1943-06-09

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

Mr. MacKENZIE (Neepawa):: 1.	How many cords of fuel wood were cut in Riding Mountain national park for each of the months, March, April, and May, 1943, and how much of this cut is for use within the park?
2.	How much of this work was done by alternative service labour?
3.	How many alternative service men were employed at fuel wood cutting during each of the above months?
4.	Were any alternative service men employed at other work in the park during above months? If so, how many?


Mr. CRERAR:: 1.	Amount of cordwood cut
Under settlers	A.S.W.
Month	permit	Operation
Cords	Cords
February	
2.304	374iMarch	
2,235	6251April	
679	425May	
603	2645,821	1,689
No material cut for park use.
1,689 cords available for sale.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Employment of A. S. Workers
Projects
on which employed
Month	Total Strength	Fuelwood	Fire ProtectionFebruary ..	
27	27	March	
48	48	April 	
37	37	May	
35	20	154.	What is the total amount of sugar for canning purposes being allotted for Canada and, (a) what is the amount allotted for each province; (b) the per capita amount of sugar allotted for each province?


Mr. ABBOTT:: 1,	2 and 3. Applications which were
received for sugar for home canning amounted to more than twice the available supply. The board therefore proceeded to make an allocation to each territory covered by a local ration board based on the number of applications from that territory. Each local ration board was then advised of the total amount of sugar which would be available for its territory and was asked to make such distribution as appeared equitable under all circumstances.
It was pointed out that in some areas it might be appropriate to draw a distinction between urban and rural areas, while in other areas a standard allocation to all applicants might be more equitable. The decision in each individual territory was left with' the Local Ration Board concerned	which
accounts for the differences in actual distribution which is made in the various areas.
4.	(a) The total amount of sugar for
canning purposes to be allotted for Canada is 100,000,000 pounds of which 99,383,000 pounds was distributed pro rata among the
provinces as follows,
Prince Edward Island	 825,475
Nova Scotia	 4,418,900
New Brunswick	 3,552,100
Quebec	 25,644,400
Ontario	 34,807,400
Manitoba	 7,291,825
Saskatchewan	 8,211,600
Alberta	 7,350,900
British Columbia	 7,280,400
Total	 99,383,000
The remaining 617,000 pounds were held in reserve and have since been distributed.
4. All employed on fuelwood cutting with exception of fifteen in May on fire protection.


SUGAR FOR CANNING PURPOSES
Mr. REID:: 1.	Is the amount of sugar to be allowed for canning purposes the same for all cities?
2.	Is the amount of sugar to be allowed for canning purposes the same in all rural districts?
3.	If different quantities or amounts of sugar for canning purposes are being allowed for different cities or rural districts, what are the reasons for the different quotas set?

(b) The sugar allocated each province is not on a per capita basis but on a per application basis and was approximately 11 pounds per application.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES-LIFE INSURANCE
Mr. HATFIELD:: 1.	What insurance is offered to the members of our armed forces?
2.	What amount of insurance is offered?
3.	Who pays the premium?
4.	How much is the premium?

Questions


Mr. ABBOTT:: 1.	That made available by the various insurance companies.
2.	Such amount as appears applicable in the circumstances.
3.	The insured.
4.	The amount of the premium varies according to age and plan.


CANADIAN FLAG
[Stage Direction]
Mr. LaCROIX (Quebec-Montmorency):
What steps does the government intend to take to put an end to the deplorable condition of affairs arising from the fact that in all countries of the world Canada is the only one which does not possess a flag?
Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: This question alleges a fact which I do not think can be established. In the first place, it is not true that Canada does not possess a flag. In the second place, I am far from sure that it can be said that the existing condition is a deplorable condition of affairs. I do not think the question merits an answer in the form in which it appears.
Question dropped.


CIVIL SERVICE-ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Mr. McILRAITH:: 1.	Has a report been made by the advisory committee under the chairmanship of Mr. H. J. Coon and set up by order in council P.C. 2-584?
2.	To whom was this report made, and when?
3.	Will the report be tabled or otherwise published?


Mr. ABBOTT:: 1.	Yes.
2.	To the treasury board, on March 17, 1943.
3.	No.


CONFERENCE ON INDUSTRIAL RECREATION
Mr. MacINNIS:: 1.	Did the Minister of Labour call a national conference on industrial recreation on or about April 9?
2.	What recommendations were made to the Minister of Labour by this conference?
3.	What action has been taken by the Minister of Labour in regard to these recommendations?


Mr. MITCHELL:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Recommendations:
(1)	Purpose: The purpose of a plan for recreation should be the provision of a programme of intrinsic worth to the individual, as well as to provide greater assurance of maintaining interest in production work on the part of the worker.
(2)	Pattern of organization: National advisory committee, provincial advisory committees, regional and local committees. Properly qualified paid personnel appointed to undertake the work of promoting recreational plans on national, provincial, regional and local levels.
(3)	Finances: There should be a four-way financial participation-workers, management, recreation councils or organizations, federal and provincial governments.
(4)	Personnel: There should be provision made for training personnel, if the need arises.
(5)	Facilities: Basic facilities already established in communities should be made available wherever required. Existing facilities should be fully used.
(6)	Programme: The programme should be sufficiently flexible and diversified to meet the needs of the workers and their families. Industry should be urged to develop recreational programmes within the plant when such programmes are advantageous.
(7)	Recreational programmes should be a community development within the areas where the establishment of war industries has created an urgent need.
3.	An order in council, P.C. 4703, dated June 8, 1943, has been passed under authority of the War Measures Act authorizing the Minister of Labour to enter into agreement with provinces or municipalities to provide recreational facilities for war workers, and for an equitable sharing of costs by the dominion.


JAPANESE NATIONALS-STRIKE AT THUNDER RIVER, B.C.
Mr. NEILL:: 1.	Is the press report of a sit-down strike of about 100 Japanese at Thunder River, British Columbia, correct?
2.	If so, what are the particulars?
3.	IVhat were the alleged grievances?
4.	How long did the strike last?
5.	What were the terms of settlement?


Mr. CRERAR:: 1,	2 and 3. There was such a strike. The facts are briefly as follows:
On May 25 some 90 Japanese at the Thunder River camp, Yellowhead-Blue River highway project went on a sit-down strike alleging insufficient nourishment and lack of rice, jam, canned fruits and fresh vegetables. They complained of a shortage of meat and asked camp authorities to guarantee there would be no delays in meat shipments. They also expressed dissatisfaction that a doctor was not resident at the camp nor a hospital established there. The engineer in charge of the project met a Japanese committee, heard their complaints and explained difficulties of food supplies and general rationing.
4.	May 25 to June 2.
Questions

5. As the Japanese at this camp were being treated in the same manner and receiving the same kinds and quantities of food as those in other camps, no changes were made in the rations or in camp regulations. The Japanese on strike returned to their work when they found there was no justification for their demands. They were not paid wages during the time they were on strike.


DOMINION GOVERNMENT ANNUITIES
Mr. WINKLER:: 1.	By years, how many dominion government annuities were bought in 1935, 1936, 1937, 1938, 1939, 1940, 1941, and 1942?
2.	By years, what was the total in dollars for these annuities for the same period?


Mr. MITCHELL:: 1.	Individual contracts and certificates.- 1935, 3,930; 1936, 6,357; 1937, 7,806; 1938, 5,724; 1939, 8,518: 1940, 9,014; 1941, 11,994; 1942, 8,593.
2.	Net receipts under all contracts.-1935, $13,376,400.02; 1936, $21,281,981.31; 1937, $23,614,823.95; 1938, $13,550,483.22; 1939, $18,189,318.98; 1940, $20,001,533.26; 1941, $18,803,645.27; 1942, $19,630,644.58.


STORAGE OF GOODS IN OGDEN POINT, B.C., PIER WAREHOUSE
Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: 1.	Has the government goods in storage at the Ogden point pier warehouse, Victoria?
2.	If so, of what do the goods consist?
3.	How long have they been in storage?
4.	Will they be released for use by the armed forces in Canada, or for civilian use?


Mr. MACDONALD (Halifax):: The questions arise out of a news item in the Globe and Mail which was read in the house by the hon. member for Peterborough West on Friday last.
In July, 1942, the Canadian Red Cross was offered cargo space for a large shipment of relief supplies to the far east. The vessel which was chartered by the American Red Cross Society was expected to sail in a few days.
Because of the large quantities to be shipped and the limited time, the Canadian Red Cross was not able to handle the shipment alone and most of the Canadian supplies were furnished by the Department of National Defence to the Canadian Red Cross for forwarding.
By the most strenuous efforts the supplies were procured, shipped to San Francisco and loaded on to the vessel only to find that the United States government could not get a safe conduct for her from the Japanese government. The supplies had, therefore, to be unloaded. The part of the shipment owned

by national defence was shipped to Victoria, placed in storage at Ogden pier and held intact in storage until the middle of January, 1943.
When it became evident that no means of transport under safe conduct was in sight, the part of the supplies that consisted of perishable foodstuffs was at once turned over to all arms of the service in the Pacific command for issue in the usual way. The balance of the foodstuffs was subsequently absorbed in the same way. Nothing was lost.
The only portions of the national defence supplies still held in storage at Ogden pier are clothing and a small quantity of medical supplies and these will be returned to stock and used by the armed forces.


CANADIAN FORCES-UNIVERSITY TRAINING
Mr. HATFIELD:: What are the names of the universities who propose to take high school students who have joined the army, and give them one year's college education as announced by the Department of National Defence on May 31?


William Chisholm Macdonald: As of 8th June, 1943: University of Western Ontario, University of Toronto, McMaster university, Queen's university, Ottawa university, McGill university, University of Montreal, Acadia university, Mount Allison university, University of British Columbia, University of Saskatchewan, University of Alberta.



MUNITIONS AND SUPPLY-TELETYPE MESSAGES IN FRENCH


Mr. MATTHEWS:: What steps, if any, are being taken by the government towards securing for southern Manitoba a larger release of water via the Souris river from the reserve storage dams being utilized in North Dakota.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: On January 15, 1940, the governments of Canada and the United States referred to the International Joint Commission the question of the distribution of water of the Souris river as between the provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba

Questions as Orders for Returns
and the state of North Dakota. This reference was made under article 9 of the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909. In the summer of 1940 representations were heard from all interested parties and on October 2, 1940, the commission handed down interim recommendations as to the use of the water. The interim recommendations were accepted by the government of Canada and the government of the United States and were approved by the governments of Manitoba and Saskatchewan. The recommendations provided for the release to Manitoba of a minimum quantity of water per year which amount was increased by a subsequent order of the commission dated November 17, 1942.
At present, the International Joint Commission has under consideration further representations made with respect to the equitable distribution of the water. Hearings were held in Minot, North Dakota, and Melita, Manitoba, on May 24 and May 26 respectively, at which all parties with an interest in the matter were given an opportunity to present their views. It is expected that a further interim recommendation will be made by the commission shortly. A permanent decision as to the distribution of the water will only be made after experience under interim orders has given further information and knowledge on which to base a satisfactory division.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Who had the contract for government waste-paper in 1921; what was the quantity then sold, and for what price?
2.	Were public tenders afterwards called for such waste-paper?
3.	If so, (a) when; (b) to whom was the contract awarded; (c) for what price; (d) for what quantity of paper?
4.	Who has the contract now, and since when?
5.	What is, (a) the quantity of waste-paper sold under the present contract; (b) the price paid by the contractor?
6.	Since 1921, inclusive, how much was paid each year for government waste-paper?
Mr. MITCHELL; Return tabled .

On the orders of the day;


Mr. POULIOT:: I will ask the Secretary of State if he will kindly table a supplementary report regarding waste-paper. In the return which has been tabled in answer to this question there is an answer only from the king's printer. It seems that there should be an answer from all departments.


CANTEENS AND RECREATION SERVICES
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Has the Minister of National War Services authorized certain organizations to receive contributions to aid canteens, recreation centres, etc., for the troops?
2.	If so, (a) what are the organizations; (b) under what conditions are they recognized as auxiliary war services?
3.	Has the Minister of National War Services himself granted subventions to these societies so that they will not make public appeals for contributions? If so, (a) when; (b) what sums has each organization annually received since the beginning of the war from public subscription, and by way of government grants?
4.	Has each organization authority to withhold an amount for its own support from, (a) popular subscriptions; (b) government grants? If so, what is the percentage in each case?



MILITARY SERVICE-LOCATION OF DEFAULTERS OR DESERTERS

[Stage Direction]
Mr. BERTRAND (Terrebonne);
1.	Does the government employ agencies, organizations, or private companies, to locate those called for service who refuse to present themselves for training, or deserters from the armed forces?
2.	If so, what are the names and addresses of such organizations so employed?
3.	What is the basis of remuneration?
4.	What has been paid to each to date?
MOTIONS FOR PAPERS Canada's participation in the war
Mr. LACROIX (Beauce):: For a copy of all memoranda, correspondence, telegrams and other documents, addressed by the government of the province of Quebec to the federal government, from August 25 to October 1, 1939, on the subject of Canada's participation in the war.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I have had search made as to memoranda, correspondence, telegrams and other documents addressed by the government of the province of Quebec to the federal government on the subject of Canada's participation in the war, and I am unable to discover any that have been received from the beginning of the war up to the present time.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Were any oral representations made by the government of the province of Quebec?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I cannot speak for the whole government, but I can recall none at the moment.
Motion dropped.
Motions for Payers



WAGE NEGOTIATIONS-COAL AND STEEL

Mr. GILLIS:: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, and other documents in possession of the Department of Labour, from the United Mine Workers of America, District No. 26, Dominion Coal Company, Acadia Coal Company, Nova Scotia Steel and Coal Company, Cumberland Railway and Coal Company, and the Department of Labour, in the matter of wage negotiations, from February 15, 1943, to May 31, 1943.



MINING AND MARKETING OP NOVA SCOTIA COAL

Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: For a copy of all correspondence and agreements between the dominion fuel board, the Department of Munitions and Supply, Department of Mines and Resources, Department of Finance, and the government of Nova Scotia, or the Department of Mines, from January 1, 1942, to June 1, 1943, with respect to the mining and marketing of coal produced in Nova Scotia.



SCOTT, SASK., EXPERIMENTAL FARM

Jean-François Pouliot: For a copy of the report of the auditor general, dated April, 1932, to the Department of Agriculture, on the subject of the experimental farm at Scott, Saskatchewan, together with a copy of all documents and vouchers.



SUMMERLAND, B.C., EXPERIMENTAL FARM

Jean-François Pouliot: For a copy of the report made by the auditor general in 1932 to the Department of Agriculture regarding the experimental farm at Summerland, British Columbia.



ARGENTINE REPUBLIC


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to direct two questions to the Prime Minister arising out of reports respecting changes of government in the Argentine. What steps are in contemplation by this government towards a recognition of the new government of the Argentine? Has the Prime Minister received from the Canadian legation at Buenos Aires or the charge d'affaires of the Argentine legation in Ottawa sufficiently comprehensive reports upon which he could form a judgment as to how these events in the Argentine will affect the attitude of that republic towards Canada and the united nations generally?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might reply to the second question first, as that will answer in part the first question. I
fMr. Mackenzie King.]
may inform the leader of the opposition that we have received extensive reports from our legation in Buenos Aires but that the political situation in that city will have to be very much clearer than it is at present before it would be safe to venture a firm prophecy as to the future. The only official statement so far issued by the new Argentine government indicates an intention to continue, for the time being at least, a policy of neutrality in relation to the war against the axis.
I do not think the change of government in the Argentine indicates any change of friendly feeling on the part either of the Argentine, its people and government towards Canada, its people and government, and in the circumstances the position of the Argentine continues as it has in the past.


Gordon Graydon: The new government is being recognized by this government?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We are considering our recognition, just as I believe all other countries are. I do not know any that have, changed since there has been a change of government in the Argentine.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, on Monday, June 7, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) asked me if I had been advised of a complaint of the Winnipeg and district trades and labour council that the selective service officer in Winnipeg was freezing workers to low-paid jobs when other men were not available for the employers concerned. I had the director of employment service and unemployment insurance of my department telegraph to our regional employment officer at Winnipeg for a report. The reply which came yesterday is to the effect that no official complaint has been received from the trades and labour council. There had been a complaint made to that council by the business agent of the moulders union concerning a labour dispute between moulders and the Vulcan Iron Works of Winnipeg because of a decision on wages given by the Winnipeg regional war labour board. Forty moulders had requested the Winnipeg selective service office to grant permits for other jobs, but as the Vulcan Iron Works is designated an essential industry the

Man-Power
request was refused. The advice from Winnipeg is that the men are back at work in this plant pending an appeal of their case to the national war labour board.


Mr. KNOWLES:: May I ask the Minister of Labour if he has any information as to the nature of the other work that these men were seeking? My understanding was that they were seeking the same kind of work, in essential industry, at higher wages. The complaint was that they were being frozen in a low-paid job against a better paid job in an essential industry.


Humphrey Mitchell: All I have is the advice I have received from the city of Winnipeg, and it is that the selective service officer told these men to return to their jobs in view of the priority' of that industry.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Could the minister get that further information?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.



GALT, ONTARIO, STEEL WORKERS-STATEMENT AS TO ALLEGED EVICTIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Clarence Gillis: I wish to direct a question to the
Minister of Munitions and Supply. It arises out of a letter received this morning from one of the organizers of the Union Steel Works of America at Galt, Ontario, setting out that because of the stoppage of work occasioned by poor handling of the labour situation in that district, eviction notices are being issued by the administrator, Mr. K. S. Feader, of wartime housing, to employees of the plants involved in the work stoppage, that they will have to vacate the houses in which they are living on or before June 30. Could the minister inform the house if this is in accordance with the government policy, and does he think that action of this kind on the part of wartime housing is helpful in bringing about a solution to an already bad and aggravated labour situation?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Munitions and Supply):: I received notice of this question a few moments before I came into the house. I have tried without success to get in touch by telephone with Mr. Feader, so that I cannot speak with first-hand knowledge of the facts. But I can say definitely that no one is being evicted from any war-time house because he is on strike. In saying that I do
not wish to imply that there may not be other reasons why people may be evicted. They may be bad tenants. But certainly no strike position, will have any effect as far as eviction goes.


Gordon Graydon: May I ask the minister
if what he has just said indicates a general policy which is followed in that regard by the government?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Certainly.



MAN-POWER FARM LABOUR-REPRESENTATIONS OF LA CORPORATION DES AGRONOMES OF THE PROVINCE OF QUEBEC

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. SASSEVILLE ROY (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour whether he has received a letter sent to him from Montreal on June 3 by La Cor-portation des Agronomes of the province of Quebec, and signed by Rene Monette, general secretary. This letter deals with the problem of shortage of man-power on farms and suggests suspension of recruiting of these men for the army. Has the minister received the letter and given any consideration to that demand, and if so, what action has been taken?


Humphrey Mitchell: In reply to my hon. friend I
may say that when the man-power debate comes up I can give an answer to the letter to which he refers.



PRIORITY RATINGS FOR INDUSTRIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. HARRIS (Danforth):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour: perhaps he will accept this as notice and answer it to-morrow. It came to my attention just before coming to the house to-day that industries in different parts of Canada are coming to the national selective board in Ottawa and getting a special confidential priority rating on labour, not only that available in industrial centres, but some labour which is at present employed by other industries which have no such confidential priority rating and whose employees are under the jurisdiction of the local selective service boards. Will the minister make a statement to the house as to the origin of the confidential selective ratings, and also as to how industries
Fuel

that are doing what they deem to be war work may get on these preferential lists in order that they may obtain some labour.


Humphrey Mitchell: I shall be glad to give an answer to my hon. friend at the next sitting of the house.



TRANSFERS FROM ONE INDUSTRY TO ANOTHER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Percy Chapman Black: I should like to ask the Minister of Labour if it is the practice or policy of his department to confer with the heads of labour organizations and with the heads of industry where, under national selective service, men are being transferred from one industry to another industry. In the province of Nova Scotia there is some discontent because of this transfer, and I should be glad if the minister would care to give us some information on the matter.


Humphrey Mitchell: In the first place, the general policy is to consult with the national selective service board. I think my hon. friend will agree with me that when it comes to a question of administration, that must be the responsibility of the government agency. I think he will agree that where transferences are involved we should take the responsibilitjq of course after consulting with the national selective service advisory committee before the high policy is put into operation.



PRESS REPORT AS TO PRODUCTION OF BUSH-WOOD- COAL SUPPLIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. FRASER (Peterborough West):: I wish to ask a question of the Minister of Munitions and Supply. In a press report of June 7, Mr. J. W. Cornett, mayor of Vancouver, is reported as having said that-
... he believed the dominion government will announce within a few days that it will go into mass production of bush-wood to augment insufficient coal supplies. The mayor also expressed belief the government will assume responsibility for coal supplies.
If there is any truth in this report, will the minister tell the house what the government plans are?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I made a statement on the coal and wood fuel situation in the course of an all-day debate on that subject. The situation has not changed. The federal government is doing everything it can do to provide in every community sufficient coal and to assist every community in obtaining sufficient fuel. Coal
 ,
we recognize as a federal problem. Fuel wood is a local problem in which the federal government is assisting to the utmost. We have certain operations for cutting quantities of fuel wood which can be moved into deficiency areas, but I think that that should not relieve any community of putting forth its own best exertions to meet its own fuel wood requirements.



REFERENCE TO ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF REMARKS OF MR. POULIOT ON JUNE 2

[Stage Direction]
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): As a member of this honourable house and as a French-speaking Canadian, I understand that at times translations of our debates and discussions are made in haste, but with regard to what was said on the occasion of the king's birthday the translation should have been polished ad unguem. Speaking on behalf of the young men of my constituency who are in the army, and being the last speaker on the subject, and speaking in French, on behalf of my fellow citizens whose maternal language is French, my last words on June 2 were as follow:
. . . j'offre nos respectueux hommages a sa digne epouse.
It was translated:
I present our humble respects to Her Majesty the Queen.
This is not at all what I said. It was "I pay our respectful homage to his worthy consort." As a member I feel very humble -I say that at times-but speaking as I did on behalf of the young men of the army and of the French-speaking citizens of Canada I was not feeling humble at all. But I was very respectful, and this is the shade of difference which should not be overlooked. I hope that in the future, as the translators do not come any more under you, sir, the Secretary of State will notify them accordingly.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Charles Abbott: I should like to reply to the question which was put on Tuesday by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) respecting the rationing of sausages and hamburger. I am informed by the wartime prices and trade

Naval Service
board that they have issued no official statement either over the radio or through the press to the effect that a decision with respect to the rationing of these commodities will be deferred for at least a month.


Mr. GOLD WELL:: That was given over the radio.


Douglas Charles Abbott: So I understand, but I am informed by the board that they have issued no such statement. If there are defects in the meat rationing plan it is probably too soon to decide what they are, as the plan has not become fully operative. The fact that housewives bought meat liberally for a few days before meat rationing came into effect resulted in a slowing up effect on meat sales in retail stores. The situation is being closely watched and adequate steps will be taken promptly if considered necessary to forestall losses of meat resulting from the rationing regulations.



NAVAL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ROBERT FAIR (Battle River):: I wish to call the attention of the house to a discussion that took place yesterday afternoon on the estimates of the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services (Mr. Macdonald). I was not present at the time because I was attending a meeting of the agriculture committee. The hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Hlynka), in the course of his remarks, protested against a press report with respect to officers in the navy and the question of discriminations. According to this morning's Citizen:
Mr. Macdonald said that if an article like that mentioned by Mr. Hlynka had appeared it was unauthorized. Regulations required simply that a man be a British subject.
Then the following appears in quotation
marks:
If my honourable friend will look at the navy list of officers he will find a great many names that are not British in the ordinary sense of the term," the minister continued.
T see in the list 10 people named Kelly, 10 or 12 named Murphy. These are not British in the broad sense . . .
I wish to direct two questions to the minister and I hope he will answer them correctly. First of all, let me say that I come from the country from which people of the names he mentioned, the Kellys and the Murphys, have come and I am as good a British subject as the
minister or anyone else here. My question is this: What is the minister's reason for having this portion deleted from Hansard? That is the first question. The second question is: Does this make for national unity, about which we hear so much from the opposite side?
Hon. ANGUS L. MACDONALD (Minister of National Defence for Naval Services): I may say that the word I intended to use was English, not the -word British.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Robert Fair: That is a pretty flimsy excuse.


Mr. MACDONALD (Kingston City):: My hon. friend must realize that in the sense in which he is speaking, I myself am not British- that is. in the sense of being English. There is no English blood in my veins, and it is not likely that I would attempt to reflect upon my own race. What I intended to say was that there were a great many names in the book-English names, French names, and so on-and I went on to say to the hon. member for Vegreville that there were names which were evidently of central European origin.


Robert Fair: The second question is not answered.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: As to the second question, I am just as much concerned as my hon. friend, and a great deal more concerned, about national unity.


Robert Fair: Mr. Speaker


Richard Burpee Hanson: The
minister-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: One at a time.


Mr. HOMUTH:: There are only two races, Irish and those that would like to be.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I should like to know why there is an omission from Hansard and what authority the minister has to delete from Hansard. This has happened before. That was not answered.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I can answer that. I said that by mistake I used the word British yesterday. I had intended to use the word English, and in order to make the correction really complete, and make the sentence read properly, I struck out that part of it.

War Appropriation-Naval Services



LEGATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yesterday the leader of
the opposition drew my attention to a dispatch that had appeared in the Ottawa Journal of June 7, the significant part of which reads:
Increase of Sweden's consular and legation representation abroad, especially in Canada and South America, is contemplated in plans for the expansion of Sweden's foreign service.
My hon. friend then asked:
Will the Prime Minister inform the house whether or not negotiations have been entered into between the governments of Canada and Sweden along the lines indicated in the dispatch in question, and, if so, when such negotiations were commenced and how far they have progressed ?
I am informed that the dispatch arises out of the inclusion in the Swedish foreign office estimates of financial provision for the establishment of Swedish legations in Canada and a number of other countries where Sweden has not, at present, diplomatic representation. I assume the Swedish government, like our own, is alive to the importance of developing, as opportunity permits, closer relations with other friendly countries and is making its plans for the necessary expansion in its diplomatic and consular services. Up to now, however, I have to inform the house, there have been no negotiations between the governments of Canada and Sweden looking toward the exchange of diplomatic representatives.



WAR APPROPRIATION BILL


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, June 8, consideration in committee of a resolution to grant to his majesty certain sums of money for the carrying out of measures consequent upon the existence of a state of war-Mr. Ilsley-Mr. Bradette in the chair.

The CHAIRMAN:: Item 2 is under consideration.


Mr. CHURCH:: Last night when the house
was about to rise for the evening-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Langton Church: Thank you for the applause.
I may say that I am not surprised at the reaction of the present minister to some remarks I made. I have received nothing but

brickbats since I started in this game, because it is more or less a game, but a few more will not do me any harm. But, Mr. Chairman, I wish to bring to the attention of the committee the exact facts and the record. In the first place the minister was absolutely unfair yesterday. So far as his department is concerned, I made a bare statement of the case on behalf of the only people whom I try to represent when I endeavour to have a better deal for the men in our armed forces. The minister complained of my absence from the house. Well, for that matter I think it would be a good thing for me if I stayed away from the house altogether, because, as I have said before, parliament might just as well close up. We have been allowed to do nothing because our powers, functions and privileges have been taken away from us as a parliament and handed over to various control bodies. I have urged in the house that we should close about the end of the month. As a matter of fact, however, when the minister speaks of my absence, I was here on Monday night for a short time; but even when I was away I did not miss much anyway. I wish to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your invariable kindness and courtesy to members of the opposition, because we look to you, and to your superior officer, Mr. Speaker, as referees to judge the play. I am a sportsman and not a politician; I have never been a politician. I have tried in this house to conduct myself like a gentleman and I have never on any occasion indulged in personalities. I have always tried not to forget the duty of ordinary Christian charity towards one's political opponents, and I have given the government a great deal of credit since the war started for what they have done when their efforts were for a total war. I may say further that at the time the minister spoke last night, unfortunately I was not here. I was out of the building for about half an hour. I was here from eight fifteen in the morning until twenty minutes before the minister started to speak, at which time I went out. While I was away he was referring to me, in my absence. At the time he spoke last night about absence there were only fourteen Liberals on the benches over there, and over here, right to the end of the overflow- only fourteen Liberals.
Yesterday afternoon the only minister on the government benches was my good and kind friend who has done so much in this war, both he and his family. I refer to the Minister of Agriculture. At the time he was the only minister in the house. Of all members of parliament, why am I singled out for attack? Why am I, of all members of the House of Commons, singled out by the

War Appropriation-Naval Services
minister for attack? It is because of one fact, namely, that I have supported in season and out of season rearmament and cooperation with Britain and our connection with the mother country, in peace, in war and all the time. I believe everything we have in this country by way of freedom, civilization and liberty we owe to the mother country. Our dominion was one of the chief drifters from the empire, between the two wars, and long before.
I may say that I referred to certain matters before the war started. I referred to what happened between 1938 and 1939, and after Munich. At that time I was bringing before the house consistently, when I was sitting in the seat now occupied by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), the need for rearmament. On March 21, 1939, I called the attention of the Prime Minister, on a motion to go into ways and means, to the very grave danger this empire was in on land and sea and in the air, and the certainty of war. I said wfe had thrown away our defences, the finest army, air force and navy the world had ever seen. Then the huns entered Czechoslovakia. We had the Munich pact. And Munich was necessary because, as I say, France and Great Britain together, either singly or collectively, were no match for Hitler, were not ready for war, after throwing away their finest. Munich gave us a chance to get ready. As I said, on March 21, 1939, on a motion to go into ways and means, I called the attention of the house to this, that if the people were not told the facts, and if they were only told so much as their leaders let them know, then they were going to be led to disaster-which came in September.
On many other occasions I took the same stand. Return No. 140 was tabled-and I apologize to the committee for taking up this amount of time. However, it is not my fault. I was attacked, and I wish to place on record what the facts are. Facts are facts. As I said yesterday, I did not say and never have that I was a friend of the minister. I saw him only once, for a few minutes, at a football game in Toronto, I believe it was between Toronto in 1941-the Argonauts and Winnipeg. The last time I saw him, I believe, was about six o'clock last night, when I had a short conversation with him. That is the first time I had conversation with him about his department.
As I said, I received return No. 140 in 1939. In that I asked whether any steps had been taken by the government to secure a compulsory national register for Canada for defence or economic or industrial or labour
purposes. Secondly, if so, what were they, and thirdly, whether a census or modern doomsday book or national register will be ordered or compiled of (a) industrial power; (b) economic power; (c) food power; (d) manpower; (e) military and defence power, and (f) unemployed. I did not receive an answer to that return until a long time after. On every occasion I have said the same thing. If one reads the records of the house for May 26 and 28, 1938, he will find that I said:
At no time in the history of this empire has it been more necessary for the Dominion of Canada to give support, even if it is only moral support, to the motherland.
I called attention to our disarmament, that we had been wholly dependent on the mother country for our defence, on her navy, and that at no time had we been able to protect our own shores. I said at that time that I would have an opportunity to take it up with the Prime Minister later. He asked me to wait for the foreign affairs debate. He has known me a long time, and I have never had anything but great admiration for him and his family- because I have known him so long. I do not change. I have taken certain principles in the house, and I have stood by them. In that I have been consistent. I never have faltered once in changing my opinions with regard to the war, and the criminal mistake of disarmament, and what we owe to the mother country. In that connection the Prime Minister has taken a different stand. He is a gentleman who has extended a great deal of courtesy in the house. While I have not been of the same political faith, I have always found him courteous in debate toward opposition members, and always a gentleman.
There are just a few other matters I wish to refer to. I shall refer to the remarks last night of the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services, but will not read them. I shall give the page, and members who wish to do so may look it up. Last night the minister started off speaking about the Canadian navy and the navy league. I was connected with the navy league long before he was ever in politics. I was at that time chairman of the harbour board, had been on the school board, the police commission, and many organizations of that kind. We had the cadet movement in the school. The hon. member for Davenport had for many years taken a great deal of interest in the navy league. I believe he was in it before I was. And in that connection may I say that navy shows have been sent right across Canada at the expense of Canada with the Trade and Commerce department. The minister was kind enough to say that I should not expect kindness from him. I do



War Appropriation-Naval Services
not want kindness from him. I never said I was a friend of his. I have not known him long enough to be a friend of his. I said I was a friend of the mother country and of the navy, when he was supporting separatism and isolation, and all that kind of thing. I was standing for a better navy, and for protection. Where was he then? Where were the people lined up with him then? I may say that the minister talks about the navy league. It has done splendid work, I admit. I had a great deal to do with it in the city of Toronto, from which I come, both at the time of the last war and before.
The minister goes on to say that in 1926 the house was discussing the procedure to be followed in ratifying treaties. Mr. Chairman, the house was not discussing any such thing. The house was discussing a motion by Mr. Bourassa, who was then the hon. member for Labelle, to declare Canada a country independent altogether of the British empire. At that time I took a strong stand in the house.
I did not seek this fight, Mr. Chairman, but I am going to put the record right, because I have the right to do so, on this very question. Speaking in the house on June 21, 1926, in connection with Mr. Bourassa's motion in respect of foreign affairs, I said:
Of the links that used to bind Canada to the motherland, what links remain to-day? First, there is our allegiance to the British crown; secondly, there is the right of appeal to the privy council; thirdly, any treaties into which we enter must have the sanction of the mother of parliaments. . . . Sir John A. Macdonald was satisfied with the status of this country. He did not ask the British government to increase the status of Canada. Five hundred thousand soldiers who went to the front and fought for civilization in France and Flanders were satisfied writh Canada's status. Fifty thousand of those gallant men lie buried in those countries; they were content to fight even unto death under Canada's status. They fought for Canada's status, but did not ask that any change should be made in it; they did not ask for any increased status for Canada. Such being the case I think the civilians who stayed at home should also be satisfied with the status of this dominion.
I opposed that resolution, and that is what it was. I said:
The war did not change Canada's status. I am utterly opposed to any change in Canada's status. I am opposed to separatism autonomy, and further changing of our status. We are proud that Canada is an integral part of the greatest empire the world has ever known. The war left us our status as it was. What Canada has done the past thirty-five years she has done of her own volition and voluntarily and she would do the same thing over again, namely, come to the mother country's aid in her hour of peril. So the people of this country are satisfied with our present status.
Then in that speech I opposed the opening of the legation at Washington.

The minister made a further reference to 1926. Unfortunately I have not a staff of experts, as the minister has, to search the registry offices, to go to the newspaper offices and all that sort of thing. I can only write thirty letters a day, and as a member of the opposition I cannot get very much help, though I appreciate what has been done for me by the clerk and by you, Mr. Chairman. I have to do my own work, however, to dig up my own information, and to take part in these debates without any preparation. Yesterday in his remarks the minister referred to Collingwood, and I should like to say a word or two about the situation on the great lakes. Back in 1926 I referred to the situation which arose when a British ship was fired1 upon a number of times by a ship flying the United States flag, beyond the three-mile limit, and at that time I stated there were gun boats on the great lakes, contrary to the Rush-Bagot treaty. Then, at page 1335 of Hansard for February 25, 1926, when there were lake sailors drowned in the upper lakes in the November storms, I Went on to say:
It seems that we also in this country are content to sponge upon the hard earnings of the British taxpayers for the maintenance of our maritime freedom, and we forget the plight that this country would have found itself in during the late war if a German fleet had sailed up. the St. Lawrence or attacked Halifax or Saint John. In such an event what would have happened to Halifax, Saint John, Boston and New York? The British fleet to-day, Mr. Speaker, constitutes the real league of nations, while the league of nations is only a debating society and the results are of little or no value. So far as Canada's contribution to maritime freedom is concerned, we have two toy ships. Where are those ships? Off the Bay of Fundy? No; they are locked up in a garage in Halifax. Is that a self-respecting policy for the people of Canada to be proud of, a people who did so much in the late war, in the darkest hours of the empire, in giving of its best blood to the defence of our liberties? Are we prepared to depend altogether upon the British fleet without contributing to its upkeep? We have not spent a cent for the purpose. I doubt whether Mr. Mackenzie King was ever authorized by his cabinet to take the stand which he is reported to have taken in regard to the Locarno treaty. . . . We talk about our nationalism, but we are not a nation; we are part and parcel of the British empire. . . .
I went on to say that sooner or later Canada would have to live up to her responsibilities as a member of the British commonwealth, or declare herself independent of that commonwealth.
Then the minister went on to quote from page 4787 of Hansard for June 21, 1926. At that time we had no fleet; we did have a small navy, consisting of two or three ships, most of them obsolete and used only for

War Appropriation-Naval Services
purposes of good-will cruises and recreation. If they had put to sea from Halifax, what could they have done? As I said, if they saw an enemy ship coming along they could not fire their guns until they had cabled to Ottawa and an order in council had been passed. Otherwise they could not fire a pinwheel, a fire cracker or a sky rocket in defence of their country. Was that a self-respecting policy for the people of this country, the fifth trading nation of the world-to be completely dependent upon the mother country for the maritime freedom we then enjoyed? I say it was not, and1 I do not propose to have the stand I took on that or any other occasion misrepresented by anyone. I did not see the remarks of the minister until after twelve o'clock to-day and I have not had the necessary time to prepare a complete reply, but I should like to recall what I said in reference to a great disaster which occurred on the great lakes, and I quote from page 104 of Hansard for February 1, 1928:
The mother country produced a great Liberal between 1870 and 1880, Samuel Plimsoll, M.P., who directed his efforts against what was known as coffin ships, and who forced legislation to provide for seaworthy ships and life saving aids and help to navigation. . . .
The Conservative party in Great Britain wanted to postpone the introduction of the Plimsoll legislation, but Mr. Disraeli, ,the great persuader, insisted that it be carried through. Then I said:
There is no Plimsoll in the House of Commons here, and perhaps there is no public opinion to enable a man to do Plimsoll's work if he tried. There is no leader among the hon. gentlemen opposite who has as much true and genuine liberalism in his whole body as Benjamin Disraeli had in his little finger.
Then I went on to refer to the disaster on the great lakes:	.
The closing days and nights of navigation in the season of 1927 recorded a great story of unbroken fortitude and of unshaken endurance which proved that our countrymen, the sailors on the decks of those doomed vessels, were blood brothers of the soldiers who brought glory to Canada at St. Julien, the soldiers who could not be blown off the ground they gained at Passchendaele, who climbed the heights of Vimy Ridge, who gained the victory at Amiens and many another field of glory, men whose names will forever thrill every true Canadian. These sailors struggled or waited hour after hour; if help came to them it was help organized by the valiant hearts and strong bodies of their own country, or if help came it was help bought and paid for by the taxes of the people of the United States. That is Canadian nationality for you. The struggle was a story of glory for Canada's sailors. The struggle was a story of shame for Canada's politicians. The tragedies of the great lakes in the closing hours of navigation last season showed in its true colours the stuff that Canadian nationalism is made of.
. . . Canada is a proud and haughty nation. It sends its merchant ships into the winter storms with nothing to do but whistle for a United States service tug when the ship is in danger and to fill the air with the distress signals of a siren with the hope that a United States life saving vessel will put to sea and save the lives of Canadian sailors. Canada, a nation, and in trouble, has a navy maintained at the expense of the old country taxpayer to guard the safety of Canada's shores in war.
That is my reply to the minister. I admit my statements at that time, but the minister read only two or three sentences from an eight-page speech dealing with the whole history of Britain's aid to Canada; he read only a few words about the navy being locked up in a garage in Halifax. Well, it may have been just as well that they were locked up, because the ships were obsolete. If they put to sea in battle I doubt if anyone would be safe to go on them. Here is a return which the present Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) tabled giving the names of the fleet and the total tonnage on February 14, 1938. It was not as much in total as one tramp vessel of 10,000 tons. Two or three thousand tons, and these tramp steamers have tonnages as high as nine or ten thousand tons. That was the navy we had. That was our defence. The result was that we faced invasion and insult. I predicted that the enemy would come up the St. Lawrence.
Reference was made to Lieutenant Farrow. Here are the facts about this gentleman. It is return No. 19. It asks:
1.	Who is the incumbent of the position of controller of naval information?
2.	When was he appointed?
3.	What is his salary?
4.	What is the nature of his duties?
5.	What are his qualifications for such a position?
6.	What is his nationality?
7.	In what country or state was he domiciled prior to his appointment?
8.	Does he hold any decorations or titles from any foreign power?
The answers are:
1.	Lieutenant John Farrow, R.C.N.V.R. (temporary).
2.	Lieutenant Farrow offered his services in case of emergency to the Royal Canadian Navy, and this offer of service was accepted, and recorded on the emergency list at naval service headquarters, October 7, 1936. He reported to the commanding officer, R.C.N.V.R., Vancouver.
3.	Pay and allowances as prescribed by the regulations . . . pay $5 per diem; allowances, including marriage allowances, $3.60 per diem.
4.	The controller of naval information is responsible for:
(a)	Censorship in collaboration with the director of naval intelligence.
3474

W^ir Appropriation-Naval Services
(b)	Compilation of various reports on naval activities and of the war diary.
(c)	Preservation and tabulation of sources for historical purposes.
(d)	Organization and administration of the photographic section of the Royal Canadian Navy.
(e)	Liaison duties connected with press, radio and motion pictures.
5.	In civil life, Lieutenant Farrow is an author, historian and film director of exceptional ability.
We have to go to Hollywood to get a man to compile a history of the Canadian navy. The press gallery of the house and our newspaper offices contain many men who have forgotten more about this matter than this gentleman ever knew. I quote:	'
He has had wide experience as a deep sea yachtman.
I belong to a yacht club but I never had any deep sea experience. Our fleet at Halifax was not let out of the garage to go into the deep sea. When our ministers wanted to go to Europe for the league to abolish all navies they did not take the Canadian navy; they headed for New York and took the ss. George Washington and Queen Mary and other boats from there. The return continues:
The naval service was in urgent need of a qualified officer to take over the duties of naval information and naval historian.
6.	British.
7.	United States of America.
8.	No information.
The government were not satisfied with this one instance; they brought a lot of people from Hollywood to film shows for our silent fleet and sent them on a trip across Canada to tell us all about the navy. The minister referred to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston). I never in my life criticized the Minister of National Defence. I was referring to what had taken place at Christie Street hospital when the government in 1926 fired a lot of overseas soldiers who had had considerable experience and replaced them with men who had been nominated by the Liberal ward association.
Then we pass on to 1940. At that time the hon. member for Victoria, BO. (Mr. Mayhew), a most popular member, had been reported in the newspapers here as having stated that a naval college was to be located in Victoria. The minister was asked about this by the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Black) and he replied that he had no information. I understood that negotiations had taken place for a site there and I suggested that it would be better to let parliament know something about it first.

The minister went on to quote another statement of mine as to the need of great Atlantic escorts, but I was really quoting a statement by Mr. Lyttelton, the British minister of production, which had been made in New York on November 11 last and in which he warned the dominion and the United States of the great danger in the Atlantic from submarines. I said:
We seem to have been trusting to Providence more than the Canadian navy.
The words I used were:
We seem to have been trusting to Providence as -well as to the Canadian navy.
I did not get the draft of my speech, but those were the words I used. I never cast any reflection upon the personnel of the department. If hon. members will read Hansard they will see that that is so, but what has been done is to take only one or two sentences of my remarks.
Then I brought up the question of holding civilian inquests. These soldiers are losing their civilian rights. I discussed this matter with the former attorney general of Ontario, Mr. Conant. It cost the province $65,000 to prosecute an airman for murdering a girl on Toronto island. We have 5,796 officers wearing uniform who before their appointment had never had any training. I was insisting that we should have a system, as in the last war, of civilian inquests in the three forces so that these men would not lose their civilian status.
I do not care a farthing what the minister says or thinks about me. I am not here for that purpose. There is something more noble than personalities to be considered. I have never attacked anyone personally since I have been in this house, and this is the first time I have been attacked. It was not until Monday night and last night when the minister made the statement he did. However, what I [DOT] said in the past twenty years is on the record. The record would not be complete without giving a list of the speeches I have made on different occasions, calling attention in 1937 to 1939 to our danger of invasion. On May 18 I referred to the laissez faire policy of the government and I called attention to the fact that there should be more navy cooperation with the other dominions and the mother country in the great crisis that faced us. I contended that the government was not doing its duty and were not letting the people know all the facts. I refer hon. members to Hansard of February 9, 1937, page 759, and also remind them that in April, 1938, I predicted the war. On July 1, 1939, I referred to the crisis that was developing and again predicted the war. I called attention to the inadequacy of our fleet and stated that Canada was asleep

War Appropriation-Naval Services
while her politicians dreamed and did nothing. I predicted that when war broke out we would be attacked. At page 794 of Hansard of 1926, on April 1, i939, on May 24, 1938, and again in 1939 you will find statements about our duty to our navy and to the men of the navy. You will see where I praised the personnel of our navy and regretted that they had to suffer as they had. Here is a return which gives certain figures about the navy. I wanted a naval college established, and a grant to the Singapore base and. to adopt the Jellicoe report, and I would train five or ten thousand cadets a year. The minister is quite proud that Britain has given us two destroyers, but we could have had these long before the war but we would not take them. We thought we were independent. We were depending on the Monroe doctrine, the League of Nations, the Locarno agreement, the Kellogg pact and all kinds of scraps of paper, for our defence on land and sea and in the air.
As I said last night, I have no quarrel at all with the minister, I have always looked upon the House of Commons as a gentleman's club, and have always treated everybody here with courtesy. I have never indulged in personalities. I have always obeyed the rulings of the Chair. I have said nothing inside or outside the, house that I would not say to a member himself publicly in the house. If I did not think something of my responsibility as a member of parliament I would have walked across the floor of the chamber last night and settled this thing with the minister. I think that is far the better way. If I am going to be attacked any more I want to know about it. You know what fair play is, Mr. Chairman. I have known for many years the minister who preceded the present Minister of National Defence for Naval Services, the hon. member for Vancouver Centre. I call him master of ceremonies. But the other night he hauled his rule book out of his pocket and quoted the rules quite unnecessarily on me. You know, Mr. Chairman, that a teferee does not want unseemly wrangles and to be forever hauling out his rule book and reading it to the players. The fact is that if we had more of the spirit of sportsmanship in this house we would get along far better and would not have such things as happened last night and this long debate on the war appropriation bill would have been ended long before now.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Chairman, I suppose now it is permissible to say something about the navy. It is difficult to know just how to begin, because so far I have heard everything discussed except the navy estimates. I am sure that most members of the house are not interested in the debate that has been
carried on for the major part of this afternoon and last night. The people of Canada are fully aware that Canada was totally unprepared for war when war broke out and are not interested in any quarrels at this time across the floor of the house between the two major parties that held power from time to time in Canada. All such quarrels are irrelevant because both these parties must share responsibility jointly for our state of unpreparedness at the beginning of the war. I shall try, Mr. Chairman, to deal with the matters set out in the estimates. I want to bring to the minister's attention one or two things that come within his department and I do it not by way of criticism, but rather to focus his attention on them with a view to eliminating what I consider to be grievances.
But first let me say this. Personally I feel that our navy organization in Canada, starting from small things at the beginning of the war, is an organization distinctly Canadian. In the organization of our air force and our army we had the assistance to some extent of people from other parts of the world. But our navy started from nothing and it has been built up and has done a very creditable job as a purely Canadian organization. In addition, as the minister pointed out in his statement, the navy has in complete command on a war front the one and only Canadian who is in command in any theatre of war. That is to the credit of the navy. It indicates to me that in the administration of the navy regard is paid to the development of a Canadian force with Canadian responsibility and Canadian direction. I think that is as it should be, and I want to compliment those in charge of the navy-, and particularly the minister, on that trend. Personally I do nqt think that Canada, in view of the contribution she made in the last war and is making in this war, should be taking direction from any other part of the world. It is time we began to stand on our own feet. Perhaps the reason we were in the mess we were in when war broke out was that we had been sitting back and doing no probing for ourselves but were just accepting everything as gospel that was given to us from another part of the world. That is something I never agreed with and never will agree with. I think we should use our own eyes and our own ears, build our own economy and protect ourselves, instead of blindly accepting a lead from any other part of the world. The responsibility for the mess we found ourselves in when this war broke out was not in my opinion Canadian.

War Appropriation-Naval Services
Tt was because some people had been, sitting back and doing a lot of wishful thinking and accepting somebody else's advice.
I would like to bring the minister's attention to the necessity of granting free transportation to the members of the naval forces When they go home on leave. I lay stress particularly on the position of the sailor who comes home on leave after being at sea for six or eight months, as many of them are. Many of these boys come from the central west, from Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, and whether they land on the east coast or the west coast they have a considerable distance to travel to reach their homes when they get a couple of weeks leave, which they need and have earned. As it is now, they are Obliged to pay their own railway fare when going home across half this country on leave. I am sure that any member who has travelled to or from either coast will remember seeing many of these boys travelling second class, Sitting up in the coaches two or three nights on end, and travelling under very uncomfortable conditions in order to get home on leave. It is not too much to ask that after coming off the water where they have to sleep in their clothes for weeks and months at a time, these boys should be given free transportation to and from their homes. I would ask the minister to think that over. We have already suggested free transportation for the army and the air force on embarkation leave and on their regular furlough.


Mr. MacNICOL:: Does the hon. member
mean that his party has suggested it?


Clarence Gillis: Yes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: So has this party.


Clarence Gillis: Nearly every hon. member
of the house has. There has been no disagreement there excepting on the part of those who have the power to implement the suggestion, and they have not done so as yet.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: My hon. friend is speaking of the regular leave?


Clarence Gillis: The regular furlough and embarkation leave. I emphasize that it is absolutely necessary because many of our sailors have to travel a considerable distance to reach their homes in the central west, in Saskatchewan and Alberta, for instance. I hope the' minister will give this request his sympathetic consideration.
, Last session when the minister had his estimates before the house I spoke of the merchant marine and the necessity of having ship masters keep a registration of their men

on board merchant ships in order that, if something happened to them, there would be some way of getting in touch with their next-of-kin and informing them of just what happened. During the past year I have received many letters from fathers and mothers on the east coast inquiring as to the whereabouts of a son who had left home perhaps a year or six months before and had gone aboard a certain ship. The ship is Norwegian, perhaps, or Greek, but is under British registry. The boy has been missing for some time. I write the shipping board in Montreal-that is, the British Ministry of Shipping. If the ship is of Norwegian registry one is obliged to get in touch with the Norwegian consul either in Saint John or Montreal; and my experience in writing these people on several occasions inquiring as to the whereabouts of a boy who had sailed on one of these ships is that I have never had an answer. As a result, some mother and some father go on month after month wondering as to the whereabouts of a missing boy. I know this matter comes under the Department of Transport, but I think it is time the naval authorities undertook the simple proceeding of issuing instructions to the shipping masters, where the boys ship out, or to the manning pools from which they are sent, tha-t a register of the address of next-of-kin of Canadian boys who are shipping on these boats of foreign registry should be kept, so that the parents could get in contact with the different centres when enough time has elapsed to indicate that something may have happened to the boy. Consideration might be given to that by the minister's department.
Another complaint which I have comes from nurses throughout Canada who desire to enter the naval service. I have corresponded with the minister on two or three occasions during the past thirteen months endeavouring to ascertain if it was possible for nurses who wished to enter the naval service to obtain appointments. The minister advised me that there was a long waiting list and that they were not being taken into the service very rapidly. But I believe the system is not handled on the basis of first come first served, because in the cases as to which I corresponded with the department, applications had been in for the past fourteen months. One of the girls I referred to had received a call, was given her medical examination, and was advised that she would be notified in due course. That puts her in a position where periodically she has to spend money to replace her uniform and make certain

War Appropriation-Naval Services
preparations if she is to stay in the hospital, though at the same time she is waiting a call to the navy. I am convinced that there is something to be desired in the consideration which is given to taking girls into the nursing service of the navy. If the merit system prevails, seniority of application and everything else being equal, that is the basis on which selections should be handled. I am reasonably sure that that is not the case at the present time. The girls to whom I make reference	could have gone into other
branches of the service but they did not want to, having a particular yen for the naval service. I suggest that the minister look into the situation with a view to establishing a system which is fair and equitable.
There is another matter upon which I wish he would make some observations, if not now, when he has had a chance to check up concerning it. On March 12, as reported in Hansard, page	2603, the Minister of
Munitions and Supply, in discussing shipbuilding, was asked the following question by the hon. member for Vancouver South:
That would mean that we would have over two hundred ships less sinkings.
The minister replied:
Yes. Those ships are being chartered to the United Kingdom and will be reclaimed at the end of the war. We hope to have at that time sailors and officers from among the men presently in the Canadian navy. We expect that the Canadian merchant marine will be a substantial source of employment in the post-war years and that it will be of real benefit to Canadian post-war commerce. That is the policy.
What I am interested in is this. Canada is and will be for some time an exporting nation. In the past she had chartered ships from every part of the globe and paid out good Canadian money to have our produce taken to other parts of the world. I take it from the minister's statement that it is anticipated that full use will be made of our merchant marine in the aftermath of this war. That is as it should be. It will provide a means of livelihood for a large number of men who are now taking specialist training in that particular calling. As one who is interested in post-war employment I am in accord with that statement. What I would like the minister to' comment on is, how it is anticipated that the merchant marine will be built up, and how men now serving in the navy and in the merchant marine will be employed; the basis upon which this will be done. Will it operate by private enterprise as it is done now, with a certain amount of
governmental supervision? To what extent and in what capacity will officers and men now serving in the navy be utilized? Any information which the minister may have that will supplement the partial statement made by the Minister of Munitions and Supply would, I think, be welcome, because the statement we have already had_ requires some elaboration. It is something in which the Canadian people are definitely interested. We think it very necessary, instead of chartering ships from Japanese and all over the world to carry Canadian commerce to all parts of the globe, that it should be a definite phase of our own economic life after the war.
I am sorry I have had to occupy this amount of time and to deviate to some extent from the item we are considering, but after listening to the last speaker I thought I was justified in taking a little latitude and putting these particular questions to the minister to be answered after he has had time to study them.


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: I have not as yet
taken any part in the discussion of this department under the war appropriation measure. May I begin by saying that all of us are proud of the navy and its activities, and those of us who come from western Canada, particularly far removed from the sea, are pleased that our provinces have made such a large contribution. Now that a new system has been evolved whereby ratings will be raised to commissioned rank, speaking on behalf of the western provinces our proportion of commissioned officers should be larger than it is now. An examination of the figures shown on page 3407 indicates an inequality in the percentages among the various provinces that is difficult to understand. In Prince Edward Island the proportion is 49 officers to 1,036 ratings, or one in 20; in Nova Scotia-one can understand this-one in 9; in New Brunswick, one in 13; in Quebec, one in 6%; Ontario, one in 12; and when you come to Saskatchewan the proportion is approximately one to 28; while in Manitoba it is about one in 20. Having regard to the quality of the men who are coming from the west I do think that there should be some equalization in the opportunities of commissioned rank and I have no doubt that will be so under the new arrangement.
Mention has been made of the fact that Canada's navy as a separate entity had its birth since the beginning of this war. In that connection I would point out that in 1918, on May 17, an agreement was made among the

War Appropriation-Naval Services
various dominions of the empire respecting naval development in the dominions. I will read it:
The dominion ministers, having considered the admiralty memorandum of May 17, 1918, on the naval defence of the British empire, which was circulated to the imperial war conference of 1918, submit the following conclusions and observations:
1.	The proposals set forth in the admiralty memorandum for a single navy at all times under a central naval authority are not practicable.
2.	Purely from the standpoint of naval strategy, the reasons thus put forward for the establishment of a single navy for the empire under a central naval authority, are strong but not unanswerable. The experience gained in this war has shown that in time of war a dominion navy (e.g., that of Australia) can operate with the highest efficiency as part of a united navy under one direction and command established after the outbreak of war.
3.	It is thoroughly recognized that the character of construction, armament and equipment, and the methods and principles of training, administration and organization, should proceed along the same lines in all navies of the empire. This policy has already been followed in those dominions which have established naval forces.
4- For this purpose the dominions will welcome visits from a highly qualified representa-t;je of the admiralty, who, by reason of his ability and experience, would be thoroughly competent to advise the naval authorities of the dominions in such matters.
5. As naval forces come to be developed upon a conisderable scale by the dominions, it may be necessary hereafter to consider the establishment for war purposes of some supreme naval authority upon which each of the dominions would be adequately represented.
In the very full statement that was given by the minister I do not find any reference to several of the matters covered by this memorandum of 1918, which to all intents and purposes has not since been altered. Are the principles of training, administration and organization alike, or have they proceeded along similar lines, in the various navies in the empire? Is there to-day a supreme naval authority within the empire upon which each of the dominions is represented? Is Canada represented on such a central board, and are any of the other navies within the empire represented on such a board?
_ The next matter I should like to deal with is one that has been referred to on previous occasions but it has yet to be answered by any of the ministers of defence. I intend to devote the time at my disposal to the consideration of a subject which is of interest not only to the men who serve in the navy but also to hose who serve in the other armed forces, 
namely, the establishment, for the protection of service men and women, of a system of life insurance.
A number of questions were asked to-day by the member for Victoria-Carleton as to what insurance is offered to the members of the armed forces. Several other questions were asked at the same time, and the answer was, that insurance was made available by various insurance companies. I wish to place before the minister the necessity of action being taken now, before the commencement of the offensive overseas, for the establishment of a plan of life insurance which will be available to the men and women of the armed forces during the period of the war.
I realize that insurance can be secured from private companies, but the premiums are so high, having regard to the reasons incidental to war service, that it is impossible for service men and women to secure insurance to-day. It may be said that it is late in the war to suggest this, but I would point out that so far our casualties do not amount to over 8,000. It may also be argued that an insurance scheme will cost a great deal. It may cost the state a considerable outlay to protect the loved ones of those who are serving, who to-day, not being dependents, have no protection, but it would improve the morale of the armed forces in the knowledge that they would receive the same consideration and protection as given those in the United States armed services, and it would encourage thrift and give to those in the armed services a nest-egg after the war.
It has been most successful in the United States. Our armed forces serve alongside those from the United States, and I think that with a view to securing as nearly as possible an equality of terms of service, the introduction of this measure at this time would receive the approval not only of those in the armed forces but also of the people of Canada as a whole. The United States has had a national service life insurance scheme in effect since October 8, 1940. So successful has the scheme been that up to March 15, 1943, 7,750,000 applications had been received, with an average amount of $6,381 for each policy. It might be argued that to bring in such a scheme would impinge upon the field enjoyed by private insurance companies. However, experience in the United States of America is that fears such as that have not been justified in respect of the scheme introduced there. They had a similar scheme during the last war, altered in this war in order to meet the exigencies peculiar to present-day conditions.

In a recent article dealing with this matter the answer is given as to the effect on private insurance companies:
The advent of the government into the life insurance business during the first world war, authorizing and emphasizing as it did a maximum of $10,000 protection on every serviceman's life, has generally been conceded to have been a great benefit to the institution of privately operated life insurance. At that time apprehension was felt in some quarters of the possible encroachment of government upon the field of life insurance. As a matter of fact the records disclose that on January 1, 1917, there was less than twenty-five billion dollars of commercial life insurance in force in the entire United States, and within two years after the close of the first world war this amount had increased to over forty billion dollars, exclusive of government life insurance.
I suggest-and I am going to ask the [DOT]cooperation of the minister in this matter-the [DOT]establishment in Canada of a system of life insurance, made available, as I have already suggested, for every serviceman and woman, in amounts up to $10,000 per year, at net premium rates based on the Canadian table of mortality, with interest at three per cent, the government bearing the excess mortality costs.
As I have already stated, a similar system is in effect in the United States, and it has .worked out so successfully that wherever one goes among members of the service in that country, he hears good reports of the plan. I had an opportunity to speak to a number of servicemen on a recent trip to the United States, and they, along with those in public life, state that no scheme has ever been introduced in the United States which has done so much to improve the morale of those who serve.
I shall epitomize, in a very few words, the scheme in that country. It provides that insurance may be taken out by all who serve within 120 days after the scheme is brought into effect, or within that period after a person joins the armed forces. The premium is based on a five-year term insurance, with the privilege of conversion to ordinary life insurance, twenty-payment or thirty-payment, at any time within the period of five years. I shall not go into the scheme in detail, but I might say it is set out in the May issue of a publication called, "The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science".
Policies on maturity, on the death of those in the service, are payable to the beneficiaries, irrespective of pension rates enjoyed by those beneficiaries, by monthly payments, on the basis of $3.97, and up, per $1,000 of insurance. The cost is very low, having regard to the



REVISED

[Stage Direction]
9, 1943	_	3479
War Appropriation-Naval Services
service rendered. The cost to the state has not been very high. The cost to the serviceman, on the five-year plan in effect in the United States, at the age of twenty-five years, is only $6.70 per month for $10,000 of insurance, or approximately $79 a year. That amount is paid by the serviceman who takes insurance payable for a period of five years, if he survives the war. And at the end of or during that period he may transfer into an ordinary life insurance policy such as I have already mentioned. The rates are somewhat higher for persons over twenty-five years.
On many occasions the matter of insurance has been mentioned. I think the hon. member first to mention it in the house was the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church), whose contribution to the welfare of the men and women in the services of this country is recognized by all, irrespective of party. With the introduction of such a scheme at this time our servicemen would be placed in a position of equality with those in the United States who are in the services. They would be given an opportunity to have, at a low rate, that which the private insurance companies cannot give them. Provided they were disabled, if a similar scheme were in effect in Canada as is in effect in the United States, premiums would no longer be payable. In the event, however, of the insured dying in the services, he or she can provide protection not only for his or her dependents, but for others who, by reason of non-dependency, have no protection to-day. Thereby the morale of those who serve would in my opinion be,immeasurably increased.
I do not ask consideration by the minister of this proposal. It is not something new; it is not utopia; it is not nebulous. Experience in the last war has shown that it worked. The experience in the United States since May, 1940, has altogether been of such a nature as to have won the approbation of men and women in all the services, and the universal approval of the legislators and those in authority in Washington.
Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: There are only one or two things I should' like to mention, and I shall not take long with either of them. The one question I was about to bring up has already been mentioned by the hon. member for Lake Centre. That had to do with officers and ratings in the different provinces, as outlined by the minister at page 3407 of Hansard. I do not wish to be misunderstood in this regard. I am not complaining particularly about the number of officers appointed from Quebec, in relation to the number of men from that province.



EDITION

[Stage Direction]
War Appropriation-Naval Services
But I do think there is an unfair distribution as related to the other provinces. And, as I have it figured out, in Prince Edward Island there was one officer for every twenty-one men; in Nova Scotia one for every 8-8 men; in New Brunswick one for every 14; in Quebec, one out of every 6; in Ontario, one out of 12; in Manitoba, one out of 19; in Saskatchewan one out of 28; in Alberta one out of 27, and in British Columbia one out of 7.
In view of that astonishing relationship of the number of officers to the number of men, I think there should be some explanation from the minister. I suppose he has an explanation for that, and I shall not dwell upon it further than to say, once again, that while I have no objection to the number of officers coming from Quebec, I do think there should be closer relationship between ratings and officers, having' regard to the other provinces. I shall let any further remarks I have to make on that subject go until the minister has had an opportunity to explain the matter, because there may be some reason for it.
The other point I wish to bring to the minister's attention has to do with rates of pay in the navy. I have had a good deal of correspondence in regard to the pay of various ratings. I remember that the last time I came to Ottawa I had the privilege of discussing this subject with some sailors as well as three or four naval officers who were on the train at the time. The complaint has to do with the living allowance given those who have enlisted since June 1, 1942, when they are forced to live out of barracks or ashore. My understanding is that ratings who joined after June 1, 1942, receive 81.25 a day.
Angus Lewis Macdonald: That is their pay in the beginning. '


Charles Edward Johnston: And I am told that those who enlisted before June 1, 1942, receive $1.45.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: That is right.


Charles Edward Johnston: These men complained very strongly of this difference, and I believe the protest is well founded. I do not see why a line should be drawn as between those who enlisted before June 1, 1942, and those who joined after that date; certainly it is penalizing those who joined later. So far as the cost of living is concerned they are in exactly the same position as those who joined before June 1, 1942, and it seems to me there is a great deal of discrimination here. You ask these men, some of whom enlisted before June 1, 1942, and

others who enlisted later, to live under exactly the same conditions, to belong to the same force and fight for the same cause; yet one receives only $125 a day as against $1.45. A great deal has been said in eulogy of the boys of the navy. I would not want to detract in any way from what has been said in that regard, because I think the work they are performing is just as essential as the work of any other branch of our defence forces. I believe they are entitled to a little praise, but I think they are also entitled to a little financial consideration and in this respect I do not believe they are getting fair treatment. I am told that the reason why this change was made was to bring these rates into line with those of the other forces; the minister will correct me if I am wrong in that. Well, if that is true, it seems to me a very poor reward for the splendid service the navy is performing, to reduce the pay of the ratings by twenty cents a day. No doubt to some twenty cents a day may not seem very material, but when they were getting only $1.45 to start with and that has been reduced by twenty cents, it becomes a serious matter to these young fellows. Not only is it a consideration financially; it is a consideration in regard to their morale and feelings, and those are matters to which we should give attention.
Surely the excuse that this was done to bring them into line with the other services is hardly sound. It seems to me the fair thing in a case of that kind would be to increase the pay in the other services, instead of reducing the pay of these naval ratings, to bring them all somewhere near a decent standard. We cannot expect enlistments in the forces if we are not going to treat the men properly. Apparently the minister is having no difficulty in getting recruits; I think he said he has a waiting list, though not as large a list as he had previously. The air force also has a waiting list, though not as large a list as it had previously. The army is finding it difficult to get recruits; in fact we have had to resort to conscription for that purpose. This is a very poor way to encourage young fellows to join the navy. I suggest to the minister that this matter should be gone into a little more fully and that these men should be given their former pay and allowances when they are living out of barracks. If necessary, the allowances given in the other services should be increased as well. I need not say more on this matter until I have heard the minister's explanation. Those were the two subjects I wanted to bring to his attention.

War Appropriation-Naval Services


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I am not going to make a forty minute speech; I have only a few questions to ask. Yesterday, Mr. Chairman, you said you had allowed the committee a great deal of latitude; personally I thought you had also given a great deal of longitude. I wanted to ask the minister just what was the difference in the pay of the naval commandos, of whom I understand we have some training on the Pacific coast and in England. I should like to know also if the minister's department has anything to do with the training of the men of the merchant marine. I wish to know how many civilians are engaged by the navy department in connection with the organization of the sea cadets; where the sea cadet training camps will be this summer and, if possible, how many boys will be trained at each sea cadet camp. At the same time, if possible, I should like to have the minister give us the allowances the sea cadets receive during this training.
Then it has come to my attention that in some of the administration offices civilians are working alongside men in naval uniform; they are both doing practically the same jobs, but in most cases the men in uniform are receiving more money than the civilians are paid. I should like to know how many civilians there are in each branch of the service, including the administrative branches, and the number of those engaged in inland waters and also on convoy work. I believe that is all I have to ask now; I shall have a number of questions to ask later on, but I do not wish to take up more of the minister's time at present. However, I wish to say I am pleased that the minister is to name a corvette after the city of Peterborough.


Mr. COTE:: I should like to invite the minister to make a statement in regard to a certain matter which has caused some discussion in my district. I refer to the decision of the minister in connection with my request and that of other citizens of my community that a corvette should bear the name of our city. I made this request in November, 1941, at the office of the naval secretary, and two weeks later I wrote to the department. I was given to understand that the name "Verdun" could not be used as the name of a Canadian warship because a British destroyer already bore that name. In the following year the minister was kind enough to write to the city officials of Verdun to ask them to suggest some other name,' and the name of "Dunver" was chosen. A campaign has been carried on by a certain French language newspaper in Montreal and it has been stated that the name "Dunver" was chosen for other
reasons. I do not intend to comment on what has been said, but I should like the minister to make an official statement as tq whether my remarks as to the real reason for choosing this name are well founded. Would it be possible to have a name that would include "Verdun" given to some vessel?
While I am on my feet I wish to refer to a resolution which was passed by a division of the Catholic women's league of Canada located in my riding. This is dated May 25, and a copy was supposed to have been sent to each of the three ministers of. defence. They point out that there are not sufficient facilities for divine worship in the different camps, and their opinion is that if chapels were built it would develop a religious spirit among the men. I ask the minister to comment upon this resolution which he should have received at the end of last month.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: I think it would clear matters up if the minister would give the committee an assurance that there is no regulation or order or agreement, either written or understood, which prevents the giving of a commission in the Canadian navy to a person of other than British origin, no matter what that origin may be.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I think the best answer is the number of officers from Quebec. There are 1,175, or some such number, from the province of Quebec and many of them must be French officers. Thd navy list is full of French names.


George Hugh Castleden: That does not answer the question.	;


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I think it shows that there is no rule or regulation requiring a person to be of British origin1. Otherwise, how could these French Canadians get in?


Richard Burpee Hanson: The only regulation is that they shall be British subjects.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: That is the only regulation, as I pointed out yesterday.


Mr. HAZEN:: The minister stated the other evening, as reported at page 3407 of Hansard.:
About 20,000 are serving in Canadian ships; the others are training at shore establishments.
In addition to the officers and men who are serving in Canadian ships, are there any trained men serving on shore? If there are, would the minister give us the approximate number? It seems to me that all the trained men
72537-221}

War Appropriation-Naval Services
cannot be serving in Canadian ships and perhaps this statement should be further explained.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: My hon. friend is quite right. It would be incorrect to say that all the trained men are at sea and none were on shore. Obviously there are some trained men on shore carrying out instructional duties and the like.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And
administrative.


Douglas King Hazen: I would ask the minister to give us the number of trained men who are serving on shore.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I shall have to get that from all over the country and it will take me some time.


Douglas King Hazen: I do not recall whether the minister gave us the number of men who had lost their lives in the service during the war.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Nearly a thousand.


Douglas King Hazen: How many have been
wounded?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: It is a small number compared with the number killed.


Douglas King Hazen: How many have been discharged on account of wounds? How many on account of injuries? How many on account of illness? How many on other grounds? How many "Wrens" have been discharged from the service and for what reasons?


John Ritchie MacNicol: I should like to ask the minister about a statement made by a gallant officer, Commander Andrew MacLean, to a naval volunteers' association some time in late April or early May. The dispatch from which I shall quote is dated May 8 and is copied from the Quebec Chronicle-Telegraph. Commander MacLean is quoted as saying:
There must be equality of service in return for equality or greater sacrifice.
Apparently enlarging upon that statement, he said:
For far too long have the naval volunteers of this country-officers and men of the R.C.N.R. and the R.C.N.V.R.-been subjected to the most unfair discrimination by the regulations and the interpretation of the regulations by the permanent force R.C.N.
And further:
, If a volunteer wishes to make a suggestion or to state a complaint, he is just wasting his time for the papers will proceed only as far as the first R.C.N. officer-and thence into the waste-paper basket.

And again:
If a volunteer has an idea how to sink submarines, it is automatically deemed silly.
Speaking of his own experience, he said:
I got so disgusted when ideas of mine were turned down that I copied one of the British admiralty's and sent it in as my own. You will all be amused to know that this device, in satisfactory use on hundreds of British ships, was described as entirely impractical by the selfappointed experts of the Royal Canadian Navy.
Would the minister state how much truth there is in these statements of Commander MacLean?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I should have to look into the matter of the device which he says he submitted to the Royal Canadian Navy and which was rejected. I do not know anything about that. As to the general complaint which he makes of discrimination against the volunteer reserve and the naval reserve by members of the permanent force, I must say that 1 have no knowledge of any such discrimination. I do not think any member of the permanent force of the Royal Canadian Navy discriminates in any way against the men who have come in for hostilities only. On the contrary I think they admire tremendously the zeal and gallantry and courage of these civilians who have become sailors in a few months and have shown such remarkable aptitude for their tasks. So that I do not think there is anything in the story of discrimination.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Had this man been on one of our warships?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: He was on a smaller type of warship called the Fairmile, which is a motor craft. He was in command of one of these in the early stages of the war.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Did the minister himself investigate the complaints of Commander MacLean?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Naturally the permanent force officers who are making the nhvy a career expect that they have a preferred position, and I can quite appreciate that. But my understanding of Commander MacLean's complaint is that he could not get his recommendations or his complaints through to headquarters, that they never got beyond the first officer simply because they came from him; they were automatically thrown in the waste basket. Has the minister ever investigated this matter himself because, 'after all, where there is smoke there may be fire, and there is a good deal of smoke

War Appropriation-Naval Services
around Commander MacLean. I know him extremely well, and he thinks he has a real grievance against the permanent force officers of the navy. I do not know anything about the matter myself, but I suggest that the minister's reply does not indicate that he himself has made any investigation. We ought to know just what the position is with reference to the complaint of this man, who is certainly not a fool by any means. He is certainly a man who is actuated by high patriotic motives. He wanted to help but just did not get the opportunity to do so. Did the minister himself ever make any investigation of his complaint?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Some months ago I made a long statement in the house. Perhaps the hon. member was not present.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I remember reading it.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: If my hon. friend had read the statement and had it before him now, he would see that not all of Commander MacLean's complaints were substantiated. Some of them I was able to contradict flatly by unquestioned facts. As to the others, so far as I could make an investigation I made it. Obviously I could not call in officers from all over the earth, some of them at sea, some in England, and some perhaps in the Mediterranean at that time, but so far as it was possible for me to make an investigation I did make it and I was able to assure myself that the charges which Commander MacLean made were not substantiated to any worth-while extent. Ho complained of not having been listened to and of his recommendations not having been heard. The opinion of officers here, one after another, is that it was MacLean's fault. There lies the difference. MacLean blames a dozen other people, and they blame him. I prefer to accept the word of these officers. Some of them are officers of high rank. I am supported also by the view of English officers. I was obliged to give their views to this house as to Commander MacLean's abilities. I had to do that in justice to the service, and their opinion of Andrew D. MacLean was very low.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What do they know about it?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: He had gone to England in 1940 and remained there until 1941.


Richard Burpee Hanson: When he could not get into the Canadian navy.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: He was in the Canadian navy at the time and was loaned to the Royal Navy. I know the story. He was in the Canadian Air Force, Then he wanted to get into the Canadian navy. He was taken into the Canadian navy and was sent to England with a number of other men here, on loan to the British navy. That was in 1940. He remained there for, I think, nine months or so and served under British officers; two of these officers reported on Andrew D. MacLean, and their opinion of him was very low. When I have that evidence of British officers, who are certainly not prejudiced, and when I have the opinion of officers here, one after another, I think 1 am entitled to rely on>
these opinions rather than on the statement of Andrew D. MacLean.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Did he serve in the great war?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: In the last war, 1914 to 1918, yes, mainly in the Mediterranean in smaller craft, and his record at that time was good. But MacLean is now a man of forty-seven or forty-eight years of age.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Just a boy.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: It is our experience that in the smaller boats a man of that age finds the work rather difficult. It is all right on a great big ship but not on little ships, corvettes or destroyers or Fairmiles. The work there becomes pretty hard for a man who has passed his forties. But, apart, from that altogether, the facts are as I have., endeavoured to give them.*


John Ritchie MacNicol: Did he retire voluntarily during this war, or was he retired by the department since the war broke out?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Commander MacLean came to me and I had several discussions with him. He submitted three or four, perhaps five different possibilities. One was that he might go back to the Royal Navy, another that he might be given something else with the Canadian navy, and another was that he might retire. After thinking over the whole matter I advised him that of these alternatives it seemed to me the best course was for him to retire, and he did retire at his own request.


Richard Burpee Hanson: When he saw he had1 no future and could not go on. That is about the size of it.


Mr. GREEN:: When the minister made his statement on June 7 he dealt quite fully with Canada's naval policy, which will be found'
summed up at page 3409 of Hansard. It

War Appropriation-Naval Services
amounted really to a policy for Canada on the Atlantic. It was a policy largely of doing convoy work. Our fleet is obviously being built up for that purpose. Conditions on the Pacific may or may not be the same, but the minister said nothing at all about Canada's naval policy with regard to the Pacific. I think it would be of interest to the members of the committee if he would tell us just what the objective is on the Pacific. Are we to build up there an escort fleet such as we have on the Atlantic, or is there something else in mind? It does seem that there is a good1 deal of possibility there of an attack by a hostile fleet, not that it is likely at the moment, but there is far more chance of an attack of that type on the Pacific than on the Atlantic in view of the great expanse of the Pacific ocean and of the great strength of the Japanese navy. In any event, those of us who live on the Pacific would like to know what plan the government has for the development of naval forces on that coast.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I should like to consider the matter.


Howard Charles Green: If the minister would like to consider it, he might make a statement at another time.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I shall answer it some other time.


Howard Charles Green: I have another question.
It has to do with the report of Admiral of the Fleet, Viscount Jellicoe, who came to Canada in 1919 at the request of the dominion government of the day and made quite an extensive report on possible naval plans for Canada. In this report he mentioned four types of fleets which Canada could build, depending upon how much money was to be spent, and in all his plans provision was made for the building of submarines. Each of the three smaller plans calls for eight submarines; the larger one calls for sixteen; also, in three [DOT]of the four plans the recommendation is made that we should have a certain number of fight cruisers. Other types of capital ships are also recommended. Has the government ,decided not to aim at acquiring ships of these various types; and has it decided not to follow the Jellicoe report? I think it would be of interest to the committee if the minister could give the government's stand on that question also. I realize that the report is twenty-four years old and that conditions have probably changed a great deal, but I would ask the minister to say a word with regard to this Jellicoe report. Perhaps he : would also like to take time to look into that question.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Will
the minister answer my questions at the next sitting of the house, or now?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I
should prefer to answer them later. I shall have to look up some papers.


Douglas King Hazen: Dependents' allowances are
granted to what are known as common-law wives of men who enlist in the army. I do not think there is ini our law any such thing as a common-law wife: the term is used in a very broad sense. Is there any similar provision in connection with men who enlist in the navy? I have been informed by somebody that there is not. If there is not any provision, why is this distinction made between the men who enlist in the army and the men who enlist in the navy?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I
shall have to look into that. I do not know whether common-law wives exist in the navy or not.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I'll bet
they do.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The
dependents' allowance regulations refer to "child or children." Now, as to whether they are of an unmarried mother or not-


Angus Lewis Macdonald: That is the same problem.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Children's societies throughout Canada are very much interested in that.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
3. Travel, transportation and freight, $0,978,000.
Item agreed to. '
4. Construction, purchase, repairs and operating expenses of properties:
(a) capital expenditure	 $36,579,608
(b)	repairs, operating expenses
and rentals	 6,267,182
Richard Burpee Hanson: I wish to ask the minister something about the installation at Deep Brook. Why was it located there? Is it intended to be a permanent institution; if so, why was it located there? Or is it a war-time institution; and if it is, why were so many millions spent there? And, generally speaking, why this concentration in Nova Scotia when something like that might have been built in the neighbouring province of New Brunswick, which is just as much interested in the navy as is Nova Scotia? I must say that I was astonished to learn that a

War Appropriation-Naval Services
training school was being built at a place like Deep Brook which is not on the sea. It is hardly on the Annapolis basin.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Oh, yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, it is on an arm of the Annapolis basin, where the tide ebbs and flows twice in twenty-four hours and leaves the flats dry.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Oh, no.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Of course it is not a naval station; it is, as I understand, a naval school. Why was it located there? Has the fact that the Minister of Finance is the representative of the county anything to do with the situation? Why was it necessary to put it there, and why such a large expenditure? Then I wish to ask the minister some questions with respect to the building of a naval base on Sydney harbour.
I think the name of the place is Port Osborne.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Point Edward.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I assume it is a wise thing not to have all the naval bases concentrated at one place. I think there is too much concentration in Halifax now. The Canadian admiralty built, I believe, a huge new graving dock at Halifax.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: No.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I may not be correct in the designation of the plant which was built there, but an extensive operation was undertaken and is at that point. Also there are huge ammunition dumps in the locality, and one bomb from a submarine could explode the whole thing. Why was there so much concentration at that point? Point Edward, I understand, is on Sydney harbour. My information is that Sydney harbour proper is frozen for four months in the year; ships have to use the outside port in winter time. How can you have a naval base which is infested with ice? Not only is the harbour proper frozen over, according to the information I have, but the drift ice in the early part and the latter part of the season makes it more or less inaccessible. Is it intended to use ice-breakers to maintain this as an open port the year round?
Then I should like to have the minister's explanation as to the character of the construction there. My understanding is that the buildings were put upon filled land, that the concrete was poured and that on account of the instability of the foundation the backbone
of the building was broken and the work had to be done over again at great expense. It would appear from what I have heard that faulty judgment was used with respect to the construction at Point Edward. I should like to have the minister's defence on these two projects.
Then I wish to know why the minister has not gone ahead with the proposals for the arrangements at Saint John. Surely they are entitled to that, after all that has been said and done. It is a very moderate installation that was contemplated. The land was purchased, I believe, but no construction has taken place. I once told the minister that if he would come to Saint John, New Brunswick, we would bring out the bagpipes and give him a good, decent reception, but I am afraid that invitation will not hold out indefinitely unless he does something. I undertake that if he visits that city he will have a friendly greeting, because Saint John is intensely interested in the navy. There is no doubt that the people are navy-minded. They have had a volunteer naval reserve there for a long time, and I remember that, years ago, when I was connected with the navy league, no community was more ready to befriend it than the city of Saint John.


John Ritchie MacNicol: They used to have a large corps there.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes, that is so. Since I have not been connected with the league for a good many years I do not know what the position is now. I think the minister owes an explanation of why New Brunswick has been, if I may use the expression, ignored. .The minister took great exception to an editorial in the Saint John Telegraph-Journal which the hon. member for St. John-Albert quoted at some length here the other evening, but I wish to tell the minister that that editorial exactly reflects the views of the people of that city, and he might as well know that from me.
I am not critical of the minister. I want to see the navy grow; I want to be considered a friend of the Canadian navy. I am very proud of our navy; I have a number of friends serving in it, and I hope it will be perpetuated after the war as one of the armed services of which Canadian citizens can be proud. I am sure it will be. I only wish we had more capital ships-I used inadvertently once before the expression "fighting ships" when I meant capital ships-in order that we could take a real part in the invasion of Europe, and so that it could be said to our glory that the Canadian navy had a part in what happened on the other side. It is not our fault; it is not the fault perhaps of anybody present, that

War Appropriation-Naval Services
we have not done more in this regard, but I have always felt that Canada was derelict in her duty towards the navy that protected our trade lines, our sea lines, our life lines; and during the period three years ago, just after the fall of Dunkirk, the one arm of- the British service that stood between us and invasion was the British navy. Yet we had never contributed a single dollar toward its upkeep or support in all those years. I invite the minister, therefore, to give us some information about these capital expenditures, and I should like him to defend Deep Brook. Why for a temporary installation it was necessary to spend $13,000,000 at Deep Brook-


Angus Lewis Macdonald: The contract price is $8,000,000.


Richard Burpee Hanson: We all know what that means. That may be the figure on paper, but the complete construction and equipment of Deep Brook will run to $12,000,000, and after the war it will be gone.


Douglas King Hazen: I was surprised to hear the minister say that the contract price of Deep Brook was $8,000,000. I should like him to tell us how much of this item 4, $16,490,051.37, was spent on Deep Brook. The minister did not tell us last May when the training centre was to be established there, although in all probability plans had been decided on at that time. We were not told that the work was to be done without calling for tenders. I have some other questions I wish to ask the minister. We were not told that work was to be done without tenders, and we did not know why the undertaking was kept secret until it got under way. We did not know that this training school would cost, not $8,000,000 as the minister has said, but upwards of $12,000,000, or that the contract had been made on a cost plus a fixed fee basis, until a return was tabled in the house on March 30 of this year to a question asked by the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Black). According to the return, the estimated cost of the completed project is: Land, $55,200; buildings, $7,775,000; gradings and roadways,
' $227,000; drainage and water supply, $295,000; electric services, $248,000; wharves, $455,000; furniture and equipment, $733,000; other expenditures, $1,294,766, or a total of $11,082,966.
It seems to me that an expenditure of upwards of $12,000,000 to establish a naval training centre in the fourth year of the war calls for some explanation, and in my opinion it is open to criticism. Our present naval strength is between 55,000 and 60,000. Many of these men have completed training. The minister has told us that 20,000 are at sea; I have asked for figures showing how [Mr. R. B. Hanson.)
many are on land who have completed training; and the remaining number are now being trained at training centres that have been established at great cost in various parts of Canada. They are being trained, as the minister told us, at 18 R.C.N.V.R. divisions, sixteen or seventeen naval bases and training schools, at technical schools and universities and on ships. Why at this late date of the war, when the present naval strength is between 55,000 and 60,000, it is necessary to expend such an enormous sum of money for another training centre is a question which I think the minister should answer. Does the minister expect that this war will last forever? Does he count on an inexhaustible supply of man-power? Will he tell us what the size of the Canadian navy is to be when at full strength? Is there any over-all plan?
We know that Canada has plans to maintain an army overseas, an army consisting of two corps. Has any plan been made by the government to determine what the size of the Canadian navy is to be? It seems to me that at this stage of the war there should be some over-all plan. The government should know what its objectives are and exactly what it plans to do. When the Deep Brook training centre is completed, and I should like to know when it is expected that it will be completed, will any of the present training centres be closed? Is it the intention of the government to train both men and officers at Deep Brook? What is the nature of the training they are to receive there, and how long will the course or courses of training last which they are to receive?
The minister told us the other day that it requires six months' training for a man to qualify for the lowest rating. The return to which I have just referred, brought down for the bon. member for Cumberland, states that wheq, the work is completed, it is planned to have 6,000 men under training at one time and 2,178 of an operating staff. In other words, it will take 2-75 persons for every six persons being trained. The camp that was established at Debert in Nova Scotia cost about $5,000,000, and the Minister of National Defence told us the other day that it has accommodation or training capacity for 13,000 men. Here we are spending at least $12,000,000; it will probably be a great deal more than that before we are through, and we shall -have training capacity for only 6,000. At this late stage of the war when many thousands of men have been trained for the navy, when training centres have been established all over the country at a cost of millions of dollars, this expenditure is open to some criticism, and it is the duty of the min-

War Appropriation-Naval Services
ister to tell us why it had to be undertaken. Twelve million dollars is a tremendous sum of money, and to spend that money on a temporary building which will be torn down after the war, when there are training centres established all over the country, and to have it established at this late stage, is, I repeat, open to criticism. It is something that the minister will have to explain.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I may say in reply to the hon. member who has just taken his seat that I am first of all surprised to hear him ask what is the over-all plan for naval strength. I thought my hon. friend, and those who think with him, had urged from the beginning that there should be no limit to anything-no limit ,to the number of men we should train, no limit to the number of men we should send overseas, no limit-


Douglas King Hazen: There has to be a plan,
though.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: That has been the cry, and nobody has been more vociferous than my hon. friend.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There has to be a plan, though.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: A
plan, yes; and the plan of the hon. member for York-Sunbury, from the beginning, has been that we should send overseas every man [DOT] we could possibly train.


An hon. MEMBER:: And another division to Australia.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Yes, and another division to Australia. My plan is to train as many men as I can get for the Canadian navy, and as I have ships to bold. That is my plan, and I have never wavered from it.


An hon. MEMBER:: And the air force, and the army?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: The air force will get some. Not every man wants to go into the navy, or is suitable for it. But I am prepared to go ahead, as long as I can get the men and the ships to put them in. My hon. friend talks about Deep Brook. He says that last May some question was asked me about Deep Brook, and that the matter was kept secret. I may say to my hon. friend I resent that statement coming from him, or anybody else.


Douglas King Hazen: I rise to a point of order.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Well, rise.


Douglas King Hazen: I did not say that last May some question had been asked with respect to Deep Brook. The minister misunderstood me.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: No, I did not. It was quite evident on this side of the house. I think I must say that my hon. friend sometimes when he wishes not to be heard has the habit of not allowing himself to be heard.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is unnecessary; take that back.


Douglas King Hazen: I resent that remark, and I think it should be withdrawn. I have never attempted to speak in a voice which could not be heard, although I must say sometimes it is difficult to hear in this chamber. I admit that. I will ask that that remark be withdrawn.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: There is no point of order. There is no withdrawal of a statement of that kind.


Gordon Graydon: I rise to a point of order. We have been attempting, so far as this party is concerned, to facilitate the passage of these estimates on the war appropriation bill. I think the minister will not be able to direct any remark to the contrary, so far as I am concerned personally, because I have scarcely risen during the discussion of the whole of the estimates. But I wish to say this, that the conduct of the minister last night and the conduct of the minister again now is of a character that makes it difficult for us to facilitate the passage of the estimates as quickly as might be possible. But I do suggest to the minister, in all friendliness, that I think he ought to adopt a little better manner toward us with respect to the whole matter. I say that because, after all, we are trying to help him. Certainly we are not trying to hinder.	,


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Well, what is the point of order?


Gordon Graydon: May I say this to the minister, that his reference to the hon. member for St. John-Albert was that the hon. member had, by virtue of some preconceived idea, spoken so as not to be heard in the house. In that way he imputed a motive to the hon. member, and because he did impute a motive I ask him to withdraw. Let us not have all this bickering that has been going on. I may say that a large part of the responsibility rests with the minister, and I say that in the most friendly fashion, because he knows how it is directed. But could the minister not be good-tempered during debate from now on, and make sure that we are able to facilitate the passage of these estimates?

War Appropriation-Naval Services


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I think I should clear up the point about some controversy between the hon. member for Broadview-who, I notice, is not in his seat at the moment-and myself. But I must say-	[DOT]


Gordon Graydon: You have been watching him pretty carefully.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I must say I was amazed. I did not wish to interrupt the hon. member for Broadview as he spoke this afternoon-


Douglas King Hazen: Before we get to the hon. member for Broadview, I rise to a point of order. The minister has imputed a motive by suggesting that I dropped my voice so that I could not be heard.


Gordon Graydon: Deliberately.


Douglas King Hazen: That is the motive he imputed to me. I ask him to withdraw it.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: On the point of order, I have listened attentively to the discussion, and I could hear no unparliamentary expression, any more than when I listened to the leader of the opposition, when he made reference to the temper of Some of the statements made by the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wish to observe, in answer to the remarks of the leader of the opposition-and I am sorry the hon. member for Broadview is not in the chamber at the moment-that I never saw or read anything like the statement which the hon. member made. I simply placed on Hansard last night a series of quotations from speeches made by the hon. member for Broadview, dating back to 1926. Those were references to the Canadian navy. They were made one after the other-1926, 1928, 1940, 1942 and 1943. And I ended up by saying I had to have regard to the nature of those references rather than to the protestations whch the hon, member might have made last night.
This afternoon the hon. member rose in his place in the house, and spoke of personalities, asking why he should be singled out for attack, and stating again that he has been attacked. But nothing of the kind was done. If an hon. member in the house cannot quote the record of another hon. member on a certain point-in this instance the naval policy of Canada, and the quality of the Canadian navy-then we are coming to a curious state of affairs. And it is absurd for the hon. member for Broadview to attempt for one minute to shift the whole burden of proof, by saying that I

started this attack, when for twenty years he has been referring to toy navies, tin-pot navies, navies locked up in garages, contemptible little navies, navies that cannot put to sea, and the like. It is absurd for him to think he can say that, and it will be perfectly all right, but when I draw attention to it, and put things on the record one after the other, to show the character of his remarks, that will be terrible! I am making an attack on him when I put his own record on Hansard!
Now, as to the hon. member for St. John-Albert, I say that this afternoon he suggested -there is no doubt in the world that he suggested that last May it was known that Deep Brook would be the site for this-


Douglas King Hazen: That is just what you did
not say, You said that I stated that last May you had been asked a question about it.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Whether I was asked a question or not, my hon. friend's inference this afternoon was that last May-and I do him justice when I say it-I knew that this establishment would be in Deep Brook, and yet said nothing about it in the house. My hon. friend implied that. In that case my hon. friend implies I concealed something from the house that I should disclose to it. I resent that implication, and my hon. friend ought to retract it.


Douglas King Hazen: The statement I made was
that "in all probability"-


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Oh, well, that is the same thing.


Douglas King Hazen: No, it is not the same
thing.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: My
hon. friend had better sit down.


Douglas King Hazen: Quote me correctly, then.


Mr. LOCKHART:: Have it taken from Hansard, if it is not right.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: What I wish to say to the hon. member for St. John-Albert is this:	The decision to build a base
at Deep Brook was reached by the naval authorities. I could give him the history. The first idea was that the base should be built at Shelburne, Nova Scotia. At that point there is a good harbour, open the year round. It had a certain number of naval buildings and air force buildings, and some army buildings. That was the spot originally chosen for the base. But when the engineers and contractors looked at Shelburne they found that the drilling for the excavation work necessary would be very expensive, owing to the character of the soil. It is a very heavy, rocky

War Appropriation-Naval Services
soil. They said that the expense of laying the foundation of the buildings would be too great, and that, if possible, some other spot should be selected.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Was it not because the harbour was too much exposed?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: No, no.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Exposed to attack?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Oh, no.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There is something in that.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Well, of course, if my hon. friend knows more about this than I do, and knows more about what went on than I do, he ought to come over here.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think I could do as good a job as the minister is doing, anywhere, at any time.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: There was never any question about the exposed nature of Shelburne harbour. The whole question was the expensive type of excavation that would be required.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not want to be misunderstood as attacking the harbour, for it is a good harbour. What I was trying to convey was that it was on the Atlantic coast and, therefore, might be more exposed to attack than a harbour in the interior waters. I want that made quite plain.	'


Angus Lewis Macdonald: No, I do not think that feature came into the matter at all. It was largely because so many pipes have to be run in an establishment of that kind, water pipes, sewer pipes, perhaps gas pipes; foundations had to be dug, and if you had to go through rock the engineers and construction people said the cost would be almost prohibitive, so that another place had to be selected somewhere. Various places were considered; some place in Lunenburg, some place in Yarmouth. Finally this Deep Brook site was selected by those interested in training and by the admiral 'commanding the Atlantic coast, and it is an excellent site from the point of view of building, at any rate. The basin' of Annapolis is salt water; when you pass through Digby gut you are out into the bay of Fundy. It is fairly near Halifax, from the point of view of supervision, and
can be reached by the Canadian Pacific either through Saint John and Digby or by way of Halifax.
My hon. friend talks about training centres established in other parts of Canada at great cost, and his view is that as a result there was no need, in the fourth year of the war, to spend some $11,000,000, as he has it, on Deep Brook. I have the figure here of $8,800,000, which is for the buildings. My hon. friend's figure covers the wiring, the wharves and the other incidentals to a base.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is all public expenditure.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: That is right; I took the buildings and he was looking at the whole expenditure. I may tel! my hon. friend that when I came to Ottawa, nearly three years ago, the department of naval services did not own a single foot of land except at Halifax on the east coast and Esquimalt on the west coast. Not another bit of land was owned by the department, which was operating in rented buildings. We have had a great deal of difficulty in trying to get matters straightened out in Saint John, but I believe within a short time they will be straightened out. In Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg, and everywhere else the navy was operating in that way; it did not own a single foot of land or a single building. I will say this, that the training facilities in this country are not at all sufficient for the training of our men. Furthermore, even though some men are trained at sea, a great many of them are being brought back for advanced courses. The man who starts out at sea as an ordinary seaman may require to be brought ashore for a specialist course in torpedo work or gunnery or asdic operation or signalling or any one of a great variety of courses. So that, while I believe there are some twenty thousand men at sea, there are some thirty-five thousand or so training in Canada, and there will be a constant flow of men back from the sea to receive further training at Deep Brook.
As to the situation at Sydney, I shall investigate what my hon. friend said. I do not think there is any fill there; the general layout of the land is very good-[DOT]


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is that Point Edward?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I can tell the minister that I have first-hand information that the buildings were constructed on filled land; that the foundations gave way; that the
3490	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Naval Services
backbone of one of the main buildings was broken, and they had a terrible time fixing it up.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Well, I do not know; some of the buildings may have been constructed on filled land. I saw some of the buildings while they were being erected, and they were not on filled land, but there may have been a building on such land and I shall look into it.


Mr. STIRLING:: Will the minister say how many miles it is from the city of Sydney?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: It is just across the harbour. I think if you drive around by land it is about five miles.


Grote Stirling: It is in the same inlet?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Yes. By boat it is a very short distance, less than a mile.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is part of Sydney harbour, is it not?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Yes.


Mr. ADAMSON:: Can the minister say what is the rise and fall of the tide?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: At Sydney?


Agar Rodney Adamson: No; at Deep Brook.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I cannot say exactly; it is not as great as in the bay proper. Probably it is ten or twelve feet, but there is always ample water in the basin.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There is twenty-eight feet in the basin at full tide.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Perhaps; I can find out. There is always ample water in the basin.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is
mostly dry land, except at high water.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: No; ships go right up the basin, beyond Deep Brook.


Richard Burpee Hanson: At high water.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Oh, no.


Thomas Langton Church: 
Angus Lewis Macdonald: That, is an attack in itself-


Thomas Langton Church: I have the floor.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: -and that is what you have been doing for twenty years.


Thomas Langton Church: I am not going to be interrupted by this hon. gentleman any more. I have the floor, and the rules of the house prevail in committee, which is something the minister apparently does not know.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I know a great deal more about the rules than the hon. member does.


Thomas Langton Church: That may not be the rule in Nova Scotia, but it is the rule up here.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I may tell my hon. friend that the Nova Scotia rules are a great deal older than the rules of this parliament.


Thomas Langton Church: Hon. members may bang their desks all they please; I am going to ask a question in regard to a number of properties purchased or rented in the city of Toronto. I shall take only two or three moments.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Six o'clock.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: What is the question?


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: By consent of the committee the hon. member may ask the question.


Thomas Langton Church: I was given a return in regard to certain properties purchased in the city of Toronto for the use of the navy. A mansion house was one of them on Crescent road. May I point out that there has been an absolute wastage of money in this regard in repairs and upkeep. They have the exhibition grounds-


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Order. Is the hon. gentleman asking a question, or is he not?


Thomas Langton Church: I asked a question in regard to a mansion house on Crescent road in the city of Toronto; the navy moved as far away as that. The question was made an order for return; it asked the cost of the property and the cost of the repairs, but the reply was, "No information." Then they went.

Questions
*over to Queen's Park crescent and took Sir Joseph Flavelle's house. My point is that there should be some coordination between the three departments on heavy repairs and maintenance, so as not to have this duplication and waste in the city of Toronto; and further that they should begin to look after the housing of our soldiers' families instead of putting people in mansions like those. There may be some explanation, but if there is the minister has never given it to me, and I think I am entitled to it.	[DOT]


Angus Lewis Macdonald: The vent for the Crescent road property is a dollar a year, I believe.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without *question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, June 10, 1943