1943-06-10

[Stage Direction]
First report of joint committee of both 'houses on the printing of parliament.-Mr. Ferland.	.

[Stage Direction]
.AUTHORIZATION OF APPOINTMENT OF DEPUTY MINISTERS FOR TAXATION AND CUSTOMS AND EXCISE
Hon, C. W. G. GIBSON (Minister of National Revenue) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 108, to amend the Department -of National Revenue Act.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. GIBSON:: Mr. Speaker, owing to the appointment of Mr. Hugh D. Scully as consul general in New York there is a vacancy in the office of commissioner of customs. This bill provides for the combining of the office of [DOT]commissioner of customs with that of commissioner of excise and raising the status of the commissioner to that of a deputy minister. It also provides for raising the status of the [DOT]commissioner of income tax and succession [DOT]duties to that of a deputy minister.
Section 2 of the bill is to authorize the Minister of National Revenue to administer certain sections of the Special War Revenue Act. Under the Department of National Revenue Act the . minister is responsible for administering sections 4 to 14 of the Special War Revenue Act. This bill places section 2 and sections 15, 16 and 17 of the Special War Revenue Act under the jurisdiction of the Minister of National Revenue.


Mr. GRAYDON:: Will the new deputy minister of customs and excise be the present commissioner of excise?


Colin William George Gibson: That appointment has not been made. It will be made by order in council.


Gordon Graydon: But he is not barred?


Colin William George Gibson: Certainly not.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. LALONDE:: 1.	Who is the representative of the wartime prices and trade board at Mont Laurier, Quebec ?
2.	Have any complaints been received by the board with respect to the management of the office at Mont Laurier?
3.	Have any investigations been made of such complaints?
4.	If so, (a) on what date; (b) by whom?
5.	What were the findings of such investigations with regard to, (a) the purchase by said representative of an automobile tube from a garage owner at Mont Laurier; (b) the resale of said tube to a third party?
6.	Was said representative discharged or sued before the competent court?


Mr. ABBOTT:: 1.	Mr. J. Alphonse Forget.
2.	Yes.
3.	Yes.
4.	(a) November, 1942; January, 1943; February, 1943; May, 1943. (b) Inspector for the controller of supplies in the province of Quebec. The Wartime Prices and Trade Board. Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
5.	(a) (b) In the month of July, 1942, Mr. J. Alphonse1 Forget purchased from a garage owner in Mont Laurier one new 600 x 16 tube for the sum of S2.76 tax included and later sold this tube to a resident of Mont Laurier for the same amount. An investigator has filed a written statement of Mr. Forget to the effect that the above purchase and sale was made with a view to possible prosecution proceedings which however, for reasons outlined in the statement, were not instituted. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the explanation contained in this statement has been accepted.
6.	No.
Questions


MILITARY SERVICE-MEDICAL REVIEW BOARD
Mr. BERTRAND (Terrebonne):: 1.	Has the Department of National Defence a medical review board in Montreal where recruits are called after having been already declared unfit for military duties by the Registrar of National War Services?
2.	If so, where is it located?
3.	How long has it been in operation?
4.	Who is the doctor in charge? Is he a military or civilian doctor?
5.	Who are the other doctors attached to such board, and are they military or civilian doctors?


Mr. MACDONALD (Halifax):: 1.	No. The Department of National Defence at the request of the Department of Labour has provided the personnel for a medical board in Montreal which is responsible to the Minister of Labour and which operates under national selective service regulations. Its function is to review the medical status of men who have been placed in categories "C", "D" and "E" by the family physician. The board works exclusively as a revision board' for national selective service and does not act as an army examining board.
2.	1121 St. James Street (formerly located in the Transportation building).
3.	Since 7th January, 1943.
4.	Major J. B. Trudelle, R.C.A.M.C. He is a military medical officer.
5.	The following are attached to the board:
Military.-Captain J. A. Guy, Lieut. M.
Thiberge, Lieut. J. C. L. Goudreault, Lieut. J. F. Mutch, Lieut. J. C. Preece, Lieut. E. Peterson, Captain E. Bruneau (Reserve Army).
Civilian.-Dr. J. Lussier, Dr. J. Tetreault, Dr. G. A. Thiboutol.


H. J. SYMINGTON, K. C.
Mr. DORION:: What are the various executive positions held by Mr. Symington, a dollar-a-year man?


Mr. CHEVRIER:: Refer to ipage 2927,
Hansard, May 24, 1943.


TREASURY BOARD AND ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Mr. COLD WELL:: 1.	Who are the members of the treasury board?
2.	Who are the members of the advisory committee to the treasury board?
3.	What other positions are held by the members of this advisory committee?


Mr. ABBOTT:: 1.	Minister of Finance, Chairman; Minister of Mines and Resources; Minister of Justice; Minister of Agriculture; Minister of National Revenue; Minister of Trade and Commerce.
2 and 3. Under the terms of order in council P.C. 2/584, dated January 23, 1943, a committee was set up to advise the treasury' board on matters of administration and personnel. The
rMr. Abbott.]
members of this committee and their positions are as follows: H. J. Coon, Executive Assistant, Head Office, Bank of Nova Scotia ; C. H. Bland, Chairman, Civil Service Commission; B. J. Roberts, Member, National Harbours Board; A. Thivierge, Civil Service Commissioner; W. C. Ronson, Assistant Deputy Minister of Finance.


CANADIAN FORCES-DELIVERY OF MAIL TO MEN IN CAMPS
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Has the Department of National Defence given instructions to training camp authorities not to immediately deliver correspondence sent to conscripts, (a) by their relatives; (b) by members of parliament?
2.	If so, (a) what are the instructions; (b) to what camps were they sent?


Mr. MACDONALD (Halifax):: 1.	(a) No. (b) No.
2.	(a) Answered by 1 above, (b) Answered by 1 above.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION- ALLAN M. MITCHELL
Mr. STOKES:: 1.	Is Allan M. Mitchell a member of the unemployment insurance commission?
2.	If so, when was he appointed?
3.	What is his remuneration?
4.	What positions did he hold, and/or what was the nature of his business or employment during the ten-year period prior to his appointment?


Mr. MITCHELL:: 1.	Yes.
2.	September 24, 1940.
3.	$8,000 per annum.
4.	(a) Managing Director, President and Chairman of Robert Mitchell Company (Manufacturers of railway equipment, architectural bronze and iron, brass and iron, foundries). President of Garth Company (Plumbing, Heating and Ventilating Engineers and Steamfitters Supplies). President of National Bronze Company (Manufacturers of railway car bearings). Director of Canadian Cutler Mail Shute Company (Manufacturers of mail chutes). Vice-President of Mitchell, Holland Company (Interior decorators). Director of Thrift Stores, Limited (Grocery chain stores). Director of Investment Foundation, Limited (Investment Trust). Director and Vice-President of United Gold Equities, Limited (Investment Trust). Treasurer of Montreal Board of Trade. Director of Canadian Chamber of Commerce. Governor of Lower Canada College. (b) General business administration and investments.

Milk-Butter Fat Content



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mrs. NIELSEN:: 1.	Has a questionnaire been placed before the armed forces having reference to post-war rehabilitation?
2.	If so, how many expressed a desire to return to farms?
3.	What percentage of the total number was this?



WABASSO COTTON COMPANY


Mr. GAUTHIER:: 1- Has the Wabasso Cotton Company, of Three Rivers and Shawinigan Falls, any contracts with the federal government?
2. If so, (a) for what amount; (b) are they subject to the wage scale imposed by the government?



CANADIAN FORCES-SUMMER UNIFORMS

Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	How are summer uniforms supplied, (a) for the army, navy and air force at home and overseas; (b) for the women's army?
2.	What provision has been made to give the army a better type of summer uniform; one more adapted to the climates of the various camps throughout Canada?
3.	What action has been taken, and are all army camps now supplied with summer clothing and uniforms?



LIVE STOCK


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to ask a question of the Minister of Agriculture. Has it been brought to his attention that the Feeders' Association Limited of Cardston is having difficulty in marketing finished cattle,-is finding the packing houses indifferent? Will the minister investigate this matter and report to the house at an early day?


Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) :: The hon. member was kind enough
to send me a copy of the question he desired to ask, and that is the first intimation I have had that any difficulty is being experienced. As was announced to the house last week, the meat board was set up to deal with situations of this kind so far as it is possible to do so.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. R. ADAMSON (York West):: I
should like to ask a question of the Minister ' of Munitions and Supply. It has to do with the emergent situation now existing in the township [DOT] of Etobicoke and the municipality of New Toronto. In view of this emergent situation which now exists in the township of Etobicoke with regard to the controversy between the township council and Wartime Housing, will the minister make a statement concerning what proposals can be made to alleviate the situation; and further would the minister or a representative of his department meet a group of officials and let us get the question settled?


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Munitions and Supply):: I made inquiries on receipt of
notice of this question. I am advised that certain negotiations are in progress between the officers of Wartime Housing Limited and the municipalities which are mentioned. Satisfactory progress seems to be indicated, and I see no purpose in myself meeting the officers of the township. I am not at the moment a party to the negotiations.



REQUEST OF TORONTO DAIRY COMPANIES FOR HIGHER STANDARD OF BUTTER FAT CONTENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. BRUCE McNEVIN (Victoria):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance with respect to the recent request of the dairy companies operating in the Toronto area to have the standard of butter fat content of milk supplied them by the producers raised from 3-4 to 3-6 per cent without increasing the prevailing price paid per hundredweight for milk. If such a change were authorized, the net result would be a reduction of the price paid to the producer amounting to seven cents per hundredweight.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Thomas Bruce McNevin: My question is: could
the present arrangement with respect to the sale of whole milk by producers to distributors in the Toronto area for consumption be altered without sanction of the wrartime pripes and trade board?


Mr. D. C. ABBOTT (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Finance):: The answer to my hon. friend's question is, no. He was
Prisoners of War

good enough to give notice of it; and I am advised that no request for the approval of such an order has been received by the wartime prices and trade board. If it is, the interests of the milk producers will, I can assure him, be protected.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. On Friday last I brought to his attention the lay-off of the employees of the Canadian Ingersoll Rand company at Sherbrooke. He mentioned at the time that there was a report that this lay-off was caused by union activities among the employees, but he was to investigate. I would like to know if he has any further information.


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: I did say there was a layoff and also that there had been a complaint received from employees that somi nad been laid off because of union activity, and that a commissioner was being sent to Sherbrooke to investigate. I shall be glad to see if the *commissioner's report has now been received by my department and shall inform my hon. friend.



PRISONERS OF WAR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: I have a question to ask the Minister of National Defence (Army), and since he is absent I will direct it to his parliamentary assistant. Word continues to reach me that Canadian troops captured at Dieppe are still in chains. Will the Minister of National Defence outline what steps are being taken to endeavour to have the German government treat these men in a more humane manner? Also, will the *government take into consideration making an announcement of the measures that will be taken after Germany is defeated, to punish those responsible for this barbarism unless it is discontinued at once?


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I had better answer that question. The whole matter of the shackling of prisoners in 'Germany has been the subject of very careful consideration between the British government and our own and other governments of the [DOT]empire. Without agreement on the part of

all it is generally understood that no statement will be made, for the present at least. What may be done after the war is over will be decided by the parliament that is in existence at that time. It may be this parliament; it may be another.



MAGNESIUM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. H. KNOWLES (Winnipeg North Centre):: Yesterday's edition of the Ottawa Journal contained a news item to the effect that reports have been made to the government concerning the possibilities of producing magnesium in Canada in unlimited quantities. Reference was made in particular to the new Wildman process. May I ask whether such a report has been received by the government; if so, what department is in possession of it; and has the government any statement to make at the present time?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I may say that the government has already organized the production of the magnesium that is required for its own war effort, with a surplus for export. I do not know whether the report mentioned has been received, but I can assure my hon. friend that the government has no intention of enlarging the present production of magnesium.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. FRASER (Peterborough West):: In the press of June 8 an article appeared with regard to the refundable proportion of the 1942 income tax. Can the Minister of National Revenue tell the house what the position is in that regard?


Colin William George Gibson: I have not seen the article.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It was in the newspapers on June 8.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Horne Blackmore: I desire to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Will the minister cause the wartime prices and trade board or some other authority to investigate the prices at which

Procedure in Questions on Orders of the Day
beef feeders in western Canada are at present being obliged to sell their beef, to determine whether or not beef feeders are able to derive such a remuneration for their 1942 and 1943 efforts as will encourage them to feed beef in other years?


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. The question is one to which the hon. member cannot expect an answer to-day. I have already brought to the attention of the house, not only during last session but also in this session, the matter of questions on the orders of the day. It is quite evident that many of these questions which are being asked, even though they are drafted as notice of motion to the ministers concerned, are not in accordance with the rules of the house. Any question requiring the deliberation of a minister or his department should be placed upon the order paper so that the minister and the department may have an opportunity to reply.
I may say at the same time that it is again becoming a general practice to refer to telegrams, reports in newspapers, and things of the kind which are reported in the daily press, and make them the subjects of questions on the floor of the house, although such questions cannot and should not be answered on the orders of the day. I would ask the house and I would ask hon. members who may be inclined to indulge in this practice to have some consideration not only for the Chair, who dislikes extremely to be always interrupting on these orders of the day, but to have regard for the rules of the house, with which all hon. members are conversant, and I think they ought to support the Chair in the attitude he is endeavouring to adopt.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like as the leader of the house to support what His Honour the Speaker has just said about the observance of rules and regulations, particularly as to the asking of questions on the orders of the day. I do that at this moment, because I know hon. members are hoping that we shall reach before long a stage when we will begin to wind up the business of this session. I think I may be able by conference with leaders of the different sides of the house to work toward that end without depriving any hon. members of full opportunities to discuss the questions which they wish to discuss. There are times and places to ask questions. Many of the questions which are being asked on the orders of'the day should either appear on the order paper or might be taken up when the affairs of the departments are under consideration.
The Speaker has referred to the practice of reading telegrams and extracts from newspapers and of basing questions thereon. Hon. members are aware that this is against the rules of the house. I believe that we shall all gain in the end if there is a close observance of the rules in that particular. Hon. members will be interested, I believe, in looking over Hansard, to see how much time has been taken up each week by questions that have been asked on the orders of the day, practically any of which, with one or two exceptions, might have been put upon the order paper and answered in the regular way. We are in this-position in the house at the present time, that the government faces really four oppositions, if not more, and when one opposition raises a question, if it happens to be the official opposition, very often members of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party feel that they too must ask some question or other arising out of that one, and our friends of the Social Credit group have similar feelings and wish to ask questions-[DOT]


John Horne Blackmore: Very seldom.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -while some members at the other end of the house feel that unless they also ask questions it may , appear that their party is gradually disappearing. I say all this in the best of good humour for the sake of avoiding if possible an unnecessary waste of time from now until the end of the session and, as well, of helping to preserve the decorum of the house.


Gordon Graydon: I may say to the Prime Minister that the members of the house generally are anxious that there shall not be any undue delay in dealing with the various matters-which are still to be disposed of before the end of this session. With reference to the right hon. gentleman's remarks about questions asked before the orders of the day, it is very difficult to lay down a yardstick that shall govern questions that are put at that time. There are many questions that are of urgent importance, particularly those that are of a public nature, which we as His Majesty's Loyal Opposition feel should be brought to the attention of the government, and we should' not like to have our privileges in that respect too far curtailed. As far as possible we have tried to bring up on the orders of the day only such questions as in our judgment fall' within this category, and- I should not like to have the Prime Minister's statement, indicating a tendency to the curtailment of questions, to be taken by the house generally as implying the curtailment of those privileges;
3496	COMMONS
Procedure in Questions on Orders oj the Day
and rights which we as members of the opposition enjoy. I quite understand that he has not that in mind and I can assure him that in the questions that we do prepare and put to the government from this side of the house we try to keep within the limits laid down by the rules, and we shall continue to observe that policy so far as it lies in our power to do so. We would ask Your Honour, however, in view of the conditions of emergency that exist in the country to-day, not to apply the rule too strictly under extraordinary circumstances where the actual work of the house is not being interfered with by a number of unnecessary interrogations.


John Horne Blackmore: While Your Honour did not definitely refer to my second question as being an example of questions that are out of order, nevertheless, the fact that your observation came after I had asked my question would carry that implication. May I ask whether or not Your Honour was able to detect that I asked merely for a report at a future sitting of the house? May I call the attention of the Prime Minister to the fact that the question of the price at * which the feeders of beef cattle are obliged to sell their beef at the present time is a vital matter. They cannot sell their beef two or three weeks after they are finished-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


John Horne Blackmore: The matter is vitally important-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


John Horne Blackmore: If the beef feeders are obliged to sell their stock at prices too low it simply means that next year we shall have less beef, which is an exceedingly important matter.


Thomas Vien: When the leader of the government was speaking he wras referring to questions which were of an urgent character. I have always been very lenient and have given the widest latitude to questions to which an answer should be given immediately, and in the future I propose to continue to do so. Many questions, however, are being asked which, although they may have the appearance of urgency, have relation to the operations of departmental administration and should not be asked either on the orders of the day or as notice to the minister.



WAR APPROPRIATION BILL


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, June 9, consideration in committee of a resolution to grant to his majesty certain sums of money for the carrying out of measures consequent upon the existence of a state of war-Mr. Ilsley-Mr. Bradette in the chair.

The CHAIRMAN:: Item 4.


Mrs. CASSELMAN:: I wanted to say a few words when the estimates of the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services were under consideration before, but I was not able to do so; some of the long distance speakers got in before me. Yesterday the radio committee met while the house was in session and I hope that I am not out of order now in what I am going to say, because it would probably have come in better under one of the earlier items.
Some hon. members who have spoken on this question have come from the east coast and the west coast. May I point out that Alberta has done its part. In fact, all the western provinces have had their share in naval affairs, although we are far from either sea. In the prairie provinces we have 502 officers and 12,302 ratings, and the province of Alberta has led with 164 officers and 4,436 ratings, even though, as I say, we are a long distance from either ocean. Our men have taken part in the rigors of training, in the hardships of convoys, in the perils of combat. Our men have taken their share in the work and danger, in the deeds of gallantry and, at times, in the sacrifices that had to be made. We honour these men equally with the men of the air force and of the army, and I believe that those who have not yet had a chance to show what they can do will do so later and they will prove their worth.
I wanted to ask this question of the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services. Our men from. Alberta, particularly those in the navy, when on leave have to travel a long distance from either coast, and I wonder if the minister would consider the question of free transportation for sailors on leave. This question was brought up before when the estimates of the Minister of National Defence were under review. I suggested that if free transportation could not be given, at any rate a ceiling should be put on railway fares so that men from the central provinces would not have to spend a couple of months' pay when coming home on leave. I hope the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services will consider the question.

War Appropriations-Naval Services
May I speak again of the women in uniform. It is true that they are not in combat, not in actual physical danger, but if. they take the place of those who are fighting, then it seems to me that they should be given the recognition which that deserves. I wanted to bring these two matters to the attention of the minister.
I do not think that we need fear that, our men and women in uniform in any of the forces will let us down in the hour of combat, but we must see that they get the proper backing at home, not only from those who work in our shops or on our farms but from those who talk. It seems to me that in this connection we in this house have a definite duty to perform in the winning of the war. We should look at the matter in :a broad light and not with too much detail, and try to keep up the morale of our people at home and abroad. Surely Mr. Churchill's winged words have shown more than anything else how much the morale of a country can be increased by those who talk.


Mr. McIYOR:: While the minister is pro-' tecting his navy and explaining the service they have been giving to this country, he has received splendid support from the government. I should like to announce something that appears in this morning's papers, that the corvette Port Arthur has sunk another submarine and has sent it to the same place it sent the last one. I want to congratulate the minister from Port Arthur.


Mr. CHURCH:: 
Mr. ROSS (Souris):: I should like to ask the minister whether the purchase of property and the construction of buildings is entirely under his department or whether there is an association with the Department of Munitions and Supply or the Department of Public Works in that connection? Has the minister's department been offered the use of any large residences in the city of Winnipeg, for a small consideration, for the housing of Wrens, and is it the decided policy of the minister's department that in all such cases these houses must be either rented or purchased outright?
I had another question to ask yesterday but, like the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mrs. Casselman), I was attending a meeting of the committee on agriculture, which sat during the afternoon. Would the minister give the number of commissioned naval officers now stationed in Ottawa, or at headquarters?


Mr. MACDONALD (Kingston City):: I shall come to my hon. friend's questions in due course, but first I think I should answer those asked yesterday, in the order in which they were asked.

War Appropriation-Naval Services
First, the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) raised the question of free transportation for men in the naval service. The same question was discussed this afternoon by the hon. member for Edmonton East. The giving of free transportation to sailors would have to go along with free transportation for the other services. I can assure my hon. friends that the matter has been discussed frequently by the three defence ministers, but up to the present time the provisions which have been made seem to be about as far as we can go. I shall be glad, however, to take the matter up again with my colleagues, to see whether anything further can be done.
Then the hon. member for Cape Breton South asked some questions about merchant shipping, and the records of men serving. Strictly speaking, that question should be answered by the Department of Transport. Mr. Arthur Randles, of that department, who is director of merchant seamen, can, I am sure, deal with it. There is a record of all merchant seamen who sign on through w'hat we call the manning pools, and the ships in which they serve are known. There is also a central index of seamen made in the Department of Transport by Mr. J. G. Macphail, director of marine sendees.
The hon. member wanted to know why some nurses were taken on and some rejected. The answer is that we have at least 2,500 applications from nurses in Canada who wish to join the naval nursing sendee, but up to date we have been able to take on only 132. It is obvious therefore that some must be disappointed. Other things being equal,
I would say first come first served would be the rule. But we have to remember that, some of those who apply have just graduated, while others have had four or five or sometimes ten years' experience. Naturally those with the longer experience would be favoured.
The hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) raised some points of great interest-and raised them very fairly, as he always does. He wanted to know whether throughout the empire there was a uniform system of training, organization and the like.
I believe throughout all empire navies the model and the plan used in Great Britain would be followed pretty generally. We would use the admiralty textbooks to a very large extent, and from this country at any rate there is always some interchange of officers with the British navy. I would not say of course that we could not vary that procedure or that British practice if we 
desired to do so. But generally speaking I think it will be found that the training of all empire navies is very similar.
The hon. member wanted to know if there was a central board controlling empire navies. My answer is, no.


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: In respect of the other dominions-other than Canada-is there such a central authority?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I do not think so, although I have not looked into it. For instance I believe Australia, would run its own navy. However, if a section of the Canadian or the Australian navy went to serve with a part of the British navy, thereby becoming part of the British force, they would normally be under the command of the senior British officer.
The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston) wanted to know something about the proportion of officers to men and pointed out what is quite true, namely, that some provinces have a very large proportion of officers to men as compared with other provinces. I think one of the explanations for that state of affairs would be that there are enlisted now in the Canadian Navy nearly one thousand officers of the merchant marine service. I should think the great majority of those officers would be from British Columbia, from the great lakes, Quebec and the maritime provinces. Most of the thousand men would come from those areas, thereby increasing the quota of officers from the provinces concerned. I would say to the hon. member how-ever that in the training under the new system everybody starts in at the lower deck and works up to his commission; and under it there would seem to be no reason why the best men should not rise to the top. I am sure that under this new system men from the western provinces will prove themselves worthy of commissions- to the same extent as men from the other provinces.
The hon. member for Bow River also raised a question as < to the differential in allowances as between certain men in the naval service, pointing out that some are getting $1.45 a day as living allowance while certain others get only $1.25. The hon. member is right in that; that is a true statement. But may I say that when we took up the question of pay in the navy and endeavoured in some way to make the rates of pay in the three armed services uniform we found that some of our men were getting more pay and some were getting less than their corresponding army or air force brothers. AVe found that while we were paying $1.45 a.

War Appropriation-Naval Services
day for subsistence to sailors the army was paying only a dollar-I believe it was a dollar. And so when we said that the pay of certain junior officers, which was very low in comiparison with other services, should be raised, we were confronted with the fact that these men, ordinary sailors in the navy, who were on subsistence were getting 45 cents a day more than army men on subsistence. What 'happened was that army men on subsistence were raised to $1.25 a day, and all men joining the navy after that date, June 1 of last year, were also given $1.25 a day. However we did not reduce the allowance of the men .who had already been in the navy, because we felt they had joined on the understanding that they were to be given $1.45 a day subsistence and that it would be unfair to rpduce them at some later time during their period of service.
The hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser) asked as to the training of merchant mariners, and a good many other questions as to sea cadets. As to merchant mariners, the naval service does give gunnery training to merchant seamen who are to form part of the gun crews of merchant ships. That training is given to Canadian merchant seamen and the merchant seamen of our allied countries who are in Canadian ports No other type of training is given by the navy to merchant seamen.
The hon. member also wanted to know how many civilians were active in organizing sea cadet corps throughout the country. There are two that are particularly active. I do not attempt to mention all those excellent men in different localities such as are to be found in my hon. friend's own city, Winnipeg, Toronto and other cities where there are sea cadet corps. The hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Harris) and the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) mentioned that they had been interested in sea cadet work. I regret that I cannot give the names of all those who have taken a great interest in this work, but the two chief organizers who range over the country at large are Mr. R. C. Stevenson of Montreal, who is called coordinator of sea cadet activities-he gives his services free, receiving only travelling expenses-and Mr. J. R. K. Millen, who has particularly charge of the western sea cadet corps.
My hon. friend also wanted to know where the sea cadet camps would be. I have a list of the camps here, but it might be added to later. There are to be camps at Comox, British Columbia; Chestermere lake, near Calgary; lake Wabamun, near Edmonton; Shepley island, on the Saskatchewan river; Stevenson's Point, on lake Winnipeg; lake
Eva, 125 miles west of Port Arthur; Goderich, Ontario; Beausoleil island, in Georgian bay; Rotary island, near Gananoque; Minnicog island, in Georgian bay; Isle St. Quentin, near Three Rivers; Camp Buchan, in the Northumberland strait, thirty-one miles east of Charlottetown; Cole Harbour, twelve miles from Halifax. There is also to be a camp for the St. Lawrence cadet corps but I have not information as to just where it is to be.
The total number of cadets going to these camps, according to my figures, will be 2,275. That is the accommodation of these camps in their entirety. Some camps remain open longer than others. The usual camp period is two weeks. Some camps propose to give three two-week periods, while others propose to give only two, and some only one period.
As to allowances for sea cadets, they receive no pay. They are given transportation to and from the camps. The sea cadet officers receive pay only while they are under instruction or while they are at the camps. When in the camp the sea cadet receives, of course, board and lodging and medical attention at government expense.


Air. STIRLING:: There is some allowance for uniform, is there not?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Yes, one-half the cost of the uniform is provided by the government and the other half by, the cadet himself.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I asked also what extra pay the naval commandos get.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I am sorry I overlooked that. I have it on a separate sheet of paper here. Naval personnel engaged in combined operations overseas-I think this is what my hon. friend wants- receive when serving at sea the following emoluments in addition to their regular rates of pay: Officers above the rank of sub-lieutenant get one shilling and six pence a day extra, sub-lieutenants one shilling a day extra, and ratings six pence per day extra.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That is the commandos?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Yes. We call them combined operations personnel, but I think commandos describes them.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That is what they call themselves when they write home.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I
think so.

War Appropriation-Naval Services


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I had another question in regard to civilians working ih administrative offices with naval men and receiving less pay than the naval men.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I have looked into that, and if my hon. friend would give me any case he has in mind, even confidentially if he does not want to give the names here, it would simplify matters.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I will do that.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: The hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Cote) raised the question of the name of the ship Dunver. It is our practice before naming a ship to be very careful to see that the name is not already borne by a British ship or even by a ship of the United States navy, so that there shall not be confusion in receipt of signals by these ships. We found that the British navy had a ship of war called the Verdun. They had no doubt given her that name in honour of the great stand made by the French troops at Verdun in the last war. We therefore could not use the name Verdun and we asked the city of Verdun-I have not the correspondence here, but my recollection is pretty clear-to suggest some other name, and they suggested the name "Dunver", which is an anagram or rearrangement of the letters of the word " Verdun." That name has been criticized in certain newspapers and it has been suggested that we here in Ottawa invented the name because we were unwilling to give the name of the city of Verdun to a ship. There is absolutely no truth in that stoiy. We wanted to honour the city of Verdun, which is one of our larger cities. We are taking the cities now in the order of population. When we found we could not use the name of Verdun we took the name which the city itself decided was the next best name. My hon. friend the member for Verdun wanted to know if we could not incorporate Verdun with other names such as the "City of Verdun" or " La Ville de Verdun." If that can be done we shall do it. The hon. member also spoke of certain resolutions w'hich had been forwarded to him by branches of the Catholic Women's League of Canada protesting against the lack of chapel facilities at certain bases. I have received a great many such resolutions. The building of chapels is going on as fast as I can have it gone on with, but it must proceed I think simultaneously with the building of the other parts of the base. We are doing the best we can in that matter.


Mr. MacNICOL:: Are the chapels to be open to members of any denomination?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Yes. The three services agreed on a standard type of chapel. In the middle part of it is a reading room, which has folding doors; on one end there is one chapel, and on the other, another; so that each denomination can have the end which is allocated to it, and if it wants more room it can take out those folding doors and have the reading room as well. I am speaking now more of morning services, which I believe some men at a, camp might want to attend and which perhaps they are unable to attend unless a private chapel is provided. For the large services at a big camp on Sundays we do not pretend to be able to build a church adequate to accommodate the men: they will have to hold the services on that day in a drill hall or a gymnasium or something ,of the kind, and it can be done without any great inconvenience. But I am speaking of a place where a chaplain can have an office, where the men can consult him, and where week-day religious services can be held.
The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) raised the question of naval policy on the Pacific, and the Jellicoe report. I have the Jellicoe report under my hand. It is quite true, as my hon. friend stated, that it recommends the provision of battle cruisers, light cruisers, destroyers and submarines. My hon. friend wanted to know whether we had decided to aim at ships of this type after the war, and generally he inquired what our naval policy on the Pacific was. I may say to my hon. friend that we have not by any means forgotten that this is a two-ocean war, that there is a Pacific ocean, and that that coast has to be guarded. My hon. friend will not misunderstand me, though, when I say that up to the moment in this war it has been necessary for our main work to be done in the Atlantic. That is because we have regarded, as I think the people of Britain do, Germany as the great enemy and we have put our main emphasis on convoy work. I think this is probably not the time to begin to plan exactly the sort of navy we should have after the war. My own feeling is that we should go to work as best we can with the task we have in hand, namely convoy work, which is essentially work for small ships; but undoubtedly, after the war, in the establishment of a Canadian navy, such ships as the Jellicoe report mentions-cruisers and destroyers- should form part of that navy, and for an all-round navy, of course, submarines. But up to the moment in this war, even if we had a strong fleet of submarines manned by well trained men, there would be very little

War Appropriation-Naval Services
for them to do unless we sent them tp far distant theatres such as the Mediterranean or the southwest Pacific. What we need in this war is ships to fight submarines, not submarines themselves.


Mr. GREEN:: Does the minister feel that that is the position on the Pacific ocean as well as on the Atlantic? When I mentioned yesterday a policy for the Pacific I was not referring to the period after the war; I meant at the -present time. Is it the opinion of the government that the same type of fleet is needed on the Pacific as we have on the Atlantic, which is in reality an escort fleet?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: My hon. friend knows that there is very little convoy work to be done on the Pacific coast.


Howard Charles Green: It is a question of defending our coast on the Pacific.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: That is right; there is a difference right there. Consequently if my hon. friend asks me what the ideal combination would be for the Pacific coast, so far as I can see we should perhaps have to make some changes from the sort of ship we have in the Atlantic. But for the moment we have looked on the Atlantic struggle as our great struggle and we have built the ships which are useful for that purpose. That is not to say that they are not of some use, and of great use too, on the Pacific coast. Then of course in this war, as my hon. friend knows, the association between the British empire and the United States is very close. The fortunes of war have given a certain area more or less to British care and another area more or less to the Americans. We do not overlook that fact when we are disposing of our own navy to what we consider to be the best advantage. I do not know if I am answering my hon. friend exactly, but it is a little difficult for me to give the disposition of the ships, the numbers and the kinds of ships which are here or which are there. I can only tell him that when the war is over, and when plans for what I hope will be a permanent and solidly established Canadian navy are formulated, whoever is here at that time will give full attention, I am sure, to the conditions on the Pacific and to the provision of the proper kinds of ships to meet those conditions.


Howard Charles Green: In effect, then, Canada's
naval policy on the Pacific at the present time is to depend on the United States fleet to protect the west coast? .


Angus Lewis Macdonald: No, I would not want to put it in that way. We have to rely largely on our friends, as on the
Atlantic we have to rely on the great protection of the British fleet. It is true that in this war the British empire is taking a certain area more or less as its own. We have taken the Atlantic, north and south, pretty well, the Mediterranean, and other oceans: the main task of the United States has fallen into other places and it is assuming a great burden there. But I do not quite want to say that we are doing nothing but depending on our United States friends for the defence of the Pacific. We are doing what we can there. We have some ships there still, and they have cooperated with United States ships in expeditions up to the Aleutians, where the Americans have done such signal work in recent weeks. But our main strength undoubtedly is on the Atlantic.


Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: What about
aeroplane carriers for the convoy work?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I
mentioned in my address that we have that under consideration. One of our officers has been away for some weeks now and will be away some weeks more, in the United States and England, examining the whole question of aircraft carriers, the acquisition of ships, the training of officers and men, the cost and all that sort of thing. I cannot tell my hon. friend anything more definite.


Howard Charles Green: The minister has said that
it will probably be necessary for Canada to have certain capital ships after the war. Is any attempt being made during the war to give Canadian naval men training on capital ships of the British navy? I believe that New Zealand has been carrying on in that way. This would seem to be a splendid opportunity for Canada to get at least some of her men trained on the capital ships and the submarines of the British navy, so that after the war they will be able to man any ships of that type we may acquire.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Nearly fifteen hundred Canadians, officers and men, are now serving with the Royal Navy. Some of them are on capital ships-on battleships and cruisers. Take these men we have now in the high command, like the chief of the naval staff, Admiral Murray at Halifax, or Admiral Jones, vice-chief of the naval staff: these men have served on all sorts of ships of the British navy, including battleships and cruisers, and have had a very wide experience. So that of the fifteen hundred with the British navy, I am sure many must be on capital ships and some on submarines. I know that one Canadian officer is in command of a submarine. I think he is a boy



War Appropriation-Naval Services
from Ottawa. If I mistake not his name is Toller. There may be others. So that they are gaining experience in that way.


Howard Charles Green: Is it a definite policy to
see that some Canadian naval men do get that experience.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Yes. There always has been a flow of Canadian naval officers to the Royal Navy for training, and that has been going on for the last thirty years or more.


Mr. COLD WELL:: I have received some complaints about pay and allowances in connection with some young men drafted from Hamilton. The minister will know something about that-


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Too well I know it.


Thomas Miller Bell: I was asked to inquire as to the treatment of young men who are loaned or transferred to the Royal Navy. One of the complaints made to me was that when they went to the United States they were given no special .pay or allowances to compensate for the difference in exchange as between the two countries. If that is so, I can sympathize with the complaint, because having been to the United States recently, I realize the extent to which prices have advanced in that country, and however much we may be critical of our own price control, when you step across the border you realize that something has been done here to prevent prices from rising. If the situation is as indicated the department should give some consideration to young men who are drafted into the Royal Navy and who then serve out of United States ports or who train on ships of the Royal Navy in United States ports, to see that there is no loss in regard to pay and allowances during the time they are serving there, and that this does not interfere in any way with the possibility of promotion. As I say, I know nothing about these cases and the minister probably does, and I thought that this was an opportune point at which to raise the question of pay and allowances and the question of the standing of young men transferred or loaned, or whatever the term may be, to the Royal Navy.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: When a Canadian is loaned to the Royal Navy he continues at his Canadian rate of pay, which is usually higher than the British rate. The particular case to which my hon. friend refers has to do with some men who were in the Canadian navy and who were asked to volunteer for service with the

British navy in combined operations work. Their contention-or rather the contention of a few of them because there are only three men involved out of a much larger number-was that they were not fully informed of the terms and conditions. They thought that they would be with the Canadian navy and would be serving under Canadian officers and as a unit. Twenty-five or fifty of the first detachment felt that they would always remain together but instead they have been broken up into smaller detachments, some having gone overseas. Parents have written complaining that misrepresentations were made, and three of the parents have expressed a very strong desire to have their sons brought back to the Canadian navy on the ground that the conditions were not fairly presented to them. The officers who recruited these men for this service assure me that no representations whatever were made of the kind indicated by the men. It is the old story of one man saying one thing and another saying something else. I hope to be able to straighten out the matter.
As to pay in the United States, that was another source of complaint. They said first that they were not getting any pay for a long time. I had to send an officer to the United States to look into the whole matter and he came back and reported. He did not see these three men because they had gone away. He reported that as far as he could find out there was no justifiable complaint on the question of pay. They were given certain advances in United States funds when they went to the United States. The member for Wentworth (Mr. Corman) had several conversations with me on the point and the whole subject is receiving my best attention.
The member for St. John-Albert (Mr. Hazen) wanted to know if there is provision for common law wives, as they are called, in the navy. I think he means dependents' allowance there. The navy up to the moment does not provide dependents' allowance in these cases but an amendment to the Canadian naval regulations is under consideration which will provide some allowance for them, and that has yet to have the approval of the treasury board. As to unmarried mothers, that too will be dealt with shortly on the same basis as it is dealt with in the army.
There were some other questions about Deep Brook, as to whether the establishment there was justified or not. I was asked to explain why this establishment was to cost so much money; why it was required if the 18 R.C.N.V.R. divisions are to be maintained; were other training centres to be closed; would officers be trained there; and, I believe,
JUNE 10, 1943	[DOT]	3505
War Appropriation-Naval Services
I was also asked to say why it was not established in New Brunswick. Well, there are two things which must be taken into consideration when we speak of training for the Canadian navy. The first is that for many years there were no training establishments in this country in the full sense of the word except perhaps at Halifax and Esquimalt. The result is that the training of nearly all the men required to man our ships has had to be done during war time. We must remember that the Canadian navy is largely a civilian navy enlisted and trained during the war. I may say specifically to my hon. friend that the importance of the 18 R.C.N.V.R. divisions throughout Canada is not affected in any way by the establishment of the school at Deep Brook. Training at these divisions, such as the Brunswicker, Saint John, is elementary training and lasts for a period of from six to eight weeks. It is necessary to acquaint newcomers to the navy with the elementary ideas of life and work in the navy, and I think that work can be done very well at the divisional centres throughout Canada.
There is another thing to be kept in mind. The Canadian navy, up to the present, is a small-ship navy. Most of the actual training for these ships must be done ashore. In this respect our navy is different from navies that have large battleships. Large battleships can carry as many as 250 -men, sometimes, in training aboard, and if anyone has visited a large battleship or a large cruiser he would find attached there a considerable number of young ratings or young officers for training purposes. We cannot do that in our ships. The ships are too small and the accommodation is not there. A large central training establishment is the most economical method of dealing with our problem. The equipment for training is costly and if it were scattered it could not be used to the same advantage. Moreover, it is highly technical equipment and the problem of securing it in these times is a difficult one. There is also another matter to be considered, the shortage of instructors. This is due to the fact that the permanent service was so small for a long period of time that adequate numbers of trained officers were not available for instructional work when the ranks began to grow. Therefore, to concentrate our instructors in a central training establishment means that those available are used in the most economical way. To have civilians in a large training establishment means that they become imbued with the discipline and customs of the navy. They are all lodged and housed by the service, which means a great saving in cost. We pay a man $1.25 a day if he is
72537-222i
living out in civilian quarters and it does not cost us that much when we provide barracks and feed him ourselves. The discipline and health of the men is much better.
Deep Brook is used to requalify officers and men and to provide refresher courses, and therefore it should be as near as possible to the naval bases. Deep Brook answers this problem, without placing the training establishment too close to the main naval base at Halifax, which might not be sound strategically. Of course Halifax is the heart and centre of naval activity in eastern Canada, and has been, as I said the other night, for nearly two hundred years. When draffs coming in from the sea are to be sent for training in gunnery or torpedo work or any other specialist branch, we could not conveniently send them seven or eight or nine hundred miles away. They must be sent to some place not too remote from Halifax, because that is where the ships come in and that is where the drafts come and go.
The training establishment at Deep Brook is not a place where men go to drill. I would point out to my hon. friend that that is one of the great differences between the camp at Debert and the one at Deep Brook. As I understand it, the camp at Debert is purely a drilling camp and the cost was not anything like $5,000,000; I understand it was something like $7,000,000.


Mr. HAZEN:: I was taking the figures of the Minister of National Defence.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: What are the figures?


Douglas King Hazen: He gave them when his estimates were up the other night.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: It depends upon what you call cost. I am taking the cost of Debert to include buildings, lands, roads, and other accessories, and on that basis the cost is about $7,000,000. As I say, it is largely a drilling camp and all you need is a parade ground, places for the men to sleep and places for the men to eat. But that is not the case at Deep Brook. In a certain sense Deep Brook is a university where officers and men go to be instructed in very technical work, in things like gunnery, asdic work, navigation, divisional training and so on. These things require a good deal of equipment in order that proper instruction may be given, and it will all be found at Deep Brook.


Grote Stirling: Would the minister deal with Point Edward now?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: The hon, member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) stated that he had heard that some of the

War Appropriation-Naval Services
buildings at Point Edward had been erected on filled land and had sagged, in some cases breaking their backs. I instructed the department of works and buildings to call our own representative at Sydney, not the contractor, and he informed them that no such condition exists as was indicated last night. He confirmed what I had seen of the buildings, that the majority of them are not built on filled land. There are one or two, perhaps more, dowm near the wharf which are built on land which is filled to some extent. All that has happened, however, is that one building, a workshop or a machine shop, showed a crack, but it was of such a minor nature that it has not been thought worth while to repair it.


Grote Stirling: What are the ice conditions there? It is alleged that there is a considerable period during the winter when Sydney harbour is not usable because of the ice.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: There is a period of time when Sydney harbour is closed to ocean traffic because of ice. The harbour at Louisburg, about twenty miles away, is an all year round harbour.


Grote Stirling: What about Point Edward?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Point Edward is in Sydney harbour, and the comments I have made about Sydney harbour would apply to Point Edward. As a shipping port it would be closed for perhaps three months every year.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Has Louisburg harbour been reequipped for service?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Some ship repair work is being undertaken there, but I do not think any great change has been made.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Has it been fortified?
Mr. MACDONALD (Kingston City)I do not think it has in the sense that we speak of fortifying a harbour, but there are guns all around that area. The army is protecting Sydney and all that country, but I would not care to say about naval fortifications, whether we have made any particular defence preparations.


Grote Stirling: For what purpose is Point Edward to be used, bearing in mind the fact that it is closed to navigation for a certain time in the winter? Will that be Admiral Murray's headquarters?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: No; Admiral Murray's headquarters will be at Halifax. As my hon. friend knows, Sydney is quite an important point. I need not go into

all the reasons why it is important, but considering the geography of Canada and the manner in which ocean traffic moves around this country, Sydney has become a most vital point. That is one of the main reasons why buildings are necessary there. There is also a marine slip capable of taking a ship up to the size of a destroyer, and I expect that there will always be some ships in Sydney harbour refitting and repairing. It can also be used to some extent for training, although not to the same degree as Deep Brook.


Percy Chapman Black: I want to
commend the minister and the department for having located1 a major naval establishment in the northern part of Nova Scotia where it can give protection to the St. Lawrence route, but I should like to know why preference was not given to Louisburg which is open the year round and is only twenty miles from Sydney. It would appear to me that Louisburg would have advantages over Sydney.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Sydney is a bigger harbour, of course. Louisburg has not a very big harbour.


Percy Chapman Black: Still it would be much better than to have a harbour which is closed for several months during the year.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: The main purpose for which we want Sydney is not affected by the fact'that it is closed by ice. We are concerned with Sydney mainly while there is shipping going up and down that coast; as long as that goes on Sydney is very important. But when the ice comes the pur- . pose for which Sydney is mainly used, in regard to river traffic, disappears.


Percy Chapman Black: A great deal of sea traffic passes the year round not far from northern Nova Scotia, even traffic from New York and other United States points as well as Canadian traffic.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I
know it passes there, in a general way, but it does not have to use that harbour as we use Sydney in the summer.
I was coming to what the hon. member for Broadview asked in regard to our properties in Toronto. I would tell the hon. member that we have in Toronto five different buildings. There is the Flavelle residence at Queen's Park. That is used by the Wrens and is rented for the sum of S3,000 per year. Then there is a building at 142 Crescent road which is used as the headquarters of the commanding officer of all divisions of the R.C.N.V.R. The rental of that building is $1 per year plus taxes and insurance. Then there is the automotive building in the exhibition grounds,

War Appropriation-Naval Services
which we are given rent free. That is used as the headquarters of the Toronto division of the Royal Canadian Naval Volunteer Reserve.


Gordon Graydon: Has the minister the particulars in regard to the taxes and insurance on the second property he mentioned?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: For the Crescent road property the rental is only $1 per year and we pay the taxes and insurance.


Gordon Graydon: That is what I was inquiring about; how much does that amount to?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I have not that information, though I can get it. Perhaps my hon. friend knows the property?


Gordon Graydon: No, I do not.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: It is a good property, but I would not say it was a mansion, as it has been called.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: What is the rental of the Flavelle property?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: It is $3,000. Then we have a building at 120 Wellington street, a large storage building, where we lease two whole floors and part of another, at a rental of $9,650. We also have what is. called the Nerlich building at the corner of University avenue and Wellington street. We occupy about five floors in that building for storage and pay $13,000 a year. These are the only buildings we have in the city of Toronto.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Did the minister say $13,000 a year?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Yes, for the Nerlich building.


Mr. GILLIS:: There was a question which the minister has either forgotten or has not had time to look up. Yesterday I asked if he could give the house some information in reference to the statement made by the Minister of Munitions and Supply as to the extension of the Canadian merchant marine after the war and the part that would be played in that connection by the navy.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Frankly I have not had a chance to look into that matter. I .think my hon. friend wanted to know on what basis the merchant marine would be carried on after the war?


Clarence Gillis: That is right.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: 
Howard Charles Green: Has any survey been made among the men in the navy to see how many of them wish to follow the sea after the war? I believe a survey has been made in the army to find out how many men propose to go farming, and I should think it *would be very useful if the navy knew the approximate number of men who are anxious to go into the merchant marine or to stay with the navy when the war is over.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: That is right.


Howard Charles Green: In that event might it not be wise to lay some plans now for training these men. so that those rvho do wish to transfer to the merchant marine after the war will be able to do so? Is the training they receive in the navy sufficient to qualify them to go light- into the merchant marine, without anything further?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: It is pretty good training, of course, but with all the stress of work we have now I do not think we could begin to undertake to train men for some other service. That would be a little too much to expect. I will say to my hon. friend, however, that we are making a survey of those men in the navy who might want to choose the navy itself as a career after the war; that is under way at the present time. The Canadian navy now has an authorized complement after the war of about eight thousand, I think, and we have not that many in the Royal Canadian Navy -proper, that is the permanent force; we have only about half that number. So that we have caused questions to be distributed at
350S	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Naval Services
the various bases and ports to ascertain how many men at present in the volunteer reserve, let us say, or the naval reserve, might wish to adopt the navy as a career after the war.


Howard Charles Green: Would it not be possible to find out also how many would like to adopt the merchant navy as a career?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Yes, that could be done..


Mr. POTTIER:: The other evening the minister referred to the divisions of the Royal Canadian Naval Volunteer Reserve, of which he said there were some eighteen. Is one of those divisions located in the province of Nova Scotia?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: No, there is not a division of the R.C.N.V.R. in Nova Scotia.


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: Why is that?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Well, in view of the permanent base at Halifax we have always felt that this took care of the matter so far as Nova Scotia was concerned. My hon. friend, I take it from his language, would favour the establishment of a division there.


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: Yes.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I agree with him. I think there should be a division in Nova Scotia; and I hope-I believe-there will be.


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: Would there be any difficulty in establishing one now?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I think there would be a little difficulty. Halifax is very much crowded at the present time. As my hon. friend knows, it is very hard to get accommodation there. That would be the logical place for the establishment of a division. I agree that in peacetime it would help matters if there were a division at that point.


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: I think it important, coming from Nova Scotia, that this matter be given some thought. The question of rentals may be raised. But here we have in Canada eighteen reserve divisions; and I believe every province, with the exception of Nova Scotia, has a division of the Royal Canadian Naval Volunteer Reserve. We have just heard the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) point out that men should be trained with a view to entering the merchant marine. The men who have been in the reserve unit have the first chance, because they have had training. They form groups;
(Mr. A. L. Macdonald.]
young men talk to each other, and we find these units throughout Canada, except in the province surrounded by the sea, where one would expect to find them. After the war is over the other provinces are going to have the advantage, when one would expect men for the merchant marine to come from Nova Scotia. I urge upon the minister that serious thought be given to placing Nova Scotia in the same position as other provinces.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: That will be done.


James Arthur Ross: Some time ago- I mentioned to the minister the matter of purchasing property and constructing buildings for the navy department, and I asked whether this was entirely within the purview of the department. I ask this because similar operations are conducted entirely within the Department of National Defence, for the army, and the Department of Munitions and Supply does most of the work for the air force. I asked further about certain large residences in Winnipeg. Have they been offered to the minister's department for the payment of taxes? These are residences which people thought would be useful for the accommodation of Wrens. Then I asked further about the number of naval officers at headquarters in Ottawa.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: We would buy property on the recommendation of the real estate adviser of the Department of National Defence. We would conduct the negotiations in connection with buying the property. If a building were to be erected, it would be done by the Department of Munitions and Supply, at our request. I believe that is the same procedure for all three services.


James Arthur Ross: The three armed services operate in the same -way in this respect?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: If we wish to erect a building we notify the Department of Munitions and Supply of the kind of building we want, give them the plans, and they call for tenders. That is the way we do it, and the way it is done by the air force, I believe. I think the army does the same, although it may look after some of its own work.


Howard Charles Green: The Minister of National Defence said the other day that they do all their work themselves.


James Arthur Ross: I understood the Minister of National Defence to say they did it all.

War Appropriation-Naval Services


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Then
perhaps they do.


James Arthur Ross: Who would decide as to the type and cost of building?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: That would be decided by the works and buildings branch of the naval services.
Then, there was a suggestion that the department had been offered the use of property in Winnipeg for the accommodation of the Wrens. If the hon. member means that it was offered free, then I must reply that I do not think that is so.


James Arthur Ross: For the payment of taxes.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I do not know of any such offer, but I shall be [DOT] glad to look into it. Two or perhaps three properties in Winnipeg have been suggested as places where the Wrens might be housed and fed, where they might establish barracks. I do not recall any place offered for taxes. I have not looked into the matter in the last day or so, and I might be wrong about it.
A question was asked as to the number of officers in Ottawa. I had that information with me a moment ago, but it has been' mislaid. I shall give it later.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to ask a question of the minister, but before doing so may I join with other hon. members from the prairies who have called attention to the large number of young men from our part of the country who are in the navy. In view of our great distance from either coast we feel justified in being proud of the type and number of our young men who have joined this service.
My question comes under item 4(a), and relates to the purchase by the Department of National Defence for Naval Services of the property formerly owned by the Winnipeg winter club. I shall remind the minister of some of the facts surrounding the purchase, and I take the facts from sessional paper No. 193 and from Hansard of March 25. The sessional paper was tabled and the answers in Hansard were given in response to questions I had placed on the order paper. We find that this property was purchased last October by the minister's department, and that the price paid was 8256,009, or a little more than a quarter of a million dollars. The assessed value of the property, according to the assessment department of the city of Winnipeg, and confirmed in sessional paper 193, was $94,090. However the portion of that assessment which relates to the buildings is on a basis of
66J per cent of the market value. Accordingly when you adjust that figure so as to arrive at a figure representing 100 per cent of the market value you find that the land and buildings, according to the city of Winnipeg, were worth $129,365.
According to Hansard of March 25, 1943, pages 1536, 1537, 1538 and 1539, the department purchased, in addition to the land and the buildings, all the equipment contained in the buildings. There was a variety of it, and the items are listed on the pages of Hansard I have indicated. The department placed a value of $40,000 on this wide range of equipment.
Then, in addition, according to the information in Hansard, the department made an allowance for fuel, moving expenses, compensation and other incidentals, amounting in all to $8,057.49. These figures I have given- the 100 per cent market value of the land and buildings, the value placed on the equipment contained in the buildings and the item for special allowances-total $177,422.49. The amount paid for the entire property was $256,000. The question which I wish to direct to the minister is, will he explain that difference of $78,577.51? I might point out at once that upon analysis of these figures he will find that the entire difference is between the value placed on the land and buildings by the city of Winnipeg and the value placed on the land and buildings by the Winnipeg winter club, namely, $78,577.51. I could understand it if there had been some sort of compromise between these two evaluations, but with that difference it seems rather hard to explain why the department paid the Winter club's own evaluation 100 per cent.
In the return which was made by sessional paper 193 and in the answers given in Hansard on March 25 it was pointed out by the minister that this price was arrived at after consultation between a member of the Montreal real estate board, members of the Winnipeg real estate board and the real estate adviser of the Department of National Defence. I point out that it does not state that the real estate boards of these cities were in on this evaluation but rather that it was done by private members of these boards. It was also pointed out that a condition of this sale was that the Winnipeg winter club-perhaps I had better read this direct from Hansard-


Angus Lewis Macdonald: What page?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Pages 1539-40 of Hansard.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: That is the second return?

War Appropriation-Naval Services


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is correct. The
first return was not placed on Hansard. As a matter of fact, however, this particular information is given both in the return and in the answers that were placed on Hansard. I will read from pages 1539-40 of Hansard:
It was further agreed that the Winter Club would undertake, to invest the net proceeds of the sales, less the amount necessary to discharge the mortgage and other encumbrances, if any, in victory loan bonds, and would undertake to have such bonds registered in its name; and further would undertake to retain, and not dispose of by sale, at least 50 per cent of the said bonds for the duration of the present war, or for a period of two years, whichever period shall be the lesser, but this condition shall not prevent the pledging or disposal of said bonds for the purpose of securing funds to purchase property or equipment for the establishment of new quarters for the club.
Just on the side, the investing of fifty per cent of the net proceeds in victory bonds, particularly when it was understood that the bonds might be used to secure other funds, hardly seems to me to justify the deal. It might be argued that it has no bearing on it at all. Certainly in my opinion it does not justify it.
I come back to the figures I have already given. The total amount spent in purchasing this property and all this equipment, the allowances for everything which the club listed as on hand at that time, exceeded one-quarter of a million dollars. From the figures which I have given it would seem that the price paid was $78,577.51 more than it should have been. I would appreciate it very much if the minister would answer my question as to why the higher price was paid, particularly when there was such a wide spread between the city's evaluation and the club's evaluation of that property.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I do not remember all the facts at this time and I have not the papers here, but I recall, as my hon. friend has pointed out, that not only was the chairman of the Winnipeg real estate board-


Stanley Howard Knowles: The return says members.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Perhaps it was the whole board; I do not know. But there was also a prominent real estate man from the city of Montreal and the real estate advisers of our department, and it was their opinion that $256,000 was a fair price. The assessed value of properties of this kind is not in many cases an accurate guide, and I think it would be a very poor guide in the city of Winnipeg. It is difficult for a property of that sort to be sold, as my hon. friend knows. It is not like a house that a man has a chance of disposing of to many people. There are
(Mr. A. L. Macdonald.]
very few people in the market for buildings like the Winnipeg winter club. This was the situation we were faced with. We had a fine naval division in Winnipeg. Winnipeg has always been a strong naval city. We had also there a fine cadet corps, a fine branch of the navy league and a fine naval training base. But these men had no place to eat and no place to sleep except as civilians in restaurants or in homes. We felt that something should be done to improve that condition.
As I said yesterday three years ago this department did not own a single stick of lumber or a single foot of ground between Halifax and Vancouver. We were living entirely in rented buildings and usually in very poor quarters. We felt we should do something and the question was: Will you buy or will you build at Winnipeg? I can tell my hon. friend that if we had started to build a building in Winnipeg to accommodate the division we would not have been able to build it for $256,000. We have now a magnificent building for our purpose. It has a swimming pool. It has a skating-rink surface which can be used for drill purposes on wet days. It has accommodation for sleeping and eating and some recreational facilities. I think we did the right thing in buying that building. As to the price all I can say is that three real estate men and others-I think some prominent businessmen of Winnipeg were also consulted-considered the price not unreasonable. In view of the fact that the building was there and could be had more cheaply than a new building, we felt it was the right thing to take over that building. I can look more closely into the whole correspondence but I do not know that I can ever tell my hon. friend more than that. We acted on the advice of these men, one an outside, disinterested party; the Winnipeg man I am sure was disinterested; and the naval real estate men certainly had only one thought, to get the best price they could for the navy. I am not in a position to say and I do not know that anyone is in a position to say that the price paid was excessive.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to make it clear, in response to the first remarks made in reply to me, that I agree that it was highly desirable to secure proper quarters for this establishment in Winnipeg, and further I agree that these quarters are ideal for the men of this unit. But the question of the ipnce is another matter, and it still seems to me to call for an investigation. The minister has offered to look into it further. I wish to emphasize what I said earlier, that

TFar Appropriation-Naval Services
there is a terrific spread between the valuation placed on this property by the city assessor's department and by the club. As I said before, if there had been a compromise figure in between those two, one would feel a little more confidence as to the price arrived at; one would feel that it had been looked into and all the factors taken into consideration. But when, instead of that, the club's value on its books, 100 per cent- for that is the reply which the minister gave back in March-is paid, I feel that the matter should be looked into further and that the minister ought to make a further statement to the committee.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I shall be glad to do so at some future date, if my hon. friend will allow me.
The hon. member for Souris asked as to the number of officers in Ottawa. I have now the figures. The total number in one building and another-eight different buildings are devoted to headquarters-is 498.


Mr. FULFORD:: Does the Canadian navy give any recognition or assistance to sea scout troops? We have heard a great deal about the sea cadets, and I can understand the affiliation between the cadet movement and the department proper. But I feel also that the sea scouts are performing a valuable service. I wonder whether on enlistment there is any report from the navy as to the training these men have received before entering active service?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I know my hon. friend is very much interested in the sea scout movement. I cannot give him at this time the number of former sea scouts who have joined the navy; I have no doubt that it is quite large. I believe that some sea scouts go into the sea cadets later on; in that way they come to the navy by three stages. We have not the same close affiliation with the sea scouts that we have, with the sea cadets. I am sure, however, that if the heads of the sea scout movement want to discuss the matter with us we shall be very glad to see whether the association cannot be made somewhat closer.


John George Diefenbaker: Yesterday I asked a question as to whether consideration is being given to the establishment of an insurance system. I should like to secure a statement now from the minister in reference to that, and then there are certain other matters under the particular item before the committee which I wish to ask about.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I am sorry I forgot that question. The point the
hon, member raises is very interesting, and I shall be glad to look into the system-what is called the American system-which he described yesterday, and to discuss it with my colleagues. Of course any plan of this sort would have to be uniform in the three services. I shall be glad to take it up with the Minister of National Defence and with the Minister of National Defence for Air.


John George Diefenbaker: In regard to this item, "construction, purchase, repairs and operating expenses", amounting to approximately $42,800,000, we have as yet very few details other than those connected with the Deep Brook proposition. I would ask the minister to give the committee the capital expenditures which were made in each of the provinces; further, the repairs in each of the provinces, and the rentals paid. I would also ask him in that connection what properties were purchased by the navy during the year other than the one mentioned, in the city of Winnipeg, and the particulars of the rentals. I believe I have already asked for that. Further, would the minister advise whether or not the matter of hospital expenditures is comprised within the ambit of this particular item?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I understand that the matters to which my hon. friend has referred in the main were the subject of a return brought down some time ago on the motion of the hon. member for St. John-Albert. That return should be available somewhere to my hon. friend. There is some difficulty in connection with this return as brought down in the manner asked for- some five hundred man-hours of labour were spent on it-because, when you ask for the amount spent in each province, we do not keep records in that way and it is very difficult to say exactly how much of a certain expenditure is to be charged to Alberta, or British Columbia, or Nova Scotia, or New Brunswick. I have here particulars of the individual bits of land purchased in the east and in the west and elsewhere. Perhaps my hon. friend would look at this return, which I think the hon. member for St. John-Albert also has.


John George Diefenbaker: The difficulty is that we have items here of a total of about $44,000,000 and there is not one which we know anything about at all. I have here a return brought down in answer to the hon. member for New Westminster, and the particulars are limited to rentals.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Rentals? Well, no. The return of which I speak, and which was brought down on the motion of the hon. member for St. John-Albert, gives



War Appropriation-Naval Services
rentals, purchases of land, buildings and everything else. I can read over some of the items.


John George Diefenbaker: Let us have the major items in the different provinces.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: My hon. friend is now speaking of buildings, is he?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I will give some of the larger ones. Starting with Deep Brook, I find the contract price, in round figures, is $8,815,000; the naval ordnance department at Dartmouth, $2,588,000. I am giving now total costs. Some of this work has been already done; some was done two years ago. Then, Nelson barracks, Halifax, $7,324,000; Halifax dockyard, $1,535,000; Shelburne naval base, $1,307,000; Point Edward, the Sydney base, $5,701,000.


Percy Chapman Black: Has the minister an estimate of what additional expenditures will be necessary?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: These are contract prices, the full job; the' S5,701,000 is the estimate. Gaspe naval buildings, $732,000; naval service building at Ottawa, $866,000. That has already been spent. That will give my hon. friend an idea. On the west coast there is the Royal Roads naval college, $325,000; Prince Rupert, a certain expansion, $322,000 in one item alone.


John George Diefenbaker: They are just the buildings without the land?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: These are the contract prices of the buildings. There are smaller items running all the way down to a few hundred dollars, but that gives some idea of the building problem. I have taken only a few' items.


Percy Chapman Black: I should like to have the figures for the total cost at Point Edward. The minister has given the contract price of the buildings, $5,701,000. There are many additional expenditures for equipment, sewage, waterworks, electric lights, wharves and fills. I should like to have a statement of expenditures complete to date, including the cost of the land and the estimated cost of the project completed. If the minister is not able to give it now, he can give it later.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: The estimated cost of the buildings, the contractor's figure, is $5,701,000. That is for barracks, stores, canteen and the other work there. Coming to the cost of the land, I have the whole cost here by individual purchases. There are a great many of them and I shall have to

total them up and give them to my hon. friend. It looks as if the land at Point Edward would run to somewhere between $60,000 and $75,000. There are about thirty or forty different lots. I will give the exact figures.


Percy Chapman Black: Has the minister the estimated cost of the project completed, including all equipment?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I
have the cost of the building but not the cost of such equipment as is necessary.


Percy Chapman Black: Including
wharves and fills.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I will give all that.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Are the rates of pay and allowances in the Canadian navy the same as those in the British navy?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Generally speaking, they are higher in the Canadian navy, certainly in the rating class.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: In the Canadian navy?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Yes.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: When our Canadian officers and: men go to the British navy for training do they get British pay?
Mr.. MACDONALD (Kingston City): I believe I also dealt with that this afternoon. No; they are paid by the Canadian navy at Canadian rates. .


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Some of our men went over earlier and joined the British navy in the earlier part of the war. What is done with any requests they make to be returned to the Canadian navy? Is there any way whereby they can get back?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: That . is up to the British navy. If they went to Britain and joined the British navy out and out, we have no more control over or business with them.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: There is no
comparison then with the air force in this regard. Some Canadians who joined the Royal Air Force are now coming back to the Royal Canadian Air Force. Is there any arrangement whereby the same thing can be effected in the navy?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: It is entirely up to the Royal Navy. The men would have to apply to them for permission to transfer to the Canadian navy. We could not transfer them of our own volition.

War Appropriation-Naval Services


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul'?):: Is there any way whereby they could go about it? If they wanted to come back to the Canadian navy would they make a request to the Royal Navy?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: The usual thing would be to take it up with the commanding officer. If the man were a rating he would take it up with the captain and, if an officer, he would take it up with his senior officer and indicate that he would like to transfer. Then, I assume, the Royal Navy would ask us, "Do you want this man, or have you a place for him, or are you anxious to get him?" If we were, I suppose the transfer could be arranged.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Would we not rather like to have such a man, who had had that experience? The minister said it was difficult to get instructors. Some of these men might be very valuable back here as instructors in the Canadian navy.'
Is it proposed that there should be any distinguishing mark or badge for officers and men who have served at sea? I have had complaints from men who have had quite a lot of service; they are not exactly complaints, but they express the opinion that there should be some such distinguishing badge to indicate that they have actually served at sea for a certain length of time.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Has the hon. member heard complaints from the navy or from other services?


Douglas Gooderham Ross: The navy. In the March issue of Boating there are some suggestions from the naval volunteers' association. They appear on page 26.	The minister
probably knows about this. I will not read it, but there are many suggestions which are made by the naval volunteers' association. I suppose this has been brought to his attention. Has it been thoroughly discussed and has any action been taken in connection with it?
To come tq the item we are on at the moment, the minister gave $13,000 for the lease of the building on University avenue and Front street, I believe it is. Can he tell me how many feet of floor space that involves, how much per square foot, whether it includes taxes, and what is the basis of the agreement?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: The space in the Nerlich building is approximately
32,500	square feet, and . the rental paid is $13,000 per year. Nothing is said about the
taxes, so I assume that they are paid by the owner of the building.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Has the minister seen these recommendations?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I think they are from Andrew D. MacLean, but I have received so many letters from that gentleman that I do not remember. However, I will look at the article again.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Does the minister know what the naval volunteers' association is?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I have no knowledge of that association, but I imagine it is something in which Andrew D. MacLean is particularly interested. It has no official status and is not connected with the naval department in any way.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Is there any proposal under consideration that men who have served at sea shall be permitted to wear a distinctive badge?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I think there is an arrangement now whereby men who go overseas on ships are entitled to wear a badge with "Canada" on it on the sleeves of their uniforms. Beyond that I know of no suggestion to provide any other distinctive mark to those who go overseas. All men in the navy are on active service and are liable for service anywhere.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: This afternoon the minister said that plans for buildings were prepared by his department, but I should like to know how many architects or engineers there are in the department and who passes upon the final plans. Some time ago I believe there were two engineers in the department who drew up plans. I understand they were dollar-a-year men and that they left the department because someone else with no knowledge of architecture was put over them.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: The director of works and buildings is Mr. Young.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Does he pass finally on the plans?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: They are passed upon finally by the deputy minister and myself. He has a staff under him of roughly fifty architects and engineers, but I can get the exact number later for my hon. friend.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Has the deputy minister any knowledge of architecture or engineering?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: He is a valuable public servant, but his experience has been in business rather than in archi-
3514	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Naval Services
teeture. I have no great knowledge of architecture. What the deputy minister and I would be concerned with would be whether the building under consideration was right as to cost and size and so on. If we wanted a barracks, we would consult the men who were experienced in training men and ask how much space they wanted for a certain number of men. The plans would then be prepared and approved, and the Department of Munitions and Supply would be asked to call for tenders and let the contract.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Does the Department of Munitions and Supply also check on the plans?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: No, I do not think so. Once it goes from our department, they just act as our agents, so to speak.


John George Diefenbaker: I asked the minister a while ago for a computation of the amounts expended in the different provinces. I realize that it would be impossible for him to give this without having a staff in front of him, but I ask that he place this information on Hansard either this evening or to-morrow. I should like the amounts expended in each of the provinces under the various heads.
There is another matter which I did not have an opportunity of bringing to his attention yesterday because I was attending a committee meeting. I refer to the training of probationary officers. I should like a statement as to the number which it is anticipated will be trained this year and what facilities are available for this training. Over the week-end I was in Toronto and met two young men who joined a class of probationary sub-lieutenants last September. At the time I understand there were some sixty in the class. These men are subject to control and direction at all times. They gave up their positions in civil life in order to take this training in Toronto, but for some reason there seemed to be a bottle-neck in the training of these officers and thirty of them are now receiving only a small amount of training. I speak subject to correction, but my information is that they are receiving only two hours a week of training.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I cannot understand why these young men should have given up their civilian jobs.


John George Diefenbaker: They expected1 to
be called at any moment.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: It
looks to me as if these men were attached to the division but had not been called for active service. In that event they should have continued with their civilian tasks until informed

that they were required for full-time service, when, of course, they would have to go. The training of officers is done at King's college at Halifax, and it may be that there is a considerable waiting period for some of these officers who have joined the divisions and are waiting for their official calls. When Deep Brook gets going, some training of officers can be done there arid I believe we shall be able to put them through more rapidly.


John George Diefenbaker: They are down to two hours a week now, but they started off with fairly lengthy training courses.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: There is something strange about the matter, but I shall look into it.


Douglas King Hazen: There are one or two questions which I asked the minister yesterday to which he has not referred. First, I asked about the number of trained men who are serving on shore. The minister said he would have to get that from all over the country and it would take some time; possibly he has not as yet had time to obtain the information. The other question was: How many men have been discharged from the navy on account of wounds; how many on account of injuries; how many on account of illness, and how many on other grounds; and another question was how many Wrens have been discharged from the navy. I do not know whether the minister is in a position now to answer those questions.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Yes, I am, and I must, apologize to my hon. friend for having overlooked them; I endeavour to note down the questions on separate slips of paper. In regard to the first point, it is very difficult to be accurate about this because, as I said, these men are all over the country; but from the information available I estimate that there are about nineteen thousand trained men on shore. Many of these, of course, are at work in dockyards in the maintenance and repair of ships; they are at manning pools; some of them are instructors; some are at signal stations on shore, and so on. I believe nineteen thousand would be an approximate figure. Then my hon. friend asked as to the number of casualties in the navy from wounds. The number of men-wounded is, I think, 159.


Douglas King Hazen: Have they all been discharged?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: No; I am coming to the number of discharges in a moment. I shall find them directly, but if my hon. friend has any other questions I shall be glad to have them now rather than later on.

War Appropriation-Naval Services


Mr. HARRIS (Danforth):: Did I understand the minister to say that he would be glad to have any other questions now?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Yes, on this item. I thought the hon. member for St. John-Albert had another question on this item.


Grote Stirling: There was a question I asked in regard to deductions; the minister did not have the information at the time.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I am sorry; I do not think I have it yet.


Douglas King Hazen: Do I understand that the minister is looking up the answers to the questions I asked?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Yes, I am; I thought I had the information right under my hand, but for the moment it is mislaid. Did my hon. friend have any other questions, while I am looking for this information?


Douglas King Hazen: I was going to revert for a moment to the extraordinary expenditure of 812,000,000 at Deep Brook, Annapolis county, Nova Scotia. This afternoon the minister told us that none of the eighteen Royal Canadian Naval Volunteer Reserve divisions would be closed up. He did not say, or at least if he did say it I did not hear him, whether or not any of the training schools at those seventeen or eighteen naval bases would be closed, or whether any of the technical schools at the universities would be closed. Will any of the training schools at the naval bases be closed, or will anjr of the technical schools now being operated at the universities be closed? I would also ask the minister to tell us what percentage of the trained men in the navy take refresher courses, and how often those courses are taken. Then yesterday the minister informed us that the decision to build a base &t Deep Brook was reached by the naval authorities. I would ask him when that decision was reached, and also if he would tell us just whom he meant by the naval authorities.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: By that I meant naval officers.


Douglas King Hazen: Does he mean the Canadian naval board, or who are the naval authorities?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: They would have the ultimate decision, yes.


Douglas King Hazen: The minister says they would have the ultimate decision. I thought they were only an advisory board, according to a statement he made in this house in February of this year, when dealing with Commander
Mac-Lean's charges. At that time I think the minister said they were only an advisory board.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: That is true.


Douglas King Hazen: If that is true, how would thej' make the ultimate decision?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: If my hon. friend is endeavouring to suggest that I made the decision in connection with Deep Brook, I can tell him at once that I did not make the decision to go to Deep Brook. Naval officers, including the admiral commanding the Atlantic coast and the officers of the works and buildings branch, surveyed up and down the province of Nova Scotia and certain parts of the province of New Brunswick and eventually came to the decision that Deep Brook was the most satisfactory site. They so recommended to naval service headquarters, and their recommendation was approved.


Douglas King Hazen: I think the minister will have to admit that the final decision rests with him if this board is only advisory. It is not like the admiralty board in England.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: It is very much like the admiralty board in England.


Douglas King Hazen: It is very much like the admiralty board, but it is quite different from the admiralty board.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: How?


Douglas King Hazen: In the statement the minister made last year in reference to the charges made by Commander MacLean, at page 491 of Hansard for February 17, 1943. he said:
In this connection, I should like to observe that the board of admiralty in Britain has no reserve officers on it.
Then he went on:
The Canadian naval board is modelled on the British board of admiralty-


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Exactly.


Douglas King Hazen: But he went on to say: -with this difference, however, that the board of admiralty is an executive body whereas the Canadian naval board is a body advisory to the minister of naval services.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: That is right.


Douglas King Hazen: If it is an advisory body to the minister of naval services, is it not up to him as minister to make a final decision?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: In
a matter of this kind, does my hon. friend think I could go all over Newfoundland? He

TTar Appropriation -Naval Services
complained once in the house because I went around the country lecturing too much. He said I should go to Saint John.


Joseph Henry Harris: He did not
suggest that.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: My
hon. friend says he did not suggest it. How was I to judge the character of these sites and places, unless I visited them? But even then, would I be in a position to judge, as well as these naval officers? I think not. I did not go up and down the province of Nova Scotia or the province of New Brunswick. In this matter I relied on the opinions of my officers. And I think that having looked at the matter as they did, their choice Was certainly wiser than mine could have been, had I gone over the ground myself.


Douglas King Hazen: Yesterday the minister went
on to give reasons why this school or training centre should be established at Deep Brook. He said:
I will say this, that the training facilities in this country are not at all sufficient for the training of our men. Furthermore, even though some men are trained at sea, a great many of them are being brought back for advanced courses:
I do not understand that statement by the minister. It is undoubtedly correct, but if the training facilities that existed last year were sufficient to train officers and men for 150 vessels added to the Canadian navy last year, it seems to me that this expenditure of $12,-"000,000 for a new naval school should have some further explanation than has been given up to the present by the minister.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: My hon. friend of course realizes that the navy is much larger than it was a year ago. _ Facilities that might be perfectly adequate in 1940, 1941 or 1942 might be entirely too small in 1943 or 1944.


Douglas King Hazen: Well, the minister is going
to add this year to the navy the same type of ships he added last year. Last year he added 150 ships, but he has not said the number to be added this year. Last year he had sufficient training schools to train officers and men for 150 ships. On Monday evening, speaking about facilities, he said:
Our facilities for the training of men have been developed to a point where we are now able to man the ships which are available to us. The task has been difficult, I am bound to say, but we have always been able to keep the manning of ships abreast of construction so that our ships are not kept out of operational duties through lack of trained personnel.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Right.


Douglas King Hazen: If the minister was able to keep the trained personnel up to the number of ships being supplied, and if 150 ships were supplied last year, why is it necessary to go out now and spend $12,000,000 for another training centre, in this fourth year of the war? Have the pros and cons of this matter been thoroughly considered? Have they all received his attention?
If the facilities existing last year were not large enough to supply the men who are needed for the ships which will be added this year, was any consideration given to enlarging the training centres which are at present in existence across Canada, and which have cost hundreds of thousands of dollars? Was any consideration given to extending those training centres, or are they now to be abandoned? Or is the minister to keep them up, and also develop this new $12,000,000 training establishment at Deep Brook?
Those are questions concerning which the committee should have further information.
I have one or twro further questions about expenditures at Deep Brook. In addition to information in connection with amounts expended, I should like some further information about buildings to be erected there. How many buildings have been or are to be erected at Deep Brook? What kind of buikL ings are they to be? What will each of them be used for? What is the total estimated cost of those buildings? A return brought down recently showed a figure of $7,775,000.
Then, will the minister give particulars as to furniture and equipment for the establishment at Deep Brook, at an estimated cost of S733.000? Of -what did this furniture consist, and what quantities of each kind are being obtained? What firms are supplying it, and what prices are being paid for the different kinds of furniture beipg supplied?
What was the cost of the' equipment obtained? Of what nature was that equipment? Were tenders called before it was purchased? I would ask, also, to have furnished a detailed break-down of the last item in the return under the heading "other expenditures, $1,294,766". This is a large amount of money, and we are entitled to know how and why it was spent. I ask for these particulars in some detail. [DOT]


Angus Lewis Macdonald: 
Angus Lewis Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, some questions were asked this afternoon about discharges from the navy.
I have here figures showing that from September 1, 1939, to April 30, 1943, there were 1,727 persons discharged from the navy on account of a very long list of physical conditions, and there have also been discharged in the same period four Wrens. A question was also asked as to the number of persons wounded. There were ninety-one wounded and injured who have been discharged.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: Mr. Chairman, a year
ago when these estimates were before the house I raised the question of giving consideration to providing housing for the personnel.
I notice, according to information which the minister gave the other day, that there are 20,000 ratings from Ontario, 4,208 from Manitoba, 3,657 from Saskatchewan and 4,436 from Alberta. It is obvious that it will be necessary for these ratings to be away from their permanent homes for the duration of the war. The minister admitted last year that- there were two centres, Halifax and Esquimalt, where there was a very serious shortage of housing. I would draw the attention of the committee to the fact that the United States navy pioneered in the field of war-time housing right from the entry of the United States into the war. It was recognized over there that the providing of houses for as many as possible of the officers and men would make a valuable contribution to the morale of the navy. They admit that it has not been possible to provide housing for all the men who joined, but they have gone a long way toward making it possible for the men to live as nearly normal a life as possible when they were home from the sea. In view of the fact that the minister has found it possible to make commitments for the present year of over . $12,000,000 at Deep Brook, over $2,000,000 at another point, over $7,000,000 at another point, over $1,500,000 at another point, over $1,300,000 at another point, and over $5,700,000 at another point, it seems to me that if we can make such large capital expenditures in the fourth year of the war it should be possible for us to make capital expenditures for the providing of housing for the families of the men who go to sea. I would appreciate it if the minister would state whether he has made recommendations to the Minister of Munitions and Supply with a view to providing housing for the men in the navy, especially at Halifax and Esquimalt.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: The question raised by my hon. friend is one that has given a great deal of concern to the three defence ministers. It is not an easy problem to solve. A city such as Halifax is already greatly overcrowded, and the normal peacetime facilities of that city in the way of water mains, restaurants and the like are heavily taxed. It is just a question whether we should endeavour to tax them more heavily still by providing housing for the relatives of service men. I agree that there is an argument on the part of the relatives of the service men who see persons working in factories provided with housing. They may with a good deal of justice say that they are entitled to the same sort of treatment. But up to the present we have not endeavoured to meet that problem. It is a very difficult one.
In reply to a question that was asked this afternoon I would say that there are now some 17,000 members of the Canadian naval service in Canada who are not accommodated in naval barracks. That is one of the reasons why such places as Deep Brook have had to be built. Those 17,000 are being paid $1.25 a day out of which they provide their own lodging and subsistence. It is not the best system, I am bound to say, and as quickly as we can we are endeavouring to provide barracks not only at the coasts but at different points in between where such men can be housed and fed and trained.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Will the minister state whether his officials have visited some of the centres in the United States where the naval authorities have built housing, and whether reports have been received as to the value of these expenditures by the United States government?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I do not think any of our people have visited those centres. I'shall be glad to look into that. I am not sure that the United States government has endeavoured to provide housing for the families of all naval personnel. There is of course in this country always a number of our naval personnel at Halifax and elsewhere who are provided with houses. But to house all personnel and their families in and around bases involves the assumption of a very heavy task.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I did not wish to give the impression that they had provided housing accommodation for all naval personnel in the United States; my understanding was that the United States navy was the first department to recognize the importance of building houses. While I have not been able to get accurate information, I understand

War Appropriation-Naval Services
that they have built betweeu thirty-five and forty thousand units for the families of those men in the United States, and I would appreciate it if the minister would try to get some report from the United States navy as to the value of these projects, and give further consideration to making some similar commitments for the next year, particularly in Halifax.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I thank my hon. friend for drawing this to my attention. I shall look into it very shortly.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
5. Personnel supplies and services:	food,
medical and dental stores, clothing and personal equipment, $22,015,072.
Gordon Knapman Fraser: Has the minister investigated the possibility of using pocket distillers for supplying water to lifeboats? Pocket distillers are being supplied to lifeboats by the British war transport ministry. The pocket distiller is a compact little machine which makes fresh water of undrinkable salt water. The apparatus weighs forty pounds and costs about $50. It turns out hot water for steaming drinks, as well as drinking water, and uses virtually anything in the way of fuel. In a pinch it will throw smoke signals to a passing ship.
Also, could the minister tell us what arrangements are made to have doctors on our corvettes and other boats, and what position pharmacists have on these ships?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: In answer to my hon. friend's first question, our research units, as I mentioned the other day, have carried on significant experimental work in the matter of life rations for men on rafts and boats. With these rations is a water-can and the water therein is treated in such a way as not to be contaminated by the tin of which the can is made. I cannot say that any conclusions have been reached as to the feasibility of distilling fresh water from salt water, but I shall be glad to look into that.
As to doctors on board ships, the smaller ships\do not have doctors; the larger ones do.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Who looks after the men in the smaller ships? Is that the duty of pharmacists?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: There would be a sick berth attendant, at any rate.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That is what I am trying to find out. Is the man in charge a pharmacist?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: He would not necessarily be a druggist. I believe some of them are; but he is a man who has

taken some special training in what you might call nursing and in what we call sick-bay work. He has some skill in treating wounds and that sort of thing.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Does the Canadian dental corps take care of the navy as well as the other services?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Yes; the army dental corps.


Agar Rodney Adamson: There is one dental corps for the three services?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: It takes care of ours and, I believe, the air force also.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Yes, it does.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Does the minister's department allow men who have enlisted or men in training to donate to the Red Cross blood-donor clinics? What arrangements has he made in that regard?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I believe that a great many of the men do go. I do not know that we make it compulsory.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Does the department encourage them to go?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: The matter is brought before them; the importance of it is emphasized, and they are urged to go, if possible.


John George Diefenbaker: I think it must be under this item, namely "personnel services", that the matter of recruiting staffs comes. I would ask the minister whether consideration has been given by his department, as well as by the Department of National Defence and the Department of National Defence for Air, to eliminating the competition which is now carried on between the three services in the matter of recruiting. I believe we all realize that there is a certain pool of volunteers available; it is restricted to young men who have not yet received their call and to those who are within the ages of twenty to thirty-eight and who as yet, too, have not been called, the first being not yet subject to the call, the latter not having yet received the call. A few days ago the hon. member for Parkdale had a return brought down which shows clearly the competition between the armed services today for the same pool of men. According to that return, the Canadian active army maintains throughout Canada 122 recruiting stations with a personnel of ninety-three officers and 548 other ranks; the Royal Canadian Air Force has sixteen recruiting stations located in the principal cities with an administrative

War Appropriation-Naval Services
staff of 140, including specialist staff, seventy-one medical officers, 533 other ranks and fourteen civilians; and the Royal Canadian Navy has twenty recruiting stations with personnel of twenty officers and forty ratings, together with thirty-one Women's Royal Canadian Naval Service officers and ratings. Having regard to the desire and the necessity of conserving man-power, also the effecting of such savings as would come from the concentration of recruiting under one head, has consideration been given by the minister and the other defence ministers to the advisability of eliminating what does appear an unnecessary expense through overlapping and competition?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: We do not maintain recruiting stations as such in the sense of setting up separate establishments in separate buildings. What we do have is, at each one of these eighteen divisions and also at other places, a recruiting officer. But in the sense of having a separate recruiting establishment in a separate building, we do not have it. Consequently I do not think there is any great additional expense; in fact there is no additional expense to the navy as a result of the policy we pursue in recruiting.


Douglas King Hazen: 
Angus Lewis Macdonald: I can give some estimate of cost per man, which is the method we follow in arriving at our total.


Douglas King Hazen: I did not ask for estimates of cost per man. I asked for the amount that had been expended under these different headings.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I
thought my hon. friend wanted figures to show of what this item was made up this year rather than expenditures for last year.


Douglas King Hazen: I am referring to last year.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: My book indicates what the proposed expenditures for this year will be, and we arrive at that by taking-


Douglas King Hazen: 
Angus Lewis Macdonald: I shall be glad to get that for the last fiscal year. I understood that we were dealing with the estimates for the coming fiscal year, and that my hon. friend wanted information on that point, which I am prepared to give. If, however, he wants last year's figures I shall have to get them.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Let us have this year's.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Take first the estimated cost of clothing per man. For chief petty officers and petty officers the estimated average cost of a uniform is S1S3, and for seamen the average cost per year is $139.50.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Uniform without equipment?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: That is clothing and kit such as brushes and that sort of thing, what one might call the personal requirements of the sailor-$183 in one case and $139.50 in the other. For Wrens, the average cost of uniform is $140.17. Multiply that by 5,000, that being the estimated average number of Wrens, and we find the total amount necessary to provide clothing for Wrens. As for sea cadets, $7.50 per uniform for each cadet is the amount. Winter clothing per man is furnished at the average cost of $8.10; that is mitts, heavy caps, jerseys.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Would that include such an item as the bridge coat of sheepskin?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: The duffle coat? No. A certain number of these are issued to the ship rather than to individual men.


Agar Rodney Adamson: And they are not included here?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I
shall come to that in a moment. These are the main items under clothing. Then we come to victualling stores in the proper sense, such as dishes, knives and so on. Twenty dollars per man is the cost of the things that are

War Appropriation-Naval Services
needed. This includes all the appliances and all the paraphernalia necessary for cooking, such as basins, boards, meat-choppers and the like. The medical stores are estimated to cost 83.58 per man per year. We took the average number of men for the year beginning April 1, 1943, and ending March 31, 1944, which was 70,000, multiplied that item by that number and got the figures which appear in the estimates.


Howard Charles Green: To what extent are members of the fishermen's reserve furnished with supplies? In his statement the other day the minister said nothing about this reserve, and it would be interesting if he would make a short statement as to whether the number of men has been increased or decreased and outlining the work they are doing.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: The clothing, victualling supplies and medical necessities furnished to these men would be the same as are furnished to men in the navy.


Howard Charles Green: Are they on full time?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Oh, yes, in war time.


Howard Charles Green: What is the number of men
in the reserve?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I
think it is something like four hundred, but I am speaking purely from memory and I do not want to put myself definitely on record. This reserve exists only on the Pacific coast and perhaps the hon. member knows more about it than I do.


Howard Charles Green: How many ships?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I
would have to look that up.


Mr. McNIYEN:: Were we to cast our
minds back to this day three years ago I think we would all agree that it was the bleakest, the most barren and the blackest day in our history up to that time. Following Dunkirk, June 10 stood out as a tragic hour, the most fateful day in our history. France had fallen, and on this date three years ago Italy declared war against the allies, the most cowardly, the most dishonourable act in the history of the world. Then on that date there was cast a pall of gloom over this city, over the entire country, for three years ago to-day, the Hon. Norman Rogers passed away, killed in the service of his country, than which there can be no more honourable death. The late Hon. Norman Rogers was a gentleman, a kindly, friendly man, a distinguished scholar and one who had rendered conspicuous service to his country.

The Hon. Norman Rogers as Minister of National Defence laid the foundations for the armed forces of this country, the navy, the army and the air force. All agree that in the untimely passing of the late Hon. Norman Rogers Canada lost a distinguished son, one that we could ill afford to lose. However, emerging from the pall of gloom which fell on June 10, 1940, there came a voice that carried inspiration for us as well as sinister portent for the enemy. There emerged a figure, a veritable Gibraltar of democracy, whose indomitable courage electrified his people and galvanized an empire into action. That man was the Right Hon. Winston Churchill, and his was the speech that will stand as the greatest battle-cry of all history. He said:
Come then, let us to the task, to the battle and the toil. Each to our part, each to our station, fill the armies, rule the air, pour out the munitions, strangle the U-boats, sweep the mines, plough the land, build the ships, guard the streets, succour the wounded, uplift the downcast and honour the brave. Let us go forward together in all parts of the empire, in all parts of this island. There is not a week, nor a day, nor an hour to be lost.
Three years have slipped by. With those three years in perspective can it be doubted for a moment that Canada and the Canadian people heard the call? "Fill the armies." Can we doubt that the call was heard after having listened to the magnificent story narrated by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston)? "Rule the air." Can we doubt it when we listened to the magnificent story unfolded by the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power)? "Strangle the U-boats, sweep the mines." Who can doubt that we have heard that call after having listened to the thrilling story told by the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services (Mr. Macdonald)? "Pour out the munitions." When we think of the continuous flow and tide of munitions that have been turned out by Canada in the last three years, there can be no doubt in anyone's mind that industry heard that call. "Build the ships." There is no doubt that the shipyards and labour of this country heard that call. "Plough the land." When we think of what agriculture has accomplished in the last three years in the growing of grain and foodstuffs, in producing the supplies that have been shipped across the Atlantic, there can be no doubt that the farmer and agriculturist of this country heard that call.
Not only did the Canadian people hear that call, but we in western Canada, the part of Canada farthest removed from the sea, heard that call. In my own city of Regina

War Avpropriatwn-Naval Services
there was established H.M.C.S. The Queen. The naval department fitted out and furnished the winter club and converted it into naval headquarters for Saskatchewan, Out of these quarters located in the most central part of Canada have been turned out over two thousand recruits for the Canadian navy.
Just here I should like to say a word by way of tribute to the men who made that possible, the men who in times of peace with great vision saw to it that in the city of Regina there was maintained the nucleus of a naval company. I think of Lieutenant Commander Hall, the first to command H.M.C.S. The Queen, who now is performing important duties on the Pacific coast. I think of Lieutenant Commander Grant, the second officer to have command, and of Lieutenant Commander Ellison, both of whom are now at naval headquarters here in the city of Ottawa. I think of Lieutenant Commander Pickersgill, who is now in charge of that establishment and who, as a Canadian officer serving in the Royal Navy, spent the last two years on active service, sailing the seven seas, coming back to our midst to perform other important duties. I should like to mention also chief petty officers Jeffries and Smith, who, after all, have had the responsibility for training these two thousand and more recruits who have made such a notable contribution to the defence of our country.
I like to think of his majesty's Canadian ship the corvette Regina, which was christened on October 25, 1941, and which distinguished itself in the Mediterranean when it literally blew an Italian submarine out of the water and captured the entire crew. There have been many references to the policy ^ of the minister in naming corvettes after cities, and the results that have flowed from that policy. At the christening of that boat the citizens of Regina donated four radios and four electric toasters, and the Fidelio club, a group of young girls in the city of Regina, have taken the officers and crew of that boat under their wing and kept them supplied with comforts. I like to think of the action of the department, in naming that ship the Regina, as a tribute to the gallant young men from the city of Regina and the province of Saskatchewan who have enlisted in the Canadian navy.
I like to think, too, of his majesty's Canadian ship the destroyer Saskatchewan. I have taken the naming of that ship as a tribute to the men of western Canada who have enlisted in the Royal Canadian Navy. When the department announced its policy of naming destroyers after leading Canadian rivers, I wrote the minister pointing out that
the Saskatchewan was truly representative of western Canada in that it had its source in the foothills of the Rockies, wended its way right across the province of Alberta and across the province of Saskatchewan into the province of Manitoba, where it empties into lake Winnipeg. So that, in the naming of that destroyer the Saskatchewan, there was paid a tribute to the men of the three western provinces who have enlisted in our navy. I like to think of the action of the department in naming a cargo boat the Regina,* I regard that as a tribute to the farmers and to labour in Saskatchewan. The department and the government have recognized the work done and the foodstuffs produced on our farms, which this boat is destined to carry across the Atlantic to the scene of hostilities.
I am reminded, too, of a passage which I picked out not very long ago, and which no doubt will have a familiar ring:
The British nation can be counted upon to carry through to victory any struggle that it once enters upon, no matter how long such a struggle may last, or however great the sacrifice that may be necessary, or whatever the means that have to be employed.
I do not know of any words that more accurately describe the British point of view or the conduct of the British empire during the last three years. One wonders who uttered that statement. One might think it was Pitt; one might think it was Churchill, or some other great British statesman, but the author of those words was none other than Adolf Hitler, in "Mein ICampf". Twenty-two years ago he accurately appraised the British people; but no doubt on this very night he will regard himself as a greater prophet than warrior.


John George Diefenbaker: Again reverting to the duplication in the matter of recruiting, if I understood the minister correctly he stated that he did not feel there was any extra cost incurred by reason of the existence of three distinct recruiting staffs, one for the army, one for the navy and one for the air force. The other day I asked the Minister of National Defence what was the cost during the year 1942-43 of recruiting for the army, and at page 3137 of Hansard the following particulars were given:
Pay and allowances of military personnel, $870,000, of which $510,000 is
chargeable to recruiting	 $510,000
Salaries and wages of civilian personnel	 50,000
Advertising-newspaper, radio, billboards, etc	 375,000
Travelling expenses	 225,000
Miscellaneous - comprising rentals, office expenses, etc., plus costs of special recruiting campaigns not included under above heads	 130,000


Angus Lewis Macdonald: The hon. member has said something about advertising by the armed services. So far as I know there has been no advertising for recruits by the Canadian navy. It is true that sometimes one may see posters on billboards, put up by advertising companies, and advertising certain products. But we have not paid out any money in advertising for recruits.
As I said before, our recruiting officers are stationed at the various divisions throughout Canada, and they do other work in addition to recruiting. They are merely there to attend to the recruits who come in to offer their services. In some instances they are paymaster officers, and in other instances, executive officers. But I would not be willing to admit for a moment that that should be charged up to recruiting. We would have those officers in the division in any event. We simply assign one man whose job it is to look after recruits as they come in; but he has other duties, as well. Consequently I find it difficult to allocate to the cost of recruiting any particular amount in fhese estimates, because, strictly speaking,
I do not think there is any amount chargeable to recruiting.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not wish to press unfairly, but to whom is the advertising charged?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: It is not charged to the navy; I can say that.


John George Diefenbaker: Then it must be chargeable to recruiting. Those are the figures I am trying to get. The Minister of National Defence points out, as I said before,' that there are military personnel included in the figure of $510,000, who perform additional duties as well as recruiting. He states that $510,000 of the total salaries of military personnel, amounting to $870,000, is chargeable to recruiting. If the minister will say that he has no information on this, and that he cannot say under what authority or head the advertising is charged-


Angus Lewis Macdonald: What advertising? I do not wish to interrupt, but what is my hon. friend speaking about? Is he talking about advertising for the navy?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I say there is no advertising paid for by the navy; none.


John George Diefenbaker: Then I do not know where the ads come from which appear on the billboards. I have, I am sure, seen such ads, with the words, "Join the navy":


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Well, they do not come from the navy. We do not have to do it because, as I have said, we have a waiting list. There are people waiting to get into the navy. It may be that local firms are using pictures of sailors, and that sort of thing, in connection with their advertising. Possibly cigarette firms or victory loan committees are doing something of that kind. But I do not recall any instance where a single cent was authorized to be spent for advertising.
If my hon. friend wishes me to attempt to segregate the recruiting activities in these twenty establishments, as distinct from other duties, I shall try to do so. But it will be extremely difficult, because recruiting forms a very secondary part of their task.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Why do you not advertise?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Because we do not need to advertise.


John George Diefenbaker: Then I should like to understand the meaning of the return brought down on June 7. It sets out in detail the fact that the Royal Canadian Navy has twenty recruiting stations, with personnel of twenty officers and forty ratings, plus thirty-one AVomen's Royal Canadian Naval Service voluntary ratings. Is that a mistake? If it is, then I can understand what the minister

War Appropriation-Naval Services
has in mind. But the return brought down only the other day set out in detail the officers both of the navy and of the women's auxiliary who were engaged in recruiting, and it was pointed out that there are twenty recruiting stations.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Those
are the divisions. Those are the men at the divisions, and the divisions would be there in any event. I am sure my hon. friend finds nothing in the return about advertising.


John George Diefenbaker: No.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Not a word is mentioned about advertising.


John George Diefenbaker: No.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Then my hon. friend comes down to the matter of recruiting. I say, yes; there are recruiting officers in the navy, who have other duties as well to perform. For instance, in a division such as the one at London, Ontario, a recruiting officer would not be busy all the time in handling recruits coming in. I must add, however, that that city has done very well indeed. It has given some 2,700 or 3,000 men since the beginning of the war, but that would be at the rate of only three or four men a day. That is not enough to keep a recruiting officer busy. Whoever would do that work at the London office would have other duties to perform as well.
If my hon. friend wishes me to attempt to analyse the time spent on recruiting as compared with the time spent on ordinary, naval divisional duties, I shall be glad to do so. But it will have to be general and rather haphazard.
I repeat that no money is spent on advertising, and that recruiting officers in the navy do other work as well. We may have to come to advertising; I do not know. The time may come when we may have to advertise for certain special branches, where we may find a shortage of men. But at the present time no money has been spent by this department for advertising.


James Arthur Ross: I understand the minister to say nothing has been earmarked for recruiting. Has the department a publicity and public relations branch?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Yes; I gave the details of it the other day.
Mr. ROSS (Souris); In general, or was there a break-down?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I
placed on Hansard the number of officers and the number of civilians, with salaries and wages.


James Arthur Ross: In the entire naval department there is nothing set up for recruiting purposes, except these offices. Is the minister's auditing department on the same basis as the auditing branches of the other two defence departments? Who is the chief of the auditing branch, and how long has he been in that office?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: The auditor general is, of course, over our department, as he is over the others. He is the chief.


James Arthur Ross: Is there any auditing system organized in each defence department?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: There is a chief treasury officer in the Department of National Defence for Naval Services, who' is appointed by the treasury. He is not our appointee. In addition, we have our own financial superintendent, who is a naval appointee. That is the general set-up.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
6.	Signal and wireless equipment, fine construction, et cetera, $4,592,188.
Douglas King Hazen: I should like to have a
break-down of this item. I am referring to the amount of $986,447.64 expended last year. What part of this was spent for signal equipment; what part for wireless equipment; what for line construction, and what for the items included in the term "et cetera"? From whom were these materials purchased? There is an increase of $3,605,740.36 in the item over the amount expended last year. Why is there such an increase?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I cannot give the figures for last year. I am dealing with the estimates for the current year. I shall have to ask my hon. friend to wait until to-morrow or some subsequent day for the information for which he has asked.


Percy Chapman Black: What progress has the department been able to make in utilizing or developing devices and appliances to detect the passage of either friendly or hostile ships on the surface or submerged, especially in narrow waters such as the strait of Belle Isle, the strait of Canso and Northumberland strait? There is a belief that at this period of scientific progress we should be able to detect the passage of enemy ships in these narrow waters, and certainly no ship either friendly or hostile should be permitted to move in these narrow waters without a permit. Can the minister give the committee any information on that?

War Appropriation-Naval Services


Angus Lewis Macdonald: It would be excellent if we could prevent hostile ships from moving on our waters simply by denying them a permit, but we cannot do that.


Percy Chapman Black: Thit is not fair. I did not suggest that a hostile ship should get a permit. I say that no friendly ship should be allowed to pass through these waters without a permit, and I am asking whether the department is making any use of the latest devices to detect the passage of hostile ships within a certain distance from the shore.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: As to our own ships, they do not move in these waters without some sort of permit. There are naval control officers at all the main ports and sub-officers at minor ports. The movement of our own ships is fairly carefully regulated. As to hostile ships and measures to be taken for their detection, I cannot go into that publicly, as my hon. friend will realize, but I can tell him that the matter is under constant investigation by the experts at the British admiralty in London and elsewhere, by the United States naval authorities and by ourselves. Every new device that can be developed to assist in the detection of enemy ships is being studied and developed. Beyond that, I do not think I should go except to say that everybody realizes the importance of the matter raised by my hon. friend and everybody is, I think, working hard on it.


Percy Chapman Black: I do not wish to press the minister if he thinks it is not in the public interest to make a statement on the matter. But in narrow waters like the strait of Canso or the strait of Belle Isle it should not be possible for a hostile ship either on the surface or submerged to pass without being detected. I do not press this question for reasons of safety, but I do think that in these narrow waters there should be a certain distance from the shore within which it would be impossible for a hostile vessel to pass without being detected. Can the minister make the positive statement that in the strait of Canso or in the strait of Belle Isle no hostile ship can pass without being detected.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I would ask my hon. friend to remember this. As I have said before to this house, the English channel for some part of its length is only twenty-one miles wide; yet the British with all the strength of their navy and with air coverage from the shores have not been able to deny the English channel completely to enemy ships. That will give my hon. friend an indication of the tremendous difficulties in 
absolutely preventing the passing of a ship even through narrow waters. Not much more than a year ago, as my hon. friend will recall, a German battleship and several smaller German ships sailed through the English channel. That battleship got away in spite of the fact that it was heavily attacked by British warships, aeroplanes and submarines.


Percy Chapman Black: Because it
took advantage of the foggy weather.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: There was fog when they started out, but the German ships were heavily attacked in the channel and yet they got through. So that the problem of trying to guarantee complete immunity from attack by enemy ships in this place or that place is very great. All I can say to my hon. friend is that in certain waters in the province of Nova Scotia and on the eastern coast there are certain devices and certain protective measures taken, so far as wre can take them, so far as we know enough about them.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Such as listening posts and detectors?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: There are various devices which can be used. Beyond that, I do not think I can go.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
7.	Ammunition and bombs, $14,245,890.
Gordon Knapman Fraser: How much of this $14,000,000 is paid to the Department of Munitions and Supply? Is any of this money being paid to the British government for bombs?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Part of this money will be paid to the British government. The Department of Munitions and Supply buys all these requirements for us.


Gordon Graydon: I suppose that depth
charges are included in this?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
8.	Armament, including rifles, machine guns, naval guns, et cetera, $42,415,548.
Gordon Knapman Fraser: I think the minister should give us a break-down of this. Some of this money will, I imagine, be paid to the British government.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Some, yes. I can give my hon. friend the cost for a certain type of ship. Take a destroyer, for example. We estimate that the armament stores would cost $204,300 for the year. We estimate that the armament for a frigate would cost us $187,000.

War Appropriation-Naval Services


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That is the new type of ship which is being built?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: It is a new type of ship. Some of them are built.
I am afraid I have not the exact figures for a corvette; it will be somewhat less than a frigate, probably fifty to sevepty-five per cent.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It is only an estimate, anyhow.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: That is all.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The minister cannot compute how many days or in how many engagements a frigate or a corvette will be operating during the year?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: That is right. All we can do is offer an estimate.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Because if a frigate were in battle for only a week during the year, it would blow away the equivalent of $204,000.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: We average it, realizing that some would fight a good deal, some not so much, and some would be laid up for a certain time. That is about as close a's we can strike it as an estimate.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Out of that, how much do you figure you would be paying to the British government?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I cannot give my hon. friend that at the moment.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The minister could give me that to-morrow?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: A good bit of it would come from there. Some of the armament, including certain guns, would be manufactured here; certain others, in Great Britain.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
9.	Fuel cost of ships, $25,257,798.
Gordon Knapman Fraser: Has the fuel capacity of corvettes been increased?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: The old type corvettes, the hon. member means?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The corvettes and the frigates. Has the fuel capacity been increased on account of the long distance they have to travel?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Of course the new type of frigate has a longer range and a greater fuel capacity than the corvettes.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That is what I was getting at.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I could give my hon. friend some figures concerning costs. The fuel bill is up very greatly, not merely because we have more ships but also because the cost of fuel has advanced very considerably. Take, for instance, destroyers; it is estimated that to fuel them for the year will cost about $5i million. We estimate that fuel for our corvettes will cost more than $7 millions, and for mine-sweepers, over S5 millions.


James Arthur Ross: How many corvettes are in service?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I do not know whether I should give exact figures, although perhaps it does not make much difference. There are over seventy and under 100. Fuel for Fairmiles will cost about $900,000.


Percy Chapman Black: Of this total amount of $25,257,798, has the minister the amounts expended for oil fuel and for coal fuel respectively?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Yes. There are not very many coal-burning vessels in the navy, and the amount expended for coal fuel is quite small in comparison with the total sum. Destroyers, frigates, corvettes, mine-sweepers and auxiliary cruisers are all oil-burners; Fairmiles are gasoline-burning boats.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: While the minister is getting these figures, would he include the costs and quantities of each of the different types of fuel?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I have not that at hand. I would have to take out the ships which use gasoline and calculate the total accordingly. I am sorry I have not at the moment the total by species of fuel. I know what ships burn gasoline and what burn oil; I could add them together, but it would take some time.


George Hugh Castleden: Could the minister give us the total gallonage of each and the cost of each?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I will get that. It will take some time.


Percy Chapman Black: The minister has not under his hand the exact costs of the coal fuel and the oil fuel. I wonder if we could get that later.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Yes; I will get that.


Percy Chapman Black: Has the minister's department explored the possibilities of using powdered coal to a certain extent as an alternative to oil fuel?

War Appropriation-Naval Services


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I cannot say that we have. Our ships are designed, of course, on British models, and naturally we would be guided very much by what is done in England with regard to powdered fuel. I have not heard of any new researches in that field lately.


Mr. JACKMAN:: Would the minister say whether any of the ships newly constructed in Canada or elsewhere are equipped for coal consumption, or are practically all of them oil-fuel burning?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I do not know of any widening of the field in which coal-burning ships are used. In the Canadian navy there are a few relatively small ships which burn coal. As I say, I do not know of any extension of the coalburning type of ship.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Is coal less economical or less convenient, or are there reasons of space which determine the building of entirely oil-burning ships? The reason why I ask is, of course, that we have coal available on our own coast, in Nova Scotia, whereas there is great difficulty in obtaining oil at the present time, for transportation reasons. Are any coal-burning cargo vessels now being constructed in the United States or Great Britain?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: As
to cargo vessels, I cannot say whether or not any of these are being constructed to burn coal. The whole matter of coal versus oil was thought out in Britain thirty years ago or thereabouts. The old ships of course burned coal. There was a tremendous argument in British naval circles at the time the change was proposed, and the change came before the last war when Mr. Churchill, I think, was First Lord of the Admiralty. At that time, most of the ships changed over to oil for the reason that the range of ships was increased by the substitution of oil. They could carry much more fuel in the same space than if they burned coal. I have never heard of the matter being reopened in England so far as warships are concerned. I have always looked upon the question as having been settled in favour of oil. It must be remembered, of course, that Britain herself has great supplies of coal in England, Wales and Scotland, and her problem of getting oil fuel is much greater than ours because all her oil fuel has to come overseas. So that I should think, if anything could be done to make coal available, either in its ordinary form or in the form suggested 
by the hon. member for Cumberland, namely powdered fuel, none of these possibilities would be overlooked in Britain.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Has the number
of classes of lubricatng oils been reduced? Can the minister tell us that?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I am sorry, I cannot. I shall have to look into it and get a report on the question.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I know there were seventy-five or eighty classifications of lubricating oil, and at one time they were trying to reduce the number.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I shall have it looked into.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
10.	Acquisition, construction, charter, repair and upkeep of ships, $167,571,202.
Douglas Gooderham Ross: I wish to say a
few words about this item, and this is the only time I shall have an opportunity to do so. The other night the member for Van-couver-Burrard (Mr. McGeer) used these words:
Sometimes, in this canoe-minded atmosphere of Ottawa, and in the pervading activity of the attitude of the great lakes, which was so completely hypnotized by the pacific influences of the Rush-Bagot treaty of 1817, Ottawa has forgotten that there is such a thing as a Pacific or an Atlantic ocean.
That would seem to be quite a slur on us in the central provinces and on the great lakes. There are a great many ships on the great lakes, and a great deal of shipping goes through the Soo canal; indeed, before the war it was the largest amount of shipping that went through any canal in the world. We have our master mariners and our sailors on the great lakes, and while a great many of them are still today on lake boats, a great many of them are on the ocean, as are also a great many of our lake boats. They are on the routes where the submarines are and these men are risking their lives. I want to pay a tribute to them. A great many of our sailors who are now in the merchant marine risking their lives in that way come from the great lakes, and many of the men in the Royal Navy and in the Royal Canadian Navy have also come from the great lakes. A great many of our men in the Royal Navy and in the Royal Canadian Navy-officers and men -have come from our yacht clubs. There has been a great activity in the city of Toronto for many years in connection with naval cadets, and our yacht clubs have always been

War Appropriation-Naval Services
proud of their affiliations both with the Royal Navy and with the Royal Canadian Navy. A great part of the training of these men was obtained on the great lakes, and we have never exerted any pacific influences on Ottawa with regard to the navy. As a matter of fact, my own city of Toronto has been more navy-minded than any other city in Canada.
I do not know how many men from Toronto are in the Royal Canadian Navy; but, according to the minister's figures, there are 1,722 officers and 20,590 men from the province of Ontario itself. That does not look as if we who are on the great lakes and bordering the great lakes were pacifically minded or had been all these years; had we been, we would not have had that wonderful showing from the province of Ontario.
I take my hat off, and give a great deal of credit, to the officers and men of the navy who are doing such a wonderful job at the present time. Some of them went to the Royal Navy because they could not get into the Royal Canadian Navy at the beginning of the war, and I pay tribute to them for their valour and gallantry in the performance of their duty. I wish to put that on record lest I should be misunderstood. I have no criticism to make of the men of the Royal Canadian Navy or the naval volunteer reserve or the naval reserve. As I say, they are doing a wonderful job under very difficult circumstances. Their job is not a showy one; they are plugging away day in and day out. I know a great many of them and I know the difficulties they have to face. Some have been doing good work as far away as the Mediterranean. They have been through the "shows" over there, but they do not get the glory that some of the other forces do.
I do not think there is as yet any ship in the navy named after either my own province or my own city, and I suggest that when we get one of the new and bigger destroyers we might have it called the Toronto.
Could the minister say in a few words what the functions of the various types of ships are? It is not very well understood what the functions of the Fairmile or the corvette are; what a frigate has to do; what is a destroyer, and so on with regard to other ships we may have. A resume on that question would be interesting. I do not know whether the minister can tell us what the range is or how far they can go and how they are armed, or the number of each classification of ships we have in the navy. There is great misunderstanding on the part of a good many people as to the functions of these various ships.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Before I discuss my hon. friend's remarks, somebody asked about the total amount of fuel consumption. I have here the total amount estimated for the year. For bunker in barrels we estimate that we need 5,694,000 barrels; for diesel fuel in barrels we estimate 227,000 barrels; and for gasoline in gallons we estimate 5,336,000 gallons. These are the figures which were asked for by the hon. member for St. Paul's and which I could not put my hand on at the moment.


George Hugh Castleden: What was the cost of each item?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: The estimated cost of bunker oil is $4.44 a barrel; of diesel oil, $4.66 a barrel; of ordinary gasoline, 27-93 cents a gallon; of high octane gasoline, 32-04 cents a gallon.


Percy Chapman Black: What were the tonnage and cost of coal fuel used?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I cannot lay my hands on that figure, but I will get it for my hon. friend. It is a small item. I am not sure whether it is 1,000 or 10,000 tons. I know I looked it up some time ago and was rather surprised that it was so low.
I can say to the hon. member for St. Paul's that I hope we shall be able to call a ship of the Canadian navy after his great city. We have adopted the policy of naming destroyers after Indian tribes or rivers, and we do not wish to break away from that practice. It is a simple and convenient way of naming ships, to name them after a river or a tribe or a town, or after a flower as is sometimes done in Great Britain.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: You might name our first cruiser after Toronto.


Mr. SENN:: When an application is made to name a ship after a town or city, how is it dealt with and in what way is the final decision arrived at?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Years ago when we began to use the names of towns for corvettes we began in a rather unscientific manner and took names as they occurred to us, some of them being of towns that were quite small. As the navy expanded we began to see that we would have to systematize this practice, and for some time we have been using the towns and cities in order of population.


Mark Cecil Senn: Are there any counties that have been honoured in this way?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: There are one or two. The city of Cornwall asked

War Appropriation-Naval Services
to have a ship named after that place, but there is already a famous ship in the British navy called the Cornwall. The citizens of Cornwall stated that they would be glad to have a ship named after the county of Stormont, and consequently that name was given to a ship. Yes; we can consider the names of counties.


Mark Cecil Senn: I believe an application was made at one time by my own county. In the first victory loan Haldimand was the first county to go over the top, and the people asked that the county should be honoured by naming a vessel after it. I do not know just what was done, but the request was never acceded to.
Mr. MACDONALD (Kingston City) r I shall give consideration to what my hon. friend has said.
My hon. friend from Toronto inquired about the uses to which these ships are put. Shortly after the outbreak of the war the auxiliary cruisers, of which we have three, were converted to their present uses. Their range is considerable, one of them having made a trip to Hong Kong and back to Vancouver. They do escort work, guarding unarmed merchant ships, and carrying out other duties which may be assigned to them. I think everybody knows that destroyers are so named because they were first built to destroy U-boats. That is still their chief purpose. They carry torpedoes, and apart from some motor craft are probably the fastest type of warship afloat. They are very useful in providing a screen for the larger ships and are used to protect ships in convoy.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: They have considerable fire power.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: The corvette was designed mainly for escort duty with the convoys. It is built somewhat on the lines of the whaling ship. Corvettes can be turned out relatively easily for a ship of war, and they have done excellent work in this war. If it had not been for these little ships, the situation might be very different for us to-day. It takes about as much time to build a destroyer either in Great Britain or here, as it does to build three corvettes. They can be built on the lakes and taken down to the ocean through our canals and rivers, something which could not be done with a destroyer. We were fortunate in having started to build these ships early in the war. We have more than seventy of them in our navy, and we have built a great many for the navy

of Great Britain. Then the frigate I would classify as being in between the corvette and the destroyer.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: We have not any of them yet?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Some of them are afloat, but they are just coming into use. Generally speaking, they serve the same purpose as the corvette. They have more speed and a greater range than a corvette. They are larger and have more accommodation for the crew, which is larger than that on a. corvette.


Douglas King Hazen: Is it expected that the frigates will take the place of the corvettes?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I think we shall always have corvettes.
Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn); Has the frigate heavier fire power?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: About the same, so far as guns are concerned. The corvette is not to be trifled with because it has good hitting power. It lacks the speed of the destroyers or the larger ships. The frigate is about the same as the corvette in fire power; it has more guns, but they are of about the same strength.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Is it as good a sea boat as the corvette?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: It is said to be better. Those who have tried them are very much delighted with the frigates, which are said to be splendid in every way.


Mr. REID:: Could the minister tell the committee the speed of the corvette as compared with that of the submarine?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I think about the greatest speed a submarine can make on the surface, so far as we know, is about nineteen or twenty knots. It is difficult to estimate these things accurately, I suppose, because actions of this kind are carried through so rapidly. When a submarine submerges, however, its speed is cut down to less than half the surface speed; I think about eight knots is the best it can do under water. A corvette can easily deal with a submarine when it is submerged, but on the surface it would be desirable if the corvette had a little more speed; I will put it in that way. The frigate supplies that need and is consequently a welcome addition to the fleet.
The mine-sweepers are, of course, intended to sweep up and destroy mines laid by the

War Appropriation-Naval Services
enemy in our waters. As a matter of fact, we have used a great many of these minesweepers in the same way as corvettes, and in many respects they are the same sort of ship. They have guns; they have depth charges; they have asdics and so on.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Have we about enough mine-sweepers now?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: We have a good fleet of mine-sweepers. Fortunately we have not been bothered very much by enemy mines, but we are ready to deal with them if they do show up in our waters.
Then I pass on to the Fairmile, which is a wooden ship with a fairly good turn of speed, but of course without the endurance or the strength or the seagoing qualities of the corvette. In its present form at any rate the Fairmile will never be a transatlantic escort ship. It is very useful in coastal waters, such as the Irish sea or the English channel or the Bristol channel, and on this side it is useful in such waters as the river and gulf of St. Lawrence, and thereabouts.
Then w'e have the fishermen's reserve, about which my hon. friend asked previously. I have counted up the number here, and I think we have about fifty fishermen's reserve boats. In addition, of course, we have a great many other harbour craft, which are not fighting ships at all, such as tugs, some tankers, and gate vessels, which are used at the gates which guard the entrance to certain of our harbours, where there are nets stretched across which can be opened and shut at will. These gate vessels attend to that work. There are a great many of these other ships, which I do not think I need mefition particularly, but which in their own way are all useful.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: The Fairmile is not really a fighting ship, is it?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Yes, it can fight; it has the means.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: That is what I do not quite understand. Is it not more of a reconnaissance ship? It has no torpedo tubes, like the British ship of' the same sort, and it has not much fire power. Of course it has depth charges-


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Yes.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: -and I suppose its speed would make up for whatever it might lack in dealing with a submarine, but I was wondering if it was really a fighting ship.
Mr. MACDONALD (Kingston City) ; Yes; it has depth charges and guns, but it is a
wooden ship and it is not extremely powerful. It has more speed than a corvette but, as I say, it is mainly useful in coastal patrols and narrow waters, such as the gulf and river St. Lawrence.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Is it customary, when ships are sunk, to give the same names to n'ew ships? I ask this because the minister mentioned the practice of naming some of these ships after cities across Canada. The town of Weyburn was greatly honoured by having a corvette named after it, and the citizens of that town took great interest in the welfare of the officers and men of that ship. We sent radios for the entertainment of the men, and the women of the town supplied them with comforts and kept in contact with the crew. Naturally we felt very badly about the loss of the ship, and we are hoping that at some future date there will be another Weyburn and that the citizens will be allowed to take the same interest in the welfare of that ship. I wondered if there was any tradition in the navy against that.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: No, not if the ship has been lost in action; we consider it quite a good thing to give the same name to another ship. If it has been lost through a marine disaster, a collision or something of the kind, it is not considered lucky to use that name again, at least for some time. But when a ship has gone down fighting, as the Weyburn did, I am sure it would be an honour to the navy to have another ship of that name, and in due time we shall have another Weyburn. I do not know whether any ship is available now; it may be some months, but we , have not forgotten the Weyburn. A ship called the Charlottetown was lost in action last year; this year we have given that name to another ship. So it is with the destroyer Ottawa, which went down fighting while protecting a convoy last summer. We have given that name to one of the destroyers lately received from Britain.


Mr. CLEAVER:: On behalf of my constituents in the riding of Halton I should not like these naval items to pass without saying a word of appreciation and congratulation to the minister, the officials of his department, and the officers of the navy in regard to the tremendous expansion that has taken place in Canada's navy. We in Halton are rather navy-minded, since we were so fortunate as to have two of these little ships named after towns in the riding, the Burlington and the Oakville, and the minister and the admiral of the fleet were so gracious as to come to the riding for the christening

War Appropriation-Naval Services
of these vessels. So that it is only natural that the people of Halton should be very
navy-minded.
On looking over the record, I cannot help but be very proud of my native province of Ontario in this connection. The hon. member for St. Paul's has referred to this matter already this evening, but I know he will not mind if I say something about it also. Our little navy, at the opening of the war, had just fifteen small ships and a personnel of fewer than two thousand. As we know, it has grown until now it has something over 550 ships and a personnel amounting to two-thirds the peace-time establishment of the British navy. The story is almost unbelievable. and would not have been possible but for the very best and .most efficient management and direction on the part of the minister's office and the permanent naval force, as well as the greatest of cooperation on the part of the civilians of this country.
I should like to put on record a few items of particular interest to Ontario. Though a land-locked province, except for the waterways of the St. Lawrence, Ontario has contributed nearly forty per cent of the manpower of the Canadian navy as it stands to-day, and has built just over one-half of the ships of that navy. Within Ontario there are seven reserve divisions of the Royal Canadian Navy. These divisions are the recruiting and basic training establishments of the Royal Canadian Naval Volunteer Reserve. They are situated at the following centres: Hamilton, H.M.C.S. Star; Kingston. H.M.C.S. Cataraqui; London, H.M.C.S. Prevost; Ottawa, H.M.C.S. Carleton; Port Arthur, H.M.C.S. Griffon; Toronto, H.M.C.S. York; and Windsor, H.M.C.S. Hunter. Depending upon the area and population which they serve, these Ontario training establishments vary in. size. H.M.C.S. York, at Toronto. witli a complement sometimes as high as 1.800, is the largest inland training base in Canada, and one of the largest in the entire British Empire.
These seven divisions, as are all R.C.N.V.R. divisions in Canada, are under the command of Captain E. R. Brock, R.C.N.V .R., commanding officer, reserve divisions.
H.M.C.S. Conestoga at Galt, Ontario, has the distinction of being the only ship in the Royal Canadian Navy manned entirely by women. It is the W.R.C.N.S. basic training centre, with a complement approaching the 600 mark.
So that hon. members can fully appreciate how thrilled the people in my constituency were when, less than a year after the minister and the admiral visited Oakville for the

christening of the ship Oakville, we read in the press that the Oakville had made her first kill. In the middle of the night the corvette Oakville had rammed a German submarine three times, and on the third occasion had made a really good job of it. The crew were taking no chances, and a boarding party of two, in the diark of night, jumped from the Oakville aboard the submarine, and bumped off three men on the deck. One man went below to take care of the German crew.


George Taylor Fulford: One of them was a Brockville boy.	.


Hughes Cleaver: Quite true. Checking over the crew of'the Oakville, it would seem that it was the Oakville only in name. Men were there from all parts of Canada.
At the outbreak of war our naval officers had a rather serious choice to make. There were three types of navy to choose. One was a navy of capital ships, the second a navy of submarines, and the third a navy for convoy duty. Fortunately for Canada I believe-and I believe the house believes-the correct choice was made. Canada decided we would specialize in convoy work. Look at the result to-day. To-day the Canadian navy is doing half the convoy duty on the Atlantic ocean, and has safely convoyed something over 13,000 vessels, with a loss of less than one per cent. A Canadian naval officer and a Canadian air officer have complete operational command over the entire western half of the Atlantic. Therefore I wish to add my word of congratulations and appreciation with respect to the tremendous task which has been so well carried out.
Just one word in closing. It is difficult for us to appreciate the size of the Canadian navy. Looking over figures which might make a comparison possible I happened to find this:	Do hon. members know that in this
year of this war we are spending on the Canadian navy an amount greater than Canada's total expenditures during the peak year of the 'great war?


Douglas King Hazen: In the course of his statement on Monday night about the work of his department and the activities of the Canadian navy, the minister said, as reported at page 3406 of Hansard:
To-day the Canadian navy boasts a fleet of over 550 ships of all types.
That statement must have been carefully prepared. I believe it was given fairly wide publicity in the press. I regret to say it was not correct, and upon reflection I think the minister will agree with me that it was not

War Appropriation-Naval Services
correct. I think the record should be kept straight, and the size of our navy should be kept in its proper perspective. We get nowhere by boasting.
We have no capital ships. We have no ships of many other large classes. The minister was much nearer the mark, and much more accurate this afternoon when he said that our navy is a small-ship navy. With that statement I find no fault. But the statement he made on Monday evening should be corrected.
How many of the 550 ships, or thereabouts, in our navy are manned by over 100 men? How many have establishments of over fifty men? How many are manned by over twenty-five officers and men? If we have seventeen destroyers-and I do not know the exact number-and if each destroyer has a crew of 160-and that is about the establishment of a destroyer; it may be a little more or less- then we would have 2,720 men on our destroyers. If we have 120 corvettes-and I do not know the exact number-and the establishment of a corvette is fifty-eight men, then we would have 6,960 men on our corvettes. This accounts for 9,680 men out of the 20,000 men in our navy who are at sea. Then, of that 20,000 we have 1,400 in the British navy. The remainder of men at sea would be about 8,920, and they would be distributed among 413 ships, or an average of about twenty-one officers and men to a vessel.
Vessels of this size cannot be described or regarded as very large - fighting ships. Last May when the minister's estimates were before the house he told us we had about seventy-five corvettes, about forty-five mine-sweepers, about a dozen armed yachts, about two dozen Fairmiles and between twelve and twenty destroyers in the navy. Would he tell us how many destroyers, corvettes, mine-sweepers and Fairmiles we have in the navy to-day? Have improvements been made in the corvettes? How many Fairmiles are in commission? Of those in commission how many, on an average, are on active service, and how many laid up for repairs? Is it the intention of his department to increase the number of Fairmiles? Have they given satisfaction?
The break-down that he furnished us with states that $74,979,157.67 was spent for the acquisition, construction, repair and upkeep of ships during the past fiscal year. This year the estimated expenditure is $167,571,202. That is an increase of over 100 per cent. I would ask the minister if this means that the number of ships which were taken into the navy last year, namely about 150, is to be doubled, or does it mean that different and
more expensive ships are to be built? I would also ask the minister if there are many ships under charter by his department, and whether he can tell us the approximate number under charter and just what kind of ships they are and the nature of their charter parties.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: First of all I would ask my hon. friend, in what respect does he allege that my statement as to the Canadian navy consisting of 550 ships of all classes is not correct?


Douglas King Hazen: I state that you cannot say you have a navy of all classes when you have no battleships, when you have no first-class, no second-class and no third-class cruisers, when you have no submarines, when you have no aircraft carriers and when you lack several other types of ships which are found in any of the great navies of the world.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: When I speak of a navy of 550 ships of all classes what I mean is, not that we have every type of ship in our navy,. but that 550 is the total number of ships of all kinds, great and small, that we have. That is what I mean, and I think my hon. friend might once in a while give the benefit of the doubt to this department, and not constantly put the most unfavourable possible construction on what is said or done.


Mr. PERLEY:: I am sure we all admit that the Canadian navy has made wonderful strides and that a great deal of credit is due to Canada and to the department for what has been accomplished. While sitting here I have been listening to a number of members doing a little boasting about the corvettes and other ships named after their towns or districts. The hon. member for Regina gave quite an oration to-night along that line and we listened to another just a few moments ago. I did not intend to take any part in this debate, but after what other members have said I feel impelled, to speak of my town and the province of Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan itself has a splendid record so.far as the navy is concerned, because out of the total navy personnel of 59,000 officers and ratings that province has contributed 3,787, and we shall contribute a great many more officers because I am sure that those who are now undergoing instruction will acquit themselves creditably.
My own district and in particular the town in which I reside have a splendid record. A great number of our boys have joined the navy, and I should like to mention in particular two boys from my town, Garden and Cooke, one of whom has distinguished himself by working his way up until he is now

War Appropriation-Naval Services
second in command on one of the corvettes. His name is Grant Garden. The other boy from my town, Leighton Cooke, is in the medical service in the navy, serving as one of the chief officers on a hospital ship which has sailed on the Atlantic and which at last reports was in the Mediterranean. I wish that to go on the record here, and if there are to be any more ships named after certain districts or towns I think the Minister of Agriculture will join with me in suggesting that Qu'Appelle be given to a corvette or some other naval vessel. It is a historic name in our province. Fort Qu'Appelle was an important fort in the days of the early settlement of our province and in the northwest rebellion. So that I suggest to the minister that the name Qu'Appelle be given to one of our new corvettes.


Douglas King Hazen: I asked the minister a number of questions a few minutes ago about the establishments on the ships in the Canadian navy. Could he furnish me with an answer to those questions this evening?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: My hon. friend wants to know the number of men in the crew on each type of ship; is that it?


Douglas King Hazen: No. My question was this: How many of the 550 ships or thereabouts in our navy are manned by crews of over 100 men; how many have an establishment of over fifty men; how many have an establishment of over twenty-five men?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I do not know that I can give my hon. friend the exact number of ships, but I can tell him that all destroyers would have a crew of over 100 men, and frigates also. Corvettes and minesweepers would all have crews of more than fifty men. The usual crew of a Fairmile would be less than twenty-five. I do not think I can give publicly the exact number of destroyers, corvettes, mine-sweepers or any other class of fighting ship that we have, I have never given that. I have always stated that we have something like 500. That is as near as I can give it. Our auxiliary cruisers would have a complement of something over 200.


Douglas King Hazen: I also called the minister's attention to the fact that last year when his estimates were before the house he gave us in round figures, and I presume they were approximately correct, the number of destroyers, the number of corvettes, the number of yachts, the number of Fairmiles, and I think some other types of vessels in the Canadian navy. I wonder if it is not possible for the minister to give us to-night in round figures

similar information, in view of the fact that the navy has increased by about 150 ships during the past year.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I cannot give my hon. friend exact figures. To be very general, the number of destroyers is more than twelve and not quite two dozen. As I told the hon. member for Cumberland, we have over seventy corvettes in commission at the moment. We have nearly as many mine-sweepers as corvettes, and about an equal number of motor launches of one kind and another. We have also various patrol craft and auxiliary vessels-harbour patrol craft, fishermen's reserve vessels, and the like- making up the rest of the navy.


Howard Charles Green: Is the minister satisfied with the position in escort vessels? Last February a statement was made by Desmond A. Clarke, director general of shipbuilding, that it was most important that we should get more men to work building these escort ships. He estimated the number of men required as "in the thousands"-
"And we need them right now, not for cargo ships but for fighting escort vessels," he said. "We must lick the submarine. There is no use building more cargo ships to have them sunk."
That was in February, and I understand that considerable progress has since been made in getting additional escort vessels. But what is the situation at the present time? Is Canada building sufficient escort vessels to give the navy a reasonable chance to do its job?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: It is difficult to say whether we have enough escort vessels. We could use more, of course; so could every navy in the world, I suppose, if it had the men to man them. I can only say that we have tried to keep reasonable accord between our training of men and our production of ships. We are getting just about as many ships as we can comfortably man.


Howard Charles Green: The minister is satisfied, then, with the production of escort vessels in Canada?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: So far, on the whole, yes. There have been occasional disappointments; there have been delays, and many of them are unavoidable. Take the procurement of machinery; it is very difficult to get all the machinery for these ships on time. Much of it is delicate and intricate; some of it has to be obtained from factories outside this country, and all ^ sorts of things may occur to delay the furnishing of materials, but these are disappointments which one has to expect. On the whole I am not dissatisfied.

War Appropriation-Naval Services
Not long since, the First Lord of the Admiralty of Great Britain, speaking in the House of Commons, I think on his own estimates, said that this country had made remarkable progress in shipbuilding, considering what it began from before the war. My hon. friend knows that the shipyards in the west and on the east coast were practically idle. I do not suppose that the tonnage built in Canada before the war, say in 1938 and 1939, would amount to more than a few thousand tons a year. Now it is well over a million tons, including cargo and naval ships. Mr. Alexander was happy and generous enough to pay a deserved tribute to what had been done.


Howard Charles Green: The minister is satisfied with the production of escort vessels in Canada now?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: On the whole, yes.


Howard Charles Green: What progress has been made in the production of destroyers? We commenced some time ago. How is the work progressing? There were newspaper dispatches in March of this year to the effect that there was difficulty in getting some of the equipment from the British manufacturers, that is, some of the data, that they were holding out on information which was necessary in order to proceed with the construction of these ships. If that was so, it was a serious situation. Would the minister tell us the position at the present time, and would he also let us know whether more destroyers are to be built in Canada, and whether this work is being carried on in such a way that it will be possible for us to build destroyers after the war in this country?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I am glad my hon. friend raised the question about the supply of machinery and materials from Great Britain. Statements were made, I am sure in all good faith, that the British manufacturers were not willing to part with their plans for machinery. I think that arose over an act of the British censor, in stopping some plans which were being sent out from Britain to a shipbuilding firm which is building destroyers in Halifax. The British censor, acting I have no doubt under the censorship regulations, returned these plans and said he would not let them pass through to this country. That delayed for some months the securing of these plans, and it was supposed by some that British manufacturers were holding them up, when as a matter of fact the delay was caused by the British censor. I am glad my hon. friend brought that matter up, because I wish to do justice to the British manufacturers and not have it thought that
they deliberately withheld plans in order to concentrate all shipbuilding construction in their own country. That was not the situation. On the other hand, I understand how the people in Halifax would feel. Not being able to explain this delay, knowing the plans should be there, and not finding them there, they would assume that there was some deliberate policy of selfishness behind it. So much for that.


Howard Charles Green: What about the rest of my questions, namely the progress which is being made in the construction of these destroyers, whether more are to be built in Canada, and whether it will be possible for Canada to build destroyers after the war?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: We have two destroyers building in Britain, very near completion. I hope they will be completed within a couplr of months. In addition, we have two building in Canada. My hon. friend asks as to the progress made on these two. It is on the whole satisfactory, considering that this is the first job of the kind. Again, we are finding some difficulty about getting the machinery'in on time, but we are endeavouring to speed it up. We hope to get the ships out not too far away from the contemplated completion date.
As to whether we in Canada will continue to build destroyers after the war, if there is a Canadian navy, as I hope there will be, destroyers will form part of it, and there is no reason why they cannot be built in Canada, particularly in peace time. There will not be nearly as much trouble about getting skilled help from Great Britain in peace time if we need it, as there is today. It is very difficult to get skilled shipbuilders out of Britain now because they need them all there. After the war that condition will not apply to nearly as great an extent as it does now and consequently there will not be the same obstacle to the building of destroyers in this country. The construction will cost more, probably, than if they were built in Britain; otherwise there is no reason why we could not train skilled shipbuilders here to do the work and do it well.


Howard Charles Green: Would we be able also to build light cruisers in Canada?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Yes; I think a cruiser would be easier to build than a destroyer, which is one of the most difficult of all warships to build on account of its tremendous hitting power and strength contained in a very narrow space. If you can build a destroyer, I think you can easily build a cruiser.

War Appropriation-Naval Services


Mr. ESLING:: Early this year Nelson, in the eastern portion of British Columbia, through the board of trade of that city, submitted to the .minister's office blueprints and specifications and the fullest details of the community centre in which the city has invested $300,000. It asked the minister if he would not give consideration to the use of the civic centre for the purposes of a naval training school. There are recreation grounds and there are ample facilities in this community centre. There is ample accommodation for the purposes of residence, and the city of Nelson has contributed generously in men to the three arms of the services. It has responded most creditably to the six loans. But it has not had recognition of any kind whatsoever from the government in the way of war industries or the establishment of any war service.
I want to ask the minister if in all fairness he will not give consideration to the request of the city of Nelson. Will he not look into these plans. We have there not only accommodation in the civic centre but about 100 miles of waterfront including Kootenay lake, which offers the most acceptable facilities for naval training. Perhaps the minister in a moment of generosity will give consideration to the request from that city.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I thank my hon. friend and I certainly will give consideration to his request. I remember very well the letter from the board of trade. The best I have been able to do is to give the name of Kootenay to one of the destroyers, and while that is not a material advantage to the people, it is some recognition. I shall keep fully in mind the possibilities of Nelson, and again I thank my hon. friend for having drawn the matter once more to my attention.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: How does a minesweeper compare with a corvette in cost? Are they not about the same price?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Cost?


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Yes; cost of production.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: The larger mine-swee.pers cost more than corvettes. There are various grades of mine-sweepers. The larger ones are more expensive than the ordinary type of corvette, and then you grade down to the smaller ones, which are about the same as the corvette, while there are some others not so expensive as the corvette. They run in various sizes.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I have in mind the larger mine-sweepers which cost more than the

corvettes, and I was wondering if they were continuing to make these vessels. Has the corvette not proved better as far as convoy work is concerned?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I
think they are both needed; both have their uses. We have more corvettes than minesweepers, it is true, but the difference is not very great, and we are continuing to build both.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: The mine-sweeper
has not the same range as the corvette. Is that not one of the difficulties?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Usually that would be true. It depends on the type of mine-sweeper the hon. member has in mind. The corvette has a little more than some of the mine-sweepers. 'There are several grades of mine-sweepers. Generally speaking, the corvettes have greater endurance, but some of the mine-sweepers come up fairly close to them-the larger type.


Douglas King Hazen: What is the tonnage of the corvette and the tonnage of the Fairmile? Can the minister give some idea of the tonnage of the smaller craft that are fitted for the many duties of modern sea warfare?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I do not quite see the point of the question and I am not sure whether it should be answered. I do not see the point of asking for the tonnage of corvettes and making such things public. We do not usually do it.


Douglas King Hazen: I will not press for it if the minister does not think it should be answered.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I can tell my hon. friend privately what it is for the various types of mine-sweepers, but I am inclined to think we should not make it public. We have never given to the public the exact dimensions of ships, and I do not think I should do so.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is just a word I should like to say. At the moment I happen to be the only one of the Winnipeg members in the house, and so I feel I would be remiss in my duty if I did not join with others who have expressed pleasure at the honour conferred on various cities and towns in the names given recently to Canadian ships of war. The people of Winnipeg are quite honoured in the decision made to name a ship after our city, and already considerable interest is being taken in this ship, as will be taken in the crew. Perhaps the committee might enjoy a bit of a slip which the minister made in this connection. I understand he wrote to the

mayor of Winnipeg suggesting that his wife might come to the head of the lakes and christen the ship. It so happens that Mayor Coulter, although he is anxious to serve his country in every possible way, has been unable, I understand, to find a wife for the occasion. He happens to be a bachelor.


Donald Alexander McNiven: The hon. member said he was the only Winnipeg member in the. house. Is he aware that two Winnipeg members are on active service?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thank my hon. friend for mentioning that fact. I had it in mind and intended to state it. while I was on my feet. I am grateful to him for mentioning it.


Agar Rodney Adamson: As one of the members who happen to have taken part, a rather inglorious part, -being merely blown out of a window in the Halifax explosion in 1917, having subsequently gone to sea on convoy duty, I wish to say one or two words on behalf of the men who are now carrying out this duty. In those days the convoy that left Halifax immediately after the explosion travelled at an official speed of four knots. Actually it was about three and one-half knots, or about a good walk. If anyone wants to know how long it would take to walk across the Atlantic, I may say that it would take thirty-one days, because that is how long we took on that convoy across the ocean. Eifty-seven ships went loaded with -munitions, ships similar to the Mont Blanc that blew up, one caught fire half way across the Atlantic, -and. we had to go and put out the fire. There is no job that requires the same constant vigilance, unseen and unsung, and the same attention to detail, as the convoy. There are few medals issued and many of the men do not get a chance for action. The success is measured by the delivery of the convoy to the other side. The other day Mr. Churchill said that a full ship delivered is a great deal more valuable than a ship -built. That can be easily understood when one visualizes what a ship can carry.
The minister has been twitted about matters of expenditure. There is an incident I always remember about my first trip to sea in an escort vessel with a convoy. We were battened down below decks; the watertight doors were shut, and I am free to admit that I was nervous. I was concerned about our chances if we were hit, and I asked the chief engineer, who was of course, Scotch, about this. He said to me, "My boy, the Germans are a sensible race; they know how much it costs to run this ship, and. they know she is far more use to them afloat than sunk, so that 72537-224
10, 1943
War Appropriation-Naval Services
there is no use in worrying". I suggest to the minister that he remember that when he is asked what it costs to run the navy.
There is a question I wish to ask with regard to our armed merchant cruisers. Is it the policy of the government to have a commodore with each convoy, and is that commodore a British or a Canadian officer? Do our armed merchant cruisers still go out with convoys? I know the Jervis Bay and other ships saw action at one time, but I should like to know if we -have armed merchant cruisers in our navy. My next question may have to do with the Minister of Munitions and Supply. For some time I have been seeing a number of mine-sweepers in a Toronto shipbuilding yard; I know them by number, if not by name, -because I have been passing them week after week. Why have these ships not reached tide-water? Is it on account of man-power? Why are they afloat but unfinished?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: It would be only in the last month that a ship could leave Toronto for tide-water, because of ice conditions in the river and lake and canal.


Agar Rodney Adamson: They have been there
since last October.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Unless they were got out before the freeze-up they iwould have to stay all winter. It would not be on account of man-power, so far as we are concerned. There may be some question of machinery, and I shall find out about that. There is a commodore with every convoy, and so far as I know these are British officers. As to whether auxiliary cruisers and the like make up the escorts for convoys, I think that is. a matter I would have to discuss privately with my hon. friend.


George Taylor Fulford: I wish to thank the minister for having named two Canadian warships after two towns in my constituency. Great honour has been paid to the towns of Ganano-que and Brockville by making ships bearing those names an integral part of the Canadian -navy. It would do the minister's heart good to see the way in which the people of these towns have constituted themselves foster parents of these ships and the spirit with which they have organized to see that comforts are sent periodically to the men. I should like to enlarge upon the statement made by the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver) in whch he referred to two men from the corvette Oakville having boarded a German submarine. As I stated previously, one of



War Appropriation-Naval Services
these men came from Brockville, but I neglected to say that by now he probably wears the D.S.O.


Percy Chapman Black: There is the
greatest good-will toward the navy in Nova Scotia, as is evidenced by the comforts sent to the men of the navy by the ladies of the I.O.D.E. and other organizations. However, there is some criticism and misgiving about the time that some of'these ships spend in port undergoing repairs or for other causes. When the Cariboo which ran between Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, and certain ore boats were sunk, many felt proper patrol had not been furnished. Yet navy vessels were tied up at the port of Halifax. I am not offering any criticism, but I think the minister should make a statement with regard to the cost of repairs and the time it takes to carry them out. The item we are now considering is for *167,571,202, and covers the upkeep of ships.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: It
is impossible to keep a ship at sea for 365 days in the year, but there are people who think that should be done. Every time they see a ship at Halifax, Saint John or Sydney or in any other port they express surprise. It just cannot be done because ships must come in for a refit or repair, sometimes made necessary by enemy action, o:r sometimes by ordinary marine casualty. Instead of spending too much time in port, I think our men are being driven too much. Some have not been having the leave they should have. As my hon. friend knows, much of this repair work is carried on in private yards. A considerable strain has been placed upon these yards as well as upon our own dockyards. The skilled men are not available. When you enlarge an industry some twenty or thirty times, as we have the shipbuilding industry, you are bound to have a good deal of dilution; you will have many green men. The result is that repairs .are not carried on as rapidly as they would be in peace time when experienced shipwrights were available everywhere. I can say, however, that so far as we are concerned we are hastening the repairs of ships just as much as possible. We are not allowing ships to remain in ports any longer than is absolutely necessary, and so far as I know no sinkings have occurred anywhere through any carelessness or complacency in these respects.


Mr. ISNOR:: Does the hon. member refer to ships being repaired at H.M.C. dockyards or the Halifax shipyard?


Percy Chapman Black: I made no special complaint about any particular yard.

I was referring to some misgivings that for some reason or another some of our ships have been in port when they should have been performing useful and necessary services in connection with convoy duties. Again I wish to point out that there is not the slightest reflection on the crews of these ships; there is the utmost good-will toward them on the part of people in the seaport towns of Nova Scotia, but I think it well to get an explanation and some reassurance from the minister that there is no cause for complaint in this regard.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I agree entirely with the thought expressed by the minister in regard to the time spent ashore by the crews of these ships. I was anxious to ascertain just what the hon. member for Cumberland had in mind in seeking this information, because I know that the workmen at both H.M.C. dockyard and the Halifax shipyard' are working at top speed practically all the time. It must be borne in mind also that many of the ships of the Canadian navy are old, particularly those which were turned over to us by the United States.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Twenty-five years old.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: They range from twenty-five tb thirty years old and require a great deal more attention than do the more modern ships. If I remember correctly, I believe it is estimated that they require something like thirty out of every ninety days for overhaul and general repair, which means that the average twenty-five-year old destroyer must spend one-third of the time in port being overhauled.
While I am on my feet I feel that as one member from the maritimes I should take exception to the attitude which has been exhibited by the hon. member for St. John-Al'bert. Like the minister, I was at a loss to follow the reasoning of the hon. member in his questions not only this evening but also a few days ago. He took exception to the amount of money being spent in the maritime provinces in construction, andi in general to the expenditures in connection with the expansion of the Royal Canadian Navy. It may be true that in New Brunswick not as much has been spent as the hon. member would like, but on the other hand an exceptionally large amount has been spent in Nova Scotia. Any member from the maritimes, or any member [DOT]who had an opportunity of visiting Nova Scotia in 1940 and viewing the work being done by the navy at H.M.C. dockyard, Halifax, would appreciate at once the common sense and reasonableness displayed by the officials of

War Appropriation-Naval Services
the navy department in making those expenditures there. It is the natural gateway for outgoing and incoming ships, both Canadian and British. Any hon. member would appreciate the manner in which convoys are assembled in Halifax harbour and Bedford basin, that great sheet of water four miles wide by six miles long where the combined fleets can assemble and manoeuvre at any time, where convoys can be drawn up and taken out to sea.
I say it does not become any member from the maritimes to be critical in regard to the expenditures in that part of Canada, which certainly is doing its part not only so far as the army is concerned but also, and principally, so far as the navy is concerned. I know that in the early days the navy department could not accept all those from the fishing villages who wished to join up; they were postponed time and again. With regard to enlistments in the army, the percentage figure for Nova Scotia is something like 44-1 per cent as against 12 per cent or as low as 9 per cent for some of the other provinces. So also have we made an exceptionally fine showing in regard to enlistments in the navy. Therefore I say to the minister that we appreciate the money that has been spent in Nova Scotia, and I do not believe the people of the maritimes will accept with good grace the statement of the hon. member for St. John-Albert, in somewhat slighting terms, that perhaps the fact that three ministers of the cabinet came from Nova Scotia accounted for the large amount of money spent in that province. I say it is a credit to Nova Scotia to have in the cabinet three men such as the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston), the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley), and the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services (Mr. Macdonald). I think it is to the credit of any province that it can produce such men. Instead of criticizing the efforts of one particular minister from the maritimes, I think every maritime member should be ready to compliment the minister upon the excellent work he is doing for Canada.
If the hour were not so late, Mr. Chairman, I should like to offer one or two further observations. I do not know whether or not this item will be carried over until to-morrow, but perhaps I might proceed to present one or two criticisms or rather suggestions. Coming up on the train a short time ago, I talked with a number of ratings, who questioned the wisdom of the minister's statement with respect to the use of aircraft carriers in a navy such as ours. I do not wish to hold up the estimates, so that I shall proceed 72537-2241
to enlarge upon this thought as quickly as possible; it is offered to the minister not as expert opinion but rather so that he might think it over. It is suggested that instead of an expenditure such as would be entailed in connection with an aircraft carrier, the money would be better invested in a cruiser or cruisers or in high-powered tribal-class destroyers, such as we are now adding to the navy. A craft more powerful and faster can carry out the duties which I believe rests with this country,, namely, that of convoying and defending the ships which are carrying munitions and supplies and troops overseas. I could enlarge on that to a great extent, but the hour is late, and I shall reserve anything further until a later date. I thought, however, I should at least take my stand in support of the minister, who is doing his best. The people of Nova Scotia know he is doing his best to bring about the object for which we are all striving, namely that Canada may have a navy of which she may be justly proud.
l^Ir. HAZEN:	The senior member for
Halifax (Mr. Isnor) has just made reference to my remarks in the house on Tuesday afternoon or evening in connection with the discrimination shown against New Brunswick by this government, since the commencement of the war. He takes exception to my attitude.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: General attitude.


Douglas King Hazen: My general attitude. He is at a loss to understand just why I should protest and why I should demand, on behalf of my province, that it get a fair share of war activities and war expenditures.


John Ritchie MacNicol: You would be slow if you did not protest.


Douglas King Hazen: As a member representing a New Brunswick constituency I have the absolute right to protest. And I will add that so long as this discrimination continues I propose to rise in my place in the house on every available opportunity and protest against this obvious discrimination. In making my protest I do not have to cite any prejudiced or partisan authorities. The other evening I quoted a statement by the Hon. J. B. McNair, premier of New Brunswick and a supporter of this government. This is what he said 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.
I concur absolutely in his remarks. The sooner the tactics of discrimination and favouritism are abandoned, the better. Thirty million dollars spent by the navy department

War Appropriation-Naval Services
since the outbreak of war for the erection of buildings and the purchase of land in Nova Scotia; yes, thirty millions of dollars, in the province from which the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services and the Minister of Finance cornel Of course there is no politics in that! Oh, no, we are all above anything like that! Nobody would think of anything like that in this house-Liberals on that side of the house, or Liberals in Nova Scotia! Nobody would think of anything like that! But just the same, thirty millions of dollars were spent in Nova Scotia, while during the same time in New Brunswick it spent just $19,000!
Am I justified in protesting about discrimination and unfairness of that kind? While New Brunswick is not quite as large as Nova Scotia, yet it is nearly as large, and in every way it has contributed its fair share to the furtherance of the war effort. Have I no right to protest when discrimination of that kind exists? I repeat what I said last night, that if Ripley, the cartoonist, whose drawings appear every day in the newspapers, were furnished with these figures, he would have material for another illuminating cartoon.
I do not wish to repeat everything I said the other night. The senior member from Halifax may be at a loss to understand my attitude. But let me tell him this-and he may take it to heart-that the people of New Brunswick will not be at a loss to understand my attitude, and the stand I have taken in this matter.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: And thereby hangs a tale.


Douglas King Hazen: Thereby hangs a tale, yes; and it will be more than a "tail" that will hang, I can tell you, at the next election.
Let me say to the senior member for Halifax that I do not envy Nova Scotia anything she gets, or anything to which she is justly and fairly entitled. At an earlier session I ' spoke on the floor of the house about the lack of assistance and the lack of contracts for war munitions and supplies awarded not only to New Brunswick, but to Nova Scotia as well. Time does not permit my looking up my remarks, or making reference to what I said on that occasion. But at that time I spoke not only for New Brunswick but for Nova Scotia. I was speaking for the maritime provinces. On that occasion I quoted from the Rowell-Sirois report the statement that New Brunswick shares with Nova Scotia the unhappy distinction of having the most unfavourable economic history of any part of Canada since confederation. The statement made by the commission at that time was, I believe, correct.
C&tr. Hazen.]
It is only as the maritime provinces stand together and work in their own interests that conditions will ever be improved.
But, sir, that is one thing. It is another thing for me to rise in my place in the house and protest against the lack of capital assistance received by New Brunswick for war industries; the lack of assistance we have been given in other respects; the manner in which we have been disregarded in connection with the establishment of air fields, air establishments, military establishments and naval establishments since the war commenced.
I do not wish to read into the record what I said the other night. For the present I shall let the matter remain as it is.
There are one or two questions that I asked the minister which he has not yet answered.
Item stands.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, June 11, 1943