1941-03-17

PRIVILEGE-MR. REID

[Stage Direction]
REFERENCE TO ARTICLE IN "NEW CANADIAN" OF FEBRUARY 28-FURTHER COMMENT IN "news herald"
Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I again rise to a question of privilege. On Friday last when the house opened I took occasion to rise to a question of privilege in connection with an article which had appeared in a Japanese-owned and printed newspaper in Vancouver, wherein certain remarks were made concerning myself.
I am in receipt this morning of an article sent to me by air mail. This article appeared in the Vancouver News Herald of March 15, and under the heading "Reid Claims B.C. Members Make 'Malicious' Attack," it states:
Tom Reid (Liberal, New Westminster) issued a blanket charge in the House of Commons esterday that fellow British Columbia mem-ers had made a "false, malicious" attack on him.
The article continues:
Refers to Green.
Reid said that he was referring especially to Howard Green (Conservative, Vancouver South) and Angus Maclnnis (C.C.F., Vancouver East). He declared their attack had been over the Japanese problem in the Pacific province.
"I have never tried to raise hostile or racial hostile feeling against the Japanese," he said. "I merely tried to point out at times the dangers of giving the Japanese the franchise."
Whether the Nipponese were Canadian born or not, Reid declared, they owed their first loyalty to Tokyo, not to the dominion.
In fairness to the hon. members and in fairness to myself I believe some correction should be made, because when I spoke on Friday last I made no reference slightingly to any hon. member. I was dealing particularly with an article printed and directed against myself, which had appeared in the New Canadian, a paper issued by the Japanese of Vancouver.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. ROSS (Souris):: 1.	On completing a course of training in the R.C.A.F., what basis is followed in granting commissions and sergeant's rank?
2.	What standard of examination is required for these various ranks?
3.	Who is responsible for these appointments?


Mr. POWER:: It is presumed that this
question refers to aircrew trained under the British commonwealth air training plan.
1.	Approximately 50 per cent of the aircrew trained as pilots or air observers are to be commissioned. Approximately 33 per cent are awarded on graduation and 17 per cent awarded for service in the field. The remainder of the aircrew trainees who complete their training are promoted to the rank of sergeant on graduation.
2.	The standard of examinations on completion of the course is in accordance with the syllabus of training as approved by the air ministry. The examinations consist of:
Ground subjects-These include navigation, signalling, airmanship, ground gunnery and the theory of bombing.
Flying training-Consisting of aerobatics, forced landing, service manoeuvres of aircraft in the air, air gunnery and practice bombing.
Officer qualities-An assessment made by the instructors during the course of training, considering capabilities as to leadership, initiative, educational background and deportment. The assessments in the above phases of training determine the degree of efficiency of all trainees and is the basis of selection for commissioning.
3.	The process of making the appointments to commissioned rank begins at the school where a board of officers is formed to recommend 50 per cent of each class for appointment to commissioned rank. This board submits their recommendations in order of priority
Questions

for the whole class. The recommendations are forwarded to the air officer commanding the command in which the school is located and he in turn submits to air force headquarters his recommendations for appointment to commissioned rank. Appointments to commissioned rank are made under the authority of the Minister of National Defence for Air. The minister's appointments are made on recommendations of a selection committee, presided over by a wing commander of the Royal Canadian Air Force and composed of representatives of the R.A.F., R.A.A.F., R.N.Z.A.F. and the R.C.A.F. All appointments made in the services of the commonwealths other than Canada are, of course, subject to their respective governmental approval.
CHATHAM, Ni,, TRAINING SCHOOL


Mr. HATFIELD:: 1.	Who was the contractor for the construction of the foundation for the Chatham air training school at Chatham, New Brunswick?
2.	After the foundation was built, was it found necessary to change the location?
3.	If so, why was the change of location made?
4.	What was the contractor paid for the first foundation?
5.	What was the contractor paid for completing the second foundation?


Mr. POWER:: 1.	John Flood and Sons Ltd., Ill Princess Street, St. John, N.B.
2.	Contractor had worked only four days on original site before notification of change was given. During this time he had moved his materials, tools, etc., on to job.
3.	The aerodrome development committee considered the north site more suitable for the building area for the following reasons:
(a)	The contours of this location are such as to make it easy to obtain adequate drainage.
(b)	Water supply could be obtained more easily.
(c)	The required stumping is not excessively greater than that required for the south location.
(d)	Road construction need not be extensive.
(e)	Closer to town than the south side location.
(f)	There is room for expansion if required.
(g)	It has better visibility, as it is on a higher location.
4.	The contractor has not submitted an account for work done on original site, to date.
5.	The total amount of the contract awarded to John Flood and Sons Ltd., which was for the buildings and foundations, was $126,590. A separate price for foundations was not tendered.


ALBERTA AIR TRAINING SCHOOLS
Mr. HANSELL:: 1.	What type of air training schools are located at Macleod. Granum and Claresholm, in the province of Alberta?
2.	How much money is allocated for the construction of each of these three schools?


Mr. POWER:: 1.	Macleod-No. 7 service flying training school.
Granum-Relief field for Macleod, No. 7 service flying training school.
Claresholm-No. 15 service flying training school.
2. Macleod-$1,483,918.05.	Granum-$218,-138.59. Claresholm-$1,531,322.30.


LIFE INSURANCE, 1930-39
Mr. MARSHALL:: 1.	What was the total amount of life insurance terminating during the ten-year period January 1, 1930, to December 31, 1939, under the following headings:	(a) lapse; (b) surrender; (c) expiry; (d) death; (e) decrease; (f) maturity; (g) disability?
2.	What was the percentage under each heading of the total terminations for the same period?
3.	What was the net increase in amount of insurance in force for the same period?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	The total gross amount of life insurance held by dominion registered companies, terminated during the ten year period January 1, 1930, to December 31, 1939, under the following headings, is as follows:-	
(a) Lapse		$2,910,853,801
(b) Surrender		2,786,920,851
(c) Expiiy		371,548,633
(d) Death .. .. 		465.354,396
(e) Decrease		1.171,090,701
(f) Maturity		141,701,099
(g) Disability	; .. ..	11,420,883
Total		S7,858,890,364
2. The percentage under	each heading of
the total terminations for the same period is	
as follows:-	
(a) Lapse		.. .. 37-04%
(b) Surrender		.. .. 35-46%
(c) Expiry		.. .. 4-73%
(d) Death		
(e) Decrease		
(f) Maturity		
(g) Disability		.. .. -15%
3. The net increase in gross	amount of insurance in force with dominion registered companies for the same period is $634,917,273.

Questions
national resources mobilization-dependents' ALLOWANCES


Mr. MacINNIS:: 1.	Are the dependents of persons called for training under the National Resources Mobilization Act, who were married after July 15, 1940, eligible for dependents' allowance?
2.	If dependents' allowance is paid is it at the same rate as for persons in the armed forces ?


Mr. RALSTON:: The answer to this question is that the regulations have not been issued in connection with this matter. They will be issued very shortly.


Mr. HOMUTH:: Could the minister give us an idea as to when the regulations will be down? It is rather important.


James Layton Ralston: I think almost at once.


PASSPORTS
Mr. REID:: 1.	How many passports have been issued by the government during the fiscal years 1930 to 1940?
2.	What respective amounts of money have been received by the government for passports issued during the fiscal years 1930 to 1940?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1. Fiscal Year			Passports	Renewals
1st April, 1930 *

31st	March,	1931	
29,116	3,2861st April, 1931 - 31st	March,	1932	
25,377	3.0091st April, 1932 - 31st	March,	1933	
27,050	3.8351st April, 1933 - 31st	March,	1934	
22,844	3,6281st April, 1934 - 31st	March,	1935	
22,513	3,9091st April, 1935 - 31st	March,	1936	
21,041	3,7661st April. 1936 - 31st	March,	1937	
26,302	4,0431st April, 1937 - 31st	March,	1938	
25,255	3,8231st April, 1938 - 31st	March,	1939	
21,406	3.2531st April, 1939 - 31st	March,	1940	
12.282	1,971233,186	34,523Passports	
233,186Renewals	
34,523Total	
267,7092.	Fees received by the government for issue and renewal of passports during the fiscal years years 1930 to 1940:
April 1, 1930 to March 31, 1931.. $149,428.66 April 1, 1931 to March 31, 1932.. 128,091.34 April 1, 1932 to March 31, 1933.. 142,379.99 April 1. 1933 to March 31, 1934.. 121,689.35 April 1, 1934 to March 31, 1935.. 120,210.15 April 1. 1935 to March 31, 1936.. 111.773.45 April 1. 1936 to March 31, 1937.. 142.945.01 April 1. 1937 to March 31, 1938.. 130.560.20 April 1, 1938 to March 31. 1939.. 112,269.87 April 1, 1939 to March 31, 1940.. 64,368.72


$1,223,716.74 INCOME TAX
Mr. SHAW:: How many individuals in Canada are in receipt of the following incomes, as shown by the income tax returns filed in 1940, (a) $10,000 to $25,000: (b) $25,000 to $50,000; (c) $50,000 to $100,000; (d) in excess of $100,000?


Mr. GIBSON:: (a) 9,901; (b) 1,433; (c),
(d), 483.
It is not deemed in public interest to answer (c) and (d) separately.


RECOGNITION OF FRENCH PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT-FRENCH LEGATION IN OTTAWA
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Why is not the French provisional government of General de Gaulle recognized in Canada?
2.	Does the government still recognize the Vichy government in view of the further demands of Germany on Vichy and its new belligerent policy against Britain, as announced by the deputy premier, Admiral Jean Darlan on March 10?
3.	Have they still an embassy in Ottawa, where is it located, who is its head and who are the members of the staff?
4.	Is there any inspection thereof?
5.	Has Canada an envoy or consul general in France, of the Vichy government? If so, where, and what are his functions?
6.	Has the government had any correspondence with the government of Vichy or of Great Britain in the matter?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	General de Gaulle has not set up a French provisional government.
2.	The government's position in relation to the French government remains as it has already been stated, on more than one occasion, in the house.
Questions

3.	France has a legation in Ottawa located at 42 Sussex Street. It is headed by the French Minister, M. Rene Ristelhueber. The members of the staff are:
M. Henri de Lageneste, First Secretary;
M. Jean du Boisberranger, Second Secretary;
M. Raymond Treuil, Commercial Attache.
4.	Inspection of diplomatic legations is not in accordance with international law or practice.
5.	Mr. Pierre Dupuy, who was secretary in the Canadian Legation in Paris, acts as Charge d'Affaires to the governments of France, Belgium and the Netherlands. His headquarters are in London.
6.	Yes.


MILITARY DISTRICT NO. 5-M. C. PAGES
Mr. ROY:: 1.	Does M. C. Fages, of Quebec, hold a position in military district No. 5 at Quebec?
2.	If so, what are his rank and duties?
3.	What does he receive in pay and allowances ?
4.	Did he serve in France during the last great war?


James Layton Ralston: 1 and 2. District recruiting officer, military district No. 5, with rank of major.
3.	Pay and allowances of rank, i.e., $7.75 per diem-dependents' allowance, wife $55 per month, children, S12 per month per child up to and including two.
4.	No. Canadian expeditionary force service in Canada, 1914 to 15th July, 1918, when he proceeded to England. Returned to Canada and demobilized 25th November, 1918.


OUTSTANDING TREASURY BILLS
Mr. BENCE:: 1.	What is the total amount of treasury bills now outstanding?
2.	Upon what dates were they authorized and sold?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	$230,000,000.
2.	Authorized by order in council
dated Date sold Dec. 11,1940-Dec. 12,1940.. Dec. 28,1940-Dec. 30,1940.. Jan. 17,1941-Jan. 15,1941.. Jan. 31,1941-Jan. 30,1941.. Feb. 14,1941-Feb. 13,1941.. Feb. 25,1941-Feb. 27,1941..

Amount

35.000.	000 40,000 000
35.000.	000
40.000.	000
40.000.	000


ISLE OP ORLEANS MILITARY STATION
Mr. ROY:: 1.	Has the Department of National Defence a military station on the Isle of Orleans?
2.	Have any complaints been received respecting the manner in which it has been conducted?
3.	If so, what is the nature of these complaints?	_
4.	Has the Royal Canadian Mounted Police been instructed to make an investigation into them?
5.	If so, has any report been received thereon?


Mr. RALSTON:: 1.	Yes.
2.	No.
3.	4 and 5. Answered by No. 2.


SURPLUS APPLE CROP
Mr. ROY:: 1.	For what portion of the surplus apple crop of 1940-41 has the government assumed responsibility?
2.	How and where was the surplus converted into apple products?
3.	What apple products has the government distributed, to whom and in what quantities?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	Nova Scotia, up to 1,147,000 barrels; Ontario (a) up to 50,000 barrels; (b) for 40 cents per hundredweight to canners who have paid not less than 80 cents per hundredweight for apples inches minimum diameter; British Columbia, up to 1,750,000 boxes.
2.	By being converted into evaporated and canned apples and apple sauce in Nova Scotia. Small quantity in Ontario under 1(b).
3.	British ministry of food, 23,978 cases evaporated; department of munitions and supply, 575 cases canned, 246 cases evaporated; department of justice, 30 cases evaporated; department of pensions and national health, 130 cases canned, 20 cases evaporated, 100 cases apple sauce; manufacturers for resale in the regular channels of trade, 3,106 cases canned, 143 cases evaporated, 24 half cases evaporated.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. AYLESWORTH:: 1.	How much has the government paid since the outbreak of war, (a) to the Canadian National Railways; (b) to the Canadian Pacific Railway, for demurrage on railway cars containing materials and/or munitions and/or supplies shipped to or from plants owned and/or controlled by the government, or plants engaged in the performance of contracts for the government ?
2.	What amount was due and unpaid as of March 1, 1941, on such accounts?

Questions as Orders for Returns


Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: 1.	What was the total cost of the war savings campaign?
2.	What was the cost of clerical assistance for the war savings campaign?
3.	What was the cost of the publicity for the war savings campaign?
4.	How many people received remuneration in connection with the war savings campaign?
5.	What amount has been subscribed by provinces?
6.	What is the per capita amount subscribed by provinces?


Mr. ADAMSON:: 1.	How many radio licences were issued in the fiscal years 1936, 1937, 1938, 1939 and 1940?
2.	How many were issued in each province in each of the above years?
3.	How many prosecutions were initiated for failure to have a radio licence in each of the years 1936, 1937, 1938, 1939 and 1940?
4.	How many in each province?
5.	How many convictions were obtained in each of the above years?
6.	How many in each province?


Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	How many conscientious objectors are there recorded in each military district in Canada?
2.	How many are, (a) natives of Canada;
(b)	from the continent of Europe; (c) from the British isles; (d) from the United States; (e) from other countries?
3.	What action has been taken to deal with them in each military or other district?
4.	What work have they been ordered to do, or assigned, since the war started; how many, and where, in each military district?


SOLDIERS' TRANSPORTATION
Mr. CHURCH:: What sums have been paid monthly, since the beginning of the war, to the Canadian Pacific railway and the Canadian National railways, or any of their services for transportation within Canada of members of his majesty's forces in Canada?


ALDERSHOT, N.S., MILITARY CAMP
Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: 1.	What has been the expenditure in connection with the military camp at Aldershot, Nova Scotia, between September 1, 1939, and February 28, 1941, for, (a) land; (b) buildings;
(c)	equipment; (d) improvements to grounds; (e) drainage; (f) supplies and operating costs; (g) total expenditures?
2.	What additional acreage has been purchased since September 1,	1939, stating,
(a) names of former owners; (b) acreage acquired from each; (c) the price asked;
(d)	the price paid or offered; (e) the amount claimed, offered or paid to each person in occupation or possession of any such land without his having good title thereto?
3.	What is the total present acreage?
4.	What has been the total expenditures to contractors or for building materials and supplies, stating, (a) names of contractors, firms or individuals who were given contracts, or orders for building material or supplies in excess of $1,000 each; (b) nature of contract and class of material or supplies and total payments or commitments in each case?
5.	What has been the total expenditures for drainage, stating, (a) the quantity of drainage or sewer pipe purchased, the quality, the unit and total cost delivered; (b) the names of the firms or individuals supplying same and the unit and total expenditures for purchases from each?


LAUZON, QUE., MILITARY CAMP
Mr. ROY:: 1.	Have buildings been constructed at Lauzon for the accommodation of recruits?
2.	If so, what was the cost?
3.	Was the work done under contract or by day labour?
4.	How many feet of lumber were purchased for the construction of such buildings?
5.	Were tenders called for? If so, from whom were tenders received, who was the successful tenderer and at what figure?
6.	Were tenders called for the feeding of recruits stationed at Lauzon? If so, who tendered, who was the successful tenderer and at what price?
7.	Has the government received any complaints with regard to the management of this camp? If so, of what nature?
8.	Did the Royal Canadian Mounted Police investigate such complaints?
9. Was any person discharged and were thefts discovered?
10. Was the inquiry suspended and were representations made to the government in favour of the suspension? If so, what were they?
11.	Did the Royal Canadian Mounted Police submit a report to the government?



MOTION FOR PAPERS


Mr. LOCKHART:: For a copy of all applications, correspondence, findings, reports and other documents in the possession of the government or the civil service commission, relative to the selection of regional superintendent, grade 2, for the province of Ontario, advertised under number 40-1190, in connection with the Unemployment Insurance Act.
May I ask that this motion be amended in order to simplify the work of the department, so that it will include only those who received the oral examination.



POSTAL CENSORSHIP


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Reid: I should like to direct a question to the
Postal Censorship

Postmaster General (Mr. Mulock), and I should like to preface it by saying that if a reply is not considered in the public interest I will accept that explanation. Some six weeks ago there appeared a press notice to the effect that twenty-four officials had come from Great Britain and taken up residence in Vancouver to perform certain duties in connection with postal work in that city. My question is whether these officials are here at the request of the postal authorities of Canada, and what special work is required of them.


Hon. W. P. MULOCK (Postmaster General) :: The hon. member was kind enough to give me notice of his question. In reply I would say that he is correct in stating that approximately twenty-four men and women were sent from England to Canada in connection with censorship work. I would advise the hon. member that the facts in connection with this matter are as follows.
Representatives of the British government, including the director of imperial censorship, interviewed me and gave me certain information of a confidential nature which I do not consider it to be in the public interest to disclose at this time. I will say, however, that for reasons given to me at that time I agreed that Great Britain should send these people to Canada to do certain highly specialized censorship work. I feel that it is the duty of my department and myself as minister to cooperate to the fullest possible extent with the British authorities in this vital war work, while safeguarding the interests of our people in Canada. I was informed at the time the arrangements were made, and I have since been advised by officials of my department, that the people referred to in the hon. member's question have certain training, experience and qualifications for a special kind of work, and their duties are not merely those of translators or supervising translators.
Although the hon. member did not specifically ask, I think he would be interested to know that while in Canada these censors are under the control and direction of the chief postal censor of Canada, and that the expense of sending them to Canada was borne entirely by the British government. Further, although payment of their salaries is provided for in a vote under censorship in the war appropriations of the Post Office Department, the arrangement is that these moneys are repayable by the British government, who are responsible for the payment of their salaries, their respective rates of pay, and any allowances they may receive. Their employment in Canada has in no way affected the employment of Canadians for Canadian postal censorship work.



FEED GRAIN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Reid: I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) if any representations have been made to the government of British Columbia offering assistance in the matter of freight rates on feed grains, similar to the assistance that has been offered other provinces.


Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture):: The hon. member was kind
enough to submit to me a copy of his question, and I have prepared the following answer.
No request has been received from officials of the British Columbia government to obtain for that province free freight privileges on feed grain similar to the arrangement whereby the federal government agrees to pay half the freight rate on grain from Fort William to any eastern point provided that the province of destination pays the balance of the freight costs. The federal government, however, in cooperation with the government of British Columbia, are carrying on negotiations with officials of the railways with a view to making arrangements with the railway companies whereby the higher grades of wheat in western Canada may be shipped to British Columbia at feed grain rates as provided under tariff C.F.A. 145 and C.T.C. 154, the rate which is more or less intermediate between the regular domestic and export rates on grain.



LABOUR DISPUTE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour (Mr. McLarty). I have a wire from the representative of the United Automobile Workers at Windsor to the effect that they asked for a board on February 17 and that up to last Saturday no wrord had been received in reply from the Department of Labour. I wonder if the minister would have something to say on that.


Hon. N. A. McLARTY (Minister of Labour):: The hon. member for Vancouver
East (Mr. Maclnnis) was kind enough to give me notice of his question. The application for a board was received on February 19, I think it was, not the 17th, but that is immaterial. The application was one that was

Transport Commission
not in order and could not be granted. I have been in continuous contact with the officials of the Canadian Congress of Labour in connection with this matter since that time. They are thoroughly familiar with any possible projected steps, and while it is possible that Mr. Burt has not been directly communicated with, I am advised by the congress officials that he has the necessary information in connection with the matter.



FOODSTUFFS FOR GREAT BRITAIN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the government. In view of the fact that, as reported by the Associated Press from New York under date of March 11, "a British inquiry for 22,500,000 pounds of United States lard" was "expected to be filled to-morrow"; and considering the suggestion made in a newspaper that the United States might give wheat and other foodstuffs to Great Britain, will the government tell the house whether or not the Canadian government has taken precautionary measures to see to it that Canada supplies Britain with those foods which Canada is eminently adapted to produce for Britain?


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I may say to my hon.
friend that, with respect to foodstuffs supplied to Great Britain, Canada is taking every precaution to see that we go as far as possible in meeting Britain's wishes.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Peel):: May I ask the Minister of Labour (Mr. McLarty) if he would care to inform the house when the unemployment insurance scheme is likely to come into operation?


Norman Alexander McLarty: I have heard it suggested in this house that it is sometimes dangerous to make predictions; perhaps it would be well, therefore, if I did not endeavour to mention a definite date. I can assure the hon. member for Peel, however, that the necessary machinery is being put into operation as fast, I believe, as is possible to ensure the very earliest possible application of the act.
There is one difficulty which I know the house will appreciate, namely, that the plan has to be one hundred per cent complete
before it is put into operation. It is not something that you can develop at one point and then spread it to another. In other words, before operation of the act commences the whole plan must be completely organized and ready to start as a completed task; it is not one that can be gradually developed. I can assure the hon. member that no steps are being left untaken to ensure that the act will come into operation at the earliest possible moment.



TRANSPORT COMMISSION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, on
Friday last the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston) inquired in regard to the abandonment of certain railway lines in Alberta.
I have obtained some information in connection with this abandonment and may say that the judgment of the board of transport commissioners in connection with this matter includes a paragraph which reads as follows:
Provided further, that said leave to abandon the operation of the said lines of railway in question is conditional upon the subsequent recommendation by the board, to the governor in council, for the sanction of the agreement between the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company referred to in the application.
I am further informed that no application has been made to the board of transport commissioners by the railways concerned as contemplated in the above quoted paragraph and that it may be some little time before the contemplated application is made.
In consequence the position in regard to the grain elevators on the railway line proposed to be abandoned is unchanged.



ST. PATRICK'S DAY SUGGESTED ADJOURNMENT AT SIX O'CLOCK

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ROBERT FAIR (Battle River):: On Friday last I asked the Prime Minister whether the house would adjourn at six o'clock this evening in order that hon. members and their friends could properly celebrate St. Patrick's day. His answer at that time was that it would depend on the condition of the house to-day. I am very glad to see that the Prime Minister is in condition to be here

Royal Canadian Mounted Police
and would ask him for his opinion now as to the house continuing to sit after six o'clock this afternoon.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say that judging from the condition of the hon. member who has just asked the question and the condition of other hon. members as I see them at the moment, the house will be in a first-rate shape to go on sitting this evening. Moreover, I am perfectly sure that St. Patrick will feel highly honoured if we do so.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, at the last sitting of the house on Friday the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) asked me to make a statement on a certain matter to which he called my attention. I quote his words, from page 1539 of Hansard:
I should like to direct the attention of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) to an article in this week's Saturday Night, which just by chance relates to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and their activities, for which body I have the greatest respect. This article purports to have been written in reply to certain statements made in this house by the minister on March 4. In the article it is categorically stated that two journalists, whose loyalty is unquestioned, namely Miss Judith Robinson and Mr. Oakley Dalgleish, have been questioned and investigated by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. It is suggested in the article that the purpose of this questioning and investigation was to intimidate these journalists who have been critical of this government's war effort. The freedom of the
?ress is a matter of such vital importance that believe this house is entitled to a full and complete explanation from the minister.
Complying with the request of my hon. friend, I desire to make this statement.
In the issue of March 1 of the Toronto Saturday Night an article appeared by "Politicus", in which is stated:
Politicus knows of two cases of newspaper people of the highest loyalty and integrity whom the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are investigating and on whom they have a dossier. And in neither of these cases, both journalists being people whom Politicus knows well, is there the slightest doubt of their anxiety, perhaps over-anxiety, if there can be such a thing, for Britain to win this war, and of their responsibility.
On Tuesday, March 4, I stated in the House of Commons, in effect, that the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police had advised me that such statement was incorrect.

In the issue of March 15 of Toronto Saturday Night, "Politicus" again refers to this matter and names the two persons to whom he had reference in his article on March 1 as Miss Judith Robinson and Mr. Oakley Dalgleish, and gives certain information which indicates that these two parties were interviewed by a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police particularly for the purpose of obtaining the name of the printers who printed certain posters in connection with the "Calling Canada Campaign".
On the 6th June, 1940, the commissioner received a poster called "Tanks or King, You Can't Have Both", together with a request that information be obtained as to the parties responsible for the publication or printing of the document, there being nothing on the poster indicating such information.
On the 27th June, 1940, the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin)-asked a question in the house respecting "Calling Canada" advertisements, and I replied, as reported at page 1183 of Hansard, in effect that I was submitting the matter to the law officers and to the Secretary of State.
On the 2nd July, 1940, this matter was raised in the house by the hon. member for York West (Mr. Adamson) and I replied, as reported at page 1245 of Hansard, in effect, after quoting a telegram I had received from Judith Robinson, Oakley Dalgleish and J. R. Robinson, reading as follows:
Understand you wish to investigate our organization "Calling Canada". We are at room 264 Chateau Laurier.-
that it was not my purpose to investigate these highly estimable persons, and repeated, in part, what I stated on the 27th June.
The police, as a result of the request of the 6th June, 1940, for information, made an investigation. This was carried on under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police file heading of "Poster-Tanks or King, You Can't Have Both", and all information obtained in respect to such investigation is contained in that file.
The commissioner advises that there was no investigation made of Miss Robinson or Mr. Dalgleish, nor is there any individual or personal file or dossier in the police records respecting either of these two persons. The investigation respecting the poster was completed on or about the 23rd August, 1940, and no further inquiries have been made.
Miss Robinson and Mr. Dalgleish, contrary to the statement in the Toronto Saturday Night "that they have both been repeatedly and excessively 'quizzed' by an officer of the R.C.M.P." were each, in fact, interviewed in connection with this matter on only one occasion.

Debert Military Camp
The loyalty and integrity of Miss Robinson and Mr. Dalgleish have never been questioned. They were merely interviewed, the same as anyone else might be interviewed in the course of an inquiry, who might have information relevant to the matter under investigation.
This statement is made in answer to the request made by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) on Friday last, the 14th instant.



MILITARY TRAINING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ANTHONY HLYNKA (Vegreville):: I should like to ask the Minister of National War Services whether he is prepared to make an announcement of the government's policy in regard to the postponement of the four months' military training in cases where there is only one boy in the family and the parents wholly depend on their son's help for spring work.


James Garfield Gardiner: I made a statement with regard to this matter a few days ago when the question was under discussion and in committee. I can only add to what I then said, that the regulations will be placed on the table to-morrow, and a reference to the matter will be contained in the regulations.



DEBERT MILITARY CAMP


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Layton Ralston: The leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) asked on March 13 for information with regard to Debert military camp. If I may be allowed, I will put it on the record now.
Total payments to January 31,1941:
Labour-wages	 $1,985,833 00
Materials and supplies	 1,896,410 00

Commitments made to January 31,
but not paid	 $ 592,610 00
Estimated probable total expenditures to March 31, to complete:
Buildings	
$4,591,571	32Services	
1,104,000	00Two rifle ranges (not yet built)	
100,000	00

In amplification on the matter of buildings, I may say that there are 416 buildings, providing for accommodation, messing, administration, training, hospitals, supplies and recreation; also garages for servicing unit vehicles.
There are 82 temporary buildings consisting of warehouses, stores, store sheds, latrines, et cetera.
The services consist of clearing, roads, sewers and septic tanks, water, drainage and maintenance.
To give further particulars of that: the services include:
Clearing about 1,200 acres.
Roads, about ii miles.
Sewers laid:
30 sewer pipe laid, 4,500 feet.
24 sewer pipe laid, 12,000 feet.
12 sewer pipe laid, 18,000 feet.
8 sewer pipe laid, 29,000 feet.
6 sewer pipe laid, 5,000 feet.
Septic tanks:
H.Q., 3rd Can. Div.
A.C.S. lines.
7th Bde. area.
9th Bde. area.
Hospital area.
Water lines:
6-inch C.I. water pipe laid 18,000 feet.
4-inch C.I. water pipe laid 28,000 feet.
I should have said that, as stated by the director of engineer services, there will also be the usual maintenance and incidental services; and this does not include, as I have made clear before, the figure with regard to land. Options have been taken on 4,020 acres at a total option price of $79,050. The Department of Justice is now working on options on a further 3,000 acres. No option value is available yet on these parcels of land.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: That does not include the airport?


James Layton Ralston: No.


Charles Gavan Power: With respect to the airport, the Debert airport and magazine were originally begun as a station in the home war establishment. Recently the airport and buildings, but not the magazine, have been handed over to the Royal Air Force. At the moment it is impossible to determine what proportion of the costs will be allocated to the Royal Air Force, and naturally any future commitments will be carried out by the Royal Air Force. I am having the matter looked into in order to see what portion of the cost will be borne by Canada in that the work will be useful to Canada after the war and generally speaking as a home station, and what proportion will be borne by the Royal Air Force as a Royal Air Force station.
War Appropriation Bill



ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. C. BLACK (Cumberland):: May I ask the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power) when the house may expect a copy of the report of W. N. Tilley, K.C., on the Eastern Passage airport contracts?


Charles Gavan Power: I have not as yet had Mr. Tilley's report. As soon as I receive it I will look into it, and probably in due course lay it on the table.



WAR APPROPRIATION BILL


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, March 14, consideration in committee of a resolution to provide sums not exceeding $1,300,000,000 for the year ending March 31, 1942, for the carrying out of measures consequent upon the existence of a state of war.-Mr. Ilsley- Mir. Fournier (Hull) in the chair.
James Layton Ralston: On Friday the leader of
the opposition and my hon. friend the member for Vancouver South made certain inquiries with regard to training camps, and certain comments thereon, and I propose to deal with them and to give the committee such information as I can in this regard. As I indicated to the committee at that time, I felt that it was necessary, although it seemed to me that this was not the place to do it, to deal with some of the matters which have been referred to by the leader of the opposition in connection with some expenditures which have been made at Debert camp and at Fredericton.
There was a vague insinuation by my hon. friend that a man named Mackenzie, of Truro, was favoured in connection with a purchase of materials because of the fact of his political affiliation. I do not know Mr. Mackenzie; I do not know anything about his occupation; and therefore I got some information from the gentleman who dealt with him.
Hon. members will understand that the purchase of timber which was made for Debert camp, amounting to something like 26 million feet, was not made by the Department
of National Defence, but by the Department of Munitions and Supply through the timber controller's office.
At that time the timber controller was Mr. H. R. MacMillan. I inquired from Mr. Loren Brown, who succeeded Mr. MacMillan as timber controller. Mr. Brown communicated with Mr. McCabe, who was referred to by my hon. friend as being the man who actually made the purchase of this lumber; and here is a telegram which Mr. McCabe has sent to Mr. Brown and which Mr. Brown handed to me.
Reference lumber purchase from H. J. Mackenzie, this lumber bought in good faith from Mackenzie who represented himself as a lumber dealer and I was not aware of any different status. The prices were fair and reasonable in fact considerably lower than other competitive market prices. Before leaving Debert the bulk of the stock had been delivered, was up to standards specified and measurement correct, as I gave it personal examination.
I do not know what my hon. friend had in mind in referring to this matter. Down in Nova Scotia, so far as I know, the people generally speaking belong to one of two parties, either the Conservative or the Liberal party. Apparently Mr. Mackenzie happened to be a Liberal. Mr. McCabe says-and Mr. McCabe was given a certificate of character by the leader of the opposition-that he purchased this lumber from Mr. Mackenzie at prices considerably lower than other competitive market prices, that the stock was up to the standard specified, and the measurement was correct. I really do not know what object or what idea my hon. friend had in bringing up this matter.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The point was this, if the minister will allow me-that Mr. Mackenzie was not a producer, but a middleman.


James Layton Ralston: Does my hon. friend
suggest that Mr. McCabe did something wrong in not purchasing from a producer; that he has to go to a producer, he cannot purchase from anyone else who buys lumber? I submit that that is a new principle, and in enunciating it he is condemning Mr. McCabe and nobody else. As a matter of fact, Mr. McCabe, so far as I can learn, is an estimable man, and a good lumber purchaser. He purchased as cheaply as he could, at competitive prices, and at prices, he says, lower than were some others.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Does the minister say that Mackenzie was a lumber dealer?

War Appropriation Bill


James Layton Ralston: I do not know whether Mackenzie was a lumber dealer or not. I have no idea, and I say it does not make any difference, if the lumber was purchased at fair prices and prices even lower than were paid to other people. The prices paid for this lumber were certified as being fair and reasonable by the timber controller or his office at that time; and from what Mr. Brown tells me, and from my hon. friend's own recommendation of Mr. McCabe I think the committee can be satisfied that Mr. McCabe, in making this purchase, was not influenced by any consideration other than obtaining the required lumber at the proper prices. I submit that that ought to be enough. I submit with deference that the time of this committee should not be taken up with it. My hon. friend ought to have known this. He has made inquiries from the timber controller, but he saw fit to bring this matter up in the committee, and take up the time of the house, and bring the hon. member for Colchester into it, and ask him a question which I submit should not have been asked by one hon. member of another on the floor of this chamber, in order to cast some smear of political influence over this transaction.
But I have not finished with that. There was a small quantity purchased from Mackenzie, Mr. Chairman. Do you know how much? There was 26 million feet purchased at Debert, and the total amount sold by Mackenzie consisted of two lots of 100,000 feet each, and another of 80,000 feet, 280,000 in all, or a little over one per cent of the lumber which was purchased at Debert.
Now, my hon. friend says that the lumber companies which he represents-


Richard Burpee Hanson: I did not say anything about the lumber companies which I represent.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend forgets.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If I did, that was an error.


James Layton Ralston: Well, I read it in Hansard this morning. I want to be clear about it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What
page?


James Layton Ralston: I will find it in a moment. Page 1560:
I happen to have had something to do with lumbering, and the mills I represented never in their lives got $35 for hemlock.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If the minister will allow me: I used the past tense,
he used the present tense. There is quite a difference. I do not represent any lumber mills to-day, but for many years I represented many lumber mills in the business world of Canada-quite large ones.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend, as he knows-and it is no disgrace whatever, and no insinuation goes with it-
Mr-. HANSON (York-Sunbury): Then why use the word "represents"? That was an improper thing.


James Layton Ralston: Well, then, "represented." I am going to deal with the companies he represented-if that is good enough. The company he represented was, I am sure, the Fraser company. I have no doubt about that. Let us take the Fraser company and the payments made to them as compared with the payments made to Mackenzie. By the way, my hon. friend said something about the Fraser company not having been paid S35 for hemlock, never in their lives having got $35 for hemlock. Anybody would think that they were selling hemlock to the government and not being able to get $35 for it. My hon. friend knows perfectly well that the Fraser company do not even list hemlock and do not sell it at the present time, but he rather gave the impression that they were selling to the government and did not get $35 for it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I did not say anything of the sort. That is the kind of special pleading for which my hon. friend is famous.


James Layton Ralston: I gave my hon. friend the right to speak, but I will not give him permission to interrupt me. My hon. friend referred to the companies he represented, let us say in the past, and I say that my hon. friend is suggesting that in some way or another Mackenzie got some advantage because of the fact that he happened to be of a certain political faith. That was the suggestion. If that was not the suggestion, I do not know what it was.


Richard Burpee Hanson: All right let it go.


James Layton Ralston: Now, on September 6, Mackenzie sold 100,000 feet of 1 by 4, up 6/16 feet, merchantable hemlock, dressed on one side, at $31. That was delivered by truck on the job at Debert. Fraser Brothers' list price at that time for a quality of lumber which was inferior to that-although it was not
War Appropriation Bill

hemlock-fifth quality spruce, 1 by 6 boards- and that is inferior to merchantable hemlock-


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is that so?


James Layton Ralston: -was $33 delivered
Montreal, $31.50 f.o.b. cars, or, translating it into the Debert figures, according to the timber controller, it would be $33 delivered by truck at Debert, compared with $31 paid to Mackenzie.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Who said the spruce was inferior?


James Layton Ralston: The timber controller,
and anybody else. Would my hon. friend say the contrary?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I certainly say that spruce is superior to hemlock.


James Layton Ralston: In other words, Mackenzie's merchantable hemlock was better than Fraser's fifth quality and better spruce and sold at $2 less than Fraser's price. That is one instance with respect to the company which my hon. friend represented.
Secondly, Mackenzie sold 100,000 feet of 1 by 5, up 8/16 feet in length, of merchantable spruce, dressed on one side, and in that case he got $32 for it. That also is better lumber, I am informed, than lumber quoted by Fraser's in their list, at a price which would net $33 to the department instead of $32.
So much for that. The next lot was 80,000 feet of spruce, 1 by 5, up 8/16 feet in length, merchantable spruce, dressed on one side, matched, finished 25/32 of an inch off the face, and he got $33 for that. That was delivered by truck on the job; that is sheathing. Fraser, on the other hand, sold to the timber controller fifth quality and better spruce sheathing, $31.70 f.o.b. ears at South Nelson. With freight added, they were paying Fraser Brothers $34.20 for what Mackenzie supplied at $33.
I find no fault with the timber controller for doing that, but I say to my hon. friend that, when he starts in to insinuate there is something wrong with this particular transaction, he had better compare it with those of people he knows something about.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The only thing I think was wrong about it, and the only thing-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Richard Burpee Hanson: -I had in mind was that it was bought from a man who

was not a producer, not in the lumber business, when it should have been bought direct from the producer.


James Layton Ralston: Then my hon. friend's quarrel is with his friend Mr. McCabe and not with the department.


Richard Burpee Hanson: All right, we will let it go at that.


James Layton Ralston: No, we will not let it go at that. In other words, Fraser sheathing may have had a slight advantage in finish because it is finished on both sides and you might allow fifty cents difference for that, although there is really no extra cost in planing both sides. The Fraser sheathing was a lower grade, fifth quality, as against Mackenzie's which was merchantable grade, and it was sold at $1.20 more than Mackenzie's.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: But there is a difference in cost for finish on both sides.


James Layton Ralston: I have given credit for fifty cents for finish on both sides, and still it is seventy cents above Mackenzie's lumber.
My hon. friend talked about "mills I represented" never getting $35 for hemlock. I have already said the mills he represented were not selling hemlock last fall.


Richard Burpee Hanson: How do
you know they were not?


James Layton Ralston: Because the timber controller tells me, and the hemlock is not listed by Frasers.
Now about the price paid for hemlock. This is my hon. friend's statement:
Just imagine paying $31 to $35 a thousand for hemlock. Anybody in eastern Canada who knows anything about it knorvs that is a very high price. I have statements on my files upstairs showing that prices of $31 to $35 were paid for planed hemlock. The Minister of National Defence for Air, who comes from a lumbering family, will know what scandalous waste there is in paying prices like that.
Later he said $20 would be a big price.


Richard Burpee Hanson: So it is, for hemlock boards.


James Layton Ralston: Well, I had my officers go over a thousand acceptances of tender in order to find the price that he says was paid for hemlock. I am surprised that my hon. friend did not bring it down instead of talking about its being up on his table. It is true that S35 was paid for 20,000 feet of hemlock-note that that is less than one-tenth of one per cent of the lumber that was used at Debert. It was for 2 by 6, ten feet long and up, of merchantable hemlock, and $37 was paid for

War Appropriation Bill
forty thousand feet of 2 by 8, 10 feet and up, merchantable hemlock. The timber controller at that time was H. R. MacMillan, and his officials certified that that was a fair and reasonable price. I say that as evidence against my hon. friend's statement about its being a scandalous waste. He did not even give the size; he did not indicate that it was 2 by 6 and 2 by 8, minimum 10-foot lengths.
I wonder that my hon. friend did not in his statement give the firm from which that lumber was bought.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I did not know anything about it.


James Layton Ralston: Well, I will tell him. It was bought from Ralph and Arthur Parsons. They are a concern in Windsor, Hants county, Nova Scotia-reputable people, probably as strong Conservatives as there are in Nova Scotia. I knew their father very well. He was in opposition in the provincial house when I happened to be there, and opposed the present premier of Nova Scotia in Hants county. If my hon. friend had told the committee that the S35 was paid, not to some bad Grit, but to a firm who are his own political friends, the story would not have sounded so well. It took me half a day or more of going over files to find out what the situation was. I make no charge whatever against Ralph and Arthur Parsons. They are reputable people, so far as I know and believe. I make no charge against Mr. McCabe for having paid it; but my hon. friend did not do himself justice when he talked about hemlock at 820 a thousand when the timber controller himself has paid $35 and $37 to my hon. friend's own political friends for the same sort of lumber.
My hon. friend talked about ten-inch lumber planed on four sides, and this was his complaint:
Requisitions were made on the Department of Munitions and Supply by the Department of National Defence for lumber of a kind and quality and of specifications which under normal lumber manufacturing conditions in eastern Canada could not readily be supplied in the quantities wanted. The big mills are manufacturing their stocks to-day based largely on the quality and calibre of the round Togs which are delivered to them, and which the sawyer has to utilize to get every foot he can out of the logs. This manufacturing is done in very limited quantities of lumber of the specifications that were required by the Royal Canadian Engineers who had charge of this work.
That is a general charge that the specifications of the Department of National Defence are such that only a very small quantity can be obtained - from the mills in eastern Canada because they do not manufacture that kind of lumber. I asked my hon. friend if
he would name a particular sample, and he came back with his old friend that he mentioned last November. He said:
I was thinking particularly of the 10-inch lumber which had to be planed on four sides.
In the first place, the specifications of the Department of National Defence were prepared by the Royal Canadian Engineers in consultation with the timber controller-who knew what lumber was available-the Forest Products Laboratories, and the Canadian lumber industry. There was no hit or miss about it; the specifications were prepared having regard to the possibility of getting the lumber, and were designed to take as far as possible the logs produced in eastern Canada, including the lowest quality that would suit the purposes specified. The fact that in three months' time there was purchased, mostly in eastern Canada, nearly 80 million feet of lumber for Debert, the air training centres down there, the naval establishments, and Sussex and other military projects, would rather indicate that my hon. friend is a bit wide of the mark when he says that only small quantities could be produced of the specifications laid down.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They were special sizes.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend said the specifications were such that logs could not be got out of which to saw them.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, they were very expensive.


James Layton Ralston: They could not have been; they were dried lumber. So let us lay that ghost with regard to the Department of National Defence putting out specifications which could not be complied with.
About the 10-inch planed on four sides, we discussed that pretty thoroughly when my hon. friend and I held the little debate across the floor last November, but he does not seem satisfied yet. I should like to finish that up too, because that is the particular instance he brings forward of a specification which is undesirable.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Not undesirable, but too high. Very desirable if you can get it, but it costs too much.


James Layton Ralston: Undesirable, he says, from the point of view of ability to get production. Does my hon. friend know that in the whole specifications for the Department of National Defence of 26 million feet for Debert there were just 600,000 feet of this 2 by 10? Does he know there is no builder or lumberman outside of himself, if he classifies himself as
War Appropriation Bill

one, who will say that is a specification which could not be readily complied with under normal manufacturing conditions in eastern Canada in the quantity required? There was no difficulty in getting the lumber. It is standard for floor beams and sills; it is more easily obtained than 4 by 10's, and it is stronger.
Now, what is done with it? I explained this before, but my hon. friend did not seem to listen. It is used for floor beams and sills, the two finished pieces spiked together, making by that process a 4 by 10. In spiking them together the joints are staggered; you do not have the same thing as a single piece of 4 by 10, but the joints are broken, with the result that you get a stronger piece of timber.
The reason for the planing on four sides, about which my hon. friend complained, is, in the first place, that there is a saving in weight and therefore in freight cost. The planed material packs into a smaller space than rough lumber and is appreciably less in weight. Secondly, the planed stuff is more easily handled and therefore the work can proceed just that much more quickly. Third, it gives uniform dimensions. I think my hon. friend knows quite a bit about lumber, and he knows that rough planks-and these are rough planks-are not sawn to the exact eighth or quarter of an inch. You have to put your planks on edge to make floor beams with a post underneath, and if you have them rough-sawn, and you have to shim up in order to take care of the irregularity which exists because of the sawing. That is all done away with when you have planed, dressed pieces of timber of uniform width. Then, again, the surface of the rough lumber is not true for nailing on the floors, because there is a certain amount of unevenness and waviness since there is not the same care taken in running a piece of lumber through a big saw that there is when you run it through a planer. Fourth, with that rough lumber, the faces do not fit tightly, and therefore strength is lost.
Let me say further, and probably he knows this, too, that I am instructed that the cost of planing on four sides is practically the same as the cost of planing on two. Probably there is a little difference in power, that is all-because you have a planer with four heads, which does the same operation at one time. Our engineers advise that it is economical to have lumber planed on four sides, that it is efficient, and a common practice, and that narrow widths are uneconomical for floor beams or joists.
I am going to finish this subject about planing on four sides, even at the risk of tiring

the committee. My hon. friend seems to feel that he had some better way. He said last fall, on November 15, 1940:
It costs about $20 a thousand more-perhaps not $20, but a good deal more-to have 2 by 10's instead of 4 by 6's, which would have the same carrying strength.
There was the statement of a man whom he thought was an expert that 2 by 10's cost a great deal more than 4 by 6's, and that 4 by 6's would have just as great carrying power. I have taken the trouble to check that. I will not go into detail, but let me say that 4 by 6's cost just five per cent more than 2 by 10's, and the 2 by 10's have a carrying strength of about 33J per cent more. My hon. friend can check that if he wishes to. But I hope we have finished with this matter of cost of planing on four sides, and the necessity for it, and the question whether the specifications in the Department of National Defence are made having regard to the possibility of the lumber being supplied in the market. So much for lumber.
Then, with reference to the camp at Fredericton, My hon. friend said:
Coming back for a moment to the construction of these camps, to tell me that the camp at Fredericton cost $254,000 is to advertise to this country government incompetence and government waste, and I believe that an analysis of the whole break-down will reveal it.
I believe I can say to my hon. friend with some assurance that his break-down will not reveal either waste or incompetence.


Richard Burpee Hanson: We have
not got it yet.


James Layton Ralston: The training centre at
Fredericton was one of four three-company centres, and it cost the least of all. The original estimate made was for $270,000, and this was based on known costs of similar buildings in central camps which had been built throughout the summer. And I may say that no allowance is made for overtime work in that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Were
there any changes-were there any land changes in the other camps?


James Layton Ralston: I am just taking the
cost of construction. And no allowance is added to these costs for high speed requirements. Taking the cost of similar buildings which had been built at other camps, they added to these costs a percentage figure for exterior services, water, sewer, power lines and roads. There was no allowance in that $270,000 for overhead or job supervision.
The actual cost of that camp, for the information of my hon. friend, was $254,000. That is to say there was a saving on the actual cost

War Appropriation Bill
as compared with the estimated cost of something like $16,000. I want to say that around the Fredericton camp there was to be a fence which was not be be around the other camps, and that cost about $2,500 more.
To compare with the other camps which were built-the other three-company training camps-Fredericton was the lowest of any of them, putting them on the same basis, and leaving out the fence, which was not put around all the camps.
That is different from the general experience. The general experience has been that costs have been exceeded. It has been our experience that estimated costs have been exceeded by five per cent or ten per cent. My hon. friend said that he took the trouble to ask the best builder he could find in New Brunswick to go over the specifications in connection with these hutments, and he said:
I know what he said about the cost of construction. When I get the break-down of these figures I hope I shall be able to demonstrate

And I interrupted-
-that the officials of this department did not have very much consideration for the public treasury. That is a substantial weakening from what I had intended to say.
I would like to have my hon. friend's friend at any time go over these specifications and submit them for examination by engineers; I think what I have said would be substantiated, namely that there has been a saving in the building of that camp, and that it was built at a fair price.


Mr. SLAGHT:: He will not produce it.


James Layton Ralston: Then my hon. friend referred to another matter. And here I must confess that it is along the lines of the Mackenzie thing. He does something which he is just a bit prone to do. He seems to have an obsession with regard to this matter of patronage in the area of Fredericton, New Brunswick. He says:
The Liberal zone captain in the city of Fredericton was put in charge of the construction, and he had the hiring of these men. Hon. members can imagine what happened. I will give the minister his name if he wants it. His name is Hayward Allan.
Well, my hon. friend makes an attack against Mr. Hayward Allan. He alleges that Mr. Hayward Allan used his position there in order to further the interests of the Liberal party. He knows, and he has been told that Mr. Hayward Allan was not in charge of construction, and that the man in charge of construction was Captain Ahem.


Richard Burpee Hanson: He was not there, let me say to my hon. friend. Hayward Allan was in charge; I saw it myself.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend knows that Hayward Allan was not in charge of construction, and that Hayward Allan was not in charge of hiring the men.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not know anything of the sort.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend does
know. My hon. friend was himself in communication with Captain Ahern. I know a lot about it. I was surprised that my hon. friend would ask an officer to come to his office to discuss these matters. The officers down there are pretty- busy just now. And if my hon. friend has any complaints to make I want him to make them to me, and not to the officers who are on the job.
Captain Ahern, who was in charge of this job and who was responsible for hiring of the men, graduated from the Royal Military College in 1920, in civil and military engineering, and from McGill in 1923 in civil engineering. He followed that up by a short apprenticeship with the Westinghouse Electric. He was.construction engineer for the Fraser-Brace Construction company for one and a half years. He was with the Canadian International Paper company for two and a half years. He was with the International Power and Paper company at Newfoundland, in design and construction, for one and a half years. He was with the New Brunswick International Paper company, in construction and operation, for about ten years. He joined the Royal Canadian Engineers in 1940.
Then, my hon. friend knows something else about Captain Ahern and it is this: Captain Ahern told him at that time, when he was accused that the Liberals were being given preference on the job,-he told him at that time that he had never given a Liberal vote in his riding, as far as that goes, and that his father had run at an election as a Conservative candidate. That is the man who was charged with favouring the Liberals.
Now let us turn to Allan. Allan was employed at Fredericton as civilian foreman on the work, and paid at hourly rates, like other workmen. He was first employed in July as a carpenter, at the internment camp at Little River, and the way he got the work was to apply for it in the ordinary way at Captain Ahern's office. He was not previously known to Captain Ahern. He presented no credentials of any kind, except to tell of his experience, which was generally that he had been employed as a carpenter foreman and a painter foreman; was an independent builder and had a workshop of his own in his home where he accepted contracts for various types of benchwork. He stated that he was an ex-service man and a member of the Fredericton branch of the

War Appropriation Bill

legion. He was taken on as a carpenter on the Little River job; was promoted to subforeman in a very short time, then to carpenter foreman and finally to foreman of works. That promotion was made, Captain Ahern tells me, solely on proven ability. He was sent by Captain Ahem a little later to Fredericton as foreman of works when the training camp was started, and proved a first class foreman. He is enlisting in the home war establishment of the Canadian engineers; his medical category bars him from overseas service. Captain Ahern tells me that all men were taken on personally by him, and that he so told my hon. friend.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Captain Ahern?


James Layton Ralston: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I deny that absolutely. I know that Hayward Allan hired the men himself. I will put my word against Captain Ahern's right there. Ahern was only there one day a week. He had a lot of other camps that he was supervising.


James Layton Ralston: I am telling my hon.
friend what Captain Ahern instructs me, and what he instructed my hon. friend. And Captain Ahern told my hon, friend something else. He challenged my hon. friend to name one man whom he had hired or fired, promoted or demoted, because of political, racial or religious proclivities of any kind. My hon. friend did not name a man. The hon. gentleman puts Hayward Allan's name on the record here as being a man who uses his position for the purpose of forwarding his political affiliations. I say to my hon. friend that this is not fair.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I would not bother answering that.


James Layton Ralston: Well, I do not think there is much answer.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I know
what the local situation is down there better than Captain Ahern does.


James Layton Ralston: If only my hon. friend would get that "local situation" out of his mind. I have had a lot of things from my hon. friend about the local situation, and I think I have unearthed more mares' nests coming from my hon. friend than from any other member of the House of Commons. If my hon. friend wants me to deal with them, I will do so, but in all fairness I suggest to him that he has said he wants to lay friendly hands on this government and help us out. I say that is not the way to lay friendly hands on any government, to spread that sort of

thing when he knows better. Because of a little situation down there which does not quite suit him he thinks he can come up here and from his place on the floor of this house, and as leader of the opposition, lend his weight to a suggestion of that kind against a man who has served as faithfully as this man Allan has served. I never saw this man; I do not know anything about him. And I want to say one thing more to my hon. friend. If he does not believe what Captain Ahern says about Hayward Allan, let him ask his colleague the hon. member for Royal. He knows Allan; he is around that camp all the time and he has seen Hayward Allan in action. Ask him whether he thinks Hayward Allan is a square shooter, whether he thinks he is an excellent foreman, whether he thinks he is an experienced man, whether he thinks he is a disinterested public servant.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I never
said he does not do good work. I said he happened to be the Liberal zone captain, and I still believe that is why he was appointed.


James Layton Ralston: Oh, no; that is not what my hon. friend said at all. The hon. gentleman is very deft at this sort of thing, but here is what he said:
The Liberal zone captain in the city of Fredericton was put in charge of the construction, and he had the hiring of these men. Hon. members can imagine what happened.
That is the insinuation that was levelled against Allan's name. I say to my hon. friend that it is unworthy of him to do that sort of thing. That does not get us very far with the discussion of this war appropriation measure, but that is the gravamen of a good deal of what my hon. friend said at almost six o'clock on Friday afternoon, when it could not be answered, and when the Minister of Munitions and Supply was away.
Then, having dealt with that-


Richard Burpee Hanson: For an
hour.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend took an hour; and I think this is worth an hour if the hon. gentleman will at last realize something else; that while this may be fair game in peace time, it is not fair game in war time. If my hon. friend has any case as to which he has made any real inquiry, in which he thinks there is some evidence that an employee of the Department of National Defence has exercised or discriminated against anybody in the Dominion of Canada because of his political affiliations, he knows that he has only to bring the matter to me. Already he has brought several such matters to my attention, and I think I have satisfied him in that respect.

War Appropriation Bill


Richard Burpee Hanson: I thought they were mares' nests.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend has
brought these matters to my notice, and they have turned out to be mares' nests; I have shown him there was nothing in them. But down in New Brunswick men's nerves are getting frazzled because of my hon. friend constantly bringing up these matters.
My hon. friend thinks they are not mares' nests, so I will take just one case, no more. The hon. gentleman sent me a wire with regard to a man down in New Brunswick named King, who had been appointed timber buyer. This was the wire:
I protest with all_ my might against appointment Thomas H. King of Moncton as timber buyer defence projects in eastern Canada. This man's wholly-owned company recently went through bankruptcy, paid dividend less than three per cent. His appointment this responsible post affront to New Brunswick lumber producers who suffered and protest to me appointment must be political. In any event should be recalled immediately.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Hear,
hear.


James Layton Ralston: Well, I wired my hon. friend and said:
Have referred your telegram re Thomas H. King to Mr. MacMillan, timber controller, by whom this appointment made. He will be able advise regarding your suggestion that appointment political. Neither I nor anyone this department knew anything about this appointment.
Mr. MacMillan sent me a copy of the wire which he sent to my hon. friend, the leader of the opposition, in this connection. This was the wire:
Your telegram received. I assure you King's appointment in no way political. I have no knowledge his politics. He has been asked contribute his services for short period assist in purchasing and expediting shipment of specific items of lumber for immediate use various government construction programme. I take responsibility for his purchases.
That telegram is signed by H. R. MacMillan. That is the sort of thing my hon. friend is bringing up all the time.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbuiy):: Would the minister allow me a word?


James Layton Ralston: Certainly.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. MacMillan got rid of him just as quickly as he could; he told me so.


James Layton Ralston: Was it political?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I would not say it was political. It was represented to me by those who had suffered from this man that it was political.
14873-100}


James Layton Ralston: Well, in all kindness I suggest to my hon. friend that he should not be so gullible when people represent things to him.
Now I should like to say a word to the hon. member for Vancouver South with regard to recruits under the National Resources Mobilization Act. I believe what the hon. gentleman had in mind was the place of recruits under that measure in the scheme of our army problem, where they fit in. First, it seems hardly necessary to repeat what has been said so many times, that the training under the National Resources Mobilization Act is for the purpose of possible needs in regard to home defence. The act itself expressly provides that the service for which men may be called out under the act is service in Canada or the territorial waters thereof.
Now may I recall the situation last summer, which has been referred to by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, who spoke about hurry, haste and things of that kind. The unexpected had happened. The break-through had occurred; and the capitulation of Holland, Belgium and France followed the extension of German operations in Norway. No one knew what might happen. Every effort was bent to take all the measures possible to provide for the most serious contingencies. The possibilities were visualized in that fighting speech by Mr. Churchill early in June. Let me remind the house of the words with which that speech was concluded:
And even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British fleet, will carry on its struggle until in God's good time the new world with all its power and might sets forth to the liberation and rescue of the old.
All that seems to have been forgotten by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson). He implies in some way that speed and rapid action could have been avoided. I say that speed was essential. It was considered essential by everybody. The cry was "Get on with it-cut the red tape- never mind the cost." We got on with it, and the story of those hectic, hard-riding days from June to November is one which is, I think, a credit to the officers and men who put forward herculean efforts to get the job done.
In Canada we authorized the recruiting, up to full strength, of the non-permanent active militia, now known as the reserve army, which to-day is over 100,000 strong, apart from those who were trained and posted from the military training centres.
War Appropriation Bill


Mr. GREEN:: Has the minister the figures of those who have been posted to the reserve units-


James Layton Ralston: About 75,000.


Howard Charles Green: -and have not since joined the defence forces?


James Layton Ralston: I will not look up the file now, but 175,000 odd, I think, is the total strength of the reserve army.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is
including the 75,000?


James Layton Ralston: Yes. To be exact, I think it is 177,000. There were 102,000 in the reserve army and around 75,000 posted from the militia training centres.
The time for the dispatch of the second Canadian division was advanced, and the announcement was made that a Canadian corps would be formed overseas. Authority was given for raising the third and fourth Canadian divisions and some additional battalions as well, and for the mobilization of thousands more of ancillary troops of the active army. Another squadron of the Royal Canadian Air Force was authorized for dispatch overseas, and authorization was given for the dispatch of Canadian troops to Newfoundland, Iceland and the Caribbean. Emergency steps were taken to increase the output of pilots and airmen both within and outside the air training plan, and hon. members will remember the pressure that was brought to bear to see if that plan could not be advanced. The veterans home guard was authorized. Every department of our war programme was speeded up, modified and supplemented in the most effective way possible having regard to the interests of Britain and our allies and the part that Canada must play. We announced many other measures which we thought were necessary in view of the menace which had so suddenly arisen. No criticism of these steps was raised, nor could it have been fairly raised by anyone at that time. The action taken was in keeping with that instituted by Mr. Churchill's government which in May created the forces that are known as the local defence forces and proceeded to the registration of almost 1,000,000 more young men preparatory to calling them up for service. The pressure was to do more, not less; and to provide for these contingencies the National Resources Mobilization Act was passed.
Then came the question of how best we could give our citizens some training having regard to the facilities and equipment available. The whole matter was fully discussed

and considered by the staff and by the government. There were two essentials; the preparation of accommodation and the training of instructional staffs, and that required weeks and possibly months to accomplish. The length of the training period had to be arranged so that equipment could be provided, and at the same time it was felt to be highly desirable in the early days to inculcate into the minds of young Canadians their responsibility as citizens. The thirty-day period was adopted as meeting these conditions. There was no thought or suggestion

hon. members will not find it in any statement in Hansard or in any public statement by any member of this government-that thirty days' training would fit a man to take his place as a trained soldier in a fighting unit. Therefore, to take time to argue that a period of thirty days is not enough for that purpose is to set up a straw man to knock him down. There was no mystery and no politics about the thirty-day decision. The decision was made realistically, based on the situation as it existed, and based on the possibilities as they could be judged regarding the course of the war and Canada's means of waging it.
The staffs were carefully selected. These staffs were put through an intensive course of training for the responsibility which they were required to assume. Instruction and the preparation of thirty-nine centres across Canada were commenced, and by October 20 these centres were ready to take classes. Three thirty-day training periods have been held, with the result that more than 75,000 young men in Canada have had the benefit of what is probably the most effective and efficient course of basic training that has ever been furnished to men in this country in thirty days' time. They have learned something of the fundamentals of soldiering, the use of the basic arms, and they have had the benefit of the physical training and the discipline that go with army life. The training they have already had forms a most useful foundation for their complete preparation for service in the defence of Canada should they be called on.
More than that, I believe that the training and the experience they have had will be found an incentive to many of them to volunteer for active sendee should the call come.


Richard Burpee Hanson: How
many have volunteered so far?


James Layton Ralston: Including the army, the
navy and the air force, about 25 per cent in all, according to the figures given me, have expressed a willingness to volunteer should the necessity arise. So far, because of the comparatively few casualties, the requirements

War Appropriation Bill
for reinforcements have been fortunately small. Since we mobilized the third and fourth divisions there has not been any urgent or widespread call for enlistments for active service. Recruits needed for reinforcements have been furnished without difficulty simply by the allotment of quotas to the different districts. But if and when active recruiting may have to commence, I sincerely believe that a considerable proportion of these men who have had the thirty days' or four months' training-


Mr. MacNICOL:: They have not had the
four months' training yet.


James Layton Ralston: -who have had the benefit of the thirty days' training or will have had the benefit of the four months' training may desire to continue their service in an active capacity. What I think the committee do not quite realize, Mr. Chairman, is that the establishment of these training centres has provided this country with an asset which would have had to be provided in any event so that we would be ready to train the maximum reinforcements that might be required for the formations now authorized. Or, to put it the other way, if we did not have the military training centres to-day, we would have had to set about building them for the training of reinforcements against the time when the maximum number might be needed.
As I stated in the house last November, there were two points about the thirty-day training plan which made modification desirable, if that could be done. One was the shortness of the period. I stress again that this was realized from the start, and the thirty-day period was adopted because of the equipment situation and because of the desirability of having as large a number as possible in these early classes. The other point was the disturbing effect which the calling-up of these men had on industry; for 30,000 a month for ten months would have meant that
300,000	would have had to make arrangements to leave their civilian occupations for one month in the year. On this latter point I have repeatedly stated that the army has recognized the necessity for the maximum possible production in this country. But with the improvement in production and supply, the equipment situation is no longer a vital factor in preventing the adoption of a longer period.
In order to make allowance for industry, we wanted to consider whether it would be necessary to adopt a system of reserve occupations such as they have in England, or whether some other plan could be evolved which would cause a minimum of dislocation, without the complicated system of reserve
occupations and the enormous amount of machinery necessary to administer it. We studied the situation overseas. We found, on examining the system of reserved occupations there, that it would be highly desirable, if it could be done and still supply our needs, to work out some plan which would avoid our having to set up machinery and prescribe arbitrarily classifications and subclassifications to be excepted. On our return the present plan was worked out. It provides for four months' training-two months' basic training and two months' advanced training. This means that future additions to the reserve will be completely trained in all weapons with which, as individuals, they may be called upon to fight. It avoids the system of reserved occupations by the simple expedient of confining the calls to a very much limited group unless circumstances change materially or the numbers in this group should prove unexpectedly small. It also embodies this desirable feature, that young men at the time of their coming of age are reminded to recognize and prepare themselves for their responsibilities for the defence of Canada.
The question is asked: How does this fit in with our general army programme? What we are doing is to combine certain training facilities and establishments for training in the active army with facilities and establishments we shall be using for the training of those called up under the National Resources Mobilization Act and to help to create a trained reserve for the defence of Canada.
By and large, the military training centres which have been used for training the three classes already held under the National Resources Mobilization Act will be used for the basic training of both the active and the National Resources Mobilization Act personnel.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Would
the minister be good enough to repeat that.


James Layton Ralston: The training centres
heretofore used for the active army personnel will be used as advanced training centres for both.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Will the minister enlarge on that? I am not sure that I caught the underlying principle.


James Layton Ralston: There were thirty-nine reserve training centres for Canada. These training centres have been used so far for personnel under the National Resources Mobilization Act, and there are also a large number of training centres in Canada which have been used for the training of those who volunteer for overseas service and at the
War Appropriation Bill

present time are training for reinforcements. What this plan envisages is giving basic training to both those enlisting for active service and those called up for reserve under the National Resources Mobilization Act, generally speaking, in former militia training centres, and then sending all to advanced training centres, which will be composed of those camps where previously only the active service force were trained.
After allowance is made for other courses, there is accommodation for about 40,000 men in all for the four months' course. When the plan is fully going, there will be 40,000 men continuously in the school at any one time, and 10,000 going in at one end and coming out at the other each month.


Howard Charles Green: Does that mean 5,000
trainees and 5,000 of the active service force?


James Layton Ralston: The figure is variable, but, speaking generally, that is correct. At the time the announcement was made, we estimated an entry of about 10,000 a month to the training centres. About 4,000 of these, we thought, would be reenforcements for the active service force, and the rest, 6,000, would be called for training under the National Resources Mobilization Act. These figures have changed, and it would appear as if, at the present time, the numbers will be in the proportion of about half active service force and half those called up under the National Resources Mobilization Act-that is, about
5,000	of each category each month, making the training establishments full at the end of four months and thereafter. It may be that the numbers required for the active service units will increase, or the reverse, in which case the numbers called under the National Resources Mobilization Act will be adjusted proportionately.
Someone may ask, will that give enough for home defence? I can answer quite frankly. As a result of reconstruction of the previous militia, now reserve army formations and units, and the number which have since been commissioned and enlisted in that force, either through volunteering or the absorption of those who have undergone compulsory training, the potential strength of the reserve army now stands at about 175,000 men. All these men have completed thirty days' training ; many have years of service in the previous militia to their credit.


Howard Charles Green: Does that figure of 175,000 not include whatever number of trainees have enlisted in the fighting forces? Many thousands of trainees have enlisted in the fighting forces, either the army or the navy or the air force.
fMr. Ralston.]


James Layton Ralston: I have been trying to keep away from my desk; I did not want to divert to get the figures. However, I will get them.


Howard Charles Green: Does the figure of 175,000 not include all trainees, whether they have since enlisted in the fighting forces or not?


James Layton Ralston: I have given the exact figures. The number in reserve units, not in the active service force, but those in reserve, as of March 7, 1941-those who were in the militia and not those who came under the National Resources Mobilization Act-was 102,019.


Howard Charles Green: Would that not include also any of the trainees who have actually enlisted in their reserve units?


James Layton Ralston: Let me finish with the figures. That is the number who were volunteers, who joined the militia. Supernumerary to these, posted to these units, were a total of 76,128 of those who had come in under the National Resources Mobilization Act. That does not include any of those men who had enlisted, included in the other column, which is for the active service forces.


Howard Charles Green: Can the minister tell us how many men have taken training in the training camps? I understood him to say the number was 75,000.


James Layton Ralston: I said 75,000, speaking roughly. I can give the exact number.


Howard Charles Green: But some of them have since gone into the fighting forces.


James Layton Ralston: I did not know the hon. member was interested in that. I will get the exact number who have gone through training camps.


Howard Charles Green: We should know that.


James Layton Ralston: I shall be glad to give it.


Howard Charles Green: And how many have gone into the fighting forces.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: Are these 76,000 men trainees?


James Layton Ralston: Yes.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: What obligation have they when they are posted to the militia?


James Layton Ralston: The same obligation as any other member of the militia service, and the obligation under the National Resources Mobilization Act to be called up at any time. It is expressly provided in the regulations.


Howard Charles Green: They are simply posted to these reserve units?

War Appropriation Bill


James Layton Ralston: I wish to deal with that. If it is not being carried out as I would like.
I want to see about it. My hon. friend has raised a point that is worth examining.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: Will they be required to take annual training?


James Layton Ralston: It depends on accommodation and equipment. We have 175,000 men to train in Canada, apart from over 100,000 of the active service force. It is a matter, not of requiring them to take training but of providing the equipment and facilities to give it.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: With reference to the 102,019, the figure mentioned by the minister, can he say what percentage of these men are in a category which would permit of their transfer to the active service?


James Layton Ralston: I should think they would be classified. I shall be glad to find out. I will not make a note of it because it will be in Hansard.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: With reference to the 76,000 trainees posted to the militia, have they joined the militia? Do they have to turn out and drill?


James Layton Ralston: They have done thirty days' training. There is a provision in the regulations with regard to training at the armouries at headquarters. They were given the same privilege as other reserve personnel of attending training and being paid therefor if they wanted to attend headquarters, notwithstanding that they had done thirty days.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Their obligation ceases after training, apart from being liable to be called up for service? That is the only obligation they have after they are posted?


James Layton Ralston: With all due respect to the militia, they will have had as much training as a militia man in that year.


Richard Burpee Hanson: In any one year.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The militia units will require to take two nights' training a week?


James Layton Ralston: They are paid if they attend. It is an inducement to them.


Mr. STIRLING:: The minister does not wish to convey the idea that 76,000 men are now carrying on training?


James Layton Ralston: No-does the hon. member mean at headquarters?


Grote Stirling: Anywhere?


James Layton Ralston: That is the only other place. They did thirty days' intensive training, and the only other place in which they would train would be the armouries at headquarters with the rest of the unit.


Grote Stirling: They are now carried on reserve strength. If they are with the active service unit they are carrying on training; those in the reserve units are not, except in a certain number of cases?


James Layton Ralston: That is correct.


Howard Charles Green: Is it not quite clear that
these 75,000 or 76,000 are simply names on a wall in different reserve units, and take no part in training, but have gone back to civilian life?


James Layton Ralston: Certainly they have gone back to civilian life and the members of the reserve unit are also back in civilian life.


Howard Charles Green: But they are training two
or three nights a week.


James Layton Ralston: These men have taken
their training, which is equivalent to the training which the reserve units take at the armouries.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: But the
reserve units take thirty days in addition.


James Layton Ralston: If the impression is left on anyone's mind that these men who trained for thirty days in the last three months are not as well trained as members of the reserve units training in the armouries, or those at camp, that impression is erroneous, and I think it would be admitted by anyone who had visited the camps, examined the syllabus and knew of the training carried on there.


Grote Stirling: The minister has no
hold over these 76,000 who are not carrying on their training now in the reserve units?


James Layton Ralston: The same hold as over any other member of the militia.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: They are not attested. Is there any attestation?


James Layton Ralston: No; there is enrolment.
An enrolment form is signed.


Grote Stirling: May I carry that
further?


James Layton Ralston: I should be glad if the
hon. member would. I want to understand it.


Grote Stirling: I had in mind men in
southern British Columbia who passed through thirty days' training and whose names are attached to the reserve units in that neighbourhood. They are not easily getatable.
War Appropriation Bill

The distance is considerable, and I know of many men who would be only too glad to have an opportunity of reaching the armouries and carrying on. I know of men who for a short time after the training period were able, by getting a lift, or by some other means, to carry on, and they would write to me on occasion and ask this question: If there is no transportation, how are we expected to carry on training? It seems to me there must be a considerable proportion of the 76,000 who are in that difficult position. They cannot reach the place of training to carry on.


James Layton Ralston: Perhaps it does not meet the situation for me to say that they are in exactly the same position as any other resident of the town who would like to join the militia voluntarily but is unable to do so because he is too far away from headquarters of the militia unit. Has the hon. member in mind forming some sort of special unit for these men? I am looking for constructive suggestions, and my hon. friend wants to be constructive.


Grote Stirling: I cannot say that I have found any suggestion which I can make with regard to keeping tab on these men and providing a possibility for their carrying on, but it seems to me a most desirable thing that somehow they should be able to carry on training.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is it not simply a physical impossibility because of location and the expense involved?


James Layton Ralston: Notwithstanding what
some of my friends on both sides of the house have represented, we feel that we have about all the reserve units we can usefully employ.


Richard Burpee Hanson: With the accommodation.


James Layton Ralston: Yes; and, I really think, in view of our needs.


Richard Burpee Hanson: With the equipment available.


James Layton Ralston: And the needs too.


Howard Charles Green: Why would it not be possible to have these men who come back to the city actually tied in with their reserve unit and train with it? It may be that men who had thirty days' training have had more training than men in the reserve army, but surely that is not a handicap. It would help other men in the reserve unit and then you would have all the reserve army together. As it is now, you send back trainees and they are simply names on a wall as far as the reserve army 
unit is concerned. If they had to be called out in a hurry and then fitted into a battalion or any military organization, it would take a long time to fit them in. The whole thing, it seems to me, is not being handled as efficiently as it might be. Why are they not put right into a reserve unit? They are all posted now to infantry units. Why should not some be posted to artillery units or the engineers or the army service corps? Why not allow them to carry on with other members of the reserve army?


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend is assuming something I do not admit. They are permitted to carry on with these other units. He says that they are names on a piece of paper. They are members of a reserve unit, and these were the instructions given. I think I am correct when I say that we expressly provided that these men, if attending training classes, were allowed pay similarly to other reserve personnel for the time they trained. It may be that there is not sufficient encouragement, but certainly the instructions were that they were to be treated exactly as members of that particular unit. My hon. friend cites a case the opposite of that mentioned by the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling). He suggests an instance where the men who are trained are close to a reserve unit and, if possible, that case ought to be met. He is absolutely right in assuming that these men will provide some strength for the reserve unit. They have had intensive training, more intensive than the reserve unit can give. As a humble officer of a militia unit for a time, I remember how sketchy any training was that I was able to give the poor devils under me. But these men know something about training; they have had it intensively. The same applies where they are needed in connection with defence if there is a call. These men, particularly those trained for four months, would be a tremendous help, and an additional strength to a unit which might be called out for the defence of Canada. I shall certainly look into the question to see if a better tie-in can be made.


Howard Charles Green: Is there any reason why, when they come back, it cannot be made a part of the regulations that they shall join up and take part in the training of, say the Seaforth Highlanders in Vancouver or any other unit to which they are nominally posted? This would make for esprit de corps and pride in their regiment. As it is now they come home after the thirty days and because of the way the government has handled the matter they say, "I have done my job, all that is required of me, I don't have to be bothered

War Appropriation Bill
going to the militia to train two nights a week; I know more than they do." That is due to the way the government has handled it. Talk about offering them pay for two nights a week!-they can do other things with their time. These men are not told that their services are needed in the reserve unit; they think they have done their bit, and that is because of the way the government has handled the matter.
If that is to be continued with the men training for four months, then it is all the more serious. All these men should be tied in-


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend has said three times, "due to the way the government has handled the matter." I have not heard yet what his criticism is. I have said that they are tied in with the unit that we have provided for pay for training similarly to the other reserve personnel, and that the instructions are that they are to be treated the same as members of the unit. I am ready to be convicted if I have done something wrong or neglected to do something I should have done; the government the hon. member refers to, is your humble servant in connection with this matter, and I should be glad to know wherein we have handled the matter badly and how we can improve it.


Howard Charles Green: Perhaps it is my fault, but I do not know how to make it any plainer. A man in the riding I represent goes away for training and is posted to the Seaforth Highlanders, one of the finest regiments in Canada.


James Layton Ralston: I was in the same brigade with them, and I agree with the hon. member.


Howard Charles Green: That regiment has a reserve unit. When these young men come back they do not feel under any obligation to go to the Seaforth Highlanders reserve battalion and join up there; they feel they have done their bit. As a matter of fact, until about a month ago I understand those men could not be attested in the reserve battalion; the orders were such that they could not be signed up as proper members of that reserve unit even if the battalion was under strength.


James Layton Ralston: May I interrupt there? My hon. friend knows that up until a short time ago nobody could be attested in the reserve units. Recruiting stopped on August 15 and there was no recruiting for the reserve units. My hon. friend knows further that units have now been authorized to fill up to full strength, and as they supply reinforcements or as their ranks are reduced in any way, they have been authorized to recruit. These men can enlist for that purpose the



M873-101

[Stage Direction]
same as anyone else. But I am still waiting for my hon. friend to tell me what I can do to better the situation. Does he think we should make an order requiring these men to go to drill at headquarters after they have done their training?
Howard Charles Green: Certainly. Why spend all this money giving these men all this training and then simply send them back to civilian life so that they are gone unless Canada is attacked? Why not have the regulations such that they go into a reserve unit?


Mr. CASSELMAN (Grenville-Dundas):: They are not attested in a reserve unit?


James Layton Ralston: You do not have to attest them; they are on the roll.


Arza Clair Casselman: Is not the difference that they fall into two classes? Prior to the reserve army being what it is now, to belong to the non-permanent active militia unit a man was attested, and when he received notice that drill was on a certain night he had to be there or he was subject to a fine. We have added to that now between 72,000 and 80,000 men who are not in that position but are in the position that they have done their training and are told that as a result of the regulations of the department they are now part of the reserve. The only way their services can be utilized is to use the pressure which you can use under the National Resources Mobilization Act and call them out for service in camp.


James Layton Ralston: Right, or by reason of
their being posted to the unit.


Mr. BENCE:: In connection with this
matter of enlisting for reserve units now, are the men who enlist required to undertake to go on active service?


James Layton Ralston: There is no regulation
requiring it.


Alfred Henry Bence: They are in some districts, are they not?


James Layton Ralston: Not that I know of. There are no instructions to that effect. The instructions are that as far sis possible officers will endeavour to see that men are of a medical category which would make them acceptable.


Alfred Henry Bence: I do not mean that.


James Layton Ralston: There are no instructions other than that.


Alfred Henry Bence: I had in mind seeing in the press in my own city a statement that no recruits would be taken for the 2nd battalion unless they undertook to go on active service.


James Layton Ralston: That is the 2nd battalion that is responsible for that. It is not under instructions.

War Appropriation Bill


Richard Burpee Hanson: Have they authority to do that? It does not seem to be the law.


James Layton Ralston: I suppose the commanding officer might say, "I will not take anyone who will not agree to go overseas."


Richard Burpee Hanson: A little
pressure. With respect to the thirty-day training, is not this the position in a nutshell, that they are part of the non-^permanent army de jure, but de facto they are not? If they are not joined up the instmction will in time be lost to the country. That is the principle I was arguing for. Will they not go back? I am told they will. The minister knows more about it than I do, but there seems to be a gap with respect to these trainees and their usefulness to the country after a large sum has been spent on their training. That is what I was trying to argue on Friday, only for the extension to overseas service. If the situation gets bad enough I think that ought to be done. The question of policy will have to be worked out in the course of time, subject to the trend of events. At the moment it is not necessary, but we ought to take a long view, and I suggest that one of the first questions the minister should consider is: how can these young men be made more effective for (a) non-active service and (b) active service, so that the country will not lose the benefit of the expenditure incurred for their instruction and training. This is offered in good faith, I suggest that the government give attention to the whole position in that regard.


James Layton Ralston: I know the suggestion is offered in good faith. I have told the committee what has been done in that respect. I certainly shall give the suggestions of the leader of the opposition and the hon. member for Vancouver South and other hon. members regarding a closer tie-up between these men who have been trained and the reserve units the very best study I can. The first thing to do, however, is to get this plan started; hon. members perhaps do not realize the administrative and instructional difficulties there are in setting up these schools and installing new instructors.


Mr. MAYBANK:: I should like to make a statement and ask a question so that I may get the facts definitely. As I understand it, it is now proposed that when men leave training they shall be attached actively to these various units, such as the Seaforth Highlanders?


James Layton Ralston: The word is "posted".


Ralph Maybank: They are attached already in the sense that when they leave the training

camp they are part of the reserve army. Let us take, say, the Seaforth Highlanders. There are openings for a relatively small number of men, say 50 or 60. You have leaving camp a much larger number, say 1,000. If you are going to say to these 1,000 men, not merely "You are attached to the reserve army", but "You are attached to the Seaforth Highlanders", then you have the Seaforth Highlanders badly swollen, and you will have difficulty in getting 1,000 of them into a place where fifty ought to be. It seems to me that is so.
Then, if you do not put the whole 1,000 of them actually into the reserve army, you are up against the proposition of deciding which fifty out of the 1,000 you will choose. This is a point to which I believe those who are advocating placing these persons in the reserve must address themselves, and unless they can offer something constructive in that respect, then nothing constructive has been offered at all. I may be wrong in that, but from the picture I have drawn from what has been said this afternoon, as well as what people have said to me from time to time, that is the problem as I see it.
You cannot put a whole 1,000 men into a particular regiment, and therefore you are up against the problem as to which ones you shall choose to take the regular training.


Thomas Reid: It could be done by selectors.


Ralph Maybank: If that is what is being proposed, namely, something in the nature of selective draft for continued home service, all right; let us know about it. But it has not been worked out so far.


Howard Charles Green: In reply to the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, I would point out that there have been only 25.000 in each thirty-day period in the whole of Canada; and, as I understand it, all of these men have been posted to infantry units. There are other units-artillery, engineers, medical corps, and so on; and I say that they should be posted to and train with some particular unit-not necessarily an infantry unit, but some reserve unit. If necessary, a third battalion could be made of the infantry regiments.


Ralph Maybank: Are they under strength?


Howard Charles Green: The point is that those men should be posted and actively training with some militia unit. Under the new plan we are going to have only 5,000 a month for the whole of Canada. There can be no question that there is plenty of room to absorb that number across Canada. I do not see how there can be any excuse now for simply turning back those 5,000 into civil life, and not putting them into a reserve unit.

War Appropriation Bill


Grote Stirling: And letting them make the choice of unit.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Before the minister continues, I believe it is felt in many circles that a great deal of money is being spent on the training of these men, and that unless that training is followed up, the value of it will be almost nil. I believe we are talking at cross purposes when we say that these men are attached.


An hon. MEMBER:: Posted.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: They are not posted; they are attached.


James Layton Ralston: "Posted" is the word.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Let me place before the committee a specific instance: The unit in which I am interested is a unit which is well over strength. There are something over 1,400 men in that reserve unit. There are attached or posted to it over 1,500 of these men who have taken thirty days' training. What does it mean? It simply means that some files are carried into the adjutant's office, and that they are put into a corner.


James Layton Ralston: I would assume that the 1,500 men live nowhere near the unit.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: They live in the area from which the unit is recruited.


James Layton Ralston: I believe that is taken care of, from the point of view of administration, and from the point of view from which hon. members have approached it, by the fact that they are posted (a) to the reserve unit in the locality, or (b) to corps reserve.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As the minister states, this unit covers a considerable area. There are four rifle companies, and a headquarters company. In each of the larger towns in that area there is a company commander, and sometimes a company sergeant-major, who are responsible in the particular area from which the company is recruited for part-time training. Then they are brought together to battalion headquarters, annually, for annual training.
These men-and possibly I should use the term "trainees"-have no feeling of unity with the company or area in which they live. They are not called in for training, because the company is already over-strength. They are not called for training in the battalion. There is a cleavage there, and considerable feeling has arisen in that connection. These men do not belong to any company; they are not attached to any particular company, and are not in any platoon. They do not go to training with that unit. As a matter of fact,
they are not part of the unit at all, except that their names are in the same files in the adjutant's office.
The minister has asked for some suggestion. I do not think they can be merged into a unit which is already over-strength. I do not see why another battalion could not be formed, and these men become a reserve battalion. Where one company is now training, two companies could be trained. These men who have taken thirty days' training would have a company or a platoon to which they could go, and with which they would train, having exactly the same routine they would go through if they were members of the reserve army. Otherwise they do not feel any attachment to the unit with which they are posted. Unless something of the sort is done within the year, I believe the money the Canadian people have spent on this project will have pretty well filtered away. That will happen, unless there is some way of keeping these men attached to some unit, with contacts through non-commissioned officers, officers and in this way develop an esprit de corps.


James Layton Ralston: I do not believe I need take further time in committee by adding to what I have already said. I shall certainly take note of the observations of hon. members, and I want them to take note of what has already been done. I believe the hon. member who spoke last had the gist of the matter when he said that this was not an immediate thing. But I can see the point they are making, and therefore I will give it the best study I can.


Mr. SENN:: What will be done in the event of a trainee changing his place of residence? Is there any provision whereby he would be followed up? Is there a provision that he shall notify the authorities in the event of a change of residence, or may he easily be lost?


James Layton Ralston: I do not think there is any provision, but he is in the unit to which he has been attached.


Howard Charles Green: What provision is made for enlisting these trainees in the various fighting forces? What encouragement is given to them to enlist? I have been told that while the navy and the air force are fairly active in the camps, trying to have these young men enlist in their respective forces, the army is not doing so. I understand the army makes little or no attempt to persuade the young men to enlist in the active service force. Is that so? What provisions have been made whereby it is made easy for one of these young men to enlist in the active army?


James Layton Ralston: I cannot say that any provisions are made, or that any pressure is brought upon them to enlist. As my hon.
War Appropriation Bill

friend and the committee know, and as I said the other day to the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough, so far we have had sufficient enlistments to take care of our reenforcement requirements. The trouble is- if it is a trouble-that we have in Canada a great many men who are impatient for overseas service. Casualties have not occurred. Our reenforcements are more than up to requirements, and therefore there is not the call for recruits.
I may say that the navy, the army and the air force have a committee working at the present time with a view to what may be a joint recruiting call, having regard to the needs of the three services which we visualize this summer may be required by reason of formations going overseas. But, answering my hon. friend's question, there has not been any intensive recruiting campaign. As I said to the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough, our difficulty is that we cannot put on these evangelistic campaigns in this war, as we did in the last one, because the need is not there as yet at least. People are complaining that we are interfering with industry, with farming and with everything else; they ask what we are going to do with the men when we do enlist them. No one realizes better than I do the fact that this has a dampening effect upon recruiting. I do not say we have not ideas in the department with regard to the matter; we have, but I would welcome any suggestions which might be made by any one in this connection.
Answering my hon. friend, there is no special effort made to get these men to enlist. What was done, as my hon. friend knows and as the house has been told, was this. They were asked in the camp whether, if an opportunity to enlist should come, they would be willing to do so. The figures I received were what I gave my hon. friend the leader of the opposition this afternoon; namely, that taking the navy, the army and the air force, about twenty-five per cent expressed their willingness to enlist if required.


Howard Charles Green: Of that number how many have actually enlisted?


James Layton Ralston: I cannot tell my hon.
friend.


Howard Charles Green: Or have that twenty-five
per cent been given an actual opportunity to enlist?


James Layton Ralston: I am telling my hon. friend the opportunity is there all the time. The way enlistments are called for is this. If a call comes from overseas for reinforcements, or if the adjutant general's office feels

that in some particular service there is necessity for reinforcements, a quota is immediately made up of the reinforcements required, and that quota is apportioned to the different districts all over Canada; each district is asked for so many men. My hon. friend knows this procedure, I am sure. They have their district depots where men have enlisted, from which they have gone to the training centres; and these recruits are called for from these different training centres. Then, if there is need for more men for enlistment in place of these reinforcements, the militia units in that particular area are told that so many men are required, and they are given an opportunity to have their personnel enlist for that purpose. That is the way in which recruiting is done generally, through the militia unit. There are not usually general calls. Of course there are men from time to time who come directly to the recruiting office from the street. They enlist, and they are received, of course.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If the
minister will allow me, is that quite so? In the filling up of the quotas to which he has just referred, from the military district, is there an opportunity every day for men to enlist in the active service army? I have been told, and I should like to be corrected if I am wrong-it seems that I am very wrong most of the time, according to the minister this afternoon-


James Layton Ralston: We are talking about
something else now.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I want to know if there is an opportunity to enlist six days in the week, whether quotas are filled up or not.


James Layton Ralston: No, I would not say so.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The opportunity for enlistment is very limited indeed, is it not?


James Layton Ralston: That is correct.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Then let us have that perfectly clear. Until there is the need of men for the active army, whether it be for service in Canada or overseas, that opportunity will continue to be very much restricted?


James Layton Ralston: That is so.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, I
think that is a fair statement.


Howard Charles Green: In the case of these men who are anxious to join the army would it not be wise to let them enlist at once, even though it meant expanding the force to a

War Appropriation Bill
15S9
certain degree? Now that only 5,000 are being trained each month there will not be such large numbers of these men available, and surely when a man in the camp wants to enlist in the forces it should be possible for him to do so, even though it means making the forces a little larger than had been planned. It is far better for us to have too many men trained and under arms in this country, in this terrible crisis, than to have too few.


James Layton Ralston: I can only say to my
hon. friend that there I am guided by the staff. I am assured that we have ample men in Canada under this plan for any possible forseeable need for home defence. As far as the situation overseas is concerned we have ample men at the present time-I just say at the present time-for reinforcements for the troops who are overseas. The leader of the opposition has put his finger on the main point, namely, that until there are casualties or some need arises because of these formations going overseas, there is not the opportunity for any widespread enlistment. My hon. friend asks if we could not give that opportunity to a few men. What I think he has in mind is to utilize the four months' training of these men. I will give consideration to that point, as to whether possibly some special consideration could not be given in these circumstances because, as my hon. friend says, there we have trained men.


Richard Burpee Hanson: In addition to the reason that has been given by the minister, is there not the further reason that the equipment and accommodation are not available and would require considerable extension. Is that not about right?


James Layton Ralston: I would think so.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think
that is a fair statement.


Mr. MARTIN:: In this country there are
representatives of a number of free governments, the Polish, the Norwegian, the Dutch and more recently the Belgian. They have troops in training centres in various parts of the country. What assistance, if any, is being given by the government of Canada or the Department of National Defence to these groups? What financial assistance is being given?
To give my question more force, I should like to point out to the minister that recently the Polish group appear to have had some difficulties. They have been moving from one city to another in an endeavour to find quarters for the training of their men. I think it is desirable that the minister make a statement in regard to this matter, because
I know it has caused some inconvenience and, with no desire to magnify it at all, I believe there has been some friction. Are we rendering any assistance to these movements? If so, what is that assistance, and should it not go further and actually help them to get established in various communities? This difficulty now exists, and I should be very grateful if the minister would say a word about it.


James Layton Ralston: All I can say to my hon. friend is that this is a matter for the Department of External Affairs rather than for the Department of National Defence. The assistance which is given in this connection and the arrangements which have been made have been the subject of correspondence between the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the representatives of the various governments. I am not in a position to give my hon. friend any information beyond that at the moment.


John Ritchie MacNicol: When I was home last I was interviewed by a number of soldiers who had recently returned from England, for reasons into which I made no inquiry. They find it impossible to obtain positions.


James Layton Ralston: These are discharged men?


John Ritchie MacNicol: Yes; and after having been in the army for a year, more or less, they are almost unfit for employment right away. Could not the Department of National Defence connect up or work with the Department of Munitions and Supply or the Department of Labour in an endeavour to bring about the employment of these returned soldiers in some of the large factories or on some of the building programmes under the control of the department? It seems to me too bad that these men should be brought back from England and have nothing to do here. The government is financing or assisting to finance many large projects, and I do not see why the various departments could not cooperate in order to place many of these men. It is bad enough to be out of work at any time, but it is worse for a returned soldier coming home to be out of a job. Something should be done in this connection. If nothing is done it may result in the men saying things they should not say, after having been in the army and then out of it. It would relieve their anxiety if the government would see that they are placed in some of the government projects.


Charles Gavan Power: To answer for my colleague, the Minister of Pensions and National Health, there was put through by order in council
War Appropriation Bill

some time ago what is known as a rehabilitation plan which I think awards one month's pay to those who have been discharged from the army. If the man is unfit owing to his war service he obtains a pension. If he is not, the Department of Pensions and National Health is reorganizing the rehabilitation branch, and the Minister of Pensions and National Health has recently created the position of associate deputy minister to look after rehabilitation. My understanding is that the veterans assistance committees across Canada are being called in to assist in making the very placements which my hon. friend has mentioned. The veterans assistance committees in days gone by did do a valuable work. They are in touch with industry throughout the country, and they would appear to be the appropriate coordinating body as between the discharged soldier and the new industries which are being set up. I do know that the Minister of Pensions and National Health has large plans along these lines, but to what extent these plans have been completed I am not in a position to say.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The minister must have read that at the recent labour conference resolutions were passed recommending that the government keep on the payroll, until they obtain employment, soldiers who have now returned. Has the minister anything to offer in that connection?


Charles Gavan Power: That is for the Department of National Defence, but speaking as an associate minister of the department, I certainly would not keep crocks on the payroll.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Why should a returned soldier be called a crock?


Charles Gavan Power: H he has been discharged from the army as unfit for army service, I would not keep him on the payroll.


John Ritchie MacNicol: He must have been 100 per cent fit when he joined.


Charles Gavan Power: If he is unfit, the question
of pension arises. But to make the broad statement that a man unfit for army service should be kept in the army goes beyond anything I ever heard of. Look after him somewhere else; well and good. But I would not subscribe to the view that because a man has served in the army he should be kept perennially on the army payroll after the medical' board has decided that he is not fit for active service in the army.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I want to come to the support of the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol). I do not think he usually requires support, but on this occasion I think he

does. The minister has not adequately covered the question put forward by the hon. member for Davenport. When a man has been taken into the army and has been discharged from further service, is the department prepared to keep him on for a certain period, until such time as he can find employment? Obviously there must be some limit to the period. I cannot fully agree *with the position taken by the minister.


Charles Gavan Power: The rehabilitation branch
is for that purpose. The suggestion, however, of the hon. member for Davenport was that the man should remain in uniform in the army, and I would say that that is not the thing to do. When the soldier is discharged as unfit he belongs to some other department. He belongs to the rehabilitation branch and should not be kept in uniform in the army. That is all I am saying. The Department of Pensions has created a rehabilitation branch. I do not know just how far the Minister of Pensions has gone with the functioning of it, but I understand that he has gone pretty far with it.


John Ritchie MacNicol: A good deal of the building work now being done is under government control, and perhaps the veterans assistance committees to which the minister referred will be able to see -that the discharged soldier gets some of this work.


Charles Gavan Power: He comes under Pensions
and National Health.


John Ritchie MacNicol: After the question has
been thoroughly considered by the department, I think it ought to be possible, in view of the vast amount of building that is being done by the Department of Munitions and Supply, supported financially by the government, to provide for the discharged soldiers, if they are able to be reemployed, on some of these staffs.


Charles Gavan Power: I am under the impression
that machinery does exist at the present -time for taking care of these men when they are discharged. They go to the veterans assistance committees in the various cities and have their names put down for employment wherever it can be found. Whether employment has -been found or whether the men are capable of doing the work required in these plants is another question.


John Ritchie MacNicol: They are to receive pay for one month?


Charles Gavan Power: They get paid for one
month.


John Ritchie MacNicol: If that were extended to two or three months they might be able to find something to do.

War Appropriation Bill


Charles Gavan Power: My hon. friend will have to appeal to the generosity of the Minister of Pensions.


James Arthur Ross: The Minister of National Defence has stated that many of the trainees have volunteered to join the service. I have been concerned with the set-up of our reserve army, if something should happen overseas, which we all trust will not happen, necessitating large numbers of reinforcements. I think we should be training a reserve army immediately for reinforcements. Has the minister considered with his staff, training a reserve army composed of those within the required categories who could be transferred for training to active service? In the whole set-up of the reserve army it seems to me that we are not getting value in man-power or for the money spent should a sudden demand for reinforcements arise.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend is mixing up two things. The reserve army is not for reinforcements for overseas except to the extent that the men volunteer. The staff have advised that so far as Canada's defence is concerned, our reserves are adequate. We know what our resources are overseas and what we plan for, and I have given the committee a list of the formations we are going to have. We feel satisfied that we can provide ample reinforcements for them. I do not know just what my hon. friend has in his mind when he says he is not satisfied with the set-up. We have 175,000 trainees in all in the reserve army, some with thirty days' training and some with longer periods. In addition, we have a great number of men, over 100,000, in the active service force in Canada. The defence of Canada must visualize certain scales of attack. These scales have been weighed and appraised. It is only in certain contingencies that these attacks can occur, and we all realize what will be the situation if they do occur; that is, what additional forces will be available for that purpose. In the light of all that the staff have advised me that we are making ample provision.
Just in that connection, may I be allowed to complete my statement. All these men- that is, these 175,000 men-have completed thirty days' training, and many have, to their credit, years of service in the previous militia. They represent a potential force rather than an actual one at this time because the battle of Britain is being successfully waged, and so long as that continues no heavy attack on Canada will be practical. All these are in addition to the active army formations in Canada.
I can say to the committee that, a careful appraisal having been made of the prospects
and requirements in any emergency which can be reasonably foreseen, it is considered that the plan we have evolved will meet the requirements of home defence. That is not my opinion only but the opinion of the staff who have given most careful consideration to the matter, and who are responsible for advising myself and the government in that connection.
Something has been said regarding the release, to the existing reserve units, of these men who are being trained. What we plan is that where they are in localities which have reserve units, they shall be posted to those units; if they are in localities where there are no reserve units, they will be posted, after the completion of their training, to a corps reserve of the arm in which they have been trained. I have heard what hon. members have suggested in that regard and I assure them- and this is no mere formal assurance-that their suggestions will have the very best study we can give them.
If the unit is needed for home defence, they will form a useful nucleus of trained men to give added strength to that unit; and, on the other hand, as I have said regarding the men who have had thirty days' training, I believe that many of them will, by reason of their experience in army life, be ready to enlist in case a widespread call goes out for recruits for overseas service.
May I emphasize that with the large numbers of partly trained reserve personnel available the sensible course is now to see to it that so far as facilities permit, future additions to that force will be completely trained in the weapons with which, as individuals, they might later be called upon to fight.
Barring changes which no one can foresee, we envisage some 60,000 young men of the twenty-one year old class being called up for four months' compulsory training in the year.
Training this 60,000 for the reserve would allow, in our revised system of basic and advanced training centres, capacity for a further 60,000 per annum of active service personnel of other age groups. Remember that this number is the equivalent of two or two and a half divisions, and is in addition to the men we have partly trained, men of the reserve, and whatever active units there may be in Canada.
In other words, we would expect to train in an adequate and approved manner no less than 120,000 young men in Canada during the next year. Some of these, at the end of two months' basic training, on volunteering will be transferred to the Royal Canadian Navy or Royal Canadian Air Force, and the remainder to the active or reserve army as the case may be.
War Appropriation Bill

Let me make this clear-perhaps it needs to be emphasized a bit. The four months' training plan is not merely a National Resources Mobilization Act plan; it is not merely an active service force plan; it is a Canadian army plan. The plan will, we believe, by training men who have enlisted for overseas service, provide training for the maximum reinforcements needed for overseas. At the same time, through its training of men who are called up for training under the National Resources Mobilization Act, it will provide us with the means to assist in creating a trained reserve force which, in addition to such active units as may be allotted to that task, will suffice to meet the possible demands of home defence.
I believe that the latter part of that statement does meet what the hon. member for Souris -has referred to. It is true that the reserve army is only partly trained, but it is a large army for Canadian defence. There is no doubt about that. What this plan does is to endeavour to put alongside of it-and I am as anxious as anybody to see that it not only puts alongside of but integrates with it- the men who have four months' training, in order that it may be given stiffening and made as effective as possible.


James Arthur Ross: There is not, I suppose, a standing order that these men who are in the reserve army will be in A category?


James Layton Ralston: No.


James Arthur Ross: A great many of these men would be in a lower category and therefore would not be able to transfer.


James Layton Ralston: I should be glad to hear from the committee-although it is a peculiar position for a minister to take-whether the categories of the reserve army should be A and B instead of including C. As the committee knows, it goes down to "C-l." That is a difference between the active and the reserve. The active does take A and B and does not take C.


Gordon Graydon: Has the minister any
information as to how the reserve army is made up in so far as the medical categories are concerned?


James Layton Ralston: The proportion?


Gordon Graydon: Yes.


James Layton Ralston: No; I am sorry I have not. I can get it very easily.


Gordon Graydon: Perhaps it would be of interest to the committee.


James Layton Ralston: It is germane to the question I have just mentioned.


Mr. FULFORD:: The hon. member for Souris has just asked a question which I intended to ask. There are, however, some further questions I should like to put with regard to the present reserve army units. Will the result of the attachment of these trained men to the established unit change the present training programme in any way? Will it, for instance, change the length of time in camp? Will it change the personnel of the present units? Will the new men have to take the full training of the unit they join? As a matter of fact, I am thinking particularly of the Brockville rifles. By the time the first batch of these men are turned out, it will be just about time for the Brockville rifles to go to camp. These men, I take it, will be attached to the local regiment. They will just have finished four months in camp, and naturally will be far ahead of any training that the local unit will have, and any work they do at camp will appear very elementary to them. Will a special company be set up for them? It would seem to be a waste of effort that they should go through all the elementary training which the normal reserve unit would have to go through.


James Layton Ralston: As I understand it, those who are in my hon. friend's vicinity who are attached to the Brockville Rifles and have finished the four months' training will not go to camp with the Brockville Rifles.


Howard Charles Green: Has the minister given any consideration to the question of the selective draft, that is, covering a wide age group and choosing by lot, rather than taking all the twenty-one year old men?


James Layton Ralston: Yes. That is what I
endeavoured to cover in the first part of the statement I made to the committee a little while ago. "With a selective draft, you immediately get into difficulties with industry. We must face that fact. If we are going to have a selective draft and extend these age groups any distance, I for one believe-I do not know whether all my colleagues agree with me, but perhaps the committee may- that we must have reserved occupations for two purposes: to exempt men of the reserved occupations from being called up for training, and to refuse to accept men who volunteer; that is to say, we would say to men who want to go into the army, "No, you cannot go in because the particular occupation you are in is one so essential to industry that you can better serve your country there."


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is that not what the principle of the selective draft implies? I may be all wrong in my understanding of what the selective principle is,

War Appropriation Bill
but my idea of it was that you could say, "You shall not be selected because you are more valuable to the state in some other capacity." Has that been turned down definitely?


James Layton Ralston: We studied that in England. It involves reserved occupations, and it involves all the machinery of boards and things of that kind, and constant changes of regulations, which we think we have avoided under this system, which simply takes a very much limited age group, and cannot disturb industry seriously, but empowers the board to postpone a certain class, in order that they may have the benefit of pursuing their seasonal occupation, or matter of that kind. It avoids all complications. There was a book prepared a year and a half ago containing lists of reserved occupations; it must have extended to 150 typewritten pages.


Gordon Graydon: That is, in England.


James Layton Ralston: That is what they are worrying over in England at the present time. We may have to come to it. If you take more than these twenty-one year olds you reach the stage where you disturb industry. You may have to do it, but I feel that we do not have to come to it yet, and therefore we propose this simple course of taking the twenty-one year old class, providing for postponement in cases of occupations where postponement is required, but not providing for exemptions. According to the staff, it fully supplies our needs of home defence at the present time.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The young men are not a factor in industry.


James Layton Ralston: Not to the same extent.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think
we ought to welcome that statement of the minister, whether or not we agree with it.


Mr. ROWE:: Some of them are a factor.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend is right, some of them are. As a matter of fact, the national labour supply board were talking to me to-day with regard to a few men. I know that the mining industry say that they are training some young men; they have some twenty-one year old men in their service. Industry is cooperating in connection with this iplan. We have consulted the national labour supply board; they have been in on all the conferences, and they know what is being planned.
I know of one instance in which an industry was asked, with regard to the thirty-day training, how many men would be affected who were essential to that industry. The manager
sent back word, "175." The general manager did not believe that. He went down and investigated and he found that there were just three men who could not be spared. The same is true of a number of other industries. It is found that there are not many men who cannot be spared for the limited time required. There are some industries which are training young men who fall into the twenty-one year old class, and provision will have to be made in that direction.


Howard Charles Green: Is the position not the same with young men who are being trained in the technical schools under the Minister of Labour? Take young men in their teens, who are receiving training courses for industry. Shortly they will be twenty-one. Are they to go into training camps or will they remain in industry?


James Layton Ralston: The hon. member does not want me to look a year ahead?


Howard Charles Green: That is the trouble. We are looking a couple of days ahead instead of a year.


James Layton Ralston: That is not a fair statement. I ask my hon. friend if anyone in this war can look ahead a year and make plans further than we have made our plans. We have quite sufficient if we make the best plans we can for the formations we are providing for this year and endeavour to meet them with the man-power we have, and I do not think it is quite fair to suggest that these are two-day plans. They are no such thing. I will endeavour to give attention to what my hon. friend suggests, but it is not essential at this moment-


Howard Charles Green: Perhaps not two days, but we are not looking far enough ahead.


James Arthur Ross: Can the minister give a statement of those receiving the thirty-day training, by provinces, and then volunteering for active service?


James Layton Ralston: Another question was asked with reference to information by provinces. I cannot give it by provinces; I can give it only by military districts.


James Arthur Ross: By military districts.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Would it be possible to speed up the report on the men who go for medical examination? Industry hesitates to take the twenty-one year old class unless they have already had training. Industry hesitates to take in a great many of these boys because, in the course of a month or two, just as they are beginning to work at a job, they will be called for training. A great number of them are rejected after medical examination, but
War Appropriation Bill

it is so long between the time they take the medical examination and the time they get their report that it would expedite matters a great deal, so far as industry is concerned, if the report could be received sooner.


James Layton Ralston: That ought to be done.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: It would help considerably.


Gordon Graydon: The minister made some reference to the national labour supply board.


James Layton Ralston: Council.


Gordon Graydon: Is there any voice of agriculture with respect to that council, or are they going on their own, as it were, so far as selections are concerned? I am interested in it because we all realize that the shortage of labour on farms is now becoming so acute that something has to be done in that regard, and I should like to see agriculture with some representation so far as the labour supply council is concerned.


James Layton Ralston: As regards the national labour supply council, the Minister of Labour can answer. The Department of National Defence is represented on the labour coordination board, which is the important board after all; I say this with all due respect to the national labour supply council, who are an advisory body. It is not a board which originates and carries out decisions. On the labour board the Minister of National War Services, who is also Minister of Agriculture, has direct representation.


Gordon Graydon: What representation is there so far as industry is concerned?


Norman Alexander McLarty: I do not wish to amplify anything that the Minister of National Defence has said, but in the national labour supply council the representation is directly from manufacturing industry and from labour. As the minister has said, in connection with the interdepartmental committee on labour supply, on which agriculture is represented ad hoc, consideration is being given at the present time to the matter of increased labour supply in that industry.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Can the minister explain just what coordination there is between these two boards? I was talking the other day to a manufacturer who is doing an important job in the war. I asked him whether he was carrying on his ordinary peace-time pursuits and he said, "yes". He had built an addition for what they are doing in connection with the war. As I say, it is an important job, his being the only firm which at the time was in a position to do it. He told me he had taken in thirty farmers' sons from our territory, and in the course of a year he has

made real mechanics of them. He says they are wonderful fellows, coming into industry fresh and strong and with a desire to learn. But there are thirty farmers' sons who have gone into that industry off the farms where they ought to be. It is a serious matter.
In December we had more applications for employment in our plant than we had during the depression, or at least as many. I could not understand it. We kept a record of these men and I wondered why that should be. Then for several days I checked up on the men who came and applied for work. I talked to them personally. Every one was a son of a farmer, a boy who prior to that time had been employed on his father's farm. Now he was asking for work. There are hundreds of boys in Waterloo county who have come off the farms and gone into industry in that county, and it is a serious thing for the farmer. I realize the difficulty of saying to a boy that he must stay on the farm and do that work even though there is not much compensation in it, instead of going into industry and getting higher wages than those paid on the farm. Something should be done. I was wondering whether under our national war services some action could be taken to distribute labour in such a way as not to interfere with production on the farm, because we are going to do it in our county. I know that for a fact.


Gordon Graydon: The difficulty raised by the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Homuth) is a real one. When you talk about distributing labour, your greatest obstacle is that when you begin to distribute labour among the farmers you strike the low-wage level as against the high-wage level of industry, and perhaps at no time in our history has this matter been as acutely drawn to the attention of the public and of industry as it is to-day. I see advertisements in the papers stating that young men can leave high school and get, I believe, about fifteen dollars a month and board. That is not so very attractive when you put up against it some of the wages paid in industry. It is not a matter of being a demagogue in relation to the farmers of the country; the question is one of acute lack of parity between farm income and the income of many other industries. This disparity has become so apparent that in it lies the fundamental difficulty in distributing labour at the moment. You cannot fairly say to a farmer's son, "You stay where you are and work for next to nothing during the war, while men in other war industries are being paid a high rate of wages".
In that lies the whole kernel of the labour situation. The sooner this government acting

War Appropriation Bill
in conjunction with organized agriculture, comes to the point where something is done to put agriculture on more of a parity with other war industries-because it is a war industry-the sooner we shall be able to distribute labour in the national interest and for the national benefit. While the present lack of parity exists, I can readily understand the position in which the Minister of Labour finds himself in attempting to say to one man, "You stay in a low-wage category" and to another, "You go into a high-wage category." I am not in favour of low wages for the working man; in many instances he is not getting enough; but the solution is not to bring him down but to bring the farmer up, and until we come to that realization we are going to have the troubles this committee is trying to deal with now.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I have listened with great interest to the minister's description of the difficulties of this occupational selection. We ought, however, to take a longer view of this matter. The minister tells us we shall not need the same amount of judicial machinery to do it the way we are going to do it. I hope the war is going to end soon, but that is not the present consensus. The course of the war is going to change; we are going to require more and more goods, more and more war material all the time; we are going to need aeroplanes, guns and munitions. This idea of calling up the twenty-one year old men now is all very well; but some time we shall have to set up this machinery in order to make a proper selection, and appeal board* and that sort of thing, so why not start as soon as we can?
The minister says the twenty-one year old men are the ones who will be least affected. But things change so rapidly these days, by the end of this year we shall probably need all these young men who have been trained not only in the technical schools but many of them in the aeroplane factories as well. Industry is expanding; they will all be needed. Now is the time to start on the selection, rather than doing it this way now and some other way later. We should have some machinery set up now and take the long view.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Did the minister finish his statement?


James Layton Ralston: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence for Air about the construction to be placed on the term, "home war", as used on page 1494 of Hansard.


Charles Gavan Power: With reference to air?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I assume it is with reference to air; I had not heard the term used with 'reference to any other branch.


Charles Gavan Power: Usually we divide our estimates into three parts: overseas, home war establishment, and the joint air training plan. The home war establishment is the establishment for the defence of Canada; it operates a certain number of defence stations which are not employed in the training plan. The training plan set-up is kept separate from the home war establishment and overseas.


Mr. GILLIS:: I want to come back for a moment to the question asked by the hon. member for Davenport. It is an important question, and personally I was not satisfied with the answer. I notice in the break-down of the figures under Pensions and National Health there is an appropriation of S20.000 listed for a committee on demobilization, which indicates that the government are considering the matter of demobilization. To my mind, one of the things that can hurt our war effort most at the present time is to have men who went overseas, did what they could and came back broken in health, some of them wounded, now on the street with just a month's pay and no understanding as to what is going to happen after that. Many of them have dependents.
I notice the British government have enacted legislation providing that a man remains in uniform and is taken care of by the government until he is placed at some gainful occupation. I suppose this committee has been functioning; there is an appropriation for it here and men are being demobilized, but from the answer given by the Minister of National Defence for Air apparently there is not in the department any regulation for or concrete understanding for taking care of these men. I should like to have some more definite answer than was given by the minister.


Charles Gavan Power: Rehabilitation is not the business of the Department of National Defence. We cannot do it. The energies of the Department of National Defence are devoted to getting the best type of men and training them to fight. When, however, a man is discharged from the army as no longer fit he should automatically go to another department. I can assure my hon. friend that the business of rehabilitation is big enough to require the work of a department that is not engaged in looking after the fighting services. The department of Pensions and National Health has had the experience of the last twenty years, since the
War Appropriation Bill

last war, in dealing with those questions. That department is setting up the necessary machinery to look after demobilization.
I expect that the committee on demobilization referred to by my hon. friend is a committee being organized by the Minister of Pensions and National Health, with representatives of labour and of industry, and I think some economists, in order to make a thorough study of what should be done with these men when they come back.
While this study is going on in order to formulate a broad general policy, if men are found unfit owing to war service they are pensioned. If they are not unfit owing to war service; if for some reason they are not entitled to pension, then these veterans assistance committees set up in various centres across Canada are going to endeavour to find them positions in industry.
My hon. friend says that the British government keeps such men in uniform until they obtain positions. I am not aware of such legislation as that anywhere; I do not think it would be feasible in this country to keep in the army twenty or thirty or fifty thousand men who are unfit; it would be a burden which the army should not be called upon to bear. These men should go to another department, the rehabilitation department, and I believe steps are being taken to have them do so.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: When the committee rose at six o'clock, the Minister of National Defence for Air was replying to a question which had been asked by the hon. member for Davenport with reference to a request made a few days ago by an organization that, with regard to men who had been discharged, the government keep them on the payroll until such time as they are placed in civilian life. The minister's mind is probably too departmentalized in the matter. I do not believe anyone was suggesting that these men should be kept on in the actual army.


Charles Gavan Power: That was the suggestion, and it was that suggestion to which I took exception.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It was not suggested by me.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I do not think anyone was suggesting that. The trades and labour congress made the suggestion to the

government, and I do not believe that, in the memorandum submitted, they made the suggestion the minister has indicated. Their suggestion was that those men be kept on the payroll. Whose payroll it is does not matter. It would be on the government payroll. No one was suggesting that these men could be kept on the army's strength, but it was suggested that they should be kept on the government payroll. In other words, the suggestion was that the government should recognize its responsibility to these men, just as these men in turn have recognized their responsibility to the country.
The suggestion that the veterans assistance committees can take care of these men is not practical. These committees have done some excellent work, and I know a number of men they have assisted to reestablishment in civilian life. But as the war goes on, the number of men being discharged is bound to increase, and the committees giving part time to such a task could not possibly meet the situation.


Charles Gavan Power: There is a whole department for that work. The Department of Pensions and National Health deals with the matter; that is their job, and it has been their job for twenty years.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It may be their job, but the point I make to the minister is that the job is not being done. There is scarcely a member in the House of Commons who does not know of at least a few cases respecting men who have been discharged. They come in two categories, the first category being those who have pensions coming to them. The minister knows that such pensions do not come by return of mail. The men have to make application, boards have to be set up, and a considerable length of time is required. There is an interim period. What are they to do during that period?
There is the second class of men who are not eligible for pension, and who have to make some adjustments. One month's pay does not begin to tide these men over the period of readjustment. I suggest that some time before this appropriation bill passes we ought to have a statement from the Minister of Pensions and National Health as to exactly what the government's programme is in connection with men returning to Canada for discharge. What is to happen to them during the time their applications for pensions are being investigated? Second, what will happen with respect to those men who are not eligible for pension, but who are trying to become reestablished in civilian life. We ought to

War Appropriation Bill
have a statement on these points, because we know that the number of men who will return and find themselves in these positions will increase. It is increasing daily.
Unless the government can give this committee a satisfactory explanation concerning their policy in this respect, we shall have a serious situation in Canada. When these men come back, are discharged and have a difficult time, it leaves a bad taste in the mouths of people across the country. It is not a good thing for those young men who are interested in entering the military services to come in contact with other men in a community who have served for a year or a year and a half, but who, upon coming back, have found it difficult to get jobs.
I am not blaming the Minister of National Defence for Air. I believe his position is quite right. No one is suggesting that the army should be responsible. Certainly, however, the government must be responsible. Unless the government is prepared to keep these men on the payroll, or unless it can set up machinery necessary to their establishment, and, if necessary, train them so that they may enter some branch of service in Canada, a difficult situation will arise. We have a responsibility to them. I hope the responsible minister will tell us, before the appropriation bill passes, just what the government proposes to do.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Perhaps the minister would permit me a word at this point. I have already concurred in the views expressed by the hon. member for Davenport. So as to indicate that the point before the committee is not purely academic, I would place before the minister one concrete instance, which is one of at least ten or more. I believe this instance will show that there is merit in the point raised.
On one occasion my attention was called by a United States citizen who lives in Detroit to the fact that when he had been in Toronto the day previous, a young boy had approached him, and said, "Can you lend me some money? I have just been discharged from the Essex Scottish regiment, which is at Camp Borden. I am a United States citizen, enlisted in the Canadian army, but because of the regulations"-which prevailed at that time- "which provide an oath of allegiance to His Majesty the King, I have forfeited my United States citizenship. I have now been discharged; I have no job; I cannot return to my own country, and I am really down and out." The gentleman who had been approached, who was anxious to do the right thing, told me where the boy could be found. I learned from him that the boy was at the
Salvation Army hostel in Toronto, and upon receipt of that information I caused him to be brought to Windsor.
This was an instance of a man separated from his wife, one who had forfeited his United States citizenship, and could not return to that country, in spite of the efforts of our immigration branch, and our Department of External Affairs. Nothing could be done because he had lost his United States citizenship. He was without funds and without a job. Had it not been for a number of people who came to his assistance he would not have been provided for until such time as he was finally able to get a job. I say without reservation that, without any thought of coddling, we owe that type of man a definite responsibility. We should have seen to it that he had work the day after he was discharged, and that every opportunity was given to him to find a job. Through the efforts of people in the community from which I come he finally found a job.
That is only one case. I bring it up, not because of any belief that the administration is not sympathetic to the problem, but rather to impress upon the committee the fact that in this respect there is a real problem.


Gordon Graydon: It is perhaps unfair to ask the Minister of National Defence for Air to answer the question I have in mind, but could he ascertain for me whether the Department of Pensions and National Health has any record of the number of soldiers discharged from this war who are unemployed?


Charles Gavan Power: A year or so ago I could have given the number of unemployed soldiers from the last war.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What about
this war?


Charles Gavan Power: I have not that information, but I would be pleased to get it-if the Minister of Pensions and National Health is not in his seat to-morrow.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The Minister of Pensions and National Health is in the chamber. Why should this problem not be dealt with now? The government is not unsympathetic.


Charles Gavan Power: The minister is not here; he is ill.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I thought I saw him coming in ahead of me to-night.


Charles Gavan Power: No.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am sure I did-unless I am labouring under a delusion. The problem is a real one. There are 18,000 men, 9,000 from overseas and 9,000 in Canada.
War Appropriation Bill

These men have been released with thirty days' pay. I have had at least ten cases in my own community of men who have been put out of the army because of a re-boarding, and their medical category did not measure up. Some of those cases are the result of pneumonia in training camps in eastern Canada. The disease left them in bad condition.
I know of one man who had a wife and eight children, and while at Aldershot he suffered from pneumonia. He was let out of the army and was given thirty days' pay. He went away, and the last I heard of him his wife did not know where he was. She was accepting charity, and she certainly put it up to me to see what could be done for her. I could not do anything but give her something.


Charles Gavan Power: Did he apply for a pension?


Richard Burpee Hanson: He could not be found, and as far as I know he has not yet been located. Of course, that is an extreme case.
Last fall the Minister of Pensions and National Health made a rather important statement setting out the whole position and showing that the government was giving consideration to the problem. The only criticism which I think can be made in fairness is that the government have not assumed the whole responsibility. They are assisting, but they are not assuming full responsibility. We asked these men to enlist; they have been turned back through no fault of their own, and I think it is up to this country to assume full responsibility for them until they can be reestablished in civil life. I ask the minister to give sympathetic consideration to this whole problem. It ought not to be such a problem with industry going ahead as I believe it is. Surely jobs can be found for these men. I am not prepared to-night to advocate that they should be given preference in the government war industry, because their physical condition may not be good enough. It is, however, a problem which the country might as well meet fairly and squarely.


Charles Gavan Power: I am under the impression- and I think I am right-that the problem is being faced by this rehabilitation committee which has been set up, and it is certainly being actively considered by a committee of this house. The committee has asked for an extension of its powers in order to study the whole rehabilitation question. The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) is an assiduous follower of these committees and perhaps he has more information than I.


Howard Charles Green: That is correct.


Charles Gavan Power: A committee of this house is actually studying this problem, as is a committee of the department. What conclusions they have arrived at up to the present, I am unable to say. I shall be glad to advise my colleague, the Minister of Pensions and National Health, of this discussion.


Richard Burpee Hanson: In the
meantime their stomachs are not filled.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: The Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power), who is the acting Minister of Pensions and National Health, knows how keenly I feel about this matter. There are many of these men in my riding. Our difficulty is that democracy is slow in acting. I know the sergeant-major who is looking after these fellows out at the exhibition grounds; he knows them intimately and he has told me of the difficulty there is in getting them fixed up. A man may be discharged when in need of medical attention, and the question is where he is to go.


Charles Gavan Power: There would be no trouble about that; he would go to Christie street.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I have had some correspondence about this matter with the Minister of National Defence as well as with the Minister of Pensions and National Health. These men are being discharged and many of them may not be pensionable. As this sergeant-major says, unless something is done we are going to make reds of these fellows. I wish to impress upon the government the necessity of speed in getting this situation cleaned up. These fellows must not be sent out with nothing to do; they must not be allowed to go on relief. It is all very well to say that a committee has been set up to study this matter, but I should like to know what the government have done about getting in touch with the various employment agencies throughout the country, particularly in Ontario. These men should be given every possible consideration. We must not make agitators out of them. We must have speed in solving this problem.
Voluntary committees may be all right, but we want more than that. Such committees are likely to let things slide and something should be done immediately to have these men placed. We do not want any injustices. I know that in my riding many of these men have developed into agitators. We do not want that sort of thing. Perhaps these men could be kept on the strength until this pension committee gets through. I understand that at the present time they are given a month's pay; is that right?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes.

War Appropriation Bill


Douglas Gooderham Ross: If they cannot get jobs there should be some way of taking care of them in the meantime. These men are sore at being turned out. They feel that the doctors did not know what they were talking about. I cannot speak too strongly about the need for speed in getting something done in connection with these men.


Mr. CASSELMAN (Edmonton East):: Having heard what other hon. members have said about this matter, I should like to give my experience in the city of Edmonton. Just before coming to Ottawa in November, I took the trouble to get from an officer of the veterans assistance committee the number of men who had been turned out, and at that time it was forty-eight. I received the last weekly report just a few days ago and this shows that the number has increased to eighty-eight, or almost double. This officer was doing all he possibly could to place men, in either permanent or temporary jobs. He is able to place only from four to five men a week and the list continues to grow. He is trying to have some of these men placed upon the waiting list for the youth training programme in order that they may obtain some extra training to fit themselves for mechanical jobs. There seems, however, to be a hold-up there, because these men must stay on the waiting list for a considerable time. Our schools out there are doing a wonderful work in taking on these men, but they have not been able to take them on as fast as the list piles up.
I should like to associate myself with those who have spoken on this matter. No doubt this committee is trying to do something, but what are these men to do in the meantime? It has been suggested that in the coming year we shall need 300,000 more workers in factories now being built and nearing completion. I wonder what coordination there is between the Department of Pensions and National Health and the Department of Labour with a view to utilizing these men in these jobs. Possibly those departments are doing something, but it seems to me that here is where some concrete progress could be made. Surely the services of these men could be utilized in some capacity.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: I should like to ask
the Minister of National Defence for Air what the policy is in connection with the establishment of training schools. A year ago the minister made it quite clear that no consideration would be given to representations by boards of trade or local organizations with regard to the selection of sites. I have before me the Melville Advance for February 20, in which is reported an interview with Pilot
Officer Cecil Bass of the Royal Air Force who was on leave from Carberry, Manitoba. The report reads:
We urged Melville to get an air port by any means possible so as to have a part in this great air development of the future. "Pull all the strings possible and get that air port somehow," he said.
I notice by the press from time to time that delegations come to Ottawa from different parts of Canada. Would the minister inform the committee what policy is followed in the selection of these sites.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And how many applications for airports he has had.


Charles Gavan Power: I had imagined that after three weeks of this debate, someone might get around to talking of the Department of National Defence for Air, although for a time I was under the impression that this department was going to be forgotten entirely. I had proposed to make some kind of statement on the progress of the department, indicating what we have done and what we propose to do; and in view of the fact that one must almost barge into this debate, I might as well make a statement now as at any other time. In the course of my statement I will come to the question of the selection of aerodromes, and "pulling strings," as my hon. friend puts it. I do not propose to make a formal statement at all. I know the committee is reluctant to hear such statements and I am not particularly enamoured myself of that kind of statement, but in an informal way I should like to discuss the air training plan in particular and to explain to the committee in a broad and general way just where the money which the committee is asked to vote this year-$250,000,000-is going.
As I said this afternoon in answer to a question by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson), the estimates, broadly speaking, are divided into three parts. It is proposed to spend during the year 1941-42: on the home war establishment, $154,000,000; on the overseas war establishment, $15,800,000. Then there is the commonwealth air training plan, and if the committee will permit me I shall deal for the moment only with the commonwealth air training plan, being quite willing to answer in due course any questions that may be asked with reference to the other two branches of the service.
There has been a great deal of confusion in the minds of the public and of members of the house and in the press as to the air training plan. It is a huge, complex and complicated undertaking, but in a word it is this: The government of Canada is a contractor for the whole British empire to turn out-and this
War Appropriation Bill

is what I wish to emphasize-an output of air crews, consisting of pilots, gunners and observers. That is the job of work we undertook to do. All else-aerodromes, buildings, aeroplanes, trained technicians, instructors-is only-incidental to the process of doing the job we were asked to do, namely, to turn out thousands of pilots, gunners and observers, and I submit to the committee that we should be judged on the results of the job of work which we have been asked to do.
We are at the same time partners and contractors for our partners. The partners are the United Kingdom, New Zealand. Australia and Canada. We are contracting, but at the same time we are contributing, in that we contribute about 65 per cent of the joint funds and 90 per cent of the raw material, which is the young men who go into the plan and afterwards become the output, the air crews that are handed over to the Royal Air Force as members of that force. We are producing for the Royal Air Force the human units which belong to the Royal Air Force as they are graduated from our schools. I hope to make that clear to-night because I have not perhaps made it clear enough on other occasions when I have addressed the house. Our contract calls for the delivery of a certain number of human units at certain specified times.
Canada was selected from among the nations of the commonwealth to undertake this job, partly on account of our freedom from prospective attack, partly on account of our proximity to the United States, which would furnish us with a supply of raw material, and partly on account of our proximity to the United Kingdom, which would also supply us with material, and which was close enough and accessible enough to make delivery of the output easy. Fourth, I suggest that Canada was chosen because of the reputation of Canadian youth for efficiency and gallantry during the last war as members of the Royal Air Force and of the air arm of the navy.
A large part of the energies of the officers, staff and men of the Royal Canadian Air Force is devoted to this job. We might have preferred; I imagine that most of the officers of the air force would have preferred, a more direct contribution, that is to say, that we send over more all-Canadian squadrons. We were, however, asked to do this job as a matter of empire cooperation. It was believed, and I think in the event it will be proved, that the belief was founded upon common sense and reason, that by pooling the efforts of the empire to produce these young men and put them in the firing line, we would

do much better than if each part of the commonwealth endeavoured to carry on, on its own.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister is speaking of the work of fighting over there.


Charles Gavan Power: No; I say that in order to get more of these trained fighters over there, it was considered best to coordinate the efforts of the empire in this commonwealth training plan, that eventually by that means we would get more and perhaps better trained fighters over there within possibly a shorter time than would likely be the case if each part of the empire started out on its own to raise so many squadrons here and so many squadrons there. That is an entirely different set-up from the army.


William Earl Rowe: Can the minister indicate how many there are now?


Charles Gavan Power: I am not permitted to tell the committee the number of graduates from the air training plan schools.


Arza Clair Casselman: Nor the number being trained?


William Earl Rowe: I ask the minister's pardon if I embarrassed him with my question. He had stated that he wished the plan to be judged by results, and therefore I thought my question was a reasonable one.


Charles Gavan Power: I am very much afraid that the results will not be known until later in the war and possibly not until afterwards. In the meantime I shall endeavour to indicate to the committee as best I can just what success there has been.
In 1940 there were pre-zero arrangements. The plan itself actually started in April, 1940. It started with 168 pupils, and I remember that there were bursts of ribald laughter all across Canada at that time that we should be proposing to win the war with a schedule of 168 pupils. It was said by everyone both in the house and in the press that you could not win a war with a schedule.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What was said in the house?


Charles Gavan Power: I think it was said in the house, but I acquit my hon. friend of having said it. You cannot win a war with a schedule, I admit, but a schedule is an indication of study and planning, and the only way you can win a war is by studying and planning, and producing and getting the men at the right place at the right time. During the months of May and June last year, we did have a period of anxiety when it appeared evident that it would be very

War Appropriation Bill
difficult for us to get our supplies to carry on. I pass over that; it has already been discussed.
In November last I was able to tell the house that, certain classes having graduated, certain pilots and other air crew having been produced, the plan was no longer an experiment; it was a success in that we knew that we could produce. But it remained to be seen whether we could succeed in mass production. To-day I am able to say that, with 60 per cent of the plan in operation, and about ten production lines, that is series of schools, operating, we know now what we can do and we have gone in for mass production and have succeeded. Not only have we succeeded in producing what was originally intended in the plan, we have almost doubled it. Let me give figures-which do not represent the actual statistics-to illustrate my point. Supposing, when the plan was conceived and when it was started back in April, it was considered that the output on the 28th February, 1941, should be, let us say, 500 gunners, observers and pilots; not only have we achieved that figure, but we have achieved almost a thousand; to be nearer the mark, let us put it at, say, 950, because we were 5 per cent below the doubled figure which was our second target. There is a good deal of confusion about this; I do not mean that we have doubled the plan; we have simply accelerated so as to get more schools operating, more production lines, if you like, and more output at the time when, we figured, that output would be most needed; that is, now.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Has there not been a reduction in the length of the course, too?


Charles Gavan Power: Yes. I am going to explain later the reasons for that, but I am now explaining the results. I am not asking for any particular commendation or praise of us, because the results have not been achieved entirely by our own efforts. Some having been due to fortuitous circumstances; some, to change of plan by the Royal Air Force, and some, to other factors; and, as I expect to say in a moment, in some instances we accelerated and perhaps may have reached a danger point in the plan generally.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: And the men themselves.


Charles Gavan Power: No, not the men.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I mean the calibre of the men.


Charles Gavan Power: No; the calibre of the men is all right.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think the hon. member meant that the young men themselves are entitled to a meed of praise.


Charles Gavan Power: Oh, certainly.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: That is what I meant.


Charles Gavan Power: Certainly, and the instructors; the members of the air force, and everyone who put his shoulder to the wheel in order to get this thing done.
I wish to make it clear that we never intended to double the plan; that is, double the number of schools, of aircraft, of output; all we did intend to do and what we have succeeded in doing was so to accelerate the output that at a given time it was almost double what it had been proposed it should be.
With all the units in operation in September, 1941, the plan will automatically flatten out and the number which it was intended to produce at that time will be produced.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Can the minister say with safety approximately what the flow will be at that time?


Charles Gavan Power: I am not even allowed to say that. I have the figures, and would be glad to give them in confidence to my hon. friend, but I cannot say publicly what the flow will be.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am not disagreeing with the minister.


Charles Gavan Power: The reason is obvious, that the lines of battle could easily be figured out if it were known how many pilots, how many gunners, how many observers were sent overseas. The enemy could then readily know how many squadrons there would be in Great Britain at a given time, and we are told that we must not give that information. I would only be too glad to do so if I could. The important thing I should like to impress upon the committee is that we have produced air crew now, and that a large number of them are overseas taking part at the present moment in the fighting over Britain.
I have in my desk a statement which I happened to read in the press two days ago, which will indicate that, even though we are not supposed to say anything about the success of the air training plan, our friends in the United Kingdom are not so chary of talking about it. In the Ottawa Journal of March 11 appears a dispatch giving an account of Sir Archibald Sinclair's statement in. the House of Commons with regard to air training and the air services generally. He said:
While Sir Charles Portal, Chief of the Air Staff, listened intently from the gallery, Sir Archibald told the cheering house men trained
War Appropriation Bill

in the commonwealth air training plan now are flying against the enemy, "and in battles this year our cause will be sustained by Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, and men from this country, trained side by side."
That should be evidence that in Great Britain, at least, they believe we have been successful in our effort. I have here somewhere, also, a tribute-


Richard Burpee Hanson: Oh, never mind the encomiums. Give us the facts.


Charles Gavan Power: Apart from the dispatch
overseas of air crew, I should like to make reference in a rather guarded way, but so that the committee will know to some extent what is going on, to another feature of the work which we have been able to accomplish. We read in the press a month or so ago a statement of Air Vice-Marshal Sir Hugh Dowding, former Chief of the Air Staff of Great Britain, to the effect that night bombing was being overcome, that certain devices had been developed by the United Kingdom authorities to overcome night bombing, and that he hoped that before long they would be successful. Canadian scientists, and to some extent United States scientists, played no mean part in the further development of these devices.
I should like to mention also that men were needed to operate these devices, and it was to Canada they turned to get many of them. In November we sent more than 300 overseas, and they have been followed recently by many hundreds more. That is why we have been combing the country from one end to the other to find radio mechanics, who are being sent over for that purpose; and if any hon. members of this committee know any radio mechanic who desires to enlist and go overseas at the earliest possible moment, I should be only too glad to get his name and send him over. As a matter of fact, we have been of great assistance to the mother country in recruiting a considerable number of these young men and sending them over for the purpose of doing this important specialized work.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Will the
minister be good enough to tell the committee just what part the British technicians played in establishing the scheme? My understanding was that we were woefully scarce of technicians in Canada, and naturally so.


Charles Gavan Power: In establishing the scheme
-the device? The device was invented in Britain.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not
mean that. I am referring to the empire air training scheme, the technical assistance given there.


Charles Gavan Power: I was about to say that
that was the bright side of the picture and to proceed to deal with what is not quite so bright; but before doing so I might reply to my hon. friend. I could not give offhand the number of Royal Air Force officers that are attached to the Royal Canadian Air Force for the purpose of putting this air training scheme into effect. I do not know the numbers offhand, but there have been a large number of officers-for instance, the director of medical services, Group Captain Ryan, who is a Royal Air Force officer. He was lent to us, and so was the director of training, Air Commodore Leckie. He enlisted in Canada in the last war, but he was born in Scotland, and I believe he served in the Royal Navy, fleet air arm, for many years until lent to Canada. A number of others are in the same position. They have been lent to us by the Royal Air Force to help us to put the plan into operation. I suppose the proportion would be extremely small as against the number of officers whom we have at the present time.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But at the beginning, were they not the nucleus of the training staff?


Charles Gavan Power: I would not say that. The nucleus of the training staff really came from the permanent force of the Royal Canadian Air Force, with such assistance as they could get from the Royal Air Force. That is the bright side of it. On the other side we have to admit, I must say, that the result, successful as it has been, has not always been brought about by orthodox methods and that the acceleration in itself has brought difficulties which we must face.
For instance, we built aerodromes faster than was required-not faster than we should have, but faster than was required by the original plan. We would have very much fewer built to-day if we had not decided to accelerate. The result was undoubtedly that the cost was higher. When we decided to accelerate last spring-and, as was said to-day, everyone was for speed and more speed- the emphasis was not on economy, I will say quite plainly to the committee, so far as the air training scheme and the putting up of our schools and the development of aerodromes were concerned the emphasis was on getting them built as fast as we could in order to put pupils into them and have those pupils turned

War Appropriation Bill
out. The result was a higher cost and, I should say, greater confusion probably; that expansion of itself disorganized the steady expansion which was planned, and caused us a great deal of trouble.
Another factor in the acceleration was the shortening of the training period, as my hon. friend has pointed out. That was as a result of consultation with the United Kingdom authorities. It has, however, the effect of transferring certain of the more advanced training to a position nearer to the theatre of actual war. It does not bring the pilot out, in many instances-it refers only to pilots-very much earlier than would have been accomplished under the old system we were following, but it does send him overseas where he completes his training in operational work a little earlier than he otherwise would.
There is another factor in the acceleration- what is called "overbearing." We took a certain number of pupils into a school at one time; and after consultation we found, particularly in the elementary schools, that with the establishment, both in aircraft and in instructors, it was quite possible and quite easy to train more pupils than were originally allowed to these elementary training schools. We increased the number in the proportion of four to five. This to some extent placed a greater burden on the instructors and required also the building of additional accommodation for the extra pupils we took in, at greater cost.
There was another factor. We wanted to get aircraft more quickly. That placed on the shoulders of the Minister of Munitions and Supply a burden which became pretty heavy for him to bear. It is easy for me to say, "Open a school six weeks, or two months or three months earlier than it was planned to be opened." We can get the building erected and we can scurry around and get instructors, but it is left to the Minister of Munitions and Supply to find the aircraft. He has had considerable trouble over that, and I wish to pay him this tribute, that so far he has not complained very much about the burden put upon him.
Then there are real dangers, which we hope to be able to deal with, in this acceleration itself. Aircraft, like any other machines, need overhauling. At the present time most of the aircraft we have are new and we are using up our capital. We are using these aircraft as hard and as fast as we can. In normal times, if this were not war time, I would say that the leader of the opposition could rise in his place and accuse me of the most reckless extravagance and improvidence.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Not you.


Charles Gavan Power: Not me, no. As a matter of fact, we are using up that capital. These aircraft, after a certain period of time, need overhauling. They cannot keep on running eternally and the time will come-I wish to make this danger plain to the committee- when we shall have too many needing to be overhauled at the same time. This will not bog down or stop the plan, but it may retard it to some extent. I say frankly, I have no alibi if that happens, but we know there is that danger.


Arza Clair Casselman: Will lack of overhauling mean casualties?


Charles Gavan Power: No; but the planes will be grounded. They will be unserviceable. I understand it varies with different types; but with certain types, after they have gone 360 hours, they must be taken down for overhauling. If the work is something of a minor nature it can be carried out at the station and might take a week or so; but if it is something major-from 360 to 400 hours- it may take a month in order that every part of the machine may be gone over so as to make it thoroughly safe.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is provision being made for that now?


Charles Gavan Power: Yes; in the estimates there is something like S19,000,000 for that kind of overhaul at contractors', apart from the ordinary maintenance overhaul which we have at the stations themselves.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: Would the minister give the break-down of that 3250,000,000.


Charles Gavan Power: I will later on. This overhaul not only means that the contractors must have efficient men, but it also means-and there is our greatest difficulty-that we must have spares. Spare parts are really our greatest difficulty at the present time. That arises from the extreme desire of all manufacturers to produce the completed article; they are not very much interested in making spare parts, they want to be able to say, we have turned out so many aircraft. The result of that is that we have a large number of aircraft which at the present time are down and unserviceable for lack of comparatively small spares. We are endeavouring to have these spares manufactured in Canada as far as we can.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Is that for the primary trainers or the advanced?


Charles Gavan Power: I am speaking of the plan as a whole. There is not so much difficulty with the primary trainers, because they are manufactured in Canada, but the advanced
War Appropriation Bill

trainers come from either the United States or Great Britain. I do not think I am saying anything derogatory to the effort Great Britain is making; in fact, I am astounded that they are able to ship their spares in such an orderly fashion as they do. It would not be astonishing to find them just jumbled into boxes and shipped, but in fact they are shipped in pretty good order. At the same time there is, in many instances, a lack of comparatively unimportant spares.


Grote Stirling: Is that not a very strong
argument for subcontractors for these parts?


Charles Gavan Power: We are endeavouring to have these parts made here as far as it is at all possible so that we shall not have that difficulty. We are even going beyond that; we are endeavouring to have them made in our own shops, hand made; it takes longer perhaps, but not as long as trying to get them from the other side or the United States.
As I say, this is a serious danger. As far as we have been able to estimate we do not believe that the plan will ever go beyond 15 per cent less than the target output; we might perhaps go 20 per cent below if we were so unfortunate as to have a very large number of our aircraft down at the same time for lack of spares. In order to meet that difficulty the deputy minister, Mr. de Carteret, has asked Mr. Colbrook, who came to the department some six months ago from the Robert Simpson company, Toronto, to be the trouble shooter and take special charge of this job of seeing, first, that the overhaul work is carried out by the contractors, and, second, to rush the spares as fast as possible. We think we can overcome that obstacle, but it is a serious one in the way of continuous output.
It might be interesting to the committee, and I do not know that it will give very much information to the enemy, to have some idea of the present situation with regard to aircraft. Let me say, first, that when the plan is complete-and it is a three-year plan-in April, 1943, we shall have put through the plan 6,100 aircraft, and I am making allowance for wastage; we shall have something over 6,000 aircraft-I speak now only of the training planes.
We have at the present moment something like 2,400 aircraft of all types. I can give the percentages of aircraft at the different types of schools. When I speak in percentages I speak not only of what is called the initial establishment but also of the "in reserve". We have in our elementary schools 100-9 per cent of planes, so there is no difficulty there. The service flying training schools are of two

kinds, one which uses twin engines and the other which uses single engines. As far as the twin-engine schools are concerned we are short of aircraft; we have 46 per cent of what we should have. As far as the single engine schools are concerned we have 89 per cent of what we require, which is reasonably good; it means that our reserve is not up to what it should be, but we have all we want for the initial establishment.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: What kind are the single engine planes and what the twin-engine planes?


Charles Gavan Power: The twin engines would be Ansons and Cessna. The single would be Harvards largely. The schools are equally divided at the present time, five service flying training schools using single engines and five using twin engines. In the air observer schools we have 70 per cent of our requirements. They are twin-engine Ansons. For the bombing and gunnery schools we have 86 per cent. For the air navigation schools, which need a very small number of twin-engine aircraft, we have 44 per cent and we can soon catch up. For the wireless training schools, singleengine aircraft, we have 82 per cent.
With respect to the Ansons, we never expected to get them until April. We did, however, expect to do better with what is known as the Fort Fleet 60, which is being made or assembled by a private manufacturer in Canada, because it carries an American Jacobs engine. We expected to get that in December, or January at the latest, but at the present time we have a promise that we shall receive production at the end of March. In order to overcome that difficulty, which was to some extent foreseen, Mr. Ralph Bell and Mr. Duncan, the former deputy minister, in July or August went to the United States and purchased a very large number of twin-engine Cessnas, which are now beginning to arrive, and I am told by our training officers that they are an excellent machine and will in every respect not only replace but probably be better than the Ansons. There was a little delay in the arrival of these Cessnas some time in January, and it gave us cause for some concern, but the production now is coming along very well and will fill the gap for some little time to come.
I do not want to enter into the controversy which has been stirred up in the press with respect to the power and authority which should be conferred on the proposed minister of aircraft production, or on the suggestion made that this minister should control all the engineering. It is a long, long controversy which has taken place probably in every business, as to whether the man who uses the article-in this case it is a plane-should have

War Appropriation Bill
something to do with the design of it, or whether he should give his orders for the plane, fold his arms and let the thing be built for him.
Speaking without any authority, with the exception of what I have read, I have learned that the German system prior to the war was to establish a model and to go ahead and produce it on mass production lines. On the other hand, I learn that the British went in for developing better and better aircraft. The result was that they had fewer of them, but the result was also that they had the Spitfire and the Hurricane when the time came.
I do not wish to take one side or the other in that controversy, but I do say that the aircraft production side may have grounds for saying that to some extent they have been delayed by the engineering side in the Royal Canadian Air Force. The engineers and the operators of the machines-the people who fly them-are constantly looking for the newest improvements. There is no doubt about that. There is the tendency on both sides to carry out their ideas. The producer wants to put the thing on the production line, and get it off. He does not want any change. The man who is going to use it does want change. As I said, I am not going to take one side or the other, but I think the committee is entitled to the statement that there are two sides to the story, and that either side can make a pretty good cause.
I have given what I thought was the good side of the picture. Then I pointed out the difficulties in production. I should now like to refer to what I describe as the headaches.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Headaches?


Charles Gavan Power: Yes, headaches. The house and country has quite a legitimate concern in all matters connected with the air training scheme, and particularly as it affects individuals and as it affects different sections of the country. But I would say and repeat that our job is to produce air crews, and we must take every possible means we can to get on with the production. It is just too bad sometimes if some hon. member does not get an aerodrome in his constituency, but I am not going to stop the plan to discuss the matter with him. I suggest to the committee that this is as good a time as any for them to have a bargain day, and for all of them to rise in their places and tell me how well suited are their particular constituencies to accommodate the building of aerodromes. There is the one who claims that there should be an aerodrome in his constituency because the people in it are more loyal than the people in any other part of Canada. There is the other person
who claims that there should be one in his constituency, because it would help to keep the disloyal element down. I would like to take in both sides.


Arza Clair Casselman: Too late for that now.


Charles Gavan Power: That is one headache. There is a further headache, and perhaps one more difficult of solution. Perhaps it does not affect individual members, but it does affect those of us who are operating the plan. I refer to the matter of recruiting. Perhaps hon. members will bear with me if I outline some of the difficulties in connection with recruiting.
At the beginning of the war thousands of young men desired to join the air force, and we were obliged to put them off. We could not take them all in. There was no room for them, either in the training schools which trained the technicians, or at other points. When I refer to training schools I have in mind schools like that at St. Thomas. May I add, in passing, that we now have about
6,000	technicians in training at St. Thomas and other places, and we have actually trained and brought into the force 10,000 trained mechanics.
If those young men were mechanics before they joined the force, there was very little difficulty in bringing them in. But if they were not mechanics, they were difficult to handle because we had to open schools for them. If they intended to become air crews- and that includes pilots, gunners and observers -it was still more difficult because, up until April we really had no schools for them. At that time the schools began, but very slowly.
We were considerably worried as to what we should do. I believe it was last May or June that I announced in the house that rather than see these young men go around kicking their heels while waiting, we would take them in and give them three months' drill. We did that. We took in 5,000, and gave them the drill. Those young fellows are now in the plan, and are being turned out as air crews.
But our difficulty is this: I do not mind saying to the committee that we will require thousands and thousands of air crews. Those young men represent the very flower of the youth of our country. They must be A-plus physically, and they must have educational qualifications equivalent to matriculation from high school. In order to give some idea of the problem, I might refer to some figures which, I believe, were placed on record by my colleague the Minister of National Defence. I refer to the number of young men of the age of twenty-one years. There will be for
War Appropriation Bill

training this year 93,000 young men of the age of twenty-one years. Without hesitation one can knock off 33 per cent of those as being unfit even for military training camps. That is, they would be placed in classes C-l or C, and unfit to walk five miles. They are completely eliminated, so far as the air force is concerned. Then, the difference between C and A-plus, with good eyesight, would mean that one would knock off another 30,000, leaving about 30,000 annually from which we can draw.
Then, if one looks at them from the point of view of educational qualifications I believe he would knock off another half of those- these would be the ones who have not high school matriculation-leaving 15,000 eligibles. Laying aside figures which I have, but which apparently do not fit the picture any better, we find that in all provinces, with the exception of Quebec, there are 119,000 young men in secondary schools, and approximately 30,000 in Quebec. I give the two figures, because the school systems are not the same. This makes a total of about 150,000 in all schools. But I take it they would be in three or four age groups, and I have not been able to arrive at an accurate yearly figure. But the figure I have taken is that of the young men of twenty-one years. Therefore, that leaves me for the air force approximately 15,000 men a year. The year brackets are from eighteen years to twenty-eight years, and we are not particularly keen on accepting anyone over twenty-five years. Therefore the pool from which we can draw consists of about 105,000; and there are, let us say, 15,000 or 20,000 more coming in every year.
We will need thousands of these young men. I do not want to say how many thousands a month, but we will need thousands a month. We do not need them all yet. I have in hand a reserve of about six months, but we do not want to let them get away from us, if it is possible. That is our problem.
What we are doing at this time is to let them come to our recruiting offices. We enlist them, and let them go away on leave without pay. We tell them to come back in July or August. We say to them, "Do not give up your jobs; do not give up your schooling; we will require you; we will tell you to report in July or August; the day on which we tell you to report will be the day you will report, and there will be no further postponement."
The difficulty up to the present time has been that we could not tell a man when he was coming in, because we did not know exactly how our plan was getting along. But we do know now, with some degree of cer-

tainty. We are able to say that a certain number of men shall come in every month, or on such and such a date.


Grote Stirling: Have they had their
medical examinations?


Charles Gavan Power: We are going to enlist
them, pass them through their medical, put them in the air force, let them go away without pay, and tell them to come back in three or four months. At the present time I have in hand about five or six months' supply. We would want at least three months' supply ahead, so that at the end of about three months from now we would be taking in some of the men who come before us to-day and who are sent away on leave. That is the only way I can think of whereby we can hold these young men. They are going to be extremely precious to us. I do not want the committee to get the idea that I am starting an intensive recruiting campaign. We are not doing that because the time is not ripe yet. We do not want our recruiting offices to be thronged with young men at the present time. Our present plan calls for a certain number of students to go into each school each month and we cannot take any more unless we expand the plan. The plan may be expanded, but at the moment it has not been decided to do so.


William Earl Rowe: The minister said a few moments ago that there would be 15,000 of the twenty-one year age group; he then mentioned the group from eighteen to twenty-eight years and I understood him to say there were 105,000 in that group.
Mr. POW'ER: I said that I was not particularly anxious to have the twenty-five to twenty-eight group; I would rather have them under twenty-five years. Seven times 15,000 makes 105,000, but the ten-year bracket would give you 150,000.


Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: Will the recruits who have been examined and who are to come back in July be given another medical examination?


Charles Gavan Power: I would expect that they will be.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: If a man does not pass the second examination, will he be eligible for pension?


Charles Gavan Power: They must be good men to be passed. I would say that point will come up in the pension committee, as to whether the disability which a man might incur during the time he is absent on leave without pay would be pensionable. I leave that to the good judgment of the members of the pension

War Appropriation Bill
committee to decide. Offhand, I would say, "no", but that will be something for them to decide.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: What matriculation standard is required?


Charles Gavan Power: High school.


Richard Burpee Hanson: In each province?


Charles Gavan Power: In the province in which a man applies.


Mr. TUSTIN:: Is any arrangement made to transfer men from other forces to the air force after they have enlisted? Many young men who applied for the air force have since enlisted in the other forces and some of them are anxious to get back in the air force.


Charles Gavan Power: Mr. Churchill calls that combing the mane to sharpen the tooth. I am strongly in favour of it. If we are ever stuck for recruits, I think we shall go to the army to get them. I think we shall be able to get quite a number who would be fully qualified. My colleague says that he is not so keen on my taking men from the navy. It may be that the supply will be exhausted sooner than we expect.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: There are many young men who are actively engaged in England at the present time and who would like to get into the air force. I have in mind a young fellow who has been over there for seven months. Before he left he tried to, get into the air force and he was given the assurance that the transfer could be made. When he got to England he attempted to get a transfer from the artillery into the air force, but he was told that no provision had been made for such a transfer. He was advised that plans were under discussion and they thought that within a short time he would be given a transfer. Has anything been done to take care of such cases?


Charles Gavan Power: Plans were brought before me during the last two or three weeks whereby Canadians serving in England might be transferred to the air force if they were found to be qualified. I am not sure of the details, but the principle has been accepted.


Charles Edward Johnston: It has not been completed.


Charles Gavan Power: I cannot say whether the appropriate cables have been exchanged.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That principle was in effect during the last war when Canadian lieutenants were transferred to the Royal Air Force.


Charles Gavan Power: I do not mind telling the committee that some difficulty may arise on account of the set-up of our air training plan. That plan calls for everyone to go in as a private. There might be some difficulty in having men come into the plan who have commissions in other services. That is really one reason why I am dodging it for the moment. I understand it is being done in England without any difficulty, but there may be some trouble here. Under our plan young men who may be able to qualify for commissions in the army join as members of the air crew in order to go through the six months' course and be commissioned in the air force. They might feel that they had not been treated fairly if someone else came in direct from the army with a commission. That is something that must be ironed out.


George Hugh Castleden: Will the minister give the committee a break-down of the 1941-42 expenditure of S394 million, referred to on page 1494 of Hansardf


Charles Gavan Power: May I finish with my headaches first? I just want to enumerate them because I know every member of the committee has some knowledge of some of them. I simply want hon. members to know that I am fully aware of them.
The next thing is the selection of air crew and the granting of commissions. There has been a slight change, but originally all young men who wished to be air crew went into the initial training school after going through the manning depot and the security guards, if necessary.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is the
selection left to the man himself, or is that made by the selection committee?


Charles Gavan Power: That is where I am coming to the trouble. The vast majority of the young men want to be pilots as there is more glamour in that branch of the service. It must be remembered that the whole set-up is based upon the Royal Air Force, to which these men are consigned after we graduate them. Fifty per cent of the pilots receive commissions, thirty-three per cent here upon graduation and seventeen per cent within a few months. The same thing is true with respect to observers; but with respect to gunners, few if any receive commissions until they have proved themselves in actual fighting at the front. As a result of representations made here, the United Kingdom has recently agreed to give commissions to two per cent of those graduating as air gunners.
But here is the difficulty. Assume we have three young men with equal attainments, possessing the same educational qualifications
War Appropriation Bill

and physical standards. They enter the initial training school where the selection is made. After a month or six weeks one is told that he will be a pilot, another that he will be an observer and the third poor devil is told that he will be a gunner. For six months he must study wireless at the wireless school. It is very difficult to explain to the boys and the parents just why this is. I must say that the men in charge of these schools are of the highest calibre, but I have always had some doubt personally as to -whether one young man can be sufficiently observed among 600 in a short space of time to decide whether he shall be a pilot, an observer or a gunner. But that has been the way it has been worked, and it has given us more trouble than anything else.
I can give some instances. A son of a very great friend of mine, a judge in one of the provinces-if I am not mistaken he is the chief justice-came from the university to join up as air crew. After a certain time he was told that he would never make a pilot, that he would never make an observer, but that he had to be a gunner. The son was naturally very much disappointed and his father wrote to me, but I could not do anything about the matter.
Another case was that of the son of a very great friend of mine, a former associate in matters connected with pensions, veterans' problems and so forth. This young man also had had a university training, but he was told that he had to be a gunner. His father was very much upset because he had intended the boy to try for a commission in the infantry, but the boy wanted to be a pilot. Unfortunately he did not qualify. And so on all down the line.
I could tell the committee of an amusing case. An old friend of mine came to me and said, "My boy must have been made a gunner, I think, on account of his name". The family name was not MacDonald or MacPherson or Macintosh, but they were descendants of people who had been kings in their own land many years ago. I asked, "What is wrong with his name?" He replied, "His first two names are Roger Casement, but little did I know when I christened him that he would be fighting against those devils some day". He had suspected that because his name was Roger Casement he had not been appointed1 a pilot.
This just illustrates one of our great difficulties. We have lowered the standard of education for gunners, and there is the odd chance of two per cent getting commissions. But even though the chances of a commission are the same for observers as for pilots, the young men always insist on trying to be

pilots. We have endeavoured to the best of our ability to show them that observers perform just as essential work as pilots-as a matter of fact the observer course is harder -and work that is just as useful, but in the public imagination the pilot is the man. Members of parliament have written to me to see what can be done about such and such a boy and I have always said that I do not dare to interfere. Members of the committee will readily understand that if I interfered in one case I would bring down on my shoulders the burden of choosing vocations for thousands of young men, and I am not going to do that.
Then there is the security guards policy, to which I referred a moment ago, the policy of keeping these young men in reserve. We send them out as guards for aerodromes. It is pretty hard on the young man who thinks he is going to join the air force and that within a week or two he will be riding the skies, to have to be sent to Yarmouth or Prince Rupert or somewhere else to form fours. He does not like it, of course. But we were obliged to adopt that policy in order to keep them in reserve. We are trying to get away from that policy as much as possible, but we still want to have available at least
3,000	to 4,000 of these young men whom we can bring in readily if there is any failure among those who have enlisted and may not turn out on time. We must keep a large reserve on hand to keep on feeding our schools. I have had complaints from members and parents about this, but there is nothing else to be done, and we are doing the best we can under the circumstances.
The only other point I might refer to is the cost of aerodromes, perhaps not excessive, but expenses have been incurred that we might not have incurred had we not been in such a hurry. I mention all these matters not to preclude any discussion of them because they are things which it is essential the committee should take cognizance of. I mention them merely to show that we are aware of these difficulties, and are endeavouring to solve them. Some, of course, we shall never be able to solve. We are keeping our mind and bending all our energies towards one thing, the turning-out of air crews as well trained and as fast as we can, to go overseas to take part in the fighting there. All the rest, as I said before, is incidental to that main purpose. These other matters are of importance, of course, but the primary and paramount thing is to send our young men overseas to man the aircraft for Britain to carry on the battle, and that is what we are trying to do.
I gave some break-down of the figures the other day, but I understand that a break-

War. Appropriation Bill
down of the estimates for next year is desired. I stated at the beginning that the expenditure on the home war establishment for 1941-42 would be $154,683,960. Perhaps I might be permitted to mention some of the highlights in order to give some idea of what will be expended. They will not add up to the total but will give the committee an idea of the main items:
Royal Canadian Air Force-Estimates 1941-42
Pay and Allowances
Home war	 $ 12,931,760
Joint air training plan	 63,522,081
Overseas	 7,091,416
Total	 $ 83,545,257
Construction-Repairs
Home war	 $ 26.149.000
Joint air training plan	 25,364,883
Total	 $ 51,513,883
Aircraft Engines and Spares
Home war	 $ 76.919,000
Joint air training plan	 62,372,200
Total	 $139,291,200
Clothing-N ecessaries
Home war	 $	887,500
Joint air training plan	 4,484,472
Total	*	 $ 5,371,972
Stores-Miscellaneous
Home war	 $ 8,450,190
Joint air training plan	 13,289,379
Total	 $ 21,739,569
Rations
Home war	 $	851,800
Joint air training plan	 5,178,036
Total	 $ 6,029,836
Bombs and Ammunition
Home war	 $ 16,850,229
Joint air training plan	 5,055,315
Total	 $ 21,905,544
Aero Gas and Oil
Home war	 $	660,000
Joint air training plan	 9,454,500
Total	 $ 10,114,500
Overhaul of Aircraft and Engines
Home war	 $ 1,505,000
Joint air training plan	 17,500,000
Total	 $ 19,005,000
These items do not add up to the total estimate. I have simply given the highlights, the principal items of expenditure. 14873-102


John Ritchie MacNicol: The minister may have already answered this question in the course of his remarks, but I am not just clear what the situation is. I know a young man who attended the wireless training school in the northwest end of Montreal and graduated therefrom with high credit to himself. He told me his title was wireless operator, ground- W.O.G. From the school he was sent to Jarvis, where there is no wireless work being done. There he apparently takes messages over the radio, and he has been wondering whether that is to be the end of his training, and whether the work he is doing at Jarvis might not result in his losing the benefit of the training he had at the wireless school. I understood the minister to say that these young men who had graduated from the schools are sent to different places merely to keep them in reserve, and that it does not necessarily follow that they will be wireless operators, for example, at the camps to which they are sent. They may be in a squad, forming fours, as the minister said.


Charles Gavan Power: I should think that a wireless operator, ground, would not be used much overseas and would probably be sent to one of our home stations.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That is where he is now.


Charles Gavan Power: If my hon. friend, will write me, I will check up on it.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Do British pilots, when they are in Canada, receive Canadian pay or are they still under British pay? I refer to the ones who have come here under the air training plan. The reason why I ask is that some of them who are in western Ontario have their wives with them, and I believe they find it a little difficult to carry on. I wondered what scale of pay and allowances they are receiving.


Charles Gavan Power: I think my hon. friend is confusing two things. There are some who are attached to the air training plan, and they are under our own pay and allowances. Others are out at a special school; they are under a different system, altogether, and they are not and may never be under the joint air training plan. They are carried directly on the strength of the Royal Air Force and to all intents and purposes are Royal Air Force personnel.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Thank you. There is just one other point. In the course of his remarks the minister said he did not intend to get into a controversy with respect to air service control. I do not want to start one, but I believe he suggested that those people who are flying machines and so on should have quite a say in what is going

TVar Appropriation Bill

on. They should no doubt present their information and express their wishes to the engineering branch in his own department, the Royal Canadian Air Force. The minister suggested that his own department may have been responsible for certain delays on account of changes. I realize that and quite appreciate it, but what I have tried to advocate is the establishment of a ministry of air production, also the very thing which he pointed out, that his own engineering branch which are in close cooperation with his operators should be at all times in control of and in touch with that ministry of air production so that we shall not have a repetition of the difficulties and delays which we have had in the past. That is what we have been advocating. I do not want to enter into any controversy, but I wish to make my position clear.


Charles Gavan Power: The question is not whether they should be in touch-they are in touch- but, should they be controlled by a production ministry? I said I did not wish to get into that controversy. It is something with regal'd to which I am willing to listen to anybody's advice. Frankly, I do not know, and I am giving the two sides of the story as I understand it.


James Arthur Ross: I understand that it has been the policy of the department, in order to avoid any international complications, that no air fields be established on the prairies south of the main line of railway. I wonder whether that still prevails.


Charles Gavan Power: That never was a definite policy of the department. I do not mind saying that there was one place where an aerodrome might have been established had it not been thought at that time that it might involve international complications, since the proposed landing field was extremely close to the border, and the flyers in taking off every day would have been almost obliged to cross the border. That situation arose six or eight months ago. I do not know that the question arises at the moment. As a matter of fact, there is a school at Windsor.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The best in Canada.


Charles Gavan Power: Also one has been established at Boundary Bay, which is extremely close to the international border. My hon. friends from British Columbia can tell me the distance; it cannot be more than five or six miles from the border.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: Two miles.


Charles Gavan Power: One of the reasons for
putting aside certain projected aerodrome sites was. in the early days, that they were too
[Mr. Douglas G. Ross.)
close to the United States border. That happened some time before I took office, but it was not a definite policy.


James Arthur Ross: I think that reason was given. But the vast area of the prairie provinces south of the main line is without any air field at all. I was wondering whether there was any particular obstacle to developments there in future.
Would the minister give the figures of how many of the members of the Royal Canadian Air Force have been discharged to date and how many have been found medically unfit?


Charles Gavan Power: I will get that information for my hon. friend.


George Hugh Castleden: I understood it was
the policy of the department to contract with civilian flying clubs for elementary flying training. Is that policy still being followed?


Charles Gavan Power: Yes. That is one of the
things I was going to list as a headache.


George Hugh Castleden: Would the minister
table one of the contracts?


Charles Gavan Power: I have tabled a dozen. If my hon. friend will call at my office at any time, he can have a contract. They are all the same.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weybum):: I am sure hon. members have enjoyed the minister's word picture, which has given us a view of things that it would have been impossible to get otherwise. What exactly is the situation of the men who have graduated under these air training schemes and have become members of the Royal Air Force? Is the Canadian government in any way responsible for any expenditures, pay and allowances, after they leave this country?


Charles Gavan Power: Is the hon. member going to give me a chance to make another speech?


Richard Burpee Hanson: They become members of the Royal Canadian Air Force, do they not?


Charles Gavan Power: I will have to make a speech to explain this. I will read the agreement covering the training of aircraft crews and pilots in Canada and their subsequent service, which was entered into between Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand. There is one section which. I believe, will make clear to hon. members just what we are driving at.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is this the commonwealth air training plan?

War Appropriation Bill


Charles Gavan Power: Yes. Article 15 is probably the one in point:
The United Kingdom government undertakes that pupils of Canada, Australia and New Zealand shall, after training is completed, be identified with their respective dominions, either by the method of organizing dominion units and formations or in some other way, such methods to be agreed upon with the respective dominion governments concerned. The United Kingdom government will initiate intergovernmental discussion to this end.
Article 16:
The government of the United Kingdom will, subject to the provisions of Article 17, provide the pay, allowances, pensions and other noneffective benefits, maintenance and other expenses of the pilots and aircraft crews who are trained in Canada (other than those made available for service with the Royal Canadian Air Force in accordance with the provisions of Article 14)-[DOT]
I may say that article 14 permitted Canada to keep for home defence a certain number, a comparatively small number, of pilots.
-with effect from the dates of their embarkation in Canada for service with, or in conjunction with, the Royal Air Force.
That means that the British government is responsible for the pay and allowances of these graduates from the moment they get on the boat to leave Canada.
The government of the United Kingdom also undertakes to arrange for those pupils who are made available for service with, or in conjunction with, the Royal Air Force to be embarked as speedily as possible after the completion of their training, and to defray the cost of their passage to the stations to which they are appointed on leaving Canada.
With respect to Canadians and British rates of pay:
The pay, allowances, pensions and other non-effective benefits, maintenance and other expenses, for which the government of the United Kingdom undertakes liability under the provisions of article 16-
Which I have just read.
-will be as laid down in Royal Air Force regulations.
If it should be decided by the government of Canada, the government of Australia or the government of New Zealand to supplement the amount so issued, any such supplement will be borne by the government concerned.
The Dominion of Canada does pay to each one of these, during all the time he is abroad, the difference in his rate of pay. During the time he is here he gets Canadian rates of pay. From the moment he embarks he gets the British rate of pay, but the government of Canada undertakes to make up the difference between the British and the Canadian rate.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is what the $15,000,000 is for?
14873-102J


Charles Gavan Power: Yes, and for three squadrons that are overseas.


William Earl Rowe: What about pensions?


Charles Gavan Power: We pay pensions also.


William Earl Rowe: We pay the full pension?


Charles Gavan Power: It would certainly run
between one-quarter and one-fifth more, and I am told that we are converting the pound at a stated amount. They draw their pay in pounds and we convert it at a stated amount.


William Earl Rowe: You pay the difference in
pensions?


Charles Gavan Power: Yes; we pay the difference. The government of the United Kingdom undertakes to pay non-effective benefits.


William Earl Rowe: In other words, they are
actually British pilots?


Charles Gavan Power: Yes. That is the status of
these pilots. In the air training plan we have expended so much money-65 per cent of the plan-and then the pilots go over and are at the disposal of the Royal Air Force; but, as I read a moment ago, it was decided at the time of the agreement that some means should be found of identifying Canadian pilots either bj' unit or by formation or in some other way. It did not stand to reason that thousands of our young men should go there and have no connection with Canada, being spread all over Libya, Greece, Ethiopia and everywhere else. Therefore one of the errands of which the Minister of National Defence spoke was the endeavour to bring into practical application clause 16, which says that they should be identified. As a result of this, arrangements have been made whereby twenty-five squadrons will be set up as Royal Canadian Air Force squadrons. Mind you, they will be paid at British rates of pay. They will be maintained as British, because they do belong to the British, but they will be called Canadian squadrons because they will be all Canadian pupils. As to the dates at which they were formed, I had better not mention that.
The consultations took place during the summer. When the Minister of National Defence went overseas he was asked by the government to undertake this task of settling the question of identification, and the agreement was signed by him, with the Right Hon. Sir Archibald Sinclair, Minister of Air. It provides that there shall be twenty-five squadrons called Canadian squadrons, from graduates of the joint air training plan, to-be formed at different dates which I will not specify, and that all the Canadian pilots and
War Appropriation Bill

air crews from the air training plan-not in the Royal Canadian Air Force units or formations, because there would be many more than twenty-five squadrons, which represent *only about one-fifth of the output within the next few months, but all those who were mot in these squadrons-would continue to wear the Canadian air force uniforms and Canada badges. This arrangement is to be revised in September, 1941. It goes on to say:
6. Under the air training plan and at the request of the United Kingdom government, the Royal Canadian Air Force has concentrated on the production of pilots and air crews. This has necessitated the provision and employment in Canada of ground personnel who would otherwise have been available for service with Royal Canadian Air Force squadrons overseas. It is recognized, however, as desirable, so far as it may mutually be considered practicable, that the United Kingdom ground personnel who, for the reason stated above, will be required for the squadrons referred to in paragraph 2 should gradually be exchanged for Royal Canadian Air Force ground personnel employed on the air training plan, with a view to achieving homogeneity of personnel in these squadrons.
The ground crew of these squadrons will be United Kingdom for the moment, because we are using all the ground crew we can possibly find for the training plan in Canada. The suggestion is that there should be exchanges. Possibly it will be that when we have trained enough, we shall be able to send some of our young men overseas to serve as ground crew.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Strictly speaking, the operations of the Royal Canadian Air Force as such are confined to Canada?


Charles Gavan Power: No. We have three Royal Canadian Air Force squadrons of our own overseas, and have had for several months. They are equipped, maintained and manned, as to both ground and air, by Canada.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: And paid by Canada?


Charles Gavan Power: Yes. I may add that we are now on a kind of flat rate. At first we made an arrangement to pay for replacement every time an aircraft was destroyed, but it complicated bookkeeping to a considerable extent, and we had to put a large amount of money in the estimates last year on the assumption that there would be a one hundred per cent renewal every month. We have now an arrangement with the British government whereby they will supply aircraft for any destroyed, and will feed our men, on a flat rate. We pay something like three million dollars a year for a squadron, and they take chances whether the squadron will be continuously occupied or not. We pay the same

flat rate no matter how many or how few aircraft are destroyed. It is called a capitation rate. The same applies to feeding.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: These three squadrons will operate on a different basis to the twenty-five?


Charles Gavan Power: Yes; they are entirely Canadian, just as Canadian as the army is over there, whereas the other squadrons are composed of Canadians who graduated from the plan but are on initial rate of pay from the British, having been formed for purposes of identification.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Are these army cooperation squadrons?


Charles Gavan Power: Some will be army cooperation; some, bombers and some, fighters. The rest of the agreement deals with the fact that at the beginning there may be a shortage of senior Canadian officers to fill the posts of squadron commanders, because they will be graduates from the plan and will not have the experience. At the inception the United Kingdom personnel will be in command of these young men, but as we go on, Canadians will replace them so that the squadrons will become entirely Canadian. Then there is provision for consultation as between the air officer commanding Canadian overseas headquarters and senior officers in the air force, and also the British, with regard to the employment of these squadrons-when they are to be used in any major operation.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I wish to ask the minister a question and he can use his discretion about answering it. A report has been given to the house about accidents, and most hon. members regret the large number of accidents that have taken place recently. As a result of the investigations into these accidents, has the minister found that accidents are more prevalent with any one type of plane? I will tell the minister why I ask. I have had a number of flying men tell me about the Grumman plane, not the British but the Canadian assembled plane.


Charles Gavan Power: I do not think any have flown in them, certainly not in the air training plan. The only ones who would fly in that plane would be skilled pilots who had graduated. It is not a training plane; the big one is a good transport plane, and there is a fighter plane but it is not being used by any pupils.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It was the fighter plane to which I had reference. They were trained pilots who were using it, and I heard some complaint that the Canadian assembled plane was not a particularly safe

War Appropriation Bill
one; there was that feeling. Therefore I wanted to ask the minister whether these accidents had been more prevalent with any one type of plane.


Charles Gavan Power: No. The other day I was referring only to accidents in training. There have been very few accidents in the home war establishment, the defence forces, although there have been some. I do not remember having had statistics made out for this, but they are not more prevalent with any one type than another, certainly not in the air training plan.


Grote Stirling: Early in his statement the minister referred to 90 per cent of those in the air training plan being Canadians.


Charles Gavan Power: The pupils, yes.


Grote Stirling: Does that mean that 10 per cent came from Britain, Australia and New Zealand?


Charles Gavan Power: About that, yes.


Grote Stirling: Can the minister divide that 10 per cent up?


Charles Gavan Power: No, I have not that figure. It is roughly 10 per cent; it may be 11 per cent that came from Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom quota, which takes in Newfoundland.


Grote Stirling: Over and above that, Australia provides herself with a great many more men in the various descriptions by other training facilities.


Charles Gavan Power: I am not sure how many they send over direct.


Grote Stirling: They must have an air training plan quite apart from this.


Charles Gavan Power: Most of their elementary training men come through the training schools here. They have an air force of their own and presumably many of their men go direct. I do not, however, think they have a large air training scheme of their own.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Have we any appropriation to cover the construction of the proposed Alaska project?


Charles Gavan Power: Yes, in the home war
appropriation.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Can the minister give us any information in that connection?


Charles Gavan Power: Simply that we are spending about eight or nine million dollars on station facilities in the interior of British Columbia to Alaska. I should not like to give the break-down any further than that. But I should be glad to give my hon. friend the information personally if he will come to my office. It is a defence project.


Grote Stirling: Is this just for the purpose of providing air fields in that area?


Charles Gavan Power: Staging facilities.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I understand that after the last war an officers' reserve list was set up. It was necessary for an officer to keep himself in good standing from year to year. I know several of these men, approximately forty-five years of age, who have kept in good standing, passed medical tests A-l, but apparently they cannot get beyond that point. Some of them have taken several of these medicals in the course of a -year. I have been asked by some of them to find out what the advantages are
o.e. having kept in good standing on the reserve list and to secure information regarding the method of absorbing these men into active service at this time.


Charles Gavan Power: If my hon. friend is speaking of the air force, obviously a man of forty-five would not be any use to us as a flyer, no matter how good his state of health; we are not taking them in at forty-five now. But we have been taking in, I might say, hundreds of men who served in the last war and have a good record as administrative ground officers. We have been taking them in up to fifty years of age as ground officers.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I understand these men have applied for appointments as Link trainers or ferry pilots. I was not referring to active service in the air.


Charles Gavan Power: We are taking them in
every day. Of course there is a background of about two thousand men who are extremely eager to serve their country at about $2,500 to $3,000 a year in a nice soft job at home wearing a uniform.


John Ritchie MacNicol: With a brass hat.


Charles Gavan Power: With a brass hat, and they are extremely indignant-I am not referring to the gentleman my friend speaks of-when they are told "Well, you have not been selected yet." There is a selection board that selects from among the applicants those who, we think, would make administrative officers or accountants or engineer officers, and when they are not selected they write to me or to their member wondering why we refuse to let them serve their country. We cannot take them all in, w:e must make a selection amongst those many thousands. As far as I know, we are selecting former air officers for administrative positions whenever any of them are qualified. I have insisted right along that former air officers particularly get the preference for administrative positions when they are otherwise qualified.
War Appropriation Bill


Mr. McNEVIN:: Are there any in that
category over fifty years of age?


Charles Gavan Power: There may be some exceptions but the limit is fifty. There may be an odd exception, I do not remember any; a person over fifty is barred.


Gordon Graydon: I do not recall the
minister giving any particulars of the number in the air force outside the training plan.


Charles Gavan Power: That is another thing I
am not supposed to give, but I think we should give it. I do not agree with all my officers about the hush-hush policy. I do not see any reason why we should not tell the country how many people are in the air force.
I have here the last weekly report: officers, 3,490; airmen, 42,732.


Gordon Graydon: That does not include
the empire air training scheme.


Charles Gavan Power: Yes; that is everyone serving now in Canada. That includes students and all kinds in the scheme.


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: That does not
include the Royal Air Force men?


Charles Gavan Power: No, except those who are
attached to us or loaned to us specially. That in terms of the last war is about three divisions; when we talk of raising so many divisions of infantry, let it be remembered that there are three divisions of airmen in this country at the present time.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: About what proportion in
the commonwealth air training scheme are Canadians?


Charles Gavan Power: Ninety per cent of the
pupils are Canadians, the remaining 10 per cent come from Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand. I should like to add that between 7 and 10 per cent of the recruits that come in as Canadians are United States citizens, and I would also say that we are fortunate in being alongside the United States and getting our instructor personnel from there. Some four to five hundred United States trained flyers have been enlisted or commissioned in the air force as instructors. Without them we would have had an extremely difficult time to get as far as we have.


John Ritchie MacNicol: We have the best neighbours in the w'orld.


An hon. MEMBER:: What is the percentage of Americans in the air force?


Charles Gavan Power: I would say at the moment between 7 per cent and 10 per cent of the air crews; that is, those pupils who will be graduated. I have not worked out the percentage with regard to instructors, but between 400 and 500 of the instructors are largely used in ferrying duties, to ferry the students at the bombing and gunnery schools, and to bring them out to the places where they practice bombing, or to observer schools or elementary schools. To a large extent these are Americans who have come to and are serving in Canada.


John Ritchie MacNicol: If questions concerning
the air programme are exhausted, I should like to ask the Minister of Munitions and Supply a question. If, however, other hon. members wish to ask questions of the Minister of National Defence for Air, I shall delay my question.


Mr. EDWARDS:: Is the Department of National Defence for Air, as such, responsible for the selection geographically of the various air training fields, or is that the responsibility of some other department?


Charles Gavan Power: Shortly after my appointment I explained the system of selection. The Department of Transport makes a general survey of prospective aerodromes across Canada. It then makes a report to what is known as the aerodrome development committee, which is composed of officers of the Department of Transport and of the Department of National Defence for Air. They then decide what aerodrome is to be developed, and where aerodromes are to be located. The report then comes to the minister, and the minister says "yes" to whatever they tell him, because he is not going to get mixed up in aerodrome development or the selection of aerodromes, because he has something else to do.


Manley Justin Edwards: What is the policy of the government with respect to the location of aerodromes and air training fields? What are the guiding principles? I can understand that naval training would be carried on at the seaboard, and that other branches of the service would be carried out where natural facilities are available. I should like now to know the guiding principle which prompts the government to locate air fields for example at Ottawa, Montreal, Northern Ontario, Quebec and the maritime provinces. Is it the principle of proximity to population, or what are the determining factors?


Charles Gavan Power: On the fii'st or second day after I came to the department I made a statement to the house, received from one of

War Appropriation Bill
the officers in the department, in which I indicated the guiding principles. The first principle is to get a place suitable for development as an aerodrome. Then, at the time these selections are made there was an attempt to foster recruiting, and in order to help recruiting, the aerodromes were spread at suitable locations across Canada. As has already been explained, there was at that time a tendency not to place aerodromes too close to the United States border. There was some thought that on account of climatic conditions, including heavy snowfalls and the like, some sections of the country would not be as suitable as others for the development of aerodromes. All these principles, however, were laid down.
I have sent for a copy of Hansard, and I should be pleased to read again what I read last year. Generally speaking, however, the principle followed when placing an aerodrome at any point is that such point has been found to be a suitable location.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: How does the department decide that it is a suitable location?


Charles Gavan Power: It is the decision of the Department of Transport in conjunction with officers of my department.


Mr. PERLEY:: All bon. members have
listened with keen interest to what I would term a straightforward statement made by the Minister of National Defence for Air this evening. Had we heard similar statements earlier from other ministers, we would have been through long ago.


Mr. HOWE:: That is quite a comment.


Ernest Edward Perley: I have not held up the committee very much. I would ask the minister who has interjected that I should have liked to ask him many questions, but possibly I was rather intimidated by the replies he gave to some other hon. members. I am now asking the question of the Minister of National Defence for Air as to whether or not he can give us information respecting the number of aerodromes and training centres in Saskatchewan. Are there one or two there operated solely by the Royal Air Force?


Charles Gavan Power: Yes.


Ernest Edward Perley: Could the minister give
us some information on that point? Are there others operated jointly, and what is the expenditure by this government and by the British government in that connection?


Charles Gavan Power: Would my hon. friend be
satisfied if I answered him respecting the aerodromes in Saskatchewan operated by the Royal Canadian Air Force, and let him find out the answer to his question?


Ernest Edward Perley: I should like to have the ones operated by the Royal Air Force, alone.


Charles Gavan Power: I would rather tell him
those operated by the Royal Canadian Air Force. My answer would give the same result, and my conscience would be clear in that I had not mentioned the location of Royal Air Force schools in Canada.


James Layton Ralston: That is spoiling the
minister's record.


Charles Gavan Power: My colleague suggests that I should have kept up my record for being straightforward. In Saskatchewan there is an elementary school and also an air observer school at Prince Albert. There is an elementary school and an air observer school at Regina. Then there are Canadian schools at Mossbank, Dafoe, Saskatoon, and Yorkton Those would appear to be all the Canadian flying schools in Saskatchewan. Then, as my hon. friend knows, there is a munitions training school at Regina, and several other ground schools. I believe, however, he was referring only to flying schools.


Ernest Edward Perley: And the Royal Air Force are not operating any?


Charles Gavan Power: Not operating any.


Ernest Edward Perley: In Saskatchewan.


James Arthur Ross: Following the question put by the hon. member for Calgary West, did I understand the minister to say that he was going to enlarge upon the requirements essential for the development of the fields?


Charles Gavan Power: No. I should say to the committee that at the present time all requirements, so far as aerodromes for the empire training plan are concerned, are complete. All aerodromes have been selected. What will happen in the future, and whether this plan will be extended, is another question. At the present time, however, there is no use in bringing in any delegations, because I will tell them that we have all the aerodromes we want. Committee members will please take notice; tell them to stay home, because they will only waste their time.


James Arthur Ross: I was not suggesting that, at all.


Charles Gavan Power: I was not referring to my hon. friend; I was speaking for his colleagues.


James Arthur Ross: Do I understand that during the coming year there will be no further development of air. fields in western Canada, even on our own programme?


Charles Gavan Power: All sites have been selected for the air training plan. There are a certain
War Appropriation Bill

number of elementary schools, a certain number of surface training centres, and a certain number of bombing and gunnery schools not yet developed or constituted. Each one of the sites of these schools has now been selected for the air training plan. If it so happens that the plan needs to be expanded or further developed or some other circumstance arises, other aerodromes and other sites may be selected. Meanwhile, against the time when that kind of thing may happen, the Department of Transport is surve3'ing every possible site in Canada. They have a list of them; should we ever require any more, we will go to the Department of Transport and they will tell us where to locate them.


James Arthur Ross: The minister would not care to enlarge upon the requirements or the essentials which are taken into consideration in the selection of these various fields?


Charles Gavan Power: There is the question of water and the question of proximity to communications, railroads and that kind of thing. The question of water is perhaps the most serious we have had to face. It seems extraordinary that in a country like Canada with its lakes and rivers we cannot get sufficient water. We have had people looking for water everywhere. There is hardly a school which has been opened where there has not been trouble in getting water to it. I never for one moment imagined that this country was so dry as it has turned out to be.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I should like to ask a question of the minister in his dual caoacity as acting Minister of Pensions and National Health and Minister of National Defence for Air. No doubt there is a considerable civilian personnel in these flying schools. Perhaps the minister could tell us what percentage there is. I thought it might be possible to absorb many of these men who have been discharged from the army into the personnel, not only of the flying schools but of some of the thirty-day training camps. This might be one way to take up the slack for these fellows who have been discharged.


Charles Gavan Power: There would be no objection at all provided they are qualified. I understand the rule in the Department of National Defence is that no one is sent back from overseas unless he is in category E, and a man in that category is not fit for an3'thing like hard work. Those who were placed in category C were kept on as line communication troops as long as they could do anything. I would have no objection to taking on exsoldiers; as a matter of fact, they have preference in our department for positions round the camps.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: If a man is in category E, is he entitled to a pension?


Charles Gavan Power: Not always; he might be in category E because of disabilities not due to service.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: If they were due to service?


Charles Gavan Power: He should get a pension. Probably he would be hospitalized in Canada for some little time.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The minister has not yet answered the question which led up to this interesting discussion. A 3-ear ago the minister made it quite clear that representations by boards of trade and such organizations would not influence the department in choosing sites. I notice from the press that delegations are still coming to Ottawa to try to persuade the government to decide on such and such a site. I should like the minister to make it clear whether such representations are of any use, or whether, if certain constituencies bad elected as members of parliament those of other political stripes, they would have been more successful in getting air training centres.


Charles Gavan Power: I made a trip west last
summer, and it was made quite miserable by delegations that waited on me every time the train stopped. I told them that there was no use bothering me; that if they wanted to make representations, they should make them to the Department of Transport or to the officers of my department. I told them that if they wanted to fill reams of paper or make books of plans and so on, it would do no good to present them to me; they should be sent to the officers of the department who would make the decision.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But they did not believe you.


Charles Gavan Power: No. I had a delegation here last week, and I simply told them that they had wasted their time and money, that they might as well go home. They wanted to know if I could tell them if they had a chance of further development, and I told them, "I do not know and I do not care." I am sorry to say that the delegations do not like me any more, but that is the only way to handle them.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: There is an
observers' school at Malton, but on wet days the young fellows there can do nothing but lie in their bunks. They have no recreation hall, and I do not suppose it would cost much to erect one.

War. Appropriation Bill


Charles Gavan Power: I am not sure whether a recreation hall goes with an air observers' school.


Gordon Graydon: May I intervene to say that we have a fine recreation hall in the village of Malton. A community spirit has developed, and they are taking care of most of the young men in both the elementary training school and the observers' school. We will be ready to welcome the hon. member for St. Paul's in the recreation rooms at any time.


Charles Gavan Power: Then I do not need to
build one?


Gordon Graydon: No, not at the moment.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What is the position with respect to the Gander airport?


Charles Gavan Power: 
Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes.


Charles Gavan Power: The work progressed rather slowly at first on account of illness and difficulty in getting materials.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What about the labour situation?


Charles Gavan Power: Newfoundland labour is perhaps not as accustomed to working steadily over long periods of time as is labour in this part of the country. They do like to get away for Christmas. Then measles broke out, and there were 101 difficulties in the way of making rapid progress. I saw the contractor this week, and he reports that since about the middle of January things have been progressing much more rapidly. As a matter of fact, the original contract has been about completed. There have been some complaints which, as my hon. friend knows, were well founded.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Has there been any relaxation on the part of the Newfoundland government with respect to letting in skilled and ordinary labour?


Charles Gavan Power: The contractor told me that he did not anticipate much trouble in that regard. He has seen the United States authorities who are expending large sums of money in Newfoundland; he was also in communication with Mr. Wood, commissioner of works, who is also in charge of the department of 14873-103
labour in Newfoundland, and he tells me that arrangements with regard to labour have been worked out to his satisfaction. He believes that no further difficulties will ensue. It may be necessary for him to bring key men from Canada.


Richard Burpee Hanson: How much more development is proposed at that point?


Charles Gavan Power: I should not like to say offhand. It is rather complicated.


Ernest Edward Perley: Can the minister give us some information with respect to conditions at Mossbank, Saskatchewan, where the water supply has been bad and there has been a great deal of difficulty? There was a rumour there that conditions were so bad that the department was considering closing up the school.


Charles Gavan Power: We do not close any schools. For better or worse we go through with them; but, as my hon. friend knows, there was some little difficulty with a crew of about sixteen men who went to Dafoe and ran into a snowstorm. The buildings which we had for their accommodation had not been heated at that time, but I understand that difficulty was ironed out. That was at Dafoe, not Mossbank. I have no information here about Mossbank. .


Ernest Edward Perley: Has the water supply been taken care of? I understand that it comes in under contract by truck at the present time.


Charles Gavan Power: I shall be glad to look into that.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I did not want to poach on the preserves of the hon. member for Peel when I said that I had been at Malton, but there were two or three of my constituents in Malton whom I wanted to meet, and I found conditions as I have stated. The boys only had their bunks to go to on wet days, and so on. I know that my hon. friend has been instrumental in having a wonderful hall put up at Malton, and we are very proud of it, but it is two and a half miles for the men to walk to from the preliminary school. I thought I would just bring the matter to the attention of the minister because I knew he would take care of it.


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: Are all air observer schools in Canada operated by private companies?


Charles Gavan Power: Yes.


John George Diefenbaker: Is there a standard form of agreement covering the operation of the schools?

War Appropriation Bill


Charles Gavan Power: Yes; I have produced it in the house two or three times and I shall be glad to do so again. Both elementary and observer schools are civilian schools. Alay I say with respect to civilian schools generally that there has been a good deal of criticism as to the profits being made, and I had intended referring this whole question of civilian school contracts to the war expenditures committee. I wanted to do so before it became a matter of political controversy, before hon. gentlemen opposite would have to attack the system and before I would have to defend it. Up to the present it has not been a matter of controversy. The whole thing is a matter of judgment.
So far as the elementary schools are concerned, they are all sponsored by flying clubs, and I do not think there will ever be the slightest difficulty about them because most of them are turning their profits back to the government in one way or another. I think that could be readily shown, and I would have been more than pleased to have these men come before the committee and explain their case. .
There are, however, some instances in which perhaps rather large profits may be made, and in view of the fact that it would take too long to get the matter before the committee I am now going into that to see what can be done by voluntary action on the part of the clubs themselves.
With regard to the air observer schools, the same condition obtains, I think, and I am having that looked into. I can assure the committee that if there are any profits that look a little bit high, they will be cut down by agreement between the government and the operators.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I did not know that the same principle applied to the observer schools as applies to the elementary schools. We not only guarantee against any loss but guarantee a profit of 5 per cent, which is pretty profitable to-day having regard to profits available in other lines. What was the inception of the system? How did that arise? Was it at the instance of the government or of the flying schools themselves?


Charles Gavan Power: They have civilian schools in England, and the general outlines of the plan came from England. So far as Canada was concerned, we have here a large number of flying clubs, all of which wanted to do their bit. The gentlemen in charge were reputable. These flying clubs were spread all across the country and they all wanted to do their bit. These gentlemen came here; we had a meeting of the flying clubs, and they drew up a tentative agreement. At that time Major

Seymour, a barrister of St. Catharines, represented the flying clubs, and Mr. K. S. Mac-lachlan, then deputy minister for air, and Mr. Henry Borden, represented the government in drawing up this agreement. None of them had any very great experience in how the thing would work out, so it may be a loosely drawn agreement in certain respects.
The reason why I think the arrangement was a good one is that it enabled us to get experienced management we would not have been able to obtain otherwise. We got the experienced management of these different schools, something we did not- have in the air force. We did not have a sufficient number of men accustomed to run such schools, so it was necessary to bring in civilians with some experience and of some business acumen to run these schools. Whether, after another six months or a year, we shall require to continue operating them as civilian schools, I couldi not be sure, but it was a godsend to us that we had in Canada at that time a number of people, commercial companies, bush pilots, bush operators, and flying clubs, who knew how to put planes in the air, maintain them in the air and keep them operating. That is something we have to be grateful for. I do not think there is the slightest doubt that the contract can be modified and amended in such a way that the profits will be even less than reasonable because these people have met us so far at every turn.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have had a good many representations made to me about this matter, but I have never raised the question. One thing that was represented to me was that all these flying schools were not being treated alike, and that some were really eliminated. Is there anything in that charge?


Charles Gavan Power: I think I can say that every flying club in Canada that was operating-I am speaking of flying clubs now; these are the amateurs, not the commercial corporations- has had an elementary flying school. I do not know of one that has not, and I have not heard of any complaints from them. In some instances, in fact, we have been obliged to amalgamate them; that is, to get clubs at a long distance to come in to other places w'here the schools were being operated. Chatham, for example, is being operated by the Moncton flying club.
With regard to the commercial companies, I am not sure that every commercial company has had an opportunity-


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think that is the trouble.


Charles Gavan Power: One difficulty there is that a great many of these commercial companies

Tl'fir Appropriation Bill
are affiliated in one way or another, either by stock control or by directorates, with a fairly large corporation, and while one company carrying on under a certain name may perhaps claim that it has not had an opportunity, the parent company, with which it is affiliated may have probably had an opportunity in two or three different places.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: How many new private schools have been started?


Charles Gavan Power: I do not know just what
my hon. friend means by "new." We have seventeen elementary flying schools, all operated by civilians, and six air observer schools, all operated by civilians.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: How many of these
were in operation at the time the scheme was introduced?


Charles Gavan Power: This is all part of the
scheme. The flying clubs were being operated as flying clubs. They had nothing to do with the empire training plan. They were simply organizations of people interested in flying in their locality, and they called themselves flying clubs. I am under the impression that the Department of National Defence gave them a subsidy at one time. I am not sure whether that was cut out afterwards. In any event, they have started to operate schools only since last April.


John George Diefenbaker: Does the minister exercise any control over the salaries paid in these several schools, in order to ensure uniformity throughout the dominion?


Charles Gavan Power: No. The salaries paid in
the schools are a matter for the provincial departments of labour, which really decide what are the prevailing rates and what are the salaries paid in the civilian schools. I understand my hon. friend is referring to civilian schools?


John George Diefenbaker: I refer particularly
to those holding executive, managerial, secretarial, positions and the like.


Charles Gavan Power: We give a flat rate. The
contract calls for a flat payment of $1,400 a month covering manager-I am not quite sure of that-telephone operators, stenographers and all the rest of the staff. We give them that flat rate and they are supposed to pay their people out of it. I believe some of them make a little profit. I would have to check that. Of course we take 75 per cent of the profit away.


Olof Hanson: Well, 30
per cent anyway.


Charles Gavan Power: No; we take 75 per cent
under our contract, apart from what they pay in income tax; except for one thing, 14873-103}
which is a fixed fee, and that is something I am trying to get after; there is a fixed fee of so much per flying hour. Perhaps the flying hours are a little greater than was anticipated at the time they began, and they can make a reasonable profit. There is no revision of that, nor taking away of 75 per cent, but some companies have agreed to take 30 cents and some, 25 cents per flying hour as a fixed fee. Some are not taking anything.


An hon. MEMBER:: Are they not guaranteed 5 per cent on their investment?


Charles Gavan Power: I am not quite sure. I
think they are guaranteed. I have not looked at the contract for some time.


John George Diefenbaker: Are the instructors in those elementary training schools and the like, subject to overseas service?


Charles Gavan Power: Originally the instructors were engaged by these schools, and they employed whom they wanted to. They went out and hired bush pilots, or Americans, and paid them whatever they thought was the right salary. As time went on, they had more difficulty in finding them, so they came to us; what we did was that we trained them and turned them out as sergeants on leave without pay, and the flying schools pay them their salaries. Under these circumstances, of course, we can call them back at any time, because they belong to the Royal Canadian Air Force, and we can send them overseas if necessary.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: And there is military supervision of these flying schools?


Charles Gavan Power: There is a supervisor, a Royal Air Force officer, who supervises the curriculum of flying and generally acts, so to speak, as the school principal. The civilian manager looks after the maintenance of the aircraft, the messing and so forth.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I understand that there
is a training school at Goderich, Ontario, and that last summer they were selling stock up in the county prior to the starting of the school. Would the minister explain the set-up?


Charles Gavan Power: An elementary school was originally required to raise $35,000 in order to show its good faith. In most instances that amount was pretty rapidly raised, especially for the larger cities. Around Goderich and Huron counties, what I believe is called the Huron-Goderich club went out and sold stock, I understand in amounts of S100 or $200. to the farmers. I do not think it was sold to them as a money-making proposition; I believe they are not going to make money, because there will not be very much profit out of it. They wanted to get as many people as possible
War Appropriation Bill

interested in the enterprise. In most other cities half a dozen people subscribed five or ten thousand dollars and let it go at that. But interest has been much more widely distributed in connection with the Goderich school than any other school I know of.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: What control wiil the
people of the county have?


Charles Gavan Power: I do not know in whose hands the control of the stock lies; I do not know where the majority of the stock is. If the majority are farmers from Huron county, I suppose they could get together and oust the manager and carry on if they so desire; but if it is a matter of getting more profits, they will have to come to us, and I will not give them any.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: The government provide the buildings and the plant?


Charles Gavan Power: The buildings, aircraft and everything else.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: All the plant?


Charles Gavan Power: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If the
committee is through with the discussion on aeroplanes, I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services if he will make a statement to the committee, and I would like him to explain the basis upon which a large number of United States privately-owned yachts were bought in the early stages of the war and brought into Canada, the purposes for which they were bought, and what use is being made of them.


Mr. MACDONALD (Kingston City):: This matter of the yachts is rather an unusyal arrangement which happened before I came to Ottawa. I am familiar with it, but I do not know whether even now, after a year, it would be wise to announce publicly the form in which that transaction was made. 1 would be glad to tell my hon. friend.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I will forgive the hon. gentleman if he will not tell the form, because I know it. I should, however, like to know how many we bought, how many are in use now, and for what purpose?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I
forget whether it is fifteen or sixteen. They are all in use.


Richard Burpee Hanson: For what purpose?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Well, for war purposes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: All right- if that is all the minister wants to tell.
TMr. Power.]


Angus Lewis Macdonald: They are in use in different parts of the world. I do not know if I should say exactly where they are. All the yachts have been armed. They are patrolling the various waters in which they have been placed, and are carrying on the regular duties of ships of that class. I do not know that I can say much more than that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Of course that is quite illuminating! Have any been used for living quarters or office quarters for members of the naval staff?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: No, none of those.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Some ships which have been requisitioned have been so used, have they not?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Not for the Canadian staff. There is one ship in Halifax used by a flag officer commanding there, the British representative and his staff. That is the only yacht I know of which is used for living accommodations of any naval officer.


Richard Burpee Hanson: We did
not get very far on that.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence if his department has authorized deductions from the pay of men in the reserve army to set up regimental funds. I have heard a number of instances of it. I have never actually known of a case, except one which came to me the other day, of a certain regiment in the west, in which it was announced that authorization had been given by which each man was to have deducted from his pay-I believe it was S9; I can check the memo on it-to go towards the regimental fund. I was wondering whether the minister knew anything of that, and whether it was authorized.


James Layton Ralston: I have not heard of it, and have no idea of anything of that kind being done. If my hon. friend would give me the name of the unit, either privately or at the present time, I shall be happy to look into the matter.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I shall be very glad to give it to the minister. I can quite understand why it is done. I am not speaking in a spirit of criticism, because I think I know something of the problem the men are up against in the reserve units, but there is a feeling among many of the men that there is a difficult problem. I know the minister is familiar with it because he has had a good

War Appropriation Bill
deal of experience along that line. No allowance is made for buying things like multigraph machines and other equipment they must have if they are to operate a unit properly. The result is that they are usually forced to do one of two things. Either they have to use money from the canteen fund, or they make a whip-around among the officers and non-commissioned officers. In this particular case, I am informed, they actually deducted so much from each man's pay. If they did, I am not complaining about the act as about the necessity for such a thing. Some allowance should be made for reserve army units whereby they will have funds to buy the type of thing they need in order to keep the regiment working smoothly.


James Layton Ralston: Mv hon. friend has mentioned multigraph machines. That is not quite in keeping with an officers mess. The things about an officers mess that I think of are dishes, cutlery, furniture and such necessities. Is he advocating the other as well?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: No.


James Layton Ralston: My colleague has mentioned a headache. He does not know about headaches until he has to deal with allowances for such matters. My hon. friend is referring to provision for equipment for company offices and battalion headquarters?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yes. I am not thinking of officers messes. That is something they can take care of; but it is too much to ask these men, the rank and file, to contribute to office equipment which is not provided for by the department.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend suggested that a deduction was made not only from officers but from the rank and file.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Exactly; and as a matter of fact, indirectly, in practically all units it is taken from the rank and file, because it is taken from the canteen fund and that comes from the men who buy cigarettes and chocolate bars from the canteen. Therefore, indirectly all ranks contribute to buy the things that should be a responsibility of the department.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The Minister of National Defence for Naval Services is reticent on the question of these yachts. I am not suggesting that there is anything to hide. He might have given a little more information than he did. He is not going to get into trouble over this matter. The position is entirely changed since that transaction took place about a year ago.


James Layton Ralston: Since Saturday night.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes, or last Wednesday, I assume, would be the better date upon which to base the change. If he is not willing to give more information, I shall not press him, because doubtless he has what seems to him to be good and sufficient reasons for not conveying any information. I think it might have been better if, at the time this transaction was put through, a little more information had been given the public by the government, because many unjust statements were made by people who did not understand the position and who thought some people were getting something for nothing. I understood it from the beginning. I never raised the question in this house before to-night. I thought that now we might be told the story,, but if that is not possible, I shall not press it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I handled the transactions and perhaps I can give my hon. friend certain assurances. They were purchased through the Department of Munitions and Supply or its predecessor board. We carried out the transaction in accordance with the laws of the United States government, and to do that we had to get several individuals each to buy a yacht. Those individuals were carefully chosen as men who knew yachts, men outstanding in the community, who were willing to volunteer to give time without profit.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am not questioning all that. I want to know how much was spent.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It was not large, altogether not more than a million and a half.


Richard Burpee Hanson: For how many ships?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Fifteen.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Fourteen.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And they are all in commission?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, and at the time, of course, they were needed. Patrol vessels were badly needed, and these could be got and armed quickly.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They were in commission for the most part?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. They were valuable.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I never criticized it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I want to make it clear that these men arranged their own financing privately. At the end of the transaction the men received their absolute out-of-pocket expenses. No one made five cents profit on
War Appropriation Bill

the boats. As a matter of fact, the men went to a great deal of trouble to perform the service, and I was able to call them together and thank them for a really patriotic service.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am
delighted to hear the minister's statement, because I will tell him that in eastern Canada there was a great deal of misapprehension about that transaction, and a very unjust inference was drawn, perhaps from the secrecy with which the thing was carried on. I understand thoroughly the reason why it was done in that way; it was because of the laws of a certain foreign country. It had to be carefully examined and carried out. But I had numerous letters last session with regard to this matter, that so-and-so, and so-and-so had got a private yacht and unloaded it on the government. I never for a moment believed that there was anything of the sort, knowing some of the men at least who allowed their good offices to be used in connection with that service. It seems to me the statement the minister has made to-night is a little bit of belated justice to these men, having regard to the uninformed criticism which was made of the transaction. As far as I am concerned I welcome this statement; and as far as I am further concerned the transaction is closed.
I should, however, like to have from the minister a statement of the policy of his department in connection with expenditures of a very substantial sum with respect to the acquisition of vessels during the past fiscal year, or the one now closing, the break-down of which he gave the other day and for which we have had no explanation, and also with respect to the coming year, so far as the acquisition of vessels is concerned; what has been done, and what is proposed.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I shall be glad to give the statement. I cannot give details at this moment, but, generally speaking, there are only two ways of acquiring the vessels needed. We have either to build the vessel or to buy it. There is also a third way, and that is to charter the vessel. It depends on the purpose for which the vessel is required which method will be followed. In the case of United States yachts, the quickest way to get ships of that class into commission in the Canadian navy was to obtain them in the way in which they were obtained, and that practice was followed. Certain steps had to be taken, and I do not think, even at this time, while conditions have changed, we should go back and say that a year ago certain things were done in a manner which at that time might be open to criticism.
[Mr. Howe.l


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not think it was open to criticism, but it was open to misconception because of lack of knowledge. I would rather put it that way, that there was misconception.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Could anyone tell the Canadian people at that time what was done?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I did not say they could.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: It could not possibly be told.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The time has arrived when it has been done, and I welcome it as clearing up certain misapprehensions which were created by the methods adopted. What I ask now is: What is the minister going to do with the vote of $56,000,000, mentioned on page 1495 of Hansard, for the acquisition and construction of vessels? I further ask him what he did with the money, $28,525,000 in the last fiscal year or up to January 31, 1941. I think we are entitled to that information.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I shall be glad to give my hon. friend an analysis of those two figures, the amount for the current year and the amount asked for the coming year, as to ships to be constructed for us, ships to be bought and ships to be chartered.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister cannot give it to-night?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I do not think I can give the exact figures. I have the detail here, but I think I can arrange it in shorter form by to-morrow.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am quite willing to let it wait until to-morrow.


Gordon Graydon: Has the Minister of National Defence had opportunity during the recess to find the answer to the question which I put some time before six o'clock with regard to various medical categories in the reserve army?


James Layton Ralston: No, I have not. I will have it to-morrow.


Angus MacInnis: I wish to ask a question of the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services. Some time ago the people of Canada were delighted to hear that in the army promotion would be made from the ranks. I have heard some criticism of the way in which promotions are made in the navy. Could the minister outline to the committee how promotions are made?

War Appropriation Bill


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Some promotions are made from the ranks. I think an announcement to that effect was made before Christmas. Generally speaking, if a man wants to take a commission in the Royal Canadian Navy he would enter the navy as a cadet and, undergo a course of training in the naval college in England for a period of two years, after which he would serve some time on ships and receive his commission. The more common course to pursue is for a man desiring to be an officer to join the Royal Canadian Naval Volunteer Reserve, one of the eighteen divisions of that reserve found in the leading cities of Canada from Charlottetown to Vancouver. He joins as a sort of probationer and is observed by the officers commanding, and if he seems suitable for commissioned rank in the navy he is given a course. If he passes that course satisfactorily, he is sent to sea. Of the men training on the west coast now, a certain number have been taken from the ranks, I forget the exact number; but a certain number have been taken from what is called the lower deck, that is men in the ranks, and they are training along with others for positions at this time.


Angus MacInnis: Could the minister give at some other time the figures for the number taken from the ranks?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Yes; I should not like to give a figure now; I am not sure what it is.


Angus MacInnis: Is	there a minimum
educational requirement for cadets?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Yes, there is an educational requirement for an officer in the navy; he has to be able to do certain things with instruments which require a certain amount of mathematical training. It is all laid down in the regulations. It is, I think, about equivalent of matriculation.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I wish to ask a question of the Minister of National Defence. On page 1352 of Hansard where the appropriation for this department is broken down, I see an item of $8,232,697 for internment operations. Could the minister give details of this item? It seems a large amount. What proportion is recoverable from the Ignited Kingdom?


James Layton Ralston: I do not want to shift responsibility, but the matter of recovery from the United Kingdom is in the hands of the Minister of Finance. Only lately I think an agreement has been concluded with regard to internment camps. It was under discussion
for a long time, and certain proposals were made. Internment camps are, however, under the Department of the Secretary of State, although the Department of National Defence does the work. We supply the guards and do the running and administration.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Do you select the sites?


James Layton Ralston: Generally speaking, the sites are selected by the director of internment operations who is appointed upon the recommendation of the Secretary of State but who has close liaison with the Department of National Defence. I think the sites are selected by him in consultation with the officers commanding in the different districts. I will try to give such break-down as I can. What has my hon. friend in mind, pay and allowances for instance?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: It seems quite a large item.


Angus MacInnis: I have another question to ask of the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services. There was some criticism on the Pacific coast when the captured German ship the Weser was refitted and a crew was taken from the Atlantic coast to man the ship. The seamen in Vancouver claim that there are many idle sailors there who could have done the work just as well. What explanation has the minister on that point?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I
have nothing to do with that.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That boat was condemned and turned over to the Canadian government merchant marine, and a crew was sent out by the Canadian government merchant marine. I presume it was a crew they had immediately available in the east, and instead of recruiting one in the west they sent out a crew they had available from another boat. I think it was not a complete complement of officers and men; I think it was only officers they sent out. I have a dossier on that boat, but I do not have it before me. I will try to get the information.
Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury); What has the minister to say about the Vancouver Sun's story on that boat?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have been expecting a question on that. I have a complete story, I have it well briefed but I do not have it here.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Natural Gas
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, March 18, 1941.