Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, as to-day has been set apart for the official recognition of the birthday of His Majesty, King George VI, I am sure hon. members would desire to have an expression of their wishes extended to His Majesty. I have spoken to my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon), and he and I have agreed upon a resolution which, we believe, hon. members would be prepared to support. I would therefore move, seconded by the leader of His Majesty's Loyal Opposition:
That a humble address be sent to His Majesty, King George VI, in the following words:
"To the King's Most Excellent Majesty:
Most Gracious Sovereign:
On this day set apart for the official celebration of Your Majesty's birthday, we. the members of the House of Commons of Canada, in parliament assembled, desire respectfully to extend our loyal greetings and heartfelt good wishes to Your Majesty.

The devotion to duty and high courage which you have continuously shown throughout the present war have been an inspiration to the people of Canada, to the peoples of the British commonwealth, and, indeed, to those of all of the united nations.
We pray that Divine Providence may continue. to guide and. protect Your Majesty and that you may be given strength to meet, at all times, the great responsibilities of your high office.
May you witness an early triumph of the forces of freedom and share with your peoples everywhere, for many years to come, the blessings of a just and enduring peace."


Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to second the motion of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) that a humble address be sent to His Majesty, King George VI, I would echo the sentiments so well expressed in the Prime Minister's motion. I think all hon. members will recall at once the visit of Their Majesties in 1939 and the beneficial effect of that visit, in a greater understanding between the parts of the empire and the Anglo-Saxon nations generally.
During the very trying times through which the empire, and particularly Great Britain herself, has passed, the tender sympathy and understanding of Their Majesties can be recalled to-day by all of us with a great deal of pride and satisfaction. In the days of trial through which this nation and this empire are going, and will go, the bond of sentimental attachment to the monarchy and to Britain has, I believe, never been stronger. I take this opportunity of thanking the Prime Minister for the privilege of seconding this motion.


Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: We also support the motion of congratulation to His Majesty the King. The monarchy is the symbol of unity among the peoples of the British commonwealth of nations, and, as such, we are glad to support the resolution.


Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: Members of my group and those who support us also desire to associate ourselves with this address; and we wish to say, in addition to what has already been said, that it is our desire that the king of the British commonwealth shall continue to be sovereign in this commonwealth.
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temiscouata) (Translation):	Mr. Speaker, as a
private member and as a French Canadian, it is my duty to join in the best wishes which have just been offered Bis Majesty King George VI, our Sovereign and the Sovereign of Canada, on the occasion of his birthday. I speak in the

Questions
name of my French-Canadian countrymen, not only in the province of Quebec, but in the whole of Canada. I speak particularly in the name of the young men of my constituency who have enlisted in large numbers in the three branches of our armed forces.
In 1939, when their gracious majesties, during their stay in Canada, stopped at Riviere-du-Loup, which is a little town of
9,000	people, they were cheered by a gathering of 25,000. The welcome was one of the warmest extended to them in the whole country.
We send the King birthday greetings, and we do not forget our gracious Queen Elizabeth nor what she said at the time she laid the cornerstone of our Supreme Court building about the similarity between the laws of Scotland, her own native land, and the French laws of the province of Quebec. Mr. Speaker, speaking for all French Canadians, I wish a happy birthday to His Majesty the King of Canada and I present our humble respects to Her Majesty the Queen.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
(The members rose and sang the national anthem.)


[Stage Direction]
Mr. WILFRID LaCROIX (Quebec-Mont-morency): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of submitting a petition signed by 122,283 citizens of the province of Quebec urging that:
1.	Female labour at night be prohibited.
2.	Mothers of children under sixteen years of age be forbidden to work.
3.	The eight-hour day and the forty-hour week be adopted as working hours.
These 122,283 petitioners base their request on the words of the Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King, Prime Minister of Canada, found on page 321 of his book "Humanity and Industry". I quote :
Few, I imagine, who are interested in human well-being, will take exception to the findings of the commission that "the working of women at high pressure should be made a crime at law as it is a crime against nature herself."

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

Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	Have writers or authors of booklets, pamphlets, or articles, been paid for their services
by the wartime information board during the past seven months?
2.	If so, what are their names, and how much has been paid to each?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	Yes.
2.	E. Desrosiers, $100; Thos. Greenwood, $40; Mrs. M. Fielden, $30; Mrs. Edith Adamson, $200; K. R. Wilson, $100; Rev. A. Maheux, $15; W. Kirkconnell, $150; O. Oligny, $260; D. B. Cote, $500; Mrs. Savella Stechi-shin, $90; H. R. Law, $25; C. Clay, $150; Charles Bilodeau, $116.25; M. McDougall, $80.


FOURTH VICTORY LOAN
Mr. SHAW:: 1.	What was the actual amount obtained during the fourth victory loan through a combination of actual cash receipts and promises to pay?
2.	What proportion of the amount subscribed was in the form of actual cash, and what proportion was in the form of promises to pay, payroll deductions, etc.?
3.	What part of the loan was secured from inflationary sources, and what part from noninflationary sources?
4.	What was the actual amount subscribed directly by chartered banks?
5.	Are figures available to indicate the total amounts loaned by chartered banks to individuals or others for the purchase of bonds during the fourth victory loan? If so, what were the amounts?
6.	Has consideration been given to limiting the amounts which commercial banks might subscribe during any victory loan campaign?
7.	Is the Department of Finance, or any other department of the government, in possession of details of the United States plan for limiting commercial bank subscriptions made during victory loan or other campaigns?
8.	What percentage of the amount promised during the third victory loan campaign remained unpaid at the time the fourth victory loan campaign commenced?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	Final sales returns are not yet available.
Incomplete returns covering substantially all subscriptions as of the close of business May 21, 1943, showed	total sales of
$1,291,051,150 par value of bonds.
2.	The government of Canada receives immediate full cash payment for all bonds sold, except a small amount of delayed deliveries made through the Bank of Canada. Purchases by means of payroll savings plan and other instalment plans are financed by loans from the chartered banks or other sources to those making the instalment subscriptions. Information is not yet available to indicate the amount of loans incurred by the public to finance these instalment purchases.
Actual funds received by the government up to the close of business May 28, 1943,
Questions

amount to SI ,255,659,000. The difference between this amount and the sales noted above consists of the delayed deliveries to be completed in due course through the Bank of Canada, as already mentioned, and delayed remittances in the course of transit.
3,	4 and 5. The total amount subscribed directly by chartered banks was $500,000 par value of bonds, purchased by one chartered bank for its own account. Figures are not yet available to indicate the loans by chartered banks to individuals or others for the purchase of fourth victory loan bonds. Substantially all of such loans will be liquidated during the six months following the fourth victory loan, and for that reason these funds should not be regarded as coming from inflationary sources, although they do give rise to bank loans for a short period. It may be noted that the bank loans for this period will be offset during part of the period at least by substantially larger government balances held in anticipation of later expenditures. These balances counteract any short term inflationary effect of this temporary bank borrowing.
6.	Yes. As indicated by the answer to No. 4 above and by the figures given in Hansard for February 9, 1943, page 257, it will be seen that cash subscriptions from chartered banks on their own account are a negligible proportion of the subscriptions to victory bonds.
7.	Yes, but such subscriptions are not limited to such an extent as in Canada.
8.	As at April 26, 1943, the government of Canada had received payment for 99-99 per cent of bonds sold during the third victory loan campaign.
Borrowings of the public from the chartered banks to finance purchases of third victory loan bonds, remaining unpaid at March 31, 1943, the last pre-loan date for which figures are available, were reported at $37,348,252. Any amount of borrowings from other sources not yet repaid is not known, but believed to be small.


CANADIAN NAVAL ESTABLISHMENT IN JAMAICA
Mr. DUBOIS:: 1.	Is there a Canadian naval establishment in Jamaica?
2.	If so. what are the names of the officers and sub-officers stationed there?
3.	What is the amount received by each officer or sub-officer, in salary, allowance, remuneration, or compensation ?


Mr. MACDONALD (Kingston City):: 1 and 2. There is no Canadian naval establishment in Jamaica, but one Canadian naval officer is on dutv there-Lieutenant C. G. Boulter. R.C.N.V.R.
(Mr. Ilsley-1
3.	Lieutenant C. G. Boulter, R.C.N.V.R., pay per diem, $6; lodging, provisions, fuel and light, allowance per diem, $5.


COBALT SMELTER
Mr. NOSEWORTHY:: 1.	Was the metals controller asked to approve of the construction of a smelter in Cobalt which was to be financed by the United States government by a loan for five years and an order for refined metal for the entire production for three years?
2.	If so, what was his answer?
3.	Was this previous to the metals controller securing an order for 7,000 tons of cobalt ore or concentrates to be stockpiled at the Deloro smelter?
4.	Did he approve of this smelter construction to an official of the mining company verbally, showing him an original letter of approval to the United States government?
5.	Was this letter sent as drafted, or did the metals controller change his opinion?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Answered by No. 1.
4.	The metals controller has no recollection of any such conversation with an official of the mining company nor is there anything on the records to show that a letter such as he suggests was ever drafted or sent. There is, however, on file a letter written to Mr. S. D. Strauss, assistant vice-president of the Metals Reserve Company, under date of 27 February, 1942, in which the following is a quotation:
"Mr. Sutherland has shown me your letter addressed to him under date of 23 February in which you state that you would require my approval of the export of the products to the United States. If Mr. Sutherland is successful in establishing a plant at Cobalt, we would have no hesitation in granting export licences."
This is the only letter to which we believe such a conversation could have referred.
5.	_ Answered by No. 4.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: 1.	Does the government encourage home canning?
2.	What steps are being taken to provide ample sugar for rural residents accustomed to canning large amounts of fruit?
3. What steps are being taken to prevent misuse of sugar ration by those not canning fruit?
4.	What arrangements are being made to prevent wastage of perishable fruit?

Motions jor Papers


Gordon Graydon: Is there any reason for having this question passed as an order for return? The question of sugar for home canning is one of the live issues to-day, and the answer ought to be on Hansard.


Mr. McLARTY:: It was not for any purpose of delaying the answer, or keeping it out of Hansard, that it was passed as an order for return. There are two departments definitely involved, the Department of Agriculture and the wartime prices and trade board. That is the only reason it was passed as an order for return.


Gordon Graydon: I thought this was under the wrartime prices and trade board.


Norman Alexander McLarty: The Department of Agriculture is also interested. That is the advice I have with regard to the question, and it would come from that department.	'


GOLDEN MANITOU MINES LIMITED-ZINC CONCENTRATES
Mr. BLACKMORE:: 1.	Did the Golden Manitou Mines Ltd. acquire from the Quebec Manitou Mines Ltd. the zinc claims from which it supplies zinc concentrates to the Metal Reserve Company of United States, under contract with the Metal Reserve Company?
2.	How many claims did the Golden Manitou Mines Ltd. so acquire?
3.	What consideration did Quebec Manitou Mines Ltd. receive for these claims?
4.	Was this transaction approved by the shareholders of Quebec Manitou Mines Ltd.?
5.	On what date was the shareholders' meeting at which such approval was given?
6.	Where was the meeting held?
7.	When did the notice go out calling the shareholders to that meeting?
8.	Did that notice specifically state that the meeting was being called for the purpose of approving the transfer to the Golden Manitou Alines Ltd. of certain important claims from the property of Quebec Manitou Mines Ltd.?


GOLDEN MANITOU MINES LIMITED-CAPITAL STOCK
Mr. BLACKMORE:: 1.	How many shares comprised the authorized [DOT]capital stock of Golden Manitou Alines Ltd.?
2.	How many of those shares were issued?
3.	To whom did these shares go; (a) how many went to the underwriters (Alessrs. Milner, Ross & Company, and Draper, Dobie & Company) ; (b) did any of such shares go to Quebec Afanitou Alines Ltd. in payment for the claims Quebec Alanitou Alines Ltd. transferred to Golden Alanitou Alines Ltd.; (e) how many remained in the treasury of Golden Alanitou Mines Ltd.?
4.	How much did Golden Alanitou Alines Ltd. receive from Milner. Ross & Company, and from
72537 -207
Draper, Dobie & Company, for the "one-half of the total authorized share capital of the company" which those gentlemen received?


VERNER, ONT., CREAMERY
Mr. HURTUBISE:: 1.	What action is the government taking to relieve the serious situation which exists at Verner, Ontario, creamery, where 560,000 pounds of butter are produced yearly, and where the proprietors are threatening to close business?
2.	Can any relief be expected in the near future as to, (a) limitation of collection of cream to three times every two weeks; (b) lack of metal cans for collection of cream; (c) lack of gas, tires, and tire repair?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: For a copy of all correspondence, accounts, payments and other documents, in the possession of the Department of Justice, and Department of Alines and Resources (Indian Affairs), with respect to the trial of Frank Knockwood, a resident of the Indian reserve, Seotchfort, Lennox island, Prince Edward Island, during the years 1941, 1942, and to date in 1943.
Also a copy of all correspondence and recommendations on behalf of George J. Tweedy, K.C., of Charlottetown, P.E.I., that he act for the government or for the defendant, Frank Knock-wood, or for the Indian Affairs branch, along with a statement of any accounts or payments for salary, fees or expenses submitted or paid him or any other person.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The adoption of this motion should be subject to the usual reservation with respect to confidential communications between the officers of the department and other officials.



LABOUR MANAGEMENT COMMITTEES

Major James William Coldwell: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, questionnaire and memoranda exchanged between the Department of Labour and the regional labour boards, in connection with securing the information on labour management committees listed in sessional paper 155A. tabled by the Alinister of Labour on April 15.



FALCONBRIDGE NICKEL COMPANY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister, notice of which I sent to the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) yesterday, and which he suggested might more appropriately be asked of the Prime Minister.



Post-War Civil Aviation
On May 11, I drew the attention of the house to a statement by the president of the Falconbridge Nickel Company, and contained on page 2 of the annual report presented to the general meeting of shareholders at Toronto on April 21, 1943, to the effect that he was glad to know that the company's Norwegian refinery was safe and being maintained. He added that it was in operation by the company's staff under German control. I would ask the Prime Minister what steps if any have been taken to deal with the author of this particularly callous and subversive statement?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the Minister of Justice, mentioned to me that my hon. friend would ask this question to-day. Unfortunately I have not had a moment since then to consider the reply to be made, but I shall seek to make a reply to-morrow. I would say to my hon. friend that the reply will be along the lines that he himself anticipates.



POST-WAR CIVIL AVIATION CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN UNITED KINGDOM AND SELF-GOVERNING DOMINIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct two questions to the Prime Minister based on a Canadian press dispatch from London, England, which quotes Sir Archibald Sinclair, United Kingdom Air Secretary, as follows:
We have put first in our work the importance of coming to an agreement "with the dominions", Sir Archibald said of the government's civil aviation plans. After the war we shall either be in a world dominated by the United States or the Soviet Union, or the centre of a great empire bound together by air routes.
The dispatch goes on to say:
Discussing the question of dominion representation on the board of the British Overseas Airways Corporation, Sir Archibald said it would not be appropriate to invite the dominions to be represented on the board of a United Kingdom corporation. Were such an invitation tendered, he thought the dominions might consider it inappropriate to accept.
Arising out of this dispatch, I would like to ask the Prime Minister the following questions:	Have conversations been initiated
between the United Kingdom and the selfgoverning dominions with respect to an empire plan for post-war civil aviation? If so, what progress has been made? Has the dominion government ever been approached, formally or informally, by the government of the United Kingdom with respect to representation on the board of the British Overseas
fMr. Coldwell.]
Airways corporation, or with respect to the formation of a like corporation of empirewide scope?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend gave me notice of this question. Without commenting at all on the dispatch itself I shall answer the specific questions my hon. friend has asked.
Have conversations been initiated between the United Kingdom and the self-governing dominions with respect to an empire plan for post-war civil aviation?
The answer is no. His second question was:
If so, what progress has been made?
That question is answered by the answer to the first question. His third question was:
Has the dominion government ever been approached, formally or informally, by the government of the United Kingdom with respect to representation on the board of the British Overseas Airways Corporation, or with respect to the formation of a like corporation of empire-wide scope?
The answer is no.


Gordon Graydon: May I ask the Prime Minister, in view of his answer that conversations have not been initiated between the United Kingdom and Canada with respect to an empire plan for post-war civil aviation, whether it is the intention of the government at some later time to initiate such conversations?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The only reply I can make to my hon. friend is that the house will be informed in due course of any steps which may be taken in the matter. The subject is one which is being considered at the present time.



CZECHOSLOVAKIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: I understand that Doctor
Eduard Benes, President of the republic of Czechoslovakia, is paying a visit to Canada and will be in Ottawa shortly. Will the Prime Minister kindly indicate to the house such plans as the government has made for welcoming this distinguished visitor and extending Canadian hospitality to him?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, His Excellency, Doctor Eduard Benes, President of the republic of Czechoslovakia, arrives in Ottawa

Czechoslovakia
to-morrow morning. During the course of his visit, which I understand is likely to be until the end of the week, Doctor Benes will be the guest of His Excellency the Governor General and Her Royal Highness Princess Alice at government house. To-morrow morning at half-past eleven it has been arranged that Doctor Benes will meet the members of the press at a conference in room 16, and at twelve noon Doctor Benes has agreed to speak to the members of both houses of parliament in the railway committee room. The senate is not in session at the present time and there may not be a large representation of the members of that house, but I am sure that hon. members of this house will greatly welcome the opportunity to hear an address from Doctor Benes. We are greatly honoured by the visit of Doctor Benes to our country.
A number of engagements have been made for Doctor Benes during the course of his stay and also some by him. The Governor General and Her Royal Highness are entertaining Doctor Benes at dinner at government house to-morrow night. An official dinner will be given in his honour by the government on Friday evening of this week. On Saturday evening I understand that Doctor Benes himself is entertaining at the Czechoslovakian legation. President Benes will receive on Friday morning, June 4, heads of foreign missions, high commissioners, and officers of the International Labour Organization at government house. On Saturday morning he will receive delegations of Czechoslovak societies and members of Czechoslovak forces in training in Canada. In the afternoon of Saturday, June 5, the president will visit the service flying training school at Uplands.
A number of engagements have been made which will permit of an opportunity being afforded to the members of this government and other members of the house for conferences with Doctor Benes. There are other social engagements of lesser significance.



EXCHANGE OF NOTES BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM AND THE REPUBLIC OF CZECHOSLOVAKIA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this opportunity of referring to the exchange of notes between the foreign secretary of the United Kingdom, Mr. Eden, and the foreign minister of the Czechoslovak republic, Mr. Masaryk, which took place on August 5 of last year. The statement I am making has reference to the Munich agreement. It is a communication that I am glad to have the opportunity of making to the house before Doctor Benes, the President of the Republic of Czechoslovakia, arrives. I had intended making it at an earlier stage of the session, but an opportunity has not presented itself.
In his note, Mr. Eden stated that in order to avoid any possible misunderstanding, he desired to declare that as Germany had deliberately destroyed the arrangements concerning Czechoslovakia reached at Munich in 1938, his government regarded themselves as free from any engagements in this respect. He stated further that at the final settlement of the Czechoslovak frontiers to be reached at the end of the war, the British government would not be influenced by any changes effected in and since 1938.
The Canadian government has not considered it necessary to enter into a similar exchange with the Czechoslovak government, since Canada was not a party to the Munich agreement. I am glad, however, to take this occasion to state thaf the Canadian government fully shares the view of the United Kingdom government that the Munich agreement is void.
It is not without interest that, when our government amended the defence of Canada regulations in April of 1941, in order to remove any possibility of Czechoslovaks being regarded as enemy nationals, the amendment stated that for the purposes of these regulations, Czechoslovakia means "Czechoslovakia as it existed on the first day of January, 1938." It is the earnest wish of our country that the day will not be far removed when the brave people of Czechoslovakia will again enjoy those liberties which enabled them to make their very real contribution to the democratic life and culture of Europe.



MADAME CHIANG KAI-SHEK ANNOUNCEMENT OF EXPECTED VISIT ABOUT THE MIDDLE OF JUNE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Several times my hon.
friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Gray-don), both across the floor and in private conversation. has asked me when we might expect a visit from Madame Chiang Kai-shek. I am happy to be able to tell my hon. friend that yesterday in New York I had the privilege of an interview with Madame Chiang and have from her the assurance that she hopes to be able to visit Ottawa and to address the members of both houses of parliament about the middle of this month.

Defence of Canada Regulations



DEFENCE OF CANADA REGULATIONS

[Stage Direction]
DECISION OF THE ADVISORY BOARD ON MR. HOTJDE's APPLICATION FOR LIBERATION
On the orders of the day:
Mr. LIGUORI LACOMBE (Laval-Two Mountains):: Mr. Chairman, I wish 'to draw to the attention of the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) the following news item which appeared in the Montreal Gazette, and then ask him some questions.
The Gazette-Wednesday, June 2, 1943. Houde Stays in Camp Release Appeal Fails ' (Gazette Resident Correspondent)
Ottawa, June 1: Camillien Houde, ex-mayor of Montreal who was interned in 1940 for advocating refusal to register, has lost his appeal for release from an internment camp, it was understood to-night.
Houde's hearing was conducted in camera in Fredericton, New Brunswick, last Friday by a committee which has since forwarded its report to the justice department here. Had the recommendation been for his release it would have been public by now. 1
In pursuance of this news item, Mr. Chairman. the hon. Minister of Justice will allow me to put the following question to him: Has the advisory board which, in Fredericton last May 28th, granted a hearing to Mr. Camillien Houde, former mayor of Montreal and member of the Quebec provincial legislature, made known its decision to the Minister of Justice?
In the affirmative what were the terms of this decision? In the negative, will the hon. Minister of Justice soon be in a position to make a statement before parliament concerning the liberation of Mr. Houde?
If the news item which appeared in this paper is correct, does the minister- intend to use the rights to which he is entitled by law and order the release of Mr. Houde notwithstanding the decision?


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. I understand the hon. gentleman is asking a question with regard to the internment of Mr. Houde. Such a long introduction is not necessary in order to ask a question. If the minister wishes to reply he may do so, but certainly this is a question which should be placed upon the order paper.
Mr. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice): Mr. Speaker, I have no objection whatsoever to answering the hon. member immediately. The advisory committee appointed to examine Mr. Houde's objections to his internment sent me, on May 31st, a unanimous report, which I received in the afternoon.
The findings of the report were to the effect that the internment of Mr. Houde
should be continued. I studied the report and the file as well. I came to the conclusion that I had no alternative but to comply with the findings of the report, and yesterday I signed an order in accordance with these findings.
As to the news item which appeared in the Gazette, I have no idea where that newspaper's reporter secured his information. That reporter and several others contacted me as early as Monday about this matter, and I refused to give them any information. As I expected that questions would be put to me before the house, I preferred not to give any details to the newspapers before I had acquainted the house with the information.



OLD AGE PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Horne Blackmore: Considering the commendable action of the treasury board in granting long overdue increases of salary to many civil servants, does not the Minister of Finance consider the time opportune to ask the treasury board to make such provisions as will ensure that all Canadians sixty years of age and over shall receive an old age pension of not less than $30 a month, retroactive to June 1, 1943? Will the minister undertake before this house to ask the treasury board to make such old age pension provisions as I have indicated, and will he tell the house at an early day what action the treasury board saw fit to take in this respect, together with the reasons for their decision?


Thomas Vien: The hon. gentleman knows that such questions involve matters of policy and cannot be asked on the orders of the day in the expectation of receiving an immediate answer.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. VICTOR QUELCH (Acadia):: Could the Prime Minister tell the house when the debt legislation will be brought down? I understand the delay is having a serious effect in' certain parts of western Canada.


Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: I think it will be possible to introduce the legislation in question at the conclusion of the debate on the war appropriation bill, or at about that time. I do not think any purpose would be served by introducing it sooner, because it could not be dealt with.

Coarse Grains



REDISTRIBUTION BILL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: On May 14 the Prime Minister told us that it was the intention of the government to introduce a redistribution measure this session. The last time such a measure was before this house was in 1933, and from the time the committee first met until the bill passed it took three months and seventeen days. There is no reason to suppose that it will take any shorter time on this occasion, and that would mean we would be sitting here until the end of September. Is it the intention of the government that we should sit continuously, except for the week-end adjournments, until this work is finished?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I may tell my hon. friend that though the government does not have any intentions as to the length of the session, it does entertain some hopes that we may be able so to arrange the business of the session as not to prolong its sittings unduly. There were I think special reasons why the redistribution measure to which my hon. friend referred took as long as it did. I hope the redistribution measure to be introduced this session will not take as long. A large number of committees have been meeting and there has been very important legislation before the house concerning matters pertaining immediately to the war. The government has felt that until the war appropriation measure was pretty well disposed of it would be inadvisable to have the redistribution measure introduced, but immediately the discussion on the war appropriation bill is concluded the redistribution bill will be introduced.



WARTIME HOUSING LIMITED


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. G. ROSS (St. Paul's):: Arising out of a news item appearing in a trade paper, I should like to ask the Minister of Munitions and Supply if it is the intention of Wartime Housing Limited to build 250 permanent houses in Edmonton, and also whether some two hundred permanent houses are being built in Sarnia at the present time.


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Munitions and Supply):: The answer to both questions
is yes.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: May I ask the
minister why?



PERMITS FOR EXPORT OF COARSE GRAINS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Yesterday at page
3203 of Hansard the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) referred to an answer to a question which I tabled on Monday. He stated1:
According to an answer he made yesterday, no permits are demanded for the export of feed wheat, thus enabling those who export it to make quite a profit out of the differential between Canadian and the United States prices.
If the hon. member will refer to the answer I gave on Monday he will see that I said:
Export permits are not required for wheat grading No. 3 northern, or higher.
The situation in respect to grades of wheat suitable for feed purposes is that such wheat is required in Canada and consequently is under export control. The general situation referred to by the hon. member for Weyburn relating to profits cannot arise, because total whe'at imports into the United States from all countries are restricted to 800,000 bushels annually. Of this import quota Canada receives a substantial share, but the amount is so small as very nearly to stop the export of Canadian wheat into the United States market. The purchase of the seven and a half million bushels of wheat to which I referred on Monday was made by the United States government and consequently was outside the 800,000 bushel limit of wheat imports in effect in that country. In regard to wheat of feed grades, it is very difficult to secure a sufficient supply for the domestic market, and consequently the feeds administrator does not permit exports of this class of wheat.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: The minister has said that export permits are not required for wheat grading number 3 northern or higher. Would he give information at the same time as to why they are not required, and what steps are being taken to have those who sell this wheat to the commodity credit corporation make some contribution to the stabilization fund, in order to permit the differential between Canadian and United States prices?


James Angus MacKinnon: I shall be glad to do that.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: With regard to the purchase of 7,500,000 bushels of wheat by the United States government, I understand the chief commissioner of the Canadian wheat
Coarse Grains

board went down to make arrangements for the purchase of this grain. Will the minister say why the grain was not purchased through the Canadian wheat board rather than on the open market?


James Angus MacKinnon: I doubt very much the accuracy of the hon. member's premise when he states that the chairman of the wheat board went to the United States to arrange this sale. My information is that the United States government communicated with the exporters of wheat in Winnipeg. Various offers were submitted to the United States government, of which it took the 7,500,000 bushels.


George Hugh Castleden: The statement tabled in the house by the Minister of National [DOT] Defence (Mr. Ralston) states that discussions took place in Washington in the early part of last week between United States authorities and Canadian officials, that the Canadian officials attending were so-and-so. including Mr. Mclvor, chief commissioner of the Canadian wheat board, and that as a result the purchase was made.


James Angus MacKinnon: Indirectly it may have been the result of conversations between representatives of the Department of Trade and Commerce and the Department of Agriculture at that time, dealing with the whole question of wheat and coarse grains.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weybum):: Can the
minister say why the wheat was not purchased through the wheat board rather than on the open market?	.


James Angus MacKinnon: The hon. member would have to ask the United States government as to that.



REQUEST FOR INCREASED INITIAL PAYMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. E. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I directed a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon), to which he replied in the negative. To-day I wish to direct another question to him, based on yesterday's answer. Yesterday I had received a letter enclosing the front page of the Leader-Post, and it was on that that I based my question. The minister's reply was that he had not received any such request as set out in that newspaper.
Immediately after the minister answered the question I went to the reading room, and found the following headline in the Winnipeg Free Press, "Request dollar wheat payment". It is upon that headline that I am basing my question to-day, because it is the same as appeared in the Leader-Post. The Winnipeg Tribune headline is "Central Board of Wheat Pools Requests $1 Initial .Payment". These three papers of the western press contain the same statement, -that a wire had been sent to the minister asking for immediate consideration of the proposal. Has he received a wire from the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers asking him to consider the brief placed in his hands, and to give immediate attention to it.


James Angus MacKinnon: Mr. Speaker, so far as I can remember and as far as my officials can remember-because I checked with them since the question was asked yesterday-no request has as yet been made to my department. The first I heard of this was when the hon. member asked the question yesterday, and when I saw the newspapers to which he has just referred.



SEED POTATOES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture):: 

PRIVILEGE-MR. POULIOT REFERENCE TO ARTICLE IN MONTREAL DAILY STAR OF MAY 28

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JEAN-FRANQOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): Mr. Speaker, now that my honourable colleagues seem to have finished asking questions, I rise to a question of privilege, based on an article which has been published by a newspaper which specializes in not ^informing its readers, or in misinforming them, and which wrote a very bitter article against Mr. Aberhart last week, before his ashes were cold. The article is entitled, " Less Talking, Please," and refers to the speeches made in the house by hon. members for Leeds (Mr. Ful-ford) and Wellington North (Mr. Blair). They are quotations, but I understand the ration limit of gags has been exhausted, and that the manufacturer is out of stock. The article goes on to say:
There is an increasingly large number of citizens throughout the country who will heartily endorse Doctor Blair's sentiments.
And for your information, my name is mentioned in the first part of the article.
Major James William Coldwell: What paper?


Mr. POULIOT:: The Montreal Daily Star, a paper which either does not inform its readers or misinforms them. The article continues:
Parliament was not established in order to provide any member with an entirely erroneous idea of his own importance, to talk interminably in debate, particularly when what he says is for the main part obviously not intended for any other purpose than to draw the limelight upon himself.
I have been fighting for the underdog and for the people, but when hon. members express ideas which I desire to express, I am perfectly satisfied because I believe in the law of least effort. The article continues:
It may become necessary to amend the rules of debate if the privilege of free speech continues to be so flagrantly and insensately abused. This abuse is all the more irritating because it is confined to a very small number of members. We wonder, by the way, if it would be so persistent if the privilege of franking Hansard to the members' constituents were to be cancelled.
I suggest that a copy of Hansard be sent daily to each reader of the Montreal Star so that he may be informed, because the parliamentary reports of the Montreal Star are pure rot. I quote:
We urge that some action of an. effective nature be taken. They manage to control time-wasters elsewhere without any outcry as to the
Privilege-Mr. Pouliot

curtailment of the privilege of free speech, and it certainly ought to be possible for the parliament of Canada to do the same.
Here is a loyalist paper that is suggesting that we do the same thing as is done in Germany. My work is hard; I am doing a painful and a painstaking task, and I should like to ask something of the government. Parliamentary secretaries have been appointed and I wonder if I could not have three. I should like to have the hon. member for Renfrew South (Mr. McCann), if he can be spared by the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie); I should like to have the hon. member for Wellington North (Mr. Blair), if he can be spared from his groundhogs-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Thomas Vien: The question of privilege is something that should be raised rarely by an hon. member and only if he has been libelled or an aspersion has been cast upon him. As a matter of privilege the member has the right to deny what has been said about him, but he can refer only to the article which has appeared in the newspaper and which should be placed on the table of the house. His denial may be given but he is not entitled to enter into an argument or to comment at length on what has been published. All he is entitled to do is deny what has been said in the editorial and to state his position as shortly as it can be stated.


Jean-François Pouliot: I shall read five or six lines in the article where my name has been mentioned and which are directed against me. They are:
Mr. Fulford pointed out that if all members took as much time as Mr. Pouliot did, the house would have to sit twenty-four hours a day three hundred and sixty-five days a year, and said that members were becoming exasperated. Doctor Blair was more outspoken. Mr. Pouliot has been keeping up a continuous barrage of futile and inconsequential comments about Colonel Ralston's administration of his department, and Doctor Blair, referring to this, said:
"If we want to retard our wrar effort, then the way for us to do it, in a sly, deceptive way, is to keep the minister sitting in his seat and not allow him to attend to his duties. I do not know how to prevent it, but I do know that if this house could purchase a mouthgag or a few things like that, it would be worth while."
What I was Saying a minute ago is that as 160 mouthgags have been used in this house, the manufacturer is out of stock.
That is all, at least for the time being.



WAR APPROPRIATION BILL


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, June 1, consideration in committee of a resolution to grant to his majesty certain sums of money for the carrying out of measures consequent upon the existence of a state of war-Mr. Ilsley-Mr. Bradette in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
2. Pay and allowances, $238,023,232.
Hon. C. G. POWER (Minister of National Defence for Air):: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take up what I am afraid will be considerable time of the committee to discuss a matter which was brought up yesterday by a large number of members, namely, that of the commissioning of aircrew in the Royal Canadian Air Force. This is a question which has aroused much public attention and has been discussed and debated a great deal throughout the country during the past year. I must ask the committee to give me some little time in which to make this explanation because it is a complicated matter and one in which a number of interests are involved as well as, apart from the broader interests, the individuals who are entitled to the promotion which they desire.
It will be remembered that when we were discussing the war appropriation bill last year this question of commissioning was brought to my attention, and I expressed myself somewhat forcibly as being strongly in favour of the commissioning of all aircrew. I have not changed my opinion in that regard, although I must admit that circumstances have been such that it has not been possible to carry out the policy to the extent I should have liked. It will be necessary for me to go into some detail and to give some account of the background of the story of commissioning.
When the joint air training plan agreement was signed in December, 1939, there was only passing mention of commissioning. It was said that pilots and observers could be commissioned in certain numbers, and I think it was arranged that agreement would be made as to the percentage and numbers of aircrew which would be commissioned. It was not until February, 1940, that any concrete plan of commissioning was laid before the partners to the agreement. At a meeting of the supervisory board, which as the committee knows is the board which supervises the administration by Canada of the empire training agreement, it was agreed that commissioning of pilots and observers would be on the basis as expressed by the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Jackman), that is, the top one-third who had

War Appropriation-Air Services
passed their examination would receive commissions on graduation and the remaining seventeen per cent, in order to bring the total up to fifty per cent, would be commissioned on active ' service provided they were recommended at the time of their graduation.
That referred only to pilots and observers. There was no provision made for the commissioning of wireless operator air gunners or of straight air gunners. As a matter of fact straight air gunners were not being turned out to any extent in the early days. I call the attention of the committee to the fact that this arrangement was made in February, 1940, before any aircrew had begun training, in fact I imagine before any aircrew had been enlisted. The first aircrew began their training in April, 1940. This procedure existed for some little time, as I shall presently show.
A year after, in February, 1941, at the instance of the Canadian government, or rather of the Royal Canadian Air Force, who felt that it would1 be extremely difficult to obtain recruits for wireless operator air gunners, who had a very long and tedious course to follow, unless some recognition were given at least to the persons who came out best in their examinations, it was agreed that two per cent of the wireless operator air gunners should obtain commissions. Even then there was no question of commissions for straight air gunners. A month or so later it was decided that five per cent of the wireless operator air gunners, instead of two per cent, should be commissioned. There were still no commissions for the air gunners. Then, during the course of my visit overseas in 1941, I took up this matter of commissioning of air gunners and wireless operator air gunners with the air ministry, and as a result of discussions at that time it was agreed that ten per cent of the wireless operator air gunners would be commissioned on graduation and ten per cent later on in operations, making a total of twenty per cent. With respect to air gunners, five per cent would be commissioned on graduation and fifteen per cent on operations, making a total of twenty per cent.
That brought it down to April, 1942, when I stated in this chamber, on the appropriations, that I favoured one hundred per cent commissions. Then came the empire training air conference in May of 1942. At that conference Canada proposed to its partners that all aircrew be commissioned. The partners did not agree either to the proposition that all aircrews be commissioned or, alternatively, as a second suggestion, that all aircrews be given what might be called an intermediate rank- ensign or cadet or flight officer, call it what
you will-which would be the intermediate probationary rank between the non-commissioned officer and the commissioned officer. Such a rank is now in existence in the United States army air corps, and presently I will give some indication of how it works.


Gordon Graydon: Before the minister passes to another matter, what were the reasons advanced by the partners for failure to commission those in the aircrews?


Charles Gavan Power: I have a long story to tell on that. So, by way of a compromise-which is in accordance with the genius of British institutions- it was decided - Canada having refused to continue the old system-on 33 per cent on graduation and 17 per cent in the field. So that, as was stated by the hon. member for Rosedale, the agreement, appendix 3, page 11, contains this clause:
1. Commissioning- . . .
(a) All pilots, observers, navigators and air bombers who are considered suitable according to the standards of the government of Canada and who are recommended for commissions will be commissioned.
It goes on to give the percentages with respect to wireless operator air gunners and to air gunners. That is to say, our partners agreed that we should commission whom we wanted but asked us to establish a certain standard, and that we agreed to do. We receded from our position of commissioning everybody and we adopted a formula which was first suggested by tfie United Kingdom, that all aircrew who were commissionable should be commissioned. That formula might or might not mean a great deal-" all aircrew who were commissionable should be commissioned." Therefore we said, " That is all right, but we had better have some kind of yardstick and some kind of standard," and we did establish such a yardstick and such a standard, to which I will presently refer, and which in effect has resulted in the granting of a very much larger number of commissions on graduation.
My principal anxiety during all the time this agitation was proceeding for commissioning on graduation was with respect to the poor lads who were overseas. Not so much was being heard about them in Canada in those days, partly because we had not our own squadrons, partly because our publicity had not been properly arranged, and to a certain extent, too, because we had not been in operation to the extent that we have been recently, and not so many of our men were returning. So that the agitation in Canada largely had for its objective

War Appropriation-Air Services
the commissioning of men on graduation. I felt that that would be grossly unfair to the lads who had been over for a year or so. They were my first consideration; and in discussing this subject with the United Kingdom-in which reams of paper were consumed in dispatches-I said: At least give commissions to the seventeen per cent who are recommended on graduation-at least seek them out and see that they get their commissions. Well, that did not seem to work. There are reasons. I am not attempting in any way to blame, as somebody expressed it, Great Britain or anybody for this. It is very difficult in the course of operations for a commanding officer-who after all has the say in spite of the fact that there was a recommendation on graduation-to follow all these things through, and I am absolutely certain that ninety-five per cent of the Royal Air Force commanding officers did not know anything of the agreements made at the time of the joint air training plan, or of the ruling of the supervisory board that seventeen per cent should be commissioned, or that John Jones from Saskatoon had been recommended for consideration for a commission when he started in on active service. He saw John Jones, but he probably never saw Jphn Jones's file, and did not know anything about it. The result is that those commissions were not coming through. Presently I will give a statement of the numbers in 1941, 1942 and 1943. So that something had to be done about it, and we wrote into the agreement of 1942 something which hon. members, particularly those who know something of military affairs, will agree was a most unusual provision. It was to do away with the recommendation of the officer commanding, and in some respects take the matter of commissioning into our own hands. The clause reads:
(c) Normally, the initiative in recommending an airman for a commission will rest with his commanding officer, but an airman may apply to be recommended, and, if his application is endorsed and forwarded by his commanding officer, it will receive the same consideration as if it had been initiated by the latter.
An application for a commission by an airman of the Royal Canadian Air Force, even if it is not endorsed-
That is, even if the commanding officer does not agree that the man should be commissioned.
-will be forwarded through the usual channels. . . .
It goes all the way up from the commanding officer to the group, from the group to

the command, from the command to the air ministry, and the air ministry have a look at it and, if they still do not want it, it goes to Royal Canadian Air Force headquarters, and these headquarters will be provided with all relevant documents and will arrange for the candidate to appear before a selection board convened by the air officer-in-chief, R.C.A.F. overseas. In other words, if the application of a Canadian had not been considered or had been turned down, even though he is in the Royal Air Force, even though he may be in the middle east, or in Burma; no matter where he is, subject always to the difficulties of communication and transportation, he may appeal to the Canadian board to see whether or not he will get his commission. We also provided that there would be a review of all aircrew within two months after the signing of this agreement. That was in order to give our boys overseas at least an opportunity of having their commissionable qualities judged by Canadians. I have been asked how this works.


Mr. STIRLING:: The minister said he
wrote that into the agreement.


Charles Gavan Power: Yes.


Grote Stirling: Does that mean that the other parties concurred?


Charles Gavan Power: The other parties concurred, but this refers only to Canada. This gives the conditions of service of aircrew of the Royal Canadian Air Force. I do not know whether Australia and1 New Zealand have since written something similar into their agreement, but I rather suspect that they are following our procedure.
That was the situation in June, 1942. We proceeded to establish the standard which was referred to. We entirely disagree with the system, a sort of casual, fortuitous system, whereby the top thirty-three per cent of any class would obtain commissions. That did not work well. There were some classes much better than others. There were men who were up against strong competition who were much better than men in a weaker class and they did not obtain their commissions. We found that it was a most illogical way of doing it. We therefore set up our standards very much after the system of university examinations. We said that if a man gets sixty per cent in each subject and seventy per cent over all, whether there be a hundred or ten in the class, it does not matter, if he gets these marks he will receive his commission. The result has been a considerable increase

War Appropriation-Air Services
in the number of commissions. I signed selection board papers last week from three different boards in regard to pilots. In one board 76 per cent obtained commissions, in another over 80 per cent; and I have known a board wherein there were only two Canadians,
I must say, with 100 per cent, and another where there was 90 per cent. So that the 33 per cent is wiped out.


Gordon Graydon: Is there any examining
board that will ensure uniformity?


Charles Gavan Power: The questions are pretty
much the same and the syllabus is also much the same. The board is made up usually of the chief flying instructor and probably the chief instructor, ground. Ground subjects, flying subjects and other matters are dealt with. We go back now, in order to get these marks, and follow a man right from the first school he joins, from the I.TS. He does not fly in the I.T.S., but he gets marks there for ground subjects, character and leadership, and at the elementary flying school he gets marks for the same subjects plus flying. Originally the judgment and perhaps-I say this without wishing to be offensive to anyone-the prejudice of the commanding officer or of someone ini the last class in which the man passed was brought to bear. That is inevitable in matters of this kind. But now with the yardstick we have, form 211, wherein all a man's qualities are taken into account and marks are recorded from every school to which he goes, we obtain a pretty good idea of his value by the time he gets through after he has been with us over a year; and on that basis his marks are allotted and he gets his commission, or he does not get it, as the case may be. So far as its effect on the number of commissions is concerned, it has materially increased the number of commissions on graduation.
With regard to overseas, continual representations were being made, and I will give the figures to show that there has been a vast improvement. In November, 1941, there were 25 commissions and in December, 58. In 1942 these were the commissions: January, 32; February, 49; March, 65; April, 64; May, 32; June, 112; July, 44; August, 127; September, 102; October 74. Then in 1943: January, 228; February, 239; March, 167; April, 231; and I expect over 300 in May. That is not yet enough. We have many more to get. I believe, however, that the system is getting into its stride and we hope that within a short time pretty nearly all those who have been overseas for some time and those on active operations will have received commissions or reasons will be given by the commanding
72537-207i
officer why they have not received' them. When the reason is given it will be a matter for the Royal Canadian Air Force to decide whether it is valid or not. If the commanding officer makes a report indicating that the man is not in his opinion commissionable, and gives valid reasons for that opinion, I do not know whether we would overrule him or not, but that would be a matter for the discretion of the Canadian board, sitting at Canadian headquarters in London.


Gordon Graydon: Is the minister satisfied that this is the best arrangement that can be made?


Charles Gavan Power: I would much prefer to get 100 and let it go at that; it would save much correspondence and trouble. But we are in the empire training agreement with our partners, and if you cannot get everything in any deal you get what you can. Moreover, this must not be lost sight of. The large proportion of our men are serving with the R.A.F. As it is now a very much larger percentage of our men have commissions. They will be in R.A.F. units and it does cause some embarrassment to the R.A.F. You will probably say that I should answer them, "Do as we do", and I will come to that in a moment. The fact is, however, that they have a staunch deep-rooted objection to coming to our point of view. At any rate, a great deal of embarrassment is created, and it must also cause embarrassment here. There are R.A.F., Australian, New Zealand and Canadian airmen graduating in the same schools in Canada. Our men are on the basis of 60, 60, 60 and 70-60 in three subjects and 70 over all. If they get that they get a commission. There might be some Australian, New Zealander or Englishman who had higher marks, but because he was not in the first third he would not get his commission. They do not like that, and some embarrassment is caused overseas. The house will say perhaps that I am getting unduly perturbed about embarrassing people, but I can feel for them although I do not sympathize with their point of view.


Gordon Graydon: The only way to get over the embarrassment is to commission everyone in the aircrew.


Charles Gavan Power: We are getting a much higher proportion both on graduation and in the field than before, though we have not been able to attain the objective we have aimed at. The reasons the R.A.F. oppose this system are these. The R.A.F. have made up their minds from experience that not more than fifty per cent are commissionable. That is to say,

War Appropriation-Air Services
out of a population of a certain number of people who join the aircrew, not more than fifty per cent will be fit to be officers.


George Hugh Castleden: Is there any reason for that?


Charles Gavan Power: They say that is their
experience.


Mr. COLD WELL:: Is it experience or
tradition?


Charles Gavan Power: According to tradition it would be much smaller than that. However, they say that is their experience.
They say that is their experience. I deny them the right to say that they have any more experience than we have. We have trained more men in this country for flying than they have. And if it is a question of training citizen soldiers I am inclined to agree with them; if they want to carry it out on the basis of a permanent force and a permanent army, they know more about that than we do. They are sticking to that basis, I think, when they lay down the broad general rule that not more than 50 per cent of the men who come in are fit to be officers.


Gordon Graydon: The minister is speaking of aircrew only?


Charles Gavan Power: Yes.


Gordon Graydon: Exclusive of all except those on operations?


Charles Gavan Power: No; that is everything. They say that of those who have the educational, mental and physical qualities to be aircrew, 50 per cent are fit to be officers and 50 per cent non-commissioned officers.


Gordon Graydon: I hope that with very great respect you differed from them on that point.


Charles Gavan Power: I will show you. I have in my hand a document which is edited by British Information. It is an agency of the British government. It is entitled "Officers and Non-Commissioned Officers of the R.A.F." I am taking up a lot of time of the committee, but I think the committee is interested in this question-


Gordon Graydon: It is very important.


Charles Gavan Power: It says, and this is for American consumption no doubt:
Questions are frequently raised about the apparent disparity of rank between men who are flying and fighting aircraft.
Why are some of them commissioned officers and some of them airmen pilots? Why do some live in the officers' mess and some in the sergeants' mess? Why do some earn the

Distinguished Flying Cross, and some the Distinguished Flying Medal for acts of gallantry which are in the same category?
Such questions are natural, but the suggestion of a class element in the choice between officers and other ranks is based on a misconception of facts.
It is clear tbrougout the R.A.F. that class distinction has no influence in the selection of cadets for flying training.
There is no doubt about that:
All cadets are potential officers. All have a chance of securing a commission should they desire to be commissioned, and be judged fitted for holding a commission.
The young officer must rise on his own merits, and can come from any walk of life. Potential pilot officers and potential sergeant pilots start on the same level. Whatever the origin of the man he must enter the ranks of the R.A.F. as an aircraft hand under training, and win his "Wings" and possible commission by his industry. ability and daring.
If the entrant has the physical and mental equipment to handle and fight aircraft of modern war type and has also a certain standard of education, he is accepted for aircrew training and is graded as a cadet. Thereafter his future is entirely his own making.
At the other end of his training there must necessarily be a discrimination, for the flow of promotion to higher ranks in the service must go on, and must come from the pool of young pilots. In order to provide for the necessary numbers of flight commanders and officers of senior rank in a squadron, it is essential to find fifty young officers from every one hundred pilots.
Natural prudence dictates that more officers should not be made at the outset than are required. On the other hand it should be noted that there is never a time in the career of an airman pilot in which it can be said that he is "out of the running" for a commission.
There are also paragraphs to the effect that a great many of those in the Royal Air Force do not want commissions, that they are better off financially without them. It goes on to say:
In the battle of Britain fifty per cent of the fighter pilots who tackled the Luftwaffe over southeastern England were sergeants. To-day, when Hurricanes and Spitfires sweep out over the channel to meet the enemy in French skies, every other pilot of the raiding fighters is wearing the uniform of an N.C.O. beneath his flying suit.
. In the forefront of all bombing attacks on the enemy are sergeants, either as captains of aircraft or the majority of the crews. And scarcely a list of R.A.F. awards is issued that does not contain the name of many sergeants.
In the words of a commanding officer, who also flew in the old Royal Flying Corps: "It rvas always reckoned that sergeants were the backbone of the British army-I think the same can be said of the modern air force."


Gordon Graydon: A sergeant would not be any poorer fighter if you gave him a commission.

War Appropriation-Air Services


Charles Gavan Power: He might be poorer financially according to this statement.


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: Would the minister explain why an officer receives flying pay of, I think, two dollars a day and the flight sergeant or sergeant pilot receives only seventy-five cents a day flying pay? Why is there not equality of payment there?


Charles Gavan Power: I really do not know. I
will look into that. To come down to our discussions with the Royal Air Force and the British Air Ministry, I told the Air Ministry that this matter would have to come up in the house. I said that I wanted to be fair to everybody and that I should like to have a statement of the position they took. I have it here. It is called an "Aide Memoire." This is from the United Kingdom. I will quote a few paragraphs from this and then from my reply if the committee is interested. This "Aide Memoire" states:
When commissioning of pilots ami observers first came to be considered it was estimated that no less than half the posts which graduates in these trades were designed to fill would need to be filled by commissioned officers and that accordingly a fifty per cent commissioning standard could safely be adopted, some 33 per cent to be commissioned on graduation and some 17 per cent after service.
This "Aide Memoire" is very recent. It is since the conference was held within the last month. It goes on to say:
When WO/AGs and AGs began to be needed in large numbers, position was (a) that qualification for these trades were more restricted than for pilots and observers and that candidates rejected for the latter trades could be accepted for the former-
That is quite true. It goes on:
-and (b) that a smaller proportion of posts for which WO/AGs and AGs were destined were posts which justified commissioned rank.
These, I take it, were posts on the establishment. It goes on to say:
It was necessary therefore not only to fix lower rates of pay for WO/AGs and AGs but also to fix lower commissioning percentage for them. Percentage fixed rvas 20 per cent (10 on graduation and 10 after service for WO/AGs and 5 and 15 per cent for AGs) and even this was not strictly justifiable on establishment grounds.
Experience shows that these percentages did not in fact operate to prevent commissioning of air crew's who were clearly fit to be commissioned. On the contrary the difficulty was to get enough aircrews recommended to keep percentages filled, and this despite the fact that the monthly reports had to be rendered on all aircrews eligible for commissions. Had it been otherwise steps would have been taken to increase percentages.
Perhaps the committee will be interested in the reply I made to these two paragraphs. I am dealing specifically with the "Aide
Memoire" paragraph by paragraph. The first plan in 1939 was that no aircrew would be commissioned. We insisted that we would not get the proper type unless we promised commissions particularly when we were competing in the open field with the army and navy since conscription did not exist in Canada. It had been said that we thought we should have more commissions in order to carry out our policy. I now quote from my reply to the Air Ministry:
Canada had proposed that all aircrew be commissioned, but in the light of strong opposition from the partners, and being unwilling to disturb the happy relations which had heretofore existed between all parties, agreed to the formula first suggested by the United Kingdom, and finally acceded to by all concerned, namely, "that all who were commissionable were to be commissioned", and on that basis undertook to set up its own standards for commissions. (This was done by substituting the "merit system" for the "quota system".)
The standard established by Canada was based on the marks obtained by the pupil in every stage of his training. The marks considered necessary to qualify for commission on graduation were 00 per cent in each subject and 70 per cent over all.
I went on:
The difference between us is simply this. You persist in the view that an arbitrary figure of 50 per cent of graduates, namely 33 per cent on graduation and 17 per cent after service in the field, are in fact commissionable and no more. We, on the other hand, contend that all those who by the marks obtained in their training and that extends over a period of a year, under the closest possible observation, show that they have commissionable qualities should be commissioned.
We do not hold to the view that an increased number of commissions on graduation will lower the standard in any appreciable degree, any more than an increased number of commissions granted for good service in the field will lower the efficiency of the units or of the individual personnel. On the contraiy, we believe that our "merit system" has many advantages over your "quota system" which, however well it may operate with R.A.F. personnel, definitely militates aeainst initiative, ambition and consequently efficiency in our men.
Still on this ouota system. Possiblv our friends in the British Air Ministry fail to see that although in Great Britain with their population and with the class distinctions that exist there, twenty-five per cent, let us say, or perhaps thirty per cent of the population are of a higher cultural and educational standard than the others, that condition does not exist in this country, where I would say eighty per cent if not ninety per cent of those who enter aircrew are of the same cultural or educational standard. I am not criticizing in any way the British system; it may apply perfectly there and may be good for them, but does not apply to us. Our boys have about the same class background. if you want to put it in that way;

War Appropriation-Air Services
they have the same school background, the same athletic background, and they can mix with one another without any class distinctions. I am not saying that in justification or otherwise of the system in force in the United Kingdom, but I think it should be said, and we have so expressed ourselves.


Major James William Coldwell: I think that is quite
right.


George Hugh Castleden: But the fact is that our boys are being penalized because of their system, because if we grant more commissions than they do we embarrass them.


Charles Gavan Power: We are not being penalized; we are getting more and more commissions. We are coming up.


George Hugh Castleden: According to a return tabled in the house, seventy-five per cent of the men-


Charles Gavan Power: But we have improved a great deal since February 28, when those figures were given. The thing is working better now.


George Hugh Castleden: Has the minister any
later figures?


Charles Gavan Power: 1 gave the figures for
March and April. For some reason or other March was a bad month, but April was pretty good and I think May was better. There were other reasons given, and I am again speaking the British piece:
If all aircrews were to be commissioned, situation would soon arise that those of superior ability or whose duties require them to exercise command over others would need to be promoted to flight lieutenant. In that event difficulty of choice will not have been disposed of but will merely have been transferred to the next higher stage in rank.
There is one paragraph here in particular which I think the committee should hear:
When their representative agreed in Ottawa in June, 1942, to abolish percentage basis of commissioning for pilot, navigator and bomber categories, they were under the impression that no lowering of commissioning standards was contemplated and they expected therefore that no material increase in number of commissioned would result. Nevertheless it was felt that percentage basis for pilots, navigators and bombers would have a psychological value.
This is a reversion to the idea that fifty per cent were all that were fit to be officers. Then the committee will remember that there was some statement about a review being made every month, with a report being made on each member of aircrew. I took some objection to that, and said:
Canada has some doubts as to the efficacy of the monthly review referred to since of the nine hundred persons whose names had been
lMr. Power.}
presented to the air ministry in November, 1942, as having been recommended on graduation for commissions in the field after actual operational experience the United Kingdom high commissioner reported in January, 1943, that 172 had already become casualties and 200 had not as yet been traced.
In order to bring this thing to a head, last November we took a list of nine hundred men who had been recommended, and who would be in this seventeen per cent, and we found that before any action was taken 172 had become casualties and 200 could not be traced, so that we had some slight doubts as to the efficacy of the review made every month. Then I went on to say:
Canada has no objection to an increase in total percentage of commissions; on the contrary, it welcomes it. It believes that the "merit system" on graduation brings out leaders far more effectively than the "quota system". Furthermore, it considers that the procedure now in effect for commissioning overseas will raise the standard of all R.C.A.F. aircrews, both commissioned and n.c.o. rank. The fact that a commission may be won, irrespective of quota or establishment will provide all the incentive, improvement of morale and consequent efficiency stressed so forcibly in your paragraphs 6 and 7.
Then I go on:
.	.	. it is suggested that our standard of
qualifications for commissions is being lowered, with which we do not agree.
Then with respect to another paragraph:
Canada agreed at the conference of June, 1942, to set up standards instead of commissioning all aircrews, and will loyally abide by its agreement, unless in the meanwhile it can persuade its partners, or w-hat we think more likely, they themselves of their own initiative put into practice their own theory that "all aircrews commissionable are to be * commissioned." instead of persisting in the belief that an arbitrary figure of 50 per cent is an immutable law.
The final paragraph in the United Kingdom memorandum is this, and I really think it must have been written by somebody who did not have much of an idea of Canadian public opinion. I am sure it was not written by a high official of the air ministry, because we do get on extremely well with them:
For the foregoing reasons the R.A.F. feel it necessary to maintain existing proportions on graduation. It is entirely for Canada to decide what proportion should be granted in the Royal Canadian Air Force and, whatever may be decided, Canadian authorities may count on loyal collaboration of the air ministry and R.A.F. It is only right to point out, how-ever, that if the Canadian decision results in grant in R.C.A.F. of a substantially higher total percentage of commissions than in the R.A.F., then (apart from considerations already mentioned) belief may grow up in the R.A.F. that the R.C.A.F. are adopting a substantially lower standard of commissioning Whether or not

War Appropriation-Air Services
this were true, result would be a lowering of the prestige of commissioned rank in the R.C.A.F., with consequent adverse effects on existing spirit of cordial cooperation.
The natural answer to that is, "So what?" During the course of my discussions, however, I have learned some diplomacy.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: Would the minister permit a question at this point?


Charles Gavan Power: May I first read my reply?


Grote Stirling: Yes, do.


Major James William Coldwell: I was going to ask the minister if he could tell us how many matriculated students there are in each of the two air forces.


Charles Gavan Power: I have not the faintest idea.


Major James William Coldwell: I think that would have a bearing on this question; how many graduates in arts or science also.


Charles Gavan Power: We have it approximately, so far as we are concerned.


Major James William Coldwell: I think you will find that we are very much higher.


Charles Gavan Power: In answer to this last paragraph I said:
We desire to express the deepest appreciation for the assurance given that the Canadian authorities may count on the loyal collaboration of the air ministry and of the R.A.F. in whatever action it may take with respect to the proportion of Canadian graduates of the B.C.A.T.P. who may be commissioned.
We are confident that the standard we have Bet is such as to ensure that those commissioned will have the capacity to measure up to their responsibilities in an efficient and satisfactory manner, and we therefore feel no great anxiety with regard to any repercussions which the implementing of the Canadian method may have on the personnel of the R.A.F. generally.
The battle is still on, I may tell hon. members; we are still continuing the fight.


Gordon Graydon: Don't surrender too quickly.


Charles Gavan Power: Well, I did give in as far as I could. I cannot go further, but I have kept on battling to try to get a hundred per cent commissions.


James Arthur Ross: Suppose members of aircrew are brought down over enemy territory and taken prisoner; would the minister say on what basis the commissions are granted or the promotions continued?


Charles Gavan Power: That part of the agreement reads:
The commission will take effect from the date of the original recommendation by the commanding officer of the unit or, if the recommendation has not been made by the commanding
officer, from the date of the recommendation by R.C.A.F. Overseas Headquarters, even if the candidate has become a casualty by the time the recommendation is approved.
I do not know that that will work out very well. It might not have worked out well, for instance, before we started really going to town on this commissioning policy, and when there were no recommendations from the commissioning officers. There would be taken into consideration the recommendation made when the boy graduated from the school in Canada-let us say in 1941. That is what we are attempting to do in some way, when we cannot get trace of them. At least we require a recommendation by his commanding officer, even though it may not be his commanding officer on operations. That is something he has on his file. If we can put that into effect it could have a retroactive effect on a great many of those who are now prisoners of war. But the difficulty is not there. The difficulty is that, in spite of repeated telegrams, I have not been able to find out whether or not Germany wholly recognizes any notification by transferring from Stlag which, I believe, is the camp for non-commissioned officers, to Offlag, which is the camp for officer prisoners. I have not been able to find out whether they recognize promotions of which they are notified after a man has become a prisoner of war. I can say that the Italians refused to recognize this. I happened to see a dispatch dealing with that matter, representations made by the British government to the Italian government, to the effect that they should recognize these promotions and commissions, because the Germans did. And I promptly sent, or had the Department of External Affairs send, a cable, saying, "What ho! who told you the Germans did?" I have not had an answer yet, and that happened some months ago.


James Arthur Ross: In no case has a prisoner been promoted unless the promotion was recommended before the capture?


Charles Gavan Power: That is correct.


Major James William Coldwell: The minister deserves every support, and I believe the committee to-day has shown pretty well that it is behind him in his policy. I asked the question about the number of matriculated students and university graduates, knowing something about educational conditions in Great Britain and in this country, and how difficult it is for the average boy in England-even more difficult than in Scotland-either to get as far as matriculation in a secondary school, or subsequently to attend university, and how relatively simple it is in this country for a boy

War Appropriation-Air Services
who has the desire and the grit to make that progress. I am perfectly well aware that the depression in the early thirties enabled us to have a larger number of young men with higher education than was possible in Great Britain for boys from homes on the same income level. I think the argument of the British may apply to the British situation- although I doubt it much, because they are probably following tradition. There has been a tradition in Great Britain for years that even in cricket, for example, two teams may play in exactly the same way, but one might be termed gentlemen and the other merely players. That distinction remains throughout. It appears in the military institutions, and I imagine it is carried into the air force too.
The minister is to be congratulated. Most of us last year, when we heard him speak about the Canadianization of the air force, which subject he developed on the floor of the house, felt that he was doing an excellent job. I know that this group is glad to support him. As one who has the greatest possible regard for the old land, but who understands the class distinctions over there, and' the way in which they are perpetuated, I think the sooner we have complete control of our own Canadian air force, the better it will be for Canada and for our relations with Great Britain herself.
Then, if I may allude to one other point while I am on my feet. The hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Jackman) is in his seat, and he will recall that while we were at a bomber station in Great Britain a year ago last November we were approached, not by sergeants, but by commissioned officers, and were asked by them if we would use our good offices when we returned to London and came back to Canada to see to it that a common mess could be provided, where sergeant pilots, sergeant observers and so on could meet the pilot officers and other commissioned'officers. To our boys over there it was distinctly irksome that the men who flew together and fought together, and sometimes died together, the moment they alighted from their planes wTere separated into two different messes. That suggestion, made by officers we met in England, enters into this very discussion. The men themselves want to see this distinction erased. I say to the minister that I hope he will go all out, and that he will have good results in the end.


Charles Gavan Power: There is one other very
strong argument used by our opposite numbers in the Royal Air Force. I did refer at the conference to the idea of a joint mess. The matter was discussed, and I gathered from
Mr. Coldwell.l
what wras said that they had such a thing in the middle east command, and I think in India. I do not know how far we got with it-perhaps we did not get very far. The strongest argument used by the air ministry is this:	They say that one does not give
commissions for risk taken, for hazards, or for bravery. They say that one gives decorations for bravery; one could win the Victoria Cross. Commissions in their opinion are not given on those grounds, and it is their belief that to give commissions to all aircrew would be making them a kind of supermen.


Gordon Graydon: They pretty nearly are
supermen.


Charles Gavan Power: Well, I am just stating their argument. They say we would be making supermen of these men whose duty it is to get into an aeroplane, fly away, fight the enemy, come back and be heroes. They do not put it in exactly those terms, but that is the gist of it. They point out further that if we did that we should take all the crew of a tank, and have them commissioned and, going beyond that, we should extend it to all members of the crew of a submarine-and so on down the list, I do not wish the committee to get the idea that they have not what appear to them to be pretty strong arguments. . In the memorandum I received they point out that a man has duties other than his flying duties. I take exception to that, and say most of the boys in the flying squadrons do not do much more than take part in their sortie, and come back and rest. The boys in the fighter squadrons are not on such long operations.
I wish the committee to understand that in these discussions with the United Kingdom we have reached the point where we can be argumentative without being enemies, and where we can discuss and put forward our views in a straightforward, honest, and frank manner without being acrimonious. My personal relations with those on the other side, and the members of the air council, are of the happiest. It is just a straight difference of opinion; I think, based upon a difference in temperament, character and upbringing. That is about the size of it. We have to stick to our own side of the question. We have taken this point of view, and I think we should stick with it. Of course if they do not wish to change their point of view. I do not see why they should be forced to do so. I must say however that we caused them some embarrassment.


Mr. JACKMAN:: Would the minister say
how the United States system is working out?

War Appropriation-Air Services
He said that they had some intermediate rank between their commissioned officers and top sergeants.


Charles Gavan Power: Yes; it is generally thought that the Americans commission more widely than other countries. As a matter of fact they do not. One of the things, I believe, which influenced the conference was the fact that the Americans were getting away more and more from what might be called wholesale commissioning, or the commissioning of everybody. They were going in the opposite direction from that in which we were going. I think in their permanent force, their prewar or pre-Pearl Harbor force, they commissioned a much greater percentage of pilots, navigators and bombers than they do now. At the present time they commission only a percentage of their pilots, not 100 per cent, and a number of others are made flight something or other, it may be flight officer, but I cannot remember the name. They are on probation for three months' active service, and possibly longer if they do not make the grade or if they are serving at home. Navigators who must work harder to pass their examinations are commissioned 100 per cent. The percentage of bombardiers who are commissioned is less. I have not these figures at the moment but I shall place them on Hansard later. Their gunners or wireless operators are not commissioned at all, they are enlisted men. Their flight engineers, of which we are starting to have some and about which we have not yet come to any agreement with regard to commissioning, are I believe all enlisted men.
If any members of the committee saw the picture "Air Force" which was exhibited here recently and which gave the details of the flight of an aircraft which flew a fabulous number of miles from San Francisco to Hawaii, from Hawaii to Wake Island, from Wake Island to the Philippines and from the Philippines to Australia, will remember that the crew consisted of a pilot officer, a second pilot officer, a navigator officer, a wireless operator air gunner who was an enlisted man, an air gunner who was an enlisted man and who was very cross because he had been remustered from a pilot, as some of them have been here, and a flight engineer who was a sergeant of twenty years' experience.
I have the figures here which were obtained from the air attache and from the United States army, and they indicate that they do not commission as great a percentage of their aircrew as we do. The same thing applies to the German air force which commissions a smaller number than either the R.A.F. or the
R.C.A.F. The French air force when it existed consisted to a large extent of noncommissioned officers. I have taken the trouble to get some comparisons. These are not strictly accurate but they will give some information to the committee and I shall place them on Hansard as soon as I find them.


Mr. McNEVIN:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few observations with respect to the matter under discussion, but before doing so I join with the other hon. members who have extended their congratulations to the minister upon the comprehensive and exhaustive review he has given of the operations of the Royal Canadian Air Force. Like many other districts, the district which I represent has given a substantial number of personnel to the R.C.A.F. and in common with many other districts has suffered a substantial number of casualties. To those who have been bereaved I extend my sincerest sympathy.
There is one item with respect to pay and allowances to which I wish to refer. I have two cases in mind of wives of pilot officers. The one wife is working for the civil service of Canada while the other is a member of the women's division of the R.C.A.F. In each case the pilot officer has assigned $50 per month to his wife. As I say, the one wife is employed in the civil service and receives a salary of approximately $95 a month. She also receives a marriage allowance of $45 a month, which gives her a total income of $190 a month. In the second case the wife has received a B classification in the women's division of the R.C.A.F. and is paid $1.30 per day, or $39 per month. I am not unmindful of the fact that the wife working for the civil service must provide herself with lodging and board and a certain amount of clothing, which would be a matter of expense. There appears to me to be discrimination in connection with the incomes received by the wives of these two officers who are serving in a similar capacity. The one has a total income of $190 a month while the other is receiving only $89 a month. I am of the opinion that in cases where the wife of a member of any branch of our forces enlists she should get the marriage allowance. I understand that in the Royal Air Force the dependent's allowance for a wife without other dependents amounts to four shillings a day, or about $30 a month. There is no distinction in that country between a wife serving in the women's division of the R.A.F. and one employed by the civil service or in some other capacity. I do not know to what extent attention has been given to this matter, but I trust that full consideration will be given these representations.

War Appropriation-Air Services


Charles Gavan Power: The question of women in the forces generally, that is, army, navy and air, receiving a dependent's allowance on enlistment, is a matter which has been considered seriously by the three services for some time past. There is now before the government for consideration, and I hope early adoption, a submission that the wives of members of the forces should retain their dependents' allowances upon appointment or enlistment to any women's division, to the same extent as if they were employed by the civil service at a salary and bonus of $3,000 or less per annum. As the committee knows, at one time women in the civil service whose husbands were in the forces were obliged to abandon their allowances or give up their jobs, but that system was abolished. The armed forces have been trying to get the same consideration for women in their divisions as is given to women in the civil service, and I have every reason to believe that the suggestion will be adopted.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Is it the treasury board that, is holding it up?


Charles Gavan Power: I do not want to blame them for everything.


Mr. CHURCH:: This item which relates to pay and allowances was before the committee last year. At that time the minister made a statement and I quoted the discussion which had taken place in the British House of Commons in connection with this question of sovereignty. There are some Canadians who prefer to serve in the Royal Air Force. We had it in the last war. The whole scheme as operated then was that Canadians served in the Royal Air Force. There was no Royal Canadian Air Force then. The Royal Air Force had a headquarters in the city of Toronto, and trained 16,000 pilots and air mechanics. Now a change has come. We have a dual and a duplicate system.
The present minister is a child of the House of Commons; that is what Mr. Churchill called himself, or, as Mr. Churchill also put it, a servant of the House of Commons. It is a great credit to him. His father, too, was a member of the house. No matter to what party an hon. member belongs he knows that if he writes to the minister on any matter, the minister will give him full information to the best of his ability. I hope he will follow the same practice in the course of this discussion on commissions, a discussion which, in my opinion, is of no benefit to the empire training scheme. There should be no division in this matter, no attempt at and no emphasis on status or a divided sovereignty. From this point of view I am opposed to separate Canadian squadrons. Some people believe in

separate squadrons, but I am not convinced that we are following the best practice. For instance, I believe that the right way to win the war and to get the best results for money spent is to adopt a system which will not overemphasize the educational test. Education is not everything in the equipment of an air officer.
Consider, too, how we are distributing commissions. There are in this branch no fewer than 5,459 civilians or men who have received commissions from the government without any prior war training. In addition to that, forty-one press officers have been given commissions, though very few have any training in air force work.
I contend that the empire air scheme can be used as a means of uniting this empire as it was never united before, not only during the present war but for what will happen after the battle.
When this item was under discussion last year, many inequalities were disclosed in the printed schedule or blueprint which the minister laid on the table of the house. Without any very evident reason, some had got commissions while others had to be satisfied with the rank and pay of sergeants. I believe too much attention is paid to the application of an educational test on entrance in the air scheme. Beurling could not qualify under those conditions; he, and many like him, had to go overseas at their own expense to enlist.
I wish to compliment the minister upon having a splendid assistant. He adopts the same principle as his chief, in giving the members of the house information about the department. He is one of the most learned men in Canada, and one of the best informed on modern warfare, and a fine soldier himself. He knows what this empire means and what we are fighting for. I have personal reason to thank him for what he has done in connection with one or two matters I took up with him last week.
The estimated expenditure this year on pay and allowances is $238,000,000 as against $148,000,000 last year, an increase of $89,000,000. This additional amount should be sufficient to take care of existing inequalities. Let me tell the minister that nothing has caused more dissatisfaction in all the armed forces than inequalities of pay, because this is a citizens' army, and I may add that few hon. members knew inequalities existed until the minister laid on the table last session a blueprint showing the pay of all ranks from the lowest right up to the top-pay, subsistence allowance and for two to four children and dependency. The inequalities extend to overseas men as well.

War Appropriation-Air Services
Arising out of what the minister said about commissions, I should like to see some allowance made to those young men who, without waiting on the outcome of the division of opinion as to whether we should maintain a separate staff and display our sovereignty in connection with the armed forces before this began and after, went overseas at their own expense, entered the ranks and got commissions in the United Kingdom. I contend that their out-of-pocket expenses should be refunded to them or to their parents, since they incurred a good deal of expense in getting overseas and taking their training. It would be a kind and, indeed, efficient action; it woidd also be only just to those who did not wait for the war to break out or for the establishment of any empire training scheme, but went over, some in cattle-boats, some with less than the educational requirements for commissions, and worked their way right up to the top of the ladder. In this connection we might bear in mind what other countries are doing. In Germany and in Russia, after many of their generals failed, what did they do? They went out and got civilian generals almost literally off the street. Some of them were called in from commercial pursuits and not only given commissions but put in command of units. I have in mind a speech delivered in the British House of Commons by a very fine soldier and distinguished member of the house, Major Markiand, who returned from active service to take part in the debate on this particular subject. It is possible in Canada during the commission test to go too far in emphasizing the importance of educational requirements.
For a long time the department suffered in the city of Toronto from a sort of dual control wielded by the air force and by the civil service commission, and there was considerable complaint about inequalities in pay and allowances. However, the present minister has gone into the matter, and I had a letter from the chairman of the civil service commission stating that a satisfactory arrangement had been worked out whereby civilian workers, except in some very minor cases, were being appointed by the commission.
Inequalities in pay are, however, still continuing. I have already referred to the 5,459 officers reported in return No. 394. I have nothing but praise for the air scheme and system as a whole; it is one of the most glorious achievements in the history of the empire and has done a great deal to hold the empire together. But I cannot understand why it has been necessary to commission 5.459 civilian officers. They are distributed in
part as follows: headquarters-430; No. 1 training command-1,148; No. 2 training command-623; No. 3-647; No. 4-577; eastern command headquarters-135; other units of the eastern command-526; western command-161; other units-281; overseas-565. Yet there are others doing good service with a much lower rank and pay. For instance, L.A.C.s, group A. $2.25; group B, $2; group C. $1.75; others, $1.50.
Return No. 216 relates to pay and allowances. It gives a list of forty-one pres liaison officers and others engaged in the department, very few of them with any military experience whatever, who wear a uniform and get commissions and officers' pay. It states that they are entitled to "actual out-of-pocket expenses while absent from Ottawa." That may mean anything. A man may be in England; he may be travelling to Australia; he may be going to some other place. One went all over the world at a great cost. I think the committee is entitled to know in more detail what these allowances of rank are.
In conclusion, I wish to say that the work which the department has been doing this last year will write one of the most glorious pages in Canada's war record. Three or four weeks have been taken up in debating the army appropriation. I do not think so long will be occupied with the minister's department. But let me point out that, if the principle which I raised here in connection with pay and allowances in the debate of 1941, and again in 1942, had been carried out, seventy per cent of the questions which hon. members have had occasion to raise on the war appropriation bill could have been answered daily on the orders of the day. The matter can be stated in just a few sentences, and I placed it on Hansard in 1941 and early in 1942. In a new book on parliamentary procedure published last summer by G. F. M. Campion, second clerk assistant of the British House of Commons, now Clerk, and knighted, there appears the following: from a textbook which is almost as good as that of our own Clerk:
Not later than three o'clock the question hour begins. This is a more important item of business than any yet described. It is expected *to provide lively moments and seems to be of unfailing interest to members and the public. It is modern and affords a useful method of supervising the administration of the government. Its effectiveness is generally recognized. Questions "turn a searchlight upon every corner of the public service." (Lowel, i.332.) Their chief object is "the explanation to the public of the meaning of political events", and "they are often arranged by the government itself, so as to give them an opportunity of making announcements in a somewhat informal way.

War Appropriation-Air Services
(Redlieh, ii, 241 and 242.) They are "serviceable as obviating the necessity in many instances of more extended debate and of motions for papers." (Todd. 1982, ii. 85.) And finally, "Questions afford to the private member under modern conditions almost his only opportunity." (Marriott, i. 571.)
Under our standing order 1, in all cases not provided for in our rules, the usages and customs of the British house shall be followed. I am quite certain that it is a member's right to ask pertinent questions of a minister on the orders of the day being called. The last time this question was before the house the Clerk gave that opinion to a committee revising the rules, and I suggest that, if that opportunity had been accorded us, seventy per cent of the time taken up by the three ministers in answering questions on the war appropriation bills could have been eliminated. Instead of that we have only one opportunity a year on this particular bill for appropriations.
I wish to compliment the minister upon the explanation he has given. In my opinion there should be an amendment to these educational tests now that we have high-school cadets. They are leaving school at sixteen and seventeen years of age to work on the farms, and they cannot have the educational tests that were given in the early days of the war to those entering the air force and going into the manning pools. There should be an amendment along this line, applicable to these recruits, because after all this is a voluntary organization, a citizens' army, and one in which the people of Canada have taken a great deal of interest and of which they are justly proud, and they are interested in it not merely on account of what the air force is doing in this war but on account of the service it will render afterwards to keep the empire together.


Mr. REID:: Would the minister care to make a statement with regard to complaints reaching some members, including myself, on the subject of leave of absence granted to men who are fighting in Great Britain or other parts of the world? Complaints have reached me that there is a difference in the length of time of flights which an airman makes from Great Britain over France, depending upon whether he is a bomber or a fighter. For instance, I had a letter last week from a young airman who has been about two years in England and has made many flights over France and Germany. He is a fighter pilot. He states that up to the present he has done about thirty-two flights. Had he been a bomber, he says, he would have been given leave of absence
[Mr. Church.)
to come back to Canada when he had thirty flights to his credit. He wonders whether, when one makes four flights in one night, those flights are counted as four or whether they are counted merely as one trip. Could the minister make a statement as to the procedure? How long must one of our airmen remain over there before he gets leave of absence, and how many flights has he to make over Germany or France before he is granted that leave?


Charles Gavan Power: Usually the sortie or mission of the fighter pilot is from half an hour to three-quarters of an hour, whereas the same kind of job of the bomber is from eight to ten hours. They have operational tours. I am not at liberty to state what length of time must be flown to complete an operational tour but certainly there are much fewer sorties in a bomber than in a fighter. Rules are laid down as to how many sorties shall constitute an operational tour for bombers, for fighter pilots, for coastal command, for army cooperation and so on. After an operational tour, the personnel obtain two weeks leave of absence and then are usually posted to an operational training school for about six months and sometimes are returned to make another operational tour. That is about all the information I can give at the moment.


Mr. BENCE:: I should like to ask a question in regard to agricultural leave. I have received complaints with regard to No. 7 I.T.S., Saskatoon, in connection with applications for agricultural leave. Early in March application forms were made available for the men there who wished to apply for agricultural leave. I believe the leave is six weeks. Applications were sent out, and nothing further was heard about the matter until an order was issued refusing all leave in that particular station. I refer to air force administrative order A 24-5.


Charles Gavan Power: Will the hon. member read the order?


Alfred Henry Bence: I have not it here. A general order was sent out that no leave should be given to the personnel of No. 7, I.T.S.


Charles Gavan Power: That is aircrew?


Alfred Henry Bence: Yes. It is an initial training station.


Charles Gavan Power: They are aircrew?


Alfred Henry Bence: Yes. I should like to know why individual applications were not considered on their merits instead of a blanket order being issued refusing any leave for

War Appropriation-Air Services
these men, particularly in view of the fact that they had been given to believe, inasmuch as they were supplied with these application forms, that the cases would be dealt with on their merits.


Charles Gavan Power: At the present time I am keeping all the aircrew I can, and I will for the rest of the war. If a man is in the aircrew, he is not going to be a farmer and he will not get leave. I am not giving farm leave to aircrew. There is to be no extension of farm leaves for ground crew beyond two months. If anyone wants an extension, if he is ground crew and is not valuable otherwise, not a man on whom we have spent $10,000, he will either be in the air force or be a farmer. He will take his discharge if he wants more than two months, but I am not running an air force to go farming, but to fight overseas and to train here. If a man enlists in the aircrew he enlists of his own free will and he must go through the training for a most important job of work, costing us $25,000 if he is a pilot, $27,000 or $28,000 if he is an observer or navigator and so on. I do not think we can afford to let him go away on farm leave. I do not know whether the committee will agree with me, but so long as I have anything to do with the air force, either it will be an air force or they will be farmers and will go back to their farms. I do not wish to have a double-barrelled organization, running farms and an air force at the same time.


Alfred Henry Bence: That is all very well, and I am not disputing that statement. But I wish to know why these men were given application forms, and six weeks later this general order came through.


Charles Gavan Power: Probably because I changed the order some time in the last month or so. I am sorry, but I changed the order. It had reached the point where we had to lay down the rule that aircrew were not to be given farm leave, and that rule was laid down. I suppose it affected some particular men who had put in their application before. Whatever rule or regulation is made is bound to affect.somebody who is a border-line case. I suppose that some discretion might have been allowed or a warning given, but probably I did not think of it. Perhaps I am to blame for that.


John George Diefenbaker: That order just applies to aircrew and not to ground crew securing leave.


Charles Gavan Power: Ground crew obtain leave on application to their commanding officer,
but if they apply for an extension after two months we usually tell them: You had better stay home and farm.


John George Diefenbaker: I asked the minister a question a while ago about the inequality in flying pay between the commissioned officer and the non-commissioned officer in the aircrew. As the matter now stands, the officer receives two dollars a day flj'ing pay, while the non-commissioned officer in the same crew, doing exactly the same work, and often in charge of the ship, receives only seventy-five cents a day. I have heard a great deal of complaint about that. The crew perform similar duties; they are aboard the same ship, all contributing equally in the work of the ship; yet there is this difference made in flying pay. I can understand a difference in pay so far as rank is concerned, but it does seem unfair that the commissioned officer and the non-commissioned officer should not be on the same footing so far as flying pay is concerned. I know the interest which the minister shows in the men, who honour him as their minister, and I would suggest that he give consideration to this matter.
The minister said a while ago, in answer to the suggestion of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar that there should be an aircrew mess, that that was being done in the east. As I understand it, the Australian air force has adopted that system and it has been a great contribution to morale among the crews to meet as equals in a common mess when they return from their tours of duty.
I also wish to say a word in regard to the women in the Royal Canadian Air Force and in the other services. As I understand the regulations, any woman who joins the air force and theretofore was in receipt of a dependents' allowance is immediately deprived of it.


Charles Gavan Power: I just answered that a
moment ago.


John George Diefenbaker: I appreciate that, but it seems unjustified. I would like to know from the minister whether the intention this year is to increase the scope of activities of the women in the air force. I remember very well bringing this matter up in March, 1941, and suggesting to the Minister of National Defence the need of mobilizing the women of this country. He told me at that time that not more than fifteen hundred women could possibly be employed in the army. But with the passing months and years that estimate has been greatly exceeded. To-day, while we pay

War Appropriation-Air Services
tribute and deserved tribute to the men in the air force, we ought also to pay tribute to the women who to-day are serving not only in the air force but in the other armed services.
There is a matter which I had not intended to mention, but I feel that the members of this house owe it to the women in the armed services of this country to protect their names from calumny which all too frequently is indulged in. These women are giving of their best, and while they are honoured generally throughout the country there are some persons who indulge in slander against them. I personally feel that there is one way in which this unjustified slander could be and should be terminated, and that is by a series of prosecutions being taken under the defence of Canada regulations against the rumour-mongers. All of us have occasion to see the wohderful work that these women are doing in the air force and in the other services, and we as members and as Canadians owe it to them to uphold their good name and to assure those who dare to scandalize them that they will be fittingly punished. I suggest to the minister and to the other heads of the defence department that a few prosecutions would put an end to -what is all too frequently the contribution of some people who seem to have nothing better to do than to cast aspersions on the good names of those who serve.


Mr. MacNICOL:: I have a question to ask the minister in reference to pay and allowances in connection with the fleet air arm. The minister may have said something about it while I was out. If he has not, I shall be glad to get this information. I know a number of young men, highly educated, who have gone over to England recently and joined the fleet air arm. They are young lads less than nineteen years of age. Apparently they enlist one day and within a day or two afterwards are on the way to England. I understand that when they return they go down to the southern states for further training. If the minister is familiar with this-


Charles Gavan Power: That is the fleet air arm. I have not the faintest idea about that. That comes under the navy, and my.hon. friend will have to ask the minister for naval services.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Then I will ask about pay and allowances on the navy estimates.
There is another matter on which I wish to say a word. The papers to-day publish the decorations that have been well earned by Canadians. I notice that Mr. and Mrs. Deutscher of Odessa, who have eight sons in

the Royal Canadian Air Force, were recently honoured at an outdoor gathering. They deserved it. Has any consideration been given to recognizing those parents who are giving a large number of sons to the armed services? There is a Scotch family in my riding, living at 82 Harvie avenue, Mr. and Mrs. David Seggie, who have seven sons in the armed services; and if any consideration is being given to recognizing in some way parents who have given so many sons to the armed services, this family might be considered. Of course I know it can be said that a family with only one son are contributing much because they are giving their all. Nevertheless I feel that the father and mother of seven or eight or nine sons in the armed services deserve some sort of recognition.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: The minister was very frank and as explicit as we could expect in regard to the commissioning of our pilots overseas. Might I ask if he could give any more information on the procedure which is being adopted? Are the deficiencies, if I may call them that, in the commissioned ranks of the boys who have been over there for some time being made up by reason of this periodical two-months' review of their record? I understand that the Royal Air Force authorities, in conjunction with Royal Canadian Air Force headquarters overseas, review the record of a man who has been overseas for more than two months. Once they do that; once the case is reviewed by the two authorities, is there a further automatic review every two months or six months? Then the other method of getting a commission is by the member of aircrew making his own application, when he is not recommended by his commanding officer. Are both these systems working, or is one not effective? Just how is the whole matter of rectifying the situation, as we see it, being handled?


Charles Gavan Power: I think both systems are working. We have liaison officers in, I think, six different districts in Great Britain, and of course in addition we have a headquarters in Cairo. Probably we shall have one in India before long and possibly also one in North Africa. They are intensely interested in going ahead with this commissioning. Our liaison officers visit stations wherever there are Canadians in the Royal Air Force or in Canadian squadrons, and by that means we are pushing forward these commissions. I gather from the air ministry that they are doing their best to bring them to the attention of the officers w'ho finally pass upon them. Then last November, as I said a moment ago, we hit upon a plan of handing to the air

War Appropriation-Air Services
ministry nine hundred names of men who had been recommended, and said, "What about it? These fellows were recommended on graduation. Why don't you give them their commissions?" They have been looking for some of those men ever since. We have also hit upon another plan, of going right back to the inception of the training plan, and every one who has had 60-60-70 is given a commission. That is one way of getting more of them in. Usually we do consult the authorities, to see whether or not there is anything against a man, but we are commissioning back as quickly as we can in that way, so that we are making up for a good many who are of the backlog. With the representations we are making I think perhaps the provision with respect to personal application for a commission will not be so necessary as it appeared to be a year ago, when it was first introduced.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: In order that the review provision and also the personal application may not become dead letters, is there a special section of the Royal Canadian Air Force overseas set up .to deal just with those matters?


Charles Gavan Power: No; but we have a personnel section overseas which deals with all the interests of our personnel. I do not think a week goes by without my reminding the air officer in command overseas that he has a job to perform in getting commissions through for our 'boys over there. This seems to be one of the important things we do, to stir up our own people and have them stir up the air ministry. I can assure my hon. friend we are just camping on their trail as constantly as we can.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Then may I ask a question in regard to the marks of the boys who are now going through. As I understand it, the total marks are in three classifications; for ground work or theory, for actual flying, and for character and leadership.


Charles Gavan Power: Yes. The third1 classification used to be called, "officer qualities," but we changed it to "character and leadership."


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Is that simply a matter of what an officer thinks of a man from his observation, or has it to do with anything written? It is pretty much a matter of opinion, I suppose.


Charles Gavan Power: I could send my hon. friend a copy of form 211, which covers both sides of a very long page. It has to do with a man's aptitude, his initiative, how he acts, whether he does things without being pushed to do
them, whether he gets along well with his fellow men, whether he does this, that and the other thing.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: It sounds pretty scientific.


Charles Gavan Power: I think it was made up by a man who was employed by one of the large insurance companies for the purpose of checking on personnel and by an officer by the name of Chant.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I think there is a
psychology professor by that name.


Charles Gavan Power: I believe he is a psychologist, and if I am not mistaken he was employed by one of the large insurance companies at Hartford. In any event, he had been doing this sort of work for an insurance company and, with the assistance of others, he drew up this form 211. I have no objection to showing it to anyone in the house. It is a complicated affair, but I am told, that it does bring results.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Perhaps hon. members would not succeed in that test any more than the minister succeeded in the other one.


Charles Gavan Power: There are a great many of my hon. friends who would not succeed on that test, I am sure; there are questions with regard to sociability, politeness, garrulousness. All the prominent characteristics of members of this house, as well as the general public, would be checked and marked. There are a great many to whom I would not give a commission under form 211.


George Hugh Castleden: Perhaps the minister would answer a couple of questions which were asked yesterday. The first was, why does the air force not pay the members of the women's division the same pay as men for equal work? The other question was why dependents of members of the women's division are not given dependents' allowances.


Charles Gavan Power: In reply to the second question, that is under way, and I confidently expect that within a few days it will be settled. In regard to the first question, I really do not know' why we do not give the same rate of pay to women. Originally in both the army and the air force women were paid two-thirds the basic male pay. I do not know where it came from, but I am told we followed the example of Great Britain. In any event, the suggestion now up for consideration is that the basic rate of pay for women be increased to four-fifths, or eighty per cent. I made some inquiry in the matter just before I came here to-day, and I am told that this is the ratio between men and women

War Appropriation-Air Services
in Great Britain. What that has to do with us, I do not know, but someone hit on that. Then the question arose as to trades pay, and some of us took a very strong stand that if a woman were performing the work of a man in a trade, at least she should get the same trade pay; she was getting only two-thirds before that. A man doing a job as parachute packer in our lot, say, would not be as good at that job as a woman, but he would be getting twenty-five or fifty cents trades pay, whatever it might be, while the woman would be getting only two-thirds of that. We have made representations that the women be put on a level with the men so far as trades pay is concerned. I think the provisions of the new pay schedule for women will be: first, a raise from two-thirds to four-fifths of what is paid the men; second, full trades pay for the work done; third, dependents' allowances, just the same as though the woman were employed in the civil service or in any civilian capacity.


George Hugh Castleden: Has the minister any
idea when these new rates of pay may come into effect?


Charles Gavan Power: They should come in soon, because the matter has been hanging for a long time.


Mr. EMMERSON:: I should like to ask the minister if our men in the R.C.A.F. overseas are able to draw the full pay and allowances of their rank now, or is the situation the same as it was some time ago, that they are paid on the basis of the R.A.F. pay?


Charles Gavan Power: We are still deferring pay. I think, however, when the boys go on leave they are allowed to draw a portion of their deferred pay.


Mr. BRUCE:: Perhaps it would not be
inopportune to say a word at this time about the medical service the minister has established in connection with the air force. I know something of the work of the men connected with that service, and I wish to commend him upon the splendid staff he has been able to get together under, first, the able leadership of Doctor Ryan, whose rank I am never sure of-


Charles Gavan Power: The hon. member is not
the only one who makes mistakes of that kind. The minister does not know all the ranks yet.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I believe Doctor Ryan was
air commodore. I believe Air Commodore Ryan was the first medical officer wrho assisted the minister in the development of a medical service for the air force. Then, when he left

he was followed by Air Commodore Tice, who is the very worthy succesor of Air Commodore Ryan. In that service we also have Professor Best who, I believe, is a squadron leader- or has he gone higher than that?


Charles Gavan Power: I do not know.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: And there are a great many others, including Doctor Tisdale and Doctor Clark Noble, who are doing extraordinarily good work in connection with the scientific side of flying.
I do not think the public realizes fully what that service means. It is a highly specialized part of medicine. For the last two or three years some of these men have been undertaking scientific research in various parts of Canada, and the results of their efforts have led to a great improvement, not only in detecting men who are incapable of flying, but in developing methods which will improve the efficiency of the flying service. I do not think any words of mine could too gTeatly exaggerate the great value of the scientific contribution made by the medical service for air.
I have heard1 criticism from some parts of the house about there being three medical services. Well, there may be some merit in the criticism-I am not prepared to express an opinion at the moment. I can conceive of there being one head and three branches, for the air, the navy and the army. There might be efficient coordination, if that were done. But at any rate, starting from scratch, the minister has developed a medical service in his air force which is second to none anywhere.
I regret I was not present in the house the other evening when the minister made his first presentation. I wish to commend him upon his admirable report, and the frank manner in which it was given. I am sure the development of the air training plan has met with the approval of the majority of people in Canada, certainly the majority of those with whom I have talked. I always think that frankness has its own reward, and hon. members feel when they question the minister that they receive an honest, straight and quick reply.


Mr. MARSHALL:: I should like to express my appreciation of the splendid work the minister has done in connection with the air training plan. Some little time ago I placed on the order paper some questions which related specifically to the recognition by way of promotion for merit of radio technicians in the Royal Canadian Air Force who are serving overseas. On that occasion the minister said that he would be pleased if the question could

War Appropriation-Air Services
be taken off the order paper, and that he would answer fully when the war appropriation bill was under consideration.
In connection with this matter I would quote briefly from a letter which, I believe, covers the matter I have in mind. This letter was received only a short time after my questions were placed on the order paper. It states:
As a member of the R.C.A.F. enlisted as a radio technician or "radio D.F. mechanic", as they are now called, I would like to bring to your attention certain facts regarding conditions in this branch of the R.C.A.F. .	.	.
While writing as an individual, I may state that my views expressed here are shared by a large number of people, both within and outside the R.C.A.F. These views are certainly those of the majority of radio technicians. As one of a group of 500 here waiting posting to Clinton, Ontario, I have been able to discuss the subject with a large number of them, and most of them feel the same way as I do on this matter.
Our main grievance is the lack of promotion in the R.C.A.F., once we complete our course and go on active duty. Our course is one of *the hardest in the R.C.A.F., consisting of eighteen weeks study on radio principles at a university, and then courses on radio-location at Clinton, Ontario. Those passing the examinations at the end of the university course are reclassified from A.C.2 to L.A.C. and also get "B" trades pay, so that their pay increases from $1.30 to $2 a day. The Clinton course is six weeks, but approximately 50 per cent passing this course take a second course of two months. A very small percentage of those successful in the second course receive commissions. All the remainder are posted out as L.A.C.'s, "B" grouping, to active duty.
All the evidence that I have seen, both in the form of letters from radio technicians on active service, and press reports, show that we receive no further promotion. A number have obtained "A" trades pay (25 cents a day more) and a few, corporal's stripes, but the great majority remain L.A.C.'s. Many of these men are university graduates in arts or science, and a number qualified to obtain commissions in the army. They preferred the Air Force to the army, however, and being ineligible for aircrew, were told that their qualifications and education could be best used in the trade of radio technician. An examination of a list of graduates of any university who have enlisted in the R.C.A.F. shows that practically all those in any branch except radio-location work are commissioned officers, holding their rank because of their education and technical qualifications. But of those enlisted as radio technicians, 90 per cent will be found to be only L.A.C.'s.
I have personally examined the lists appearing in the quarterly issues of the McGill Alumni News and know this to be a fact as regards McGill graduates, serving in the R.C.A.F.
Radio technicians feel strongly that they are getting a "raw deal" and that either their services and abilities are not being properly recognized or that, if they cannot advance beyond the rank of L.A.C., then their talents and abilities are misplaced and could be used to better advantage elsewhere in the R.C.A.F. or in the other services. This feeling is strengthened when they see large numbers of men receiving promotions to N.C.O. ranks in other branches 72537-208
of the R.C.A.F., often soon after they have completed their courses. They see "washouts" from the radio mechanics' course remustered into other trades where they quickly obtain N.C.O. rank. If they had joined the army for radio-detection work, they could have obtained sergeant's stripes; if they had enlisted in the navy for submarine detection work (a course similar to the R.C.A.F. radio-detection work) they would have been given the rank of petty officer. The American army gives either N.C.O. or specialist "ranking to all their radio technicians. And when they find that being an L.A.C. makes them liable to fatigue and general duties and ordering around by disciplinarian N.C.O.'s, many with not half their intelligence, then they wonder why they entered the course at all. . . .
Most people with whom I have discussed this subject feel that radio mechanics should receive n.c.o. rank as corporals and sergeants following completion of their course, or they should be rated as technical n.c.o's and specialists as in the American army. Almost without exception, every member of the R.C.A.F., whether aircrew, radio technician or in some other trade, definitely believes that radio technicians are not getting their fair share of promotions in the R.C.A.F.
That was sent to me by a graduate of the university of Alberta who is a B.A. and also a Bachelor of Liberal Science of McGill. Would the minister be good enough to make a comprehensive statement with respect to this matter?


Charles Gavan Power: The matter of radio
mechanics is another matter that requires a great deal of explanation. I have a statement that I am ready to make, but I do not think I could give it inside of ten minutes. A number of hon. members are interested in these radio mechanics and there is quite a story to be told. I should like to make this statement to-morrow.
In the meantime I can answer some of the questions asked by the hon. member for Lake Centre. First, he wanted to know why officers receive $2 a day flying pay when other ranks receive only seventy-five cents a day. In answering this question I may say the developed view regarding the flying pay is that it must be regarded primarily as payable for the qualifications of being graduated through a course and of being able to fly operationally as part of an aircrew and of being under continuous liability to fly. An officer meeting these qualifications receives S2 a day flying pay, whereas a sergeant pilot receives seventy-five cents a day flying pay and seventy-five cents trades pay, or a total of SI.50. The difference of fifty cents a day is attributed to the higher responsibilities devolving on an officer and the greater expense incurred by an officer in obtaining the recreational facilities which are so necessary for aircrew. The officer who sent me this communication adds what I



War Appropriation-Air Services
think is the crux of the situation when he says that the difference arising for officers and air men is a carryover from peace-time practice. I shall be ready to answer any questions dealing with pay and allowances and with aircrew even though we may pass this item to-night. However, if the committee does not wish to pass it, it is all one to me.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: A moment ago I referred to Professor Best, who I wrongly stated was in the air force. He is actually in the navy, but it was an associate of his in the Banting institute, to whom I was referring, Squadron Leader Frank, who has made great progress in our knowledge of high altitude flying.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: There is another matter in connection with flying pay or whatever it is called technically in the service. Certain high administrative officers get this allowance even though they do no actual flying, or certainly do not pilot planes themselves. Is this not just a hangover from olden times? Is there any justification for a man who of necessity sits behind a desk, not because of any desire I admit, still receiving this $2 a day additional? It is like some other things we sometimes come across in this parliament. For doing something people receive money which they may be entitled to when one considers the over-all picture, but are not entitled to when the specific item is considered. Perhaps the pay of these officers who are receiving this $2 flying pay should be raised.


Charles Gavan Power: These officers are on what is called the general list. This list was revised some years ago, I am not certain just how long ago, and a certain number of officers who were fliers in every sense of the word and most of whom were performing duties connected with active flying although they might not actually pilot planes, were retained on the list even in peace time. Now that their duties call for more flying than they did before, it would be very difficult, in effect, to reduce their pay. They are general list officers, and they get that additional pay compared with the man who is on the non-flying list. During war time they have greater responsibilities and more work to do, and to reduce their pay would be contrary to what we have been doing generally.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Some difficulty would arise where you have a man who was in the air force in the last war and who would

not be on the general list. I know of one wing commander who has the Military Cross -he may have been in the infantry-and who is in charge of a station. He does not receive this pay, while another man with the same rank at another station does. There does not seem to be much reason to have this difference in pay to two men with the same rank and doing the same job. If this is a hangover from olden days, perhaps it could be rectified by an increase in pay to the one officer. No matter how large your air force may be in peace time, it will not be great enough to carry on during a war, and you will have to bring in additional men who may or may not be entitled to flying pay. I suppose this flying pay is paid simply because a man has his wings?


Charles Gavan Power: Flying pay is another thing. These are general list officers. The other is casual pay which an officer gets who is not a general list officer.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Are you on the general list if you have your wings?


Charles Gavan Power: I could not say. At one time either the treasury board or the minister drastically reduced the number of men on the general list. Whether the number has been increased since the war started, I could not say. I shall have to look into it and I will let my hon. friend know.


Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: Are
the men stationed in Alaska or in the United States paid in United States funds?


Charles Gavan Power: I do not know, but I shall find out. We have under consideration now the granting of an increased rate of pay to men in Alaska, but I could not say whether they are paid in United States funds.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: There are some men stationed in the United States.


Charles Gavan Power: There is some provision about those who are in the United States.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I
know the men at the legation in Washington are paid in United States funds, and then deductions are made.
Progress reported.


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

Privilege-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury)
Thursday, June 3, 1943