Mr. J. S. ROY (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, on
a question of privilege, as the representative of the constituency of Gaspe I should like to ask whether or not it is the intention of the government to comment on the statement released to the press yesterday concerning the sinking of a cargo ship in the St. Lawrence river as a result of enemy action.


Mr. SPEAKER:: That is hardly a question of privilege.



STANDING COMMITTEES


[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. G. WEIR (Macdonald) presented the fifth report of the standing committee on agriculture and colonization, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:: That the name of Mr. Maclnnis be added to the standing committee on banking and commerce.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. JACKMAN:: 1.	How many planes of the Royal Canadian Air Force are grounded for lack of spare parts as of February 28, 1942?
2.	Has the schedule setting forth the requirements for spare parts been increased or decreased recently?


Mr. JACKMAN:: With the permission of the house I should like to withdraw this question.


Georges Parent: Dropped.


DEPUTY MINISTER OF NATIONAL DEFENCE FOR AIR
Mr. MacINNIS:: 1.	Is S. L. de Carteret, deputy minister of National Defence for Air?
2.	If so, (a) when was he appointed, (b) what is his present salary?
3.	What was his business, trade or profession before accepting his present position with the government ?

Questions
4.	Does he continue active connection with his former business, trade or profession while in the employ of the government?
5.	If so, what part of his time is given to his duties with the government and what part to his former business?


Mr. POWER:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) February 1, 1941; (b) No salary or allowance from the government.
3.	Mr. S. L. de Carteret, Vice President and General Manager, Canadian International Paper Company; President, Continental Paper Products Limited; President, Masonite Company of Canada Limited; President, International Fibre Board Limited.
4.	Yes.	[DOT]
5.	Full time service with the government and a portion of his spare time thereafter is devoted to the general supervision of his former business.


NATIONAL, WAR LABOUR BOARD
Mr. COLDWELL:: (a)	How many cases concerning wage increases or bonus payments have been before the national war labour board to date; (b) how many of these were brought before the board through applications by employers and how many through applications by employees; (c) how many wage increases have been granted by the board on employers' applications and how many on applications filed by employees; (d) how many bonus payments or increases have been granted to each of the two groups of applications; (e) what in each case were the grounds for granting the applications and what were the grounds for refusal in those cases where the application was rejected?
Mr. MITCHELL; (a) From the establishment of the National War Labour Board to May 6, 1942, one hundred and fifty-two applications have been received. Findings have been made in ninety-six cases, of which seventy-five had relation to wage increases or cost of living bonuses.
(b)	Of the seventy-five applications dealt with, fifty-three were initiated by employers, ten by employees and twelve were made jointly by employer and employee representatives. Of these applications, sixty-three had relation to wage increases and twelve to cost of living bonuses.
(c)	Wage increases, in whole or in part, were granted in forty applications filed by employers, in nine applications originating with employees and in twelve cases in which joint applications were made. In one employer and one employee application in connection with wage changes, application was refused.
(d)	Cost of living bonus payments or adjustments were authorized in ten applications originating with employers. In one application for relief from payment of additional bonus, the application was granted under the provisions of section 13 of the order. In one application by employer to adjust bonuses, permission was refused.
(e)	In twenty-six applications filed by employers, in one by employees and in seven jointly made, wage increases were approved under the terms of clause 11 (2) of the wartime wages and cost of living bonus order, as existing wages were found to be low compared with wage rates generally prevailing for similar work in like localities.
In two applications by employees wages were found to be low, and the board ordered an increase in some occupational classifications and wages were found to be not low in other classifications.
In two applications by employees wage increases were granted in part but not in full in order to bring basic rates into conformity with rates generally prevailing for similar work in like localities.
In one employee application an increase in basic wage rate was refused by reason of the fact that existing rates were not low within the meaning of the order.
In one application filed by employer proposed changes in salesmen's compensation plan was refused, the proposal being regarded as being in contravention of the provisions of the order.
In fourteen applications (with the concurrence on behalf of employees affected in cases where collective agreements were in effect), wage increases were approved in order that basic wages to employees in Canada might conform with rates being paid by the applicant companies to employees in comparable employment outside of Canada under collective agreements or by established practice. In all such cases it was stipulated that cost of living bonuses would not be paid.
In five applications by employers overtime payments were approved when employees were required to work more than the number of hours constituting a normal week's assignment.
In one joint application a wage increase was approved to take the place of piece work rates.
In one employer application a range of wage rates submitted was approved as not being excessive and having been in effect prior to the date of the order.
In one employer application standardization of basic wage rates was approved for air pilots employed in pooled operations.
Questions

In one joint application, following a collective agreement, permission was given to apply a bonus on an equivalent hourly rate basis, exclusive of overtime.
In ten applications originating with employers, payments of cost of living bonuses were approved on the ground that such payments would be "fair and reasonable" under the provisions of section 12 (b) of P.C. 8253.
In one application by an employer to be relieved of payment of additional cost of living bonus the application was granted on the basis of submissions that the undertaking in question was being conducted at a financial loss.
In one employer application for permission to make adjustments in cost of living bonus, the application was refused because proposed adjustments were inconsistent with the terms of the order.


COLONEL BELCHER HOSPITAL BUILDING, CALGARY
Mr. HANSELL:: 1.	How many years has the Colonel Belcher hospital occupied its present quarters on 8th Avenue West, Calgary?
2.	Does the government own this building?
3.	If so, when was it purchased and what was the purchase price?
4.	If not, what is the yearly or monthly rent, and what is the total rent paid since it was first occupied?
5.	What has been paid in addition to rent, for any and all alterations, or other matters, connected with the occupancy of this building?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	Since July 1, 1926.
2.	No.
3.	Answered by No. 2.
4.	(a) $17,404 per annum for a total floor area of 22,076 square feet from July 1, 1926, to December 31, 1927. $22,750 per annum for a total floor area of 28,016 square feet from January 1, 1928, to November 21, 1929. $26,730 per annum for a total floor area of 37,016 square feet from November 22, 1929, to March 31, 1938. $17,820 per annum for a total floor area of 37,016 square feet from April 1, 1938, to date. Previous to April 1, 1938, any increase in taxes over the 1926 rate levied by the city after July 1, 1933, was paid by the crown. Since April 1, 1938, all taxes are paid by the lessor, (b) $371,305.15 including taxes paid by the crown.
5.	Improvements and repairs, $32,978.01. Sundry supplies and maintenance, $1,819.56.


WARTIME HOUSING LIMITED-SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Mr. NICHOLSON:: What amounts have been paid to the general manager and directors of Wartime Housing Limited to date as: (a) salary, (b) expenses?


Mr. HOWE:: Name	(a) Salary	(b) ExpensesJ. M. Piggott	.. Nil	$2,856 89(*) V. T. Goggin 	. .$10,547 84	2,304 19W. L. Somerville .	.. Nil	463 11Charles David 	.. Nil	755 04Major W. E. Tibbs	.. Nil	616 85Hedley C. Wilson .	.. Nil	538 20Ernest Ingles 	.. Nil	NilRobert J. Gourley.	.. Nil	NilNote:-(*) is for period March 10, 1941, to March 31, 1942. All other figures are for the period from date of incorporation to March 31, 1942.	,


STEEL PRODUCTION AND CONTROL
Mr. CASTLEDEN:: 1.	What steps are taken under the steel controller to allocate the available supply of steel to the various war industries?
2.	What is the total tonnage.capacity of the steel furnaces and castings from foundries in Canada for 1941 and 1942?
3.	What was the total in tons of the production from the steel furnaces and castings from foundries in 1941?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	Mill rolling schedules are supervised, to provide continuity of steel supply for production of articles for direct war purposes, and arrangements made for steel required for plant expansion for war purposes to synchronize with actual use. Production for other indirect war purposes and essential civilian uses is scheduled to best advantage without interference with direct war needs.
2.	Rated capacity for steel ingots is more or less nominal and does not furnish an accurate guide as to production, as this exceeds the rating in many cases and may be less where more difficult steels are involved. In respect to castings, production depends upon the nature of the castings to be produced, the size and weight, carbon or alloy steel, and other factors.
3.	Production in 1941: Steel ingots, 2,583,253 net tons; steel castings, 123,248 net tons; grey iron castings, 351,809 net tons; malleable castings, 75,395 net tons.


BOOKLET &quot;JASPER NATIONAL PARK''
Mr. MACDONALD (Halifax):: 1.	Did Canadian National Railways in 1941 issue a booklet entitled "Jasper National Park"?
2.	If so, how many copies were printed and at what total cost?
3.	Were tenders called for this work?
4.	If so, who submitted tenders and what figure was submitted by each tenderer?
5.	Who was the successful tenderer?

Questions


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	61,805 copies; total cost $6,723.93.
3 and 4. Tenders were called in 1940, and in reprinting for 1941, contract was negotiated and closed with Mortimer, Limited, Ottawa, who were lowest tenderers.
5. See answer to 3 and 4.


SCARCITY OP BEEP
Mr. LACOMBE:: 1.	Considering the large increase in the export of beef by Canada to the United States since January, 1942, does the government intend to impose an embargo on such exports?
2.	In view of the beef scarcity in the principal cities in eastern Canada, will the government take all necessary steps to relieve the present situation?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	The government will announce its policy from time to time.
2.	Supplies of heef in eastern markets have increased during the last two weeks and are expected to increase further following the completion of the export quota to the United States.
w. J. SMITH


Mr. WRIGHT:: 1. Is W. J. Smith, former sheriff of Shaunavon district, employed by the Department of Agriculture in any capacity?
2.	If so, what remuneration was paid him during the past fiscal year for (a) salary, (b) expenses?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
NATIONAL STEEL CAR CORPORATION- MARTIN BOMBERS	.


Mr. NOSEWORTHY:: 1.	On what date was the National Steel Car Corporation at Malton authorized to proceed with the production of Martin bombers?
2.	Was this authorization given by the Canadian or British government authorities?
3.	On what date was this project abandoned?
4.	How many man hours of time were spent on this project?
5.	What was the total public expenditure on this undertaking?
6.	What were the financial arrangements with the abovementioned company for this undertaking?
7.	How many Martin bombers were there produced ?
8.	Why was the project abandoned?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	April 26th, 1941.
2.	Canadian government authorities.
3.	Advance notice of cancellation was given on November 26th, 1941. Final cancellation was given on December 29th, 1941.
4.	An audit has not yet been made on this project and man hours have not been determined.
5.	The total expenditures on this project is $781,907.37 a considerable amount of which is recoverable as follows: (a) By usage of material bought for the Martin B-26 contract on the Lancaster bomber contract let to the National Steel Car Corporation; (b) By the sale of jigs and tools not useable on Lancaster bomber contract.
6.	The contract placed by the department with the National Steel Car Corporation was a target price contract.
7.	None.
8.	The manufacture of the Martin B-26 in Canada was abandoned because it developed that a very substantial amount of re-engineering had to be done before the plan would be satisfactory-involving perhaps six months delay. Meanwhile the United Kingdom government was pressing us to build a new four-engine bomber and as an inducement agreed to provide us with all required Martin B-26's from the United States earlier than we could produce them in Canada.
rubber, gasoline and oil shortage- OTTAWA EXHIBITION


Mr. BRUCE:: 1.	Is there a shortage in Canada of rubber for military purposes?
2.	If so, how serious is this shortage?
3.	Is there a shortage of oil and gasoline?
4.	Will the government urge upon the directors of the Ottawa exhibition association to cancel their fair this year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Perhaps I could answer this question orally. There is no present shortage of rubber for military purposes, although our supplies of course are limited. There is a shortage of gasoline. As to question No. 4, government policy will be known in due course.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: In the
course of his statement on the resolution now before the house, would the minister be good enough to give the country a little more extended report on the gasoline situation? There is no doubt that the curtailment is substantial, and the people ought to understand why. I am not at all disagreeing with the curtailment that has been made, but the position might be elaborated a little to show how it is going to work out and how serious the situation is.
Questions


Clarence Decatur Howe: I shall be very glad to do
that.


DIRECTOR OF SALVAGE
Mr. NICHOLSON:: 1.	Has the government information as to the salary formerly paid to Mr. LaFerle, director of salvage, as traffic manager for the Robert Simpson Company?
2.	If so, what salary was paid?
3.	Is Mr. LaFerle carrying on his duties for his former employer? If so, at what salary?


Mr. THORSON:: 1.	No.
2.	See answer to 1.
3.	No; he is a full time employee of the Department of National War Services.


CANADIAN SHIPPING LOSSES-USE OF EIRE BASES
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	What has been the estimated loss, since the war began, of Canadian shipping in tons, and also in lives, of Canadian nationals or soldiers, off the coast of Eire during this war?
2.	What Canadian ships have been lost in that zone?
3.	What is being done to secure the immediate use of these empire bases?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	It is not deemed in the public interest to give information regarding losses of ships and men in particular theatres of war, or with respect to the use of empire bases.
2 and 3. Answered by No. 1.



SUPPLY OF PLANES TO NEUTRAL COUNTRIES


Mr. BLACKMORE:: 1.	At what dates since 1915 and in what localities has the Canadian active militia been called out by order of the governor in council or otherwise, for the purpose of quelling riots or disturbances arising from industrial disputes?
2.	In each case, out of what particular dispute did the riot or disturbance necessitating that the militia be called out. arise?
3.	What were the immediate causes of the disturbance in each case?
4.	What were the general causes of the disturbance in each case?
5.	If the disturbance resulted from a strike, what were the causes and the final result of the strike?
6.	In what cases (if any) did the disturbances relate to political matters and discontent with government?
7.	What overt acts were committed by the persons responsible for the riot or disturbances?
8.	What was the strength of the militia force on each occasion?
9.	For what length of time was the militia on duty on each occasion?
10.	Where was the militia force which was called out on each occasion stationed before the disturbances; after the disturbances?
11.	How many casualties (if any) resulted on each occasion that the militia was called out, among militiamen? Among civilians?
12.	How many arrests were made of alleged ri?JieFs>
cetera, on each occasion that the militia was called out in this way?
13.	What were the charges laid against each arrested person on each occasion?
14.	flow many convictions were made of those arrested on each occasion? Where were the trials held? Are there reports of these trials?


Mr. RALSTON:: I want to ask the hon. member who has placed this question on the order paper if he really thinks we should go back twenty-seven years to discover not only the instances in which the active militia has been called out but also the particular dispute; the immediate causes of the disturbance; the general causes of the disturbance; whether there was a strike; the result of the strike; whether it related to political matters; what overt acts were committed by the people responsible for the riots or disturbances; the strength of the militia unit on each occasion; the length of time the unit was on duty; where was the military force which was called out stationed before and after the disturbance; how many casualties resulted, including militiamen and civilians; how many arrests were made on each occasion; the charges laid against each person; the convictions mades where the trials were held and whether or not there are reports of such trials.

Questions as Orders for Returns


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Dropped.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: In view of the fact that questions play such a large part in our proceedings in this house, I think I am perfectly justified in asking for that information.


James Layton Ralston: I did not catch what my hon. friend said, but I do suggest that before this is made an order for return the hon. member might give it further consideration. We are doing other things than examining the records for twenty-seven years back to get details such as these. I submit to my hon. friend that on the face of the question at least, in a period such as this, he is putting upon the department unjustifiable work which would take an unjustifiable amount of time.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Dropped.


John Horne Blackmore: I do not think it should be dropped. It might stand.
Question stands.


USE OF STEEL IN BUILDING FOR J. FRANCESCHINI
Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: 1.	Has the priorities branch of the Department of Munitions and Supply issued permits for steel to be used in the construction of a building or a house for J. Franceschini, recently released from internment?
2.	If so, how much steel has been allotted to this building?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by 1.


EXPORTS TO JAPAN AND TURKEY
Mr. ROY:: 1.	Did Canada export any cereals, metals or other products to Japan and Turkey in 1940 and 1941?
2.	If so, what quantity of each commodity has been exported to these two countries and when?


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: In keeping with the policy announced by the Minister of Trade and Commerce in the House of Commons on February 2, 1942, page 201 of Hansard, information is not available concerning the Canadian imports and exports of commodities by countries during the war period.


EXPORTS TO SPAIN
Mr. ROY:: 1.	Did Spain import any cereals or metals from Canada in 1941?
2.	If so, what quantities of wheat, nickel, aluminum and other metals, and scrap iron,
were exported to Spain during the first six months of the year, and what quantities during the last six months?
3.	Since January 1, 1942, have there been any exports from Canada to Spain and if so, what were they, and in what quantities?


James Angus MacKinnon: In keeping with the policy announced by the Minister of Trade and Commerce in the House of Commons on February 2, 1942, page 201 of Hansard, information is not available concerning the Canadian imports and exports of commodities by countries during the war period.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: 1.	What is the government's position in respect to the employment of conscientious objectors on wartime projects?
2.	Are any of such persons employed in war industries and projects and do they receive the regular rates of pay?
3.	If any of the above class of military age are employed in war industries may they now be called upon to serve in a work camp for the duration of the war under section 20 of the National War Services Regulations, 1940 (Recruits) (Consolidation 1941)?


GASOLINE RATIONING
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	How many gallons of gasoline were sold in Canada (a) by retail, (b) by wholesale, in each of the years 1938 to 1941 inclusive?
2.	(a) How many gasoline ration books have been issued to date; (b) what is the number in each category; (c) how many gallons may be purchased per month or year in each category ?
3.	If the limit permitted under the ration books issued to date was in fact purchased during the year what would be the consumption of gasoline during the year commencing April 1, 1942?
4.	What amount of gasoline does the oil controller estimate will be consumed during the year commencing April 1, 1942, by persons or companies who are not required to have ration books ?


CONTRACTS FOR SALE OF USED LUBRICATING OIL
Mr. PERLEY:: 1.	What contracts have been placed or let for the bulk sale of used lubricating oil at each of the air training centres and army training centres in the province of Saskatchewan?
2.	What persons or firms have such contracts and what are the terms of each?
Labour Conditions


COMMITTEE ON RECONSTRUCTION
Mr. DESMOND:: 1.	What are the names and qualifications of the individual specialists who have been engaged by the committee on reconstruction headed by Dr. James, and what remuneration is paid to each?
2.	Will their reports be published?
3.	Will their reports be made available to the House of Commons?


Mr. McLARTY:: Return tabled.


ECONOMY IN USE OF PAPER
Mr. BRUCE:: 1.	Does the government consider there is any shortage of paper in Canada, (a) at the present time; (b) likely to be in the future?
2.	Have any steps been taken to ensure economy in the various departments of the government and, if so, what steps have been taken ?
3.	Is the government aware that literature is being sent out from the Department of Public Information, in triplicate?



WAGES OF JOURNEYMEN CARPENTERS, PAINTERS AND PLUMBERS

Joseph Sasseville Roy: What are the scales of wages paid to journeymen carpenters, painters and plumbers employed by the Departments of Public Works and National Defence?



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):: Following my question of yesterday with reference to the dispute in the Dumart plant, may I ask the Minister of Labour whether it is true that at a meeting in Kitchener yesterday the management refused to agree to any kind of arbitration and also refused to reopen the plant? Is the minister prepared to make any further statement on the matter?


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: I think I can make a statement on that matter. My hon. friend will appreciate that I have just returned to the city, but I can say this. In the first place there was an illegal strike called in Kitchener the day before yesterday.


Mr. HOMUTH:: An illegal strike?


Humphrey Mitchell: Owing to the discharge of two employees. The department immediately 
sent a conciliator there in an endeavour to compose the differences. The company at the moment takes the position that these men are discharged.
What the hon. member says about arbitration is quite true. The plant will be opened and the management will take back whoever in their judgment should be taken back. The men did ask that they be permitted to go back without any discrimination. My hon. friend may rest assured that so far as the department is concerned every effort will be made to compose the differences in that plant.


Mr. MacINNIS:: Was there not a lockout at the Dumart plant, and will the Department of Labour refer this matter to the Department of Justice for proper action, as was done in connection with the Midland shipyard strike?


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend may have more information than we have on that.


Angus MacInnis: It is your department.


Humphrey Mitchell: When I said it was an illegal strike, I meant that it was an illegal strike. My hon. friend can call it a lockout, but I do not think it is.


Angus MacInnis: Can these employees go back?


Humphrey Mitchell: I have given the assurance to the member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) that anything and everything that our department can do to compose the differences will be done. The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) appreciates the difficulty of labour negotiations and that sometimes, when you are almost on the point of composing differences, questions are asked in the House of Commons that make it very difficult to bring about a settlement.


Angus MacInnis: Who is making it difficult?


Humphrey Mitchell: I am not suggesting that the hon. member is.



JAPANESE NATIONALS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. A. CRUICKSHANK (Fraser Valley):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Will he - state when Japanese males will be moved from the Pacific coast to fill the camps now prepared and capable of accommodating several hundred men?

Shipping Losses


Humphrey Mitchell: As soon as these camps can be filled they will be filled, but the British Columbia security commission advises me that priority is being given to the movement of Japanese to the beet fields in Alberta and Manitoba, and further, that they expect to have the camps filled by the end of this month.


George Alexander Cruickshank: May I ask a further question?-because I am particularly interested in view of what has happened on the eastern coast. Am I to understand that the sugar interests are to have priority over the safety of the Pacific coast?


Humphrey Mitchell: I would say that public opinion generally throughout British Columbia is in favour of having the Japanese moved from that province.


George Alexander Cruickshank: The camps are empty.


Humphrey Mitchell: Just a moment. The British Columbia security commission advises me that it is moving with all expedition, in conformity with public opinion in British Columbia, giving priority to the movement of Japanese to the beet fields in Manitoba and Alberta. So far as the big interests are concerned, they have no voice and no decision in the matter.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: And no jobs.


Humphrey Mitchell: I would not like the
impression to go out that the big interests have anything at all to do with the matter.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I never mentioned the big interests. I do not want something put into my mouth by the minister. I am quite capable of speaking for myself. I said the sugar interests.



FOREIGN POLICY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: May I ask the Prime Minister to tell later what his foreign policy is regarding recognition of General de Gaulle, Eire and the Vichy government?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The government's foreign policy is to do everything possible to win the war and not to do anything to prevent that end from being attained.



CANADIAN ARMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JEAN-FRANQOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): Mr. Speaker, referring to the statement of the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) at page 2203 of Hansard to the effect that he had recommended the extension of the period of training from one month to four months and had got credit for it, I wonder if that is officially and technically correct.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. NOSEWORTHY (York South):: May I be informed, please, how many men with dependents and how many single men, discharged from this war, are now in receipt of post-discharge benefits pending employment?	/


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Georges Parent: Order. This is a question that should properly be placed on the order paper.



SHIPPING LOSSES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Mr. J. R. MacNICOL (Davenport):: May I ask the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services whether the rumour is true that another ship has been sunk in the St. Lawrence?
Hon. ANGUS L. MACDONALD (Minister of National Defence for Naval Services): Mr. Speaker, I had intended to make a statement on that matter and rose for that purpose, but yielded the floor to my hon. friend.
Yesterday I gave a statement to the press declaring that a freighter had been sunk in the St, Lawrence river by an enemy submarine. That statement was completely accurate according to the information at that time in my possession or in the possession of the department. I also stated that it would not be the policy to make an announcement of any future sinkings in this area, in order that information of value to the enemy may be withheld from him. That is the policy I must pursue. But inasmuch as the whole event really constitutes one inndpnt, I think
Shipping Losses

I should tell the house that another ship was sunk in the same general locality, at about the same time. While in future I must stand by the statement made yesterday, that we are not going to give information to the enemy which may be of assistance to him, nevertheless, these ships having been sunk in about the same wrnters and at about the same time, I think I can regard it as one incident and not come within the scope of the prohibition which I laid upon myself yesterday.
Information such as this cannot and will not be given in answer to questions in the house or elsewhere, and in no circumstances will it be given unless we are satisfied that the enemy will not benefit therefrom. To hon. members who are inclined to be critical of the censorship regulations and the silence that is observed with regard to these matters, I may say that German broadcasts are heard in the department, and this morning the German radio announced with great glee that a ship had been sunk in the St. Lawrence by one of their submarines; that this was the greatest distance from home their submarines had ever operated; that the whole thing had produced tremendous consternation in Canada; that the department had declared that no further announcements would be made; that this was an indication of our consternation, and generally they played the news up to the utmost degree. It is obvious that if they attach such importance to the matter, we also should attach similar importance to it, and we cannot dash around, giving out information which may in any way endanger the safety and lives of our men or the safety of our own or allied property, for the sake of gratifying any group of people, no matter how important they may be. But I think I should say that, while we had not the knowledge at the time the announcement was made yesterday, a second ship has been sunk.



QUESTION AS TO USE BY ENEMY SUBMARINES OF ST. PIERRE AND MIQUELON WATERS

Thomas Langton Church: With reference to the statement which the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services made, may I ask whether he is aware of the invasion by German submarines over the past year of the deep creeks and inlets and harbours of the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon and flashing from the shores signals at night to sink shipping?


Georges Parent: I think the question should be put on the order paper.


Thomas Langton Church: I will put it on the order paper, if that is desired, but you can get no information in reply to questions put on the fMr. Macdonald (Kingston City).]
order paper. Here is a question I put on the order paper-it was answered to-day-about German bases in the Atlantic off Ireland and the losses of allied shipping. Information as to Atlantic losses is given almost every month by the British admiralty but the Prime Minister refused to-day to tell this house what the losses there were. I may have to bring the matter up on a motion to adjourn the house, also the Vichy question and the lack of recognition by Canada of General de Gaulle who is helping us at these islands.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Would my hon. friend let me see the question and the answer to which he has just referred? I think I should read the question and the reply that was given. They are as follows:
1.	What has been the estimated loss, since the war began, of Canadian shipping in tons, and also in lives, of Canadian nationals or soldiers, off the coast of Eire during this war?
2.	What Canadian ships have been lost in that zone, as a result?
3.	What is being done to secure the immediate use of these empire bases?
My answer was:
1. It is not deemed in the public interest to give information regarding losses of ships and men in particular theatres of war, or with respect to the use of empire bases.
2 and 3. Answered by No. 1.
My hon. friend will find that that answer does not differ in any essential particular from the information given out by the British government. Furthermore, it is in accord with the expressed desire of the British government that information as to what happens in particular theatres of war if likely to be of any service to the enemy is not to be made public.
Hon. ANGUS L. MACDONALD (Minister of National Defence for Naval Services): Mr. Speaker, I think I should make some reference to the question asked by the hon. member for Broadview. I am not sure that I heard him correctly, but I think he said: Is the minister aware that German submarines over the past year have had bases in inlets on the Canadian coast.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Inlets in the French islands.


Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: St. Pierre and Miquelon.
Mr.	MACDONALD (Kingston City):
And on the St. Lawrence, I think he said.	I should like to know what
is the basis of my hon. friend's statement that German submarines have had bases on

War Appropriation-Air Services
the seaboard of this continent over the past year. I have now before me his written question. It is as follows:
Is the government aware that for nearly the past two years German U-boats have been sheltering in the deep creeks, inlets and harbours of these islands, St. Pierre and Miquelon, where they flash signals at night from the shores to sink Atlantic shipping?
Does my hon. friend state that to be the case?


Richard Burpee Hanson: He is
asking you.


Mr. MACDONALD (Kingston City):: There has to be something more in this house than mere innuendo and suggestion.


Thomas Langton Church: Where was your navy when all this was going on in the St. Lawrence?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I will answer my hon. friend with the statement that I do not know, and he does not know, and no reputable authority knows that there is a German U-base on this side of the Atlantic. I have stated before several times in this house that we knew definitely that German U-boats could leave European bases, come over to this side, operate for some days off the American coast and get back to their bases in France or Germany or along the conquered coasts without the necessity of refuelling. I have no knowledge whatever that there are any such bases. There are no very deep inlets in the harbours of St. Pierre and Miquelon. But I should like to know what foundation, if any, my hon. friend has for his suggestion.


Mr. GRAY:: I think we are entitled to
know what hon. member made the statement.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: The hon. member for Broadview.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No. He
asked a question. Let us be perfectly frank. All this seems to be out of order.


Thomas Langton Church: I also ask, what steps
will be taken to support the splendid work of General de Gaulle, to protect Canada from a nest of axis pirates operating there; what action will be taken to recognize and support the general in protecting Canada from pirate U-boats at St. Pierre and Miquelon which are known to be operating off our eastern shores? I have the authority for it. Further, will all papers regarding these islands and axis U-boats be published?


Georges Parent: I think this whole matter is out of order on the orders of the day.



WAR APPROPRIATION BILL


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, May 12, consideration in committee of a resolution to provide sums not exceeding $2,000,000,000 for the year ending March 31, 1943, for granting to his majesty aid for national defence and security-Mr. Ilsley-Mr. Vien in the chair.
Hon. C. G. POWER (Minister of National Defence for Air):: Mr. Chairman, last evening just before six o'clock the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) presented me with a series of questions. All evening and all this morning the officers of my department, accountants and others, have been trying to get answers to these questions, and I have not yet received them. I think from what they tell, me that it may take a day or so; therefore it will not be possible for me to proceed at this time along these lines. But while I am discussing that matter I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, and the committee, that I owe an apology to the hon. member for Lake Centre for having to some extent doubted the statement which he made with respect to air observer operating companies having a parent company. I was under the impression that that was not the case, but my information this morning is that the statement made by my hon. friend is perfectly right.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is it not
so that at least in one case the same set of shareholders hold the stock in both companies, so that it is hardly fair to say there is a parent and subsidiary, that one is subject to the other in some degree, but that the observer company does pay a fee to the other company, contributing to the stockholders of the other company, the shareholders being the same in each? That is a state of affairs which, I think, should not exist.


Charles Gavan Power: I am under the impression that the statement which the leader of the opposition makes is substantially correct. I am having that looked into.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And how many there are?


Charles Gavan Power: And how many there are. I had in mind one company which has an observer school of the same name as the parent company, and I was sure that we were dealing directly with the parent company, with the operating company. That is how I came to make the mistake.

War Appropriation-Air Services


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: I want to thank the minister for the courtesy he has shown, which is in keeping with the manner in which he is administering his department.


Mr. TUSTIN:: Yesterday I asked the minister whether the Royal Air Force stations were included in the commonwealth air training scheme. He advised me that they were not. A little later he said that the Royal Canadian Air Force had a sort of general control over the Royal Air Force schools. I also asked him then if the Royal Canadian Air Force posted men to these Royal Air Force centres. He advised me that they did. He went on to say that sometimes Royal Air Force men were posted to Royal Canadian Air Force schools. In view of the statement the minister has made that he has a kind of control over these Royal Air Force schools I think he should make a statement indicating clearly what the control is. When he has answered that question, I should like him to state how the difference in pay is made up if men from the Royal Air Force schools are stationed at Royal Canadian Air Force schools, and vice versa. I understand there is considerable difference between the pay of the Royal Canadian Air Force and that of the Royal Air Force.


Charles Gavan Power: With respect to control by the Royal Canadian Air Force over the Royal Air Force, we have a control with respect to both discipline and command. I must admit that at the present it is somewhat nebulous. I expect that as a result of the conferences which are to be held in the near future that situation will be clarified.
With respect to pay, I am very glad that that matter has been brought to my attention, because for months it has been stated in the press and on the public platform that the Royal Air Force schools received rations different from those of the Royal Canadian Air Force, and that as a result they are obtaining a lower standard of rations. Men of the Royal Air Force whose pay was lower than that of the Royal Canadian Air Force, according to the story, were having a very hard time to make both ends meet. The true story is that the Royal Air Force, wherever they may be in Canada, receive exactly the same rations as the Royal Canadian Air Force from the army service corps. That is number one. Number two is that their men receive the same pay as the Royal Canadian Air Force, with the exception perhaps of certain trades. Some trades are graded higher in the Royal Air Force than in the Royal Canadian Air Force, but that is a difference of administration by the different forces. But the standard or basic rate of pay

of the Royal Air Force is brought up to that of the Royal Canadian Air Force when the men come to Canada.


Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: Does the minister intend to take over the cadet training in all the high schools where the army has cadets now, or what is the procedure? How is the instruction to be carried out?


Charles Gavan Power: A statement was issued by the Minister of National Defence, the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services, and myself, to the effect that we hoped to be able to arrive at a satisfactory arrangement. So far as Ontario is concerned, and I assume my hon. friend is speaking of Ontario, the latest development is that the provincial government is establishing compulsory training of some kind, and the cadets will be joint cadets, but with the arrangement that when they reach a certain age, I think it is seventeen, students will have the option of joining either the army or the air force.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: They will carry on, then, as navy, army and air; or will the navy be in it at all?


Charles Gavan Power: The navy is not in it in many places; it is, I think, in Ontario. There will be no difficulty as between the navy and either army or air. I do not think there is any real difficulty as between army and air either, except that some school boards wish to put the onus on either my department or that of national defence to say whether we want them to be army or air, and invariably we say, "Take your choice"; whatever the board wants is quite satisfactory to us. So far as I am concerned, so long as I have at least my place in the sun I think we shall be able to get the cadets.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: At present army officers are helping along with that training. Is it intended to put in air force men to help that training?


Charles Gavan Power: No.


Mr. SENN:: Yesterday the minister, in reply to a question asked by the hon. member for Saskatoon City (Mr. Bence), stated, no new aerodromes. I know that in the county in which I live, and in the adjoining county, areas have been surveyed and staked out, and I should like the minister to make a statement in regard to them because there is a certain amount of uncertainty in the minds of the people in the areas that have been staked out and surveyed as to whether they wil be taken up. Many people have asked me this question on several occasions and I have not been able to answer.

War Appropriation-Air Services


Charles Gavan Power: We never know when
requests will be made to us to enlarge the plan or to find aerodrome sites for transferred schools, so that during the past year we have requested the Department of Transport to look over the ground in every part of the country. The result is that I am very often told by members of parliament and boards of trade, "Oh, you will have an aerodome in my constituency because there was a survey party there." The survey parties carry out preliminary surveys in order that we may be ready to site aerodromes in case the need arises instead of being left to get them in a hurry if we are obliged to.


Thomas Langton Church: I am sure the minister must be greatly encouraged in his work by the wide approval of the good work which the air ministry has done in Canada. During the debate last night a great many members referred to the inequalities in pay and the difference in rank among those who go to the same school. I hope the minister will take up this matter at the coming conference, because I have discussed it with a great many people who have been at these camps and, while they are loath to express an opinion, I am sure the minister is moving along the right line in the answer he gave to the hon. member for Lambton West and the hon. member for Brantford City yesterday. There is a wide discrimination between those who are doing [DOT]the same work and who are equally qualified for ground work or work in the air ias the case may be. These pay injustices and inequalities in the army, the navy and the air force have given rise to widespread discussion not only
among members in the House of Commons but in the country as well, and I would ask that we have a statement similar to that which the minister in charge of the army has given, which was placed on Hansard last Monday. There was tabled on March 24, 1942, a return which is up to date with regard to pay and allowances and other emoluments of officers and men of the three services. I would ask that this return, which has already been tabled for me be put on Hansard.


Charles Gavan Power: Here is a return laid on the table of the house and .in the hon. gentleman's possession and he wants me to place it on Hansard. If he wants to have it on Hansard, all he has to do is to get permission of the house to have it put there. I have no objection, but I do not see why I should have the onus of asking for permission to put on Hansard something that is in possession of the hon. gentleman.


Thomas Langton Church: In that case I would ask for permission to place it on Hansard, because I think it is in the public interest that these inequalities should be made known. Unless I can get the unanimous consent of the committee, and I would ask for that consent, I shall have to read it.


The CHAIRMAN:: Is it the pleasure of the committee that the hon. gentleman have leave to put the return on Hansard?


Charles Gavan Power: I have no objection.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Read it.


Charles Gavan Power: I do not object.


Thomas Langton Church: The return is as follows:
(Part of sessional paper No. 254)
Inquiry of the Ministry by Mr. Church-Votes and Proceedings No. 44 March 24, 1942-Page (i)
Questions:
1.	What is the pay, sustenance allowance, and all other emoluments of officers and men of His Majesty's three forces?
2.	What is paid also to officers and members of the women's army?
In so far as the Royal Canadian Air Force is concerned:
Note: The following scale of pay and allowance is based on active service rates. However, as the Active Service rates of dependents' allowances are more beneficial, the small number of personnel (mostly of the lower ranks without dependents) still remaining on permanent force rates, are gradually transferring to active service rates as they marry or acquire increased rank.
Answers: 1 (A) Pay. (i) Officers:
Pay of rank
	General	Non-	
flying	flying	Medicallist	list	branchAir Commodore	
$19 00	$17 00	Group Captain	
15 00	13 00	Wing Commander	
12 00	10 00	$ii 66Squadron Leader	
9 75	7 75	9 25Flight Lieutenant	
8 50	6 50	7 50Flying Officer	
7 00	5 00	5 00Pilot Officer	
6 25	4 25	4 25
War Appropriation-Air Services
Additional pay	Per	diem
Officers in command of units	 $1 00
Adjutants	*" ' go
Officers employed as A.F.H.Q. or Command Headquarters	 so
Flying pay for officers not on the general (flying) list for authorized
flights	 2	00
(ii)	Airmen:
Pay of rank and group
Rank			Groups	
"A"	"B" "C"	Std.Warrant Officer, Class	i	
$4 95	$4 70 $4 45	$4 20Warrant Officer, Class	ii	3 60 3 35	3 10Flight Sergeant	3 00 2 75	2 50Sergeant	2 70 2 45	2 20Corporal	2 20 1 95	1 70Leading Aircraftmen. .	2 00 1 75	1 50Aircraftmen, Class I..	1 90 1 65	1 40Aircraftmen, Class II..	1 80 1 55	1 30' of Rank	Crew Graduates	Pilots, Air	Wireless	Observers, and Operators	Observers	(Air)	Air(Radio)	Gunners	GunnersWarrant Officers, Class	T	
$5 70	$	$	Warrant Officers, Class	II	
4 60	Flight Sergeant	
4 00	3 75	3 25Sergeant. 	3 45	2 95Additional Pay	p6r DiemFlying Pay	
$ 0 75Flying Pay for crew of aircraft (Crew Pay)	
0 75
(B) Subsistence Allowance
Quarters Rations Subsistence
Officers of air rank	
$1 00	$....	$1 00Other officers	
1 20	0 50	1 70Airmen	
0 50	0 50	1 00
(C) Dependents' Allowance
To wife, or if there is no wife to the female relative maintaining a home for his children:
Per Month
Officers above the rank of	Squadron	Leader	
$60	00Squadron Leader	
55	00Flight Lieutenant	
50	00Flying Officer	
45	00Pilot Officer	
45	00Warrant Officer, Class 1	
40	00All other airmen	
35	00First dependent child	
12	00Second dependent child	
12	00Third dependent child, of ranks	below W.O. 1	
9	00Fourth dependent child, of	ranks	below W.O. 1	
6	00Other dependent relatives	MaximumOfficers above the	rank of Squadron Leader	up to	$30	00Other officers	up to	25	00Airmen	up to	20	00
Dependents' allowance cannot be claimed for more than three dependents except in the case of ranks below Warrant Officer, Class I, who .may also claim for their third and fourth dependent children.
(D) Other Allowances
(i)	Outfit allowance for officers of $150 on appointment.
(ii)	Outfit allowance for Warrant Officers, Class I, of $150 on appointment.
(iii)	Transport and travelling allowances when travelling on duty.
(iv)	Transport and travelling allowances to their residence prior to enlistment when discharged.
(v)	Civilian clothing allowance on discharge of $35, if service less than six months, $27 in winter, and $17 in summer.
(vi)	Rehabilitation grant of thirty days' pay and dependents' allowance, if six months' service completed.

War Appropriation-Air Services
2 The R.C.A.F. (women's division) receives pay at two-thirds the rates for officers and airmen of the force.' They receive no additional pay, such as headquarters' pay, flying pay, etc. They receive the same subsistence allowance as officers and airmen, and in addition, are entitled to all those other allowances shown in para. (D). Furthermore, they are given an underclothing allowance of $15 upon enlistment, and this is supplemented each quarter by an allowance of $3. No dependents' allowance is paid on their behalf, and any dependents allowance which they were receiving prior to their enlistment, is stopped when they become members ot the force. Their emoluments may be summarized as follows:
(A) Pay.
(i) Officers:
Pay of rank.
Officers
Wing Officer	
Squadron Officer. . .
Flight Officer	
Section Officer	
Asst. Section Officer
Daily rate .	$6	70.	5	20.	4	35.	3	35.	2	85
(ii) Airwomen:
Pay of rank.
Other ranks
"A"	"B"	"C" Std.
Under Officer I	
Under Officer II	
Flight Sergeant	
Sergeant	
Corporal	
Leading Aircraftwoman. Aircraftwoman I. . . . Aircraftwoman II. . . .
$3	30	$3	15	$3	00	$2	802	60	2	40	2	25	2	102	20	2	00	1	85	1	702	00	1	80	1	65	1	501	65	1	50	1	30	1	151	50	1	35	1	20	1	001	45	1	30	1	10	951	40	1	20	1	05	90(B)	Subsistence allowance.
Quarters
Officers	i	 $1 20
Airwomen	
Rations Subsistence $0 50	$1 70
50	1 00
(C)	Underclothing allowance.
An initial grant of $15 is provided to purchase underclothing, toilet articles and necessaries. A quarterly allowance of $3 is paid for the purpose of replenishing these articles.
(D)	Other allowances.
(i)	Outfit allowance for officers of $150 on appointment.
(ii)	Outfit allowance for under officer, class I of $150 on appointment.
(iii)	Transport and travelling allowance when travelling on duty.
(iv)	Transport and travelling allowances to their residence prior to enlistment when
discharged.	.	.
(v)	Civilian clothing allowance on discharge of $35, if service less than six months, $27 in winter, and $17 in summer.
(vi)	Rehabilitation grant of thirty days' pay, if six months' service completed.
I come from a city and district that have given almost one-third or one-fourth of the cadets to the dominion, and naturally I want to ask one or two questions in regard to cadet services. There was a return to an order of the house in connection with cadet services in the air force. A lot of trouble is caused by having outside organizations of a private nature engaged in this work. They have done good work, I admit, but I object to having the whole policy of Canada upset in connection with the cadet services, which we have had from the days of confederation.
Take this particular branch of the department. An order was given, which will be
found in Votes and Proceedings, order No. 9, February, 1942, with regard to this particular cadet services department, in which it was shown that a private organization had been given rights and privileges, formerly the functions of school boards, in this matter. Apart from a few subscriptions, the department is paying for 7,000 cadets going to camp, and when the country pays for them it should have some control over the matter. This league is getting a grant of $25,000 a year, and it is going into the schools, some for the army, some for the navy and some for the air force. Toronto is spending $12,000,000 in connection with maintenance charges for

War Appropriation

Air Services
schools, and I suggest that the school boards and teachers should have some control and be consulted first. There are many men who served in the great war -and some who are in this war, who are teachers in the public schools and high schools, and in the separate schools as well. In the constituency of York South represented by my hon. friend (Mr. Noseworthy), there is a large collegiate, Vaughan road. Now you will have rival organizations, one for the army, one for the navy and one for the air force all in the schools and interfering with studies, using this private medium. I am not opposed to them, but they should be coordinated. They have done a lot of good work and I freely admit, as the minister said last night, that they are public-spirited citizens. I suggest, however, that there should be some coordination. The minister has put in a good deal of hard work on this question and he knows more about it than I do. I am one of those who appreciate what he has done and the league so far. He commanded a Toronto unit in the last war and is much respected there. The provincial minister of education at Toronto has stated that they want to train 50,000 cadets in Ontario at the expense of the municipalities and the schools of the province. I should like to find out what authority they have for that from this government and how this will affect the air league. Have they received requests from the army, navy or air department or from other departments of the government to do this, and why? What is the scheme? Does it not also supersede and interfere with the cadet league system? There are a great many of my own personal friends, whom I have known for many years, splendid patriotic citizens, who belong to the league.
I know most of them. They are public-spirited, and I think something should be done to explain the situation in view of Ontario's entry into it. They have an air league secretary in Ottawa who issues communiques almost daily, but I do not know what is being done. He has a new flag and has obtained the royal assent for it, by what authority I do not know, with parliament in session. My hon. friend the member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) is one of those who have been behind protecting strongly the flag which shelters us, and while perhaps matters of this kind should not, in time of war, be mentioned, I think attention should be drawn to this situation. I am glad that the hon. member for Davenport is aware of the change of flag proposed.

Mr. MaoNICOL: I am always aware of what is going on.


Thomas Langton Church: I know, but he may find the new flag over us before the league gets through. Thejr have plenty of leagues in this country. Who authorized the changing of the flag of the air cadets without the knowledge of parliament? How many of these separate flags have already been introduced in Canada's forces. I am not objecting, but under what authority? What sums of money does this league get?-$25,000 I understand. For what purpose do they get it, and who are the officers? They are using public property, school buildings, for drills and meetings, and there are not enough schools to go around for all this war cadet service. The minister who has been interested in education for many years, will appreciate that I am not objecting to the work of the league, there are many good people in it, but there should be some cooperation, and surely when parliament is meeting they should not be doing this without control. On what grounds of public policy were these services taken out of the control of school boards and boards of education in Canada, which have had control in the past? And do not forget, it was done without the authority of parliament, and is different from the navy and the army.
In view of the great record which the minister's department has made, for it has made a great record in an empire sense, I urge that he look a little further into it and get some control over it.
As to the summer air and other cadet camps, they are going to interfere with the migration of cadets to farms and with everyone who wants to be a farmer. The cry used to be, "I did not raise my boy to be a farmer but I raised him to be a hockey player", but since the war came all that is changed now. In view of the attempt to get the high school boys out on the farms there will be some interference with the league work. The minister used to be a star hockey and lacrosse player himself, I remember, and he was a great player who could give and take with the best of them. He should look into the whole situation. I was talking to the head of one of the largest collegiates in the dominion last week, and he said from a quarter to one-third of the students are now on the way to the farms. They used to go for four or five weeks, but now it is extended to eight or nine weeks. If we keep on, every one will want to be a doctor of agriculture; we are going to turn the city men instead of into doctors of law into doctors of agriculture, and make our collegiates agricultural

War Appropriation-Air Services
colleges in cities. If we have no control over some of these things we might as well go home. Since the dollar-a-year men have got control, all the affairs of the country are under their control and that of the bureaucratic boards. It seems to me that the cabinet and parliament are compelled to do goosestepping to these dollar-a-year men who pass conscription orders without the knowledge and consent of parliament. The country is controlled by a bureaucracy. I do not seek to interfere with the thousands who want to go on the farms. I am glad the schools are helping, because it is primary. I am not a farmer myself, but I have just as much knowledge of farming as some hon. members who pose as farmers, although I do not remember whether there are fifty-six or sixty pounds to a bushel of buckwheat, barley or timothy seed. I have seen many farms five and ten miles out of Toronto on the highways where the city and the province spent a good deal of money on roads and to furnish cheap light and power and transportation, but the farms are now deserted and untilled, and many are vacant.
But I hope the minister will look into the powers and functions of this league and other private organizations. During the last war when I was one of the heads of the city of Toronto, we had the air force cadets there and they did a tremendous work. Over 16,000 were trained as R.A.F. cadets and mechanics.
I hope some consideration will be given at the conference next week to the representations made last night by the hon. members for Brantford City, Lambton West, Lake Centre and others, and that the question of air force regiments will be taken up. They are in their infancy in England, they cooperate with the army and the navy; they are badly needed in this country, the territory of which stretches from ocean to ocean. One of the main reasons why some of these regiments should be formed is to guard the proposed new aerodromes and the camps and cooperate with the army and navy and the land and ocean services. Notwithstanding the lecture of the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services to the municipalities last night, I can tell him that the municipalities of Canada have done more than those in any dominion of the empire in the way of giving to the government buildings and grounds free until they have no room for any expansion of their ordinary municipal utilities, and the universities also. Look at what Toronto di 1 in the last war and in this war to help cooperate, even to closing its annual fair, which helped in war to keep up morale.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weybum):: I wish to ask some questions of the minister along the lines of those I asked last year. When a man joins the Canadian army he does so as a Canadian soldier; he goes overseas as a Canadian soldier to operate under the Canadian army which in turn is attached to the Canadian corps. The same is true of a man who joins the Royal Canadian Navy; he goes over in a Canadian ship, and although his unit may be cooperating with a British squadron, nevertheless he is operating under Canadian officers and the Canadian general staff. But in the air force a man joins the Royal Canadian Air Force; he goes overseas, and it is understandable why in the early stages, when there were not many of them, they were scattered through the Royal Air Force. The minister said last year that an attempt was being made to set up a Canadian squadron. I think he said yesterday that some twenty-two of these all-Canadian squadrons have been set up. But are the government and his department moving toward setting up the Royal Canadian Air Force as a separate entity overseas operating under its own general staff? It seems to me we ought to be moving in that direction for two reasons. One is that I think the men would prefer it. That is no reflection on the Royal Air Force, but it is the same matter of principle that was fought out in the last war. Those who have read Sir Robert Borden's memoirs will remember that it was proposed that Canadian units should be dispersed throughout the British armies and operate under British commanders; but the Canadians were adamant on that issue, insisting that Canadians should operate as a Canadian army, and I think that stand was amply vindicated. The operation of that Canadian corps forms one of the proudest pages in our history. Has the time not come now to form a Royal Canadian Air Force overseas under a general staff responsible to the minister here?
Another reason why that ought to be done is because of the matter I mentioned when the army estimates were up. That is, since the Canadian corps has been formed under General McNaughton, there must be an increasing attempt to allocate to the army corps sufficient air power to sustain it when it goes into action. One of the most tragic pages in British history has been written in the last few days. Hon. members will have read the reports from correspondents in Burma telling how some of the finest units in the British and Indian armies have been cut to ribbons for lack of air support; a pitiful story of men who for three months fought a rearguard action, bombed and machine-gunned from the air with practically no air support. We are not in a position to say where the fault lay or what could have been done about

War Appropriation-Air Services
the matter, but the people of Canada will never forgive this government or those responsible if Canadian troops have to go into action on the continent without adequate aerial support, and they certainly would'prefer that that aerial support should come from the Royal Canadian Air Force. The air force is no longer, as I understand, merely a bombing or fighting or interceptor force, it is a great deal more.
In modern war the air force has become, in some respects, the artillery of a mobile army. It is used to break up strong points of resistance. By dive bombing it is used to break up enemy troop concentrations, as well as for reconnaissance, and in conjunction with artillery being directed by the divisional commander on the ground. There will have to be the closest cooperation with and the best possible support of the Canadian corps by an air force, and preferably the Royal Canadian Air Force, when they go into action on the European continent. If this is to be done, it can be done only if there has been constant cooperation, coordination and) practice between the different forces.
It seems to me it is not sufficient in modern war for appreciations of situations to be made and operational orders to be issued to the different services, and then to try to work them out on paper. There will have to be constant cooperation between land and air forces, and that can be done only if the Royal Canadian Air Force is operating under or in very close conjunction with the Canadian corps. I should like to see the Royal Canadian Air Force, with its own general staff, operating with General McNaughton's general staff of the Canadian Army Corps. It may not be possible to do that right away. It may be that the taking of Canadians out of different squadrons of the Royal Air Force would upset the set-up over there, and therefore it cannot be done too quickly or suddenly. But certainly it will have to be done some time, and I would ask the minister if he and his officers are moving toward that goal. I would ask him if there is any possibility at the conference to be held next week of his discussing with British air officials the possibility of setting up the Royal Canadian Air Force under a separate command in Great Britain, and working in close conjunction with General McNaughton and the Canadian corps.


Charles Gavan Power: I wish to thank my hon.
friend for bringing this matter up, because there is nothing in the whole department more dear to my heart than the Canadianization of the Royal Canadian Air Force. I should like to get all the support I can in parliament. I do not know when I have had a

greater sense of frustration than in my attempts to Canadianize the Royal Canadian Air Force overseas. I might explain that under the joint commonwealth training scheme the scheme was to train individual pilots for the Royal Air Force. In that connection I shall read section 14 and following under the heading "Training for R.C.A.F. merged with joint training":
14. It is agreed that the government of Canada may, out of the Canadian pupils who complete their training under this scheme, fill vacancies which occur in the home defence squadrons of the Royal Canadian Air Force.
That is, fill vacancies out of the graduates, in Canada.
All the other pupils, on completion of their training, will be placed at the disposal of the government of the United Kingdom-
Then there is the saving clause, added by the government of Canada:
-subject to that government's making the arrangements indicated in article 15 and bearing liability, as provided for in articles 16 and 17 of this agreement.
Then there is the clause which to some extent protects the Canadian character of the pupils:
The United Kingdom government undertakes that pupils of Canada, Australia and New Zealand shall, after training is completed, be identified with their respective dominions either by the method of organizing dominion units and formations, or in some other way, such methods to be agreed upon with the respective dominion governments concerned. The United Kingdom government will initiate inter-governmental discussions to this end.
Then follows article 16, to which reference is made; and article 17 deals with pay and allowances, and has nothing to do with the matter under discussion,
As a result of the sentiments my hon. friend has so well expresed the dominion government took up with the government of the United Kingdom a year ago last January, through my colleague the Minister of National Defence who was then in Great Britain, the question of identifying Canadians by the creation of a certain number of Canadian squadrons. That was only so far so good, because there were too many of our pilots to fit into only twenty-five Canadian squadrons. However, it was at least a start.
Unfortunately-and I am saying this without blaming anybody-there was not always the same enthusiasm, if I may put it in that way, on the part of the air ministry, and particularly on the part of the officers of the Royal Air Force, for the Canadianization of our squadrons.

War Appropriation-Air Services
Perhaps I had better go one step further. A large number of officers of the Royal Canadian Air Force, having been trained in the old Royal Flying Corps or Royal Air Force, naturally had their roots more deeply embedded in the traditions of the Royal Air Force than in those of the Royal Canadian Air Force. Therefore there was-perhaps obstruction is too strong a word-some resistance-


Mr. HANSON (York-Bunbury):: Some
difference of opinion-.


Charles Gavan Power: Perhaps it would go beyond that. There was some resistance both on the part of the senior officers of the Royal Air Force-though I must say that eventually, after my visit last summer, the air ministry came around to what I call the Canadian point of view-and among the officers of our own Royal Canadian Air Force. Therefore, even the Canadianization of our twenty-five squadrons has been somewhat difficult, although we have all the men required to fill them-and many times more than enough.
Even to-day some of those squadrons contain only 30 per cent or 40 per cent of Canadians. Of course some have gone up as high as 80 per cent and 90 per cent, and there was the squadron I mentioned last night with 98 per cent. Another complaint-perhaps I should not say it was a complaint- another representation which I made while in England, and which I propose to make again at the conference, is that even apart from these squadrons it should not be very difficult as far as possible to keep Canadians together. There is undoubtedly the feeling both in this country and beyond it, that it is to the general good to mix people from all parts of the empire. To that theory I subscribe, to a certain extent.
On the other hand, I maintain that these men in squadrons are a team, and it is easier to play on a team with men you know, men of your own kind, men from your own home town, than to -play on a team with men from another town, even though you may be the best of friends and have the greatest respect for one another. Therefore, for that reason I have been devoting a great deal of my time, considerable energy and some little argumentative ability to endeavour at least to achieve a step along the line my hon. friend has mentioned.
There are operational difficulties in the way of having a wholly integrated Canadian air force. Bombers would be attached to bomber commands. Fighters would be attached to fighter commands. Other types
would be attached to coastal commands. Army cooperation squadrons would be attached to the army.
As a matter of fact the Canadian army has Canadian squadrons attached to it for army cooperation work and, I hope, will have more as soon as it is possible to form the other squadrons provided for by the Ralston-Sinclair agreement. That agreement provided for twenty-five Canadian squadrons, in addition to the three then in existence. I was hoping to have those twenty-five squadrons well established, and then ask for more. At the moment we have twenty-two. Some of them are attached to the Canadian army and work -as army cooperation squadrons, with General McNaughton. There are many more details; there is a long history of struggle and discussion connected with this matter. I think we are on the way to where I know I want to go, and where I hope the majority of the members of this house and the people of this country want to go; that is, to make our squadrons overseas as much Canadian as possible, having regard to the difficulties of operation.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Would the minister
enlighten the committee as to the financial responsibility as between Canada and Great Britain for Canadian airmen serving outside Canada? It may throw some light on the matter now under discussion. Also in this connection I would point out that a considerable number of Canadians are serving with the Royal Air Force, who enlisted with that organization and who receive the British rates of pay, which, as has been stated already, are much lower than those in our own air force. Inasmuch as they are serving in Great Britain, some of them also are subject to payment of income tax. At one bomber squadron I met a squadron leader, a Canadian boy, who stated that his -net income, after payment of income tax in Great Britain, was equal only to that of a pilot officer in the Royal Canadian Air Force, and naturally this causes a great deal of ill feeling, particularly where these men are serving with units which have some Royal Canadian Air Force men attached to them. If it is possible to have -these Canadians, who, instead of coming back to Canada when war broke out, immediately enlisted with the Royal Air Force, brought within our own air force, that would do away with these difficulties. I think they should be remustered in the Royal Canadian Air Force and receive the same treatment with regard to pay and, I suppose, with regard -to pension if they should meet with ill fate.


Charles Gavan Power: With respect to pensions, the Minister of Pensions and National Health

War Appropriation-Air Services
tells me that this is looked after, that the pension will be on the same basis as that of members of the Royal Canadian Air Force, provided they went to England within a period of four years prior to the war. With respect to remustering them to the Royal Canadian Air Force, a great many of them would not want that. A great many of them prefer to remain with the Royal Air Force. I say that very frankly to my hon. friend, though I have been just talking about trying to keep Canadians together. They have their associations in the R.A.F.; some of them have achieved some distinction. My hon. friend speaks of a squadron leader. If he joined up at the beginning of the war, he has done pretty well. They have got along fairly well; probably they are attached to a particular squadron or group, and I should say a great many of them would prefer to remain with the R.A.F., though I do not suppose they would refuse Canadian rates of pay.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: If I may give the minister an example, one case that I recall is that of a young medical man who was taking postgraduate work in the old country and who, on the outbreak of war, immediately enlisted in the Royal Air Force. It is true that he is now a squadron leader, but that is not an exceptionally high rank for a medical practitioner who was doing post-graduate work. He told me that his net return was only about the same as that of a pilot officer, two or three steps below him in rank, serving with the Royal Canadian Air Force. I can assure the minister that he was very much dissatisfied, because there were both Canadians and Englishmen attached to this squadron, and I do not think they make any distinction between R.A.F. and R.CAJ'. There was also a young Canadian squadron leader there who had won the distinguished flying cross, and he felt the same way about the matter. Of course I did not have an opportunity to obtain a general consensus, but at the particular place where the subject matter was brought up there was certainly a distinct feeling that they would much rather remuster in the Royal Canadian Air Force and receive rates of pay equal to those of their comrades from home.


Charles Gavan Power: This matter has been brought to our attention on several occasions, and up to the present we have not felt that we should remuster them to the Royal Canadian Air Force or place them on Canadian rates of pay. It is really something worth considering. The attitude our people take is, I suppose, that they joined the Royal Air Force, so why should they not stay with it. On the other hand, some of these men may want to return. The

list of commanding officers of Canadian squadrons indicates that several of them are with the R.A.F. For instance, there is Wing Commander Woodruff. He is a Canadian who is with the R.A.F.; he is in command of a Canadian squadron, and I have not the slightest doubt that his pay and allowances in the R.A.F. would be lower than those of his second in command, who is a Canadian. There is an anomaly there that I think we shall have to go into and try to correct.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: It is the British income tax that affects these men particularly.


Richard Burpee Hanson: With regard to the very important matter brought up by the hon. member for Weyburn and discussed at some length by the minister, I hesitate to express any opinion, and I really am not going to do so. But I wish to ask the minister a question. This is not a matter of sentiment, though I can quite understand that for sentimental reasons these boys would like to be kept together. There is, of course, the question of team work which the minister has mentioned, which I should think was much more important than any mere question of sentiment. But is there not a paramount consideration, namely the unification of the operational activities of the whole air force in Britain and radiating from Britain or any other theatre of war? Is that not the paramount factor and consideration, and are we here in Canada in a position to express a really intelligent opinion upon it? I ask myself that question, and personally I must answer it in the negative.


Charles Gavan Power: The argument presented
by my hon. friend is the argument with which I have had to contend right along. It is not all plain sailing. Certainly there is something to be said for unification of operations, if I may so put it, but this is what happens. The Americans are over there, in fewer numbers than we are. They have some kind of independent command, though they operate with the R.A.F. and, I take it, are pretty well under the general command of the R.A.F. But I should like the R.C.A.F. to have at least the same status as the Americans have. Let us say they have a bomber squadron or a bomber group of their own. I doubt very much if it would be possible for them to select their own objectives, let us say, without at least consulting the higher British command; but still they could remain together as a bomber group. As a matter of fact, what we have been aiming at as our first objective is a bomber group for Canadians. Then you can send a whole group together. Of course the objection to that is that if the

War Appropriation-Air Services
group gets into trouble, then you have a very large number of Canadian casualties, whereas, interspersed as they are now with others, the casualty list becomes less glaring. But I am hoping to attain pretty well the same status that the Americans have attained with respect to internal operations, always of course under the command of some supreme British authority with regard to operations generally. I am speaking now probably out of turn, not knowing very much about the tactical end of the matter, but I doubt if we could ever achieve a completely independent command in the sense that the Canadian army is an independent command. Our international relationships with groups, commands, and so on are so close that it would be almost impossible to have what might almost be called an independent air force, but it would be possible to have a better grouping and a greater grouping of Canadian squadrons working together.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am obliged to the minister for telling me his ambitions and his objective, and I think it is quite right that he should, after he learns what the position in Britain is, strive if possible to attain that objective, if it is possible to do so. But it would seem to me irrational that the Royal Canadian Air Force should operate on its own in Britain.


Charles Gavan Power: Absolutely on its own, no.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Or anything approximating that. There must be coordination of effort. I am speaking as the merest layman, knowing absolutely nothing about these matters, but my reason tells me that it would be out of the picture entirely for the Royal Canadian Air Force to operate on its own. Or the Canadian army. It is kept together as a unit of course; but when the final testing time comes, when a second front, let us say, is opened on the continent, if the Canadian army is part and parcel of the expeditionary force that goes there, it will have to be under one unified command in charge of the whole expeditionary force.


Charles Gavan Power: They have to be under somebody.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister can pursue the thought he has in his mind up to a certain point, but there he must stop. I say that with great deference, and perhaps I am making a misstatement altogether, but I am just thinking out loud.


Charles Gavan Power: I think my hon. friend is right. One thing I certainly hope to achieve is more grouping of Canadians and less dispersing of Canadians all over the world, even to the 44561-152
point of filling up Royal Air Force squadrons with Canadians, if necessary. I was told of squadrons of one of our partners in the commonwealth air training plan, 90 per cent of the pilots of which were Canadians, but working in a squadron, that went by another name.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: If you do that, you do not
get the senior commands for Canadians.


Charles Gavan Power: That is an objection. If the Canadians remained all together as an integrated unit in the Canadian air force, the chances of promotion for our men would be less than when they were spread all through the Royal Air Force, because in the Royal Air Force, spread out as it is, Canadians have chances in any number of squadrons, whereas in our own squadrons they would have chances of promotion only in the limited number of squadrons we have.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: But vice versa, if you have Royal Air Force squadrons composed 90 per cent of Canadians, you will find that the senior officers are Royal Air Force men, not Royal Canadian Air Force men.


Charles Gavan Power: The argument of the non-Canadians, if I may put it in that way although I do not really mean that, is that if they are not distinctly Canadians belonging to a Canadian unit, they should be looked upon as Royal Air Force and profit by the chances of promotion which come to any Royal Air Force officer. As a matter of fact, a great many of my officers argue in all sincerity that it would be detrimental to our men to form wholly Canadian units. They argue against purely Canadian units because they think our men have a better chance of promotion in British units. There are two sides to the story, but I still stick to mine.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Will this new set-up affect the advanced training of our Canadian boys in Britain?


Charles Gavan Power: No.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Not at all?


Charles Gavan Power: No. This is when- you get into operational squadrons, not into operational training squadrons. Of course if our force is almost an integral part of the Royal Air Force, our men, after they have served a certain time in active operations, may be put in charge of Royal Air Force operational training. As a matter of fact, after they have done a certain number of hours on operational work, they are brought back to act as instructors or put on ground work for a certain length of time in operational training.



War Appropriation

Air Services


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Then it would be better as it is, as far as the advanced training of our men is concerned?


Charles Gavan Power: The training is the joint air training plan as we have it in Canada, or in some cases advanced training in Britain, but that has nothing to do with the matter one way or another. We could have the advanced training here, and in all probability we shall have it here very shortly. The , only reason why we did not have it here before was that the operational types of aircraft were required urgently on the other side, and they 'did not want to send them over here but wished to keep , them over there to fight as well as to be used for training purposes. It would be a long journey for them to come over here and go back again when they were urgently required. That is why operational training units were established in Britain. That situation does not obtain to the same extent to-day, and now it will be quite possible to give operational training in Canada.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Would the minister care to state how far our training goes in Canada, and how much training has to be given in Britain? I take it that the operational training is all given in Britain.


Charles Gavan Power: That has been the case,
but it is not now.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is it proposed to give more of the training in Canada, to train them here for a longer period? It would seem that if they were trained in operational work here, it would be much more advantageous, and then within a limited time after they went overseas they would be ready to go into action.


Charles Gavan Power: Under the joint air training plan we brought them up to a certain stage. That was part of the plan, and until very recently it was not possible to have operational training here because we could not get the operational type of planes, since they were required both for fighting and training in Britain. There is no point in sending fighting planes over here when they are needed badly over there. But that situation has eased, and there are now operational units in this country and will be many more of them here. One of the shifts, as I called it yesterday, that we are now undergoing is to enable a longer period of training to be given here, to train men in operational work so that there will be little or nothing in the way of training required when they reach overseas and have to use the biggest or fastest type of machines.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is the objective?


Charles Gavan Power: Yes, and we are on the verge of reaching it. But it could not be done earlier, and it was not part of the joint air training plan anyway.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The hon. and fair member for Edmonton East (Mrs. Casselman) last night mentioned what the women in the air force were doing in her part of the country. Would the minister be good enough to explain how the training of the women is carried on? I think the ladies would like to know that. There are over 2,600 women in the air force. Are there women medical officers on the strength who check over these ladies before they are accepted?


Charles Gavan Power: We are training women at Havergal college and other places. I can tell the hon. member what we are training them for, but I do not know how it is done.


Mr. GRAYDON:: Perhaps the Minister of Pensions and National Health could tell us that.


Charles Gavan Power: I think what the hon. member for Edmonton East was speaking of is the new system of dietitians. Diet was one of our great troubles. I am glad the Minister of National Defence is not here. I always say that you can feed foot-sloggers with pork and beans and bully beef, but the gentlemen of the air force, who really are university students during the time of their training, do not have to do the arduous physical work that the foot-slogging infantiy man has to do. Therefore we found that the ration issued by the army service corps was too heavy for these young lads, and we had to get to work to see if we could not provide them with more vitamins, or calories-I do not know which-and, particularly in the summer time, more fruits, vegetables and salads.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is proteins.


Charles Gavan Power: I do not know. I shall have to get some medical man to correct this when it goes into Hansard. In any event, we found that the diet was too heavy for men doing the type of work required of our personnel. We had many meetings with army officials, and finally we have reached the place where the army diet and our own are approximately the same. We came to the conclusion that we should obtain the services of the best dietitians available in Canada. We went to Eaton's, Toronto, and obtained the services of a dietitian who was being remunerated at much more than we could afford to pay to her as a serving officer in the women's division: the difference, however, has been made up by a patriotic person in Toronto. We applied to other places of this kind, and

War Appropriation-Air Services
now we have seven, or perhaps eight, women dietitians, carefully selected by Doctor Tisdale, a Toronto dietitian, and others, including Air Commodore Ryan of the medical corps. We hope the results will be not only a saving of food, but that, the food being better cooked, the quality will be improved and the health of our men will be very much better.


Richard Burpee Hanson: In other words, you are summoning modern science to your aid.


Charles Gavan Power: Why not? The air is the most modern of all arms of war; why not summon the help of modem science?
To come back to positions in the Royal Canadian Air Force, women's division: clerks, equipment assistants, telephone operators, general duties, cooks, nursing orderlies, fabric workers, transport drivers-those are about all the positions which are at present available.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: No technicians at all?


Charles Gavan Power: Technicians in the sense of mechanics and so on?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Yes.


Charles Gavan Power: Not at present. I do not see any.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I know that in England, according to the last report received, there are only a hundred. I wondered if we had any here.


Charles Gavan Power: Not yet. We expect to replace 15,000 men by 15,000 women within a year or a year and a half.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Can the minister answer as regards women medical officers?


Charles Gavan Power: Yes, we have women medical officers. I cannot tell the hon. member how many.


George Alexander Cruickshank: There are two questions I should like to ask with reference to this women's division of the air force. First, are they replacing any of the men in one of the minister's offices-I do not know how to describe them, because I resent the expression used by the minister to describe the infantry- the men who will eventually win this war as they did the last war, the "foot-sloggers"? If he wishes to use that term about the finest branch of the army, I might use one in connection with his branch in at least one part. Are any of the these females used to replace the petticoat army we have had in the Jackson building?
44561-152J


Charles Gavan Power: I rather resent the expression "petticoat army we have in the Jackson building". Our men are doing a good job there.


George Alexander Cruickshank: What clothes are issued to this women's army?


Charles Gavan Power: We are doing a good job in the Jackson building, and I think the officers of the force there deserve great credit for the work which is being done on the empire training scheme. We are replacing a great many of the men in clerical positions in the Jackson building by women-clerks, telephone operators and others who are in the women's division.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am glad to hear that.


Charles Gavan Power: We propose to do that right along. As a matter of fact, on stations 136 women take the place of 126 men, as mess-women, on general duties, as telephone operators, fabric workers and transport drivers- which is not a bad average when you come to think of it-releasing men to go overseas or to lonely stations along the Pacific coast or up in Labrador, and those are jobs which are not easy for any men, even for "foot-sloggers".


Mr. BROOKS:: Like the hon. member for-Fraser Valley, I rather resented the expression used by the minister a few moments ago. I know, however, it was not intended to hurt.
We have been pleased indeed with the report of the minister, and I think there is every reason to believe that his branch of the service is in very good shape. Upon that, of course, the minister and all those connected with his department are to be congratulated. However, the fact that two boats have been sunk in the St. Lawrence river may indicate that considerably more needs to be done. I believe the minister himself said yesterday that he is not satisfied by any means that all had been done that could be done.


Charles Gavan Power: Not, that could be done; that might be done.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Our services overseas are doing well. He explained the work of our airmen who are travelling through the northern part of this dominion on patrol work.
The commonwealth air training plan, known as Canada's greatest contribution to the war so far, is also recognized as a success not only by the people of Canada but by our allies. There is no reason why it should not be a success. We have heard praise-well deserved praise-heaped on the minister here. He has been called very efficient, and I am sure we all agree. That is the first essential of a successful department. Also he is the head of

War Appropriation-Air Services
the most popular service in Canada, more popular than the navy and, certainly, than the army. He has all .the money he requires; whenever money is needed for the air force it is always forthcoming. All the men in his branch are active service men, not, as in the army, a hybrid, partly active and partly reserve. All these factors contribute to make a very satisfactory and efficient service. Men are more anxious to join the air force than any other branches of the service. One reason, possibly, is that they get more action. The minister said yesterday that the Canadian air force was the fighting force, I think, in Europe at the present time as far as Canada was concerned. That is the meaning I attached to his remark that they were doing all the fighting; I did not understand him to mean that they were doing all the fighting and that the British air force was doing none.


Charles Gavan Power: Oh, no.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: He meant that they were doing all the fighting that the Canadian forces are doing apart from the navy. Well, young men like to get into the service for action. There is also the matter of the uniform; the air force uniform is more attractive to young men than is the army uniform.


Mr. REID:: It was a mistake to do away with the kilts.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: There is a Scotsman speaking. If someone would do away with his bagpipes on Saturday afternoons-


John Ritchie MacNicol: I would rather see him
have two bagpipes.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The air force also have
better camps and better accommodation. The minister said a few minutes ago that they are the gentlemen's service. There is no question about that. It has been the gentlemen's service. They get everything they need, and about that I have no complaint.


Angus MacInnis: And everything they
want.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Yes. I heard an hon.
member say yesterday that they had cold storage for their salvage. From reports I have heard, it would be very much in keeping with the way in which they are treated.


Charles Gavan Power: I have an answer to that.
Our medical officer insists that the garbage be placed in cold storage; otherwise it might contaminate the surrounding area.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I do not wish to introduce any discordant note into the discussion, but there is a certain amount of discrimination. To the public every man in the air force blue 
is a hero. I do not think they realize that for one man who is up in the air there are fifteen on the ground. Is that not correct?


Charles Gavan Power: Twelve to fifteen.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Yes; but to the public
every man who wears the air force blue is a hero. I know of towns and other places in the dominion where there are both air force men and men in khaki, and the air force receive very different treatment from that given the men in khaki. There is great discrimination. It may be that the public should be educated in a matter of this kind, for it is most unfair. As regards the air crew, I listened with much pride yesterday to the minister and others as they detailed the exploits of our airmen. I know that in the last war it was a matter of pride for all of us to read accounts of such men as Bishop. Barker, Collishaw, McKeevor, Carter and other R.A.F. heroes; and the men in the present war are living up to the reputation then established. I was pleased to hear the minister say that we in Canada do not perhaps advertise the exploits of our heroes as much as we should. I remember Rickenbacker, the great United States airman, whose exploits certainly deserve great credit, but we have many Canadians whose deeds were just as great. In my own province we had an airman named Carter who in a few months made as good a record as did Rickenbacker. But while Rickenbacker's name is a household word in the United States, and indeed in Canada, for every school boy knows it, I doubt very much that Carter's name is known except to a few people in the community in which he lived. That is the difference. Therefore the minister's idea of advertising the exploits of our men is a particularly good one. But all men are not in the air. There are ground crews, those engaged in general duties and others, fourteen or fifteen men on the ground to one in the air.
There is one criticism I have to make in this connection. The attraction of the air force has, I believe, taken from the army men who should have remained in the army. It has been my experience that when representatives of the air force came to the training centres, and it was generally known they were there, a great many young men wished to see them. A good many of them went to the air force thinking they would be pilots or would be in the ground crew, but eventually most of them found themselves being used for general duties. I know of young men who, I believe, would have given far better service to the country had they remained as infantrymen or artillerymen, instead of, as I

War Appropriation-Air Services
heard one hon. member say yesterday, being used to wash dishes and sweep floors in messes and other places.


Charles Gavan Power: In order to get my hon.
friend's opinion, as I said yesterday there is a very strong feeling that the air force should no longer go into training camps to get recruits. What does my hon. friend think?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I am rather of that opinion.


Charles Gavan Power: What about the air crew? The question is being discussed, and I am asking my hon. friend for his opinion.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: In the basic training centres the district officers commanding ask that the R.C.A.F. be given every opportunity to get the men they need, and that policy was followed out. It was after they found that a great many of these men going to the R.C.A.F. were not making good, particularly as ground crew, or not having any opportunity of being in the air, that the difference came. They were retained in the R.C.A.F., but were used for menial jobs. All these men could and would have made good infantrymen and some might have been non-commissioned officer material.


Charles Gavan Power: We should certainly keep out of the standard duty field, should we not?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The minister said yesterday that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) and his department were getting together on that question, and I think that is something which should be carefully considered by the different departments of our services. A good many of these men become disillusioned. They have written to me stating that they were very much disappointed that they did not get the work for which they thought they were best suited. The minister yesterday referred to the question of manpower. If I understood him aright, he said they would soon run short of air crews.


Charles Gavan Power: Not soon.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: But there was the possibility of it. I believe he also stated that there were about 13,000 young men, graduates of high schools and colleges, who were available each year. Is there no possibility-as a matter of fact I think the minister mentioned it-of promoting young men from these ground crews and then bringing in men from the outside for their particular work. There is also the matter of the exchange of men from the army. I mentioned a moment ago that there were men in the air force who, in my opinion, should not be there, and I think there are also men in the army who would be better in the air force. If there were some
liaison along this line there could be an exchange of men to the benefit of both services.
I have a number of questions which I intended asking, but most of them have already been asked by other hon. members. Last year the minister told us that he hoped that by September, 1941, he would have twenty-five squadrons, called Canadian squadrons, in the R.A.F. I understand he has twenty-two. I have been very much interested in the debate as to whether these Canadian squadrons should be R.A.F. or should be Canadian. I appreciate the arguments which the minister has presented to us both for and against this possibility.
One thing he did not mention in that connection occurs to me. We read continually, as an almost nightly occurrence, of the Royal Air Force having made a trip over Europe. But we never read that the Royal Canadian Air Force has made a trip over Europe. The minister says that 90 per cent of the men in some squadrons are Canadians; yet it is always called a Royal Air Force squadron that went over and bombed Germany. That is the report which appears in the papers of the United States and other countries. It would be a splendid thing, and would give our allies a better conception of what we are doing, if we had in England a separate Royal Canadian Air Force, and if our men received credit for the work done by them.	[DOT]


Charles Gavan Power: On many occasions when some of our twenty-five or twenty-two Royal Canadian Air Force squadrons take part in a raid it is always announced as a Royal Air Force raid, although only two or three squadrons in the raid might be Royal Air Force. That is one good reason for Canadianization.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: That is the point. Last year the minister told us these Canadian squadrons were using British ground crews. Are we using Canadian ground crews at present?


Charles Gavan Power: They are pretty well filled up now. We are sending them over continually.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I think the minister also said last year that Britain still supplies our squadrons with aeroplanes and other necessities at a flat rate of $3,000,000 per squadron. Does that still hold?


Charles Gavan Power: They are still supplying the aircraft. We do not ship aircraft from here directly to our squadrons.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Another thing I think the minister should do is give a breakdown of the figures given yesterday, $344,000,000 for the joint air training plan and so on.

War Appropriation-Air Services


Charles Gavan Power: What particular breakdown does my hon. friend want? I gave some kind of breakdown showing the principal items on the following page of Hansard.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: That is what I want; I had not noticed it. There is one other matter which appealed to me in the minister's address yesterday. In closing, he said he hoped that there would be a truce to our internal dissensions while the united nations air conference is meeting in Ottawa. I am sure we all agree with that sentiment. In fact I see no necessity for dissension at that time or any other. I can say this to those responsible for dissension -someone must be responsible, but it is not my intention to try to fix responsibility-that such people are doing a great disservice to the cause which they think they are championing, a great disservice to Canada, which should be united at this time from coast to coast, and a great disservice to the cause of liberty, their liberty, the liberty of Canada and the liberty of the world, which is in deadly peril. I see no reason why there should be any dissension in this country at a time of crisis such as the present.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: With regard to the breakdown mentioned, I notice in the pay and allowances the amount, is twice as great as the figures for last year; whereas in regard to clothing it is $18,000,000 as against $10,000,000. With regard to rations the estimate is a little over two and a half times as much; ammunition, over four times as much, which may be readily understood; and gas and oil, over twice as much, but for engine overhaul it is four times as much. Would the minister give a statement regarding the item of engine overhaul? How much is done by the aircraft repair depots and how much let to private corporations, and is it the intention of the department to do all this work through their own repair depots, or to continue the policy followed heretofore?


Charles Gavan Power: I do not think it is our intention ever to do it all through our own repair depots. I cannot give the particular reason for the increase except that we have more planes flying this year than we had last. It seems to me that the civilian contractor's organization has a distinct and definite function in this joint air training plan. It would cost us a great deal more to run all these service repair depots right across the country. The civilian contractors are, I believe, mostly manufacturers of aircraft. They carry on the work in conjunction with their work of manufacture. We could not possibly be expected to manufacture aircraft. It appears to me a logical thing to go to the manufacturer when we require spare parts or repairs.


George Hugh Castleden: Gas and oil is $20,000,000 this year as against $9,000,000 last year, but overhaul is nearly four times as much-


Charles Gavan Power: I suppose more machines require overhaul.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If I may interject, since this work is mostly in my department, the older a plane gets, the more overhaul it requires. A new plane does not require any overhaul for several months; then it requires heavier overhaul each period it is in service.


George Hugh Castleden: Yes; I understand that. Then, with regard to the home war establishment under overhaul, I notice that the amount is increased manyfold, while for the British commonwealth air training plan for this year the estimate is almost three times as great as last year; the purpose being, I presume, to provide defence for Canada.


Charles Gavan Power: More for the defence of Canada, and our supply of training planes being pretty well up to date.


George Hugh Castleden: Then I notice that clothing and necessaries for the home war establishment are increased from less than half a million to three and a third million.


Charles Gavan Power: There are more men, more squadrons.


George Hugh Castleden: But the pay and allowances are only twice as great, whereas the other is six times as great.


Charles Gavan Power: You have me now. I will find out.


John Horne Blackmore: One matter was not dealt with to my satisfaction yesterday afternoon when the hon. member for Davenport was questioning the minister concerning increased production of planes and increase of airmen. The minister made several remarks which are hard for me to understand. The hon. member for Davenport said, as reported at page 2352 of Hansard:
Perhaps no one else could have done as much, but it is possible that he could do more to train more aviators here, and also order more planes.
Mr. Power: I am sorry to say we have so far fulfilled our contract that they do not want any more at the present time.
Mr. MacNicol:	Well, that passes all comprehension.
I second the motion as to that. Then the minister said:
Mr. Power: It is not my business.
Who is it that gives the orders with respect to the construction of planes in Canada, and with respect to the number of men who are to train? Is Canada acting at the instance

War Appropriation-Air Services
and under the direction of some committee that is over all the united nations and telling Canada how much she can do? Is that the idea behind the minister's statement?


Charles Gavan Power: If my hon. friend had understood what the joint air training plan is, he would have understood that it is a plan under which four of the nations, namely Great Britain, Canada, New Zealand and Australia, got together in order to train a certain number of pilots, gunners and observers. Canada is the administrative manager of the scheme. We undertook to turn out so many pilots, gunners and observers per month or per year, whichever period the hon. member wishes to fix. We have turned out not only the number we contracted for in the specified time, but so many more. At the present time these men must be fitted into the planes. They must have the planes on the other side to put them in. Whether they have them there or not, I cannot say. But at the present time we have a certain surplus over and above our contract. Fortunately we are able to use them for training in Canada, for the defence of Canada. With respect to the purchase of aircraft, I have nothing at all to do with that. I order the aircraft necessary for training, or for the defence of Canada, but not of Great Britain. The Minister of Munitions and Supply finds them.


John Horne Blackmore: What I get out of what the minister says is something like this: The general committee in charge of these four nations-


Charles Gavan Power: No, the four nations of the British commonwealth made a bargain three years ago to do such and such a thing at such and such a time. We have done it, and done more. That is what we claim. Unless I were to continue to expand to such an extent that I could not get the pupils in, I cannot expand my plan any further at the present time. These schools require people to come into them. If I were to double the number of training schools or the number of planes, where in the world would I get the air crew to put in to train them?


John Horne Blackmore: I hope the minister will not think I am criticizing.


Charles Gavan Power: I only wish the hon. member to understand.


John Horne Blackmore: I think the minister is deserving of high praise. I have not spoken previously in this debate, but I am expressing my thoughts at this time. Nevertheless, as a member of the British commonwealth of nations, and realizing, as several hon.
members have said already that we are losing battles every day because we lack aeroplanes and pilots to man them-


Charles Gavan Power: No, we do not lack pilots. We have pilots. I have given them pilots. That is the point I am making.


John Horne Blackmore: Do we lack aeroplanes?


Charles Gavan Power: I do not know. I have
nothing to do with aeroplanes. I have to give them pilots.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Perhaps I can clear the
atmosphere by saying that Canada is making all the aeroplanes it can make. We are supplying planes on government order from Great Britain and on government order from the United States. Our planes are going to several countries besides Canada. But the industry is expanding as rapidly as we think it can be expanded.


John Ritchie MacNicol: But were we not shut
down in the making of Hurricanes in Fort William last year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, we were not.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Yes, we were, for several months.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I was asked a question and
I answered it. I am now told my answer is untruthful. Fort William is within three miles of my own riding.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I know that.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That plant has never had less than 5,000 men employed in the last year.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I asked a question, but
the minister is always very prompt; he is always very sharp at giving answers. I have it on the authority of one of the heads of an aeroplane company, whose name I will not give, that during last year for five or six months the manufacturers of Hurricane bombers in Fort William were not making bombers because they did not have the orders. I understand the minister to say now that last year the company manufacturing Hurricane bombers at Fort William was running at capacity, and was making Hurricane bombers every month. If so, I will take Hansard and send it to the gentleman who gave me the information. Either that gentleman is wrong or the minister is wrong, one or the other.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The Fort William plant received an order for Hurricane planes late in 1940. It still is working on the order for Hurricane planes. It has been running continuously. It has never been closed down one day for lack of orders. It has had orders.

War Appropriation-Air Services
The hon. member for Fort William is here and, if you like, he will confirm it if my word is not good enough. I think it is disgraceful to peddle that sort of gossip. There has been too much of it here, and I am going to say a few words about it when I speak-just put a few statements on Hansard and give the real facts.
Mr. MaoNICOL: I resent the minister's use of the word "gossip". The information was given to me by the head of one of the aeroplane companies in this country.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Will you give his name?


John Ritchie MacNicol: I will mark the word "gossip" and send it to him.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, if the information is untrue, having said so much I think the hon. member should give the name of the man who told him.


John Ritchie MacNicol: No, I will not give the name of the man, but he is a good friend of the minister.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is gossip. It is a statement that is untrue, but it is stated in this house as a fact.


Mr. McIYOR:: I think the committee
wants to get into the Department of Munitions and Supply and let the minister for air come down out of the air.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Why not come down yourself sometimes?


Mr. CARDIFF:: I think all hon. members will agree that the progress which the Royal Canadian Air Force has made in the past two years is evidence that the minister's heart and soul are in his work. Last year he advised us with respect to alterations in the length of some of the training courses, and indicated that in some instances they had been shortened. Will he advise the committee what changes, if any, have been made in the last year in this respect, and give us the reasons therefor? I have particularly in mind that the observer course had been altered, and that the period of training with respect to navigation-


Charles Gavan Power: May I interrupt the hon. member. I am not permitted to give details as to the length or duration of courses. I am asked not to, and therefore I would ask the hon. member to cut short his question, right at that point.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Very well.


Charles Gavan Power: I have been asked by higher authorities not to discuss the length of courses, because one might give information which might be of value to the enemy.


John Horne Blackmore: I am relieved to hear the minister say that we have more pilots than we have planes.


Charles Gavan Power: I should not like that to be said, because it would not be fair. It would not be quite fair to put it exactly in that way. May I put it in this way: We have fulfilled our contract. That is to say, we were asked by the British commonwealth to deliver so many pilots at a certain time. Not only have we fulfilled that, but we have done more than that. I do not wish to go any further, if my hon. friend would permit, in that connection. Perhaps I was a little indiscreet to say what I did say yesterday, anyway.


John Horne Blackmore: Far be it from me to ask the minister to say anything which would in any way embarrass the people who are carrying on the war, but a member of parliament has some things brought to his attention which it is his duty to look into. I was told by a man, who I thought should certainly know what he was talking about, that they already had more planes than we had pilots to man them.


Charles Gavan Power: If I may interrupt my hon. friend, I would very much prefer it if he would come to my office at six o'clock, when I will discuss this matter fully with him. I know I am probably as much to blame as anyone for having brought up the matter in this house, but I do think it is a matter that should not be further discussed here. I am sorry to have to ask my hon. friend not to proceed further; but if he will come to my office I shall be only too glad to give him in confidence all the information I have at my disposal. I should prefer that the matter be not further discussed here, because I think really I am at fault for having gone as far as I have already.


John Horne Blackmore: The minister will realize, I think, that what is already on Hansard has caused considerable anxiety.


Thomas Vien: Order. I should like to point out to hon. members that when a minister of the crown states on his ministerial responsibility that in the public interest he cannot go beyond a certain point, it would be out of order to press him any further.


John Horne Blackmore: I was not going to ask the minister any further questions. I was merely going to explain why I had been pressing up to this time. If it would be in order to ask the minister this, I just want to know whether, if the quota of Canadian trained pilots is filled, the minister allows that to affect the number of men who are going through. In other words, does he keep these schools running at full capacity all the time?


Charles Gavan Power: Oh, yes.

War Appropriation-Air Services


John Horne Blackmore: Then that relieves my mind.


Charles Gavan Power: We can use these men in Canada, for the defence of Canada. We have plenty of room for them here, and we shall have plenty of planes for them shortly, if we have not already. I say my quota is full for the moment, but there is no reason why we should not keep on turning out men according to plan, as fast as we can. But I cannot double it.


John Horne Blackmore: I appreciate greatly having that on Hansard, because it does explain away something that raised a real difficulty in my mind.
Has the minister all the money he needs to run his department? Is the amount which has been apportioned to him out of this $2,000,000,000 appropriation as much as he feels he can economically use?	.


Charles Gavan Power: I am always asking for more. Last year I think I spent $400,000,000. I asked for $420,000,000, but I imagine I probably committed myself for another $200,000,000, so that is the position. I do not think there is any disposition on the part of the government to stint the department in any way, when we ask for things that are considered legitimate. They must always go through the treasury board and the war committee, and the funds are checked, but I do not think this department has ever been denied the funds which it legitimately required to carry on its operations.


John Horne Blackmore: That is also a good thing to have on Hansard, and I am relieved to hear that the minister is not being stinted in any way. We are in an age in which no minister should be stinted in any way-


Charles Gavan Power: Hear, hear.


John Horne Blackmore: -with respect to the conduct of the war. I was interested to find out whether the minister was being treated as he should be.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There is a question of principle raised by the suggestion of the minister. Of course there are times when in the public interest he cannot divulge information to the house; but if he invites to his office a private member and gives him in confidence information that is denied to other hon. members, does that not raise a matter of principle at once?


Charles Gavan Power: The only answer I could
give-


Richard Burpee Hanson: I should think that would not be a desirable situation, and I am saying this in a kindly way. If 44561-153
information of a confidential nature is given to the hon. member for Lethbridge, why should it not be available to every hon. member? That is the question I raise.


Charles Gavan Power: Here is the information I get, after having raised that very point. I am told that information placed on Hansard, which is an official document, is considered to be of far more value to friend, enemy or whoever is looking for information, than that which appears in the newspapers, let us say, as the result of a press conference or a public speech. It is for that reason that I am told I should not place on the pages of Hansard some of the things which I might say, perhaps indiscreetly, in a public speech or at a press conference. If there is any distinction, that is it. I am told that the crime, if there is any. is in making official statements rather than in issuing unofficial statements or making statements in speeches. Does the hon. gentleman see what is meant? I do not know why anyone who knows Hansard would give it any greater value than anything else, but perhaps foreigners would do so.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think
that is a distinction without a difference. If it appears in Hansard it will also appear in the public press, if it has any news value, but I do not think the mere appearance in Hansard itself would be very harmful. It all goes back to the primary question of whether the information should be divulged at all. If the nature of the information is such that it should not be divulged, certainly it should not appear in Hansard or in the newspapers. Then why should it be given to a private member in confidence, and not to other hon. members?


Charles Gavan Power: The hon. gentleman may be right; I am not prepared to argue that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is a
moot question.


Mr. POTTIER:: As reported at page 2330 of Hansard, in referring to expenditures, the minister gives the amount of $447,000,000 as the total actual expenditures up to the present, including commitments up to March 31, 1942. Prior to that he referred to what is going to be the total Canadian expenditure, indicating that under the plan it will be $542,000,000. What is included in the $447,000,000. Is that Canadian expenditure, or is it the expenditure of all parties? If it is the expenditure of all parties, does it include contributions in kind by the British government?


Charles Gavan Power: Oh, no.


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: What does the $447,000,000 cover?



War Appropriation-Air Services


Charles Gavan Power: If I am not mistaken, that is the expenditure by Canada; I will1 have to check that. That is either the expenditure by Canada or the expenditure by this country on, behalf of Australia and New Zealand; I would have to find that out. Certainly there is no expenditure there on the part of Great Britain, because that is payment in kind.


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: Then there is a reference to the cost of the plan. As I understand it, that plan expires in March, 1943.


Charles Gavan Power: Yes.


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: What is going to happen
when March, 1943, comes round.


Charles Gavan Power: That is what we are having a conference for next week.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Would the minister enlighten the committee' just a little more on the division of expenses for Royal Canadian Air Force personnel and equipment outside Canada? Possibly if I had a better understanding of the agreement dealing with the commonwealth air training plan, I might not need to ask some of these questions. For instance, do we pay for all our personnel in Great Britain and the other fighting fronts, for the aeroplanes which they use and the cost of maintaining them? If not, what is the quid pro quo that we give in return? Do we give it under the air training plan? I notice in the estimates which the minister brought down, that the amount allotted for expenses overseas is relatively small compared with the total. I do not think the people of Canada have very much understanding of how much of the expense of the commonwealth air training plan is borne by the Canadian people, and how much of the expense of maintaining our boys fighting overseas is borne by us and how much by Britain. Would the minister make a general statement as to the division of expenditure?


Charles Gavan Power: Our headquarters overseas and our three original squadrons are paid and maintained, as to both equipment and aircraft, by us. That is Canada's direct contribution- the headquarters overseas and the three original squadrons. We pay for the aeroplanes, pay and allowances, and everything else connected with that.
With respect to the empire training plan, that is a training organization, and every graduate, from the moment he is posted overseas, belongs to the Royal Air Force. They are Royal Canadian Air Force, but they belong to the Royal Air Force. Under clause 15 which I read some time ago, the Royal Air Force pays them, and we make up the difference out of our own bounty, so to speak.

Articles 16 and 17 of the agreement read:
16.	The government of the United Kingdom will, subject to the provisions of article 17, provide the pay, allowances, pensions and other non-effective benefits, maintenance and other expenses of the pilots and aircraft crews who are trained in Canada (other than those made available for service with the Royal Canadian Air Force in accordance with the provisions of article 14) -
Those are the men who stay in Canada.
-with effect from the dates of their embarkation in Canada for service with, or in conjunction with, the Royal Air Force. The government of the United Kingdom also undertakes to arrange for those pupils who are made available for service with, or in conjunction with, the Royal Air Force, to be embarked as speedily as possible after the completion of their training, and to defray the cost of their passages to the stations to which they are appointed on leaving Canada.
17.	The pay, allowances, pensions and other non-effective benefits, maintenance and other expenses, for which the government of the United Kingdom undertakes liability under the provisions of article 16 will be as laid down in Royal Air Force regulations. If it should be decided by the government of Canada, the government of Australia, or the government of New Zealand to supplement the amounts so issued, any such supplement will be borne by the government concerned.
That is what we are doing. Our own men are paid by the Royal Air Force, and we supplement the amount with regard to the aircraft and the twenty-two squadrons. The aircraft is supplied by the United Kingdom government.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Who pays for it?


Charles Gavan Power: They pay for it.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: How do the financial accounts really stand, if you can determine them at all? We gave a billion dollar credit to Britain recently, but now we learn that our boys who are fighting in the old country are maintained at the expense of Britain and, in some instances, paid by Britain.


Charles Gavan Power: Oh, yes.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Is there any way of computing just what Britain's contribution is for maintaining and servicing Canadian fighters overseas whom we look upon as our fighters, and what is Canada's contribution? Is there any way of putting a dollar sign on Britain's contribution so that we can equate that against the billion dollar gift we have recently approved?


Mr.   POAVER@: All I can say is that the balance is on our side as far as the dollars are concerned. I have been trying to get the matter straightened out in my mind and in other people's minds for a long' time. Personally I think we should call the accounts

War Appropriation-Air Services
all square, say that we have spent here so much, and they have spent there so much, and let it go at that. That would be my personal view. I do not think it would hurt anybody, but of course that is unorthodox finance.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Better
keep the accounts straight.


Charles Gavan Power: It will take two or three generations of accountants to untangle the snarl in which these accounts are by this time.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: We have stripped Great Britain of all her Canadian dollar securities, and we think we have done a grand thing by giving her a billion dollar credit, but now we find that there are offsetting factors. I am not trying to raise anything contentious at all, but I think we are entitled to know and the people of Canada are entitled to know, as far as possible, how things stand. If that cannot be done, as the minister has just indicated, we must all look upon it as a joint war in which we all are glad to do what we can.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: We pay the dependents' allowances for the Royal Canadian Air Force. A pilot earns $197.50 a month, I understand, and he is paid over there. What portion of that amount is he allowed to send out of Britain to his family in Canada?


Charles Gavan Power: I do not know. He is paid at Royal Air Force rates. I suppose he could assign as much as he likes, but there may be some limit. I think the hon. member for Royal would know what the limit is.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The point is how much money he is allowed to send out of Britain, in view of the exchange situation.


Charles Gavan Power: His British pay? I could not say.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Last night I asked the minister whether in locating aerodromes for the air training plan any consideration was given to the possibility of their being used in a commercial air service after the war. Would the minister care to answer that question?


Charles Gavan Power: I do not think consideration was given to that. On two or three occasions I have read into Hansard statements indicating the factors which governed in the choice of aerodromes, and the considerations were largely military. I do not think any consideration was given to what one might call the salvage value of these aerodromes after the war.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Is it not true that the private schools to which the minister referred are strategically located so that they can be of value after the war?


Charles Gavan Power: Perhaps that word was
wrongly used. We might say that they are, but not deliberately so. Some of them are.
I would not think the aerodrome at St. Johns, Quebec, would be strategically located from that point of view, nor would the Chatham location be particularly well strategically located.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is the air training school?


Charles Gavan Power: The air observer school. The question is, are they strategically located so as to be of commercial value to these companies after the war? I do not know that Chatham and St. Johns are particularly well located for that purpose. I suppose that, as far as the west is concerned, almost anywhere on the prairies would be a strategic location for an aerodrome.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What the minister is saying is that they were not located in the first instance having that factor in view?


Charles Gavan Power: No.


Richard Burpee Hanson: While I
am on my feet I want to refer to the Pennfield Ridge station. The minister yesterday indicated that the field could not be used for the purposes for which it was designed because of lack of sunshine.


Charles Gavan Power: Stars, I think it was. Astro-navigation.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I understand the position was that it was not advantageous to use the location because of the height of the clouds.


Charles Gavan Power: That is right.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is an entirely different matter. I should like to have that made absolutely clear.


Charles Gavan Power: I stand corrected.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Because
the clouds there are two or three miles high, too high for the operational training which was going on there. I would not want to have it understood that it was lack of sunshine or that the stars were too far away. I understand that the school has been moved to Rivers, Manitoba, where another condition obtains. What use is being made of the very expensive plant?

War Appropriation-Air Services


Charles Gavan Power: It is going to be put to
full use.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It cost a tremendous amount of money. The work could have been done a good deal cheaper if it had been done by tender. However, I am not criticizing.


Charles Gavan Power: That is true. I am willing to agree with that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But speed is the important factor, not the dollar cost. What is it being used for now?


Charles Gavan Power: It is being put to very
good use.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister does not care to say.


Charles Gavan Power: It is being used for operational training.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Since the questions to the Minister of National Defence for Air are now pretty well completed, I should like to say on behalf of the Thunder Bay district, which has two leading cities, Fort William and Port Arthur, that we are extremely proud of the Minister of Munitions and Supply. When anybody honours him we appreciate it, and when people criticize him without sense we watch them and pity them. We at the head of the lakes, and I am sure every hon. member in this chamber, will congratulate the minister upon having received from Clarkson college the degree of Doctor of Engineering.


An hon. MEMBER:: He is being educated by degrees.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: We wish him good success
under the direction of the Great Architect of the Universe, that he may' be long spared to carry on and keep things running smoothly, because he has always command of a sufficient quantity of oil for troubled waters.


Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: What are the various ranks in the fighting air force called? For instance, what is the highest rank to which a man can attain in the air force?


Charles Gavan Power: I think it is Air Chief
Marshal of England, and I believe it can be held only by His Majesty the King. But I am not sure of that.


George Black: Is it equivalent
to general, or admiral, or what?


Charles Gavan Power: I believe that Air Chief
Marshal of England is the very highest rank. I am not sure if that is the correct title.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Then is
there not an air vice-marshal?


Charles Gavan Power: Then there are air chief
marshals. Really, I cannot tell the hon. member; I do not know. I shall never attain to those titles, in any event.


Mr. BLACK (Aukon):: What are the
rates of pay of the various ranks?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Speaking
of Canada.


Charles Gavan Power: I happen to have a list
here, because the hon. member for Broadview handed it to me last night. The whole story was filed by the hon. member and it will be in Hansard to-morrow. The highest rank appears to be air commodore. If he is on the general list, his pay is S19 a day, and
if he is on the non	-flying list,	it is $17.Other ranks are :	General	Non-flyingRank	list	listGroup Captain	$15 00	$13 00Wing Commander.. ..	12 00	10 00Squadron Leader. .. .	9 75	7 75Flight Lieutenant... .	8 50	6 50Flying Officer	7 00	5 00Pilot Officer	6 25	4 25


George Black: That is, per day?


Charles Gavan Power: Per day'. It runs about the same as in the army'. I believe there is some arrangement whereby the pay is much the same as that of equivalent ranks in the army.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Would
an air vice-marshal get about the same as a major-general? We have one or two air vice-marshals.


Charles Gavan Power: Yes; he is paid about the
same as a major-general. The only air marshal we have is the chief of the air staff; he is on a consolidated rate of pay, just as are the head of the navy and the head of the army.


George Alexander Cruickshank: What do the
schoolteachers get?


Charles Gavan Power: I do not know.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I mean, the persons who are appointed to teach mathematics and who are made flight lieutenants and so on.


Charles Gavan Power: It depends on the rank.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Are they classified as officers?


Charles Gavan Power: It all depends whether the
man has a commission. I do not know.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I cannot see the
reason for such a proceeding. I know that men require this type of training, but I cannot see why a schoolteacher who goes into the air force for three or four months is promptly

War Appropriation-Air Services
made a flight lieutenant, while the men whom he teaches are flying over Berlin soon afterwards at a sergeant's rate of pay.


Charles Gavan Power: Why does an officer in the
army who remains in Canada as an instructor get a commission as a lieutenant or a captain if he remains here for instructional purposes? I suppose, for the same reason. There is no difference in principle.


Richard Burpee Hanson: We have
an air officer attached to the Washington legation. What is his rank and what are his duties?


Charles Gavan Power: The air attache? Walsh?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Walsh,
yes.


Charles Gavan Power: He is air attache.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What is
his rank; what are his duties, and what is his pay?


Charles Gavan Power: I think he is an air
commodore.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, he is a- pretty high-up officer. He gets a high salary.


Charles Gavan Power: Probably he gets the same salary as a military attache. I think, as a matter of fact, that is arranged. I do not remember what his name is. The naval attache is Brodeur. The military attache was Major-General Letson. I am not quite sure who is the military attache now. Their pay is all on a par anyway.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What are the duties of an air attache? Are they really important?


Charles Gavan Power: I always thought they were. The duties are, liaison officer between the services. I have heard it said, and I do not repeat it in any derogatory way, with reference to various foreign powers that air attaches were spies in uniform to keep the home government informed of military developments in the country to which they are assigned.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is that the only method of securing information? Surely we have some better and more direct contact, now that the United States is in the war, than through an officer attached to our legation at Washington. Is there any interchange of information between the two air forces direct, or does it have to go through this diplomatic route?


Charles Gavan Power: I do not know. We get a great deal of information through him. There is a United States air attache in Ottawa.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I suppose there is. That seems to be the system.


Charles Gavan Power: A great deal of our information comes through our air attache, in the same way that military information comes through *the military man. I have never looked into the details of their functions, but they must have a distinct function because every nation in the world that has a minister seems to have attaches in the different branches. Whether that is a relic of the old days I do not know. I know that Mr. Walsh has been doing good work.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What was his career? Was he in the air force before the war?


Charles Gavan Power: He has been in the permanent force. He was officer commanding in the United Kingdom early in the war and returned and became officer commanding in Montreal and was sent to Washington.


George Black: Is the cost of building and maintaining airports in Canada paid through the department of the minister?


Charles Gavan Power: Yes; the cost of maintaining aerodromes in Canada, that is military aerodromes, not Trans-Canada Air Lines. We have nothing to do with that. Certain other aerodromes are operated by the Department of National Defence for Air and a great many by the Department of Transport.


Mr. GREEN:: Is there any scheme for training airmen and army men in cooperation in the two coastal areas? These two areas are supposed to be on a war basis now. Is there any scheme by which the air force train with the ground troops?


Charles Gavan Power: Yes; there is.


Howard Charles Green: Is that being carried out as though they were actually in fighting areas?


Charles Gavan Power: The extent to which it is carried out I do not know, but we have army cooperation squadrons.


Howard Charles Green: On the coasts?


Charles Gavan Power: They do work with the army.


Howard Charles Green: Is the air force taking steps to prepare for the training of paratroops?


Charles Gavan Power: I know that in the old country that is the army's job. We are not doing it.


Howard Charles Green: But is the home war establishment of the air force in a position to train paratroops?


Charles Gavan Power: I hardly think so. We have not been asked.

War Appropriation-Air Services


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Have we any planes that could carry them?


Charles Gavan Power: I do not know.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Are the members of the air force or of the army stationed at either coast regarded as being on an actual war footing?


Charles Gavan Power: I do not know what my hon. friend means.


George Alexander Cruickshank: What I am leading up to is this. When a soldier is overseas-I do not mean in Newfoundland-he does not pay the national defence tax, and I cannot see why men in British Columbia should pay it.


Charles Gavan Power: I am not sure about the national defence tax, but there was a lot of difficulty about the income tax. It was considered that when a man was in an actual theatre of war he would not pay income tax. The Atlantic coast was considered to be an actual theatre of war and, I believe, the Pacific coast also. But that was not satisfactory because there were so many changes, and they got it down to the basis of so many flying hours. I cannot explain it to my hon. friend. It has been explained to me ten times and I do not understand it. It is based on the number of flying hours, and the question of income tax and the national defence tax, perhaps, is on a similar basis.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I have yet to see anything that the minister could not explain.


Charles Gavan Power: If I cannot understand it myself I cannot explain it.


George Alexander Cruickshank: The minister might find an explanation that would not be satisfactory to me, but he would find an explanation. I had a letter yesterday in that connection from some of his own people. We are doing as good work in patrolling the Pacific and the Atlantic for submarines and what have you, as anyone else is doing, and I cannot see why these men should not have exemption from national defence tax. If they patrol hundreds of miles out on the Atlantic or the Pacific they are taking the same chance as other men.


Charles Gavan Power: I think they are getting it, but I do not know in what form.


Joseph William Noseworthy: The minister told us yesterday that the air force was experimenting with the use of gliders. In view of the hazards of shipping our fighter planes overseas, has it considered the possibility of using gliders to carry extra fuel in order that our fighter planes may travel under

their own power? I understand that has been worked out by the axis powers and is used extensively.


Charles Gavan Power: I do not know, but if I did I am afraid I could not tell my hon. friend anyway.


Howard Charles Green: A few weeks ago we had complaints on the Pacific coast that men of the ground crews, mechanics and other skilled men, were being used at some of the coast bases for making roads. There might have been some reason for that, but on its face it does not seem reasonable. Perhaps labour companies or some similar formations should be set up to do that type of work. Why are trained men, skilled mechanics, used in that way? It is hard on the morale of the men in the force, and it is difficult to explain to the general public.


Charles Gavan Power: I cannot tell my hon. friend, but I am sure that if they were used to any great extent I would have heard about it.


Howard Charles Green: You are hearing now.


Charles Gavan Power: 
Alfred Johnson Brooks: If they are not busy at something else, would it hurt them to build roads?


Charles Gavan Power: Not a bit.


Howard Charles Green: But when mechanics are so badly needed, if not in the air force at any rate in the army, they should not be put on that work.


Charles Gavan Power: They may not have a steady job working at mechanics the whole day. If they have six aircraft that do nut go up for six days because of six days of fog, they might just as well do a little bit of work on the roads while the fog is on. There is fog in British Columbia too.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Would the minister answer a question I raised regarding the cost of living bonus to the dependents of airmen?


Charles Gavan Power: That is a big question. I would have to take it up with my colleague, the Minister of National Defence, and particularly with my colleague the Minister of Finance. He is' the man to answer that question.

Privilege-Mr. Church


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Since speaking about the situation of those Canadians who are enlisted with the Royal Air Force, I find that some 500 or 600 approximately left Canada at the outbreak of war and enlisted in the R.A.F. in the old country. I suppose there are many men there who feel this discrepancy of lower rates of pay plus the British income tax. The number must be considerable, and these men are not able to speak for themselves. I hope the minister will give serious consideration to the matter. It is possible that some men do not wish to remuster in the R.CA.F. but to those who do-and some do prefer to remuster- I hope every consideration will be given because these men have shown, if you will, an excess of loyalty. They were the first to volunteer when the war broke out, and everything should be done to put them on an equal basis with those who have gone over since.
I would bring to the attention of the minister a point raised by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) as to whether or not consideration is being given to forming a Royal Canadian Air Force regiment such as they have in the old country for the protection of aerodromes. I am not stating that there is a positive need for this at the present time, but I should like to hear from the minister what consideration has been given to the matter of protecting our aerodromes against possible raids, say from aircraft carriers, and whether any consideration has been given to the formation of a regiment.


Charles Gavan Power: At the present time we look after internal security wdthin the perimeter of the aerodrome, sabotage and that kind of thing, while the army defends us against anything else.


Richard Burpee Hanson: On the
question of remustering of Canadians, I have in mind a very gallant young Canadian who went over on his own before the war. I think I told the story in this house when I came back from England. He is now a squadron leader. He has won the distinguished flying cross. In a conversation I had with him he wanted to know what future there was for him and men like him in Canada after the war. Certainly there will not be much opportunity for him in England, unless he wins great distinction there and gets further promotion, because there are so many in competition with him. If such a young man, coming back to this country after a distinguished career, could be allowed to remuster into a Canadian force, he would have a chance for the future, which he thinks lies in that direction. I merely mention him as an 'illustration
of many boys who, like him, went over on their own before the war. Let them get into the Royal Canadian Air Force. Then, when the war is ended, if they are fortunate enough to be alive they will come back to Canada as members of the Royal Canadian Air Force. It seems to me that a unique opportunity to consider and discuss this matter is afforded in connection with this coming conference.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, May 14, 1942