1943-06-08

Mr. W. H. GOLDING (Huron-Perth) moved:: That the third report of standing committee on standing orders, presented to the house on Thursday, June 3, 1943, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST BERTRAND (Minister of Fisheries) presented the first report of the special committee on the defence of Canada regulations, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Mr. JEAN-FRANQOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): Mr. Speaker, I have just a word to say about this matter, one I have been thinking of for a long time. I have in mind the case of ex-mayor Houde, of Montreal.
Some time before the federal election of 1936 municipal elections were held in Montreal. In order to get information on the point, I asked taxi drivers what the result would be. I was told Mayor Houde was very popular and that he would be elected by a tremendous majority. The fact is that he was elected later on by a majority of 42,000. Some federal Liberal members-
Mr. SPEAKER:: May I draw the attention of the hon. member to the report of the special committee. It is as follows:
The special committee on the defence of Canada regulations begs leave to present the following as its first report:
Your committee recommends (1) that it be given leave to sit while the house is sitting and (2) that from day to day stenographic reports of the proceedings be taken by the official reporters, and that seventeen copies thereof be transcribed for the confidential use of the committee.
Any discussion upon this report must necessarily be upon the report itself.


Mr. POULIOT:: Yes. What I wish to say, as I am not a member of the committee, is that the part of the evidence referring to Mr. Houde should be made public. I should know what it is about. If hon. members are not informed-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: I recognize that you, sir, are the only one to call me to order; when you

Defence of Canada Regulations
do I am ready to submit to your ruling. You know the respect I have for you, sir. I am sorry I cannot be so lavish in the conveying of my respects to others.
Here is the case of a man interned by virtue of the defence of Canada regulations. The committee meets to make suggestions. The committee is a committee of the house. I am a member of the house but I am not a member of the committee. I have suggestions to make. Is it not possible for me to make a few suggestions when the first report of this committee comes before us? It is not my intention to divulge anything that should be kept secret; it is not my intention to say anything that has not been told before to Liberal members. I desire to make some suggestions, which the committee may accept or throw in the waste-paper basket as they see fit. I consider it my duty to make these suggestions. Moreover, this is a debatable matter and it is rather hard to discuss only the way the transcription of notes will be made and so on.
When the first report of this committee comes before us for adoption we are entitled to make certain suggestions to the committee which, as I say, may be accepted or not accepted by the members of this committee. I say that most respectfully. If you allow me to continue I will say that at the time Mr. Houde was running for mayor in Montreal the member for Temiscouata intervened with the Liberal authorities so that the Liberal members did not interfere in the Montreal elections. Mr. Houde was most thankful to the Liberal members for that. When the 1930 election came along the member for Temiscouata approached him and asked him if he would take part in the election although he was then the leader of the opposition in Quebec. He agreed to that. He did not take any part in the dominion election and although he was then mayor of Montreal and leader of the Quebec Conservative opposition, he did not preside at Mr. Bennett's meeting at Maisonneuve. The Liberal party should be most grateful for what Mr. Houde has done and because of the way he received Their Majesties, the King and Queen, when they came to Montreal in 1939.


Mr. J. W. NOSEWORTHY (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak to this motion before it carries and I hope that what I have to say is in order. I should like to call the attention of the house, first, to the fact that this committee was set up on February 22; that the first meeting of the committee was called on March 26; that the second meeting was not called until June 8 after questions had been twice raised on the floor
72537-217*
of the house and a question placed on the order paper. In my opinion the obvious purpose for the setting up of this committee was the study or the review of the application of the defence of Canada regulations. Apparently that was the purpose the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) had in mind when he moved the resolution for the setting up of the committee. During that debate an amendment was introduced which was carried by the house. This morning the committee decided that it will deal first with the subject matter of that amendment.


Thomas Vien: I presume the hon. member proposes to discuss what happened in the committee this morning? That is not in order.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I simply want to state publicly in the house that in my opinion the first matter which should come before the committee-


Thomas Vien: The hon. member is proposing to discuss what the committee should discuss; that is a matter that should be discussed before the committee, not before the house.


Mr. COLD WELL:: Mr. Speaker, I think
the hon. member is discussing the terms of reference by this house to the committee; therefore I take it he is at liberty to say what in his opinion ought to be considered by the committee. The committee has asked leave to sit while the house is sitting; consequently some valid reason should be given to this house why that privilege should be granted. Therefore the matters that are to be come before the committee are relevant to the discussion of the request of the committee that it be allowed to sit while the house is sitting. I suggest that the hon. member is not discussing what took place before the committee, and he should be entitled to discuss what he believes to be the matters which should be considered by that committee.


Thomas Vien: I have listened carefully
to what the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar has said, but he will realize that we are now dealing with a report from a committee. To discuss the terms of reference as to what should be discussed before that committee is certainly not in order on the motion for adoption of the report, and I so hold.


Mr. MacINNIS:: On a point of order.
May I draw your attention, sir, to the fact that what we are discussing is exactly what was before that committee this morning.


Mr. MAYBANK:: Mr. Speaker-

Defence of Canada Regulations


Thomas Vien: The hon. gentleman is
rising to the point of order that has been raised by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar?


Angus MacInnis: May I proceed?


Thomas Vien: The hon. gentleman is speaking to the point of order?


Angus MacInnis: I was just going to draw to Your Honour's attention the fact that the motion now before the house covers what took place in the committee this morning. If that cannot be discussed, surely there is no sense in bringing this motion before the house.


Ralph Maybank: Mr. Speaker, I do not
know whether the hon. gentleman sat down because I am raising a point of order, or because he had concluded his remarks. The point of order I wish to raise is that the ruling you have given is no longer debatable. If that is what the hon. member is debating, then he has no right to do that. If the matter raised by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) is still open for discussion, then I crave leave to speak. On the other hand, if it has been disposed of by your ruling, I am equally content. But if it has been disposed of, I submit that the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) may not debate the matter further, nor may the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). If we are to have a free-for-all, then I want to get in on it.


Thomas Vien: When the hon. member
for Temiscouata was speaking I raised the point of order that he was speaking to something that was not before the committee. The hon. member for York South referred to what he thought should be the terms of reference, and, if I understood him correctly, he attempted to discuss the proceedings which had taken place before the committee this morning. The committee is the proper place to discuss what the hon. member has been discussing. We are now dealing only with the question whether the report asking for leave to sit, and also with regard to a stenographic report, should be adopted. The discussion must be confined solely to that.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Am I in order-


Thomas Vien: The hon. member has
spoken already.


Mr. COLDWELL:: May I draw to Your
Honour's attention the fact that you interrupted the hon. member during the course of his remarks, and he sat down because you rose.


Thomas Vien: The hon. gentleman was rising before to a point of order?


Major James William Coldwell: I was rising to a point of order.


Thomas Vien: Then the hon. member has the right to speak.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I want to ask you, sir, if it is in order for me to suggest what in my opinion should come before that committee when the committee is asking for the privilege of sitting while the house is in session.


Thomas Vien: I have ruled already that the hon. gentleman cannot do that. As I have said twice, what he is entitled to do is to bring these matters before the committee. After they have come before the committee they can then be discussed in the regular way when the report comes before the house.


Mr. C. E. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the committee has moved that the committee ask leave of the house to sit while the house is in session. May I inquire whether it would be in order for the chairman of the committee to explain to the house why they want this leave to sit? I am not a member of that committee, and the member of our party who is on the committee is sick in bed1 and has to stay there on the doctor's orders. As a member of this house I should like to know why the committee is asking leave to sit while the house is sitting.


Thomas Vien: The hon. member has made a request to the chairman of the committee, but I cannot enter into consultations with regard to that which the chairman of the committee may explain as to what happens in a committee or the procedure to be adopted.


Mr. KNOWLES:: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, as a member of this house may I ask whether it is fair that along with other members I should be asked to vote on a motion to empower the committee to sit while the house is sitting without our first being informed as to what the committee intends to deal with, particularly when some question has been raised as to the order of the agenda agreed upon in the committee?


Thomas Vien: The hon. member is referring again to the proceedings before the committee. His remarks should be addressed to the committee.


Mr. LIGUORI LACOMBE (Laval-Two Mountains) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I

Defence-St. Lawrence
agree with the suggestions expressed a short while ago by the hon. member for Temis-couata (Mr. Pouliot) concerning the appeal for release from internment which was submitted by Mr. Camillien Houde, former mayor of Montreal. I should like to congratulate him on the recommendations which he suggested to the committee on the defence of Canada regulations, and I would ask the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) to make public the inquiry and the findings of the advisory board regarding this appeal.
Several hon. MEMBERS: Order!


Thomas Vien: Order. I am informed that the hon. member is expressing approval of what the hon. member for Temiscouata said with regard to Mr. Houde. I have already stated that that is not in order, and I objected when the hon. member was speaking along the same lines.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table P.C. 3205, of May 31, 1943, an order in council defining the conditions under which members of the armed forces may participate in political matters. As this order has reference to members of parliament and will be of interest to them I believe it should be tabled forthwith.

On the orders of the day:


Hon. R. B. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: I desire [DOT] to address a question to the Prime Minister and to make a suggestion to him and to the three ministers representing the armed services. The question arises out of the order in council which has just been tabled, which is P.C. 3205, dated May 31. The recital in the order in council indicates that it is desirable to have uniformity of policy in respect of participation in political activities by members of the armed forces, and that would seem to indicate that there had not been uniformity in the past. The specific suggestion I have to make to the Prime Minister and to the three ministers is this, that there is a limitation of one month for a candidate preceding an election for the dominion or provincial house, or a by-election, and I suggest that this is not long enough. In the second place I suggest that the limitation of one month allowed to members of
the armed forces to attend parliament or the legislature in a given year is not sufficient. I hope this will be reviewed.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, the ministers of national defence having made their respective statements to the house on defence matters generally, this would appear to be an appropriate moment for me to make a statement with respect to measures which have been adopted, in cooperation with civilian authorities, in the organization of the defences of the lower St. Lawrence region, with a view more particularly to countering expected submarine activities in that area.
These measures include the appointment of a defence coordination officer to coordinate civilian defence efforts and provide the necessary liaison with the service forces in the region.
Upon the advice of the chiefs of staff, Vice-Admiral Percy Nelles, Air Marshal Lloyd S. Breadner, and Lieutenant-General Kenneth Stuart, the government has appointed Squadron Leader J. P. J. Desloges, R.C.A.F., as defence coordination officer in the Gaspe and lower St. Lawrence.
The creation of this new position and the appointment to it of Squadron Leader Desloges complete an extensive and highly integrated organization of all civilian and service defence facilities of this region. The service-civilian organization will be operative against any type of enemy action, but it has been designed particularly with a view to providing the most powerful possible countermeasures to German U-boat activities which are to be expected in the waters of the river and gulf this season.
Squadron Leader Desloges' duties will be to supervise and coordinate the work of the civilian organizations which will operate in intimate cooperation with the navy, army, and air force, and to provide liaison between these civilian organizations and the armed forces. The civilian organizations are the Quebec civilian protection, committee (AjR.P.), the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Quebec provincial police, and the aircraft detection corps. Partly in the civilian and partly in the service field, the reserve army also has an important role to play in the plan.
Specialized instruction in submarine detection and aircraft identification is being given

Defence-St. Lawrence
to the residents of eveiy town, village and hamlet of the Gaspe and lower St. Lawrence region, and also to all persons in the rural districts, including remotely located farmers, fishermen and lumbermen. Four mobile instruction units are already at work and to date more than thirty community meetings have been held. These meetings, which are for the purpose of forming local civilian defence organizations and for hearing details of the plan, have almost all been called by the municipal authorities themselves. In nearly every instance, they have been presided over by the parish priest or the' mayor. Speakers provided by the civilian protection committee, the aircraft detection corps, the local reserve army units, and by the other defence forces, have addressed these meetings, describing how each organization and service fits into the plan.
Briefly, the already smoothly working aircraft detection corps is being extended and trained to function equally well as a submarine detection corps. The aircraft detection corps, along with units of the Quebec civilian protection committee, will provide the means through which all citizens can render invaluable service. It need be no secret that members of the aircraft detection corps have already made valuable contributions in the battle against the U-boats, particularly off our Atlantic coasts, during the winter months.
At the present time members of the aircraft detection corps in the Gaspe and lower St. Lawrence region are turning in more than 500 reports of all kinds a week. Most of these reports have, of course, referred to the sighting of our own planes. The story of how members of the aircraft detection corps have facilitated the rescue of lost airmen is already well known.
This aircraft detection work has given a large organization excellent training and practice in handling reports swiftly. When a submarine is sighted this training, and the channels of communication already established, will enable a clear-cut report, devoid of the confusion of undue excitement, to reach operational units of the navy, army and air force in the shortest possible time.
To get action, any resident of the region who sights a submarine, or any aircraft detection corps observer who sights either an aircraft or a submarine, has only to go to the nearest telephone and ask the operator for "Aircraft Detection Corps". The operator will instantly clear all lines to a reporting centre connected with the operational units so that the persons reporting may give their messages directly to the service personnel who are on

duty at the reporting centre twenty-four hours a day. The reporting centre passes the information by direct telephone to the operational units of the defence services concerned where immediate action is taken in accordance with pre-arranged plans for dealing with the enemy.
A point which I wish to emphasize is that the report goes from the reporting centre directly to operational units which not only have full authority but the duty of taking instant action. Every officer knows exactly what has to be done and knows that it is his job to get it done without waiting for instructions from any higher authority. Furthermore, among the services plans have been so fully worked out that combined operations by- two or more of the services occur automatically without waiting for further instructions from higher authority.
Thus, the moment a report is received at an operational station, planes of the air force that are already in the air on anti-submarine patrol are directed by radio to the spot where the UJboat was sighted. Ships of the navy already on patrol in the same area are also directed by radio to the location. If the scene is one in which shore guns of the army can be effective, the appropriate battery is immediately notified and has full authority to go into instant action. Meanwhile other planes at aerodromes in the district and additional naval vessels at local harbours are in constant readiness.
After action orders have been given, or possibly simultaneously with them, reports of course go to superior authority. These are not only for the information of such authority but are also to enable senior officers to order into action, if they deem it necessary, any additional forces from neighbouring or perhaps distant districts which they think might add to the success of the operations, but let me again make it clear, in view of misconceptions on the part of some of the public last year, that a message does not go all the way to headquarters in Nova Scotia and orders come all the way back again before counter-action against the enemy is initiated.
In certain remote areas there are as yet no telephone lines. In these cases means are available for getting the messages through by telegraph. If neither telephone nor telegraph lines exist, radio communication is available. All operators, whether telephone, telegraph or radio, are already fully instructed in the means of getting messages through rapidly. An observer who spots a submarine in regions not served by phone can get his message through by getting it to any telegraph or radio operator. A further detail worth mentioning is that all three means of com-

Defence-St. Lawrence
munication will be available for emergency messages of this kind twenty-four hours a day. In districts where the rural telephone system, for example, has in the past closed - down during the night, special arrangements through the cooperation of all concerned have been made for operators to answer at any hour all incoming calls reporting aircraft movements or enemy activity.
It has been mentioned that the reserve army, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Quebec provincial police, and the Quebec civilian protection committee, all have important roles in the over-all plan. The job of the reserve army is a dual one. All its members in the Gaspe and lower St. Lawrence region have been made ex officio members of the aircraft detection corps organization. In this capacity they will function along with all other civilians as submarine and aircraft spotters. If, however, local defensive action is required, the reserve army units are equipped and trained to defend their communities and put up effective resistance pending the arrival of additional military forces or assistance from the naval or air services.
The Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Quebec provincial police will maintain a vigilant watch for possible enemy agents and saboteurs. They will be assisted by the reserve and active army units located at isolated points along the coast and by information furnished by members of the civilian defence organizations.
I should like to point out that bringing thousands of civilians into our defensive system in this region implies no weakening or relaxing of the defensive facilities already provided by the armed services. On the contrary, naval, land, and air defences undertaken by the active service forces have all been considerably strengthened during the winter months. What has happened in bringing civilian organizations into active participation to a much greater degree than formerly, is that the armed forces and police authorities are being provided with thousands of additional eyes and ears-and these extra eyes and ears are being given technical instructions to make them extremely useful. The navy, army, air force, and police will maintain their patrols as usual, but all four will now have the advantage of the additional help provided by all residents of the region.
Along with the community meetings which are being held in the Gaspe and lower St. Lawrence region by the mobile instruction units (these units, by the way, will use boat and plane if necessary to get to places not served by roads), the system of instruction of the civilian population includes the use of
pamphlets and posters and the cooperation of press and radio, The aircraft detection corps and the Quebec civilian protection committee are jointly responsible for the educational programme. This programme is planned to include aircraft detection corps exercises. In these exercises the residents of the various communities would have an opportunity to test their skill in aircraft recognition and their efficiency in making concise, clear reports. Other details which will be taken care of are educational work to make the "dim-out" in this region still more effective, and the civilian protection committee will explain to the citizens what this precautionary measure does and why it is necessary.
Another educational campaign that will be intensified is discouragement of careless talking about ship movements and military installations. The purpose of this, of course, is to keep the enemy from gaining any information useful to him.
The new defence coordination officer, Squadron Leader Desloges, whose headquarters will be in the Gaspe area, has not only had extensive experience in combat in this war, but is bilingual and has a personality which should make cooperation through him between all the participating organizations an easy matter.
Squadron Leader Desloges was a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police prior to his appointment to a commission in the R.C.A.F. in October, 1937. He was one of the early Canadian pilots to participate in the battle of Britain. He was wounded, losing the sight of an eye, in August, 1940, thus being eliminated from further front-line combat duty. As the result of a series of lectures which he gave, after returning to Canada he became widely known throughout the province of Quebec. Subsequently he was appointed to the command of an air gunners' ground training school.
Another prominent personality in the plan is Marcel Gaboury, K.C., who is not only commissioner of the Quebec provincial police, but also head of the Quebec civilian protection committee, both of which organizations are components of the new defence plan. Commissioner Gaboury will supervise the educational campaign sponsored by the Quebec civilian protection committee and will be assisted by the public relations officers of the three services.
The services feel that this fine cooperation by civilians will enhance the value of the coordinated defence facilities which they had already set up jointly. I need hardly say that I thoroughly agree with them. We have here
Food Conjerence

an ideal example of civilians and service personnel working in complete cooperation and coordination in the defence of our nation.


Mr. D. K. HAZEN (St. John-Albert):: If I am in order I would ask the Prime Minister if any attention has been given to the establishment of a somewhat similar organization in that part of the province of Nova Scotia and of the province of New Brunswick which fronts on the waters of the bay of Eundy. There have been submarines in the waters of the bay of Fundy, and there is no reason to suppose that there will not be submarines there again.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am not in a position to give my- hon. friend any exact details, but I may find it convenient to answer his question later.



FOOD CONFERENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Leader of the Opposition):: I have two questions I desire to direct to the Prime Minister. May I ask the Prime Minister if he is yet in a position to make, in accordance with his .previous undertaking, a full statement to the house upon the deliberations and decisions reached at the united nations food conference recently held at Hot Springs, Virginia?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I hope to be able before the end of the week to lay on the table a report of the committee and I shall ask the house at that time to permit the report to be printed and distributed to members as was done in the case of various proposals for exchange stabilization which were earlier pre-r sented to the house. In tabling the report I shall make a brief general statement to the house on the work of the conference and the programme for future action.



LEGATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: I have another question to ask the Prime Minister. It arises out of a news item in the Ottawa Journal of yesterday, which carries a dispatch from Stockholm, 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.
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?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Perhaps my hon. friend will allow the question to stand as a notice and I shall give a reply later.


Gordon Graydon: I sent my hon. friend a notice of the question but perhaps he has not received it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am sorry; I have not.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: I desire to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Did the Minister of Labour in April, 1943, order the Canadian Marconi Company of Montreal to reinstate Jacques Rouleau? If so, has the Canadian Marconi company obeyed the order? What measure has the government taken to see that the order of the Minister of Labour is obeyed?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.



SAUSAGES AND HAMBURGER-RATION REGULATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Major James William Coldwell: May I direct a question to the Minister of Finance? Yesterday I drew his attention to a radio report regarding the rationing of meat. To-day on page 16 of the Montreal Gazette there is a long article which says that stores that handle sausages are confronted with loss of good edible food, since fresh sausages are perishable and no longer saleable after twenty-four hours, and the result is positive waste. The situation, the article states, is intolerable in the face of the request that all citizens use less meat. A telegram was sent to Mr. Donald Gordon with reference to the matter. The minister said yesterday that he would look into it. In view of the apparent urgency of it,

Fuel Emergency
and the desirability of preventing a waste of foodstuffs, can he give a statement to the house?


Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: I happened to read the article in the Gazette to which the hon. member has referred. I have not had time to take it up with the board, but if the house thinks fit I can make a report to the house on the question. It is, however, a board matter.


Thomas Miller Bell: What about the question I asked yesterday? It seems to me that though it is a board matter the minister is responsible to the House of Commons.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I agree with that, but my experience has been that the board deal with these things with great promptness. I have not had time to ask them, but I am sure they have been giving anxious consideration to these representations, which apparently are coming in to them from various quarters.



DAIRYING INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. FRASER (Peterborough West):: On May 11 I asked the Minister of Finance a question in regard to whey butter. I wished to know whether coupons would be necessary. On May 13 the minister said that the wartime prices and trade board were going into the matter. Can the minister tell the house whether they have decided what they are going to do, and whether coupons will be necessary?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I cannot say. I took that matter up with them at once, however, and received an answer which I cannot repeat at the moment, but they were certainly giving attention to the subject. I will give information to my hon. friend, and if it is of general interest I will state it in the house.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I
asked the question because the Minister of Finance a moment ago said to a member sitting to my left that the wartime prices and trade board treated every matter promptly. I was wondering if they would treat this question with the same promptitude.



CONDITIONS UNDER NATIONAL EMERGENCY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: May
I ask the government a question on this the eighty-fourth day of the session? First, what
is being done about the coal situation, and, second, what is the status of the housing situation?


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: I must have anticipated my
hon. friend for I have here a statement with regard to a question asked on Friday last, June 4, by the member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell). The hon. member wanted to know whether I would give an explanation to show how the coal emergency has been cared for in the past two weeks and how the situation stands at the present time. At that time I promised to make a statement and with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make the following report:
Following the passing of P.C. 4092 on May 17, copy of the order was sent to every coal mine, and operators were instructed to submit amended demands for labour to our local offices, these demands to be based on the maximum possible production and to include additional staff for development work and additional shifts.
The coal emergency was publicized by newspaper advertisement, through the press and by radio. All local employment offices were directed by wire to dispatch miners who registered at their offices to the coal mines in which they had last worked, pending receipt of full and detailed instructions. These instructions have since been issued and provide for such controls as are necessary, in order that the men who register under the compulsory order may be directed to the mines most urgently requiring help.
A special staff is being arranged for through the civil service commission to give direct supervision to the movement.
The national registration of August, 1940, is being reviewed and particulars taken of all persons registered who had previous coal mining experience. Particulars of some 31,000 miners have been supplied to the employment service offices. These will be checked with the company payrolls and the information used as a check against the registrations.
On May 1 there were 2,651 vacancies registered with our employment offices; from May 1 to 31, 1,019 workers have been placed in the mines, and as at Saturday last the vacancies, including the additional demands referred to, totalled 3,146. This is broken down in the coal mining areas as follows:
May 1	May 1-31	May 31Vacancies	Placements	VacanciesPacific	.. 559	310	219Prairies ....	.. 753	257	992Maritimes .	.. 1,339	422	1,9352,651	1,019	3,146
War Workers


Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):: May I inquire whether the government are aware that within the past few weeks, since the issuing of the emergency fuel order, there have been two major disasters in Nova Scotia, one in the Waterford district, affecting approximately 1,200 men, and the other, in the same district, consequent upon fire and flood, which displaced another 250 men? There is really a surplus now in Nova Scotia and I should like to know whether the minister is taking the necessary steps to see that the men so displaced shall be fully utilized before any men are forced from other industries by the war emergency order.


Humphrey Mitchell: I have knowledge of the disasters to which my hon. friend refers. It is hoped that the shut-down will not be too prolonged. My hon. friend can rest assured that we shall use common sense in the transfer of miners working in other industries back to the mines. I think we can be relied upon to do that.



WAR WORKERS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. W. ROEBUCK (Trinity):: I would like to ask the Minister of Labour what progress has been made in the organization and financing of the programme of recreation for war workers. This is an enterprise designed to provide entertainment, exercise and recreation for Avar workers, and I understand that a community conference was held in Toronto not long ago at which plans were laid in this connection. This conference was attended by community organizations of Toronto, representatives of the provincial government and representatives of the Department of Labour. I understand that the Department of Labour gave certain assurances that contributions and help would be given to this programme, and with that understanding the citizens of Toronto have carried on. I am now told that they are in an embarrassing position because the work is being proceeded with under private subscription by certain individuals and cannot be long continued on this basis. I would like to know what progress is being made towards carrying out the understanding and putting this excellent work on its feet.


Humphrey Mitchell: What my hon. friend says is true; conferences were held in the cities of Toronto, Hamilton, London, Windsor and Brantford for the purpose of organizing

recreational facilities. On April 9 representatives of the' established community councils on recreation, labour organizations, churches, universities and national organizations directly interested in recreation conferred with officials of the Department of Labour. Representatives of the governments of the provinces of Ontario and Quebec also attended the conference.
This conference asked for leadership in recreational plans, stressing the need for additional personnel to provide leadership to and coordination of efforts already made. Representatives stated that the existing physical facilities should be fully utilized but the required additional workers and publicity should be paid for by funds provided by the federal and provincial governments, industry and the workers, according to some satisfactory agreement.
A full statement of the conference was submitted to the national selective service advisory board. This board advised that a recommendation be sent to his excellency in council that, under the authority of the War Measures Act and subject to the approval of the governor general in council, the Minister of Labour might enter into agreements with provinces or municipalities to provide recreational facilities for war workers; and further, that an immediate initial expenditure of $40,000 be appropriated for this purpose. This recommendation is now before council.
An approach will be made to the provinces and other parties concerned to negotiate agreements. A national officer for recreation to promote the work will be appointed. It should be pointed out that in the past the development of recreational projects has been the concern of community groups and organizations, and of management. Government participation in direction and control is a new venture and one that requires careful consideration. There is little precedence to help direct the planning. So far as possible essential needs should be met and if war conditions have imposed too heavy a burden upon the voluntary community organizations, every consideration will be given to proposals placed before the government.



DEFENCE OF CANADA REGULATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Liguori Lacombe: Mr. Chairman,
may I put a question to the hon. Minister of

War Appropriation-Naval Services
Justice (Mr. St. Laurent)? Will the hon. minister make public the report- of the inquiry, held on May 28 last, concerning the appeal for release from internment submitted by Mr. Camillien Houde, and if in the affirmative, when will he do so?
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice): The answer to question No. 1 is no. Question No. 2 is answered under question No. 1.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to direct a question either to the Prime Minister or to the Minister of Finance. Has the government received a communication from the Manitoba conference of the United Church of Canada, which met in Winnipeg last week, asking that there be an increase in the amount paid to our old age and blind pensioners? If so, what reply has been given to this communication?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am not aware of any communication of that kind having been received.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say, supplementing the reply of my colleague, that I am not sure such a communication has not been received; I am inclined to think that it has. The reply that has gone forward or that would have gone forward would be that the matter is under consideration.


Thomas Miller Bell: And has been since 1926.



PRIVILEGE-MR. POULIOT NEWSPAPER ARTICLE APPEARING IN &quot;LE CANADA&quot; OP JUNE 5

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata) (Translation):	Mr. Speaker, it has
been drawn to my attention that Le Canada, in its issue of Saturday, June 5, published the same fallacious remarks found in Le Soleil of the same date. My reply to Le Soleil, as recorded in yesterday's Hansard, applies mutatis mutandis to Le Canada.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, June 7, 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.
NATIONAL DEFENCE FOR NAVAL SERVICES 1. Civil salaries and wages, $6,192,054.
Douglas King Hazen: Under the second heading, pay and allowances, which I was discussing last evening, I want to draw the attention of the minister to the conditions under which petty officers and men of the Canadian navy who are stationed in Newfoundland have to live. I am not speaking from personal knowledge, but I believe the information that has been furnished me is correct. I am informed that there are several hundred Canadian sailors stationed in Newfoundland. When they go ashore they are given a living allowance of SI .75 per day, out of which they have to pay for their board and lodgings. Living quarters are not obtainable at reasonable prices in Newfoundland; in fact it is very difficult to obtain them at all. If a vacancy does occur the prices quoted for a room are from $60 to $75 per month. One vacancy in a rooming house was available at $6 per week, but the room was poorly furnished; there were three beds in it which were already occupied by five sailors, and the only available accommodation was space in one of the double beds. As a consequence of the lack of rooming accommodation I am informed that our sailors are sleeping in sheds, trucks, coaches, attics or wherever else they can find accommodation. The sanitary conditions these men have to put up with are, I am informed, deplorable. In fact, in many cases there are practically no sanitary conditions available. The men are obliged to. eat either in the Y.M.C.A. or in what are described to me as dumps and dives. They pay from sixty to seventy-five cents per meal. The high cost of living can be readily understood, since there are duties on foods entering Newfoundland, there is no price control and. there is great inflation. The cost of living, my informant told me, was higher than in any country in which he had ever travelled.
It is quite impossible for our men to live properly under these conditions on $1.75 a day. The United States government provides in Newfoundland suitable barracks for the accommodation of its sailors. Our government has failed, I understand, up to the present time, to provide similar accommodation. My informant stated that the conditions were damnable, and that it was. a disgrace to our government and country that such conditions should exist. I ask the minister if he is familiar with the situation, and if steps are being taken to rectify it.


Mr. MACDONALD (Kingston City):: Does the hon. member agree with that editorial?


Douglas King Hazen: Yes, I agree with it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: We have been humbugged and hamstrung.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Does my hon. friend say the record of New Brunswick is unmatched, so far as naval service is concerned?


Richard Burpee Hanson: "Unmatched"-what does the minister mean?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: If my hon. friend would listen he would know what I mean. The editorial says New Brunswick has been deliberately and intentionally cold-shouldered, in spite of its "unmatched" record. I am asking my hon. friend to look at the figures I placed on Hansard last night, and tell me whether he agrees with the editorial in that particular respect.


Douglas King Hazen: I am not prepared to say the editorial is referring to that particular aspect. The editorial goes on to say:
This is no oversight or accident. Here is a clear confirmation of what this newspaper has alleged time and again, that naval establishments are placed anywhere and everywhere except in New Brunswick. How does the Hon. Angus L. Macdonald, Minister of National Defence for Naval Services, explain this evidently deliberate policy? It no longer astonishes, it disgusts as an example of discrimination the equal to which it would be hard to find.
It seems to me some explanation is due New Brunswick by the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services, and also the Minister of Transport, as to why New Brunswick has been treated in this way. It is not surprising that the premier of New Brunswick, a supporter of the dominion government, said this in a statement he issued to the press on June 5 of last year:
I am sure that the people of New Brunswick will persist in doing their bit, but the sooner, however, the tactics of discrimination and favouritism are abandoned, the better.

War Appropriation-Naval Services
His words evidently fell on deaf ears. As one of the representatives in this house from New' Brunswick I join with the premier of that province-and, I may say, with the provincial leader of the opposition, who on more than one occasion has raised his voice about this matter, in protesting against this discrimination and favouritism. I agree with the Telegraph-Journal when it says it no longer astonishes but disgusts, as an example of discrimination the equal to which would be hard to find.
The return of April 19, to which I have referred, gives a further example of this discrimination. It sets out that the number of military personnel, male and female, serving in the army on March 31, last in Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island was 30,000. In New Brunswick there were 10,000. It sets out that the number of civilian personnel serving in the army in Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island total 755, and in New Brunswick, 149. The number of service and civilian personnel serving in the air force on March 31 last in Nova Scotia was 15,459, and in New Brunswick 5,363.
It is not only in the armed services that this discrimination exists. A return tabled in this house, which appears as an addendum to Votes and Proceedings of March 22, is entitled, "Report on capital assistance to Canadian industries." This is compiled by the Department of Munitions and Supply and covers the period from the commencement of the war to December 31, 1942. It shows that the government has provided capital assistance to Canadian companies totalling $1,723,827,099, made up as follows:
Fixed capital	 $821,042,913
Working capital	 902,784,186
No details appear to be given for the working capital advanced to companies in New Brunswick, but of the fixed capital of $S21.042,913, New Brunswick received about [DOT]6 per cent, or $5,336,750.
New Brunswick can point with pride to the way in which her sons have voluntarily enlisted in all branches of the service. They have not shirked their duty. The province has provided its share of all war loans, and it was the first province to reach its objective in the last loan. As the premier has said, it will persist in doing its bit, but is it unfair or unreasonable to ask that it receive a fair share of the increased activities brought about by the war, and a fair share of the expenditures the government is making?
On Monday, May '31, a return was tabled in this house in reply to certain questions which I had placed on the order paper, being
sessional paper 124-B. This return sets out the fact that the government has spent for the construction of buildings and the purchase of lands and buildings from September 1, 1939, to March 31, 1943, in Nova Scotia a total of $29,997,000 and in New Brunswick a total of only $19,000. Nearly $30,000,000 in Nova Scotia, only $19,000 in New Brunswick. I had to check these figures twice before I could believe my eyes. There is a cartoonist whose work appears regularly in many Canadian papers under the heading, "Believe it or not." He brings to the attention of his readers matters that seem incredible but which nevertheless are true. If Mr. Ripley is looking for material for another cartoon he will find it in these figures. If the Telegraph-Journal wants further evidence to substantiate its statement that in naval matters New Brunswick has been definitely and intentionally cold-shouldered, it will find it in these figures.
On May 7 of last year the minister told us that $635,500 was being set aside for the erection of buildings and other necessary works at the port of Saint John. I have asked the minister how many of these buildings have been built. A year has passed and my understanding is that none of them have been erected. In consequence the navy at Saint John is obliged to carry on its operations at a great disadvantage. They are housed in what might be termed a rabbit warren, and have been forced to carry on training operations under considerable handicaps. I ask the minister now if contracts have been awarded for the erection of these buildings. What buildings, if any, have been contracted for? If contracts have been awarded, who are the contractors? What buildings are to be erected and what is the contract or estimated price in each case? If tenders have not been awarded, when will they be awarded? When will the work be started? When is it expected that the buildings will be finished?
Considerable information will have to be furnished in connection with these expenditures. The third item covers travel, transportation and freight. I referred to the breakdown which the minister gave us last year, and under the heading of travel and transportation the estimated expenditure was given as $2,585,000, whereas the actual expenditure has been $3,382,574. I would ask the minister: Are the officers and men of the navy provided with free transportation when they are granted leave? If not, what arrangements are made about the amounts which they may have to pay for transportation? When officers and men are on duty, either in the Mediterranean or on
3428	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Naval Services
the west coast of Africa, and are given leave, are arrangements made to enable them to return to Canada? Will the minister tell us if the amount spent during the past fiscal year on travel and transportation was all spent in Canada? If it was all spent in Canada, was it all spent on railway travel? Was any spent for travel by air and, if so, how much? Was any spent for travel by water and, if so, how much? If it was not all spent for travel in Canada, how much was spent for travel outside of Canada, and under what circumstances was it spent? Where was it spent and what companies were paid for providing transportation?
The estimated expenditures under this heading for 1943-44 are $6,978,000. This would appear to be an increase of nearly 270 per cent. I use the words "appear to be" because I notice that the word "freight" has been added. I do not know whether freight was included in the estimates for last year. Will the minister tell us if it was included in last year's estimates, and, if not, under what item it was included? To whom were these payments for freight made, and how much did each person or each company receive?
If I might digress for a moment, I would ask the minister to tell us whether any steps have been taken to have the insurance principle, sometimes called the "incurred during service" principle, applied to the men of the navy who are killed, injured or incapacitated while serving in Canada or in her territorial waters, instead of the principle that came into force in 1941 known as the "attributable to service" principle. This matter was brought before the committee last May by one of the members for Halifax in what I thought was a very clear statement. He pointed out that if a man in the Canadian navy is killed outside the territorial waters of Canada his dependents are entitled to compensation, but if he is killed while in Canada his dependents will not necessarily obtain compensation; nor in case of injury or illness resulting in permanent disability will the man necessarily obtain a pension.


The CHAIRMAN:: I have to inform the hon. member that he has spoken for forty minutes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Not to-day, Mr. Chairman.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: He was speaking before the house adjourned last night.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But under the rule that does not count.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I beg to differ. It does
count.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Then I will take up the parable, and afterwards go on again. I desire to make some remarks, Mr. Chairman, on the subject matter adverted to by the hon. member for Saint John-Albert.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Order. I saw the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains first.


Liguori Lacombe: Mr. Chairman, on April 19 last, I entered a series of questions concerning navigation on the St. Lawrence on the orders of the day. For weeks, I awaited a reply from the minister. His answers are less than satisfactory. He speaks of airplane attacks directed against the enemy, while the question invariably under discussion dealt with submarine attacks. What protection was given to convoys by the government when over twenty ships were torpedoed in the St. Lawrence? The protection afforded, in addition to being inadequate, was certainly not perfectly organized. Those disasters were the result of unpardonable negligence on the part of the government. In reply to the above-mentioned questions, the minister makes a great deal of the shorter distances to support his claim that transportation by land is more advantageous than convoyed transportation along the St. Lawrence. In this whole matter, however, I fear that the railways are being favoured beyond all justification. They seem to control the situation in their own interest, and to the prejudice of the public. That point should be cleared up without further delay. Do you want any proof, Mr. Speaker? The net revenue of the Canadian National Railways, over the last four years, was as follows: 1939, $20,854,418; 1940, $45,007,412; 1941, $66,608,341; 1942, $85,000,000.
The increase in the revenue of this railway is easily seen. The same applies to the Canadian Pacific Railways.
True, the St. Lawrence has not altogether been closed to navigation, but the situation is not far from that point. A mortal blow has been dealt the seaports of the St. Lawrence, and the fine port of Montreal particularly. The shipping of munitions, supplies and materials of all sorts by rail from Montreal to Halifax and Saint John, New Brunswick has resulted in over a million-dollar increase in the Canadian taxpayer's burden. This state of things is dishonest as well as unfortunate. Let us hear no more of those blinds as an excuse for the poor administration which time and again, for months and years past, has been brought to light. The same method is always used:	thoughts are concealed the
better to hide unmentionable intentions; words are uttered without point or the better to

War Appropriation-Naval Services
deceive the public. Therefore, the ports in the St. Lawrence and our navigation on that river will be ruined as a result of our participation in this war which I opposed, seconded by the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency, by an amendment objecting to this participation which threatens to carry all before it, our youth, our civil liberties, as was evidenced this afternoon, our natural resources, our commerce, our industry and even our agriculture.
To end my remarks, I shall read a letter written by an experienced pilot, Mr. Cyrille Pouliot, of Gros-Pin, Charlesbourg, Quebec:
The Editor of the Standard,
Montreal.
Dear Sir:
May I bring back to your attention the sound advice given to your valuable newspaper in an interview by an important British businessman, Mr. R. L. Holmes. This important interview was given to the Standard on October 13, 1934. Here are the words of Mr. Holmes:
"What you here in Canada must always remember is that the St. Lawrence is your front door, and when you block the front door no one can get in your house."
Mr. Holmes said that Canada would be like Siberia without the St. Lawrence.
Yes, sir, we have at our disposition this important water transport facility which since 1939 has been ousted by the railways and they have taken a place of vantage at the expense of the Canadian taxpayers.
Who is paying for all that? How much per ton from Montreal to Halifax or Saint John, New' Brunswick? These are important questions for our members of parliament to ask at the session.
Give Halifax and Saint John, New Brunswick, their importance during winter months, but let us take the advantage which the St. Lawrence offers of cheaper transportation and thus save millions of dollars. This war is already a heavy burden on the taxpayers; why make it worse?
The ports of the St. Lawrence are known for their efficiency. Montreal was quoted by Mr. Holmes as a first-class ocean port. Often we St. Lawrence pilots have listened to praise spoken by ocean ships' masters of the skilful work done by the stevedores of Montreal and their quick ways of loading ships, the honest agents, and not the least, good pilots. Praise to the St. Lawrence pilots was given by your valuable newspaper on September 8, 1923-"The St. Lawrence pilots famed for efficiency." The St. Lawrence pilots are known the world' over for their efficiency, et cetera.
The Canadian government and the engineering experts of the federal department of marine have contributed in making the St. Lawrence river safe for navigation and brought Montreal as a recommendable seaport. All this was done for cheaper transportation, shipping cargoes as far inland as possible. Now that we are learning that the submarines are going to operate the greatest battle this year, it would be advisable to sail ships as much as possible inland.
There is 800 miles from Montreal to Belle Isle. The entrance of the gulf, Cabot Strait,
has a width of 41 miles from Cape Ray to St. Paul and 11 miles from St. Paul island to Cape North-Cape Breton island.
The Strait of Belle Isle is 10J miles wide at Pt. Amour. It would be important to concentrate our patrol at the above mentioned entrances also using mines. The Strait of Belle Isle should be fortified, also Cape Ray, St. Paul island, Cape North, and the Gut of Canso.
Not only the Canadian shipment for England should be shipped from Montreal but also the American goods.
Comparative distances from Canadian and American ports to Liverpool and Glasgow:
Saint
John, New Montreal Quebec N.B. York
Glasgow	2,695	2,552	2,706	2,997Liverpool ....	2,762	2,626	2,793	3,074
One-third of the distance to England can be sailed inland safely by guarding the three entrances and patrolling the gulf. The gulf of St. Lawrence as far as Saguenay river is one of the clearest waters in the world, and cold 45 degrees Fahrenheit.
Cyrille Pouliot.
Pilot Cyrille Pouliot Gros-Pin (Charlesbourg)
Quebec.
This very interesting letter was sent by Pilot Cyrille Pouliot to the Standard, and I want to draw it to the attention of the minister.


Mr. STIRLING:: As we listened to the statement of the minister yesterday unfolding the story of the Canadian navy and what it has accomplished, my thoughts went back to not so very many years ago, when there were amongst us a certain number of people who took their pleasure in deriding and scoffing at Canada's navy. They were ignorant people, in my opinion, who were not possessed of the facts. They argued in some instances that the money which was voted annually for the upkeep of Canada's navy would be better devoted in other directions. I do not know that they did very much harm. They were scoffers who delighted in scoffing. But there were amongst them, unfortunately, a certain number of public men, and they were more dangerous because they had an audience. I wonder whether now, looking back at their foolish judgments, they are hopeful that we have forgotten their utterances and that their future statements may be given more credence. For, suppose that their opinions had been heeded, suppose Canada had dismantled her ships and distributed her men in other directions, the minister certainly would not have been able to tell the story he told yesterday of what Canada's navy has attained. If that navy had not been in existence in September, 1939, he would have had to start from scratch; he wmuld not have been able to develop it as
3430	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Naval Services
it has been developed, and it would not have been possible for it to play the considerable part which it has played in these war years.
Certainly the story which the minister unfolded brings no blush to our cheek. In part, the progress, the development, the expansion which has been made has been due to the painstaking work of the chief of the naval staff and the officers associated with him, who, in those discouraging years, were able to carry on despite the taunts which were levelled at Canada's little navy, and laid the foundation for the structure which has been erected. What was that foundation? That foundation was the outcome of plans 'which began to be developed after the great war, when Canada received from Great Britain a certain number of naval craft with which to start the Royal Canadian Navy. The plan was laid so that there should be a small, efficient, permanent force, supported by two reserves: the Royal Canadian Naval Reserve, filled with officers and men from the mercantile marine; and the Royal Canadian Naval Volunteer Reserve, distributed through its divisions all across Canada, and to which were attracted the young men who desired to follow the sea if war came. The plan was based on an efficient, small, permanent force which would be enlarged from those two sources, the mercantile members of which would have received their training at sea, and the volunteer reserve would be filled by men who received their training in the volunteer reserve.
So we see that the Canadian navy of to-day has been built on a plan which was laid after the great war. Had it not been for that plan we should not have been able to get a navy of the stature which wye have to-day. The essence of that plan was the efficiency of the permanent force. In order to attain efficiency Canada looked towards Great Britain for the assistance which the Royal Navy has been ready to give in the training of the young men of all the dominions who could go into its training courses with the young men of Britain and so receive that training and gain that experience by which we now benefit. After that training our young men went to sea in battleships and cruisers until they had served sufficient length of time to warrant their being passed on as acting sub-lieutenants . to the Greenwich courses, and having graduated in those stiff courses at Greenwich Hospital, they then were able to return to Canada for the first time and be used in Canada's ships and shore establishments.
At the time that Canada's navy was being derided there was, fortunately, a far stronger school of thought in Canada which reminded the people that Canada at least had an

expanding export trade, that in Canada's mind there was budding the idea of nationhood, that somebody would have to police these trade routes of the world, and that if Canada did not do so she should surely hang her head if she was not able to make plans necessary to take care of her commerce. That reasoning, mercifully for us to-day, was strengthened by the growth of public opinion, was kept alive by these establishments to which I have referred, scattered across Canada -the volunteer reserve-and to a smaller extent by the sea cadet corps, which are in a far stronger position to-day than they were.
The minister referred in one portion of his remarks to the four methods of entry of ratings into the Royal Canadian Navy. I trust that when we get to the question time the minister will elaborate those four methods, because I do not think they are properly understood. He referred to the first as being through the Royal Canadian Naval Volunteer Reserve, the second through the naval schools and bases, the third through the technical schools and universities, and the fourth through ships. What I do not follow about that statement is that those who come through into the navy by means of the three latter that I have referred to must pass on to the R.C.N.V.R. to receive the further training necessary. The efficacy of the training given by the permanent force has had the effect of enabling a very considerable number, running I would say into tens of thousands, of men passing through the volunteer reserve to receive the necessary training in the short time that has been available to enable them to man the ships which we have built.
The minister told of the tremendous increase in the number of ships, from 15 to 550. It has been no easy task to find officers, petty officers and men with sufficient training, with the little experience that time would permit, to man those ships, and it has been due to the benefits received from the plan that I have referred to, and the methods of training which have been evolved.
The minister did not refer to a matter which I think it would be well for him to explain in the course of the discussion, and that is the capital expenditures to government-owned and private companies for the purposes of the naval branch of the service. A return was brought down last year which indicated that the sum already expended was $80,487, and that the capital commitments were $283,959. That was up to a date last year, which I cannot recall; I have not the return before me at the moment. I should

War Appropriation-Naval Services
like the minister to bring these figures up to date and I should like him also to explain why it is necessary for the naval branch of national defence to make these expenditures direct, because in most other directions the needs of the navy have been supplied by indenting on munitions and supply, through whose hands capital assistance to the companies, whether government-owned or private, has passed.
The minister referred to the entry of ratings and explained the two methods of entry of commissioned officers. He referred also to the fact that in future we shall be able to look to the sea cadet corps as a nursery from which to draw. I should like the minister to explain whether, under the auspices of the navy-for the sea cadet corps now work in much closer connection with the navy than they did before-the age of leaving the sea cadet corps has been raised. Hitherto the age at which a cadet had to leave his corps was sixteen, and so far as I am aware the lowest age at which a lad is allowed to enlist in the volunteer reserve is seventeen and a half. I wonder what arrangements there may be to cover that overlap, because in the sea cadet corps there are usually found a certain number of lads who are extremely well adapted to the navy. Perhaps there is a call in the blood, perhaps there is a particular interest which has grown up from childhood, and it is not advisable that there should be any gap when the time comes for that lad to leave the corps and before he is able to be looked over for naval entry.
I do not understand from the minister's remarks whether there is still direct entry into the Royal Canadian Navy as there has been hitherto for boy seamen. It is true that in the years of peace the requirements of the Royal Canadian Navy of boy seamen were very small indeed, and I know from experience with sea cadet corps, with which I have been connected for a great many years, that there was very keen disappointment on the part of a lad who earnestly desired a sea life but who, with so small an entry, found it very difficult to make it. I should like to know whether there is still opportunity to receive boys, as they leave the corps, direct into the Royal Canadian Navy for training. I should like the minister also to explain what deductions are made at the source from the pay of both. ratings and warrant officers and commissioned officers.
I do not know under what circumstances, if any, the national defence tax is taken off, and I want to know what other deductions there may be for contributions to funds for
the benefit of the navy. For instance, is there anything in Canada comparable to the Royal Navy Benevolent Trust, a trust set up in Great Britain which receives, I believe, 5 government grant, contributions from the public and, I believe, contributions paid in by officers and men? Its purpose is to take care of those cases which may turn up from time to time of grievous accident to a man or his dependents-cases of sickness, operations, financial trouble suddenly occurring. I believe that after the great war it wets of great service indeed in assisting men to get reestablished, and I do not know whether in Canada we have anything comparable to that. The sailor in the navy of course comes under the pension act and receives what assistance is forthcoming in that regard; but if there is anything further than that to which a man or his dependents can turn I should like to hear more about it.
As the development of the navy has proceeded, Canada's worth has been recognized in the battle of the Atlantic, by giving command of this side of the Atlantic in the submarine war to Rear Admiral Murray, as described gby the minister. That to my mind is not only a very excellent recognition of the part that Canada has played in the fight in the Atlantic, but it also emphasizes the necessity for cooperative work between the navy and the air. Ten years ago exercises were planned to prepare for cooperational work. The work was terribly handicapped by the short supplies of those days. I should like the minister to describe to what extent that cooperational work has been carried on since the beginning of the war, and whether it is developing apace. He has referred to the squadrons w'hich have been set aside for purposes of cooperation in connection with the fight in the Atlantic, but to my mind he was not clear in his description of the command. Do those squadrons operate under the command of the commander in chief, Rear Admiral Murray, or is it a parallel operation with the naval chief and the air chief operating in close contact but not the one under the other? In the statement made by the Prime Minister this afternoon the same question arises in respect to the river and gulf of St. Lawrence. Is the squadron leader who has been appointed to take supreme charge in command of the naval forces with whom he will cooperate?
Then there is another matter in connection with entry. Will the minister explain to vrhat extent, if any, there are categories of entry into the navy. We know something of the categories in regard to enlistment in the army.
3432	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Naval Services
As to the navy, however, we do not know whether there is only acceptance or rejection; whether a man who just fails of acceptance in a fighting capacity, shall we say, can be used even though he may have som* slight disability, and whether that applies equally to the lower deck and to the executive officers. I would remind the committee that the assistance which the Royal Navy has always been ready to give in regard to training has not been confined to our young men when they first enter. As promotions come to our officers and petty officers there are further opportunities for those men to serve on ships of the Royal Navy and to take courses drawn UP by the Royal Navy, particularly in connection with those young men who specialize in gunnery, torpedo work, navigation, signals, or anything else. In that way we have been able to give the officers and petty officers and some men of the permanent force the training and experience they have required in order that they may again impart it to the volunteers coming from the two reserves.
There are many other questions which will arise in the discussion of this matter. I shall not proceed further at the moment, beyond calling to the minister's attention mhese few points on which I have asked for further information.


Mr. GRAHAM:: As I listened yesterday to the presentation by the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services I was impressed by the fact that he was relating to this committee a most important development in the history of our comparatively young country. Think of the facts as he told them to us. Canada now has some 550 warships, which number will be increased during the coming year by some 70 ships. Manning these ships, and taking care of the shore requirements, are some 60,000 young Canadians. To me this means that a nation such as ours cannot turn back in its path of destiny; and I believe the facts related by the minister will play an important part in the development of Canada into a powerful young nation.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, there was a time in the history of Canada when her ships sailed the seven seas; that was about the middle of the last century, the period known as the days of wood, wind and water. I like to read of our wonderfully self-sufficient forefathers in the maritimes who were equally capable in tilling the soil to produce the fruits of the earth; going into the forest, cutting down the trees and shaping the logs into lumber and using that lumber to build ships; sailing in those ships to carry on deep sea fishing and then journeying to every port
FMr. Stirling.]
in the world carrying the products of their farms, of the forests and the sea. Unfortunately, as we all know, the advent of steam spelled the doom of that particularly independent and self-sufficient era. I imagine to the people of the maritimes that change seemed to come slowly. However, that economic revolution, together with the railway development in the United States, became the determining fSctors that helped bring about confederation, which in turn has brought about the development of this dominion of which we are all so proud.
I believe that the present significant growth of our maritime strength marks another really important development in the history of this nation. Since that period of Canada's greatness-because Canada was comparatively great on the seas in the middle of the last century -we could not be described as a maritime nation. We all recall the heated discussion which took place in 1911 and 1912 as to what should be Canada's contribution to the commonwealth sea force. No doubt it now seems strange to the hon. members of this house that the discussion should have occurred, or that it should have been characterized by such heat. I cannot help but pay a tribute to the great leader of the Liberal party of that day, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who even then had a vision of Canada, within the commonwealth, becoming an independent, fully autonomous nation, friendly with all and in close partnership with the mother country, yet capable of assuming the rights and prerogatives of nationhood and all the responsibilities that must go with the assumption of those rights. So that what is happening to-day is in effect a tribute to the vision of Sir Wilfrid Laurier and the policy that dictated his attitude toward the development of our young nation.
I have no desire to enter into the argument of sea power versus air power, let alone to attempt to settle this controversial question. History alone, I imagine, will decide the question; but notwithstanding that controversy let me say, as the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling) has said, that the history of this war so far has shown that sea power is still a vital factor which will play an important part in the determination of the struggle in which we are now engaged. It will be remembered that Napoleon was unable to gain domination of the world because Britain in that day controlled the seas. Napoleon failed because of his inability to overcome Britain's naval strength and .command of the seas. Hitler has found and will continue to find that he, too, is unable to storm or to break down the barriers of

War Appropriation-Naval Services
that first bulwark of British defence, the sea power which has stood us in good stead throughout the ages.
When we think of the present war, and what sea power has contributed to the allied cause, we must admit that there would have been no embarkation at Dunkirk had Britain not possessed the ability to take the men out from that holocaust. < It is also easy to realize that the magnificent efforts of those few members of the Royal Air Force in those terrible days would have been in vain if Britain had not kept the north Atlantic lane open, so that the new world could carry to her the food and munitions of war which enabled her to continue the struggle.
What would have happened in Egypt; what would have happened to the Suez canal, had control of the seas not enabled us to carry to that vital field of battle not only the sinews of war but the men to use those sinews of war.
And so throughout the history of this war -in Libya and in North Africa. To-day, when we face a moment of great decision; when we are about to invade Europe itself, where would we be if we did not possess that overwhelmingly important factor, namely sea power, with which to support the armed forces we propose to send to that continent?
Therefore I think, without in any way depreciating or taking away from the army or air force the warm and well deserved praise that is their due, we should never forget the overwhelming, importance of this vital thing we designate as sea power.
Canada now has a very strong naval force. According to the figures given by the minister, Canada is now the third most powerful maritime country among the allied nations. That is a remarkable historical fact which must play an important part in the future growth and development of our country, and in its relationship to the world.
It will play a great part, too, when we come to the peace table. When I think of Canada's contribution through its army, its air force, its navy, its productive capacity, and through the immense supplies of food and war materials furnished the allied cause, I have a vision that Canada will come to the peace table as a fairly powerful voice; and more so because it is well recognized that Canada has not raised its army, developed its air force or its navy for purposes of aggrandizement, or for purposes of aggression or warfare, but for the very opposite. We have that potential strength to stand at the side of those who agree with us in developing a world in which there will be that degree of liberty and peace for which we are all striving.
I rise to-day because I come from what is possibly the most land-locked province in Canada. Sometimes I wonder if those who live down by the sea, in our coastal _ provinces, think that we have no interest in the magnificent creation of our Canadian navy. Of course the facts indicate that that is entirely wrong. These show that out of the 60,000 officers and ratings which go to make up naval personnel, almost forty per cent came from the four western provinces.
I read a discussion as to just what created the appeal in the minds of men from the prairies. One suggested that it was the love of the far-off seas. Another suggested that life on the prairies is so different from life on the sea, that the reason was to be found in the lure of strange places. I do not know the reason. Perhaps it is an atavistic trait gained from our forefathers who came from many lands, and many of whom undoubtedly dwelt near the sea.
I am delighted, however, to learn, both from the records and from conversations I have had with naval officers, of the splendid contribution made by our young men from f,he prairies. In some ways those vast prairies look like the great oceans. Our boys from the prairies have shown themselves to be first-class sailors, and I note that the official releases by the Royal Canadian Navy pay tribute to the splendid young men who have come from the prairie provinces, and who have directed their efforts to the navy.
I should like to place on record a brief dispatch setting out a deed of valour performed by one of the ships named after one of our western cities. I refer to the Regina, named after the capital city of my own province:
On a pitch-black night, tracer bullets exploding against steelwork and vivid Mediterranean phosphorescent wakes revealed the targets to gunners.
The submarine sprayed the corvette's forecastle, wheelhouse and bridge with steel and explosive bullets, hoping to kill the guns' crews and upper deck officers. By sheer luck, only one lad was grazed.
Zig-zagging in hot pursuit of the U-boat, Regina brought port and starboard light guns to bear successively on the raider's decks-the one side reloading as the other fired. The captain, navigator, first lieutenant, after-gun's crew and several others, of the submarine, were killed as they attempted to direct offensive action against the corvette and man their armament.
At the same time the corvette's four-inch gun's crew blasted their quarry at close range with heavy shells. Despite the zig-zagging of the ship their aim was good and their shells tore great gashes in the submarine's upper decks. One shell hit just at the base of the conning tower, tearing it loose from the deck of the submarine.
3434	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Naval Services
Regina drew first blood and was in command of the situation from the beginning. As she closed, ready to ram, the Italians lost all stomach for fight. Great shouts of "my friend" and "comrade!" arose from the deck of the U-boat, and the fight was over. Regina turned the beam of a large signal lamp on the conning tower, and men were seen swarming out, hands high.
The submarine sank soon after.
That is a tale respecting one of our ships named after a prairie city. Among the personnel aboard that ship were men from every province in the dominion, my own city of Swift Current contributing one in the person of Mr. John Grant.
I am sure the opportunity which came to the Regina on that occasion in the Mediterranean is the opportunity which every vessel of His Majesty's fleet seeks. That is the opportunity they seek constantly, in order that they may contribute to the valorous history of our navy, wherever their work may foe.
In passing, may I pay tribute to the minister for adopting the idea of naming our corvettes and mine-sweepers after the towns and cities of the dominion. That procedure brings home in tangible form the identification of at least one ship to the city, town or village whose name that ship carries. I know in my own small city of Swift Current there is a personal relationship between that community and the craft that bears its name. I am certain that is true of all other cities, towns and villages, such as Kamsack, Moose Jaw, Melville, Battleford, et cetera, whose names have been chosen to designate ships of war. It seems to me that whoever thought of this idea performed a valuable service for the people of this country through linking them in a personal way with some of the things our armed forces are doing in the course of their duty. I am sure that the people of Saskatchewan, in common with the people of other provinces, take pride in the minister's story of the building up of the Canadian navy. As I have said, Saskatchewan is a land-locked province but it feels that it has a part to play in all that occurs in this great dominion. Nothing has been closer to our hearts than the valour and deeds of our Canadian navy.
I wish to close with one suggestion with reference to a matter which has been the cause of controversy in this country for some time.
I confess that until recently I had not formed a decided opinion about the adoption of a Canadian flag, but I must say that I think the time has come when, in justice to the immense contribution which Canada is making; in fairness to the dignity of this nation of ours and without the least suggestion of disrespect to
I Mr. Graham.]
our mother country; in fairness to all our ships; in fairness to our army which -has fought and will fight upon the battlefields of the world, and to our air forces, we should have a distinctive flag to symbolize this great country from which they sprang. I for one think the time is ripe-I believe the great majority of the people of Canada will agree-to -have a distinctive Canadian flag.


Mr. ANTHONY HLYNKA (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, during his most interesting and well delivered speech yesterday, the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services (Mr. Macdonald) gave us some of the highlights of the services which are being rendered to the common cause by the Canadian navy. Personally I have no quarrel with the Canadian navy because there is much in it that deserves commendation, but I hold the view that we cannot get very far by patting ourselves on the back for everything we do. I believe it is proper and desirable for hon. members to point out to the minister and the committee the mistakes which are being made from time to time in an endeavour to overcome and correct them. The Saskatoon Star-Phoenix of October 21, 1942, contained an article which I should like to quote. I wish to refer briefly to some of the practices of discrimination shown by certain officers in the naval service. It is an unpleasant task for any member to rise in his place and refer to these incidents, but someone must do it. This article points out the narrow-mindedness of some of the men who hold important positions in the service of this country, and it is as follows: Navy willing to take men, Probationary sub-lieutenants will be accepted, says commanding officer
The commanding officer, Lieutenant-Commander C. A. E. White, H.M.C.S. Unicorn, announces that a limited number of applications will be accepted for entry into the naval service as probationary paymaster sub-lieutenants.
Preference will be given to candidates with university degrees and to qualified accountants. In addition, some experience in accountancy, law or commercial training is required. Those in administrative positions or those who have already demonstrated an ability to take charge are most suitable candidates.
Here is the pertinent part:
In addition to the above qualifications candidates must be between the ages of 18 and 45 and be of British origin.
All hon. members know that our Canadian citizenship is made up of peoples who have come from many different lands and who have adopted Canada as their country. I know of several instances where school chums who have attended university together de-

War Appropriation-Naval Services
cided to enlist in the navy, and the same thing applies to the army and the air force. When they were accepted, those with British names were eligible for officer material, whereas the others were left behind. This sort of thing in time of war is most undesirable. Surely there is no distinction drawn on the battlefield; surely no one cares about the origin of a Canadian soldier who is ready to give his life for Canada. Information about these cases leaks out only now and then, but the instances brought to my attention were so numerous that I was astounded.
In his speech last night the minister pointed out that the task ahead is still a great one. Why not then erase all these differences? Why bring up the racial origin of a Canadian who wants to serve his country? I should like the minister to answer some of these questions when I get through.
I wish to ask him this question:	What is
it that makes these men of non-British origin unfit for officer material? I should like to know, because scores of young men from my constituency are writing me that they want an opportunity to advance, but there is simply no possibility of it on account of this prejudice. This state of affairs is most regrettable in a time of war when we are fighting for our very existence, and a different policy should be adopted forthwith. It is true that the navy is a traditional British service. The British have naval traditions unequalled by any other nation in the world. At the same time I feel that we should accept for promotion those who are not of British origin, if they possess the requisite qualifications and physical standards. I think the time has come when Canada should once and for all erase at least some of these distinctions and fight for a common objective. No one has any choice in the matter of birth or racial origin.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I
do not want to interrupt my hon. friend, but he has repeatedly referred to an article in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix stating that recruits must be of British origin. If such an article did appear it was entirely unauthorized. The regulations simply require that a man be a British subject. There is no regulation that he be of British origin. If my hon. 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. My hon. friend will find a good many other names which indicate central European origin.


Anthony Hlynka: I am glad the minister has made that statement and corrected what appeared in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix. I feel it should be the duty of the departmental officers to check up on statements of that kind and correct them as they appear. That was not done in this case. I have known many young men in the navy, army and air force who have at different times complained to me about this discrimination. That condition of affairs should not prevail, and I am bringing it to the attention of the committee so that it will not recur. I am glad to learn the minister's attitude because we must accept all Canadians, regardless of their origin, as Canadians, particularly when they offer their very lives for this country and the cause for which we are fighting. The diversity of racial origin in Canada should be a source of strength rather than a source of weakness if our people are treated aright. There is an inestimable amount of cultural wealth brought along by the various peoples who have come to this country.
In closing, I should like to refer to the remarks made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in introducing Doctor Benes, President of the Czechoslovak republic, to the members of the two houses of parliament the other day. The Prime Minister said:
May I say to Dr. Benes that we follow in our parliament the practice he followed as President of the League of Nations, and speak in either one of two official languages. I know, had time permitted, the President, as was the custom at the League of Nations, would have wished to repeat in French the address which he has just delivered in English. I would suggest, that one of the two gifted gentlemen who will express our thanks to Doctor Benes might take notice of the fact that we are a parliament which recognizes more than one language.
I was deeply impressed by that statement of the Prime Minister, who took pride in the fact that we express ourselves in more than one language in this country. I commend that spirit and attitude to the various defence departments in the task which lies ahead of them. Canadians, regardless of their origin, and I would include those who are not of British origin, have pulled their weight admirably in this war and we should be proud of them all.


Thomas Langton Church: I had not intended to take part in this debate, Mr. Chairman, but I have one or two suggestions to offer. First, may I suggest to the minister that in view of the acoustics it would be much easier to hear him if he would occupy a seat in the front row and sit a little further down the chamber.
The minister made a very good opening statement. I would remind him that for many
3436	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Naval Services
years before the war started I had consistently urged upon this house rearmament and that we should be training from five to ten thousand naval men each year. We have the example of Gordon on the Nile in 1885. I had also urged for many years an empire shipbuilding policy, the extension of the navy, the building of a large merchant marine. When the agenda of the 1937 imperial conference was laid on the table of this house I urged that we should reopen and establish shipbuilding plants on the great lakes and the two ocean seaboards, and that we should be building merchant ships and all that kind of thing. I also urged that we should adopt the Jellico report regarding the Pacific and aid to the Singapore base.
I have no criticism except constructive to make of the department. I have never criticized, either in the two wars or between them, its personnel, the men who so ably carried on. Between the period of the two wars I did comment on the department not having given proper aid to the mother country in its great naval policy and shipbuilding policy, and also having allowed men who were faithfully serving us in the navy to put up with the conditions which then existed. We know what happened after the great war when Britain, on the urging of Canada, leading the dominions, threw away her defences and her friends and listened to the babble of the pacifists, and when his own predecessors treated the matter with some levity. However, that is all over. No doubt mistakes were made. Unfortunately the country and the house threw away its army, navy and air force and listened to the babble of the pacifists, with the result'that when another war came upon us we were not ready and had no fleet except the merchant marine.
Starting from scratch, Canada has made, I believe a very fine contribution to the naval effort. But there are some matters in which I am interested in a constructive way. I have no criticism to make of the present minister; in fact I never saw him until he entered the house on the other side of the chamber. I have no quarrel with him. Criticism is a tonic which stirs governments to action and it is the function of an opposition, provided that the criticism is of a constructive character and is founded on fact and not raised for political purposes. I am a Conservative and have never been anything else. I want fair play. In the report of my statement to this effect the other evening the word "not" was inserted in front of Conservative; I did not use it. As I say, it is the duty of an opposition to give con-

structive criticism. Since the war began I have many times brought before the committee and the house suggestions and proposals for the improvement of the conditions of those who serve this country on land, on the sea and in the air. One was a bill in 1939-40 to provide free fares for soldiers on embarkation leave; another to supply cheaper meals and berths on trains and refreshments at canteens; also to ensure better transportation for the forces on rail and ocean services; to provide a high cost of living bonus to all soldiers and dependents, and not this pin-money to which I referred in connection with the debate on the army estimates the other night, something which is given to some and not to others. The bonus which is known as a dependent's allowance for board is, in my opinion, mere charity. There should be a proper bonus extending to all branches of the forces.
Regarding the chaplain service. I cannot see the necessity of three chaplains, one for each service, in a camp like the Exhibition grounds at Toronto. I do not believe it was ever intended when the services were divided that there should be duplication and triplication along such lines.
I have also tried to offer constructive suggestions concerning conscientious objectors, alien enemies in the universities, a national system of insurance to provide protection during and after the war against want and unemployment. Incidentally the 50-mile limitation on bus travel is causing a great deal of inconvenience to our soldiers. There should be a reduction in prices in the canteens for such things as cigarettes, tobacco, soft drinks, sandwiches, coffee and tea.
The government should give some attention to correcting inequalities of pay. Last session the minister after an order was passed by the house for it three months before, went to some trouble to produce a blueprint which was laid on the table of the house. It revealed a considerable number of inequalities especially affecting the lower paid ranks, as regards pay, subsistence, and transportation. We had also, on this order for return, a blueprint covering the pay of the women's army, all the three forces. If Canada has a citizens' army there should be less inequality of treatment. Many of our best men voluntarily enlisted at the lowest rate, which was $1.30 or $1.25 a day, when many had been receiving, in civil life, ten to twelve times that a day. I believe it was even lower for the navy, but the variation has since been corrected. Nevertheless there is too much of a difference between the pay of the ordinary seaman and that allowed to

War Appropriation*-Naval Services
the higher ranks. War is war. I am not criticizing the women's army, whose personnel are no doubt entitled to what they get, but the comparison of their pay with that received by other branches shows that the men who enter the ranks of our citizens' army-army, air force and navy-are not being fairly treated.
When a person enters the army, the navy or the air force he loses his civilian status. There is no doubt about that: once you sign your attestation papers you lose your civilian status. Now, we are a civilian army as much as the men who enlisted in the American armies during the war between the north and the south, and they did not lose their civilian status. The enlisted man retains his civilian status in England, in Australia, in New Zealand, but he loses it in Canada, together with all his rights of protection based on the liberty of the subject. He cannot even write to his own member of parliament if he has a complaint to make. Some letters which members receive are opened. I had a letter opened the other day which was written to me by a good soldier who won the Military Cross. It was concerned purely with a departmental matter, but it was opened by the censor. I wish to object to that.
There should be civilian inquests all over Canada for all the forces. I found it a good thing in the last war, as I told the Minister of National Defence (Army) the other night. In 1917 conditions in the hospitals were not what they should have been; in fact in our district they practically had no hospital. They opened the old base hospital on Gerrard street, Toronto, for some of the forces, although as a hospital trustee, as mayor, I closed it because it was not good enough for civilians, and we remember there was a flu epidemic in 1917 and 1918 which took away many of our men. I contend that a man who joins the forces is entitled to all the protection which the civil law accords him. Dear knows, he has enough to put up with as it is.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I
assume that my hon. friend has looked closely into this matter of civil rights of Canadian soldiers as compared with, say, British soldiers, but my strong impression is that there is no difference whatever there, that a British soldier has no more rights with regard to complaining in writing on service matters to, say, members of parliament than a Canadian soldier has. I wonder whether my hon. friend has looked closely into it.


Thomas Langton Church: My time is limited; I am not like the minister, who has unlimited time.
But I can tell him that a man loses his civilian status by joining the army, the navy, or the air force.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I
assure the hon. member that he has as much time as I have, and I want to ask him if he has looked closely into this matter.


An hon. MEMBER:: Order.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Are we in committee; and if so, are we not to have a discussion? My hon. friend has made the statement that a Canadian service man-


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Chairman, is this a point of order? Is the minister rising on a point of order? If not, I am.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I am not rising on a point of order. I am asking the hon. member for Broadview a question.


Gordon Graydon: I am rising on a point of order, and it is that I think the minister at least ought to ask the hon. member if he desires to allow an interruption, because this is twice that the minister has interrupted him. I believe that only on a point of order should an interruption be permitted.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: When we are in committee


Thomas Langton Church: May I say to the minister that I, not the minister, am making this speech. He can make his own speech afterwards. He has the whole year to make speeches; we have just one opportunity, when his estimates are here, on the particular appropriation bill. I notice in connection with the debates in the British House of Commons that on the appropriation bill these questions are brought up which concern the three forces, and there is criticism of the gross mismanagement of the whole war. In any event I am just about through with this portion of my remarks.
In connection with summer uniforms, some get them and some do not. As regards the navy, I suggest that during the summer and winter there should be a better uniform for those men who walk around our streets. It is all very well for them to wear the ordinary uniform on board ship; no doubt that conforms to regulations and all that sort of thing. But there should be some improvement so far as training at home days are concerned.
This empire of ours came into being by the sea and it cannot exist without the sea. I believe that these vast expenditures which the minister brought down last night, nearly half a billion, while they are commendable as far as they go, do not represent the total com-
3438	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Naval Services
mitments which we shall have to make in the course of time after the war to protect us from another war. It is my opinion that even after the war we shall require very large expenditures for the upkeep of a national empire fleet as a part of the contribution of Canada to peace and collective security. The mother country has to import twenty-five out of twenty-seven articles of raw materials she uses, and we know what sea power has stood for down the ages, and what it has meant in particular to Great Britain and the British empire. I am sure the minister would receive the support of the Canadian people if he took steps to ensure a strong navy for this dominion even after the war; because I do not believe for a moment that the Canadian people will tolerate again such a state of affairs of complete disarmament as existed at the time the war broke out. Right alone is not enough. Right plus might will be right in the future, and right plus might will be the policy of the British empire, which will continue as an empire for all time.
So far as the navy is concerned, I would point out two appropriate prayers in the Book of Common Prayer. There are three prayers which have to do with our ships at sea in time of war, daily and before a battle, and the Rubric directs that these prayers shall be used daily at sea for use in His Majesty's navy, to be read at sea by all officers and men. In one of them, officers and men pray that they may be a safeguard unto Our Most Sovereign Lord King George and his dominions, and a security for all persons sailing upon the seas on their lawful occasions. That is a most eloquent tribute to the navy. It is a definition of the work of the navy in this war, and it indicates that the navy has a function wider than that of mere national and imperial defence or war effort. It is binding on Canada, The ultimate object of those who so gloriously serve in the navy is the establishment and maintenance of law and order, justice in the world and freedom from tyranny, as these prayers indicate.
The sea power of the British empire is not an instrument of injury or tyranny, though the navy has been an instrument for the overthrow of tyranny. It has always defeated tyrants, and it is the one power which the axis powers fear most to-day. It does not seek dominion but is an influence for freedom and for the protection of all those who go on the seven seas to pursue, as the prayer 'so beautifully states, their lawful occasions. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that it would not be out of place for that prayer to be read here daily, seeing what a splendid page our

officers and men have been writing in the history of Canada.
There is one question with regard to naval cadets which I wish to touch upon briefly. As everyone knows, this country excels in aquatic sports, but many of the rowing and canoe clubs, swimming and aquatic' associations, yacht clubs and so on, have been driven to the wall by the great war, the depression and this war in succession. I was at a regatta last Saturday, where a great many secondary schools of Toronto and York county were taking part at the Argonaut club in Toronto, of which I -was at one time president. I have always taken an interest in the secondary schools. I began to interest myself in this work when I was on the school board and later in connection with my activities in the aquatic clubs of the city, and harbour improvements, as chairman of the harbour board, and from my experience I have no hesitation in stating that we were wrong when we took the control of the cadet services away from the boards of education and school boards, public and separate, where it had been since confederation. There was a big parade in Toronto on Sunday, and I suggest that the minister and his department might very well cooperate with these agencies, the school -boards, in the advancement of cadet services.
I notice that in a great many newspapers there are reports indicating that members of parliament from various military districts across Canada have been invited weekly to join all parades of the forces, Toronto excepted, in order to find out for themselves how the money to pay for the army, the navy and the air force has been expended. Those of us who come from Toronto and district have never had any invitation since this war began, to attend a single event in connection with the army, the navy or the air force, to see how one cent has been spent. Personally I do not want an invitation because I have not the time to attend in any event; but I object to members of parliament being passed over in that way when they represent the people in federal affairs.
I cannot understand why it is that a statement was not given long ago of Canada's part in money and munitions as to the great armada to Algiers and Morocco. There has been no such statement on behalf of the government so far. Probably the government will make a statement later on. He gave us a very good account of the expansion of his department, and the statement he made last night contained a great deal of useful information which I did not have, and which I do not believe other members had. But I think we should have had

War Appropriation-Naval Services
long ago some sort of statement along the lines I suggest. Our military forces have written a glorious chapter in the story of the war so far; yet no one knows up to the present where Canada was in the desert victory, and it would be interesting to have a statement with regard to the part Canada played in North Africa in that connection.
I suggest also that it would be well to have a statement to clear up certain criticism that has been made with regard to the choice of barracks. As I said three years ago, with reference to the army and the other services, I could not understand then, any more than I can understand now, why certain camps were chosen in locations all over Canada for no military or strategic objective and where it was difficult to obtain water and sewers. I made inquiries in this connection at the session before last, and I was informed that it was the Minister of Munitions and Supply who had to do with the location of those camps. The navy has not as large a number as the other services, but in the choice of barracks in some of the large cities the minister, I am sure, has a great deal of difficulty in getting proper locations for the navy. He must find it difficult in Toronto. It is not very good advertising so far as I can see, although he has an excellent and popular real estate man in Lieutenant-Colonel Goodwin Gibson. In my opinion it is a wrong policy for us to have pages of advertisements in the newspapers displaying some large pictures of establishments like Sir Joseph Flavelle's house, one on Crescent road, and other mansions, when they are having such difficulties in housing the soldiers in the cities. There may be reasons for it which the minister can give; I do not know. Mind you, I am not criticizing the selection; I am simply calling attention to the policy, of our policy for certain of the forces, and no housing for soldiers' families.
I wish to encourage the department in its war effort. I am very much alarmed at what is going on in Canada. I do not like to see the apathy and political ignorance that prevail, as well as the false optimism. We seem to think the war is already won, and as I said the other day, red herrings are being drawn across the trail. You will hear throughout the country, in various public places, in the press, at public meetings and on the radio, suggestions to the effect that we have practically won the war already. Too many people in Canada seem to think there is a short-cut to victory, but there will be no short-cut to the winning of this war. There is no royal road to victory in this war, and we have no reason to expect
it as a matter of divine right. We have no right to expect that we shall win by divine right, as is preached from some of the pulpits. It is not going to be an easy task, I can tell you; it is going to become harder all the time. We are now in the very darkest hours of the whole war, and we cannot win except by methods of total war. This is a struggle for the survival of the fittest. The fact is that we must fight through this war to the end; that we must kill Germans, Japs and Italians, with no thought of quarter, or ourselves and our forces be killed. Until the issue is decided, that fact should be dwelt upon by all who speak with authority; we should allow no red herrings of social security to be drawn across the trail to obscure the real issue, for this is a matter of primary importance. There are some people in Canada who in their speeches over the radio and otherwise would lead us to believe that the war will be over soon. Some of our government agencies do the same thing. Our publicity departments repeat the same propaganda cries: "This war is different from the last war", and tell us that non-essential and unimportant things are to play a decisive role. We must remember that the non-military things are secondary. War is war, and these should be faced as primary matters.
We are told that we are not fighting the German people at all, but only a lot of German dictators; we hear about propaganda successes; we are told of the stranglehold of the blockade and things of that kind. Over one and three-quarters million Germans have been killed so far in this war, but the German people as a whole support their leaders 100 per cent and have not changed one bit. In spite of all the damage that has been done by the air force, there is no doubt that we must regain command of the seas before we can embark upon a very large peninsular war, which will have to come before this war is won. No doubt the blockade is a major irritant, but in my opinion it never will be a deciding factor in this war.
There are one or two other matters to which I wish to refer. I do not think enough attention has been paid to the matter of records of the forces in this war. Why, in regard to the navy, the army and the air force we cannot tell to-day how many men have enlisted from any given municipality. The other day the navy minister gave a very fair statement in regard to the chaplain service, but his figures were given in the aggregate; there were no percentages as given by the air and army. When the war is over,



War Appropriation-Naval Services
how is a municipality to know what men enlisted there; how is Hamilton or London or Toronto to know? These men in the forces from our cities are enlisting right across Canada. In connection with the victory loan we are told every day how much has been subscribed by each and every municipality in the smaller places throughout the country, but apparently we have no records in connection with enlistments. We can do a great deal to improve the matter of our records. The ministers tell us that it would be necessary to go over all the attestation papers to obtain this information. If that is so, it seems a queer system, a relic of the seven years' war; here we are spending over five billion dollars a year and we cannot tell how many men have enlisted from the various localities I have mentioned, or their names.
Then I fail to see why we should have all these press officers in the three war departments. I do not understand why one or two press officers could not handle all the work in cities like Hamilton and Toronto. I do not understand the reason for the large expenditures and these duplications that have been made in this connection. Yesterday the navy minister covered a great deal of ground in his remarks, and now I find a connection with the other services. Since this war began, there has been dual control as between the civil service commission and the various war departments. For example a return shows that in the air force 5,946 officers were appointed without having worn a uniform previously; they were just glorified civilians. I do not know the figures for the navy. Of course it is a newer organization, and I admit that a great deal of credit must be given for what has so far been accomplished. I believe, however, some solution should be found of this problem. I have another return showing that in the air force in the huts on our waterfront three or four hundred people were brought here from all over Canada, carpenters and all sorts of people, without the civil service commission knowing anything about the matter.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Chairman, I would
have concluded my moderate remarks before six o'clock, had it not been for the unnecessary interruptions of the minister. May I say regarding him, as I said before, that I have no objection to his department; far from it. I

will say this, that before he came into the house I had been a warm supporter of this department, and of rearmament. I never criticized the personnel, or anything like that, at all.
However, I may say that he interrupted me. I was a former chairman of the Toronto harbour board, and it was during that time that the work was begun and completed on the whole waterfront. In addition to that, during the last war, as chairman of the board of police commissioners I insisted on civilian inquests into cases of deaths of soldiers in training in that city, for the protection of the soldiers on land, on sea and in the air, and with good results for recruiting and for the protection of civilian rights in our citizens' army during that war and since.
During the debate to-day the minister asked me if I was aware of what is being done in Britain. I certainly am. I was aware long before he came into the house-about eighteen years before he came to the House of Commons-of what is and was being done on land, sea and in the air in all our empire in this and the last war regarding protection for the soldiers; and I do not need a lecture from him in that connection.
I may say that since the war started I have had on the order paper a resolution for the better care and protection of soldiers, and men in the navy and other branches of the service. I have no personal quarrel with the minister or anyone else. I am told he is a very likeable personality. I do not know him very well. But that is what I have been told, and I believe it. But I will point out to him that, in connection with his department and this matter, I have had on the order paper since the war started a resolution for soldier protection, as follows:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should immediately consider the advisability and urgent necessity of adopting improved measures for the better protection of all soldiers who serve in His Majesty's forces and more particularly-(a) that a system of life insurance on all soldiers be established to include provision for their dependents both during and after the war; (b) that a daily allowance be made for local car fare and for free fares on Canada's railways under the Railway Act (R.S.C.);	(c) provision for a
revision and improvement in rates of pay, subsistence and other allowances of all ranks, especially privates and non-commissioned officers and removal of existing inequality between all classes; (d) a high cost of living bonus be paid to all dependents of soldiers adjusted from time to time to include better allowances for all their children; (e) provision for a moratorium from foreclosure, eviction and certain other immunities from debt while absent on war duties and for six months after the war, and more adequate and improved housing for themselves and their families.

War Appropriation-Naval Services
The minister is an old soldier, himself; there is no doubt about it. He has had more experience in war than I ever had-unfortunately, and through no fault of mine. But during the last war, and when this one broke out I proposed that a system of life insurance on all soldiers should be established, to include provision for their dependents both during and after the war. The hon. member for Davenport was kind enough when speaking the other night to refer to this fact, and also to many other soldier matters I had introduced into the house since the war first began. I am asking that a daily allowance be made for local carfare, and for free fares on Canada's railways. When I was mayor of Toronto the street railway was not publicly owned, but we persuaded the privately owned system to give free transportation to the soldiers in our city. That is done in many cities in the United States, including Detroit and others. It should be done in Canada.
Then, there should be free fares on the railways. Why not? A return brought down shows that the two railways in Canada made more money out of this war to the end of 1940 -a year and three months-than they made out of the whole four years of the last war, and two years thereafter. Is there any reason why the people of Canada, who own the national railways, should charge soldiers' families $2.05 to go from Camp Borden on a visit to our soldiers, and $1.05 for each child, or over a week's pay?
The other provision I have urged in the house is that provision be made for a revision and improvements in rates of pay, subsistence and other allowances for all ranks, especially privates, and non-commissioned officers, and the removal of existing inequalities between all classes. I have urged, too, that a high cost of living bonus be paid to all dependents of soldiers, to be adjusted from time to time to include better allowances for all their children. Then I have urged that provision be made for a moratorium.
They talk about the Sparkman act! I have correspondence with these various gentlemen at Washington. Some of them came to Toronto in 1940 and saw the late Mr. Thomas Bradshaw and myself about this matter. But the only hon. member who has been kind enough to refer to it was the hon. member for Davenport. We adopted that system, in Toronto during the last war. I must admit that three of the defence ministers wrote me letters. The Minister of Pensions and National Health, who has taken a great deal of interest in this subject, wrote a letter, as did the minister for the army, and the ministers for the air force and navy. I might say that the
three of them wrote very fine letters to me, after I had sent copies of the act to them, away back last fall, and said most of the provinces had in part Sparkman acts in the last war. We have had this system in Toronto, as the Minister of Pensions and National Health knows, in the last war, in insurance and other protection.
At the time of the last war many of the provinces passed legislation similar to the Sparkman Act, having to do with debts, mora-toria and foreclosures. I asked in this resolution for a provision for a moratorium from foreclosure, eviction and certain other immunities from debt while men were absent on war duties, and for six months after the war, and more adequate and improved housing for soldiers and their families.
The minister, who was at one time premier of Nova Scotia, had legislation of that kind in the last war. He is a soldier. I appeal to him to-night, as a minister, to see if we cannot do something about getting a better Sparkman act for all Canada. That legislation was copied in the United States mostly from Canada; the provinces and municipalities had it.
Yesterday the minister referred to the U-boat menace. I am glad to see that the situation in that respect in the Atlantic has improved. I believe it was in 1937, 1938 and 1939 I read in the house a statement of what U-boats had done during the last war. At that time I pointed out the number of sinkings there had been. We nearly lost the last war on account of the situation in the Atlantic. I know something about it, because I was head of a municipality which sent 55,000 soldiers to war. Some of them were on ships that were attacked. At that time the hon. member for Davenport was president of the British Imperial Association in the Earlscourt division, one which sent so many people to that war.
I urged in 1937 and 1938, sitting where the hon. member for Lake Centre sits now, that something be done to solve the question of an empire shipbuilding policy. I urged rearmament and the opening up of all our shipbuilding plants and an all-empire shipping policy for the imperial conference of 1937. I predicted what would happen in this war, and pointed out that Great Britain had more mouths to feed by five million than in 1914 and had fewer ships than she had in 1914. I gave warning of the grave peril and danger we were in. I also have copies of many pages of British newspapers, including the Times and many other papers, showing where
3442	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Naval Services
ships were sold in Great Britain, including men-of-war and others, for death duties and taxes, or for as little as $50,000.
I call the attention of the committee to the great lakes, and to the Welland canal along which I counted sixty-four ships tied up, with nothing to do. I prophesied the disarmament disaster to come from our pacifism, lack of shipping and all that kind of thing, and called attention to the U-boat menace. The Pacific question has been mentioned before in the house, but for many years I saw the grave danger in the Pacific. In the debates here from 1937 to 1939 I urged the importance of the Pacific to this dominion, and to other countries in the empire, because there can be no such thing as collective security until this war is won. And I can tell you this, I saw Britain and her dominions not only throw away her defences, but also throw away her friends, and to-day we are facing a very powerful enemy-Japan. She has a first-class navy, and always did have.
Without going into a discussion of what has been done, I urged dealing with the grave Pacific situation. The Minister of Pensions and National Health, who was in charge of naval affairs at one time, brought down very moderate estimates. That was done in 1936 and 1937, but he was not supported by some of his own followers in the house. He was right, and I supported him then and always as far as he went. Probably he did not go far enough, but I supported him at any rate. I would say now that in the Pacific we deserve what we get. We refused to face the situation, with the result, as the minister has said, that he had to start off from scratch.
I have nothing further to say, except to mention the explanatory note in connection with my amendment to the Railway Act for free fares, which has been before the house since the war started, and the abolition of the 50-mile bus rule for soldiers. The purpose of the bill is to amend the Railway Act to provide that members of the forces, when in uniform, may be carried free on railway trains within Canada. The same principle as stated therein was set out in a resolution during the first month of the war.
In the last war the railways voluntarily carried men for single fare on week-ends. Now they carry them every day at half rate. The Railway Act does not at present provide for any special concessions to soldiers during the war, nor has the board of transport commissioners power to order it. In view of the fact that so many camps are far away from railways and the distribution of troops for training spread all over Canada, it is desirable

to give soldiers some form of free transportation, because a large number have been killed on highways thumbing a ride in many places in Canada while in training.


Mr. MacNICOL:: I shall have some questions to ask and some general remarks to make when the details are before the committee, but I rise now principally to express my appreciation as one of the honorary presidents of the Navy League of Canada, Ontario division, for the generous remarks made last evening by the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services commending the navy league. I have been associated with the navy league for a long time. The predecessor of the present minister did not have the same opportunities as the minister has had, but he gave effective assistance to the navy league in the work it was carrying on. But, to my mind, the present minister has been far ahead of any other minister in his efforts to inculcate the spirit of the navy and the love of the sea into the young men of Canada. The results obtained through the navy league have been tremendous.
If my memory serves me aright, the minister said last evening that there were sixty-one navy league corps in Canada, and approximately 10,000 sea cadets in these corps. That is a tremendous advance over any previous time in the history of this country. I can remember in my own time when we did not have more than a dozen corps in operation. However, in those days there were some wonderful corps. Apart from Toronto, which always had a good corps, the Winnipeg corps, for example, was always considered a show corps. They were well trained, well led and did wonderful work. They were sent to many places to demonstrate what could be done.
Through the assistance of the minister the navy league has spread as it never did before. I believe there are some thirty corps in Ontario. I have a list of the names of these corps but, since it would take a little time to read, perhaps I may be permitted to place it on Hansard. It will be noticed that each corps is named after a fighting ship. For instance, the Belleville corps is named "The Quinte", and the Port Hope-Cobourg corps is named "The Skeena". The list is as follows:
Sea Cadet Corps
Place	Name
Belleville	The	QuinteBurlington	The	Iron DukeCollingwood	The	HoodFort William	The	Admiral CraddockGuelph	The	AjaxHamilton	The	LionHuntsville	The	Lord Jellicoe
War Appropriation-Naval Services
Sea Cadet Corps Place	Name
Kitehener-Waterloo ... The Warspite
London	 The Courageous
Midland	
North Bay	
Ottawa	The	Sir Francis DrakeOttawa	The	FalklandOwen Sound	The	DauntlessPembroke	The	Iron DukePeterborough	Port Arthur	The	VindictivePort Hope-Cobourg.... The	SkeenaSt. Catharines	The	RenownSt. Thomas	The	Admiral BeattySault Ste. Marie	The	Royal SovereignStratford	The	Royal Oak
Timmins-Porcupine_____The Admiral Cunningham
Toronto-2 corps	The	Temeraire I	and II
Toronto-Riverdale ....The	Ark Royal
Welland	The	BellerophonWeston	The	Illustrious
I believe that those who read Hansard will be pleased to see that these famous names have been given to these sea cadet corps. On December 31, which is the date of the last report I have been able to get, there were 3,200 sea cadets in Ontario. I believe that by the end of the year there will be from 5,000 to 6,000. The Navy League of Canada has increased to a tremendous size. One might say that they are now in big business. Of course, this is largely the result of the war. They have done wonderful work. At Halifax, where the minister comes from, they have put up a recreation centre which is giving excellent service to the sailors and fighting men. They also have a hostel at which meals and rooms can be obtained, as well as supplies of writing paper and books, et cetera. These things have increased as a direct result of the support given by the minister, so that I am very happy to thank him for what he has done in this regard.
In Ontario there are sixty-seven branches in all, but they are not all corps. Practically all the larger towns and cities have corps. What do they do? The department send out instruction books on how to train the boys and give directions along the different lines of naval activity and merchant marine matters. I have just forgotten what the minister said last night, but he gave the number of the thousands of young men who had enlisted after having received training in different branches of the navy league. I am sure that the minister will support me when I say that the navy league has had a great deal to do with the enlistments in the naval service.
One would naturally expect a large number of enlistments from the maritime provinces, from the Pacific coast and also from Ontario and Quebec which are on considerable bodies
of water, and there have been. But the great surprise is the results obtained in the western provinces, particularly the land-locked provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta, in which there are no lakes of any size. They do have a magnificent river there, the Saskatchewan, which I hope to see improved some day. There are no lakes in the southern part of Saskatchewan, although there is one in the north. There is a fine corps in Regina which is well officered. This corps sends out speakers to different centres in the provinces, and I am sure the work they have been doing has done much to encourage enlisting.
While we expect boys from Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec to do big things on the water because they have been brought up close to the water, the surprising thing is what has been done by boys from the prairies, many of whom hardly knew how to row a punt. They have blazoned the skies with the honour and glory of their names because of what they have done on the corvettes and torpedo boats to which they have been assigned. I understand that many of these boys are commanders, and I am sure that what they are doing is a great tribute to the work of the league.
The league has raised a lot of money by means of tag days. Of course this money is given by the people, but it is spent judiciously. I understand that expenditures are audited by government officials. The minister paid a tribute to the league, but I wish to pay a tribute to the men and women who have assisted in making the league what it is. The hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Harris) is the principal officer of the Toronto-Riverdale corps. Here in Ottawa Mr. H. S. Southam and Mr. J. P. Kenny are president and vicepresident of the Ottawa corps. I shall not take the time to read the names of the members of the main committee in Toronto. The principal ones are the president, Mr. Gordon C. Leitch, a big businessman, who devotes a great deal of time to seeing that the work of the league is carried on successfully; L. T. Spalding, J. C. M. MacBeth and Frank Trimble. Among the women I might mention Mrs. R. C. Matthews, Mrs. Rooney, Mrs. Ryland H. New, Mrs. J. Bruce MacKinnon. Mrs. Arthur Kirkpatrick and many others, all of whom are doing splendid work. Colonel Arthur Kirkpatrick, one of the police commissioners of Toronto, also takes a big part in the work of the war service branch of the league. So that the minister was right when he praised the navy league for the splendid work it is doing, and the navy league I am
3444	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Naval Services
sure in return has been doing its utmost to assist the minister in his work. They send out many comforts, books, magazines, ditty bags and so forth to the men in service. The few words which I have said, and which were inspired by what the minister himself said last night, are my humble tribute to what has been done both by the minister himself and by the navy league.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, we all
listened with great attention to the statement made by the minister last evening. That statement in conjunction with those made by the senior Minister of National Defence and the Minister of National Defence for Air outlined a record of achievement of which I think this house and the country may well be proud. The ministers concerned should feel gratified at the generous reception which their statements have received from the opposition side of the house. There has been, so far as I could observe, very little of what is generally called carping criticism. What criticism there has been has been of certain specific matters, and not at all directed to the whole programme which the ministers outlined.
The work of the navy of which the minister is head is not spectacular. Except when there are major naval engagements the navy is seldom heard of; its work is done quietly and unobtrusively. Nevertheless in this war it has performed a particularly essential service which has been of the greatest value. I felt myself from the time of the fall of France until the drive in North Africa began last November that the work done by the British and Canadian navies and the navies of the united nations had received perhaps less credit than to which they were entitled. The importance of their work was not properly understood or appreciated, and it was difficult to begin making comparisons between the work of the navies and the military effort of some of our allies for fear of creating disharmony and disunity in the ranks of the united nations. However, I think that phase is now passed. Personally I am glad at this time that I have no criticism to offer. I am not competent in the first instance to criticize the work of the minister, and, second, I am glad to say that I have had very few complaints so far as navy personnel and naval matters are concerned.
While we are justified in taking pride in what we have accomplished, we should be careful not to be carried away by these accomplishments but should realize that it was done under the stress of war. In other words, war became the country's great national purpose, and we allowed nothing, lack of money, lack of material or lack of anything else to interfere
IMr. MacNicol.]
with that one purpose. Consequently we have performed what we may call a great achievement.
But what I wish to call attention to particularly is that the navy was built for one purpose, namely the winning of the war. After the war is over, we cannot live and prosper by expanding or building greater additions to our navy. The high speed with which we built our great war machines for all our fighting forces should give us pause to think what our productive power will mean to us when the war is over. We should stop to ask ourselves how quickly we can build the capital equipment necessary for the greatest production of consumer goods that we can imagine. That, in my opinion, once we have achieved victory, is what we should be thinking of. I read in a British periodical not so very long ago that two-thirds of the important war instruments which now are part of the equipment of all branches of the fighting forces w'as not even conceived in the mind of man when the war began.
The hon. member for Swift Current said this afternoon that the greatness of our military power should give us an important voice at the peace conference when that event takes place. There were great powers at the last peace conference, but that did not mean that they could build an enduring peace. Therefore I would say that we have to bring more to a peace conference than merely great military power. The greater the military power we have, the more important it is that we have ideas and ideals, and determination to put them into effect, if we are to build a world in which young men will not in another decade or two have to give their lives in world war No. 3.
When the minister was making his statement last evening, my mind continually went back to the time when so many young men who are now in the navy, and who are now our heroes, could not get sufficient to eat or a place to lay their heads. Unless we take care, when this war is over, these young men, instead of receiving the rewards of their heroism, will be, as too many returned soldiers were after the last war, an embarrassment to the country nnd a nuisance to themselves. While complimenting the minister and the country on this great achievement of building an efficient naval machine, let us remember that this is not the end; it is only a beginning.


Mr. McGEER:: I think we can all join with the minister in the tribute he has paid to the shipbuilders who built the majority of the ships operating in the Canadian naval service to-day and built them substantially

War Appropriation-Naval Services
with Canadian, materials, and to the men and the officers and the ships they operate. We have some difficulty in appreciating the magnitude of what has been accomplished since this war began. I remember sitting here and listening to tremendous debates when we were determining whether or not we were spending too much in voting $30,000,000 a year for the army, the navy and the air service. I look back on those days with more amazement than comes to me as I hear the statements, by the ministers who have the responsibility of conducting this war, of the magnitude of the operations which they are still developing upon an expanding basis. I agree with the hon. member for Vancouver East that we should not lose sight of the fact that this war has disclosed the power which we as a people possess, and which, if properly used, will forever avert the return to the conditions of unemployment, poverty and misery which existed during the decade that preceded this war. I remember standing in my place in this chamber and saying to my colleagues, when I pleaded that we go on with any number of the millions of jobs for which there was crying need in this country, that if war ever came, the one thing we would find out was that we were not short of money. When you get a Scotsman as minister of naval defence, and he spends without batting an eye $489,000,000 on a naval service which was practically non-existent when he took office, in one year, you can fairly conclude that we were not short of money before he went to work and that certainly we have an abundance of reserves over and above the amount which he is spending. And, at that, he is getting only a small share of what we are spending-$489,000,000 for the navy, $4,600,000,000 for the army and the air force. Why, we were told, when we asked for a few million dollars to build some naval defences upon the Pacific coast and to maintain the nuclei of an army and an air force, that we were going beyond our means because we dared to spend $30,000,000. I hope the Canadian people will never forget this lesson or permit the government to forget it. "Where is the money coming from?" I used to hear. I hope we shall never hear that kind of nonsense again.
While I am on my feet may I draw attention to the fact that I was one of those who advocated the public ownership of the Bank of Canada, and I was told that that was heresy, and dangerous. I said that we ought to have our own bank and issue our own money. "Why", they said, "that is 'funny money'; you will wreck the economy of the nation." Do you know what we are doing to-day? We own the Bank of Canada;
we have a thousand million dollars of our own securities in that bank, and in exchange for those securities we have a thousand million dollars of Bank of Canada bills operating in this nation, unsecured by gold, and operating as debUfree money. A great many of my colleagues, apparently, are as yet unaware of that fact, because there are some other features which indicate that we have not yet come to realize that the power which is in that new technique is, after all, the basis of the power we are able to demonstrate in these reports from the ministers of national defence.
I wish to pay a tribute to the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services, and to congratulate the government upon the selection of a man from the maritimes to administer our naval service during this war.
I often think I am one of the luckiest of men, because I happen to have been bom in Winnipeg; I was taken to the Pacific coast of Canada when I was less than a year old, and I had the privilege of living in the maritimes and getting some of the education which they dispense on that coast.


An hon. MEMBER:: You got your start
in Winnipeg.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: I went both ways and I did not miss anything.


An hon. MEMBER:: You got the continuation in Quebec.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: 

War Appropriation-Naval Services
Our capacity to produce must be the measure of our capacity to distribute, and not our capacity to finance. Men must come before money.
And I offer this thought upon that issue: If we can spend five thousand million dollars on war; if we can give out of our goods and services the value of a thousand million dollars to England-which we did, and rightly, too-and distribute a thousand million dollars of war aid among our allies-and if that is not all the surplus we have, we should distribute more-then we ought to be able to do something better than 120 a month as an old-age pension for our own people of advanced age.
May I suggest to the minister that our naval service in the light of the achievements he has disclosed should be guaranteed against what happened after the last war. We want no post-war collapse in our naval or marine power this time. As a precaution against that possibility I suggest that we recast sections 7 and 8 of our Naval Service Act, and I offer this as a magna. charta for Canada's naval service, as a reward for the achievements the naval service has accomplished in the last four years, under its able minister. I would amend the Naval Service Act of 1910 by recasting sections 7 and 8 into the following sections:
It is necessary for the nation's defence and development of its foreign and domestic commerce that the Dominion of Canada shall have a naval service and merchant marine.
(a)	Sufficient to carry and protect its domestic waterborne commerce and a substantial portion of the waterborne export and import foreign commerce of the dominion, and to provide shipping service on all routes essential for maintaining the flow of such domestic and foreign waterborne commerce at all times,
(b)	capable of serving as a powerful arm of defence in time of war or national emergency,
(c)	owned and operated under the Canadian flag by the government and citizens of Canada, and
(d)	composed of the best-equipped, safest, and most suitable types of vessels, constructed and equipped in Canada from Canadian materials, in so far as may be practicable and manned with a trained and efficient citizen personnel.
It is hereby declared to be the policy of the Dominion of Canada to foster the development and encourage the maintenance of such a naval service and merchant marine.
7a. The minister shall have the control and management of all naval affairs, including the purchase, maintenance and repair of the ordnance, ammunition, arms, armouries, stores, munitions, and habiliments of war intended for the use of the naval service.
7b. The minister shall have the control and management including the construction, purchase, maintenance and repair, of naval establishments and of ships and other vessels for the naval service.
7c. The minister shall have and exercise such control and management including the design,
(Mr. McGeer.]
construction, aid to construction, purchase, maintenance and repair including operation and aid to operation of shipbuilding establishments and all ships and other vessels for the merchant marine as the Governor General in council may authorize from time to time.
What does that mean? It simply means that Canada must have ships, and have the best of ships. It means that the men in the mines of Nova Scotia, Ontario, British Columbia and other provinces will dig the metals and coal to build them. Others will drill for oil and cut the timber required. In a hundred cities and towns, men and women will form the plates, engines, gears and equipment and proudly build and launch them to their service on the sea.
Notwithstanding the fact that long since Canada has attained a ranking position among the leading maritime trading nations of the world, and has attained the position of fourth or fifth as a maritime trading nation, we allowed our merchant marine to disappear, and allowed our navy to die in its infancy from malnutrition.
Our Canadian boys were virtually denied the fulfilment of the dream that every British youngster has of some time sailing the seven seas under the flag of their own beloved land. But the seagoing career of the Canadian boy of the future should now be forever assured, from what has now been done under the farsighted naval policy of 1910. And we certainly on this side of the house should not forget that everything that has been achieved in the naval programme, which has been so ably prosecuted by the minister and his officers and men, has been achieved under the naval bill of 1910, which has hardly been amended since it was enacted.
Yes, the experience which we have had since 1910, and the achievements which we have accomplished have demonstrated what can be accomplished in the future. Of course other nations may be able to build cheaper ships. They may be able to man them and operate them cheaper; but we, by maintaining a policy of cooperation between the government and the merchant marine services, can maintain upon the seas the same high standard of wages and the same high standard of living that we maintain along with the United States upon this continent, for our people.
After the last war we made a feeble attempt to establish a merchant marine. We allowed it to die, because we could not make any money out of it. How much did it cost us to build what we had thrown away, when we needed it in the war? What kind of economy was that?

War Appropriation-Naval Services
Yes; Canadians can build a naval force with our own men out of our own materials. We can build a merchant marine, and we can go to work, produce and develop the cargoes. We can use Canadian dollars not only to take those cargoes to our shore lines, but to take them in our boats to the end of the line of distribution, and return. And if we do not do so, wTe shall find ourselves unable to compete in world trade with those nations which are going to do it.
Experience has taught us that as part of the British empire we must provide our own navy, and that we must provide part of the merchant marine which the empire requires. The magna charta for the Canadian navy I am now suggesting guarantees that we shall never again be short of naval strength or merchant marine service. In addition to that, if we carry out our policy, and prosecute it with the same intelligence and vigour with which we have prosecuted our war effort in this crisis, we shall find that "the wholesome seas are at our gates, our gates both east and west," is a message which will help us to go to work in the world with effectiveness when we stop fighting one another, and proceed to the business of feeding one another, on a better basis.
I congratulate the minister upon the magnificent work he has done since he took over his difficult office. While I appreciate the great work done by men of the army, I remember the days of the depression, when everyone was looking for a little bit of that $30,000,000 a year we were voting so hesitatingly. I remember when the present Minister of National War Services (Mr. LaFleche) was deputy minister of national defence and when men like Major General Stuart and Crerar, Worthington and Sanson were wondering whether they had made a terrible mistake by adopting the career of the professional soldier. But they carried on, and Canada's army is a tribute to the men of the permanent service who never lost faith in their careers.
I remember the air force when there were such men as Air Marshal Breadner, Johnson and Croil and a number of others who were carrying on under the inspiration of the work of Billy Bishop and other heroic Canadians who had left behind them a tradition upon which Canada's marvellous air force is riding the skies to-day. But there was another group. There was Rear Admiral Nelles, Admiral Jones, and Murray and Brodeur. Incidentally I may say that Sir Wilfrid Laurier was not the only great French-Canadian who participated in the introduction of the Naval
72537-219i
Service Act of 1910. The minister under whom it was introduced was the Hon. Mr. Brodeur, the father of the present naval attache of this country at Washington.
While the army maintained something of its strength; while it had the traditions of the last war; while the air force had the good fortune to be associated in the great British empire training scheme, our navy in this war travelled alone as a Canadian institution. Starting from scratch it has created a record upon its own bottoms, which I think is the proper naval term. Because of the ability which it has proven it made a contribution that has been a blessing to the cause of freedom throughout the world and has given to Canada a tradition that should ever make us true to the history of the people of both our great races, because both French-Canadians and Anglo-Canadians have always lived and thrived by and on the sea.
Let us never become canoe-minded again. Let us move forward and be true to our traditions, knowing that we are a great maritime power, that we are a two-ocean nation; with the arctic developing the way it is, are, may I say, a three-ocean nation. Let us not forget these lessons we have learned, and then there will be no need to fear poverty after the close of this war. We shall never need even to think that there ever will be misery and unemployment again in our land.


Mr. McIVOR:: I should like to say just a brief word even though I was not born at Halifax, Vancouver or Winnipeg. I was bom and I am still living, for which I am thankful. I appreciated very much the introduction the minister gave to the work of his department. I thought it was well done. He did not have an Irish accent, but he had the next best. His address was not so technical that an ordinary man like myself could not understand it. As I listened to the hon. member for Van-couver-Burrard (Mr. McGeer), I quite realized why he was able to stand on his own feet and express himself as forcefully as he did. Through hearsay I heard something of his dad when I first came to Winnipeg in 1894. The hon. member is a son of a man who could take care of himself. He got a splendid start in life and I am sure that he is living up to the start that his dad gave him.
I agreed with him thoroughly when he described the times through which we went and how difficult it was to get money. I was serving in the branch of a church the officers of which gave me permission to allow men to enter the boiler room to sleep overnight. One winter we averaged seven a night, and
3450	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Naval Services
we did not always have to give them porridge and toast the next morning because many of them had left. I have no patience with the clergyman or with the member of parliament or with any Christian man who says one thing and does another. I should like to think that I shall be spared to live until after this war is over. If I am, I shall be just as keen' as any man in this house to see that fair play is done to every citizen of this country, that he will have a chance to earn his bread in an honest way. If he is not willing to work, then he will be put to work under other circumstances so that he may earn his keep.
The reason why I rose to speak to-night was the suggestion made by the hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Graham) about the naming of vessels after certain places. There is a corvette called the Fort William, and of course that is always music in my ears. The men and women of Fort William vied with each other to equip this boat and I never saw finer stuff given to any group of men. The crew appreciated it very much. I am hoping that some day the corvette Fort William will be able to equal in valour the corvette which was named after our sister city of Port Arthur.
The crew of that corvette must think always of the son of our Minister of Munitions and Supply-William Hastings Howe. He is an officer in the navy who distinguished himself, but who nearly lost his life in action. We people at the head of the lakes also think of what the Minister of Munitions and Supply went through himself. I am sure that quite often when he sits in comfort, has enough to eat and enough clothes to cover himself, he must feel chills running through his body in memory of that eight-hour ride on the open sea. I know the crew of the corvette Port Arthur must think of what nearly happened to the Minister of Munitions and Supply and what a loss it would have been to all Canada. They must think of the near call that both father and son had. They must remember when the minister's assistant, Gordon Scott, lost his life. With that memory in their minds I can see the crew of the Port Arthur jumping into their outfits when a submarine came within hailing distance and blowing it to Palestine.
We in Fort William have paid our respects in every possible way to the crew of the Port Arthur. It is an advantage to call a ship after a city or town. Of course, we at the head of the lakes think we are the hub of Canada, but other people may not think so. We think that our young men from the head of the lakes who have joined the navy are second to none. I

went over to the Port Arthur navy headquarters one day to see if there was an opportunity of a young man getting into the navy there and I found that four hundred local boys were already on the waiting list. I remember getting a letter from a boy who went over and he said, " Reverend Dan, we are just giving the enemy the same thing we said we would do for you when you were in the sub-box leading the hockey team. We give them everything we have." So that you can see what happened to that submarine when the Port Arthur struck it. The Port Arthur sent her sky-high.


Mr. DUPUIS:: Mr. Chairman, I am anxious to say a few words concerning the illuminating and remarkable report made yesterday by the minister for naval services. He has told us that our navy, which at the beginning of the war consisted of about fifteen ships, has attained the remarkable growth of now numbering five hundred, while the crew which numbered about 1,700 at the start of the war has grown to 60,000. The minister added, not without pride, that he expects that by the end of next year the numbers of our crew will be equal to those of the British navy at the beginning of the war.
Before going any further I wish to pay my compliments to the hon. member for Van-couver-Burrard upon his remarkable speech. In everything he said about the navy I am pleased to concur. The dream of Laurier is now realized through the energy and good administration of our distinguished minister for naval services. I am sure that if Laurier were still living he would be proud of him just as he would be proud of the Canadian nation to-day. I am proud myself of my country. If Canada had attained the position she enjoyed in foreign trade at the beginning of this war, it was due in large measure to the protection of the British navy on the seven seas of the world. Since we may claim to be an independent nation; according to the statute of Westminster; since we have now attained manhood, nationally speaking, I think it is our duty to see that we build according to the expectations of a sound and healthy people. The hon. minister in doing what he has done for our Canadian navy has accomplished deeds which will lead us to that realization.
It was a very good idea of the minister and his staff to give the names of our towns and counties to corvettes and other ships of our Canadian navy. I am pleased to mention, as the previous speaker, the hon. member for Fort William did, that a corvette has been named after the town and county

War Appropriation-Naval Services
of Chambly, which I have the honour to represent in this house. The corvette Chambly has accomplished many great deeds in the battle of the Atlantic. May I be allowed to mention one remarkable deed which the corvette Chambly accomplished in cooperation with the corvette Moose Jaw; that means that Quebec joined Saskatchewan in fighting the U-boat. They attacked a submarine and captured all its German crew. This heroic deed has been recognized and rewarded by granting to the commanding officer Prentiss the Distinguished Service Order of the British Empire. The men of our Canadian navy, it seems to me, have the real spirit of the men of the sea, as naval men are known the world over among nations whcse navies travel the sealanes of the world. They are humble men and consider they are just doing their ordinary duty in gallantly fighting the enemy in this war. To give an illustration, may I quote from a letter which my wife received from the commanding officer of the corvette Chambly, thanking her and the women of my constituency for what they have done for the crew of that ship. I quote in part:
I am sorry that we are not in a place where you and Mr. Dupuis could visit the Chambly corvette and see for yourself the ship named after your town and county. I am sure that you would be as proud of her as we are. We have a fine bunch of men manning her. I could not ask for a keener or a better crew in any way. Chambly has steamed many miles since she was commissioned, all of which time I have served in her. Her tasks have been many and varied, often arduous, as they w'ill continue to be till the war is won. We would not ask anything else.
I may be excused for having taken the time of the committee to recount these facts to hon. members from all across this country. Chambly corvette is only one ship of our Canadian navy; many other ships are fighting the good fight to-day and expecting, as this commanding officer says in his letter, to win the war, and, indeed, being sure they will win it. Such a spirit deserves, I believe, to be mentioned, and it is for this reason that I asked the privilege of saying a few words.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
2.	Pay and allowances, $89,565,119.
Grote Stirling: Would the minister see fit now to reply to some of the questions and suggestions made to him?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I intended to do that. I will take first the questions asked last evening by the hon. member for St. John-Albert.
He asked in the first place for detailed particulars of the manner in which the amounts
listed under the eleven heads of the estimates of last year had been spent. I shall be glad to give this to the committee now, and I may say that the reason for changing the manner of presenting the estimates was a desire to make it a little easier for members of the committee to follow the estimates of the three armed services. It will be noted that each of the armed services this year follows the same general statement with respect to the amounts required; they are divided in each case into thirteen items, and that plan was adopted in order that hon. members might compare the expenditure in one service with that in another.
To return to the first question asked by the hon. member for St. John-Albert; he gave the committee the items as presented' in last year's estimates and, as I understand it, wanted to know what the comparative items for this year would be had we followed the same system. I shall give him now the items and figures on the basis he mentioned:
1.	Civil salaries and wages		$ 6,192,054
2. Pay and allowances	 89,565,119
3. Travel and transportation.... 5,793,460


Grote Stirling: Is the difference in that one the addition of freight this year? The amount is $5,700,000 as against $6,900,000.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: It is partly due to the fact that last year travel and transportation stood alone; freight was charged in to the cost of the goods. This year freight is added, and that makes a very considerable difference; but in addition to that the amount required for travel and transportation is larger, on account of the increased personnel. I will continue:
4.	Operating expenses of properties	 $ 2,724,350
5.	Ships: acquisition by purchase,
construction, charters, repairs and upkeep	 167,571,202
6.	Equipment division components :
These are not figured on at all this year, because that matter is now attended to by the purchasing branch of the Department of Munitions and Supply.
7.	Purchase of new machinery
and repairs to buildings
and machinery	
$	1,674,0008.	Buildings:	acquisition, construction and purchase and rental of land and buildings	
35,952,1879.	Stores, equipment and supplies 119,749,92010.	Armament	stores	
56,661,43811.	Sundries	
3,26L237
My hon. friend asked me in the second place to what were the increases or advances in the items due. I would say in a general

War Appropriation-Naval Services
way that all the increases are due to the increased size of the service. The service has doubled in men and the number of ships has greatly increased; also the number of shore properties-barracks, buildings of one sort and another, mess rooms, wharves and the like- have increased. Without going into any greater particulars, that is the cause of the very considerable increase in the estimates for this year.
He then wanted to know how many persons were employed at headquarters; how many were employed in each province; how much was spent in each province on salaries and wages, and similar information with regard to the United States and Great Britain. I cannot give my hon. friend the information in the exact form that he requests, but I shall do the best I can.
The total number of civil servants employed in the department at the end of the last fiscal year was 3,915; that is, for Canada. These were divided as follows by provinces:
Ontario	 1,648
Quebec	   121
New Brunswick	 53
Nova Scotia	   1,342
British Columbia	 749
Alberta	 1
Saskatchewan	 0
Manitoba	 1
Outside Canada there were employed:
United States	 1
Newfoundland	 240
Great Britain	 0
My hon. friend wanted to know what salaries and wages were paid. I cannot give him this in the exact form that he desires, but I can tell him this. At headquarters, which includes all of Ontario, Alberta and part of Quebec, the total amount spent in salaries of civil servants was 81,994,000, in round figures. On the west coast, which includes British Columbia, the amount spent in civil servants' salaries was 8528,000. On the east coast, which includes New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and part of Quebec, the amount spent in civil servants' salaries was $1,491,000; and in Newfoundland the amount spent was $145,000.
My hon. friend wanted to know the number of civilian personnel and the number of naval personnel employed in the publicity department as well as their travelling and other expenses. I have it, but I cannot lay my hand on it at the moment. However, I will get it before the sitting is over. In the meantime, I pass on to the next point which he made this afternoon and which was with regard to living conditions of petty officers and men in Newfoundland.
[Mr. A. L. Macdonald.1
The hon, member declared that quarters there were very poor, very difficult to obtain and very expensive, and I have no doubt that to a large extent he is correct. We have some
1,500	men in Newfoundland who are not provided by the navy with sleeping and messing quarters. I may say that all the work done at St. John's, Newfoundland, is done for the account of the British admiralty, though done under the supervision of the Canadian navy and by Canadian contractors. We do nothing there without having first obtained the consent and approval of the British admiralty. It is absolutely impossible for us, in a place such as St. John's, Newfoundland, to get buildings put up in time to house all the men.
I agree at once with my hon. friend, or with any other hon. member, who says that all the men should be housed. I agree with that entirely and we are making every effort to do that; but we have not been able to do it in the city of Halifax where we have some thousands of men still not quartered and not fed by the navy. We have not been able to do it in St. John's, but we are making every effort to overtake that condition as far and as quickly as we can.
My hon. friend then went on to speak of the amount of money spent in Nova Scotia as compared with the amount spent in New Brunswick. He said that Nova Scotia had received a share out of all proportion to its share in Canada's war effort. I must say, Mr. Chairman, that I regret very much the practice of endeavouring to allot, war moneys according to sectional or provincial boundaries, without regard to the real merits and facts of the case. My hon. friend knows quite well, I am sure, that for nearly 200 years the city of Halifax has been a great naval base. It was established as a naval base by the British government in 1749, and ever since that time Halifax has been looked upon as the main British naval base or the main Canadian naval base, as time went on, in America.
The headquarters of the Canadian navy on the east coast have always been there, and it is only natural therefore that there should be a very considerable naval building programme in the city of Halifax in this war. It is also only natural that the outports near Halifax should receive some attention, because the matter of supervision is quite important, and it is much more convenient-to put it only on that ground-to have an outport at Lunenburg or Liverpool, 75 or 100 miles away from Halifax, than to have one 300 or 400 or 500 miles away in some other province.

War Appropriation-Naval Services
While Deep Brook in Digby county, where there is a very considerable development in process of construction, is in the constituency of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley), I am bound to say, and I ought to say in justice to him, that not on a single occasion did the Minister of Finance ask that that development be placed there. The Deep Brook development and every other development that has taken place in eastern Canada, in western Canada, or in any other part of the world for that matter, have been undertaken on the advice and with the approval of the technical advisers of the department for naval services, the chief of naval staff, and his subordinates.
I can assure my hon. friend the member for St. John-Albert that it is not a matter of the Minister of Transport failing in his duty or of the Minister of Finance having an excess of zeal. That is not the way the department for naval services is run. Neither gentlemen has made representations to me, either for the province of Nova Scotia or for the province of New Brunswick. Each of them has taken the correct course and said, "Let those undertakings, those buildings and wharves and whatever else is needed in the way of naval development be placed where they can best serve the war effort." That is the stand that these gentlemen have taken, and I think it is a sounder stand than this attempt to total up figures showing that Nova Scotia has received {29,000,000 in the way of land and buildings and New Brunswick, {19,000. Alberta and Saskatchewan, those inland provinces, obviously cannot share to the same extent as the coastal provinces, if that is to be the basis. The only possible way in which they might share would be in the operation of two buildings in each province, where the naval volunteer divisions would be housed. They can have no wharves, no breakwaters, no marine railways or dry docks. So that I repeat that to attempt to divide this dominion into certain zones, to reckon up the money spent in each and to say that because not so much has been spent here as there, therefore there is something wrong with the attitude of the department for naval services, I think is an incorrect stand to take.
Then my hon. friend asked about certain contracts contemplated in the province of New Brunswick, particularly I think in and around the city of Saint John. The hon. gentleman knows that in a certain part of northern New Brunswick, at an inland point, there is quite an extensive development in the way of a magazine. At Coverdale, near
Moncton, a contract has been let at a cost of 3141,000, for a barracks and station. I think the hon. gentleman asked for the name of the contractors; in this case they are the firm of Forbes and Sloat. * A contract has been let also at Saint John, New Brunswick, for the construction of certain buildings for the naval station at a cost of $329,000. That contract was awarded to M. A. Condon and Son on May 29. I might add that there has been some little difficulty in getting that work started, because one of the properties necessary to be had in order to erect these buildings has been very difficult to obtain. There has been difficulty in reaching any agreement with the owners, and probably it will be necessary for the department to take expropriation proceedings. In addition, plans are being prepared for the construction of an annex or addition to the present volunteer divisional quarters on Prince William street. I think all that building will be leased with the exception of the lower floor and perhaps the sub-basement, and some property adjoining will be obtained from the Canadian National railways on which will be erected a drill shed and sleeping quarters for the housing of approximately 130 men. In addition, certain mooring buoys will be laid in the harbour of Saint John which I think when in position will cost something over $100,000.
My hon. friend then went on to ask about travel and transportation, whether men are given free transportation when they are on leave, and I think he particularly inquired about men who return from foreign service, such as service in the Mediterranean. I may tell the hon. gentleman that men who return from foreign service are given free transportation, according to Canadian naval regulations. My hon. friend has asked whether the whole amount estimated for travel and transportation will be spent in Canada; whether it is all for railway travel, or whether some is for air and water travel, and how much in each case. 1 can say to my hon. friend that this amount provides for travel by rail, air and water. At the moment I cannot give him an analysis showing the amounts to be spent for travel on or in each of these elements. He wanted also to know which companies received the money paid for transportation. The amounts paid for railway transportation have been divided between the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway. For travel the Canadian National received $1,499,000 and the Canadian Pacific $1,167,000; for freight, the Canadian National, $773,000, and

War Appropriation-Naval Services
the Canadian Pacific, $119,000; for express, the Canadian National, $151,000, and the Canadian Pacific, $23,000.
Then my hon. friend wanted to know if the insurance principle applied to men serving in Canada or the waters thereof. My hon. friend the Minister of Pensions and National Health directed my attention to section 2, paragraph (o) (iii) of the act, which provides:
in the case of the naval, military or air forces during the war with the German reich, service on the high seas, in the field or in the air in any place outside Canada; or service in Canada, in such coastal or inland waters, or in such localities, whether in the field or in the air, as may from time to time be designated by the governor in council. . . .
-shall be considered to be service in a theatre of actual war. Therefore I should say that a member of the Canadian naval service injured or killed in the coastal waters of Canada, on board a Canadian ship of war, would come under the application of the so-called insurance principle.
To return to the question about naval information, the particulars of which I now have under my hand, I may tell the hon. member for St. John-Albert that the civilian staff of the directorate includes the director himself and seven female clerks and stenographers. The director receives a salary of $4,500 a year and expenses. In the last year, which was not a complete year, his living expenses amounted to $56S and his travelling expenses to $95. The other members of the civilian staff are paid according to the civil service schedule. The total salaries of these others for the last fiscal year amounted to $10,523. The uniformed personnel of the directorate are as follows:
In British Columbia, Lieutenant Tate, who is in uniform and receives the pay and allowances of his rank.
In Ontario, Lieutenant Commander Strange; Lieutenant G. Richardson; Lieutenant Phillip Lee; Lieutenant K. Fosberry; Lieutenant J. Trepanier; Sub-Lieutenant Newton; Acting-Lieutenant Fyfe; Sub-Lieutenant Burwash and Sub-Lieutenant Willis, all of whom are in Ontario, and receive the pay and allowances of their rank.	In addition there are two
"Wrens", members of the Women's Royal Canadian Naval Service, who are employed at information headquarters in Ottawa.
In Nova Scotia there are Acting-Lieutenant Commander G. A. Lawrence and Lieutenant W. Slater, who receive the pay of their rank.
In Newfoundland is Lieutenant Shaw, who receives the pay of his rank.
In the United Kingdom are Lieutenant Commander Bartlett, Sub-Lieutenant McRitchie

and Sub-Lieutenant Keate, all of whom receive the pay of their rank.
I believe those are all the questions asked by the hon. member for St. John-Albert, although I believe he has some to ask later on.
Then, dealing with the question asked by the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains: The hon. member raised the question of the closing of the St. Lawrence. May I say in the first place that the St. Lawrence is not closed to traffic. I must point out, however, that the eastern Atlantic ports of Canada are considerably nearer the United Kingdom than are the cities of Montreal and Quebec. There is a difference of some hundreds of miles in the distance between Montreal and Liverpool, for instance, and that between Halifax and Liverpool. And in a war, where we must traverse dangerous waters, the natural inclination is to shorten as greatly as possible the distance to be travelled by water. Consequently, in some cases at any rate, it is desirable to have a larger proportion of shipments from Canada leaving eastern Atlantic ports than would otherwise be the case. Furthermore, ships can make more trips by sailing from Halifax to United Kingdom ports and back again, than they could if they sailed from Montreal. There is a quicker turnaround, as it is called in shipping circles.
But there is no question that traffic will be moving in the St. Lawrence, perhaps not in as great volume as in certain other years, but nevertheless in very considerable volume.
Then, the hon. member for Yale asked about expenditures for capital assistance, and wanted to know why this should be charged to the navy, as was indicated in a return tabled last year. I have not any recollection of the particular return the hon. member has in mind, but I may say it is not the practice to charge capital assistance to the Department of National Defence for Naval Services. Such assistance is provided by the Department of Munitions and Supply. It may be, however, that under the item of equipment and components in last year's estimates something was charged to the Department of National Defence for Naval Services. Whether that was done incorrectly, I am not sure; but I can tell my hon. friend that that practice is not continuing.
Then, a question was asked as to the age at which the boys may leave sea cadet units. Sea cadet regulations provide that the ages shall be between twelve and eighteen years. I understand that certain corps in different parts of the country have their own ideas about age limits. Some are inclined to admit the boys immediately upon their reaching the

War Appropriation-Naval Services
age of twelve years, while others feel the boys should not be admitted until they are fourteen or fifteen years old. Some, I believe, want the boys to leave at the age of seventeen years instead of eighteen. That is a matter in respect of which there is some leeway allowed the corps. But the regulations do provide that boys may remain in the corps until they reach the age of eighteen, at which time they are old enough to join the Royal Canadian Navy. I may tell my hon. friend there is no>
entry into the Royal Canadian Navy at the moment for boy seamen, and I do not think there have been any entries since the beginning of the war.
Then, the hon. member wanted to know whether we have something in Canada like the royal naval benevolent trust. We have the royal Canadian naval benevolent fund. Whether it is exactly like the royal navy trust, I cannot say. No contribution is required from the men in connection with our fund, but a certain amount of unclaimed prize money, and certain other moneys contributed by various naval canteens have been put into the fund, which now amounts to a good many thousands of dollars, and which sum has been invested carefully, mostly I believe in victory bonds.


Grote Stirling: How is it used?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: No
money has been paid out of this fund, as I understand it, up to date.


Grote Stirling: It is a new fund, is it?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I
think the prize fund is a carry-over from the last war. This unclaimed prize money, together with certain other funds, including canteen funds, some time after the beginning of this war was put into the Royal Canadian Navy benevolent fund. I understand from the authorities of the fund that nothing has been paid out, and that during the war it may not be necessary to pay any out. After the war, when men may find themselves in somewhat straitened circumstances, the real need for the fund may be felt.
Then, the hon. member asked a question about the air officer commanding at Halifax, and whether he was under the naval commander in chief. That is a difficult question to answer. The title of Admiral Murray, the naval officer, is that of Commander-inChief, Canadian Northwest Atlantic. The title of the air officer is that of Air Officer Commanding. I should think that without any great argument between the two of them as to seniority they will get along very
well, Admiral Murray taking general charge of all anti-submarine activity, and the air officer taking charge of air activities over the sea.
Then the hon. member asked about Squadron Leader Desloges, who has been given certain duties in the St. Lawrence area. I can say that Squadron Leader Desloges is not in charge of any naval force. He is more in the nature of a liaison officer between the armed services- the navy, air and army-on the one hand, and the civilian defence corps, provincial police and other civilian services of that sort on the other.
The next question was with reference to categories on enlistment. We have certain people who are not fit for general duty but who are able to undertake certain other duties. We now have a special branch which employs some men who are not fit for sea duty for one reason or another. Then there is a shore branch where we employ sailmakers, blacksmiths and the like. We take them in up to sixty years of age, which is far beyond the age which would entitle them to enter for sea service.


Grote Stirling: Would the minister deal with the point I raised with regard to the four methods of entry for ratings? I did not quite follow the way it has been worked out.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I was referring to the four methods of training. My hon. friend used the expression "entry". There are not four methods of entry. The common method of entry is through the divisions. Men are also recruited at Halifax or Sydney or Esquimalt.


Grote Stirling: Through the R.C.N.V.R.?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Yes.


Grote Stirling: And then sent to training?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Yes. They may be sent to university for a course in radio or to a technical school for a course as stoker; some may go to ships and so on.


Grote Stirling: Could1 the minister deal with the question of deductions in pay, if any?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I have asked for some information on that, but I am sorry I have not received it. Perhaps I should not attempt to reply before I get it. My impression is that there are no deductions except where an income tax might be exigible, which would not happen in many cases, and such deductions as a man might make to his wife and so on. I will make sure on that point and let my hon. friend know to-morrow.
I wish to thank the hon. member for

War Appropriation-Naval Services
Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) and other members who have been kind enough to speak well of the Canadian navy and the work it is doing. I want also to say a word, perhaps not quite in the same spirit, about the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church). In spite of what the hon. member said this afternoon and this evening about his great friendship for me personally and his great regard for the navy, it is difficult for me to reconcile these statements with others he has made from time to time in this house. My hon. friend's references to the Canadian navy go back a good many years.
In 1926 the house was discussing the procedure to be followed1 in ratifying treaties. The question was whether the procedure which had been recommended by the imperial conference of 1923 should be adopted by the parliament of Canada. The hon. member for Broadview-at that time he represented Toronto North West-took a very strong stand on the matter. He said that Sir John A. Macdonald1 had been satisfied with the status of Canada; that the soldiers who had died in France and Flanders were satisfied with it, and then he went on to say, as reported1 at page 4787 of Hansard:
Talk about Canada being independent, . . . Why if we were independent a foreign fleet might sail up the St. Lawrence and we would not have as much as a rowboat to oppose it because our toy navy is locked up in a garage at Halifax.
Two years later, the hon. member was speaking on February 1, 1928, and is reported at pages 103 and 104 of Hansard as follows:
We have a contemptible little navy which hugs the shores, never leaves our coasts and for the past year has been locked up in a garage at Halifax.
Then he went on, as reported at page 106-


Gordon Graydon: Was that denied?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: How can it be denied? It is in Hansard.


Gordon Graydon: I am not talking about his denial.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I quote from page 106 as follows:
Then I come to the Department of National Defence.
The department was then administered by the hon. gentleman who is now Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston).
The minister of this department is also actively engaged in putting the Liberal party on the map, and the returned men off the map. I suppose he intends to unlock the door of the garage at Halifax and let our navy run up and

down the coast. But really I hope he will not send the boat out to sea . . . for I am afraid it is not a seaworthy craft.
The gem of the whole collection, although it is not strictly to the point of naval matters, is to be found at page 107 where the hon. member is reported as having delivered himself in this most remarkable manner:
Now, Mr. Speaker, I think I have talked- and also thought-for nearly forty minutes. Not every member can think for that period of time. But I have only dealt with the fringe of my subject. I am not supposed to be the leader but I have said more than the Prime Minister uttered during the three and a half hours that he held the floor.
That was 1928. I pass on to 1940.


Gordon Graydon: Who was Prime Minister then?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: The present Prime Minister, and if he lives I have no doubt he will be Prime Minister fifteen years from now.


Gordon Graydon: I hope that your prophecies on naval matters are better than that.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I pass over the other years and come to 1940. On November 22 of that year the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Black) asked a question, as reported at pages 336 and 337 of Hansard, about the establishment of a naval college. The hon. member for Victoria, B.C. (Mr. Mayhew) had been quoted in a newspaper as having stated that the naval college would be established on the Pacific coast, and the hon. member for Cumberland wished to know whether it was to be established there or in Nova Scotia. The hon. member for Broadview then leaped to his feet and asked me as Minister of National Defence for Naval Services if in the future, I would give information to the house about the establishment of such an institution before it was disclosed to the newspapers over the head and against the regular practice of parliament. I had made no statement whatever about the college except to say that no site had been selected. The hon. member for Broadview then asked if the British admiralty had been consulted, implying that we did not have the power to erect a naval college in Canada at the place and time we wished. He then went on with a very gratuitous jibe at an officer of the navy named Lieutenant Farrow, who had been director of publicity for the navy but who at that time I think was serving at sea with the Canadian navy. My hon. friend apparently never liked this officer for some reason or

War Appropriation-Naval Services
another, because he frequently asked questions about him, and his final compliment to the college was to say:
I suppose the minister will announce the appointment of Lieutenant Farrow as commandant of the college.
Then I turn to 1942, May 13. page 2391 of Hansard. There was some discussion that day about sinkings in the St. Lawrence. My hon. friend the member for Broadview said in a none too complimentary voice:
Where was your navy when all this was going on in the St. Lawrence?
Then on the 16th of July-I have not the exact date but it was about the middle of July, 1942-at a time when I was at a shipyard in Ontario which had been burned out with the loss of one ship and the partial loss of another, and when I was endeavouring to make arrangements with other shipbuilders around there to come to the assistance of this yard which has been destroyed, at that very moment when I was there the hon. member for Broadview asked some question in the house of the department for naval services. The Prime Minister replied that I would be back in a day or two and would answer it then, and my hon. friend's friendship for me manifested itself by saying:
He ought to be here.
I notice that my hon. friend is very rarely in his seat on Monday afternoon and for a good part of Friday afternoon, but when I was out trying to straighten out a shipyard in distress -I am glad to say that the boat builders rallied magnificently-that is the sort of thanks I get from the hon. member for Broadview.


Charles Edward Johnston: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I hate to interrupt the minister in this little political wrangle he is having across the floor with members of the Progressive Conservative party, but if I were to go back to 1908 and dig up things in Hansard and bring them before the committee on this item for pay and allowances I am wondering if you would grant me the same privilege as the minister is enjoying. It is just holding up the committee and I am getting sick of listening to this kind of talk.


Mr. GARDINER:: Not half as sick as we have been listening to you.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: On the point of order, we called an item this afternoon, and a lot of latitude has been given since the estimates for naval defence came before the committee. I believe that the same latitude has been maintained up to this minute as we are giving to the minister.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I am not going to deal with the point of order, Mr. Chairman, but should like to make one or two further references.
On the 17th of March of this year-if the hon. member for Bow River wants recent occurrences, this is one that happened this session-the hon. member for Broadview said:
Will the minister make a statement about the escort strength? We seem to have been trusting to Providence more than the Canadian navy.
This is the kind of statement by the hon. member for Broadview to which I object, and I say that I am not for one moment misled by statements such as he made this afternoon to the effect that he was a great friend of mine and of the Canadian navy and that he had urged rearmament for the last twenty years, because the statements I have just quoted indicate that he is not a friend certainly of the minister or of the minister who occupied the position of Minister of National Defence some fifteen years ago.
My hon. friend asked a further question this afternoon. It was a complaint rather than a question, and the gist of it was that the enlisted man in Canada loses his civilian status whereas in Britain, Australia and New Zealand he retains it, and has all the rights of protection based on the liberty of the subject. He went on to indicate that the enlisted man in Canada lost. those rights and could not even write to his own member of parliament if he had a complaint to make. I tried to correct my hon. friend at the time, but the leader of the opposition became very technical and did not want any interruptions. I wanted to tell the hon. member for Broadview that I was not aware of any difference whatever between the rules governing the Canadian serviceman and the serviceman in Great Britain. In fact I knew that all our King's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions for the army, navy and air force were based and drawn very largely upon the regulations in force in Great Britain for the particular service. I am supported in that by section 13 of King's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions, which reads as follows:
No person in the fleet is to enter into direct communication with any service or department of the state or with any subordinate officer of such service or department, at home or abroad, on subjects connected with the naval service or with his particular duties or present or future employment, unless authorized to do so by the regulations of the service or superior authority; but all communications on such subjects are to be made through the proper channels to the admiralty or to the commanders in chief abroad, in order that such steps may be taken therein as may be necessary.

War Appropriation-Naval Services
That I interpret to mean quite clearly that a man in the fleet in Great Britain is not at complete liberty to write at any time he wishes to anybody to whom he wishes to write, but is bound and controlled by this article of the King's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions, and that is exactly the same article which governs and- controls the actions of Canadian sailors.


Mr. ROY (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, as I represent the constituency, bordering on the gulf of St. Lawrence, where we suffered heavy losses in ships during the past year, I was pleased to hear the statement which the Prime Minister made to the house this afternoon regarding the policy which the government proposes to adopt with a view to ensure better protection to the gulf this year.
When I fought last year, as the committee no doubt remembers, for improvements in our protection system, I was sure, as a result of the disasters which had unfortunately occurred in the gulf, that the three branches of the national defence, could, under better leadership, and with closer cooperation, afford us more efficient protection; I was sure that we were exposed to serious dangers in that connection and that our area was the one where the enemy menace was the greatest.
I have no doubt that the population scattered on the shores of the river and the gulf will generously support the fulfilment of that defence programme, and, if need be, help to preserve the integrity of our national territory, even if it should entail the greatest sacrifices. Besides, those people had realized long ago that the situation was fraught with serious dangers. I was sure, when I discussed those matters in the house and was confronted with opposition on all sides, that I was voicing such fears, which have clearly stood out in the Charlevoix-Saguenay election.
Our people knew that had the battle of the Atlantic taken a more favourable turn for the enemy, the latter could easily have driven an attack inland through that wide open gateway.
For those reasons, I was glad to hear the statement of the policy which the government proposes to adopt in order to afford to that part of our country a better protection which, undoubtedly, will give very good results and restore confidence in the minds of the people.
In conclusion, I wish to express the hope that during the present navigation season, with all those protective measures and the general support of the civil population of Gaspe, we shall not have to deplore disasters like those which occurred last year.


Jean-François Pouliot: In the first place I wish to congratulate very sincerely the hon. member for Vegreville and the hon. member for St. John-Albert, who spoke very well this afternoon. I could not be here all the time, but I listened to their speeches with deep interest, and what they said was worthy of note. With regard to the hon. member for Broadview, I do not think the minister is right in giving him the cold shoulder when he showed such a friendly disposition.
This afternoon I listened with great attention to the Prime Minister while he read his statement. It is an important statement because it recognized the valiant and courageous efforts in this chamber of the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Roy), and it was also a recognition of the true significance of the byelection in which the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Dorion) was returned last fall. For a time the hon. member for Gaspe was almost alone in bringing to the attention of the government matters of defence, not only of the territory he represents here, but of the whole country; and although he has not been given all that he asked, I give credit to the government for admitting that it is a pressing matter and that something should be done. What was mentioned by the Prime Minister this afternoon was the civilian defence, the extension of the aircraft detection; also he said that planes would be in readiness and telephone lines would be open for urgent calls.
The purpose of the mobilization act was one month of training, extended to all, and if I remember what was said to me at the time, the idea was to have a force disseminated throughout the country in order to repel any invasion by an enemy. The late Mr. Lapointe, and the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin), who was then a member of the cabinet, spoke on this line, and the fall of France made possible an attack from Germany or some other enemy. It meant that after the fall of France this country was more exposed to invasion, and therefore men should be on the spot ready to repel invasion. Well, afterwards it was changed and now we have recourse to civilian defence. But if the Pulhems system is put into force, and if the army keeps not only the physically fit men, but all the others, placed in different categories, who will form the civilian defence?
The minister said that defence should not be organized on the same lines as public works, which are distributed throughout the country.
I agree with him to a certain extent; but on the other hand, if our country is exposed, where will be the invasion if we are to be invaded by an enemy? No one knows. I

War Appropriation-Naval Services
hope that this country will not be invaded, but if the enemy decides to come here, where will he attack? No one knows. In the United States there is coast protection from Maine South to Florida, and as the minister well knows, they have 700,000 volunteers who search the sky for aeroplanes and have powerful projectors operating in the sky, on the sea and on the land. They do things very well there, and, even though we may not wish to follow all that is done in the United States, there are examples which it would be wise for us to follow.	_
There is another consideration. It is, that when the Canadian people show good will with regard to enlistments, as they do in my county, and with regard to subscriptions to victory loans, the amounts of which were always oversubscribed, although incomes are much reduced, it has to be taken into consideration, and these fellows want to see the colour of the money, not to derive any personal benefit but to be assured of reasonable protection. If we tell Canadian citizens, "this country is well defended," and then we add, "Look around and see if you are satisfied with it," and they see nothing, the answer is clear. They are not satisfied. They want adequate protection.
There must be cooperation between the three branches of the armed forces. The minister represents the naval services; there is also the air defence and the militia; and all three should work together. We need camps at different places. It is a mistake to have camps which are too large; it is good to have camps disseminated throughout the country. I have been insisting for a long time that there should be a training centre at Riviere du Loup; it is a much better place than even Montmagny or Rimouski. One camp was established at Montmagny, thirty miles from Quebec city, and the other one at Rimouski. Why should there be a camp at Riviere du Loup? For this simple reason, that there is close connection between the St. Lawrence river and the United States throughout the county of Temiscouata from north to south, and it is an old military route. It was built by the Royal Engineers at the time of the Fenian raid, and when the minister or any minister speaks, of modern experts he might bear in mind that this road was built by experts who had as much knowledge of military business as those of to-day, if not more. It was to connect the United States and Canada. Very often I have asked the Minister of National Defence to see to it that that route is broadened and rebuilt to be serviceable for military purposes, and I have
always been listened to with a deaf ear. _ I am not referring in this connection to the minister for naval services.
In case of invasion, if it comes to the east, this is the nearest approach by road and rail from the United States. It is a small railway which operates there, but we need improvements to that highway and they should be carried out by the defence department. For three or four years, in fact for many years, I have been advocating that. I took it up with the Minister of Labour before the war. The present Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) can see the memoranda which I sent to his predecessor, who was afterwards Minister of National Defence and who died too early. I am sure that if the Hon. Mr. Rogers had lived a little longer, that route would1 have been widened and rebuilt by his own department.
That route is essential because, if this country becomes a theatre of war; if the enemy comes here, the railways may not be sufficient to transport all that we need. We may need transport by truck and, in fact, when there are military trucks that go to Halifax or Saint John, they pass over that highway, route No. 2. Now there is very little tourist traffic, and I suggest that it is time to do that work and to see to it that we have every facility extended to us for the improvement of our defence.
The third point is that we need some navy boats on the river at Riviere du Loup. The nearest point is Rimouski, a distance of sixty miles. Riviere du Loup is in front of the Saguenay river on the opposite shore of the river, and it would form a good base for some boats. Besides that, we have a naval college in the province of Quebec at St. Hyacinthe near a muddy river, a river in which there is very little water. There is more mud than water. I do not see why such a college is not near the St. Lawrence river. We shall need also an airport and some men to protect the railways and the railway approaches and bridges. That means that a great deal will have to be done, but it cannot be done by the civilian protection alone. It needs the cooperation of all men of good-will, who are ready to admit that eastern Canada is a part of Canada. That is all we want. I have been insisting on that year after year. Never, however, did I have a favourable report. I succeeded in having the engineer of the Department of Transport come to Temiscouata county in 1940, but he came early in the spring when the roads and the fields were covered with snow and it was hard to find a proper location for an airport. I do not see why that part of Canada should not be

War Appropriation-Naval Services
entitled to an airport. It would afford excellent facilities to all Royal Canadian Air Force men who come to that district.
The defence of this country will not be effected by order in council; it must be carried out on the spot. There are things that appeal to common sense, things which cannot be denied. They must be admitted. Our people are willing to do their share and they are doing it very well, but they need that protection to which they are entitled as Canadian citizens.
Again I congratulate very warmly the hon. member for Gaspe upon what he has done in the past, and I am ready to admit that in very large part what has been decided is due to his painstaking efforts. I also congratulate the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay upon his election, which was an eye-opener. Let me assure the minister that I do not approach this question of defence from any parochial point of view, but I want the country well defended. When my hon. friends from British Columbia argued their case-and they did it very well- I supported them, and I am ready to support any request they make for their part of the country. On the other hand, we want their support for eastern Canada as well. I hope that the fears which have been entertained, and which were justified to a large extent, will not materialize and that the enemy will not come to our shores. But the fact is that the enemy came within the St. Lawrence river, and I hope that the order in council which was read this afternoon was not passed simply to appease eastern Canadians who were not satisfied with the way in which the defence was organized in past years.
In conclusion, there are two questions I wish to ask the minister. There are interchangeable heads in the defence department, and I understand that the Minister of National Defence is first of the war ministers and that the minister for air is his associate. I wonder if the minister for naval services has something to do with the other two departments. If so,
I would be thankful if he would say what it is.
There is another thing. Some time ago it was mentioned in the press that there would be ten parliamentary assistants. Some of them have been appointed. I do not know the number, but I do know that there are not ten.
I should like to know something about this without having any names mentioned. One of our colleagues has been mentioned as assistant to the minister and he is very worthy of that honour, if I may so describe it. He could discharge the duties very well. I wonder why the minister does not have a parliamentary

assistant just as there are parliamentary assistants for the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of National Defence for Air. The Minister for Naval Services may say that his budget is less than the budgets of the others. That is true, but his budget this year is as much as the whole of the civil estimates in a year before the war. I wonder if the minister will not have a parliamentary assistant in the near future. I do not wish him to disclose the name of the one who will be chosen.
Mr. GRAYDON.* Does the hon. member think it will be the hon. member for Broadview?


Jean-François Pouliot: It could have been possible until the minister spoke, because the hon. member for Broadview was in a very friendly mood, but I do not know what will be his disposition following the words of the minister. Let me tell the minister something else in regard to the hon. member for Broadview and himself. This discussion is not a matter of friendship; it is not a matter of saying, "After you, my dear Alphonse; after you, my dear Gaston," It is a matter of very serious business; it is the very serious matter of the defence of this country. Sometimes we may disagree with the minister, but there is no man more broad-minded than the hon. member for Broadview. While I often disagree with him on public matters, I have the highest regard for the hon. gentleman, and I can say that he is one of my very best friends. One has only to go to Toronto to see how popular he is with everyone, particularly with the underprivileged man about whom no one thinks.
The matter is very simple. The minister cannot expect hon. members to discuss such serious matters, matters of life and death, from, a sentimental point of view. I am against sentiment in war. We must be matter of fact; we must get down to brass tacks; we must see to it that the country suffers as little as possible. The minister occupies an important post but, like all of us, he is only a man and a man can make mistakes. Because mistakes are made at times; because a member makes some remarks that may not please at the time, he should not be considered unfriendly. Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I hope the minister will take my remarks into consideration, for I shall have to repeat them when the bill is under consideration if no progress is made in regard to the matters I have mentioned.

War Appropriation-Naval Services


Angus Lewis Macdonald: My hon. friend has asked two questions. The first was whether I have anything to do with the other two departments of defence. The statute provides that if one minister of defence is absent, one of the two remaining ministers acts in his behalf and with his authority, while, if two are absent, the remaining minister acts in behalf of those two. Otherwise the positions are not interchangeable. Of course there is very full consultation between the three defence ministers; at meetings of defence council, which are also attended by the chiefs of staff and the deputy ministers, and again at meetings of the war committee of the cabinet, which are attended by the three defence ministers as well as the Prime Minister and certain other members of the government.
The second question was why no parliamentary assistant has been appointed. My hon. friend knows very well that with such a tremendous surplus of excellent material on this side of the house, including the hon. member for Temiscouata, it is very difficult to select an assistant. I have not made any decision on the question as to who should be selected or whether anyone should be selected. Of course the matter is one for the Prime Minister as well as the minister directly concerned.


Thomas Langton Church: I regret to have to rise
to a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman. I understand that in my absence from the chamber to-night, after having offered some constructive criticism, the minister insulted me and the whole opposition. After all, the opposition have some rights in this honourable house, and I object to that sort of thing. I never said that I was a friend of the minister; I do not know him well enough to be a friend. All I have done is humbly to do my duty as a member of parliament, and I certainly have something to say about a spendthrift department like this. It should be put back where it was under the army; there was no necessity for the creation of this department. It has been nothing but a sink-hole for the country's money, half a billion dollars, and I object to it. I have taken a consistent stand in this house for rearmament, and I know no friends except it be my duty as a member of parliament. I do object to a new minister lecturing the committee in this way. I shall read his remarks in Hansard to-morrow morning and make my reply later.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: We shall await that with great interest; my hon. friend has plenty of time to prepare replies.


Thomas Langton Church: I ask for a retraction by the minister, and I can tell him that I am going to discuss every item of his estimates.
I have no quarrel with him or his department at all, but I have contended that while there should be an air department there was no necessity for the creation of this department, the expenditures of which are going up by leaps and bounds. I do wish to follow along the line of the remarks of the hon. member for Temiscouata, but the Toronto Star has published another report in regard to the speeches made in this house. I have not occupied one-half the time they said. I have discussed public affairs here fairly and squarely, in a decent and honourable manner;
I have made no attacks upon the government or upon any minister. I have done my duty in this house as a gentleman, and I do not intend to be lectured by a newcomer from the maritime provinces. That may go in the Nova Scotia legislature, but so far as I am concerned it will not go another day in this house. The minister represents a constituency in Ontario, but so far as I can see Ontario has not been given fair treatment.
I have no wish to further take part in this debate. I believe I have done my duty as a member of parliament in calling the attention of the house and the country to these expenditures. I have supported rearmament; I have supported the navy; I have supported the action that has been taken by the govern^ ment. I do not seek any quarrel with the minister. He is a newcomer; all I know about him is what I see of him over there, but he has no business to make remarks about me in my absence. I never said I was a friend of his. A member of parliament must do his duty. Criticism is a tonic which stirs governments to action, and, so far as I can see, the only action we have had has come as a result of criticism from this side of the house. I know no friendship except my duty to the returned men, and I do regret that personalities should enter into this debate. This is no place for them; this conflict is too serious for matters of that description. The minister has so many press agents who infest the newspaper offices that I fail to see where we are getting value for the money, and I am only one member of the opposition.
It is eleven o'clock, Mr. Chairman. I do not wish to offer any further criticism, but I can only repeat that I have no quarrel with the minister at all, and no desire except to do my duty.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Questions
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, June 9, 1943