1940-05-29

Mr. SPEAKER:: : I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
29th May, 1940.
Sir,-I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Mr. Justice 0. S. Crocket, acting as Deputy of His Excellency the Administrator, will proceed to the Senate chamber to-day at 5.30 p.m., for the purpose of giving the Royal Assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
F. L. C. Pereira,
Acting Secretary to the Administrator.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)


Mr. PERLEY:: 1.	Who was the officer employed under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act referred to under travelling expense accounts Vote 480, in the Auditor General's Report for the year ending March 31, 1939, page 232?
2.	Why was he discharged, and when?
3.	Was he reemployed, and when?
4.	What is his present position?
5.	What was his salary at the time of his
discharge?	_
6.	What were his travelling and other expenses for the year previous to his discharge?
7.	What is his present salary and other expense allowances?
8.	WTas an investigation carried on as suggested by the Auditor General?
9.	If so, what were the findings, and, if not, why was such investigation not held?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	Mr. T. Waters.
2.	He was removed from the service on March 12th, 1939, because of reported irregularities in expense accounts.
3.	He was replaced in the service for the period August 1, 1939, to November 8, 1939, to complete the special work on which he had been engaged.
Questions

4.	He is not at present employed by the Department of Agriculture.
5.	$125 pet month.
6.	$2,385.17 for the fiscal year 1938-39.
7.	See No. 4 above.
8.	An investigation was carried on covering some of Mr. Waters' expense accounts.
9.	Irregularities to the amount of $79.63 were found. This amount was subsequently recovered from Mr. Waters.


ALIENS BROUGHT IN BT BATA SHOE COMPANY AT FRANKFORD, ONTARIO
Mr. HARRIS (Danforth):: 1.	How many Europeans from the age of 12 to 21 were brought into Canada by the Bata Shoe Company, Frankford, Ontario, in 1938, 1939, 1940?
2.	How many Europeans from the age of 21 to 60 were brought into Canada by the Bata Shoe Company, Frankford, Ontario, in 1938, 1939, 1940?


Mr. CRERAR:: 1.	1938-none.
1939-	8.
1940-	none.
2.	1938-2.
1939-	123.
1940-	1.


MILK PRICES-MONTREAL
Mr. LACOMBE:: What was the average price of milk in Montreal during each of the years 1938, 1939, and 1940?


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: Wholesale Milk, fresh price	Retail
	paid to producer	Milk, fresh
	per 100 lbs. deliv-	per quart
	ered at railway	at Mont-
	station, Montreal	treal
	$	$
1938	2-076	[DOT]1161939	2-023	[DOT]1091940, January to April ..	2-150	[DOT]115
*1 gallon of milk equals 10-3 pounds.


SECRET SOCIETIES
Mr. JAQUES:: 1.	Is the government considering the advisability of making secret societies and the membership in them illegal?
2.	Will a return be made to the house of the names and members of the government who are members of secret societies, and also of the presidents and general managers of banks who are similarly affiliated?
[Mr. Card:ncr. 1


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: 1.	This question relates to a matter of 'policy and it is not customary to make a statement in reply to same.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


DISTRIBUTION OF COPIES OF BILLS TO MEMBERS
Mr. HANSELL:: Will the government consider having a copy of all bills of the House of Commons placed in the post office boxes of members on the day on which they are filed in the chamber?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: This is a question about which I should like to have a word with Your Honour before it is answered.


THE ROYAL TRAIN
Mr. HANSELL:: 1.	Was the royal train put into service since it was last used by Their Majesties?
2.	If it is not now in service, Would the government consider putting it on display at the various city exhibitions during this coming summer ?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	The cars which made up the royal train were returned to normal railway service by the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific railway companies at the conclusion of the royal visit.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


CANADIAN TRADE BALANCES, 1910-1940
Ernest George Hansell: What was Canada's favourable or unfavourable trade balance for each year since 1910?


James Angus MacKinnon: Fiscal years ended	Balance of trade	
March 31	Favourable Unfavourable	
1910			$ 71,554,206
1911			162,724,393
1912			214,688,524
1913			294,138,879
1914			163,756,774
1915		.$ 5,486.601	
1916		. 271.098,936	
1917		. 332,760.222	
1918		. 622.637,214	....
1919		. 349,053,580	
1920		. 222,130.586	
1921			29,730,763
1922		. 6,122,677	
1923		. 142,716,593	
1924		. 165,396,430	
1925		. 284,429.106	
1926		. 406,583.761	
1927		. 238.692.028	
1928		. 147,196.219	
1929		. 127,766.443	
1930				103,335,512

Questions as Orders for Returns,
Fiscal years ended	Balance of trade
March 31	Favourable Unfavourable
1931		 $89,584,647
1932	$ 32,749,123	....1933	
128,594,376	....1934	
238,466,770	....1935	
241,853,735	....1936	
299,753,013	....1937	
402,368,654	....1938	
285,751,286	....1939	
311,542,117	....1940	(a) 155,987,834	....
(a) Statistics for 1940 do not include gold. Net exports of non-monetary gold amounting to 188-1 million dollars are additional to the
favourable balance as shown.
war refugees


Mr. BRUCE:: In view of the congestion and difficulty imposed upon the British authorities in consequence of evacuating children from many of the eastern seaport towns, is it the intention of the Canadian government to immediately offer the hospitality of Canada to any large number of these children, and if so, how many?


Mr. CRERAR:: There is little if anything that can be added to the information already given by the Prime Minister in reply to similar questions yesterday and a few days ago. The matter is the subject of communication at the present time between Canada and the United Kingdom.


DOCTOR ALBERT MOELLMAN
Mr. McGREGOR:: 1.	Is Dr. Albert Moellman, formerly of Waterloo, Ontario, in the employ of the federal government ?
2.	If so, what position does he hold?
3.	When was he appointed?
4.	By whom was he recommended?
5.	What salary does he receive?


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: 1.	Yes.
2.	Dr. Moellman is a temporary statistician grade 3, during the absence of the permanent incumbent on extended sick leave.
3.	February 12, 1940; was previously on temporary staff during the summers of 1938 and 1939.
4.	His application for special work was favourably considered by the department and the civil service commission.
5.	$2,880.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: 1. How many Bren guns have been delivered by the John Inglis Company Limited?
2.	How many Bren guns have been purchased by the dominion government in England and/or from any other source, and how many of such guns have been delivered from England and/or any other source?
3.	What sums of money have been paid by the dominion government to the John Inglis Company Limited, since the letting of the Bren gun contract?
4.	Having regard to the fact that the Bren
gun contract was divided into three parts, viz: (1) the preparatory period of two years; (2) the production period of four years; (3) the series of special clauses:	(a) What sums of
money have been paid and/or charged against each of these periods by the dominion government to date? (b) Will any further sums be chargeable against periods (1) and (3) ?
5.	How much money has been contracted for or paid by the dominion government for machinery for the John Inglis Company Limited?
6.	What amount of money has been paid by the Dominion government for tools or dies:
(a)	to the John Inglis Company Limited;
(b)	to other suppliers of such materials in connection with the Bren gun production?
7.	How many members of the civil service or militia of Canada are engaged in the John Inglis Company Limited on the Bren gun contract; what is the salary of each, and, are these salaries paid from the federal treasury?
8.	What experts, other than Mr. Gillespie, have been brought to Canada to assist in the production of the Bren gun?
9.	What other contracts have been given to the John Inglis Company Limited by departments of the dominion government?


LIFE INSURANCE-LAPSED POLICIES
Mr. HANSELL:: 1.	How much life insurance held by policyholders in Canada has lapsed during each year since 1914?
2.	How much of this insurance was in Canada and British and American companies respectively ?
soldiers' dependants' allowances


Mr. HANSELL:: 1.	What is the schedule of allowances to soldiers' dependants: (a) dependants of married soldiers; (b) dependants of unmarried soldiers?
2.	Is there ever any exception to the schedule?
3.	Is each application for soldiers' dependants dealt with separately? If so, by whom, and by what procedure?



SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. GROTE STIRLING (Yale):: I should like to ask the Minister of Justice a question. I have just received this telegram from the mayor of Vernon, British Columbia:
Last night a meeting was being held in the Legion hall Vernon to form a home defence corps when some person or persons unknown bombed the hall breaking all windows on one side. We would ask your assistance in putting this matter



Subversive Activities-Vernon, B.C.
before the hon. minister of the proper department we would like to ask for an issue of a few rifles and ammunition to help protect our wives and children also our country urgent.
I should like to ask the minister whether he can make a statement with regard to the steps which the government are prepared to take to allay the anxiety that naturally exists and to which I have drawn his attention for ten days past.


Right Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: I had not intended making any statement to-day on this matter but I will give my hon. friend information. Before doing so however I should like to impress upon members who have concrete cases the desirability of sending them to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or even to the Department of Justice-I am not referring to my hon. friend's question; that is another matter altogether-instead of giving them publicity by questions in parliament, sometimes hampering the work that has to be done by conveying knowledge to the interested parties of what may be done, and sometimes casting unfair suspicion upon people who do not deserve it. For instance, yesterday a question was asked about the employees of the Bata Shoe Company and I immediately obtained information. There are 156 men there, all Czechs, refugees who came here after their country had been invaded and crushed by Germany. These men are all registered. They all report except nine of them who have certificates of exemption. These exemptions are not given by me but by the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, who is also registrar general of alien enemies. These people have not given any trouble which the police know of except for the fact that one complaint which was made against some of them is being investigated by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
As regards the question raised by my hon. friend, there are no particulars as to who may be responsible for the disorder that has taken place in Vernon. May I say that under the law as it is, and as it has always been, it is for the provinces and municipalities to maintain law and order within their limits. Of course, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are quite willing when their services are required to give them, and in connection with anything relating either to war or to some other matter coming within federal jurisdiction they even take the initiative. The administration of justice in the provinces is however under the province.


Mr. ROWE:: That is, in normal times.


Ernest Lapointe: At all
times the administration of justice is under the provinces. We may help them, we may give them all the material we have, we may assist them. But not only is it within their jurisdiction under the constitution, but it is even their right, to administer justice. Indeed, not so very long ago the premier of a very important province of this dominion simply refused the federal authority the right to have one counsel assisting crown prosecutors in matters relating, for instance, to smuggling or in other matters of that kind, because it was for the province to prosecute the accused, and he did not wish to have anything to do with anybody appointed by the federal authorities with a view to giving assistance. Strictly speaking, he was right legally because it is within the jurisdiction of the province. In this case, there are no particulars indicating that it is something connected with the federal authorities and we could not go there without being requested to do so by the proper authorities. However, I shall be glad to have the necessary information obtained regarding this matter.
While I am on this subject may I say that until two weeks ago the criticism I had to meet was quite the opposite. During the whole of the election campaign I had to defend myself on every platform, I had to defend the government, because the defence of Canada regulations were being attacked everywhere on the ground that they were too strict, too arbitrary. I was called the Hitler of the government of Canada; and, mind you, there are gentlemen criticizing me to-day who were not defending me at the time against the attacks of Colonel Drew, for instance, who said that we were taking away all the liberties of the Canadian people. Even my good friend the former member for St. Lawrence-St. George, Mr. Cahan, made a speech before the Rotary club in Montreal in which these regulations were strongly attacked because, it was said, they interfered with the liberty of the country.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: On a point of order, the first part of the minister's statement was correct in every way. Now I suggest he is making a political speech.


William Earl Rowe: A campaign speech.


Ernest Lapointe: I did not intend to say a word about this to-day, but the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling) asked me to make a statement and I am proceeding to make that statement. Is there anyone who can contradict what I have said?


Mr. BROOKS:: You are reaping the whirlwind and will reap it.

Subversive Activities-Enemy Aliens


Ernest Lapointe: We were told that our regulations were much more strict than the British regulations. I had to plead this case before the people of Canada on the political platform; we were asked everywhere to decrease the severity of our regulations at least to the level of the British regulations. But just recently the British regulations have been increased in severity. We have not gone down to them; they have come up to us.


William Earl Rowe: Would the minister permit a question?


Ernest Lapointe: I have been flooded with questions. This is my first answer.


Mr. HOMUTH:: You have not answered it very well.


Georges Parent: A question was asked of the minister. I think he has now replied to it.



ENEMY ALIENS-USE OF SERVICES OF WAR VETERANS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. N. J. M. LOCKHART (Lincoln):: I have received similar telegrams; I will not enlarge on the details. I asked for some information some days ago. I should be glad if I might have that information to convey it to one or two of the returned soldiers' organizations or groups to assure them as to what has been done.


Ernest Lapointe: I shall be glad to see that what my hon. friend asks is furnished.



ALIENS BROUGHT IN BY BATA SHOE COMPANY AT FRANKFORD, ONTARIO

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. HARRIS (Danforth):: I should like to ask a question arising out of the statement of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe). He said that the Bata Shoe Company employees and those brought in who are presently in the Frankford area could be considered as refugees, and that they have come in since Czechoslovakia was ravished. I hope the minister will check that statement and give a further statement on it. A large number of them came in long before Czechoslovakia was ravished, and a large number were not in the class of refugees at all.


Ernest Lapointe: It is for the Minister of Mines and Resources to answer that.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: These admissions were made 95826-21J
after the occupation of Prague by the Germans, certainly after the Munich settlement. There is no question of that.


Mr. W. A. FRASER (Northumberland, Ont.):: I should like to refer to the question asked by the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Harris) and also that asked yesterday by the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. White), in connection with the Bata Shoe Company. I believe that every hon. member of this house wishes to be fair to these people-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Georges Parent: I think the hon. member is out of order. There is no question before the house.


Mr. G. S. WHITE (Hastings-Peterborough):: With regard to the question I asked yesterday concerning the Bata Shoe Company, am I to take it that the remarks the minister has made to-day are the answer to my question and that the department does not intend to make any further investigation?


Ernest Lapointe: I said that the only complaint that has been received has been one received these last days with regard to only a few of those men, and that their activities are now being investigated by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. These people are all registered; the police are watching the activities there as elsewhere, and I do not know that we can do more than that, especially since those men are being checked.


George Stanley White: I shall be glad to supply the minister confidentially with certain information that has come to my knowledge.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why did the hon.
member not do that a week ago?


William Alexander Fraser: I should like to direct a question to the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Georges Parent: Order.



INQUIRY AS TO RAIDING OF OFFICES OF MONTREAL YOUTH COUNCIL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. DO RISE W. NIELSEN (North Battleford): I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe). I have received a letter from the Montreal Youth Council stating that last Thursday their offices were raided by officers of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The Montreal Youth Council is affiliated with the Canadian Youth Congress which I believe has come to the attention of a great many people in this country as being a worthy organi-
324	COMMONS
Mounted Police-Political Interference
zation. They intend to meet in Saskatchewan this summer. Already the lieutenant-governor of that province is a patron of the congress, and I believe the minister of education of Saskatchewan has become a patron as well. I believe the Montreal Youth Council should have at least some opportunity of learning why their offices were raided.
Georges Parent: Order. Will the hon. member please state the question without offering any opinions?


Mrs. NIELSEN:: I should like to know why the mounted police raided those offices and whether the material which they took away will be returned?


Ernest Lapointe: This will perhaps reestablish some equilibrium in the matter; to a certain extent I am glad that criticism of the other kind comes to me now. I shall be pleased to secure the information which my hon. friend desires. I cannot give a definite answer to-day.



MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ALAN COCKERAM (York South):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. At the Canadian Legion convention in Montreal yesterday, definite charges were made that there was political interference with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I think the house and the people of the country should be given definite assurance that such is not the fact.


Ernest Lapointe: I do not know that any such charge has been made; if it has, it is an atrocious untruth. If there is any body of men in Canada with which politics has nothing to do, it is the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. This statement applies to all their activities, to the recruiting of them, their promotion, their retirement; every time a member of parliament or any outsider has asked that there should be some influence prevailing to promote a man or do anything in regard to the police the letter has gone to the wastebasket, and any officer of the mounted police from the commissioner down would say the same thing.


Alan Cockeram: I am glad to have that assurance, because I have great faith in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
(Mrs. Nielsen.]



ALIENS IN UNITED STATES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: I wish to call the attention of the government to dispatches in Monday's United States papers saying that a bill has been reported by the judicial committee of the United States Senate requiring all aliens in the United States, which includes hundreds of thousands of Canadians working there, to be registered and fingerprinted. I would ask that the Prime Minister be good enough to look into the matter and see that the interests of our Canadians over there are protected.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Department of External Affairs has asked for a copy of the bill to which my hon. friend has just referred, and there will be communications between the department and the United States legation concerning it.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Alan Cockeram: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Rogers), who is not in the house at the present time. The question is: Is there on file in the Department of National Defence a letter written early in October last from the War Office or British authorities in which the Canadian authorities were informed that the British government would be unable to supply any tanks to the Canadian forces and also would be unable to supply training facilities for Canadian tank troops.


Georges Parent: I think that question should take the form of a motion for an order for the production of these documents.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Joseph Henry Harris: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe), who is acting as Minister of Munitions and Supply. On May 22 he tabled a report of contracts let to March 31. Will copies of these contracts be available to members? At present they are not in print or not in the distribution office.

War Appropriation Bill
And when may we expect a copy of the contracts awarded up to-I think the minister said May 10?


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Transport):: I am sorry to say that the printing office has not yet been able to turn out sufficient numbers for distribution. They are delivering them to my office as they are turned out. To date I think we have about half enough to supply the requirements of the whole house. If any hon. member wishes them immediately, if he will send a note to my office I will see that they are delivered to him. We hope to have sufficient copies to deliver within a day or two.
It has been our practice to publish the contracts by periods of two months, but if it is the wish of the house we could revise that and publish supplements to the list of contracts to the end of each month.



WAR APPROPRIATION BILL


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of Finance) moved the third reading of Bill No. 18, for granting to his majesty aid for national defence and security.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Before this bill receives third reading and goes forward for royal assent, I desire to advert to a principle to which I alluded when the bill was in committee of the whole last Monday; that is to say, that provision should be made in this bill, as in all money bills, for a full report to parliament within a period of time stated in the bill, as soon as possible after the opening of the next session of parliament, containing as far as possible a full and correct statement of the moneys expended under the measure and the purposes for which they have been spent. The principle involved is that parliament shall have complete control over expenditures, and I know when I state that principle concretely in that fashion it will find an echo in the heart and mind of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) because on many occasions between 1930 and 1935 he "set the heather on fire" with enunciations in support of that very principle.
I assume that I shall be met at once with the reply that this is all very well with respect to money bills in ordinary times, but that these are not ordinary times; that this is a war measure; that it is not in the public interest or that it may not be convenient within the time suggested to lay before parliament a true and correct statement of all the moneys expended under this bill. I submit,
sir, that even though this premise be correct, it does not follow that parliament should not have an accounting; for certainly it should be the aim of parliament to retain control over all expenditures.
I discussed the matter briefly with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ralston) and made the suggestion to him as long ago as Monday that of his own motion he should place in the bill a new section containing this provision. I had intended referring to this matter yesterday afternoon or last evening, but inasmuch as my memorandum in that connection had been sent over to the minister and had not been returned, it escaped my attention. To-day I deem it my duty to ask the minister to accept the principle which I have endeavoured to enunciate as succinctly as possible, for the reasons which I have suggested. This is the last opportunity I shall have to say anything about this matter; but because it appears to me that the principle involved is fundamental I believe we should put on record a statement of our position in regard to this money bill even though it may be a war appropriation measure.
I know there may be occasions when it is not in the public interest to do certain things; but with respect to expenditures of public money, even in war effort, I believe parliament should retain control. I am sure the Prime Minister will not controvert the principle involved; in fact, he is so wedded to it that I am surprised at its omission from the bill in the first instance. If we do not put something like this in this bill, something similar to what was in the Unemployment Relief Act, of course we can say good-bye to parliamentary control over the expenditure of public funds. Our position then will be merely that of rubber stamps voting public funds to the government to spend as they like, without any control by parliament and without any necessity for reporting to parliament.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling):
That the bill be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole with instructions that they have power to amend the same by adding thereto section 7, to the effect following:
"7. A detailed account of the sums expended under the authority of this act shall be laid before the House of Commons of Canada during the first fifteen days of the then next session of parliament."


Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of Finance):: The leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) was good enough to speak to me about this matter just at the opening of the house. I should explain to the house what I explained
War Appropriation Bill

to my hon. friend, that in the first place the appropriation bills on which this bill has been modeled have not contained such a provision as he suggested. I think the reason was that it was considered inadvisable to make any hard and fast regulation with regard to details of expenditures, having regard to the purposes of the expenditures and the fact that of course only a certain amount of information could be given. When I mention the bills on which this bill was modeled, of course I refer to the bills passed in the sessions of 1916, 1916 and 1917, during the great war. That is why this provision does not appear in this bill because I believe those reasons apply to-day also. It is, I think, quite impossible to give an undertaking, or to insert in the statute a provision, that a detailed statement shall be given concerning expenditures of this kind, because obviously that would be to undertake to reveal information which it may not be in the public interest to give, having regard to the nature of the expenditures. It is also, I am told, difficult to provide for a statement of this kind until a reasonable time has lapsed after the fiscal year has closed, because the various purposes for which the expenditures had been made have to be collocated under different headings from those usually used; that is to say, more general headings.
I have suggested to my hon. friend-and I hope he will accept this suggestion-that I shall now give to him and to this house an undertaking that the Minister of Finance will lay upon the table of the house or present to the House of Commons within two months after the end of the fiscal year a statement of all the moneys expended upon the provisions of this measure under headings to be approved by the governor in council. When I say, "under headings to be approved by the governor in council," that simply means that there might not be details, for instance, of the expenditure on ships or pieces of ordnance or other things which would indicate the extent of our equipment. General headings would be used along the lines I would think of [DOT] the headings in the explanatory notes which appear in the bill with which we are dealing and the headings under which I gave expenditures last night.
The house will realize that hon. members will then be in this position: They will have three checks upon the administration. They will have the check of the undertaking that a statement shall be presented containing information upon which all questions and inquiries can be based. They will also have the check that they need not vote more

money under any subsequent war appropriation bill unless the information given is satisfactory. They will also have the check of getting information which is desirable on the estimates of the Department of National Defence, which department I would anticipate under present conditions will be going on for a good many years in this country. I hope my hon. friend will accept that.
May I add one further word? I said that there would be a statement laid on the table of the house within two months after the end of the fiscal year; but if by any chance parliament is not then sitting, the statement will be laid on the table within fifteen days after the opening of the next sitting of the house.


Grote Stirling: Mr. Speaker, when I remember the insistence which the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) laid on the necessity for control by parliament, I am sure that had the argument put forward by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ralston) now been put forward from that side of the house, it would not have been acceptable to the right hon. gentleman. I do not think the reasons given by the minister meet the difficulty at all. It would not give parliament that inquisitorial right which it has to look into these matters as soon as possible after the assembling of this house. He suggested that he will give an undertaking. That undertaking would be the undertaking of the occupant of the position of Minister of Finance at this time.
I do not think it is a difficulty that the end of the fiscal year would not have been reached. It certainly was no difficulty in these cases with which we are drawing comparisons. The contention put forward by my leader is a most reasonable one, that there shall be attached to this bill a provision to the effect that these pieces of information, financial detail in the hands of the government, shall be laid before parliament, which is supreme.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, fifteen days after the opening of the session has been the rule for the tabling of all reports of departments and commissions, even the Canadian National Railways and other bodies.
Before the vote on the third reading is taken, I want to ask one question. First, I call attention to the fact that eight days ago the government announced that there would be recruiting for the second division and for a third division. Recruiting offices all over Canada are being visited. Within the last three or four days young men have been crowding recruiting offices in the city of

War Appropriation Bill
Toronto, Hamilton and other places, and they are told that only skilled draftsmen can be engaged-electricians, carpenters, blacksmiths, machinists, mechanics and others skilled in technical lines. The government should do something for these young men. First of all they cannot get a job; second, they can get no relief; and, third, they are now prohibited from joining the army although they are ablebodied men willing to fight. Surely within twenty-four hours the government could give instructions to the heads of the twelve military districts to go ahead and register these men. Otherwise I should like to find out if action along this line is awaiting the third reading of this bill. Many of these men are thus left again to ride the rods, and many of them will have to go back to panhandling. They will not get food or lodging or anything, and so they will be out on the street. The government could easily give instructions to the commanding officers in the military districts to have these men report and register them. There should be some announcement by the government with respect to recruiting for the second and third divisions which was announced eight days ago, but nothing has been done.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, may I say to the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling) with respect to the undertaking given by the Minister of Finance, that in so far as the undertaking can be given in the name of the government I am prepared to give it in the name of this government.
In reply to my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson), he is quite right in saying that no one has been more insistent on the principle of control of public expenditures by the House of Commons than myself. I would point out to him, however, that whenever I have spoken on this subject I have spoken not at a time of war when very exceptional conditions arise, but at times when the country was proceeding with its normal business in a normal way. I laid particular emphasis on the need of control of expenditures for purposes of relief and the like. Had I been in the House of Commons at the time of the last war, my attitude would have been precisely the same as that of the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier who was then the leader of the Liberal party; and the leader of the opposition. It was that as long as the country was opposing and was confronted by the enemy he would be prepared to lend to the government of the day whatever assistance he possibly could, and would reserve until a later time any criticism he might have to make of measures which he had reason to
believe were intended to save the administration from embarrassment at such a time. That I think is an attitude which my hon. friend himself will appreciate. I believe his attitude towards the present administration is along those lines. I point this out because I do think there is a difference between information being given in a time of peace and giving in detail to parliament, while war is on, certain expenditures which it may be inadvisable to disclose in detail and which have been made under a measure which parliament itself has approved.


Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, before the amendment is put, I should like to say that in my opinion there is involved in the amendment a principle which we cannot very well refuse to support, namely, the principle of the control by parliament of the expenditures that have been or are to be made. On these grounds we would support the reference back to committee, where a discussion as to the feasibility of the amendment could be gone into thoroughly. I realize that undoubtedly there might be some objection to the word "detail" in the amendment, but simply to accept the undertaking of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ralston), in whom we all have great faith, is in my opinion not the proper thing for the house to do; for ministers come and ministers go. I think in this first appropriation we should give further consideration to the suggestion made by the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Hanson) and thoroughly look into the feasibility of what is suggested. On these grounds we are supporting the amendment.


Joseph Henry Harris: Mr. Speaker, the period referred to by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) is not the same as is in the minds of members of this house. The right hon. gentleman referred to the last war, but we were thinking of the time when he and his colleagues occupied the benches on this side of the chamber. From 1930 to 1935 this country was faced with an economic situation the like of which it had never known at any time in its history. I have a most vivid recollection of the Prime Minister belabouring the government of that day hour after hour. That government was elected and we came here to a special session of parliament to enact legislation to relieve the economic condition which existed. We were elected at that time for that sole purpose. I can remember the Prime Minister, after three or four quite long speeches, rising in his place and tracing the history of parliamentary institutions back to the time of confederation and reciting the achievements of his progenitors
War Appropriation Bill

He did that when our people were hungry and were waiting for some relief. He insisted on a certain principle being adopted, and -the government of that day did adopt that principle.
So much for history. We are anxious to get on with this job of work. There has been a great deal of give and take across the floor of this house and I hope there will be more. I hope the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ralston) and the government will see their way clear to adopting this amendment. After all, there is little difference between the undertaking which the Minister of Finance has given on behalf of the government and this amendment. Let us keep our house in order as we go along. It is something new to me to see a statute bereft of intention, and then have that intention covered by a solemn undertaking given by the Minister of Finance.
I am quite serious and sincere when I say that before very long I hope someone else will be Minister of Finance and that the present Minister of Finance will be occupying a higher position than he does at the present time.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Joseph Henry Harris: The Minister of Finance has given an undertaking in the name of the government, but in my opinion that undertaking should be part and parcel of this bill. I do hope the government will reconsider the stand they are taking and accept the amendment.
Amendment (Mr. Hanson, York-Sunbury) negatived on division.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time.
Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of Finance) *moved that the bill do now pass and that the title be as on the order paper.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Mr. Speaker, before this bill receives its third reading-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Georges Parent: The third reading has been carried.


Richard Burpee Hanson: On a
point of order, the hon. member was on his feet before the motion was put.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Georges Parent: I did not see him.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Before this bill receives its third-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Georges Parent: I am sorry, but the third reading has been carried and the title is as 
on the order paper. I did not see the hon. gentleman.
Motion agreed to and bill passed. NORTHWEST TERRITORIES ACT



JURISDICTION OF PROVINCIAL COURTS-CARE OF INSANE PERSONS

[Stage Direction]
Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Minister of Mines and Resources) moved the third reading of Bill No. 12, to amend the Northwest Territories Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. G. POWER (Minister of National Defence for Air) moved the second reading of Bill No. 2, to amend the Naval Service Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Vien in the chair.
On section 1-Naval Service Act amended.
Thomas Langton Church: I should like to ask the
minister in charge of this bill what Canada's navy consists of, where it is located on the Atlantic and Pacific and what work it is doing to coordinate and cooperate with the mother country to overcome the grave submarine menace which may occur any time, as it did in the great war.


Mr. POWER:: As to where the navy is
actually operating, I cannot give that information to my hon. friend because it would not be in the public interest to do so. As to the numbers of the forces, I do not know that it is in the public interest to give that, either; but I will say this, speaking from my knowledge of the estimates, that by the end of the year 1941 there will be 12,000 officers and ratings enlisted in the Canadian naval forces- I believe about 1,400 officers and 10,000 ratings.
There are in commission seven destroyers, fifteen mine-sweepers, six anti-submarine vessels, fifteen fishermen's reserve vessels, and fifty-one auxiliary vessels; and under construction, ninety vessels, fifty-four patrol vessels and eighteen mine-sweepers. At the present time the personnel is 952 officers and 5,662 ratings.


Grote Stirling: As I understand it, from the few words of explanation which the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Rogers) gave on the resolution, this is for the purposes of administration only. Would the minister who is

Naval Service Act
in charge of the bill tell the committee whether in any sense this affects the rights, the standing of those affected by the bill?


Charles Gavan Power: Oh, not at all. This applies purely to such civilian personnel as may be attached to or employed by the navy or the officers of the navy, and it is in order that discipline may be observed. During the last war some difficulty arose on that account.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That statement of the minister is quite reassuring, that is that it is for discipline only. In the explanatory note in the bill that is accentuated. But further on, it is said that the procedure during the last war was open to certain legal objections. Would the minister give us just the meat of the whole thing and inform us as to the difficulty which arose at or since that time? I think there was some question of civil rights, in connection with actions for negligence, which might be taken away from these men if they became subject to naval discipline. To my mind there is something in that. Perhaps it has not occurred to the officers of the department to meet that point, and the bill may not be designed for that purpose. As the minister knows, the rights of a seaman in the navy in respect of, we will say, accidents, are entirely taken away from him, as contrasted with a civilian, working in a naval vessel, who is not an enlisted man or a rating. Having regard to the words, " it was open to certain legal objections," perhaps the minister will give some explanation as to what that means. Further on in the explanatory notes it says, " it gave rise to many claims for war compensation which, though not legally admissible, were extremely difficult to reject." There seems to be more in the bill than appears on the face of it. If the minister has the information, perhaps he would give it.


Charles Gavan Power: First I want to make it quite clear that this applies to persons who are not actually enlisted in the navy-


Richard Burpee Hanson: I understand that.


Charles Gavan Power: -but are serving with it. Pilots, I suppose, would be one category while they are serving with the navy; perhaps fishermen; and other trades serving in connection with or attached to the navy. Apparently during the last war that was not made quite clear, and trouble arose with regard to discipline. I have no recollection of that, I do not remember any instances of it, but I do remember of cases with respect to compensation in the shape of pensions. I take it that this bill will apply to those men who are 95826-22
not actually enlisted in the navy, that it will give them rights with respect to pension similar to the rights of those who are in the navy. Perhaps my hon. friend will follow me as I read section 1; I am skipping words which may be redundant:
(1) If any person who, not belonging to the naval service, enters into an engagement with the minister to serve his majesty . . . and agrees to become subject to this act upon entering into the engagement, that person shall, so long as the engagement remains in force ... be subject to this act, and the provisions of this act shall apply in relation to that person as if, while subject to this act, he belonged to the naval service and were borne on the books of one of his majesty's Canadian ships in commission.
I take it that this would entitle him to the pension rights to which members of our naval forces are entitled. I remember, although I cannot recall the details, that certain pension claims were rejected on the ground that men who served in such capacity in the last war were not, properly speaking, members of the forces as laid down in the Pension Act; and I believe that this bill is intended to cover them.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There cannot be any objection in principle to the bill. I rose merely to clarify, if possible, the legal objections referred to in the explanatory notes. The intention of the bill is to make those persons who are not regularly enlisted subject to discipline as if they were one of the ratings of a ship. Of course there may be other implications which one does not understand unless one has read the entire naval act. I have not had time to do that. If the minister says that that is the only purpose of the bill, I am quite content.


Mr. GREEN:: Could this section be used in the case of a Canadian who enlisted in Canada in the British navy or in an armed British merchantman? We had in Vancouver a case last fall where the British authorities with the aid of the Canadian authorities called for recruits for an armed merchantman which was not in the Canadian forces but was under British control. Quite a number of men enlisted, and some of them, at least, believed that they were enlisting in the Canadian navy. They found that they were actually with the British forces; they got British rates of pay, and their wives received allowances at British rates, which are a good deal lower than Canadian rates; also they learned that they would not have pensions at the Canadian rates, and they were losing money every month through the exchange, because they were paid in British funds. Would it not be possible to make some provision for men of that type?

Naval Service Act

It seems to me that they should be treated in the same way as other Canadians who enlist in the Canadian navy.


Charles Gavan Power: In a bill intended to deal with the Canadian naval service I would not care to endeavour to encompass the rules, regulations and discipline of the Royal Navy. There may be some other statute which can be amended to meet the wishes of my hon. friend; but I doubt very much whether in amending the Canadian Naval Services Act we can do anything which would effectively meet his wishes with regard to men enlisted in the Royal Navy.


Howard Charles Green: Will the minister see whether some steps can be taken to protect in this respect Canadians who are enlisted in the British navy or serving on converted British armed merchantman? It really is not fair that they should be paid at British rather than Canadian rates.


Charles Gavan Power: As a former Minister of Pensions, I have such a lively recollection of the headaches that I had with respect to those, who served in the last war in other than the Canadian forces, that I am willing to do anything to avoid headaches for the Minister of Pensions twenty years hence. I shall be only too glad to take into consideration what my hon. friend has said.


Mr. MacNICOL:: If an officer enrols in the regular naval service at, say, Halifax, and is then ordered to go to the west coast, where he remains during the war, is he entitled to move his family out there at the public expense? I think he should be. I have in mind the case of a man in the naval service who was ordered from one coast to the other, at which time he had to pay the expense of moving his family. I am convinced that the government should assume the expense of moving an officer's family from one coast to the other.


Charles Gavan Power: That matter has received the consideration of the government. Under the permanent force pay and allowance regulations, with which doubtless my hon. friend is familiar, when there was a removal or change or transfer the officer had the right to receive the costs of moving his family and furniture. At the moment these regulations are being amended and the question of removal or transfer is still under consideration.


John Ritchie MacNicol: What I had in mind was an officer being ordered from one coast to the other. His family followed him but the officer had to pay the expenses. I understand

that the department intends to reverse that situation and to make allowance for the moving expenses of the officer's family.


Charles Gavan Power: That is under consideration by the pay and allowance board.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I should think there would be no question about it. The same thing applies in the civil departments of the government. Under the Department of Trade and Commerce men are frequently moved from one station to another and the department pays all their moving expenses. I used to notice that they did themselves pretty well, because they stayed at the best hotels, and sometimes we saved the country a few dollars-not much-by lopping off what we thought were unnecessary expenses. This should apply without question to officers, and I do not see why it should not apply to petty officers, who cannot stand the cost of removal nearly as well as the others. I commend the suggestion to my hon. friend.


Charles Gavan Power: That is all laid down in the pay and allowance regulations.


Thomas Langton Church: At the last session of parliament when the estimates were before the committee I drew attention to these very matters that are now being discussed, and I spoke particularly about uniform rates of pay for all the services. It is true that this bill is more or less disciplinary in some respects, but I should like to draw attention to a return made last February with regard to the particular matters that come under this bill. The subject matter of this bill appeared before the house in some form or other last session and I discussed it then. Canada, as the return to the order of the house I moved for shows, has a navy, and when the former minister made this return-and he was an active minister; he got something done-it was announced that early in the year 1939 the ships of the Canadian navy according to the return, went on a goodwill tour through the West Indies, through the Panama canal and on to British Columbia, a sort of show navy. That return to an order of the house, which covered some points mentioned in this debate, showed the ratings of the officers and men and I fail to see how the navy has been since much increased. Recently some naval colleges were opened in Kingston and other places, but there is nothing to show that it has been increased.
As I said last session, we owe everything we have to the mother country, and it takes a war to show us exactly what we have in the way of freedom, and the debt we owe to the royal navy. Many of our boys had to cross

Naval Service Act
the ocean on cattle boats to join the navy, though there are in the public schools of all the provinces many youths who would like to be in the navy and merchant marine because we are a nautical people, and excel in aquatic sports, rowing, canoeing, and boating of all kinds. With the magnificent inland waterways that we possess, Canada has not done its duty to the motherland so far as this arm of the service is concerned. At the shipping conference during the imperial conference in 1917, this whole question was under discussion. The question was asked, where is Canada? It was shown at that conference that there were 2,000 less merchant ships to carry food to Britain than there were in 1914. The report of that conference dealt with all the dominions and Canada's contribution to that arm of the service and it showed the dreadful menace of the submarine in the last war. For every four boats of the British merchant marine going out there was one that did not get back, so that in 1917 the British people were nearly starved out. In my opinion these recruiting offices should be opened all over Canada for this branch of the service. As I said last session, in the past five or ten years Canada should have trained 10,000 cadets for the merchant marine and British navy. Canada held aloof at the 1937 empire shipping conference although it was known that the disaster of war would overtake us from the commitments Britain had given. When asked to help in the empire shipping scheme in 1937 Canada turned a deaf ear, as it did in the matter of empire air training. Canada did nothing at the shipping conference to help the mother country then, or at the imperial conference, though we all know quite well that we owe to the royal navy everything worth while that we have in the way of freedom.
One word more. Why should there not be equality in pay for all branches of the service? This is a question which should be fully discussed, and I had hoped that the government would take the responsibility of holding one or two private sessions at which these inequalities, in regard to dependency money and other matters of the same sort, might be cleared up.


Charles Gavan Power: Knowing my hon. friend as well as I do I would hesitate to ascribe to him any desire to make a slighting reference to the Royal Canadian Navy, as he would appear to have done in speaking of it as a show navy. I want to assure him and the committee that if he really meant it in the sense that the Canadian navy was not at this juncture doing its duty, I would resent it emphatically and strongly. Perhaps he was 95826-22J
referring to some of his previous speeches in former years, but I wish to assure him that the Royal Canadian Navy is now doing work of which every member of this house and every person in Canada ought to be proud. It is carrying on convoy work, anti-submarine work and rendering the most valuable assistance to the common cause, and every man in the navy is doing his duty as well as the members of any other force in the country.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: Will these people come under and be subject to the rates of pay and allowances of the naval services?


Charles Gavan Power: I think this bill is scarcely the appropriate occasion on which to discuss the rates of pay and allowances of the navy and compare them with other forces. I am not familiar with all the details of the pay and allowance regulations. I am however under the impression that there has been an adjustment all the way round. It is not possible to say that every man who serves below the rank of officer shall get $1 or $1.50 or $1.75, and that every man who is an officer of a certain rank shall get the same rate. These rates must be adjusted according to the work being done-not by each individual, perhaps; but the categories in the navy are much wider and more varied than in the army. These pay and allowance regulations were worked out with considerable care by the officers of the navy and army and air force- a committee was formed of the three services in order that there might be some equality and similarity. We are endeavouring to adjust the matter to the satisfaction of all the services, and I think in a measure we shall succeed.


Grote Stirling: The minister is referring to allowances, is he?


Charles Gavan Power: Pay, allowances and all the rest.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: What I was after was not how much the pay and allowances were but whether a man when he comes under this legislation is subject to pay and allowances.


Charles Gavan Power: This measure would have no effect at all on the financial terms of his engagement-simply the discipline.


Thomas Langton Church: The minister's remarks
were quite uncalled for. I did not attack the men of the navy. What I attacked was the government, for not having done its duty in 1937 at the imperial conference to the men in the navy. The estimates were pared until they were ridiculous for a country of this size, depending as it was on the mother
Naval Service Act

country for all our maritime freedom. I have done as much for the men of that service as the minister. I call the attention of the minister to the fact that this government in the session of 1937 announced in the house a purely pacific policy of neutrality at the coast regarding this branch. What was that policy? It was the policy that Canada would spend money on the Pacific on a navy to protect our neutrality, and when they were asked against whom they were to protect it, the reply was that they were to protect the United States, to protect the border and protect Canada from being invaded by a foreign foe seeking to attack America along the Pacific. From Puget sound six hundred miles to the Queen Charlotte islands and the mainland, money was spent. That was in 1937, and I happened to be the only member who protested in this house against that policy, because it did not link up with the British fleet; it was dependent on protection of our neutrality and giving Washington protection, not the people of this country.
As a result of the 1937 expenditure of that money what have we in the Atlantic to-day? We have no real protection there, or on the Pacific, except the British fleet.


Charles Gavan Power: May I interrupt the hon. member right there? He intimated a moment ago that I was putting words in his mouth that he did not utter. He is now telling us that this navy does not protect the Canadian coasts in any way. I resent that statement. This navy is doing the work of protecting the Canadian coasts. I want him to hear me and understand that.


Thomas Langton Church: The minister can make his own speech when I am through. He was one of the persons who supported that policy of depending on the United States fleet to protect our shores. Then when they got this money spent under their 1937 policy on Puget sound and six hundred miles up to Queen Charlotte islands what happened? They found that the idea that the United States would not stand idly by, that they would protect our neutrality, would quarantine the dictators, was all a myth; that the United States were back to the old policy of their first president that of neutrality unless attacked. We had all that work on the Pacific and no air force to back it up. What I have been urging in this house for the past ten years is for Canada to do its duty to the mother country and maritime freedom. This party has traditionally supported that policy of cooperation and coordination with the mother country for maritime freedom.
What is the minister doing about our merchant marine? Does it come under this bill?

Canada's maritime fleet consists mainly of merchant ships. It was all very well to buy a couple of destroyers in the last year or two; one of them was called the Lord Kempen-feldt, a celebrated naval name, but immediately it got to Canada someone out on the prairies thought that the name should be changed and it should be named after his constituency, Assiniboine; yet they say it is not a political navy. It has been, but not through the fault of the officers or men. This matter has been discussed in 1937 in the house; it was discussed with a good deal of humour by some hon. gentlemen then who are now standing up for a Royal Canadian navy. I have stood for them and for maritime freedom and a proper contribution by the people of this country since I entered the house in 1921, and will continue to do so.


Mr. ADAMSON:: Having been one of those to experience the Halifax disaster in the last war I should like to know whether the pilots going in and out of Halifax harbour are subjected to naval discipline. In the last war the hospital ship Letitia ran aground, and I do not think it was ever quite satisfactorily settled why the Mont Blanc and the Belgian relief ship, the Imo, ran into each other. I know there was some talk that the pilots had been in some way negligent, and ugly rumours were going round. I wonder if the matter to which I refer has been given attention by the ministry. I suggest to the minister that the entire district of Halifax harbour, which in this war is of even greater importance than it was in the last, be put completely under naval jurisdiction. I suggest also that a force be recruited of naval ratings-a naval regiment, if you like-to have complete control not merely of the naval dock yard but of all the district around Bedford basin and Dartmouth and the other side of Halifax.


Charles Gavan Power: The navy is in complete
control of Halifax harbour and all our seaports. There is naval control of all shipping entering or leaving certain ports of Canada, and Halifax, is one of them.


Mr. ISNOR:: Does this cover a case we
had in December, 1917, at the time of the explosion referred to by the hon. member? The crew of a certain ship had been taken over on the morning of the explosion but were not registered. One of the crew lost his leg. He applied for compensation but his claim was not recognized on account of the fact that his name was not enrolled in the navy. The former minister of national defence is no doubt familiar with the case. I endeavoured to have a pension paid to this man but the question

Militia Pension Act
was raised whether or not it was a war casualty and pension was not given. Does this bill cover such a case?


Charles Gavan Power: Perhaps some of the difficulties with respect to compensation mentioned in the explanatory notes refer to those arising out of the case to which my hon. friend refers. I think it was found impossible, either under the Militia Pension Act or under the Pensions Act itself, to make an award in that case. Of course the purpose of this bill is not to make any retroactive provision; this is to deal with what may happen in the future.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: That may be so, but if a boat was taken over by the naval forces in Halifax and the crew were not properly registered, would they come under the provisions of this bill?


Charles Gavan Power: Only yesterday the Minister of Finance said he did not think ministers of the crown or those in Charge of bills should give interpretations as to their legal effects, and I believe that is good advice to follow. Offhand I would think that the object of the bill would be to cover cases analogous to the one my hon. friend has mentioned, but I should not like those words to be quoted in a law court as being the opinion of a former member of the bar.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I quite appreciate that neither the Minister of National Defence for Air nor the Minister of Finance would care to give a legal opinion, but I am concerned as to future acts such as I have mentioned. In Halifax we have practically a state of war which I do not think is appreciated by a great many people in other parts of Canada, and it is because of my concern for what may happen that I am anxious to have provision made in this or some other bill for the protection to which I think the seafaring man operating in and around the port of Halifax is entitled. That is my interest, and if it is not covered now I think some provision should be inserted in the bill to protect these men.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. G. POWER (Minister of National Defence for Air) moved the second reading of Bill No. 3, to amend the Militia Pension Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Vien in the chair.
On section 1-Period of service in Royal Canadian Naval Reserve or Volunteer Reserve for computing pension.
Grote Stirling: I understand that the purpose of this bill is to put an officer of the permanent naval force on exactly the same footing as an officer of the permanent militia and air forces, and that it is simply and solely for that purpose?


Charles Gavan Power: Absolutely; for no other
reason.


Mr. MacINNIS:: I may be exposing my ignorance in asking this question, but I notice that this amendment has reference to officers only. I should like to know if there are any men serving in these capacities; if they are subject to pension, and if not why not.


Charles Gavan Power: I know there is a long service pension with regard to the men of the navy as well as the men of the army and air force, but as to the basis or time of service upon which pension is computed, at the moment I am unable to say. However, I shall be only too glad to look into the matter.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed. ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE

[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. G. POWER (Minister of National Defence for Air) moved the second reading of Bill No. 5, respecting the Royal Canadian. Air Force.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Vien in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Charles Gavan Power: Perhaps I had better say a word with respect to this bill. There is nothing new in it at all. It simply purports to set up the Royal Canadian Air Force as such. Up to the present the Royal Canadian Air Force has operated under the Aeronautics Act, revised statutes of Canada, chapter 3, section 4. Under that act, which also deals with civil aviation and with matters relating to aviation generally, the Minister of National Defence is empowered to make regulations with respect to the authorization, discipline, efficiency and good government generally of officers and men employed in the air force.
Royal Canadian Air Force

On. the strength of that the Royal Canadian Air Force as we have it at present was built up. But even before there was any question of providing for a separate department of national defence for air it was thought advisable to have an act which would govern the Royal Canadian Air Force. This bill in almost every respect is similar to the Militia Act and the Naval Act.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-definitions.
Grote Stirling: Paragraph (d) provides:
"Minister" means the Minister of National Defence.
I was wondering if it would not be better to use the wording in paragraph (c) of Bill No. 15.


Charles Gavan Power: Bill No. 15 amends the Department of National Defence Act. The Royal Canadian Air Force Act was studied in conjunction with the amendment to the Department of National Defence Act which set up the Department of National Defence for Air. The definition of "minister" is as follows:
"Minister" means the Minister of National Defence unless under the provisions of this act a minister of National Defence for Air has been appointed, in which case "minister" means the Minister of National Defence or the minister of National Defence for Air acting as in this act provided.
It goes on in another section to provide that when the act relates to matters regarding air, the Minister of National Defence for Air has exclusive jurisdiction. Otherwise I suggest to my hon. friend that you might take away from the purely temporary war-time character of the position of the Minister of National Defence for Air. After all it is a war-time ministry. The Royal Canadian Air Force will be in existence for many years to come, and if we can with the least possible disturbance to existing statutes have a minister carry on the functions of minister for air I think it would be better draftsmanship so to provide.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: The air training school in the city of Galt comes under the youth training scheme. Does that school in any way come under the Minister of National Defence for Air?


Charles Gavan Power: I cannot be quite sure of my reply, but subject to further checking I would say that the school in Galt is under the provincial department of labour. Under the empire air training scheme the Minister of National Defence for Air through his department pays on a per capita basis certain subsidies for the preliminary training of certain
fATr- Power.]
students at the Galt school, but there is no federal control, either administrative or executive, over that school.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I understand that at the beginning of this week it was decided that the capacity of this school should be doubled. It has been doing wonderful work; of all the youth training schemes in the country this school has certainly proved to be a real asset in this crisis. A great many of its boy students have gone out to various aircraft factories, and I think some of them are now at the Manning school in Toronto. Could not a little more effort be made along that line? Certainly it has been a wonderful thing for the empire training scheme.


Charles Gavan Power: My attention was drawn to the item in the newspapers to which my hon. friend refers, and I mentioned it to some of the officers in the air force. They expressed their satisfaction that there was to be an extension of the work carried on by that school.


Mr. MARTIN:: The minister has already stated that as a result of the events of the last few days there will be an acceleration of the whole air programme. Prior to his becoming minister for air the department announced that under the air training programme the Windsor airport would not be used until some time in September. It struck me that even under normal circumstances that would be undue delay. In view of recent events can the minister say to the house now that in the acceleration of the programme use will be made of the Windsor airport at once, or within the next few weeks, instead of in September next? May I have an answer?


Charles Gavan Power: I was not quite sure that the hon. member wanted an answer.


William Earl Rowe: What does the minister think he wanted?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Like hon. gentlemen
opposite, I always expect an answer.


Charles Gavan Power: I am endeavouring to put through a measure constituting the Royal Canadian Air Force. It deals with it as a cohesive body and with its administration, the powers and duties of the officers and men, and so forth. It is a long way from the empire air training scheme, although the Royal Canadian Air Force is the administrator of that scheme. I have not brought with me all the information which would permit me to answer questions with respect to the developments which are to take place under the air training scheme. That would open a very broad subject indeed. While I have no

Royal Canadian Air Force
objection to that being done, and I can perhaps give some information to my hon. friend at some other time, to give such information now would delay the passage of this bill, which is not at all related to that development.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I appreciate that point, and I do not want to delay the bill. Perhaps my question will cause due expedition in the department.


Charles Gavan Power: Correct.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Paragraph (c) of section 2 says:
"Emergency" means war, invasion, riot or insurrection, real or apprehended.
The militia may be called out, I understand, to give aid to the civil authority. Would the same machinery be used if the air force were needed to give aid to the civil power?


Charles Gavan Power: That is explained by section 9.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not wish to delay this bill. I understand its purport and I approve its principle. As I see it, the air people want a bill of their own; they do not want to have an inferiority complex.


Charles Gavan Power: They have a minister and they want a bill too.


Richard Burpee Hanson: With
respect to the question raised by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), it is inevitable that information should be sought from time to time, but I do not know whether the debate on this bill is the proper place. I should like to ask a few questions with respect to air training activities in New Brunswick, and if it is not convenient for the minister to answer them now, perhaps he will do so later.
An announcement was made in the New Brunswick papers on Monday morning, from the office of the premier of New Brunswick-I do not quite understand just why that medium was used, unless the air force is being utilized for the spreading of political propaganda-'that there would be established three new airports for use in the empire training scheme. It was stated -that landing fields would be located at Chatham in Northumberland county and at Scoudouc and Salisbury in Westmorland county. The statement which issued from the premier's office declared:
The premier has been informed that the Chatham airport has been approved by the Royal Canadian Air Force and the specifications will shortly be completed for this work. This also applies to the Scoudouc and Salisbury fields.
The airports to be built at Scoudouc and Salisbury undoubtedly will form part of an air training unit to be centered at Moncton. Under plans formulated at Ottawa, it is understood that each training unit will consist of a main port (in case of Moncton) and two subsidiary airports (Scoudouc and Salisbury).
I should like to know just what is the position with relation- to New Brunswick and what is intended to be done at Scoudouc and Salisbury, as well as at Chatham. I do not expect an answer now and my remarks may be taken as notice.
In 1933 an emergency landing field was constructed at Blissville, in one of the counties which I have the honour to represent. This field would be ideal for air training purposes, and I am wondering why the officers of the department have not utilized it. The country there is quite level and the landing field was prepared at very little expense. It is located on the main line of the Canadian Pacific and a station has been built there. The present field could be extended for another mile or two at a minimum of expense.
I do not know -much about the locations at Scoudouc and Salisbury. They are contiguous to Moncton, and we have all generally recognized that Moncton will be an air training centre because of the commitments that have been made. It is one of the termini of the Trans-Canada Air Lines. I understand the field has been taken over by the government and it is planned to make substantial expenditures. I ask the minister to give consideration to the utilization of the Blissville air field, which is ideally located and which can- be operated or extended at less expense than any other site in New Brunswick.


Charles Gavan Power: AH I can say with reference to the Blissville field is that I will draw the attention of the technical officers of the department to the remarks of my hon. friend. I should like to say now to every hon. member who may have a recommendation to make with respect to any field in his constituency that the matter will be referred to the technical officers. I personally do not know why one field should be better than another and if the technical officers of the department prefer one place to another, I think it is my duty to back them up.
With regard to information given to the press, I am sure my hon. friend will appreciate that in the short time I have been in office I have not had time to set up a publicity or public relations agency. I have asked the officers of the department to give such information as they are free to give to any person who asks for it and who has some authority. If my hon. friend were to ask me what progress is being made in connection
Royal Canadian Air Force

with any particular air field, I would pass his request on to the officer in charge of that particular work. If the work had advanced to a point where he could make a definite statement, he would make it. In this particular instance, I take it that the premier of New Brunswick or someone on his behalf inquired as to what air fields were to be developed in the province and that the project had reached the stage where they could be specific in the information given to the premier.
I have received many inquiries from members of parliament, all of which have been handed over to the proper officers. I understand the custom has been not to give out information until either a contract has been let or it is definitely decided that tenders will be called for. I believe that is the practice. If it is, it is a good one.


Richard Burpee Hanson: He is
simply trying to get some political kudos.


Charles Gavan Power: Is the hon. gentleman referring to me?


Richard Burpee Hanson: To the
premier of New Brunswick.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Taking advantage of the suggestion made by the minister in connection with recommendations for air fields, I should like to say that a few years ago considerable work was done on a number of air fields in New Brunswick. I refer particularly to the field at Havelock, just a few miles from Salisbury, which has been referred to already. At one time that field was well developed, but to-day it is just covered with bushes. The money spent has been simply wasted. It would take only a minute or two to fly from Salisbury to Havelock, and I cannot understand why a new field should be developed at Salisbury when this other field was available. I understand the same thing is true of the field at Cambridge.
I just wanted to call the attention of the minister to these fields which are already constructed. If time is of the essence in the development of our air force, some consideration should be given to work which has been done already on certain fields. I am well acquainted with the field referred to by the leader of the opposition at Blissville and I can only second what he has so well stated. During the last two or three sessions there has been considerable discussion about the establishment of air fields, and it seemed strange to me that when vast sums of money were being spent for the development of military air fields in the maritime provinces, all four fields that were developed should be in Nova Scotia. At that time the state-

ment was made that air fields were being developed for the defence of our focal points. I contended then as I contend now, that Saint John is one of the great eastern harbours of Canada, and if air defence is needed for focal points an air field should be selected somewhere near Saint John, New Brunswick. At that time I suggested that the military air field at Sussex, where the defence department has spent a great deal of money in extending its area, should have been used for that purpose. I may say in connection with that air field that I hope the defence department will, in future, make more use of the facilities they have there than they have done since the war started, and more than is indicated at the present time, for training purposes this summer. I have simply taken advantage of the suggestion of the minister to call these matters to his attention.


Thomas Langton Church: Under this bill the minister is taking over the control of administration of the Royal Canadian Air Force. It will be noticed that section 2 is the most important section in the bill, because if that passes there is very little else to be said. It deals with interpretations. So far as these interpretations go, they reproduce the exact text of the Militia Act, and in the Naval Services Act the very words used are applicable to air services. In this interpretation section the words "air force works", "airman", "emergency", "minister" and "officer" are defined.
As I see it, under this bill no one but a British subject can belong to the Royal Canadian Air Force. During the great war numbers of men were trained for the air force at Toronto and in various camps. It was claimed that the number trained was 16,000 or 18,000, depending no doubt upon how one classes the 3,000 or 4,000 workmen and mechanics. At that time 4,000 or 5,000 men applied and came over from the United States, a great number of them from American colleges, and applied to enlist in the air force. In the winter, by arrangement between the governments and the munitions boards of Canada and the British empire, a camp was established at Fort Worth, Texas, where it was thought advisable to train because of climatic conditions. At that time- 1917-of course the United States had come into the war. At the present time the United States is not in the war; it is a neutral, not an ally; but under the definition as it appears in the Militia Act and the Naval Services Act it would appear that one has to be a British subject in order to join the present Royal Canadian Air Force and that Americans are not eligible.
Another point is this. "Air force works " is described as also including aerodromes

Royal Canadian Air Force
hangars, air harbours and barracks. During the great war the British munitions board and the air force took over, sometimes by compulsion, a great many useful and good public buildings. During June and July, in the first months of conscription in Great Britain, what did the government do regarding the young people who were joining the air force? They were coming out of civilian pursuits; they were untrained and unused to hardship. The regulars were coming home from Asia Minor, Egypt and other places abroad. To aid recruiting, the British government gave the best quarters to these new recruits to the air force of the conscript army; of course, as the conscientious objectors numbered only one per cent, practically all the recruits enlisted eagerly and almost voluntarily. What I would urge upon the minister in this connection is that dilapidated stables are not suitable quarters to-day to house our recruits for air training. As I said the other day, in paying a compliment to the minister, I believe he has the vigour and the energy to get things done, with the aid of the splendid air vicemarshal who is with him to-day. What I urge is that these young people who are coming from civilian occupations should be given as good treatment as the British government gave to its new recruits. When the regulars came home to the old country, they began to object. They said, " We are regulars; we have been serving in Egypt and other places abroad; why should we be turned out and put in tents while the men of the air force are given the best barracks?" But the principle was to make recruiting a success.
In connection with another clause of the bill, I think it is a mistake that the government should go to work and take over various buildings when others are available. During the war the city, the university and the Toronto school board, which has recently again offered a school building for training purposes, granted the use of the best buildings they had, and the school and the university gave the school of science and three or four other schools. The government had the use of Hart house, all the buildings round the university. No. 4 school of military aeronautics was at Victoria college and was given to the air force. Other properties also were gladly made available, and are now again offered by the municipality. Why, therefore, take over a lot of stables?
The other day, passing by Eglinton barracks, I saw 160 men who are in training there. I am not criticizing them; they have a good officer commanding; but I think it is a great mistake, when some of their parents come to town, to have a few of them working on the
city dump. No doubt it is necessary to detail five or six of them for cleaning up the yards. The government should go to work and commandeer, where necessary, good air force buildings all over Canada, including buildings for hospitals.
I think there is a little too much rigour in connection with some of the training. If one may believe what appears in last week's Saturday Night, the new recruit is severely penalized for a moment's loss of time. As there is very little transportation near some camps it is not always easy to report on time, and I do not think the new recruits should be given some of these penalties, which in fact are illegal at the present time, and will be until we pass section 2. Our new recruits who are coming up voluntarily should receive equitable treatment as in England and the officers in charge should see to it that recruiting is not injured by any mistake of this or that junior officer.
Under paragraph (h) " prescribed " is defined as giving the governor in council prescribing power, and paragraph (i) defines " regulation " as meaning " a regulation made by the governor in council under the authority of this act." That is a pretty broad clause, and I am doubtful if the government should have that power.
As far as the camps are concerned, it seems to me that under the present arrangements they are too far away from the cities and towns. In the last war we had Leaside, Beamsville, Camp Borden, Armour Heights, No. 4 School, Trenton camp, and other places. I believe that the Closer they are located to centres of population, the better. The city of Toronto has spent a million dollars on an airport over at Hanlon's Point. That field is empty to-day, and it could be obtained, I believe, by cooperation with the city and the government. Malton airport has been handed over.
I see nothing in the bill to take care of the cadet and technical services in the high schools Last Sunday evening I saw at a service at St. Paul's church, Toronto, conducted by Air Chaplain Bishop Renison some 2,000 cadets, royal air force trainees, public school cadets and sea cadets, and others who are willing to come along when they are needed. The cadet feature of this work should not be neglected.
I do not wish to delay the passing of the bill. I have every confidence in the minister Everybody wants to give him cooperation, the maximum of unity and very little criticism I consider that the government is to be complimented upon the very fine body of headquarters officers and other officers. Throughout the Royal Canadian Air Force I have heard nothing but expressions of the utmost
Royal Canadian Air Force

confidence in the military officials, and everybody wants to see this important branch of the service developed rapidly in Canada.


Mr. PERLEY:: The minister seems to be
in a genial or susceptible frame of mind this afternoon, and has evidently accepted some of the suggestions on the part of hon. members from New Brunswick who are making pleas for the development of air fields. I am just going to make a plea and I hope the minister will pass it on to his officials. In other sessions, on projects of this kind and on public works generally, I have had to speak for the whole of Saskatchewan. Members from that province were a little backward in coming forward, and that is practically the case to-day. However, I have one good associate and the committee will probably hear from him later. Speaking for my own constituency, I would point out that we have two air fields one of which has had considerable development. It is near the town of Broadview. The runways have been constructed and it is in a wide open space. The other one is near the town of Moosomin. Both these air fields are in line with the Trans-Canada airways and I should like the minister to consider their further development. The one at Broadview is particularly well adapted to such development and I am sure that in the air training scheme both these could be made use of. In both towns there are good armouries and facilities of every kind for training members of the air force. I trust the minister will consider this matter.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Now that the various
ministers are assuring us that political considerations are altogether divorced from any matter pertaining particularly to war administration, will the minister try to persuade his associates to come back to the question of building a tunnel to the airport on Toronto island? It is one of the best airports on the continent, or will be when completed, and as the tunnel to the island was killed by politics on the part of our friends opposite, it should be possible to have the work done if political considerations are eliminated.


Paul Joseph James Martin: At a time like this, when the country should conserve its energies, the suggestion of the hon. member for Davenport is surely out of the question. The distinguished gentleman who sits immediately in front of him, and others, would repudiate that suggestion at this time, I should think.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 3 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
On section 6-Persons subject to the act.
Richard Burpee Hanson: I have not had a chance to check this. The marginal

note says, "See sections 69 (2) and 70 of the Militia Act." I assume that they are similar, allowing for -the necessary changes.


Charles Gavan Power: The judge advocate general informs me that they are exactly the same in principle, although the form has in some instances been changed.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 7 and 8 agreed to.
On section 9-Aid -to civil power.
Grote Stirling: Am I right in taking this to mean that if it is necessary to call out the air force for this purpose they cannot be called out unless the militia has been called out?


Charles Gavan Power: The militia must first be called out before the air force can be utilized, and that stands to reason. Apart from exceptional circumstances there would not be a large number of airmen available to do the kind of duty that would be required in aid of the civil power.


Thomas Langton Church: I should like to know whether a home guard of the old Royal Air Force could not be utilized.


Charles Gavan Power: Formerly they had no separate existence; -the members of the air force were a part of the army. Now they are proud to say that they have a separate entity.


Richard Burpee Hanson: With
respect to the question which my colleague asked a few minutes ago, I quite agree with the construction which the minister has placed upon the section, but I am not at all sure that I agree -that the object is wholly desirable. As he pointed out to me in the course of discussion over -this section, there might be times when the air force was the only military force that would be available quickly in a given emergency, and they could act very much more quickly than the militia. In British Columbia, for instance, there are no military units located in the interior, which may be several hundred miles from the coast where there are military units; it would take a long time to get the militia to a given point, whereas if the air force were available it could be done in a matter of hours and perhaps less. I suggest that consideration be given to the question of placing the air force in exactly the same position as the militia. There is of course a well understood programme or mode of procedure which is followed prior to the calling out of the militia. There must be a form of requisition from the civil authority, and so on and so forth. I recall a case in Nova Scotia some years ago

Royal Canadian Air Force
where litigation resulted. The dominion government tried to collect and failed, did they not?


Charles Gavan Power: They waived their claim.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, I think it went to the courts.


Charles Gavan Power: I am now informed that it went to the supreme court. The federal government did not succeed in their claim.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not recall the exact circumstances, but that is neither here nor there. I think there is something in my associate's suggestion and perhaps the minister will give it some further consideration. So far as I am concerned, it is not important enough to delay the bill.


Charles Gavan Power: I brought up a similar objection about a month ago when I first looked at the bill. I was then acting as Minister of National Defence and the answer I received was that it was not really the function of the air force .to act as militia men. They do not habitually drill with rifles, bayonets and that sort of thing. They are a technical force, and in any case the officer commanding the military district could readily overcome any objection by going through the form of calling out the militia. He could call out a squad or company or platoon and if he did not have enough men he could call on the air force. But the advantage of the air force is that its planes and equipment would be at the service of the officer commanding the district to transport troops where required, if any civil commotion arose.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Could he do it legally under this clause?


Charles Gavan Power: Yes. Probably he could do it in any event without this clause.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 10 and 11 agreed to.
On section 12-Liability for air force offences.
Richard Burpee Hanson: As a matter of information, not having had time to look up section 71 of the Militia Act, what is the penalty in that act for desertion?
Mr. POWrER: The Militia Act does not seem to provide a penalty except in case of absence for over seven days. Section 72 reads:
72. Every member of the militia called out for active service who absents himself without leave from his corps, for a longer period than seven days, may be tried by court martial as a deserter.
Under the British Air Force Act desertion on active service is punishable by penal
servitude. Our regulations contain the same provision.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Not death.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 13 and 14 agreed to.
On section 15-Air force property in his majesty.
Karl Kenneth Homuth: Are these air fields that are being developed in cooperation with the municipalities vested in the crown, or is there joint ownership?


Charles Gavan Power: I think they are held in the name of the crown. The property is purchased by the crown in the right of the government of Canada, and the contribution-


Karl Kenneth Homuth: It is just a contribution;
they have no ownership in it?


Charles Gavan Power: No, there is no ownership.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: It is generally considered that when the war is over these air fields that are being developed will serve for commercial purposes.


Charles Gavan Power: I hope so.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: If that is so, then apparently commercial flying in this country will be under the control of the government.


Charles Gavan Power: The government now has some control in the matter of regulations for civil aviation. As my hon. friend knows, the government is the owner through shareholdings of Trans-Canada Air Lines. I have not looked forward far enough to know whether these fields now being developed for the commonwealth air training plan will be handed over to Trans-Canada Air Lines or what will become of them. I am trying to get them built first.


Mr. HILL:: The minister's department has overlooked the finest site for an airport and training school that there is in the maritime provinces. I speak from twenty-five years' experience in engineering. There is a site at Pennfield, four miles square, sixteen square miles, from which he can select a site. This is a natural landing field, a high gravel plateau three to four hundred feet above sea level; on three sides it drops off towards the sea and on the other side there is a small elevation, rising gradually, so that there would be no interference with planes taking off. There is fifteen to twenty-five feet of gravel drainage. A field can be built on this site for twenty-five per cent of the cost of any other field that is being built in the maritimes, and can be maintained for ten per cent of the cost of maintenance of any other field. Why
Royal Canadian Air Force

it is being overlooked I do not know. It is the field on which Mollinson made his emergency landing after flying across the Atlantic, and he landed without a break-up. The site has road connection to a paved highway. It has railway and hydro connection; it has everything for cheap development. It can be built and put in operation in less than four months and at very small cost; on that I will stake my reputation as an engineer.
It has been stated to me by the minister's department that two other fields were necessary as emergency landing fields. One is already constructed and has been in use for two years at Blissville, 35 miles away; another at Brockway 30 miles away has one runway constructed, the work having been done under the relief plan in 1934. The other runway can be constructed very cheaply. If the department want to get into operation at an early day this is the proper site. A field can be constructed here cheaply, and at very little extra cost can be enlarged to any size required for training purposes. Two emergency landing fields are already practically provided. Some of your other fields will not be finished within the next five months, although they have been under construction for at least two years.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Thomas Langton Church: By leave of the committee may I ask one question on section 14? This section provides for commitment to the common gaol or other lawful prison or place of confinement, up to a period of two years. My objection is that some of the county gaols in the provinces have been declared by grand juries to be unfit for human habitation, and some are unused. If they are not fit for civilians they certainly are not fit places in which to confine members of the Royal Canadian Air Force for minor breaches of regulations. During the great war the general officer commanding No. 2 district asked the city of Toronto for leave to use an unused wing of the old Tombs gaol. It was built about the time of confederation, and the wing had been closed for a number of years, having been condemned by the health officer. The city refused its use on the ground that if it was not fit for civilians it was not fit for men, who were risking their lives in the war. That may be all right for some soldiers, but the vast majority of the offences covered by the interpretation section might be described as minor, as they would be under the code. I do not think it is in the interests of recruiting that this provision should be in the bill. I wish to protest against it, even though I may be the only member doing so, because I have seen its operation in practice and the 
injury it has done to recruiting and to discipline. During the last war it was condemned by almost every newspaper. Dilapidated buildings which were not fit for civilians were good enough for soldiers, and the same thing applied to the unused Gerrard Street hospital, closed as not being good enough for civilians.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 17 and 18 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. G. POWER (Minister of National Defence for Air) moved the second reading of Bill No. 4, to amend the Department of National Defence Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Vien in the chair.
On section 1-Regulations respecting service estates.
Grote Stirling: In reading subsection 2, I wondered whether the wording was wide enough to take care, for instance, of mail which is actually in the process of being delivered to a person who dies before its delivery, and which would include property in the form of a parcel, a letter, or registered mail.


Charles Gavan Power: The judge advocate general informs me that once a parcel is placed in the mail, it becomes the property of the person to whom it is addressed and therefore forms part of his service estate.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, May 28, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Ralston-Mr. Vien in the chair:
That the governor in council be authorized to raise by way of loan under the provisions of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, 1931, an amount not to exceed in the whole the sum of seven hundred and fifty million dollars for paying or redeeming the whole or any portion of loans or obligations of Canada and also for purchasing unmatured securities of Canada and for public works and general purposes.

Government Loan
Richard Burpee Hanson: Perhaps the minister would make some explanation of the resolution. In view of the fact that the estimates, totalling something like $448,000,000, have been tabled, if this is the ordinary resolution that precedes the voting of supply in the ordinary way I have been wondering just why it is necessary to ask for the whole sum of $750,000,000. I assume that the answer will be that this has to do with loans and refunding operations, but perhaps the minister will give us a succinct explanation.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend is correct in his last assumption. This is not necessarily for the purpose of providing for more than the current estimates, but in order that we may be in a position to refund maturing loans, as an example, and for general purposes, as my hon. friend will see when the bill is brought down. I thought perhaps I might put on record the maturities in 1940 and 1941.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I was
going to ask for that.


James Layton Ralston: The first maturity is on June 1, 1940; 14 per cent, payable in Canada, amounting to $80,000,000, with annual interest charges of $1,200,000. That, I may say, is
being refunded by a $65,000,000 issue which I mentioned last evening, which is being issued out of the $200,000,000 borrowing authority which was provided in last year's regular appropriation act. My hon. friend will remember that I said we still had power to borrow $135,000,000 under the authority of that act. That figure is arrived at by subtracting the $65,000,000 which is being issued in order to refund this loan of $80,000,000 to which I have referred, from the $200,000,000 provided for last year. As I intimated, that power under last year's regular appropriation act will expire when the bill founded on this resolution becomes law, because the new bill will contain a provision terminating that power. That is to say, they will not be running concurrently. Then on July 1 there is a maturity, payable in Canada of S33,293,470.85, 4 per cent, with an annual interest charge of $1,331,738.83.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Would the minister state when these loans were issued, if he has that information?


James Layton Ralston: I am afraid the particulars I have here do not give the dates of issue. The other maturities are as follows:
Date
Interest rate
per cent	Amount
Annual interest charge
September 1, 1940 (Canada) March 15, 1941 (Canada).. May 1, 1941 (New York) .. .. May 1, 1941 (Canada).. .. October 16, 1941 (Canada).. November 15, 1941 (Canada)
44	$ 75,000,000	$3,375,0001	45,000,000	450,000li	20,000,000	250,0001	250,000,000	2,500,0002	200,000,000	4,000,0005	141,663,000	7,083,150
That goes to the end of 1941.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What was the date of issue of the New York maturity?


James Layton Ralston: I cannot tell my hon. friend but I will find out. The 14 per cent, May 1, 1941, New York payment of $20,000,000, annual interest charges, $250,000, is callable March 1, 1941. The May 1, 1941, 1 per cent issue of $250,000,000, is payable in Canada, and interest charges are $2,500,000. The October 16, 1941 issue payable in Canada is for $200,000,000, with annual interest charges of $4,000,000, and is callable October 16, 1940. The November 15, 1941-here is an old one- carries 5 per cent coupon and is payable in Canada; the amount is $141,663,000, and interest charges are $7,083,150. That brings us to the end of 1941.
Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury); When was the New York maturity issued?


James Layton Ralston: I cannot say offhand but I will find out. I am giving the committee
the maturities of funded debt and treasury bills of the dominion as of May 15, 1940, maturing up to the end of 1941.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: What is the total of that?


James Layton Ralston: About S850,000,000.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Which of those maturities are callable and which maturing?


James Layton Ralston: The issue of May 1, 14 per cent, New York, is callable March 1, 1941.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: What is the amount of that issue?


James Layton Ralston: $20,000,000. Another callable issue is this maturity of October 16, 1941. This is a two per cent $200,000,000 issue callable October 16, 1940, one year in advance. I do not know whether I stated the actual date of maturity as compared with the call date of the New York payment. Its maturity date is May 1, 1941, and it is callable two months before, on March 1, 1941.
Government Loan


Douglas Gooderham Ross: What was the total amount of all these issues?


James Layton Ralston: I totaled them up quickly and made it about $850,000,000.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I notice that the resolution authorizes the governor in council to use any portion of this amount for public works and general purposes. Is that language usual in resolutions of this sort? And what use is made of that provision? I always thought that in ordinary peace times, appropriations for public works appeared in the main estimates or in the supplementaries, which gave the house an opportunity to speak to them and debate them if desired, but this resolution would give power to the government, apart from war work, which is dealt with in the other bill, to deal with public works. The minister might tell me for my information and guidance, if nothing more, just what use is made of this power respecting public works and for general purposes.


James Layton Ralston: I think that is intended to indicate one of the objects for which moneys may be borrowed to be put into the consolidated revenue fund. So far as public works are concerned, my hon. friend I think is perfectly right; the actual vote authorizing a public work has to be made by parliament.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But it would be possible under this resolution to use some of this money for public works.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend asked me whether this provision was usual. It is the same provision as that contained in previous bills.


Richard Burpee Hanson: How long has this practice obtained? I do not recall it myself.


James Layton Ralston: For three years, I think.


Richard Burpee Hanson: You may be right.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Last night, speaking of the aeroplanes stored at the Malton airport, I inadvertently stated that they had been awaiting acceptance by the government. Actually they had been accepted by the government some weeks and months before and the bombers were actually flown to the Malton airport. I just wished to make that correction of my statement of last night.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: This resolution
authorizes the raising of $750,000,000 out of the $850,000,000 which are either maturing or callable.


James Layton Ralston: That is up to the end of the calendar year, 1941.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Could we not get something more definite as to that part of the resolution dealing with public works and general purposes? I understand, of course, that maturities have to be taken care of and that it is in the public interest to call certain loans. I have never liked the last words of this resolution, "for public works and general purposes''. It seems to me that we ought to have more details of what the public works and general purposes are to be.


James Layton Ralston: I think my hon. friend will find that that is the purpose of the loan, raising the money. It then gets into consolidated revenue. Then you have to get it out of consolidated revenue again. I do not think you can get it out under this statute for public works.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: You get it into consolidated revenue under this resolution, but you cannot get it out?


James Layton Ralston: That is right. You get it out for public works by vote.


Angus MacInnis: The government was given power last session to borrow $750,000,000. Has all that borrowing been done during the last year? If not, how much?


James Layton Ralston: Would my hon .friend like the list? Answering his question generally, the unused balance was exhausted by the issue of about $20,000,000 of war savings certificates a few days ago.


William Earl Rowe: I was out of the house when the resolution came up for consideration. May I ask how much of this $750,000,000 will be used for our general war expenditure?



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major A. R. Thompson, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, His Honour, the deputy of His Excellency the Administrator, desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, the house went up to the Senate.
And having returned.
Mr. SPEAKER informed the house that the deputy of His Excellency the Administrator had been pleased to give in His Majesty's name royal assent to the following bills:
An Act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1941.

Government Loan
An Act for granting to His Majesty aid for National Defence and Security.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Ralston-Mr. Vien in the chair:
That the governor in council be authorized to raise by way of loan under the provisions of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, 1931, an amount not to exceed in the whole the sum of seven hundred and fifty million dollars for paying or redeeming the whole or any portion of loans or obligations of Canada and also for purchasing unmatured securities of Canada and for public works and general purposes.
James Layton Ralston: If the committee will permit, I will put on record complete statements of the funded debt maturities in 1940 and 1941 as at May 15, 1940, and also of outstanding treasury bills. There are some points which I have not read in the statement I made with regard to unmatured funded debt and treasury bills. There is one London issue of $93,926,666.66 which is callable October 1, 1940, and due on October 1, 1960. I will put on record, if I may, the total of all issues except treasury bills, maturing or callable up to December 31, 1941. It is $938,883,137.51.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They all appear in tabulated order?


James Layton Ralston: Yes.
(The table follows):
As : May 15, 1940-
Un atured funded debt and Treasury Bills of the Dominion of Canada, maturing up to Dece oer 31, 1941, and annual interest charges thereon:-
Date of	Rate
maturity	per cent
19 J-
,'une 1	 li
July 1	 4
September 1	 4 i
March 15	 1
May 1 (callable	March	1, 1941).	..	li
May 1	 1
Oct. 16 (callable	Oct.	16, 1940)..	..	2
November 15	 5
Where	Amount	Annualpayable	outstanding	interest chargesCanada	$80,000,000 00	$1,200,000 00Canada	33,293,470 85	1,331,738 83Canada	75,000,000 00	3,375,000 00Canada	45,000,000 00	450,000 00New York	20,000,000 00	250,000 00Canada	250,000,000 00	2,500,000 00Canada	200,000,000 00	4,000,000 00Canada	141,663,000 00	7,083,150 00There is also an issue which is callable October 1st, 1940, although it does not mature until October 1st, 1960. That issue carries a 4 per cent interest rate, is payable in London and the amount is	
Including the above, the total of the issues (excluding Treasury Bills) which mature or are callable up to December
$844,956,470 85	$20,189,888 83

1940-May 31.. . May 31.. , J une 14.. June 14.. July 3.. . July 3.. . July 16.. , July 16.. August 1.. August 1.. August 15.
Date of maturity
1941, is.. ..		$938,883,137 51	
1940 are:-			
Rate	Where	Amount	Annualper cent	payable	outstanding	interest charges.. -739	Canada	$15,000,000 00	$110,850 00.. -751	Canada	25,000,000 00	187,750 00. . -739	Canada	15,000,000 00	110,850 00.. -747	Canada	25,000,000 00	186,750 00.. -739	Canada	10,000.000 00	73,900 00Canada	25,000.000 00	185,500 00Canada	10,000,000 00	73,900 00Canada	30,000,000 00	221,700 00Canada	10,000,000 00	73,900 00.. -736	Canada	25,000,000 00	184,000 00.. -738	Canada	40,000,000 00	295,200 00in 1940.. ..	$230,000,000 00	$1,704,300 00
Progress reported.
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Privilege-Mr. Church

Thursday, May 30, 1940