1941-03-11

SPECIAL COMMITTEES


[Stage Direction]
Hon. CYRUS MACMILLAN (Queens) presented the second report of the select committee on the Pension Act and the War Veterans' Allowance Act, as follows:
Your committee recommends that authority be granted:
(1)	to consider and report upon all matters relating to ex-service men of the last and the present war, including matters relating to provision for medical, hospital and convalescent treatment, grants, gratuities and allowances, upon or after discharge, and provision for their rehabilitation.
(2)	to consider and report upon the desirability of enacting legislation in respect of persons injured in the course of duty during the present war, or in respect of dependents of such persons losing their lives in the course of such duty.
(3)	to appoint subcommittees to examine witnesses, to send for persons, papers and records, and to report back to the committee from time to time.

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:: That the name of Mr. Bence be substituted for that of Mr. Ross (Souris) on the special committee on the defence of Canada regulations; and that the name of Mr. MacKinnon (Kootenay East) be substituted for that of Mr. Brooks on the select committee on the Pension Act and the War Veterans' Allowance Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, March 10, consideration in committee of a resolution to provide sums not exceeding §1,300.000.000 for the year ending March 31, 1942, for the carrying out of measures consequent upon the existence of a state of war.-Mr. Ilsley- Mr. Fournier (Hull) in the chair.
Mr. STIRLING:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take the opportunity, before the Prime Minister has quitted the chamber to attend
War Appropriation Bill

to other duties, and during the presence 'here of the three ministers of defence, to ask the government if it would state its position with regard to the question of decorations. Upon inquiries which I have made in various directions it has been stated to me on more than one occasion that the government takes its stand on the incident which happened in the House of Commons in 1919. Hon. members will remember that a select committee of the house was appointed to examine into the question of titles and to report. The committee so reported on May 14, 1919, and a debate ensued some days later in which the recommendations of the report were supported by a majority in the 'house-I think the figures were 96 to 43. As a result of the adoption of that report a humble address was presented to his majesty making reference to two points. The suggestion was made, first, that no more titles should be granted to British subjects domiciled in Canada, and, secondly, that in the case of hereditary titles they should lapse at the death of the then holder.
That humble address was duly sent to his majesty, but that was by no means the only content of that report. There was a further paragraph which I should like to read to the house. Immediately after the reference to the address, the suggestion was made that the titles of both "Right Honourable" and "Honourable" be discontinued, but the suggestion did not meet with the approval of the committee. The report then states:
Your committee, however, do not recommend the discontinuance of the practice of awarding military or naval decorations, such as the Victoria Cross, Military Medal, Military Cross, Conspicuous Service Cross and similar decorations to persons in military or naval services of Canada for exceptional valour and devotion to duty.
It seems to me therefore improbable that what I have been informed is correct, that the government takes its stand upon what happened in the House of Commons-not parliament-in 1919.
The question of decorations has been one of some difficulty, but for generations, so far as Great Britain is concerned, recognition of deeds of valour has been accepted almost as a household word. There may be some who think there is but little value in it, but I am sure I am voicing the opinion of members of the fighting services, members of the services which are connected with the fighting

services, yes, and indeed of a large proportion of the population, when I say that a recognition for valour is something far above recognitions of other descriptions. It has the effect of strengthening the morale of the services.
The other day in this house I mentioned my own personal opinion that I am not more than interested as a rule in the manners and customs of public and governmental life in Great Britain. I prefer to be guided by what I consider the points which count with regard to Canadian public life. But there is a difference in this matter. Our sailors, soldiers and airmen are more than allies with those of other dominions; they are brothers. They are so closely associated with them that it would seem to me something in the nature of a common policy that might well be the directing course with regard to this question of decorations.
Just recently the Canadian No. 1 fighting squadron has been fighting with the Royal Air Force squadrons and with Polish squadrons, and as a result of what was accomplished by these various squadrons recommendations for decorations have been made and decorations have been granted not only to pilots but to ground personnel, recognition thus being given to the fact that a plane in the air must be kept in perfectly fit flying condition by those who do good work on the ground. I am told also that recommendations went forward with regard to personnel connected with No. 1 fighting squadron, but decorations were not granted.
It appears to me it would be of very great interest not only to the services in Canada but to the general public if the government would be good enough to make known what policy actuates it in this matter.


Mr. CRUICICSHANK:: Last night I
attempted to adjourn the debate but apparently I was out of order. I made the attempt for the reason that I wished to -be the first speaker to-day, but it has not worked out so well. The only reason I am speaking to-day is that there has been so much misrepresentation with regard to the problems of British Columbia, and that is what I want to correct.
The principal reason for dissension in our war effort is the fact that we as members do not know Canada as we should. I venture to say that at least seventy-five per cent of the members have never had the privilege of visiting British Columbia and the other

War Appropriation Bill
western provinces. That is not good for Canada or for us as members of parliament, and I am taking this opportunity to invite each member to visit the glorious west at the conclusion of this session. I shall write to each member individually in this regard. I have no authority to speak either for the provincial government, for the municipal authorities, boards of trade or any other organization, but I think I can assure hon. members, on their behalf, that we shall give all visitors a true western welcome and I hope *they will let me know how many are coming. All have passes, and most are of Scottish descent, and it would be an excellent chance for hon. members to show their wives what good fellows they are. I suggest that you bring your families with you.
In my opinion, we have not yet put into effect a full war-time effort and in this connection I may refer to the question of shipbuilding. It may sound strange for me to discuss this subject as a rural member, but it was under consideration last night, and; I wish to point out that we in British Columbia have many year-round harbours. Our climate cannot be surpassed, and notwithstanding any information to the contrary that may have been given to the minister, who I regret is not present at the moment, we have between one and two thousand skilled labourers out of work. That is not in the best interests of Canada at a time when the empire is calling for ships and more ships. A short time ago the representatives of the international machinists union, covering railroad employees, approached the Canadian Pacific Railway with the request that the employees of that system be put back upon a six-day week, and the answer given was that to put these men on the six-day week would throw five hundred skilled men out of work. If you are going to throw five hundred skilled1 men out of work in British Columbia or elsewhere by adopting a six-day week, then I say we have plenty of skilled mechanics.
I should like to quote from the Ottawa Journal of March 11, which in an editorial quotes the following Canadian press dispatch:
Ottawa, March 7.- (CP)-The possibility that Canada's war-time cargo boat construction might be doubled was seen to-day by officials of the munitions and supply department.
That is from the Canadian Press. The editorial continues:
Who are these "officials"? And who authorized them, whoever they may be, to give out such an announcement? Such statements, clearly, should come only under the name, and with the authorization and responsibility, of the minister.
The Canadian Press dispatch, enlarging on the statement of the "officials", went on to say:
"At present the dominion is engaged in building 20 cargo boats, and it was understood the authorization for the building of anything up to 20 more has been received within the past few days from Britain."
And further:
"The cargo boats under construction are merchantmen of the ten thousand ton type. . . ."
Hon. members may wonder why I want this in Hansard, but my friends to the left will not wonder so much when they hear the rest:
Are these statements true? We are afraid they are not true. To begin with, the Journal's information is that Canada is not "engaged in building 20 cargo boats"; that no cargo boats are "under construction".
A little further on in the same editorial we find this:
But why not say so? Why instead have some unnamed "officials" putting out information that is inaccurate and misleading? It is precisely this sort of thing that has caused Mr. Howe no end of trouble, and which, in addition, has made for a lot of public confusion. . . .
And further down it says:
. . . although we think it could be strengthened greatly in its efforts by calling in men to its councils outside of mere party lines. . . .
At the outset the editorial says that these officials, these dollar-a-year men-ninety per cent of them Tories-are giving out misleading information, but further down it asks us to bring these same men into a so-called national government. It would be a fine government! The editorial says they give out misleading information, and I want to tell the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) that in my opinion any bottle-necks we have had have been due to that very fact that he has not been given accurate information, certainly not from British Columbia. And this misleading information comes from a group of officials who are responsible to no one.
In this connection I would commend the government for having appointed a committee to investigate war expenditures. This is a very wise decision and will serve to reassure the public. But I would strongly urge upon the Prime Minister that he appoint another small committee consisting of five to seven private members of this house to tour Canada right away and view the different projects now under construction or in operation. The private member is responsible to the public by whom he is elected. When these so-called official experts give the minister misleading information, as they have unquestionably done, and subsequently it is found to be incorrect, they merely resign. If a small
War Appropriation Bill

committee went around and viewed these projects, for example in Hamilton, they could give the people a true picture.
Let me give one instance of the foolish criticism that is prevalent. This criticism came to me from two of the most prominent Liberals in British Columbia, at Liberal headquarters. A certain project was said to have cost 132,000, which if true would be ridiculous. That story was going round the streets of Vancouver, and if anything ever does go round the streets of Victoria it possibly went there. I took it up with the Minister of National Defence, which is what I think any hon. member should do, to check the veracity of such rash statements, and I found that the actual figure was $490. The hon. member for New Westminster heard the story and I am sure that every hon. member from British Columbia heard that it cost $32,000. Things like that do not help Canada's war effort.


Mr. MAYHEW:: We stick closer to the truth than that in Victoria.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Well, I correct myself; Victoria City has at last wakened up.
Much has been said, in connection with our war effort out there, about geographical difficulties. It is possible that shipbuilding costs and some other costs in our war effort may be greater out there owing to our geographical conditions. But offsetting that we have climatic advantages. We have never disputed the fact that some of the air-training camps should be in the east where you have anywhere from one to forty feet of snow for six months in the year. But our main geographic disadvantage is freight rates. As I see it the government under the War Measures Act have it in their power to overcome that disadvantage. As soon as the railroads saw that we were short of ships they increased our freight rates. The board of transport commissioners may have control of freight rates, but when the poor farmer for the first time in ten years began, not to make money, but merely to break even, the government pegged the price of butter. They could just as well peg freight rates.
There is another matter in respect of which the Pacific coast is not under a handicap. It cannot be disputed that we have skilled labour available as well as eighteen thousand unskilled labourers in Vancouver and the surrounding district. We are not in an all-out war effort while there are two thousand skilled and eighteen thousand unskilled labourers without employment in British Columbia.
It has been stated here that we in British Columbia have certain war orders. But we sold approximately as much lumber before;
(Mr. Cruickshank.]
the only difference is that we sold it to the four corners of the earth. Now we are selling it, and correctly so, wherever the war effort requires us to sell. We have heard much about the ten million dollar plant that we are building for Consolidated Smelters at Trail, but before the war we sold those metals, even -to our everlasting shame be it said-to Germany and Japan. But we sold them.
We have men unemployed in British Columbia. We should put them to work. If it is to the advantage of the war effort that the money be all spent in Ontario we are patriotic enough to agree. But our patriotism leads us to the belief that no matter where ships are built they should be built speedily, and when we have shipyards that are not working to capacity we expect the people of Ontario and Nova Scotia to be equally fair in their consideration of us.
We resent strongly the suggestion made yesterday that there are not these unemployed men in British Columbia. I and, I presume, other hon. members from British Columbia receive letters every day from skilled men seeking employment. We get letters every day from our constituents asking why we are not going full-out in our war effort. I believe the government have done excellent work; in my opinion the Minister of Munitions and Supply is the best qualified man in this house to hold the position he does, but at the same time in fairness to the minister I say he has not been properly advised by some of the so-called officials that he has around him. After the last war the United States found that their most expensive luxury was these dollar-a-year men. The labourer in any line is worthy of his hire. The government should pay a little more attention to the advice of members from the various parts of Canada, who know what is going on. I am citing this particular case simply because the minister does not and could not possibly know what has been going on, with these so-called experts advising him.
On January 28, at the Boundary Bay elementary training school under the empire air training scheme, there were from two to four inches of water nearly all over the six hundred acres of that project. On the same day, at five o'clock in the afternoon, three men were engaged in shingling the roof. With five hundred carpenters unemployed in British Columbia, the province which produces ninety per cent of all the shingles made in Canada, only three men were working. That is not good enough. I know of five men from my own riding who went to this school five times to apply for work. They did not go with letters from their member, either; but they

War Appropriation Bill
could not get work, though they were fully qualified carpenters. Is that an all-out effort? Of course it is not.
There is one expression I do not like to hear in connection wtih our war effort; that is, "up to schedule." As I see it, if a particular project is two months ahead of schedule it is our duty and responsibility as members to see that it is brought four months ahead of schedule. Remember, Hitler is not going to run this war on schedule. If we are two months ahead of our schedule let us work until we are four months ahead of it, and we are not in that position when the conditions I have described exist at Boundary Bay, where they have had to lay down three feet of solid gravel, hauled at great expense, in order to permit access to the very cabins where the young aviators are going to live. Is that an all-out effort? I am not blaming the minister for that; no fair-minded person would blame him. He cannot know every detail, but, fortunately or unfortunately, he has to rely upon his experts, ninety per cent of whom are Tories.


Mr. HOMIJTH:: You might as well blame
'.he whole thing on the Conservative party.


George Alexander Cruickshank: No, I do not blame .t on the Conservative party, because at times ;he Conservatives show intelligence.


An hon. MEMBER:: Then why blame it
an the Tories?


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am referring to
the old-fashioned Tories, those who want to be in this national government. I do not consider members of the Conservative party as Tories. I do not think good Conservatives want to be in a national government, because good Conservatives took their chances about a year ago, when the people said whom they wanted to run Canada during this war.
I do think the minister should call in private members a little oftener in order to get their advice with regard to the conditions that exist in their ridings. Again I would strongly urge that a small committee of this house go around and see what actually is going on. If these conditions exist I know the government want to know about them; the government do not want these stories going around, discrediting Canada's war effort. The members from the west have to travel over a large part of this country in order to reach Ottawa, and they know something of what is going on. It would be a good thing if the Prime Minister would amend the British North America Act in order to provide that members would have to cross Canada at least once a year.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Perhaps the
hon. member for Fraser Valley will pardon me if I do not refer to the questions of which he has just been speaking but rather answer the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling) who brought up the question of the government's attitude with respect to decorations.
The hon. member correctly stated that when Sir Robert Borden's government was in power, in 1919, I think, what has been known as the Nickle resolution was introduced by Mr. Nickle and unanimously adopted by this house.


Grote Stirling: Surely it was not unanimous; the vote was 96 to 43.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have erred in saying that the resolution was passed unanimously; what I should have said was that the resolution was adopted at that time. When the Liberal administration came into office in 1921 our party considered the matter, and I understood was unanimous in its view that this resolution should govern in the matter of the bestowal of titles and decorations. All the administrations of which I have been head have consistently held the view that the resolution was one passed by the House of Commons, and that until it was amended or rescinded by this house, the government should consider itself bound by the resolution. It is true that when the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett was in office he did not take the same view. He contended that the resolution was passed by only one branch of parliament, and that the resolution of the House of Commons of one parliament did not necessarily bind the Houses of Commons of succeeding parliaments. Nevertheless the view taken by the present administration has been and is that until the resolution respecting titles and decorations adopted by the House of Commons of Canada is amended or rescinded by the House of Commons itself, we should consider ourselves bound by it.
I should add that on one or two occasions motions were presented from the other side of the house to have the resolution reconsidered. Speaking offhand, I cannot recall the years, but, if I am not mistaken, there were two occasions. In one instance Mr. Ladner, one of the members from British Columbia, moved that the house should reconsider the resolution on titles and decorations. At another time Hon. Mr. Cahan brought in a motion asking for the appointment of a committee to consider the whole matter. My recollection is that neither of these motions was entertained by the house, and for that reason, among others, this administration has felt that it was right in believing that the general sense of the House of Commons
War Appropriation Bill

reflecting that of the country was against reopening the question of titles and decorations.
The hon. member for Yale has been careful in his remarks to distinguish between what is involved in the conferring of titles and what is involved in the conferring of decorations. I think he has been wise in so doing. I do not believe there possibly can be in the public mind the same objection to the conferring of decorations that there is to the conferring of knighthoods, which tend to create class distinctions which certain decorations certainly do not. So I shall confine my remarks at the moment, as my hon. friend has, more particularly to the question of decorations.
Decorations fall into two classes; those in the nature of awards for gallantry, the recognition of valour, and those given in recognition of other services. The latter decorations are associated with certain orders of chivalry. As hon. members are no doubt aware, the orders of chivalry have different classes. The orders and classes constitute a sort of hierarchy of recognition. I might illustrate by referring to the Order of St. Michael and St. George. The lowest class of this order is the C.M.G. decoration, companion of the order of St. Michael and St. George. There is next a higher class, the K.C.M.G., which makes the recipient a knight commander of St. Michael and St. George. There is also a still higher class in the order, the G.C.M.G., which makes the recipient a grand commander of the order of St. Michael and St. George. The K.C.M.G. carries with it a right to the title "Sir". The wife of the knight is known as "Lady". There are also in the orders of chivalry the Order of the Bath, the Order of the British Empire, the Royal Victorian Order, and others that do not come to my mind at the moment, and which for the most part are specifically restricted.
What I have said will, I believe, help to illustrate that there is a distinction between decorations belonging to orders of chivalry and decorations belonging to orders of valour.
The awards for the recognition of valour and gallantry are the M.C., the military cross; the D.S.O., the distinguished service order; the D.C.M., the distinguished conduct medal; the M.M., the military medal; the D.F.C., the distinguished flying cross; the D.S.C., the distinguished service cross and, of course, the V.C., the Victoria cross, the most distinguished of all decorations. There may be one or two others which I have not noted.
What I would say to the house in reply to the hon. member's question is that so far as awards for gallantry and recognitions of valour are concerned, this government has
fMr. Mackenzie King.]
never taken any stand against such awards being made. I am glad my hon. friend has raised the question, because I have seen in the press the criticism that the administration has prevented Canadians in the field, who have proven themselves equally as gallant as those of other countries, from receiving recognition. As a matter of fact the government has never thought of in any way depriving members of the fighting forces from any recognition for gallantry, or from receiving any of the decorations I have mentioned as conferred for valour.
So far as the decorations in the orders of chivalry are concerned, we have felt that by the terms of the resolution of this house they were ruled out. As to the others, I can only repeat that I am sure the last thought in the minds not only of members of the government but of all hon. members would be that at this of all times we should deprive any one of any right or privilege of recognition for gallantry or valour, but rather that we would be pleased to see that recognition accorded to anyone who might be recommended for such distinction.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: It is not my intention to participate in any lengthy debate with respect to this matter. Certainly I am not going to revive the discussion on titles, or decorations for chivalry. All hon. members have their opinions respecting these matters. Personally I have never been able to understand why a citizen of Canada should be debarred from receiving the same recognition from his sovereign that a citizen of Newfoundland. New Zealand or Australia may obtain. However, that is only by the way.
The point immediately under discussion comes from the suggestion that the government itself or some department of it has laid down a rule whereby no decoration for valour may be given to any member of the Canadian armed forces, except it be for valour in the face of the enemy. I understand that is the distinction which has been put forward. I am very glad to hear from the lips of the Prime Minister this afternoon, if I understood him correctly, that the government has taken no action at all in regard to this matter, and that the position is as it was.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Absolutely, yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes; that is a fair statement and a fair understanding, and I believe it will bring substantial comfort to the men in our forces. The sailor, soldier or airman who has performed a gallant service, whether in the face of the enemy or in some other sphere of his activity, values far more the testimony of his sovereign in the form of

War Appropriation Bill
a decoration than he would a gift of money or anything of that kind. There is a psychological effect in such decorations which more than anything else one could imagine lifts the morale of the fighting forces. I believe it will be a matter of -profound relief to the men in the armed forces when they understand that the position to-day is exactly as it was in previous wars. The Prime Minister's statement has cleared up the point and will allay much of the suspicion, uneasiness and unrest which has developed.
I cannot understand how the question could have arisen unless there was an intimation from some source that the position was to be altered; there must have been some basis for the story. For the moment I am content to allow the matter to rest where it is, on the assumption that the Prime Minister has described the exact position. Had it been otherwise I should have felt it my duty to protest against any change in the matter of granting decorations for valour.


Mr. WHITE:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few observations dealing with certain military matters which, I believe, would fall under paragraph (b) of the resolution, which reads:
(b) the conduct of naval, military and air operations in or beyond Canada.
I should like to deal first with the plan known as the thirty-day training scheme. The Minister of National Defence announced some time ago that this scheme would be changed from a thirty-day scheme to a four months' scheme.
I have no doubt many hon. members have taken the opportunity to inspect first-hand one or several of the thirty-nine training centres at different points across Canada. Any hon. member who has done so will have seen the fine sets of buildings, the nature of the equipment, and the facilities available for the training of troops. These training centres are served by an efficient permanent staff of qualified officers, non-commissioned officers and instructors. It has appeared to me most unfortunate, and possibly something in the nature of a tragedy, that these staffs of qualified officers and men, these facilities which have been set up at the cost of millions of dollars, should have been used only for the training of recruits for a period of some nineteen days for service only in Canada.
My contention is that this highly trained personnel which makes up the permanent staffs at training centres should be used for the training of men in the active forces. It seems unfortunate that such facilities should be available and such sums of money spent only to train men for service in Canada. I hope that in the near future the Minister of
National Defence will make an announcement to the effect that these training centres will be used only for the training of men for overseas service.
Some time ago I asked the Minister of National War Services if the regulations then being revised, and relating to the conduct of these camps, would be submitted to the house for debate. He replied that they would not, and that they would be placed on the table after they were agreed upon.


Mr. RALSTON:: To what regulations did the hon. member refer?


George Stanley White: Regulations for the training centres.


James Layton Ralston: Does the hon. member refer to the regulations for the calling up of the men?


George Stanley White: Yes; they are being revised.


James Layton Ralston: I thought the hon. member referred to the conduct of the camps, and I would point out that that would come under my department.


George Stanley White: That is right.


James Layton Ralston: Well, I should like to know what the hon. member wants. There are two sets of regulations. One set is provided by the Minister of National War Services, and has to do with the calling up of recruits. The other is a set of regulations which affects the recruits after they reach camp, and is under the direction of the Department of National Defence.


George Stanley White: The ones to which I refer are those affecting the calling up of clasfses of recruits. I believe they are passed upon by the Minister of National War Services. The point I wish to emphasize is that under the present set-up the regulations will affect anywhere from 100,000 to 200,000 young men. Hon. members will agree that any regulations affecting that number of citizens of Canada are of sufficient importance to warrant being brought into this 'house for debate. Anyone who has taken the time or the trouble to examine the set of regulations issued last fall will find many flaws and defects in them. I shall point out just one. The first regulations provided that at the end of the thirty-day training period the recruit would be attached to a reserve force unit. The recruit was not obliged to continue his training. It is quite true that he was requested to continue his training, but no provision was made for his transportation, nor was he to be paid for the time spent undergoing training. I think everyone will agree that any such regulations are absurd. It must be remembered that the average recruit works during
}V('T Appropriation Bill

the day and we can hardly expect him to take training at night without pay and to pay his own transportation costs.
I have noticed in the press that under the new set-up the recruit will be attached to a reserve force unit at the end of the four months period. Whether this will be changed, I do not know. I know of one unit which got 400 recruits from men who trained in the first two classes of October and November, and yet a check-up in February reveals that only six are now taking training. I say again that the men are not to be blamed because they must provide for their own transportation, and they receive no pay. I think I am quite safe in saying that if the 85,000 or 90,000 men who were trained under the first, second and third thirty-day training schemes were called up again for training, they would have to start at the beginning.


James Layton Ralston: Does my hon. friend really think that?


George Stanley White: Absolutely. Those recruits
had only nineteen and a half or twenty days' training.


James Layton Ralston: But only three months
have passed.


George Stanley White: Only three months have
passed, yes. I would point out also that if men are only attached to reserve force units at the end of the four months period and do not keep up their training, they will slip back. Everyone realizes that with the way war is carried on to-day there must be continuous training.
I should like to refer to one other matter in connection with this training scheme, namely, the exemptions. I do not know just what exemptions or postponements are going to be allowed), because the rules have not been brought down. Certain statements have been made in the house that postponements will be granted for farmers' sons. Under the present regulations applications for postponement are made in writing to the divisional registrar. A recruit may live from 150 to 200 miles from the point where the divisional registrar is located. I know of many cases where little if any consideration has been given to the applications. I suggest to the minister that in connection with the next training period he consider having these appeals heard by the county judges. It would be a simple matter for a county judge to sit at two or three different places within his jurisdiction and hear the appeals of farmers' sons or any others who wish to apply for exemption. A recruit would thus be given the opportunity of appearing in person. I am satisfied that

if some such arrangement were worked out it would do away with much of the dissatisfaction that exists to-day in connection with the hearing of appeals.
A number of young farmers have been placed in awkward positions because their appeals have received little or no consideration by the registrars. It is difficult for a farmer to get help to-day, and the reason is quite apparent. The average man can come to the city to work and get much higher wages. In the riding which I represent the Ontario hydro have been carrying on a great deal of construction work and men are very scarce. Many of the young men who have been called up for training have suffered real hardship because in some cases they were unable to get proper help to look after their stock. Some of these men were living with elderly or ailing parents and they had milch cows and other stock that needed daily attention. I hope the minister will give some heed to the request that these appeals be heard by the county judges.
Replying yesterday to a question asked in regard to the cost of the training centres, the Minister of National Defence referred the hon. member asking the question to page 908 of Hansard of February 21, 1941, where a statement is set out giving the cost of certain details in connection with the training centres. Upon examining this table I find that it is far from complete. I should like the Minister of National Defence to place on Hansard during this debate as complete a statement as possible of all costs to date in connection with the three months' training scheme.


James Layton Ralston: Will the hon. member specify what he has in mind, what he thinks is omitted?


George Stanley White: There are a few details I should like to have, if they can be obtained. First, the cost of constructing and equipping each of the thirty-nine training centres.


James Layton Ralston: Is not the construction cost in that table?


George Stanley White: It is given in a lump sum.


James Layton Ralston: How does my hon. friend want it?


George Stanley White: Some centres were constructed by private contract and others were constructed by the government.


James Layton Ralston: Replying to the hon. member who asked the question I stated that the cost of the contract camps had still to be allocated because many of the materials had been purchased in bulk by the Department of Munitions and Supply. I have on my desk, but not before me, a statement of the cost of the other camps.

War Appropriation Bill


George Stanley White: I noticed what the minister said yesterday. The third item is the number of the permanent staff at each camp. Fourth, the amount of pay and allowances of the permanent staff up to the date of the end of the third training period. Fifth, cost of training equipment. Sixth, cost of clothing and other articles issued to trainees.


James Layton Ralston: I think that is there.


George Stanley White: Seventh, cost of food supplies. I notice the minister dealt with that yesterday. Next, cost of transportation of trainees to and from camps.


James Layton Ralston: That is there.


George Stanley White: Ninth, the amount paid to trainees. Tenth, the cost of medical care for permanent staff and trainees. Next, any other incidental expenses in connection with the training camps.


Grote Stirling: All of it camp by camp.


George Stanley White: By separate camps.


James Layton Ralston: Did my hon. friend say "by separate camps?"


George Stanley White: Yes.


James Layton Ralston: There may be some
difficulty.


Richard Burpee Hanson: We had two of the items of construction yesterday.


James Layton Ralston: As I understand it, my hon. friend is asking the cost of medical care and other particulars. Some of these items can be given by separate camps, but others cannot. I know my hon. friend does not want to be unreasonable.


George Stanley White: If they cannot be separated, I shall be quite glad to have them as they can be given. With the information in regard to these eleven items before us we shall be able to get an accurate picture of what the three months' training period has cost to date.
Shortly after the Minister of National Defence returned from England he made an announcement through the press that there would be some increase in the size of our armed forces. But so far these increases have been very small, and I wonder if the minister realizes what a serious damper has been put on the enthusiasm of the youth of this country in their attempts to enlist. Many young men have tried for months and months to join certain branches of the service, but have been unable to do so. Perhaps a very small quota would be called for at a certain depot or for a certain battalion. Many men would travel miles and miles, hitch-hike their way, and on their arrival find that the quota had been
filled. Naturally a man who has had some connection with a military unit is attached to that unit. He has some choice as to the branch of the service he would like to join. I suggest to the minister, having regard to the difficulty of getting recruits at the present time, that if he would seriously consider the question of calling up the reserve force units as active force units and allowing these reserve force units to retain their identity, he would get all the recruits he wants.
With regard to these reserve force units, they were mobilized in June, 1940, at least eight full months ago.


James Layton Ralston: Not "mobilized." My
hon. friend does not mean that. I think my hon. friend gives the impression that they were mobilized for the purposes of overseas service. We use the expression "mobilization" in that connection. They were authorized to recruit up to full strength as reserve units; they were not mobilized.


George Stanley White: Quite right; they were
authorized to recruit in June, 1940, and in a a very few weeks those units were up to full strength. All recruitment for reserve force units ceased on the 15th of August, 1940. In the eight months which have passed these units have completed thirty days' training. Of that thirty days fourteen days, or fifteen days in some instances, were put in at a military camp. So that in the remaining seven and a half months these units have trained only fourteen or fifteen days.
Much of this training has been carried out under most discouraging circumstances, on account of lack of training equipment. But the point which I wish to emphasize is that, at this critical juncture, when the time feature is so essential, these units have trained only thirty days in eight months.
What is the reason? Are we still short of training equipment? Surely this is not possible when you consider that we are in the eighteenth month of the war. We are constantly assured by the propaganda agency at Ottawa that we are up to schedule; in fact, the hon. member who spoke a few minutes ago mentioned that certain things were two months ahead of schedule. The Minister of Munitions and Supply loves to talk in this chamber about the output of Bren guns. I should like to ask the Minister of Munitions and Supply to explain to the house why active force units are so very short of Bren guns for training purposes; why active force units are short of gas-training equipment, anti-tank guns, grenades, and many other items.
Another point I should like to mention to the Minister of National Defence is the number of very fine armouries in eastern
War Appropriation Bill

Ontario which at the present time are being used only for reserve force units. To quote j ust two: in the town of Picton is one of the finest-equipped armouries in eastern Canada. In 1939 there was quartered in that armoury a complete battalion which is now in England. Yet to-day less than a hundred men are using it, and they belong to a reserve force unit. There are fine armouries at Belleville, Napanee, Trenton, Picton, Madoc, and Norwood, all being used by reserve force units. I hope the Minister of National Defence will announce that in the future these armouries will be used only for active force units.
I well remember being in this house the day the mobilization bill was passed, and how the Prime Minister, in a most pleading voice, stated that he wished that his government had the necessary powers that night to act. Well, in a very short time that bill was passed, and what was the result? From the mobilization bill so far we have this farce of a thirty-day training scheme. It is beyond me how any government with a general staff such as they profess to have at Ottawa, with full knowledge of what is going on overseas, could conceive of and put into execution such an utter farce of a training scheme, calling for only thirty days' training; and now, after months of delay, the scheme is to be changed to provide four months' training. I say to the minister that even four months' training does not meet the needs of this country.
Recently the government had a series of radio talks which they called, " Let's Face the Facts." Why not face the facts right here in this house? Let us as members of parliament show, for once, a little backbone, and face the facts and admit that conscription of all man-power for service anywhere in the world is the only answer to the present situation. Any young Canadian who will not fight for his country is not fit to receive the benefits that this country gives to him. Why is recruiting at the present time so slow? We have to-day two systems; on the one hand a voluntary system, and on the other a half-baked idea of compulsory military training, attempting to work side by side. In addition, this government has seen fit to set trainees in a preferred class. Speaking in this chamber last November, I pointed out to the Minister of National Defence that certain articles were not issued to members of the non-permanent active militia, as they were called at that time. When he replied he stated that I should know that the members of the nonpermanent militia did not receive underwear, socks and other similar articles. But all trainees are members of the reserve forces, and they receive socks, boots and all the rest of it, and in addition, when they leave the

training centre they take their socks, boots, underwear and other articles with them to keep.


Mr. MACDONALD (Brantford City):: Does the hon. member suggest that the boots should be left?


George Stanley White: 
Mr. DUPUIS:: Will the hon. member
suggest how much it would cost this country if free passes were granted?


George Stanley White: No, I cannot say, but it does not matter how much it costs; this country can provide the money for it. Everyone says that these soldiers are heroes and should have the best of everything. They are only here a short time before they go overseas and the one thing that means the most to them is denied. If hon. members want to know the popular reaction let them visit the active force unit in this city. Let them browse around among the men and they will perhaps get some idea of the magnitude of the storm that is brewing at the present time.
Surely the time is long past when this government should dwell, as they do continually, on the result of the last election. We all know that the Liberal party received more votes than any other party in the house. But it is not votes that count to-day; it is bullets, machine guns, tanks, aeroplanes and all the other implements of war.
You expect the finest young men in Canada to enlist, and they are willing to risk their very lives. The government is asking the people to save and to lend every cent. The government is asking the people of Canada to make the supreme war effort. Is it not only fair and just, then, that in the administration and direction of the war effort all shades of political opinion in this dominion should be represented?
I would appeal to the members of this house who are veterans of the last war and who now support the Liberal party. I say to them: You know better than anyone else what war means, because you have seen it with your own eyes. Then take a look around your own riding and investigate the conditions of the reserve force and the active force units. Consider the folly of the thirty-day training scheme we have been following. Inquire as to the shortage of equipment in all units. Investigate the endless red tape that seems to delay and tie up everything that the government controls, and then just think back a few years when you were soldiers in France. Think of some of the days when you were on the Somme, at Ypres, or at

141S
War Appropriation Bill

Courcelette, or that Easter morning at Vimy Ridge. In those days we had very definite objectives and those objectives were gained only by careful planning and full cooperation with all branches of the service. At Vimy there was the greatest barrage that had ever taken place up to that time, and yet when we crossed over that ridge we saw the advantage of the barrage because it had paved the way for the victory that followed. Any members of this house who were at Amiens on August 8 will recall the perfect clockwork timing of the whole British army in every detail. The result was that the German army was simply rolled back in utter confusion.
I mention this simply to illustrate the need of unity and complete cooperation of all to win victory. When we were in France every soldier some time or other was in a tight spot. At that time it did not matter very much to the soldier what religion or politics his comrades professed. He did not care whether they were interested in party patronage or in the survival of any political party; if anyone had dared to suggest such a thing to a soldier in France he would have been branded as a traitor to his country. At that time the soldiers in France looked to the government and the people of Canada to bury and forget all such considerations, and to supply them with all needed reinforcements and implements of war. In those days hon. members who were in France saw the need of unity in the country. But great as that need was in 1914-18, to-day the need is far greater. We who are returned soldiers and now elected members of this parliament, which is the only legal constituted authority in this country, have grave responsibilities. Is history to recount that we, the members of this parliament in the year 1941, were more concerned with political patronage, with the survival of our party, and things of this nature; that we placed these things before the urgent need of Britain and the immediate mobilization of all the man-power in Canada for service overseas?


Mr. MacDIARMID:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


George Stanley White: When I shall have finished.
I want to make just a few remarks about a speech delivered in this house by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) in which he stated that the province of Quebec is opposed to a national government, and that his province would not have national government. His speech brought forth great applause, including applause from the Prime Minister. I should like to say to the Minister of Justice that there are other parts of Canada besides the province of Quebec. It is about time for the

Dominion of Canada to realize that this country is no longer going to be governed by the dictates and whims of the province of Quebec.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Shame!


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


George Stanley White: Are you so blind in that province that you cannot see what is coming? Are you concerned only with votes and the result of the next election? I warn the Minister of Justice that his remarks in this house will do more to create distrust and disunity and to hinder the war effort than any remarks made here since the war began.
The cry of conscription is again brought up. Well, your government introduced a measure of conscription, and when the vote was taken every member present in this house, except two, voted for it. I ask the Minister of Justice, who has stated that he speaks for the province of Quebec, and who apparently spoke for the Prime Minister, what he proposes to do in the event of reverses to our forces overseas making it necessary to supply a large number of reinforcements-yes, even to have conscription? Does he intend to continue to bury his head in the sand, or does he intend to face the realities of 1941? Members of this government are quite fond of referring to the number of votes their party polled in the last election, but I notice that they carefully refrain from making any reference to the soldier vote overseas. The soldiers overseas did not approve of the war effort of this government, and I am sure the boys overseas will be highly pleased when they read the remarkable speech of the Minister of Justice. Will that speech convey to them that Canada is united behind them?
I wonder whether this government fully realize what is going to happen when the people of Canada fully apprehend the truth about the muddle in aeroplane production, the truth about the shortage of army equipment after eighteen months at war, the truth about the thirty-day training plan. I warn the Prime Minister and his government that the day of promises is long past; the people of Canada in 1941 want results and not promises. And let the Prime Minister not forget what he has often stated in this house, that the will of the people of Canada is supreme over parliament. When the people of Canada realize the whole truth as to how our war effort has bogged down they will tear your government to pieces, just as Mr. Churchill said the armies of Britain would tear Mussolini's empire to shreds. Let the Prime Minister continue talking about the mandate he received at the last election; let his ministers keep on crying "saboteur" and "fifth columnist" in reply to justified criticism

War Appropriation Bill
and keep hurling charges at responsible newspapers whose only desire is to win the war; let the Minister of Munitions and Supply continue making remarks about hon. members digging in the sewers and hon. members who wear uniform, and they will reap the full fury of the storm when it breaks.


Mr. CLEAVER:: The hon. member promised he would answer questions when he was through.


Mr. BRADETTE:: Do not take him too seriously.


Hughes Cleaver: I would ask the hon. member whether he thinks he is adding anything to the strength of the war effort or the morale of the Canadian people in regard to that effort by making the statements he made in regard to Quebec.


George Stanley White: Absolutely.


Hughes Cleaver: All right. Then in regard to the province of Ontario, from which we both come as members of parliament, has the hon. member forgotten that Ontario voted just as strongly against national government as Quebec did?


George Stanley White: I said that the people of Canada are not concerned to-day with votes; they are concerned with bullets, machine guns and aeroplanes, and we have very few.


Hughes Cleaver: The hon. member has sidestepped the question.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Hughes Cleaver: I repeat that the hon. member has sidestepped the question.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I rise to a point of order. This is all out of order. In the first place the minister had the floor to reply. We should conduct these proceedings in an orderly way.


The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. Fournier, Hull):: The minister sat down.


Hughes Cleaver: Does the hon. member not accept the expressed wishes of the people of Ontario at the polls in regard to national government, leaving Quebec out of the picture?


George Stanley White: If the hon. member wants to make a speech, he can do so. I only say again that the people are not concerned with votes; they want action.


Hughes Cleaver: How can the people express their wishes except through their votes?


Richard Burpee Hanson: This is all out of order.


William Burton MacDiarmid: Did our soldiers have free transportation in the last war?


An hon. MEMBER:: They did in England.


James Layton Ralston: I had intended this afternoon to put on the record some statements which might be of interest to the committee in connection with this resolution. Contrary to what the leader of the opposition has supposed, I shall not take very much time in replying to the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. White). I propose to make a statement to the committee with regard to some matters relating to the army programme in order that the committee may have that information for consideration and as a basis for asking further questions if they so desire. But as a member of this house I cannot allow to go unnoticed some of the things which my hon. friend has said. I do not propose at the moment to deal with the thirty-day training period; I shall come to that in its proper order.
I do want to say most emphatically, Mr. Chairman, that a member of the house who speaks of unity and the complete cooperation of all, and who delivers himself as the hon. member has this afternoon, to say the least certainly is not entirely consistent, and I am sure that is a very weak phrase. Listening to some speeches in this house, including that of my hon. friend, I have sometimes felt that in this country there are some people who are never satisfied unless they are putting a burr under the saddle or creating some difficulty, instead of endeavouring to cultivate unity. My hon. friend was the follower of a gentleman who pledged that there would be no conscription in Canada; my hon. friend was elected on that platform, yet to-day he rises and speaks about the province of Quebec leading this country. I say to my hon. friend that this is unworthy of a member of this house, and I submit that it is unworthy of a gentleman who wears the king's uniform, as he does at the moment. When the hon. gentleman talks about party patronage I tell him he had better adduce some instances of that patronage in connection with this government's war effort before he talks about it. I invite him at any stage of the game, at any stage of this committee's proceedings, to produce any evidence of party patronage in connection with the administration of military affairs. I shall be happy indeed to examine it very fully.
My hon. friend is an officer, wearing his majesty's uniform. If I may presume to offer the suggestion, one of his duties is to endeavour to see to it that the men under his command, the men who salute him, are given a reasonable amount of consideration
War Appropriation Bill

and are not incited to find fault with their lot. It seems to me that one of the things an officer has to do is to take care of his men and endeavour to give them as much assistance and comfort as possible. My hon. friend knows that the reason we have so many men in these camps in Canada to-day is the fact that, thank God, there have not been casualties overseas, and we have not had to send men over as replacements. Knowing that, when he states that there is a feeling of unrest, that there is absence without leave, that there is distrust and dissatisfaction among the men, and that there is a storm brewing, I submit that he is not doing himself justice, nor do I think he is doing justice to the armed forces of this country.
I suggest to my hon. friend that he and I, and everybody in this house, ought to endeavour to see that these men are as fully satisfied as they can be; but I suggest to him advisedly that I do not think the way to do this is to provide free transportation for a soldier when he wants to go on week-end leave, and I say that very frankly. I believe there are other ways of doing it. Those other ways are to look after our men; to explain to them the situation which exists in this country, instead of endeavouring-as my hon. friend would do-to place some sop before them in the way of free transportation in order that they may be satisfied. If I know the men of this countiy-and I think I know something of them; I had some experience in the last war-they do not want to be coddled. These men are not particularly asking for these things; they just want to know what is going on. It is up to officers such as my hon. friend to explain matters to them instead of talking about distrust, dissatisfaction, unrest, storms brewing, and things of that kind.
I suggest to my hon. friend that we should get down to a discussion of what is before this house, namely this war programme. My hon. friend is perfectly justified, or at least has a perfect right, to say all he wants to say against the training scheme. He has a perfect right to find fault with lack of equipment, if he wants to do so. That is his privilege, if he thinks that is helping in connection with the war effort. He has a perfect right to find fault as he wishes; but to say there is dissatisfaction and unrest when as a matter of fact the men are in Canada instead of overseas because of the fact I have mentioned, the fact that there have not been casualties and they have not been required, is not performing the duty which I think an hon. member should perform in this house.
Now may I deal with some of the matters which have been brought up, and I will deal

with them in the course of what I have to say as to the army programme generally. I feel sure that my hon. friend is sound at heart as a Canadian, but I do not think this talk of party patronage, following an attack on a particular province, comes with very good grace from him. I suggest to the hon. gentleman that he ought to clean his own house before he starts attacking other people.
May I now deal with some of the matters in connection with the army programme in which I hope the committee may be interested. I will deal with the thirty day training plan when I come to that part of my remarks having to do with Canadian activity. My hon. friend referred to the headquarters staff rather slightingly and said that if we had a staff anything like the staff we talk about surely we never would have commenced the thirty-day training scheme, which he called a farce. The staff at national defence headquarters, in whom I have the fullest confidence -and I hope my hon. friend will come to have that confidence also, if he does not have it now-prepared an appreciation of the situation as it existed late last fall, just before we went overseas. In that appreciation they assessed as well as they could the possible eventualities in connection with the need for armed forces. That had to take into account not simply Canada but also the United Kingdom and Europe. In fact the world has become exceedingly small these days, and an appreciation of this kind practically has to cover the globe. That appreciation was not simply the work of the army staff. It was gone over by the chief of the naval staff and the chief of the air staff; it was concurred in by all those officers and submitted to defence council. Defence council went over it and then submitted it to the war committee of the cabinet, together with the measures it was thought should be taken by the navy, the army and the air force in order to prepare as best we could for half a dozen eventualities which might arise.
My hon. friend speaks about Vimy Ridge and the planning at Amiens. I am not contending that we had any such timed planning as that, but I do say we had the best plan that could be devised under the uncertain and unpredictable circumstances which faced us, drawn up by the men best qualified to do this planning. That plan was submitted to the war committee of the cabinet, where it was gone over very carefully. It was approved in principle, but it was thought wise-and I think the country approved-that we should go overseas and consult at first hand with those with whose plans we wanted to integrate ours. As has been said time and again- and it cannot be said too often-at the present

War Appropriation Bill
time our front line is on the English channel, and it was the effort over there with which we were endeavouring to match up. We studied the possibility of other services taking on activities which the army proposed to undertake ; of the army taking on some of the activities which the navy might propose to undertake in connection with coast defence, of the army and navy taking on some of the activities which the air force proposed to undertake. The plan submitted finally was one which was regarded as a balanced plan, not balanced in dollars but balanced, so far as effort and equipment were concerned, among the three services.
Just let me say here that I really fail to understand certain criticism that every service is not matched up on the dollar sign, so far as appropriations are concerned. One might just as well say that the fire brigade and the police force in this town ought to have exactly the same number of dollars. They are two different services. One might as well say that the artillery and the infantry ought to have exactly the same number of dollars.
The minister is asking for an allotment for each service, having regard to the programme which each service has worked out, not alone, but in conjunction with the others, and in coordinated effort, under the war committee of the cabinet-and, as I shall show in a moment, in full consultation with the British authorities-in order that in all three services our effort might be most effective.


Richard Burpee Hanson: To what
criticism is the minister referring?


James Layton Ralston: I do not think my hon.
friend 'has referred to it, but I have noticed the criticism in the newspapers, and I believe once or twice in this committee. There has been the suggestion that because the army happened to ask for $666, the air force, $421 and the navy, $180-or $190, I am not sure which-something was out of balance.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That
has not been voiced in this house.


James Layton Ralston: I thought it had. It certainly has in the newspapers.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I never
saw it.


James Layton Ralston: That is w'hat the minister had to do, and it represents a balanced programme, having regard to the facilities, having regard to the duties and having regard to the potentialities of the three services.
We went overseas. I have not before given the house or this committee any account of what happened, and perhaps at this time I might be pardoned for indicating, and the
house might be interested in knowing, what was done over there. I went over there accompanied by the chief of general staff, by Colonel Magee and by Captain Malone. We went over there in order, if we possibly could, to clew up-if I may use a sailor's term

our army programme with the army programme over there.
We had the chief of staff's appreciation of what we over here believed would be the possible eventualities and possible happenings in the relatively near future. We had, in addition, our plan which had been approved in principle-that is, measures which we thought should be taken. There was no makeshift about it. These had been approved in principle, and our armed programme was developed on the basis of that appreciation.
Our visit to the United Kingdom was first, to set out what we were doing; second, to see if our programme was in step with their own, and, third, to get their views on how our contribution might be made most effective. What we were bent on attaining was the maximum useful army development in aid of the common cause. To do this required an informed appreciation of what might possibly happen, of when our forces might be needed, or what the likely or possible course of the war might be during the present fiscal year.
As hon. members can understand, a definite knowledge of future events is not given to mankind. That appreciation had to be based on probabilities, and those probabilities were to be deduced from the most up-to-date information we could get, and by making the most intelligent use of it.
I had the privilege, I believe it was on four different occasions, of being received by the British Prime Minister and discussing our problems with him, particularly the larger issues and longer views. Then the first conference was arranged with the three service ministers and their staffs. They met and gave us two hours. During that time not only was there discussion but we were given information as to what their forecasts were, what the possibilities might be, and what they were doing in connection with events which were going on in the world generally and which affected the war. They answered many questions. Our discussions were frank; we hid nothing and they hid nothing, and as a result w'e were able to get a clearer conception of what the job really was.
The second conference we had was with Mr. Eden, who was then Secretary of State for War, and with his staff. There the matter of Canada's participation was fully discussed. We had worked out from the plan which I had mentioned what we thought might be a
War Appropriation Bill

useful contribution, having regard to the information we received with respect to the needs. We were prepared to discuss in detail that contribution, or any modification of it.
Mr. Eden was accompanied by Sir John Dill, the chief of general staff, General Hain-ing and General McCready. We there had a long discussion with regard to Canadian participation, and things we might do. We received a very clear idea what the situation was, and I think almost at that meeting arrived at the conclusions with respect to what might be our most effective contribution.
We had the third meeting with Mr. Eden, and some of his staff, with regard to the formation of a Canadian corps. Then we had a fourth meeting with Captain Margesson, who was the new Secretary of State for War, just after he had assumed the position, particularly in regard to armoured formations, and-


Grote Stirling: Was that confined to the army, or to the three services?


James Layton Ralston: The first conference was with all three services. There were the three service ministers,-Mr. Eden, secretary of state for war, Mr. Alexander, first lord of the admiralty, and Sir Archibald Sinclair, the secretary of state for air. In each case there were the staffs. There were Sir Dudley Pound, first sea lord, Sir John Dill, chief of the imperial general staff, and Sir Charles Portal, chief of the air staff, and their staffs.
We had a meeting then with Caiptain Margesson which was most informative and instructive. Then I had two or three discussions, one particularly instructive one with Sir Allan Brooke, commander in chief of the home forces, who, hon. members will recall, was on the Canadian corps staff in the great war. That conference left no doubt in my mind as to the effectiveness of the contribution which we had discussed in the previous conference. We found that our plans were fully in keeping with the views of Sir Allan Brooke, who, I believe, had been present at two of the conferences, but with whom I had the additional conference.


Richard Burpee Hanson: These
plans, of course, were secret.


James Layton Ralston: I will be able to announce the programme. We reached a complete agreement as to what would be the most useful and effective army contribution from Canada.
Despite the doubts of the hon. member who has just spoken, we told them our object was a full-out contribution with everything Canada has, and as fast as we could give it. And I want to say, also, that they expressed
[DOT]rMr. Ralston.]
appreciation not only for the Canadian contribution wdiich had already been given, but for what we were about to do. And when we were talking to them, too, we assured them that we did not come in any spirit of giving charity, but in the spirit that Canada was in this war at the side of Great Britain.
The programme which we had submitted involved some adjustments in nature of formations and in timing, but it was admittedly a heavy programme in its demands on production, man-power and economic resources. Having settled tentatively on the programme which our friends over there believed would be of the most help, and would be the greatest contribution Canada could make, I did not wait until I got home to communicate that information in full to the Prime Minister and my colleagues, but I cabled them in advance. The result was that within one week after I returned home the programme was endorsed, and was announced by the Prime Minister of Canada, to the letter. That was the programme which had already been discussed and arranged tentatively and provisionally with our friends overseas.
What was that programme? It involved the dispatch in 1941 of four major groups. Hon. members must realize that men are being sent constantly. A new flight of several thousands of men arrived in England only last week. The group put on the priority list to be dispatched in 1941 was the balance of the troops for the Canadian corps. I cannot give hon. members all the details, but I can say to-day that we have in mind a definite arrangement as to the probable occasion on which the movement of these various formations will take place. Hon. members will understand that 1 am not in a position to give that to the house and the public.
The movement of the third division was discussed also and we agreed on the principles governing the timing of the movement of that division. We had the frankest exchange of opinion with regard to the United Kingdom equipment position and our own. We both sat down to work out a definite date or at least a definite date to be worked to on certain principles which we both understood and which have been agreed upon. I think it is clear that we will not equip the third division in whole from this side; I am speaking particularly of field artillery. This for reasons which will perhaps appear obvious to the committee, but of which I cannot give further details other than to say that the third division will be equipped.
I was present with the Prime Minister, Mr. Churchill, at a meeting with Sir Andrew Duncan, Minister of Munitions, General McCready and other staff officers in connection with equipment, and I was given the

War Appropriation Bill
benefit of a good deal of information respecting just what their equipment position is. There are certain understandings with regard to equipment which we both regard as satisfactory.


Grote Stirling: And secret?


James Layton Ralston: Yes, with regard to equipment. Then with regard to the army tank brigade, the committee may be interested in knowing just what that formation consists of. I do not propose to give it in detail, for reasons which hon. members will understand. The army tank brigade is often confused in the public mind with the armoured brigade corps. The army tank brigade is a formation which we hope will be working with the Canadian corps. It is an armoured formation which works with the infantry and is an adjunct or supplement to these forces.
There are three tank battalions in the brigade. This formation was strongly recommended by the general officer commanding the Canadian corps and by the chief of the general staff as well. We have a joint arrangement with regard to equipment which I am sure will be satisfactory from the point of view of both sides. There is provision in the estimates for certain portions of the issue of equipment which is being communicated to our friends on the other side. This army tank brigade should prove most valuable to the Canadian corps.
Perhaps hon. members would be interested in knowing what units go to make up this brigade. The leader of the opposition has suggested that as far as possible information should be given in committee. One tank battalion will be made up of the Ontario regiment; another tank battalion will be made up of the Three Rivers regiment and another will be made up of the Calgary regiment. Then there are nine other detachments or sections:
First, 1st Army Tank Brigade Company, RCASC, made up of the 2nd Reserve Corps Troops Company, RCASC, Calgary.
Second, No. 2 Light Field Ambulance, RCAMC, made up from No. 2 Field Ambulance, Toronto.
Third, 1st Army Tank Brigade Workshop, RCOC, made up from No. 3 Reserve Army Field Workshop, Montreal.
Fourth, 1st Army Tank Brigade Ordnance Field Park, RCOC, made up from No. 1 Reserve Ordnance Store Company, Ottawa.
Fifth, No. 59 Light Aid Detachment, RCOC, made up from No. 3 Reserve Army Field Workshop, RCOC, Montreal.
Sixth, No. 60 Light Aid Detachment, RCOC, made up of No. 3 Reserve Army Field Workshop, Montreal.
Seventh, No. 61 Light Aid Detachment, RCOC, made up of No. 3 Reserve Army Field Workshop, RCOC, Montreal.
Eighth, Intelligence Section.
Ninth, Signals Section.
That is expected to be the formation of the army tank brigade.


Grote Stirling: Is the minister going to be able to make a statement with regard to the equipment, both present and in the immediate future, of those units?


James Layton Ralston: Had it not been for the discussion in the house which seemed to make it necessary to lay the MacMillan report upon the table, I should have preferred not to give that information, because I think it gives valuable information to the enemy. I do not mean to be sarcastic when I say that my hon. friend can consult the MacMillan report and see the possibilities. We have an arrangement with our friends in the United Kingdom with regard to supplying any equipment which may be necessary in the event that the army tank brigade goes over before it is fully equipped, and for the replacement of equipment when the time comes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister is saying that this corps will be equipped.


James Layton Ralston: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Either
here or in Great Britain, but he is not willing now to give us the breakdown? I am not pressing for that.


James Layton Ralston: That is right. Now comes the armoured division which, as I say, is a vastly different thing. Hon. members will recall that last fall there was mention of forming an armoured corps. There was actually organized an armoured brigade group, which was one unit of that corps. In order that hon. members may have the terminology clearly in their minds, I may say that an armoured division consists of three brigade groups. As I say, last fall an armoured brigade group was formed. Hon. members will recall that it trained under Colonel Worthington at Camp Borden, using in part the tanks which had been obtained from the United States.
We are now forming an armoured division as a whole. This will consist of something like forty units, including signals, engineers, ordnance and all the rest. There will probably
War Appropriation Bill

be about 13,000 personnel. The same arrangement exists with regard to equipment. We have in mind a definite period during which that formation will be in Canada. There is a pretty good idea, as things stand now, as to when it is desired that it should go overseas. The arrangement with regard to equipment is quite satisfactoiy to both sides, and also the arrangement as to when it is likely to be in the field. This formation differs from the army tank brigade. It will be an armoured division which will work on its own and which will be equipped with cruiser tanks. These tanks have been mentioned in the house from time to time by my colleague the Minister of Munitions and Supply. The army tank brigade, on the other hand, is equipped primarily with infantry tanks, the mark III tanks which have been talked about. This unit is regarded as most desirable by our friends over there, and they expressed themselves as extremely gratified that we were able to make the arrangement which was made.
I do not wish to take up unduly the time of the committee, but one has to make the statement some time, and perhaps now is as good a time as any, because I am sure hon. members will be wondering whether their particular units are incorporated in the formation. I shall not mention all the units.
As I said a moment ago, there are three brigade groups. In the first brigade group, it is expected that Lord Strathcona's Horse will be one of the armoured regiments. Another will be the 1st Canadian Cavalry Regiment; another (the 3rd Armoured Regiment) will be the Fort Garry Horse. Another unit (the motor battalion) will be the Westminster Regiment.
In another armoured brigade group will be, it is expected, the 2nd Canadian Motorcycle Regiment, the 4th Canadian Motorcycle Regiment, the 5th Canadian Motorcycle Regiment, and the Perth Regiment. Just to give the locations: Lord Strathcona's Horse is at Listowel, Ontario; the 1st Canadian Cavalry Regiment and the Fort Garry Horse are at Camp Borden; the Westminster Regiment is at Vancouver; the 2nd Canadian Motorcycle Regiment, at Toronto; the 4th Canadian Motorcycle Regiment, at Sussex; the 5th Canadian Motorcycle Regiment, at Esquimalt; the Perth Regiment, at Hamilton.
In the third brigade group will be included the Cape Breton Highlanders, now at. Saint John; the Royal Canadian Artillery, at Petawawa; and another unit, the selection of which has not yet been made; the 41st Light Anti-Aircraft Battery, at Petawawa; the 47th Light Anti-Aircraft Battery at Kingston, and the 87th Light Anti-Aircraft Battery, at Woodstock.

I have here two more sheets of-I was going to say, details, but they are much more than details, of anti-tank batteries, engineers, signals, field ambulances, army service corps, armoured workshops, ordnance field park, field security section, provost company, bath unit, divisional salvage unit, and divisional postal unit. This is the composition of the armoured division.
That was the programme which was arranged with our friends over there; which, as I say, involves an extremely heavy contribution in equipment, in men, and economically, and which was announced by the Prime Minister a short time after we returned home.
If the committee does not mind, I will digress for a minute to complete my remarks with regard to our overseas trip. We had other tasks over there. One, perhaps the most important and certainly to me the most pleasurable, was the visit to our troops, to see them in training, to watch them in operation, and to meet the officers. Another occupation consisted of visits and conferences, some of which I have described, with members of the government, officials of the war office, and representatives of the services, to ascertain the present position and future plans and tell them of our effort and see whether we could help, and to get an appreciation of the battle of Britain so far. I may add that my colleagues entrusted me with a number of special errands for their particular services which I endeavoured to carry out.
With regard to the troops, I have already mentioned to the people of Canada the very happy experience which I had. I spent four days visiting the Canadian troops. The first day I was with the corps troops, the second day with the first division, the third day with the second division, and the fourth day was with the holding units. I will not take the time of the committee to describe my experiences in any detail, but I wish the members of the committee could have shared in some of them. Naturally it was an attractive and interesting thing to see the troops at work, in training on the roads, in billets, and elsewhere in connection with operations._ I saw our mechanical transport, the reconnaissance squadrons flying past at top speed, the field park companies on the roads with their bridging gear and that sort of thing, the units-in one place, it may be, in the trees, in another place out on a broad field-doing their training. I met many old friends and made new ones. It was naturally an exhilarating experience.
I watched the tunnelling company at work, and the so-called "pipe pushers" operating their special apparatus. I saw two fine French-Canadian units on the same afternoon, on

War Appropriation Bill
separate parade grounds, along with the French-Canadian brigadier who is in command, as I remember, of the Calgary Highlanders, the Regiment de Maisonneuve, and the Black Watch. I saw the Canadian Engineers, who have done such an excellent piece of work in building a by-pass road in order to relieve traffic congestion and particularly for the purpose of providing for future operational contingencies. I saw the ammunition and petrol companies on their different grounds and at their particular jobs, with their motor vehicles and transport. Naturally I had a soft spot in my heart for the infantry units of the various brigades, some of whom I saw actually on parade, others-most of them- doing their training. I had an opportunity to ride around one training ground on a universal gun carrier in order to visit all the different training operations which were going on with that battalion, scattered over a field which was probably three-quarters of a mile each way. Also the medical units struck me as particularly efficient. Altogether, the show was one which would have gladdened the heart of any Canadian.
The men over there realize the seriousness of the job ahead of them. As I told the people of Canada a while ago, our men are not over there on any adventure. Always they are looking three ways. Whatever their immediate occupation, whether it be training or marching, or perhaps some recreation, they are looking at the sky and they are looking at the coast. The training experience which I and my hon. friend who preceded me had in the old days, of being on a parade ground without fear of any interference by sea or land, is entirely different from the conditions of to-day.
We may well be proud of the men who compose our armed forces, who to-day are holding the front line in the battle of Britain. I brought from them greetings to their friends in Canada. They are determined to see the job through. They know that the time of trial may come at any time, and they are on their toes, prepared to meet it. If anywhere one could sense the slightest disappointment or any sign of downheartedness, it was because they have not so far been able to get to grips with the enemy, but they realize that the time will not be much longer delayed.
I had of course the pleasure of meeting General McNaughton and the divisional commanders, and of being with them. What I said in that regard to the people of Canada I want to underline here; that is, that no country can be more favoured than Canada in the character of the representatives which we have in our high army command overseas. General McNaughton, General Odium, General
Pearkes, and the brigadiers and battalion commanders and the others right down to the junior officers, are men we can trust and rely upon, men in whose care the honour and glory of Canada and the cause of democracy in the world are, in my humble opinion, entirely safe.
I did see at the same time the repiesenta-tives of the air force. I had the good fortune to meet the officers of the first fighter squadron the first day I was there-not in London but in another town-and naturally one could not help being struck with the appearance of these clean, fine looking young men who were just at that moment out on rest but who had done their full share in defending England against the Hun and in bringing down boche planes in numbers out of proportion to their own.
I did not see the second fighter squadron, although I should have liked to. I also had the pleasure of seeing three out of four commanders of the destroyers over there. Theirs is a job, the greatness of which I think people do not fully realize, that is being done for Canada and for the empire. I talked with three of these }'oung men. There is nothing spectacular about their work. They are out three or four days each way, exposed to wave and wind and cold, with submarines under and enemy planes over, out with one convoy and back in with another. They were in fine heart. They realized that they were doing an important job, and I think the silent service is entitled to a particular word of credit and of commendation for the splendid work which is being carried on.
I did not intend to take up so much time with a recital to the committee of what took place overseas. There were some other matters which I dealt with and in which perhaps the committee will be interested, because they have to do particularly with army activities. There is, for example, the matter of exchange of officers. Perhaps the committee does not know that we have arrangements for exchanges of officers between our Canadian forces overseas and Canada in order that Canadian officers may go overseas to get experience and officers from there may come back to this country and give us the benefit of what they have learned overseas. The other day someone was complaining about our training not being in line with Canadian corps training. We had overseas for two months the director of military training who visited all the formations and got into touch with the training staff, obtaining the best and most thorough information he could as to requirements, so that this might be translated into action when he came back.
Some of the things to which my hon. friend has referred-the four-month training and the

War Appropriation Bill

matter of training officers, for example-are the results of visits of the director of military training at that time, followed by what my associates and I learned while there. We have a staff school overseas, and as soon as the young men who are at that staff school have finished their training we propose to move the school back to Canada in order that young men here may be trained for staff work which will be necessary overseas. In that same connection, in the programme which I have, and which I am placing before the committee, with regard to training, there is provision for the training of between four and six thousand new officers in the coming year at the officers training centre. There will be quite a number of staff officers who will be needed.
At the same time we had the deputy master-general of the ordnance over there to go fully into the question of the provision of motor vehicles, design, the use of them, convenience, how they were standing up, and so on, and he went around seeing the different units and making his examinations with a view to ensuring the very best service that can be given from this side.
I saw the forestry corps; I saw the tunnelling companies, and I also visited the First Lord of the Admiralty in connection with some errands which my colleague the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services (Mr. Macdonald) had asked me to take on, and particularly in connection with what the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) mentioned last night, namely, the provision of personnel to assist in starting destroyer construction in this country. I had many jobs and made many visits at the air ministry in connection with a number of matters, one particularly being the identification of pilots under the air training scheme. Special matters were discussed, many items of supply. Those were considered before my colleague the Minister of Munitions and Supply arrived, and after he got there I was happy to hand these things over to him.
We had several opportunities, in connection with air matters, of meeting Lord Beaver-brook and attending the experimental stations where aircraft are tested and tried out, where aircraft are adjusted, where research is done, and of learning of the aircraft supply over there and the development of new types of machines.
I really did not intend to take so long, but that is just a brief resumd in a conversational way of what was done overseas. I came back with this programme to which I have referred, feeling that it was a programme which our friends over there desire to see put

into effect. On this side, I do not propose to go into details, in numbers or anything of that kind. Hon. members know that if we really had a bird's-eye view of Canada we should see this country literally seething with military activity from Halifax to Vancouver. As hon. members know, there are district activities. I had the pleasure only a few weeks ago of having in the district officers commanding in order that we might give them the benefit of what we had learned overseas and that they might understand our plans and have their district activities integrated with those at headquarters. We have camps from Nova Scotia to British Columbia, at Sussex, Aldershot, Valcartier, Petawawa, Barriefield, Borden, Shilo, Dundurn, Sarcee, Nanaimo and other places which perhaps I have missed. In all these camps military activities are going on, where men who would like to get overseas and into this war are stationed for the present, unable to go because of the fact that the situation over there has assumed the static position it has up to the present time.
We have, as hon. members know, coastal defence units, security guards, guards at internment camps and guards at vulnerable points. We are inaugurating in Canada a system of training both for military and for trades vocations which I feel sure will be of undoubted advantage.
That brings me to what my hon. friend has mentioned with regard to recruiting. If my hon. friend is sincere-and I accept his sincerity fully with regard to the matter of recruiting-he will realize that recruiting in Canada at the present time is not the most glamorous affair, not anything like recruiting in the last war. In the last war we had battalions which prominent men in various communities were authorized to raise, and a recruiting campaign was put on. I happened to be a member of a unit which was recruited in that way, with an extremely fine commanding officer. A brigade was recruited with all the glamour and fanfare of a recruiting campaign and an evangelistic meeting. But the situation was that when we got overseas, three battalions of the brigade which had been recruited with all that fanfare and who had been promised that the boys would eat and sleep and fight together, were broken up to form reinforcements of other battalions. This was necessary because of the military situation.
While wre may not have the same glamour in connection with recruiting that we had last time, this is not by any means a glamourous war. I do not know anything that is more grim, more drab than the people of Great Britain having to sit down as they do

War Appropriation Bill
night after night with bombers flying over them and without being able effectively to strike back, waiting for the time when they may be able to join issue. We in Canada should be thankful that the situation is as it is, that we are comparatively safe, that we have freedom of action, that we are able to train without all these difficulties which the men overseas have. I ask my hon. friend who spoke last and talked about men having distrust and suspicion and unrest and all that sort of thing, to preach the doctrine of trust and content and determination to prepare and to serve this country when the time comes.
In this matter of recruiting which my hon. friend has stressed, because he is, I think, a member of a reserve unit himself, and this matter of reserve units, does he realize that we have to-day in Canada no fewer than
175,000	men in reserve units, in addition to over 200,000 that we have in the active service forces? I have made it plain to this committee time and time again that we have not all the equipment we want; does he think that at this time we could possibly equip and train all these units? I ask him to give the staff at national headquarters credit for doing a little planning. What we are endeavouring to do at the present time is to put first things first. We have an active service force recruited in Canada, and we have many who would like to go overseas but are not able to go yet. We have these reserve units.
My hon. friend says he does not like the way in which recruiting is being done. If he is a true member of a reserve unit and trying to do his duty as a Canadian, let me say that reserve units have two roles. One is that if they happen to have a first battalion mobilized overseas-I do not know whether his unit has or not-their first role is to provide recruits as wanted to fill up the ranks of that battalion. The time may come-God forbid that it shall-when that unit may have all it can do to do so, if the battle of Britain strikes as we think it may. Their second role is to do their share in providing the number of recruits which is asked for or allotted to the particular district in which the reserve unit is, to ask these men if they want to enlist, to enlist them and send them to join their battalion.
It is a wonderful thing to be able to go over with your own unit if you can; I know how it broke our hearts to have the Highland brigade broken up, but it had to be. We are in this war to win it, and the only way is by trained man-power equipped with weapons, and with some planning being done. We cannot possibly mobilize 175,000 men in units and send them overseas. I know what the needs are overseas, I know what is told me by 14873-914
the staff there, and I am giving the committee the programme as it is given to me. I say to my hon. friend, his job in a reserve unit is to see that their active unit, if they have one, is kept up to strength; second, to furnish its share of the quota of recruits which may be asked for at any time from the particular district, and, third, to keep his unit in as good shape as he can, so that if the time does come when it is needed as a unit it may be mobilized just as these other units that I have mentioned this afternoon. That is not a job that should make anyone in a reserve unit downcast. I grant it is not spectacular; it means hard work, but no man in a reserve unit need get discouraged and go home and say he does not want to train any more. I know men who are training now and have been for eighteen months and do not know whether they will ever get overseas, but they believe that this job is bigger than the individual, and bigger than the battalion, and they will do what they are told is the best to do in order that our cause may be successful.
That is the situation with regard to recruiting. A call may come for recruits. My colleague the Minister of National Defence for Air needs a number; as I have said, probably between forty thousand and eighty thousand may be needed for the army this year; but many will not be raised by mobilizing battalions, many will have to be raised by the reserve units in numbers as may be required from time to time by battalions which are already mobilized, or new formations. I say to my hon. friend and every hon. member-because there are a good many hon. members who have come to me with regard to reserve units in their constituencies which would like to be mobilized as a whole-there is no man in this house who knows better or realizes more sincerely than I the value of esprit de corps. I know what it means in a unit, and I know what it is to have it broken. At the same time, when that esprit de corps was broken by having the unit broken up we did not sit down and suck our thumbs, we went to work and endeavoured to help build an army out of what was left. I know that my hon. friend's unit and every other unit will do the same. As far as military exigencies will permit I will do everything I can to see that a unit is mobilized as a whole rather than simply sent as reinforcements. More than that I cannot say, and hon. members would not expect me to say more.
That recruiting method, while it may seem drab and unspectacular, is the only method we can adopt at the present time having regard to the demands on our man-power in this country. The reserve units of this
War Appropriation Bill

country have been recognized as they never were before, are being mobilized many of them as a whole or made the back-bone of our recruiting organization, and I believe the reserve units will respond to the call to maintain that role and do their very best in whatever capacity they may be called upon to help win this war. That is the true spirit of patriotism, and that is the spirit of these reserve units which we used to call the nonpermanent active militia.
Now a word regarding training activities in Canada. My hon. friend referred to the "farce" of the thirty-day training plan. I take issue with my hon. friend. I believe there have been some valuable lessons learned in connection with that plan. I believe as a whole the training camps have been extremely useful in teaching men their responsibilities as citizens. We have had ninety thousand men, many of whom probably did not think of going into military life at all but who have had an opportunity to see what a military camp is like and have had training of an intensive kind. My hon. friend referred, I think, to only twenty-two days' training; he may be a little off in that connection-


Richard Burpee Hanson: Not far off.


James Layton Ralston: Let us see. I suppose
he will admit they would not train on Sundays; so take away four Sundays. Then there are four Saturday afternoons; I do not know whether he wanted them to train Saturday afternoons. That is two more days off. On Saturday afternoons they had recreation. There was also a day in and a day out. That is why there are twenty-two days of actual training. I say to my hon. friend, to any man in this house and to any man in Canada who knows anything about military training, that this twenty-two days of training was the most intensive and the best twenty-two days of practical training we have had in this country since confederation. I know there are some hon. members on the other side who will agree with that. I have no hesitation in saying that it was a training scheme splendidly conceived and splendidly worked out. There was no opportunity for men just to go to camp and do nothing. Those camps were places where they went and worked hard, improving themselves physically, learning something of the spirit of discipline which should pervade a military camp. That is good for citizenship and good in after life. We have had the benefit of that in connection with those ninety thousand men.
Already it has been said that the thirty-day training was all we could give, but we did not turn down the plan and do nothing because we could give only thirty days. We

did the thirty days training, and did it well. I have no apology whatever to make in connection with the thirty days training; I think it has been a remarkable success. I want here to publicly congratulate the officers who had charge of working out the syllabus, the officers at the camps who so efficiently carried it out, the staff who were able to put up the buildings in the short time available, and those who planned and procured clothing, equipment and rations. These thirty-nine camps were started only in the late summer, and they had to be ready for October in order to get on with the plan.
That was the thirty-day training plan. I am not going to say more about it. I had some other points with regard to it, but I am not going to take up the time of the committee with them just now. Let me go on to what we have planned. I said we were planning for four months training. I said one of the things I had to do overseas was to ascertain the situation over there with regard to training. When I got over there I went into this matter of training thoroughly; and contrary, to what some people and some newspapers have said, that training at military training centres is regarded as the greatest development in this war as far as training is concerned. There has been a great deal of talk about why these men did not train with their units, that it was so much better for men to train together. The point is that you have to give a man a certain amount of physical training, a certain amount of discipline, a certain amount of the rudiments of soldiering, before he is able to work in a formation at all; and with all due respect to the officers of the various units, who have given freely of their time, they have not the opportunity to do the intensive work that is done by the men who for the time being are put on the permanent staff, taken outside of Ottawa to the Connaught ranges and given special courses and special instructions, who are given a syllabus which must be rigidly lived up to, and who are provided with instructors who know their jobs. That is what makes the thirty-day training scheme; that is what makes the value of military training centres as compared with training in units. I can say to the committee that I have the highest military authority for stating that training in training centres far surpasses training in units for elementary and basic work. That is why the thirty-day training was done in that way. That is the way in which basic training is done in England, and that is the way in which it is being done in the United States at the present time, in order that they may get the most for their money in the shortest possible time.

War Appropriation Bill


Richard Burpee Hanson: Not thirty
days; twelve months.


James Layton Ralston: I am talking about the value of training centres vis-a-vis training in units. I have spoken about the thirty days and told what instruction the men received in that period. Training in training centres far surpasses training in units, and I hope everyone will accept that statement because, as I say, I have the highest military authority for it, and it is not military authority confined to Canada by any means.
I come now to the four months' training. I found over there that they felt it desirable that, for basic and specialist training, the period should be four months; that is, two months for basic training and two months in specialist training in whatever arm of the service the man might desire. So we came back and announced the plan. The hon. member who preceded me mentioned farmers and suggested that they should be exempted. We announced what we thought was a modest plan-


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I do not want to interrupt the minister, but I do not think the hon. member suggested that farmers should be exempted. He said they should be given consideration.


James Layton Ralston: I heard what the hon. member said. He did speak about farmers and he asked that some exemption or some postponement or something of the kind should be extended.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: That is different.


James Layton Ralston: I am not at all criticizing my hon. friend for that. So far as the farmer is concerned, in due time my colleague the Minister of National War Services will announce the regulations; probably they will be announced to-morrow or the next day, and I think they provide sufficient latitude with regard to the farmer occupation.
As I said, we came back and said we had a modest plan for four months' training. How will we do it? We will combine the training centres of the active service force with the militia training centres; we will put them together. We propose to establish, and we are establishing in Canada at the present time joint training centres; that is to say, the basic training centres plus the additional training centres which will be formed, probably about sixty in all. In a moment or two I shall give the committee a list of the centres and where they are being established. We found that we could do this by taking only the twenty-one year old class, for the
time being. That would do away with a great deal of the difficulty which industry contended it was experiencing with regard to the exemption of men who were in the trades class. That would mean that industry would not be seriously troubled, or at least we felt that would be the situation. It would mean the same thing with regard to the farming class; only the twenty-one year olds would be affected, and therefore exemptions or postponements with regard to farmers would be fewer.
We found that we had in Canada in these active training centres and the militia training centres total accommodation for 44,000 men. We expected that accommodation for 4,000 would be required for the special training of officers, non-commissioned officers and instructors in small arms, and proposed that the accommodation for the remaining 40,000 should be divided into basic and advanced training centres, with 20,000 in each. The training centres under the National Resources Mobilization Act are to be converted into these basic training centres, while the present active service training centres plus a few of the training centres under the mobilization act are to be converted into the advanced training centres. From the capacity and locations of these camps we estimate that when the plan is running fully, we shall be able to accommodate between five and six thousand each month, so that at the end of four months we shall be turning out each month from five to six thousand of these men called up under the mobilization act, in addition to men of the active service force.
My hon. friend thinks we have not had any plans in view. That means that in addition to the reserve units we have in this country aggregating, as I said a moment ago, something like 175,000, we will have in the year, or let us say in six months, about 30,000 to
35,000	four-months-trained men, in addition to the reserve units, in case they should be needed for service in the defence of Canada.
These training centres are being established all across Canada. Hon. members know now where the basic training centres are, but possibly it would be well if I were to place a summary on record.


Mr. GREEN:: Before the minister prooeeds to that point, may I ask him if the figure of 183,015, which I find at page 1144 of Hansard, and which refers to the number of men in the ranks of the reserve army, includes the 90,000 who have already been through the compulsory training camps, but who are not actually in the reserve army?
War Appropriation Bill


James Layton Ralston: I believe it does, but I would have to check on that point. The summary of active training centres is as follows:
Artillery	 4
Engineers	 2
Signals	 1
Armoured Corps	 2
Infantry	 7
Machine guns	 2
Army Service Corps	 2
Ordnance Corps	 1
Army Medical Corps	 1
Total	 22
This tabulation shows a total of 22 advanced training centres. In addition to that there is a unit area training centre, two officers training centres, the 29 basic centres to which I have referred, and two others, making a total of 34 basic training centres, which, added to the 22 active training centres, make a total of 56. In addition to that there are two instruction schools, making 58 in all.
What we propose to do is this-and I might as well put it on record: We are allotting the training centres in this way:
Petawawa-
(1)	The present artillery training centre.
(2)	A second advanced artillery training centre.
Winnipeg-An advanced artillery training
centre.
Brandon-An artillery training centre.
Petawawa-Engineers.
Dundurn-Engineers.
Barriefield-Signals.
Borden

(1)	Armoured corps.
(2)	New training centre for reconnaissance battalion.
(3)	Two infantry training centres.
St. Hyacinthe-Infantry training centre.
Valcartier-Infantry training centre.
Aldershot-Infantry training centre.
Winnipeg

Infantry training centre.
Calgary-Infantry training centre.
Three Rivers

Machine gun, forestry wing.
Dundurn-Machine gun training centre.
Borden-Army Service Corps training centre.
Red Deer-Army Service Corps training
centre.
Barriefield-Ordnance corps.
Ottawa-Army Medical Corps.
Long Branch-Small arms school training
centre.
Nanaimo-Small arms school training centre.
Brockville-Officers training centre.
Victoria-Officers training centre.
These are advanced training centres. There are two training centres for coast defence and anti-aircraft, and there will be two officers' training centres for Canada.


Richard Burpee Hanson: How many of these will be new camps?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I rather
gathered that they were new camps.


James Layton Ralston: No; they are new training centres, but not new camps. By "new" my hon. friend probably means new establishments?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes.


James Layton Ralston: The following is a list of the basic training centres:
Kitchener Chatham Woodstock Brantford North Bay Newmarket Cornwall Peterborough Farnham, district school
Huntingdon Joliette Sherbrooke St. Jerome Sorel
Valleyfield Valcartier (unit area)
Chicoutimi
Megantic
Levis
Montmagny
Rimouski
Yarmouth
Charlottetown
New Glasgow
Fredericton
Edmundston
Portage la Prairie
Fort William
Vernon
Regina
Camrose
Grand Prairie
These will be the locations of the training centres. As hon. members will see, we have combined the militia training centres, in most instances using them as basic training centres, with the advanced training centres which are in camps such as Petawawa, Borden, Barriefield, and so on.


Mr. CASSELMAN (Grenville-Dundas):: Is it the intention of the government to stay within the 21-year class in calling out the men?


James Layton Ralston: As was intimated in the Prime Minister's announcement, it just depends on what the needs are.


Arza Clair Casselman: But what happens when you run out of the 21-year-olds?


James Layton Ralston: We will not run out.


Arza Clair Casselman: In the second or third year.


James Layton Ralston: I am not looking to the second or third year yet.


Arza Clair Casselman: I meant to refer to the second or third class called out this year. Will the department then take the 22-year-olds, or turn to those who have just reached twenty-one?


James Layton Ralston: We are advised on the
numbers available that there will be sufficient; we anticipate there will be sufficient.


James Layton Ralston: I have not read any that are new camps. I do not anticipate that there will be any new ones.
{Mr. Green.]


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister has indicated that it is anticipated that only men of the 21-year-old class will be

War Appropriation Bill
trained under this plan. How does that jibe with the statement given to the house and country by the Minister of National Defence for Air to the effect that everyone from twenty-one to forty-five years would be training?


James Layton Ralston: The hon. member would not take them all at once, would he?


Richard Burpee Hanson: No; but that is what the minister told the country.


James Layton Ralston: But the hon. member
would not expect to have them trained all at once?


Richard Burpee Hanson: No; I
did not believe it at the time, and I do not believe it to-day.


James Layton Ralston: I am advised by officers in whom I have the fullest confidence that, having regard to everything we can foresee, this plan will take care of our needs for the defence of Canada provided recruiting-and in spite of what the hon. member who preceded me has suggested-keeps up to a reasonable degree. I have not the doubts and fears entertained by my hon. friend in that respect. If the call comes, I think the men of Canada will answer.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: The minister has continually used the term "defence of Canada"; to what extent does that go?


James Layton Ralston: It means exactly what
my hon. friend understands it to mean. Under the National Resources Mobilization Act men are liable to be called out for service in Canada or within the territorial waters thereof. That is what it means.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And the front line is in the English channel.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend served
under a leader who declared exactly that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That does not mean a thing to me to-day. I am not static, if the minister is.


Mr. POWER:: The same would apply to my statement respecting men of 18 to 45.


James Layton Ralston: Possibly the committee will not be particularly interested in the details of officers' training in those training schools. I have a full statement with regard to it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is a
syllabus?


James Layton Ralston: It sets out the number of weeks which are spent in the ranks, the number of weeks spent studying certain subjects common to all arms, the number of
weeks spent in studying organization, tactics and equipment and the number of weeks spent upon advanced training.


Grote Stirling: Does that cover all ranks?


James Layton Ralston: This is for officers.


Grote Stirling: Second lieutenant up?


James Layton Ralston: Second lieutenant, then
captain, then major and so on.


Grote Stirling: Does it provide for a
major to prepare for promotion?


James Layton Ralston: Yes.


Mr. ISNOR:: I believe the minister stated that an infantry unit would be trained in Nova Scotia, but that coast defence units would be trained in central Canada or other portions of Canada. Why is such a system being put into force?


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend is wrong. I stated that two coast defence units and antiaircraft units would be formed, but the locations are not given on the sheet. Let me go back to the thirty-day training for a moment and put on record what I have with regard to the usefulness of this scheme. Apart from racial, religious, economic, occupational and language differences between the young men of this country, I would divide them into two main groups:
(a)	Those who have not had the opportunity of belonging to a unit, navy, army or air, in peace time either by reason of the exigencies of schooling or occupation, or by reason of their geographical position;
(b)	Those who may have had an opportunity for military service but who have had no family connection with military life, therefore know nothing about it, and would be naturally hesitant to take part in something which must necessarily be foreign to their normal life.
The thirty-days' training has produced the following results:
(a)	Young men of the first group have had an opportunity to undergo military training and are now enrolled in reserve units. In many instances, individuals who live in small towns and villages and in the country have, upon returning from training centres, organized classes unofficially in their own localities; physical training, shooting, and drill, based upon the instruction they themselves have received;
(b)	Young men of the second category have learned the camaraderie and the interest of military life, and that service of one form or another is incumbent upon the individual in time of war.
War Appropriation Bill

(c)	Training centres have impressed recruits with their individual responsibility to serve whether their service is in agriculture, the armed forces or in business. Many young men who have never thought of anyone other than themselves have, through barrack room life, learned the lesson that in a democracy one man's happiness depends to an increasing extent upon another man's actions.
(d)	Young men of widely differing religious, racial and economic groups have lived, worked and played together for a month and they learned that "the other fellow is really a very good lad." An experience such as this cannot fail to have a lasting effect upon each recruit.
The standard of training laid down to be achieved by each recruit is one which has been highly beneficial, from the point of view of both physical training and discipline. I do not know whether the -hon. member who preceded me referred to the fact that young men have returned home from training centres and organized physical training, shooting and military drill based upon the instructions they themselves received. Such instances have been brought to my attention.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: Just what does this enrolment with reserve units imply? Do the young men take any further training, or do they report every so often?


James Layton Ralston: I think it was provided in the regulations whereby those in the reserve units are entitled to take training and be paid if the others are. Such men are to be entitled to the same privileges as those already in the unit. The hon. member who preceded me stated that there was no incentive for these men to attend, -but there is the same incentive for them as there is for the original members.


James Arthur Ross: There are large areas without any reserve units. Will that mean that these names simply appear on paper?


James Layton Ralston: I suppose that must be the case if there is no reserve unit.


Richard Burpee Hanson: In the rural areas, like in my own county.


James Layton Ralston: There are reserve units not very far away in that locality. I may say that in connection with the present plan, instead of having them placed on the reserve units, provided they apply to be put on the rolls, it is contemplated to have them placed on a general roll. They would then be members of the militia.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They would be in the reserve army to be called upon for the defence of Canada.


Grote Stirling: Is the practical difficulty not the fact that so many of them live such long distances from their reserve units that they find it impossible to attend to keep up their training?


James Layton Ralston: There may be some who live long distances from the reserve units, but these units are spread pretty thickly throughout the country and most young men would have a reasonable opportunity to attend.


Arza Clair Casselman: I should like to know the number of officers who will receive training in these two officers' training centres that are being set up, where those officers will come from and whether they are officers now on the strength of the reserve unit.


James Layton Ralston: As I suggested when I was speaking, there will be probably between
4,000	and 6,000 altogether. These men will be recommended by their officers commanding as cadets to take the course. The requirement for men from the active force is that they shall have served four months in the ranks. Then, if they are of the calibre which the officer commanding thinks could be usefully used in connection with officer work, they go to the officers training centre. For the first four weeks they are given subjects common to all arms. For the next six weeks they are given organization, tactics and equipment according to the particular arm of the service to which they want to go, be it infantry, artillery or any other arm. For two weeks they are given platoon training or training in equipment or tactics, depending upon the nature of the particular unit to which they belong.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. FULFORD:: I am sorry that the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. White) is not in his seat, in uniform, to-night. When he spoke as reported in Hansard, I was sorely tempted to answer him. I refrained, however, because I felt that his accusations were too petty and too ridiculous to deserve any answer. Those of us who were at Petawawa at the same time as he was know that conditions were entirely different from those he related. I happened to have been in lines not very far from his.
He complained of the dampness. I admit that we arrived under particularly unfavourable auspices at Petawawa, and that the mem

War Appropriation Bill
complained during the first day. We reached the camp in what was almost a cloudburst; but by noon of next day we were completely dry, we got our lines in order, and from then on I did not hear a single complaint from any of our men.
One reason why I did not answer the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough was that I am not in uniform; but, Mr. Chairman, I want to tell you that I am just as much a member of the reserve army in Canada as is the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough. If I do not choose to wear a uniform in the house, that is my business.
I have often heard it said that for the most part dissatisfaction in a regiment can be traced direct to the doorstep of the adjutant. I believe it is unnecessary for me to tell this committee who is the adjutant of the second battalion of the Prince Edward-Hastings regiment.
He complained that there was lack of equipment. Mr. Chairman, I assure you that the Brockville Rifles, of which I had the honour at that time to be a second lieutenant, was well equipped. We did not have all the service unit, but we had Lewis guns, and a rifle for each man. We had fifty Ross rifles. Incidentally, the Ross rifle is a good Tory product of the last war.
Mr. DIEFENBAIvER: And this.


George Taylor Fulford: And a better target rifle, I believe, has not yet been designed.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I thought Sir Frederick Borden brought in the Ross rifle.


George Taylor Fulford: Sir Robert was, as I remember him, a good Tory.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If the hon. gentleman's other statements are as correct as that, I am sorry for him.


George Taylor Fulford: "Sir Robert", I thought the hon. gentleman said.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, I did not say "Sir Robert".


George Taylor Fulford: The Ross rifle was manufactured under the Tory regime of the last war, at any rate. As a target rifle, the Ross rifle was unexcelled. As a service rifle, it was no good. But that is apart from the subject; and I intend to be very brief.
I have been informed that military district No. 3 -would provide equipment if given sufficient time. Our adjutant gave sufficient time, and we got the equipment. Therefore I think, before the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough rises in his place and makes any more accusations, he had better take stock of
himself and realize that the statements he makes in this chamber should not be taken any more seriously than, apparently, he is taken, by his own men.


Mr.   IIANSELL@: The debate so far has almost covered the universe. We have discussed more than anything else, perhaps, the Department of Munitions and Supply and the Department of National Defence. I am wondering whether we might not get back to "the more weighty matters" of the resolution.
The resolution stands in the name of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Usley), and primarily, I believe, involves his department. For that reason I d.o not think the resolution should pass without the minister answering one or two questions which to my mind are important.
We are asked to vote authority to raise by way of loan an amount which somebody said the other day was almost equal to the entire debt of Canada since confederation. The resolution calls for the borrowing this year of the tidy sum of $1,300,000,000. Whenever I write that figure down in my notes I do not know where -to stop writing the noughts; I I have to go back and count them all to see if I have inserted enough of them. Our national debt for this young country, with the population of only around 12,000,000 people, has begun to reach figures of an astronomical proportion, and it is doing so without much hope, if any, of this country ever paying off its debt. The other day I did a little browsing in the year book, and I discovered that at the end of the last war our debt stood at $1,191,884,062.50. At the beginning of this war our national debt stood at $3,101,667,570.25, which is an increase in the debt in peace time, between the close of the last war and the beginning of this, to the tune of $2,009,783,507.75. During these twenty years of peace we paid interest on the first great war debt, and during that period we had thirteen years of deficit and seven years of surpluses. I think the minister will have to admit that he has departed from his pay-as-you-go policy.
With regard to paying off this debt, it must be realized, I think, that the time will come when this vast debt will have to be paid off. If we could not at least reduce our debt during years of peace and, in part, of prosperity, how on earth shall we be able to do so if t'he debt grows even higher, and that by leaps and bounds? The minister should tell the committee and the country exactly how he proposes to pay off this debt when the war is over. I ask this question in all honesty because I have been asked the same question myself, and I must confess that by orthodox methods; under our present financial policy I am stuck for an answer.
War Appropriation Bill


Richard Burpee Hanson: And you have adopted the latter course.


James Layton Ralston: We have adopted the course of locating these two centres at Victoria and Brockville. The plan of locating them at these two centres is adopted for the following reasons. It gives more centralized control of training, administration and the flow of officer reinforcements. It gives greater uniformity of officer selection and centralized control over the standards required for a commission. We have training centres from Aldershot to Nanaimo, and hon. members will see that naturally there would be some difference in standards at different places. As a matter of fact, one of the hon. members of this committee the other day mentioned to me what I thought was a glaring case of lack of uniformity in connection with the setting and marking of officers' examination papers, which gives rise to dissatisfaction and does not promote efficiency.
Another reason was the uniformity of training and of instruction generally. What seemed desirable was the logical division of an officer's education into (1) experience in discipline and being led; (2) general academic and practical education in those subjects required of all officers, and (3) specialization. Another reason was that staffs can be more carefully selected and trained having regard to their special aptitude for officer's duties if you have them at two officer training centres instead of perhaps thirty-nine or even half that number.

War Appropriation Bill
Another reason is that candidates will gain experience by mingling, studying and working with junior officers of all other arms of the service; that is to say, artillery officers, infantry officers and officers of other arms who all go to these officer training centres for the purpose of getting their basic training.
I could give the committee a statement of how an officer qualifies. For the active force an officer has to be in the ranks for four months. Having been in the ranks, if he is considered suitable officer material he is recommended by his commanding officer to take a course at the officers training centre. In that way he is on the road from a cadet to a second lieutenant.


Grote Stirling: Is he recommended only by his officer commanding?


James Layton Ralston: Recommended by his
officer commanding, but I think it would be passed on, also, by the district; and it would be passed on also by the commandant of the school.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is the procedure, I believe.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend is perfectly right. We could not have each officer commanding deciding on his own.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It goes
on up, higher, for official approval.


James Layton Ralston: Yes. At the officers' training centre he takes, for the first four weeks, subjects common to all arms; for the next six weeks, organization, elementary tactics, equipment, et cetera, in the particular arm in which he proposes to qualify; then, for two weeks, in platoon or equivalent tactics.
Then, if considered desirable, he goes to an advanced training centre, to be qualified from second lieutenant to lieutenant. His period there depends upon the arm of the service for which he is qualifying. That is done at the advanced training centre. Then, from lieutenant to captain, promotion is carried on by selection.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is, by the officer in command of the unit.


Mr. BROOKS:: Is there no seniority?


James Layton Ralston: There would be seniority. But I, for one, must say that I am afraid I am a little unorthodox in that respect.


Grote Stirling: Perhaps the minister is modern.


James Layton Ralston: I do not feel always that seniority is the final test.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister would not do in a trade union, then.


James Layton Ralston: Seniority is a factor; that is as far as I should like to go. From lieutenant to captain is by selection. Then, from captain to major there is a three months' course at an advanced training centre or the Royal Military College. I believe hon. members know that we are using the Royal Military College for the purpose of giving these advanced courses to the more senior officers. We are making that an advanced training centre. From major to lieutenant-colonel there is another three months' course at the Royal Military College. All this is for the active service force.
I was asked about the officers qualifying for the reserve force. The person wishing so to qualify has two alternatives. Under alternative A, he serves the first period in the ranks. He serves in the ranks for one year. He really serves about thirty days; that is to say, if he goes to camp. But that thirty days' training counts on his service for the first step.
Then he takes a course and examination on subjects common to all arms. By taking the course for the officers training corps, his thirty days' training is concurrent. Then he may be recommended as a cadet. On his trip from cadet to the rank of second lieutenant he goes to the officers training centre, and is there for six weeks, taking a course in organization tactics and equipment, et cetera, in the arm which he has selected.
From the rank of second lieutenant to lieutenant he is at the officers training centre for two weeks, taking platoon or equivalent tactics. Then from lieutenant to captain is done by selection, and by attachment to the advanced training centre, if that is practicable, for a period, the length of which depends upon the arm of the service to which he belongs.
I now turn to alternative B. I mention these alternatives now, because the information may be useful to hon. members, and perhaps to officers as well. Under alternative B he is in the ranks for one year, and does training for thirty days. He takes a course and examination common to all arms, and a special examination respecting his own arm of the service. Then, to go from cadet to second lieutenant he spends two weeks in the officers training centre. Then he goes from second lieutenant to lieutenant, under the provisions of K.R. and O. In the examination from lieutenant to captain he takes an examination on subjects common to all arms, and also in subjects special to his own arm, and takes a two weeks' course at the officers training centre or advanced training centre.
Then, from captain to major he goes to an officers training centre or advanced training
War Appropriation Bill

centre, and from major to lieutenant-colonel he goes to the Royal Military College for four weeks. I could put on record the present system. The leader of the opposition asked me once before, I believe it was last year, respecting the present method of qualification of officers. I have in my hand a long statement with regard to that matter. I do not, however, think it would be useful at this time because this replaces it.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: What is the situation with regard to the hundreds of young men at the universities who are taking the Canadian officers training corps course?


James Layton Ralston: I want to tread warily on that, because I have not the statement respecting the C.O.T.C. before me. But with regard to the reserve, I may say there is a provision here for a course and examination common to all arms of the service and an examination in his special arm. As I understand it, his work in the C.O.T.C. is concurrent.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There is a special situation with regard to the C.O.T.C. They have worked it out so that they can get on their way.


James Layton Ralston: I understand that the C.O.T.C. qualifies them for officers. Before the commission is granted, they come up in the regular way.
I should like to give the committee a statement with regard to the alternatives. Possibly I could put on record something which would be useful to officers in the reserve. Reasons are given here why the first alternative I suggested may be preferable. The member of the reserve force who elects to qualify under the first alternative method, for the rank of lieutenant, may follow the same course as for the active force second lieutenant, if he intends to join the force at once; or, if for personal reasons he wishes to spread his qualification over a longer period, he may do so in this way: For the first four weeks at local headquarters, passing an examination, the standard of which would be such as to ensure that those who qualified would be capable of taking up work at the officers training centre at the end of the fifth week. The remainder of the course can be taken in two parts, one of six weeks and one of two weeks, both at an officers training centre. At the conclusion of this he would be qualified as a second lieutenant in the active force. Then it goes on to show the advantage of taking the first alternative for the rank of captain and the rank of major.


Richard Burpee Hanson: How long has this been in effect?


James Layton Ralston: Just authorized now. We could not authorize it until we had decided to amalgamate the advanced training centres and the basic training centres for recruits for the active service force, and to establish out of these, two officers training centres, one at Brockville, which is now a basic training centre, and the other at Victoria.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The whole thing is concurrent.


James Layton Ralston: Yes; that is correct, or perhaps it would be more correct to say alternative so far as the officers' training is concerned. ,1 have not the figures here, but I think I am correct when I say it is expected that between
4,000	and 6,000 officers will be handled this year, having regard to the formations to which I referred this afternoon, and to the probable reinforcements which will be needed. Therefore hon. members will see that these officers training centres will be busy this year.
Members of the committee would perhaps be interested to know that there will be some necessity for construction. The turning of the reserve training centre at Brockville into a junior officers training centre will involve the construction of something like twenty-one buildings. At the western training centre, which is really not an officers training centre, at Red Deer, there will have to be a conversion of an existing reserve training centre to provide an advanced centre for the army service corps. This will involve the construction of eleven buildings.
Further, with regard to activities in Canada, we have had very much in mind, as 'I intimated when I spoke to the house at the last session, the necessity for the army doing everything it possibly can to avoid a drain on industry with respect to skilled men. I said then, and I repeat now, that we are anxious that the militia training under the National Resources Mobilization Act should not interfere unduly with industry. Second, we are prepared to assist by giving leave to men who are in the army and have special training and are needed in war industry. Third, we wanted to be on our own as much as possible by training our own men in connection with the motorized and mechanized corps. An army trades school is being started on May 1 where about 2,000 men can be trained at a time. The actual course will take from three to six months. This will not interfere with the courses in the civil technical institutions. We shall be training our own tradesmen. In addition, there is a diesel engine course being oonducted at the Dominion Engineering company. I wish it understood that I am not mixing this up with what is being done by the Department of Labour.

War Appropriation Bill
As hon. members know, that department is fostering the organization of plant schools in different industries. These schools are being used for vocational training in connection with war industries. The department has, I think, used, in whole or in part, the facilities of the youth training plan, and has mapped out a rather comprehensive system of technical training right across Canada for the purpose of meeting the necessities of our war situation.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Will that involve any change in the regulations set up under the mobilization act? Will the selective principle be brought into effect?


James Layton Ralston: I am afraid I am infringing upon the jurisdiction of my colleague, but I think it will be found that, as far as industry is concerned, the regulations will be similar to those which were passed before. That is to say, industries will not be cut into, as I have already pointed out, to the extent they were before because only one age group will be affected. That will make it much more limited than under the previous call. With regard to other courses, there is a cooks' course conducted at Camp Borden. I have already mentioned the junior staff course. This course will be removed from England to Canada in the near future as soon as it has completed its work and has put the first pupils through. The Canadian officers training corps have adopted a standard training course to help to build up a reserve for the army and personnel for the navy and the air force.
It just comes to me now, and I hasten to mention it to the committee, that I should express in the most unreserved terms of which I am capable the appreciation of the department, and I am sure of the people of the country, for the cooperation given by the universities of Canada in connection with this matter of training. Not only have they kept the officers training corps going, but they have put into effect a system of compulsory training in order that those young men who may be called up will have served a certain portion of their compulsory training at the university.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That was done in the face of some opposition.


James Layton Ralston: Many universities have
difficulties with regard to revenues, and anything that discourages the attendance of students makes it that much more difficult for them to carry on. In that part of the country from which the leader of the opposition and I come, they have not too much money. But the universities have cooperated magnificently.


Mr. MARTIN:: And the colleges, too.


James Layton Ralston: Yes, and the colleges, too. They are all universities down our way. More than that, the department has had the most whole-hearted and unreserved cooperation from the universities and the colleges. I know the national research council will join with me in this in connection with all sorts of research matters. These universities and colleges have been more than ready to lend their facilities and staff for the purposes of assisting in scientific experiments of various kinds which were necessary to perfect certain articles of war utility and to pursue lines of research which would give to our troops the equipment which they need and which is necessary in order to make them efficient. The presidents of the universities and colleges came here only two weeks ago in a continued effort to ascertain how they could help in order to throw themselves even more whole-heartedly into helping to win this war.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: In many instances they
have given up their sports activities.


Mr. JACKMAN:: In connection with the
Canadian officers training corps, it is suggested that these young men will qualify at the university and then receive their appointments in the regular way. I was wondering what was meant by "regular way." Will they have to serve a certain length of time in the ranks, or will they be appointed immediately?


James Layton Ralston: They get their certificates after having qualified.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: How do they get their
appointments?


James Layton Ralston: I mean their appointments in the units.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: How do they get their
commissions?


James Layton Ralston: They get their certificates of qualification, and then they get their commissions in the corps or unit, or in the reserve unit.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Without serving in the
ranks?


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend is referring to the new regulations?


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Yes.


James Layton Ralston: I am not able to say that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The training is the equivalent.


James Layton Ralston: I did not think it would
be the equivalent of four months.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Four
years' training is equivalent to four months.
War Appropriation Bill


James Layton Ralston: I shall be glad to give
ny hon. friend an answer when I have it.


Mr. MAYBANK:: The minister has said
that certain training is carried on in the universities, and many of these young men will be in the age group to be called up for four months' training. I do not know how it is in the maritimes, but students in the universities in my part of the country have not very much money. Perhaps there is a similarity between the students on the prairies and those in the maritimes whom the minister has described. A large number of students work their way through college by going out on survey parties and doing similar work. Unless they are to be exempted from this training they will not be able to do much work. How will the minister take care **f that situation?


James Layton Ralston: The matter was fully
discussed with the presidents of the universities and colleges who were here. It has been the subject of conferences between the officers of the Department of National Defence and the Department of National War Services, as well as between the ministers themselves. I think the regulations which will be announced by the Minister of National War Services will be found to meet the situation fully.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They have agreed on a plan?


James Layton Ralston: Not with the universities, although it may be that the plan as outlined has been talked over with them. I can only say at the moment that the Minister of National War Services and the Minister of National Defence have agreed on a plan. I do not speak for the universities and colleges; I do not know that they have agreed, but I think it will be found to be satisfactory. At least I hope so, and I am sure there will be an opportunity to discuss the matter.
Somebody was speaking about not being able to discuss the regulations. There will certainly be an opportunity to discuss them. I expect they will be down in the next day or two, in connection with the bill to be founded on the resolution which is now before the committee, because part of the vote which is being asked by the Minister of Finance is for national war services with regard to this matter,
I should say that the two officer training centres to which I have referred will accommodate about 1.700 officers, who will be recommended for commissions after completing service in the ranks of the active and the reserve units.

I believe that I have dealt with about all that I can usefully discuss at this stage. I thought it might assist the committee if I spoke to some extent on the activities of the department, and particularly I wanted to say a word or two with regard to what we found overseas and the plans we made as a result.
I will conclude by recalling that the money which is asked for here, and which, as the Minister of Finance has indicated, amounts to something like 8660,000,000, is for an army programme which is very, very heavy in its implications. If the programme is carried out as envisaged, we shall have overseas a corps of three divisions, corps troops aggregating many thousands more; we shall have an army tank brigade; and we shall have an army division-extremely expensive, if I may use that expression in terms of dollars, as also is the army tank brigade-we have troops in Iceland, Newfoundland and the West Indies, and we shall have in this country the troops for our Canadian defence services, coast defence, guards and internment camps, mobile troops for operations, and in addition to these we have the bases and the organizations and the establishments for recruiting and equipping and training reinforcements and supplying other formations which may be needed from time to time. It is a big undertaking; and, as head of the branch of the department which has particularly to do with the army, I realize the responsibility one has in asking that this large sum of money be voted.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister does not care to give us any more extended statement than he has already made with respect to the equipment of these two new armoured formations?
Mr. RALSTON; I do not think I can go any further than that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I will not press for it.


Mr. McCANN:: What progress, if any, is
being made in the development along special lines or by special training of the army medical corps, and are separate units being set up for the air force, the navy and the land forces?


James Layton Ralston: This year, as I have no
doubt my hon. friend knows, although he would like to have it on record, there was a separation of the medical services of the army and the air force, and Group Captain Ryan of the Royal Air Force was appointed in charge of the medical services there. If I am not mistaken, quite a number of officers from the army found their way-


Charles Gavan Power: Were enticed away.

War Appropriation Bill


James Layton Ralston: as my hon. friend says, were enticed away to the air force medical corps. The naval medical services are still under the director-general of medical services.


James Joseph McCann: What is the explanation of the necessity for two separate services? When people are ill and their uniforms are taken off, they are pretty much the same.


James Layton Ralston: I would really have to
ask the doctors to answer that.


James Joseph McCann: The minister is speaking
for them.


James Layton Ralston: It may be that to some
extent two different sorts of branches of medicine are involved, air force medicine and army medicine.


James Joseph McCann: Two separate branches of authority.


James Layton Ralston: It was after consideration by medical authority that the agreement was arrived at. I believe the air force felt that there -were certain situations where an officer without special training would be at some disadvantage in treating men with disabilities resulting from flying operations. I think I am correct in saying that, but I would have to refer my hon. friend to the medical officers rather than to the ministers.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Are there not special diseases arising out of avocations in the air? Is that not what Sir Frederick Banting was investigating when he lost his life?


James Layton Ralston: It is said that there are certain diseases peculiar to air operations.


Charles Gavan Power: Not so much diseases as
certain risks inherent in being in the air.


James Joseph McCann: That is, if you will, a
specialized line of medicine. My question, however, was, what progress is being made in developing men along those special lines, or is any progress being made?


Charles Gavan Power: As far as the air force is concerned, no medical officer enters the air force without undergoing a special course in medicine as related to the air.


James Joseph McCann: That is what I wanted to know.


James Arthur Ross: In the case of instructions being issued to infantry or cavalry units of the non-permanent active militia for mobilization, what basis is chosen? I speak of this because, with regard to the attachment of these trainees to even second reserve regiments, we have not organized a unit in
all of rural Manitoba; that is, other than in Winnipeg, Portage la Prairie and Brandon and along the main line. I wondered if seniority is followed when instructions are given for mobilization in the case of cavalry or infantry reserve units.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend means
by "seniority," I suppose, which unit has been formed the longest, having regard to the history of the unit. I cannot say that seniority is follov'ed absolutely, but I can assure my hon. friend that it is taken into consideration. This is a wide-open invitation, but if any hon. member feels that there is any unit which, because of its military efficiency, he wants to bring to my attention as desirable to be raised as a unit, as a whole, I shall be very glad to see him, talk the matter over with him and put it before the officers. The ground on which units are picked is, I really believe, that of efficiency. I am certain that there has never been a single case which has come to my attention of a unit having been selected on any other ground than that the officers concerned believed it was the unit which could most efficiently and properly serve the purpose which was suggested for it. If there is any case where two units have an equal chance, and my hon. friends bring the matter to my attention, I will see that the officers consider the matter.
I was saying that there is the army programme for 1941 as we see it. An army programme these days has to be taken, as my colleague the Minister of Finance has said, on an "if, as and when" basis, because, sitting here to-night, we have no idea what is ahead of us in the next year. We are trying to plan so that any reasonable exigency can be met. We have had to make plans in the light of the best information we could get, and to get that information we have gone where we believed the information was most likely to be correct. We have made the plan. We are trying to lay the foundations solidly. The responsibilities are very great in their extent having regard to man-power, materials and money. I came home feeling that there was need for these units and therefore recommended them to my colleagues, and they have accepted the recommendation. So much for the overseas programme. In addition, we have, outside Canada, our troops in Iceland. Newfoundland and the Caribbean.
In Canada, as indicated, there are about
102,000	on the reserve, apart from recruits under the National Resources Mobilization Act. In addition to that, we have in Canada at the moment something over 100,000 in the active service force. As hon. members will see, there will be some change in that figure
War Appropriation Bill

when the formations to which I have referred go overseas; but we have a very heavy army programme. In that connection we have had to build establishments to provide for the housing since April, 1940,, less than a year ago, of nearly 100,000 men altogether. We have provided for the officer training centres of which I have spoken. We have provided for additional coast defence construction, and there is more now under way. We have provided over 2,000 beds in all in various hospitals. We have provided and are providing at the present time for the housing and maintenance of motor transport vehicles. There are twenty-two storage buildings which will house about 2,000 vehicles. We have in immediate prospect additional magazines, additional coast defence work and additional batteries, and we are also providing an army training school at Hamilton. I have given a very general indication of our programme.
My last word will be to my hon. friend who spoke before I did. This year we have not only a programme in the way of materials and money, but a programme which requires that we keep up the morale both of the men in the army and of Canadians at large. I really do not know of anything that is more important in this war than morale. Regardless of what may pass across this floor, I do hope, I wish to believe, that we are all one in the endeavour to see to it that the men who are in uniform are encouraged and heartened and that they have explained to them why this war is so different from the last. It should be explained to the people of the country why we have not the glamour, the music, the flags and all the things which were so common then.
We are having the regulation of man-power, the regulation of money, the regulation of materials, the regulation even of food, the regulation of everything in these days in an endeavour to make the fight tell and to achieve victory. It means that it is quite different from going ahead and spending and saying, "Let the morrow take care of itself." We are tiying to emerge successfully from the war without having our economy completely shattered.
It is a hard thing to do. It is hard for the people of the country, hard for the men in the ranks and for the officers themselves to keep going, without the excitement of actual warfare, which always, though it brings its injuries, its wounds and its deaths, has at the same time some excitement about it. I for one have felt that it was almost harder, in the absence of activity, to keep the armed

forces in the Shape in which they should be than if casualties, a great many of them, were taking place.
There is that difficulty, and I do ask members of this house and the public generally to help to look after the men in our armed forces and to see that they understand the situation.
We try to see that personal visits are paid to camps and, that everything possible is done to show that we have an interest in our soldiers. I wish to pay a special tribute to the auxiliary services-who by the way are putting on a campaign in a week or two-comprising the Young Men's Christian Association, the Knights of Columbus, the Salvation Army and the Canadian Legion, who are doing magnificent work all through the camps in Canada, in order to keep up the morale of the men, and doing the same thing as well under bombing conditions in England. I believe that job of helping to keep up the morale, both of the soldier and of the civilian, at this time, is about as great and important a task as men could undertake, and it is being done well.
There is the general outline for the army. As regards the overseas forces, I have indicated what is being done. In this country men are training constantly to furnish re-enforcements-and one would not believe what a large number of reenforcements we have to furnish even when conditions are comparatively static. If the time comes when there is so-called glamour, when there is the activity of warfare, demands upon the country for reenforcements will certainly try us to the utmost.
As regards this matter of morale, nothing could be finer than the example which I saw overseas of the men and women and children of the islands of Great Britain. It has almost become trite, but it can never be trite, to comment upon the way in which these people, day after day, stand up and take it-the nonchalance, almost, with which they go about their daily work in the face of constant danger; the way in which they set about repairing damage which is done, just as if it were an every day occurrence; the way in which they show their determination, not only by their indifference but by their active preparations for what they believe is coming, namely, invasion. All this is something which would inspire any man or woman and is a great challenge to us all.
We have a lot to be thankful for in this country, and very little to grouse about after all; and I do feel that the best way for us to get hold of the situation, the best way for us to cultivate the spirit and the morale which is necessary to win the war, is to look

War Appropriation Bill
across the seas to those people in. Great Britain and to think of what they are undergoing every day and night, yet remaining indomitable and doughty under the leadership of that valiant man, Mr. Churchill, whom I had the pleasure of meeting on a number of occasions-their faces towards the sun, their chins in the air. Nothing finer could be said to show their unconquerable spirit than that characteristic expression of theirs, "We can take it."
I think we can take it in this country if it comes to bearing the grimness and drabness of the absence of active warfare. I think we can take it in this country if it comes to paying taxes. There is no question about the people of this country being prepared to do anything they are asked so long as it will help to win the war. It has been a great heartener to me to find how the programme which has been announced has been accepted by the Canadian people, even though they know it is a very heavy one.
So, Mr. Chairman, with that very brief review I invite hon. members to ask any
questions they desire and I will endeavour to answer them or to get the information if I do not have it here.
Before I resume my seat, perhaps it would be useful to the committee if I endeavour to break down to some extent the figure of $666,574,659 which my colleague the Minister of Finance gave the committee for the army programme. This has been done in consultation with the general staff. There may be one or two instances in which I could give a further breakdown; if I cannot, it is because I am advised by the general staff that they think it unwise. As a matter of fact, I know men on my own staff who can figure from the amount of money for a certain formation when that particular formation is going overseas, knowing what is allowed for wastage, having regard to the number of months training here and the general costs. Therefore there has been a combination of functions, and I trust the committee will accept that. The figures are as follows:
Estimated Expenditures of Canadian Army by Functional Groups (Fiscal Year 1941-42)
Definition	3
Canadian formations and functions, presently overseas, including increments to same	
Canadian formations and functions to be sent overseas during the fiscal year 1941-42	
Coast defence, guards for vulnerable points, and other active functions in Canada of an oper
ational nature	
National Defence Headquarters and district services, and miscellaneous active army units in Canada.
Training and reinforcement functions in Canada active army and National Resources Mobili
zation Act	
Reserve army, C.O.T.Cs. and reserve units of
Veteran Guard of Canada	
Civilian personnel	
Contingencies, items not covered in other functions.
Revotes of funds already committed	
Training equipment not provided elsewhere	
Non-recurring	Recurring	Total costs 1941-42$ 6,382,382	$246,725,792	$253,108,17472,607,777 t	107,581,658	180,189,4354.351,785	63,941,763	68,293,548! 2,365,200	26,919,270	29,284,4705,322,496	50,316,874	55,639,3709,716,645 8,150,000 35,997.699 170,000	9,470,318 2.330.000 3.320.000 10,750,000 155,000	19,186,963 2.330,000 11.470,000 46,747,699 325,000, $145,063,984	$521,510,675	$666,574,659


Richard Burpee Hanson: When, the minister uses the term "recurring", is that analogous in a measure to capital expenditures?


James Layton Ralston: No, it is the other way about; the "non-recurring" would be capital. "Recurring" would be pay and allowances and maintenance and things like that.
That, Mr. Chairman, is the part of the total of $1,300,000,000 which it is suggested may be needed for the army services during this year. As I have said before, and as my colleague the Minister of Finance has repeated, it is made up on the basis of an estimate; it is the
best we can do; all sorts of things may happen between now and next year to change it, but I have endeavoured to give an outline of what we have planned for this year provided eventualities which we cannot foresee do not take place overseas.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is an illuminating and informative statement, and I thank the minister for the information he has given. To make it complete, I would ask his colleague the Minister of National War Services to give us, if he can at this time, the position with respect to university students.
War Appropriation Bill


Mr. GARDINER:: The regulations having to do with the calling up of the men for training are, as I said the other day, in course of preparation. I went over them for the last time this afternoon, and I hope they will be in the house very shortly.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They are not ready to-night?


James Garfield Gardiner: They are not ready to-night, but, generally speaking, the position in relation to university students, as I remember the regulations, is to this effect, that university students will be admitted to the universities for courses that are being prepared by the authorities in cooperation with the Department of National Defence, and will be given approximately 110 hours training during each term of their university course. The students will be required to take two weeks training during the summer months. That period will be considered as equal to one month of training; in other words, if a man is at the university for three years he w'ould get three months training while in the university and would be required to take another month outside the university to make up his four months.
That would be for the type of student who will probably stay at the universities throughout a considerable period of the war for the purpose of finishing courses considered necessary in connection with war activities. Other students will, of course, make the choice whether they will take their four months training in the summer months; some will prefer to do that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They will have the right to choose?


James Garfield Gardiner: They will have the right to go to camp provided they can be called at that time as part of the age group. Some will perhaps be over-age and would not be called in any case, but will continue to take their university training.	The universities are
putting on compulsory training in connection with the courses just as at the time of the thirty-day training.
I think in general terms those are the provisions, but the regulations will be brought down in a few days.


Mr. MACDONALD (Kingston City):: This afternoon there was some discussion in the committee as to titles and decorations in the services. I think some hon. members expressed the view that many people felt that * Canadians in the Canadian fighting services were not as happily situated with regard to the receipt of decorations for gallantry as their comrades from Australia, New Zealand and Great Britain herself.
fMr. R. B. Hanson.]
I should like to read to the committee a dispatch that has jhst come in, for which I am indebted to the Canadian Press. This serves to illustrate the point which I think the Prime Minister endeavoured to make. The dispatch states:
Lieutenant Commander Herbert Sharpies Rayner, Canada's youngest commanding officer of a destroyer, who has spent nearly half his thirty years at sea, was awarded the distinguished service cross to-night for "courage and enterprise in action against enemy submarines."
Commander Rayner was one of six Canadian naval heroes honoured in the latest list of awards published in the London Gazette.
The distinguished service cross was also awarded to Lieutenant Robert Philip Welland, Royal Canadian Navy, for the part he has played in attacks on nazi submarines.
The other Canadians honoured received the distinguished service medal: Stoker G. Beaman, R.C.N.V.R., for courageous conduct on H.M.S. Jervis Bay in her gallant losing battle against a convoy raider; Petty Officer Samuel Archibald Ridge, Able-Seaman Edgar Rene George. Able-Seaman George Fowler Bowditch, R.C.N.
These last three were decorated for antisubmarine work.
I read this dispatch because I am sure hon. members wall be delighted to have the news and also because it illustrates that in the matter of awards for gallantry in the face of the enemy there is no distinction between one part of the empire and another.


James Layton Ralston: If I might, I should like to join with the minister in congratulating all these young Canadians who have received these awards. I was particularly happy to hear of the award to Lieutenant Commander Rayner, who, I think, was the last naval officer I saw before embarking for home. I saw him, as they say, at a northern port, and had a delightful experience with him. He was one of those who told me some of the experiences to which I referred in the house this afternoon. I am sure he is a most gallant officer.	.
The hon. member for Rosedale asked for information with regard to the Canadian officer training corps, and I have been given some information with respect to at least one part of his question. He was really asking. I think, how the cadet in the officer training corps got that training, while this information has to do with what is accepted as training in the ranks, but it all goes to the question of the qualification of a cadet in the officer training corps. A Canadian officer training corps cadet serves in the ranks of his O.T.C. unit usually for not less than six months before being permitted to qualify for a commission, through examination, which includes from two to six weeks at the eastern or western officer training centre. What is

War Appropriation Bill
being said here will apply when these officer training centres are established. This also qualifies him for taking a commission in the active army provided he has taken the full six weeks' course, or equivalent, at the officer training centre. Those already holding certificates of qualification for officer rank may be exempted from the above conditions. Perhaps this last sentence will answer my hon. friend's question.


Grote Stirling: May I make a brief
reference to what was just said by the Minister of National Defence for Naval Affairs. It is extremely gratifying to us all, of course, that his majesty has been pleased to decorate the officers and men to whom the minister has referred, but the point I was endeavouring to make this afternoon has not been met by the statement of the Prime Minister or that just made by the naval minister, in that these awards were made to those who had exhibited bravery in the face of the enemy. This afternoon I drew attention to the fact that the personnel of Royal Air Force and Polish squadrons did receive recognition for work done, not in the face of the enemy but in the preparation of the machines that have to go out and meet the enemy. Is there any difference between the methods adopted in Great Britain and those adopted in Canada and the other dominions in that regard?


Charles Gavan Power: If my hon. friend will permit me, after looking through my files I think perhaps I can give him some kind of reply, although I do not want to take up the time of the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol).


Mr. MacNICOL:: That is all right.


Charles Gavan Power: Perhaps I am the only man in the house at the moment who was present during the debate in 1919, when the whole question of honours, awards, titles of chivalry, knighthoods and so on was thoroughly canvassed in this house. The matter was brought before the House of Commons by Mr. W. F. Nickle of Kingston, who was supported strongly by the then Liberal-Unionist member for Springfield, Mr. Richardson. That matter was referred to a committee, and I have before me its report, including the recommendation to the house that there should no longer be any awards carrying with them titular distinction. Another specific recommendation, which as I recall it was adopted, was this:
Your committee are of the opinion and recommend that an address be presented to His Most Excellent Majesty the King, in the following words-
I do not want to read it all.
-to refrain hereafter from conferring any title of honour or titular distinction upon any
of your subjects domiciled or ordinarily resident in Canada, save such appellations as are of a professional or vocational character or which appertain to an office.
The committee also recommended that appropriate action be taken by legislation. The suggestion also was made that the titles "right honourable" and "honourable" be discontinued, but that suggestion did not meet with the approval of the House of Commons.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That was put on record this afternoon.


Charles Gavan Power: The report goes on:
Your committee, however, do not recommend the discontinuance of the practice of awarding military or naval decorations, such as the Victoria Cross-
And so on. This practice was followed up to 1934, when the government of Right Hon. Mr. Bennett declared that the resolution of the House of Commons was not binding. On April 9, 1940, order in council P.C. 1430 was passed, respecting awards to members of the armed forces of Canada. The order in council states:
1. The question of awards and decorations, medals and commendations, to Canadians, in respect of war services, was raised in certain communications from the high commissioner for the United Kingdom in Canada. . . .
Immediate action needs to be taken to extend the instruction dated the 22nd December, 1939, with respect to Canadians serving as members of United Kingdom forces so as to include all awards of decorations, medals and commendations, including those which are made while not in contact with the enemy. . . .


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is
Canadians with the Royal Air Force.


Mr. POWER:: 4.	Immediate action is necessary to make provision for awards to members of Canadian forces temporarily attached to United Kingdom forces.
Those are two categories.
5.	It is expedient that provision should be made for dealing with the general position of members of Canadian armed forces, including attached personnel, along the general lines set forth in the report of the committee, to which reference has been made.
The Minister of National Defence at that time, the late Mr. Rogers, therefore recommended :
(1) That the government of the United Kingdom be informed that, in the case of Canadians who are members of the United Kingdom armed forces and not, at the same time, members of the Canadian forces-
They would be covered.
-and, in the case of individual members of Canadian forces, temporarily attached to United Kingdom forces-
War Appropriation Bill

(2) That in the case of members of Canadian armed forces, including personnel of other forces attached thereto, a submission should be made through appropriate channels-
That is, for awards.
(a) All awards of medals and decorations are to be made by, or in the name of, the king.
Then we go on:
(a) C.A.S.F. (including attached personnel) serving in France and acting in combination with United Kingdom forces-
They get immediate awards upon recommendation of the commander, and also periodical and operational awards. In the case of the R.C.A.F., including attached personnel, serving in France and acting with the R.A.F., the same procedure is followed.
(c)	C.A.S.F. (including attached personnel) serving in United Kingdom, but not acting in combination with the United Kingdom forces. In the case of both immediate awards and periodical and operational awards, recommendation would be transmitted by the officer commanding the Canadian troops in the United Kingdom through Canada House to the Minister of National Defence for decision by council.
(d)	R.C.A.F. (including attached personnel) serving in the United Kingdom, but not acting in combination with the R.A.F. . . .
(e)	C.A.S.F. and R.C.A.F. (including attached personnel) serving in the United Kingdom and acting in combination with the United Kingdom forces. . . .
(f)	Canadian Active Militia and R.C.A.F. (including attached personnel) serving in Canada.
Therefore almost every category, so far as I have been able to judge by a rapid examination of this order in council, is covered to a certain extent.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: But there was a limitation.


Charles Gavan Power: Yes; certainly there is a limitation. There is a limitation on orders carrying titular distinction.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Under the term "awards for valour" it would seem that they have to be referred to Canada.


Charles Gavan Power: Yes. The difficulty appears to be-and I believe it can be readily clarified'-in finding the proper channel, whether on the other side or here, through which these recommendations would be made. So far as I am aware, however, there is not at the present time anything to prevent a person serving in Canada, who performed a meritorious service, from obtaining, for instance, the George Cross for gallantry. Where I think possibly there is a difference-and I am not quite clear in the matter, and would not like to make a definite statement, is in respect of awards for meritorious service not in the face of the enemy, which awards might carry with them one of the lower titles, or a title to a

lower order of chivalry. Possibly I might describe it as a lower grade title in one of the orders of chivalry.


Grote Stirling: Such as O.B.E.?


Mr. POWRR:: I imagine an O.B.E. could be granted in Canada.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I do not wish to interrupt, but in view of the fact that these awards are made by his majesty, how would someone earning a meritorious award in Canada get that award from his majesty, unless there was some means of communication or recommendation from Canada?


Charles Gavan Power: I think that means of communication exists, although possibly we have not gone through the procedure.


Richard Burpee Hanson: We have not exercised it.


Charles Gavan Power: I have no doubt at all that if it were decided by a commanding officer or a general officer commanding or a chief of staff that someone should be recommended for recognition for gallantry in Canada, some deed which normally at this time on the other side of the ocean would bring the George Cross, that recommendation would come through the usual channels to the minister, then to council, and then from council through External Affairs to the proper authorities on the other side.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It would be only a matter of procedure.


Charles Gavan Power: Yes; to my mind it is only a matter of procedure.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Why could Canada not establish her own orders?


Charles Gavan Power: I am glad my hon. friend has brought that up. I thought the information in connection with that point might be of interest to the committee. I had to look it up on one occasion, and I came across information which I believed would be of interest at this time. Away back in 1866 Viscount Monck in a dispatch to Lord Carnarvon, discussing the state of loyalty or otherwise of the provinces, suggested that it might be a good thing to found a Canadian order of chivalry. I should like to quote:
The want of the material in a new country for creating an hereditary aristocracy is one of the great difficulties in the way of applying the institutions of the British constitution to our colonies, and yet, without this or some substitute for it, we are in fact training up the minds of our colonists not to the ideas of monarchy but of republicanisms.
Then he goes on to discuss the whole matter, and concludes:
The plan which I would suggest for your lordship's consideration to meet the want to which I have referred would be the institution

War Appropriation Bill
of an order of knighthood for British North America on the model of the Order of the Star of India, to be called "the Order of St. Lawrence."
This matter was still further discussed no longer ago than during the course of the last war. Some of my hon. friends will recollect that there was in England a sub-militia council set up under the jurisdiction of the minister of militia of that day, Sir Sam Hughes. The members of that council were:
Major-General J. W. Carson,
Major-General J. C. MacDougall, C.M.G.,
Brigadier-General F. S. Meighen,
Colonel George P. Murphy,
Colonel Frank A. Reid,
Lieutenant-Colonel James G. Ross,
Major G. D. Oulster, Secretary.
Colonel McRae appears to have been a member of it at one time, also.
We also find here a minute from the meeting of the acting sub-militia council for overseas Canadians, held at Cleveland House, St. James square, London, on September 8, 1916. It reads:
Correspondence in connection with creating a Canadian order along the lines of the Order of the Star of India was brought up and discussed at the meeting, and it was moved by General Carson and seconded by General MacDougall that General Carson should write the Hon. the Minister of Militia and Defence, Canada, stating that the sub-militia council would recommend that he, the hon. the Minister of Militia and Defence, consider the question of creating a Canadian order after the style of "The Star of India" and with just as strict regulations and rules. This order to be known as "The Order of the Beaver and Maple Leaf" or, "The Star of Canada."
Therefore I am glad my hon. friend gave me an opportunity to put on Hansard what has happened before with respect to the desirability of establishing in Canada an order of chivalry. I have not any doubt whatsoever but that means will be found to reward gallantly while in the face of the enemy, or in the course of active duty. With regard to the matter as to whether or not Canada should recommend to his majesty that we have orders of chivalry, I must say that I believe that this is a matter of higher policy to be settled probably in this house.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I, too, wish to congratulate the Minister of National Defence on the comprehensive report he has given to-night. I am sure all hon. members will read it with a great deal of interest, and perhaps after reading it they will be in a position to ask for further information, which I am sure the minister will give.
I was also pleased to hear the remarks of the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services, and the Minister of National Defence for Air.
An article which appeared in the newspapers to-day relating to shipping prompts me to attempt to take the debate back to the discussion of a subject which was discussed at great length yesterday, namely, the subject of shipping. The article to which I refer stated that some twenty-nine ships, approximately 150,000 tons, had been sunk during the last week. To give an idea to hon. members of just what a colossal loss that is-and perhaps it is not greater than the loss we may suffer in the future-I would point out that in Canada to-day we are producing daily about 1,500 net tons of pig-iron, all in Ontario. A loss in one week of 150,000 tons is equivalent to the pig-iron that could be produced in this country in one hundred days. This gives us an idea of the menace we must provide against in these shipping losses.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is a compelling
illustration.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I think it should take
us all back to the subject before the committee, that is, what we can do to prosecute this war and to maintain the empire. Our shipping is of vital importance. The question is what we can do in the way of building ships in Canada. Yesterday we heard a number of good speeches on shipbuilding, one by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green), one by the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare (Mr. Pottier), one by my leader (Mr. Hanson) and one by my desk-mate, the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks).
I am not competent to speak upon the matter raised by the hon. member for Shel-bume-Yarmouth-Clare. He referred to ships built partly of steel and partly of wood, and he states it is practicable to build this type of ship. If that is the case, then here is one way whereby ships can be built in large numbers on both our east and west coasts. There timber is available. My leader referred to a rolling mill in Nova Scotia which is not now in use. I assume this is due to the fact that all the steel production is under contract to the British government and is being shipped there just as rapidly as it is produced.
I do not know whether the Nova Scotia Steel company is able to obtain all the iron ore they require from Bell island, Newfoundland. I have been at Bell island and have seen how they take out iron ore from under the sea. They have good equipment for loading and are able to turn out many thousands of tons. If there is not sufficient iron ore available from this point, there are said to be ample supplies in the Hamilton river district in the Labrador. These are some of the best
War Appropriation Bill

deposits to be found in the world but they are still undeveloped. If the war continues for years, as it may, it may be found necessary to reopen the plate mill in Nova Scotia. If there is not sufficient ore available from Bell island, I would advise the government to consider obtaining supplies from the Hamilton river deposits.
Something has been said about building ships on both east and west coasts and numerous references have been made to Ontario. I see no reason for conflict between the east and the west and Ontario. We are nine provinces all united to do our best for Canada, and through Canada for the empire. It is quite true that steel plate is rolled only in Ontario, in one mill in the city of Hamilton. That mill has two large rolls and it is able to turn out steel in large quantities. I take pride-perhaps I should not-in the fact that in 1930 or 1931 I advocated in this bouse a duty on steel above 40 inches. This was to encourage the Hamilton mill to roll steel up to 78 inches. I believe the government of the day did protect steel up to 66 inches, and the Hamilton mill itself undertook bo roll up to 78 inches. Later on, I believe they considered rolling up bo 120 inches.
I am sure the fact that this steel is rolled in Hamilton has been of great help in our shipbuilding programme. There will soon be another mill opened in Hamilton, I believe in May. This mill will roll 40 inch plate, but this is the material used in constructing the smaller steel ships such as corvettes and so on. The minister has announced that some eighteen or twenty cargo ships are to be built in Canada, and then we have the statement in the press to-day that twenty-nine cargo ships were sunk in a week. I am convinced that this government should undertake to build, not eighteen cargo ships but 100 or 200. If the war lasts, as it apparently will, it will be imperative that we have ships. So far, the shipyards in England have not been destroyed. Most of them are located on the Clyde, Humber and Tyne, in the south of Scotland and the north of England. Perhaps it has been difficult for planes to fly that far with a heavy enough load, but it will be a sad day when they are able to do so and perhaps destroy these shipbuilding yards. Therefore it is all the more imperative that Canada should get into the shipbuilding business of both coasts. There are shipyards at Vancouver. Much of the steel used in these yards is shipped from Chicago, the plate rolled in Ontario being used there, too, and elsewhere. When the new Hamilton mill is in operation, I assume that a lot of plate produced there will be shipped to Vancouver.
IMr. MacNicol.]


Howard Charles Green: There are yards at Victoria as well.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I should have said
British Columbia, because there are shipbuilding facilities at New Westminster and Burrard. The government should consider what has been said by hon. members for Nova Scotia and New Brunswick as well as by the hon. member for Vancouver South. Efforts should be made to build ocean cargo ships in both the east and the west. I might be asked, "Why not Ontario?" I do not believe that ocean cargo ships can be built economically in Ontario, and I have never advocated anything which was not economically sound. During the great war I understand a number of cargo ships were built in the vicinity of Detroit, then taken apart, shipped overland and reassembled, I believe in Florida. That would not be economical. If the government is planning to build cargo ships, they should be built in the east and the west. These ships can be built there and these provinces should be given something. I am not at all in accord with the idea of concentrating everything in one part of Canada.
I think the Ontario industrialist deserves unstinted praise for what he has done in this war by way of providing plants to build the equipment required in these ships as well as to produce other war munitions. Engines for ships are being built mainly in Montreal. At the present time the government is building three types of ships for war purposes, and it is now contemplating constructing ocean cargo boats. I repeat that these ocean cargo boats should be built on the Atlantic coast and on the Pacific coast. At least part of the steel will be rolled in Ontario and a lot of the other equipment can be provided by that province. In Ontario, as well as in other parts of Canada, the government is building fast power boats to provide protection against submarines and for other purposes. Quite a number of these will be built in the towns of Muskoka. Some will be built, I believe, on the western coast, at Prince Rupert and other centres, and perhaps some on the eastern coast. These are power boats, I understand, about 110 to 115 feet long.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There is some development at Owen Sound, is there not?


John Ritchie MacNicol: These power boats go very fast. Then, in Ontario we are building corvettes and mine-sweepers. I have made a careful investigation in connection with minesweepers. Although the Minister of Munitions and Supply is not in his seat-he is working about twenty-four hours a day, doing several men's jobs, and we cannot expect him

War Appropriation Bill
to be here every minute-no doubt he will read what I am going to say and will, I believe, appreciate that for the building of mine-sweepers, steel is rolled about 54 and 56 inches wide, but upon arrival at the minesweeper plant it has to be sheared to 51 inches. I would suggest that if it is necessary that the government ship mine-sweeper steel, which is for the sides of the ships, east and west, it be sheared to the right length and width right in Ontario, because the extra freight is a big item to-day, and every possible dollar should be saved in construction and equipment. This is an all-out war. Not only will it take all our man-power, but it will take all our money besides.
I am glad to see that the Minister of Munitions and Supply is coming into the chamber. I have said, that I had not expected him to be here because he is doing so many men's jdbs, and he cannot be here all the time, but I am pleased that he has come in to hear something which I have been thinking. Even in the building of cargo ships, but more particularly in the building of corvettes and mine-sweepers, if the plates were shaped and drilled according to templets instead of one at a time, if the government would say to a particular producer of ships, "we want you to erect fifty corvettes and fifty minesweepers'. that would mean that in each case a large number of plates for the sides of these ships could be produced much more rapidly than is possible with only small contracts. I know, because I was for years in the boiler business, manufacturing boilers using steel of large dimensions, and in my time the individual plates for six boilers would be punched and drilled at the same time, very rapidly, and another six put on the same machines and so drilled. Perhaps 200 holes for rivets, more or less depending on the size of the plate, were made in this manner.
What I have seen of present production is not being carried on in that way, and I thought that in the reshaping of the minister's programme, as will probably be done when it is realized that the war will last for years, the minister should say to some one of these builders, "here is an order for fifty corvettes," or, "here is an order for fifty mine-sweepers," so that the producers could make them for less money than would be possible if they had just a few orders; they could so organize their production as to manufacture plate for the sides in multiple production. It could be done.
In like manner if, instead of a long time being taken to bend and shape the plate around, they could make the templets and the dies to produce the plate also bent in shape, as is desirable for multiple and rapid construction, considerable economies could be effected, but we could not expect them to do that if their plant received an order for not more than four or five ships; it would cost too much to make the necessary templets and dies. I have confidence in the minister to this extent, that if and when he decides to build ships in large numbers he, understanding thoroughly the production of these appliances, might induce the companies to manufacture under conditions of multiple production, as was done in the last war. In the United States ships were turned out almost as rapidly as sardine cans. All plates for particular parts of ships were made at the same time for scores and scores of vessels; and we shall have to get into that system too. That would apply to corvettes and mine-sweepers, and to other equipment.
I have heard some people condemn our shipbuilding programme as being behind schedule. I have heard the Minister of Munitions and Supply and the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services say that it is ahead of schedule. I doubt if it is, but I am not going to blame either minister on that account, because everybody who studies these things knows that after the battle of the Mediterranean it was necessary to make considerable changes in the designs of ship fittings.
The dropping of bombs by the German Stuka dive bombers alongside the ships rocked the Illustrious as though it were a cork in the water, and the effects were discovered when it reached Malta. It was learned on examination of the Illustrious, and by the effects of bombing on the cruiser which was sunk by the British themselves, what would have to be done in future interior construction. I will not elaborate on the effects of the bombs which had dropped all round the ship as well as on top of it; but after these ships had been shaken as the Illustrious was shaken by these tremendous bombs, engineers made a careful survey and found it necessary to recommend some changes in interior construction. I am not going to ask the minister to say that such changes have been carried out here, but if there has been any delay in the production of corvettes-I know that some have been launched-or of mine-sweepers, perhaps that is one of the reasons. Such a reason would carry weight with me. I am not going to condemn the minister if production has been retarded because so many things have entered into the construction of ships for the sea since the war broke out, and since engineers have surveyed what has happened to some of the boats which have been exposed to enemy action, changes have had to be made. I am sure I am right in that regard.

War Appropriation Bill

But, changes having been made, production should proceed rapidly. I have not any doubt that in due course, with yards organized east and west, as well as in Ontario, production will increase. In any event, this house, I am sure, will support the government, because party politics is not worth a fig in war time. It is an all-out war; we here are all Canadians and all British to assist in fighting this war; and if 100 million dollars are required to equip the yards and the mills. I for one, and I am sure everyone else, would be glad to vote whatever is required, because if we win the war	we	save	all, and if we lose	thewar we lose	all.	We	might better lose a	lot
in winning the war.
I think that is about all I have to say, except for one thing of which I have spoken before; I should like to say a word about it to the minister again. Adjacent to Windsor there is a big plant. It has its blast furnaces; there is a railway from the river to the plant, and there is	a	canal	alongside built by	thecompany up	to	the steel plant. It is a huge
plant; I have been in it and so have others. But it is now being used for a purpose for which it was not built; it is being used in part for small affairs connected, I believe, with machine guns of one kind or another. It is essentially a steel plant and a shipbuilding plant. I am not able to say who owns it, but I believe it is the Walkerville company-


Paul Joseph James Martin: No; it is owned by
Dominion Steel. The hon. member is referring to the Ojibway plant?


John Ritchie MacNicol: Yes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is an excellent plant.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Yes, a huge plant with a great deal of good machinery in it which should not be used for the purpose for which it is now being used. It has its own blast furnaces. They may need repairing, because I do not know whether they are up-to-date blast furnaces. Changes are necessary from time to time. But I cannot see why that plant is not in operation for the purpose for which it was erected.
I hate to throw any further load upon the shoulders of the minister. He is already burdened with machine guns, aeroplanes and everything else; he is carrying a terrific, tremendous load, and I wish to help him instead of adding still further to his burden. I desire, however, to impress upon him the importance of building ships. I do not want to say it is the one vital problem before us, but we simply must get troops to England; we must transport vast supplies of war munitions-and as a matter of fact we are shipping trainloads of materials now. On Sunday I saw a trainload of shell lathes which

would turn out nine-inch shells in either four or eight minutes. I believe the time is four minutes. A fourteen-year-old girl can. turn out a nine-inch shell in that space of time on these new, high-powered, high-speed shell lathes, which had so much to do with saving England. Shell lathes are made in Toronto and elsewhere, but the one I have in mind was made in Toronto. I said a trainload; I believe there were ten cars of these great machines ready for export, and it is essential that they should reach England. It is essential that our guns and everything else, our pork, our wheat, our farm products, should reach England; and they must go in ships. In my judgment, therefore, the minister will find shortly that the whole shipbuilding programme will have to be revamped with the objective of perhaps making it one hundred times bigger than it is to-day. Yards for building ocean cargo ships at Saint John, Halifax, Sydney and anywhere else where plants of that kind can be erected-someone says Miramichi, but I presume any ships built there would have to be wooden ships- Vancouver, Burrard, Victoria and elsewhere, will be necessary to develop the plan. It is a big programme.
I want to do what I can to assist the minister, because we must win the war. All this material is urgently required, considering the rate of losses, twenty-nine ships last week. How long can we stand it? We could equip the country to build twenty-nine ships a month. They did in the United States in the last war, and perhaps we could do it now if we all got together and built the necessary plants.
I am sorry for the Minister of Finance, who has to endeavour to raise so much money, but Canadians will support him in raising whatever is demanded. There are no more loyal British subjects in the world than Canadians. They are all-out in this war and will go the limit; and, as far as I am concerned, I would sooner give all I have, whatever little it may be, for the honour of my country, and die if need be, than lose the war.


Mr. HOWE:: It is always a delight for me to hear my hon. friend the member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) discuss matters of this kind. He is a well informed and practical man and he adopts a kindly tone. Unfortunately, I did not hear his opening remarks. I can hardly credit it, but someone told me that he made a slight slip when he compared tons of steel with tons of ships.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Oh, no, I did not say that. I said that we are at present producing in Canada approximately 1,500 tons of pig-iron a day, produced by the Algoma plant,

War Appropriation Bill
the Helen mountain mines, and I pointed out that there are being sunk on the ocean ships representing a displacement of 150,000 tons a week, not a day. The article this morning said about 148,000 tons, but I said 150,000 had been sunk during the past week, so as to give round figures. With regard to building ships to take the place of those that are sunk, assuming that the ships themselves aggregated
150,000	tons, it would take one hundred days to produce the iron for the purpose.


Clarence Decatur Howe: A deadweight ton, of course, does not take a ton of steel, but much less, depending upon the size of the boat. I just wanted to call attention to that fact, because 1 found my hon. friends equating tons of steel with tons of ships, and I am sure my hon. friend did not mean to imply that that would be done. He must, however, realize the position of the Department of Munitions and Supply when he speaks of an unlimited number of corvettes. We build to fill orders, and in the matter of corvettes, of course, I suppose the number of crews that can be furnished is the determining factor. We cannot go full-out on an unlimited number of corvettes unless either our navy or the British navy indicate that they require them. What we are going full-out on is the matter of cargo ships. They are a different story, and we can go full-out there and in the meantime fill all orders, having substantial orders for corvettes and mine-sweepers.
Our policy there is to plan a long-range programme for corvettes and mine-sweepers for the lakes, for the reason that we cannot get a cargo ship out of the lakes, and therefore these shipyards are not available as far as the larger boats go. We are, however, directing our efforts more and more to get a large boat programme for the lower St. Lawrence and coast yards. We intend to press that as far as we can. The difficulty then becomes a matter of man-power. It is not difficult to organize a shipyard. The capital cost is not large in comparison with output, but the matter of getting a skilled crew to man the shipyard is extremely difficult, and we were warned in England not to undertake that if it meant stripping other yards to get personnel, which is what it would mean in Canada to-day.
We are approaching cautiously, studying the problem to see how far the structural steel companies can assist us, and I can say that we are advancing in that just as rapidly as prudence will permit.
As far as the Ojibway plant of the Dosco company is concerned, that has been studied carefully. The blast furnaces are old. They have been out of use for about twenty years, 14873-92}
and it was found that we would be better off if the furnaces were not there. They would have to be completely rebuilt. The capital cost is very high and the time involved is an important factor. The best estimate we have had on time is about two years.
It is a question how far we should go in extending the steel capacity of Canada. We had at the beginning of the war a theoretical capacity of about 2,200,000 tons of steel per annum. We have expanded that by 500,000 tons. Whether we should go further than that, I think is a matter that deserves careful study. We normally import in good times about one million tons of steel from outside Canada. From a study of the situation it would appear that for our present programme of war requirements we shall not require to import more than a million tons of steel a year in addition to our capacity. That may vary from time to time, but that is the present forecast. To arrive at that figure we planned a curtailment of the domestic use of steel, and we have been enforcing that curtailment for the last six or eight months. I see no harm in curtailing the domestic use of steel; in fact, I think our programme will more and more tend towards curtailment of domestic use of all materials that go into munitions of war; that is a logical development in putting the country on an all-out war basis.
We have determined that we are protected for one million tons per annum of steel from outside Canada. How far we should go in disorganizing the normal economy of Canada by expanding the steel industry beyond the point we have reached is a matter that is receiving careful study. There is a good deal of sound opinion in the direction of not expanding further at the moment.
As I said, however, we are going all-out on ships. We are going to build as many ships as we can build by reasonably sound economic methods. We are studying mass production methods in use elsewhere. They were developed to a small extent late in the last war at Hog island, but it did not continue long enough to bring the mass production theory into practice. It is being attempted again in this war and we are watching the procedure carefully to see to what extent it can be adapted to Canadian use.
I make these few remarks to indicate to the hon. member for Davenport that we are proceeding along the lines he suggested.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I should like to ask the minister a question regarding costs. Unfortunately, I had to leave last evening before he finished his remarks. I gather that he said that the cost of construction of steel vessels in Canada is about double that in England. Is that substantially
War Appropriation Bill

correct? I had investigated that at one time, fwjhen we built the "Lady" boats for the West Indies service. The then Minister of Trade and Commerce, Mr. Malcolm, told me and I think he told the house that they gave consideration to the construction of those ships in Canada but found the cost would be about one-third more, and therefore they decided to have them built in England.


Clarence Decatur Howe: On a 10,000-ton boat, a type which, of course, has been built in England for some time, they have a standard practice, and I suppose they have written off the overhead for getting into that style of production. The price which our shipbuilders here require to produce the same ship is at the moment about double the price in England. We hope to get it down. I am sure the next lot of ships will be cheaper; that is the history of all production.


Ralph Maybank: I wish to direct the attention of the committee to something of a quite different nature. We have for some little time been dealing with moneys heretofore spent. I want to deal with a question which I think may be described as one of present waste, serious waste and extravagance. I refer to one of the government's companies. I do not desire to leave the committee in doubt for a moment, so I say that company is Allied War Supplies Corporation. I am starting a conversation which will perhaps be rather in the nature of question and answer.
I remind the committee that near Winnipeg there is just now being brought into being a very large cordite plant. The expenditure, as has been mentioned several times, is in the neighbourhood of $10,000,000. As I understand the situation, the contract for the building of that contract is let by Allied War Supplies Corporation, and then the plant is to be operated by another company which we call D.I.L., Defence Industries Limited. That company, I understand, is simply Canadian Industries Limited, organized for convenience under the name D.I.L. Convenience, I say, because they are doing quite a bit of contract work and it is easier to have all that work carried on by this separate company. I am not sure if I have that exactly correct, but I believe it is very close to it.
That large cordite plant will require a great deal of steam. To produce that steam will require a great deal of coal. When they invited tenders they let it be known that they would need about fifty thousand tons of coal a year. Apparently at that time they were considering all kinds of coal.
We have in western Canada a certain field known as the economic field in which lignite coal can be burned. Roughly speaking, I

believe it runs from Swift Current to Kenora. At any rate, whatever the area be, Winnipeg is certainly within it. No one would, I believe, suggest that Edmonton or Sudbury is. It is, as I understand it, a question of freight rates.
Allied War Supplies Corporation has had a number of prices submitted. It has apparently decided to take what it admits to be the more expensive kind of fuel rather than the less expensive kind. A variety of reasons have been given; I do not think any of their reasons are satisfactory, and they are not consistent one with another. I am not blaming the minister in this connection; I think most hon. members will agree that this way of handling government business is, generally speaking, pretty sound. At the present time, however, this organization is embarking upon a method of providing at that plant steam which will cost $100,000 or $200,000 more per annum than it should cost. There is no need to waste public money in that way. This organization is just as much a trustee of public moneys as is every member of this house, every member of the government and every other person engaged in our war effort. A very large part of the money to be provided under this legislation will be handled by this corporation, which I say is now embarking upon a wasteful plan of creating steam for that plant.
Perhaps I would not be quite so sure of this, were it not for the fact that they have given so many different explanations as to why they will not bum lignite coal. At one stage, for instance, they said the supply was not dependable. I talked with the engineer who made those recommendations. He boiled it down substantially to that one proposition, the dependability of supplies. Well, the one coal that they can get for about 75 cents a ton at the mine is only two hundred miles from Winnipeg, and there is rail connection by both railways. This engineer kept on talking about the dependability of supply, but he recognized and admitted that this coal could come in steadily, hour by hour and day by day. He tried to raise certain other objections against the use of lignite coal and then, after all that argument and after stating that he could not use lignite coal at all, he suggested the possibility of using 40 per cent of the cheaper coal. First, it was stated by this engineer and by other members of this corporation that they could not use this coal at all, that it was not a feasible proposition; but before very long they were saying they could use 40 per cent, and I understand that now they have increased that percentage substantially.
I might be willing to withdraw the first charge I made, that they were entering upon

War Appropriation Bill
this extravagance, if I could believe their statement that they are going to use a large percentage of lignite coal, but everything points to the fact that they are simply saying they are going to do this while they know full well the equipment they are putting in that plant will not permit them to do it. I charge that this organization, the creature of this parliament, is simply playing horse with the minister. These people are telling him they are going to do something which they really do not intend to do. I recall that this same organization undertook to install equipment in a large plant of the Winnipeg hydro for burning lignite coal. They have never burned an ounce of lignite from that day to this. They equipped our plant in Winnipeg for the burning of lignite coal, but they have never burned any of it, and they did that for the same purpose that I am protesting against now.
There has not been an important plant in that economic lignite area equipped in recent years to burn anything but lignite coal. No new equipment has gone into any plant except to burn this cheaper coal; but now in war time when taxes are heavy and are going to be still heavier, a creature of this government undertakes to do something in the more expensive rather than the less expensive way. I believe their plea now is that it is too late to change, that they have committed themselves. I do not think it is too late; I believe money can be saved if they will alter any decisions they have made heretofore. I should like to have on record any explanations there may be, and I want to serve notice that every undertaking given by this organization will be watched most carefully, not only every day of this year but every day they are out there. I do not believe they are going to do what they are promising. They are going to do what they originally intended to do; they are going to produce steam at a cost of $100,000 or 8200,000 greater than it should be. That is what they will do unless they are prevented.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Since D.I.L. and C.I.L. have been mentioned, perhaps I should explain the situation. I think the reason for the two companies will commend itself to the committee.
As hon. members know, firms engaged in the manufacture of explosives during the last war, such as du Pont, Hercules and perhaps Canadian Industries, were accused of profiteering. Those accusations became so numerous that they had quite an effect on the domestic business of these companies. Canadian Industries Limited, du Pont and the other companies which make explosives, also have very large peace-time businesses which, I
think, are conducted on excellent business lines and which, I believe, they have a right to segregate from their war work. Canadian Industries Limited wished to make their explosives experts available to the government's war effort, and wished to do a real war job; but at the same time they wished to keep their peace-time industry separate from that war work. As a result, they formed a separate company called Defence Industries Limited, which takes and executes all war contracts drawing on the technical skill of Canadian Industries Limited. In this way, all war profits are in the one company, Defence Industries Limited, where they are subject to taxation, to examination and to audit, and are entirely under the control of the government, while on the other hand C.I.L. keeps entirely to its peacetime pursuits.
I think that is quite commendable, and I should like to make sure that the committee does not draw any wrong inference from the fact that Defence Industries Limited, a new company, is handling the war work. I may say that we have engaged Defence Industries Limited as our experts on explosives. We have drawn on their technical skill to design and also bo operate explosive plants. Our explosives and chemical programme is, however, in the hands of Allied War Supplies Corporation, headed by Mr. Harold Crabtree, a chemical engineer with a wide business experience in Canada. He happens to be the president of the Canadian Manufacturers association, and a man in whom industry in Canada has a great deal of confidence. We have associated with him some seven or eight business executives, who also are highly respected in Canada for the efficiency of the operation for which they aTe responsible.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Serving
without remuneration?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, all serving without
remuneration. Mr. Crabtree is giving his full time; in fact, I think he is giving about two days in one, and has been doing that since he received the appointment,
I believe the country will recognize the excellent work these men have been doing in working out our chemicals and explosives programme, which is a very large programme indeed. In the planning of the Winnipeg plant this company proceeded with Defence Industries Limited as their expert engineers to design the plant, as they have designed other explosives plants, two of which are now in operation. This is the third.
It was called to my attention some time ago that there was a strong feeling in Winnipeg that this plant should use lignite coal. I dropped a line to Mr. Crabtree, directing his
War Appropriation Bill

attention to the fact that lignite coal was being used to a great extent in Winnipeg for heating purposes in the larger plants, and asking him particularly to look into the situation to make sure that he was making a wise decision in providing the type of equipment for which he had provided, namely, an underfeed stoker. The lignite coal requires a different type of equipment. Mr. Crabtree wrote me on the subject, and later we had an interview in connection with it, on which occasion he brought the report of his engineers, estimated costs and other technical data. We spent sometime together going into that project. He pointed out that an explosives plant is built for operation only during war time. Of course there is no need for an explosives plant of that size in peace time, particularly as it is one of three plants, the other two being considerably larger than the one planned for Winnipeg. The question as to whether or not we were warranted in spending a considerable additional sum to put in equipment which would bum lignite coal efficiently, and only lignite coal, was studied by the engineers. They had to decide also as to whether the equipment would be disposable after the war. That is an important factor which must not be forgotten. This is large equipment, and so far lignite equipment of the size here indicated has never been installed in Canada. It is therefore unlikely that there would be a market for that type of equipment after the war. On the other hand, the underfeed stoker type is common in Canada, and probably would be marketable after its use in Winnipeg comes to an end.
Then the question as to the respective economies of the two coals was studied, and it was the considered opinion of Mr. Crabtree's engineers and of Mr. Crabtree, after making his own study of the matter, in the light of the reports he had received, that it would not be wise to go to the extra expense of putting in special equipment to burn lignite coal.
Mr. Crabtree believes that he would be able to bum a very high percentage of lignite coal in these boilers. I hope that is true, because we are finding it rather difficult to get supplies of bituminous coal from western Canada at the present time. The use of lignite coal at Winnipeg would have a balancing effect upon the coal situation in western Canada. Mr. Crabtree tells me that he will be able to use a considerable portion of lignite coal. He has studied the question, and I have a good deal of confidence in his statement in the matter.
All I can say to the committee is that having turned over the explosives and chemicals programme to Allied War Supplies Corporation, and having had ample demonstration

that they are able to handle that type of work, as demonstrated by the plants they have brought into operation prior to this date, I have not found anything in the situation which would warrant me as the responsible minister in reversing the decision arrived at by the corporation.


James Arthur Ross: In the event of their not using lignite coal, from where would the other fuel have to be brought?


Clarence Decatur Howe: As my hon. friend knows,
bituminous coal comes chiefly from Alberta.


Ralph Maybank: The minister has made two observations to which I shall refer. In the first place he turned his attention to the organizations known as C.I.L. and D.I.L. and explained that that was apparently good business practice, under the circumstances, adding that he did not want the committee to get off on the wrong foot. We might as well have that point settled immediately. So far as I am concerned I entirely agree with that. I did not intend to make any suggestion to the committee that there was anything improper in the manner of organizing. In fact, in introducing my remarks I said that the division had been made apparently for convenience.
Since, however, we have mentioned C.I.L. and D.I.L., I might add to what I have already said, that when C.I.L. was putting in its own plant, the Allied War Supplies Corporation was not in the picture at all. Rather it was putting in its own plant, for its own commercial purposes and, like every other organization in western Canada, it put in a plant for the purpose of burning lignite. It is situated at Neepawa, Manitoba, where they have their salt industry. Therefore, for commercial purposes that is what they did.
But this other corporation, the one that is the direct creature of the government and of parliament, is the organization which is doing what I have been describing. They may be using the C.I.L. personnel and they may not. Certainly they are not using it entirely. One man they are using, and who had been very active, is a man who comes from the organization that sells this kind of equipment. I was not trying to convince him, because I do not profess to have engineering knowledge. Let me say in passing that I do not want to see $100,000 or $200,000 wasted each year. I was not trying to convince him, nor do I believe I was able to convince him. But his remark was, "They might be able to convince some people, but they will never convince me." This man comes from the organization which sells the equipment.
The same man was in western Canada for a long time, and by reason of the development

War Appropriation Bill
of the practice of burning lignite coal he and his company withdrew from that territory, because they did not make the kind of equipment that would burn that coal. I do not know when the interviews took place to which the minister has referred. I do know that about eight or nine days ago Mr. Crabtree stated to a colleague of mine in this house that this question was still an open one, that they would approach it with open minds, and yet within thirty-six hours this man Abbott sat in a room in this House of Commons with that same colleague and me and told us that it was a closed book, that it had been closed for months. He said, "I do not think Mr. Crabtree would misrepresent it, but that book is a closed book and it has been closed." Those are my words; they are not the precise words used, but I think they give an accurate rendering of the conversation I had with him.
Reference has been made to two or three different kinds of equipment. The authority which I have for anything I may offer in the way of describing the equipment is not a person interested in making a sale in opposition to these people; it is our own fuel laboratory experts here. They tell me there are two diSerent ways of carrying coal into the furnace. One is to carry it in and sprinkle it on top, known as the "kicker" system. I do not profess to have any mechanical knowledge; I am simply trying to describe what I have been told, in words which make myself understood.
When the engineer finished talking to me I took the precaution of converting his statement into words such as I would use and asking him whether they covered the situation. When I talk to hon. members about equipment in the way I do, they will know the background for my statement. They will see how I came to get this particular description into my own mind. As I say, substantially there are two methods of putting coal into a firebox to be burned. One is the kicker system, and the other is the underfeed. The underfeed equipment is not suitable for burning lignite coal, and that is the system which these people put into the Winnipeg hydro. They have not burned an ounce of lignite coal. I might give a further authority for that proposition in the person of the engineer I told the committee about, Mr. Abbott. He is the man who has been behind this, who came to us from the company that makes this equipment. He agreed readily that underfeed equipment was not satisfactory for burning this coal.
As I say, I do not know when the conversation referred to by the minister took place, but I do know that I got this information
from the department of the government as far back as January 13. These people were stating that it was a closed book because Mr. W. H. Wharton of the Allied War Supplies had said so. I am not talking about the D.I.L.; I am talking about an organization which is a child of this government and which is supposed to have all this authority. This man said that they had ruled against lignite coal. In spite of that, I want to repeat that Mr. Crabtree stated only a short time ago that they would approach this matter with an open mind. When one runs into two propositions which are so completely contrary, it is enough to make one suspicious. When within thirty-six hours another man from the same organization says in eSect that it was a closed book, that it could not be approached with an open mind, one is justified in being doubly suspicious.
Before going any further, I should like to make this comment with reference to giving full authority to this organization. I agree that the right course has been taken in forming these companies in order to get the work of government decentralized. As soon as I saw the announcement by the government I felt that the right step had been taken, that it would afford a means of saving harassed and overworked ministers. No matter how vehement I may be at times, I think the government made a right move by turning over considerable responsibility to an organization of this kind. But there is a great difference between giving them considerable responsibility and completely abrogating in favour of them. No organization should be able to go out and spend the money of the people of Canada and not be subject to review. This sort of thing getting around the country is the worst possible thing one could have from the viewpoint of this department which is being so well administered by the minister of defence. Nothing in the world can hurt the idea of getting people to present their savings and being ready to accept taxes more than allowing it to be known that we have abrogated some function of government to certain commercial concerns. A number of fine gentlemen have been collected together to operate these organizations. With the exception of the one whom I have mentioned, I have no complaint to make about them, but they should not be considered as the government of this country.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Could the ministers of the war services, that is air,
Lease-Lend Bill

naval and munitions, give breakdowns of the moneys that have been expended for the present fiscal year, and then of the appropriation which we are considering? Then the non-war ministers could give their breakdowns of the $32,000,000. It seems to me, if those figures were on the record in some kind of orderly way, it would save time.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, March 12, 1941.