are eleven altogether at the present time engaged in courses abroad.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In England?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Mr. NEEDHAM:: Mr. Chairman, as I have not so far spoken on these estimates, I cannot be accused of taking up the time of the committee, nor am I going to speak very long tonight. So much has been said from different sides on this question that it is very conflicting, I think, to almost everyone of us. I should like to put the question from another angle for a few moments.
We are told that the world has gone mad. Surely it is time for us to restore a little sanity somewhere. I have been thinking along this line: We are voting this session for defence purposes around 835,000,000. Suppose Canada, for instance, said: As a government we shall try a new experiment in the world.

We shall cut out absolutely all armaments, defence or otherwise; we shall use that money in the production of the necessities of life in this country, and then we shall distribute these necessities of life among those countries that need them most. If we have an enemy, we shall give them that which they need, and the keener the enemy the more goods we shall give them. I am just wondering what
834,000,000 or $35,000,000 would mean to Canada if it were used in the extra production of goods to be distributed among other nations. I am wondering what effect this would have on the nation which received these goods as a free gift. I hope the day is not far distant, when some nation.-and I hope it will be one of the leading nations-will have the courage to take such action.
I am thinking of a Teacher of a long while ago who laid down certain rides for the government of mankind, and I think the nation that first adopts the golden rule will be the foremost and most respected nation in the world. I say again, think of what that $34,000,000 would mean to Canada if it were used in our mines, in our manufactures, on our farms and so on. A little while ago we had a tremendous surplus of wheat. Would it not have been a fine gesture to have given that wheat to the country that needed it most? I repeat, it is said that the world is gone mad. Let us try to bring back a little sanity by applying the golden rule. That will solve problems both national and international.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Civil government air operations-for air survey photography and contingencies which may arise in other air operations, $361,000.
John Ritchie MacNicol: May I ask if the work carried on by the aeroplanes under this item is duplicated by the aeroplanes of other departments, by the topographical surveys, for instance?
Mr. MACKENZIE ''Vancouver): No; there is no duplication.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Civil Government-
Salaries, $409,847.
Contingencies, $55,500.
Jean-François Pouliot: On this item I will refer the committee to what was said yesterday afternoon and evening by the member for Temiscouata about red tape and other things in the department. On the other hand, I wish to pay a tribute to the deputy head, who is highly competent. I hope that, acting in cooperation with his minister, he will bring

Supply-Defence-Coronation
at least some order into his department, get rid of red tape, and put an end to the system of bureaucracy which has handicapped that department as badly as it has many others. The deputy minister has an admirable war record, and since his appointment as deputy head he has proved to be a very efficient executive. Very sincerely I pay that tribute to him. At the same time I ask the minister seriously to consider the matter of seconding, which is absurd. Several members have complained about the practice. It is all wrong. Civil servants can be seconded only from the Department of National Defence. The system leads to abuse. If a man is not needed any longer in the Department of National Defence, and his services are requested by the minister of another department, he should be transferred there and have nothing more to do with the department in which he formerly served. As matters are now, there are some who enjoy benefits which they do not deserve, because they do not belong any more to the Department of National Defence except to derive emoluments from it. It is time that this should be stopped. The minister nodded affirmatively when the matter was brought to his notice a moment ago. I hope he will deal with it this year, so that by the next session the practice will have ceased and it will not be necessary to call upon the house to put a stop to it.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Will the minister inform the committee as to the total amount that is being voted in the present estimates for the Department of National Defence?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, $34.-999.871-practically $35,000,000. That is apart from the $2,000,000 odd, which will be included in the supplementary estimates for 1936-37, in connection with the purchase of two destroyers from England.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Does that -include various items for public works construction which might properly be charged to the department?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Jean-François Pouliot: To make myself clear: the repeal of seconding must have retroactive effect.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Frederick George Sanderson: Item 218, to provide for expenses connected with Canada's representation at the coronation of His Majesty, $35,000.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In reply to the question asked by the hon. member for Vancouver North in connection with the last vote, I hope I made it clear that my reference was only to public works carried out in connection with the Department of National Defence, not, of course, general public works by the Department of Public Works.


Charles Grant MacNeil: The reason I asked that question is that under the Department of Public Works there are a number of items of construction of armouries and repair and maintenance of naval dockyards.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is quite correct. Every year under public works there are a few items relating to certain works they carry out for the Department of National Defence, at Esquimalt and Halifax and other places, that will be revealed when the supplementary estimates come down. They are not under our control.


Charles Grant MacNeil: In the preparation of the summary which we find in the last report of the department, are all these items of construction that are under the Department of Public Works finally included under the various heads in this summary?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In the
total I gave? No.


Charles Grant MacNeil: In the department's
estimates each year are items which are strictly under 'the heading of the Department of National Defence; there are other items, in the Public Works department, relating to the construction of armouries and similar undertakings. If we desire to make a fair comparison and go back over the report of the department, do we find in the comparative summary, which in the last report is found on page 13. 1926-27 down to the present time, those public works items finally incorporated in the statement issued by the department?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; in the auditor
general's report.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Is my hon. friend speaking of the annual report of the Department of National Defence?


Charles Grant MacNeil: Yes.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am informed that they are not inflnded.

Supply-D e fence-C orona tion


Jean-François Pouliot: Item 218 is to provide for expenses connected with Canada's representation at the coronation of His Majesty. I am told it was called.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It was called.


Jean-François Pouliot: In this regard may I suggest to the minister that the Canadian representation ait the coronation of His gracious Majesty should be led by a member of the House of Commons who is in active service.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The vote is No. 249.
Miscellaneous-To provide for expenses of the contingent to attend the coronation of His Majesty, $197,000.


Abraham Albert Heaps: What vote are we discussing now, Mr. Chairman?


Frederick George Sanderson: No. 249.


Abraham Albert Heaps: You called 218.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It was passed last week.


Jean-François Pouliot: It is the same matter. As it is the same matter, I hope the committee will kindly listen to the following suggestion. Canada has decided to send a representation to His Majesty's coronation. Very well. The vote is $197,000. I suggest to the minister that that delegation should be led by a member of the House of Commons who is in active service. He is a full colonel.


Mr. STREIGHT:: Full, did you say?


Jean-François Pouliot: I did not say honorary.


John Everett Lyle Streight: AVouId the hon. member explain what he means by " full "?


Jean-François Pouliot: By " full " I mean entirely qualified, a man who lias seen real service, who, by the way, is just a colonel. I should be glad and everyone in the country would be delighted if the hon. member for York West (Mr. Streight), who participated in the South African war, and who had an admirable record during the last war, were asked to lead the delegation a.t the coronation of His Majesty.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Jean-François Pouliot: There is no man who is better qualified than the hon. member to whom I have referred. He is actually in active service; the honour belongs to him, and the way that this committee has received my suggestion shows that it deserves consideration. Moreover, I warn the minister to be

very careful and to show his respect to His Majesty by sending to the coronation men with a fine war record. This is a national defence vote, and referring to it I submit that those who go to represent Canada at the coronation should not be members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, who might go again to Madison Square Garden, but should all be Canadians, men who have been in the army. If any one is to lead them, it should be the officer who is in active service in the House of Commons and who has won the many decorations which he wears on occasion.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Will the minister please give us a break-down of this item?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: This is to provide for the contingent which will be going across: the Royal Canadian Navy, the Royal Canadian Naval Reserve and the Royal Canadian Naval Volunteer Reserve, $13,000; for the permanent and non-permanent active militia, $140,000; for the Royal Canadian Air Force, including non-permanent air squadrons, $26,000; for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, $18,000. This makes a total of $197,000.


Abraham Albert Heaps: This is one item which should be reduced. We are spending a good deal of money at this time to send this contingent overseas to participate in the coronation festivities, and I suggest that if we spent about $100,000 less, Canada would be just as well represented and the rest could be spent among deserving people who will be compelled to stay in the dominion. With the vast number of unemployed in Canada it is not good policy on the part of the government to spend such huge sums of money to send a contingent overseas to take part in a series of festivities. I should be more satisfied if the government of their own volition would reduce the amount by half and spend the other half in Canada-they might even augment it considerably-for the benefit of those who will have very little to be happy about when these ceremonies are taking place. Could the minister not see his way to cut the amount by half? As I say, Canada would be just as well represented if half the number went over.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: At the last coronation the number who went over in the contingent was more than double the >.umber that will be going on this occasion. If I remember rightly, the personnel was about 720. At that time, however, the expenditure was for as far as the port of disembarkation only. This time the entire expense is borne by the Canadian government.

Supply-D efence-Corona tion
It might interest hon. members if I read a statement showing the allotment of the nonpermanent active militia personnel:
Military District Officers Other ranks Total
No. 1	3	9	12No. 2	7	18	25No. 3	5	12	17No. 4	9	23	32No. 5	6	12	18No. 6 (N.S.) ....	3	8	11No. 6 (P.E.I.) ..	1	5	6No. 7	3	7	10No. 10	3	9	12No. 11	4	9	13No. 12	3	10	13No. 13	3	8	1150	130	180Permanent force	All districts.. ..	5	20	25Band	1	34	35Total militia	56	184	240
(Including nursing sisters.)


Mr. FAIR:: How does the minister arrive at the figure he has given?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: 
John Ritchie MacNicol: Any salaries?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Pay and allowances during the time they will be away.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Will the minister give those items?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: These are the details:
Details of items for naval service-$13,000.
Rail transportation and subsistence in Canada of 4 officers and 26 ratings from their homes to the point of concentration at Halifax and thence as a unit
to Montreal	 $ 2,400' 00
Ocean passages to England in R.M.S. "Montcalm" and return in R.M.S.
"Montelaire" of 4 officers and 26 ratings	 5,400 00
Rail transportation in England-Southampton to London and return of 4
officers and 26 ratings	 150	00
Subsistence allowance during period in England at following rates: 4 officers
at $8 per diem, 26 ratings	at	$3	per	diem	
2,000	00Entertainment allowance	
200	00Naval contingency fund	
200	00
Rail transportation and subsistence on return to Canada of 4 officers and 26
ratings when dispersed	to	homes	and	bases	
1,600	00Exigencies	
1,050	00

Details of item for permanent and non-permanent active militia-$140,000.
Pay-
Officers (56)	 $ 18,296 00
Other ranks (184)	
10,716	00Transportation and travelling	
94,349	00Horses and general	
3,000	00Contingencies	
500	00
Entertainment-
Officer commanding troops	
iff)	00Officer commanding detachment	
200	00Miscellaneous and unforeseen	
12,539	00

Details of item for Royal Canadian Mounted Police-$18,000.
Strength of detachment-2 officers, 32 other ranks-
Travelling expenses to Regina (for personnel assembling at Regina from the
divisions of the force), approximately	$	1,000 00
Travelling expenses of personnel, Regina to Montreal, approximately	 2,175 00
Estimated on 34 fares at $42.73, $1,452.82.
34 berths at $10 (average), $340.
Meals on train, $3'8o.
Freight on 34 horses, Regina to Montreal (exact quotation from railway
companies not obtained), approximately	 1,100 00
Ocean fares for personnel, round trip, 34 at $80 each (based on one-third
increase on rates, $60 paid in 1911), approximately	 2,800 00
Transportation of horses, Montreal to London. 34 at $67 each (round trip),
(based on one-third increase on rates, $50 paid in 1911), approximately 2.300 00
Living allowances in England, approximately	 1.700 00
Special allowances whilst abroad, approximately	 1,400 00
Forage, etc., for horses whilst absent from Canada, approximately	 800 00
Freight on 34 horses. Montreal to Regina (see item 3)	 1.100 00
Travelling expenses from Montreal to original divisions	 2,225 00
Gratuities and entertainment	 400 00
Contingencies and unforeseen expenses	 1,000 00
Grand total
$	18,000 00
.$	197,000 00
Winnipeg has been taken to arrive at an average for the whole of Canada.


Abraham Albert Heaps: How much was spent at the last coronation?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Speaking from memory, I believe it was about $135,000.


Mr. CLARKE (Rosedale):: Will the officers and men who are going over, especially the officers, be paid a salary while on the trip or will they go gratuitously?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They will receive a subsistence allowance overseas.


Harry Gladstone Clarke: Expenses, but
no salary?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The usual pay and allowances.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is one point the minister has not so far mentioned which ought to be recalled; it is that in arranging for the contingents which are to take part in the ceremonies, there has been conference between the different dominions, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Canada, and as far as it has been possible to do so, an arrangement has been worked out for representation in relation to the size
[Mr. I. Mackenzie.!
of the dominions. I believe it is true, relatively speaking that other countries in the empire, having regard to size, are sending larger representations than Canada. What should be kept in mind is that so far as these coronation ceremonies are concerned the eyes of the world will be upon the different dominions represented there. There will be seen on the screen, in all the theatres in different parts of the empire, views of those who took part in the ceremonies. The whole coronation will be broadcast from one end of the world to the other. All that the government is seeking to do is to have Canada hold her place relatively with the other dominions in these proceedings.


Jean-François Pouliot: May I offer a suggestion
that would make for economy? I will not reduce the number of men. But the transportation overseas represents a large amount. I remember distinctly that at the time of the Gaspe tricentennial celebration the Prime Minister of Canada very wisely went down from Montreal to Gaspe on the Saguenay. We have two boats now, the Saguenay and the Vancouver. I wonder whether, for the last time that they are in service for the Dominion of Canada, it would not be proper to use those boats for something definite before we scrap them. They served once for

Supply-Defence-Coronation
the Prime Minister of Canada to go to Gaspe, we should use them to carry our delegation to the coronation. This would mean a saving of $60,000. I propose no amendment, but I make that suggestion to the minister. What was good enough for the then Prime Minister of Canada must be good enough for any member of the delegation.


Ernest Lapointe: They are obsolete ships, and we are not obsolete.


Jean-François Pouliot: The Minister of Justice,
I hope, will not lead a regiment there, although he is the head of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
Would the minister be kind enough to tell the committee who led the Canadian representation to the coronation of His late Majesty King George Y, and whether that officer was a member of the House of Commons?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I believe the selection made at that time was the senior combatant acting officer of the House of Commons, Colonel Maclean.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I suppose that in this matter, as in the other items of expenditure, the government have definitely made up their mind, and that this vote will be passed, but I must once more protest against this large expenditure for such a purpose. Canada in the past has not been a military nation. It seems we are now in danger of becoming militarized. There are these ceremonies connected with the coronation of the king. With what other nations of the empire may have done or may propose to do I am not very much concerned; I am thinking of Canada and what she should do. Evidently we are making the coronation very largely an occasion for military display. Evidently there is, even in this minor matter, an arrangement among the different dominions. I suppose it will exhibit the solidarity of the empire from a military standpoint; every nation outside the British commonwealth will interpret it in that way. I do not think that is a good impression to go abroad, if we propose to restrict our military activities to our own defence. If the coronation of the king is an event in which all the population of this country aTe supposed to take an interest, I do not know why those who go should be limited to members of parliament, public officials and particularly the military. The suggestion may be regarded as fantastic, but I made it the other night and I repeat it, that since the vast majority of the people of Canada who have built up this country are farmers, labour men, business
men, there is no earthly reason why farmers and labour men and business men should not be sent to the coronation. But that is not being done. I can understand that they might feel very much out of place in the blaze of colour which no doubt the papers will report at the time of the coronation. But such people are the basis of our Canadian life, and I do not see why we should elevate one particular class in this country and give them a joy-ride while other people remain at home. Those who remain at home, the farmers moiling and toiling across the western plains, the labouring people, are going to pay the bills. There is no one else to pay them. If the minister proposed to insist that the very wealthy, and those easily able to pay, should bear the entire cost, one could not make quite as strong an objection, but the cost is distributed over the entire population, poor as well as rich. It is, however, only one class of the community which has any part in the celebrations. It is no wonder that great numbers of the people in this country begin to doubt whether the government as it now exists is in reality a government of the people, and whether they should take any particular interest in the coronation ceremonies.
I wyish to point out, as my colleagues have done, that we have very needy cases in this dominion. Almost every post brings to my desk, as I am sure it does to many others, appeals for help, statements of the desperate conditions existing in Canada. I am thinking not merely of personal appeals for help, but of appeals on behalf of large groups of people. We have nearly a million people on relief; that is just one group, a very important one. It is all very well for the government to say: Oh, well, under the British North America Act we cannot do anything about it, or we can do only this much, we can give grants in aid. Simply to screw such unfortunate people down to bare existence, while other classes in the community are given every opportunity, is not right; it is not consonant with the principles of democracy. I protest against that kind of thing. We have the money in hand to do things like this, but we have not the money to help these needy people. We are told we should protect the mothers and the children, but we read daily of the pressing needs of mothers and children in every, province of this country, lacking ordinary medical necessities, in many cases not supplied even with sufficient food, and yet we have these vast expenditures for purposes of ostentation. If we must have soldiers go abroad, cut this contingent in two and cut the expenses in two, and I am quite sure that the people of this
Supply-Defence-Coronation

dominion would feel a great deal happier, and Canada would have adopted a much wiser course, and just as patriotic a course as by passing these votes.


Ernest Lapointe: It is very hard to satisfy my hon, friend, and I am not surprised that he has seized this new opportunity of making some capital politically. But may I tell my hon. friend this: the king is going to be crowned in London, and for the first time as King of Canada. Instead of being crowned in Ottawa or Cape Town or Canberra or Sydney or Melbourne or any of the other capitals of the nations of the commonwealth, he is being crowned in London, and there he takes the oath to govern his people in Canada, his people in New Zealand, his people in Australia. If, instead of having the present arrangement, we had a king or a. ruler who would be crowned in Canada I should like to know whether we could get away with
S197.000.	If, instead of having a monarchy, we had a republic, as some irresponsible people mention at times, do we think we could get away with $197,000? Does the hon. member believe there would be nobody dressed in military uniforms if, instead of being a nation in the British commonwealth of nations, participating in the coronation of our king in London. we had all that in Canada-whether through a king, a president or some other ruler?
I believe on the whole this is certainly not an extravagant amount for the coronation of our king, and the arrangement of the British commonwealth is the best which could be had, so far as Canada is concerned, when we consider it in terms of money. I believe the hon. member will be better advised not to raise all these questions just for the purpose- and he will forgive me for saying this-of criticizing. I 'have yet to see a proposal by this government which has been accepted by the hon. member. Surely some of our proposals must be deserving of approval and ought to he supported at times.
This afternoon the bon. member was very thin-skinned, and thought I was imputing motives to him. About five minutes before he had said that my right hon. leader was not sincere.


James Shaver Woodsworth: No, no.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, my hon. friend said that.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I made no such statement.


Ernest Lapointe: Hansard will show it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I made no such statement.


Ernest Lapointe: But I did not raise an objection.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I made no such statement, and there was nothing to object to.


Ernest Lapointe: I want my hon. friend to 'have all possible latitude, but he should be a little less sensitive when other members speak. On this vote I think he might very well let his criticism go.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I do not object to anyone criticizing me. What I did object to this afternoon was the- statement that we were making statements which we knew were not true. I object to that kind of allegation. Let me say that this afternoon I took considerable time to say I was quite sure the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice and the Minister of National Defence were sincere in their belief that they were doing this merely for defence purposes.


Ernest Lapointe: It was said in a very queer way.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I said that, as Hansard will show. I said that I did not think that would be the result, and that the voting of moneys 'to purchase bombing planes, et cetera, which we were then discussing, in my judgment would inevitably lead us into war. I maintain that I have a perfect right to make that criticism. The Minister of Justice now says-and I suppose 'he has a right to say it, if he thinks it-that I have raised these questions for political ends.


An hon. MEMBER:: He said no such thing.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It is strange that if the proposals of the government are considered to be in harmony with the will of the majority of the people, I should object to them in order to gain political prestige. The votes show, so far as the committee is concerned, that those of us who have been objecting are not in the majority, and are not on the popular side. It would be easy for some of us to float with the current

very easy. We are trying to advocate something which undoubtedly is unpopular in Canada. But fifteen or sixteen years ago I was elected by a certain group of people who stood for certain principles. I represent that group. In a democracy I have a perfect right to express the convictions of that group, and I am trying to do so. That is what I am here for, and I have a perfect right to express my views. Simply because these views do not harmonize altogether with the ideas held by the ministers and the larger parties is no particular reason why my motives should be impugned, or why it should be said that I am trying to make
FEBRUARY 23, 1937	U77
Supply-Defence-Coronation
political capital. This is a game of politics. I am trying to express the opinion of those who have sent me here, and of others who voted for this group at the last federal election, and I have a perfect right to do so.
Although I did not object at the time, I thought the Minister of Justice was hardly fair this afternoon when he closely associated our group with the communists. Surely that is not quite fair.


Ernest Lapointe: I never said that.


Mr. WOODS WORTH:: Well, we were told that the minister was not going to do anything at the dictation of the group in this corner, or the communist group in Toronto. I do not think that is fair. I believe the minister knows perfectly well that at the last election most of us were opposed by communists. Some of us were opposed to war before the communist party in Canada w'as organized. We do not see eye to eye with them in regard to many of these matters.


Ernest Lapointe: Will the hon. member permit me to speak? At the same time I said certain groups in my own province expressed the views held by the hon. member and the communist party in Toronto. I may assure him that those people in the province of Quebec were not communists. Apparently on this question there is a disunited front.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That is all very well, then. All I wish to say is that I am a little weary-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


James Shaver Woodsworth: -of having people in this house shout at one simply because he states a position, on which he was elected, and on which he has been elected at election after election throughout the years.
The minister has a perfect right to introduce the estimates, but we, as part of the opposition, have a perfect right to criticize them. I do not intend to go over the ground again, but I do protest-and that is all I can do-against these very large expenditures which are not directly related even to the defence of the country, as must be admitted. This afternoon dire necessity was pleaded; someone suggested that war might come before July. If anything like that were true, surely we would expect those advocating military defence would spend every cent of the money in the defence of this country, instead of on a ceremonial affair in London. That is the basis of my criticism of the estimate. I again protest against this elaborate expenditure.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I wish to correct an erroneous impression left by the hon. member who has just taken his seat, when he referred1 to the soldiers being sent over. May I inform him that about eighty per cent of the amount spent is being spent on volunteer citizen soldiers in the militia forces of Canada. Many hon. members know those men, and every class he mentioned- the farmers, the labouring class, the business men, the fishermen, the miners-


James Shaver Woodsworth: But they go as soldiers, not as fishermen or miners.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No; they go in both capacities. They are citizens of Canada, and volunteer soldiers. To soldiering they give only a small amount of their time, as a patriotic duty. I feel certain that labourers, farmers, miners, officials and every single section of the community throughout Canada will be represented in the contingent to be sent. I think the hon. member either wittingly or otherwise conveyed an erroneous impression when he stated it was a military contingent. These men are volunteer soldiers who are rendering a magnificent service to Canada. As a matter of fact, some of them are actually on relief at the present time in some of the cities. They are performing a magnificent work in the militia service of Canada, So far as possible, every section of the community as well as every province should be represented in the coronation contingent.


Vincent Dupuis: How many will be going
from the districts of Montreal and Quebec?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That
would be districts four and five. There will be nine officers and twenty-three other ranks from district No. 4, and six officers and twelve other ranks from district No. 5. Those will be from the non-permanent active militia. There will also be some from the permanent force, from the naval forces and possibly from the air force.


Mr. ELLIOTT (Kindersley):: Has the minister any information as to the prices of covered and uncovered seats at the coronation and what procedure is necessary to obtain such
seats?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The
department has no official information, but we shall be very glad to communicate through the ordinary channels with the high commissioner's office and find out.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I may say
that this week the press of the country will be given full particulars in connection with the point raised by my ho1' ^-'end.
Supply-Defence-Coronation


Jean-François Pouliot: Who is to make the selection of the officers and men to go to the coronation?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think
that question was fully answered some time ago in connection with a question asked by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid). Applications will be forwarded from unit commanders to the various districts and they will recommend to national defence headquarters at Ottawa.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am fearful of what
will happen because of the petty patronage that exists among certain officers. The minister should be very careful to keep his eyes open and watch this game in order that those who go shall be worthy. Otherwise some pirns will be going there.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If I got the minister's
figures correctly, they work out to one officer to three men; is that correct?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There
will be seventy officers and 264 other ranks from all services including the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, a total of 334.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Is that not a large proportion of officers as compared with other ranks?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think
the proportion is fair. In the air force the proportion is even larger because of certain conditions that exist, while in some of the other forces the proportion will be lower.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I followed the minister
when he referred to the apportioning to the various military districts of the numbers to go. I should like him to make clear just how the selection of the personnel is to be made within the districts.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In a letter which went forward to the district officers commanding in January, concerning militia personnel, certain basic principles were laid down which will have to be observed with reference to proper territorial and other representation. The first stipulation was to personal fitness and general appearance, although certain exceptions will be made in connection with men possessing war disabilities which might prevent them from carrying arms. It was recommended that one-third of the military contingent should be made up of those who had active service. It was stated that while this proportion might be increased, the younger officers and men were not to be overlooked. There was to be the proper

proportion maintained among the different arms of the service. The circular letter was dated January 29, 1937, and signed by the adjutant general.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I wanted to know who makes the final selection. The district officers commanding will send in lists of names to the adjutant general, but I want to know by whom the ultimate selection will be made.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That has not been determined as yet, but I think it will be made by a committee of the defence council.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Will the district officers commanding send in only the exact number of names allotted to their districts?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They will send in three times the number.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then the ultimate selection will be made in Ottawa?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The
initiation of the lists will be in the hands of the regimental commanders and district officers commanding, but the ultimate selection will be made at national defence headquarters.


Otto Buchanan Elliott: Has the entire quota been filled? Have there been any selections from Saskatchewan?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The
district officers commanding have been asked 'to have the names in by March 3.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Pensions payable to men on active service, northwest rebellion 1885, and general pensions, $20,000.
Howard Charles Green: The estimates of the pensions department have been up only on one other occasion this session, about five weeks ago. At that time I asked the minister to let four items stand in order that we might have an opportunity of seeing any report or reports which might be made by the veterans' assistance commission. I have no desire to hold up the estimates of the minister, but I should like him to hold over certain items, say item 198, dealing with war veterans' allowances and item 193, dealing with unemployment assistance, in order that we may discuss any questions that might arise out of these r 3 ports.


Charles Gavan Power: I would be prepared to hold over item 193. dealing with unemployment assistance, in order that any discussion on these matters might take place.

Supply-Pensions


Howard Charles Green: I think it should be pointed out that up to date we have received only one interim report from this veterans' assistance commission. That report deals largely with the organization of the commission, and with the instructions that they sent out. It is really a very minor report. I believe that the delay in bringing down a more complete report from that commission is doing great harm because soldier organizations, right across Canada, expected great things of this veterans' assistance commission; the veterans themselves expected great things of the commission; and the special committee of this house which sat last year to deal with pensions and returned soldier problems also expected great things of this commission. All these bodies expected that the government would act on the report of this commission, and act during this session, not during the session of 1938. But now the position is this, that if these reports are not brought down very soon, it will be too late for the government to pass legislation this session, and there will be nothing done until 1938. That can be seen plainly by all interested parties, and I am afraid that the result will be grave dissatisfaction among veterans right across Canada.
Last year the soldier organizations who were represented before the pension committee, and the committee itself and the house all recognized that the principal soldier problem was the problem of the unemployed war veteran. This house passed the Veterans' Assistance Commission Act, which provided for setting up a veterans' assistance commission, and we also voted $500,000 with which they could do their work. The duties of this commission I think may be fairly summarized by saying they were to investigate the extent of unemployment among veterans, to classify the unemployed veterans, for example, as to whether they were employable or unemployable, and to ascertain their ages and occupations. The commission were also to try to find schemes for the employment of these unemployed veterans who are employable, and were supposed also to report on ways of caring for the unemployable veterans.
The organization of the commission took place in July of last year, and they have held public hearings across Canada, a great deal of interest being taken in the hearings in all centres, so that there are many thousands of people throughout the country waiting and watching for results from the commission. The commission have seen many industrialists and other employers of labour and have had questionnaires returned from 33,000 unemployed veterans. My suggestion is that by this time
the commission should have had figures available for consideration by this house, and yet, as I have said before, we have only one interim report outlining the organization of the commission and referring to two schemes which were recommended by one of the honorary local committees.
The Veterans' Assistance Commission Act provided for these honourary local committees, and according to this interim report they have been set up in ten cities. The report shows that 170 men have been appointed as members of these local committees, and these men are among the leading men in the different cities. I know that in Vancouver the minister has been able to get some of the best men in the city to act on the honorary local committee. These committees have held meetings and no doubt have made recommendations. They are really exploring a new field, trying to help get jobs for the unemployed veterans. They deserve great credit for that and should be given all possible assistance, but I have had this experience with the committee in Vancouver; they have asked me: " Suppose we do work out some scheme; how do we know that the government is not going to sidetrack it, like governments do? Are we not wasting our time in doing this work?" Now the last thing I want to see happen is for the government to give any justification for these committees to think that such is the case. If these local committees go out of business, if they lose interest, it will be fatal to the success of the Veterans' Assistance Commission Act and the whole plan will fail.
I suggest that the government should at once get from this veterans' assistance commission, and table in the house so that we can all study them, reports showing the extent of unemployment among the veterans, the classification of the unemployed, the schemes for employment that have been worked out by this commission, and what ways they have to suggest for caring for the veterans who are actually unemployable.
The minister said the other night that there were 33,000 unemployed veterans in Canada who had filled in and returned the questionnaire sent out by the commission. I think it would be a fair estimate that many thousands of these, perhaps 15,000, are unemployable. I suggest that the government should face this problem of the unemployable veterans right now; waiting will only make the problem worse. The commission can do nothing for them because they are unemployable ; no improvement in business conditions can help them because they are unemployable.
Supply-Pensions

Are they simply to be kept on relief for another year? The government might as well decide now what they propose to do about this problem. If they do not, I am afraid that the unemployed veterans will lose confidence in the veterans' assistance commission and also in the government, because all their hopes are based upon action being taken by this commission and by the government during this year, not next year.
The special committee of this house which sat last year realized that early reports from the commission were absolutely necessary, and the minister will remember that we included in our report this recommendation:
To ensure that the progress of the commission's activities, both in connection with its surveys and application of approved projects, be made known to the government, your committee would also recommend that the commission be required to submit from time to time interim reports on matters arising out of the act.
In pursuance of that recommendation there was placed in the act at the beginning of section 12:
The minister may from time to time require the commission to submit a report on the progress of projects and other matters arising out of this act.
We were very keen that the commission should report as early as possible, because we realized that little could be done to deal with the problem of the unemployed soldier until we got a report from the commission. Some of us complained last year because there would have to be the delay of one year in getting action. This year we have come to Ottawa expecting to proceed on the basis of reports from this commission; all action was to be based on their suggestions. All the war veteran members of the house, regardless of party, are ready to help the government work out some reasonable solution for this problem. The question is above partisan politics. We are only too glad to help the minister and we realize that the problem is difficult, but in order to help him and to get on with this work we simply must have reports from this commission, and we must have them quickly; otherwise no help can be given to the unemployed veteran during the present session. I suggest to the minister that he put all possible pressure on the commission, that he get as many reports as possible and have them tabled as quickly as possible, so that we can do something during this session to help these men. He will find hon. members on this side only too glad to cooperate with him in facing the problem.


Charles Gavan Power: I do not wish to interrupt my ihon. friend, but I should like to point out that any discussion of reports or interim reports of the veterans' assistance commission would hardly be in order on the item we are now discussing, which deals with pensions for the northwest rebellion.


Howard Charles Green: I realize that.


Charles Gavan Power: Now that my hon. friend has had an opportunity of laying his views before the committee, I think we should confine ourselves to this item; but if the committee wishes me to do so, I shall have no objection to discussing now this particular phase of the matter. In any event, however, we shall have to revert to it, I assume, when the item of the veterans' assistance commission is reached.


Howard Charles Green: I brought forward the matter for this reason, that it really is the essential point in the pensions estimates during the present session, and if we can be satisfied that that is recognized there is no reason why we cannot get ahead rapidly. I think the minister will agree with me that this is the main thing to be dealt with in regard to pensions this session.


Charles Gavan Power: I do not want to accuse my hon. friend of blocking the estimates until we come to the section which interests him. Neither on the other hand do I feel that I should be doing my duty to bon. members who may want to discuss other items if we do not take them in a fairly orderly way. After all, the estimates of the whole department are before the committee. I know my hon. friend does not wish to block the returned soldier pension vote of $41,000,000; I am sure he has no idea of doing that.


Howard Charles Green: I do not want to block any votes. I merely point out the urgency of this question.


Charles Gavan Power: I am quite willing to discuss that with the hon. member upon the appropriate item of 'the estimates, and I ^ha.11 call it at any time he likes and shall be pleased to meet him in any way he wants. But surely when I have called an item-and it is in the discretion of the minister to call any item he pleases-that has no connection whatever with the matter he has brought up, if he does not wish to discuss it, let him allow it to pass; if he wishes to discuss it, let him do so. He has asked me to hold back the item on unemployment assistance and I have agreed to do so, in order to permit him to discuss the very item which is now brought up.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the item?

Supply-Pensions


Charles Gavan Power: The northwest rebellion
pensions.


Otto Buchanan Elliott: I would
request that we hold over, if possible, items 193, 198 and 200, in order to give us a dhance to prepare our questions.


Charles Gavan Power: Quite frankly, I do not expect to pass many more items this evening. As a. matter of fact, I had intended to go on with matters dealing with pensions rather than the health section of the department. As regards item 200, war pensions, $41,500,000, I do not think there would be any great objection to passing it unless the hon. member has some specific matter to bring up. As a rule it is not discussed very much, apart from the necessary explanations. On the last occasion I gave explanations for over an hour.


Otto Buchanan Elliott: The only
reason I mentioned this is that if we stick to the subject matter we shall all be prepared to discuss the subject, but if we allow other matters to be brought in under item 199 we may not be prepared to deal with them.


Charles Gavan Power: The hon. member, then, asks me to hold over items 193, 198 and 200.


Howard Charles Green: I am afraid I started this question of holding over items. I am quite satisfied with the minister's assurance, given earlier in the discussion, that he would hold open one item and would allow us to discuss on that item any other one. All I ask is that we get reports from the veteran's assistance commission just as quickly as possible. If that is done, I shall have no objection whatever.


Charles Gavan Power: Well, I suppose I shall have to be out of order myself for a moment and we shall talk about the report. I am now ready to table-as a matter of fact I did communicate to the hon. member certain reports which I had'-(1) order in council appointing members of the veterans' assistance commission; (2) order in council substituting Mr. MacNicoI for Brigadier-General Ross as a member of the commission; (3) interim report re employment of ex-service men in the maritimes, dated, November 3, 1935; (4) interim report re corps of commissionaires dated November 3, 1936;	(5)
interim report re preservation of forests in the maritimes, dated, December 10, 1936;
(6)	interim report re the establishment of a community centre, dated December 17, 1936;
(7)	second interim report re corps of commissionaires, dated December 18, 1936; (8) second interim report re employment of exservice men in the maritimes, dated January 20, 1937; (9) preliminary report of the activities of the veterans' assistance commission, dated January 21, 1937; (10) copy of letter addressed by the minister to each member of each honorary local committee; (11) order in council re a corps of commissionaires; (12) order in council re the establishment of a community centre. I have received another interim report from tile commission but am not prepared to table it at the present moment because I am asking the commission to clarify it and give me further details regarding it. I will undertake this, however, for the sake of my hon. friend and any others who are interested, that this report will be tabled in ample time for discussion in the house before parliament prorogues.


Howard Charles Green: Of course, it is not so much discussion in the house we want; it is action in the house we want, and if the discussion is held only a week before parliament prorogues, this will not help the unemployed veteran body. The report should be tabled in time for us to take some action. The minister realizes that that is the position.


Charles Gavan Power: But even this minister must give this matter some consideration before he takes action, because it may develop into a very, very important problem, and I think I should be given time to consider a report so far-reaching in its consequences as that will be, and to ask for details and particulars and clarification of the report before I lay it on the table of the house and make it public.


Howard Charles Green: Will the minister give us the assurance that he will bring in that report in time for the government to bring down legislation at this session?


Charles Gavan Power: If the government decides that it should bring in legislation dealing with that report it will find the time; it will make the time.


Howard Charles Green: Another point: in the meantime would it be possible to have a report showing how many of these unemployed veterans there are, and the different classifications? I believe that information is almost ready, and it would help us a great deal if we could get it to go on with. We shall then know how big the problem is that we have to deal with.


Charles Gavan Power: I have had, though not in
the shape of a report, certain information dealing with the classification of ex-soldiers who have replied to the questionnaires, but that report is not complete, and in the form in which I have it before me I do not think it would give information which would be of value to any member of the house. It has
Supply-Pensions

not given me any information of any value, and I am asking the commission to come to certain conclusions or to indicate just what they think we should do with these figures. Suppose they give me a figure showing that, of the 31,000 who registered and replied to questionnaires, some eight or ten thousand are already pensioners, some six thousand are men who have the war veterans' allowance, some seven thousand are men under forty years of age, and so on and so forth-these figures are not accurate, because I have not this document before me-these figures will not lead us to any conclusion unless further details are given. It was only last week that I received this mass of figures with details of that kind, and I am asking for further clarification of the report.


Howard Charles Green: The veterans' assistance commission have now been working for several months. Would it not be possible for them to prepare, say by next week, figures that will be of some use to us?


Charles Gavan Power: I cannot give any undertaking.


Howard Charles Green: The minister has power under the act to require reports from the commission.


Charles Gavan Power: And that is what I am doing.


Howard Charles Green: I am afraid the commission
will lose the confidence of the veteran body in Canada if they do not do something quickly.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Through the courtesy of
the minister I have had an opportunity of perusing the material which is about to be tabled and I think he will agree with me that it does .not constitute the report for which we have been waiting expectantly. It is true that this material does .present a record of valuable accomplishments in the establishment of local advisory committees and in assistance which is contemplated-


Charles Gavan Power: Assistance which has been
given. The community centre has been established.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Which item are we discussing?


Frederick George Sanderson: Item 199.


Charles Grant MacNeil: As the hon. member for
Vancouver South has pointed out, you cannot separate the various sections of the returned soldiers' problems. These various pensions are related one to another.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The rebellion was in
1885; what has that to do with veterans of the last war?


Abraham Albert Heaps: How long have these pensions been going on? How many people have been receiving pensions?


Charles Gavan Power: There are now 49 pensioners altogether, 43 disability and 6 dependent.


Abraham Albert Heaps: What was the item in
previous years?


Charles Gavan Power: In 1933-34 it was $26,000, of which $20,495.17 was spent; in 1934-35 it was $22,000, of which $20,183.76 was spent; in 1935-36 it was $21,000 and exactly $21,000 was spent; in 1936-37, prior to November 30, 1936, it was $20,000, and we have expended $14,270.73.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Pensions or salaries?


Charles Gavan Power: These are all pensions payable to militiamen who were on active service in the rebellion.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
European war pensions, naval, militia, and air forces after the war, $41,500,000.
John Ritchie MacNicol: I -wish to pass one
comment on this item in connection with a case which apparently is outside the departmental regulations. A soldier named Thomas Cruden was gassed in the war. He is a Scotchman and was very diffident about making application, and finally he had to be sent to California by a fraternal organization to which he belonged. It seems that being in a hospital in California he cannot receive consideration from the department. I am not finding fault with the department, because I have found in the last year or two that a great number of cases I have been interested in have been taken care of, and I am convinced that there has been a great improvement in the way in which returned soldiers have been treated. I have no fault to find with what has been done in Canada; on the contrary I have a great deal of commendation and praise for the way in which the department is now looking after the returned men. This man, Thomas Cruden, is in a hospital in the United States, having been sent there by the fraternal organization to which he belongs, and because he is outside Canada it seems that he has no claim on the department. Is there any regulation under which he can come?


Charles Gavan Power: If the gentleman has any claim for pension he can submit his claim from outside Canada as well as from within.

Mr. MaoNICOL: Will he be accorded his pension while in a hospital in the United States?


Charles Gavan Power: He could get his pension wherever he happened to be unless we were paying for him, and then we would deduct a certain amount. He would probably get the pension awarded, him by the pension commission here. If he were in one of our own hospitals his pension would be taken away during the time he was in hospital if he went on pay and allowances, which would amount to much more in most cases.


John Ritchie MacNicol: He was ordered to California by his doctors and was sent there by this fraternal organization. I shall again report the case to the department and I feel confident that if anything can be done it will be done.


Charles Grant MacNeil: It was expected that the war veterans' commission would deal with those in receipt of small pensions, and I was endeavouring to point out to the minister that if we could gather some more accurate information as to his intentions with regard to the general problem, as far as he is able to divulge it, it would be of great assistance to us in the consideration of these estimates. With reference to the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver South, I would remind the minister that it was recommended by a special committee last session that one of the first duties of the veterans' assistance commission would be to make a survey and submit suitable recommendations in regard to those veterans who at that time, it was urged, should receive the benefits of the War Veterans' Allowance Act. A formula was devised and those capable of maintaining themselves were put into one category. A classification was established for those between the ages of fifty-five and sixty, but it was not possible at that time to secure the approval of parliament for any lowering of the age limit. It was felt, however, that there was a large category that might not be covered by amendments to the act, and that their interests should be safeguarded by early recommendations from the veterans' assistance commission. Through the courtesy of the minister I have been given an opportunity of perusing this material and I approve everything done. But that does not bring us to the core of the problem and I submit that we have a right to expect from the veterans' assistance commission at an early date some interim report which would review the evidence given before the commission at its various sittings, give us some outline of the picture, the general distress existing among ex-service men, and 31111-75
Supply-Pensions-European War
recommend to the minister, and through him to parliament, some emergent remedial legislation.
I can sympathize with the minister in his statement that it is impossible to bring in a comprehensive plan with respect to a problem so complex and therefore I shall not harass him or press him. As stated by the hon. member for Vancouver South, however, the organized veterans, and the veterans generally throughout Canada patiently accepted the assurances given the house last session that after a proper inquiry was made and projects were formulated they would then receive the benefits they have a right to expect, particularly in the case of the unemployed. We are in danger of moving rapidly towards the close of the present session and the minister has not been able yet to suggest any adequate appropriation for men in this category. We would appreciate some assurance from him at an early date that such interim report may be had-not the material placed on the table this evening but an interim report which would to a degree at least meet the distress of which we find evidence on every hand, and, may I suggest, to relieve which he has more or less promised that some measures would be taken. I hope he will agree with the suggestion advanced by the hon. member for Vancouver South that the two votes be held over until we have an opportunity of reviewing the findings of the veterans' assistance commission.


Charles Gavan Power: My hon. friend has for the past week or more been so busily and vociferously and actively engaged in the arts of peace that I could reasonably expect he would soon be following his natural bent and engaging in the arts of war, but I am sorry that I should be the victim of his aggression without even having the right to declare my neutrality.


Abraham Albert Heaps: No defence.


Charles Gavan Power: No defence whatsoever. But I may repeat what I said to the hon. member for Vancouver South, that an interim report was submitted to me some time ago. The matters contained therein are of such great importance that I thought it necessary to refer the report back to the committee for further details and clarification. When I have received a reply from the commission I shall be only too glad to table the report, and if at that time the government decide that action should be taken upon it I can assure my hon. friends that time will be found, or made, to permit of legislation being brought down. I cannot give any other assurance than that; I think that is fair enough in all conscience.

1184	COMMONS
Supply-Pensions-European War


Charles Grant MacNeil: As the report touches so closely the question of war veterans' allowances, will the minister consent to hold over the items?


Charles Gavan Power: I am willing to consent to hold up any item and undertake that we shall discuss the whole realm of ex-soldiers' problems on that item. But one hon. member wants item 199 held over; another wants another item held over. Unless we can come to some agreement as to which item shall stand, I might as well throw up my hands and not attempt to pass any estimates for some days. In view of the fact that the matter under discussion is the veterans' assistance commission, I think item 193, unemployment assistance, would be the appropriate item to hold over.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is fair.


Frank Exton Lennard: Can the minister tell
me how many veterans between fifty-five and sixty are receiving the burnt-out pension?


Charles Gavan Power: That again is war veterans' allowances. That comes under the legislation passed last session. Applications could come in only some time in July or August, and I think in the neighbourhood of six or seven hundred have been accepted so far. I shall be glad to furnish my hon. friend with full and specific details of that when we come to the appropriate item.


Jean-François Pouliot: Would the minister kindly tell me what is the yearly contribution of General McNaughton to the pension fund since he has been seconded from the Department of National Defence to the Department of Trade and Commerce?


Charles Gavan Power: I have not the least idea, nor do I know how I could find that out, because no contributions are made to the Canadian pension commissioners. My hon. friend knows, I think, that the Militia Pension Act of 1901 is administered by the Canadian pension commissioners only to the extent that they pay out the amounts of money which are indicated to them by the Department of National Defence.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank the minister, and I ask him who will give me the information.


Charles Gavan Power: I suggest that the Department of National Defence could do it. I am sure I cannot.


Jean-François Pouliot: Then I shall put a question on the order paper which will be answered by the Secretary of State.


Charles Gavan Power: By the Department of
Finance in all probability.


Howard Charles Green: Last year quite extensive amendments were made to the Pension Act. Would the minister tell the committee how they have worked out. I have had no complaints about them; they seem to be working well.


Charles Gavan Power: If my hon. friend has 'had no complaints, doubtless they worked out well. I have before me a report from the chairman of the pension committee. It is lengthy; I do not think I need read it all.


An hon. MEMBER:: Table it.
Mr. POW'ER: I could table it-no, it is more or less confidential. But I could give the high lights of it. The increased liability due to the addition of the widows who became entitled to pension-my hon. friend will remember that in certain circumstances widows not previously entitled to pension became eligible-amounted to $36,792. The reinstatement of additional allowances for housekeepers involved an increase of $24,388. The correction of marriage status involved an increase of $4,578; the increase due to pensions paid in respect of self-inflicted wounds was $5,388; perpetuation of errors in previous awards, $8,811. These actions in themselves show an increase in the annual liability of $79,957, which exceeds by $35,842 the total increase in annual liability. This latter figure may be taken as indicating what would have been the normal decrease had it not been for the enactment of the amendments of 1936. The fact that these sources of irritation and dissatisfaction have been removed at such moderate expense is a gratifying comment on the soundness of the action taken by the government.


Richard Bedford Bennett: When the minister next comes with his estimates before the committee, I should be greatly obliged if he could be in a position to indicate something as to 'the amount of the patriotic fund at the end of the South African war. Under the statutes passed last session the South African veterans who were burnt out are not eligible for any benefits. They used to receive benefits from the patriotic fund, but it will be recalled that that fund was exhausted in dealing with the soldiers of the great war. The number of South African veterans left is small. If the government contemplate legislation, I think something should be done in that regard. It will be recalled that we did not pay them; they were paid by the British government. Inasmuch as we assumed no financial responsibility with respect to them while in South Africa, and those who returned are now few in number-because I think the average would be between sixty and seventy-and are
FEBRUARY 23, 1937	H85
Supply-Pensions-European War
in pretty bad shape, unable to work, not -receiving the benefits now -that they did get from the patriotic fund, and not eligible for pension under existing legislation, I trust the government will not overlook the claims of these unfortunate m-en, who are most deserving from the Standpoint of their present status.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: When the committee was sitting last year, I made myself the advocate of the South African veterans, and I am only too happy to endorse what the leader of the opposition has said. These men are very few in number. Last year it was provided that they would be admitted to hospital free, but unfortunately their pension was paid by the British government, and the only thing to do is to supplement the pension which they are now receiving, or at least give them some grant under the War Veterans' Allowance Act. I -hope it will be done.


Harry Gladstone Clarke: Would a person who has served in the naval, military or air forces here in Canada but who did not go overseas be entitled to any of these Canadian pensions.


Charles Gavan Power: The air force was enlisted by the imperial government, so they would not be entitled to Canadian pensions. But any other man who enlisted in the Canadian forces was entitled to obtain a pension if he could prove that his disability was incurred in or was due to service.


Harry Gladstone Clarke: Who did not go
overseas?


Charles Gavan Power: I must say the deadline for further applications for pension was set at July 1, 1936, for those who served only in Canada. So they are debarred by statute from making application now, although they had approximately twenty years to do so.


Mr. BROOKS:: In connection with the amendment regarding the deadline, may I say that practically the only complaint I had last year in connection with pensions was that many of these men did not know that the deadline expired on July 1. What effort was made by the department to notify the different returned men's organizations that the deadline for soldiers who had not served overseas had been set?


Charles Gavan Power: The legislation was introduced about March 1, and was finally passed about the beginning of June, last year. In that period the question was debated and, as the hon. member knows, was discussed before a parliamentary committee. Returned soldiers' organizations were immediately made aware of the fact that there was to be a
deadline for certain cases in Canada. I was out at the Canadian Legion convention in Vancouver, and announced it there. I know that, generally speaking, the ex-soldiers' associations were quite familiar with the legislation proposed. I do not think there was much objection to it, from their standpoint. I shall have the figures available at a later time, but offhand I would say that about six cases have been turned down as being statute barred since then-not more than that.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I do not see how they
could be notified during the convention at Vancouver, because the amendment had not then been passed.


Charles Gavan Power: That it was the intention of the government to introduce such legislation.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: That it was the intention?


Charles Gavan Power: Yes.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: What effort was made, after the amendment was passed? There were quite a number of complaints, and I believe the persons complaining thought they did not receive sufficient notice.


Charles Gavan Power: I think the deadline was set at July 1, 1936. The legislation was passed in June. I doubt whether it would have been possible, during that short period of time, to advise all ex-soldiers in Canada as to their rights under the legislation. But certainly all ex-solders' associations were fully aware of it.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I do not wish to prolong the debate, but the minister must bear in mind that all returned men do not belong to veterans' organizations.


Charles Gavan Power: I quite agree.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: There were men who came to me and said they had absolutely no notice of the intention of the government to set a deadline at July 1.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I notice there is a reduction in the estimate of about $150,000 as compared with last year. I wonder whether this means that we have reached the peak in our pension expenditures, or whether it is just an estimate of the amount that has to be paid. If it is just an estimate, perhaps the minister could give us the amount actually expended last year on pensions.


Charles Gavan Power: On a former occasion I discussed the matter at some length and said that it was more or less of an estimate. I did say, however, that I thought that at the time pensions had at least been stabilized, and that they would not rise higher, unless there was some change in the legislation.
1188	COMMONS
Supply-Pensions-European War


Richard Bedford Bennett: Except for the war
veterans' allowances.


Charles Gavan Power: Yes. That is another matter altogether, which will rise to $12,000,000 or $13,000,000 in a few years. I have no objection to giving the expenditures. In 1932-33 pensions were about $43,000,000; in 1933-34, $41,800,000; in 1934-35, $41,900,000; in 1935-36 $41,521,000, and in 1936-37, prior to November 30, they stand at $27,653,000.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Why is there such a large sum in the estimates?


Charles Gavan Power: Because we expect to spend approximately $41,500,000. We expended $41,-
521,000	in 1935-36, and expect to spend just about that much this year.


Joseph Needham: Do I understand the cut-down on tine deadline was for soldiers who did not leave Canada?


Charles Gavan Power: Yes.


Joseph Needham: I have in mind some men in my constituency who would be in this class: They served overseas, and I should like to have an answer to give them. They were gassed, and although they have no marks on them by way of wounds, as a result of the gas they have recently been unable to follow their occupations.


Charles Gavan Power: There is no deadline for them, if they served overseas. That provision applies only to those who served in Canada.


Otto Buchanan Elliott: I have received several letters from war veterans in western Canada, and especially from exprisoners of war, who complain that they are unable to obtain remuneration from the pensions department. They contend there are a great many pensioners employed at large salaries, and they feel that if there were a deadline whereby, after a man received say $2,000 per year, his pension would be discontinued, they would have a better opportunity of presenting their case and receiving a certain amount of money from the vote. Is it a fact that there is no limitation on the amount of salary a pensioner may receive?


Charles Gavan Power: Pension has nothing to do with the salary a man receives either from the government or from a private concern. It has always been held as a principle, from the very first pension committee, that the awarding of a pension to any ex-soldier should not debar him from any employment whatsoever. I do not know how the constituents of the hon. member in western Canada would be assisted in any way in establishing their claim for pensions if we were to take away from someone who already has a pension his (Mr. Power.]
right to earn a living or to earn a salary commensurate with his ability and1 capacity.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is eleven o'clock.


Charles Grant MacNeil: There is a question I
should like to ask, but I see it is eleven o'clock.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



VACANCY

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received a communication from two members notifying me that the following vacancy has occurred in the representation, to wit:
Of Matthew McKay, member for the electoral district of Renfrew North, by decease.
I accordingly issued my warrant to the chief electoral officer to make out new writs of election for the said electoral district.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, February 24, 1937