1944-03-16

[Stage Direction]
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): I rise to a question of privilege arising out of an article published on the front page of the Vancouver Sun of Wednesday, March 8. The article reads:
Government May Get Rid of "Vocalamity".
That is a new word. I pronounce it differently from the way in which it is spelled because it sounds so bad when it is correctly pronounced.
Mr. HOMUTH:: Will the hon. member speak louder? We cannot hear him at all.


Mr. POULIOT:: Thank you. I continue with the quotation :
From the Vancouver Sun Ottawa Bureau.
Ottawa, March 8-Amid all the talk about parliamentary reform, a major step in that direction is being considered very quietly in Ottawa. The step is naming Jean Francois Pouliot, the too-talkative member from Temis-couata, to the Board of Transport Commissioners.
While observers say it would be a surprising appointment, the price might not be too great to pay for the ending of his lengthy speeches-
By the way, Mr. Speaker, I did not address the house since Thursday of last week.
-his bitter attacks on Defence Minister Ralston, and his criticisms of war expenditures.
He isn't just too talkative, he's "a vocalamity."
Accompanying the article is a picture of the person about whom it is written. Now, sir, may I make a brief answer. It is this. The writer of this article wants to cut the grass under the feet of the official press reporter of the senate. He wants to get the job of Tom Green in the senate. He is a nasty little fellow. For the rest, the article is perfectly untrue.



INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have a few announcements to make to the house. First of all may I say that the Australia-New Zealand agreement of 1944, which the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) asked to have printed, has now been printed and copies are available in the library or they may be obtained from the Clerk of the House.
I should like to commend this document to the hon. members as an illuminating example of the flexible and effective methods of cooperation between countries of the British commonwealth.



EMBASSIES


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As hon. members are
aware, the government of Canada and the government of Mexico have agreed to exchange diplomatic missions. I have pleasure in informing the house that the Hon. W. F. A. Turgeon has been appointed the first Canadian Ambassador to Mexico.
Mr. Turgeon's career is well known, but I should like to place on Hansard the following points of interest: Mr. Turgeon only recently returned from Buenos Aires. He was appointed first Canadian Minister to Argentina and Chile in September, 1941. Prior to that time he had a long career at the bar and on the bench culminating in his appointment as Chief Justice of Saskatchewan. Before going to the bench. Mr. Turgeon was a member of the legislature of Saskatchewan and Attorney
Resignation oj Judge McTague

General of that province. He has also served with distinction on royal commissions regarding the grain trade and the textile industry.
It is my understanding that the Mexican government are to-day announcing the appointment of Doctor Francisco Del Rio Canedo as Mexican Ambassador to Canada. Doctor Del Rio's diplomatic career has also included the posts of Mexican Minister in Uruguay, and Mexican Ambassador in Guatemala.


Mr. GRAYDON:: Will the Prime Minister give the house such information as he possesses with respect to the replacement of the Hon. Mr. Turgeon as minister to Argentina?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I may say to my hon. friend that the government does not contemplate making an immediate appointment of a successor of Mr. Turgeon in the Argentine. The Charge d'Affaires, Mr. Kirkwood, is in charge of the office at the present time.



MINISTER OF FINANCE


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like to mention to hon. members that on Sunday evening last the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) left for Washington where he has been during the last few days taking up matters of financial relations between the two countries with Mr. Morgenthau, the United States Secretary of the Treasury. I am glad to be able to say that I have been able to persuade the Minister of Finance to take a very much needed rest. It has been with the greatest difficulty that he has agreed to remain away from his official duties for a few weeks. I am sure that the house will share the feelings I have just expressed at the Minister of Finance having at last agreed to take this very much needed rest. No minister of the crown, I believe, has $yer given himself more completely to the duties of his office or has had more difficult problems to contend with than has the Minister of Finance since the beginning of the war. I would express the hope that he may come back very much reinvigorated by the short absence that he will have. My colleague, the Minister of Defence (Mr. Ralston) is the acting minister of finance in the absence of the minister.



WAR LABOUR BOARDS


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I wish to announce to hon. 
members that the Hon. Mr. Justice McTague has tendered his resignation as chairman of the national war labour board and the government has felt obliged, in the circumstances which have had to be considered, regretfully to accept Mr. McTague's resignation.
I should like to read the letters which have been exchanged between Mr. McTague and myself. I shall read first Mr. Justice McTague's letter to me:
Canada
National War Labour Board Ottawa,
March 8, 1944.
The Right Honourable W. L. Mackenzie King, P.C.,	*
Prime Minister of Canada,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Dear Mr. Prime Minister:
As I advised you in our conference of two weeks ago, I have made up my mind to resigD as chairman of the national war labour board. I have consulted the Minister of Labour and now ask you to accept the resignation as of March 17.
May I say, so that there will be no misunderstanding, my decision is not based on any differences with the government nor with the Minister of Labour personally. While the new wages order and the new labour code are perhaps not as I would personally devise them. I recognize the government's responsibility for them. As an administrator it is no function of mine to criticize. As a matter of fact I think the new code represents a milestone in labour relations and an excellent start. No doubt with experience amendments will prove necessary in both orders. That is to be expected in the natural course of things.
As I explained to you in conversation, I feel that what I set out to do on your invitation is completed to a point where someone else can now take over with a degree of confidence. The past year has been a particularly arduous one for me and I am rather tired. Besides I feel that I have been away from law too long. As you know I have spent more than three and one-half years in Ottawa on the work of the war contracts depreciation board and the national war labour board.
May I thank you personally and the other ministers for the manner in which you have all cooperated with me in my work. If some of fhy public statements have proved embarrassing at times I am sorry but I still think I must have been right.
Sincerely yours,
C. P. McTague.
My reply to Mr. Justice McTague is as follows:	It was written to-day.
Office of the Prime Minister
Ottawa, 16th March, 1944.
Hon. C. P. McTague,
Chairman, National War Labour Board,
Ottawa.
My dear Mr. Justice McTague:
I duly received your letter of the 8th of March, and have delayed its acknowledgment

Labour Relations Board
until to-day in the hope that you might find it possible to reconsider your decision and to continue as chairman of the board for at least a few months longer. From my conversations with you I understand fully the circumstances which have prompted your action, and which cause you to feel that you must adhere to the decision you had practically reached some little time before your letter was written. I have to-day communicated the contents of your letter to my colleagues in the cabinet. It is with regret that the government feels it should accede to your request and accept your resignation as chairman of the national war labour board.
I should like to take this opportunity to express anew the appreciation felt by the government of the signal service you have rendered to Canada's war effort in your capacity as chairman of the national war labour board throughout a very difficult year in the life of the board; also of the services you had previously rendered over a period of two and one-half years on the war contracts depreciation board.
I should like to add a word of warm personal appreciation of the uniformly lielpful and cordial relations which we have enjoyed during the whole of the period you have served as chairman of the board, and of your readiness throughout that time to be of such assistance to the government as lay within your power.
In the light of the strenuous nature of your duties I can well understand your present feelings of fatigue. I hope that being relieved of some of the pressure under which you have been working, you may speedily regain the resiliency of mind and spirit which in the past you have greatly enjoyed.
With kindest personal regards,
Yours sincerely,
W. L. Mackenzie King.
Mr. MaoINNIS: Has a successor to the Hon. Mr. Justice McTague been appointed, and, if not, will the functions of the board be continued in the meantime?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The successor will be announced as soon as he is appointed. I do not contemplate that there will be a delay of any length of time in the appointment of a successor. In the meantime the board will continue to function.



WARTIME LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD-APPOINTMENT AND PERSONNEL

[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour); I wish to announce that His Excellency the Governor in Council to-day approved of P.C. 1S95, establishing the wartime labour relations board for the purpose of administering the war-time labour relations regulations provided by P.C. 1003 of February 17 last. Mr. Justice G. B. O'Connor of the trials division of the Supreme Court of Alberta has been appointed chairman, and Mr. Justice J. N. Francoeur, of the Court of King's Bench of Quebec, vice-chairman.
The other members of the board are; Representing the employers, Mr. Harry Taylor,
Toronto; Mr. W. H. Brown, Toronto; Mr. A. Deschamps, Montreal, and Mr. A. J. Hills, Montreal. Representing employees are Mr. A. R. Mosher, Ottawa; Mr. W. L. Best, Ottawa ; Mr. Fred Molineux, Hamilton, and Mr. R. Harmegnies, St. Joseph di'Alma, Quebec. The representatives of the employers were selected after consultation with the Canadian Manufacturers Association, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Construction Association, and the Railway Association of Canada. Mr. Taylor represents the manufacturers' association, Mr. Brown the chamber of commerce, Mr. Deschamps the construction association and Mr. Hills the railway association. The gentlemen representing labour were appointed after consultation with the four major labour organizations in Canada. Mr. Mosher represents the Canadian Congress of Labour; Mr. Molineux the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada; Mr. Best the railroad brotherhoods, and Mr. Harmegnies the Canadian and Catholic Confederation of Labour. The members of this new board will meet shortly to organize and set up the machinery for the carrying out of their important work, which I sincerely feel will contribute in substantial measure to the creation of good relations between employers and employees in the Dominion of Canada.
I now table a copy of the order in council in question.

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

Mr. BLACKMORE:: How many employees in Alberta are on the payroll of the Department of Agriculture at Ottawa?


Mr. GARDINER:: 381 full-time employees; 27 part-time employees.


HALIFAX FREIGHT HANDLERS POOL-STAFF HOUSES
Mr. ISNOR:: 1.	How many staff houses were constructed by the Department of Transport in Halifax, Nova Scotia, to accommodate men employed in the so-called freight handlers pool?
2.	What was the total cost of construction and furnishing of same?
3.	How many will each house accommodate?
4.	How many men were registered and actually occupying rooms as on December 31, 1943?
5.	What rental and board per man per day is charged?
6.	What has been the total cost of construction, furnishing and maintenance from date of erection to December 31, 1943?
7.	What has been the total revenue for rental and board to December 31, 1943?
Questions


Mr. MICHAUD:: 1.	Five bunk houses, 1 dining hall, 1 hiring hall for longshoremen. The units are provided for the joint occupation of C.N.R. freight handlers and men of the longshoremen's reserve pool.
2.	Total cost not yet available. Amount to date is $310,472.53. Estimated final cost is $328,939.12.
3.	Bunk houses 1, 3 and 4 accommodate 144 men each; bunk houses 2 and 5 each accommodate 160 men-total 752 men.
4.	On December 31 there were 405 men registered and occupying rooms. This was during the holiday period. The week prior to this there was an average of 546 men.
5.	No rental charge. Boarding rate is $1.25 per man per day, which is deducted from the men's wages and paid to the boarding contractor.
6.	Total cost of construction and furnishing
to December 31,	1943 was $293,930.62;
maintenance $1,247.62; heat $1,174.14; light $1,317.53; watchman service $2,227.17; janitor service $1,216.44, total $301,113.52.
7.	No revenue to government. See answer to question 5.


PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE-REVENUE AND BONUSES-ADMINISTRATION COSTS
Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: 1.	What were the total proceeds from the one per cent levy collected under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act from, (a) the 1941 crop; (b) the 1942 crop; (c) the 1943 crop?
2.	What was the total amount paid out in bonuses during each of the above crop years in the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta respectively?
3.	What was the total amount spent for administration in each of the above crop years and in each of the above named provinces?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	(a) $1,459,482; (b) $2,728,753.03; (c) $1,827,862.85 (to January 31, 1944).
2-	1941-42 Crop Year-August 1, 1941, to July 31, 1942
.	1940	1941	1943Province	Programme	Programme	ProgrammeAlberta	
$26,005	36	$ 2,994,561	82Saskatchewan	
31,514	74	11,682,893	00Manitoba	
1,920	80	36,324	941942-	43 Crop Year-August 1, 1942, to July 31, 1943.	1940	1941	1943Province	Programme	Programme	ProgrammeAlberta	
$	772 59	$ 476,982 18Saskatchewan	
nil	316,830	00Manitoba	
nil	1,365	201943-	44 Crop Year-August 1, 1943, to January 21, 1944.	1940	1941	1943Province	Programme Programme ProgrammeAlberta	
nil	$	4,567	78	$ 943,282 35Saskatchewan	'	
nil	4,551 00	1,946,155 69Manitoba	
nil	nil	nil
3.
Province	1941	1942	1943Manitoba	
$ 15,189 57	$ 5,592 69	$ 4,883 17Saskatchewan	
353,437 70	89,149 98	138,821 71Alberta	
104,197 89	26,816 51	46,244 49


PERMITS TO PURCHASE TIRES-SASKATCHEWAN
Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: What are the names, addresses and occupation of all persons in the province of Saskatchewan who, up until December 31, 1943, were granted permits to purchase tires for passenger cars?


Mr. CHEVRIER:: The number of permits issued for passenger car tires and tubes in the
[Mr. Isnor.l
province of Saskatchewan from the inception of rationing (May 15, 1942) to December 31, 1943, was 48,644.
It is the policy of the department not to give names, addresses, occupation, etc., of citizens or firms granted or refused permits.

Questions


CANADIANS OR BRITISH IN CANADA SUBJECT TO UNITED STATES MILITARY LAW
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	Are Canadians or British subjects in any
part of Canada subject in whole or in part to United States military law?	.
2.	If so, where, and under what circumstances?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:
1.	Yes.
2.	Anywhere in Canada if they are members of the armed forces of the United States and are stationed or on military duty in Canada.


POSTAL SERVICE-USE OF FOREIGN POSTAGE
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	Are there any post offices located in Canada where foreign postage is accepted for the transmission of letters?
2.	If so, how many?
3.	What are the particulars of the arrangements under which this course is made possible?


Mr. MULOCK:: There are no Canadian post offices at which mail would be accepted prepaid with foreign postage.
At certain centres the United States army provide postal facilities for their personnel, and carriage of the mail is furnished entirely by United States army facilities in accordance with their requirements.
It is not considered in the public interest to disclose the location of these centres.
boards AND COMMISSIONS


Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: 1. How many boards, commissions and/or bureaus, appointed under federal government authority, are now in existence, and what is the name designate of each?
2-. How many persons are employed by each such board, commission and/or bureau?


Mr. McLARTY:: A return passed on the motion of the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Esling) on February 16 was tabled to-day. The information asked in that order was almost identical with the questions which have been asked by the hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser). I wonder if the hon. member would be kind enough to drop this question and look at the information in the return which has been given. Perhaps after that, if he desires any further information, he might put his question on the order paper again.


Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: Could we not let the question stand for the time being?


Norman Alexander McLarty: The questions were identical, and I am quite sure the hon. member will be content to drop his question, subject to the understanding that if he requires further information which is not contained in that return they might be placed on the order paper again.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: In the same terms-very well, under those circumstances.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Dropped.


RESERVE ARMY-TOTAL COST
Mr. WHITE:: What has been the total cost of the reserve army, by districts, in each of the years 1940, 1941, 1942 and 1943?


Mr. MACDONALD (Halifax):: Estimated cost of the Reserve Army by Districts		for 1940-41, 1941-42, 1942-43 and 1943-44		
Military				
Districts	1940-41	1941-42	1942-43	1943-44No. 1 	
$1,224,863	$1,174,257	$1,215,204	$1,162,013No. 2 	
2,741,360	2,628,102	2,719,751	2,600,697No. 3 	
1,283,190	1,230,174	1,273,071	1,217,347No. 4 	
2,158,093	2,068,929	2,141,075	2,047,357No. 5 	
1.151,955	1,104,360	1,142,871	1,092,846No. 6 	
1,239,445	1,188,236	2,229,671	1,175,847No. 7 	
816,575	782,838	810,136	774,675No. 10 	
1,020,719	978,547	1,012,670	968,344Pacific Comd	1,160,277	1,200,738	1,148,184No. 12 	
860,320	824,775	853,536	816,176No. 13 	
874,902	838,755	868,003	830,009Total 	$13,979,250	$14,466,726	$13,833,495Note.-The above estimate	of costs have taken the following into	account: Pay	and allowances; travel, transportation and freight; construction and repairs; operating expenses of properties; clothing and necessaries; personal equipment; barrack, camp and miscellaneous equipment; supplies-food, forage, etc.; medical stores and services; dental stores and services; signal and wireless equipment, ammunition, armament stores, MT vehicles and tanks; operating costs of mechanical and water transport; printing and stationery, sundries.
With the exception of pay and allowances, and travel and transportation wherein actual expenditures were recorded, the various objects of expenditure above described were estimated
Questions

for the strength (in man-years where applicable) of the reserve army; and then broken down by districts in accordance with the relative district strengths, in each of the years under consideration.


PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE-DUGOUTS-MANITOBA
[Stage Direction]
Mr. MATTHEWS;
In what municipalities in Manitoba have dugouts been completed under the P.F.R.A., and how many in each municipality?
James Garfield Gardiner: Question 1	Question 2
Municipality-
Archie	 142
Albert	 241
Arthur	 96
Argyle	 1
Assiniboia	 2
Birtle	 17
Blanshard	 44
Brenda	 172
Cameron	 127
Cartier	 26
Charleswood	 2
Daly	 44
Dufferin	 238
DeSalaberry	   63
Edward	 150
Ellice	:	 8
Elton	 57
Franklin	,	 187
Glenella	 21
Grey	 202
Glenwood	 30
Harrison	 11
Hamiota	 2
Lansdowne	 100
Lakeview	 25
Langford	 42
Lome	 7
Louise	 2
Minto	 20
Miniota	 1
Morton	 63
Macdonald	 312
Morris	  414
McCreary	 10
Montcalm	 236
North Norfolk	 93
Odanah	 127
Oakland	 2
Pipestone	 227
Portage la Prairie	 198
Pembina	 14
Russell	 1
Riverside	 60
Rosedale	 32
Roland	 133
Roblin	 2
Richot	 14
IMr. W. C. MacDonald.]
Rhineland	 697
Shellmouth	 1
Silver Creek	 l
Shoal Lake	 1
Saskatchewan	 140
South Cypress	   1
South Norfolk	 27
Strathcona	 1
Stanley	 115
St. Francois Xavier	 3
Springfield	 1
Turtle Mountain	 20
Thompson	 106
Wallace	 198
Woodworth	 33
Whitehead	 47
Whitewater	 2
Winchester	,	81
Westbourne	 236
Town of Emerson	 6


GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT- DR. AIME CHARTIER
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	Is Dr. Aime Chartier, of Montreal, employed in connection with the work of the Government Employees''Compensation Act? If so, how much was paid to him for all services connected therewith, (a) for the year 1943; (b) for the year 1944 to date?
2.	Have any accounts been rendered by Dr. Chartier which are as yet unpaid? If so, what is the total amount thereof for the said periods?


Mr. MICHAUD:: 1.	Dr. Aime Chartier of Montreal, is employed as medical expert and treating physician in connection with the work of the Government Employees' Compensation Act.
Amount paid to Dr. Chartier for all services connected therewith: (a) For the year 1943, $41,869.25; (b) For the year 1944-to March 9, $6,218.00.
2.	Accounts rendered by Dr. Chartier and not yet paid (outstanding current accounts in process of audit) (approximately), $1,800.


PRICES-ALUMINUM INGOTS
Mr. KNOWLES:: 1.	What was the gross price per pound for aluminum ingots charged by the Aluminum Company of Canada, Limited, as at January 1, 1943, to Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia?
2.	On what dates^ since January 1, 1943, have changes been made in the above prices, and what changes were made on these dates to each of the above countries?
3.	What is the present gross price per pound to each of the above countries?

Questions


Mr. CHEVRIER:: 1.	The price per pound for aluminum ingot charged by the Aluminum Company of Canada Limited as at January 1, 1943, is as follows: (a) To Canada: There were no sales.
(b)	To the United States: the Department of Munitions and Supply is unable to supply this information. The company bills the United States government direct through its agent, the Metals Reserve- Company, (c) To the United Kingdom: Base price, 16 cents per pound; escalator price, 1st quarter, 1943, 5-5 cents per pound; 2nd quarter, 1943, 6 cents per pound; 3rd quarter, 1943, 6 cents per pound; 4th quarter, 1943, 5-5 cents per pound: average escalator price for 1943, 5'75 cents per pound; gross price, 21-75 cents per pound, (d) To Australia: The Department of Munitions and Supply is unable to supply this information. The company bills the government of the Commonwealth of Australia direct.
2.	(a) To Canada: Answered by 1 (a), (b) To the United States: Answered by l'(b).
(c)	To the United Kingdom: Base price, 15-5 cents per pound-as at November 1, 1943; escalator price, the price fluctuates quarterly; average for 12 months is shown in 1 (c); gross price, 21-25 cents per pound, (d) To Australia: Answered by 1 (d). .
3.	There was no change in base price to United Kingdom from that effective November 1, 1943. The escalator price is not available until after the first quarter of 1944.


GASOLINE RATIONING-AIR RAID PRECAUTIONS
Mr. REID:: Of the 1,879 granted extra gasoline for duties in connection with air raid precautions, how many of those granted extra gasoline are located in Toronto and Ottawa?


Lionel Chevrier: Special categories for
allotment of gasoline for A.R.P. duties in Ontario were issued as follows as of December 31,
1943:
From the	Toronto office	
1,549From the	Ottawa office	
161From the	Windsor office	
169Total for Ontario	
1,879
The figures for those residing in the cities of Toronto and Ottawa are not readily available. Each city mentioned above takes in the surrounding cities, towns and district adjacent thereto.


INDUSTRIAL USES FOR MANITOBA CEREAL CORN AND POTATO CROPS
Mr. WINKLER:: 1.	Is investigation and research into the uses of Manitoba grown cereal corn and potato crop for starch being made or contemplated?
2.	Have any other uses for industrial purposes for these crops been investigated?


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: 1.	Certain investigations on corn produced in Manitoba are being carried on by the associate committee on grain research of the national research council. It is proposed to expand these studies as facilities permit. Investigations into possibilities for drying root crops, such as potatoes, are contemplated in the future as facilities permit.
2.	Fermentation of starch-bearing crops to butylene glycol and other chemicals is actively under investigation and this will be extended to cover cereals and root crops as facilities and staff permit.


GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PARTIES
Mr. ROY:: From 1920 to 1943 inclusive, when and how many geologist parties have been sent by the dominion government, (a) in the province of Quebec; (b) in the province of British Columbia; (e) in the Gaspe peninsula; (d) in the county of Charlevoix-Saguenay ?
Mr.	MACKINNON (Edmonton West): (a) (b) (c) (d) British Gaspe Charlevoix-Quebec Columbia Peninsula Saguenay		
1920	1	9	1921	3	9	i .!1922	3	9	1923	7 .	7	2 11924	5	9	1 ..1925	7	13	1 ..1926	6	9	1 ..1927	5	9	1 ..1928	5	9	1 ..1929	6	7	2 ..1930	9	8	3 ..1931	5	6	1 ..1932	6	6	1933	5	4	1934	6	5	1935	8	11	1936	6	10	1937	7	9	1938	6	8	1939	4	7	1940	7	4	1941	7	6	1942	5	9	1943	3	8	
Note.-It was a condition of union of British Columbia with the Dominion of Canada that Canada would assume and defray the charges of the geological survey.
Questions


HOSPITAL ACCOMMODATION FOR B.C. TUBERCULOSIS PATIENTS
Mr. MacINNIS:: 1.	Has the government received any request from the government of the province of British Columbia for providing more hospital aecom-modtation for tuberculosis patients?
2.	If so, what action has the government taken in the matter?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: 1,	Yes.
2.	The government has authorized the purchase of additional land adjoining the Shaughnessy hospital property (and the necessary legal steps to complete the transaction are in progress) upon which to construct accommodation for 150 beds for cases of tuberculosis and other chest diseases, it being considered that these beds are required in addition to the 150 beds costing the federal government $495,767 which were provided at Tranquille Sanatorium, Kamloops, at which institution are now being treated 34 departmental patients at federal expense.
gallup POLL


Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	What is the Gallup poll; what public control is there over it, and who are its officers?
2.	Has the government a copy of Gallup poll voters' list?
3.	How many of its officers have served in this war, and in what theatres, and are its pronouncements under public control?
4.	Will any steps be taken to censor or regulate it?
5.	Who are the writers of this poll, and who do they represent besides themselves?
6.	How many members of the Canadian parliament or of the legislatures of the various provinces or municipal councils have voted in this poll?


Norman Alexander McLarty: Perhaps I can answer this question orally. If by "public control" is meant government control, there is no control whatsoever. This is a private enterprise; it is not even incorporated, so that the information concerning the officers, requested in paragraph 3, could not possibly be given. In question 4 the hon. member asks whether any steps will be taken to censor or regulate this organization. It being a private enterprise, it is subject to all the laws and regulations with regard to censorship and all other matters, that apply to private enterprises in this country. Perhaps with that explanation, and bearing in mind that the government has no information which would enable it to answer questions 5 and 6, the hon. member might be willing to drop his question.


Mr. CHURCH:: I believe the censorship regulations should be applied in this case,
TMr. J. A. MacKinnon.]
for I think also there has been a breach of the defence of Canada regulations. This poll is a fraud on the public and political propaganda in wartime; it causes disunity at a time like this. It is just an American fake; it is all Gallup and no poll.


SOCIAL SECURITY-PENSIONS, ETC.
Mr. RAYMOND:: Will anything be done by the government to implement the recommendation made last session by the special committee on social security that the advisability of lowering the pensionable age and increasing the amount of pension in connection with old age pensions, pensions to the blind and veterans' allowances, be considered?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This question relates to matters of policy and it is not the practice of the government to disclose policy in giving answers to questions.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: 1.	What expenditures have been made by the government and Department of National Defence since the commencement of the war on properties of the maritime winter fair commission and the maritime stock breeders association at Amherst, Nova Scotia, stating names of contractors and sums paid each for, (a) improvements and additions to buildings; (b) heating and plumbing; (c) fittings and furnishings; (d) total expenditures?
2.	To whom have rentals been paid, stating amounts?


NIAGARA-ON-THE-LAKE MILITARY CAMP
Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: 1.	What was the total capital expenditure since January 1, 1939, on Niagara-on-the-Lake military camp, (a) on construction; (b) on equipment?
2.	How many men in training were passed through the camp records during the years 1939, 1940. 1941, 1942, 1943, and what was the largest number of men in training at any one time during each year?
3.	How many men in training are at present resident in the camp?
4.	How many officers and men of the ranks are on the camp staff as instructors, camp management, kitchen staff and duties other than in training?


CORN, BEANS AND PEAS
Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: 1.	What stock of the following are on hand as at March 1, 1944: canned corn, canned beans, canned peas?
2.	Are there any unfilled orders on hand for canned corn, canned beans, canned peas for Britain or elsew-here?
3.	Is it expected sufficient corn, beans and peas will be produced for domestic and export market for 1944?

Questions as Orders {or Returns
4.	Are any supplies of canned corn, beans and peas being accumulated for export to occupied countries after the war? If not, why not?
5.	Have canned corn, beans and peas been rationed in Canada? If not, why, and are they rationed now?
6.	What is the average cost of production of corn, beans and peas in each province?
7.	What is the minimum wage paid in vegetable canneries for males and females in each province for the following years: 1938, 1939, 1949, 1941, 1942, 1943?
8.	What rate was paid per ton for each grade of corn, beans and peas by the canneries in each province during 1943?
9.	Have any representations been made to the government regarding subsidies on corn, beans and peas? If so, by whom, and what amou] t was recommended in each case?


BEEP AND CATTLE
Mr. SENN:: 1.	Has the export of live cattle from' Canada to the United States been forbidden during the months of December, 1943, and January and February, 1944, and to date? If so, on what authority, and by whose orders?
2.	Has there been any form of embargo by the United States authorities against the importation into the United States of live cattle from Canada during the past, (a) three months, or (b) the past six months prior to March 6, 1944?
3.	How many head of cattle were left over, unpurchased at the close of trading on the Toronto live stock market on Monday, March 6, 1944?
4.	Has there been any shortage of beef for, (a) military purposes, or (b) ordinary civilian use during the past two months prior to March 6, 1944?


WARTIME PRICES AND TRADE BOARD- NEW BRUNSWICK
Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: 1.	How many wartime prices and trade board offices are there in New Brunswick?
2.	Where are they located?
3.	How many officials are attached to each office, and what are their grades?
4.	What are the names, positions and home addresses of each of these employees of each of these offices?
5.	What are the salaries and other remunerations received by each of these employees?
6.	How many of these employees are returned soldiers, (a) of the war of 1914-18; (b) of the present war?
7.	Who recommended these employees, and how were they appointed?
8.	If these appointments were made by the civil service commission, were they made after examinations?
9.	Who were the examiners, and at what places were such examinations held?


CANADLVN FORCES-ENLISTMENTS- RACIAL ORIGINS
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	What is the total enlistment for overseas service to date in, (a) the navy; (b) the army; (c) the air force?
2.	What is the breakdown of said figures on the basis of racial origin?


William Chisholm Macdonald: In reference to the second part of the question, as far as the army is concerned the information is not available. There is no record of the racial origin of army personnel.


Mr. POWER:: With respect to the air force, there may be some record of racial origin as far as English-speaking and French-speaking personnel are concerned, but certainly there would be no record of racial origin to take in Scotch, Irish, Swedish, Norwegian and so on.
Mr. SPEAKER-Dropped?


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: No. Mr. Speaker. I should like to know whether this information is not available. We have in the armed services people of Ukrainian, Polish, Russian and German origin, and so on, and I believe all such information is in the possession of the authorities and should be made available. A similar question was asked in 1942, when it was said the information was not available in detail. As far as the division between Frenchspeaking and English-speaking is concerned, that is not what I want. I want the racial origin of all recruits.


Charles Gavan Power: I submit that any hon. member who considers this question will agree that it would be impossible to give an answer. Just consider the races which are most numerous in Canada, Scotch, Irish and English. Would it be possible for us to go through all the attestation papers to find out who were a man's grandfather and grandmother, and whether they came from Scotland, Ireland, England or any other part of Europe? I think the question in its present form is impossible to answer.


John George Diefenbaker: Very well.


Thomas Vien: Dropped.


Gordon Graydon: Perhaps I should not intervene at this time, but I should think the first part of the question could be answered quite readily.


Charles Gavan Power: Certainly.


William Chisholm Macdonald: There is no objection to that.


Thomas Vien: The first part of the question will stand, and the second part is dropped.


Mr. RALSTON:: Order for return.


Thomas Vien: The first part will be an order for return and the second part dropped.


LUMBER-PRICES AND SUBSIDIES.
Mr. BRUCE:: 1. What were the ceiling prices on lumber during* (a) 1942; and (b) 1943?
Visiting Prime Ministers

2.	Did increases occur during 1943? If so, on what date or dates did such, increases become effective, and what was the increase in each case?
3.	Were any subsidies paid or depletion allowances granted on lumber or saw-logs between October 1, 1942, and December 31, 1943, and if so, on what authority, and on what basis?
4.	What companies or persons received such payments of subsidies or depletion allowances on timber products or lumber during the period October 1, 1942, and December 31, 1943, and what was the amount paid or allowed in each case?


SCHEELITE IN THE YUKON
Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: 1.	What amounts, if any, were expended by the government in assisting the development of scheelite in the Yukon in 1943?
2.	To whom were said amounts paid; (a) what amount to each; (b) what for?
3.	Was part of such sums expended in wages?
4.	If so, (a) to whom were the same paid; (b) at what rates of pay; (c) how much to each?
5.	What amount of scheelite was recovered and received from Yukon by the government in 1943, in weight and value?
6.	What sums, if any, were paid, and to whom, for scheelite produced in Yukon in 1943?
7.	Are any sums owing to the government for advances made in 1943 to the producers of scheelite in Yukon? If so, by whom, and what amount is owing by each such person?



VISITING PRIME MINISTERS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Leader of the Opposition); I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister, of which I have given him notice. It has been intimated in the press that the Prime Minister of Australia plans to visit the United States within the very near future. Has an invitation been extended to Mr. Curtin asking him to include Canada in his itinerary? In the event of Mr. Curtin accepting such an invitation, can the Prime Minister give any information at the moment as to the approximate date of his visit to Canada?
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister); Some time ago, I extended the Right Hon. Mr. Curtin an invitation to visit Canada on his way to the meeting of prime ministers to be held in London at a forthcoming date. I am happy to say that in the reply received from Mr. Curtin he said he would be pleased indeed to visit Canada. At the time he was unable to say whether he would visit our country on his way to London or on his way back. I imagine Mr. Curtin may find it more convenient to pay his visit

on his return from the meeting overseas, when other matters may not be so pressing. I should like to say that it will mean very much to the government to have the opportunities of conference with Mr. Curtin on many matters of mutual interest to Australia and Canada, and I am sure the Canadian people will very much welcome a visit from Mr. Curtin.
I should like to add that if it is-possible for the Right Hon. Mr. Peter Fraser of New Zealand to pay another visit to Canada, either on his way to London or on his return, we should very much welcome such a visit on his part.
Speaking of the meeting of the prime ministers in London I was somewhat surprised to notice within the past day or two in one of the Canadian papers a lengthy statement to the effect that I myself might not be attending the meeting of premiers. From reading the article it was apparent to me it had been written for purposes of political mischief. I just w_ish to register a protest about statements of the kind being given publicity without my being given the opportunity of saying in advance whether or not there is any ground for such assertions. I mention this because I have noticed that there seems to be some new instrument at work in this country, which is continuously making references to matters which I am supposed to be doing, or that I am not going to do, most of which have no foundation at all. I should be pleased if those who attach importance to my doings or movements would, where the matters are important, kindly indicate a little in advance their intention to make public pronouncements and seek to ascertain the truth before inventing or spreading rumours.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw a matter to the attention of the Minister of National Defence

I am sorry I was unable to give him more notice of the question. Has the Department of National Defence under consideration the establishment of a scheme which would allow a service man with a long record of service to return for periods of furlough or service in Canada from active theatres of war? This matter was raised earlier by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbnker) and I now raise it again at this time because of the republication yesterday in the Montreal Star of an article

Defence of Canada Regulations
written by Honorary Major C. W. Bailey, which appears in the Eighth Army News. This dispatch from the Italian front would indicate that the question is a live issue among the servicemen there, and would seem to merit a statement by the minister. If he is not in a position to answer to-day, perhaps he will do it at some other time.


James Layton Ralston: Mr. Speaker, generally Your Honour has ruled that answers to questions such as these are not to be given immediately. However, I think this is a matter about which I might speak now, because I wish that there be no misapprehension with respect to it.
I say to the house and my hon. friend that the memorandum from the Royal Edmonton Regiment was received by me, and I might say that it is of a piece with the document I received some time ago from that same regiment in connection with the rehabilitation problem. It is a thoughtful and temperate document which is worthy of the traditions and the fine record of that very splendid regiment. It has had, and will continue to have, every attention.
The subject of leave for men overseas, it almost goes without saying, has had consideration steadily. As the leader of the opposition has said, it was mentioned by the hon. member for Lake Centre during the discussion of the war appropriation resolution. At that time, as reported at page 855 of Hansard, I said this:
I. am not in a position to make a statement on a matter of that kind, and the committee will understand why. Great events are pending and, if I took down correctly what my hon. friend said, he refers to a plan for rotating furloughs from certain areas and consideration being given to some foreign theatres. My hon. friend knows the location of our troops generally speaking, and I am not in a position to make an announcement of that kind to-night.
I can only add to that at this moment that operational conditions and shipping make it quite impracticable for me even to raise any hopes in this matter for the immediate or near future at least. I wish to add further that that does not mean that it will not continue to receive the attention it deserves, when changed conditions may warrant it. I should like to express the hope that nothing might be done which would indicate the possibility of favourable action at an early day. I think it is really only raising hopes which are not justified, and which possibly might create uneasiness at a time when we need steadiness perhaps as much as we have needed it at any time since the beginning of the War.



DEFENCE OF CANADA REGULATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. DORISE W. NIELSEN (North Battle-ford) : Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Justice, of which notice has been given.
1.	Has Mr. A. N. Schneider, well known as a German fascist bund leader, been released from the internment camp, where he has been since 1940, and allowed to return to his home town of St. Walburg, Saskatchewan?
2.	If so, upon whose orders?
3.	Has any person or organization made representation for his release?
4.	If so, what are the names of such persons or organization?
5.	What reasons were given in asking for the release of this man?
Thomas Vien: That is a question which should be placed on the order paper.



POSTAL SERVICE

[Stage Direction]
CHANGE IN POSTAGE RATE ON AIR MAIL FROM ARMED FORCES OVERSEAS <
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JAMES SINCLAIR (Vancouver North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Postmaster General affecting our troops overseas. Whereas British troops serving outside Great Britain send air mail letters home for threepence, Canadian troops must pay the civilian rate of sixpence. ' I would ask the minister to consider that matter.


William Pate Mulock: In reply to the hon. member for Vancouver North I am glad to be able to state that the British postal authorities have agreed to suggestions made by us, and that the rate on the armed forces air letter-that is, the blue letter-sent by our troops in the United Kingdom to Canada, will be reduced from sixpence to threepence, effective immediately.



TUBERCULOSIS


Hon. H. A. BRUCE (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the Minister of Labour, of which I have given him notice? Will the minister say what steps he has taken to relieve the serious situation which has developed in two tubercular sanatoria in Ontario as a consequence of a labour shortage, resulting in patients having a delay of many
Business of the House

months in securing relief by way of an operation known as thoracoplasty, very much to the detriment of their health?


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: I shall be glad to give immediate attention to the question my hon. friend has raised. A similar situation has developed in other provinces, and with the cooperation of provincial governments we have been able to meet that situation. My hon. friend can rest assured that, given the same degree of cooperation from the government of Ontario-


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Now, now; you are not getting away with that.


Thomas Vien: Order.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: You cannot play politics with that.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: You never did, did you?


Humphrey Mitchell: Let me say this to my hon. friend from Waterloo-


Karl Kenneth Homuth: And there are a lot of things I want to say to you one of these days, too.


Thomas Vien: Order.


Humphrey Mitchell: I say to my hon, friend from Waterloo South (Mr. Homuth), that this is too serious a matter to play politics with.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: It certainly is, but you are doing it.


Humphrey Mitchell: Given the same cooperation-and if "degree" is not the proper word to use I will eliminate it-from the province of Ontario, I feel certain we will meet the situation there.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: It is not a question of cooperation; it is a question of your selective service functioning properly.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: 
Gordon Graydon: When the Prime Minister mentions civil aviation, I take it he refers to the whole statement in connection with the war appropriation resolution so far as the Department of Munitions and Supply is concerned. I understand that civil aviation would form only part of it; is that correct?


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Munitions and Supply):: The statement to-morrow will be wholly on civil aviation. At the same time I shall table the war estimates of the civil aviation branch. Early next week I shall make a statement with respect to the Department of Munitions and Supply, and that will be as-a wholly separate statement.


Gordon Graydon: We will not be faced with the necessity of debating civil aviation after the statement is given?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No.


Gordon Graydon: Is it intended to debate civil aviation to-morrow?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No. The intention was to give the statement on Friday, and the debate may go on on Monday, or later.



AUDIBILITY OF DEBATE

Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me
that when I am myself at fault perhaps it is best to make a confession; it is possible that my example might then be followed more eagerly by other hon. members. I have noticed that when anybody is speaking from the far end of the house it is difficult for us here to hear, and conversely it must be difficult for those in the far end in certain circumstances to hear the discussions which sometimes take place between the Prime Minister and myself and

War Appropriation-Naval Services
other members sitting, shall I say, in the more active area, or at all events the area where there seems to be perhaps more activity. I think we might perhaps all take a lesson from the fact that it is difficult for those at the far end to hear us. We who sit up here ought to make a personal resolution that we will speak so that we may be heard by those at the far end, no matter what the circumstances of the debate may be, and on behalf of those who sit with me on this side I suggest that that be done. I am sure that the Prime Minister will be only too glad to cooperate with me in this matter as he does in so many other matters-with perhaps some strange exceptions at times.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think my hon. friend knows how effectively I have cooperated with him. May I say to him both on his behalf and my own that hon. members will also have to cooperate with us by maintaining silence while we are speaking.


Gordon Graydon: I am sure that the Prime Minister, having got that off his guilty conscience, will feel ever so much better.



BEQUEST FOB STATEMENT ON DEVELOPMENTS AT FOBT MCMUBBAY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. MacNICOL (Davenport):: May I ask the Minister of Munitions and Supply if either to-morrow or when he proceeds further with his remarks he will tell the house of the progress made at Fort McMurray in the production of oil?



FISHING INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. ERNEST BERTRAND (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, at the last sitting the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) asked a question which had some relation to an order No. A1096, which was returned on February 10. This order fixes the prices of eighty different fish items. For ling cod a price of ten cents per pound was fixed by the order. The O.P.A. has fixed for the same ling cod a price of ten cents per pound for a certain period and eight cents per pound for another period, while our fish administrator has fixed the price at ten cents per pound during the whole season. It so happens that on a portion of our coasts some of our fishermen have boats on which the ling cod is kept alive and landed fresher than fish caught in the open sea and brought to shore dead, and
accordingly they want a little higher price of from one to two cents per pound. The hon. member's question should perhaps have been asked of the wartime prices and trade board, because Mr. Burgess, who sent the telegrams to the different members from British Columbia, did not even send me a copy of the telegram. However, I got in touch with Mr. McLean, the fish administrator, and he is in correspondence with Mr. Burgess. He is the officer to whom Mr. Burgess reports, and he should hear further within a day or so.


Mr. HARRIS (Danforth):: Is the O.P.A. price of ten cents in American or Canadian dollars?


Ernest Bertrand: In American dollars, I suppose.


Joseph Henry Harris: And the other price is in Canadian dollars?


Ernest Bertrand: Yes.



WAR APPROPRIATION BILL


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, March 14, 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.

[Stage Direction]
1. Civil salaries, $6,511,987.
Mrs. CASSELMAN:: Mr. Chairman, the statement which the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services has put on the record is just one more chapter of the achievements of the men of the armed services of this country. It is impossible to tell which has made the greater contribution, the men of the army, the navy, or the air force, but this is one more chapter of the achievements of the naval service.
The minister mentioned Royal Roads in his speech. I wonder whether he would give us a little more information on Royal Roads. How the the boys chosen who are sent to Royal Roads? Is there a quota from each province? Are they chosen on their scholastic records? Have they to make application for permission to enter Royal Roads?
I was glad to hear the minister praise the women of the armed services, especially of the naval division, and by the way I am glad to think that we have long since passed from naval defence to naval offence. I cannot see any reason, of course, why the women should not receive equal pay with the men. It should

War Appropriation-Naval Services
be the contribution that is made, rather than the sex, that determines the pay. However, the women of the naval service are glad to be serving. They are all volunteers and they serve gladly. But it is not only those who are in uniform who are serving. We should never forget that at home there are many who are serving for Canada just as much as the women in uniform. I refer to the women who are staying in their own homes, doing dull tasks sometimes, sometimes more pleasant ones-the women who are serving in the various societies that are sending comforts to the men overseas. I do not think there is a woman across the length and breadth of Canada who is not in touch in some way with a soldier, an airman or a naval man who is serving, either through their letters or through their efforts with the various organizations such as the I.O.D.E., the Red Cross, church organizations and auxiliaries, navy mothers and so on. The navy mothers are very active in my own city of Edmonton. AJ1 this work helps to keep up the morale not only of the men overseas but also here on the home front, which is also so important. t Alberta has 196 officers and 5,778 ratings in the naval service. That is a very good record, I think, for an inland province, and they are to be found in every branch of the service. There are those who are engaged in con\ oy work and others who are serving in the merchant marine. I think perhaps the convoy work is as important a work as any, taking the food and munitions and our men safely across the seas. It was a great triumph for the convoy system to bring down the number of ships sunk from one out of 181 in 1941, to one out of 233 in 1942, while in 1943 only one out of every 344 was lost. It shows how excellently our men have served.
I was glad to see the list of decorations for the naval service which the minister put on record on Monday. Five decorations were won by men from Edmonton, and I wonder if I nught be permitted to read the citation for just one of them. I read this particular one because it is first in alphabetical order in the list, beginning with "B". It is E. E Binnie Able Seaman, Royal Canadian Navy, who was decorated with the British Empire Medal on June 2, 1943. The citation reads:
. During prolonged engagements with U-boats a\i	attacks on convoys in the north
Atlantic, this rating performed his duty with certainty of precision which led to sight of U-boats on five occasions, thereby contributing to the saving of merchant ships.
That is only one citation out of many that might be given for devotion to duty and gallantry in action. There are, of course, [Mrs. Casselman.J
many who have given their lives in the service, and our sympathy goes out to their loved ones at home.
May I ask if it is the general principle that the men who are in training here in Canada are given a subsistence allowance rather than being provided with living quarters? If so, is the rate of subsistence for naval service the same as for the other services? When a man gets subsistence, is the rate the same here in Canada as it would be if his home base were abroad ?
I was glad to hear the minister's remarks about the cadet corps. It shows that our youth are very anxious to take their part as much as possible in actual positive work, and the training given is good not only for the service but also for citizenship here in Canada. Many of the leaders in this movement give freely of their time to this work.
Have many of the men of the naval service been taken prisoners of war, and is anything known about their treatment in camps? When they are able to escape and some marvellous stories of escape have come through is there any danger that the telling of these stories will make it more difficult for others to escape, or are there likely to be repercussions affecting those who help men to escape?
The frigate Stetler, I believe, is to be commissioned very soon. The minister will remember perhaps that the city of Edmonton did not have the honour of having a ship named after it for the reason that its name is so much like Edmundston in New Brunswick. However, the men of the town of Stetler have shown great bravery, and the Stetler is the ship which we claim as ours. I am sure that the men who serve on that ship will carry on the tradition of their fellows in the service up to the present time, and when they come back they will have a great work to do here, apart from the work they are doing abroad now for the building up of Canada.
I do not mean building entirely in the material sense. It is true that we need reconstruction and the development of our natural resources, but we also need citizens. Citizenship should mean something more than paying taxes and voting. It should mean something in the direction of building up the character of the country and the dignity of labour. A good citizen should contribute in more ways than materially.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I was asking a few questions with regard to the new naval surplus disposal committee. This committee has to report to the crown assets

War Appropriation-Naval Services
allocation committee. The committee, I understand, cannot dispose of any goods but in turn has to take up the matter with the war assets corporation. I do not know whether I am right in that, and I should like the minister to give us the facts. This naval surplus disposal committee came into being on February 26, because that is the date of the order. Can the minister tell us what was disposed of during the past year by the navy -the kind of goods and the amount? How many new civil employees have been taken on during the past year and where are they stationed?


Mr. MACDONALD (Kingston City):: Replying to the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mrs. Casselman), the first question was with regard to Royal Roads. I believe the question referred to provision for clothing.


Frederick Clayton Casselman: My question had reference more to students entering Royal Roads. How are they chosen when they are given that privilege and what are the quotas from the different provinces? Does each of the provinces get a chance to send some of its boys to Royal Roads?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: There was noise in the chamber and I thought my hon. friend was referring to clothing. It seems she was referring to the manner of choosing students for the college. That is all set out in a pamphlet, a copy of which I shall be glad to hand to her. The students for the college are ultimately chosen by a selection board, consisting for the most part of members of the college staff, assisted in various parts of the dominion, by officers from the locality. The students all pass the same written examination. They are then interviewed by the board and after the interview and examination, if they are physically fit, they are admitted to the total number of 100-fifty each year. There is a quota of twenty-six divided among the provinces according to population. In a given year a province might have no students applying and qualifying for the college, though I should hope that all provinces would be represented. The remaining twenty-four students are selected from all over the dominion in order of merit.


Frederick Clayton Casselman: Is a special examination set for these boys? Do they make application and try a special examination for admission?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Yes. A set of papers are prepared by the staff of the college and they are submitted to all the
candidates. The same questions are submitted to all the candidates and they write their examinations on the basis of those questions.


Mr. MACDONALD (Brantford City):: ' They have to be matriculants?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: The examination is of approximately junior matriculation level. As to women's pay, I do not think I can add anything to what I said the other night. I am always glad to reconsider any matter, however, and I shall discuss the subject with my two associates in the other services.
As to the number of naval prisoners of war, I am glad to be able to say that it is very small. I believe the number is about six in all. I shall get the exact number presently. As to the prisoners of war who escape and who recount their stories, I think they are all careful net to say anything that might interfere with the safety of those who are left behind or who are likely to escape. They are careful not to give details regarding the route they followed or the manner in which they escaped.
As to subsistence, may I say to the hon. member for Edmonton East that the rate of subsistence in all points outside Canada is not necessarily the same as in Canada. Inasmuch as naval ratings are stationed at a great number of places outside Canada,-some in London, some in Washington, and some in St. John's, Newfoundland-I had better place on Hansard a table showing the different rates. For instance, in the United Kingdom, in the London area, a rating gets $2.25 subsistence whereas in Canada he gets only $1.25, and so on. In Washington there is another rate again. I think it would be well to put the complete list on Hansard for the information of my hon. friend.
The total number of prisoners of war I have given as six. It is nine-seven in German hands and two in Japanese.
The hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser) asked a question as to the amount of naval material disposed of in the past year. Up to the present we have made no disposals through the newly instituted board under the Department of Munitions and Supply. We have disposed of certain goods under the former arrangement, through the salvage officer. I shall have to look up the record.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That is before February 26, when this came into being?
1518	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Naval Services


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Yes. If my hon. friend wants the record of what was disposed of prior to that date I shall get it.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The naval surplus disposal board has to report to the crown assets allocation committee, which, I believe, in turn supplies the goods for the war assets corporation. I am not quite sure how that arrangement was made and I should like to know.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: That was all done under order in council, which I assume has been tabled, passed on the recommendation of the Minister of Munitions and Supply.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: But this all has to go through these three channels?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Yes, before it is disposed of. That is right.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Does that apply also to ships' stores? I understand that there was quite a lot put ashore last year in British Columbia and left there for some time.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Food?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Yes, ships' stores.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I do not know of that but I shall look into it. Is my hon. friend referring to food that was sent to the west coast for shipment to prisoners of war?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: No. Do the ships not get a new shipment of goods ever}' six months?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: It would be oftener than six months.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: They restock every six months?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: The ships?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Special things are restocked every six months.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: On the ships?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Yes.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: More frequently than that. They requisition for stores and supplies as they need them. Usually I think ships would take on food and stores a good deal oftener than every six months.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: There are special things they handle every six months, I believe. Then they take on a new lot and at the end of that time they put off the old stores they have had on and put on new things.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Perhaps my hon. friend is thinking not so much of food as of other materials for the ships- repairs on ships?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Yes, other materials.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Usually a ship comes in for repairs every year. An old part of an engine may have to be removed and a new part substituted or something like that. That would take place normally once a year.


Thomas Reid: Complaints have reached me regarding the length of leave granted to navy personnel who have served at sea' for some time. I have received complaints that boys doing service on the Atlantic on reaching port are being granted not over two weeks' furlough. My last complaint came from the boys who saw service on the high seas at Kiska. It has been pointed out to me that after a considerable period of duty of a very hazardous kind at Kiska they were granted only one week's leave of absence. Would the minister care to make a statement regarding the furlough of boys who have done service on the high seas? It was recently stated to me that the same leave is granted to them as is granted to those on shore duty in offices.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: In that case a good deal would depend on when these men had their last leave. The normal leave for a member of the naval services is twenty-eight days in a year. I should think that if any of the ratings to whom my hon. friend refers, those who had taken part in the Kiska expedition, had had no leave for a year previously, they would certainly get twenty-eight days on their return. It might be that some of them had leave a few weeks or months before the expedition set out and consequently would not be entitled normally to the full twenty-eight days' leave. I shall look into the particular point with regard to the Kiska men and give my hon. friend a more definite answer later.


Mr. GREEN:: I should like to ask the minister one or two questions about the naval situation on the Pacific coast in so far as Canada is concerned. Each of the ministers has made a brief reference to Canada's war policy on the Pacific. The Minister for Naval

War Appropriation

Naval Services
Services made his statement on Tuesday last in answer to a question of the hon. member for Yale which is found at page 1497 of Hansard. The minister said:
That question is covered by the general statement made by the Prime Minister, that we were all in the war together as united nations and would all pursue it to the end.
Then he went on to use these words:
The Canadian navy, I should think, would play a part in the war against Japan.
The minister gave much the same type of statement on March 9, which is found on page 1314, of Hansard, when he used these words referring to the personnel of our navy:
They are keen, of course, to get the war against Germany over, and then they feel that they have a few matters to attend to in the Pacific.
On March 6 the Minister of National Defence for Air made this statement in so far as his particular branch of the armed forces was concerned-it is to be found at page 1192 of Hansard:
Canada will be in the war against Japan until the very end. I am no strategist and cannot tell my hon. friend just what part we are going to take in the war on the Pacific, but we are going to shift from the European theatre to where we can do the most harm against Japan at the proper time.
The Minister of National Defence said on February. 14, to be found at page 466 of
IIansard:
In the first place, what I said with regard to Japan or what I wanted to say was, that no commitments have been made at the present time as to the nature or extent of Canada's participation in the war against Japan.
Hon. members of the committee will notice that each of these statements is indefinite. I think it can be assumed with accuracy that the policy of the present government is to leave the fighting against the Japanese in the meantime at least to the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Great Britain and possibly the Netherlands. Further, another branch of this policy is that the United States fleet is being relied on to defend Canada's Pacific coast, and, in the third place, it is the intention, I take it, that Canada will eventually participate in the war against Japan, when the war against Germany has been successfully concluded. I think that is a policy which requires careful consideration by the government and, frankly, a policy which requires revision.
May I emphasize these facts? Canada as a Pacific power should be taking part in the war against Japan now. As a Pacific power we cannot afford to stay out of the fight and allow those other nations to fight Japan for
us. If that is not to be our policy, certainly there can be no question that Canada should, at any rate, be carefully planning now what part she is to take in the war against Japan. I am afraid that the difficulty is that our staffs at Ottawa are thinking only of the war across the Atlantic. That has been the position from the start, ever since Japan struck at Pearl Harbor. Those of us who come from British Columbia had a difficult time in the winter and spring of 1941-42 prodding the government into taking action on the Pacific that would give us at least a reasonable defence against the Japanese on that coast. I repeat, I think the staff here, perhaps of the whole three forces, the navy, army and air force, is one-ocean minded. They do not realize that Canada is a two-ocean country-in fact we are now a three-ocean country. We are bounded by the Atlantic, the Pacific and the Arctic oceans.
I suggest that special preparation should be made now against the day when Canada really goes into the war with Japan. The British are doing that. I have here a press dispatch dealing with the speech of Sir James Greig, British Secretary for War, which was made in the House of Commons in Great Britain on March 2. In that speech he used these words:
In one field the ministry (of supply) can expect from us a whole range of new demands -those for specialized weapons and equipment which will be needed when we transfer our main weight to the war against Japan.
It is perfectly obvious that special equipment will be needed there along with special training. I do not think anybody can question it is a different type of war. Probably the fighting will be of an amphibious nature, landing from ships and seizing various islands, and naval fighting. Probably much of the fighting will be between the Japanese fleet and the American fleet, plus the British and the dominion fleets.
As I have said, Great Britain is preparing to take a very important part in the war against Japan. Her ships and troops are moving into that area. I have another press dispatch in my hand dated November 27, 1943. It states that the British navy is moving on to the Pacific coast of Canada.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Are they?


Howard Charles Green: I want the minister to tell me.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: My hon. friend knows very well the answer to that question, I think.

War Appropriation-Naval Services


Howard Charles Green: I am hoping ter get an official answer from the minister. This dispatch says:
Vast expansion of naval base and repair facilities on the British Columbia coast, in preparation for the all-out drive against Japan, is foreshadowed in a statement by Admiral Sir Percy Noble, head of the British admiralty delegation at Washington, D.C.
Then the dispatch goes on to say:
Sir Percy declared that it is likely that the Royal Navy will-in its Pacific operations- seek permission to make use of Canadian bases. Such bases would undoubtedly remain under Canadian control. He considered it "unlikely" that separate bases would be operated by the Royal Navy.
Indications of increased naval activity on this coast in the near future are the recent presence of British and United States naval experts in Vancouver.
It has been reported, too, that Vancouver and Prince Rupert will share largely in the activity to come.
Our own admiral on the Pacific, Admiral Brodeur, is reported: in the press of December 3 last to much the same effect. He is quoted as saying:
There is no doubt in my mind that Vancouver and Victoria will be used in case of large naval operations for the repair of ships. There are bound to be a few damaged ones.
The newspaper report goes on to say:
Asked whether the Royal Canadian Navy would- operate with the Royal Navy, Admiral Brodeur pointed out that such action has been a matter of long-standing policy with both services, and said the R.C.N. "will play a very big part when the 'first class second front' begins."
The position is that the first thing we know, if Canada does not take her fair share in the war against Japan, she will be left out of the decisions that will be made after the war with regard to all the lands lying around the Pacific ocean. Only to-day the Prime Minister referred to the agreement between Australia and New Zealand which was negotiated late in January; he pointed out that he thought it was a very important agreement. Incidentally the Australians and New Zealanders have asked Canada to become a party to that agreement. These specific questions must be faced by the Canadian government; they must not be pushed aside to be dealt with "if" or "perhaps", after the war with Germany is ended. Canada, as a Pacific power, must have a fair share in the decisions which will be made after the war as to the future in the Pacific.
I suggest that the members of this committee and the Canadian people are entitled to know what part the Canadian navy is going to play in the war against Japan and also what is the Pacific policy of the present government. We should have that in far more

detail than the general statement made by the minister to this effect: "The Canadian navy, I should think, would play a part in the war against Japan." Then we are entitled to know whether or not Great Britain has sought permission from Canada to use naval bases on our Pacific coast and, if that permission has been sought, whether or not Canada is granting it, and also whether the Canadian Navy is cooperating fully with the Royal Navy on the Pacific coast. . I have no doubt that will be done if it is left to the personnel of the Canadian Navy. We are entitled to be reassured on this whole question.


Thomas Langton Church: While I appreciate what has been said by the hon. and gallant member for Vancouver South with regard to the great Pacific question, Canada is now bound by the arrangements made between Mr. Churchill and the President of the United States at Cairo and the other conferences which have been held. As you know, Mr. Chairman, both before and after Pearl Harbor Great Britain had practically left the Pacific, which was looked upon as the exclusive preserve of the United States. Great Britain was not ready for war. After Hong Kong and Singapore fell we found that commitments and preferences had been made, to the effect that Britain was not able to take charge of the war on the seven seas; she had not the fleet, owing to disarmament on land, sea and in the air. So as a result of the conferences that were held, by which Canada is bound as a member of the British empire, the Pacific war came to be looked upon as the particular allotment of the United States.
What has happened? You have all seen what has taken place in the Pacific, which I spoke gbout before Pearl Harbor, when I saw the war coming. I said that the Japanese, who were our allies in the last war, would be island-hopping around to all the ten thousand miles of islands in the Pacific, and that is what they have been doing. They have appeared in all those islands, and they are all mined, we have the gravest possible state of affairs in that particular campaign. What happened at the Cairo conference, to which Canada was a party? Mr. Churchill and the President of the United States made commitments with regard to the Pacific. What are those commitments to which Canada has agreed? Canada, by Cairo, has agreed that Japan must give up all the territories it has acquired in the last fifty years, and as well must give back everything she has conquered since Pearl Harbor. Well, it seems to me, and we do not even yet appreciate it, that the war with Japan will last another four years, and I am

War Appropriation-Naval Services
afraid that sooner or later the allies will have to agree not to go as far as they went at the Cairo conference, which by the way has been criticized very strongly in the British press and house. Certain commitments have been made since the war started; some are primary, such as aid to Russia, and others are secondary. The defeat of Germany is the most important thing of all, and Canada should keep out of the Pacific until she has a fleet strong enough to play its part in that campaign. After all, the mother country is in this war against Japan on land, sea and in the air.
As I said the other night, the Canadian navy has played a glorious part in the war so far, but we have not yet the ships or the men to play a very active part in the Pacific at the present time. That theatre of war has been left pretty much to New Zealand, Australia and the United States; and the contribution that has been made by the splendid United States forces and by Australia and New Zealand is most praiseworthy. It is true that after Hong Kong and the rout at Singapore Canada sent a number of men to Iviska, where they did splendid work. It is also true, as the minister said the other night, that we have done a good deal in connection with the development of harbour facilities there; but as I said in 1936 and 1937, speaking from this side of the house, from Puget Sound for six hundred miles through the Queen Charlotte islands we had at the Pacific an undefended coast line which was just inviting trouble, absolutelj' unprotected, through the policy of this country in not having a proper fleet or any proper form of defence. British Columbia is entitled to everything we can give her; I am very sorry it has been necessary to have blackouts there and all that sort of thing, but I do not see what we can do at the present time. The government is bound by the arrangement that has been made, giving the United States the prerogative in the Pacific, which we abandoned after the Singapore base was lost.
Back in 1937, when the Japanese question was under discussion, the present Minister of Pensions and National Health, who was then Minister of National Defence, did manage to get some increases in the estimates in regard to the Pacific coast. At that time I pointed out that 630 miles of that territory was unprotected ; that it had hundreds of inlets and harbours, but we had no fleet to guard it. The minister brought down a return showing the size of our navy, which consisted of two or three destroyers, I believe, totalling less than ten thousand tons in all. It was not the fault of anyone, as far as I can see, because they were all pacifists, both in and out of this 100-96
house. I know I was accused of being a warmonger away back on March 24, 1938, five months before Munich, when I pointed out the grave danger in the Pacific, as well as the dangers over in Europe.
I appreciate the position of the hon. member for Vancouver South, the hon. member for Vancouver North and all the members from British Columbia, who have been most active in the interests of their province, but we must face the facts. The mother country had no fleet left; she threw away her defences and depended on Geneva up to the time the war broke out. Blame the pacifists who brought about this state of affairs after Britain had ruled the seas for a hundred or more years. We had peace for a hundred years from 1815 up to the time of the last war, except for a little outbreak in 1900. Britain had supremacy on the seas, together with commercial supremacy; and when you lose that you cannot get it back in a day, a month or a generation. I think the minister was quite right in what he said the other evening, that the war with Germany was primary, and I believe the government is quite right in its Pacific policy, until such time as Germany is beaten, and dear knows she is far from beaten yet. Where are you going to get a fleet to operate in the Pacific? Can you take it out of the Atlantic, the North sea, the Mediterranean and the Indian ocean at the present time?
We had a little experience in Kiska. I can tell you this, that we do not want any more Hong Kongs in the Pacific, or any of that kind of thing. With all the tipping off that has been going on, until we are ready we do not want to send troops, air force' or forces of the army to the Pacific area, to those numerous islands which are all mined. Look at the loss of life the United States has suffered in the glorious work it has done. Look at the awful loss in the United States fleet in the Pacific, and in their air and land forces. Do not forget the great debt of gratitude we as a dominion owe to New Zealand and Australia. Before the war started they gave to maritime freedom in the Pacific $5,000,000 a year to the Singapore base. That base was lost by bad management, by the infiltration of infantry, and the lack of forethought.
Until we know that Germany is beaten I cannot see how we can put up a fight against Japan-we a people of only 10,000,000. people. We have not the armaments to do it. The main thing is to see that Germany is defeated and, as Mr. Churchill has said, when Germany is defeated all the power of the mother country will be placed behind the United States



War Appropriation-Naval Services
to destroy Japan, that awful race which has acted as cannibals toward our soldiers overseas.


Howard Charles Green: May I have an answer to my question?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: With regard to the use of bases on the Pacific by the British navy, my hon. friend wanted to know whether the United1 Kingdom had asked permission to use those bases, and if so whether such permission had been granted. By the agreement of 1910, when Great Britain abandoned her bases in Canada, and when they were taken over by the dominion, there was a clause to the effect that the British government should always have the right, or that His Majesty's ships should always have the right, to use the bases both at Halifax and Esquimalt, free of any charge, with the exception of charges for labour and materials, which those ships would have to bear.
Then, as to whether Canada should take part in the war against Japan:	I believe my
hon. friend made the same plea last year with regard to land forces of Canada. He pointed out that Canada should take part in that war, and I think he indicated that a contingent of land troops should go into the war against Japan. He now makes the same request with respect to naval forces. I am not speaking unkindly when I say that there have been a great many suggestions as to how the Canadian Navy should be disposed. Many suggestions have been made since the beginning of the war, some m the house, some by newspapers outside the house, and others on public platforms. We had a remarkable number of such suggestions in 1942. Some people thought we should take [DOT] the whole Canadian Navy and defend the gulf of St. Lawrence only, or the strait of Belle Isle, or Cabot strait. That, they thought, was the entire function of the Canadian Navy. Those entrusted with the strategic direction of the navy said no; that that was a ridiculous naval policy, and that no navy worthy of the name would1 adopt a policy of that kind-sitting back on its own shores, waiting to be attacked. They pointed out that the thing to do was to go out and meet the enemy as far away from our own coast as possible, and to endeavour to defeat him there.
That policy was adhered to in the face of strong and bitter criticism from certain quarters in Canada. It was adhered to, and it bore results, because in 1943 not a single German submarine made an attack in our coastal waters. Why? Because they were being attacked themselves out in mid-Atlantic,

and they are being attacked almost at this very moment in mid-Atlantic. Some of them are being sunk by Canadian ships of war. That was the policy we pursued then, and we w'ere right.
With regard to the Pacific, and the sending of our naval forces to that area, I would point out to my hon. friend that the sea is one. That is an old and very true naval maxim. My theory is that anything done in one part of the sea against the enemy may be taken to be done in all parts. If you destroy an enemy submarine in mid-Atlantic you weaken the general power of the enemy. When they sank the Schamhorst off the north tip of Norway about the end of the year, that was a blow at the entire axis sea power. When a few days later two cruisers, one of which was commanded by a Canadian officer, sank four German destroyers in the bay of Biscay, that too was a blow at axis naval power.


Howard Charles Green: But the bulk of axis sea
power is in the Japanese fleet, is it not?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Probably it is, although the German submarine fleet, I think, is more powerful than the Japanese.


Howard Charles Green: Not more powerful than the Japanese fleet, surely?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I
was speaking of the submarine fleet. I think the German submarine fleet is more powerful than the Japanese. The Japanese fleet of course has more surface vessels. But the point is that the fact that we have not many ships actually in Pacific waters at the present time does not mean that we are not assisting in the battle of the Pacific. By no means does it mean that. For instance, how much assistance is Great Britain giving with respect to the war in the Pacific at the present time? How many units of the British fleet are in the Pacific? But will my hon. friend say for one moment that Great Britain will not have a voice at the peace table so far as the Pacific possessions of axis powers are concerned, merely because the bulk of her fleet is elsewhere at the present time? Does my hon. friend say that Russia will have a lesser voice in peace discussions because she has no fleet in the Pacific?


Howard Charles Green: The British have had units
of their fleet in the Pacific.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: As
the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) pointed out, the strategy of this war to a great extent was to leave the Pacific very largely to the Americans, to leave the Atlantic to the British fleet, and the convoy work to the

War Appropriation-Naval Services
British and Canadian fleets. That was the general arrangement made, and it has worked out with reasonable satisfaction.
I cannot undertake, even if I knew, to give my hon. friend the exact number of ships in the Pacific, either Canadian, British or American.


Howard Charles Green: I did not ask for that.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I
cannot attempt to do it. And I do not think I can amplify the statement I made the other day, that it is the intention, as announced by the Prime Minister, that Canada shall have a part in the Pacific war. I have no doubt that the Canadian navy, the Canadian air force and the Canadian army will take part in it. Beyond that I cannot go. I do not take that stand with any intention whatsoever of disregarding our great coast which faces the Pacific, or the importance of the ports in British Columbia.
We are disposing our fleet to the very best possible advantage, in accordance with 'the plan agreed upon by all those vitally concerned-Canada, the United States and Great Britain. And in view of impending events in Europe, which I need not discuss at the present time, in view of their importance, and in view of the part Canada is going to play, and play on the sea, in those events, I say it would be very difficult for us to do anything different from what we are doing.


Howard Charles Green: Is any thought being given to plans for the Canadian Navy in the Pacific, once Germany is beaten? Is there any special planning being done, or any special training being carried out for the type of warfare which will be followed in the Pacific?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: As I said the other night when speaking with regard to rehabilitation, some people think we should be devoting our whole time to consideration of post-war problems. As I said last week it is my view, and I am proud to say it is the view of the personnel of the Canadian Navy, that our great concern is: Let us win this war first. I say of course that we are giving some thought to after the war. But let us get the war over first. We have a job to do as a navy, and we are doing it, and doing it successfully. While we have that job to do I do not know that we can spend too much time in sending ships to the Pacific to study methods of warfare in that area. [DOT]
All our staffs are constantly endeavouring to keep up to date with the progress of the war in the different theatres of war. They are endeavouring to follow the new types of warfare being developed at sea, on land and in 100-96i
the air. And our naval staff is not at all remiss in that regard. But when my hon. friend asks me if we will send ships to the far Pacific, to the southwest Pacific-


Howard Charles Green: I did not ask that at all. The minister cannot put words into my mouth like that. I do not suppose he wishes to be unfair, but I did ask him whether he has any branch of his naval staff, or whether he has any officers or others doing special planning work for the Pacific. I am not questioning the good work that is being done by the navy in the Atlantic. It is unfair to drag a red herring across the trail in that way. I am asking whether there is any planning being done in regard to Canada's part in the naval war on the Pacific. Surely there are enough personnel in the navy now for some at least of them to be put on that job.
Mr, MACDONALD (Kingston City): The department of plans of the navy and the naval staff are giving attention to all matters of this kind. I say again that we cannot do a hundred things at once. You cannot fight on the Atlantic and on the Pacific too with the same ships. My hon. friend ought to realize that.


Howard Charles Green: I did not suggest anything of the kind.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Let me ask my hon. friend, does he say that we should take one-quarter or one-third of our forces in the Atlantic and send them to the Pacific, or what proportion?


Howard Charles Green: I did not say that at all.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Give me a figure. He thinks we can take part in the Pacific war. I ask him, to what extent should we do that?


Mr. LOCKHART:: Calm down!


Howard Charles Green: He cannot calm down. I suggest to the minister that there should be on the naval staff right now, and there should have been for a long time, somebody whose job was to make plans in regard to Canada's part in the naval war on the Pacific. I did not suggest that one ship or ten ships should be moved or anything of that kind. I do say this to the minister, that if Canada does not watch out and pay a little more attention to the war on the Pacific she will seriously endanger her relationships with Australia and New Zealand and possibly with the United States. We are a Pacific nation and it is part of our job to prepare for participating in the war on the Pacific.

War Appropriation-Naval Services


Angus Lewis Macdonald: My hon. friend is changing his stand considerably, because he started out by saying that Canada should take part in the war in the Pacific, and I understood him to say that we should send ships to the Pacific. I ask him where he thinks we would get them, and where should we take them from? Does he suggest in view of what is going to happen in Europe that we should take ships out of the Atlantic? I can tell my hon. friend that we are going to take part in that action against the continent of Europe. Canadian forces, land and sea and air, wall take part in that invasion in no small measure. Would he say that we should jeopardize the success of that invasion by taking ships from there? Should we take them out of the convoy service to Europe, where we are already doing 40 per cent of the convoy wrork now? In addition, a large part of the north Atlantic is entirely under the command of Canadian naval officers. Does he think that we should take ships out of there? If he sa3's no, then I ask him where are we 'going to get the ships to send to the Pacific?
As I have already said, there is a plans branch in the department and we have a naval staff which is giving attention to the Pacific war as it is to all types of sea warfare. Beyond that I cannot go.


Howard Charles Green: Why did not the minister say that ten minutes ago?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I did say before my hon. friend rose that we had a plans branch and a naval staff that were always studying naval warfare. They are studying the Japanese war and Japanese methods. But my hon. friend was asking us to send ships to the Pacific just as last year he wanted a contingent.


Howard Charles Green: There are already ships in the Pacific, as the minister knows.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Does my, hon. friend want us to withdraw those ships from those waters?


Mr. WARREN:: Mr. Chairman, I am
prompted to speak after listening to the remarks of the hon. member for Durham a couple of days ago describing the enthusiasm of the people of Port Hope because a ship of the Canadian navy had been named after Port Hope. It recalled to my mind that in the early days of the war some of the citizens of the town of Pembroke, the county town of Renfrew county, had asked me if it might not be possible to have a ship named after the

town of Pembroke. I wrote to the department of naval service, and we were disappointed to get a reply that that was not possible as there was already a ship by that name in the British service.
But as I listened to the hon. member for Durham the other night, it occurred to me that perhaps there would be no objection to naming a ship after the township of Wilber-force. Wilberforce is not a city or town; it is a township of lakes, splendid scenery, some very good fanning country, and many good farm homes maintained by hard-working ambitious farmers. While it may have no great claim to fame, it has perhaps some little claim for special notice in that it has contributed its fair share of men to public service in this country. Doctor Maloney, who was elected to this house as a member of parliament for South Renfrew on three occasions, was bom and raised in the township of Wilberforce. The late Alexander Stewart, who spent his life time in the township of Wilberforce, was elected on two occasions to represent North Renfrew in the Ontario legislature. Stanley Hunt, who was elected to represent North Renfrew in the Ontario legislature at the last election, was born and raised in the township of Wilberforce. I have myself spent my lifetime in the township of Wilberforce, and North Renfrew has done me the honour of choosing me to represent them for one term in the Ontario legislature and on two occasions they have elected me to represent them in this house. I would therefore ask the minister if it would not be possible for him to consider having a Canadian ship named Wilberforce.


Mr. STIRLING:: Will the minister give a reply to the remarks made by Sir Percy Noble, followed by Admiral Brodeur, with regard to the use of facilities on the Canadian Pacific coast for the British fleet? He did refer to the old agreement of many years ago with regard to the facilities then existent, but as I read the remarks of Sir Percy Noble they were extremely definite that it was intended to quarter ships on that part of the coast, and Admiral Brodeur was of the same opinion. But from the minister's reply to the hon. member for Vancouver South it sounded as if there were nothing in it. Would the minister say there was nothing in it?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I would not say there was anything in it or nothing in it. All I say is that if the British wish to make use of the base at Esquimalt for their ships they are at perfect liberty to use it under the agreement of thirty or more years ago. As to British Columbia ports being made

War Appropriation-Naval Services
a base for a large section of the British fleet in the war against Japan, if Sir Percy Noble made such a statement-I have not got it here -I assume that he was speaking with due deliberation and it may thus be assumed that he was speaking correctly. But I cannot add to or take anything away from his statement. That is all I can say. I know of no plans involving the use of Pacific ports by the British fleet beyond the old agreement of thirty years ago.


Grote Stirling: The implication in Sir Percy Noble's remarks was undoubtedly that Canadian ships being extremely busy on the Atlantic side it was the intention of the government-


Angus Lewis Macdonald: The British government?


Grote Stirling: I presume he would not have made that statement had the idea had not had the acquiescence of the Canadian government, and I am surprised to hear the minister say that so far as he is aware no such pronouncement is accurately made.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: There is very little definite about the Pacific war except, as I said the other day and have said repeatedly, that we are planning to take part in that war. I have no doubt that the British fleet will take part in that war, but in exactly what way is another story. On that point I can give my hon. friend no information at all.


Mr. POTTIER:: A few days ago when the minister was asked as to the type and size of vessels for a permanent Canadian navy he indicated, as I understood him, that this was a matter that should be left until the war was over and that it would depend on the urgency and particular needs of the times. I am one of those in this house, and have been and will continue to be who are in favour of Canada, having a substantial permanent navy. I believe that Canada needs a navy, and if Canada is to be a great country it needs a navy particularly from the standpoint of defending its shores and taking part in any combat in which it sees fit to engage. That brings up the question, and that is why I speak about it to-day, of maintenance and repair facilities, plans and personnel. If it is suggested that I am too realistic, I reply that we have to look at what is going to happen in connection with our repair yards and shipbuilding facilities when the war ends.
May I state my view in a few words. As soon as the war ends the cargo shipbuilding programme will cease and our naval shipbuilding programme will in a large measure
be discontinued. It will be found that shipbuilding and ship repairing facilities will decline in consequence. It appears to me, therefore, that some thought should be given to the maintenance of repair facilities in order to look after naval ships when the war is over and to keep them in proper condition. We should also have trained workmen available at all times for the purpose. Unless some plan is made in that regard we shall be faced with a lack of proper facilities as well as of the workmen who will be needed when the time comes. The minister should keep in mind the present facilities that have been set up on the Atlantic coast. The maritime ports are available twelve months of the year and the facilities that are there now should be kept up so as to fill the need which will make itself felt in the future. Unless this is done we shall find, if Canada is ever faced with the situation that existed in 1939, that it will be necessary for us to build all over again and it may be two or three years before we can recover the position we held at the present time. I hope that the planning departments under the minister are giving some thought to this matter, that they will approve the idea of retaining the facilities we have now and our ships as well and of keeping them in as good condition as they are in at the present time.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: The hon. member for Peterborough West asked for the number of civil servants taken on during the past year. The number is 545, both here and at outside points.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: In the return tabled on March 3 it appears that seventy of these men are in Newfoundland. How many civil employees have we there altogether, and how. many are in Britain- or are there any there?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I will . get that information in a moment as regards Newfoundland. The number serving in the United Kingdom, is eight.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The return shows that there were seventy added in Newfoundland.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: That is quite possible. There is a considerable expansion in St. John's, Newfoundland, and it may be that seventy were taken on since August of last year.


Joseph Sasseville Roy: The minister repeated a few moments ago the very same statement he made the other day, namely, that there were certain short-sighted people in 1942 who were

War Appropriation-Naval Services
asking that the whole Canadian navy be moved into the gulf of St. Lawrence to deal with the * submarine menace there. I suggest that he is magnifying the fact a bit when he says that people asked for the whole Canadian navy to be sent there. I am not aware that any person or any newspaper ever asked that the whole navy be moved to that locality. What people and the newspapers asked was that some protection should be given our ships there. The minister goes on to say that the policy of his department was a wise one, that by fighting the submarines on the open sea we took the best means of destroying and getting rid of them. I wonder if the submarines could not have been got at and destroyed more easily in the St. Lawrence. If they could have been got rid of in that locality would not that have served the end as well as fighting them outside,? But that is not all. If the minister's policy was the right one, and if in 1943 we did not have any submarines in that section by reason of the fact that his department followed the right policy the year before, how is it that the government made provision for such effective defence of the Gaspe coast last year? The defence organization was widely advertised throughout the Canadian press last summer. Every hon. member must recall the kind of publicity that was given the organization that was established on that coast last year. As a matter of fact, we had a very good organization last year and that may explain in part why we had no [DOT] submarines then. Well, if it was advisable to fight the submarines in 1942 on the high seas, because that was the best way to destroy them, I should like to know, assuming that it was useless for short-sighted people to ask for some protection in the St. Lawrence, why the government has set up such admirable protective safeguards as those we have now.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I suppose a submarine could be sunk in the gulf or the river St. Lawrence as well as anywhere else. There is no doubt about that. But I must leave to the naval staff rather than to my hon. friend the task of determining how the navy should be disposed of to the best advantage. They disposed of it as they thought best in 1942. There were naval ships in the gulf and the river St. Lawrence all the time in 1942, and there were others on the high seas. Submarines did not attack in the gulf of St. Lawrence last year. I am sure that if they had done so, the civilian defence corps, which my hon. friend speaks of, would have been helpful in spotting and reporting them, but I cannot think that the civilian defence corps kept the submarines away from the gulf.
OSr. Roy.]


Joseph Sasseville Roy: I am not talking only about the civilian defence corps on the coast; I am referring to the number of ships we have had in Gaspe harbour. Moreover, we have had planes and telephone lines and all the other organization that has been set up. We had more ships and planes last year than the year before.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Of course we had more ships and planes last year than in 1942. We have added considerably tc the strength of the navy and air force anc consequently we had more ships for mid Atlantic and the gulf of St. Lawrence. My hon. friend is quite right about that.


Gordon Graydon: May I say a word, which has been prompted by the debate that took place a few moments ago in which the hon. member for Vancouver South and the hon. member for Gaspe took part. I can recall the debate that occurred in the last session when I came to the rescue-or rather to the support, shall I say, since he did not need to be rescued-of the hon. member for Gaspe, when he made certain suggestions with regard to strengthening the position on the east coast from the point of view of submarines. I should not like to think the minister is not susceptible to suggestions from any part of the committee, but in that particular instance it seemed to me that when the hon. member for Gaspe did come forward with suggestions they were not welcomed in the manner I should like to have seen. I hope that the inquiries which are being made by the hon. member for Vancouver South will not be found in the future to be in the same category. Perhaps the minister may find that there is something with respect to the position on the west coast that has a similar bearing to that which was brought to the attention of the ministry last year by the hon. member for Gaspe. I should like to think the minister is prepared to give careful and keen consideration to the suggestions and inquiries brought forth honestly and in a desire to help by members of this committee. On reflection I think he will not want to deal with the hon. member for Vancouver South in the way that he did this afternoon. I think all the hon. members of this committee, regardless of party affiliation, are anxious to try to be as helpful as they possibly can; otherwise the debate and the appropriations and the opportunities given to discuss them become, of course, of limited importance.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: In answer to my hon. friend, the leader of the opposition, the only thing I wish to say to the committee is this: I cannot attempt to give the detailed disposition of ships, whether
MARCH 16, 1944	[DOT]	1527
War Appropriation-Naval Services
it be in the Pacific or in the gulf of St. Lawrence or in the Atlantic. It simply cannot be done.


Howard Charles Green: Nobody was asking that.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: If anybody asks me how many ships there are, here or there, I cannot attempt to answer such questions. I do not think they should be asked. I do not say my hon. friend from Vancouver South was endeavouring to put his question as pointedly as that, but I think my hon. friend himself knows, for instance, how many British ships are in Vancouver at this time.


Howard Charles Green: I do not.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I thought there was nothing that I could tell him which he did not pretty well know already.


Howard Charles Green: The minister is quite wrong there.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I shall be glad to tell my hon. friend anything I can.


Joseph Sasseville Roy: I am prepared to accept the explanations made by the minister when they are reasonable. But since the year 1942 has been mentioned by the minister, may I say I do not like to be called a traitor or shortsighted. I think the minister would do well to desist from giving expression to such remarks in the committee.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I never suggested that my hon. friend was a traitor or anything of the kind. My hon. friend is mistaken if he assumes I ever intimated that he was anything of the sort.


Howard Charles Green: In opening his discussion on these estimates the minister said that during the next fiscal year the navy planned to take in personnel to a number of about 12,000. That is half the number required during the present fiscal year. I presume that there is quite a large wastage, quite a few men are discharged each year. Will the minister tell us whether or not those 12,000 men will simply maintain the navy at its present strength of 80,000 or whether the establishment is to be increased?
It has been announced that the Canadian Navy is now to be a fleet with large ships. In other words, it is no longer to be what the minister described as a small-ship navy. Perhaps we are all in [DOT] agreement with the change in policy. I am glad those heavier ships are being acquired, but there is considerable uncertainty as to the government
policy with regard to a merchant navy. I take it that in peace time the principal job of our navy will be to protect our shipping. Some one or another of the ministers should explain the policy of the government with regard to a merchant navy. Admiral Brodeur said on November 24, 1943:
It is incorrect to think that a strong sea power can be obtained by building a strong fighting navy alone. To have real sea power a nation must also have a strong merchant navy.
Last December the Minister of Munitions and Supply advocated Canada having a proper merchant fleet. He said:
Canada should provide a merchant marine worthy of the dominion's export position.
Two weeks later the Minister of Transport said that he could see no future in Canada going into the shipping business on a big scale after the war. He went on to point out the difficulties of keeping up a merchant navy. Is the minister in a position to state to-day the policy of the government with regard to a merchant navy? It is of the utmost importance to the whole of Canada.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I am not in a position, because, while it was suggested the other night by the hon. member for Cape Breton South that the merchant navy be put in uniform and made part of the service navy, that has not been done in this country or in Great Britain. The merchant navy is a totally distinct branch from the service navy. I really have nothing to do with the merchant navy beyond the general interest that I hope every Canadian has in the establishment of a strong mercantile marine.


Howard Charles Green: The minister is not in a position to state the policy of the government with regard to a merchant navy?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: No, I am not.
My hon. friend asked if the complement of the Canadian Navy would be increased during the year. I may say it will. The total complement at the end of the fiscal year will be, we hope, about 12,000 men more than it was at the beginning of the fiscal year, allowing for discharges and casualties.


John George Diefenbaker: There are a few matters I should like to bring to the attention of the minister. One of them is a year old and I have not as yet received an answer to it. It has to do with the establishment of an insurance scheme for the armed forces. I am not going into details in connection with it. I did that on June 9, 1943. I then set out the particulars of the scheme in effect in the

War Appropriation-Naval Services
United States. Under that scheme some 7,750,000 servicemen in the various armed services of that country had made application for insurance under the system in effect there. Under that system insurance is available for S6.70 a month per SI,000 of insurance. If a similar system is adopted in Canada, those who serve will be able to build up a nest-egg when they return, and if they do not return then those nearest and dearest to them will be assured of a monthly payment over a period of fifteen years on the basis of a $10,000 policy. The amount paid per month is, I believe, approximately $50. When I asked the minister a question last year on this matter he stated that he would take it up with the other ministers for defence and in due course would give an answer. Without going into the particulars to-day, I now ask him whether or not it was taken up; whether the decision of the Canadian government is that it will not bring into effect a system of insurance for the armed services in order to place those who serve in the Canadian army in the same position as are the men who serve in the United States army.
Then there is one other matter. As far as the other armed services are concerned we find to-day many young men who for a period of four or five years since the beginning of the war have been in the armed services, but prior to that time had not been. They have achieved senior ranks to-day. Men who in 1939 ranked as lieutenants or captains command divisions to-day. In the air force the same situation prevails. I think of a young man in my own constituency who was mentioned in the press to-night, Wing Commander Robert Turnbull, D.F.C., A.F.C. In a period of nine months of service he rose from the rank of sergeant-pilot to wing commander, one of the most distinguished records in the Royal Canadian Air Force overseas.
As far as the navy is concerned I have heard it said on many occasions that men from the Royal Canadian Naval Volunteer Reserve are, by the operation of things, denied the opportunity of promotion to the senior ranks. I know it will be said that the position is different in the navy from that in the army or the air force. But I do feel that in so far as the thousands and thousands of young men who to-day serve the navy are concerned, those who are officers but who had not served before the war and who are giving of their best, consideration should be given to enable some of those officers to achieve ranks beyond that which they have been able to secure up to date. I should like to have a statement from the minister of the number of R.C.N.V.R. officers of the rank of commander and senior
thereto; the number of senior officers above the rank of captain who have been retired from the service during the last year; and whether there is in the navy any system similar to that referred to the other day by the Minister of National Defence for Air, under which senior officers are being retired because to retain them in their present positions would mean a ceiling on promotions for other officers lower in rank.
There is just another point, with respect to the post-war navy. Naturally, coming from the prairie provinces, I am very proud of the magnificent record made in the navy by the young men from that part of the country who had no previous experience at sea, and I thank the minister for his kind reference in that connection. What about these young men after the war? In the matter of rehabilitation, what about the opportunity for those who so desire to continue in the naval service? There is a very strong feeling in Canada to-day that after the war Canada should maintain a two-ocean navy. The minister may disagree with that view; but Doctor Weir, director of training in the Department of Pensions and National Health, in presenting a report to the House of Commons reconstruction committee on February 23, said he had questioned many thousands of people across Canada and that the people questioned were in favour of maintaining a two-ocean navy and a modern merchant marine, with permanent navy, army and air force personnel.
The question I ask in that regard is this. Is anything being done to-day to the end that before the war is over there will be a plan in that regard? I do not think that is looldng too far ahead, for concentration now on the matter of rehabilitation will prevent confusion when the war is over. I realize that no permanent plans can be made; wre do not know as yet what will be the course of events. The future must unfold; but the men who serve, the men who have received the technical training to qualify them to fill technical positions in the navy, should be given some hope of securing positions in the navy after the war, and of being rehabilitated in that way. There is not a Canadian who is not proud of what has been done in connection with the expansion of our navy during this war, and of the exploits of our sailors. I wish to say to the minister that any suggestions we make from this side of the house are made in that spirit. I would not want him to take the position he seems to be taking this afternoon, that these suggestions are made in a desire to embarrass him or the navy, or with any improper purpose. When I look back over the past four years and think of the suggestions that have come from this side of the house

War Appropriation-Naval Services
which were frowned upon and criticized when they were advanced, but later accepted, I do not feel it necessary.to apologize on behalf of the opposition for bringing forward constructive ideas and suggestions.


Mr. WOOD:: Was that the tin-pot navy?


Karl Kenneth Homuth: That is just what we would expect to hear from Brant county and from the mentality representing it.


John George Diefenbaker: I am not going to answer that remark. If that is the hon. member's contribution to this serious debate I have nothing more to say.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: The matter to which the hon. member referred last year, namely, insurance for service men, has been under consideration chiefly, I think, by the pay experts of the services, who have studied the United States system and various alternatives. I must tell my hon. friend frankly .however, that as yet there has been no decision as to what type of insurance, if any, we should adopt. The matter is still in the study stage by the three services combined.
Then the hon. member wanted to know the number of men in the naval volunteer reserve with the rank of commander and higher, and also the number of men of the rank of captain, or higher who were retired in the last year. Probably it will take some hours to secure that information; however, I shall be glad to get it and place it on record for my hon. friend. Then he wanted to know if in the navy there was any policy in regard to retirements similar to that referred to by the minister for air. Beyond the retiring ages fixed by naval regulations-


John George Diefenbaker: What are those
ages?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: They vary according to rank. In the executive branch the age runs from forty-five to sixty-five; in the engineering branch it runs from forty-five to sixty and, in the accounting branch from fifty to sixty, depending on rank. Beyond these age limits we have no arrangement in the navy as to retirement.


John George Diefenbaker: Is the retirement automatic in the various age groups?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Yes.
My hon. friend then spoke of rehabilitation, and I agree with what he said. I think he had in mind particularly a determination now of the size the navy should be after the war, so that those men who might wish to choose the navy as a career could adopt that type of rehabilitation, if I may put it in that way.
The only fixed figure we have as to naval strength shows a total of about 8,700. That was the figure laid down and agreed to by the government in 1941; but, as I pointed out the other day, the staff have prepared various plans showing different strengths for the navy after the war. In most cases the strength suggested exceeds 8,700. It is impossible, I think, to say at this moment exactly what will be the strength of the navy after the war.
I hope it will be reasonably strong, reasonably large in number and reasonably adequate for the purposes the Canadian navy might have to serve, but we have not gone beyond that figure. I think that is the only figure 'that has been laid down by any of the three services; I do not believe the air force or the army have endeavoured as yet to fix definitely what will be their post-war strength.


Joseph Henry Harris: I should like to pay tribute to the way in which the youth of Canada rallied to the navy at the advent of war. Very often the utterances we hear from the government side of this chamber might lead one to think all this has been done through the navy department itself, but in my opinion that department is being pushed on by the youth of this country who are so anxious to serve in that branch of the service. I congratulate the hon. member for Brandon, who made some observations in regard to graduates of the sea cadet school in that city, many of whom had never seen salt water before joining the navy. I recall that on one occasion I was grounded in Regina when passing through on a plane, and on that Sunday I had the pleasure of seeing in the Presbyterian church across from the hotel an exercise which was being held by four hundred sea cadets of that city. Perhaps ninety-nine per cent of the enthusiastic youth of Canada who enlisted in the navy had never before seen salt water; yet there is something in their make-up which makes them want to serve, and they are doing something really fine for Canada.
I rose particularly to say that we in Toronto have a large enrolment in the naval services. Their exploits and the work they are doing certainly deserves mention in this honourable chamber. Unfortunately in Toronto we do not have a headquarters for naval work. Executives, and those charged with responsibility, find themselves in rented quarters. Some space is given without cost. 1 would ask the minister to see that that important centre in Ontario may have a headquarters for the navy.



War Appropriation-Naval Services
Toronto has given about three and a half acres of land close to the waterfront in the westerly section of the city, near the exhibition grounds. Then, in the eastern portion there is also to be given to the unit looking after sea cadets another strip of ground without cost to the department. That ground, at Kew beach, is bounded on the east side by Kippen-davie avenue and on the west by Kenilworth avenue.
We shall be maintaining naval services after the war, and we should have a headquarters in Toronto. T am hopeful that, as to-day, we may train our boys in the sea cadet movement. At present those boys are being trained in school and church basements, or whatever space can be secured. The supervision they receive is the best, but the facilities for training and the space provided are not at all adequate.
Toronto is peculiarly located. It has some sixteen miles of waterfront, the population being placed east, west, and north, with the lake to the south. It is my opinion that the westerly section of Toronto could be served by a headquarters building, provided that building had one or two decks in which the boys could be trained. The present quarters are located some twelve or fourteen miles away from a large section of the city east of the Don river, where there are some 250,000 inhabitants. People from that area would have to travel the entire width of the city to reach the west end. So that when the vote is before the committee for the headquarters in Toronto, with respect to the three and a half acres in the westerly section, I would ask the department to give consideration to establishing in the easterly section at least one or two decks in which the sea cadets might properly be housed and cared for, so that boys in the eastern part of Toronto might have proper training.
I am hopeful that the minister will make some definite statement this session as to the policy of the department. The matter is now before the city council of Toronto. Within the last two or three weeks representations were made by His Worship the Mayor asking what the attitude of the department was with respect to a headquarters in that city. When they are considering those plans I suggest something must be done for the sea cadets. One or two years after joining the cadet movement those boys find their way to the naval services, and we must do everything we possibly can to help them in that regard.


Mr. MacINNIS:: Thus far I have not taken part in the debate. I am, however, constrained to say something because of the speeches made this afternoon. I was impressed, as I think all hon. members were, with the very fine statement the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services was able to make in respect of the organization of the navy, a*id the good work it is doing. I have spoken to many men who have received technical training with the navy since the beginning of the war, and all have been high in their praise of the quality of that training. The more thoughtful ones, however, were wondering to what use the training could be put when the war is over. Before the war they found themselves in dead-end occupations, and they are wondering if they will have to go back to those occupations or none at the end of the war.
I do not believe the answer to that question can be decided altogether by the size of our navy after the war. If I understood the hon. member for Lake Centre correctly, he said that some people in Canada were talking about a two-ocean navy. He did not explain exactly what a two-ocean navy was, and I do not know what the term means. I believe the size of our navy when the war is over will depend upon the obligations we shall assume in the post-war period for the maintenance of world peace. If any organized attempt is to be made to maintain world peace at the close of the war, as I believe there should be and must be if we are to avoid other wars, then undoubtedly Canada will have to assume her share in that regard. We shall have to be prepared to send armed forces, if necessary, to put down aggression, after a decision has been made that aggression exists. I agree with the minister that that cannot be decided to-day, nor can it be decided until we know what post-war conditions will be.
I hope that we may so arrange our economy in Canada that we can harness the energy of the young men in the various armed services and in industry, and give them social objectives that will be as strong as the national objectives they were given in preparing themselves for war. If we do not do that there is very little hope that they will be any better off after the war, regardless of the size of our navy, than they were before the war when we had practically no navy at all.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: I was keenly interested in what was said a few moments ago by the hon. member for Vancouver East. I

War Appropricdion-Naval Services
hope, however, that if we ever find ourselves going into another war we shall not be in the same position we were in when we entered this one. In passing, may I say that one of the reasons why we were unprepared for the present war was the attitude of hoa. members in the party to which the hon. member belongs. Pacifist expressions came from them. Every time estimates were before the committee, hon. members in that group were trying to cut them down. It was only because of the real understanding by men in the Royal Canadian Navy at that time that we did have a nucleus which, at the beginning of this war, was able to expand to such a great extent.
The hon. member for Danforth has just referred to establishing a naval headquarters at Toronto. I agree with him, but I think we must go farther than merely having a headquarters at that point. As I have said before in the committee when discussing the estimates, the people of Toronto have always been keen in their interest in the navy. My suggestion is that we should have not only a headquarters, but something better than that. I say that we should have some real, fighting ships. Perhaps they would not be able to carry guns, but we could have those ships, to be used for training the young men who want to enter the navy. In that way we would have preparedness, and the youth of our country would be trained on real ships.
While I do not believe that we have any desire to detract attention from the winning of the war, at the same time some plans must be laid for after the war. Many men who have never been on ships before, will, after the war is over, not want to go back to farming or various other occupations but will prefer to sail on ships. Has any planning been done in connection with our merchant marine? There is no doubt that with its great lakes and two oceans Canada should have a great merchant marine. We should be able to have our ships operating from Canada to all the ports of the globe, thus presenting great opportunities for a livelihood to men who will be coming out of the navy when the war ends. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that the St. Lawrence great waterway may become an all-winter route to the sea. Certainly it will have access to the sea for longer and longer periods as the years go by. There should be an opportunity for the men who have served in the navy to enter the merchant marine after the war and make it their life work. Can the minister tell us what planning has been done along that line?
The hon. member for Danforth spoke of the naval barracks which are to be constructed in Toronto and made certain suggestions. Would the minister give us a full outline of what is proposed?


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, I wish this group had the great influence which the hon. member for St. Paul's implies we have or had. It is amazing how a party of seven members out of the 245 could block necessary military preparations if such preparations were necessary, and I may have something to say about that later. But now may I draw to his attention that the smallest appropriation for military services ever voted by parliament within my memory, was voted when the hon. member's own party was in office between 1930 and 1935. At that time his party were, if I remember correctly-and I have been so told on many occasions by people who ought to know-so intent on building up proper armed services in order that this country could meet the world single-handed, that the men in the militia had even to buy their own shoes and other equipment. It was under the Bennett government also, I believe, that what little air force we had was scrapped. This group was not responsible for that. Other conditions arose between 1930 and 1935, and no action was taken to meet them. There was a very serious unemployment situation in this country. Was it because of opposition from this group that nothing was done for the unemployed? Was it because of opposition from this group that when the war came, many people were in such poor physical condition that they were not fit for military service?


The CHAIRMAN:: Order. I cannot see how that comes under this item. Armaments might be in order, but not unemployment.


Angus MacInnis: Possibly the Chairman is right, but if the hon. member for St. Paul's is to be answered properly I have to deal with these matters in an extensive way.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: On the proper item.


Angus MacInnis: We cannot do it on the proper item because hon. members are too vulnerable to raise these matters when the proper item comes, and they are vulnerable on this item, too. I ask them, before they blame this group, to tell the committee why they did not do the things they now say should have been done, when they had the majority to do it during the years they were in office.

War Appropriation-Naval Services


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I just want to say in reply that it was because of the pacifist preaching of my hon. friend's group in this country that we were unprepared for war.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Shall the item carry?


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I should like to have an answer to my question about the naval barracks in Toronto.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: The question would come more properly under another item, but I can answer my hon. friend now. We have decided to build a naval barracks in the city of Toronto, as wag announced last Thursday. I should hope that the sea cadets, as is customary in most places, would have certain facilities in that headquarters. I sympathize with the hon. member for Danforth whose sea cadet corps, I understand, is rather too far away to be able to make full use of the facilities of the new barracks, and he suggested that we might perhaps establish some sort of headquarters on the east side of Toronto. I must tell my hon. friend that we have not in mind at the moment the building of a second barracks or headquarters for the naval service in Toronto. As to the sea cadets we have never endeavoured :n the naval service to build special facilities for them, but we have always been happy to make available to them any buildings and facilities that we had. In some cities, like Montreal for instance, the Navy League raised a certain sum of money and was able to build a most handsome addition to an existing building for their sea cadets. I am sorry to have to tell my hon. friend that as far as the navy is concerned I do not think we could undertake, apart from providing some accommodation in the barracks, to build or otherwise acquire any accommodation for the sea cadets, much as I am interested in the movement and deeply as I appreciate the good work the movement is doing throughout Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I understand that the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Defence for Air has some statements to make.


Mr. MACMILLAN (Queens):: Mr. Chairman, with the consent of the committee I

should like to place on Hansard the answers to certain questions which were asked during the discussion of estimates of the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power). The leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) asked a question with regard to sergeant-pilots on leave without pay at civilian operated schools. His questions and the answers are as follows: Question:
1.	How are sergeant-pilots chosen to be on leave without pay for civil-operated schools?
2.	What is the basis?
3.	How many of them are there?
Answer:
1.	Staff pilots on leave without pay are now employed at air observers schools only. Procedure for choosing staff pilots is as follows:
A request is received from the manager of an air observers school for a certain number of pilots. Instructions are issued by air force headquarters to the commanding officers of secondary flying training schools to select this number of suitably trained graduates. By "suitably trained" is meant trained on twin-engine aircraft and above average in navigation. Personnel so selected by their C.O.'s are posted to the air observers schools on service strength. If they prove satisfactory, and acceptable to the civilian manager, after a reasonable period of service, they are requested to make application through the R.C.A.F. chief supervisory officer at the school and the civilian manager to be released on leave without pay. The application is reviewed at air force headquarters, and if satisfactory, the pilot is struck off strength on leave without pay.
Occasionally, the civilian manager of an air observers school will request the services of a specific pilot who has been employed on staff or instructional duties at an R.C.A.F. training unit, and who has a large number of flying hours to his credit. Each of these cases is reviewed strictly on its merits, with due regard for the individual's value to the R.C.A.F. in that capacity at that particular time.
All pilots on leave without pay at civil-operated schools are subject to immediate recall at any time.
2.	Answered in question 1.
3.	Figures for sergeant-pilots alone are not immediately available. The total number of staff pilots on leave without pay at eight civil-operated air observer schools at 29th February, 1944, was 596. A very few might be officers, the remainder being non-commissioned officers.
The hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser) asked a question with regard to discharges and retirements, and the medical reasons therefor. The answer is as follows:

War Appropriation-Air Services
Discharges and Retirements-Medical Reasons September, 1939-February, 1944, inclusive
1.	A total of 7,872 R.C.A.F. personnel have been medically boarded ApBp (medically unfit for any form of service) from September, 1939, to February, 1944, both inclusive. Most of these personnel have already been discharged or retired-a few cases are still pending. _
2.	Table I provides a breakdown of the 7,872 cases by diagnosis for male and female personnel separately.
Table I
Approved Medical Boards-ApBp-R.C.A.F. Personnel September, 1939-February, 1944, Inclusive
Diagnosis
Nervous and mental disorders Diseases of digestive system .
Foot conditions	
Ear conditions	
Injuries	
Eye conditions	
Respiratory diseases	
Heart, arteries and rh. fever .
Hernia	
Tuberculosis (all forms)	
Arthritis and rheumatism . .. Other diseases and conditions
Total	
R.C.A.F.	R.C	.A.F.	Total(Male)	(W.	D.)	No.	%	No.	%	Number2,392	32-2	196	44-0	2,588849	11-4	14	3-1	863281	3-8	13	2-9	294213	2-9	7	1-6	220487	6-6	13	2-9	500213	2-9	9	2-0	222609	8-2	22	4-9	631689	9-3	28	6-3	717114	1-5	1	0-2	115355	4-8	24	5-4	379232	3-1	3	0-7	235992	13-3	116	26-0	1,1087,426	100-0	446	100-0	7,872
3. The figures in table I include both officers and other ranks.
The hon. member for Souris ('Mr._ Ross) isked a question with regard to airframe overhaul contractors. The answer is as follows:
Overhaul Contractors.
In answer to the House of Commons query regarding the number of civilian contractors engaged in overhaul and repair of aircraft tor the R.C.A.F. the following list shows:
(a)	Airframe overhaul contractors
(b)	Engine overhaul contractors
(c)	Miscellaneous repair contractors.
(a)	Airframes
Aircraft Repair Ltd., Edmonton, Alta. Canadian Pacific Air Lines, Vancouver, B.C. Canadian Car & Foundry Ltd., Amherst, N.b. Central Aircraft Ltd., Crumlm, Ont.
Clark Ruse Ltd., Dartmouth, N.S.
Clark Ruse Ltd., Moncton, N.B.
Coates Ltd., Vancouver, B.C.
Cub Aircraft Corp., Hamilton, Ont.
Fairchild Aircraft Ltd., Longueuil, P.Q. Leaven Bros., Toronto, Ont.	_ ,
M & C. Aviation Ltd., Prince Albert, Sask. MacDonald Bros., Ltd., Winnipeg, Man. Midwest Aircraft Ltd., Winnipeg, Man. Noorduyn Aviation Ltd., Montreal, P.Q. Patterson & Hill Ltd., Toronto, Ont.
Prairie Airways, Moose Jaw, Sask.
St. Maurice A/C Repair, Cap de la Mad., P.Q. T.C.A., Mai ton, Ont.
(b)	Engines
Aircraft Repair Ltd., Edmonton, Alta. British Aero Engines Ltd., Montreal, P.Q. British Aero Engines Ltd., Sea Island, B.C. Canadian Airways Ltd., Winnipeg, Man. Canadian Pratt & Whitney Ltd., Longueuil, P.Q.
Canadian Wright Ltd., Montreal, P.Q.
Central Aircraft Ltd., Crumlin, Ont. DeHavilland A/C of Can.. Ltd., Toronto, Ont. Laurentian Air Services, Ottawa, Ont.
M & C. Aviation Ltd., Prince Albert, Sask. Midwest Aircraft Ltd., Winnipeg, Man. Ottawa Car & Aircraft Ltd., Ottawa, Ont. Standard Aero Engines Ltd., Winnipeg, Man. T.C.A., Winnipeg, Man.
"Rrnsr Tnrnnfio. Out.
(c)	There are 110 firms engaged on overhaul of components such as instruments, electrical equipment, mechanical equipment such as oleo legs, etc., and recapping of tires.
The hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) asked with regard to the admission price to the theatre at Sydney Air Station. The answer is as follows:
(a)	Price of admission is 25 cents. This price was agreed to by station personnel until such time as a loan obtained from outside sources for the purpose of installing the present moving picture equipment has been liquidated.
(h) Revenue from the theatre is intended to cover only operating costs and liquidation of the loan over a reasonable period. If there should he any profit, it becomes part of station non-public funds, to be used for the benefit of station personnel. Price of admission is subject to review from month to month, and no complaints have been received on the station regarding the present admission price.
(c) Present price of admission is not considered exorbitant, as the quality of films shown is comparable to commercial theatres in Sydney, where the admission price is approximately 45 cents.

War Appropriation-Air Services
The hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) asked a question with regard to annotated positions and the number of officers who thereby secure exemption from income tax. The questions and answers are as follows:
1.	Q. The minister possibly can give us an answer that will cover the situation by telling us the number of administrative officers who fill annotated positions and who thereby secure exemption from income tax although they are not actually engaged in flying.
A. Only general list positions are annotated and in the event of a non-flying list person filling a general list position which is exempt from income tax, the non-flying list person is not exempt from income tax by reason of the position annotation.
2.	Q. And will the minister give the committee a list of the annotated positions?
A. It would take considerable clerical work to complete a list of all annotated positions but it is felt that the following definition of the policy covering position annotations will suffice:
(a)	The following positions are annotated:
(i)	All general list positions established for aircrew duties.
(ii)	The commanding officers of stations where the primary function is flying operations.
(b)	The following positions are NOT annotated:
(i)	Any position at air force headquarters or the headquarters of a command, group or wing.
(ii)	The commanding officers of units whose primary function is not flying, e.g., repair depots, wireless schools, initial training schools, equipment depots, etc.
(iii)	General list positions in ground instructional schools or ground instructional sections of a flying school, second in command of stations, or any other positions which do not require the performance of continuous aircrew duties.
Questions were asked by various members with regard to civilian flying schools. The answer is as follows:
Re: Civil Flying Schools E.F.T.S. When it was decided that flying clubs should be asked to sponsor E.F.T.S. pains were taken to appoint a committee consisting of the most competent and experienced people available. This committee included: Colonel K. S. McLaughlin, then Acting Deputy Minister of National Defence; Air Marshal G. M. Croil, then C.A.S.; Brigadier Orde, Judge Advocate General; Mr. M. A. Seymour, K.C. and Mr. C. W. Nicholl, C.A. as representing the Canadian Flying Clubs Association; Mr. Henry Borden, K.C.; Mr. H. G. Norman, C.A., now Financial Adviser to the B.C.A.T.P. This committee drew up a form of contract as between the Crown and the individual operating companies, in most eases sponsored by the flying clubs. It had no experience to draw upon; yet the form of contract has functioned fairly satisfactorily with the exception that the remuneration proved somewhat generous and took the following form:
(a)	Savings on management fee.
(b)	Profit per flying hour.

(c)	Savings on gasoline and oil.
(d)	Savings on crash reserve.
(e)	25 per cent savings on operation and maintenance.
The contract provided for an adjustment between the contractual parties at the end of each 24 weeks period to be based on the experience of the previous 24 weeks.
The schools were originally opened to provide for a pupil population of 48 and all were from time to time increased to a pupil population of 90, 120, 180 or 240.
These increases detracted from the value of the cost of operation experience gained when endeavouring to apply these in adjusting the allowances by the crown.
The various sources of profit or savings which I have mentioned also tended to complicate the situation and this was brought out at the enquiry before the parliamentary committee.
In an endeavour to simplify the situation, the operating companies voluntarily agreed to reduce their flying hour profit from 50 cents to 25 cents and later to eliminate it.
They also agreed to forgo profits or savings on gasoline and oil as well as on their crash reserve. No fees were paid to directors and the only disbursement made out of profit was the 5 per cent dividend on the subscribed capital.
All surplus funds accruing in the hands of the operating companies were invested in noninterest beai'ing certificates of the Dominion of Canada.
When the contracts were renewed as on the 1st April, 1943, the above concessions were legalized, management was included in operation and maintenance and all savings on operation and maintenance were made divisible as to 80 per cent and 20 per cent between the crown and the companies, instead of 75 per cent and 25 per cent as heretofore.
These concessions or modifications have resulted in considerable savings to the crown. At the same time the subscribed capital of these companies was refunded to shareholders out of surplus in the hands of the companies, thus eliminating the dividend.
The companies have now only one source of profit which is the savings on operation and maintenance and the contract declares ". . . that any savings or profits accruing shall not be distributed and shall be held by the company in a reserve account until the termination of the contract and shall then be paid to a flying club approved by the minister, failing which they shall revert to the crown."
During the operation of these contracts, the pro forma or basis for payment to these companies have been carefully revised at the end of each 24 weeks period and despite the revision downwards per pupil population intake, the companies, through increased efficiency in operation, have continued to make savings, some of them more than others, depending upon the efficiency in operation, the terrain in which they function, etc.
The modifications in the terms and conditions of the contract and the concessions demanded from time to time have been immediately and generously conceded by the operating companies who have declared that they are more anxious to do a good job than to make profits. Their only desire is that upon completion of the contract, each school will be able to hand over

War Appropriation-Air Services
to its sponsoring flying club sufficient funds to rehabilitate its club so that it may in the post-war period continue in advancing civil aviation in Canada.
A special form of charter and by-laws under part II of the Dominion Companies Act have been drawn up and approved by my department under which any club benefiting from these profits must be incorporated and w'hich protect such profits in the hands of the flying clubs from being exploited.
A meeting of managers of all E.F.T.S. was held lately when they agreed to recommend to their directors that all and any profits or
savings, accruing from the operation of their school and in turn to their sponsoring flying club, be limited to $5,000 per annum. Resolutions of the board of the various operating companies to this effect are now being received.
Of the 80 per cent savings in operations $1,951,404.40 has actually been returned to the crown and a further $1,250,000 is now available for return, for which demands are being sent out this month, in accordance with the terms of the agreement.
Up to 2nd January last, 38,775 pupils have graduated from E.F.T.S. at an average cost of $911.55 per pupil.
Statement Showing Financial Situation Between Companies Operating Elementary Flying Training Schools and the Crown as on 2nd January, 1944
E.F.T S.		Excess of allowances over expenditures	80% returnable to Crown	Balance remaining (see Note 3)	Returned to Crown on account of 80%
No. of School	Name and address				
S cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.2	Thunder Bay Air Training School, Ltd., Fort William, Ont.	208,546 62	166,837 30	41,709 32	108,896 934	Windsor Mills Flying Training School, Ltd., Windsor Mills, P.Q.	96,409 82	77,127 85	19,281 97	10,000 005	High River Flying Training School, Ltd., High River, Alta.	342,896 86	274,317 49	68,579 37	150,000 006	Northern Saskatchewan Flying Training School, Ltd., Prince Albert, Sask.	205,669 53	164,535 62	41,133 91	73,000 007	Windsor Flying Training School, Ltd., Windsor, Ontario.	184,276 48	147,421 18	36,855 30	95,000 009	St. Catharines Flying Training School, Ltd., St. Catharines, Ont.	257,487 59	205,990 07	51,497 52	146,028 8410	Hamilton Flying Training School, Ltd , Pendleton, Ontario.	186,623 22	149,298 57	37,324 65	40,431 6011	*Quebec Airways (Training) Limited, Cap de la Madeleine, P.Q.	284,528 47	227,622 77	56,905 70	89,332 5712	Huron County Flying Training School, Ltd., Goderich, Ontario.	351,883 43	281,506 74	70,376 69	169,612 9213	Eastern Ontario Flying School, Limited, St. Eugene, Ontario.	234,963 37	187,970 70	46,992 67	55,000 0015	Regina Elementary Flying School, Limited, Regina, Sask.	387,123 56	309,698 85	77,424 71	215,000 0017	Nova Scotia Flying Training School, Ltd., Stanley, N.S.	109,791 73	87,833 38	21,958 35	19	Virden Flying Training School, Ltd., Virden, Man.	322,347 83	265,878 26	66,469 57	125,949 2820	Ontario County Flying Training School, Ltd., Oshawa, Ont.	224,521 28	179,617 02	44,904 26	76,215 878 and 24	fVancouver Air Training Company, Limited, Abbotsfortd, B.C.	269,343 22	215,474 58	53,868 64	31	Malton Flying Training School, Ltd., De Winton, Alberta-now- De Winton Flying Training School, Ltd., De Winton, Alta.	250,933 27	200,746 62	50,186 65	110,000 00
War Appropriation-Air Services
Statement Showing Financial Situation Between Companies Operating Elementary Flying Training Schools and the Crown as on 2nd January, 1944-Con.
E.F.T.S.		Excess of allowances over expenditures	80% returnable to Crown	Balance remaining (see Note 3)	Returned to Crown on account of 80%
No. of School	Name and address				
$ cts.	$ cts.	S cts.	$ cts.32	Edmonton Flying Training School, Ltd., Bowden, Alta.	215,042 95	172,034 40	43,008 55	128,936 3933	t Boundary Bay Flying Training School, Ltd., Caron, Sask.	476,920 32	381,536 26	95,384 06	155,000 0034 now 25	Central Manitoba Flying Training School, Ltd., Assiniboia, Sask.	188,410 97	150,728 78	37,682 19	133,000 0035 now 26	Miramichi Flying Training School, Ltd., Neepawa, Man.-now- Moncton Flying Training School, Ltd., Neepawa, Man.	251,584 77	201,267 82	50,316 95	70,000 00
* All Savings revert to the Crown.
t Vancouver Air Training Co., Ltd., and Boundary Bay Flying Training School, Ltd., have undertaken to surrender all Savings accruing from the operations of No. 8, Vancouver, B.C., No. 18, Boundary Bay, No. 33, Caron, and No. 24, Abbotsford, B.C., with the exception of $30,000.00 set aside for Aero Club of B.C. (sponsoring Club) subject to approval of Minister.
Note (1)-From the surplus arising through excess of Allowances over Expenditures the subscribed Capital of the Operating Companies has been refunded and necessary working capital provided.
Any surplus funds remaining in the hands of the Operating Companies over Working Capital requirements varying with the size of the School are invested in Dominion of Canada NonInterest Bearing Certificates.
Note (2)-No. 1-Malton was transferred to No. 31 E.F.T.S. Do Winton, Alta.
No. 3-London, Ont., closed 3rd July, 1942.
No. 8-Vancouver, was transferred to No. 24 E.F.T.S. Abbotsford, B.C.
No. 14-Portage la Prairie, Man., transferred to No. 25 E.F.T.S. Assiniboia, Sask.
No. 16-Edmonton, Alta., transferred to No. 32 E.F.T.S. Bowden, Alta.
No. 18-Boundary Bay, B.C., transferred to No. 33 E.F.T.S. Caron, Sask.
No. 21-Chatham, N.B., transferred to No. 26 E.F.T.S. Neepawa, Man.
No. 22-Ancienne Lorette, Que., closed 3rd July, 1942.
Note (3)-Out of these sums the Companies have paid Income Tax and dividends at the rate of 5% per annum up to 31st March, 1943 (date of Renewal and Modification of Agreement) when subscribed capital was refunded out of surplus earnings. Any residual amount, in accordance
with paragraph 5 of Schedule II of Agreement, ".shall not be distributed and shall be held
by the Company in a reserve account until the termination of the Contract and shall then be paid to a Flying Club approved by the Minister, failing which it shall revert to the Crown."
24th May, 1943.



ELEMENTARY FLYING TRAINING SCHOOLS UNDER THE B.C.A.T.P.

[Stage Direction]
School	Name and Address	T.C.	Manager	Secretary-Treasurer	PresidentNo. 2 E.F.T.S.	Thunder Bay Air Training School, Limited, Fort William, Ontario.	2	Ii. F. Dougall	H. F. DougallNo. 4 E.F.T.S.	Windsor Mills Flying Training School, Limited, Windsor Mills, P.Q.	3	J. K. M. Green	B. N. Holtham	A. S. DawesNo. 5 E.F.T.S.	High River Flying Training School, Limited, Airport, High River, Alberta.	4	D. K. Yorath	H. G. Richardson..	D. K. Yorath.No. 6 E.F.T.S.	Northern Saskatchewan Flying Training School, Ltd., P.O. Box 810, Prince Albert, Saskatchewan.	2	E. A. Rawlinson....	H. M. SibbaldNo. 7 E.F.T.S.	Windsor Flying Training School, Limited, Windsor Airport, Windsor Ontario.	1	A. A. J. Pelzer	W. H. CantilonNo. 9 E.F.T.S.	St. Catharines Flying Training School, Limited, P.O. Box 157, St. Catharines, Ontario.	1	F. S. Pattison	A. E. Parsons	M. A. Seymour.
[Mr. Macmillan.1

War Appropriation-Air Services
ELEMENTARY FLYING TRAINING SCHOOLS UNDER THE B.C.A.T.P.-Con.
School	Name and Address	T.C.	Manager	Secretary-Treasurer	PresidentNo. 10 E.F.T.S.	Hamilton Flying Training School, Limited, Pendleton, Ontario.	3	G. Moes	G. V. Sanders	S. S. MacNaughtonNo. 11 E.F.T.S.	Quebec Ainvays (Training) Limited, Cap de la Madeleine, P.Q.	3	E. S. Gronau	D. A. ClarkeNo. 12 E.F.T.S.	Huron County Flying Training School, Limited, Sky Harbour Airport, Goderich, Ontario.	1	J. R. Douglas	B. C. Straughan....	W. L. WhiteNo. 13 E.F.T.S.	Eastern Ontario Flying School, Limited, St. Eugene, Ontario.	3	VV. Davidson	C. K. Swerdfager...	No. 15 E.F.T.S.	Regina Elementary Flying School, Limited, P.O. Box 86, Regina, Saskatchewan.	4	G. C. Rooke	M. I. Chase	G. C. RookeNo. 17 E.F.T.S.	Nova Scotia Flying Training School, Limited, Stanley, Hants County, N.S.	3	W. H. Stuart	A. G. Buchanan	C. W. StairsNo. 19 E.F.T.S.	Virden Flying Training School, Limited, Virden, Manitoba.	2	J. R. Morgan, Managing Director	W. E. SellersNo. 20 E.F.T.S. No. 24 E.F.T.S.	Ontario County Flying Training School, Limited, Oshawa, Ontario. Vancouver Air Training Company Limited, 555 Burrard Street, Vancouver, B.C.	1 4	S. R. Bernardo	
L. J. Martin	W. Turnbull	Alex. G. StorieNo. 31 E.F.T.S. (R.A.F.)	Malton Flying Training School, Limited, De Winton, Alberta.	4	W. M. Alexander....	T. E. Mason	C. E. FrenchNo. 32 E.F.T.S. (R.A.F.)	Edmonton Flying Training School, Limited, Bowden, Alberta.	4	D. M. Plunkett	D. M. PlunkettNo. 33 E.F.T.S. (R.A.F.)	Boundary Bay Flying Training School, Limited, Caron, Saskatchewan.	4	L. J. Martin	
Asst. C. J. Clark.	Major Austin TaylorNo. 34 E.F.T.S. (R.A.F.)	Central Manitoba Flying Training School, Limited, Assiniboia, Saskatchewan.	4	C. W. Nicholl	J. J. Pope	C. W. NichollNo. 35 E.F.T.S. (R.A.F.)	Miramichi Flying Training School, Limited, Neepawa, Manitoba.	2	J. W. Humphrey	R. Mills	Wm. V. Creoghan

[Stage Direction]
No. 1 A.O.S.	Dominion Skyways (Training), Limited, Malton Airport, Malton, Ontario.	1	W. A. McLeod	W. R. Stephens, A/Treas.	L. B. UnwinNo. 2 A.O.S.	Canadian Airways (Training), Limited, Municipal Airport, Edmonton, Alberta.	4	W. R. May, O.B.E., D.F.C.	A. L. Sawle, A/Treas.	L. B. UnwinNo. 4 A.O.S.	Leavens Bros. (Training), Limited, Crumlin Airport, London, Ontario.	1	C. R. Leavens	D. M. Forrester, Treas.	C. R. LeavensNo. 5 A.O.S.	Winnipeg Air Observer School, Limited, P.O. Box 3098, Winnipeg, Manitoba.	2	D. S. Ormond	A. M. Olafson, A/Treas.	L. B. UnwinNo. 7 A.O.S.	Portage Air Observer School, Limited, Portage La Prairie, Manitoba,	2	W. L. Parr, C.A....	C. W. Hanna, A/Treas.	L. B. UnwinNo. 8 A.O.S.	Quebec Airways (Observers), Limited, Ancienne Lorette, P.Q.	3	G. R. Beck	S. J. Billings, A/Treas.	L. B. UnwinNo. 9 A.O.S.	Dominion Skyways (Observers), Limited, St. Johns, P.Q.	3	W. Woollett	G. Moffit, A/Treas.	L. B. UnwinNo. 10 A.O.S.	Northumberland Air Observer School, Limited, Chatham, N.B.	3	R. H. Bibby	A. B. MacKinnon...	G. P. Birchall, L.L.D.
Half Size School (280). REVISED: 6th December, 1913.
[Stage Direction]
War Appropriation-Air Services
Grote Stirling: Mr. Chairman, I would
draw your attention to the fact that this is a most unusual procedure. Just a moment or two before six o'clock these questions are being answered, or rather the answers are being placed on Hansard. I would imagine that it might be well that the hon. member who asked a question might want to ask something further with regard to it. We are in the [DOT] midst of a discussion of another minister's estimates when this matter is introduced. I wonder whether provision can be made for an opportunity when the Minister of National Defence for Air is in the house, even though the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services might be piloting his estimates through the committee at the time, for certain further questions to be asked if it is found necessary.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I would have no
objection.


Angus MacInnis: To put these answers on
Hansard requires the unanimous consent of the house. This is a most unusual way to answer questions that have been asked during the discussion of a minister's estimates. We are following the procedure now of answering questions put on the orders of the day, when a written answer is submitted. I have never known this procedure to be followed before with questions asked on items of estimates.


Charles Gavan Power: The only point is that I am between the devil and the deep sea to know how long I am to wait for an opportunity to answer the questions that have been put to me. I have other business to do and so has my assistant. I am quite willing to come into the house at any time and read the answers into Hansard. But these were questions asked by members of the house. If the house wants them read, I have no objection. I agree that it is a most unusual procedure, but it was done simply to expedite the business of the house.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yesterday the hon. member for Lake Centre asked the Minister of National Defence for Air a question with regard to the closing of airports and the basis on which this is being done. It would save a lot of discussion and correspondence if the minister would make a statement on the matter during the course of this debate.


Charles Gavan Power: I am willing to commence
all over again at any time, if hon. members want to start up again on my estimates, because there is so much good for me to explain to the people of Canada about the air force.

I am in the judgment of the committee as to putting these answers on Hansard, but I think the committee will readily agree that I should not be asked to wait day after day for the moment that some hon. members might agree would be fitting for me to give my answers to the questions that have been asked. I am willing to suggest that the answers stand oyer and be read into the record to-night or at any other time that is convenient, or if the committee is willing to give its consent to their being placed in the record, the questions can *be asked later. I have no objection, but I should like to know when the questions are going to be asked so that I can be here.


Mr. PERLEY:: Is the minister not going to make a further statement with respect to the closing of some of these airports? I understood that on March 20 he would.


Charles Gavan Power: I had not intended making any statement in particular. I have made three so far and I shall have to look them up to see that they do not contradict one another. I have on three occasions told the committee that schools were going to be closed. I have no objection to saying it again at any time, but I hope the committee will not ask me to enter into a discussion of the matter when each individual member asks questions as to the reasons for closing any particular schools. Let me say, however, that there is no reflection on any community or on the management of any school, nor is it intended that anybody should be offended by our closing schools. I can say that.


Ernest Edward Perley: No, but there was a statement the other night about closing twenty-eight schools throughout Canada, and telegrams are coming-I have one in my hand- asking for information. I should like to know if we are to get that information.


Charles Gavan Power: If the committee wishes to discuss it I shall be only too willing. I have no objection at all, at any time, to having a full discussion. I should like every hon. member who feels himself aggrieved by the closing of any school to make a speech. As I said two years ago, every hon. member who thought there should be an air-training establishment in his constituency could make a speech about it. That would satisfy everyone. Similarly everyone who thinks the school in his constituency should not be closed might make a speech, and I would answer all.

Mutual Aid Agreements


Ernest Edward Perley: It is the disposition, of the properties they are asking about.


Grote Stirling: I raised the question not from the point of view of making objection to these answers being placed on Hansard but to call attention to the fact that we are setting a precedent. The matter arose in this way. At the close of the discussion on the estimates of the minister for air, rather than hold the whole matter over, he consented to give answers to certain questions, possibly during the discussion of the estimates of the minister for naval services, and that was consented to, in a very cooperative spirit, I may say. We did not want to hold the minister longer. I now call attention to the fact that this very unusual procedure is being followed, and I think that during further discussion of the naval estimates, if it be convenient for the minister for air to be in his seat, those whose questions have been answered might have an opportunity of asking supplementary questions if they desire to do so. I do not know what these answers contain. I shall know when I read them in Hansard.


Charles Gavan Power: The minister for naval services says I should not cross his bows and I do not want to.


Grote Stirling: It was that minister's own suggestion that the hon. gentleman should cross his bows.


Charles Gavan Power: I am quite agreeable to the suggestion of the hon. member, and if the committee desires we can withdraw the request for consent of the committee. If the committee would prefer to look at the answers and then ask further questions-


Grote Stirling: I suggest that these
answers be allowed to go on Hansard and at some time convenient to the minister for air and to the minister for naval services, supplementary questions can be asked.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: This is an unusual bill and certain procedure has been adopted which is unusual, to say the least, though unanimous consent has been given in this instance. This has been a precedent, and I would point out that the answers were given in writing and put on Hansard, unlike other instances in which answers had been given orally.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Progress reported.



MUTUAL AID


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, by arrangement with the other governments concerned, I desire to lay on the table at this time, copies of general Mutual Aid agreements which have been concluded between the government of Canada and the governments of the United Kingdom, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Commonwealth of Australia. The agreements with the United Kingdom and Soviet governments were signed on February 11 and the agreement with Australia was signed on March 9. Similar agreements are in process of negotiation with other governments or authorities receiving supplies from Canada in significant volume under the Mutual Aid Act, notably China and the French committee of national liberation.
These agreements set forth the general terms and conditions under which war supplies are being transferred under the Mutual Aid Act to the three countries which have so far received the largest quantity of such supplies from Canada. When the Mutual Aid legislation is before the house there will be an opportunity for discussing the terms of these agreements, if the house so desires. At this time I wish only to give a general explanation of their purpose and contents.
The preamble of the Mutual . Aid Act declares that "it is essential to the defence and security of Canada and to the cause of world freedom that Canada should make the utmost contribution to the victory of the united nations". It continues that "it is necessary that the products of Canadian war industry be made available not only for use by Canadian forces, but also to other united nations, in accordance with strategic needs, in such manner as to contribute most effectively to the winning of the war." The preamble concludes that "it is expedient that the conditions upon which Canadian war supplies are made available to other united nations should
Mutual Aid Agreements

not be such as to burden post-war commerce, or lead to the imposition of trade restrictions, or otherwise prejudice a just and enduring peace". Since early in the war, the government has taken the position that the accumulation of large war debts was contrary to the public interest. This policy has been endorsed by parliament on several occasions. It is to be noted that a similar policy was adopted by the government of the United States with the passage of the Lend-Lease Act on March 11, 1941, nearly nine months before the United States entered the war. The United Kingdom, which is the third large provider of munitions and war supplies for the use of other united nations, has pursued a parallel policy in providing supplies to allied goverments unable to pay for them.
These agreements set forth the general terms and conditions under which effect is being given to our policy. They are in some respects parallel to the Lend-Lease agreements which have been concluded by the government of the United States with many of the goverments receiving supplies from that country under the Lend-Lease Act. It is to be remembered, however, that the Lend-Lease Act was adopted when the United States still retained her neutrality, whereas the Mutual Aid Act was passed when Canada had been at war for over three and a half years. The Lend-Lease Act was based on the conception that the defence of the United States would be furthered by the provision of supplies on other than a cash basis to countries at war with the axis. The Mutual Aid Act was based on a realization that the provision of materials to the common cause was no less vital and no less a duty than the provision of fighting men.
The preamble of these agreements sets forth their purposes in language similar to that used in the preamble of the Mutual Aid Act which I have already quoted. I do not propose to analyse the agreements at any length. They are designed to make clear that the recipient governments accept these purposes and will cooperate in their fulfilment. Article II of each agreement contains a pledge of reciprocal aid to Canada. Article X (article IX in the Soviet agreement) contains a mutual undertaking to pursue international economic policies designed to implement the economic objectives defined in the Atlantic charter and accepted by all the united nations, policies which are reflected in the far-seeing philosophy of the Mutual Aid Act. These policies will make it possible for Mutual Aid
(Mr. Mackenzie King.]
to prove its post-war value in enabling trade to thrive without the barriers which huge war debts would have imposed.
It has been our purpose in instituting the Mutual Aid procedure to leave at the end of the war no indeterminate obligations arising from the provision of war supplies by Canada, which would have to be settled by subsequent negotiations. By article VI of our Mutual Aid agreements it is laid down that the government of Canada will not require the recipient government "to redeliver to the government of Canada any war supplies delivered under this agreement except as specifically provided" in articles VII, VIII, and IX. Article VII provides that title to cargo ships furnished under Mutual Aid shall remain with the government of Canada. Article VIII provides that supplies which, at the end of hostilities in any major theatre, have not yet reached their destination may revert to Canadian ownership. Finally, article IX provides that in certain circumstances the Canadian government may request the transfer of specified types of supplies still serviceable at the end of the war to other users, for relief purposes or for Canadian forces still serving overseas, and that we may also ask for the return to Canada of serviceable aircraft and automotive equipment if required for use at home.
The agreements with the governments of the United Kingdom and Australia are identical in substance. I should explain to the house the reasons for certain minor differences between these two agreements and the agreement with the Soviet government.
Since the German attack on the Soviet Union the war supplies provided to the Soviet government by her allies have been settled by a special procedure which is employed in no other case. Annual protocols have been signed between Russia on the one hand and the supplying countries on the other hand, to which are attached schedules listing the stores which each supplying country undertakes to furnish during the period of one year. The parties of the first two protocols were the United States, the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union. Canada is a direct party to the current third protocol which covers the supplies being furnished to Russia during the year which will end on June 30 next. Direct Canadian participation in this third protocol was made possible by the adoption of the Mutual Aid Act at the last session. These protocols are of necessity very secret in character, since they contain information which would be of much value to the enemy.

War Appropriation-Naval Services
Article III of the Soviet agreement refers directly to the protocol procedure, and therefore differs somewhat from article III of the other agreements. We have a full opportunity, in the course of the negotiation of the protocol, to secure whatever information is required to support the requests of the Soviet authorities. Article VII in the United Kingdom and Australian agreements is not repeated in the Soviet agreement. It relates specifically to cargo ships, and we have not found it possible to provide the Soviet government with any cargo ships; hence the inclusion of the article in the Soviet agreement is unnecessary. These are the only differences of importance between the agreements.
I now table copies of the agreements.


Gordon Graydon: May I ask the Prime Minister a question with respect to the statement? Do the agreements cover the-


John Horne Blackmore: Louder, now. .


Gordon Graydon: Of course, that was just a preliminary. Do the agreements which are tabled and about which the Prime Minister has made some comment by way of clarification of certain clauses cover the period from the beginning of our Mutual Aid arrangements as envisaged by the passing of the legislation last year until the end of June? Do they cover not only last year and the current year but the succeeding year which will no doubt be covered by a farther vote in the house when the legislation comes up?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The agreements relate solely to such matters as have been negotiated under the Mutual Aid Act which was passed at the last session. They do not go into the past. They relate to the present legislation.


Gordon Graydon: I realize that, but if we pass legislation at this session having to do with further Mutual Aid will those agreements ' cover that period?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The agreements are of a general nature and do not relate to specific allocations. Some of the agreements will continue to operate, but the country is not committed beyond any appropriations this parliament has made or may make.


Gordon Graydon: That was the point I had in mind.


Howard Charles Green: If I may ask one further question, are there agreements with any other nations; for instance, is there one with China?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Perhaps my hon. friend missed what I said. There will be two further agreements very shortly, one with China and the other with the French committee of national liberation.



WAR APPROPRIATION BILL


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed 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.

[Stage Direction]
2. Pay and allowances, $114,698,835.
Mr. NICHOLSON:: When we were on the first item the hon. member for Lake Centre raised the question of promotions. I note that at page 1190 of Hansard the Minister of National Defence for Air is reported as having said:
As I said, there is a thick ceiling of comparatively young men at the top. Through no fault of their own, these men have not been able to see active service, and it *was hoped that men who had seen active service would gradually get to the top as they returned from overseas.
And later he said:
I think the country will agree with me in this-because it is imperative that we show these young men that there is a way through this ceiling by which they can get to the top. That is the general policy.
I could not hear what the minister said in reply this afternoon,'but I understood him to say there was no similar policy in his department. I believe the	statement	made	by hiscolleague has	caught	the imagination	of thepeople of this country. Many young men in their early twenties have distinguished themselves in the	air, and	the same	thing	is truein the naval	service.	I should	think	that if
some of these young men who have had distinguished service at sea could find it possible to rise to the top, it would be a very good thing for the morale of the whole service. Could the minister make a further statement in regard to the general policy concerning promotions?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I do not know that I can add a great deal, except to say that training in the naval service requires a great length of time, I should think probably longer than in either

War Appropriation-Naval Services
of the other two services. That is inevitable, from the nature of the work naval officers have to undertake. They have to be trained not merely theoretically, and on land; there is a certain type of training they can get only at sea, through experience. They have to sail under all sorts of conditions, in all kinds of ships, meeting all kinds of weather, in order to get the training to fit them for their tasks. As I said, we have certain age limits in the naval regulations beyond which an officer cannot go, but other than that we have adopted no policy such as the air force seems to have adopted. I do not think I would want to deviate very much from the policy we have followed in the past. I will say to my hon. friend that from time to time officers are discharged from the naval service. It is an unpleasant duty of mine every week, and sometimes several times a week, to sign memoranda declaring that certain officers are no longer required in the naval service, though usually that is for reasons other than age. As I have said, the age factor is governed by the regulations.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: What are the present facilities for giving the ratings actual sea training? Have any ships or destroyers been assigned to that work recently, and what has the minister in that line now on the east and west coasts?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I am glad my hon. friend asked that question. For a time we were short in training ships, because every ship that could be put into active service we put on the sea, but now some of the ships are becoming old; some have passed the stage where it pays to repair them, and these are being used as training ships. I do not know the exact number at the moment, though I can get it for my hon. friend; but I know that on the great lakes we have several training ships, not of great .size but nevertheless ships in which men can get considerable training in engine work, helm work and all the other work that goes with the running of a ship. On the east coast we have some ships that are a good deal larger; and as time goes on of course the number of training ships will increase almost automatically, because more and more ships will become worn out and useful only for training purposes.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Are the ships on the great lakes fighting ships?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I doubt if any of the ships on the great lakes were ever ships of war in the true sense, but
I think some of them are as long as 140 feet. They are fairly large, and men can get a good deal of ship experience on them.


George Hugh Castleden: What has been the disposition of the destroyers which Canada received from the United States, I think in 1940 or 1941? Are any of those being used as training ships now, or are they still in active service?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Some of them are being used as training ships.


George Hugh Castleden: The minister could not say how many?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: No, I have not the figures before me.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Before the dinner recess I asked the minister whether there was any liaison between the merchant marine and the navy with respect to the post-war period. I realize that at the moment we must put our minds on the war and nothing else, but I was wondering if any plans were being developed along that line.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: As I have said before, I cannot undertake to speak for the merchant navy, which would come under the Department of Transport. There is no doubt, as my hon. friend well knows, that we have built in Canada a very large number of merchant ships, and after the war at least some of these ships could be used as the nucleus of a merchant marine. To give a direct answer to my hon. friend, however, no policy has been formulated by the government with regard to the creation of a Canadian mercantile marine after the war.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Shall the item carry?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Before the item carries, the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mrs. Casselman) asked a question with regard to subsistance allowances both within and without Canada. I intimated that I thought it would be better to place a table on Hansard, because there are a great many figures. With the consent of the committee I should like now to place on Hansard a table showing the allowances in lieu of lodgings, provisions, fuel and light, authorized by Canadian naval regulations.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: By unanimous consent of the committee.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: The table is as follows:



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE (NAVAL SERVICE)

[Stage Direction]
Rates of Allowances in Lieu of Lodgings, Provisions, Fuel and Light authorized by Canadian Naval Regulations *
Rank or Rating	Canada	[DOT]	U.S.A.	United Kingdom and Northern Ireland	Newfound-	West Indies, Bermuda and North American Continent (other than U.S.A. or Canada)	Elsewhere(See footnotes)	Washington	Elsewhere	Out- side London	0	(t)	1st month	Thereafter	U.S.A.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	S cts.Rear Admiral and Commodore, 1st Class	4 10	3 10	8 00	7 00	5 00	4 00	3 00	3 00	5 00	4 00Commodores, 2nd Class	3 85	2 10	8 00	7 00	5 00	4 00	3 00	3 00	5 00	4 00Captains	3 10	2 10	8 00	7 00	5 00	4 00	3 00	3 00	5 00	4 00Commanders	2 85	1 85	8 00	7 00	5 00	4 00	3 00	3 00	5 00	4 00Lieutenant-Commanders	2 60	1 70	8 00	7 00	5 00	4 00	3 00	3 00	5 00	4 00Lieutenants	2 35	1 70	7 00	6 00	5 00	4 00	3 00	3 00	5 00	4 00Sub-Lieutenants, Commissioned Officers from Warrant Rank and Subordinate Officers.	2 10	1 70	7 00	6 00	5 00	4 00	3 00	3 00	5 00	4 00Warrant Officers	1 85	1 70	7 00	6 00	5 00	4 00	3 00	3 00	5 00	4 00Nursing Sisters	1 70	1 70	7 00	6 00	5 00	4 00	3 00	3 00	5 00	4 00Ratings	1 45	1 25	5 00	3 75	3 50	2 50	2 00	1 75	3 50	2 25
Notes:-
* Officers entered in service prior to 8th May, 1942, may continue to receive these pre-war rates until they elect to receive the new rates of dependents' allowance. Ratings attested on or before 31st May, 1942, receive these "pre-war" rates.
t Officers entered in service on or after 8th May, 1942. receive these "new rates" also officers who elect as above. Ratings attested on or after 1st June, 1942, receive these "new rates".
War Appropriation-Naval Services
[Stage Direction]
War Appropriation-Naval Services
The hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) asked for the number of naval reserve officers of the rank of commander and above. There are thirty-seven confirmed commanders and above and sixty-three acting commanders and above, or a total of 100 officers of the R.C.N.Y.R. who have obtained the rank of commander and above. The same hon. member asked how many officers of the rank of captain and above have been retired in the past year, including all three branches of the service. As yet none has been actually retired, but two captains of the Royal Canadian Navy are now on leave preparatory to retirement.
The hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser) asked me just before six o'clock what the navy had sold by way of salvageable material in the last year. The navy sold in that year salvageable material which realized $60,533.33. This material consisted of scrap metal, clothing, rags, kitchen by-products, equipment, machinery and miscellaneous items, all of which were sold through the acting salvage officer in the Department of Finance.
Mr. BROOKS:: I have a question to ask, but before doing so I should like to add a brief word to what has been said in praise of the navy. It has been very pleasant listening to the words of hon. members from all sections of Canada, but we from New Brunswick have said nothing. I think that can be attributed to our great modesty. However, it does not mean that we are not proud of the men in the navy who have come from New Brunswick. Possibly we take the sea as a matter of course. A great many of our men earn their living from the sea, not only in time of war, as at present, but in peace time.
We have our full share of men in the navy and more than our share in the merchant marine. We are very proud indeed of the men from our native province who are in both these services. I would say in the words of our great Canadian poet, Bliss Carmen, who was also a New Brunswicker:
Our hearts go sailing outward With the ships of grey Saint John.
My question is in relation to rehabilitation. I believe the hon. member for Souris brought up the matter a few days ago and, in reading Hansard I find that it was discussed under both the army estimates and the estimates for the air force. As a- matter of fact, it was also discussed by the hon. member for St. Paul's. I should like to read what was said with respect to the men who are discharged from the army, and I assume the same applies to the navy at the present time. The hon. member for St. Paul's mentioned some cases in which he thought a rehabilitation allowance

should be given. Replying to the hon. member, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) said, as reported at page 622 of Hansard:
My hon. friend will understand that the rehabilitation grant is exactly what it states, namely a grant for the purpose of refitting a man into civilian life.
I do not think anyone can have any argument, as far as that is concerned. Then he goes on to say:
The assumption is that if he takes the option and requests a discharge, he has somewhere to go, some occupation at which he may be engaged. Otherwise he wrould not be asking for the discharge.
My experience has been that all men asking for discharge have not some place to go. There are other reasons for which they ask for discharge. I have found in the army-and I know this must also be the experience in the navy and the air force-that many men ask for discharge on account of sickness in their families. This has often come to my attention as a commanding officer. There are also matters of family trouble, where the head of the family may find that it is better for him to join his family than to stay in the army. Very often the mother in a family is dying, and the father has to go back to look after his children. Then in many cases, too many in fact, it is found that the wife has deserted the children and that someone must look after them. For every case where a . man asks for a discharge to go back to a job I am satisfied there is another case where he asks for a discharge for one of the other reasons I have mentioned. These men are not going back to jobs, and their case is a very difficult one. They are being continually met with.
There is also the question of men who are not fit for overseas service. Hundreds of them 

I think I would be safe in saying thousands of them-are to be found at bases in England, and at depots and other places in Canada, who really have not very much to do in the army. Their position becomes irksome, and they are asking for discharges. But no rehabilitation allowance is provided for them, and they continue in the army.
I believe if some agreement were made, or some programme arranged among the three departments for the release of these men from service, there w'ould be a very large sum of money saved to the country, and justice would be done to the men. Many men are suffering injustices at the present time, because they are simply being told, " You have asked to leave the army. You must have a job to go back to." Accordingly, out they go, without

War Appropriation-Naval Services
any allowance of any kind. I hope that there may be some programmes to look after these men.
As I said a moment ago, anyone who has had anything to do with the administrative work of the different units, in all branches of the services, will come across cases of this kind almost daily. Many of these men who are in the different depots and other base units become tired of the work in the army, and if they go back to their homes they find, if they have been business men, that it takes them some time to get back on their feet. They may have been carpenters, painters, plumbers, or men in other trades. They have been away from their work for three or four years. They may have to buy tools and equipment, so that they can get back on their feet.
Is there- any joint programme either arranged at the present time, or anticipated, to look after the rehabilitation of these men who, I claim, should receive justice. I refer to those who are leaving the army, and many others who should be out of the army at the present time.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: As I intimated before, and as I believe has been intimated by my colleague, there is a directorate of demobilization in the naval services, and in the other two service departments. There is a combined committee for the three services, a joint'service committee, and also an interdepartmental committee on which I believe my colleagues the Minister of Pensions and National Health and the Minister of Labour are represented as well. They are now giving a great deal of study to this matter of demobilization. I would point out to my hon. friend that once a man is demobilized the responsibility of the three armed services ceases and he becomes the care of the Department of Pensions and National Health. I think my hon. friend was referring at one stage of his remarks to the problem of a man who wants to get out before the end of the wTar, and he asked what is being done for him. Am I correct?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Yes, that is correct.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: With regard to the gratuity, or muste.ring-out pay, or whatever you wish to call it, which he might receive, that matter is at this very moment, and has been, I think, for some two or three months, under consideration by the three service departments and the Department of Pensions and National Health. I am not in a position to say definitely, because I do not think the matter is quite in definite shape, what the financial provisions will be. I think
it is only fair to say that they will be at least as generous as, and I think in most cases more generous than, they were at the conclusion of the last war. My hon. friend from his experience with the army is no doubt familiar with the blue booklet which was sent out showing the possihle training benefits, vocational education and so on that a man may receive who is discharged from the services. These provisions are, I believe, quite generous. In the matter of the young man who left college and wishes to complete his education, there are very generous provisions. In the case of the man who wants to take up farming, very generous assistance is given. I believe that it covers commercial fishing as well. But my hon. friend, having come direct from association with service men, is probably more familiar with that than I am.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I understand the cases which the minister has mentioned. But W'hat I am concerned about is the case of the man who, on account of family trouble or for compassionate reasons, is discharged from the army; his wife has died and he has to look after his children, or the children have been deserted, or there is other serious trouble at home. There are quite a number of these cases. According to the minister, or according to the Minister of National Defence, it is assumed that because a man has asked for his discharge he is going back to his job. The point is that he is not going back to his job, and at the present time no provision is made for these cases, of which a great many are coming up continually. I think the Minister of Pensions and National Health will agree with me that that is the situation, and I think something should be done at this time.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: In
many cases, I assume, the man to whom my hon. friend refers would go back to his job.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: 
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If I may be permitted to intervene, it is at the present time the definite responsibility of the department over which I preside to enable such men to find adequate employment.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Yes, but the fact that it may be the department's responsibility does not mean that the men have the jobs. There

War Appropriation-Naval Services
should be some provision for them until they do get jobs. That is the principle of rehabilitation.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We have that now.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Well, what about these cases which I have mentioned?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We have out-of-work benefits payable for twelve months after discharge if the man is unable to find adequate employment, as well as preferences both in contracts and in government service.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: How it works now is that a man is kept on the depot for thirty days and given thirty days pay.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Of course, if there is any gap at all between his being struck off National Defence and taken up by Pensions and National Health, that gap will have to be closed. I agree, too, that it is our responsibility to apprise the man in the first instance of what he is entitled to in post-war discharge benefits, and, second, to provide him with employment.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The whole point is this. I know the Minister of Pensions and National Health and the other ministers are discussing rehabilitation programmes, and we hear it rumoured that the men will get two or three months pay, or whatever it is. But here are men who have been in the army for three or three and a half years and who go out before the war is over. These men get nothing. I claim that there should be some plan for rehabilitating these men.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There is. We have found employment for over 85,000.


George Hugh Castleden: Further with regard to this matter of the programme, we find a definite reduction in the air force training service programme. I believe the minister for air announced that about twenty-eight flying schools across Canada were being disbanded this year. How will the general programme of naval expansion for 1944 compare with the 1943 programme? Is there any reduction at all?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: My hon. friend means, the number of men to be taken into the service? I would say to him that there will not be as many men taken in during the coming year as there were last year, so that there is a reduction in that regard. On the other hand, the number of ships next year will be greater than it was in the previous year, so that there is an increase there.


John George Diefenbaker: Just in connection
with the matter which has been brought up by the hon. member for Royal, the Minister of Pensions andi National Health stated that some 85,000 men had been found employment. If my memory serves me right, some 118,000 have been discharged. Does the minister suggest that all of the 118,000 are in employment and have had no difficulty in securing work?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No; that is not correct. But I do suggest that, through the direct agency of our organization in the Department of Pensions and National Health, combined with the work of national selective service in the Department of Labour, over 85,000 have been placed. In the last month

I am- speaking from memory now; my hon. friend will pardon me if my figures are not strictly correct-about 3,000 were discharged and placements were found1 for five or six thousand. Of course it is a rotating figure; it is not a fixed figure at all. But we find out that those asking for unemployment benefits are very few, because of the condition of employment in Canada to-day. That condition will not necessarily prevail after the war. I believe there are about three hundred accepting unemployment benefits; that is, those who are waiting for definite employment and who are entitled to the unemployment benefits provided under order in council P.C. 7633.


John George Diefenbaker: I assume this would be the right point in the discussion to suggest an amendment of the Reinstatement in Civil Employment Act. It is a matter which I think I should bring to the attention of the minister, because no opportunity will be given later on to do so. In 1942 this house passed the Reinstatement in Civil Employment Act which as hon. members know, provides that an employer shall reinstate his employee upon discharge from the armed services in the position which he had prior to his enlistment. But there is a provision therein which, I think, is even now being taken advantage of.
Section 4, paragraph (d) provides:
In any proceedings for the violation of section three of this act-
Section 3 sets out what the duty of the employer is with respect to reinstatement.
-it shall be a defence for the employer to prove-
(d) that he-
The discharged soldier.
-was physically or mentally incapable of performing work available in the employer's service.
That section, as things now stand may or may not be taken advantage of. But when

War Appropriation-Naval Services
the war is over and the patriotic urge recedes, and there is a desire on the part of some employers to secure the largest return they possibly can, that section might very well afford a defence to a refusal or a denial of an opportunity for employment to the man who, after service, has been physically disabled in any particular. I raised this point, if I remember correctly, when the bill was up. In the United Kingdom a reinstatement act is in effect, or at all events it was recently introduced, very much along the lines of the act in Canada.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: (Vancouver Centre): If my hon. friend will allow me, I do not think the act has been passed as yet in Great Britain, but the bill is very much more comprehensive than the act we passed in Canada two years ago. Our act is confined to ex-service men, while the bill in Great Britain includes those who have been injured in civil accidents, and that is the great criticism against the bill in Great Britain. They say that a man who has served his country in battle should have the preference in reinstatement over a man who has been injured in civil or industrial life. That provision has caused bitter controversy over there.


John George Diefenbaker: I am not dealing with the provisions with respect to employers in civilian industry but with the provisions in connection with the reinstatement of men after their discharge from the army. They have found it necessary in Great Britain to pass another act or submit another bill-I do not know whether it is yet law-known as the Disabled Persons bill.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is the bill to which I was referring.


John George Diefenbaker: It is based on the principle that disability is a handicap but not a barrier to employment, and it imposes the obligation upon employers of twenty-five workers or more to take a quota of men and women who are disabled, the quota varying' with the different trades. Has consideration been given in Canada to a similar provision to apply to men who, after service in the armed forces, are discharged by reason of disablement? Is it in the contemplation of the government to introduce some such measure to assure reinstatement for those who, while not physically perfect, are not so handicapped that they could not take employment?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am afraid I am speaking out of turn more or less by intruding on the estimates of my colleague. The bill passed in Canada a few years ago was sponsored by my colleague the Minister of Labour, although I gave it all
the support I could. The Disabled Persons bill in Great Britain affects civilians as well as ex-service men.


John George Diefenbaker: I was referring to ex-service men.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The committees here have been and are considering that very point very carefully. There is no phase of rehabilitation to which keen-minded civil servants in my department and others are not giving serious attention. We are all anxious to do everything we possibly can to meet the very problems my hon. friend has mentioned.


John George Diefenbaker: Has consideration been given to that very point?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, I remember that it was discussed a year ago.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: The answer that was given to me by the minister for naval services is the same answer that I have had given to me in half a dozen cases of men who have been discharged on compassionate grounds, not because they wanted to get out of the army or the navy, but for family reasons. I know one of these men in particular whose family has suffered to a great extent. I do not see any reason in the world why men discharged on compassionate grounds cannot be treated exactly the same as men discharged for some other reason. A man who is discharged on compassionate grounds is discharged for a definite reason which is accepted by the department; otherwise he would not be discharged. But he does not get the same discharge pay and allowances as men discharged for other reasons. I have three cases in mind now. In one there was definite hardship. The man had a family of five children and no place to go. The minister of pensions said that these men were all taken care of, but this man was not taken care of. He had great difficulty in getting a job. All he got upon discharge was S35-nothing else-and he has a family of five children. It seems to me that there should not be that discrimination. I think the hon. member for Royal was talking about the same thing that I am talking about now.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think my hon. friend has in mind cases where a man asks for his own discharge on compassionate grounds. That does not debar him from the benefits under.order in council P.C. 7633. I should like to know the name of that man and whether he ever reported to one of our welfare officers.
1548	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Naval Services


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I shall be glad to talk to the minister about him. This man got nothing but $35 upon discharge. I would ask the minister for naval services whether the pay and allowances upon discharge, clothing allowance and so forth, are exactly the same as in the other services.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Yes, the clothing allowance, $65, and the other discharge benefits are the same. I think there is a distinction between the man who is discharged at his own request, and the man who is discharged from the army because the army has no longer any use for him. It may be that it is a little unfair to take the man who is discharged on compasisonate grounds and put him in the same category as the man who takes his discharge simply because he wants to go back to farming or something of that sort.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: That is the point.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: There is something in what my hon. friend says. The man who is discharged because of a death in the family which necessitates his presence at home to look after his family is hardly discharged at his own request. Technically he is, but in reality he is moved by circumstances beyond his control, and it may be that we should be a little more generous in a case of that kind. That is one of the points which are now under discussion, together with the whole question of gratuities upon discharge. I shall certainly bear in mind the representations my hon. friend makes and those of the hon. member for Royal.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: There is one other point I wish to bring up. We had a long discussion the other night on dependents' allowance in the case of a man who goes A.W.O.L. I have several cases where the woman has not heard from her husband for two years. Take one case as an example. The wife had been receiving an allowance from her husband up until October 2, after which she got no more. What is to be done in that case? The woman is in this position. The man is of no use to her; he is of no use to the army, the navy or the air force, and yet she is saddled with him. There is the difficulty. It is a great injustice and there is no remedy for that woman at all. It is very necessary that something should be done about the matter. The man obviously is tired of her and has deserted her. She cannot receive any further allowances from him, and there you are. I would like to bring this to the attention of all ministers. There should be
some way of freeing this woman; it is absolutely necessary. I do not think she wants to be bothered about getting pay and allowance from him any more; she just wants to be free. That is the situation, and many hon. members no doubt have the same sort of thing they can bring up. I do not think there is any remedy in the present situation. Would the minister say something about this matter?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Do I understand my hon. friend to say that a married man who gets tired of his wife can prevent her from getting her dependents' allowance?


Douglas Gooderham Ross: She is in this position-and this particular case is illustrative of many others. The man is in the clink all the time and therefore she gets nothing. She has not heard from him for two years. Surely there must be some remedy. The woman has suffered; what is to be done about it?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I shall be glad to look into that case and get a reply for my hon. friend possibly before the sitting is over to-day.


Howard Charles Green: Will the minister explain the present position with regard to the fishermen's reserve on the west coast? There was a suggestion last fall that it might be disbanded. I hope that is not the case. Will he explain the situation at the present time?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: There is an order on that point and I am looking it up.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask one other question; it has to do with the classes carried on recently at Deep Brook, Nova Scotia, for officers. I understand that these young men were picked out from civilian life, passed two or three boards and were enrolled in the course there but that only a very small percentage of them passed the examinations, the standard being very high. In the finish those who had not been successful were given the option of going to sea for a period of three years or of taking their discharge from the navy. That was after they had been on the course for a period of almost a year. That may or may not be a correct statement of the situation, and I would like the minister to explain it. These courses, I understand, have been discontinued.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Does my hon. friend say that they were given the option of going to sea for a period of three years?

War Appropriation-Naval Services


Howard Charles Green: Going below decks for three years.
Mr. MACDONALD (Kingston City); No; there was never any snch rule as that. There was a rule that a man who had failed in his course as an officer would be given the option of going back to the lower deck or of being discharged from the service. Some have gone back while others have not, but I do not think the proportion of failures was ever great. Certainly by far the great majority of those men taking the course were successful. There would be a small percentage, but a very small one, who failed. I can get the figures on that in a moment. Take one set of figures at Kings. That is the training establishment on the east coast where many candidates come direct from the sea. Accurate figures are not readily available.as to the number of failures m Kings, but the percentage is less than four. The Kings course includes a mixture of lower-deck, officer candidate, and direct entry officers from shore. At Cornwallis 476 have completed the officer-candidate courses to date; 295 have been promoted to commission rank, sixty-two discharged, and ninety-seven continued on lower deck as ratings. Twenty-two failed the course but retained officer-candidate status on the, lower deck and will again appear for officer-candidate courses when recommended by the commanding officer. That may be in six months or a year, but I should not think it would be three years.


Mr. NEILL:: That is not on the west coast?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I am speaking of the officers training establishments at Kings in Halifax and Cornwallis in Digby.


Howard Charles Green: I was referring to the courses at Deep Brook. Apparently they were discontinued recently.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: No; they are still going on.


Howard Charles Green: My information is that, in the last few courses, fewer than thirty per cent have passed.	.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Oh, no; that is not accurate; my hon. friend is away off the mark. He may be thinking of those who appeared before selection boards, but even there more than thirty per cent passed.


Howard Charles Green: They were in that category.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: That is a different thing from failing the course. These were men who were not recommended by the selection board.


Howard Charles Green: I am wrong. They appeared before the boards, were duly recommended and spent practically a year taking the course, .and
only thirty per cent passed. They were then given the option of going to sea or being discharged.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I am sorry, but my hon. friend's figures are wrong. To begin with, it would not take a year for them to take the course; it would be about six months In the second place, the number of failures would be very much less than seventy per cent. The number of men failing at Kings, where they take the final officers training, is said to be less than four per cent. I have not the number that failed at Deep Brook, where part of the course was taken, but it would not vary substantially from the four per cent that failed at Kings. My hon. friend may rest assured that it is nothing like seventy per cent.


Howard Charles Green: What option have they once they have failed in the course?	.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: My hon. friend will understand that practically all entries now are made from the lower deck. The man who fails in his course at Kings-that is, the final failure-would be given an option of going back to the lower deck for a time and endeavouring in the course of some months, or perhaps a year, to get a recommendation from his commanding officer and again appear before the selection board and take the course, or he could be discharged from the service on the ground that he had failed to qualify. Those are the two options available.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I
believe the hon. member for Vancouver South is talking about boys who tried the examination in December. From our district, I know, there were a number who failed and they wondered why. They got high percentages and they were given the option of becoming ordinary seamen again, starting at the beginning and taking basic training all over again. They felt quite hurt about it.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I know. They naturally would be disappointed. I shall get the exact number who have failed at Deep Brook for the hon. member for Peterborough West and the hon. member for Vancouver South. I think the hon. member for Peterborough West referred particularly to the month of December.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I think it was in December that they tried their examination.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: These matters all come before me in one way or another, these men who are to be discharged on account of having failed to qualify. If

War Appropriation-Naval Services
eight or nine failed out of a list of seventy or eight}' I should say it would be rather a high percentage.


Howard Charles Green: Could the minister get the records for the last ten classes at Deep Brook?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: It might take me a little time but I shall get it.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It was in the fall, whether December or not I cannot tell. The boys told me that in the previous class over seventy per cent passed, but in their class hardly fifteen per cent passed.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I think those figures are absolutely inaccurate but I shall check them.


John George Diefenbaker: Through inadvertence the minister failed to answer a question that I asked. I asked for a statement showing the number of officers of the rank of acting commander and senior. He stated there were 100, but I want to know how many of those 100 senior officers belonged to the R.C.N.V.R.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Those that I gave.


John George Diefenbaker: That is the number.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: That is the number of R.C.N.V.R. commanders and above. I think that is what my hon. friend
asked.


John George Diefenbaker: There is one other question. In so far as the opportunity now affords itself for men in the lower decks to train for commissions a notable step has been taken. A moment ago the minister, if I understood him aright, stated that there were still exceptions to that rule. What are the exceptions?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: There are certain branches of the service into which men come directly. Take as an example the medical branch, the special branch, as it is called, which consists of lawyers, technicians and other professional men. Some men come directly into that branch. But for the executive branch, which is sea-going, what I might call the combatant branch, all entry is made from the lower deck, and I think more than two thousand men have come from the lower deck to commissioned ranks.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Would the minister
give some explanation of the wide variation in the ratio of officers to ratings in the different provinces. The table which was placed on Hansard at page 1309 indicates that Prince Edward Island has a ratio of approximately

four officers to every 100 ratings; Nova Scotia, about ten; New Brunswick, seven; Quebec, thirteen; Ontario, seven; Manitoba, four; Saskatchewan, three; Alberta, three; and British Columbia, twelve. Those of us who come from the prairie provinces will never admit that those who joined the navy from the prairies are not giving a good account of themselves. There are many cases of heroism, and it seemed to me that the ratio from the prairies should be higher. It is hard to understand why the ratio from Prince Edward Island is four compared with ten in Nova Scotia; why the ratio from British Columbia should be so high. It is true that those who live near the sea have opportunities which the prairie boys do not have. In every field of war activity the men from the plains have adapted themselves very quickly to their due responsibilities, and the officers who have been trained have done exceptionally good work. Can the minister explain why there is that variation?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: It is quite natural for my hon. friend to raise the question, and I am glad that he did so because he allows me to make an explanation which perhaps I should have made earlier. It is quite true, as he says, that the proportion of officers to ratings in the prairie provinces is not so high as it is, say in the maritime provinces, or in British Columbia; but I think the reason for that is to be found in the fact that a great many of the Royal Canadian Naval Reserve officers, the men who, before the war, were at sea in the mercantile marine and so on, came from the maritime provinces, the St. Lawrence, the great lakes and British Columbia. I should suppose that very few of the R.C.N.R. officers would come from the prairies because, through the accident of geography, there are no great waterways in those provinces as there are in the five eastern provinces and in British Columbia. Then again there are a great many yachtsmen in the maritime provinces, on the banks of the St. Lawrence, on the great lakes and in British Columbia. These men were available at the beginning of the war and many of them entered the service. On account of their experience with boats and engines and with sail they came into the service. But I should not want it thought for a moment that men from the prairies, given the same amount of training, would not make officers just as competent and just as reliable and faithful in every way as men from any other part of the country. I am sure that they would; they would main-

War Appropriation-Naval Services
tain the magnificent record which the prairie provinces have already achieved in the naval service.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The Minister of National Defence put a table on Hansard, which appears at page 990. This table shows that an ordinary seaman signing on gets $1.25 a day; whereas a private in the army gets S1.30. Why the difference?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Well, it is a long story. The fact is that there is some discrepancy all through the table between comparable ranks in the three services. My hon. friend will find, for instance, that certain ranks in the naval service get a little more than the corresponding rank in the army. We find that other ranks get a little less. In the case of the ordinary seaman there was a time when he got $1.45 in the navy, as against the private's S1.30. Then we had to adjust it in some way and we also had to adjust the matter of subsistence. Then, the marriage allowance in the navy was a little bit lower than in the army for some curious reason, and by trying to adjust those things as equitably as we could it was felt that the ordinary seaman who joined the navy after June, 1942, I think it was, should receive $1.25 a day instead of SI.30 for the private. I will agree with my hon. friend that it is difficult to take these tables and find them wholly and absolutely comparable. They are not, but it was about the best we could do at the time.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The [DOT]eason why I brought this matter up was that these boys, when they join the navy, the army or the air force at $1.30 a day, would like to have,a few dollars to spend. But they find they have practically nothing on account of the things they have to buy. I think when they join up they should have the same pay all the way through the services. After they step up it might be a little different, but when they join I really believe they should have the same all the way through.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Yes. I shall bear that in mind. Certainly I have no objection whatever to seeing their pay raised by five cents.


Grote Stirling: Would the minister explain whether the assigned pay in the navy is exactly the same as in the other services? Then, in connection with the allowance to a dependent mother, does the navy take a more generous view than the other services with regard to a mother who was entirely dependent on a son who goes into the navy and pays an allowance for the mother's keep?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: The dependents' allowance is the same for all three services, and I understand that the principle with regard to the allowance for mothers is the same in the navy as in the other services.


Grote Stirling: And the assigned pay?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: A rating in the navy must assign fifteen days' pay for his wife and five days' pay for any other dependent, such as a mother, which I think is about the same as in the army and the air force.


Howard Charles Green: Did the minister get the
information concerning the fishermen's reserve?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I am just getting that order; I do not have it here, but I will return to the point before the sitting is over.


Howard Charles Green: There is one other question I should like to ask, having to do with recreational facilities at St. John's, Newfoundland. Both officers and men who have been stationed there tell me that facilities for the men are very poor. They come in after a trip lasting several days, under very hard conditions, and there are no proper recreation huts. It is difficult to get accommodation in St. John's, and the suggestion has been made that a building or buildings should be erected there by the dominion government. Could the minister tell us the situation in St. John's?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Certain buildings have already been erected there through the Department of National War Services, which in turn acts through the Legion, the Knights of Columbus, the Y.M.C.A. and the Salvation Army. There are some recreation buildings in St. John's, but it is a very busy place, and like other towns and' cities in Canada its population has greatly increased.


Howard Charles Green: I am referring to St. John's, Newfoundland.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Yes; I am speaking of St. John's, Newfoundland. Personally I should like to see conditions improved, and every step is being taken to do so. Up to the present, however, it has been very difficult to erect buildings, particularly on the eastern seaboard; it has been difficult to get materials and supplies, and in some cases labour. Gradually all these difficulties are being overcome, and I hope we may be able to do a great deal better than we have done in the past, not only at St. John's, Newfoundland, but at other ports in the east.


Howard Charles Green: Are new buildings to be
erected there?

War Appropriation-Naval Services


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Yes; the Y.M.C.A. is contemplating the erection of a building on the south side of the harbour; the matter was before me only a day or two igo in connection with the plan of the building and what they wanted to provide. They also have a building in the main part of the city, and so have the Knights of Columbus. Their building was destroyed by fire, but I think it has been rebuilt. The Salvation Army is there also, and I think there are one or two local organizations as well.	The seamen's
institute of St. John's operates a building there, or used to do so, at any rate. Of course the new Y.M.C.A. building will be a great help.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
3. Travel, transportation	and	freight,
Mr. KNOWLES:: I should like to deal with a matter relating to transportation home for men who leave the navy, technically at their own request. As the minister knows, I wrote him about a particular case some time ago, and at that time he quoted to me a particular regulation and said it was impossible to do anything in connection with the rating about whom I wrote. Latei*on, thinking the regulation stood for all three services, I raised the matter in the house; I believe it was on February 17, when the Minister of National Defence was before the committee. At that time I learned that a change had been made, with respect to the army at any rate, providing for transportation from the place of discharge, even when a man was discharged at his own request, back to the place of enlistment or to the home of the individual. There was a little confusion that night as to whether the regulations were the same in all three services, but the next day the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services tabled a regulation which had been passed some days earlier, providing for the very thing I was mentioning, namely transportation from the place of discharge to the place of enlistment or the rating's home.
On the basis of that new regulation, even though I knew it was dated in February while the case with which I was dealing went back to December of last year, I drew this case to the attention of the minister again. I did so because I felt that it was a particularly unfortunate case in itself, and also because I felt that there must be other similar cases. This rating had enlisted at London, Ontario. On account of his wife's illness, which was quite serious, it became unquestionably necessary for him to leave the service. I am bearing in mind what the minister said a few moments ago, that there are cases like this in which,

though technically a man is discharged at his own request, still the situation is not of his own creation, and in my opinion special consideration should be given a man under such circumstances. This particular man, who was discharged in Victoria, was given the balance of pay that was coming to him up to that time and the clothing allowance, which at that time was $35. He was told, though he did not need to be told, that he would have to spend that $35 on clothes, which left him with only about $20 or $22 to go from Victoria to near London, Ontario. Eventually the man made contact with the Navy League of Canada in Victoria; and a man whom I happen to know, a former solicitor of the city of Winnipeg working with the Navy League in Victoria, did his best to help this man. When I discussed the case previously I implied that the Navy League of Canada had supplied the money to enable this man to get home. Really that was not the whole of the story. It was through the Navy League and the assistance of the gentleman to whom I have referred that help was obtained for this man. But actually it had to be obtained in the form of borrowed money. The money was lent to him, through the instrumentality of the gentleman to whom I have referred, by the Salvation Army. That was the source to which this man had to go to get money to go home. He is now home. In the meantime he has secured employment again, but he has been faced with very heavy medical bills because of the serious illness of his wife, and he still owes as a debt the money that was borrowed from the Salvation Army to enable him to get home.
As I say, fully conscious of the fact that I was asking for something that dated back prior to the date of the new regulations, nevertheless I felt it was a case that should be given more generous and sympathetic consideration by the minister. Accordingly I wrote him again on March 2, and in his reply to me the minister said he did not think it would be wise to pay transportation in this case, because that would be establishing a precedent. As a matter of fact, I do not think that is any argument against it. If there are cases similar to this, of men who have offered their services, and spent time in the forces, but who through no fault of their own have been forced to get out, and have been left with a debt such as this so that they could get home, it would not do any harm to establish a precedent to treat generously men who find themselves in that situation.
I was a little put out by the comment of the minister when he said at a later point

War Appropriation*-Naval Services
in his letter that he did not altogether approve the paying of transportation in such cases. The minister used these words:
When men are discharged at the end of hostilities, or through wounds, or for other causes not of their own making, then I feel it is only fair for the government to pay transportation.
With that we all agree. But then he goes on to say:
On the other hand, when a man leaves the service for his own private reasons, it seems to me that he is in a totally different position.
I do not think that comment should have been made about a man who has offered his services, spent four years in the navy, and who would have preferred to stay in the navy but who, for reasons not of his creation, because of difficulties at home, is forced to leave the service.
I should like to quote from one letter I received from this man, just to indicate his spirit in the whole matter. As hon. members will realize, after the conversation I had with the Minister of National Defence in this matter in the committee, following which the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services tabled the revised regulations, I conveyed that information to this man. This was his reply to me:
I feel much better now. At least the next fellow that has to be discharged under the same circumstances will fare a whole lot better than I. There is a saying in the navy, "Grim, isn't it?" And that just about sums it all up.
I emphasize the fact that the spirit of this man, despite his unfortunate and unhappy situation, is indeed commendable. I present the case because I feel that in this and similar cases a point should certainly be stretched in their favour.
It has now been recognized under the new regulations in all three services that when a man is discharged at his own request, particularly in a situation such as this, his transportation is paid back to the place of his enlistment, or to his home. That is now the rule in all three services. I make a plea again for this man, and for. other men in similar situations, even though their cases may have been prior to date of the new regulations, and I ask that the department see what can be done by way of taking care of any debt they may have had to incur to get home.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I would have to look up the correspondence. I do not know whether it appeared to me at first that this man was in the position described by my hon. friend. But I still say, generally, that the man who leaves the service at his own request because he thinks he can better 100-98
himself, or for some other such reason, should not be paid by the service for his transportation-although we are doing it, even in that case. The case of the man discharged at his own request under circumstances such as my hon. friend has described, through the illness of some relative or for some other domestic cause which urgently requires his presence at home, is a little different.
When I said I was opposed to paying transportation to a man who left the service at his own request I meant this. Why should the service take any more interest in the man who leaves, as I say, because he wants to go back to farming, into business or something of that sort and hopes to better himself? There is no reason why it should. He leaves when it suits him. We shake hands and part, and that is the end of the transaction.
But in the case my hon. friend describes, one where there was some domestic trouble or domestic worry which compelled him to go home, I agree there is a little difference. However, I am not sure that that was made clear to me in the correspondence. I shall look into it and find out.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wish to make a plea to the minister in dealing with a case of this kind not to use language such as he did, when he spoke of men leaving the service to better their own positions. I appreciate the minister's offer to look up the correspondence again. He will find I have written him two letters, each of which was two pages in length, in which I gave far more detail than I have given on the floor of the house. The details make it clear that it was a case in which generous treatment should have been given the man. It was in no sense any attempt to better his position, but simply because there were reasons why he had to go home.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: My hon. friend may have written me two letters, but I get a great many letters, and I cannot attempt to recall what was in a letter written to me a .month or six weeks ago. I am sorry, but that is the situation. I should like to have time to look up the correspondence, and see whether it was made abundantly clear that it was not so much a case of a man's being discharged at his own request as one where the circumstances imperatively required his presence at home. I have every sympathy with such a case.
I have not so much sympathy, however, with the man who, to better his own position, says, "I want to go farming. I have had a year or two in the navy, and I want to leave it." He should pay his own way home. But



War Appropriation-Naval Services
even in that case, under the recent ruling, we pay his way. But I draw a distinction between the purposes for which a man wants to leave the service. If it is for a commendable purpose, for what might be called humanitarian reasons, that is one thing. I have every sympathy with that. But if it is because a man wishes to go home only because he thinks he can make more money, then I say that is his own lookout, and he should pay his own way.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I object, and the reason why I have protested so vigorously against the minister making the comments he has made in this case is that, in spite of the detail which I have placed before him-and I think, when he examines the correspondence in the light of this discussion, he will see my point-the direct statement he made was, "I do not think it would be wise to pay transportation in this case."
I shall draw the case to the minister's attention again by correspondence, and I am sure after what has been said to-night he will look into it further.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I shall be glad to look into it further.


Mr. FAIR:: On an earlier occasion, when the estimates of the Minister of National Defence were before the committee, a number of hon. .members made a further plea for free transportation for members of all services when on furlough or on embarkation leave. We were told then that the matter was under consideration. Has any decision been arrived at up to this time?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: The matter of free transportation for members of the armed services has been brought up in the house almost every session in the last three or four years. I do not know that we can ever go so far as to give free transportation to members of the armed services to all parts of Canada, but there has been a suggestion-that is all I can say; it is now under consideration -that we fix a certain maximum payment beyond which the soldier, the sailor or the airman would not have to go. That, I may say, is quite a reasonable maximum, and it may be agreed to. But it would be difficult to grant free transportation all round in a country as great as Canada. I recognize that in the United Kingdom service men are given free transportation, but there the distances are much shorter than they are from one side of Canada to the other, and the matter is a good deal simpler.


Robert Fair: I think one of the main reasons why this question has been brought up so

often is the size of our country. In a number of cases men who belong in Vancouver are stationed on the east coast, and it costs them quite a lot of money to get to the west coast. So that if a ceiling is determined upon, I hope it will be set very low.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
If. Construction, purchase, repairs and operating expenses of properties
[Stage Direction]
(a)	Capital expenditure, $17,990,462;
(b)	Repairs, operating expenses and rentals, $6,715,891.
Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: I should like to ask the minister a question in connection with sub-item, (a). In my riding is a most excellent building. It is a kind of "hush, hush" building too, but he knows the one I mean. Although he has, I believe, highly trained naval men there and an elaborate and expensive, building, there is no place for the men to live. Some are living in barns, some in tents-[DOT] , wherever they can. Is any provision being made for a barracks for the building to which I am referring? I am always afraid that it will be deemed not in the national interest if I call a place by its name around here. It is what I think is called an interceptor station. The reason I am asking is that it is a permanent building; while it is not, as the minister knows, merely a temporary structure, yet there is absolutely no provision for the men to live there.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: If my hon. friend would send me over the name by secret message I could look it up here.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Then we would not have the privilege of getting on Hansard the location of a most elaborate and up-to-date building. It is at Matsqui, in the Fraser Valley. I understand there is no "hush, hush" about it. It is an interceptor station.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Is the name Sumas?


George Alexander Cruickshank: No;	Matsqui	is
where the building is. Where the men are living is at Aldergrove. The navy personnel have to travel sixteen'miles from Aldergrove to the building.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I
cannot tell my hon. friend exactly what it is proposed to do there, but I may say that a considerable sum is set aside in the estimates for construction of works and buildings at three places out there, of which I assume Aldergrove is one. The sum of $187,000 has been set aside for the construction of works and buildings, and I have no doubt that the barrack building to which he refers is included in that.

War Appropriation-Naval Services


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I
should like to ask the minister how much more it will cost to complete Deep Brook, or Cornwallis, and, if possible, I should like to know how much it has cost so far.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I will turn that up in a moment.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: While the minister is looking it up, could he tell me if all the different buildings for the men will have lockers in them? I understand that at the present time one or two of the buildings have lockers, or "decks" I believe they call them, but not all of them have lockers.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I assume that lockers will be provided as quickly as they can be had. It is important that the men should have lockers in which to keep their clothing and other gear. My hon. friend asked what was the cost and what are the proposed future requirements at Deep Brook. I may tell him that up to January 31 of this year there was expended, in round figures, S7,S4S,000, and the estimated cost to complete is S1,013,000.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Does that include the dock at Cornwallis?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Yes. I have the information here. The wharf is included in the totals which I have given my hon. friend.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Does the department intend to extend that dock out another 500 or more feet in order to accommodate corvettes and other naval ships which come in there? Will it be extended farther into the Annapolis basin?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: No, I think not. I do not believe any such extension is contemplated.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That means that the boats which come there will have to anchor outside?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Not all the boats. There are a great many boats which come to the wharf.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: But
they can stay only a short time.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Well, at high tide, I think, almost every boat can come into that wharf.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: But at low tide?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: At
low tide only a certain type of boat can come in.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That
is why I wondered if the minister was going to extend the wharf out.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: No, I think not; probably the cost would be too great.


Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: Could the
minister state what the depth of water is at that dock at average high tide and the depth of water at extreme low tide?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: There is more than a twenty-foot difference between high and low water in that bay.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I think twenty-eight feet in the minimum, and it sometimes runs to thirty-two feet, as the extreme.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: That may be in some places. What it would be around the wharf I am not sure, but I will look into the matter.


Mr. MARSHALL:: I see that this item covers buildings only and that the sum of 817,990,462 covers expenditures in connection with the erection of other new buildings or repairs to old buildings. Would the minister give a break-down of that amount, showing what will be spent on new buildings and what will be spent on old buildings; also a breakdown of the 86,715,891 into the three separate items of repairs, operating expenses and rentals.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I will just give round figures. The first item of 817,990,000 covers capital expenditures on properties. Of that sum $16,571,000 is for works and new buildings, and $1,418,000 is for machinery to be purchased. The $6,715,000 is made up as follows: fuel, $1,619,000; rentals, $650,000; telephones, $136,000; repairs to buildings, $691,000; alterations to buildings, $1,159,000; repairs to machinery, SI77,000. Then there is an item, maintenance proper, $2,255,000. Those taken together aggregate the sum set forth in the estimates.


Percy Chapman Black: Did I understand the minister to say that at high tide the depth of water at the wharf at Deep Brook was twenty feet, and that there was no depth of water at low tide?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: That is not what I said at all. I was asked the difference between high and low water in the basin and I made a rough estimate of twenty feet.


Percy Chapman Black: The question I asked was what was the depd- at the wharf at extreme low tide.
100-98J

War Appropriation-Naval Services


Angus Lewis Macdonald: 
Gordon Knapman Fraser: What does Stadacona No. 2 at Halifax cost? Has the department acquired any new camps for the sea cadets? I understand that there are 5,000 more sea cadets this year. Are there any new summer camps acquired for them?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: WThen my hon. friend refers to Stadacona No. 2, he is referring to the building we acquired from the air force?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Yes, and you made a number of change-overs there, did you not? '


Angus Lewis Macdonald: We made some slight changes to the interior of the building. I do not know that they are fully completed or that I could give my hon. friend the exact cost to date.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Were there not some swimming pools put in there?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: We did not put them in. Any alterations we made would be of a relatively minor nature, because the building had already been used as a barracks for the air force.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It is supposed to be a fairly good building?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Yes.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Have any new properties been acquired for the sea cadets?
Mr. MACDONALD'(Kingston City): As I intimated to the hon. member for Danforth this afternoon, we do not pay for any of these sea cadet camps. We provide for some maintenance, some naval officers, some help and some boats, but the camps are in existence because of the generosity and close interest of the Navy League of Canada and others.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: There were no new camps taken over in the past year?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Some new camps were opened last year.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That is the question I asked: not the cost, but which new ones were acquired.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: At Gananoque a new camp was opened, largely, I think, because of the interest of the Rotary club of that town. I have a list of the camps here. There were camps at Comox, on the east coast of Vancouver island; Chestermere lake, at Calgary-that was not new; lake Wabamun, not far from Edmonton; Shepley island, not far from Saskatoon; Stevenson's point, near Winnipeg-the sea cadets have been there before; lake Eva, 125 miles from Port Arthur; Kitchigami, not far from London; Princess Alice camp, on Georgian bay; Queen Elizabeth camp, on Georgian bay-that was opened a year before. There was a new camp at Rotary island, not far from Ganonoque; and a camp at Crow island, near Three Rivers -I think that was new last year. There was a camp at Buchan, not far from Charlottetown. There was Rainbow haven, twelve miles from Halifax, which was also opened in previous years. These are the thirteen camps which were opened in various parts of the country.


Grote Stirling: None of them belonging to the dominion government.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: No.


Grote Stirling: Last year the sea cadet camp on the west coast was at Comox, and I was informed it was not the intention of the minister to use it again for that purpose. Does the minister know whether that is the case?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I cannot answer my hon. friend. Is the camp being put to some other purpose this year; is that the question?


Grote Stirling: What I was told was that another site more suitable for the purpose of a sea cadet camp was being considered and that it -was not likely that Comox would be used again.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I could find that out from the coordinator of sea cadets. It may be that the camp is to be put to some other use this year. Last year it was quite a large camp; 574 boys attended.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: During the past year have any new barracks been built for the Wrens, or are any new ones contemplated this year?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Speaking subject to possible correction, I think the only new building we actually erected for the Wrens was at St. John's, Newfoundland. We did acquire several existing buildings in several parts of the country for the use of the Wrens, and in fact we built other buildings, too.

War Appropriation-Naval Services


Gordon Knapman Fraser: They are under rental?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Some of them have been bought, in fact most of them. There may be one or two under rental.


James Sinclair: This afternoon the hon. member for Vancouver South spoke at some length on the war against Japan in the Pacific. While I, too, am a Vancouver member, I must say that I am more in accord with the views of the minister and the hon. member for Broadview in that our job with the navy is the battle in the north Atlantic. We in British Columbia are aware of the fact that the Canadian navy will eventually fight in the Pacific against the Japanese. Having that in mind, may I ask how much of the $17,000,000 to be spent in the current year will be spent in the great harbour of Vancouver, where certainly the British navy and parts of the Canadian navy will be based at dockyards and piers, which will have to be built in advance, without detracting from the efficiency of Canadian ships in the north Atlantic.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: The question of works and projects to be undertaken in Vancouver harbour is still under consideration. There is ample scope within the estimates to take care of any expenditure which we may find it necessary to make there, but the whole discussion is still proceeding and nothing definite has been settled as to just what will be done in the harbour.


James Sinclair: Is this discussion based on the needs of Canada's navy out there at the present time or on the basis of what the British navy and the Canadian navy will need when they fight Japan?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Perhaps my hon. friend will allow me to give a little thought to that question and bring down the answer later. We did acquire from the Department of Transport the right to use certain sheds on one of the harbour commission piers in Vancouver and that helped us out for the time being. I am not sure, and I do not think anyone in the department is sure, whether that will be sufficient to take care of our needs. It may be that we shall have to put up still more storage space in Vancouver harbour, but that is a matter which is still being considered and which I should like to have an opportunity of thinking over before replying.


James Sinclair: I think the war in the Pacific will involve more than a few sheds and a government pier. I suggested the other evening that the great harbour space in North
Vancouver could be used. It is not a matter of building docks when the war actually develops out there.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: It is not a matter of building docks now? I thought my hon. friend was advocating the building of a naval dock.


James Sinclair: I am advocating just that, on the north shore of Vancouver harbour.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I
thought my hon. friend said it was not a matter of building docks. I did not hear him correctly. I shall be glad to give him a considered answer later. I have no doubt he is interested in the harbour of Esquimalt. There is an estimate for Esquimalt of $968,000 in connection with the dockyard joint service magazine and fueling depot at that point. If my hon. friend will be good enough to let me look at the Vancouver matter I shall give him an answer later.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Will the minister look up for me the aggregate item? I am interested in knowing whether there is provision there for the locality with which I am concerned.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I told my hon. friend there was an aggregate item of $187,000, and I am sure his locality is one of the places to be taken care of under that item.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am afraid the $187,000 represents money spent last year.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Oh, no. This is for the next year.


James Alexander Marshall: May I refer to the question of camps for sea cadets. Did I understand the minister to say that such a camp was located at Wabamun, near the city of Edmonton? Would the minister tell the committee the size of the camp, when it was located there, and whether there are any other camps in Alberta?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: The Wabamun camp was under the supervision of Edmonton. There was another camp, the Chestermere lake camp, fourteen miles from Calgary. These are the only two in Alberta. The number of boys attending Wabamun camp was 119, and those attending Chester-mere lake camp, 462.


George Alexander Cruickshank: If the minister would be considerate enough to lower his voice we might hear what is being said behind the curtains.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I thank my hon. friend.

War Appropriation-Naval Services


Percy Chapman Black: May I ask a question with regard to the gymnasium at Wellington barracks? The cost of this gymnasium would appear to the ordinary person to be extravagant, most excessive. I do not want to be interpreted as criticizing expenditures for giving all the equipment, facilities and comfort necessary to the men in the navy. I think it is the view of the people of Canada that there is nothing too good for the navy. They have the good will of everybody, particularly the women all over Canada. On the other hand, when there is an expenditure of 8645,000 or thereabouts for a gymnasium and swimming-pool in connection with Wellington barracks a great many people in my province wonder if this very large expenditure is really necessary. Many people who subscribe according to their means to bonds and pay heavy taxes have serious misgivings about some of those excessive expenditures or what they interpret as excessive expenditures in connection with the minister's department. The department has expanded greatly since the outbreak of the war. At that time it had only 1,774 men in the service, and the whole Canadian navy, big and small, was represented by fifteen vessels. I do not hold the minister to account for that. But I say the figures which were given as the basis of the growth of the navy are a most serious reflection on the government and those who had the responsibility of preparing Canada to defend itself and its shipping when war broke out. The minister was not in his present position at that time, and I do not hold him responsible. On the other hand, I consider it to the discredit of those who had the responsibility in the years leading up to the war.	[DOT]
I should like to ask the minister what is the justification for this veiy large expenditure on the gymnasium built at Wellington barracks, Halifax, which I think has the special name of Stadacona?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I
can only say to my hon. friend that it is a very large physical training building. The estimate is considerably less now than the original estimate. The original estimate was cut down quite drastically. There is a swimming-pool in the building, but I think that is an absolute necessity for men who are taking on duties at sea; and to show that there is no extravagance I received not long since a letter from a citizen of Halifax who urged that the swimming-pool should be, as most swimming-pools are, tiled instead of lined with cement. He pointed out that tile was much more sanitary, that men were likely to contract athlete's foot one from another if cement were used. We
fMr. A. L. Macdonald.]
have not agreed even to spend the extra five or six thousand dollars that it would cost to t.ile that swimming-pool and the adjacent floor.
This is a physical training building. It is very large. It is well fitted out but not extravagantly fitted out. I can get my hon. friend more details by to-morrow; but I think I can assure him that every economy which could be reasonably practised was practised there.


Percy Chapman Black: This expenditure may be justified, but a great many of the taxpayers do not appreciate that it is. That expenditure would build practically the entire equipment of some of the smaller universities that we have down east. What composes the whole set-up of Wellington barracks? I understand that one part of it is called Stadacona No. 1 and another part Stadacona No. 2, and perhaps there are other sections of the naval establishment at Wellington barracks. Could the minister give the committee this information ?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Stadacona No. 2 is what used to be called the "Y" depot, the building used by the air force. Stadacona proper, that is, the old Stadacona, is the original site. My hon. friend is familiar with it. I may say with regard to the physical training building that a great many men would rely on this physical training building for physical training and exercise. For instance, at Stadacona there are roughly 12,000 men. That does not take in men who might be visiting the port in ships.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: They are all allowed to go into the swimming-pool?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Oh,
yes, it is for all naval personnel. They are allowed not merely to go into the swimming-pool but to use the parallel bars and all the physical training appliances in this building. No university in this country has anything like 12,000 men or men and women put together. No university here has half that number, so that there is, I think, a great need for a proper physical training building.


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: May I suggest to the minister that if there is any question about giving them tile, give them the tile.


Percy Chapman Black: I should like
to ask the minister what interest his department has in connection with the old exhibition grounds and the exhibition equipment at Halifax? I am not sure whether it is under the control of the army or the navy. I understand that the navy has an interest in part of it at least. This property was taken over from the province of Nova Scotia, as I understand it, for

War Appropriation-Naval Services
the sum of $225,000, or thereabouts. I am not sure whether that includes the entire property. Large expenditures were made on it, the contractors being the Fundy Construction company, S262,606; R. & A. Parsons, $323,293; W. G. Foley, $59,778, and nearly $70,000 in furnishings and equipment. Then there are the grandstand and the outer building. I should like to know what part of this building is used by the Department of National Defence for Naval Services and whether the minister's department is responsible for this additional building or works constructed on the property?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I
think I can say to my hon. friend that the army now has control of all the exhibition building and grounds. We were there for a time, and we may now have a small storehouse on one corner of it for the storage of minesweeping gear, but I think the army is exclusively in control there.


Percy Chapman Black: Were these new structures built by the army or by the minister's department?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I do not think we built any new structures, certainly no large ones. We had to do some building there because men were sleeping under the grandstand for a time. We had to put in bunks and we had to put in heating and so on. Inevitably what would be suitable as an exhibition building would not be suitable as a barracks, and therefore we had some repair work to do on the building. Now the whole matter is under the army.


Percy Chapman Black: I understand the King Edward hotel has been purchased by the Department of National Defence for Naval Services. For what purpose is it being used, and was due consideration given by the department to the inconvenience of the other users of this property when they were displaced, in view of the great scarcity of hotel accommodation in the city of Halifax?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: At the moment I cannot give my hon. friend the cost to us of the King Edward hotel, but my recollection is that this building had not been used as a hotel for a great number of years. We took over the King Edward hotel and certain other adjacent property, and are using it now as a canteen, cafeteria, restaurant and that sort of thing.


Percy Chapman Black: I see by a return which was brought down that the property was purchased for $26,500.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: It was a very good buy.


Percy Chapman Black: Then I should like to ask the minister about the construction of the wireless and telegraph station at Dartmouth. A fairly considerable expenditure has been made there to the Fundy Construction company, amounting to $129,751. What is that used for?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I presume my hon. friend refers to Albro lake, outside Dartmouth. If my hon. friend wishes to know the total cost I shall have to get that information for him, but the work there is for a wireless station.


Percy Chapman Black: Then I should like to ask with regard to the very large expenditure on the navy armament depot at Dartmouth, which appears to have cost nearly $3,000,000. For what purpose is that required?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: That will be for the storage and repair of guns of all kinds.


Percy Chapman Black: If repairs are carried on there, is it equipped with a machine-shop capable of doing general overhaul work?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Yes; storage and repair.


Percy Chapman Black: What is the policy of the department with respect to /the searching of titles and other legal services? In this return brought down some time ago I notice there are about sixty properties owned or controlled by the department, and two or three names appear constantly in this report as those of men who have rendered legal service. Mr. J. E. Rutledge has many accounts in, though in connection with some of them his charges are not known. I see the name of Mr. J. W. Godfrey, and there are several others. Has it been the policy of the department to engage different law firms or solicitors in connection with titles, or has the department some official on its own staff who is doing this work? *


Angus Lewis Macdonald: There is no official in the department of naval services to do that work, unless we took men who are doing other work and sent them there. In any event, the common practice would be to get in touch with a local lawyer who would be familiar with the methods of searching in the province concerned. Furthermore, when we wish to have any legal work of that kind done we consult the Department of Justice and ask them to see that it is looked after.


Percy Chapman Black: Have Mr. R. M. Fielding, Mr. J. W. Godfrey and Mr. COMMONS
War Appropriation

Naval Services
J. E. Rutledge any special qualifications beyond those possessed by scores of other solicitors in the city of Halifax for doing this work for the department?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I told my hon. friend a moment ago that I do not appoint any of these men. These matters are handed to the Department of Justice, which selects the men who are to act for it in the various localities. As to Mr. Rutledge, Mr. Godfrey and Mr. Fielding, I think any of them would be quite competent to search titles.


Percy Chapman Black: I think they have been very carefully selected by some standard or another.
Then I should like to get some information with respect to the naval set-up at Point Edward, I think, in Westmount, at Sydney harbour on Cape Breton island. What has been the total expenditure there; what is the equipment, and for what purpose is it used? While the minister is dealing with this, I should like to know the loss that was entailed in the fire which occurred a few months ago and whether he has any information as to the cause of the fire at that establishment, as well as the causes of fires at various other defence establishments not only in Nova Scotia but elsewhere throughout Canada. A great deal of uneasiness has been caused among people generally by these fires which have destroyed establishments either under the control of the department or erected for the convenience and comfort of men in the services. Great losses have been caused to those who for patriotic reasons have made personal contributions in order to see that the enlisted men should have all possible advantages and comforts.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: The amount expended at Sydney to December 31 last was $9,662,000, and it is estimated that it will cost $840,000 to complete the work. My hon. friend asked as to the purpose of this institution. There is at Sydney a complete naval base consisting of barracks, officers' quarters, canteens, mess halls, wardrooms, schools, training accommodation, store buildings, recreation facilities, shops, laundry, bakery, post office, a marine railway, fire station, pump station, chapel, hospital and so on. It is a fairly complete naval base.


Percy Chapman Black: Would the minister give information as to the cause of the fire at Point Edward or Westmount, and other points in Nova Scotia, with particular reference to his department?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: The fire which destroyed the Sydney pier was caused by certain welding operations carried on there, which ignited the oil carried in a
TMr. P. C. Black.]
fuel pipe running under the wharf. The fuel pipe ran through a tunnel inside the wharf, or under the wharf. That made it very difficult, of course, to get at the seat of the fire to extinguish it.
The great difficulty is that now and again we have complaints as to the cost of building. However, when we start to put up a proper type of building, that is a fireproof one, we are criticized for spending too much. As we see now, the wharf at Sydney undoubtedly would have been better had it been concrete, in the beginning. It would have cost more initially, of course, but in the long run we would have saved money. But we tried to get along and hoped we might get by with a wooden wharf. We did not succeed, unfortunately, in this instance.
The fire at Shelburne was caused by an overheated boiler in a building on the wharf.


Percy Chapman Black: There is no suspicion of sabotage in connection with any of the fires which occurred on the department's property?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: No.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Was there any insurance on any of these buildings, or is that in line with the department's policy?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: There was no insurance. The policy of the dominion government is not to insure buildings, on the theory that by spreading the risk among a great many buildings they save money by not insuring.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
5. Personnel supplies and services:	Food,
medical and dental stores, clothing and personal equipment, $27,846,280.
Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I have before me the recommendations made by the national health survey and tabled by the Minister of National Defence a few days ago. It is stated here that the ratio for medical officers per 1,000 troops in the army in Canada is 4-98, whereas overseas it is 3-83. In the entire service in the army, in Canada and overseas, the ratio is 4-5 per 1,000.
In the navy the ratio is 4-9, and in the air force it is 3-66. The report says:
In order to properly assess these ratios, it is necessary to study carefully the factors appearing in the appended tables. The air force has perhaps the least complex organization; it has also the lowest ratio. Many medical officers in all the services find their work less onerous than work which they had been accustomed to in civil practice. In the short time at the disposal of the committee it was not possible to study this subject exhaustively, and we did not feel competent to make any arbitrary

War Appropriation-Naval Services
recommendation. The committee is, however, of the opinion that a ratio of 3-5 to 3-7 per thousand should provide ample room for all medical needs. This statement, however, must be interpreted broadly in the light of indeterminate overseas requirements.
Would the minister be in a position to illuminate this statement? We find that in the air force the ratio is 3-66, and it is pointed out that they have the least complex organization. Could the minister give some explanation as to why the ratio in the navy and the army appears to be a good deal higher than in the other service?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: What is my hon. friend quoting from?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: From the report tabled on Monday by the Minister of National Defence, containing the recommendations of the Canadian medical procurement and assignment board.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I
would have to consult the medical people about that. I should think, however, that one factor which would serve to bring up the navy's average would be this: If you send a doctor to sea on a corvette, a frigate or a destroyer, with a personnel of 100, or 200 at the most, obviously the average would be raised. -But we have to do that in many cases. If all our men were on land, as they are in the air force and the army, it would be a different story. But we have small detachments at sea, in small ships. While all ships do not have doctors, yet a good many of them have. I fancy that would put the navy in a somewhat different position. However, that is just my own view, and I shall have to consult the medical people to see if there is any further statement to be made.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Another paragraph
states:
Army tables indicate the small amount of inter-service hospitalization which exists as between the navy, army and air force. It is felt that inter-service hospitalization should be encouraged wherever possible. This would relieve the burden carried by Department of Pensions and National Health hospitals and would promote interlocking of service medical facilities.
I have not had an opportunity to study in detail this very long and interesting report. Could the minister make a statement as to the possibility of having more extensive cooperation between the medical services of the army, the air force and the navy. For example, in large centres like Halifax, Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver it seems to me,, a layman, that greater cooperation might result in the conservation of medical personnel, and also in providing a more complete hospital service for those who are admitted.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I
shall look into that again, along with the other question my hon. friend raised. But I may say there is a great deal of cooperation now. We are building a hospital at St. Hyacinthe, where we have a large naval establishment. But from there to the west coast we have no hospitals of our own. We have to use either civilian hospitals or hospitals of the other services. Where we have a hospital, such as that at'Halifax, I think we do work for the other services, as well. They possibly do the same for us. Similarly, at St. John's, Newfoundland, where we have a large naval hospital, the same would apply. However, I shall be glad to get the opinion of the medical branch on that point, and give my hon. friend an answer later.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I have one further question I should like to ask. Section 32 in the report states:
The whole picture presented as a result of this survey would have been more complete if information as to medical organization and the utilization of medical personnel overseas had been before us. The committee has not had time to secure information on the latest medical organization plans of the united nations. It is thought that these nations must have learned much by experience that would be of value in Canadian training and administrative arrangements. It would be useful if someone acting on behalf of the medical services in Canada could make an active endeavour to secure full information 'as to the medical organization in the united nations and their programmes and procedures.
It seems to me a pity that this matter did not receive consideration before the report came in. I wonder if the minister would consult his officers and see whether in the near future this recommendation might fee given consideration.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I
would rather do that.


Mr. McCANN:: The matter about which I have to speak, very briefly, has to do with the medical services not only of the navy but of all the armed forces of Canada. On previous occasions when the resolutions with reference to the war appropriations of the armed services were up for consideration I made observations with reference to promoting an amalgamation of the medical services in the three divisions. For reasons best known to the government, the recommendations which were made were not followed. But in the very document from which the last speaker has been quoting, namely, the report of the procurement and assignment board, the position which I took has been vindicated. I bring that to the attention of the minister in the hope that

War Appropriation-Naval Services
the recommendation which I make at this time may receive more favourable consideration than did former recommendations.
I have no doubt that when the European war is over and Canada is called upon to take part in the Pacific war, our naval services will be engaged in the southern Pacific. Our air forces and our land forces may also be engaged there. I wonder if information could be secured with reference to what tropical diseases any force which we might send to the Pacific theatre of war might face. The suggestion I am going to make is that we have sufficient personnel in the medical services of the armed forces of this country, and some of them might take time now to become somewhat proficient in the treatment of tropical diseases. The information which I have been able to gather, both through medical journals and through newspapers, is to the effect that the Japanese in the present war are suffering more casualties by virtue of. tropical diseases than they actually are from bullets. If such be the case, one can easily visualize the difficulties which any Canadian forces might have if they go to that particular theatre of war.
In any of the medical schools in this country tropical diseases are not studied to any extent. It might be of interest to the minister to know that the British government maintains a school in London for the study of tropical diseases. The United States government also maintains a school, which I think is at present situated at New Orleans, for the study of tropical diseases. Men who study medicine in this country and practise here have no occasion to come in contact with any of these diseases, and by virtue of that fact they are not conversant either with the diagnosis or with the treatment of tropical diseases.
The suggestion which I have to make to the minister is this, that he confer with his colleagues the Minister of National Defence for Air and the Minister of National Defence proper, with a view to taking fifty men from each of these services and making arrangements with the authorities either in the United States or in Great Britain that these men could go and take a four or a six months course in the study of tropical diseases, so that when our armed forces come to operate in the Pacific we shall have men in our navy, army and air medical services who will be conversant _ with tropical diseases, as to both diagnosis and treatment. It woiild be money and time well spent, and if it is a fact that there are some casualties from these diseases what I have suggested would certainly be of great benefit to the men in the armed forces. fMr. McCann.]
Tropical diseases are treated by specific types of drugs. I wonder if provision has been made for obtaining as much as possible of these drugs. For instance, there is only one specific drug-quinine-and a new synthetic drug, made for the treatment of malaria. I had occasion a year ago last fall to be in St. Louis at the convention of the American Public Health Association. St. Louis is the distributing centre for all the services of the United States as far as ordnance and supplies go. I was shown there $50,000,000 worth of quinine and opium which had been bought up by the United States government and stored there. While we have nothing like that amount, I wonder if there has been any bank of drugs procured and stored to be used for the forces in the event that these drugs are needed.
I would ask the minister to take up this suggestion with his colleagues, particularly with the directing forces of the medical forces in the various departments, and to give at least some consideration to a suggestion which I feel will prove of practical value in the event of Canada entering the Pacific war.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I am glad to hear my hon. friend speak on that subject, and I am happy to be able to tell him and the committee that for some time certain naval medical officers have been giving study to the matter of tropical diseases. As a matter of fact, one of the naval medical officers to join early in the war was a man from western Canada who was in London at the outbreak of the war, studying tropical diseases. He attached himself to the Canadian navy then, and is still with us. Since then a good many others-I do not know just how many, but I will look into it-have taken up the study of tropical diseases. I should be very glad to carry out my hon. friend's suggestion of talking over this whole matter with the other two service ministers and cooperating with them in what is and what will be, I am sure, a very important branch of medical work.


Grote Stirling: Now that the public is taking so much more intelligent a view with regard to the prevention of venereal disease, would the minister tell the committee what steps are being taken in the navy to battle with it, and to what extent they have been attended by success?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: In a general way I can only tell my hon. friend that I think every effort is being made, but perhaps I should let that question stand and get a more detailed answer from the medical authorities to-morrow. I know that they, in

War Appropriation-Naval Services
common with all service medical authorities, are bending every effort to prevent the occurrence of this disease, but as to the exact details of what they are doing, I should like to get information from the doctors themselves.


Grote Stirling: I should be glad if the minister would do that; and also, perhaps, he could describe how many of the Canadian ships carry medical officers and how treatment is carried on where necessary in the smaller ships on which there are no medical officers.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Yes.


Percy Chapman Black: I should like to ask the minister with respect to facilities at the different naval stations regarding testing for night vision, whether these facilities are available at different training bases, such as Stadacona, Cornwallis, Sydney and so on.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I should assume that they are. I know that the navy is one of the pioneers, and that, under the direction of Doctor Best and others, great attention has been given to this matter of night blindness and night vision. I should assume that every establishment has adequate facilities. But that is another matter which I shall look up and get a story on from the medical officers.


Percy Chapman Black: I wish the minister would pay particular attention to the checking of Stadacona before long. I would also ask him with respect to the milk supply at Deep Brook. I understand that the milk requirements are largely obtained from condensed milk, canned milk, rather than milk in bulk. If that is correct, will the minister give the explanation?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: It is correct. For the moment at any rate I understand that there is not enough milk available in that locality to supply the requirements of the camp, which is a large camp of nearly 7,000 men. Consequently it has been found necessary to resort to milk powder, and machines have been installed which reconstitute this powder into milk at the camp.


Percy Chapman Black: That would be much more expensive, I presume, than obtaining milk from the producers?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: It is impossible to obtain it from the producers.


Percy Chapman Black: I understand that preference is given to producers if they are able to provide the milk?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: If they could provide whole milk we would be 100-99*l
glad to take it, but Deep Brook is midway between two relatively small towns, Digby and Annapolis, Annapolis with a population of about 1,200 and Digby with perhaps a few hundred more. There is no large city near at hand, and the. only milk supply there, as I see it, would be from the farmers in the country around, and that has not proved at all adequate for the purpose.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Move the camp to British Columbia.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I have heard it reported that the Wrens do not get a new uniform until the old uniform has been worn almost threadbare. What is the policy on refitting and providing the Wrens with new uniforms?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I should hardly think my hon. friend's information would be correct. The policy with regard to clothing for men and women is that they are given a complete outfit of clothing when they join. Then the Wrens are given a special allowance of $15 when they join to provide themselves with knick-knacks of one kind or another; also $44 a year to provide themselves with clothing, and an additional allowance of $3 a quarter or $12 a year to provide themselves with toilet necessities and-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Accessories.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: - other articles of feminine apparel.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: 
Angus Lewis Macdonald: The men in the navy are treated not quite so well as the Wrens. The government does not issue clothing to the men, except in the first instance. After that, the man has to buy his own clothing. But he is given the money, $44 a year, with which to buy it. The Wrens are also given the $44 a year and the other sums I mentioned, $15 at the start, and S3 a quarter.
Mr. B.OSS (St. Paul's): What about clothing when they are discharged? Is the policy the same as for the army and the air force? Do they take their clothes with them?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: We let them keep a uniform.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Is there any difference between the clothing allowance given to - men in the navy and that given to men in the army and the air force?

War Appropriation-Naval Services


Angus Lewis Macdonald: The clothing allowance on discharge is the same amount.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: The same all the way through?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
6.	Signal and wireless equipment, line construction, et cetera, $19,759,334.
Grote Stirling: This item is three times as great as last year. Would the minister explain the reason for that? With regard to signal and wireless equipment, does the navy do as the other two services, request Munitions and Supply to do their purchasing, or does the navy buy their own equipment direct? Which ever case it is, will the minister tell the committee how much is obtained from Canadian manufacturers and how much is brought in from equipment manufacturers in other countries?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I do not know that I can answer all my hon. friend's questions, but I can answer some. First of all, all this equipment is bought through Munitions and Supply, who do all the purchasing for the navy, as for the other departments. The reason for the increase is as follows: In the first place, orders which were placed a considerable time ago will come in for payment this year. Orders for this equipment have to be placed far in advance sometimes. Then, of course, new signalling and wireless equipment is constantly coming into use. More ships will be in service next year and that will add to the total cost.


Grote Stirling: Is the principal part of this amount for instruments?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: The greater part of it would be for instruments of one kind and another on ships. To give my hon. friend one or two items, let us take corvettes. We estimate that the total cost will be $3,500,000 or thereabouts. That will include new wireless telegraph equipment and so on -R.D.F. as it is called-and maintenance thereof.


Grote Stirling: Does the minister mean all corvettes at present building?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: All our corvettes in commission. And so with other ships, minesweepers, cruisers, destroyers. The greater part of this item is, therefore, expenditures on ships.


Grote Stirling: Does the minister mean that the $3,500,000 is locked up in instruments in all the corvettes we possess?


William Ross Macdonald: (Kingston City):
That is right. That is what we estimate 'for this year.


Grote Stirling: For this year?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: That is what we estimate it will cost this year for this pui-pose. All this signal wireless, R.D.F., on corvettes alone will amount to nearly $3,500,000, and other ships proportionately. Then, of course, there is some of this, a relatively minor amount, for use at bases, radio stations, and training establishments.


Mr. NOSEWORTHY:: Will the minister tell us more definitely the Reasons why this item is nearly five times as much this year as last year? It was $4,500,000 last year and this year S19,759,000, which is between four and five times as much, while the requisition for purchase and construction of ships is only about half as much.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: This does not apply merely to new ships. I may say that therq is probably no field of naval warfare to-day in which there are so many changes as in this very matter of wireless equipment of one kind or another. It is not merely the sending of messages from one ship to another or from ship to shore; there is a great variety of ways in which radio and wireless can be used for detection purposes and purposes of communication. It is not simply new ships coming into commission this year that have to be equipped. Old ships have to have their equipment renewed or modern equipment installed; and, as I pointed out to the hon. member for Yale, we find this year that a considerable number of orders, placed some time ago, are coming for payment. Goods are being delivered this year and payment must be made? In connection with some of it, a relatively minor amount, the increase is on account of increased facilities at bases where we have training establishments. Generally, I think I can say that the great bulk of the increase is owing to the necessity of having modern equipment on both old and new ships.


George Alexander Cruickshank: May I ask the minister whether the land line being constructed at Aldergrove by a private company is being built by the company on behalf of the Department of National Defence for Naval Services? My impression is that it was being built under contract by a private company for the minister's department. Second, in regard

War Appropriation-Naval Services
to the changing over of these miniature carriers, in connection with signalling equipment, is that under the minister's department or under the Department of Munitions and Supply? There are several carriers at Vancouver.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: That is a British commitment.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Will the minister look up the question to-morrow with reference to the line construction to ascertain whether it belongs to his department or the private company?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Perhaps my hon. friend means that the construction work was undertaken by a private company for us.


George Alexander Cruickshank: That is what I wish to know.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I should think that is almost certainly the case.


George Alexander Cruickshank: The line will belong to the minister's department?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Yes.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Will the minister tell us what part of this item is wanted for land-line construction and -where this work is being done?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Landline and teletype and morse contracts amount to about 81,000,000. There is another item of about 81,000,000 for new land-line construction.


Percy Chapman Black: Are any of the land lines being built on Cape Breton island, where they have had antiquated sendees?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: This deals with lines between, for instance, Ottawa and New York, or Halifax and Louisburg. What my hon. friend refers to is covered under a joint service arrangement with the army and the air force. That is, the provision, of telephone lines in remote parts of the country. That is under another item.


Percy Chapman Black: Under another item in the minister's estimates?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: There is an item here for the Atlantic command project, $250,000. I fancy the land lines my hon. friend has in mind would be covered by that.


Percy Chapman Black: Does the minister care to give information as to whether the lines serving the northern part of New Brunswick, going into the gulf of St. Lawrence,
and performing a very useful function, are being renovated? Perhaps he would give us that information later?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Yes.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I have a few questions I should like to ask.
Item stands.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, March 17, 1944