DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS TABLING OP REPLIES BY PREMIERS TO INVITATION TO CONFERENCE

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday
of last week I tabled a letter which I had written to the premiers of the different provinces with respect to the holding in January of a joint conference between the dominion and the provinces to consider the report of the Rowell-Sirois commission. I have since received replies from all the premiers. I beg leave now to table these replies. In order that hon. members may have the record complete I shall ask the clerk, if it is agreeable to the house, to see that the replies received from the several provinces are printed in the Votes and Proceedings of to-day.



RAILWAY ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 2, to amend the Railway Act (soldiers' fares).
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.

Rules oj the House-Reading Speeches


Mr. CHURCH:: During the last war the
railways voluntarily carried men for single fare on week-ends. Now they carry them every day at half rate. At the present time the Railway Act dioes not provide for any special concessions to soldiers during war time, nor has the board of transport commissioners power to deal with the matter. In view of the fact that many men are taken to camps far from their homes, and the distribution of troops fior training is spread over all Canada, it is most desirable to give soldiers some form of free transportation. Many of them have been killed on the highways while thumbing rides. To give an example of what I have in mind, there are twenty-six men from my own riding who are now in Newfoundland and who would like to get home. I suggest that after this bill receives second reading it be considered by a special committee of the house.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time. RULES OF THE HOUSE



DECISION OF MU. SPEAKER AS TO APPLICATION OF STANDING ORDER 37-READING OF SPEECHES

[Stage Direction]
On the order for motions:
Mr. SPEAKER:: Before the orders of the day are proceeded with I should like to amplify my previous ruling in connection with standing order 37.
I have been giving further consideration to the interpretation of this standing order in view of the discussion which took place yesterday. For the purpose of the record I shall read again standing order 37, which is as follows:
No member, except the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition, or a minister moving a government order and the member speaking in reply immediately after such minister, or a member making a motion of "no confidence" in the government and a minister replying thereto, shall speak for more than forty minutes at a time in any debate.
It will be recalled that this standing order was adopted on March 22, 1927, but since that date changes have been made in several departments to deal with the exigencies of these days; and where formerly there was only one minister of defence there is now a Minister of National Defence, a Minister of National Defence for Air and a Minister of National Defence for Naval Affairs. There are also two new departments, under the Minister of Munitions and Supply and the Minister of War Services.
I ruled yesterday that the Minister of Agriculture, who is also Minister of War Services, in his reply was not limited to forty minutes. I am of opinion that is a correct interpretation of standing order 37. I am now 14873-9*
asked as to that interpretation should other ministers make reply. It will be noticed that the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) is as follows:
That the following be added to the address to His Excellency:
" We respectfully submit to Your Excellency that this house regrets that the government has continued to soothe the Canadian people regarding the war effort of the nation, thereby creating a false sense of security when a clear-cut call to action is desperately needed.
" And this house further regrets that despite the serious condition of agriculture no effective action is proposed to alleviate that condition and to ensure to the Canadian farmer a just, fair and reasonable return for his products."
And the amendment of the leader of the Social Credit group (Mr. Blackmore) is as follows:
That the following be added to the amendment:
" And this house further regrets the failure of the government to adopt a monetary policy that would permit a maximum war effort without either increasing debt or reducing the standards of living below that necessary for maintaining maximum efficiency;
" Furthermore this house is of the opinion that a continuation of the present financial policy will further destroy the precious liberties so essential to, and recognized as being inherent in a true democracy."
Both of these amendments make use of an embracing term, namely, "war effort of the government," and express their dissatisfaction.
I think I am correct in stating that the intention of the standing order was to give wide latitude to the opposition to attack the policy of the government and just as wide latitude for the government to make a full reply.
During the course of the debate the theme of every speech has been directed to the activities of the government in prosecuting the war effort and a request for a full and complete statement of such war efforts to the house. In order that this should be done properly and adequately each minister could only speak for his department and it would be impracticable if not impossible for one minister to reply for all departments.
I am inolined therefore to take the view that I should give as wide and as broad an interpretation of the rule as is possible in order that the veiy evident desire of the house be satisfied. I believe I will be giving effect to the sense of the house in the manner I have indicated so that in these war days a complete reply, unhampered by time, could be made by the ministers whose departments may be the subject of attack.
This ruling would affect six ministers, namely: The Minister of Agriculture and War Services (Mr. Gardiner), who has already
132	COMMONS
Rules of the House-Reading Speeches
replied; the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston), who is now replying; the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power), the Minister of National Defence for Naval Affairs (Mr. Macdonald), the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe), and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley). These ministers are all directly connected with the amendments which "have been made.
While I am dealing with these matters with particular reference to the debate before the house, I would also like to remind the hon. members of the house as to the rule regarding reading of speeches. Last session I made a statement regarding the reading of speeches and I think all will agree that the rule was more closely observed thereafter. I find however that there is a tendency in this debate to read speeches. It would be very obnoxious for the chair to interrupt hon. members who are reading their speeches and I think this is a matter which the hon. members of the house should observe strictly. I therefore request the assistance of hon. members in that regard.
I need hardly state again what I said in the last session regarding important statements made by ministers on government policies which have been and may be read. The same also applies to statements of policy made by leaders of parties or chiefs of groups in the house; but when these statements are not important pronouncements the rule regarding reading speeches should be followed.


Hon. R. B. HANSON (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I assume the
matter to which you have adverted is not debatable, but may I be permitted to make one or two observations with respect to the ruling?
If I gathered correctly what was said, your ruling is based on the principle of expediency and necessity, not on the strict interpretation of the rule. I should like to have it on that basis rather than to have it recorded as a precedent to be followed in the future.
Let me suggest to what point the ruling may lead the house. The Minister of Agriculture, who spoke yesterday, spoke in his capacity as Minister of Agriculture. But the Minister of National War Services is the same gentleman. Is he to have the opportunity to speak twice in the same debate, but in different capacities? It will be seen that if we follow the ruling through to its logical conclusion it might land us in a miasma of difficulty. I should hope it would be the consensus of hon. members that all these gentlemen should be allowed to make statements of length such as may be necessary

to permit the government to present its facts. However I should rather put it on the ground of courtesy than on that of a strict ruling from the chair.
With all respect I suggest that we ought not to extend the rule beyond what might be considered a proper interpretation.


Mr. M. J. COLD WELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, since this is such an important ruling may I be permitted to say a word on the point of order now under discussion?
I should like to remind the house that since 1927 conditions in the house have changed to a very considerable degree. I believe that will be readily admitted. But if these ministers are to be permitted to speak at greater length than the rule now allows it seems to me that some recognition should be given to the change so far as the opposition groups are concerned, and that in the broadening of the rule the leaders of other opposition groups should be accorded more latitude than is now allowed by the rule.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The house will see the danger of opening the door.


Thomas Miller Bell: May I say most respectfully to Mr. Speaker, for whom I have the highest personal regard, that I do not think it was within the province of a Speaker of the house to broaden the rule in any particular. I suggest if an interpretation of such a nature is to be made it should be made in the same manner as the rule was originally made, that is to say, by a committee of the house.
May I make one or two observations on the question of the reading of speeches? I agree with Mr. Speaker when he says that the practice is undesirable. But if six ministers of the crown are to be allowed to read their carefully prepared speeches, then I submit that private members ought to be allowed to prepare carefully their replies and read them.


Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I am and always have been entirely opposed to the forty-minute rule. I believe all hon. members should 'be allowed to express their views. I would point out, however, that there is one aspect of the issue which has not been touched upon. In his ruling Mr. Speaker said he felt it his duty to extend the power given to ministers of the crown in respect to a vote of want of confidence in the government. No one appears to have considered what constitutes such a vote.
I seem to recall that during the strenuous time of 1922-it may have been 1924 or 1925 -the government of that day did allow an amendment to the address moved by a member of the opposition to go through. It by no means follows that an amendment is

Rules oj the House-Reading Speeches
necessarily a vote of want of confidence in the government, unless a minister of the crown or the Prime Minister indicates that he shall so regard it, or unless it contains the specific words, "We move a vote of want of confidence in the government."
The amendment moved a few days ago by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson), while it may appear to express a lack of confidence in the government, did not specifically state that it was a vote of want of confidence. My point is that that fact should be taken into consideration. Under the circumstances I do not think the ministers in question have any right to exceed the limits allowed under the rule.


Mr. J. T. THORSON (Selkirk):: In connection with the actual wording of standing order 37 it seems to me there is one point to which reference might be made. There is a distinction between a member and a minister not being bound by the forty-minute rule. First of all, with regard to private members the rule states:
No member, except the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, or a minister moving a government order and the member speaking in reply immediately after such minister-
And so on. Those words would seem to indicate that the only private member who is not bound by the forty-minute rule is the private member who speaks in reply immediately after the minister moving a government order. Therefore only one private member would not be bound by the forty-minute rule. But the rule proceeds to say:
-or a member making a motion of "no confidence" in the government and a minister replying thereto.
It would seem to follow from the wording of the rule that the extension of the forty-minute limit is applicable not only to one minister but to any minister replying to a motion of "no confidence." Further, the extension applies to such minister, no matter whether he follows immediately after the motion of want of confidence or at any time during the course of the debate. Mr. Speaker, I suggest respectfully that your ruling is not based upon any ground of expediency, but rather that it follows as a matter of legal and proper interpretation of the standing order itself.


Mr.  E. G. IIANSELL@Macleod: Mr. Speaker, I find myself in hearty accord with what has been said by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). However, considering that we are not all parliamentary experts, I was wondering if it would be asking too much of you, sir, to reserve
your decision on such an important and complicated matter until after this present debate on the address.
I believe that in this particular debate hon. members should be given a reasonable latitude. I think we have been very fair with the government since the commencement of the war in trying to facilitate government business, and have perhaps not said some of the things we would have lilted to say. If you, sir, could see your way clear to reserve your decision until after this .present debate is concluded, it would be more pleasant to those of us who sit on this side of the house.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I rise not to debate either the rule or the interpretation which Your Honour has placed upon it. If that is necessary, perhaps another time would be better. I rise rather to point out why I think the interpretation which you, Mr. Speaker, have given is one which is eminently wise and wherein it should receive general approval by hon. members of this house. I feel certain that it will be generally approved by the people of Canada.
The purpose of calling this session at the present time was to enable the government to inform the opposition and the country of Canada's war effort. That is why we are here at this time. No one was stronger in urging that parliament should meet in November rather than in January in order that hon. members might be informed of the progress of Canada's war effort than the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (Mr. Coldwell).


Thomas Miller Bell: I am not objecting to the extension being given to the minister; I think it should be done.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am glad to hear my hon. friend say that, because it accords with what I wish to say. Nor did I understand the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) to be strong in his objection to the interpretation given by the chair. However, my hon. friend did say that he thought the government ought to be allowed this latitude in order to defend itself; he used the word "defend". May I say that we have nothing to defend in regard to our war effort.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The right hon. gentleman ought to have.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The war effort speaks for itself and defends itself.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What has that to do with the ruling?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend's remark had nothing to do with the ruling
134	COMMONS
Rules oj the House-Reading Speeches
We are glad to have the opportunity so far as we may to give hon. gentlemen such information as they may desire to have. For that reason, as I say, I think His Honour has given an interpretation to the rule which is the right one considering the circumstances under which this parliament has been called together.


Alan Webster Neill: Why not suspend the rule?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is not necessary to suspend it. Apparently hon. members are now more or less agreed that with respect to the present debate at any rate the interpretation .placed upon the rule is a wise one.
May I pass on to a remark which was made in the course of the discussion by the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. He suggested that some consideration might be given to changing the rules in order to give greater opportunity for debate to the different leaders on the opposition side. May I say that a considerable change has taken place in the application of the .rules, a change which I believe does not accord strictly with the practice generally followed in parliamentary debates under British parliamentary procedure. There is a government and there is an opposition. Those who are for us, are for us, and those who are against us, are against us. Those who are not for us are against us. In this House of Commons there are two sides, the government side and the opposition. Every one has the opportunity to be on one side or on the other, it is for him to choose, but the only parties that are recognized under any law or rule pertaining to the House of Commons that I know of are the government and the opposition.
Ministers of the crown have their obligations and as members of the government they receive salaries in recognition of their obligations and duties. This House of Commons has placed the leader of the opposition in a similar position; it has given him a salary; made him an officer of parliament. Under our parliamentary system he represents the opposition. When it comes to speaking on the address, as in the present debate, my hon. friend the leader of the opposition speaks and then I reply. The practice has grown up of having the two leaders of the other groups speak before anyone else. It seems to me that that is giving more in the way of recognition to an opposition in this House of Commons than was ever intended under a procedure conducted strictly on opposition and government lines. It was never intended there should be two or more leaders of the opposition. I mention this only because my 
hon. friend has said that we should give greater recognition in the way of opportunity to other groups.
If this House of Commons begins to extend recognition to different groups we will have the number of groups increasing year after year. We will have a condition in this House of Commons in the course of time which will correspond to the condition they had in the chamber of deputies in France. In that country there were at times so many groups that it was almost impossible for any one group to get a majority sufficiently large to carry on the business of the country without all kinds of log-rolling. We know how disastrous that has proven to be.
Exception was taken to the province of the Speaker to interpret the rules. May I say I think His Honour has acted entirely within his jurisdiction in assuming the powers he has, and is rather to be thanked than criticized.


Mr. GEORGE BLACK (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, may I be allowed just one moment? With all due respect to you, sir, and to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) who has just announced officially on behalf of the government that this is to be a session of speeches rather than a session of business, I suggest that we should put aside the rules altogether for the remainder of this part of the session, until the adjournment that will take place before long. There is no business on the order paper except one forlorn bill which has been introduced by a private member. We all want to hear the ministers make their statements as to what the government is doing; we are looking forward with interest to hearing those statements, but this government is going to be hard put to it to keep this house in session more than a few days longer. There are perhaps only six more speeches to be made, so why worry about the rules? Why not expand the rules and let everyone speak as long as he likes and as often as he likes during the remainder of this part of the session?


Georges Parent: I should like to say to the house that my decision was not based upon expediency, nor was it intended as a courtesy from the house. The hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Thorson) has referred to the fact that standing order 37 refers to " the member," not to one member, having the right to speak more than forty minutes. I had that in view when coming to the decision that a minister replying to a motion of want of confidence would be permitted to speak longer than forty minutes. In other days there was only one Minister of National Defence, but that has been changed since.

Ocean Transport
I had that fact in mind when arriving at my decision. The minister whose department is under review in the house must necessarily have the rights accorded under standing order 37.
So far as restricting the debate is concerned or giving some latitude I think the house will appreciate that I have been more than lenient at times in giving that consideration to hon. members, and I can assure the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) that when the debate takes place he will receive, as will other members, proper recognition so long as I am in the chair.



OCEAN TRANSPORT


Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Cardin) based on a telegram I have received from an officer of a steamship at an Atlantic coast port. If it is not convenient for the minister to reply to-day I should be glad if my question might stand as a notice of motion in order that I may get the information.
It is represented that officers are being threatened by the Canadian National Steamships authorities if they do not sail. I am going to ask the minister to look into the matter and give a statement to the house as soon as possible as to what the exact position is.


Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Transport) :: I understand that the leader of the opposition has already drawn the attention of the officers of the department to the very question which he has just raised, and an investigation has already been ordered to ascertain the facts.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I hope the leader of the opposition will not object if I say to him that both he and I have a special responsibility in matters pertaining to procedure in the house. One of these matters relates to the asking of questions. A habit is growing up of asking questions on the orders of the day not so much for the purpose of seeking information as trying to give information, or to make allegations which should not be given in the form of asking a question. Questions should be asked, if they are for the purpose of seeking information, in the form of a direct question and be confined ,to that. I hope my hon. friend will join with me in seeking to have hon. members on his side, including himself, follow the rule, and I shall similarly do what I can with hon. members on this side and with myself.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Speaker, I agree entirely that I have some responsibility in upholding the rules of the house, but I certainly do not accept with equanimity the lecture I have just received from the Prime Minister. I have received a direct appeal from a man who is under threat from the Canadian National Steamships as to what will happen if he does not sail. I applied first to the Deputy Minister of Transport, and he was not able to give me the information. He gave me part of it. If I had got a full answer from him I would not have asked the question in the house. The part I want to know is, are these men under threat by Canadian National Steamships authorities under the Canadian government.	_
I just do not appreciate the lecture which the Prime Minister has given me, and I do not intend to be lectured by him.



PASSPORTS AND VISAS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. KARL HOMUTH (Waterloo South):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar) if he can inform the house whether there are to be any changes in the passport regulations? I understand a meeting was held this week having to do with the matter, and I have received inquiries in regard to it.


Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Minister of Mines and Resources):: I have no information now on the matter that I can give to the house.



GREAT LAKES SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport (Mr. Cardin) a question arising out of disasters to shipping on the upper lakes this week. Under the aot the minister must order an inquiry either by the wreck commissioner or by a royal commission under the Inquiries Act. There were two hundred Canadian ships out in this storm on the great lakes, some of them old ships which had been out of commission for years. In the case of the Anna C. Minch twenty-one lives were lost, and nine lives were lost on the Aberdeen, which sank in the St. Lawrence river. The Novadoc, of Port William, was also lost on the great lakes.
Will the minister, in view of the law, hold an investigation into great lakes shipping in the fall of the year, and include in the
Great Lakes Shipping

investigation an inquiry as to the adequacy of the aids to navigation, safety devices, wireless, the issuing of clearance papers, lifesaving stations, and whether on the lost vessels there was adequate provision of lifeboats and life-saving equipment? Some of these ships were only river boats.
I would also ask whether some form of compensation or insurance or other aid will be given to the dependents of the men who lost their lives, either by the companies or by the government, or both. The law on the subject is clear.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Mr. Speaker, an inquiry is to
be held in regard to the situation which my hon. friend from Broadview (Mr. Church) has just referred. All the details that he has mentioned will be included in the investigation, except that I cannot of course say that the government will undertake to provide any compensation until responsibility had been established against the government. As to compensation being paid by the insurance companies, that is not a question for the government.


Thomas Langton Church: If Canada is a nation, it should look after the sailors on the great lakes.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We are doing so.



PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. M. NICHOLSON (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) whether the year 1940 has been declared an emergency year under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act.


Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) :: The Prairie Farm Assistance Act
provides that a decision shall be made in the month of November. The question has not yet been considered by the government. As soon as it is, an announcement will be made to the house.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, November 14, consideration of the motion of Mr. Brooke Claxton for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury) and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Blackmore.
Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, only three and a half short months have elapsed since I gave to the house a summary of our military activities. You will remember that on that occasion I outlined the broad principles of our military policy. The immediate aspect of that policy was to combine with the United Kingdom and the other dominions, as quickly and as fully as possible, to defeat the common enemy. And the long term aspect was to provide for an effective organization of Canada's armed forces so that whatever might befall in the future we should be prepared, to the limit of our strength and resources, to take care of our own responsibilities.
In the "immediate" category I spoke of the strengthening and further organization of our fixed and our mobile defences in the east. I indicated too that we were not overlooking the west coast defences. But I stressed that hand in hand with these measures of north American defence we were concentrating on the training and equipping of the Canadian active service force to serve wherever they might be required either in Canada or overseas. And let me remind my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson), who seemed to think that we were attaching too much importance to Canadian defence, that I stressed in July that our front line was the island fortress of the British isles. Let me also tell him that, speaking in Montreal in September, I said, "Canada is in this war at the side of Britain, and Canada's front line is in England." And to-day, in spite of the continuous siege of that fortress by every means and every method which science and vandalism and brutality could devise, our Canadians stand side by side with the men of the British isles and of the empire on that front line which still holds firm. The house heard yesterday the eye-witness story told by the Minister of National W:ir Services (Mr. Gardiner) of the steadfastness, not only of the sailors and soldiers and airmen in and around the British isles, but of those stouthearted millions of people which make up their citizenship. They have taught their enemies, they have reassured their friends, that man is greater than the machine, that it takes more than engines of war in seemingly overwhelming numbers, more than the savage deluge of high explosives, to overcome the will to freedom. They have proven that disadvantages in equipment may be outweighed by superiority in fortitude and fearlessness.
In July, referring to immediate activities,
I spoke of the necessity of providing maximum preliminary training for available man-power,

The Address-Mr. Ralston
and also of the requirements for internal security. And as our general and long-term objective I said that our task must be never again to lapse into the inadequate position in which the armed forces of Canada-and Canada was not unique in this respect-had been placed for many years prior to the outbreak of war.
I can say to the house that those principles on which we were working then are the principles we are working on to-day. Any change has been only to emphasize more than ever the vital interest we feel in helping to hold and strengthen that front line on the English channel.
The carrying out of these principles, since I spoke to the house in July, has taken this country through a summer and into an autumn of military activity which I think has been unprecedented. I believe that this activity has produced and will produce effective results. My purpose is to review what has been done regarding this activity in relation to the army, and to indicate some of the plans for the future.
May I utter this word of caution: If hon. members expect ears to be tickled or feelings stirred or emotions aroused by dramatic pronouncements or revelations of new and unknown developments I am sure they will be disappointed. During the last three months the press has carried from time to time practically everything to which I am referring, so that there will be very little in the way of novelty. On the other hand a factual presentation regarding military activities dealing with organization, mobilization and training, and without the drama of actual operations, leaves no room for what might be called colourful presentation. I can only hope that what can be only a resume of activities, drab though it may appear, will be of real interest to the house for the simple reason that it is concerned with Canada's participation in this most momentous of wars.
Canada's task has obviously involved two main activities:	first, the procuring and
preparation of our man-power with all the details of organization and administration which that involves-accommodation, rations, pay, clothing, medical and dental services, personal equipment, and, what is supremely important, the efficient training of that manpower; second, the procuring of equipment for the units and formations which we organize.
I yield to no one in my appreciation of the importance of equipment and of exhausting every means within our power of procuring it, but equipment can never wholly take the place of discipline and efficiency, resourceful-14873-10
ness and courage. Training and intensive training is more necessary than ever, and the work of raising and training men for an army of the size of the Canadian forces is an indispensable and vital part of our preparation and our contribution to the common cause. With that in mind I must express deep appreciation of the untiring interest and work of the staff, both at headquarters and in the various districts, and particularly of the officers, non-commissioned officers and men of our fighting forces, because their work represents thought and care and enthusiasm and unremitting effort, and above all it signifies a patriotism which, whenever the testing time comes will, I think, prove indomitable.
I ought first to mention a change in the names of the military forces of Canada. When I spoke last I mentioned four different groups, the Canadian active service force, the veterans home guard companies, the non-permanent active militia and the veterans reserve companies. Since then we have integrated all these groups into one structure called the Canadian Army, and we have simply divided the Canadian Army into active and reserve units and formations. The active portion is that which we know as the Canadian active service force, which includes the veterans home guard companies, and the reserve portion is that which we know as the non-permanent active militia and that includes the veterans reserve companies. While this is only a change of name it will I think help to avoid confusion, and it gives the military forces a title which better corresponds with the titles of the other services, the Royal Canadian Navy and the Royal Canadian Air Force. It does not involve any change in the names by which regiments and batteries and units are now commonly known, and does not imply any change in the status of units or in the obligations of individuals. These obligations, whether under voluntary enlistment or under the National Resources Mobilization Act, remain as they were before the change of name.
Another change which I think has been generally approved is the change in the name of the veterans home guard to Veterans Guard of Canada. This again does not affect any change in status of its component parts or of its members.
With that preface, here is the broad picture of the strength of the Canadian Army.
First, regarding the Canadian Army (active) which we have known as the Canadian active service force and the veterans home guard companies: On July 29, I stated that there were 31,607 troops of our active formations and unite outside of Canada and 101,965 in Canada, or

The Address-Mr. Ralston

a total of 133,572. The returns for October 29 show over 50,000 outside Canada and a considerable increase in the numbers in Canada.
Regarding the Canadian Army (reserve) which we have known as the non-permanent active militia and which includes the veterans reserve companies and the recruits called for training under the National Resources Mobilization Act: Recruiting for the reserve or nonpermanent active militia units continued to be active until August 15 when it was stopped to allow progress to be made with the training of recruits called up under the National Resources Mobilization Act. On July 29 I stated that the strength of the reserve units was 47,373. This was from the latest figures available at that time. On October 29 the total strength of the reserve units was over double that number, not counting recruits in training centres under the National Resources Mobilization Act. On the same date there were 25,391 of these recruits undergoing training in 39 centres established across Canada. So that on October 29 the total strength of the Canadian army including active units overseas and in Canada, and the reserve units, was over 300,000.
During the period of acceleration in the spring and early summer of this year we set ourselves certain important objectives which included the raising of the third and fourth divisions and ancillary and certain unattached units, the recruiting to full strength of the infantry units of the reserve (non-permanent active militia) the dispatch of large numbers of troops to the United Kingdom and to island posts outside of Canada. We concentrated every effort in achieving the desired results without taking time for matters of reorganization which, though important, could wait. We wanted these things done quickly. Once it became certain that these objectives were within measurable distance of attainment, it was possible to devote more time to matters of organization.
Early in August, in keeping with the general policy of defence measures for Canada, the Atlantic command was formed under the command of Major-General Elkins. This command includes all of the three maritime provinces of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, and the eastern portion of the province of Quebec. It also includes the units of the Canadian army in Newfoundland. The administrative arrangements in this area continue to be the responsibility of the district officers commanding the military districts concerned, but the operational control of all coast defence troops and of the mobile forces stationed within the command is exercised by the general officer commanding-in-chief of the Atlantic command.

More recently, in October, the Pacific command has been formed consisting of the provinces of British Columbia and Alberta, with headquarters at Victoria. The general officer commanding-in-chief, Major-General Alexander, is responsible for all operational matters which affect the Pacific defences. He will control coastal defences through fortress and area commanders and also all mobile land forces which may be detailed for operational purposes in defence of the Pacific coast.
In the case of both Atlantic and Pacific commands the general officer commanding will be working in the closest cooperation with the equivalent commanders of the Royal Canadian Navy and the Royal Canadian Air Force in the respective areas.
The organization of the third Canadian division has been completed by the appointment of the brigade and divisional commanders. Major General Sansom, who was formerly on General MoNaughton's staff and later on the staff of Canadian Military headquarters in London, has been appointed general officer commanding this division and has just arrived in Canada. The brigade commanders are Brigadier H. O. N. Brownfield, M.C., commanding the 3rd divisional artillery; Brigadier W. G. Colquhoun, M.C., commanding the 7th infantry brigade; Brigadier J. P. U. Archambault, D.S.O., M.C., commanding the 8th infantry brigade and Brigadier E. W. Haldenby, M.C., V.D., commanding the 9th infantry brigade. This division will be concentrated for the present at certain points in eastern Canada along with certain other unattached units.
The organization of the 4th Canadian division is in progress, and its units and formations are located at the moment at various parts in central and western Canada. It is expected very shortly I shall be able to announce the names of the commanders of brigades of that division.
New active army units have been mobilized, including:
An armoured ear regiment;
Two light anti-aircraft regiments with associated signal and workshop sections;
Two army field workshops to provide for the servicing of units of the 3rd and 4th division; and
A motor ambulance convoy.
Twenty companies of the Canadian forestry corps have now been raised and are in training under the command of Brigadier J. B. White, D.S.O., E.D. Seventeen additional reserve companies of the Veterans Guard of Canada have been formed bringing the total number of these reserve companies to 43. These are in addition to the 29 active army companies already authorized in this force, which comprise 6,627 officers and men. The

The Address-Mr. Ralston
Veterans Guard of Canada is under the command of Lieutenant-Colonel H. R. Alley,
O.	B.E., L.D.
Special interest, I think, was taken in the announcement of the formation of the Canadian armoured corps, under Colonel F. C. Worthington, M.C., M.M., an officer experienced in armoured fighting vehicles. The corps is to consist of four mobilized regiments which includes two of the already mobilized cavalry regiments of the active army and four reserve army regiments.
One armoured brigade is already being organized and expanded into a complete group by the addition of the necessary artillery, engineer, army service corps, and ordnance units which are now mobilizing. Units to form a nucleus for a second group are available.
In order to facilitate the training, we secured about 200 tanks from the United States. While these tanks are of an old type, they will serve well in training the many specialists and tradesmen required in this sort of formation. As the house probably knows, we had a number of tanks at Borden in addition to this very much larger number which were secured from the United States. Selected personnel are being given special training in the United Kingdom so that when we are ready to expand the initial groups into larger formations capable instructors will be available.
The Canadian provost corps has been organized under the command of Colonel
P.	A. Piuze. Eleven provost companies have been mobilized and these provide personnel for provost duties in the various military districts and also staff for internment camps and detention barracks. Each military district has at least one company headquarters and a part or whole of a provost company in accordance with requirements. Experience has taught us that an army is not an army unless it has bands. Grants to be used for the purchase of instruments had previously been authorized and authority has been granted for the formation of bands in many active army units from personnel in the present unit establishment.
The house will ask about the activities of these various troops of ours. We naturally think first of our men outside of Canada, on the front line in England and at various strategic points. We have in the United Kingdom the bulk of two divisions and their requisite proportion of corps troops. In addition to these, we have under command of Canadian military headquarters, reinforcements nearly equal in numbers to another division, besides the large numbers of reinforcements still on this side. We get weekly 14873-10i
reports which give us in considerable detail the work which is done by our Canadian troops in England and some of the tasks to which they are assigned from time to time. No troops in England are more fit or ready for any task which comes. They know what their job is and are eager and anxious to take their turn in the battle of Britain. Their presence side by side with the troops of the old land, and the reputation they have already made, is a source of pride to Canada and I know too that at the war office no troops rank higher in dependability and efficiency.
Just here, Mr. Speaker, I feel that I should refer to what I regard as a most unfortunate expression or sentiment which was uttered by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) in the course of his speech the other day. He said:
.	.	. our contribution to the first battle of
Britain has been rather pitiful. In fact it has not been a factor in the defence of Britain at all, so far as I am aware. If I am wrong I hope my hon. friend will illuminate the position.
I do feel that my hon. friend did not do justice either to himself or to those he represents, in the use of that expression. Let me remind the house that upon the invasion of Norway the British government at once decided to dispatch troops to the assistance of that country. There was need for prompt action, and a request was made to whom? It was made to Canadian military headquarters, that part of the first Canadian division should be dispatched with a special British force. There was no hesitation, no red tape; we responded at once and troops were detailed from the first division. Preparations for the dispatch of the troops were completed, and the troops left their camps in England on the day following that upon which the request from the British government was received.
That was one instance where, when the need arose, Canada responded; and I think it may be said that the situation loses none of its significance by reason of the fact that operational plans were later changed and the force did not actually do battle in Norway. And prior to last June, as the house knows, on more than one occasion Canadian troops promptly left their camps and were ready at embarkation points under orders to join the British expeditionary force and the French army in their desperate struggle in northern France and Belgium; and the fact that Canadian troops were not actually dispatched on those occasions was due entirely to decisions which were reached by the higher military command. As a matter of fact the actual movement to France of the first division, with a portion of non-divisional
The Address-Mr. Ralston

troops, was under way, and we all know how and why it became necessary to call them back. General McNaughton especially emphasized at that time that no Canadian unit withdrew until ordered to do so by senior military authorities.
I see nothing pitiful, Mr. Speaker, about having troops in England in which the war office had such confidence as to call upon them suddenly for extremely important and hazardous tasks; and I see nothing pitiful in having our troops in numbers equal to about three divisions helping to hold the front line and given the responsibility for a definite sector. No, Mr. Speaker, the leader of the opposition does himself less than justice, as, what is much more important, he does our troops and our country less than justice, when he makes use of the expression " pitiful " in reference to the contribution made in the battle of Britain by Canada's army. It was wholly unwarranted. Let me say further that in this respect I am not mentioning the really thrilling contribution which has been made by the Royal Canadian Navy and the Royal Canadian Air Force, which will be dealt with by my hon. friends the Minister of National Defence for Naval Affairs (Mr. Macdonald) and the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power).
As the house knows, we have troops in Iceland, Newfoundland and the Caribbean, and in certain instances additions or redistributions have been or are being made to strengthen the strategic position. We owe a great deal to these troops, who constitute the defence outposts of this continent and who, unseen and unheard of, loyally perform their tasks which help to provide security against emergencies.
In Canada the active units are on coast defence on the Pacific and the Atlantic. They are furnishing guards for vulnerable points and for internment camps. They provide a mobile force for use in or out of Canada as required, and they are training at various camps and training centres throughout the dominion, where our accommodation is taxed to the limit. I have had the satisfaction of visiting a number of these camps and units. I have been immensely pleased with the keenness and interest which they are taking in their jobs, whatever they may be. We need have no fear about their being worthy in every way of the high standard which Canadian soldiers have set. I believe the work of the troops on coast defence and on guard duty deserves a special word. Day in and day out, in all kinds of weather, summer and winter, these men perform unspectacular but most important duties. They must keep constantly on the alert, although at times the

incentive for doing so may seem to be lacking. Their faithful service is recognized and appreciated.
With regard to these troops the house might be interested to know that we are endeavouring to give the infantry units who are on coast defence garrison duty at least temporary relief by replacing them with units now at training camps. To make this policy of interchange more feasible it is proposed to organize all coast defence infantry battalions in future on the basis of field war establishments instead of garrison war establishments. As the house will understand, that will enable the infantry units on coast defence to get some change from their present duties and to attain higher standards in training for field duties.
Among these troops in Canada are large numbers of reinforcements which, on account of the very few casualties, have not been called upon. The other day my hon. friend the leader of the opposition asked with regard to our preparation for reinforcements. Let me recall to him what I have just said, that we have large numbers of reinforcements in England and larger numbers in Canada; and on account of the fact that there have been very few casualties these troops have not been called upon. I hope that may answer his query. With regard to reinforcements, it must be remembered that sending a formation overseas does not merely involve the raising of, say fifteen thousand men for a division, with its ancillary troops. It also means that we take on an obligation of reinforcing that division in all its ranks. Under normal war conditions these reinforcements might amount to one hundred per cent in a year. Consequently the capacity of a country to maintain armies in the field depends on the manpower reinforcing ability that lies behind the army and also, of course, on the capacity of industry to turn out not only initial equipment but an adequate and regular flow of equipment to replace wastage.
The establishment of the Atlantic and Pacific commands has meant much more than a mere realignment of senior command. It is a part of the broader policy under which careful consideration has been given to the best disposition of our available troops, with a view to having in readiness mobile and other units in case of emergency. Apart from the concentrations in the Atlantic and Pacific commands, portions of the active army are stationed at points throughout the dominion which are considered the most useful from the strategic point of view consistent with the requirements of accommodation and training.
Then we have the reserve units of the Canadian army (which we know as the non-

The Address-Mr. Ralston
permanent active militia). Here different factors govern. The men in this part of the army are not full-time soldiers. Whether they joined prior to August 15 or have been called up for training under the National Resources Mobilization Act, the great majority are men in civilian jobs who do their military training in their spare time and at camps or on the thirty-day basis at the training centres. Regimental headquarters of these units remain in their own localities. Training is made as convenient as possible as to both time and place, and with as little interference as can be in the routine of daily life and work.
Just here I should like to refer for a moment to the address made the other night by the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. White) who, as the house might not have realized, was dealing with a non-permanent active militia unit.


Richard Burpee Hanson: He said
he was.


James Layton Ralston: I beg my hon. friend's
pardon; I did not know that he said so, but in any event I just want to emphasize that. My hon. friend dealt with some of the difficulties of a non-permanent active militia unit. I just want to recall to the house what was undertaken in the spring and summer of 1940. Between June and the time these units went to camp we undertook to raise-and we did raise-an additional 42,611 men in the Canadian active service force and an additional 39,786 in the non-permanent active militia, and we had facing us the camps for practically 30,000 men for the militia training centres under the National Resources Mobilization Act. In other words, clothing and equipment for 111,000 men had to be asked for in those three months of the summer. We went at this work, just as hard as we could.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Does the minister suggest that the thirty-day training plan was at the beginning of the summer? That was not until a month after the registration was completed. He cannot hook that up.


James Layton Ralston: I am hooking it up for the purpose of showing what manufacturing had to be done to provide clothing and equipment for the troops in prospect.
The hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough mentioned that his unit went into camp on September 2, I believe it was. He will correct me if I am wrong. September 2 was a long time after the National Resources Mobilization Act was announced, and long after the training plan was announced. We had over 100,000 men to provide for. That
is the tax and the strain on industry which was placed upon the shoulders of my colleague, the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe). He was to provide the clothing and equipment for all those men.
Nevertheless, the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough says, "The issue consisted of a cap, a blouse tunic, a pair of trousers, a shirt and a pair of boots." I will tell him that if he had been in the non-permanent active militia previously he would not have had boots, because boots were not issued to the non-permanent active militia until this year. They were issued by us in connection with the general change. He complains that socks were not issued to the non-permanent active militia. Men took their own socks and took their own boots. My hon. friend was issued with boots. I visited forty-two non-permanent active militia camps during the summer. I admit the men had not serge dress, but I think a great many of them did not want it. At the same time I do say-and I am not saying this in any complacent spirit, because I want to see units and men equipped to the last item of equipment to which they are entitled, and for which the issue provides-there was remarkable uniformity in those camps. And I say it was splendid, the way in which the men and the officers rustled around to get the things they needed.
I say to the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough, in all kindness, that I happened to be in uniform while I was a member of a legislature-I was not a member of parliament-away back in 1914-15 and 1916-16. I was a member of a unit, and a member of the Canadian expeditionary force, too. That unit was entitled to a good deal of equipment, but there was a lot of it we did not have. First as a platoon commander and afterwards as second commander of a company I considered it my duty to make the life of the quartermaster, and the life of the ordnance branch miserable until I got the items we needed. I did not go to the house of assembly to make a speech about it. Of course the hon. member is perfectly right-


Mr. HANSON (Yorlc-Sunbury):: Does the minister question the right of the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough to make a speech?


James Layton Ralston: I was just about to say that I do not question the right of my hon. friend, if he thinks it best to make his complaint here; he has his right to do so. He happens to be a member of parliament, and also an officer in the army. He has made his complaint here, and I do not doubt other

The Address-Mr. Ralston
members will do so. But I do say the way to get what is needed is ithe way I have indicated. I should say this, that my hon. friend might have indicated to somebody at headquarters that he did not consider his unit was being properly looked after. I would have been glad to hear from him myself, but I never heard anything about it until my hon. friend spoke the other night.


Mr. WHITE:: The minister is probably aware, better than anyone else, that no member of the forces is allowed under any circumstances to communicate with national defence headquarters. He knows that all such communications must come through the proper channels.


James Layton Ralston: I wonder if my hon. friend thinks, seriously, that that is applied to members of parliament. If that rule were applied, how would the hon. member have felt entitled to make his speech?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Oh, oh; this is a democracy.
Mr. .RALSTON: My hon. friend knows wrell that the door of the Department of National Defence is open to any member of parliament, and he may come at any time. I am saying this to my hon. friend only because I have been through the experience which he seems to have been through, and we got through it all right.


George Stanley White: May I interrupt the minister? He mentioned something about going to the ordnance branch. That may be all right, but if the ordnance branch had not received these supplies they simply could not pass them along.


James Layton Ralston: That is correct.


George Stanley White: I have been to the ordnance.


James Layton Ralston: Quite right. But what I want to say to my hon. friend is that the ordnance had a good many demands made upon them, and it seems to me he was not badly off in getting the list which he has put on record, if I may judge from what I have seen in the other camps. I had no complaints from other camps with regard to the same matter.
Let me mention something else. He has mentioned that there was no underwear. There is no issue of underwear to the nonpermanent active militia. My hon. friend probably knows that, but he mentioned underwear. Then, he mentioned socks, and the same thing applies. Further, he mentioned aiming rests, and said that there was none available. I wonder whether hon. members know just what aiming rests are. They are

made by putting three poles together, and putting a sand bag between them. Generally we regard most units as being able to make them for themselves. It seems to me my hon. friend, in his enumeration of deficiencies, did not miss anything which could be wanting.
He mentioned serge suits. I understand his unit has a full issue of about 800 serge suits; is that correct?


George Stanley White: There is quite a large number of men who have not serge suits.


James Layton Ralston: I understand that 797 serge suits were issued to that unit.


George Stanley White: There are eighty men in one company without serge suits.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend's unit must be over-strength, then.
Then, with regard to greatcoats, he mentioned that some of the men were cold. I understand there were 1,000 greatcoats at Petawawa camp for the use of the nonpermanent active militia on special guard duty, or anything of that kind. I do not. know whether the hon. member discovered that or not, but they were there. Then, he mentioned a lack of machine guns. I am informed that his unit had four Lewis guns. He mentioned, too, the Bren gun, and made some observation about the Bren gun passing through the line.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Briefly.


James Layton Ralston: Yes, passing briefly through the line. Well, here is the order which was issued in that connection:
Arrangements have been made to have a Bren gun on the training area Monday, September 9. This gun will be in charge of
Q.M.S.I. Hegarty who will take it to the units in turn and give a brief demonstration.
That was a Bren gun for a non-permanent active militia unit in camp for fifteen days and, as I understand it, was for a unit which already had four Lewis guns.
My hon. friend understands-we all understand-that we have not very many Bren guns to spare for .the non-permanent active militia units, when we have in Canada over 100,000 Canadian active service force troops.
Then, my hon. friend mentioned gas. I understand that my hon. friend's unit was put through a gas chamber, and that a non-commissioned officer and six men were given intensive training in gas protection, so that they might instruct at headquarters. Since then, thirty-five respirators have been issued to his unit for the purpose of continuing that training. I believe hon. members would not expect us to issue gas respirators to every member of the non-permanent active militia units. It is only for the purpose of training.

The Address-Mr. Ralston
I am not, as the house knows, blaming my hon. friend, but I assure him that we were under tremendous handicaps this summer. I assure him, too, that the clothing was not piled up in the minister's office, or anything of that kind. On the contrary, it was issued and distributed to the units just as fast as we could get it. My hon. friend as well as every other hon. member must remember the threat of emergencies which existed along the coasts of Canada during this summer.
Let me now proceed to my reference to the non-permanent active militia units-and in this I include my hon. friend's unit. I have said before, and I repeat and emphasize it, that our non-permanent active militia units have been the back-bone of the mobilization of our active army, and I cannot praise too highly the interest, the enthusiasm and hard work which have been given so freely by the officers, the non-commissioned officers and the men who have taken part, in season and out of season, in maintaining the organization of this nucleus of citizen soldiers in centres, in communities and in hamlets all across the dominion. I have had the satisfaction of visiting a number of the non-permanent active militia camps and it gave me a good deal of satisfaction to see the keenness and the enthusiasm and the degree of proficiency with which they were intent on achieving.
I remember in one province-I do not want to make my hon. friend the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) too proud, but it happened to be in British Columbia-the members of one nonpermanent active militia unit insisted on meeting after hours. I have no doubt that this was not the only place where this occurred. The sergeants were conducting classes of their own in order that they might be better able to mount guard and go through the exercises. They were trying to achieve that proficiency which was necessary on their part in order to make this the best unit in Canada. This is only a sample of what is going on all over the country.
I found that a platoon in one particular organization had sent its members to the camp in order that they might take a citizen's part in connection with the military training. I found professors from universities working side by side with labourers in the ranks, all anxious to make the best they could of the training which was provided.
This is the broad picture in briefest outline. Prom the front line in England, through the outlying islands of the Atlantic to our own coast, and from our coasts to the farthest inland point, our troops are at their posts. The early training is elementary and takes
place as near home as possible. As the men voluntarily move into the active army units, units are organized and training becomes a full-time job. As the training advances, and equipment is received, these units are given more responsible work until finally they are fitted for the most important work of all, in our coastal commands or overseas.
I know that the house and the country have been particularly interested in the compulsory training scheme. I think I can say with some emphasis that the first thirty-day camp has been a distinct success. There was, of course, the physical difficulty of building and equipping thirty-nine camps across Canada in about two months. There was the problem of instructing thirty-nine staffs regarding an intensive thirty-day training syllabus and in the administration details of an organization which was new and which we felt must not be allowed to go wrong. These physical and preparatory difficulties were effectively overcome and the camps opened on October 9. Drill balls were one facility which were lacking in practically all the camps. I cannot go into the details as to the reasons for that, but I can say now that I expect that drill halls will practically all be completed by the time the next camp opens.
But the solution of problems of accommodation and instruction and administration was of secondary importance to the fact that the plan involved the inauguration across Canada of a new principle. When we stop to think about it, the real success of the underbaking lay in the fact that Canadians accepted this new principle of compulsory training as a necessary part of our activity. It was not anything the government did. Over
25,000	young men made that acceptance a living practical reality by the keenness and the enthusiasm which they displayed at the thirty-nine military training camps in the last four weeks.
Regarding the length of training, obviously no one expected or pretended that you could turn out a trained soldier in thirty days, but I aim sure that even those who criticized it did not have in mind either the degree of preparation or the intensity of effort which has been packed into those thirty days. I think that all of us who have visited any of these camps have been most agreeably surprised at the progress which has been made and the interest which has been taken. I want now to express sincere appreciation to all who have contributed to this initial success-the indefatigable efforts of staffs of all branches of the service; the careful preparation by camp staffs, and the interest of communities, members of parliament and of

The Address-Mr. Rcdston
citizens generally in helping to give such an excellent start to this far-reaching plan of national service.
I ought to remind the house that the thirty-day training period was never unchangeable or final. My colleague, the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power) made that clear when he was Acting Minister of National Defence in his statement to the house on June 18 last, as reported in Hansard at page 861. He said at that time:
The length of the period of training will be determined by regulation. Whether this will be for the continuous period of three months or for a lesser time depends: (a) on the advice of the technical officers of the department; (b) on the requirements of industrial and productive man-power as shown by a survey to be immediately undertaken.
The matter has been under repeated review both by myself, the war committee of the cabinet and by the staff. In a statement to the press some time ago I said that there had been representations regarding the increasing need of men in war industries, and that this whole subject was receiving the intensive study of a committee. I mentioned that one of the methods suggested in order to make more men available for industry .might be to make the training period longer and thereby to reduce the total number of men to be called for training during any one year, and I indicated that various methods were being studied and that "whether any change might be made in connection with some of the later camps would depend on the result of the study which is now being made of the whole man-power problem and the needs of the munitions industry and of the services." A little later, on October 8, 1940, the chief of general staff, in his address in Ottawa-referred to by the leader of the opposition-referred to my statement and said:
. As my minister stated the other day, consideration is being given to possible alterations m the training schedule in order to adjust the period of compulsory training to changes and improvements in conditions and to the requirements of industry.
There is therefore nothing new in the suggestion of a longer camp period. It depends on such factors as the equipment available, the degree of training desirable and the needs of industry. In the extract which the leader of the opposition quoted, General Crerar indicated quite clearly that the determining factors at the time the scheme was launched were the importance of giving the largest possible number of young Canadians a practical outlook on their obligations with respect to national defence, and the restriction of the training period induced by the limited supply

of modem weapons which would be required to continue beyond a short basic syllabus. Those two points are now in process of being met; the response to the first camp has been such that no man can doubt that the sense of obligation of which General Crerar spoke exists and is genuinely aroused. And I am sure that a second and a third camp will deepen and spread that sense of obligation; for it must be remembered that the men in these training centres represent a cross-section of the dominion.
Regarding equipment: we can now see prospects of increases which will make a longer period of training possible a little later on. But we also have to take account of the requirements of industry, particularly as we get into the higher age groups. Rightly or wrongly, industry has felt disturbed by the call of the lower age classes. Frankly, I think that there was no justification for that disturbance. The Minister of National War Services (Mr. Gardiner) had provided that war industries could make applications for postponement of the training of key men, and I have not heard of any cases in which, when bona fide applications were made, postponements were not granted. Nevertheless, it is a fact that the more men we train, the greater will be industry's concern regarding the possibilities of interference with war production. I have said it before, and I say it again, that under present conditions it is essential to the completion of equipment and the completion of training of those largo numbers of men we now have in the Canadian army, that the needs of war industry for manpower be not interfered with.
To show our earnestness in this matter, the Department of National Defence has laid down the principle that it is not in competition with, but in cooperation with, war industry. As I indicated in a radio address early in July, nearly fifty per cent of the personnel in the modern army are tradesmen of one sort or other. Long ago we made it the rule that we would not accept tradesmen in the army except when there was a vacancy in the establishment for that particular trade. We have gone farther, and are preparing to undertake the training of the bulk of the tradesmen we will require in the army. We have gone farther, and have indicated to the departments concerned that we are ready to consider, subject of course to proper safeguards, granting extended leave to enlisted men in Canada who can be spared and whose services are requested by their former employers in connection with war-time production.
The war committee of the cabinet has had the matter of the length of the training period

The Address-Mr. Ralston
under review repeatedly in connection with the man-power problem, and we are now considering the further step of lengthening the training period to four months and reducing the aggregate number of men to be called from civil occupations in the year. This would at the same time give us in the citizenship of Canada a large number of men whose individual training would be complete.
Such an extension of time and reduction in numbers ought to help to prevent undue disturbance in industry. It would, however, involve some system of exemptions or extended postponements in order to meet the necessities of war-time production, and studies have already 'been made of the most practical methods of working this out.
These matters, both of length of training and of effect on industry and of exemptions, are subjects to which the United Kingdom has given a great deal of attention and we propose, before final authorization of this extension of the training period is given, to examine the situation on the ground when I am in England in consultation with the governmental authorities and staff who are concerned with this phase of the war problem.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Will it be a condition precedent that the man himself consent? I know of a case where a man was wanted very badly to go back to an important job, but he absolutely refused to go because he wanted to stay in the army. I think account should be taken of that.


James Layton Ralston: The house will understand that what I am doing is indicating the attitude of the Department of National Defence vis-a-vis industry. I am not saying what regulations will be put into effect in order to carry out the requirements. What shall be done with the man who is wanted in industry as a machinist, whether he wants to go or not, is a different story.
In the meantime, plans will be completed to facilitate the change if that is finally decided upon.
In any event there will be at least two more thirty-day training camps, that is, the one opening November 22 and another one early in January.
I make no apologies for the time taken in dealing with this matter of compulsory training. It affects man-power, both for the services and for industry. It involves, as I have said, a fundamentally new principle in connection with military training. It has received willing acceptance by those who are called for training and by the citizens of Canada generally. It can, I believe, be made an agency for
providing reserves of trained citizens if needed for defence in Canada and at the same time assuring full scope to war production activities.
While I have spoken of the training plan under the National Resources Mobilization Act, perhaps some other features of army training may be of interest.
Our seventeen active army (C.A.S.F.) training centres continue to provide trained reinforcements for units overseas in all arms of the service. The two small arms schools have been converted into small arms training centres. They will conduct certain courses continuously throughout the entire year instead of during the summer months only as has been the case in the past. We have also special courses of instruction for internment camp guards and provost corps personnel.
These various active army training centres throughout Canada have been working to full capacity and at top speed during the favourable training weather in the summer and early autumn months. All available accommodation was in use for the purpose of giving instruction in such forms of training as rifle and light machine gun, anti-gas and elementary demolitions; training for personnel of forestry companies, cookery courses, driving and maintenance, refresher courses for officers, master-gunners courses, training of searchlight personnel and radiography.
Great strides were made in the unit training of active army formations, and during the camp period of the summer extensive field training has been carried out. For the winter, in addition to other training, preparations are being made for training on skis and snow-shoes. Certain units have been selected to undergo special training in this connection, and we are issuing training instructions and equipment of appropriate types.
One of the most important questions we have had to consider is how the junior officers for our armies are to be selected and trained. We must bear the following points in mind:
(a)	We face a long war and must use our man-power resources to the best advantage.
(b)	We shall meet a highly trained and efficient enemy and must therefore insist that all officers attain a high standard of leadership. I underline the word "leadership". .
We have reviewed the qualifications for officers, which have varied considerably, depending on different units and formations. We have determined on measures which will make for more uniformity, and which, we believe, will improve the standard of officer qualification.
Included in these measures is the decision that for the future every candidate for a commission in the Canadian Army must
The Address-Mr. Ralston

first pass through the ranks. Then, after a certain amount of training in the ranks, if their commanding officer finds them to have the required standing, they will be given the status of officer cadets and will be trained for their commissions at officer training centres, active or reserve. This system has been based on a study of the experiences of the last war and on the present practice in the British army'.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Would
the minister tell us what the practice was up to the time when this decision was made?


James Layton Ralston: I say this to my hon.
friend seriously. I would have to recite to him at least one page and a half of different regulations in order to answer that question. The regulations were three ways in the nonpermanent active militia, and two ways in the Canadian active service force and I would not attempt to give the details from memory. But one thing that stuck out was the one-day examination, which I felt was certainly not satisfactory, and the other thing that stuck out was that some people, it seemed to me, got in with very little training. The idea here has been to adopt the system of training in the ranks first, and, second, training at a training centre, and not just training at headquarters.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I would
not ask the minister to answer my question further.


James Layton Ralston: I am sorry I could not
at the moment. This does not apply to those who already had commissions.


Mr. GREEN:: Does this new plan apply
to both the active army and the reserve
army?


James Layton Ralston: Yes.
Now I come to accommodation. Consequent on the organization of the two coastal commands, the decision was made to concentrate troops at various centres within the commands. This required the erection of most extensive camps and preparations for winter occupation. This work has progressed rapidly and is reaching completion. Winter accommodation has also been provided at most of the larger permanent camps. I have already spoken of the rapid construction of the accommodation for 30,000 men in the thirty-nine reserve training centres.
Other establishments such as ordnance workshops, storage buildings, magazines and training buildings have been or are being built.
The more important army camps are at Debert and Sussex in the Atlantic command,

Valcartier in Quebec, Camp Borden and Petawawa in Ontario, Shilo in Manitoba, Dundurn in Saskatchewan and Nanaimo in the Pacific command. Camps at Aldershot, Barriefield, Niagara and Sarcee have also been actively occupied during the training season.
There are, however, a good many other military establishments. Active army (C.AjS.F.) training centres are at the following places, and I think it is worth while to read them because I do not think the house appreciates the extent and diversity of the training which is being done. These are the training centres-not training by individual units at their headquarters or training in the units, but places to which men may be sent from all the units across Canada in order to receive training in connection with the army:
For infantry (rifle)-Camp Borden, Valcartier, Aldershot, Winnipeg and Calgary. For infantry (machine gun)-Three Rivers and Dundurn.
For small arms-Kingston and Lethbridge. For artillery-Winnipeg and Petawawa.
For engineers-Petawawa.
For signals-Barriefield.
For mechanized cavalry, armoured car and tank-Camp Borden.
For army service corps-Camp Borden.
For medicals-Ottawa.
For ordnance-Kingston and Petawawa.
Then we have district depots including staffs and reinforcements at the various headquarters of the military districts, with a number of sub-depots.
During the winter months there will be units stationed at many other points across the country where winter accommodation is obtainable and where there are facilities for training. Some idea of the magnitude of the work that has been done to prepare winter quarters for the troops can be realized from the following table showing the amount in round figures which has been or is being spent in accommodation for men, for vehicles and for administration and training facilities at some of the camps:
At Debert	 $6,000,000
At Nanaimo	 1,365,000
At Sussex	 1,800,000
Coast defences	 2,500,000
Camp Borden	 4,100,000
Petawawa	 2,750,000
Valcartier	 1,720,000
Newfoundland	 670,000
Nova Scotia	 2,290,000
Saint John area	 432,000
Militia training centres (thirtynine centres)	 8,950,000
The figures for Nova Scotia and the Saint John area are since the beginning of the war.
Altogether w*e now have winter quarters in Canada for approximately 150,000 troops,

The Address-Mr. Ralston
compared with less than 50,000 in the winter of 1939-40. The use of converted buildings has been largely discontinued, and the great majority of this large number of men is accommodated in hutments designed and constructed specially for this purpose.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Does the minister suggest that these huts at Fredericton are suitable for winter service? He had better go and take a look at them.


James Layton Ralston: I should be glad to look at them.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Unless
something more is done to them, the men "will freeze to death.


James Layton Ralston: Is my hon. friend talking about the militia centres?


Richard Burpee Hanson: The thirty-day training centres.


James Layton Ralston: Is my hon. friend sure? It is believed that these hutments are fit for winter accommodation in places that are a good deal colder than Fredericton; they have been tried out in such places. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) will admit that it is somewhat colder in Edmonton than in Fredericton and they use that kind of hut there with three stoves. I might mention Quebec also. I am not dogmatic in anything, I only say they are designed for winter accommodation.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They
should have something done, because they are all open.


James Layton Ralston: I assure my hon. friend they will be banked.


Mr. MICHAUD:: It has been done.


James Layton Ralston: In most centres where I have been, the banking has already been done, or at least the lumber has been put up underneath.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I was there [DOT]on November 2.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend mentioned two matters, and while I am dealing with hutments I might as well deal with them. My hon. friend suggested that the hutments which were being built were of British specification. I do not think they would be any the worse for that, but I assure my hon. friend that they are not of British specification; they are Canadian specification, they are an evolution of hutments which have been used year after year in some of the more permanent centres, and the design is thought to be well-suited to Canadian needs. I have no doubt we shall learn something
this winter with regard to them. I remember that the designs of the hutments last year had the ablution section of the hut in the end of the sleeping quarters; now the hutments are built in the form of an H with the sleeping quarters as the wings and the ablution section in between as the bar of the H.
With regard to the matter of costs and the cost of building by the engineer service vis-a-vis contractors, I have had that fully in mind as well. There were no less than ten of these camps which were built by contractors because of the fact that it was felt undesirable that the department and contractors who were already on the ground building something else for the services should be in competition in respect of labour. An arrangement was made between my hon. friend the Minister of Munitions and Supply and myself that the huts at these places would be built by contract. I want to assure my hon. friend that I have now as competent an engineer as I think there is in Canada, with an assistant and a representative of the quartermaster-general, visiting most of these camps and looking them over for the purpose of making a comparison of the camps from the point of view of expedition in building, of design and workmanship, and of approximate cost, that is to say the camps which have been built by contractors as compared with others built by the engineer services.
1	assure him that the matter has not been neglected.
One point that he mentioned was exceedingly technical. I did make inquiry about it. He wanted to know why we had the
2 x 10's planed on four sides. The answer is that it is done because they are spiked together to make the longitudinal floor beams for the sleeping huts and it is found necessary to plane them in order to make them fit closely together and give the best bearing.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am not objecting to planing the two sides, but why plane the edges? That costs money.


James Layton Ralston: Well, that is the answer I give my hon. friend.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I tried to argue it out with the engineer and he would not consider my argument.


James Layton Ralston: The further reason is given that it is to ensure facilities for inspection as to soundness.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It costs about $20 a thousand more-perhaps not $20 but a good deal more-to have 2 x 10's instead of 4 x 6's which would have the same carrying strength.
14S
The Address-Mr. Ralston


James Layton Ralston: I am not in a position even to argue with my hon. friend, but in my ignorance I would have thought that a laminated beam of four 2 x 10's would be better than two 4 x 6's.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, we shall have to agree to disagree.


James Layton Ralston: Regarding equipment or armaments and ammunition: we still have to face the fact of a serious shortage in equipment and armament, and we shall probably have to face that fact for a good while yet in many instances. Everyone knows the overwhelming demand which has been made on industrial production. Everyone knows the necessity for United Kingdom industry to produce for the services over there. Everyone knows the colossal demands on United States production because of increased United Kingdom demand and of vastly expanded requirements of. the United States itself.
Canada has had thrown on it a burden of production of war materials which is unprecedented, in both quantity and variety. This has necessitated not only augmenting existing industries but creating many new ones. The policy has been and must be-I commend this to my hon. friend again- that with the front line in England the needs of that front line have first consideration. We have gone short and we shall not hesitate to go short so long as the material we produce is needed overseas.


Olof Hanson: Right.


James Layton Ralston: My colleague the Minister of Munitions and Supply will tell the industrial side of our war effort. That department is the one to which the Department of National Defence looks for supplies, and I can assure the house that the most constant touch and the closest collaboration is maintained between our departments.
In the Department of National Defence we have a staff which I think is indefatigable in trying to forecast our needs and endeavouring to fit them in with the possibilities of Canadian production, and all that intensive work and effort and closest consultation can do to supply the defence forces of Canada with the things they need is, I am confident, being done.
There is only one reason in the world that I know of why statistics regarding the rate of production and delivery of Various items should not be made public, and that is that we do not propose officially and deliberately to furnish the enemy with information which he might spend millions of dollars by espionage and subversive activity to obtain.

Regarding personal clothing and equipment: we have, as hon. members know, been endeavouring all along to catch up with the heavy burden which was suddenly placed upon industry to supply in a short time uniforms, boots, socks, shirts and personal necessities in enormous quantities. I am glad to say that we have practically overtaken these requirements and we believe that the situation is well in hand with plans made for a year ahead. That is being taken now as a matter of course, but I do not think the house realizes the strain on the administration of the Department of Munitions and Supply and on industry to achieve that accomplishment.
For the reason indicated I do not propose to make more than general statements respecting what we call unit equipment. My colleague the Minister of Munitions and Supply will no doubt say something about Canadian whr-time activity in manufacture.
With regard to rifles the situation is the same as when I spoke to the house in July. We procured in the United States just a few thousand more rifles than we had furnished to the United Kingdom at the time of the emergency. These rifles have been distributed from time to time, and the position is now that the staff is satisfied that we are for the present able adequately to meet the situation for active service requirements and for training. Steps are being taken to meet future needs until production commences in Canada.
Regarding the manufacture of rifles in Canada; as I told the house in July, the department on its own made plans for the erection of a factory and for production here. The confidence regarding the preparation for and layout of this factory has been fully justified. The completion of the factory and the inauguration of production were handed over to the Department of Munitions and Supply. A company was formed under the direction of leading industrialists and my information is that the factory will be in production by the middle of 1941.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is the
minister referring to rifles?


James Layton Ralston: The rifle factory. My hon. friend asked why Ross rifles were given to trainees. The obvious answer is that we required the Enfield rifles for issue to the active service troops.


Richard Burpee Hanson: You did not have anything else. That is the answer.


James Layton Ralston: I am not making any
apology for it. I say that we required the Enfield rifles for issue to active service troops. The others did not require these rifles for

The Address-Mr. Ralston
preliminary training and the Ross had been reconditioned and could be used for the purpose. The rifles sent to Europe for United Kingdom use were Ross rifles.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They have been reconditioned.


James Layton Ralston: If that is going down on the record, I should like to hear what it is.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I said that wooden guns would do just as well as what you gave the soldiers.


James Layton Ralston: Apparently the leader of the opposition does not know as much about rifles as I thought he did. The production of *303 small arms and ammunition will, I anticipate, reach the scale which I envisaged in July and careful calculations by the staff officers assure us that our needs will be adequately met.
Regarding Bren guns; I have given my hon. friend the number up to the end of September. I am not giving the number delivered each week, but it is a figure which I must say is most satisfactory having regard to what was planned on when production started at the plant. These weekly deliveries are increasing steadily and by the end of the first year of production we expect to have three times as many guns delivered as were called for by the contract.
My hon. friend spoke of the shortage of machine guns. He asked why there was a shortage. Obviously, the shortage of machine guns is purely relative. There are as a matter of fact several machine-gun battalions-Canadian active service force machine-gun battalions-and a number of non-permanent active militia battalions. The establishment has been changed and the number of machine gun battalions per division has been reduced to one instead of three-not by us but by the British establishment-indicating apparently *that the requirement of machine-gun battalions is substantially less. I can assure my hon. friend that we have enough machine guns, and more than enough, to equip every machine-gun battalion which we have in the field, on the basis of present establishment, although not fully on the basis of the establishment which we originally had and which has now been reduced by the war office.
Let me say also, in connection with machine guns, that at the moment we do not propose to convert any machine-gun battalions we have into other battalions even though the place for them in the establishment is gone. We cannot tell what changes may develop, and we propose to keep them on as they are for the present. We have issued a certain number of machine guns for training in each of the machine-gun units.
Regarding field guns; the leader of the opposition spoke about this and referred particularly to two artillery units. Those which he spoke of are of course reserve-nonpermanent active militia units. Naturally, with the large number of Canadian active service force troops we have, our first and primary duty is to distribute guns for their training and operations, and this we have done. It is obviously more useful for training to have guns at our artillery training centres, so that the men can have intensive training, rather than to scatter the guns among non-peitmanent active militia units. Even at that, already equipments are now ready for issue to about one-third of the nonpermanent active militia units and will shortly be in their hands, and arrangements wall be made so that the great majority even of those non-permanent active militia units will have guns for training.
Since I dictated this I have been informed that in a week's time distribution will commence.
I can say to the house regarding this matter of field guns that we have sufficient at least to equip a third and a fourth division. As I said in July, our supply was augmented by a further substantial complement, with necessary ammunition. All these are being high-speeded and are, in the opinion of the staff officers, quite sufficient for training and for the needs of Canadian defence until 25-pounders are available.
Production of 25-pounders was undertaken in this country for both British and Canadian account, and while the deliveries will not be as early as expected, imy colleague, the Minister of Munitions and Supply, anticipates that a considerable number will be forthcoming in 1941.
In connection with signal equipment, I indicated in July that Canadian concerns were rapidly producing training equipment made up from standard commercial parts. These are being augmented by some thousands of sets from the United States, and two of the largest concerns in Canada are working in cooperation on the production of the latest British pattern of service equipment which we expect to receive early in the new year.
In this respect, my hon. friend asks why signal equipment is non-existent.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I based
that on Mr. Baldwin's statement.


James Layton Ralston: The answer is that it is not non-existent. We had expected to get signal equipment from the United Kingdom. Because of the necessity for interchangeability we have to use the British pattern; but when it seemed that our supplies could
The Address-Mr. Ralston

mot be obtained from the United Kingdom, we had to get into production in Canada and we arranged with two of the largest Canadian firms to take on the manufacture of this British technical equipment, which consists of wireless sets of different patterns, comprising a most complex variety of supplies. At the same time, we arranged with Canadian firms to give us supplies for training by adapting commercial sets for purposes of the army.
There has been a great deal of interest in tanks. The design and manufacturing problems in this type of weapon are particularly complicated, but, as is known, work has been going on as fast as it could possibly be done at the Angus shops of the Canadian Pacific Railway in Montreal. We also anticipate that other plants will soon be employed on tank manufacture. This is an instance in which there has been particularly close collaboration between the Department of National Defence, the Department of Munitions and Supply and the British and United States technical authorities.
With regard to motor vehicles and tractors, production has been most gratifying, and we have more than once agreed to subordinate our requirements to those of the United Kingdom in order that there should be no lack in the front line.
In this connection I might refer to two or three matters mentioned by the leader of the opposition. He said he had heard that vehicles had been shipped in an incomplete condition, causing a good deal of expense. There was a shipment of vehicles the parts of which were to be assembled1 in England. In the case of one shipment of about 500 units-


Olof Hanson: About a
thousand.


James Layton Ralston: In one shipment of about 500 units, it was found, when they came to assemble the units, that the fan belt for the pulley had been omitted by the shipper. A cable was sent and the missing part was sent two days later and immediately installed, so that there was no delay, nor was there any interference with training on that account. That is what my hon. friend is referring to when he speaks about a shipment having been sent in an incomplete condition.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Does the minister say that was the only thing lacking?


James Layton Ralston: I will come to the other matter, the batteries, in a moment.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There
were six different things lacking.


James Layton Ralston: I have not heard of six different things.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister could have found out about them.


James Layton Ralston: I will give my hon. friend what I have here, first in regard to the brake test. Let me quote what my hon. friend said:
Some hundreds of these ears which arrived in England could not stand a brake test, others were incomplete, and parts had to be secured hurriedly, in England, in Canada and in the United States. I am told that the cost-aggregated $80,000.
The facts in connection with the brake test are that after the first few hundred vehicles left Canada, it was decided here, after a test, that the hand brake was not wholly satisfactory, that it was too difficult to get at. So they altered the design here. Some 615 of these vehicles had been sent overseas, and the new brake assembly was sent over for those vehicles. The cost of the materials for the change was $2,460; that is to say, the companies charged nothing whatever for making the change but charged only for the actual material that went into the new brakes, because they had already supplied material for one set of brakes. As I say, the cost was $2,460, and the estimated cost of labour to install the brakes over there would be $1,020. I think we can assume that probably the labour would be done by the ordnance corps over there and that therefore this was not an additional charge, but at the most the cost of the thing which I think my hon. friend 'had in mind as being $80,000 would be $3,480.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Oh, no.
What I meant by the $S0,000 was that this amount was required to pay for replacements and parts that did not go over with the vehicles. It had nothing whatever to do with any brake tests or change in brake design.


James Layton Ralston: All right. I will deal
with the only other thing I can find, the matter of tools. I received a telegram from Price Montague that there were not enough tools over there, not because there was anything lacking in the tools which were sent over, because the full complement of tools was sent, but because it was found that they needed additional tools to work with in the shops. The telegram states, in part:
The need for tools to service Canadian vehicles additional to those provided with the vehicles themselves originated at Canadian military headquarters in London. A meeting was called on May 7, attended by representatives from the Canadian active service force and Canadian military headquarters civilian technical staff, to decide nature and quantity of tools required in addition to standard British army issue. In implementation, orders were placed for such tools as could be obtained in

The Address-Mr. Ralston
the United Kingdom and national defence headquarters was requested in our cable Q.M.Gr. 222 of July 2, 1940, to provide the balance. We consider ample provision has been arranged. The main supply (of extras required in addition to standard British army issue) is awaited, most of which is of American and Canadian manufacture.
That may have accounted for the $80,000; I will find that out. I want to point out, however, that this did not arise from any deficiency on our part; it arose from a meeting held at Canadian military headquarters. In setting up and servicing these cars they apparently decided that they required more tools than were supplied with the cars.
There is one other point with which I should deal, to make sure that I have exhausted everything in this line. I found one other matter; that was batteries, to which I thought my hon. friend's general words might refer. In one of the shipments- I think it was the first shipment-in order to make sure that the vehicles could be set up and used immediately upon their arrival, the batteries were shipped charged but drained; that is to say, they remained charged but were drained of liquid. It was found that these batteries deteriorated and were not in shape for immediate use when they reached England. The result was that batteries were purchased over there to be used until these batteries were reconditioned. There was no loss whatever; after being reconditioned the batteries were perfectly good again, and we had the additional batteries as well. As a matter of fact I think now batteries are shipped dry and uncharged. It takes somewhat longer to get them in shape over there, because they have to fill and charge them, but it ensures their arrival in good shape.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It takes two days to do it.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend knows more about it than I do.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I should; I have paid often enough for having it done.


James Layton Ralston: The manufacture of shells which occupied such a predominant position in the last war has taken a comparatively minor place in Canada in this one, but I can reiterate what I said in July, that in addition to the substantial supply of shells on hand, shells are being manufactured in a number of plants in Canada and our arsenal is now in production in a limited way, with prospects of rapid expansion. I should say in passing that in addition to handing over the rifle factory to the administration of the Department of Munitions and Supply, it was thought well to hand over to that department for the
duration of the war the administration of the dominion arsenals at Valcartier and at Lindsay, in order that all the manufacturing facilities of the government in connection with munitions should be under one department.
I think the enumeration of the articles which I have mentioned which are being manufactured in Canada-and I have mentioned only a few of them-will confirm what I have said regarding not only the extent but the diversity of Canada's industrial activities for war purposes. Hand in hand with these activities have gone the activities of the research and experimental agencies in many fields and what I might call the planning activities of the service departments and of the Department of Munitions and Supply in working out requirements and priority, having regard to the possibilities of effective production.
To sum up, I think I can again assure the house as I did in July that the most vigorous and effective steps of which we are capable have been and are being taken both by this department and by the Department of Munitions and Supply to make Canada to the maximum extent possible self-supporting and self-sustaining in munitions of war, in addition to rapidly becoming a large exporter of armaments to the United Kingdom. And I can say again that we shall not rest until we have produced or procured every item which is procurable to complete our military requirements in order to carry out effectively the task we have set for ourselves in what now appears to be a war not of months but of years. It is of no use for us to try to delude ourselves that the work in hand is something which will be easily or speedily accomplished. It calls for all the energy, all the loyalty, and equally all the staying power that Canadians can command.
I cannot forbear just a word at this point with regard to a comment made by the leader of the opposition about Australia. With regard to that country, frankly I do not propose to attempt to appraise the Australian war effort as compared with our own. One could spend hours dealing with conditions in Australia, ascertaining the exact point reached in production, and in equipment, and the nature of the functions which their forces are performing. Conditions there are and have been radically different, and I think comparison would be simply misleading and unfair to both countries. I submit that what we have to make sure of is that we in Canada are doing everything humanly possible to forward our own war activities; and if there is any instance in which my hon. friend thinks Australia is outstripping us under comparable conditions, let him tell me about it, and
The Address-Mr. Ralston

I will take the time necessary to find out all about it. In the meantime I propose to drive on with Canada's war effort as hard as I can, leaving Australia to do the same in her field of endeavour.
Before I close, Mr. Speaker, let me come back to the question of man-power and make one more reference. I should like to say a word regarding services which minister to the well-being of the troops, apart from their strictly military work. One is the dependents' allowance board, which furnishes an important service auxiliary to the Department of National Defence. It has had a steadily increasing task to perform. During recent months the average number of claims considered by the board has been over 4,200 every week, and there are now over 150,000 accounts in payment. The chairman and members of the board and their staff have worked unceasingly to keep up with the demands.
The other auxiliary service which I think is particularly important is the service which is being furnished through the Canadian Legion, the Y.M.C.A., the Knights of Columbus, and the Salvation Army.
These four organizations constitute what we call the auxiliary services, and they are officially recognized as the agencies by which activities for the welfare of the troops when off duty are carried on.
Their task is to give particular attention to the educational and recreational welfare of our soldiers. Officers of the auxiliary services, together with the necessary supervisors, have been appointed to all units in Great Britain.
In Canada special attention has been given to the areas included in the Atlantic and Pacific commands, without, however, neglecting other areas. Moving picture shows form a considerable part of the programme; there are seventy-five now operating and an additional thirty-nine are being arranged. Educational services, library facilities, sports, recreation and social activities, all come within the work being carried on.
The work is characteristically helpful and useful, and I want to express the thanks of the department and of the men of the forces for the fine contribution which those representing these organizations are making in the various camps and at the various military points throughout Canada.
I have taken time to mention this work not only because of its value, but because we ought to take an interest in it. I feel that this work is one which requires the wholehearted support, not only of these organizations, but of the citizens at large. This winter is going to be a testing time, not only for morale, but for character.
*Mr. Ralston.]
Training and equipment must always receive first consideration in a soldier's life, but parallel to these essentials the auxiliary services are carrying on a task that demands the very highest qualities of sympathetic and intelligent administration. In this period of training and waiting, many of our troops are undertaking the hardest job that can be asked of men who are at the stage in life which thrives on activity. They are receptive of all types of influence, and the responsibility that rests on their officers and leaders who are helping them to make the most of the activities of their leisure hours calls for the most searching thought and the most meticulous care.
Wherever there is an opportunity to assist in this work, I would ask for the most unselfish and generous aid from all our citizens. Every agency that can be brought to bear to provide wholesome activities during leisure hours should be regarded as part of a duty which this country owes and which the Department of National Defence, through the auxiliary services, has an obligation to carry out. The results, intangible though they may be, will amply repay the effort.
In the same connection I should like to say a vrord regarding chaplain services. Additional appointments have been made to the staff of chaplains in the active army and provision has been made for adequate chaplain service at the various reserve training centres. The churches everywhere in Canada have expressed readiness to support and assist the work being done. The chaplains who have been appointed have devoted their energies unsparingly to care for the spiritual welfare of the men in the services.
I should like to close with a very brief reference to what may be ahead of us in the critical days which are to come.
When I last spoke to the house, the so-called "battle of Britain" was in its opening stages. That battle has been decided for this year; the enemy has abandoned the hope of invasion, if he seriously entertained it, and the winter in that particular theatre of operations will be spent in a sort of siege warfare-harassing attacks from the air and the sea which, however much suffering they may cause to the civilian population, can lead to no decision. The danger of invasion is thought to be at an end for the year, but the threat may be renewed in the spring. By that time, however, the army in the United Kingdom will be even better prepared to meet it, and the enemy's chances of success very much less. All eyes are now turned toward the Mediterranean and there we may expect further developments in land operations.

The Address-Mr. Brooks
The attempt of the axis powers will be to dominate the eastern Mediterranean, to drive the British from Egypt and Palestine and so finally to obtain the oil supplies of Iraq. Other theatres may open up in northern Africa.
On the whole we may expect that the operations of the empire land forces during the year of 1941 will continue to be largely defensive, while the pressure of the navy and the air force against the economic life of our enemies is being maintained and increased. During this phase we must continue to build up our strength against the day when we shall take the offensive with all arms and services.
We are working to a programme which is as definite as can be made in the lights and shadows of almost unforeseeable eventualities. That programme is based on a joint appreciation of the three services-army, navy and air. In connection with that programme, let me emphasize again that our plans and preparations are and must be made in conjunction with those of our predominating partner, the United Kingdom, and of the other dominions. Since the front fine is on the English channel, it is vital that we maintain the closest contact with that crucial sphere of operations. There must be not only unity of purpose but unity of planning and execution. Our strength multiplies by integration. It is team-work which wins. For this reason, I expect before long to visit the United Kingdom, accompanied by some of the headquarters staff, to consult on many matters of common interest. I want to make siure that our own programme will be developed in closest relation to the needs, and I am sure we all desire that plans and preparations will be such that we will be contributing not only all our strength, but our most effective strength, to help defeat and destroy this menace to freedom and to life itself which hangs over the world. It will be a task of years. May we have the courage, the perseverance and the unshakeable resolution to see it through.


Mr. A. J. BROOKS (Royal):: Mr. Speaker, it is a difficult matter to speak in this chamber, even under ordinary circumstances; but I find it somewhat more difficult this afternoon following, as I do, the long and interesting statement which has been made by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston).
In the short time at my disposal I shall not undertake to analyse the observations of the minister. He has given the house much information, and I am sure a great deal of it will be of interest not only to hon. members, but to the country in general. Listening to
the minister this afternoon, we must realize that in order to get the whole picture of Canada's activities in the war we must have reports, not only from one minister, but from all of them.
As was stated by the minister, the activities of the Department of National Defence depend upon the amount of work done by the Department of Munitions and Supply. He has pointed out that the work of one department, and his in particular, cannot move any faster than the progress of the Department of Munitions and Supply will permit.
It would appear that I am the first member who would be affected by the ruling which was made by Mr. Speaker this afternoon, at the opening of the sitting, to the effect that speeches are not to be read. I wish the ruling had been made at the beginning of the session and, indeed, I suggest it should have been made at that time. Personally, I am in full accord with it, and in the short time at my disposal I shall endeavour as nearly as possible to abide by it.
_ It is customary for hon. members speaking in the debate on the address in reply to compliment the mover and the seconder. Unfortunately I was not in the house when those hon. members delivered their speeches. I have, however, read them; I have listened to the observations of hon. members who followed them in the debate, and I have read newspaper comments, all of which satisfy me that the congratulations which have been heaped upon those hon. members have been merited.
I agree fully with the observations of my hon. leader who stated, in effect, that the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Claxton) rather went out of his way to characterize those who advocate more and more assistance to Great Britain as being more English than the English. We of this party have always contended that the fullest possible support should be given to England, not only for the protection of Britain but because our own salvation depends upon England to-day as it has depended upon England in the past.
Before the war some hon. members rather scoffed at this idea; it has been interesting to see the change of heart on their part. I have heard some hon. members advocate strict neutrality; others, nationalism, and others have said that our defence depended upon the United States. We have heard all sorts of half-baked ideas advocated in this house during the last four or five years, but it would be a brave or bold member who would rise in his place to-day and give expression to the same ideas.
The Address-Mr. Brooks

I listened with much pleasure to the latter part of the address of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) delivered yesterday. After hearing that part of his speech I am ready to forgive him to some extent for many of the shortcomings of some of his previous speeches. I am sure there is none of us who does not share the feelings expressed by him. I was interested to hear his account of what has been going on in England during the last few months. We are all proud to know that while England is taking this terrific beating, her head is still high. The thought occurs to me, and I am sure it must have occurred to a great many other people, that if it had not been for a few thousand light-hearted and brave British boys in the British air force during the last few months, there might be a different story written for civilization and this empire of ours.
Yesterday I read in the press an article which brings to my mind another matter of which I shall speak in a moment. We all heard the eulogies of Mr. Chamberlain, and we all know how deserving they were. The article in yesterday's paper stated that the ashes of the late Prime Minister of Great Britain had been placed on the south side of Westminster Abbey beside the plain grey stone marking the burial place of Andrew Bonar Law, the Canadian-born Prime Minister of two decades ago. I would point out that from 1914 to 1918, when this empire was passing through one of the most serious times in its history, as it is to-day, it was a Canadian, born in New Brunswick, who stood next to Mr. Lloyd George in his efforts to protect and save the empire. I would point out also that to-day the man of whom we hear the most next to Mr. Churchill, the man who is doing the most to preserve this empire of ours, is another Canadian bom in New Brunswick. We all recognize the wonderful work that Lord Beaverbrook is doing for this empire of ours, and I am sure that we of the little province by the sea will be excused for the great pride we feel in this connection.
We are all greatly interested, not only in the raising of troops but in the providing of munitions and supplies. We feel that New Brunswick has not been receiving the same attention in this regard as have other parts of Canada. Week after week we receive reports from the director of public information giving the amount of money being spent in Canada on munitions and supplies. It is seldom that any mention is made of munitions or supplies being provided by New Brunswick. I submit that this is something which should be corrected. That province is particularly well situated for the manufacture of munitions to

be sent overseas. We are on, the Atlantic seaboard, and instead of munitions and supplies being manufactured in central and western Canada, they could very well be made in New Brunswick, and thus save the expense of a long rail haul.
It is true, as will probably be pointed out, that considerable work has been done upon the airfields of the maritime provinces. But this is for the protection of all of Canada. The government could hardly help avoid spending money upon these airfields. The minister mentioned that considerable money had been spent in my home town of Sussex; I think $1,800,000 was the amount he mentioned as having been expended upon the construction of huts. There have also been considerable expenditures at Debert, Nova Scotia. This is work which has to be done for general protection, and my request now is that more munitions should be manufactured in New Brunswick, thus giving more employment to our people.
I was glad to hear the Minister of Agriculture state that he had arranged a trade agreement with the United Kingdom whereby the farmers of Canada would1 be able to sell more of their farm products. But this agreement will be of little benefit to the farmers of the province from which I come. Our farmers are principally potato producers and dairymen. The United States trade agreement had an adverse effect upon the potato producers of New Brunswick, and to-day it is almost impossible for a man engaged in this type of agriculture to make a decent living for himself and his family. It is interesting to note that in western Canada the price set on wheat is a minimum one, but the price of dairy products has been pegged; the price set is a maximum one. There is a vast difference between setting a maximum price for one product and setting a minimum price for another.
Then, in connection with bacon, while the farmers of the maritime provinces are not large producers of this product, there is only one reason why they are not. They cannot get feed from western Canada at a reasonable cost because of the high freight rates. Everything seems to work against the prosperity of the people of my province and the other provinces by the sea. It is not because we are not deserving. Is it necessary for me to point out to this house that from 1914 to 1918 there was no more patriotic section in this whole Dominion of Canada than New Brunswick and the maritime provinces generally? The same is true to-day. If you look at enlistments in the overseas forces, you will find that the men of New

The Address-Mr. Brooks
Brunswick are enlisting in numbers comparable with those of any other part of this dominion, and I repeat that we are not receiving the attention which we deserve and to which we are entitled. It has been intimated that perhaps we do not press sufficiently for these things, so now I address myself to the members from New Brunswick who sit on the government side of the house. I have sat here for five years and I am of opinion that the Liberal members sitting in this House of Commons have not pressed the government hard enough on New Brunswick's behalf. I want to assure them that if they will make a concerted effort to impress our claims upon the government in season and out of season, both inside the house and outside they will have the whole-hearted support of every Conservative member from that province.
It has been rumoured, Mr. Speaker, that my good friend the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Michaud) is about to retire from parliament in order to accept an appointment to the bench of our province. It is not merely rumoured but I have seen it stated in the press. I congratulate the minister if such is the fact and I might add that in congratulating him I am doing a great deal more than I think some of his Liberal friends are doing in New Brunswick. If the minister leaves this chamber and the cabinet, it will be necessary for the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), to appoint someone in his stead. I recall that the Prime Minister during the last election, and in speeches in this house since the election, said that he would select the best men he could get in this country for his cabinet. That should be the case. In times like these, the best men in the country are none too good. There are those who sit behind the Prime Minister who have ques- . tioned certain recent appointments which he has made, and I would ask the Prime Minister, when he selects a minister from New Brunswick, to select the best man he can possibly get from that province. Of course I know he has precluded himself from selecting anyone who is not of his own party. But we want strong representation in the cabinet from our province. This country needs strong representation, and if the best man is not in the house I ask the Prime Minister to go to the province and select there the very best man that can be obtained.
I wish to say a few words with reference to the training centres. First, let me say that I have had Charge of a training centre for the past thirty days. At the beginning of the war, having been in the militia and on the reserve for some years, I volunteered my
services either for overseas duty or at home, and just before the close of last session the district officer commanding the district from which I come telegraphed and telephoned me requesting that I take charge of a training centre in New Brunswick. I was glad to do so, and I suppose that as far as practical knowledge is concerned, I have as much knowledge of training centres as any man in this House of Commons.
A training centre was established at Fredericton. I had expected that there would be one training centre for the Whole province but two were established. I have no great criticism to make of two training centres being established, one at Fredericton and one at Edmundston. If I had any criticism to make it would be that at a time when we are talking of unity in this country and trying to bring our people together, a splendid opportunity was lost in New Brunswick, where we have many English-speaking and many Frenchspeaking young men, in not establishing only one training centre for the province where French and English-speaking boys could have come together and learned more about each others' opinions. This, however, was not done, and an English centre was established at Fredericton and the French one at Edmundston.
I was impressed by what the minister said as to the duty of our citizens to help entertain our soldiers in all parts of this dominion. I should like to pay tribute to the good people of Fredericton for doing everything they possibly could to help entertain the soldiers. The citizens gave us their bands for church parades; they opened their homes to the soldiers and provided them with entertainment.
I am speaking of training centres to-day from the point of view of the men who trained in them. There has been criticism levelled that the men who attended these training centres were an undisciplined mob. That term might have been applied to the men when they landed in camp the first day, coming from all over the province with their suitcases and civilian clothes, and some of them perhaps not knowing exactly why they were coming, but they could not possibly have been characterized as an undisciplined mob when they left camp thirty days later because they marched out with their chins up, just as fine a body of men as one could find anywhere.
There has been talk about these men being pampered. I think the government propaganda had something to do with that report giving the wrong impression across this country. I say emphatically that these men were not pampered nor did they wish to be pampered. If getting up at six o'clock in the morning, making your own bed, shaving and
The Address-Mr. Brooks

getting ready for breakfast at seven, and then after breakfast going out at eight o'clock and taking physical training and spending the whole day at drill-if that is being pampered, then these men were pampered. In addition, they had their fatigues to do. They made up their beds, rolled their blankets, cleaned out their huts, helped to wash the dishes and to scrub the floors; in fact, did all the work that men in barracks should do. I doubt whether any Canadian active service force unit in Canada during the first thirty days of their training, and perhaps much longer, made more progress or worked harder than did the men who were in these particular training centres.
I noticed in the Montreal Star a report that some men had come back from the training centres in certain parts of the province of Quebec and complained about the food. The ration in the training centres is the same as that given to the soldiers in every other camp in Canada. It is good, wholesome food, and I heard very little complaint. The fact is that unless a soldier is complaining he does not consider himself a soldier. Most of our wives will tell us that if we do not complain about the food at home they think there is something wrong with us, and if a body of men do not do a little complaining we would probably think there was something wrong with them.
But to give some idea of what benefit training is to the men and how they improve under the strict routine of military life, I had my medical officer, Captain Petrie, weigh and record the weights of men at different periods. The total weight gained from October 10 to November 6, roughly one training period, by 114 recruits examined for weight, was 648-5 pounds. Only one recruit, who had been sick for many days during the training period, lost one pound. The average gain per recruit for the training period was 5-68 pounds; which shows, as I say, that the military life and training are beneficial to the men.
I also have a summary from the medical officer regarding sick parades. The daily percentage of trainees on sick parade was 2-95 per cent. Por the training staff it was [DOT]63 per cent, or a total, for all, of 2-44 per cent. The total number of training days for the period for the unit was 25,800. The total hospital days for the unit numbered 239, and the percentage of training time lost on account of hospitalization was -93 per cent. The medical officer also says that there was only one case of V.D., that is among the staff the first week. There were no cases among the trainees. There were only four cases of drunkenness during the whole time.

I mention these things in order to emphasize the type of young men that we have in these training camps. They are the finest young men that we have in Canada; they represent the very flower of the manhood of this country.
The health of the men in camp might be compared with the health of men who did not get to camp. The great number of men who were turned down in my province and all over Canada for different defects was surprising to me. In the last war we know that tens of thousands of our young men were found not fit for service on account of certain ailments. One might think that from 1918 to 1940 there would have been some improvement in the health of our people, but I am satisfied, from the statistics obtained during this examination, that the state of health of the young men of Canada is just as deplorable now as it was then. Although the men were medically examined by their home doctors before they came to camp, after they arrived at camp, as the Prime Minister pointed ou-t the other day, fifteen per cent of them had to be rejected for medical unfitness. I would call it criminal negligence on the part of the authorities that we have not done more for the health of the greatest asset this country has, its young men. Mark you, these men were not all A-l; they were down to category C. If they had been examined for overseas service, the casualty list, so to speak, would have been much greater.
The minister this afternoon stated that the thirty-day period was not satisfactory. The period is not long enough; no man who knows anything about soldiering would say you can make a soldier in thirty days. One of the hardest things I had to do after training these men for thirty days and feeling that we could do something with them by further advanced training was to send them home feeling that perhaps we should never see them again in uniform and that the benefit of their training was lost. The men like the training, and I am pleased to hear the Minister of National Defence say that they have a plan on foot whereby men coming in for similar training will have the period extended.
As far as equipment is concerned, it was my personal opinion that probably the thirty-day limit had been set on account of lack of equipment, because there is no question that advanced training would have required more extensive equipment. In advanced training these men would need to know something about the Bren gun, and there are no Bren guns for training of this kind; there are no't enough for the active service force units. They would need anti-*tank guns and

The Address-Mr. Brooks
more gas masks and mechanical equipment .and rifles, and these are not available. We trust that these matters are being attended to by the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe); the question we would ask is, *"Why was not more done at an earlier date to- provide this equipment?"
Although the government has told our young men that they cannot be sent out of Canada for defence, that they can be used only for defence in this country, on their own initiative they are willing and anxious to serve outside Canada because they realize that that is where they should serve in order to defend this dominion. Answering a questionnaire, out of 660 men in my training centre those willing to serve in the Royal Canadian Navy numbered ninety-two, those willing to serve in the Royal Canadian Air Force numbered 266, those willing to serve in the active service force numbered 175, and those unwilling to serve anywhere numbered 127. Of the above, about 125 would like to get into the service right away; the others, as soon as they are required. This was prepared by my adjutant. He says:
Apparently none of this class was engaged in any industry purely for war. A number worked in plants where government contracts have been let.
That, of course, is characteristic of New Brunswick, as I stated at the beginning of my speech, because we have very few plants producing munitions in that province.
I was interested to hear the Minister of National Defence say this afternoon that our place is side by side with England wherever the fighting is. There is no fighting here in Canada, and therefore it should be impressed upon our young men that their duty lies [DOT]wherever the fighting may be. I have tried to impress this upon the young men with whom I come in contact because I think it is a patriotic duty which we ail should discharge.
I was pleased to hear the Prime Minister say that the policy of his government and the country is to push our war effort to the limit of our capacity. That is a big statement. We have a wonderful capacity in Canada; I do not suppose that there is any other country in the world with a greater. We had a wonderful capacity in the years from 1914 to 1918, and despite everything that may be said about our war effort at that time, I do not think any Canadian need feel ashamed of the part which Canada played from 1914 to 1918. But we are told that we were not a united people in the days from 1914 to 1918; we are told that we did not have the whole-hearted support of every section of the dominion. To-day, on the
contrary, we are told that we have this whole-hearted support of our war effort from one end of Canada to the other. Well, if our effort, which did not have the wholehearted support of every section of the country, as the government would like to make us believe, produced 500,000 volunteers in the period from 1914 to 1918, what must we say of the capacity of Canada to-day to produce an army 'under conditions such as we have been told now prevail? We are willing to wait and see if what has been told us is true. There are many who have grave doubts.
It is nearly six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, and I do not wish to detain the house.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am going to move the adjournment of the house at six o'clock, so that my hon. friend may take all the time he needs.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I thank the Prime Minister. May I say this in closing. We are justly proud to be side by side with Britain in the present defence of civilization and democracy; but listening to the speeches that have been delivered in this house during the last three or four days, I have not heard any mention of a gallant little nation which is also standing side by side with Britain and is to-day fighting for her very existence. I refer to Greece. Greece to-day is the British empire's only ally. She is fighting as fought the Greeks of old, thousands of years ago, at Salamis and Thermopylae. I remember reading as a boy these lines from Byron:
So fought the Greek of old,
So will he fight again:
Will not the self-same mold Bring forth the self-same men?
These self-same men we are proud to have as our ally to-day-men who are fighting to save as brave a country as any on earth.
We have been told that this will be a long war. It is hard for us to contemplate the prospect, all the harder when we read, as we do in to-night's newspapers, of such things as the fate that has befallen the historic city of Coventry in England, which has been practically ruined. Mr. Churchill, Britain's Prime Minister, assures us that we will fight on, unconquerable, until the curse of Hitler is lifted from the brows of men. It will no doubt take a long time; but when that curse is lifted, when the flag of freedom and of civilization floats once more proudly over the world, then the proudest boast we in Canada shall be able to make will be that we bore our full share in the defence of civilization, of home, of king and country.
Commonwealth Air Training

On motion of Mr. Adamson the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the house adjourned at six o'clock.
Monday, November 18, 1940.