1941-04-01

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture):: The hon. member for Compton (Mr. Blanchette) yesterday asked a question with regard to the report that there had been transferred to the United States an order for a million cases of condensed milk. I wish to answer as follows:
The dairy products board has no information of the transfer referred to. The ministry of food inquired about the purchases of a million cases of unsweetened condensed milk from Canada during the present fiscal year. However, they have stated that under no condition was there to be any large increase in unsweetened condensed milk sales to them if it would affect our available cheese supplies. Indications are that Canada will be in a position to supply approximately the same amount of unsweetened condensed milk to the ministry of food as was supplied last year and still take care of domestic and other export requirements. In 1940 the ministry of food purchased approximately 1,500,000 cases of such milk in the United States in addition to supplies from Canada and there is every reason to believe that the same will be done again this year.



PRAYER FOR VICTORY AND PEACE

[Stage Direction]
REVOLUTION IN YUGOSLAVIA AND SUCCESSES IN AFRICA, ALBANIA AND THE MEDITERRANEAN On the orders of the day:
Mr. DANIEL McIVOR (Fort William):: I should like to rise to a question of national and empire importance. March 23 was set apart as a day of prayer for victory. I took part in that day of prayer. Jew and Gentile, Protestant and Roman Catholic took part in

Sugar and Coffee

the observance of the day, bringing home to the people of the nation the seriousness of the hour. What was the result? To me it was a direct answer to that supplication that Yugoslavia rebelled, that we have had such successes in Africa and Albania, and that the Italian fleet has been demolished. I repeat, these achievements are to me a direct answer to our prayer. I do not think that we should ask the Divine Giver for any gift unless we expect an answer and are ready to cooperate to the utmost. As one who took part in that day of prayer I express my gratitude publicly to the Almighty.



SUGAR AND COFFEE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. A. CRUICKSHANK (Fraser Valley):: I wish to ask a question of the
Minister of Labour (Mr. McLarty). Would the government agree to make the tax on sugar retroactive as was done in regard to butter, in order to get the parasites of Montreal, the wholesalers? Will he also agree to peg the price of coffee exactly as was done in the case of the farmer's butter?


Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: If the hon. gentleman is directing his question to me I would say that I dealt with the first part of the question, in regard to sugar, yesterday. With regard to coffee I will make inquiry into the situation. I am not aware of anything that requires action there.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I understood the Minister of Finance to say yesterday that this tax was being put on because there was certain heavy buying. During the regime of the last government they imposed a two per cent tax on sugar, and the firm of W. H. Malkin, in British Columbia, and others, apparently got advance information and purchased heavily.



TRANSPORT COMMISSION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. E. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I mentioned the other day that the railway line which runs between Langdon and Beiseker in Alberta is to be discontinued. The minister assured1 us that he had no information as to that, but thought it would not be done for some little time. My information now is that the railway
'Mr. Mclvor.]
employees working on that line have been informed by the railway officials that their services will not be required after to-day. Has the minister anything to say in that regard?


Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I know nothing about the facts just stated by the hon. member, but I shall make inquiry and let him know.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. D. HOWE (for the Minister of Transport) moved the third reading of Bill No. 13, respecting the appointment of auditors for national railways.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Munitions and Supply) moved the second reading of Bill No. 26 to amend the Trans-Canada Air Lines Act, 1937.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, March 31, consideration in committee of Bill No. 16, to control the export of game-Mr. Crerar-Mr. Vien in the chair.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
On section 3-Provincial export permit.
Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: I have no objection to this procedure, but following the remarks made by the minister last evening we did expect that the war appropriation bill would be given the right of way.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: The reason we have proceeded with this measure is that the appropriation bill, while it has been printed, is on its way to the house for distribution. I expect it will be here in a minute.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I suggest to the Chairman, "more haste, less speed". We have no desire whatever to hold up any of these measures, but the minister was to take into consideration certain parts of this bill

Export oj Game
before it was proceeded with and was to make some statement with regard to section 3 and other provisions that were under discussion last evening. It seems to me that this would be the appropriate time to have that statement.


Mr. CRERAR:: The points raised by the leader of the opposition will be reached in subsequent sections, and it might be better to deal with them then.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister will recall that there was considerable discussion over the clause in section 2, "domestically raised fur-bearing animal" and its application in this bill. Section 2 I understand has been passed.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I was not under the impression that section. 2 had been passed, but probably it has been. Domestically raised fur-bearing animals are included because some of the provinces impose a royalty fee on the production of what are termed domestic furbearing animals.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What
provinces?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I cannot say at the moment, but I am advised that some do, if not all. This is to guard against the possibility of evasion of the provincial -law -with regard to the payment of the royalty. If under the laws of the province a fur farmer is required to pay a royalty on each pelt he produces he may take his pelts out of the province and sell them, and thus escape payment of the royalty. This is to meet evasions of the -law of this kind.


Richard Burpee Hanson: In other words the government is helping the provinces to collect their revenues. Notwithstanding this explanation, which may be a very good reason for the inclusion of this provision in the section, there is grave question in my mind as to whether this is constitutional.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Of course the committee will not expect me to give any opinion upon the constitutionality of any of the provisions of this bill. All I can say is that the bill has been approved, and I am advised that the wording of this section is in the form prescribed by the law officers of the crown. It also has passed the scrutiny of the attorneys general of all the provinces, who have signified their approval of this measure as it stands, with the exception of Prince Edward Island, who do not oppose it but who say they are not interested.
The purpose of this bill, in brief, is to assist the provinces to make effective the legislation on their statute books covering the taking of fur-bearing animals or wild animals of any kind. Some of the provinces require the trapper or the person who has fur pelts to take out a permit before he can ship them out of the province. The purpose of this provision is to ensure that the royalties are paid. If such pelts are shipped out of the province for sale without such a permit having been secured, the person shipping them will be liable under the provisions of this bill.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What does the minister think of the definition of game to include a fur-bearing animal? It seems to me that is stretching the thing a long way, not for any dominion object but simply to help the provinces collect their revenues. Personally I think this provision should be dropped from the bill.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That would be against the wishes of the various provinces.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No doubt; they want it to help collect their revenues.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The definition states:
(b) "game" means the carcass or any part of the carcass, including the skin, of any wild animal, domestically raised fur-bearing animal, wild fowl or wild bird.
I think it is quite within the competence of this act to define a domestically raised fur-bearing animal as game.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I suppose you could include oysters under that definition, if you put that word in the statute.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I dare say you could.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 4 agreed to.
On section 5-Oath of game officer.
Richard Burpee Hanson: I suggest to the minister that subsection 2 is altogether too wide and that all but the first clause should be dropped. This section reads:
(1)	Every game officer shall, before entering upon the duties of his office, take and subscribe an oath . . .
(2)	Every game officer shall for all the purposes of this act have anywhere in Canada all the powers of a peace officer or a police constable . . .
I have not the slightest objection to that; I think it is quite proper. But then you go on and clothe these game officers with all the power and authority of a justice of the peace anywhere in Canada. This is what will happen. A game officer comes across an alleged
2036
Export of Game

violation of this statute. He lays the charge, tries the culprit and collects the fine right on the spot. If hon. gentlemen have ever been caught in a violation of a traffic law in certain portions of the north American continent-


Mr. RALSTON:: Speak for yourself.


Richard Burpee Hanson: As a
matter of fact it did not happen to me, but it did happen to a friend of mine. I was not guilty this time, though I suppose I have transgressed the traffic laws on many occasions. A traffic officer stops a man for a violation of a traffic law and tells him that if he will give him $10 or $25, whatever it may be, it will be all right; apparently in some jurisdictions he has authority to do that. If a man is in a desperate hurry very often he will fall for that sort of thing and pay the ten dollars rather than stay over for a day and go to the police court, even though he may think he has a fair defence.
I do object to the principle underlying this section, that an officer charged with the enforcement of the law should be judge and jury and impose the penalty. It is bad principle and a very dangerous one, and I object to it. I shall not elaborate the reasons which underlie that statement, but I do appeal to the minister not to put through this provision. Let the ordinary operation of the law apply. We have plenty of laws to cover this sort of thing. Do not let the traffic officer or the game officer, as the case may be, act as judge on the facts and have complete jurisdiction to impose the penalty, so that perhaps an innocent person may suffer. The whole principle is wrong. I am not suggesting that the game officer may pocket the fees; that, of course would depend on the individual, though I have often wondered in the case of traffic violations whether moneys paid to these officers found their way into the public treasury.
This is an exceedingly bad principle; I do not think I ever saw it before in a federal statute. We have plenty of machinery for adjudicating upon these offences. Let them go through the ordinary process of law; let them be heard by a magistrate or a judicial officer who is not himself promoting the charge.


Mr. REID:: Has the dominion power to
confer this right on officers?


Richard Burpee Hanson: The hon. member raises a question of much greater academic importance, but I am trying to treat this matter realistically and press it home on a point which I am sure will appeal

to the minister as a layman. I have never looked into the question whether or not the dominion has power to appoint justices of the peace. In rare cases we do appoint king's counsel, but ordinarily the appointment of justices of the peace is done by the provinces. I think the dominion has authority to make these men peace officers, or rather to give them all the powers of peace officers, making them analogous to peace officers appointed by a province. But to say that this same man shall be the judge, when he is promoting the charge, is contrary to our sense of British justice. It is wrong. I hope the minister will reconsider this provision in the light of what I have said.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: In regard to the question raised by the hon. member for New Westminster it will be observed that the officers endowed with powers under this measure can exercise such power only in so far as the enforcement of the measure is concerned.
I too raised the point which has been raised by the leader of the opposition because to me, a layman, it appeared an unusual procedure. The purpose of including this power, one which is somewhat out of the ordinary, is to meet conditions which may arise in the more remote parts of the country.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is just a matter of expediency.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Permit me to give an illustration. There may be a violation of the law in a remote part of northern Saskatchewan or Alberta. Any officer of the province, whether he be a mounted police officer or a game officer, is authorized under the measure, as I read it, to act as a magistrate in hearing a case which comes before him. In his capacity as law enforcement officer I believe it would not be possible for him to bring a case before himself as justice of the peace. In other words as justice of the peace he could not take evidence from himself in his capacity as law enforcement officer. But if there were two police officers in the circumstances I have mentioned, one could act as law enforcement officer and the other as justice of the peace.


Richard Burpee Hanson: From the point of view of justice I do not think that has improved the situation very much.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I am advised that the purpose of the provision is to meet certain circumstances which may arise in remote parts of the country. Of course it would never be put into effect in a more thickly populated community.

Export oj Game


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is just the point: it will be put into effect in more thickly populated communities. I would say in the neighbouring country that is done every day, somewhere, in connection with breaches of traffic laws. That is an analogous position. I realize that there is some force in the minister's argument in respect of breaches of the law in more remote parts of the country. It is more difficult to have the machinery of the law operative in those parts. Per contra, however, it is much more difficult for an accused to defend himself under those circumstances. He would not have the benefit of the advice, to which he would be entitled, of any member of my profession. An innocent man could be at the mercy of an over-zealous or too officious law officer. It is of the protection and liberty of the subject, and his pocketbook, that I am thinking. There is a principle at stake, and the exceptional case to which the minister has referred should not be taken as governing the general rule.


Mr. GRAY:: it is not often I rise to agree with the leader of the opposition. The minister states that this is no ordinary section; I say it is extraordinary. I can recall an attempt of a somewhat similar nature when I sat in opposition, and I recall, too, that I condemned it at that time. For any police officer to be permitted to act also as judge and jury of an accused man is certainly a principle this house should not establish.


Mr. McNEVIN:: Is it not true that a number of provinces have provincial game wardens clothed with similar authority?


Richard Burpee Hanson: That does not make it right.


Thomas Bruce McNevin: A visiting tourist may be accused of some infraction of the law in one of our northern communities. He may not wish to have the publicity of a trial. As the minister has said, two officers can do the work, and it is assumed to be more satisfactory to permit them to do so. I do not say that it is either right or wrong, but I do say that a number of provincial game wardens have been clothed with that authority for a number of years.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is only an argument in favour of expediency. I am obliged for the support which has been given by the hon. member for Lambton West.


Mr. MacNICOL:: He is right once in a while.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Frankly, Mr. Chairman, I have no doubt as to the position I have taken. The minister should not carry this through. I have stated my
position as to the proposal embodied in this provision; it is indefensible, and with that statement I shall be content. I appeal to the minister's sense of justice. His desire to do the expedient thing should not overcome his sense of what is just and proper.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Does my hon. friend think it possible that under this section an officer may lay a charge against an accused person, gather evidence with respect to it and then sit in judgment on it?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I certainly think he would try to.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I do not think it is possible.


Mr. TUCKER:: As I understand it, a game warden would investigate a charge. Then he would go to a person and say, "This is the evidence I am prepared to give. I have a right to take your plea of guilty, and I think it would be wise for you to plead guilty". In that way he could persuade the accused to plead guilty. Then he could fine him or impose a penalty. In such a case he would be acting as investigator, accuser, and judge, in his latter capacity imposing a penalty. It would be a terrible state of affairs.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It would.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: I can well understand the desire of the minister to clothe officers with extraordinary powers in isolated districts, but the power given a game warden under section 5, subsection 2, should be read in the light of sections 7, 8 and 9. In section 7 the game officer is given power to bring any person who has contravened the act before a justice of the peace. By section 8 we give any justice of the peace power to issue a search warrant, under the authority of which a game officer may enter a home or building at any hour of the day or night. By section 9 we give a justice of the peace power to issue a summons. Looking at it purely from the layman's point of view it seems to me that one game officer could clothe the other with authority to carry on a most extraordinary procedure. One game officer could issue a search warrant to another to search a home.


An hon. MEMBER:: Or to himself.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yes, or to himself. Then, in turn, the evidence of one officer could be heard before the other-or an officer could even hear a case before himself, in which event the game officer would become the enforcement officer, the issuer of the search warrant, the magistrate and the executioner, all in one. If that is not intended, I suggest the intention should be made clear and the legislation made more specific.
Export oj Game


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I do not think that that could possibly arise under the section. Certainly it is not intended. But in view of the discussion on this section I will ask that it stand, and-


Richard Burpee Hanson: Review it.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I will have it reviewed
by the law officers of the crown, to see whether the difficulties exist which have been alluded to this afternoon.
Section stands.
On section 6-Other officers ex-officio game officers.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: Should not the remaining sections stand until we get further information on the previous section?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: No, I do not think that is necessary.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 7-Seizures.
Mr. STIRLING:: It is not plain to me what follows the actions of the game officer. He meets this person away up in the far north, and the minister desires to clothe him with sufficient authority. What happens next? Under section 7 he seizes the pelt, does he not, and he brings the matter before a justice of the peace. He lays a complaint and the case is brought before the justice of the peace, who decides what other penalty shall result from the misdemeanour if the person is convicted. Is that the course which it takes?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That, I take it, would be the effect of section 7.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Section 9 . covers it.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The hon. member for
Yale, I take it, is objecting to the rather extraordinary power which, he claims, is given in the section, which provides that where a game officer has reason to suspect that the provisions of the act have been contravened in respect of any game or package, shipment or consignment, he may seize it. About three years ago-I believe, at the session of 1938- a bill was introduced and passed by the house controlling the export or the movement of furs from the northwest territories to Alberta and Saskatchewan. As I recall, the precise power was given there which is conveyed here, because of the possibility of pelts being transferred illegally from one province to another. A trapper came to Alberta with over 300 beaver skins which he had taken illegally in British Columbia. Having so

large a number of skins, he could hire an aeroplane and come with his freight of pelts to the airport near Edmonton. Under such circumstances, if a police officer at that point has reason to suspect that the pelts have been taken illegally, he can seize them immediately and hold them until the matter is settled by due process of law before a magistrate. If he has not the power to do that; if he has to go somewhere to get a search warrant before he can appropriate the skins, they may be half way to Calgary by the time he gets the search warrant, and thus the law is evaded.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The same provision is to be found in all the liquor laws of the country. If an officer sees something which he has reason to believe is illegal, he has the power of seizure. If he has not, it would be just like folding up so far as the enforcement of the law is concerned. I see no objection to this power being conferred if the law is to be made effective.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I realize the difficulty in connection with the administration of justice in the far northern parts of Canada, and I think it is important that game officers should have the right of seizure. But section 7 provides that a game officer shall have the right to seize and to bring the case before a justice of the peace, which is himself, and decide.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: No, no.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Section 7 reads:
Any game officer having reason to suspect that the provisions of this act have been contravened in respect of any game or package, shipment or consignment may seize the same and bring it before a justice of the peace having jurisdiction in the matter.
He himself is to be the justice of the peace, and he will have jurisdiction. He will have not only the right to seize but the power to determine the penalty. We should not pass legislation which will give any game guardian these extraordinary powers. The clause should stand until section 5 is clarified.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: We want to make progress with the bill. I should like to oblige the hon. member for Mackenzie, but subsection 2 of section 5 is to stand, and I do not think it is necessary that section 7 be held over as well.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I cannot see the point of passing section 7 if the minister is going to reconsider section 5. These other sections should stand until the minister gives us definite information.

Export oj Game


Richard Burpee Hanson: Oa the
point raised by the hon. member for New Westminster, about the appointing of justices of the peace by the dominion, I suggest to the minister that he had better look at paragraph 14 of section 92 of the British North America Act, which, I think, conclusively proves that only the provinces can appoint justices of the peace.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Well, I shall look into
that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: On page
439 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms the matter is dealt with from the point of view of constitutionality. Perhaps the minister will review that.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That relates to subsection
2 of section 5?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Under subsection 2 of
section 5 justices of the peace are not appointed; but officers are given the power of justices of the peace for the purposes of this act only. Whether that makes any difference or not I do not know.


Richard Burpee Hanson: So that
if a man is not a justice of the peace in a province you can make him a justice of the peace ex-officio, or attempt to do so? I do not think you can.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 8-Search warrant.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Apparently this section has been drafted with a good deal of care. It reads:
(1) Any justice of the peace who is satisfied upon oath that there is reasonable ground for believing that there is in any store, shop, warehouse, outhouse, dwelling house, garden, yard, vessel, railway, vehicle, aircraft or other place game kept or concealed contrary to the provisions of this act may issue a warrant under his hand authorizing some constable or other person named therein to search such place by day or night for such game and to seize and bring it before the justice-
In circumstances such as the minister has suggested-in remote parts of the country a justice of the peace is not apt to be a highly trained man-I have often been bothered about the jurisdiction to issue a search warrant. I have heard of a justice of the peace issuing a search warrant on a mere verbal statement under oath. My own view is that the proper practice is that the statement shall be not only under oath but in writing, so that the writing may be available, in case of conviction, for review under writ of certiorari. Would the minister care to put the words "in writing"-in the section, to
indicate clearly the form in which the deposition must be made? That is what the trained magistrate always does or ought to do, but some who are not trained well swear the witness, take oral statements under oath, and then proceed to issue a search warrant. The minister's colleague (Mr. Ralston), a well-trained lawyer who must have had much experience along this line in his younger days, knows that the deposition is the basis of the jurisdiction for issuing a search warrant. If the deposition is bad, the whole thing goes by the board. The same is true of an information in a criminal case; if the information is bad, nothing afterwards can cure the proceeding. If it is defective ab initio it cannot be cured by a hearing later on. It is a long time since I have looked into the matter, but I think that is sound law. You get it so ingrained in your mind that you never forget it. I suggest that the evidence upon which the magistrate issues a search warrant shall be given not only under oath but in writing. I am trying to help the minister improve his bill, not trying to block it at all.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: We will let this stand, as the other subsection is standing.
Section stands.
On section 9-Justice of peace to issue summons, etc.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not see any objection to that.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 10-Information and complaint.
Richard Burpee Hanson: This is a reversal of what was the old common law and is now the law by statute. It means that you may have a multiplicity of charges in one information. I object to it on principle. It has been established over a long period of years, based on sound reasoning, that there shall be only one offence in an information. But here is a sort of omnibus clause which may mean that of a dozen charges one may stick. That is bad in principle. I suggest that the ordinary rule long-established in our criminal law and subsequently carried into the criminal code be adhered to. The present subsection 3 of section 710 of the criminal code, proposed to be amended by section 10 of the bill, provides as follows:
Every complaint shall be for one matter of complaint only, and not for two or more matters of complaint, and every information shall be for one offence only, and not for two or more offences.
The books are full of cases in support of that principle, which should not lightly be
Export of Game

departed from. We are being asked to legislate on an. exception, and it is bad law. I ask that the section stand so that it can be looked into.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I think that section 10 requires to be read in conjunction with section 12.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Section 11, perhaps.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: No. Section 12 provides:
Any fine imposed upon a conviction of an offence involving more than a single article of gain shall be computed in respect of each such article as though each such article had been the subject of a separate complaint.
That means that if a person brought in say twenty skins which it was illegal for him to take he could be charged with twenty separate offences, but under subsection 3 of section 710 of the criminal code he could be charged with only one offence. Section 10 is introduced in the light of the provisions of section 12, so that subsection 3 of section 710 of the criminal code which I have just quoted shall not apply.


Mr. BOUCHER:: Does not section 10 go much further than that?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That principle is already in effect in some of the provinces. In Ontario, for instance, a person may be charged in respect of each article illegally taken. Each constitutes a separate complaint. It is a nice question whether such a provision is too severe to apply to the cases that will arise under this legislation. All I can plead in its behalf is that the representatives of the provincial governments who have met with the federal authorities on more than one occasion consider that the wrongful practices which have grown up call for a stringent penalty, so I am advised, in order to get rid of these abuses.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am not impressed by the minister's argument about what the provincial officers have advocated. I am reminded of the legislation that was put on the provincial statute books in the days of prohibition with respect to infractions of the intoxicating liquor laws. While I supported the principle of prohibition, the New Brunswick intoxicating liquor act, which was put on the statute book by my friends down there, simply shocked one's sense of justice. A man was guilty before he came into court. The whole onus was put on him to show that he was not guilty.


Mr. MARTIN:: You should have seen our act.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes, and it is all wrong. Does not my hon. friend agree with me?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hear, hear.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The provincial officers administer the criminal law; they are not charged with the duty of framing the laws. Their duties, except with respect to infractions of their own prohibitive acts, are almost wholly administrative, not legislative, and I do not think they should have very much to say about this legislation. But should we not have something to say about the person who is charged? Who is going to defend him if we in parliament do not raise a voice on behalf of perhaps an innocent accused?


Thomas Reid: The public are losing their
rights day by day.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Absolutely, and not only losing them-they have lost them. The government year in and year out by order in council are setting aside the statutes passed by parliament while parliament is in session, and doing it under the guise of the War Measures Act and of the War Appropriation Act. It comes to me as a great shock to learn that the government of Canada, under a Liberal administration, is legislating by order in council under the apparent authority of the War Measures Act and the War Appropriation Act to set aside important sections of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act. It will be a great shock I think to the people to learn that under the guise of war necessity the government is setting aside, when parliament is actually in session, the considered laws of this country. Talk about parliament being thrown into the discard! Well, I am going to have something to say about this subject a little later. Perhaps it is not quite germane to this discussion but I feel strongly on the point, and I am giving notice that at a more appropriate time I intend to review the whole position. In the circumstances and the stress of war, if the government were advised that it was legally sound, it might do this when the house was not in session, but I am really shocked that a house led by the present Prime Minister, champion of liberty, should set aside a statute of the parliament of Canada when the house is in session.
However, to come back to game, which is more mundane, I do suggest to the minister that there was sound reason for the subsection 3 of section 710 of the criminal code, and this parliament ought not lightly to depart from the principle therein embodied. It is another instance of doing the expedient thing, not the just thing, in a given case, and I think the minister ought to review the matter. It is

Export oj Game
done purely as a matter of expediency. The minister referred to fines being accumulated under section 12. I see no difficulty about making the punishment stringent enough. Take the case of a wholesale bootlegger or smuggler; that can be taken care of by appropriate language.
Let us not depart from the sound, well-established principle of our criminal law- one offence, one charge, one hearing. The minister would be well advised to reconsider the point. I would ask that the section be allowed to stand.


George Russell Boucher: While the interpretation given by the minister in relation to section 12 has some weight, section 10, particularly if coupled with section 5, subsection 2 as it now stands, permits a game warden to go back into some remote section of the country, find an accused, lay a charge, adjourn the case from time to time as justice of the peace, and conduct it where he will. He can lay what charges he likes, accumulate as many charges as he likes, and leave the accused no opportunity whatever to defend himself or to know the charge he is facing until he appears before his prosecutor, who also acts as judge. I think the committee will agree that the penalty itself should be severe in cases of this kind, but penalty is one thing and guilt another. The utmost care should be taken, especially in view of the nature of the offence, to give the accused every possible chance to justify his own acts before a fair tribunal, with every opportunity to understand the charge made against him, and to put in his proper defence.
We should not lose sight of the necessity of maintaining the old principle of British justice under which a man is deemed to be innocent until he is proved guilty by an adequate court. We should not depart from this principle by putting too much authority into the hands of a game warden and leaving the accused without any protection whatever. In Ontario particularly, I believe, the principle has generally been observed of keeping the local magistrate in charge of nearly all offences within his jurisdiction and keeping justices of the peace from every judicial position if the magistrate is accessible. If you have every game warden a justice of the peace you will upset the equilibrium of the whole administration of justice under the Game and Fisheries Act, and it would be grossly unfair to the person asked to defend himself before a prosecutor who is also judge.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I admit that under the act very heavy penalties could be imposed.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am not raising any objection to that. If it is wholesale they should be punished.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: How one can measure
properly the weight of the penalty that should be imposed is of course a matter of opinion.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No; it is a matter of judicial discretion.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: It is a matter of opinion when we are considering it in this house.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Fix a
maximum and minimum.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Clearly the intent of this legislation was that the violator of the law would be separately charged on each pelt he had.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Not separately-that is the point-but collectively.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Well, he would be collectively charged but he would be fined on each. Each one would be regarded as a different offence.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That does not necessarily follow.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I mentioned a moment ago the case of a trapper who had taken into Alberta over 300 beaver skins that he had illegally taken in British Columbia. The contention of the leader of the opposition, as I understand it, is that under the law that should constitute only one offence.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The intention of the bill is that if the minimum fine of $10 were applied it could be applied on each beaver skin, which would be a separate complaint, and the total fine would be over $3,000.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Does not the minister think that the draftsman had in mind something of what I am suggesting when he made the maximum fine $1,000 and the gaol term a year? That would be a pretty severe sentence for one skin, and yet it could be imposed. The two things seem to me to be incompatible; two ideas have got mixed in the drafting.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I do not think my hon. friend is quite right there. Suppose a man takes one beaver skin illegally in Saskatchewan and takes it into Manitoba and is charged under the act.


Richard Burpee Hanson: He could be fined $1,000.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Yes, or he could be fined $10. If he took 300 beaver skins in Saskatchewan and brought them into Manitoba he
Export oj Game

could be charged and fined $1,000 as a maximum or $10 as a minimum, if this provision is dropped.


Richard Burpee Hanson: He might be fined $1,000 on each skin; I am not sure. I should like to think it over.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Rightly or wrongly it is not considered a sufficient penalty, with a lenient magistrate, for an offence of the kind.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The magistrate may, under those circumstances, impose a fine, upon conviction for an offence involving more than a single article, that is, more than one skin, "computed in respect of each such article". Each such article has been the subject of a separate complaint and he may be fined $1,000 for each article. That is my hurried construction of it.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I may be wrong, but if we dropped section 10 that could not be done, because the section from the criminal code quoted on the opposite page would apply. The purpose of section 10 is to enable the magistrate to do just what the leader of the opposition says.


Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: As I see it, section 10 is in no way dependent on section 12, nor is section 12 dependent on section 10. They deal with altogether different matters. By section 10, section 710 of the criminal code, which limits the complaint to one offence, is done away with. If section 10 is passed, prosecution under this measure could include any number of offences in one complaint, which as I see it is highly improper.
The minister mentioned the case of 300 beaver skins found illegally in a man's possession. There is no reason in such a case why there should be more than one complaint. If the accused is found guilty in regard to 300 the penalty can be appropriate. This has nothing to do with section 10. He could be and probably would be fined much more for having 300 skins in his possession illegally than for having one.


Mr. HOMUTH:: And the government gets the skins.


George Black: Section 12 does not leave it in the judgment of the magistrate to say how he shall compute the penalty. It says the penalty "shall be computed in respect of each such article". The fair way to word it would be "may be computed in respect of each such article". As it is now, the magistrate has no option; if there are ten articles he must impose ten penalties.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Let section 10 stand also, and we will look at it.
Section stands.
On section 11-Offence. Penalty.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: In view of the fact that the law officers of the crown express the opinion that the game officer as defined by this bill can be the same person as the justice of the peace, would it not follow that if we passed section 11 the one individual would be permitted to sentence a man to pay a fine not exceeding $1,000 or to a term not exceeding one year in gaol? I suggest that this section also stand until the minister has advice from the law officers of the crown.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I am agreeable to that.


Mr. ROEBUCK:: I should like to say a
word on this matter of justices of the peace generally, since the matter is standing for consideration.
In 1934 there was a very considerable reorganization of the entire arrangements concerning justices of the peace and magistrates -and incidentally constables-in Ontario. It is most important that any dealing with justices of the peace be in line with what Ontario is now doing; and I think other provinces followed the example.
Prior to 1934 in Ontario there was a very large number of local magistrates, men who had their little principalities, with an office in the courthouse, as a rule, in the county town and all the large towns of the province. The number of justices of the peace in Ontario was estimated at 10,000.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It used
to be an honour.


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: I had the pleasure, shall
I say, of recommending to council the discharge or cancellation at one fell swoop of the commissions of 10,000 justices of the peace.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Lord
High Executioner!


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: Well I swung the axe
with a good deal of satisfaction. Then we proceeded on another basis, that of selecting men of high class in the various communities, the best that could be found, often the clerk of the municipality-men of that type- and making them justices of the peace with authority and a job to be done. Instead of the magistrate hearing first the complaint from the policeman and later the evidence and finally giving the decision, we divided the functions:	first, the policeman laying
the charge; next, the justice of the peace issuing the warrant or summons, preparing the case for trial. Then we divided the province into seventeen great districts, each district having two or three magistrates who travelled around, so that we had itinerant

Export oj Game
magistrates instead of local resident magistrates. The effect was tremendous; there was a great improvement in the junior criminal courts of our province. It would be a serious mistake if the dominion government should constitute policemen justices of the peace and reduce the status of the justice of the peace, which during the last six or seven years has been raised to one of real responsibility in the community. That would be a major error.
Three distinct functions are involved here. First there is the function which attaches to the policeman. He is full of suspicion. He has the police mind-and that is the proper mind for a policeman. The justice of the peace is a judicial officer. He decides whether a warrant should or should not issue, whether it should be a summons, or whether any charge at all should be laid. He must know something of the law. It is a mistake to allow the official who prepares the case and does the interlocutory work in the case to make the final decision. You may have a man capable of doing all three, but the public never credit him with the ability. If you are to have justice which is respected by the community you must reserve final decisions to a magistrate who has nothing else to do with the case and is therefore impartial.
I hope this matter will be thoroughly discussed and considered in the light of the experience in my province, supplemented I have no doubt by experience in other provinces, before we take any such step as is suggested.
Section stands.
On section 12-Fines cumulative.


Richard Burpee Hanson: This is
mandatory. The convicting magistrate will have no option but to compute the fine imposed upon conviction "in respect of each such article as though each such article had been the subject of a separate complaint and the fine imposed shall be the sum payable in the aggregate as a result of such computation." I suggest that the word "shall" should be changed to "may," leaving it permissive with the convicting magistrate.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: If my hon. friend will
permit me, I have an amendment proposing that very thing.
Section stands.
On section 13-Bringing into force by proclamation.


Richard Burpee Hanson: This is a case of "off again, on again, gone again, Finnegan." The section provides:
The governor in council may as often as occasion requires declare by proclamation that upon and after a day therein named this act 3hall be in force in any province-
The governor in council can undo that and then do it again. I never saw such legislation as this; it is unique. Why is this power required? To-day it is the law, tomorrow it is not, in a given territorial jurisdiction. This kind of legislation is utterly indefensible. The discussion has shown, I think, that this is what I would term ancillary legislation to help the provinces enforce their game laws and collect their revenues. Well. I may be preaching heterodoxy at the moment, but we have never had very much respect for the game laws as such. After all the violation of a game law is not a crime. Those from the province of Quebec who are students of the civil code will recall-and I am in your hands now, Mr. Chairman-things which are called mala in se as distinguished from mala prohibita. In the first case the act is ethically wrong; in the second it is a prohibited act, and some prohibited acts are fantastic. The game laws are enacted on the theory of conservation, of course. The smuggling of game, and smuggling generally to defeat the customs, is merely a prohibited act, and legislation with regard to that is legislation with regard to prohibited acts. How far should this parliament use its power and authority to assist the provinces to enforce the game laws?
There is a principle involved in this legislation. I am not going to oppose the principle; the minister has been satisfied by representations of eight of the nine provinces that they desire this legislation, and so far as I am concerned it is not going to fall on me. I am not going to smuggle any game, and I am not in very great sympathy with those who may do so; but after all there is a principle here in this section. You proclaim it the law to-day and it is not the law to-morrow, by a second proclamation. Think it over; that is all I ask.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: This is brought into effect with regard to a particular province by proclamation. If that province entirely washed out all licensing in connection with the trapping and selling of furs, the need for this legislation would disappear. In that case I presume the intention of those who drafted the legislation was that it could be made of no effect in that province. Then if the province reimposed licensing conditions in connection with the taking of game or the payment of royalties, the act could be again proclaimed so far as that province was concerned. I know this lends itself to the humorous description given by the leader of
Export of Game

the opposition a moment ago, but last night I understood the hon. gentleman to say that he was in favour of the principle of this legislation.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is,
not to smuggle game.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I rather gathered from the hon. gentleman's remarks a few moments ago that he had altered his opinion.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Oh, no; I did not say that. That is the minister's interpretation.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Of course it is quite open to any of us to change our opinions, but usually that is not done within the course of twenty-four houi's. However, perhaps this section may be allowed to stand and we will review it also.


Richard Burpee Hanson: You had better review the whole bill.


Walter Adam Tucker: Anyone who attempts to practise law is always faced with the problem of knowing what the law is, and the situation is getting worse all the time in this regard. There should be some certainty about the law. If someone comes in and asks, "Well, what is the law in that regard," you should be able, at least in regard to law other than that concerning the war, to look up your revised statutes and the annual revisions of the province and the dominion-and of course if there is any municipal law involved you should get in touch with your municipality-and give a definite answer. But suppose five or six years from now some action is taken under this section. There is a provision here that by proclamation, at any time, this law may be repealed or brought into force again. It may be even repealed and brought into force two or three times in ten years. How in the world is anybody to know what the law is? If you are to have respect for law in this country; if you are to be able to place upon any citizen the onus of being charged with knowledge of the law-because ignorance of the law excuses no one; a man is assumed to know the law-then we must be reasonable with our people and must have the law in such a state that they can be expected to know it. If the law is to be changed by order in council or by proclamation; if it can be brought into force, taken out of force and then brought into force again, how in the world is the citizen or anyone advising the citizen to know what is the law?
The answer may be that you should write Ottawa and find out the law. Is it not getting very far away from the certainty of law and the administration of the law as passed by parliament, if in order to advise a man you

have to get in touch with the government to find out what is the law? I would very strongly advise the minister to eliminate any such provision as this. If people are to obey the law they must know what it is. If we are not to have the law brought into contempt; if we are to have some certainty about it and some respect for it, the people must know what the law is. Otherwise they are going to break it; that cannot be helped. I urge the minister very strongly not to have a provision of this kind in this section. It is bad enough to provide that a section may come into force upon proclamation; then you have to find out if a proclamation has ever been issued. But if you are going to say that a law can be taken out of force by proclamation and then brought back into force in the same way, it seems to me you make it impossible for people to know what is going on.


Mr. BRADETTE:: I should like to mention just one or two points which perhaps apply particularly to northern Ontario. Several hon. members have severely criticized the matter of a cumulative fine, but there is something worse so far as the game laws of Ontario are concerned. I do not know that the matter is particularly dealt with in this bill, but in northern Ontario some white poachers have practically mined the game preserves that the Indians have had for so many centuries. Many people suffer in the police magistrates' courts of northern Ontario in this way. A father and son may be caught with twenty beaver pelts and both may be fined in connection with the same pelts. I do not know whether that matter is well defined in the federal law, but certainly it is not in the provincial law. Again you may have two or three people penalized for the same offence. The game warden may bring in the trapper, the buyer and the person in possession of the furs at the time they were seized. I should like the federal department to be thoroughly familiar with this very unfair situation, under which a magistrate may fine three or four persons for the same offence.


The CHAIRMAN:: I understand that section 13 is to stand, together with sections 5, 8, 11 and 12.


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: When section 5 is being reconsidered I suggest that the law officers be asked to see whether this legislation is intra vires of this parliament. I do not know whether that matter has been discussed-


Richard Burpee Hanson: Very lightly.


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: Obviously the administration of justice is in the hands of the provinces. This government has the appointment of judges, but justices of the peace are not

Supplementary War Appropriation Bill
judges. I should not like to pass an opinion offhand, without looking into the matter, but I seriously doubt the constitutionality of this part of the measure.
Section stands.
Progress reported.



WAR APPROPRIATION


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of Bill No. 25, for granting to his majesty aid for national defence and security.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of opposing the second reading of this bill. During the course of an earlier debate I made a suggestion to the government with respect to a gift of wheat to our kith and kin across the seas. The suggestion did not meet with very much response from the government, but there have been repercussions from the country with regard to it, and I desire to make a few observations as to an alternative proposal.
My original proposal was the gift of
100,000,000 bushels of wheat out of our great wealth of that commodity. One hundred million bushels of wheat based on an extraction of flour of approximately 80 per cent would result in 80,000,000 bushels of flour, which, at 60 pounds to the bushel, equals
2.400.000	tons of flour. This would leave approximately 20,000,000 bushels, of mill feeds, bran, shorts and middlings, or approximately
600.000	tons. I am suggesting to the government as an alternative that instead of giving wheat we give flour milled in this country. One hundred million bushels of wheat in the form of flour would represent the domestic requirements of the British isles for approximately six months. Would that be too generous a gesture for Canada?
There may be complications in connection with a donation of this kind with regard to the question of maintaining an equity in the matter of sterling exchange. At present prices 100,000,000 bushels of wheat delivered to the Canadian seaboard would represent a donation of approximately $100,000,000. I think that estimate is high, but it would approach that sum of money. The cost of transportation from the Canadian Atlantic seaboard to the United Kingdom would be paid perhaps by the British ministry of shipping. This 100,000,000 bushels of wheat would have to be ground into flour and byproducts. It has been estimated that the
capacity of United Kingdom flour mills has been reduced by over thirty per cent, due to actual damage from bombs, and a further decrease of twenty per cent, making the total efficiency of United Kingdom mills approximately fifty per cent of peace-time capacity, due to intermittent air raids wherein it is necessary to shut down the existing mills.
On the other hand Canadian flour mills, which at the present time are running to not more than sixty per cent capacity, could quite easily take up this grind, particularly since any donation of wheat to Great Britain would result in present flour shipments to Great Britain being displaced to the extent of the wheat donation.
One of the major problems in Canada since the war began has been to provide a supply of feeding stuffs for live stock and dairy interests. The situation is particularly acute in connection with the raising of hogs for bacon. It has been the subject of governmental action in the form of subsidizing the movement of feed grain from western Canada to points in Ontario and, it was suggested, to other points in the eastern provinces. Owing to the lack of ocean space available it does not seem desirable at the present time to ship approximately 600,000 tons of feeding stuffs in the form of wheat to Great Britain. Every effort is being made in that country to produce its own supply of cattle feeds. During the last few months there has been a tendency to decrease the quantity of live stock and its resultant dairy products and import manufactured or semi-processed commodities.
The whole scheme of making a donation to Great Britain, while it may be complicated, in my view has substantial merit. There is a tremendous surplus of Canadian grain in Canada at the present time and with anything like a normal crop in 1941 there certainly will not be sufficient space in the grain elevators and other storage capacities to take care of the crop. A large quantity will have to stay on the farms, and there is bound to be deterioration in quality. A donation of 100,000,000 bushels to Great Britain will not change the picture very much; it will only replace what Great Britain would normally purchase. Unfortunately there is no other large consuming market available for Canadian wheat, as wheat, at the present time.
There is a tremendous possibility behind the whole proposition in the introduction of Canadian spring wheat flour on the United Kingdom market. The domestic consumer in Great Britain is accustomed to blended wheat flour for household use. Canadian spring wheat flour has largely gone to the bakeshops and commercial consumers for the purposes of strengthening soft wheat flours, either grown
2046	COMMONS
Supplementary War Appropriation Bill
locally in Great Britain or imported from other countries. If Canadian flour made from spring wheat could be milled in Canada and shipped in the original containers direct to the householder in Great Britain a very useful purpose would be served in educating the householder to the use of spring wheat flour.
The unit of measure in the milling industry in Canada for flour is the barrel of 196 pounds or multiples thereof. In Great Britain the unit is a sack of 280 pounds or multiples thereof. The normal container shipped from Canada to the United Kingdom is the sack of 140 pounds, or what might be termed a half sack on the British basis of measure. It has been suggested to me that Canadian flour could be shipped in 14-pound cotton bags of which ten are baled in a jute bag. This bag would carry a suitable crest designed and controlled by the dominion government and conveyed by licence to the various mills in Canada which would participate in the movement. The standard would have to be controlled and arrangements would have to be made with the cereals import committee or some British government agency to take delivery at seaboard.
The wheat could be sold to the mills by the Canadian wheat board at a certain price and the flour purchased from the mills f.o.b. seaboard at a price which would make allowance for the conversion costs, plus containers, and deducting an allowance for feedstuffs produced from this wheat. This method would keep the Canadian wheat board balance in shape and the amount paid for the flour at seaboard would represent the actual donation which the Canadian government would make to the British isles.
It is very doubtful if the total amount of the contribution would reach 100,000,000 bushels of wheat. However, there is no apparent reason why many cargoes of Canadian wheat flour should not be moved to Great Britain in the manner I have described, with permanent beneficial results in the reputation which Canadian spring wheat flour would gain in the United Kingdom.
The average ship can carry approximately, as a full cargo, 7,500 tons of flour. It will be realized, therefore, that 100,000,000 bushels of wheat in the form of flour would require in excess of 300 full cargoes, and shipment might be spread over a long period of time. On the other hand, a cargo of 7,500 tons bagged in fourteen pound containers would mean that there would be approximately 1,125,000 bags to be distributed to the consumer; and, as already stated, if this fourteen pound bag were properly labelled as being Canada's contribution to the consumers of Great Britain, the
IMr. R. B. Hanson.]
effect can hardly be estimated. It would not take more than forty cargoes to give full coverage to the entire United Kingdom.
There are many ways in which shipments of this kind could be financed. It could be done by a treasury vote for a full cargo, if the government were disposed, under the War Measures Act or under the war appropriation bill. It might be more desirable to have the flour moving forward in parcel lots along with shipments of munitions and supplies. It might be possible that it could be handled through popular subscription. But this is doubtful with the pressure now on the taxpayer to pay taxes, subscribe for war loans and contribute to different war organizations.
In any event it seems most desirable that, should any movement of this kind be organized, Canada should now ship flour rather than wheat, retain the mill feeds in Canada for domestic consumption, ensure that Canadian spring wheat flour is introduced direct to the householder in Great Britain, arrange for the purchase of containers in Canada much cheaper than now available in Great Britain, retain control of the standard of quality of the flour in Canada, and see that the British consumer realizes that, when a bag of this flour is delivered to him, it is part of Canada's contribution.
There will be other problems in connection with such a distribution in Great Britain. No doubt the flour would have to be shipped to the importers in Great Britain, but the control of the distribution in the United Kingdom would have to be supervised by some representative of the Canadian government to ensure that it would go direct to the consumer.
I offer this in absolute good faith as an alternative, and I hope that the government will give it consideration. I know that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) made a very important statement the other day with respect to Canada's war contribution, and, measured in terms of dollars and cents, it was immense; I have never attempted to analyse the figures. But it will be recollected that in the last war we did make contributions: provincial governments made donations to the mother country in the form of foodstuffs; and, if I can get the sympathetic ear of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Usley) and the gentlemen who are leading the government on this occasion, I would urge upon them the advisability of giving consideration to a gift of flour to the beleaguered people of Great Britain.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Yien in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Appropriation.

Supplementary War Appropriation Bill
James Layton Ralston: Perhaps this would be
the proper place for me to say a word in answer to what my hon. friend the member for Yale (Mr. Stirling) referred to yesterday afternoon with respect to the relations between the Canadian and British forces and the Canadian and British commands in the United Kingdom.
Let me say that, while stating perhaps the cold legal position, I want it clearly understood that it is the legal position, and that there is no necessity nor do I anticipate that there will be any necessity of our having to invoke it. There has not been the slightest difference of opinion with respect to matters of operations in which the Canadian corps or Canadian forces overseas are or may be engaged. The relationship between the Canadian and British forces and the Canadian staffs and the British staffs could not be more cordial than they have been, and the confidence which exists between them could not, I think, be greater.
Coming to the legal position, as was intimated yesterday afternoon, the Canadian troops are in the United Kingdom under the terms of what is known as the Visiting Forces (British Commonwealth) Act, 1933. That act so far as Canada is concerned is contained in chapter 21 of the statutes of 1933; and the same act, I understand, practically word for word, is on the statute book of the United Kingdom, although the sections are numbered differently.
As hon. members know, the intention of the act is to provide for the relationships existing betwen the so-called home forces, which in the case we are referring to are the United Kingdom forces, and visiting forces, which are the Canadian forces. Two different situations are visualized under the visiting forces act. That is to say, there is one status for the visiting forces, in which they are held to be, as the statute states, serving together with the home forces-that is, the Canadian forces are serving together with the British forces. There is another status in which the Canadian forces are said to be acting in combination with the United Kingdom forces.
Section 6, subsection 4 (a) of that statute provides for the terms of the status when they are serving together. Section 6, subsection 4 (b) provides for the status when they are serving in combination. To make it very brief, the serving together status is more properly adaptable and applicable to the situation where visiting troops are training in the United Kingdom; the status of acting in combination is more adaptable and applicable to the situation where a visiting force
may be called upon to engage in operations along with the United Kingdom forces. The difference in status is this, so far as command is concerned, that when troops are serving together, that is to say more or less on a training basis, they are under separate commands-that is, the home forces are under one command, the Canadian forces are under another command, and there is no common command over them; each is, if I may put it that way, autonomous in connection with its own particular organization and command. When troops are acting in combination, then, as the statute provides, his majesty may provide one officer to act in command of the combined forces.
That is the background of the relationship which exists in the United Kingdom with respect to the Canadian forces. We now come to what has been done in that respect.
The statute provides that the government by order in council may declare that the Canadian forces-I use that term interchangeably with "visiting forces"-shall be deemed to be serving together with the home forces, or the governor in council may declare that the visiting forces shall be acting in combination with the home forces. We have done both. We have passed an order in council, dated April 3, 1940-as a matter of fact it bears the significant and rather intriguing number, 1066-under the War Measures Act. It will be found in volume 2, page 47, of the volume of proclamations and orders in council passed under the War Measures Act. This order in council provides three things: first, that Canadian forces, military and air, in the United Kingdom or the continent of Europe or proceeding from one to the other, serve together with the United Kingdom forces; second, that Canadian forces serving on the continent act in combination upon their embarkation in the United Kingdom for the purpose of proceeding to the continent of Europe.
Third-and this is the important point before us now because we have no forces on the continent of Europe-the order in council provides that those parts of the Canadian forces, military and air, serving in the United Kingdom-'those are our forces which are there at the present time-as may from time to time be detailed for that purpose by the appropriate service authorities as may from time to time be designated by the Minister of National Defence shall act in combination with the United Kingdom forces.
The forces in the United Kingdom are serving together. The Canadian forces are, under the general provision, serving together with the United Kingdom forces and are therefore under separate command.
2048	COMMONS
Supplementary War Appropriation Bill
That third provision of the order in council provides, in effect, that an officer designated by the Minister of National Defence may detail for the purpose of serving in the United Kingdom any portion of those forces to act in combination with the British forces in which case, as I stated a minute ago, by acting in combination they come under a combined command.
Following that through, the Minister of National Defence designated General Mc-Naughton in respect of the Canadian corps; the senior combatant officer at Canadian military headquarters in respect of the troops under his command, and the senior combatant officer in command of any remaining troops in the United Kingdom in respect of forces under his command, to detail the forces or parts of the forces as they might think fit to act in combination with the British forces.
That gave authority to General Mc-Naughton, if he so desired, to detail the Canadian corps, or, as it was then, the first Canadian division, to act in combination with the British forces. He did that. He has detailed the troops of the Canadian corps to act in combination with the troops of the United Kingdom. That is the situation at the present time.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is restricted to serving in Britain?


James Layton Ralston: That detail is restricted to serving in the United Kingdom.
The senior combatant officer at Canadian military headquarters has not, I understand, detailed the troops under his command to act in combination, because the troops under his command are, generally speaking troops in training, troops at base units, and so forth. There are no other troops in Great Britain except those in the Canadian corps under General McNaughton and those under Canadian military headquarters. That brings the Canadian corps under the command of Sir Allan Brooke, commander in chief of the home forces, by reason of the fact that the Canadian corps has been detailed by General McNaughton to act in combination with the forces of the United Kingdom.
Parallel with that goes this, that under General McNaughton's instructions when he went there, he is directly responsible to the Minister of National Defence and, through the minister, to the Canadian government for the control of the forces under his command. I mention that so that I may indicate what the situation would be with regard to the troops when under Sir Allan Brooke.

The situation, if one were to visualize operations in the United Kingdom, is that Sir Allan Brooke would-I have not any doubt of this-consult with General McNaughton, who is the commander of the Canadian corps and whose troops are acting in combination with the United Kingdom forces under Sir Allan Brooke, in connection with any operation in which the Canadian corps would be committed. I can say that that is done in practice. I can say that it is done on grounds of policy. I can say that it is done also because of the obvious military desirability of a commanding officer in chief consulting with the senior commanding officers of large bodies of troops under his command in connection with any tactical plans which are being made. That is the situation so far as the United Kingdom is concerned.
With regard to the troops going out of England, may I read a paragraph which I have under my hand and which sets out the situation more briefly and succinctly than perhaps I could state it.
As respects any question concerning the employment of the Canadian forces on the continent of Europe or elsewhere, the position is clear, namely, that the decision would rest entirely with the Canadian government. It was in accordance with this principle that the decision was reached last spring to employ Canadian troops in France. Since the change in the situation resulting from the German invasion of France and the low countries, no suggestion of any kind has been made to Canadian military authorities or to the Canadian government that its forces should serve beyond the United Kingdom, except in one instance when the British government requested and the Canadian government approved the dispatch of small detachments of Canadian troops to carry out special work at Gibraltar, of which the house has general information.


Grote Stirling: Does Norway come before that?


James Layton Ralston: Norway came much before that. I said "since the change in the situation." Norway was before the change in the situation resulting from the invasion of France.


Grote Stirling: If I might interrupt,
was that decision of the Canadian government arrived at before the question of Canadian troops serving in France came up?


James Layton Ralston: The question of Canadian troops in France was provided for in the order in council of April.


Grote Stirling: Yes, and the minister said that a decision was arrived at by the Canadian government with regard to Canadian troops being dispatched to France.

Supplementary War Appropriation Bill


James Layton Ralston: That is correct.


Grote Stirling: And the Norway incident came before that?


James Layton Ralston: I am trying to remember.


Grote Stirling: And presumably the
Canadian government in that case also arrived at that decision.


James Layton Ralston: Yes, but I am trying to remember at the moment the element of time. There is no doubt whatever that the Canadian government was consulted about the Norway expedition, and it gave its express approval. I wish to say, just to clinch that, that the decision as to the employment of troops outside the United Kingdom is a matter for the Canadian government.
I do not know that there is anything I can add, except that I might put on record a couple of paragraphs which will sum up what I have said.
The Canadian forces in the United Kingdom serve together but not in combination unless there has been a special detailing by the appropriate Canadian service authority.


Grote Stirling: Which there has been in this case.


James Layton Ralston: The appropriate Canadian service authority has detailed the Canadian corps to serve in combination with the troops of the United Kingdom.
Second, the appropriate Canadian service authority can detail for service within the United Kingdom, but not for service outside, Canadian forces to act in combination. As I have said, General McNaughton has done that in respect of the corps, and General Montague, senior combatant officer at Canadian military headquarters, would have power to detail troops under his command.
Third, the appropriate Canadian service authority cannot authorize the embarkation of Canadian forces from the United Kingdom without the authority of the Minister of National Defence.
Fourth-and this comes by reason of the third clause in the order in council, P.C. 1066-embarkation for the purpose of proceeding to the continent of Europe automatically brings about serving in combination because the order in council contains an express provision. In that case the question as to whether the Canadian troops are serving in combination is not left to the discretion of the general officer commanding, Canadian corps, but assuming that embarkation has taken place by reason of the approval and authorization of the Canadian government, then automatically upon that embarkation
Canadian troops serve in combination with the troops of the United Kingdom on the continent.


Mr. GREEN:: What is the situation with regard to sending Canadian troops to Northern Ireland or Iceland?


James Layton Ralston: The approval of the
Canadian government is required.


Grote Stirling: I thank the minister for that statement, which I think will clear the minds of a great many people with regard to the coordination of military forces. He said at the beginning of his statement that the order in council applied to army and air. Is the navy under a separate arrangement altogether, or did that order in council deliberately exclude the navy from the arrangement?


James Layton Ralston: As a matter of fact, I got a chance to look at it only just before I entered the chamber, and I cannot tell my hon. friend exactly what the situation is with regard to it.


Grote Stirling: Perhaps the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services can elucidate the point.


Mr. MACDONALD (Kingston City):: Will the hon. member give me a moment to look at the act?


James Layton Ralston: In the meantime there are two or three questions asked me by different members, and I might as well put the answers on the record now. The hon. member for Vancouver South asked whether the age regulation had been changed. The information is that routine order No. 138, dated November 18, 1939, provides that men who have not attained the age of nineteen will not be enlisted into any unit of the mobile force, and these instructions have never been altered. As a matter of fact, the adjutant-general is finding out from the district what the newspaper article referred to.


Howard Charles Green: I quoted last night from one newspaper article, and there is a longer one in the Vancouver Sun of March 25, headed "Army Calling for B.C. Youths of 18; Seeking 1200 men", and that dispatch states, in part:
Recruiting officers here to-day were ordered to reduce the lower age limit of acceptance for army recruits from 19 to 18 as an urgent call for 1,200 men came from headquarters of military district No. 11. No recruits have previously been accepted under the age of 19.
Other extracts are:
Youths of less than 19 will be enlisted at once, but will not be sent overseas until they are 19.
2050	COMMONS
Supplementary War Appropriation Bill
That would make it look as if some orders had been sent out from Ottawa.
However, every physically fit man between 18 and 45 that offers himself will be accepted at once, all recruiting offices have been instructed.
The 18-year-olds will be classified according to the date on which they will attain the age of 19. Those who will be 19 in the near future will be assigned to units which may go overseas shortly. Younger 18-year-olds will be placed with units which are at present being retained in Canada.
Another interesting paragraph is:
All recruits under the age of 19 are required to present their birth certificates when applying for enlistment.
That is a definite stand taken by the officers in military district No. 11.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend heard me say that the adjutant-general is finding out from the district what the newspaper article refers to. I have told him that there is a routine order and that my information is that it has never been altered. It cannot do any good to emphasize the fact that somebody in the district is publishing these statements. I have given the answer I get from headquarters; we are trying to find out what the newspaper article refers to, and I will give the information as soon as I get it.


Howard Charles Green: Is there any difficulty about getting in the numbers required? It would look as if there were trouble raising the number.


James Layton Ralston: I said to my hon. friend the other day that they were somewhat short of the previous quota, and the present quota has, therefore, an additional number in it. It has to make up the shortage on the previous quota and the present quota as well.


Richard Burpee Hanson: May I ask the minister a question about air men. I understood him to say that the order in council was the same with respect to air men as to men in the army-that is, with reference to transfers from one branch to the other.


James Layton Ralston: May I give what information I have.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Perhaps I misunderstood what had passed.


James Layton Ralston: I think my hon. friend was wrong in one respect. I will read a long statement which I have before me with regard to the question:
Prior to the outbreak of the war, candidates for appointment to commission, in the general list, permanent active air force were required to have a university degree. Shortly after the declaration of the war, this requirement was
[Mr. Green.1
reduced to senior matriculation, or equivalent, which scheme was in effect until the commencement of the joint air training plan. Candidates selected under this scheme were appointed to commissions as pilot officers in the special reserve, subject, of course, to their qualifying as pilots.
It should be noted that prior to the outbreak of war short service appointments for 4 years service in the general list of the auxiliary active air force could be given to candidates with junior matriculation and senior matriculation in mathematics, provided that they were qualified pilots.
When the joint air training plan began, candidates for flying training no longer were commissioned, but were enlisted as A.C. 2's. The educational requirements were also reduced to junior matriculation, or the equivalent.
In August, 1940, educational requirements for wireless operators (air gunners) were further reduced to two years of high school, but no change was made respecting pilots or observers, the qualifications for which still being junior matriculation.
Therefore the change to which my hon. friend refers has no reference to pilots and observers, but applies only to wireless operators-air gunners-and therefore applies to a limited number. I have here the following note:
Your statement regarding mechanics wishing to be remustered to air crew is exactly correct and might be emphasized. Skilled mechanics to keep aircraft in condition are as necessary as pilots to fly them are.
I take it from that note that the field having trained men as ground men, they are too valuable now to be allowed to go as air crew, with that training having to be begun all over again.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The effect of that is that they cannot expect to get in as air crew, if that is the technical term. They have to stay where they are.


James Layton Ralston: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Perhaps there should be a little more flexibility in a given case where a man is exceedingly promising, having enlisted under the circumstances which I endeavoured to detail. If he is forever barred from becoming an observer, that is too inflexible.


James Layton Ralston: I do not know enough about air administration to make any reply to that except this, that I doubt very much whether they would refuse to consider the case of a man who was exceedingly promising, to use my hon. friend's own term, and would make an excellent, or perhaps an unusually good pilot. I know, however, that in the army each of those cases of transfer is considered on its merits; there is no absolutely hard and fast rule that a man cannot transfer; but we have to look to the good of

Supplementary War Appropriation Bill
the service and decide whether or not in. the new job, having regard to the additional training which has to be given, it would still be better for the service for him to transfer than remain in the job in which he has been trained.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Generally speaking, I think the principle the minister has laid down is a good one. Where a large sum of money has been spent in training an individual in one branch of the service, the state has a right to expect a return from that investment. I would hope, however, the rule is not so inflexible that it would definitely bar a young man who is exceedingly promising from ever expecting to be a pilot or an observer. That would be too rigid.


Mr. HANSELL:: I wish to bring to the attention of the Minister of National Defence a certain matter and ask if he can throw any light upon it. It relates to the recruiting that went on to a considerable extent throughout Canada for the reserve militia, or what is sometimes known as the non-permanent active militia. These young men who enlisted in. the reserve army did so, I think, in all sincerity. Some of them were quite young; some were mere high school students. I think I can say that they enlisted under certain impressions. A good many enlisted with the thought that they were enlisting in a non-permanent force to be used for home defence. Some of them were going to school; some of them had nominal jobs. Their training for the most part took place in the evenings. I refer now to some of the smaller centres where officers were sent down two or three times a week. The young men enjoyed their training and were quite sincere about it.
It appears that a few weeks ago, perhaps a couple of months ago, a circular letter was sent out to these men, I do not know how extensively, whether throughout the entire country or in one section of it, reminding them of their responsibilities and their duties, and the tenor of the letter was to the effect that they might be called up very soon for active militia work. I think one phrase in the letter was that "very short notice may be given," indicating that they should hold themselves in readiness.


James Layton Ralston: These were men who had enlisted and were members of the reserve?


Ernest George Hansell: Yes. The point I wish to make particularly is this, that in the circular letter reference was made to the Militia
Act. I believe two or three sections were quoted? Section 64, the one to which I wish to refer especially, reads:
The governor in council may place the militia, or any part thereof, on active service anywhere in Canada, and also beyond Canada, for the defence thereof, at any time when it appears advisable so to do by reason of emergency.
I have received one or two letters from my constituents, parents of some of these young men, who are amazed that their boys might be sent outside Canada.


James Layton Ralston: They may not be, I can tell my hon. friend, without enlisting for overseas service.


Ernest George Hansell: Are we to understand that before they are sent outside Canada they reenlist?


James Layton Ralston: Right.


Ernest George Hansell: I am glad to have the minister say that, because it will put at rest the minds of some of these people. One complaint, shall I say, that I had was from a mother whose boy was not anxious to get out of the army but wished to stay in; he thought it was a great life and so on, but his mother felt that he should complete his education before he went away. There are some veiy young lads in this force, some who have not yet completed their education. What would be the procedure required should some of these young chaps want to complete their high school before being called?


James Layton Ralston: Before what?


Ernest George Hansell: Before answering this circular letter. The letter indicates that they may be called up quickly, and some of the young men are under the impression that they were fooled just a little. They were under the impression that they were joining to serve within Canada should an emergency arise.


James Layton Ralston: They were.


Ernest George Hansell: Now they get this letter quoting this section which leads them to fancy that they may be taken outside Canada. There is nothing in the letter indicating that they will have to reenlist in some other force. That is what is troubling them a little, although my question was not just along that line. The minister has satisfied the committee that they will have to reenlist. Some of them are or have been taking this training in the evening; they are attending school in the day time. This letter is worrying them. What procedure should these young men take if they are called and if they desire to stay at home and complete their studies even though they remain in the militia?
2052	COMMONS
Supplementary War Appropriation Bill


James Layton Ralston: Is my hon. friend asking, if their battalion or unit were called' out to serve for the defence of Canada within Canada or the territorial waters thereof, what procedure they should take to avoid that service?


Ernest George Hansell: Yes. I have in mind particularly these young men who are still in high school.


James Layton Ralston: I know of no procedure. The men have enlisted in the reserve militia. The country is not investing money in armouries and training and all that, and simply saying to a man, when he wants to go to school or has some other personal reason, that he is discharged. Surely that cannot be in time of war, and surely my hon. friend is not advocating that. They enlisted in the reserve militia. The Militia Act provides that they may be called out for the defence of Canada. It has been expressly declared that as far as sending troops beyond Canada is concerned, that will not be done unless men are given an opportunity to enlist, for that purpose, but as far as the defence of Canada is concerned, the only ground upon which they could apply for discharge would be some very serious compassionate ground. There are instances of men being discharged even from overseas service, but such cases are certainly very few, and are very carefully scrutinized. If men could for personal reasons ask to be relieved of the obligations they have taken, we would not have an army, even a reserve army.
I am sorry if anyone has been misled, and I am particularly interested in my hon. friend's calling attention to this letter. Naturally I do not want to see any letters sent out which are in the slightest degree misleading. Was it sent by the commanding officer of a unit or a district, or by whom?


Ernest George Hansell: It was sent by the commanding officer. I should be glad to let the minister have a copy of the letter.


James Layton Ralston: I should be very glad to have it.


Ernest George Hansell: I think I can get it.


James Layton Ralston: I should be sorry to see it, but glad to have it.


Ernest George Hansell: There is one other question. Does the recruiting officer take notice of the age of an applicant? Is any minimum age fixed?


James Layton Ralston: I am afraid I cannot give the definite age limit, but I can assure my hon. friend that, under the Militia Act, the age must be stated. I have some recollection that in the last war a good many statements made as to age were open to question, both ways as a matter of fact.


Ernest George Hansell: I realize that. I should like to say, not in serious criticism, that recruiting officers might pay just a little more attention to instructing a recruit as to his responsibility when he once joins. The minister knows how it is in a small town. All the young chaps are joining; it is great to be doing training at night, and they get a certain amount of physical exercise. They enjoy it, but they do not all recognize the responsibilities that are placed upon them when they sign the attestation form. I think recruiting officers might take upon themselves a little more responsibility to instruct these young chaps as to what they are really doing when they sign up. I have no desire to discourage recruiting in any way, but I do want the mothers and fathers to be perfectly satisfied that the young men know what they are doing, in order that complications may not arise later.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I should like to ask the minister a question about a position which is new to me, to which my attention has been directed. I am rising only in order to obtain information. With regard to the medical examination, is any provision made with respect to social diseases and tests in connection therewith? I have been informed that there are no tests made and no precautions taken. If that be the situation-I do not assert it at all-that matter should be looked into and rectified.


James Layton Ralston: I should think that what my hon. friend says would be fundamental.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes, I think it is fundamental. I was told by a gentleman who is connected with a voluntary association having to do with hygiene and the like, that the Wassermann test is not made in connection with any of the men. I do not know much about this topic, but it seems to me that some precaution ought to be taken.


James Layton Ralston: I do not think the Wassermann test is made. I should be very much surprised to learn that it was given generally, but there are other examinations made.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am told that this test is made in the United States army, and I know it is made in the British navy. I was at Hastings in Barbadoes, and there I had the thrill of my life one morning when I looked out at the bathing beach and saw half the north Atlantic squadron in the harbour, headed by the Nelson. I made a tour of the Nelson, from which a large number of sailors were ashore that day. The

Supplementary War Appropriation Bill
gentleman who conducted us over the battleship was a surgeon. This question arose, and he told me that every man was tested before and after going on shore leave, which I thought was a wise precaution, especially in a seaport town.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend is talking
about men on service?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes.


James Layton Ralston: I thought he was talking about the medical examination prior to enlistment.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is
analogous to that. Is any precaution taken to see that a prospective recruit or trainee is not an infected person? It seems to me that this is an elementary precaution that ought to be, and if it is not done, I direct attention to it.


James Layton Ralston: I should have thought it would be as elementary as an examination of the feet.


Richard Burpee Hanson: So should I, but I am told it is not done.


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: On at least two occasions in connection with this bill the leader of the opposition has suggested a gift to Great Britain of a hundred million bushels of wheat, or of that quantity of wheat milled into flour. I have nothing to say against that suggestion.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Will the hon. member not support it?


John Gordon Ross: I would support it, but first of all I want one point made clear. The wheat we have in Canada to-day is being held by the Department of Trade and Commerce in trust for the wheat growers.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That may be a theory.


John Gordon Ross: There is a point that comes in here. It is all right to give away something that belongs to somebody else; but if we are to make such a gift, it should come from the Dominion of Canada as a whole, and there should be established and paid for that wheat by the dominion a price which would ensure that the western farmer would not give perhaps ten, fifteen or twenty cents a bushel more than the other people of this dominion would give. There are still in existence participation certificates in connection with that wheat, which at some future time may be sold at such a price that the farmers may participate further in the amount realized. Therefore, if my hon. friend would be willing to say "Well, we will charge that wheat up to the people of Canada at a
dollar a bushel and give a hundred million bushels to Great Britain," I would be in entire agreement with what he suggests.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am delighted to hear this, the first response from the government benches to the suggestion I have made. As to the modus operandi and the price, I have not mentioned anything except by way of illustration. Theoretically what the hon. member has said about participation certificates is correct, but practically the position is that the government owns the wheat and that the initial payment is the final payment. The hon. member knows that as well as I do. Perhaps he will come to my support in the suggestion that the price named shall be comparable with the cost of production; perhaps he will help me in that. That would be of some benefit to his friends and, incidentally, to himself; at all events he would not be doing himself any harm. I would certainly give sympathetic consideration to the theory that the gift should be from the people of Canada and not at the expense of one particular class in Canada. I am certainly in agreement with that principle and theory.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: Some time ago we had some discussion with regard to the number of men already discharged from the army, which number is, I think, almost twenty thousand. Later, there was some discussion as to the method of medical inspection, and so on. I believe many men have been brought back from the old country suffering from such ailments as gastric ulcers, which, I understand medical men contend is much more prevalent now than during the last war. Following that up, I wonder whether it would be too much to ask that X-rays be taken of each applicant before he joins the army. There are many defects which cannot be detected in the ordinary medical examination.


James Layton Ralston: I do not think they are X-rayed for gastric ulcers; they are X-rayed for chest conditions.


James Arthur Ross: Would the condition not be found with the one X-ray?


James Layton Ralston: I should think it would depend upon the size of the photograph. I do not think it would be found.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: There has been a question respecting naval service outside Canadian waters. That matter seems to be governed by the Naval Service Act, chapter 139 of the revised statutes of Canada, and the Visiting Forces Act.
An order in council was passed on September 14, 1939, instructing certain ships of the Royal Canadian Navy to act in cooperation
2054	COMMONS
Supplementary War Appropriation Bill
with the Royal Navy. I believe it is the practice for the senior officer of the Canadian ships to place himself under the command of the senior British officer-the commander in chief of the western approaches, the commander in chief of the southern approaches, or whoever he may be. That seniority is regulated in the actual flotillas according to date of appointment. If a Canadian happens to be the senior officer in a group of six or seven ships, part of which are British and part Canadian, that Canadian officer would assume command of the whole lot, or vice versa.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is
entirely a matter of seniority.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Yes.


James Layton Ralston: The hon. member for Souris referred to tests for gastric ulcers. My colleague the Minister of Pensions and National Health tells me-and I am sure medical members will corroborate this-that the X-ray is not a certain test for gastric ulcers. It may be in the incipient stage.


Mr. HOWDEN:: If it shows the ulcer, all right; but it does not show it very often.


James Layton Ralston: I have heard of barium meals; I believe I have been given them once or twice.


Howard Charles Green: The Minister of National Defence did not explain clearly the policy of the government respecting the recruiting of men under the age of nineteen years for the active army. If he did give an explanation, I did not thoroughly understand it. What is the government's policy in that regard? Are young men under the age of nineteen to be recruited for the active army?


James Layton Ralston: I have told my hon. friend that the rule places the age at nineteen for mobile units. I had word from the adjutant-general to-day to the effect that no change had been made in that rule. All I can say is that I know of no change. Since my hon. friend spoke, I have sent a note to my secretary asking that the adjutant-general be telephoned at once with regard to the other newspaper article to which my hon. friend referred. I want to have the fullest possible information, and to know what is going on with regard to recruiting.
So far as I know, however, the policy is exactly as set out in the routine order to which I refer. I am referring, of course, to recruiting for mobile forces. Generally speaking, the mobile force is the active service force of Canada. It may be that this is recruiting for coastal defence, or something

of that kind. I can tell my hon. friend only that I am not aware of any policy other than the one set out in the routine order. The adjutant-general is making an inquiry with regard to the situation in district No. 11.


Howard Charles Green: Over the week-end an
announcement was made that no goods could be exported from Canada to any country outside the western hemisphere, other than to parts of the British empire, or to territories under British occupation or control, without a permit first having been obtained. Would some member of the ministry explain why that provision was made?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Is the hon. member speaking about a permit for export?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Beyond
certain limitations.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Is the hon. member speaking about exports under section 290 of the Customs Act?


Howard Charles Green: It has been announced that on and after April 1, 1941, no goods can be exported from Canada to any country outside the western hemisphere, other than to parts of the British empire or to territories under British occupation or control, without a permit first having been obtained. Such permit is issued by or on behalf of the Minister of National Revenue. What was the purpose of enacting such provision?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Perhaps I should have been aware of it, but the fact is that I did not know an order in council of that kind had been passed. Although I do not like to take the time of the committee, I could give a general review of the history respecting export permits. I believe they were first given after section 290 of the Customs Act was amended in 1937, and they were designed to give the government control over the export of munitions, or of raw materials which might enter into the manufacture of munitions. If I remember correctly, under that section exports to Spain were placed under permit.
Then there was a gradual extension of the list of articles subject to permit, and a gradual extension of the countries, exports to which would be subject to permit. That was particularly so after this war broke out. Since I left the Department of National Revenue, which has control over the granting of permits, and which has, in fact, an export permits branch, I have lost track of the development of the export permits system. I believe it has been highly developed, and that some orders in council have been passed, not under section 290 of the Customs Act but under the

Supplementary War Appropriation Bill
War Measures Act. I believe, too, that permits have been required for commodities other than munitions and the raw materials therefor.


Howard Charles Green: This covers any goods.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I believe it has been extended to foods and, if there is an order in council such as that to which the hon. member has referred, apparently the provision is now extended to include all articles and all countries other than those within the British empire.
The object of the order in council would be to give the government control of shipments of goods to countries from which they might reach the hands of the enemy. I should imagine that would be the main object of an order in council of that kind, because it is the main object of the export permits system. That system is a factor in economic warfare, and is used not only in this country but in the United Kingdom. It has been extremely useful from time to time. It would work in this way:	An order may be received from
some neutral country in Europe-I shall not name any particular country-by an importer in that country who is known to be friendly to Germany. Export to that firm would be denied; no permit would be granted for that particular transaction. That is one of the reasons for the permit system.
Then, they are denied in other instances. There is denial when we need the goods ourselves. Even these two examples do not exhaust the list. There are numerous occasions when it is in the public interest not to permit the export of goods to take place. The general principle of restriction is, however, the one I have enunciated.


Howard Charles Green: For example, this would
mean that goods could not be exported to China or Greece


Richard Burpee Hanson: Or Japan.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Without a permit.


Howard Charles Green: -without a permit being
obtained from the government?


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is correct, basing it
entirely upon my hon. friend's assurance that there was such an order. I must say that I did not know there was.


Howard Charles Green: I am reading from a memorandum of the Department of National Revenue.	1


James Lorimer Ilsley: Well, there must have been.


Howard Charles Green: Can the minister say what action the government has taken to prohibit the export of hemlock logs to Japan? These logs have been going out from the Pacific
coast from time to time, and can be converted into cellulose, which again can be used for explosives, and there has been considerable question about the wisdom of allowing that export to continue. I realize that actually the matter does not come under the minister's department. Perhaps some member of the ministry can tell us whether or not the export of these logs has now been prohibited.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am afraid that I myself cannot give the hon. member any information, and I am wondering whether it should not be sought under some other measure than this section 2, which relates to the voting of money for the defraying of expenses. I do not see any connection between the subject matter of this interchange, and this section.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is very remote.


James Layton Ralston: I should like to put on record a couple of other answers, because the matter will come up some time and I may as well do it now. The hon. member for Cape Breton South asked me with regard to the supply of slickers for the troops. The master-general of the ordnance reports that all troops are issued with a ground-sheet which is designed to be worn as a waterproof cape, with or without greatcoat, or used as a ground-sheet.
Also units performing certain duties where sentries are posted continually are supplied with a percentage of waterproof jackets and trousers in order to meet climatic conditions.
Capes, anti-gas, which are the capes I mentioned last night, are issued to each man for use as a protection against gas. They are not to be used as a waterproof garment.


Mr. GILLIS:: The letter I received came from the Cape Breton Highlanders, who at the present time are stationed at an east coast port.
Before this clause passes, there are a few remarks I wish to make. First, the Minister of National Defence is to be complimented upon the way in which he has handled his department. I notice that the minister takes a note of practically every question, and anything, having to do with his department, which appears to be bothering the mind of any hon. member, he answers to the satisfaction of-at least-the government. At any rate, he brings back an answer, and a member knows exactly where he stands with respect to his question.
My object in rising at this time-and I am sorry that the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Munitions and Supply are not at present in their seats-is this. During the last debate on the main appropriation bill I brought to the attention of the committee
2056	COMMONS
Supplementary War Appropriation Bill
two questions which had to do with both the Department of Labour and the Department of Munitions and Supply, and which, in my opinion, are important to the people for whom I attempt to speak.
In the first place, I questioned the minister as to the intentions of the government or the people who claim at the present time ownership of a plate mill located in Sydney, Nova Scotia. To operate that mill would serve two purposes. First, it would relieve unemployment. I know that within the last week the steel plant have on file 1,600 applications for employment. Also it would serve the purpose of augmenting our war effort. I pointed out at that time to the committee that if the government had no intention of doing something about using that mill, and if the people who claim it do not intend to use it, there are others who are seeking to purchase the plant. I received another letter from them. I have not, however, heard anything from the Department of Munitions and Supply as to what they have done about this matter, or whether they have done anything.
It seems to me that it is a waste of time for any hon. member to rise in his place and occupy time in bringing to the attention of the government matters which require to be attended to, if his inquiries are to be relegated to the archives and nothing done about them. The least that any hon. member who brings something to the attention of the government is entitled to is an answer, whether any action is contemplated or not; and the reason why I bring this matter again to the attention of the committee is to inform them that upon this matter, which is of considerable importance, I have not received any answer. The people who were negotiating for the purchase of that plant at Sydney have written me again. The Anglo-French Development Corporation of Montreal, who, on behalf of some clients from overseas, are probing the possibility of that plant being put into production, have written to H. J. Kelly, general manager of Dominion Iron and Steel, of Sydney, on March 13, and they inform me that up to date they have not received the courtesy of a reply from the head of that corporation.
That plant was created during the last war in exactly the same way as industries are being subsidized and financed in this war. The government of this country put four and a half million dollars into that plant. It never went into production; and I understand that, when the war was over, the federal government was sued for breach of contract and considerably more money was

extracted from the Canadian taxpayer. If that plant has been damaged to a point where it will cost a substantial sum of money to put it back into production, it is the responsibility of the federal government to find out exactly what the situation is. In my opinion, the people who claim the plant do not own it. If others seek to purchase it, and it will serve the purpose of augmenting our war effort as well as reducing unemplo3rment in that section, it is the responsibility of the Minister of Munitions and Supply at least to tell the committee what he has done about a matter of that importance. The people in our locality are interested in the question; I know that this Montreal corporation is also interested in it; and if H. J. Kelly is not concerned about answering correspondence from that corporation, it seems to me that some one should do something about it.
Another matter, which I brought to the attention of the Minister of Labour, and with regard to which I have received no answer, is the situation which exists at Hamilton, Ontario, where some forty ex-service men who were employed as shell inspectors by the Canada Car company, which is engaged in war production at the present time, were replaced by girls at a lower rate of wages and, as far as my information goes, are still unemployed.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is that the Canada Car or the National?


Clarence Gillis: The Canada Steel Car.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That was in reference to a British order, was it not?


Clarence Gillis: That is right. The operation is under the British technical mission. I asked the Minister of Labour if the laws of Canada, as embodied in certain orders in council, and explained to this house, apply to employees engaged in that plant. He said that they did, and that there may be responsibility for taking care of Canadian citizens who are employed in this British production organization. This was some time ago. I have not received any reply from the minister as to what has been done. Is it the intention of the government or of the Department of Labour to ensure that some employment is obtained for the men who are on the street? Is it the policy of the government to create more unemployment as far as the males of this country are concerned, with particular reference to the men who went through the last war, by replacing them with girls, because their labour can be got cheaper? If that is the policy, then we should know it.

Supplementary War Appropriation Bill
Had either of the ministers written me a note, I would know at least where I stand. When I bring up a matter here in this chamber, it is not for fun. I like to have an answer. I ask for replies to both these questions: What is the intention of the Minister of Labour with respect to this situation at Hamilton? What is the intention of the Minister of Munitions and Supply with respect to that plate mill at Sydney, Nova Scotia? It can be used. People are trying to purchase it. The government have an equity in it. The taxpayers of Canada have practically paid for it. The people who claim it at the present time and who, according to my information, have denuded it, stripped it of its inner workings and transferred them elsewhere, are making no use of it, and I can understand why. There is no intention on the part of the people engaged in the manufacture of steel in Canada to-day to set up competition among themselves; there is no intention of expanding that industry beyond what it is at the present time. If this is a demonstration to the Canadian people of how an industry created by the taxpayers is to be handled in the aftermath of this war, then drastic changes must take place; and the attitude of this government, if they are going to allow a plant of this kind to lie idle when it might be made use of, must be taken as an indication of what their attitude will 'be with respect to government-assisted industries after the war.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I think the Minister of Munitions and Supply when he is here will reply to my hon. friend and give him the information for which he has asked. While I am not acquainted with the whole story, I can say quite definitely to my hon. friend and to the committee that I do not think anybody could have pressed harder for the erection of a plate mill or for the reconditioning of the old plate mill than the officials of the Sydney steel company. I know that since last summer they have been pressing for the very thing my hon. friend mentioned. Therefore it is not through any lack of effort on their part that the plant has not been established.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Whose
fault is it?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: It is not a matter of fault at all. I think the question first of all is this: Is this mill necessary? It may or may not be. I do not think we can expect the government to assist any man who wants to establish a plant in this country. There may be enough plants already, but on that point I cannot speak. We should not speak of fault at this time.


Clarence Gillis: That is why I am seeking information.


Mr. McNIVEN:: I should like to join with the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) in paying tribute to the consistent courtesy with which the Minister of National Defence has answered the various questions brought before the committee.
On two occasions I have referred to the minimum use which is being made of facilities in Saskatchewan for military establishments, and while sitting here during the progress of this debate I thumbed the pages of Hansrd. I find at page 1493, an appropriation of $3,799,000, and not one public building for a military establishment and not one dollar of that amount are provided for Saskatchewan.
At page 1626 of Hansard I find enumerated the pay and allowances for the several military districts in Canada. I find that military district No. 12, situated in Saskatchewan, has the lowest payroll and the lowest total of allowances of any province-$1,843,000 out of a total of some $22,000,000 or $23,000,000.
Then, turning to the table which the minister put on Hansard last night at page 2003, I notice an expenditure of $9,500,000 for training centres at one point or another throughout Canada, and the total of that sum to be expended in Saskatchewan is less than $200,000.
The other day the Minister of National Defence announced the formation of an armoured car division and a tank corps, and as I listened to his recital of the various companies comprising each of these corps I waited in vain for the announcement of any corps originating in Saskatchewan. One after another it -was always some place outside Saskatchewan.
Then he came to what was described as the intelligence corps, and I said to myself: Here is where we come in; this must have been reserved for us. But it was not to be. The minister or the department had decided otherwise. I do not blame the minister. What I really think is needed is a lesson in geography for the brass hats who comprise the military council. The map of Canada should be displayed and the position of Saskatchewan within Canada pointed out to them, together with the facilities that are there, and it should be emphasized over and over again that there are in that province one million people who desire to take a more prominent and more active part in Canada's military effort than they have been permitted

2058	COMMONS
Supplementary War Appropriation Bill
to do thus far. The military council should be told in the most emphatic terms that Saskatchewan is still a part of Canada.
I know that the minister, with his consistent courtesy and kindliness of heart, can approach those who are his technical advisers and indicate these matters to them; and if, when he is issuing his instructions to them, he will just add something of that metallic ring to his voice which he uses when he really wants a thing done, I am certain that a greater use will be made of the facilities and resources of Saskatchewan and that the people of that province will be relieved of that sense of frustration which now they resent so much.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I had a question which I wished to direct to the Minister of Mines and Resources or to the Secretary of State. Possibly, since they are not at present in the chamber, the Minister of Finance can give me the information I require. I understand that last summer, after the fall of France and Belgium, about 4.000 aliens were transferred from Great Britain to Canada, and that, while many of these people were enemies of Hitler, the fact that they were aliens was a sufficient reason for moving them from Great Britain. I understand that some have been sent to the United States and others have been returned to Great Britain. There are in Canada quite a number of them who, I believe, are as bitterly opposed to Hitler and Mussolini as we are. I wonder whether some of those who are, trained technicians might not find some employment in some of our wTar industries in Canada. I understand there are a number of university graduates and undergraduates who are interned, and as matters now stand, it is next to impossible, I believe, for these interned persons to be given permission to stay in Canada, even if it is proved that they are very much opposed to Hitler and our enemies. What is the possibility of some of these people being permitted to make a contribution in Canada towards the defeat of our common enemy?


James Lorimer Ilsley: This matter is not in my department and I have not very definite knowledge about it, but my understanding of the situation is that the Canadian govern-

ment acts in accordance with the wishes of the British government in reference to the detention or the release or disposition of these internees. I do not think the Canadian government takes any responsibility whatever for releasing them on its own initiative. I believe that is left entirely to the British government.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I see the Minister of Mines and Resources has entered the chamber. Could he make a statement about the policy of the Canadian government as it affects enemy aliens who were transferred to Canada last summer and who are still interned here, should it be established that they are opposed to Germany and to our enemies? Many of them, because of their opposition to Hitler, left the countries which have now been overrun by Germany and took refuge in Great Britain. I realize that it is difficult to decide in every case whether these persons are genuine anti-nazis or whether they might be spies. There is a real difficulty there, but in the event of its being established that they are anti-nazis, what are the possibilities of our immigration authorities in Canada granting them, especially in the case of highly-trained mechanics, the right of employment in this country? Or what is the possibility of undergraduates continuing the university work which they were doing in Great Britain at the time they were transferred to Canada?


John Ritchie MacNicol: Had you not better give Canadians a chance first?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The matter just raised does not come under the direction of the Department of Mines and Resources, but is under the Department of the Secretary of State. My recollection at the moment is this. When many of these individuals whom the British government wished to send to Canada for internment during the w^ar were brought here, it was discovered in Great Britain, I believe, that a number of them were professedly antinazi. I am not going to pass any opinion on the procedure which the British government adopted in selecting the aliens whom they wished to send to Canada, but in any event these aliens came under the direction of the British government, and we could not very easily admit them to residence in Canada without a proper examination. I speak subject to correction when I say that a number of them have been returned to Great Britain, where I have no doubt they are rendering useful service in civilian life. As I stated, however, the matter is not one that comes under the control or direction of the department of which I have charge.

Supplementary War Appropriation Bill


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Would it not come under the direction of the immigration branch to decide whether these people might be permitted to remain in Canada? The point I am making is that some of them are as anxious as we are to see Hitler defeated, and they feel they are not making a valuable contribution behind barbed wires. If it can be established that they are anti-nazi, can the immigration branch make it possible for them to remain here? Some have returned to Great Britain and some have been transferred to the United States, but unless they can produce evidence that they have relatives in Canada, I do not think it is possible for them to remain here, although some of them are highly trained technicians and might make a valuable contribution in some fields in which we have a shortage. Have we in the immigration branch the machinery that could make it possible for them to remain?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I believe there have been a few internees who have first-degree relatives here and who have -been released under a measure of probation; that is, they have not been given permanent landing, as we term it. There are however, other considerations that enter into the question of admission to Canada beyond the fact that a person may be an antinazi, and these are matters that we have to supervise carefully. I believe that several hundred of these people were returned to Great Britain at the request of the British government, and if they had not been taken up accidentally or in error when they were sent to Canada they would not have reached this country but would have remained in Great Britain. When, therefore, they returned to Great Britain their position was the same as it was before they were taken up.


Mr. MacINNIS:: It is too bad that the Secretary of State is not in the house at the moment, because this is an important question, and there is not much sense in continuing the discussion as long as there is not a minister present who is able to give the government's policy with regard to it. I have been following the matter fairly closely and have had several communications with the Secretary of State.
I understand that the British government sent a special representative to Canada to look into cases of persons who were taken up in Great Britain after the fall of the low countries and France last year. I understand, as the director of immigration has said, that a number of them have been returned to Great Britain. I remember seeing recently an editorial comment in the New Statesman
14873-130}
and Nation congratulating the British government on their work in that regard; it has turned out to be very satisfactory. I understand that this representative, Colonel Patterson. if my memory serves me aright, was complimentary as to the assistance received from the Canadian government in trying to sort out these people. But my understanding of what the Secretary of State has told me is that even if they are found to be anti-nazi and people who should be and would be released on theii return to Great Britain, the policy of the Canadian government so far has been not to release any of them in Canada, that when they are certified as persons who can be released, they have to be returned to Great Britain. I think it is desirable, if some of these wanted to stay here and it was found convenient, that they should be allowed to stay; they would be an asset to our country as I am sure they are to Great Britain.


James Layton Ralston: On this or some other section I wanted to give the committee information in reply to some questions. The hon. member for St. John-Albert (Mr. Hazen) asked some questions with regard to fires which had occurred and the safeguards observed in connection with the building and use of military establishments. I think it is due to the officers of the department that this should be on record, and I give my hon. friend and the committee the information I have from the quartermaster-general.
One question was whether instructions were given to officers to observe the by-laws of municipalities for preventing fires. The answer is that no recent instructions have been issued in the exact terms the hon. member used; but under standing instructions for engineer sendees in Canada, district engineer officers follow local and fire underwriters' requirements as far as practicable. Municipal, provincial and dominion fire marshals are encouraged to inspect the properties and report. Definite instructions are issued regarding precautionary measures for preventing fires.
The hon. member spoke of certain fires at Fredericton, Saint John and Yarmouth. The cause of the Fredericton fire has not yet been established. There is suspicion of incendiarism. The O'Regan fire was caused by carelessness of an individual, and was not due to the heating and lighting system. It was apparently started by a cigarette thrown into floor-sweepings. A report of the proceedings at the court of inquiry has not yet been received. The Yarmouth fire was apparently caused by the explosion of a heating stove while the building was unoccupied.
2060	COMMONS
Supplementary War Appropriation Bill
The hon. member brought to my attention a report of January 16 by Colonel E. J. Mooney, building inspector, made to the Saint John city council, stating that the defence department were doing work without building permits. He said, I think, that Colonel Mooney spoke to Major Blake, district engineer officer, who informed him that the engineers could design and build to their own ideas and that the local civic authorities had no jurisdiction. Major Blake, district engineer officer at military district No. 7. states definitely that he never was approached by Colonel Mooney, and that Colonel Mooney has never spoken to him regarding building permits or inspection of military buildings.
The hon. member said also that there were infractions with regard to fire prevention safeguards; he spoke of furnaces in the exhibition building being placed on thin concrete slabs on top of wood floors. He spoke of stovepipes being run through wood partitions without proper insulation, and said the fire department had to be called to extinguish fires in these buildings. He said that in the exhibition buildings there were five stoves with chimneys all connected with seven-inch jointed stovepipe running through fibre board false ceiling and floor, and then to the roof, the chimney without any sort of insulation; that it must have been red-hot at times, and that this would set fire to the dust.
The information I got from the quartermaster-general is that as far as the furnaces are concerned, they were placed on four-inch hollow tile and under that there is, not what I would call a thin concrete slab, but a four-inch concrete slab. The pipes from these furnaces were carried to brick chimneys which were specially built; there were, at various points in the building, seven or eight small stoves from which stovepipes had to be carried up through the roof. All pipes had protective arrangements and all were inspected by the fire underwriters1 association representative.
The hon. member said also that the fire underwriters had looked into the situation and made two reports, the first showing that there were great fire hazards, which had been corrected. The second report said that not only had the former hazards been replaced but greatly increased. He spoke of the exhibition building being destroyed and one man having lost his life.
The reply is that the exhibition buildings at Saint John were inspected by a representative of the fire underwriters' association in company with Major Blake in the early winter of 1939-40, and that all suggestions made by the representative were carried out. The buildings were again inspected by the same representative later, and he expressed

himself as completely satisfied that all reasonable precautions were taken. No report has ever been made to military district No. 7 by the fire underwriters' association. It is not known how the unfortunate man who lost his life came to be in the building.
Then my hon. friend spoke of the temporary huts, stating his information was that they were constructed of light inflammable wood with pitch roof, false fibreboard ceilings, with jointed stovepipes running up through to peak, with no insulation whatever.
As my hon. friend knows, the war-time hutments must necessarily be of wood and of the cheapest possible construction. Efforts have been directed against the occurrence of fires. All buildings are given a plentiful supply of fire-extinguishers, fire-buckets and so on, and in addition a good system of outside hydrants is provided in all camps. All stovepipes are protected by standard equipment where they pass through ceilings to the roof. We have had several thousand similar huts in Canada, and not had one of these destroyed by fire from the stovepipes, indicating that the stovepipe protection is adequate.
Then the hon. member asked whether the fires had been investigated and who investigated them. All fires, including those referred to by the hon. member, are investigated by a court of inquiry. The proceedings of the courts of inquiry are sent to national defence headquarters for review. Proceedings in connection with the exhibition fire at Saint John have not yet been received, and consequently no action has yet been taken. In any event where evidence indicates that disciplinary action should be taken, this action is taken by the adjutant-general.


Mr. HAZEN:: I wish to thank the Minister of National Defence for his reply to the questions I asked him the other evening.
Some days ago I asked the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services in connection with the pay of officers and men in the army as compared with the pay of officers and men in the navy. The minister told me he would be glad to make a complete statement the following day. I know the minister had no opportunity the next day to make a statement, but I would appreciate it if he would make a statement on the subject as soon as it is convenient to him.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I shall get the statement and give it in a few minutes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The statement made by the Minister of National Defence with respect to the fire position in

Supplementary War Appropriation Bill
Fredericton is, I think, correct. I believe the huts are amply protected; I looked at them myself. There is, however, a question with respect to compensation for the exhibition buildings that were burnt. Does that come under the hon. minister's jurisdiction, or is that another branch? Some question is still open there. I got the question of free rent settled satisfactorily to everyone, I think, but it was without predudiee to the claim of the association for compensation. I am wondering whether that is still open. Perhaps it does not come under the minister's jurisdiction, or he does not know.


James Layton Ralston: No, that matter has not come up to me.


Mr. CHURCH:: 
Angus Lewis Macdonald: I
have here a statement showing the comparative rates of pay in the three service forces. I am sorry that it does not go beyond the pay of captains in the army and lieutenants in the navy, but I believe it will give the hon. member for St. John-Albert the information he wished to have. If satisfactory, I should be pleased to have it placed on Hansard.
The table is as follows:
Comparative Rates of Pay
Lieutenant (army)	$5 + M.A. $45 + $12 for each of 2
children	
If not in quarters, allowance in lieu of quarters, rations, etc.-$1.70 per diem.
Maximum per diem $9.00
Sub-lt. (navy)	$4 + M.A. $1 + 25 cents per child to
maximum of 4	 _ _	$8.10
If not in quarters, allowance in lieu of Eligible for hard lying money quarters, rations, etc.-$2.10 per of 25 cents per diem in diem.	destroyer and 50 cents per
diem in smaller vessels.
Flying officer (air force). $5 + M.A. $45 + $12 for each of 2
children	Plus $2 per diem flying pay for
If not in quarters, allowance in lieu of general list.
quarters, rations, etc.-$1.70 per	$9.00 + $2.00
diem.
Captain (army)	$6.50 + M.A. $50 + $12 per child to
maximum of 2	 $10.65
If not in quarters, allowance in lieu of quarters, rations, etc.-$1.70 per diem.
Lieutenant (navy)	$5 (up to $6 by triennial increments
of 50 cents) + M.A. $1 + 25 cents
per child to maximum of 4	Specialist pay of 60 cents per
If not in quarters, allowance in lieu of diem if a qualified specialist quarters, rations, etc.-$2.35 per officer. Eligible hard lying diem.	money of 43 cents per diem
in destroyers and 75 cents per diem in small vessels.

2064	COMMONS
Supplementary War Appropriation Bill
Flight lieut. (air force) .
Sergeant (army)
Petty officer (navy).
Sergeant (air force)...
Corporal (army).
Leading seaman (navy).
Corporal (air force)...
Lance corporal (army).
Able seaman (navy)...
Lance corporal (air force)	
Private (army)
Ord. seaman (navy) ...
A.C. 2 (air force) .
Comparative Rates of Pay-Concluded
Maximum per diem
$6.50 + M.A. $50 + $12 per child up
to 2	Plus $2 per diem flying pay if
If not in quarters, allowance in lieu of on general list, quarters, rations, etc.-$1.70 per	$10.65 + $2.00
diem.
$2.20 + M.A. $35 + $12 per child up
to 2	 $5.00
If not in quarters, allowance in lieu of quarters, rations, etc.-85c. per diem.
$2.40 (up to $2.60 by triennial Increments of 10c.) + M.A. 75c. + 25c.
per child up to 4	Eligible for hard lying money of
If not in quarters, allowance in lieu	15c. per diem in destroyers
of quarters, rations, etc.-$1.45 per	and 30c. per diem in smaller
diem.	vessels.

$2.20 + M.A. $35 + $12 per child up
to 2	 $5.00
If not in quarters, allowance in lieu of quarters, rations, etc.-85c. per diem.
$1.70 + M.A. $35 + $12 per child up
to 2	 $4.50
If not in quarters, allowance in lieu of quarters, rations, etc.-85c. per diem.
$2.10 + M.A. 75c. + 25c. for each
child up to 4	 Eligible for hard lying money
If not in quarters, allowance in lieu of 13c. per diem in destroyers of quarters, rations, etc.-$1.45 per and 25c. per diem in smaller diem.	vessels.

' $1.70 + M.A. $35 + $12 per child up
to 2	 $4.50
If rot in quarters, allowance in lieu of quarters, rations, etc.-85c. per diem.
$1.50 + M.A. $35 + $12 per child up
to 2	 $4.30
If not in quarters, allowance in lieu of quarters, rations, etc.-85c. per diem.
$1.85 + M.A. 75c. + 25c. for each
child up to 4	Eligible for hard lying money
If not in quarters, allowance in lieu of 13e. per diem in destroyers of quarters, rations, etc.-$1.45 per and 25c. per diem in smaller diem.	vessels.

$1.50 + M.A. $35 + $12 per child up
to 2	 $4.30
If not in quarters, allowance in lieu of quarters, rations, etc.-85c. per diem.
$1.30 + M.A. $35 + $12 per child up
to 2	 $4.10
If not in quarters, allowance in lieu of quarters, rations, etc.-85e. per diem.
$1.50 -f- M.A. 75c. + 25c. for each
child up to 4	Eligible for hard lying money
If not in quarters, allowance in lieu of 10c. per diem in destroyers of quarters, rations, etc.-$1.45 per and 20c. per diem in smaller diem.	vessels.

$1.30 + M.A. $35 + $12 per child up
to 2	 $4.10
If not in quarters, allowance in lieu of quarters, rations, etc.-85c. per diem.
[Mr. A. L. Macdonald.1

Supplementary War Appropriation Bill


Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: At present the non-permanent active militia units have to buy their own duplicating machines and the paper for those machines. They have also to pay the service charge on telephones. That money is taken from the pay of the men, non-commissioned officers and officers. I believe all these different non-permanent active militia units have bought duplicating machines and typewriters. It means that a dollar has to come out of the pay of the men. Could there not be some provision to take care of that. I know the government pays for some of the stationery. It also pays for longdistance telephone calls, if all details are sent in. But Ottawa expects that there will be a telephone in connection with these nonpermanent active militia units, although Ottawa does not pay for those telephones.


James Layton Ralston: I shall look into the matter to which the hon. member has referred. I wish to say, however, that it is certainly not deducted compulsorily from the pay of the men. It may be that the men pool their pay, and that it is paid out of a fund. There is certainly no compulsion about taking it out of the pay of the men. As a matter of fact, there have been complaints that we were paying too much in connection with these nonpermanent active militia units, and particularly to officers. If, as I say, any expenses are paid out of the pay of the men, it is because the men pay it voluntarily into a regimental fund.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I did not say that the government took it out of their pay.


James Layton Ralston: I thought that impression was given.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The different units take it out themselves, in order to pay those expenses.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What is meant by "hard lying money"?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: In the naval service there are men whose accommodation is not what it might be on shore; consequently they are given a little extra allowance. This would refer to persons serving on destroyers, or other small ships.


Richard Burpee Hanson: He has a flock mattress instead of a hair mattress; is that correct?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: He has not even that.


James Layton Ralston: One or two questions were asked which I might answer at this time. In the first place the hon. member for Vancouver South, who, unfortunately, is not in the chamber at the moment, asked a question respecting age limits. I should like to give the committee the information I got in connection with the matter about which he spoke this afternoon, namely, the enlistment in Vancouver of men under nineteen years of age. I believe the facts are as I suggested to him, namely, that the enlistments are being made, not in mobile units, which were the units mentioned in the order to which I referred this afternoon, but, as I suggested, in coast defence units. The information I have is that we telephoned military district No. 11 this afternoon to ascertain the reason for the press announcement by Colonel Goodman, and were informed that recruits between the ages of eighteen and nineteen were being enlisted, but only for coast defence units such as artillery, signals, and so on, and not for units of the mobile force, referred to in routine order 138-39.
Military district No. 11 also stated that these young men between eighteen and nineteen were definitely recruited for home service in coast defence units, although on reaching the age of nineteen they would be given an opportunity of volunteering as reinforcements for overseas service. In the meantime they are replacing, in the coast defence units, personnel of nineteen years and over who have volunteered for service overseas.
Another question was asked by the hon. member for Bow River with regard to airmen who, I understood him to say, were sent from the far west to Toronto, simply to get their uniforms, and were then sent back again. My memorandum states that there are three manning depots in the service: No. 1 at Toronto; No. 2 at Brandon, and No. 4 at Quebec. When recruits are enlisted, they are sent to manning depots for a period of four weeks. During this period they are outfitted with uniforms, inoculated and given the usual instructions. They are then posted to schools throughout the country. In some instances, on account of the overcrowded condition of the depot at Brandon, it has been necessary to post recruits from the far west to the manning depot at Toronto, but this practice is not general.


Charles Edward Johnston: I was informed about this by some of the air force men who were coming down here. I particularly asked them why they came all this way just for uniforms, and they assured me solemnly that that was all they came for.

2066	COMMONS
Supplementary War Appropriation Bill
That was why I was so astonished that people would come practically 2,000 miles for no other purpose than to get uniforms. It seemed to me strange.


James Layton Ralston: If my hon. friend had that information, although it seems incorrect, I can quite understand why he asked the question.
The hon. member for Lincoln asked a question with regard to a canvass of army personnel for the war savings campaign. I told my hon. friend at the time that I had no knowledge of any instructions having been issued. I now learn that a circular letter was issued, the effect of which I will give.
On February 27, 1941, a circular letter was sent to all district officers commanding, general officers commanding in chief, Pacific command, Atlantic command, commandant Royal Military College, et cetera, over the signature of the adjutant-general, advising that it had been decided that, rather than have civilian committees conduct a canvass of army personnel, the men should be approached by their own officers with a view to stimulating interest in the war savings campaign.
Request was made that commanding officers be instructed accordingly, they in turn to impress upon officers that every effort should be made to encourage soldiers to purchase war savings certificates.
It was suggested that best results would be obtained by junior officers explaining the subject to the men, and stressing advantages of such an investment and the necessity for all citizens, civilians or soldiers, contributing to Canada's war effort.
The letter goes on to say:
To this end all officers should be called upon to approach this subject with enthusiasm and do all in their power to encourage the purchase of war savings certificates by serving personnel.
As I say, I had no knowledge of that letter having been sent, and I hasten to give the committee the information.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I should like to get some information from the minister as to the future plans, if any, which will be followed in constructing huts of one kind and another in any camps which are to be set up for the department. I have in mind some huts along the esplanade at Toronto, east of Yonge street. Those who go to Toronto by train arriving in the morning will have noticed, on the south side of the tracks, about forty or fifty huts used in connection with the air service training plan.
I want to present to the minister an example of what seems to me to be indecision

somewhere in the planning for construction of such camps as that. Those buildings were erected last summer, and for quite a long time there was no decision as to how they were to be heated. Talk among the trade in Toronto was that either hot-air furnaces or stoves would be used, but no one seemed to know. A general feeling arose that it would be entirely impracticable to use either hot-air furnaces or stoves, because either of those systems might cause fires. After considerable delay, Melvin Thomas, a competent engineer, perhaps one of the best in Canada, was engaged, and he planned what in my judgment is, under the circumstances, as good a steamheating plant as could be installed. I wondered at the time why it took so long to make a decision. By the time the steamheating plant was installed, the season was well advanced, and the cost must have been a great deal more than would have been incurred had a decision been made earlier in the year, and had the plant been installed when the weather was less severe. I hope that in the future the department, when constructing buildings of that kind, will decide at the beginning how the engineering is to be done, so that construction can be carried out at the least possible cost to the country.
I notice that large quantities of good material are piled round those buildings. In view of the fact that the salvage department is asking everyone to save paper and items of that sort which are of comparatively little value, it would be worth while investigating what use could be made of these large quantities of material, which appear to have some value.


James Layton Ralston: Would this be the camp where the Norwegian airmen are?


John Ritchie MacNicol: No; it is the airport east of Yonge street, along the esplanade.
Another evidence of indecision may be seen in connection with the heating of the buildings in exhibition park which were taken over by the government. A strange thing occurred in that connection, although I do not suggest that there is anything wrong. As the Minister of National Defence for Air said the other evening, much has had to be done so rapidly that everything was not done in, perhaps, as businesslike a way as it would have been had the urgency been less. What I am now going to refer to may be another example of that indecision which I hope is past. It has to do with the heating of the government building in the exhibition grounds in Toronto. Tenders were called for, and several firms tendered.

Supplementary War Appropriation Bill


James Layton Ralston: Pardon me; is my hon. friend referring to the exhibition buildings?


John Ritchie MacNicol: At the exhibition buildings. One contractor got the job, but to my amazement he had to buy the boilers from a contractor against whom he had competed.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is team-work.


John Ritchie MacNicol: And the boilers themselves came from Brantford. I admit that they make exceptionally good boilers at Brantford, but quite close to the exhibition grounds is the John Inglis company plant, which also make good boilers, and have made them for the past forty years. It struck me as most peculiar that the successful contractor had to buy the boilers from an unsuccessful tenderer, and that the boilers themselves came from a town well up to one hundred miles west of Toronto.
If you go to Camp Borden you will see- again-ample evidence of lack of preparation in buying supplies. I am not finding fault with the buying, but it is the fact that there are large quantities of stock which will not be used in Camp Borden for many years to come. Take, for example, iron soil pipe. Unless it has been recently moved away, there are large piles of soil pipe which, it was explained to me, are not needed and will probably not be used for a long time.
In bringing these three examples-


James Layton Ralston: Four.


John Ritchie MacNicol: -to the attention of the minister, I am not finding fault; I am not saying that everything is not all right. All I hope is, that from now on, if the departments of national defence are going to undertake, with their own architectural and engineering staffs, the erection of buildings, before tenders are called for, or before construction commences, the plan will be thoroughly decided upon, so that it will be completed with the utmost expedition and at the least cost to the country.
All that I have recorded is water under the mill; nothing can be done about it; but I hope that the recital of these instances will result in such measures as will ensure that future plans will inure to the benefit of the country, as regards efficient construction and low costs.


James Layton Ralston: I appreciate the spirit in which my hon. friend has presented these matters. He understands, of course, that I am not familiar with the circumstances with regard to the heating of the huts for the air force, to which he has referred. I know that heating equipment and materials were very difficult to get last fall and early winter, and 14S73-131i
that, in connection with the army huts, the Department of Munitions and Supply was pressed to the limit to get heating apparatus. I know also that the air force had a different system of heating from that of the army huts. I understand that this is an equipment depot -something was said to indicate that-and it may be that the system of heating for the equipment depots was different from that for the ordinary huts. I shall certainly call the attention of my colleague the Minister of National Defence for Air to the matter. I know a little of the engineering capabilities particularly of the man who was the' construction scout, as it were, in connection with these matters. He may be the gentleman to whom my hon. friend has referred. Mr. Goldie is the man to whom I refer. He was out on all these air force construction jobs. I am not sure whether he is from Toronto, but I understand he is an excellent man and a contractor himself, and I am sure that he would endeavour to have the plans made to the very best advantage.
I have also made a note about the salvage matter, but perhaps "salvage" is not the right word. My hon. friend was speaking of new materials, was he not?


John Ritchie MacNicol: Yes.


James Layton Ralston: So far as the army is concerned, we have arranged to ship such material to other jobs where it was not needed for the particular huts for which it was intended.
So far as the heating of the exhibition building is concerned, I am not as shocked as my hon. friend is-perhaps I should be-at the fact that the successful tenderer purchased boilers from an unsuccessful tenderer.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is not the way he put it.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Yes, boilers controlled by a competing tenderer.


James Layton Ralston: I do not know just what he means by that. I do not think he meant that anybody forced this transaction. Perhaps he thought that a man who was able to sell boilers to the lower tenderer might have been given the contract himself, but I can well imagine that a man might be in a position to sell boilers cheaply and at the same time be higher in his tender than the successful tenderer so far as fittings, labour and installation were concerned. I w'ould take it that it was an over-all contract let by the Department of Munitions and Supply at competitive prices and that the lowest tenderer got the contract. If he was able to purchase boilers from another tenderer, and happened to pay more for them, that is just too bad for him.
2068	COMMONS
Supplementary War Appropriation Bill
My hon. friend does not suggest that there was any compulsion, that he had to purchase the boilers from his competitor.
With regard to the plans for buildings, my hon. friend knows-he would have known if he had been in any of the service departments last fall-that there were times when buildings had to be commenced on sketch plans. I know that in many instances-and this must have been the situation in connection with air force buildings as well-the plans had to be completed as the work went along, because there was tremendous pressure to get the work done both for the army and for the air force. I do not believe that even yet I can give my hon. friend an undertaking that buildings will not be started before the plans have been completed. My hon. friend may know that many of the buildings which were let on contract were let on a fee basis, and the plans were completed as the work proceeded. The district or local engineer had to site the building as the work proceeded in order that there might be no delay and to avoid the charge that men were busy on drawing-boards when the timber and other materials were there ready to be put in place. My hon. friend realizes that if we possibly could we should be very happy indeed to have all the plans completed before a tap was struck, but that was impossible in the emergency that prevailed during last fall and the early winter. I shall draw my hon. friend's remarks to the attention of the Minister of National Defence for Air and take to heart myself what my hon. friend says so far as the army service is concerned.


Mr. EDWARDS:: Mr. Chairman, I think I should be remiss in my duty to my constituency if I did not say something with regard to this bill and pay my respects and the regard of my constituency to the ministers in charge of our respective war services for the splendid job they have done in carrying on Canada's war effort. I have the honour to hold the seat formerly represented in this house by none other than the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, that distinguished Canadian who holds a warm place in the hearts of the people of Calgary West. I am not unmindful of the fact that at this moment he is doing a worth-while job on behalf of Canada in Great Britain.
I am also reminded of the feeling that exists not only in Calgary but in other parts of this fair dominion of ours, a feeling of pride and satisfaction at the manner in which our war effort is being conducted in this war in comparison with what took place in the last war some twenty years ago.
I particularly wish to pay a tribute, a belated tribute so far as I am concerned,
but one which has been expressed in better words than I can choose, to our former Minister of National Defence and to our present Prime Minister with respect to the policy which they laid down as to how Canada's war effort should be conducted so far as the three services were concerned, namely, that it should be free from partisanship or political favouritism. That is something of which the people of my constituency at least have had ample evidence. To such an extent has this policy enunciated over a year ago been implemented and carried out in spirit and to the letter that for a gentleman to be recommended for promotion or appointment to a high post in any of his majesty's forces by any politician or member of parliament is almost tantamount to a blackball.
That observation applies with equal force to the awarding of contracts for munitions and supplies for his majesty's forces so far as Calgary West is concerned, and the extent to which this policy has been carried out is best illustrated by these examples. Let us start at the top. Only a few days ago the Hon. Doctor Manion was appointed by this government to an army post. Surely there could be no clearer evidence of lack of partisanship in appointments to the war services.
I would also remind the committee that the inspector-general of the army in western Canada is none other than that justly celebrated soldier, Senator Griesbach, than whom no better Conservative ever sat in this house or in the other place.


Mr. ROWE:: And no better soldier.


Mr. EDAYARDS:: I am also proud to say, if I may be permitted so to do, that my opponent in the last general election was none other than Colonel D. G. L. Cunning-ton, who is now G.S.O. II in military district No. 13.


Richard Burpee Hanson: He must be a good man.


Manley Justin Edwards: He was a good soldier; there is no question about it. The official organizer for that candidate now holds a very high office in military district No. 13. In fact, to such an extent has this policy been carried out by the present officers that my supporters are beginning to wonder whether or not any Liberal can possibly qualify for an office in his majesty's service at the present time.
I think the government is to be commended for this policy. I am sure that it has been carried out in spirit and to the letter sa far as Calgary West is concerned; indeed, so far as the city of Calgary is concerned.
[Mr. Ralston.!

Supplementary War Appropriation Bill
What may be the experience elsewhere I do not know, but I am quite frank and sincere when I make these statements with respect to my own constituency, and I believe that if we stick to the facts in that regard, we can speak with firmness and conviction.
As I say, the government is to be commended for its policy. In my opinion the officers in charge .of these departments are to be commended. My criticism, if any, and criticism on the part of the public, is that in those very departments some of the high officers, most of whom received their appointments, but not in the same way twenty years ago, may yet be mindful of their party affiliations, and there may be some justification for that criticism. I do not know. I should dislike very much to believe it. At least so far as Calgary West and other parts of the west are concerned, wre are now told, "Don't go and see your representative in the House of Commons because he cannot do anything for you, but consult rather the officers in charge of the various departments."
It was not, however, with respect to that matter that I wished particularly to speak at this time. This government has announced from time to time that it is its policy to rely as far as possible on technically trained men, and so far as the army is concerned, it has enunciated, and, I believe, has carried out in practice, the policy of relying upon career militarists, men who have made a life study of military matters, rather than upon those who happen to wear a political badge as the credential entitling them to preferment in his majesty's services. I think the government is to be commended for adopting that policy, which, so far as I am aware, has been carried out. With regard to the services in connection with the furnishing of munitions and supplies, I believe the government is to be commended, too, in that it has gone out and obtained the services of men who are skilled, trained, and experienced in the production of those commodities which are required.
I now come to a matter which is surely a perplexing one, perplexing to any government and particularly to the present administration. It is the question of how to distribute in a satisfactory manner the various endeavours contributing to the war; I mean from a geographical point of view. Coming as I do from Alberta where industrial plants, machinery, equipment and trained mechanics are comparatively few and far between, I may say that we in the west are quite reconciled to the fact that, so far as any manufacturing or industrial endeavour is concerned, our contribution can be but very
small if this government is to adhere to the principle which I believe they have tried and, I hope, will continue to try to follow, namely, that commodities should be made and produced, and that soldiers, sailors and airmen should be trained, as efficiently and expeditiously as is humanly possible.
This brings me to the one subject that appeals to me as a layman who has had some little experience in flying, one who was raised in Ontario as a boy, who knows something about the geography and the lay of the land and who has spent the last thirty years of his life in western Canada. It so happens that I come from the city where the Chinooks blow. The chinook wind may have little or no significance to the members of this house, but it is a wind that comes over the mountains and is most perceptible in the winter time when it makes itself manifest by the rapid disappearance of any snow which may have fallen the night before. It accounts in part, for the droughts that occur in the southern and eastern portion of Alberta and extend into Saskatchewan as far as Moose Jaw and Regina, with their devastating effects, of which hon. members have heard some evidence in this house, in the repeated annual discussions with respect to the dried-out areas.


Richard Burpee Hanson: So that is the cause of all your troubles.


Manley Justin Edwards: It is not the cause of all. In that so-called dried-out area, east of the city of Calgary and extending as far as Medicine Hat, there is produced wheat of the highest protein content grown anywhere in the world.
I wish, for a few moments, to direct the minds and thoughts of hon. members to our empire air training scheme. Some days ago. when the other vote was before the house, I asked the Minister of National Defence for Air what the determining factor was so far as the geographical location of our air training schools was concerned, because I had in mind the fact that both Great Britain and Canada realize perforce that possibly the greatest determining factor in the successful outcome of the war would be the rapid training of competent, skilled airmen. That seemed to be the crying need.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That was the crime of 1938.


Manley Justin Edwards: I do not propose to discuss that question with the leader of the opposition. That is another matter.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is part, and parcel of the same thing.
2070	COMMONS
Supplementary War Appropriation Bill


Manley Justin Edwards: I was not here at that time and frankly I was not vitally interested in it then. But an air training scheme having been decided upon, the thought that would occur to the mind of any normal citizen is this: Where will they train their airmen in order to train them most speedily, economically and efficiently and with the minimum of hazards? From my knowledge of Ontario, the maritime provinces, western Canada and the Pacific coast, I thought, and I believe properly, that that air training scheme would find its heart and centre in a place where airmen could be trained the year round with a minimum of hazards and a minimum of expense. But in answer to my question of a few weeks ago, the Minister of National Defence for Air referred me to page 736 of last year's debates, and I find that this was the policy laid down:
Emergency landing grounds on the Trans-Canada airway owned by the crown, controlled by the Department of Transport, developed as unemployment relief projects, mostly to an extent usable for emergency purposes only.
Naturally there was a general impression that advantage should be taken of these existing facilities. However, most of them were found unsuitable for the training plan because of, inter alia-
And these presumably are the features which were to be avoided:
(a)	location in rough or mountainous country unsuitable for flying training.
If we apply that test to southern Alberta, any hon. members who know that section know it is a foothill and prairie country, relatively smooth, with absence of mountains, trees, buildings and, fences, stones, stumps and water.
(b)	impracticability of economical development to the size and clearance necessary for a flying training school.
I find that this condition does not apply to southern Alberta, because there one finds ample clearances. Any hon. members who have flown over that country or even travelled over it by automobile or rail must have been impressed with the fact that those difficulties do not apply there.
(e) location remote from centres of population.
Any part of southern Alberta is readily accessible to centres of population.
(d) location in areas of heavy snowfall.
I think I can truthfully say I have seen more snow in the last six weeks in Ottawa than I have seen in the last fifteen years in Calgary or anywhere else in southern Alberta. This afternoon a man who has just come to Ottawa told me that at the present time the farmers at Claresholm are preparing their soil for seeding.

In the concluding paragraph the minister says that he relies on his technical officers for surveys and so on, and he continues:
From a study of the preliminary survey reports by representatives of the Department of Transport and of the Royal Canadian Air Force, sites were tentatively selected for specific types of schools, distributed geographically throughout Canada as evenly as possible considering reasonable economic development and flying requirements.	[DOT]
I suggest that some criticism may be justly founded on the fact that these air fields are found distributed not only across the prairies but down through Ontario and Quebec and the maritimes. I have tried for the last two and a half weeks to get definite statistical information to support the argument I am now making. I have been unable to get sufficient to cover all the ground, but I think most of what I shall say is a matter of common observation. Land in western Canada is cheaper than similar land in Ontario and Quebec, adjacent to centres of population. Second, lands adjacent to cities in eastern Canada offer more hazards to aviation, and they must be cleared of the natural growth thereon in the form of trees. Farms in Ontario are for the most part one hundred acre farms divided into three or four fields; so it is not an unfair assumption, but one which I think will be borne out by the statistics when they are produced, that the cost of levelling and clearing airfields in eastern Canada is higher than in western Canada. Having cleared the field, let us assume that the cost of runways, erection of buildings and housing for the men is the same. There is, however, still the necessity of keeping the runways clear, which entails, I am sure, enormously greater expense in eastern Canada, where there is such a tremendous snowfall as has been the case this winter, as compared with the insignificant snowfall in southern Alberta this winter or in any and every winter, because of the weather conditions and the beneficient influence of the chinook wind.
I now come to what I consider an even more forcible argument, namely, the atmospheric flying conditions. The term "sunny" is not just a meaningless adjective tacked on to the name of the province of Alberta. In that province the day the sun does not shine is a rare day. And you do not have the rainfall; if you did, there would be no wheat problem so far as Alberta is concerned. Nor do you have sleet and snow in abundance such as you have here in eastern Canada. The falling of each and all those elements must necessarily constitute a real hazard to flying, at least to the training of the young and unskilled pilot, and must, as a result of grounded flying machines, militate against the expeditious training of these men.

Supplementary War Appropriation Bill
The crying need of Britain has been and is at this time for trained pilots. Such statistics as I have been able to get from the department reveal that the number of hours that a plane is grounded by reason of weather is much greater in other parts of Canada than it is in southern Alberta, or that area which stretches shall I say, to Moose Jaw. Yet we find airports and training fields established in the woods in these eastern provinces.
I can readily understand that the department will have in mind the use of these various air fields after the war. Quite properly they might have in mind selecting fields in proximtiy to cities in consideration of the use that may be made of them afterwards as airports. But having in mind the paramount consideration, namely, the expeditious training of air pilots with the minimum of hazard to the pilot and the machine and of expense to the government, there should be a wider development and concentration of flying in southern Alberta.


Donald Alexander McNiven: And southern Saskatchewan.


Manley Justin Edwards: And southern Saskatchewan. Remember this, that I do not say this having in mind my own home city of Calgary, which probably has, with one or two exceptions, a greater air development than any other city in Canada. I was frank enough to confess, much to the amazement of some of my political friends, that as far as the selection of some of the air fields there was concerned, I had nothing whatever to do with it. My constituents were astonished when I confessed that they knew these sites had been selected before I did, because I read about it in the Calgary newspaper which I received here three days after the news was made known in that city. But if the policy of the government is to distribute these air schools evenly across Canada, I believe that is a mistaken policy, involving needless expenditures of money in the purchase, clearing and upkeep of fields for training purposes, and creating additional hazards and delays in connection with the training of pilots; for it must be remembered that when a plane is grounded, the pilot perforce cannot fly. It is not that I have asked for any field in the Calgary district, or that I hope any training school will come to Calgary because of any representation I might make, which were not based on sound reason and logic, that I have spoken this evening. So far as I am concerned, I will never raise my finger to get anything for Calgary or for western Canada which I do not believe can be justified on sound economic grounds and will contribute the maximum of efficiency to
our war effort. But if this is the policy that has been laid down, and it has been correctly stated, then in all conscience and in all seriousness I urge that the government should revise same and give consideration to the possibility of training our pilots in that part of Canada where the training can be carried on most economically and with the minimum of hazards to the pilots themselves.


James Layton Ralston: The Minister of National Defence for Air is not here, but I think the principal matter on which my hon. friend has laid emphasis is the selection of sites for air schools. I can only say what I know to be a fact that in connection with the selection of these sites the minister had the benefit of the assistance of a board of technical officers who understood the requirements in connection with flying training. I think there was also on the board an officer from the transport department with long experience in connection with the construction of aerodromes, who knew the sort of soil and location best adapted to that work. I have no hesitation in saying to the committee that I am satisfied that not a single site for an air training school was selected except on the recommendation of this board, who were regarded as better qualified than anyone else to decide where these schools should be located; and that they worked without interference of any kind by the minister or anyone else. I know my hon. friend has not suggested that there was any interference, but I say to him that the choices were made deliberately by people who were supposed to know, and who, I believe, did know, better than anyone else in this country what was necessary for these schools, what ground facilities were required in order that the best possible job might be done in the shortest possible time.
Mr. HANSON York-Sunbury): I hope the ministry will give heed to the plea just made by their supporter. He almost made me weep at the injustice that had been done to southern Alberta. With regard to the selection of air training schools, I know definitely that one site was turned down by that board and that now nearly half a million dollars has been spent in building an air training school at that very location. Therefore I am not so much impressed by the statement of the minister that the joint board selected all these sites. I know it to be a fact that the Pennfield site was absolutely turned down by this board. The hon. member for Charlotte made a plea for the establishment of a school at that point, and half a million dollars has been spent on that school. So something

Supplementary War Appropriation Bill
happened in regard to Pennfield. Just what it was I do not know, and I am not very particular about it, because I was also anxious to see that school developed. It is not in my constituency, but it is adjoining, and it is in my old home county.
I	was not so much impressed with the statement of high policy to which the minister gave expression. There have been changes made. The objection to the Pennfield site was fog. Well, the fog from the bay of Fundy is still there and always will be there. I have lived along the bay of Fundy for some sixty odd years now, and the fog is still there. I nearly wept when I heard the hon. member for Calgary West tell us about what had happened in his community and certainly his statement requires a reply by the minister with regard to this apparent discrimination against beautiful, sunny Alberta about which the hon. member orated a few moments ago with such telling effect. With respect, however, to the appointment of these Tories to high offices in the army, let me tell the hon. member for Calgary West that among the most patriotic men in this Canada of ours he will find leading Conservatives in every walk of life, prepared to do their duty by the empire and by Canada, to-day and always.


James Layton Ralston: I cannot reply to the reference to the Pennfield airport; I do not know the circumstances. But I repeat with all the emphasis at my command that the Pennfield airport, and every other airport where training is being carried on, were selected by this board. The board may have changed its mind, or the tactical situation may have changed. As I speak, I have some recollection that the Pennfield airport was established for tactical reasons after the break through, because of the possible threat on the Atlantic coast, when the Atlantic command was established, in order to have a reserve base for planes back from the seaboard. I think my hon. friend will find this to be the reason.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I know I was trying to help with regard to the matter, and the location was condemned by the board because of fog. For some reason a change was made, and I was happy to have the change and never inquired as to the reason for it.


James Layton Ralston: I think my hon. friend will find the reason to be as I have stated it. I wish I had known the matter was coming up but I am quite certain now that Pennfield was selected as a reserve base back from the seaboard.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have no doubt that there were good reasons for the change.


Douglas King Hazen: In the absence of the
Minister of National Defence for Air, I should like to direct a few questions to the Minister of National Defence -with regard to the training of squadron leaders under the common-' wealth air training scheme. I am not in a position to discuss this matter in any detail; as a matter of fact, I know nothing about it, but one hears rumours and reports. If the minister is not in a position to answer these questions now, perhaps he will do so at his convenience. The questions are these: Under the commonwealth air training plan are airmen trained in Canada as squadron leaders? Has any difficulty been experienced in training squadron leaders in Canada for service overseas? Have airmen been trained in Canada as squadron leaders who are now in charge of squadrons overseas; and, if so, how-many? Is it proposed to make any change in the commonwealth air training plan in connection with the training of squadron leaders?


James Layton Ralston: I can only say to my hon. friend that I shall try to get the information for him. Just offhand, however, I think he is mixing up the air training plan and the home war establishment. Of course squadron leaders are being trained in the home war establishment; that is to say, officers who serve in the air defences of Canada and those who go overseas to man our own squadrons over there. Probably there also will be some of these officers in some of the squadrons which will be formed as a result of the commonwealth air training plan. There is no doubt in the world that squadron leaders are being trained in Canada. Whether squadron leaders are being trained under the commonwealth air training scheme, I cannot say, but I have-the idea they are not.


Douglas King Hazen: How are squadron leaders
being trained, and where?


James Layton Ralston: That is not under the air training plan, but rather, I believe, under the home war establishment.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: I have one or two questions in connection with rumours which I suggest ought to be straightened out. Would the Minister of National Defence for Air or the Minister of Munitions and Supply give a comparison with regard to the hours necessary to ground planes of various classes for purposes of overhaul. I understand there is some dissatisfaction with some of the planes being made. Some ar* ''pry satisfactory, and

Supplementary War Appropriation Bill
others are not. If a large percentage of one class of planes is being grounded for a considerable length of time, I should like to know why some change has not been made.


James Layton Ralston: Is the hon. member asking as to the regulations concerning the number of flying hours before an overhaul is ordered?


Douglas Gooderham Ross: No; there are
various classes of planes used in connection with the air training plan. There is dissatisfaction, or at least it is rumoured that there is dissatisfaction with certain makes. How many hours are granted for the overhaul of these different classes of planes?


James Layton Ralston: Is the hon. member
referring to elementary trainers, such as Ansons, and so on?


Douglas Gooderham Ross: In the whole airtraining scheme. We might as well have it for all of them.
Then, I have one further question, I notice the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) is not at present in his seat. I wanted to ask him if any of the money we are now asked to vote will be used to increase the pay of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. We know the pay they receive is not sufficient. Is it intended to do anything for those men who are working at such high pressure?


James Layton Ralston: I shall make a note of the question, and call it to the attention of the Minister of Justice.


Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: Would the
Minister of National Defence for Naval Services make a supplementary statement respecting the construction of ships in Nova Scotia? I am referring more particularly to the construction of wooden ships. The statement he made in the house a few weeks ago with regard to this matter was a great disappointment to the people of Nova Scotia. The people in that province feel that the capacity of the shipyards of Nova Scotia has not been used even to a fraction of their possible use in the building of wooden ships, ships which could carry cargo, powered with diesel engines and capable of keeping up with the average convoy. They could do coastal work and thereby release steel ships to be used in the transatlantic service.
The minister's statement was supported and confirmed by the premier of Nova Scotia who took credit for obtaining large shipbuilding orders for Nova Scotia. It was stated by the premier that the Nova Scotia yards had been given an opportunity to build ships, but that they refused. These statements are not satisfactory to the people of Nova Scotia.
and are a disappointment to Canadians as a whole. I do not believe we are doing justice to Lord Beaverbrook and to the British people who have made an appeal to people the world over for ships. The minister said that the demand for ships was first in war necessities, even coming ahead of the building of aeroplanes. I feel that much more could and should be done by the government in assisting, encouraging and, if necessary, compelling the people of Nova Scotia to build ships. This is a supplementary appropriation, and I should like to have a supplementary statement from the minister.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I am not just sure what information the hon. member for Cumberland requires. In the first place the business of building cargo ships or, in fact, the building of ships of war, is not one administered by the Department of National Defence for Naval Services. All these matters are dealt with by the Department of Munitions and Supply.
I would, however, say to the hon. member that, so far as I know, up to the present time no assistance has been given to any shipyard in this country. In my view that point ought to be cleared up at once. There are some people in certain parts of the country who seem to think that because the government is assisting certain manufacturers to set up industries, which are essentially and only war industries, therefore the government should assist any industry. For example, let us consider the building of corvettes. To the extent to which we were asked to build them in this country, the building of corvettes could be taken care of without any difficulty whatever in existing Canadian shipyards. I ask the hon. member, and any other member in the committee, if it would be reasonable to expect the government of Canada to establish new shipyards for the building of corvettes when there were in Canada plenty of yards which could handle all the corvettes we want. It would be utterly unreasonable, I suggest, to establish such yards. The fact that a man who is asked to manufacture munitions or something of that kind-commodities the use of which will vanish at the end of the war-is given some assistance by the government is, I suggest, no reason whatever why we should believe that everything manufactured for war should be subsidized by the government. We had some twenty yards in Canada capable of building corvettes, and capable of building certain other ships required for war purposes.
The question which I suggest people ought to ask themselves before they begin saying that the government should force Nova Scotia shipbuilders or any other shipbuilders into a
2074	COMMONS
Supplementary War Appropriation Bill
programme of plant expansion is whether existing plants have been taxed beyond their capacity. Until that time arrives, I do not think it is the function of government-this or any other government-to begin to subsidize or to bonus shipyards and shipbuilding.
The other night, in the absence of the Minister of Munitions and Supply, I made a statement respecting the building of wooden cargo ships. My hon. friend now asks me to amplify that statement. I can say to him that the opinion of certain British shipping experts is that a ship of even 4,700 tons, the size of ship the building of which was considered in this country a short time ago, is practically too small to-day for convoy work. I do not say there are not some ships of a tonnage less than 4,700 plying the seas; as a matter of fact, there are a few. But these men are thinking of building ships, and their advice to this country is, if you are going to build ships, do not build a ship as small as 4,700 tons. That ship has to go in convoy; it has to be cared for in the same way as if it were a ship of 10,000 tons. It is not so economical, ton for ton, as a 10,000 tonner, and all in all it is not wise to undertake the building of ships of this size.
My hon. friend knows veiy well that when you speak of wooden ships and when you speak of 4,700 ton ships, you are referring to two totally different things. You cannot build, a wooden ship of that size. While it has been suggested, I believe, that there are in Nova Scotia fifty yards which can undertake the building of cargo ships, in my opinion a statement of that kind is in need of the most drastic revision.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It all
depends upon what the minister means by "cargo ships."


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I am saying to my hon. friend that the advice of the British authorities who have come to this country-and I would suppose that theirs is the best advice in the world when it comes to shipping of any sort, mercantile ships or warships-is, that it is unwise to talk of convoys across the Atlantic composed of ships even of 4,700 tons; and I say that when you get to that tonnage, you are entirely out of the wooden ship class.
What other yards are there in Nova Scotia capable of building steel ships? The shipyards at Halifax can do so, but they are engaged at the moment in other duties which are regarded as of even greater importance. They have been asked to undertake and are undertaking repair work. I do not know of

any other shipyards equipped to build steel ships. There is no question that such shipyards could be established.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Were not ships of substantial tonnage built there on a large scale during the last war? I do not remember how big the ships were, but I know they did construct steel ships.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: During the last war they built steel ships at New Glasgow; they built them also at Halifax, and of as great a tonnage as 9,500. That could be done again.; but the question is, is this government called upon now to establish a shipyard at, we will say, New Glasgow, where there is no yard at the present time, while there are yards at British Columbia, on the river St. Lawrence and on the great lakes which are capable of building these ships? That is the whole question. If this country desires this government to go into the business of establishing yards in competition with those existing yards, which so far as I know are capable of taking care of all the business which offers at the present time-if the people want the government to subsidize yards in competition with these existing yards, that is another story. But if my hon. friend can tell me of any yard in Nova Scotia which is capable to-day of building steel ships for cargo purposes-and that is the only type which can be considered for transatlantic purposes-I would be glad to have the name of that yard. If my hon. friend can nanm me any yard in Nova Scotia which is capable of building ships for war purposes and has not been given an opportunity of bidding on these ships, I should like to have its name. I can tell him that, when it came to the construction of wooden ships, I hoped that a great number of them would be built in Nova Scotia. I knew that British Columbia and other provinces had been building steel ships, because they had yards equipped for the purpose. Steel ships have been built on the great lakes and the St. Lawrence, but none had been built in Nova Scotia. As I have said, the only yard in that province which is capable of doing that work was assigned to other essential war work. I had hoped, however, that a great many wooden ships would be built in Nova Scotia, as some measure of compensation for the contracts for steel ships which had gone elsewhere.
There were twenty-four Fail-miles to be built. They were wooden ships, 112 feet long, costing not more than $100,000 each for the hull. I believe that last fall the Department of Munitions and Supply was prepared to give contracts for eighteen or twenty of these ships

Supplementary War Appropriation Bill
to Nova Scotia if the builders in that province were prepared to take them. The department sent down the director of shipbuilding to examine the yards and see whether they were capable of undertaking this work. He returned and made a report in which he listed, I believe, some six, or perhaps it was as many as ten, Nova Scotia yards which could do the work. Bids were asked for, but only three Nova Scotia yards bid on these ships; and this is the province which is the home of wooden shipbuilding in Canada. Of these three bidders, only one was at all within the range of the bids offered by builders in Ontario, on the St. Lawrence and in British Columbia.
So amazed was I at the discrepancy in prices that I suggested to the Minister of Munitions and Supply and to the director of shipbuilding that Nova Scotia builders must have made some mistake, that presumably they had misunderstood the specifications, and that they should be given another opportunity. That opportunity was given them; they bid a second time, and again, only one man was at all within the range. There were bidders in British Columbia whose bids were S25.000 below the second and third Nova Scotia bids on a job which was worth something less than $100,000. Does my hon. friend or does any sane person in this country contend that we should accept those bids from Nova Scotia and award contracts on that basis? As a matter of fact, we had to ask the one bidder at Weymouth to undertake two ships instead of one. The result is that, of the twenty-four Fairmiles, two only are being built in Nova Scotia.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: The minister is
talking a good deal about bids on these boats. Could he let us know whether the Department of Munitions and Supply have always been so meticulous in calling for bids in other classes of work as they have been in connection with ships?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: All I can say is that, so far as my knowledge of the action of the Department of Munitions and Supply is concerned, they have called for bids for all ships; and I believe the policy of that department is to call for bids not only on ships but also in respect of every other undertaking in which they engage. There may have been some instances where the urgency of the matter prevented calling for tenders, but I should say that in 99 per cent of contracts of all kinds, bids were called for. Certainly they were in the case of all ships.
I pass from the Fairmile boats, which were the first large type of warship required, to the next type.


Mr. CASSELMAN:: The minister has been talking about 10,000 ton ships. For my own information, would he mind giving an estimate with respect to the specification affecting the length and beam of a 10,000 ton ship?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Oh.
I could not give that offhand to my hon. friend. I can get it for him.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Probably 500 feet long; width about sixty feet.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: Would the minister
think it wise to make use of the mobilization act under these circumstances? Ships are of such vital importance that the Canadian and the British people are not very much interested in contracts or competition or prices. It. seems to me that every yard in Canada which is capable of building ships of the kind required should be at work to-day building ships. If they have not the men, the men should be trained. If they have not the steel, something should be done about it. But at this time every shipyard in the country which can be used should be working. If the private owners are not going to work them because they cannot get the price they want, the government should take these yards over and build the ships under the mobilization act. Is the minister going to consider taking this action?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: What is the question my hon. friend wanted to ask me? So far as I could judge, he was making a speech.


George Hugh Castleden: Does the minister not think it advisable in certain instances to take over the shipyards under the mobilization act and get them working?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: My only answer to that is that, so far as I know, the shipyards of this country are not yet taxed to the full capacity. They are capable of taking care of all the business that is being offered, and until the time comes when there are not enough shipyards in this country to handle the business offering, I do not think there is any need to talk of the application of any act to conscript or take over or confiscate these yards.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister just said that only three of twenty-five firms in Nova Scotia had bid to build ships.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I think my hon. friend had better stick to something he knows a little about-wheat or something like that. Six builders were given an opportunity to bid, and only three of then
2076	COMMONS
Supplementary War Appropriation Bill
bid. If my hon. friend thinks we should take people by the throat and gestapo them into building ships when they do not want to build them, that is another story.
I was going on to speak of the next type of wooden ship asked for by the naval service, namely, wooden mine-sweepers. What is the story about the wooden mine-sweepers?


Richard Burpee Hanson: What are the Fairmile sweepers?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: They are patrol vessels. We asked for bids for wooden mine-sweepers, and again I may say that I hoped that most of them might be built in Nova Scotia. They were perhaps a little simpler to build than the Fairmiles. Tenders were called for. I am not definitely sure on this point, but I think I am correct in saying that only Nova Scotia bidders were asked to bid on these mine-sweepers. Ten boats were ordered from Nova Scotia bidders, two from each of five shipbuilders in that province. What happened? These five builders accepted a contract and undertook to build two minesweepers each, but they had scarcely undertaken the work w-hen two of these Nova Scotia builders threw up the work and said they could not go on with it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: For what reason?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: For one reason or another. One had difficulty in getting capital. Another said that the specifications were too difficult. The result is that only six of these ten boats are being built in Nova Scotia, and the other four are being built on the St. Lawrence or on the lakes. That is the story with regard to the minesweepers.
What more could be done than was done by this government so far as the building of wooden ships is concerned? I stated the other night that the government of Nova Scotia had called a meeting of all the shipbuilders in that province. I think two meetings were held, and they got a delegation of shipbuilders to come to Ottawa. They got the best naval architect in Nova Scotia, Mr. Rowe, the designer of the great ship Bluenose, to accompany them as a technical expert and had with them also a minister of the Nova Scotia government. They interviewed representatives of the Department of Munitions and Supply and they interviewed me, and everything was done that could possibly be done to stimulate the development of the wooden shipbuilding industry in Nova Scotia. But for one reason or another the situation is as I have stated. What the full reasons are I do not know. It may be as the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Kinley)

suggested, that it was lack of capital. There may have been difficulty in understanding the specifications. It may have been that the wood which they had to use in these ships was foreign wood that had to be imported.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Was that not the real reason?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: If that was the real reason, that the ships required mahogany and teak which had to be imported, the very same reason applied to the shipbuilders in British Columbia, Ontario and on the St. Lawrence. No mahogany or teak is grown in this country. These woods would have to be imported by the Ontario builder and the British Columbia builder as well as by the Nova Scotia builder, so that cannot be or ought not to be the real reason.
It is all right to make a general statement about the desirability of having every yard in Nova Scotia humming, but I think it is better to see the persons in charge of these yards doing some humming themselves, making every effort to get business. They have been coaxed again and again to take the work, and the result of it all is as I have indicated. Some have refused to bid, and others accepted1 bids and failed to go on with the work. If my hon. friend can suggest any other definite thing that can be done, I shall be glad to discuss it with my colleague the Minister of Munitions and Supply to see what can be done, but I do not think it is of any use to make general observations like "every shipyard should be busy and all Nova Scotia shipyards should be working.'' when in some respects the yards themselves have not taken full advantage of the opportunities that offered.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: The minister said
that it was difficult to get teak and mahogany. Is it not a fact that in some instances teak and mahogany have been specified and substitutes allowed? I wonder whether these Nova Scotia men who have been asked to tender know all about that.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I
do not know about that. I am speaking for a department that is not mine, but I am sure that if any changes in the specifications were made for one shipbuilder, other shipbuilders would have been given an opportunity to make a change in their bids.


Percy Chapman Black: I for one
am not satisfied with the statement of the minister, nor do I believe the people of Nova Scotia will be satisfied. The statement he made the other night and the statement he has made to-night are the statements of a defeatist. That is a word I have never

used before, but I have to apply it in this instance. If shipbuilding is as urgent as we believe it to be, the number of ships being built in Nova Scotia should be manyfold the number being built to-day. The minister says that the shipyards of Nova Scotia should be humming. Why are they not humming? Because there is no humming on the part of the minister and the government and those associated with them. If they did their part, many ships would1 be building in Nova Scotia to-day. I have a statement here from Mr. D. B. Carswell, controller of ship construction in Canada. His statement should be as authoriative as anybody's in Canada. We have had a statement from Lord Beaverbrook, the most authoritative in the world, that the building of ships was urgent, and now Mr. Carswell is quoted as saying:
Principal problem facing an "all out" cargo and warship construction programme in Canada, which would involve establishment of new shipyards throughout the dominion, is the problem of finding the money for both ships and yards.


Thomas Vien: What is the hon.
gentleman reading from?


Richard Burpee Hanson: What
difference does it make? The chairman has no right to interrupt the speaker in that way and ask him what he is reading from. He announced it anyway. This interference by the chairman must stop.


Thomas Vien: Order.	There is a
well-known rule of the house that no hon. member may read from a private document or a public document without stating what he is reading from.


Richard Burpee Hanson: He stated it.


Thomas Vien: My question was, what the hon. gentleman was reading from, and I missed his reply. If any one desires to speak to the point of order-


Richard Burpee Hanson: It was
not on any point of order.


Thomas Vien: Yes. The leader of
the opposition rose in his place and stated that he was raising a point of order.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, I
did not say anything of the sort. What happened was that the chairman himself intervened to interrupt this speaker, and he had no right to do so because the hon. member was quite within the rules. We might as well have this question of order settled.


Thomas Vien: Order, please. The
hon. gentleman cannot rise in his place when another hon. member is speaking, except on a
point of order. I, as chairman, said that I understood him to rise to a point of order, and I say the point of order is wrongly taken. The chairman has a right to ask what document the hon. gentleman is reading from and I am asking that question.


Percy Chapman Black: I was reading from the Vancouver Sun of March 11, a statement purporting to have been made by Mr. D. B. Carswell, controller of ship construction and repairs in the Department of Munitions and Supply. I am going to read now what he is quoted as having said:
Principal problem facing an "all-out" cargo and warship construction programme in Canada, which would involve establishment of new shipyards throughout the dominion, is the problem of finding the money for both ships and yards.
If that is the requirement, Mr. Chairman, and the building of ships is as urgent as we know it is-there is no question about that- I say that the government has not put forth a full effort in obtaining ships from Nova Scotia. The Minister of National Defence for Naval Services has criticized the people of Nova Scotia and the shipyards of that province because they' have not built ships of foreign wood. There is a feeling among the shipbuilders of Nova Scotia, in the shipyards, that this government does not want them to build ships; otherwise specifications would be drawn up calling for materials that are native to Nova Scotia, such materials as Nova Scotians have been using in years long gone by in the building of ships that were able to weather the storms of every ocean. The shipbuilders of Nova Scotia, however, are now being asked to build ships from foreign woods, southern woods such as mahogany and teak, and even from British Columbia, rather than from woods native to the province. If the government were doing its full part in encouraging the people of Nova Scotia to build ships such as they are capable of building, and as I believe they wish to build in their desire to discharge their patriotic duty, then the government, in justice to Nova Scotia, would draw up specifications calling for materials which are available in that province and out of which the shipbuilders have been constructing ships for a century or more.
I believe that this is due the province of Nova Scotia. Money has been available without stint for many other forms of war work, and war materials. There is no question about money, so far as the members of this house are concerned, if that money is to be used for supplying the necessities of war. There is no question in the minds of members of this house about the supplying of money if the government asks for it for the purpose
Supplementary

War Appropriation Bill
of building ships in Nova Scotia or anywhere else. As one hon. member has already said, it is not so much a question of money as it is a question of ships. This parliament and the people of Canada will provide the money if the government will do their part and get every shipyard busy which is capable of building ships, whether in Nova Scotia or in any other part of Canada. I say to the government: Listen to the call of Beaverbrook; listen to the call of every one who is familiar with the needs of our empire at this time and get ships built.
In my opinion, we should go further in Nova Scotia. A special appropriation should be made in order that steel plates might be rolled in that province. The capacity of the steel mills should be increased to enable us to produce materials out of which steel ships can be built, not only for the war but for use after the war, when the need will be great. The difficulty in Nova Scotia in much of its war work-and there is only a limited amount compared with what is being done in other parts of Canada-is that most of it will cease on the termination of the war and we shall have no new industries. I contend that a steel shipbuilding yard should be established in Nova Scotia. It should be started without a day's delay, and plates should be rolled in that province to enable us to do our part in the war and after. We should be put in the position of building ships after the war to replace the enormous tonnage that is being sunk every week.
I for one, coming from Nova Scotia, and speaking, I believe, for the people of that province, am not satisfied with the efforts of the government and the results they have obtained with respect to shipbuilding in that province.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The fact of the matter is that the government has no national shipbuilding policy. I urged this on a previous occasion at great length. The government should take a long-term view of the question of establishing in Canada a national shipbuilding policy, so that we might, in a degree at least, recover our position as a great shipping country. I received no response from the Minister of Munitions and Supply except a detail later on of what had been done with respect to the building of these small war vessels. That is not the point of view the Canadian people are asking this government to take at the moment. It is all right to buy yachts in a hurry, to build corvettes for patrol purposes; it is all right to build mine-sweepers. But what we on this side of the house are urging, and what the people of Nova Scotia are urging, is a

little vision on the part of the government on the question of a great national policy; that is to say, the establishment of a steel shipbuilding industry in Canada on the Atlantic coast.
Talk about the St. Lawrence yards! There are two yards in the lower stretches of the St. Lawrence for the building of 10,000-ton ships, but you could not bring 10,000-ton ships down from lake ports. Why in the world this government, with all the money that we have voted to them so freely, cannot have a little vision and establish a national shipbuilding programme in this country, I cannot understand. We can find money for everything else.
We can bonus wheat and summer-fallowing and all that. But here is something that would be a post-war industry in Nova Scotia. Why should it not be established at Sydney? Why should it not be established at New Glasgow? The minister says there is no yard there now. I tell him, the yard was there in the last war and could be reassembled at not very great cost. The people of Nova Scotia demonstrated in the last war that they could build steel ships of very large capacity. This can be done again, and I ask the minister to review' the whole position in the interests of Nova Scotia and of the maritime provinces. Let us get back something of the position we once occupied in this country in relation to the sea. To take the attitude that the minister has taken with respect to Nova Scotia shipbuilding is to admit defeat before you start. I do not think the minister is a defeatist, but at the moment he is concentrating his mind especially on the immediate necessities of the occasion. I visualize something a great deal bigger than that. I wish the minister had the vision of the late William Pugsley who started the whole idea of building steel ships in Canada.


James Garfield Gardiner: And the Tory government killed it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, he took a long time dying.


James Garfield Gardiner: They killed the policy.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, the Tory government did not kill the policy. If there was any criticism of the policy, it was that it started a little too late. The Tory government did not kill it as quickly as this government killed the Canadian government merchant marine, which they sold after 1935 for a song. What an asset it would be to-day if we had some of those big transatlantic vessels.

Supplementary War Appropriation Bill


Mr. KINLEY:: I think the bargain was made before that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, the bargain was not made before 1935; the offer was made before and was refused. I know what I am talking about because I was connected with the whole matter in 1935.
I ask the government to review this whole position. Let the minister see if he cannot take a little longer view with regard to this national shipbuilding policy. Some day, if we have vision and energy enough, we shall have in the maritimes again a great shipbuilding industry such as that which put Nova Scotia on the map. It can be done. It takes money; it takes imagination; it takes brains. I should not like to think that Nova Scotians have lost all these attributes that made them famous in days'gone by. It is true that Nova Scotia has exported a good deal of its brain power, some of it to Ontario, but there is plenty left in Nova Scotia yet.
I had the honour of addressing the Commercial club in Halifax last summer, and I adverted to this very matter. The people of the maritime provinces are being given by time and circumstance one last opportunity to come back. And they can do it. We have not exported all the mentality for which we were famous in days gone by. It is true we supplied the banks and the prominent pulpits in Canada, and many other high positions, with the best men they ever had in those positions, but we still have a good many left. We can build up a national shipbuilding policy and thereby we will regain the position which we once occupied and which we should never have lost.


Mr. RYAN:: Up to the present time we have been discussing this bill in terms of money and aeroplanes and shipbuilding and so on. In the few minutes I am going to take up I am going to refer to the human element. In my constituency of Three Rivers is located a machine gun training centre. The men who compose that company or regiment came from different parts of Canada. I understand that quite a number of them came from Ontario, some from the maritime provinces and some from my own province. When men misconduct themselves or do not behave properly, we are always ready to find fault; but when men conduct themselves as men should, we pass it by and do not refer to it. I wish to commend the conduct of those men in that machine gun training centre in my county and say that they are an honour to their fathers and mothers and to the government, and. I should say, a source of great satisfaction to the Minister of National Defence. During the time those men have been in our
city I am happy to say there has not been a single complaint by the police department or any citizen with regard to their conduct when they come down to visit the city. I think we should refer to the men and their conduct more often than we do. There are men located all through this country giving their time for very little money, and when we have anything good to say about them we should say it. It is my pleasure to-night to be able to say this about these men.
I wish also to give credit to the commanding officer, Colonel D. S. Forbes, late of McGill university. Montreal. Much of the credit is due to Colonel Forbes. According to my judgment he is a human being, one whom the uniform has not spoiled. He understands his men and does everything he can to set them a good example.
While I am on this subject I wish to refer to another matter. That machine gun training centre is located, I believe, at one of the best locations that can be found anywhere in Canada. It is a splendid site on a hill above the city; the soil is sandy, and in 1938 there was built in these exhibition grounds new buildings at a cost of a million dollars. There is a splendid swimming pool there; I do not think there is the like of it in Canada, or any better. There is a splendid baseball field and excellent grounds. The city of Three Rivers has rented that property to the defence department for a dollar a year for the duration of the war.
In conclusion, the city of Three Rivers will always be ready to receive men from different parts of Canada who will conduct themselves like the men who are there to-day.


Mr. ADAMSON:: May I ask the hon.
member a question? It was a Highland light infantry unit, a Scottish regiment, of which he was speaking?


Robert Ryan: I believe so, yes.


John James Kinley: I was interested in the speech of the hon. member for Cumberland and also the remarks of the leader of the opposition who intimated what Nova Scotia would like to be industrially. There is something in what he said about our Vision and Energy. For generations we have been putting our best men into the intellectual professions and neglecting the material development of our country. We must get back to material things and be practical if we want to succeed in industry.
It has been my privilege during the last few weeks to talk several times with the Minister of Munitions and Supply about shipbuilding in Nova Scotia and on Canada's eastern coast. I believe he is alive to the situation; in fact, I think at this moment his technical men are
iJOSO	COMMONS
Supplementary War Appropriation Bill
on the eastern coast reviewing that situation in the interests of Nova Scotia and of the national war effort. I have no doubt there was difficulty, due to some extent to the red tape that always prevails in some measure in connection with government business. We must also not forget that most of these boats were for the British Admiralty; it is not easy to induce them to change their plans, and it may be that they decided too late to change, after the orders had been refused by certain shipbuilders, but I think that has all been overcome.
Hon. members must remember that the shipyard in Lunenburg had at the time plenty of private marine contracts; that is, contracts for the fisheries and mercantile marine, not directly connected with the war effort, but of national importance. That is true also of the Shelburne shipyards, which were busy with vessels for the coastal trade. It must be remembered also that some yards were held up because their financial position did not justify giving them contracts under existing conditions. It seems to me these yards could and should have been helped. I understand efforts have been made to get the banks to help, and I believe progress has been made in that regard. I understand that in my hon. friend's county of Cumberland, a couple of mine-sweepers are being built. Perhaps with a review of the situation, with a settling of the difficulties as between the ideas of the shipbuilders and those of the technical men, who are not always right, we may arrive at some common understanding which will permit of the construction of wooden ships of a size which will allow them to be used for certain war activities, as well as ships for the usual trade of the country.
We have heard much about these Fairmile boats. We were told they were more expensive to build in Nova Scotia than in other parts of Canada. The Fairmile boat is of two-ply mahogany with canvas in between, and that, type of construction was an innovation in Nova Scotia. These are high-powered boats formerly built on the great lakes for sportsmen, and when one undertakes the construction of new types of boats, it is pretty hard to get men into such a hazardous business, where there is a great deal of depreciation in connection with the installation of equipment which, after the war will be a total loss. These men must consider the matter very carefully. However, one builder, and he is a good one, gave a tender in line with other parts of Canada.
I do not think we should make shipbuilding in any part of this country a matter of political preferment, but shipbuilding is natural to Nova Scotia. So far as I am concerned, I am here to do what I can to promote shipbuilding on

the coast. I know that the ministers and officers of this government have gone a long way in trying to meet the situation that now exists, but if we are going to have shipbuilding carried on in Nova Scotia, somebody must wake up. I hope this discussion may help to bring that about.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: To-night we have heard a strange principle enunciated by a minister of the crown. When he is asked why we do not mobilize an industry in order that it may produce, he says we do not intend to gestapo people into producing something if they do not want to produce it.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: When the production is sufficient already.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Perhaps the minister will' just remain seated; he is not in another place now. Last year this parliament passed the National Resources Mobilization Act, which this house was told gave the government power not only to mobilize the man-power of Canada for the defence of Canada but to mobilize labour and industry if industry was not doing the job it was supposed to do. This government was given power to mobilize and organize the instruments of production by which this country might make its maximum war effort. What do we find to-night? The minister says we ought to stick to something we know something about.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I was born and raised on the Clydeside, the greatest shipbuilding area in the world, and I know something about it.


Thomas Reid: But did you work at it?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I know a little about shipbuilding, and I wish to say that this country has a right to something better than ministers rising in their places in the house and saying they do not know why certain things are not being produced. A few weeks ago the Minister of Munitions and Supply was questioned with regard to the Malton aircraft plant and the fact that it had a very large labour turn-over. He replied that there was something wrong, but he did not know what it was. To-night the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services tells this committee that the government wants ships, but that of twenty-five contractors in Nova Scotia only three submitted bids. When the question is quite properly put to him, "What is wrong," he shrugs his shoulders and says it might be this or it might be something else; he does not know just what is wrong. Then, when he is asked, "Why not mobilize

Supplementary War Appropriation Bill
this industry so that if it is not functioning efficiently now, it may function efficiently in* the future," his only answer is that he does not propose to gestapo people into production.
I am going to tell the minister that the people of Canada will demand that any industry not functioning at one hundred per cent efficiency shall be taken over and organized to overcome that difficulty. The minister's statement to-night is that of a defeatist. Today in the United Kingdom people are rationed' to an extent that when one reads what they are allowed to eat, it is enough to make one shudder. In Canada we have an abundance of every type of foodstuff; bacon, live stock products, dairy products, wheat and so on. There are our cousins across the sea needing food in order that they may live. Here we have an abundance of it, and the only thing lacking is that bridge of ships for which Beaverbrook is calling, for which Churchill has been calling and for which even the President of the United States has been making a heroic plea. When the members of this committee ask the government, "What about ships?" all we get in reply is the statement that for some reason or another these shipyards will not produce, that they will not even bid. If they will not produce, it is the minister's business to know why that condition exists, and to see to it that they do produce. If they will not produce under their own steam, it is the business of this government to mobilize them and put them to work. Any minister who comes into this house with a set of excuses as lame as that ought either to give somebody else the job or to get to work at it himself.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I should like to ask the hon. member for Weyburn, first, whether when he refers to the shipyards of Nova Scotia and those of Canada generally, he is speaking of cargo ships or ships of war. I did not follow him with sufficient accuracy to know whether he was speaking of -warships of one kind or another or of cargo ships.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister is not going to inveigle me into a technical argument." I am speaking of producing bottoms to the maximum capacity of these yards. The minister himself said they were capable of producing bottoms; otherwise they would not have been asked to bid. They must be capable of producing bottoms either to carry cargo or for patrol purposes; and when the government gave them an opportunity to put in bids and they did not do so, then it was the duty of the government to find out why they were not bidding for the work they could do.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I gather, then, that the hon. member for Weyburn is referring to both classes of ships, to ships to be used for fighting purposes, ships for the Royal Canadian Navy or the British navy, as well as ships for cargo purposes. That, I take it, is the sense of the last remark by the hon. member. That being the situation, I should like to ask my hon. friend another question, and it is this: Does he, with his experience gained on the Clyde, know of any shipyard in Nova Scotia to-day that is capable of turning out a cargo ship?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister is a much better lawyer than he is a minister of the crown. He does not have me on the witness stand.


Richard Burpee Hanson: You are right.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I do not claim to be an authority on Nova Scotia shipyards. I take the minister's own statement that there were in that province twenty-five contractors who were capable of producing ships.


Mr. POTTIER:: He did not say that.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Why does he refer to it, then?


John James Kinley: A certain kind of ships, not iron ships.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If they could not produce ships, then there is no point in the minister's blaming them for not putting in bids. If they were capable of putting in bids, then they were capable of producing ships.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: My hon. friend's knowledge of this subject is extremely vague and hazy. In the first place, as I said before, there is to-day in Nova Scotia no yard that is capable of turning out an Atlantic cargo ship-except one, and that yard is fully engaged in repair work. That settles the question of cargo ships.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, no.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: When I was dealing with shipbuilders in Nova Scotia I was referring to builders who had been asked to build vessels for the Royal Canadian Navy or for the Royal Navy. Some of those builders failed to build, and the work was given out elsewhere. I may say to my hon. friend that we are not ordering 10,000 ships, or anything of that sort for the navy. We had what is, after all, a limited number of the naval type of ship. When some of the Nova Scotia builders either failed to put in bids or failed to fulfil their contracts after contracts were entered into, the work was assigned elsewhere.
20S2
Supplementary War Appropriation Bill

There are ample yards in Canada to handle all the ships of war that we want to build at this time. That is the answer to my hon. friend.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And it was a limited programme, was it not?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: It was a relatively limited programme. There is no question in the world of any hold-up because the builders in Nova Scotia did not undertake the building of these Fairmile ships or the wooden mine-sweepers. There were yards on the St. Lawrence, in British Columbia and elsewhere which were only too delighted-more than delighted-to take up the work which some of those people in Nova Scotia refused to do.
I do not think I need say any more to the hon. member for Weyburn. They cannot build cargo ships in that province to-day. They do not have the yards. They have been given an opportunity to build warships of one kind or another-the smaller types. When some of them failed to take advantage of that opportunity, the work was put elsewhere, in other parts of Canada, with very little delay of any sort. I do not think there is any more need to answer my hon. friend who comes in here and talks about conscripting yards, and about my statement as to driving these people into the building of ships. Why should we drive the builders of Nova Scotia into building ships when there are dozens of other yards in Canada waiting to undertake the job? Is there any reason why we should say to the builders of Nova Scotia, "You must build that ship, whether you like it or not", and perhaps lose money on it-or at any rate they probably thought they would lose money on it-when there is another builder in another part of Canada ready, waiting and eager to undertake the work? And I would say, furthermore, to my hon. friend-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I answer the minister? The point is this, that if those Nova Scotia shipyards could build corvettes, they could be used for that purpose, and the other shipyards to which the minister referred could be used for cargo ships, which are so much needed.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I am saying again to my hon. friend that there is not a steel shipbuilding yard in Nova Scotia- with one exception, and that one yard is engaged in the repairing of ships of all kinds. That is the Halifax shipyard. The corvette is a steel ship. There is in that province at this time no other yard capable of building steel ships, without at any rate some expansion in that yard. There are in other parts of Canada yards capable of taking on that work to the full extent of our requirements. Nothing has been lost by the policy of Nova Scotians with

respect to the building of ships. It is not a case of our having to have ships, and, if a Nova Scotia builder did not take on the work, of our having to suffer. There are builders in the constituency of the hon. member for New Westminster. There are builders in the city of Vancouver. There are builders at Prince Rupert.


Mr. HANSON (Skeena):: We have a
modern dry dock, government-owned, at Prince Rupert, working only half time.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: There are builders in dozens of places in Ontario and all along the St. Lawrence river ready and anxious to take on the work that these Nova Scotia people did not undertake.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: We want
them all used; that is all. We are not saying that other yards are not to be used. The point is that we want all of them used. If Nova Scotia can be used for one type of ship, namely, large wooden ships, it would release steel shipyards for the production of other types, particularly cargo ships.


Thomas Reid: They had their choice of two types of ships.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: So
far as ships of war of any kind are concerned, there is at this time no shortage in Canada of building facilities. The great problem in this country so far as the Royal Canadian Navy is concerned, within the year, will be to train men rapidly enough to keep up with the ships of war. That will be the problem. As I said the other day, the training of officers in the navy is not a matter of a day or two, or a month or two; it is a matter of years. A navy as we had it at the beginning of the war-a navy, I n;ay tell the hon. member for Weyburn, that was kept down to that strength partly as a result of representations which he and his associates made- you cannot take an organization of that sort, a navy of 1,700 men, and build it up to 25,000, as it will be in early 1942, without doing some very stiff and hard work. The problem is going to be to get the trained personnel to man the ships of the Royal Canadian Navy- not to get the ships. The shipyards of Canada have not failed in one instance. They are on the job,-and ahead of the job. The programme of shipbuilding which was destined to last until the late months of 1942 is going to be finished in the late months of 1941, thanks to the efficiency, skill, loyalty and patriotism of the shipbuilders of this country.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Does the minister know of a single military or naval vote brought down by this government which was reduced by the house?

Supplementary TFor Appropriation Bill


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I
say that my hon. friend and his associates were foremost in this country, and have been for many years, in opposing defence estimates of one kind or another. If my hon. friend had had his way, we would not have a Canadian ship on the sea to-day. His party sat in this house in 1939 and said that we should not send a single man overseas. That was their idea of loyalty. I am telling him now that if he had had his way, there would not be a single man in the Canadian navy, and there would not be a single ship on the sea, because when a man enters the Royal Canadian Navy he volunteers to do service in any part of the world where duty calls him. This is the hon. gentleman who now comes to this house and attempts to say that I would be better as a lawyer than as a minister of the navy. I will tell my hon. friend that if he cannot make a better show in his argument than he made to-night, then he had better turn to some other pursuit, and stay there.
It has been suggested by the leader of the opposition and by the hon. member for Cumberland that the attitude I have adopted with regard to Nova Scotia shipbuilding is a defeatist attitude. That phrase was coined or used, I believe, by a newspaper in Halifax whose editorials lately on the question of shipbuilding have been remarkable for what they did not contain. They have been referring to the attitude of people who faced the facts and told the facts to the people of Nova Scotia, and have described that attitude as defeatist. I have done as much for Nova Scotia as most men who have spent a similar number of years in public life. There has never been a time in the years I sat in the legislature of Nova Scotia when I did not devote every energy I had to the development of the industry of that province. But I never told the people of Nova Scotia at any time, and I am not going to tell them to-day from this chamber, things which are not so. I am not going to tell the people of Nova Scotia that the blame is with the Department of Munitions and Supply, or that it is due to some specification or to some kind of wood which is used in the ships, when I know that is not the real reason.
The leader of the opposition referred to the spirit of the people of the maritimes, and expressed the hope that it might be revived. I have wondered whether the spirit of Nova Scotian builders and shipping interests is what it was three quarters of a century ago. I doubt very much whether the grandfathers of these men, the old fellows who were building ships in the fifties and sixties and seventies of the last century, would have taken second
place to any province or any country in the world when it came to building ships cheaply, efficiently and speedily. Nova Scotia in the middle of the last century had a greater tonnage on the seas of the world, per capita, than any other country. Its ships were on every sea; its captains and its sailors were known in every port. But I doubt whether some of the shipbuilders of to-day have the spirit of their fathers; and when people, in this chamber or in the press of this country, lay the blame for the non-existence of shipbuilding in that province on factors which have very little to do with the situation, I think it is time that somebody spoke out and gave the real facts.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: What is wrong with the builders?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: The hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg mentioned that the specifications for the Fairmile boats and the mine-sweepers were British specifications. That is absolutely true. Some of these boats were destined for the Royal Navy, and we had no other course than to comply with those specifications. If they wanted us to build boats of silver we should have to try to do it, or throw up the sponge. They wanted mahogany; they wanted teak, and there is no country in the world which can build warships of any kind as well as the people of Britain can do it. When they asked us for Fairmiles with mahogany decks or planks and with teakwood here or there, there was nothing for us to do but to accept their specifications and build ships in accordance with those specifications.
I do not know whether the leader of the opposition is suggesting the establishment in this country of a government mercantile marine. If he is, that is a suggestion which perhaps	is worth	considering.But I say again, so far as ships for the Royal Canadian Navy are concerned, ships of war,	there is	no lack of	capacity	in
Canadian yards.
So far as cargo ships are concerned, although	I should	prefer the	Minister	ofMunitions and Supply to make this statement, because I am altogether out of my own department. I know of no shortage in that regard; I know of no shipyard in Canada	which is	turning away work;	I
know of no danger of having our existing yards overburdened. Under these circumstances the point upon which I should like the leader of the opposition to elaborate is whether he believes that the government should now undertake, in addition to all the work which is being given to the shipyards of this country, the establishment of
2084	COMMONS
Supplementary War Appropriation Bill
a Canadian mercantile marine, and whether, for that purpose, it should establish government shipyards. If that is what he means, it is, as I say, a suggestion perhaps worthy of some consideration. But up to the moment, whether in respect of cargo ships or ships of war, I am aware of no lack of capacity in Canadian yards, and certainly there is no lack of willingness or zeal on the part of Canadian builders to undertake any task which the government, or, indeed, any private individual, sets before them in furtherance of this country's war effort.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I accept without reserve the statement of the minister that, so far as the limited programme of shipbuilding which the Department of Munitions and Supply have instituted, is concerned, there is no lack of capacity in Canada. But the Minister of Munitions and Supply, when we discussed this matter on an earlier occasion, and he was pressed to expand the programme of shipbuilding in Canada, put the position on an entirely different basis. What he said was that there were no skilled workmen in Canada. It was not a question of capacity but a question of ability to perform upon which he made his defence for not doing more than we were asking him to do. I suggest that the two stories do not jibe: I am, going to leave it there.
There is involved in this a larger question to which the minister adverted just before he resumed his seat. I want the ministry to explore all possible avenues of building up in Canada a commercial shipbuilding industry. It has started on the Pacific coast; it has not flourished on the Atlantic coast. Now, when ships are needed, is the opportunity to get this programme going on a commercial basis. Whether it shall be done as a government-owned, a government-operated or a privately initiated enterprise, is a matter for grave consideration. I do not mind telling the minister that, so far as I am concerned,
I would prefer, after the matter is gone into thoroughly and given the best consideration that the authorities and the technical men can give it, as to ways and means, that the decision should be that it should not be a government-owned or a government-operated project. What I visualize is a commercial enterprise which may be assisted by the government, in the establishment of yards, and, in the construction of a plate mill on the Atlantic coast. It is not beyond our powers to do this, and it should be started now if we as a nation are to reap any of the benefits of it and to give Great Britain the assistance which an all-out war effort on the part of this country requires, and

for which our people are calling in accents louder than I can use. That is what I am asking the ministry to visualize and to consider. We will support them in any well-thought-out enterprise.
What can be done on the Pacific coast with respect to steel shipbuilding surely can be done in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. I do not believe that all the initiative has as yet gone out of Nova Scotia. I learn that some of our friends in Nova Scotia find it difficult to get this government interested in Nova Scotia enterprise, and I can tell the minister of a specific case. It took months to convince the Department of Munitions and Supply that munitions could be made at Trenton, in the county of Pictou. I know that the manager of the Trenton plant was in Ottawa and spent days and weeks in trying to get an order. He never did get an order from this government, but he got one from the department for the account of the British government. He had infinite trouble in getting it. I do not know the reason, and I am not going to allocate any blame. There may have been a very good reason why he could not get an order for munitions for the plants in Pictou county, but he himself told me of the difficulties and discouragements which he had encountered. Finally he did get an order, for the account of the British government, made, of course, through the single purchasing channel. I approve that principle, because I do not think it would be wise to have two competing agencies in Canada for this type of work; the principle w'hich has been set up by the Minister of Munitions and Supply and his advisers is a sound one; but there has been some difficulty-I will not say resistance-in the working out of the principle.
The only reason why I rose again was that the minister rather invited me to give my opinions with respect to the question of commercial shipbuilding. That is the one I am interested in. I do not think for one minute that with the lack of technical men in Canada we can hope during this war-and I do not think we shall want to do it after this war- to build naval vessels of any size and power that cannot be far better built in Britain than we could do it here even in times of peace.
Somebody may say: They can build cargo ships over there better than we can build them in Canada in times of peace. That may be true. The first cost of establishing a shipbuilding enterprise in Canada will be heavy. It will cost us more here, I have no doubt; but I do not think it will be 100 per cent more, as the Minister of Munitions and Supply suggested the other day. I believe that, as time goes on, and we understand things better,

Supplementary War Appropriation Bill
the costs will be reduced. There is an opportunity, if we have the vision as a people, as a government, and as a parliament, and if we make an appeal to the commercial enterprise of our citizenship, to establish in the provinces by the sea a commercial shipbuilding enterprise. That is what I invite the minister and liis colleagues to give their attention to from now on so far as it is possible for them to do so. I want to see it started now in order that we may have a post-war industry that may be a continuing industry, so that Canada will get back on the map once more as a seafaring country as we were in days gone by. It is not beyond the realm of possibility at all. It is, on the contrary, well within the range of possibility. All we need is vision and energy and the spirit to go ahead and do it. Once we get going, we can build ships as cheaply as they can build them in the United States. Let me say to the minister that "without vision the people perish." We must have a little more vision in the maritime provinces.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: And private enterprise.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I agree that we must have private business enterprise. I do not believe that everything should be left to the government. As a matter of fact, one of the great evils in Canada to-day, and for many a day past, has been this spirit of: Oh. let the government do it. We must snap out of that sort of thing. We must get down to encouraging private initiative. That is one of the things that appeals to me under the capitalist system. If you destroy-and now I am looking at my hon. friends to my left- the principle of private initiative in Canada and come to leaning and depending upon paternalism, God help this country.


Percy Chapman Black: Mr. Chairman, one statement just made by the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services I cannot agree with. He said that the men of to-day in Nova Scotia are not the equal of their grandfathers. They may not have the experience in shipbuilding, but I believe that if the responsibility is placed upon them, they will prove worthy of their forebears.
It is agreed that the need to-day for ships is greater than in the last war, and the effort being put forth at the present time in building ships in Nova Scotia does not compare with what 'was done there in the last war when there were in that province scores of shipyards building wooden ships. There has been a tremendous development in the use
of diesel engines, so that the wooden ship is to-day far more serviceable than it was in the last war.
Nor is Nova Scotia doing to-day what she did in the last war in building steel ships. A new shipyard was established in Pietou county and several large steel ships were built in the last war. Plates and frames were rolled there to build these ships. During the last war several million dollars were expended in Sydney to roll plates in order that ships might be built in Nova Scotia, but that plate mill is not operating at this time. There is no comparison between the need for ships to-day and in the last war, nor is there any comparison between what has been done to enable Nova Scotia to build ships to-day and what was done in the last war.


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: My constituency is a
wooden shipbuilding constituency, and I would hate the impression to go out that we have not been building some ships. We have built seine boats and speed boats of various kinds and scows for the government.
I cannot agree with the hon. member for Weyburn when he says: Mobilize those shipbuilders and tell them what to do. If that is the spirit of the west, it is not the spirit of the maritimes. Our shipbuilders do not need to be told what to do.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Apparently (they do, according to the minister.


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: The difficulty with regard to mine-sweepers has been largely one of finance or occupation on other projects. As I stated in the house the other day, in my constituency or in the constituency adjoining we have an order for two Fairmiles and four mine-sweepers, and we would have undertaken to build more mine-sweepers but for the fact that some of these family shipyards have not the financial resources to go ahead and take a chance on losing from $50,000 to $75,000 or are busy on other work. Their financial build-up is, I think, being remedied. I personally have been working for months trying to get people interested financially and endeavouring to work up enthusiasm, but until sufficient enthusiasm and finances have been developed, we are going to have the situation we have at the present time.
Section stands.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
20S6
Questions
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, April 2, 1941.