[Stage Direction]
Mr. RALPH MAYBANK (Winnipeg South Centre) presented the second report of the standing committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government.
Firearms

["The answer of the minister is not correct. He doesn't know his business."]
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance) moved:: That items 377, 378 and 421 of the estimates for 1945-46, approved and reported upon by the standing committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government, be referred to the committee of supply.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Wellington South (Mr. Gladstone) asked a question on October 22, as reported on page 1351 of Hansard, with regard to the use of firearms. I have received a report from the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police which will constitute an answer to the question.
Measures deemed to be appropriate have already been taken to control the entry of such souvenirs as revolvers, pistols, et cetera, into Canada by returning members of the Canadian armed forces.
The Department of National Defence (army, navy and air force) have all issued orders prohibiting the possession or retention of any weapons or ammunition taken from the enemy in the field during hostilities or after the cessation of hostilities. Any revolvers or auto-loading pistols which are brought back from overseas have to be registered in accordance with the provisions of the criminal code.
In addition, under the automatic firearms regulation, 1945, P.C. 4885, dated July 10, 1945, provision is made in this regulation banning the importation of automatic firearms. These automatic firearms are more commonly referred to as tommy guns. This regulation provides for the issuance of permits to allow persons to have such automatic firearms in their possession, but the commissioner has already issued orders to the effect that such permits are to be kept to an absolute minimum and issued only when the firearms in question have been rendered useless so that they cannot be used again for firing purposes.
Remarks were also made'in the house at the same time concerning defence of Canada regulation 37A. In this regard, while certain paragraphs of that regulation were revoked, thus removing from control of that regulation all firearms surrendered by aliens under war-time legislation, the control of such firearms comes under the criminal code, and it is encumbent upon such persons to obtain a permit in form 76B from the competent provincial authorities before they can legally regain possession [Mr. Mavbank.l
of any firearms which they may have originally surrendered under the defence of Canada regulations.
Mr. HOMUTH:: Why put it on the provincial authorities?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	It so happens that
I am not responsible for the British North America Act.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I would ask the minister
to clarify his statement. There are people who are classified under the laws of Canada as aliens who really are not aliens; they are Canadians; some of them have fought in the wars of Canada, and so on, but under the law they cannot have firearms. The minister says that under the defence of Canada regulations the responsibility for these things is provincial. We have had so much of this business of the federal government throwing responsibility on the provincial governments-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Wait just a moment; I
can yell louder than any of you. I say to the Minister of Justice in all deference and in all seriousness, and with no wish to intrude, Mr. Speaker, that some regulation should be made whereby there should be cooperation so that people in our districts wrho are ordinarily looked upon as of alien descent should have the right to firearms.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. I must remind
hon. members that the statement made by the minister is not debatable.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: It is a debatable matter
but we cannot get a chance to debate it.


Mr. FRASER:: This matter is something
that is really-


James Horace King: Order.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I just want to ask the minister a question.


James Horace King: We have not reached the
orders of the day.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: May I not ask a question,
Mr. Speaker?


James Horace King: I have to enforce the rules, and I have just stated that the statement made by the minister is not debatable according to the rules of the house.


POSTAL SERVICE
Hon. ERNEST BERTRAND (Postmaster General) :: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Saskatoon City (Mr. Knight)

Labour Conditions
asked a question in regard to the transmission of parcels from Canada to Norway. I am glad to say that arrangements were completed a few days ago for the acceptance of such parcels, and instructions had already been issued in this connection when the hon. member addressed his question to the house yesterday.
This parcel post service has been placed in operation under the same conditions as at present applying to parcel post services from Canada to other countries on the continent to which such services have been resumed.
May I also make a statement, Mr. Speaker, on the removal of restrictions on the dispatch of newspapers and periodicals.
In August, 1942, in order to conserve shipping space, it was found necessary to prohibit the mailing of complete newspapers or periodicals to civilians and troops in the United Kingdom and other transatlantic destinations, as well as to destinations in Central and South America. Bermuda and the West Indies. Clippings of special interest were permitted. In January 1944, we were able to restore this service for mailings to Central America, South America, the Caribbean area and Bermuda, also to Africa via the United States, following the removal of the restrictions by the United States Post Office Department, through which service such mail was being forwarded.
Last May we were in a position to permit the mailing of newspapers, magazines and periodicals to members of the armed forces overseas, and now I am happy to say we are able to accept for onward transmission newspapers, magazines and periodicals to civilian addresses in the United Kingdom and other transatlantic destinations.
The effect of the foregoing, therefore, is the complete removal of the restrictions on the dispatch of newspapers and periodicals to overseas destinations.


FARMERS CREDITORS
[Stage Direction]
Mr. F. E. JAENICKE (Kindersley) moved for leave to introduce bill No. 27, to amend the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. JAENICKE:: The proposed amendment deals with the application of those farmers who had previously made a proposal under the act of 1934. The only change proposed in the new section 7 is in respect to subparagraph (ii) thereof, which at' present reads:
(ii) who made a proposal under the Farmers-Creditors Arrangement Act, 1934. pursuant to which a composition, extension of time or scheme of .arrangement was approved by the court or Board of Review on or before December 31, 1938.	'
According to court decisions a farmer who made a proposal under the act, who for valid or technical reasons abandoned the proposal or who found the proposal by the board of review to be of so little value that he had it cancelled, is barred at the present time from making a new proposal. It is to give these farmers an opportunity to file a new proposal in order tq have their affairs adjusted according to conditions as they now exist that this amendment is proposed.
The second section will make the provisions of the new section 7 retroactive to the date the act came into force by proclamation.
The third section is a consequential amendment, so that people who have applied and been refused by the court may again make application.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time. PRIVATE BILLS


FIRST READINGS-SENATE BILLS
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 24. to incorporate the Canadian Jewellers Institute-Mr. Jackman.
Bill No. 25, to incorporate Dominion General Benefit Association-Mr. Ross (Souris).

[Stage Direction]
Mr. G. ,1. McILRAITH (Ottawa West) moved the first reading of Bill No. 26, to incorporate Ottawa Valley Trust Company.
Some hon. MEMBERS. Explain.
James Horace King: I must remind hon. members that bills presented by the senate are not debatable.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Even if we do not know
anything about them?
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker. I have a question I wish to direct to the Minister of Labour. A few days ago when discussing the matter of the international labour organization, I asked the Minister of Labour what contribution Canada was making toward its maintenance. He was good enough at a later time to give me the answer. It is an answer
Veterans Affairs

that I think the members of the house would be glad to have. I would, therefore ask the minister what Canada's contribution to the international labour organization was for the last fiscal year and what total contribution Canada has made to this organization since it was organized in 1920.


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to
thank the leader of the opposition for having given me notice of the question. Canada's contribution to the international labour organization in 1944 was $79,615.51. Since 1920 Canada has paid toward the maintenance of the international labour organization $1,492,244.46.


ELDORADO MINES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
John Bracken: I wish to direct a question to
the Minister of Munitions and Supply. Will he advise the house whether an investigation into the affairs of Eldorado Mines has been held? If so, will he indicate the purpose and nature of this investigation? Has a report been received by the government, and if so, when will it be laid on the table of the house?


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Munitions and Supply):: Some months ago the Department of Munitions and Supply ordered an investigation into certain sales contracts between Eldorado Mining & Refining and its agents. Mr. Grant Glassco was appointed . investigator under two orders in council which have been tabled to-day. The investigation is still proceeding; a report has not been received. When the report is received, consideration will be given to tabling it in the house.


John Bracken: Were the orders in
council ever tabled?


Clarence Decatur Howe: To-day, yes.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Mr. J. H. FERGUSON (Simcoe North):: I would like to ask the Minister of Finance how much longer returned soldiers are to be refused permits to go into business.


James Lorimer Ilsley: They are not refused permits to go into business.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, I have a letter here from a returned man-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order. #


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: -who has been refused a permit to go into business.


James Horace King: The statement of the minister is not debatable.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: The answer of the minister is not correct. He doesn't know his business.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
In committee of the whole-the following resolution:
Resolved, That it is expedient to bring in a measure to empower the governor in council to do such things as are necessary or expedient for carrying out the provisions of the interim agreement on international civil aviation, signed at Chicago on the seventh day of December, 1944, or any recommendations of the interim assembly or interim council of the organization, or any committees thereof, made pursuant to such provisions and to provide further that all expenditures in connection therewith be defrayed out of moneys provided by parliament.- The Minister of Munitions and Supply.
Gordon Knapman Fraser: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. KNOWLES:: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Just a moment, I think I can resolve the hon. member's question of privilege. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Gardiner) for leave to withdraw this resolution. The intention is to replace it by three separate resolutions, each of which will be confined to asking for approval of one specific document.
Motion agreed to and resolution withdrawn.



WAR AND DEMOBILIZATION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, October 25, consideration in committee of a resolution to grant to His Majesty certain sums of money for the carrying out of measures deemed necessary or advisable in consequence of the war-Mr. Ilsley-Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair

Demobilization-N aval Services

The CHAIRMAN:: The committee is on
item 2, pay and allowances.


Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of National Defence for Naval Services):: Perhaps I might reply to the question asked by the hon. member for Camrose (Mr. Marshall) yesterday evening respecting the number of civil employees in the navy. He pointed out that in the auditor general's report it appeared that there were 10,384 employees in the year ended March 31, 1944, and the total expenditure was $5 million odd as indicated in my statement, and he asked for an explanation as to why that figure should be nearly double the number indicated for the current year. I had not had an opportunity of checking it at that time but I indicated that I thought in all probability the explanation was that hourlyrated employees were not included in the total number indicated in the auditor general's report, and that is the case. The total number of employees in the year ended 1944 was 10,384 made up as follows:	5,586 hourly
rated employees, which would be ordinary labour and the like, and 4,798 coming under the civil service commission, or a total of 10,384, and the remuneration of the 5,586 hourly paid employees would be distributed in different items principally under the heading, I believe, No. 10, repair and upkeep of ships and the like. But my hon. friend was quite right that the statement as it appeared in the auditor general's report might be misleading in view of the figures I had given the night before.


Mr. STIRLING:: I wonder whether the
minister has given the committee all the information he can with regard to the question I raised when I asked that he report on what I understood to be the recruiting campaign. He has indicated that he does not look upon it as a recruiting compaign, and he has given certain figures, but one of my questions was, what offer is being made to those who may remain in the service in this two-year force, as regards pay and allowances.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I had already stated what
I thought the terms and conditions were as to pay and allowances with respect to the interim force so called; that is to say, they are exactly the same as are now being received by hostilities-only personnel-the active service rates of pay and allowances. In my statement with respect to the army. I pointed out-and the statement applied to all three services-that a committee had been set up to review the question of the permanent rates
of pay, I gave an undertaking that this would be announced not later than March 31 next, and that when it was announced those who had joined the interim force would have the right to go into the so-called permanent force at rates of pay and allowances, whatever they are, for that force, and should they not wish to avail themselves of that right they would be relieved of their undertaking to serve until September 30, 1947. But so long as they serve in the interim force, so called, their rates of pay and allowances will be those which they are now receiving. So the man who goes into the interim force knows, from the dollar point of view, what he is going to get. He does not know yet, if he is going to stay on in the permanent force, what the permanent rates will be, but we have told him that he will know that before March 31, and he has only to wait that comparatively short period before he is in a position to decide whether he wants to stay in or not. I am sorry I cannot give more definite information on that question yet.


Grote Stirling: I am still a little confused about this. In the original statement the minister said he anticipated getting this balance figure, which is about 6,000 from three sources: new enlistments, people transferring, and cadets. I do not think the minister has given information in regard to those coming in fresh, new raw recruits, shall we call them. In the original statement, to which more than one member has referred, which appeared in the press, it was said that something like seventy per cent of those that were coming forward were new recruits.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is completely incorrect. I d/o not know where that figure came from. We are not taking in new recruits at the moment. If some specially attractive lad came along I do not say that we might not take him, because the establishment is there; but speaking from memory, I believe that since last June we have taken very few new recruits into the navy. With 95,000 on strength, we felt that was the peak, and up to the present that applies so far as enlistments for the post-war navy are concerned. Naturally we shall be resuming at some time in the not distant future the enlistment of new recruits, but so far we have neither sought nor encouraged the entry of new recruits. As yet we are looking to men who are presently serving or have recently served.


Mr. GRAYDON:: I desire to direct a question to the minister having in mind the answers which were brought down on page 609 of Hansard of October 1, 1945. These
Dfmobilizalion-Naval Services

questions were answered at the instance of the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) and they related to personnel recently appointed by the Department of Veterans Affairs. I take it that between the two departments of government there is a close liaison where matters affect the naval services. I wish to bring this to the attention Of the minister. The question was in three parts:
1.	How many persons have been appointed to positions in the Department of Veterans Affairs since its inception in 1944?
2.	How many positions have been established where the official concerned is in receipt of $3,600 per annum or more?
3.	What was the previous army, navy or air force rank held by such persons holding these' positions?
The question boiled down to its smallest proportions means that perhaps the more important positions relating to these appointments were of course asked for in the second part of the question, namely, how many positions have been established where the official concerned is in receipt of $3,600 per annum or more. Now, the strange part of the answer, it seems to me, and one which I think the minister ought to have concerned himself with when these appointments were made is this- perhaps as a newcomer to the department we should not place upon his shoulders a responsibility that is not his. I think he should watch these matters, because of all those appointed to positions in the Department of Veterans Affairs since its inception in 1944 the navy has not got a single one.
The naval service of this country deserves something better than that. There were eighty-seven appointments from the army and seventeen from the air force. I am not making any reflection upon that proportion or upon the appointment of any one of these men. but I do criticize the government for allowing the appointments to be made without having some representation from the naval service, w'hich has done an . excellent job in this war. A fairly substantial number of naval personnel is involved in the rehabilitation programme of the government and the country. It does seem to me that there has been a strange and serious default on the part of the government in that the navy seems to have been forgotten or neglected in the appointment of men to key positions in the new department. Have any representations been made to the minister by his department in that connection? If not, will the minister see that this oversight is corrected at the earliest possible moment? The navy, being fMr. Graydon.]
one of the great branches of our armed forces, ought to be given more consideration than zero in appointments made since 1944.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am grateful to my hon. friend for bringing this to my attention. The first information I would have to seek, of course, would be to find out if any naval personnel had applied for these positions. The hon: member knows as wmll as I do that the appointments are made by the civil service commission. They are advertised; they are open to everyone. I agree with him it is unusual to find that in such a very large list, naval personnel should not be included. I shall ask our personnel people if they have had any inquiries about it. Probably the answer is that for one reason or another no naval personnel have applied. I feel safe in saying there has been no discrimination in the Department of Veterans Affairs so far as naval personnel are concerned. In view of what my hon. friend has said the only question that arises in my mind is whether or not we ought to suggest to my colleague, the Minister of Veterans Affairs, that a special effort be made to get some naval veterans to apply so that he will have that representation in his department. I should be very sorry if there were intentional discrimination against the naval service, and I am sure there has not been. I am obliged to the hon. member for bringing it to my attention.


Mr. GREEN:: The minister said a few minutes ago that there had been no recruits taken into the navy since June.


Douglas Charles Abbott: So far as I know, from the general public.


Howard Charles Green: I believe there were some lads taken in in Ma3' and June.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That may be; I was speaking from memory as to the date.


Howard Charles Green: I would ask him to explain what is being done with these young men. I know of some who were taken in about that time and received perhaps two or three weeks' training. Ever since then they have been kept kicking around barracks in one or other of the larger cities in Canada. They are not receiving .even physical training,-and certainly no naval training. Some of those lads signed \ip in the permanent navy for seven years. It is a very poor way to start a young man out. He goes into the navy full of enthusiasm; he wants to make it his life work, and yet he is just being pushed from pillar to post. I realize that the navy has been busy on demobilization and many other things, but it is a great tragedy that these young men should not be given proper training right now. There

Demobilization-Naval Services
are also some of these young men who joined up oniy for the period of the war. They 'cannot be demobilized because they came in such a short time ago. I believe that they too are being kicked around and that no training is being carried on for them. There is no better way to break the morale of a high-spirited young man than by such a process. The minister may be unaware that this has been going on. If he is, I do wish he would check up right away, because I think he will agree with me that it is an unsatisfactory state of affairs.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I agree with my hon. friend that it is most unsatisfactory. I was not aware that that' was the case. I find it a little surprising, because at our big training schools, for instance at Cornwallis in Nova Scotia, we. are continuing the training of men who come in early in the year. I think our last class will graduate there about November 1; therefore I find it hard to understand why those who came in in May or June, as my hon. friend suggested, should be left, as he puts it, kicking around in the division doing nothing.


Howard Charles Green: I did not. say they are doing nothing; they are probably running messages and scrubbing floors or doing other jobs of that type, but they are not getting any training.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Even that surprises me, because, as I say, we are still maintaining our training establishment at Cornwallis to complete the training of those who have come in earlier in the year. However, I shall most certainly make inquiries as to the circumstances to which my hon. friend alludes, and if he can give me some further particulars later to enable me to pursue it more quickly, I shall be very grateful.


Howard Charles Green: Is any training school in operation?


Douglas Charles Abbott: At Cornwallis.


Howard Charles Green: Is it to be carried on after this course finishes?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Not for the time being. We are closing Cornwallis because it is obviously too big to operate in peace time. Other "arrangements will have to be made. St. Hyacinthe is still operating the signal school. Of course it is quite possible to carry out basic training of recruits in divisions, and then they would be sent either to the east or to the west coast for continued training there. Up to the present the main training has been carried on at Cornwallis for ordinary ratings and at St. Hyacinthe for signals. Both are still operating.


Howard Charles Green: Are there any training facilities in Canada that can be put to use on a small scale to train these young men?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Oh, yes, on either coast.


Howard Charles Green: Would it not be possible to carry on training at Cornwallis on a smaller scale?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Quite. There is no lack of training facilities and no intention that the training of partly trained personnel should not be continued.


Mr. MERRITT:: There is one thing
troubling me; perhaps the minister can explain it. The low-point men at present in the navy come up for discharge in their turn; if he is not accepting new recruits for the navy now, and if he has not a trained force of new men, coming forward all the time, how is he going to keep the ships of the navy manned until such time as he starts his new recruiting campaign and brings the navy up to its full strength?


Douglas Charles Abbott: As I say, we are not accepting new recruits. That is a very short term policy, if I might put it that way. I think I indicated last night that at the moment we hope to get the bulk of the men to hold our navy, shall we say, at a strength, as I indicated, of around ten thousand, from those who have already had a fairly complete and expensive training from the country. If too many of those wrant to go back to civil life, do not want to continue in the navy, then of course we shall have to build it up from new men who have had no training at all. In any case we will resume very soon the taking on of new enlistments from the sea cadets and from the general public. I think it is probably fair to say that, as was indicated by the hon. member for Churchill last night, a great many of those who served even one or two 'years ma,y not want to continue on in the navy. I am not suggesting we are going to be able to carry on our navy for more than a few' months by enlisting only those who have already served for a time in this war. I do not want the committee or the country to get the impression that recruiting for the navy is suspended indefinitely. I suggest that it may only be, and probably will only be, for a month or two.


Mr. COCKERAM:: I should like to know how many officers are employed at naval headquarters and at local district headquarters, with their ranks, and at the same time I should like to know if there has been any reduction in these figures since V-E day; if so, what is the reduction?
Demobilization-Naval Services


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am afraid I cannot give the ranks; I can give the totals, and I could get a break-down of the ranks a little later. First dealing with naval service headquarters, at August 17, 1945, V-J day, there were employed 667 officers and 1,102 ratings, a total of 1,769. As of October 22, 1945, there were employed a total of 497 officers, a reduction of 170, and a total of 915 ratings, a reduction of 1S7, making a grand total of 1,412 or a total reduction of 357. I have not as yet the information for the divisions, but my hon. friend indicated that he might ask this ques-. tion and probably I will have that information later this afternoon.


Mr. ROBINSON (Bruce):: What is the
lowest ranking officer in the navy who can impose a sentence of thirty-four days' stoppage of pay?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am afraid I shall have to get that information and give it to my hon. friend a little later on. I am not as up to date on matters of discipline as perhaps I should be.


Andrew Ernest Robinson: Could the minister tell me offhand whether an officer with the rank of lieutenant is able to impose that fine?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No, I am afraid I cannot. I will make inquiries and let my hon. friend know a little later.


Andrew Ernest Robinson: I am sorry to take up time on this matter, but to my mind it is a very important question. Yesterday there was some question raised as to whether or not Nelson was dead. From some things we see and hear I believe he Is still living, and in some wrays I am not at all sorry. I have occasion at the present time, however, to be working on a case in which I am personally interested, because it is from my home town. I have found that a penalty has been imposed by a naval officer in the women's division with the rank of lieutenant, amounting to thirty-four days' stoppage of pay; and it was imposed upon a Wren who has given twenty-six months' service. The family from which she comes has a total of seven on active service in this war, and I am afraid this is an ignoble ending for her. If such are the regulations in the navy, I think we should look up that Nelson affair and see if we cannot bring it to light. I should be very glad to have this information.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I would not like to have that statement pass without referring to it briefly. I am familiar with the case to which

my hon. friend refers. He was good enough to tell me about it, and I looked into it. Whether or not the officer who imposed the penalty was qualified to do so I am not prepared to say; I will make inquiries, but from the information given me I should say the penalty imposed was not excessive. After all the navy, like any other service, has certain standards of discipline which it must maintain.
I would not be prepared to say, after looking into the matter, that the officer who imposed that penalty exceeded her jurisdiction or that the penalty was excessive.


Andrew Ernest Robinson: I cannot speak from the naval point of view, but from the point of view of the army, in which I have had considerable experience, I should say the penalty was very excessive. It was imposed for being absent without leave for seven days, and that absence was under very extenuating circumstances. This girl's husband had been discharged from the Uganda, and she applied for leave. She w'as given forty-eight hours' leave. She overstayed seven days and came back, and now is finishing Her career in the navy with thirty-four days' stoppage of pay.


Douglas Charles Abbott: My hon. friend should add that previously she had been given three weeks' sleeping out passes.


Andrew Ernest Robinson: Speaking from the army point of view, sleeping out passes do not mean very much. You do all your work in the daytime and you are your own boss at night.


Mr. JACKMAN:: Would the minister say whether any naval service personnel are being used in the army of occupation in Germany?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Have there been any requests on the part of any naval service personnel to serve there? Perhaps the minister for air would say whether the air force is serving in that army of occupation to a comparable extent with the army. I believe we have a few squadrons there, but I should like to know whether the army is bearing the whole brunt of this service in Germany.


Douglas Charles Abbott: We have had no requests to [DOT] serve in the army of occupation, and no naval service personnel are so serving. I do not know whether my hon. friend the minister for air cares to answer for his department. That question perhaps should be.asked when his own estimates are under consideration, but we might be able to dispose of it now.

Demobilization-Naval Services


Mr. GIBSON (Hamilton West):: We have supplied the squadrons that have been requested for the occupational force, and they are still serving.


Douglas Charles Abbott: At the same time I do not want this to be taken as a precedent so that we may cover the whole waterfront as far as questions are concerned. We are on the naval estimates now, and I beg the committee to stick to questions relating to the navy and to the items under discussion.


Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: A few
moments ago the minister stated that the Cornwallis training station would be closed November 1.


Douglas Charles Abbott: No, I said our last class would graduate on November 1. Perhaps I misled my hon. friend.


Percy Chapman Black: Then I
understood the minister to say further that Cornwallis was too large for any peace-time use by the navy. I should like to ask what disposition it is expected will be made of that establishment, which cost this country an enormous sum. A return brought down October 1 stated that the total expenditure there was $9,163,643.63. In a previous session I understood that it would continue to be used as a training centre, at least to some extent, to do the work carried on in earlier years in Nova Scotia by the naval college, which was demolished in 1917 at the time of the explosion. Is the minister in a position to make a statement now? If not, I should like him to do so at a convenient time later.
Mr. ABBOTT; I think perhaps I can make the statement now. As far as the navy is concerned, Cornwallis is far too large for any possible post-war use. It was built for a very special purpose. There was an urgent need to train seamen at a critical time during the war, and Cornwallis was built and equipped to perform that work, which was splendidly done. Various possibilities now are being explored with other government departments as to uses which might be matle of Cornwallis. If it could be used as a rehabilitation centre or training centre or something of the sort, the navy perhaps could utilize a portion of it for training purposes; but as a centre it is larger than the navy could possibly contemplate or maintain in peace time. So if no other use is found for it, as far as the navy is concerned we would contemplate relinquishing it about the end of the present fiscal year. Beyond that I cannot say. If it followed the ordinary course; if no other use were found, it would be declared surplus by the navy and
its ultimate disposition then would be handed over to some other government department, the crown assets allocation committee, for instance. I can say that various possibilities are now being actively explored.


Percy Chapman Black: There is a large hospital structure at the Cornwallis naval station, which was built and equipped at heavy expense. What use is being made of it now, and what will be the final disposition of it?
Mr. ABBOTT; In addition to completing the training of certain ratings, as I mentioned, Cornwallis is being used as a demobilization centre. It is admirably suited for that purpose. The hospital facilities are being utilized for the examination of men who are being discharged. When that work is completed, the hospital as well as the other facilities at Cornwallis will be declared surplus by the navy. When that time comes my responsibility as Minister of National Defence for Naval Services will cease so far as Cornwallis is concerned. I cannot tell my hon. friend what will be done with the hospital or the other facilities, but the navy will be finished with them.


Mr. PEARKES:: I received a telegram
yesterday asking if the good name of the ships' company of H.M.C.S. Uganda might be vindicated because of the slurring remarks that have been made regarding some of the men who had not volunteered for service in the Pacific. Is' it correct that all the men of the ship's company of the Uganda originally volunteered for service wherever required, and that later the government gave them the opportunity of volunteering or not for the Pacific?


Douglas Charles Abbott: As my hon. friend knows
as well as I, the men on the Uganda volun- . teered to serve anywhere. After the termination of the European war, and in accordance with the announced government policy, those men, as well as the men in the army and in the air force, were offered the opportunity of electing whether or not they would continue to serve in the Pacific. I received a wire similar to the one received by my hon. friend, and I am replying that I feel sure that the majority of the people of this country are under no illusions as to the status of the crew of the Uganda or as to their suffering from any alleged slurs which may have been cast with respect to their terms of service.

Demobilization-Naval Services


Mr. ADAMSON:: I should like to ask a
question with regard to the service of certain officers who served with the Royal Canadian Navy in the last war and who rejoined the navy in this war. These men were straight stripe officers, and many of them served in senior executive positions. Is there any differential between the pay and allowances of the Royal Canadian Navy and the Royal Canadian Naval Volunteer Reserve, that is, between the straight navy and the wavy navy? Is there any difference in the pension facilities offered to the officers in the two services?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Answering the first question, there is no distinction in pay as between the two branches of the service. As the hon. member has indicated, a number of former Royal Canadian Navy officers rejoined the navy at the beginning of this war. As a matter of fact they have performed outstanding services. Their pay and allowances have been the same as those of the officers of the Royal Canadian Naval Volunteer Reserve. As to pensions, I am advised that if these men rejoined the navy their service during the war would count on their pensions. For instance, if they had left the navy prior to this war before reaching pensionable age and rejoined the navy at the beginning of this war, their previous service plus their service in this war would count toward pension. I take it that these men have come back as reserve officers.


Agar Rodney Adamson: That is a question several of them have been asking.


Mr. CASE:: What is the relationship between the merchant marine and the navy?


Douglas Charles Abbott: There is none at all. We
provided guns and naval gunners for merchant marine ships, but we have nothing to do with them now.


Mr. PROBE:: What are the amounts to be voted for civil salaries and pay and allowances for H.M.C.S. Queen of Regina for 1945-46?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The estimates are not
broken down in that way, but if my hon. friend wishes that information I can [DOT]see that it is obtained and given to him later on. He wants the actual expenditures in connection with H.M.C.S. Queen in the previous year?


John Oliver Probe: I want the proposed expenditures.


Douglas Charles Abbott: For this year?


John Oliver Probe: Yes.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That may be rather difficult to get broken down in that way.


John Oliver Probe: You have a civil list covering H.M.C.S. Queen.


Douglas Charles Abbott: There would be rent and
maintenance and all that sort of thing. I think I can probably give my hon. friend a fairly accurate figure of what the total estimates would include for H.M.C.S. Queen.


John Oliver Probe: What is the proposed future
of H.M.C.S. Queen.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I think I can give an answer with respect to all divisions. As I indicated in my opening remarks, we propose to maintain all divisions, but as to the scale on which they will be maintained and other matters, I am not yet in position to make a definite announcement.


Alan Cockeram: How many admirals,
vice admirals, rear admirals and captains are there on the strength of the navy to-day, and what will the policy be with regard to bringing them down to peace-time strength? A great many of them are permanent force people.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I shall have to get that
information and give it to my hon. friend later.


Howard Charles Green: Is the minister able to give
us any information about the ships that are manned at the present time? For example, I presume the Uganda no longer has a crew large enough to take her to sea. Are many of these naval ships to be tied up until the permanent navy is organized to a greater degree than it is at the present time, or is an attempt to be made to keep a certain number of ships active throughout the year? Just what is the plan?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I think I can answer that
in a fairly general way by saying that the Uganda is refitting at Esquimalt and-


Howard Charles Green: Has the Uganda a crew large enough to put to sea?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes, we have more than
enough men. The position is that a great many men who would normally be assigned to the Uganda are now being used to destore a large number of ships, such as corvettes, frigates and that sort of thing. During the transition period which will last for two or three months we will need a great many trained naval personnel, particularly stokers and that sort of thing, for destoring and winterizing purposes. There is a heavy programme of so-called winterizing, that is, making ships safe for the winter.
I am not making this as a definite statement, but the present plans are that the Uganda will sail before the end of the year to go around through the Panama canal on a training

Demobilization-Naval Services
cruise with a certain number of new men who are now on her, cadet officers and that sort of thing. As I announced the other day, the Ontario will be back at Esquimalt, I think in about a month. She will presumably have to go into dock for a refit. It is not expected that during the winter we will keep two cruisers cruising about. There is no war on, and it would entail considerable extra expense for fuel and that sort of thing to keep them at sea. We do not contemplate keeping both the Uganda and the Ontario at sea during the winter. The committee knows that in broad terms our strength at the moment is roughly
5,000	permanent men, and there are still a large number of hostilities-only personnel. We want to bring those down to the minimum before February or March. Our plan is that as we reduce the hostilities personnel we shall build up with interim or permanent force men to take their place. The present plans are that the Uganda will leave Esquimalt certainly before the end of the year on a cruise, as I have indicated.


Agar Rodney Adamson: The cruisers will be based in Canada, not in far eastern waters.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Their home base will be Canada.


Agar Rodney Adamson: We have no commitments in the far east such as to put down piracy, and so forth?


Douglas Charles Abbott: We have had no request for that sort of thing. I would hope that these new and modern ships we are getting would make cruises to different parts of the world, to the far east and elsewhere. That is far more interesting to the crews than to be tied up to the jetty or to be cruising up and down our own coasts. I have every expectation that they will have cruises, but just when they will start it is a little early for me to say.


Agar Rodney Adamson: It will make the navy a lot .more popular.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am sure it would.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: You have sold all the corvettes and all the Fairmiles. There are none available?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The navy does not sell them.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: In some eases it would look as if we were giving them away.
turned over to crown assets allocation committee, which in turn presumably turns them over to War Assets Corporation, which has been set up as an agency to dispose of what is surplus. I can answer no questions with respect to the disposal of anything by War Assets Corporation. I have nothing to do with the price or the method of disposal. It is not my responsibility.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: But the minister has to ask parliament for the money for the navy. He does not know how the ships are disposed of or what they bring?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The navy does not get the money; it goes to consolidated revenue. The navy comes to the house every year for a vote.


Mr. FULTON:: Did I understand the minister to say that all the corvettes and Fairmiles have been disposed of?


Douglas Charles Abbott: They have all been declared surplus so far as the navy is concerned. I do not know whether War Assets has disposed of them.


Mr. CASSELMAN:: There was a statement in the press last night that they had.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I saw that. As I explained in my preliminary remarks, they are not the type of ship that we feel are suitable for the permanent post-war navy. They were built for a special purpose, to do a special job, and so far as the navy is concerned our future plans do not contemplate retaining them. We are keeping a certain number of frigates in reserve and for training purposes. They are a larger and more modern ship. But the corvettes and Fairmiles-no. With two or three isolated exceptions, they are all surplus, and so far as I know they are being disposed of.


Mr. LENNARD:: Are you not keeping some of the minesweepers of the newer class for training purposes?


Douglas Charles Abbott: It has not definitely been decided yet. We have some of the Algerines and some minesweepers in reserve.


George Randolph Pearkes: Will personnel of the Royal Canadian Naval Reserve be permitted to take part in some of the cruises which have been indicated, on the Uganda, for instance? When will the cruises commence?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I would appreciate it if my Mr. ABBOTT: I am not in a position to hon. friend would stick to the naval depart-	indicate any definite date, but I	hope that itment. When the navy is through with any	will be possible by next spring.	Our plan atship, it declares it surplus. It has nothing to do present is to reduce the hostilities personnel with selling it. With two or three isolated	and to take in new men to build	up our navyexceptions, all our corvettes and Fairmiles	to its post-war complement, and	at the same
have been declared surplus and have been time there will be active training of the 47696-97



Demobilization-Naval Services
reserve. I would hope that early next year, probably next spring or summer, we shall be able to carry out training for the reserve on board ship, but I am not in a position to make any announcement now. I would have to discuss it with the staff and see how they felt.


Mr. HARKNESS:: There are now about
5,000	personnel in the permanent force?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The permanent force has about 4,000, and 1,100 have applied for interim two-year service.


Alan Cockeram: The 1945-46 estimate for pay and allowances is $98,351,247, and in the minister's statement the other night of naval expenditures for 1944-45 I noticed that the estimate made at the beginning of the year almost exactly equalled the expenditure for the year. That is pretty good figuring when dealing with figures of such magnitude. I would like the assurance from the minister at this time, because this money is voted by the house, that it will not necessarily be spent if a saving of the taxpayers' money can be saved. In other words, men will not be retained in the service just in order to spend this money?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I will most certainly give that assurance. The estimate for pay and allowances last year was $114,000,000 odd, and the actual expenditures were $123,000,000 odd.


Alan Cockeram: I was taking the whole estimate.
, Mr. ABBOTT: I was referring to pay and allowances. The estimate for this year is $98,000,000, or a reduction from last year's expenditure of some $24,000,000. As my hon. friend will appreciate, these estimates are made up on the best guess the staff can make as to the average number of man-hours that will be served in the navy from-April 1, 1945 to March 31, 1946. If demobilization proceeds more rapidly than we anticipated, this estimated figure will be cut down. I can assure my hon. friend that every effort will be made to keep it down as low as possible.


Alan Cockeram: There would be senior officers on the staff that you would not be justified in retaining with a cutting down of personnel.


Douglas Charles Abbott: 
Wilfrid Garfield Case: The minister said a moment ago that these estimates are made up on the best guess the department can make.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is bound to be a guess, but with informed knowledge.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: -There is no accurate yardstick which they can use?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The estimating is pretty good, if my hon. friend will compare the estimate last year and the actual expenditure. I have been astounded at the accuracy with which the accounting staffs can estimate.
Mr. CASE; No, the minister said they guess.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Perhaps "guess" is a slur on their abilities in estimating accurately, but there must be a certain element of guesswork in it.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I am surprised that the hon. member for Grey North should be surprised at a guess from the government benches.


John Bracken: If the minister has so much confidence in his guess, I suggest the government might very well have brought down this whple appropriation of $1,365,000,000 in three or four hundred different resolutions, the way he does with his ordinary estimates.


Mr. MARSHALL:: In order that we might learn just where the increases are in the actual expenditure and the estimates, would the minister give a break-down of both into, I suggest, about six classes. First, pay: then, the assigned pay; dependents' allowance; uniform allowance; allowance in lieu of quarters and rations, and clothing on discharge. By getting a break-down of the estimates and of the actual expenditures we may find where this increase of $8,600,000 has taken place.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am advised that to get information in the form and detail for which my hon. friend has asked would require the services of a considerable accounting staff for some time. But a short explanation of the increase, I am informed, is that the major portion of the increase is the amount of twenty-nine cents per man which represented the additional number that had to be placed out on lodging and compensation and could not be accommodated in barracks. In the estimates for the previous year allowance was not made for that factor. The deputy minister informs me that that accounts for the major portion of the increase, and he also advises me that item 5, personnel supplies and services, is down correspondingly because we do not have to buy the food and supplies for the ones who are given lodging and compensation.


Alan Cockeram: It is twenty-nine cents per day?	'


Douglas Charles Abbott: Twenty-nine cents per man.

Demobilization-Naval Services


Alan Cockeram: Per man per day increase?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is right.


James Alexander Marshall: What was the average for the previous year? The average for the last year, the minister says, was twenty-nine cents per man?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The amount whicl) had been estimated for each man was increased by twenty-nine cents per day because of the factors to which I referred.


Howard Charles Green: The fiscal year is over half gone, and by the end of this year the hos-tilities-only men will have been discharged. The minister has told us how many men there will be in the permanent navy and how many ships there will be. Can he tell ns approximately what the naval estimate will be for the fiscal year 1946-47?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The deputy minister smiles. I am afraid I cannot. As he feels that he cannot, I am sure that it is not possible to give that information. I am afraid that it is a little early. The whole programme will have to be revised. To give my hon. friend an example: during this pa9t year we have been operating on war-time rates of pay and allowances. We expect, in fa,ct we know, that before the next year comes along, a new scale of pay and allowances will have been decided on for the permanent navy, and that will obviously affect the estimates, because the largest single item in the estimates is pay and allowances. So it would be a mere guess if I attempted- to give any estimate now.


Howard Charles Green: Did not the finance minister in his budget speech make a guess as to what the expenditures would be in the next fiscal year? If he did, he must have had a guess from the navy as to what their expenditures would be.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I could not say. I do not recall whether he did or not, but whether he did or not I will not carry on a guessing contest.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: I must say I feel disappointed, I do not want to be too harsh with the minister, but $98,351,247 seems a mighty big sum to guess at, and I still think it is only fair that he should say how it is arrived at and what cause -them to guess at that figure. I may guess that $95 million would be enough, but the minister say, no,' we must have the S98 million. He must have some reason why he wants the extra three million.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I think I can give much
more detail than that. I can see that I used 47696-97i	.
an unfortunate word when I used the word "guess"; it is getting me into hot water. The averages used for the computation of estimated requirements for pay and allowances for the period September 1, 1945 to March 31, 1946 are based on expenditures during the fiscal year 1943-44 as follows:	officers' pay, expenditure, $15,295,151.58; average number borne, 6,953; average per annum say $2,200. You estimate the number of officers you are-going to have and based on previous expenditure, the average pay per officer is $2,200, and seven-twelfths of $2,200 is $1,284. I dor not know that I need give the committee details of ratings' pay, but that is based on an average per annum of say $726. Extra pay is figured on an average per annum of $21. Dependents' allowance is figured on an average per annum of $260. Lodging and provision allowance is figured on an average of $159 per annum. Kit upkeep allowance is figured on an average of $30 per annum. It is on the basis of these averages in all cases that the estimates are made up.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: For the whole personnel?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is correct.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
8. Travel, transportation and freight, $10,908,869.
Mr. ROSS (Souris):: Why is there such a
large increase-$214,000-in the estimates under this item?


Douglas Charles Abbott: A very short answer to
that is, sending the whole of the navy home again. That is the real reason for the increase. It is estimated that our expenditure for travel and transportation will be substantially increased this year because we shall be sending the majority-say 85,000 out of 95,000-back to their homes, and since they have to be sent in most cases from one coast to somewhere in the interior, the estimate is that the figures for travel and ^transportation will be higher than they were last year. I have some data here which I can give the committee if my hon. friend wants a more elaborate explanation, but very shortly that is the reason for the estimated increase.


Frank Exton Lennard: While we are on that-I do not feel that the navy are offenders in any way-may I mention that a case was drawn to my attention, if you will pardon me for-referring to the army for a moment of a man who was home on leave in Ontario and was-notified to proceed to British Columbia to be-transferred to M.D. 2 in Toronto to be discharged. To me that is ridiculous, because it contributes to the congestion of our railway traffic and adds expense to the already heavy

Demobilization-Naval Services
burden we have to carry. I know I am out of order in mentioning it now, because I do not believe that the navy, in the way they are carrying on, are doing that; I believe their methods of discharge are very sound, and I have no fault to find with them. I just wanted to bring that matter up at this time because I think such a proceeding on the part of the army is ridiculous.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am afraid that we in
the navy may not be entirely free from blame either. I have had cases brought to my attention there where there has been some unnecessary travel too. I am sure the committee will realize that in trying to demobilize a number of men quickly a man might sometimes be sent to a certain depot where it is found that he should have been sent somewhere else, and that involves extra travel.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Does the navy pay
standard rates on the railways?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am afraid I cannot answer that, nor can the deputy minister. We assume that standard rates are paid, but I will inquire into that.


Agar Rodney Adamson: If a man travels from Halifax to Montreal, how much does the railway bill the Department of Naval Services?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not think there are any excursion rates.


Mr. HAZEN:: You pay a lower rate.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am advised that there is a military rate, but I do not know what it is.


Agar Rodney Adamson: The military rate you pay yourself, and I know how much that is; it represents a reduction to less than fifty per cent. But when a rating is travelling on service, what is the cost per mile of his travel and how does it compare with the ordinary civilian rate?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am advised that he gets a military warrant and it is charged to the department. What the rate is I am not in a position to say, but I assume it is the military rate to which my hon. friend has referred.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Can the minister find out?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes; I will verify that.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I have been asked
about it.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Neither I nor the deputy minister can answer it at the moment.


Mr. MacNICOL:: Does this item cover expenditures in connection with soldiers

returning to Ontario on leave from service on ships? I have in mind men who served in the Aleutians during the war.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not know whether it would cover those. It is an item that covers all transportation paid by the department in connection with naval personnel. If the naval personnel returning from the Aleutians were paid railway transportation by the department when going on leave, I suppose it would, but I do not imagine they were. If they were on leave, they would pay their own transportation at the reduced rate.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I know of a number of lads coming back to Ontario. I do not know whether they were on leave or were being sent back, but in any event they were returning after serving on our ships in the Aleutians, and I presume the intention of the department was that they should have the best possible transportation back. I should think that would be the wish of the department, but in one particular case I know of, a young lad after having been out in Bering strait on duty and along the Alaska coast, in all sorts of weather and enduring all the hardships that sailors have to put up with in winter, found when he arrived at Prince Rupert and boarded a train that he had to stand up all the way to Winnipeg. I know the department would not want anything like that. Was some special arrangement made for the transfer of personnel from the navy back to their homes, or back east, or was it a case of catch-as-catch-can on the railway trains?


Douglas Charles Abbott: My hon. friend is as familiar as I am with the problems under which the railways have been operating during the war. Apart from trains which were specifically allocated for the transportation of troops proceeding on duty, no trains were set aside for the forces, and naval and military personnel had to travel on the regular trains. During every holiday season the railway companies, I thought, cooperated by seeing that the service personnel were allowed if possible to get on the trains before civilians, but it was not possible to run special trains for service personnel, so far as I know. They had to take their chance with the others, but by and large the transportation facilities of Canada have stood up wonderfully and I have not heard any serious complaints from service personnel that they were unable to get accommodation to reach their homes. Some had to stand up, it is true, and so did some of the rest of us, but that wras all right.


Percy Chapman Black: The minister has not satisfied me of the justification for

Demobilization-Naval Services
the increase in the estimates for transportation for the navy for the current fiscal year. It is the only one of the three defence departments for which an increase is asked, and that increase amounts to about $300,000. The army is asking in its estimates for a reduction of about thirty per cent and the air services for a reduction of about thirteen per cent, but the naval department is asking for an increase. There would be no expenditures for transportation for navy men, or to a very limited extent at any rate, on the water. I do not think we have had sufficient justification for this increase, and I would like to have a further explanation from the minister. Will he tell us why there should be an increase in the cost of transportation for the naval department while there is a reduction, and it is a reasonable reduction, of thirty per cent for the army and thirteen per cent for the air services?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not know that I can offer much more explanation than I have given. One factor to which I have not referred is the fact that the strength of the navy was increased this year. Last year the estimates were based on a total strength of
87.000	and this year the peak strength was 95,000, nearly 9,000 more. Every one of those
95.000	will travel at least once in reaching his home during the year. The actual expenditures for transportation for the six months up to September 30 was about forty-seven per cent of the estimates. It was $4,662,919, leaving a balance of about $5 million. That would indicate perhaps that the estimate was sufficiently conservative and that it would probably not be reached; but it was made up in the same way that the estimates for pay and allowances were made up, on the average number of men in the army, and the per capita rate. The per capita rate in 1944-45 was $101, and this year we are estimating seven-twelfths of that, which would be $59, plus $6 to provide for increased transportation costs due to demobilization. That "is only an estimate. The [DOT] expenditures for the previous year were $101 per man. This year we are taking seven-twelfths of that and adding $6 to cover additional cost of transportation by reason of demobilization. What the result will be remains to be seen, but the actual result for the first six months is forty-seven per cent of the estimated expenditures.


James Alexander Marshall: Did I understand the minister to say that the estimate for next year is in excess of what the expenditures were last year?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Somewhat below the
expenditures.


James Alexander Marshall: Does the minister contend that it is a fair comparison to compare the estimates of last year with the estimates of this year when he has the actual expenditures for last year to compare with the estimates of this year? It seems to me that some of us are getting our figures badly mixed up. I prefer to compare a set of figures which are estimates for this year with actual figures of last year. The actual figures for last year were $10,696,391. The estimates for the coming year are S10,000,000 in round figures, a decrease of somewhere in the neighbourhood of $690,000. The question I rose to ask is this: What is the difference between the item "travel" and the item "transport"? Does the item "travel" include the figure covering civilian travel? Of the amount that was actually spent last year, what was spent in civilian travel and what was spent for the navy? Could we have a separate amount covering transportation and a separate amount covering freight?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes; it includes both civilian and service travel. Here is the break-down: Travel and transportation, civilian, $230,927; ocean transportation, $659,364.


James Alexander Marshall: Civilian?


Douglas Charles Abbott: This is for seven months. I gave the civilian in the first figure, $230,927, and it is for seven months estimated.


James Alexander Marshall: I am more interested in actualities. The actual amount spent last year was $10,696,391.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Does my hon. friend want a break-down of that?


James Alexander Marshall: I want a break-down of these figures.


Douglas Charles Abbott: My hon. friend will appreciate that I oan get that for him, but I have not it here because I was discussing the details of next year's estimates, not of last year's expenditures. If it serves his purpose I can give him a break-down of this year's estimates, or I can give him later a break-down of last year's expenditures.


James Alexander Marshall: The only reason I am
asking this question now is that I do not know of any place in the ordinary public accounts where this question can be asked. 1 do not think there is any estimate in the public accounts, civil estimates, where we can discuss these matters.
Demobilization-Naval Services


Douglas Charles Abbott: Just to be clear, is the information which my hon. friend wants now a break-down of last year's actual expenditures?


James Alexander Marshall: Yes.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have not that here; I shall have to get it later. I can give him a break-down of this year's estimates.


James Alexander Marshall: I shall be quite satisfied if the minister will put it on Hansard later.


Percy Chapman Black: Is it not a fair conclusion to come to that what appears to be excessive travel, transportation and freight in the naval services as compared with the army and air force would to some extent at least be due to the unfortunate location of the naval college on the. Pacific coast? I think it will be agreed that ninety-five per cent of the naval activities have been on the Atlantic ocean. I hope the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services will agree with me that ninety-five per cent of naval activities were on the Atlantic coast, and the college was located four thousand miles away on the Pacific coast. These excessive transportation and travel charges, which the taxpayers of the country had to pay, are due to the maintaining of that luxury college on the Pacific.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not know the proportion -of students from the east and west coasts in that college. If they were largely from the Pacific coast, of course, there would be an extensive saving.


Mr. SHAW:: Within the past months two cases have come to my attention in which servicemen who were called home on farm leave were ordered to report back. In one case it was in Calgary. These men were called back to their division and when they arrived there they were told that they had been called in error. The boys had paid their transportation at servicemen's rates; they were obliged to pay their way to Calgary at those rates, and when they were called home they had to pay their way home.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Is my hon. friend referring to naval personnel?


Frederick Davis Shaw: Army personnel.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am anxious to keep to naval personnel, if I may. I am going to have to rattle around on the army later.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Perhaps I can indicate to the minister that I shall ask for an explanation when we come to the army estimates.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Quite so.
[Mr. Marshall.!


John Bracken: A few moments ago the minister said he was unable to say what the rate of pay for transportation in the naval service was. I was surprised that he was unable to answer that question; but he explained that there had been agreement, I would assume, on some special rate.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I think I should say that I do not know.


John Bracken: Wait a minute. If there is such an agreement, who makes it? I think the committee would like to know what the rates were. My impression is there was a special rate. Perhaps the minister can say who makes that agreement. It is possible he may now know what the rate is.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I know what the rate is. My parliamentary assistant tells me that it was all in Hansard of last year. Possibly I should have known that. In any case there are limitations to human memory. I have just been informed that the railways bill the naval services for warrants issued for duty travel at the rate of two and a half cents per mile for first class and one and two-third cents for second class or tourist. The usual rate charged by the railways to civilians is understood to be approximately 3-45 cents per mile for first class and three cents per mile for second class or tourist. I cannot, of course, vouch for these last mentioned figures.


John Bracken: Who makes that
agreement?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not know; I must say I do not know whether it is an agreement or not; I shall have to inquire from the departmental officials. This is a matter of detail with which I am afraid I have not familiarized myself; but these are the rates being charged, whether it is by agreement with the two railways or not I do not know. I am informed that this was established in the very early days of the war. The deputy minister tells me it was before his time. I shall be glad to get the information and give it to the committee, if it is not already a matter of record; I am inclined to think it is.


John Bracken: It will not be hard to find it if it is.


Douglas Charles Abbott: No; I may have it within fifteen minutes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Properties,	.
(a) Capital expenditures	 $7,017,590
(b)	Repairs, operating expenses
and rentals ...'	 7,890,534
Douglas King Hazen: Could we have a better
break-down of this item? According to page

Demobilization-Naval Services
550 of Hansard it amounts to $14,908,124, and in the mimeographed copy that we received showing the comparison of estimates for this year and last year it is broken down to show capital expenditures, repairs,- operating expenses and rentals. Could we have it further broken down to show the amounts for construction, purchase of property, repairs, operating expenses and for rentals? Then would the minister tell us what construction has been done this year; where it was done; who did it and what it cost, in each instance? Would he tell us also if it is the intention to carry on further construction projects this year, and if so, where will they be -carried on, and, if they are to be carried on, could he give us some idea of the nature of the work proposed to be done? I would also ask if it is the intention to purchase further properties this year out of this money that is being voted and, if so, where those properties are located, from whom they are to be purchased and what amounts are to be paid for them. As to the item for rentals, would he give us particulars about them, what rentals are being paid, where and to whom; and how does the amount compare with the amounts paid in rentals last year?	,


Douglas Charles Abbott: I shall be very glad to give that information. As rtiy hon. friend will appreciate, some of what he has asked is a pretty tall order. We have a great many rented properties across the country for which various rentals are paid, with various persons from whom they are rented. Of course I could not be expected to give that detail to the committee to-day, but perhaps I might make a general statement on this question of property and maintenance. Then I will look at my hon. friend's remarks in Hansard and endeavour to get the information for which he has asked.
First on the matter of capital expenditures, by the end of the fiscal year 1943-44 capital expenditure on shore buildings and properties for the navy had reached its peak. During that year and the preceding year a total of over S50,000,000 was spent on this item. As the requirements diminished, the expenditures also decreased; but the actual .payment of accounts lagged considerably behind the completion of the projects. Although some construction was completed in the year 1944-45, this was to a large extent a liquidating period. Of the total amount requested for this fiscal year, that is to say $7,017,590, we have already spent practically $2,000,000 to close accounts from 1944-45, and as of August 31 there still remained an unpaid liability for work commenced or under contract in 1944-45 amounting to nearly $3,000,000, which means that in this
year we have had to provide roughly $5,000,000 out of a total of some $7,000,000 to meet the ' costs of construction started in other years. The balance requested, of slightly over $2,000,000, represents the cost of projects commenced in 1945-46 including those which are essential for demobilization and posthostility activities of the Royal Canadian Navy, and temporary repairs to the Bedford magazines. The balance may be considered as cash needed for 1945-46 projects to March 31, 1946, being composed of the actual payments to August 31, plus estimated payments possible by March 31, 1946. The actual amount required for reconstruction of the .Bedford magazines cannot be determined until Colonel Ogilvie's report on the whole situation has been reviewed carefully and the necessary calculations made.
To summarize the way the item of $7,017,590 is made up, therefore, first we have the carry-over from 1944-45 as of August 31, 1945, amounting to $2,809,103. Then we have expenditures to August 31, 1945, of $2,091,091, and provision for 1945A6 projects, $2,117,396, making the total of $7,017,590.
The principal items in respect of which provision is made in the amount of $2,117,396, which is the amount we are estimating as still to be spent, are as follows: Halifax, $450,000: crane for wharf No. 4; retaining walls and wharf repairs; steam supply lines; miscellaneous buildings; fifty-ton hammerhead crane for Dartmouth and temporary repairs to Bedford magazines. Renous, $540,000: maintenance workshop; boiler house; empty package storehouse; ten magazines; traverses around magazines. I shall have a word to say about that in a moment. These are estimates. Esquimalt, $200,000: motor transport shop; empty package storehouse; road repairs; dockyard. Kamloops, $664,000: empty package storehouse; twrelve magazines; traverses around magazines; services-water, steam, electrical, sewage. Sydney, $213,000: construction of stores building; railway sidings; empty package store. Miscellaneous requirements, including radio stations, $70,396. This makes up the total of $2,117,396. That, I may say, will be subject to some substantial reduction by reason of a reduction in the magazine requirements at Renous and Kamloops, which follow the end of the war and rearrangement of our magazine requirements.


Douglas King Hazen: The minister mentioned the crane on wharf No. 4 in Halifax. Does that wharf belong to the Halifax harbour commission or does it belong to the dominion government?
Demobilization-Naval Services


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am advised that the wharf belongs to the navy; it is in the dock yard. As to the second part of my hon. friend's question, relating to the provision for repairs, operating expenses and rentals, the total estimated provision for the current year is $7,890,534, of which actual expenditures for the first six months amounted to $3,037,819 or about 38 per cent. The total amount estimated represents an increase over the estimated expenses of last year but is approximately the same as the actual expenses, a difference of some $14,000. The item includes provision for rental of properties; services, water, electricity and the like; fuel for heating; repairs and maintenance of buildings; alterations and repairs to machinery. There is an increase in the estimated provision of $1,174,643 over the provision made last year, but as I indicated a moment ago the decrease from the actual amount expended is only $14,841. The estimated increase is explained largely by the fact that as the building programme of the navy comes to a conclusion, the cost of maintenance increases. Another contributing factor is that, as I indicated yesterday, civilian personnel will replace naval personnel in maintenance and repair work. This will continue to be the case until such time as the buildings which are at present occupied, and which will continue to be occupied until the end of the present fiscal year, are declared surplus to requirements and disposed of through the crown assets allocation committee or the War Assets Corporation. Steps have been taken already to give up all rented premises which are not essential, and it is anticipated that by March 31, 1946, only a few rented properties will not have been returned to their owners. I have not the details here as to the properties which we now rent, the individual rentals and the persons from whom rented. I will obtain that and give it to my hon. friend a little later.


Douglas King Hazen: The minister did not answer my question as to what construction had been done this year, who had done it, where it was done and what it had cost. I also asked what repairs had been made this year, where they were made, who made them and what they had cost.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The hon. member will realize that it would be practically impossible to give him that information without referring to data other than what I have before me.


Frank Exton Lennard: Would questions about H.M.C.S. York come under this item?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes.
[Mr. HazeD 1


Frank Exton Lennard: Details as to that ship were not included in the information given.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That would be a completion of last year's contract. I was giving the particulars of $2,000,000 odd of contracts which are being undertaken this year. H. M. C. S. York would come under the other item of $5,000,000 covering the completion of last year's contracts.


Frank Exton Lennard: What percentage of
civilian personnel is employed at the Halifax dockyards?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That alters from day to day. I have not the information here, but I shall try to get the latest figure and give it to my hon. friend.


Frank Exton Lennard: Why should civilian personnel be employed at a naval dockyard? Why should not all employees be subject to naval discipline?


Douglas Charles Abbott: To all intents and purposes a naval dockyard is an industrial establishment. There is no reason for employing a man in uniform to cut pipe or to do ordinary industrial operations in a dockyard. As I indicated the other night, it was necessary to do that during war time in order to assure that the men would be there and be subject to naval discipline, but strictly speaking they are not sailors. They are civilian workers doing a civilian job and they should be working as civilians. As my hon. friend will realize, from the long term point of view it is not desirable to employ service personnel in purely civilian work, because the service personnel are given special privileges in the nature of pensions and that sort of thing which are not available to their opposite numbers doing the same jobs in civilian life.


Frank Exton Lennard: Under whose supervision is the refitting of these ships completed? I am not so sure that, now that the war is over, there is not quite a bit of loafing on the job at some of the naval dockyards. They are in no hurry to complete the refitting, because in some cases it is not intended to send the ship to sea. I am concerned over the fact that it is quite possible we are, paying tradesmen rates of $1.25 an hour to just loaf on the job. I would ask the minister to look into this matter and make sure that it is not happening on a large scale.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I will take note of my hon. friend's remarks.


Percy Chapman Black: I have no
specific details, but it has been brought to my

Demobilization-Naval Services
attention that large expenditures have recently been made, and perhaps are still being made, in connection with repairs and overhaul of naval vessels which have been or are to be declared surplus. If this complaint is not correct, it certainly should be denied or explained by the minister.
Will the minister include in his statement of expenditures for construction at these naval stations the details of expenditures at Cornwallis Naval Station, which he stated is to be abandoned. Some time ago I asked questions with regard to the cost of coal, freight and demurrage on purchases of coal for the Cornwallis station, and replies are to be found on page 602 of Hansard of October 1. It was reported that large outlays for demurrage had been made in connection with shipments of United States coal. One of my questions was:
What was the cost per ton, the freight, demurrage, commission and total cost of each purchase?
The answer in connection with demurrage was as follows:
First forty-eight hours, free; next twenty-four hours, $1 per car per day; next twenty-four hours, $1 per car per day; each twenty-four hours thereafter, $5 per car per day.
Some people might say that that was "a fast one" when that reply was brought down, but I would not accuse the minister of that because that is not his method. I do not presume he can do so to-day, but at a later date I should like him to give the total cost of demurrage on coal supplied to the Corn-' wallis naval station, from whom that coal was purchased and where it was shipped from.


Douglas Charles Abbott: As my hon. friend knows,
all purchases of coal and like supplies are made by the Department of Munitions and Supply. The return which he got was made by that department, not by the naval department.
The other question as to what work is being done on ships would properly come under another item, but I shall answer it now. The inference is being left that a lot of unnecessary work is being done on ships. Some ships were in dockyard being refitted when V-J day came along. Some of these ships were being reconverted for the Pacific, and we had to decide whether the work should be entirely abandoned or whether it should be completed. The works had been pulled out of many of the ships and, if they were ever going to be used, something had to be done. We arrived at the decision that, where the work was approximately ninety per cent completed, it would be completed. Other work that was being done in the dockyards was what we 47696-98
described as winterizing of ships. That consists of draining the water out of the pipes and getting them in shape so that they can be laid up. That work is being done on frigates, corvettes and other ships which are being turned over to War Assets Corporation for disposal. I can assure the committee that there is no unnecessary work being done on ships which are being declared surplus. Any work that is being done is solely to conserve their value or to make them more valuable on disposal.


James Alexander Marshall: Is it the intention of the naval department to use the building on Cartier square as headquarters for the navy?


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is for the time being,
but I do not know how long that will continue. I can assure my hon. friend that it will continue to be used up to the end of the present fiscal year, and probably some time after.


Grote Stirling: The minister indicated
that where ninety per cent of the work had been done on a ship, it was completed. What was the position with regard to vessels, on which eighty per cent, sixty per cent and fifty per cent of the work had been done? In many cases the entrails of the vessels would have been removed and placed on the quay, and the vessel towed away.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It was felt that for disposal purposes they would fetch just as much in that condition as if a substantial additional amount were paid to refit them. The best advice I could get was that it would not pay to continue the work on a ship that was less than about ninety per cent completed.


Grote Stirling: Then they had to be towed to some place for disposal; for they could not steam there themselves.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Most of them would be towed. The hon. member for York South asked as to the number of officers in the divisions. The total number is 821.


Alan Cockeram: Is that officers or all ranks?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Officers. The figure 821 is made up as follows: Tbronto, 211; Winnipeg, 55; Halifax, 5; Edmonton, 20; Hamilton, 34; Saint John, N.B., 53; Vancouver, 43; Windsor, 24; London, 23; Ottawa, 20; Montreal, 177; Esquimalt, 3; Regina, 16; Kingston, 20; Port Arthur, 17; Quebec, 47; Charlottetown, 12; Calgary, 20, and Saskatoon, 21.
During the past two months divisions at Quebec, Montreal. Toronto and Saint John, New Brunswick, in addition to the normal functions of a naval division, bear for pay the

Demobilization-Naval Services

staffs of the naval officers in charge at these ports. These staffs represent approximately 200 officers. There are also 100 counsellor officers and thirty rehabilitation officers borne for demobilization duties at the naval divisions. These 330 officers are included in the figure of 821 shown above.


Frank Exton Lennard: I would judge that the figures include chief petty officers and other non-commissioned ranks. There are certainly not thirty-four commissioned officers in Hamilton. I know there are not.


Douglas Charles Abbott: These are the figures I was given. They probably include warrant officers.


Frank Exton Lennard: They must include chief petty officers, too. They are not necessarily all warrant officers, are they?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No.


Percy Chapman Black: How many naval stations are there such as Cornwallis, St. Hyacinthe and Royal Roads? Is the same policy being applied to all these schools as the minister informed the committee is being applied to Cornwallis? The minister said that Cornwallis naval station is to be completely closed at the end of this fiscal year.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Royal Roads, as my hon. friend knows, is the naval college. Cornwallis was established for training naval ratings. St. Hyacinthe was the school at which signalling instruction was given. Those were the three principal schools outside of Halifax and Esquimait.


Percy Chapman Black: Were there any others?


Douglas Charles Abbott: There were no other establishments during the war with the exception that officers training was carried on at King's college in Halifax, Nova Scotia. Subsequently to the closing of these war-time establishments instruction of ratings will be carried on at the main naval bases at Halifax and Esquimait.


Percy Chapman Black: Cornwallis and St. Hyacinthe will both be closed?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is my present information. They are both large war-time schools.


Alan Cockeram: What others will be closed?	[DOT]


Douglas Charles Abbott: Practically all, with the exception of the divisions. We shall concentrate our peace-time activities on the east and west coasts; Halifax and Esquimait. Sydney also will be kept open for some considerable time, just how long I do not know, as a store base. All the subsidiary bases which are purely war-time bases will be closed

The divisions in the various cities it is contemplated will be kept open as well as the two inland magazines.


Howard Charles Green: There were quite a few subsidiary bases. The minister 'has just stated that they are to be closed. I presume that a good deal of money has been spent on each one of them. Are they just to be allowed to go, or is some arrangement being made so that the navy will still have control of them?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The physical assets at the surplus bases such as buildings, power plant and that sort of thing are turned over to War Assets Corporation for disposal. We are retaining control of the land in the event of our needing it in some future war. The same sort of thing will apply to most of the subsidiary bases.


Howard Charles Green: What about Shelburne?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is still being operated, but I imagine it will be closed and disposed of as well. It is true that these stations represent a substantial expenditure of money, but they were set up to fight a naval war and our main naval war was fought in the Atlantic. Like so many other war expenditures, these represent part of the cost of war. We cannot run a modern peace-time navy in the post-war if we spend all our naval appropriation in maintaining bases that we do not need in peace time. We have to make sure that our naval dollar is used to the very best advantage.


Howard Charles Green: What is to be done with the docks at North Vancouver? They are barely completed. There is a depot there. Is that to be disposed of to private interests?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Those docks will be used as long as we need them for the navy and, while I cannot make any commitment, I think it is probable that they will be turned over eventually to the harbour commissioners.


Howard Charles Green: What about Prince Rupert? Are the establishments there to be abandoned as well?


Douglas Charles Abbott: We do not own the dock at Prince Rupert. It belongs to the Canadian National Railways.


George Randolph Pearkes: Does the same policy apply also to the small training establishment at Comox known as Naiden III?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am advised that that will probably continue to be used as a summer training establishment for Esquimait.


George Randolph Pearkes: It has been rather more than that in recent years because it has been

Demobilization-Naval Services
a combined operations training centre. Is combined operations training to be continued there?


Douglas Charles Abbott: It used to be a rifle range. It is contemplated that it- will continue to be a summer training establishment.


George Randolph Pearkes: And for combined operations training?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No.


George Randolph Pearkes: Is there to be no combined operations training there?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not know.


George Randolph Pearkes: Surely that is one of the great lessons of this war-combined operations. Surely the minister should know whether that is to be carried on.


Douglas Charles Abbott: There will be combined operations training, of course, but whether at the particular base to which my hon. friend refers I do not know.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: I should like to make this general comment regarding military affairs. I think the Department of National Defence would do wisely in making haste very slowly in dismantling our military equipment. I presume they know quite well what to do, but it will not do any harm to have a little support from the house. I do not see evidence of clear sailing for us yet, and it would be well to have our powder prepared and keep it dry.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Douglas Charles Abbott: Before we proceed to the next item I can now answer the question asked by the leader of the opposition as to authority for the arrangements with respect to rates on the railways. Special rates were established by P.C. 390, of March 12, 1924, passed under the provisions of the Railway Act, section 351.
Personnel suppplies and services, $12,905,279.


Howard Charles Green: Would the minister give'an explanation of this item?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The estimate is $12,905,279, which represents a decrease from the estimated provision of last year of $14,941,001, and a decrease from the actual expenditure of last year of $4,379,276. The actual amount expended to September 30 last, that is for six months, was $6,416,902, or about forty-nine per cent. The item is made up of clothing, provisions, medical and dental services and so forth. The estimated decrease in the item is accounted for by the fact that, with demobilization proceeding as rapidly as possible, there will be fewer men and women to feed and to clothe, and of course it decreases more 47696-981i
rapidly than pay and allowances, because there are accumulated stocks of clothing and the like.


John Bracken: May I refer for a moment to the previous item? Did the minister say, order in council 1924?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes, order in council 1924- apparently it has been outstanding for some time-authorizing the arrangement between the defence departments of the government and the railways of special rates for troop travel.


John Bracken: Would the minister table that order in council?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes. It may have already been tabled, but I shall be very glad to do that.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I should like to ask the
minister one question on item 5. In the amount under the estimate here there will unquestionably be a considerable amount of personal gear and equipment, boots and clothing, left surplus that has been bought under the various contracts which have been entered into. Will service personnel have any opportunity of purchasing direct from the navy extra boots and household equipment, rather than that stuff being declared surplus to War Assets Corporation?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No. I am advised that there will be no opportunity for direct purchase from the navy. It was felt that one disposal agency should handle everything.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
fi. Signal and wireless equipment. $11,402,289.
George Randolph Pearkes: Does that include any
expenditure for radar stations on shore or on ships in a stationary or semi-stationary position?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I know it does not include the shore establishments, and I do not know that we * have any ships in a stationary position. It includes, of course, items for radar equipment-restricting it to radar equipment-on our ships.


George Randolph Pearkes: I was referring to a more or less fixed defence such as the strait of San Juan, where we had an international agreement. Has the navy not some responsibilities there?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes, but this item does not include expenditures for that equipment.


George Randolph Pearkes: For the radar equipment
there?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I misunderstood my hon.
friend. Not the buildings. It would include any expenditures for the actual equipment
Demobilization-Naval Services

but not for the buildings. My hon. friend is referring to the stations on the east coast and the west coast for directional operations?


George Randolph Pearkes: Yes.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It will include the equipment but not the buildings.


George Randolph Pearkes: And the equipment for
locating approaching vessels?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is right.


George Randolph Pearkes: The reason I am asking
that is that there is grave danger of duplication in this radar service between the army and the navy. While both these departments are under the minister, might I suggest that the matter be looked into fairly carefully?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes. * As my hon. friend
knows, that particular equipment, which was extremely secret until the end of the war, was operated in conjunction with the United States navy, and it has continued to be operated by the Canadian navy on that basis. I do not know what the future will be in peace time. It is quite possible that the operation of stations of that kind might ultimately be turned over to another government, if there were a communications department, or perhaps to the Department of Transport. But for the time being these stations on the east and west coasts will continue to be operated by the navy.


George Randolph Pearkes: I hope the minister is not serious when he suggests that that is to be turned over to the Department of Transport, because it is essentially a defence service for locating approaching vessels. The point I wish to make is, that I hope he will avoid the duplication between radar which is operated by the navy and' radar which is operated by the army in these narrow waters.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am referring more particularly to the long-range navigation stations. It is a little different from radar. *


George Randolph Pearkes: Yes, but there are a lot of radar stations there which were operated for that purpose. Then may I ask what proportion of the remainder of this money which is to be spent-some eleven million dollars- is to be spent on experimental work. The minister referred in his opening remarks to the fact that there was a research division. I see nowhere in these estimates any indication of money being spent for that research division.


Douglas Charles Abbott: This item does not include the provision which is made for so-called research and development. I am told that the estimated expenditures under that head are
rMr. Abbott.]
included for the moment under "civil salaries". That is perhaps an explanation I .night have given when we were discussing the increase in the item for civil salaries.
While I am on my feet, I might say that this item includes a very large carryover from the preceding fiscal period, for reasons which I think the committee will understand. A good deal of this radar and wireless and signal equipment is obtained from outside the country, and we had these outstanding commitments. The item shows a decrease of $8,357,045 from the amount provided in the preceding year and a substantial decrease from the amount actually spent. Of the total of about eleven million dollars provided for this year, liabilities of about six million dollars have been carried over from previous years for signal equipment secured but for which settlement was not possible, and, the second head, equipment, which was ordered and delivered for use in the Pacific war. The actual amount spent to September 30 was $1,586,554, or about fourteen per cent.


George Randolph Pearkes: Do I understand that no money whatever for research work is included in these estimates, and that it is to appear somewhere else?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No money is included under this item. It is included under item 1, "civil salaries".


George Randolph Pearkes: Would it be fair to refer back to that item, then, and ask how much is included under it for research work?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have not that breakdown here, but I should be very glad to get it and give it to my hon. friend.


George Randolph Pearkes: I feel that equipment is required in research work, and "civil salaries" seems an extraordinary place under which to put it.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Not for the salaries of research scientists. As I pointed out, the whole question of research between the three services is under the most active consideration. I was at a long meeting this morning at which it was being discussed. It relates not only to naval research. Perhaps the term "research" is a bit unfortunate as far as the navy or any other service is concerned. I would prefer to link the word with development-research and development. As regards pure scientific research, some of it may be done in the services, but I should think a great deal of it would be done under such a group as the natiorfal research council, and in the services it will be both research and development.

Demobilization-Naval Services


George Randolph Pearkes: I am still concerned about this, because under item 1 the amount to be spent is only $7 million, which is a very small percentage of the $299 million. Surely, if we are to have a modern navy, we shall spend more money than such a proportion. There must be some mistake there.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I will make inquiries and give my hon. friend any break-down I can as to what amount is included in the estimates for research, but as he knows, it is a fairly elastic item. The cost of research could well come under half a dozen of these different items for the very reason I have mentioned! It is not simply a matter of some scientist sitting down and looking in a test-tube. The work is done in a good many departments of the service, and to allocate a dollar here as being clearly a dollar for research is extremely difficult. The items which one can segregate would be, Jet us say, items such as the salary of an outstanding engineer or of a research man at the head of a research department; but the rest might well be included in the pay and allowances of specialized officers scattered through the service. To suggest that in the navy, for instance, we could have two, three, or four millions allocated for research is not feasible; you have to couple the word with development. It cannot be just research. That is one of those generalizations which can become completely meaningless.


George Randolph Pearkes: That is all very well, but there is a lot of experimental equipment; under the head of signals I know of no field where greater opportunities are open under the general term research than in the matter of wireless and signals generally, and I should have thought that item would definitely include some of that experimental equipment.


Douglas Charles Abbott: To the extent that my hon. friend will include the purchase price of wireless and other signal equipment under the heading of research, I agree with him that it is included here. But I myself would not use the term in reference to an appropriation for research covering the cost of special wireless equipment., even of an experimental nature. I would include it under the general heading of wireless equipment. That illustrates the point I make, that when we talk about research we must understand what we really mean. If my hon. friend means research and development over the whole extent of the service, including wireless equipment., signal equipment and so on, then the expenditure may well be included under several headings as these estimates are made up. This item would certainly include the
istimated cost of experimental equipment. But, as he knows better than I do, a great deal of this type of equipment we must model on the equipment used in the old country and in the United States, and there has been the closest collaboration on the part of the three countries in the development of this; type of equipment. I sincerely hope and! indeed believe that will continue. A good! deal of the cost included in these items is for special types of equipment which we ire obtaining from the United States.


George Randolph Pearkes: That is the question I am asking-how much. I realize perfectly well that there are certain forms of equipment which are used generally. They are part of the established equipment. But there is also certain experimental work, and I am referring to experimental equipment which *has not been generally adopted up to date. For instance, take a gun which is being tested out.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I see my hon friend's point, but my answer would be that it is extremely difficult if not impossible to break down the estimates in that way. It is too hard, and cost accounting is difficult enough anyway. I have never felt greatly reassured by people who talk about breaking down costs into water-tight compartments. To break down the cost of experimental equipment in the navy, where the chief of naval staff may have spent some^ time in discussing the matter, where some engineering officers may have been looking into the situation, where the equipment has been made in one of the regular signal departments, to allocate accurately a portion of the cost to research or experiment would be extremely difficult. I suggest that an appropriation should be sufficiently elastic to take care of just that sort of work which my hon. friend quite rightly emphasizes as being so important, but I am afraid I cannot break down the costs and give the details.


James Alexander Marshall: In 1940 the navy department had an equipment division which operated successfully for a period of two years, and it was closed down for some reason, which I have not been able to ascertain. Why was that division closed down?


Douglas Charles Abbott: It was not closed down:
but was turned over to the Department of Munitions and Supply because that department, as my hon. friend knows was the one which was actively concerned with procurement during the war and was in touch with manufacturers who were making this equipment. The department my hon. friend speaks of was
Demobilization-Naval Services

not discontinued but was turned over to munitions and supply and presumably when munitions and supply's functions are completed it will be turned back if it is still required.


James Alexander Marshall: Did not this division
do a tremendous amount of research as well as making equipment for the navy?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am told that the equipment division was concerned only with asdic n this country.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: The minister in replying to
the hon. member for Nanaimo spoke of the difficulty of breaking down these figures. My experience, in dealing with estimates in a very modest way, has been that the figures have to be broken down before they can be built up. Someone must know how the total was arrived at. You do not simply sit down and fix upon a certain figure and then attempt to break it down; you build up your figures. Could the minister give us a better breakdown on that item?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I can give a break-down,
.but I cannot break it down sufficiently to show in dollars just what was spent on what xny hon. friend described as research. I lhave an elaborate break-down which I shall be glad to give to the committee if it wishes.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: Let 11s take the question of
research; what is the item there?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No specific item is set up
for research as such. Included in jivil salaries is provision, I assume, for the salaries of people whose primary responsibility will be scientific research and development, but the other costs are included in the various items: ship costs, ammunition costs, signal costs and so on.


George Randolph Pearkes: Would there not be an
item for experimental equipment? Perhaps the minister would prefer that name. Surely there must be something like that.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am told it is not broken down into operating equipment and experimental equipment according to whatever they think might be useful, interesting or appropriate. We have not a break-down of experimental equipment as such, and for the life of me I cannot see why we should have one.


George Randolph Pearkes: I do not know very much rbout navy estimates, but I had to prepare a good many army estimates in pre-war days and there was a very careful allocation to experimental equipment.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If we are to attempt to control further expenditures it might be well

worth while for the minister to consider whether in future he should not allocate a certain amount of money under the heading of research or experimental or developmental work, whatever he wants to call it. While I am not trying to minimize the importance of experimental work, may I suggest you cannot go ahead and give carte blanche to everybody to buy, acquire, or trade in any kind of equipment which he finds "useful, interesting or appropriate." In other words, if we are to have control over expenditures I find it extraordinary that that sort of carte blanche should be given to the departments, and that there was not a certain amount of money, say 810 million, or whatever you wish to name, set aside for development and then parcelled out among the various items. Certainly, if that has not been done in the past it should be done in the future. Then we would know how much is being allocated to this important sphere of research, development and experiment.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I quite agree with my hon. friend on this point. Perhaps I should have made this clear. The point which he has made and which the hon. member for Nanaimo has made is particularly applicable, if I may say so, to peace-time estimates. The estimates which we are considering here are in effect war-time estimates. We have huge quantities of equipment acquired during the war; some of it is not yet delivered. We are making no real provision between now and March 31 for purchasing very much more radar or scientific equipment. This is the clean-up period. I think what the hon. member for Kamloops has said is correct in preparing peace-time estimates. There should be a special item put in for developmental expenses; but in war time the item is there; it is included in a mass of others. He used the words "carte blanche". I am afraid that during war it is necessary to give carle blanche or a pretty wide discretion as to the type of equipment and the type of expenditures which they will make' to try to get the best possible weapons, and that certhinly has been done during the war. I quite agree that in peace time there should be a special item, and I think that in peace time members of parliament should see what amount of money the service is asking for under the special head of research and development. I like to include the two together, because then it would include not only the straight scientific end but the work in developing special types of equipment and manufacturing special types of equipment.
I have a little extra detail on this research end which has just been handed to me. In-

Demobilization-Naval Services
eluded in these items, in addition to the strict salaries items under civil salaries, there is a total of $233,355, being what might properly be described as special research and development work, of which amount it is expected that $117,130 would be moneys allocated to the national research council for work which their staff would do.


George Randolph Pearkes: It seems such a pitifully small proportion of the total estimates.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I point out to my hon.
friend that this is a clean-up war year. We are spending $298 millions on naval requirements this year. So far as this war is concerned, the weapons are there, crystallized, the best we can get and they are used. Now for next year I do not see that we can give any exact estimate at this time. I am not saying that our people are not giving attention now to research, but these are not next year's estimates that we are considering; they are this year's, and this is primarily a war year.


George Randolph Pearkes: May I suggest that research work did not stop during the war; it was going on all the time. If this is the cleanup period, surely this is the period when we should be thinking ahead as well and not merely sitting down.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I venture to say that in the amount of money which is included in these estimates we are considering, if you take in the proper allocation of cost of salaries, materials and so on, there will be several million dollars which can, be directly attributed to research and development. I am positive that must be the case.


George Randolph Pearkes: That is just the answer I have been trying to get.


John Oliver Probe: We have slipped, through rather speedily, roughly about $140 millions of estimates. Those of us who are not high-pressured chartered accountants do not have a very clear picture as to how all this money is proposed to be spent. I should like to suggest that we get a little more complete breakdown, item by item, as we go along. We want to cooperate, we do not want to be obstructionists, but we cannot pass intelligently on these items unless we get a little more information.
Speaking to this item specifically, I notice that up to September 28, 'we have spent roughly $1,500,000, and the minister is asking for another $10 million approximately for the remainder of the year. He explained that most of this was for past commitments, which he is cleaning up now.


Douglas Charles Abbott: All of them.


John Oliver Probe: Would he please break up the $10 million figure if he can to indicate how much is definitely past commitment which we cannot avoid by cancelling contracts, and how much of it is for new equipment that we are still in the process of acquiring. That should be a simple matter.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I can give that, yes. As I mentioned earlier, there is about $6 million worth of equipment on one item, most of it from the United States, of which we must take delivery. If we are to take delivery of it then, of course, a good deal of it will be surplus to any probable requirement in the near future. It was ordered and manufactured on the assumption that we would be operating in the Pacific war and maybe operating in the Atlantic war for a very much longer time than we were. We shall have to take it and pay for it when we receive it, declare a large part of it surplus and dispose of it as best we can. A good deal of it is still very secret equipment, and we shall not be able to put it out into the general commercial channels; we shall have to store it and keep it until such time as perhaps something more modern comes out and it can be revealed.
This item is unfortunately one about which I cannot give as much detail as I should like to give. The majority of the expenditure is for radar and other equipment for far more ships than we shall be operating, and the greater portion of it is from the United States.


John Oliver Probe: Are we not entitled to more information than we have here on the sheet in front of us?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes; I can break that down as between the different types of equipment. For instance, let us take the total of roughly $11,400,000. It is divided into three principal classes: wireless telegraphy equipment, radar equipment and land line communications. The total of the wireless telegraphy equipment is $3,697,239; radar equipment, $8,417,725; land line communications, $284,325. That makes a total of SI2,399,289. We have deducted $1,000,000, estimated as the future year's requirements, which it may be possible to cancel or not have to pay, leaving a balance of $11,399,289. Then I have details as to how this radar, wireless telegraph equipment and the like is allocated as between the different types of ships at sea. I can give that to my hon. friend if he wishes it.


John Oliver Probe: No; all I want to know now is how much .of this money is to pay for past commitments.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I can answer that question very shortly; all of it.
Demobilization-Naval Services


John Oliver Probe: There is nothing at all for
new equipment?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Nothing at all. We are
overcommitted in our requirements for signal equipment. I do not think we can be blamed for that, because the commitments had to be made long in advance and they were made long before the end of the war, but there are no new commitments at all.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I notice in looking at these estimates that $11,000,000 is to be spent by the navy, $13,000,000 by the army and nearly $17,000,000 by the air force, making a total of about $40,000,000 to be spent by the three departments. In view of that situation and in view of what has already been spent in connection with training establishments, would the minister indicate whether he has considered or will consider pooling, as far as possible, the signal resources of the three services, with regard to the signal schools operated for each service? There is a large army signal school at Barriefield, just outside 'Kingston. I dare say the navy and the air force have their own schools, each of which must require the expenditure of a large amount of money to provide equipment to train personnel, particularly with the new developments that have occurred. I am not suggesting that we could have all stages of training for all three services run through the same school, but I suggest that at least the basic training could be done at one point, and I might even suggest that one establishment could have three separate branches. I should like the minister to say whether he will consider this suggestion, with a view to cutting down the very large amount which will have to be spent as long as the three services carry on separately.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I thank my hon. friend for his suggestion, which is excellent. I shall most certainly consider it, because it seems to me this is a case in which there might well be close collaboration among the services. I dare say a good deal of the equipment is not interchangeable; but no doubt, as the hon. member says, much of the training carried on, particularly in the basic stages, could be conducted for all three services, perhaps at one school, leaving the specialized training for other establishments. Certainly I will take the suggestion into consideration.


Howard Charles Green: What coordination is there
between the three services with respect to this research and development work?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have already referred to
the matter once or twice. There has always been a subcommittee of the cabinet dealing with research in defence services. At the

moment I forget the personnel, but the Minister of Munitions and Supply is chairman and the committee includes Mr. Harkness of Northern Electric, one or two other outsiders and two or three other ministers. That is at cabinet level. Then the chiefs of staff committee, with the two defence ministers, the deputy ministers and certain technical advisers in the three defence departments have been actively engaged in considering the coordination of research and development in the three services. As I mentioned a moment ago, my colleague the Minister of National Defence for Air and I had a long meeting with defence council this morning at which this subject was under discussion. We believe that within a very short time indeed the three services will be able to make a joint submission to the government as to the way in which research and development activities of the three services should be directed and carried on. I myself believe it is a most important step to take, and I can assure my hon. friend it is being given the closest attention.


Percy Chapman Black: In justice,
fairness and equity I should like to suggest to the Minister of National Defence the advisability of locating this research, scientific and technical establishment to which he has just referred, which I think we all agree is necessary, in the maritime provinces. I want to point out that this government has expended four or five hundred million dollars on technical and research establishments and production of one kind and1 another, of which n6t one dollar was spent in the eastern provinces. Apparently all we are to have down there are dumps and derelicts such as the Cornwallis naval establishment. We have only a memory as regards the naval college, which has been unfairly taken from Nova Seotia and moved to the west coast. In this connection I am going to appeal to the parliamentary assistant for the navy, the hon. member for Halifax, and other members from Nova Scotia to demand that this scientific and research establishment be located in that province. We had no war industries in Nova Scotia until they could not take any more in central Canada. Our workmen were taken away, and now there is not a single war establishment in the maritime provinces with any post-war value. Therefor I make this appeal to the minister, to his associates in the government and to all members of the house to see that this research, scientific and technical undertaking is established in Nova Scotia or in the maritime provinces.


John Horne Blackmore: I should like to express sympathy with the hon. member who has just taken his seat. I think the tendency

Demobilization-Naval Services
has been altogether too much to spend money and carry out developments in the central provinces of Canada. We have nothing at all against those provinces, but we must bear in mind that we all pay the money necessary for these establishments and we all have the right to develop.
While I am on my feet I should like to say one more thing-


Percy Chapman Black: I wish to thank the hon. member for Lethbridge for his references to the maritime provinces and to the fairness and equity of having some of these expenditures and enterprises in eastern Canada. If more hon. members would view this matter in that light we might get some measure of justice in Nova Scotia.


John Oliver Probe: He did not say the money should be spent in Nova Scotia. He said it should be scattered.


John Horne Blackmore: I just wish to add that as far as I am concerned we will forgive the Minister of National Defence for any overexpenditure he may make in connection with research and development, but we will not forgive him for any underexpenditure.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
William Ross Macdonald: The next item is No. 7, ammunition.


Douglas Charles Abbott: An hon. member asked the number of officers from the rank of vice admiral down to captain serving or retired since March 1, 1945. In the case of the Royal Canadian Navy, those serving number twenty-six, made up of one vice admiral, two rear admirals, three commodores and twenty captains. Those who have retired since March 1, 1945, total twenty-two, made up of one vice admiral, one rear admiral, one commodore and nineteen captains. Those serving in the R.C.N.R. are two captains, and three captains have retired. In the R.C.N.V.R. there are one commodore and six captains serving, and four captains have retired since March 1, 1945. The grand total is thirty-five serving and twenty-nine retired.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Can the minister give us the percentage of this total of $9,063,563 for ammunition that represents expenditures made already for ammunition. In other words, how much is a carryover and how much represents expenditures for ammunition and bombs of
which we may expect delivery in the future? With respect to the second part of that question, can the minister give us any idea of the amount of equipment of this sort which will be available for training in the future, or what exactly will be done with it? Is it proposed to put it into storage, or will it be dumped into the sea or used for training?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Perhaps I can answer my hon. friend by making a general statement. First, this item of $9,000,000 odd is to clean up liabilities for ammunition procured by the R.C.N. or for ammunition supplied to RjC.N. ships by the admiralty, with a comparatively small amount to replace training ammunition which was destroyed in the explosion at Bedford magazine. In other words, we are ordering practically no ammunition. I may interject to say that we have ample stores of ammunition on hand, in fact substantially more than we can possibly use. This is due to the end of the war.
There is a reduction of approximately $15,000,000 from the estimates of 1944-45, which reflects the fact that procurements had reached a peak in that year. Cancellations have been made progressively, first, after the cessation of hostilities in Europe and, second, after the Japanese surrender. Of the $9,000,000 requested, about $5,000,000 is required to pay for ammunition previously delivered and for which settlement has noi hitherto been possible. Expenditures for the six months which expired on September 30 were $2,299,927, or about twenty-five per cent. I may say that we have cancelled all future ammunition contracts, and the expenditures which are estimated represent no new commitments. It is what we shall require to clean up previously existing commitments.
In answering the second part of my hon. friend's question I may say that we shall have ample supplies of all types of ammunition for which we now have guns for training and target purposes. Following the explosion at Bedford magazine, we have taken the stand that surplus supplies of ammunition, particularly items like depth charges, for which it is believed there can be no reasonable prospective use, should be dumped at sea instead of undertaking expensive magazine installations in order to provide storage for an indefinite period. I can assure the committee that we are retaining ample reserves, not only for any possible future operational requirements but also for training purposes.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I just want to be clear on the figures. I understood the minister to say that $5,000,000 of this $9,000,000 is required to pay for ammunition already delivered?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Right.

Demobilization-Naval Services


Edmund Davie Fulton: And the $4,000,000 odd is to cover what I would call continuing contracts which it was not possible to cancel?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Right.


Edmund Davie Fulton: So we may say that we shall have at least $4,000,000 worth of ammunition which has not been expended, but of which delivery will be taken. I am glad to hear the minister say that this will be available for training purposes. In this connection I should like to ask him if he can clear up a matter which has been raised by the people in British Columbia. There is a fine naval ammunition depot just outside my home town, and the citizens have been caused a certain amount of concern following the unfortunate explosion near Halifax. Recently I was assured by the minister that all reasonable precautions have been taken to see that nothing goes wrong at that depot. I thank him for that assurance which I have passed on to those concerned.
According to a news item which appeared in the Vancouver papers, more than half a million dollars is being spent for the extension of the naval magazine at Kamloops. In view of the present cutting down of ammunition requirements; in view of the fact that we are not expecting very much more in the way of ammunition -and bombs, could the minister explain why an enlargement of this magazine is being carried on?


Douglas Charles Abbott: My hon. friend may recall that when we were discussing item 4, capital expenditures, I stated in answer to a question by the hon. member for St. John-Albert that the estimates included a provision for capital expenditures of some $540,000 at Renous, the eastern magazine, and $644,000 at Kamloops. Following a review of the whole ammunition supply programme made by Rear Admiral Brodeur, who was appointed acting inspector ' general of naval ordnance, we decided a week or so ago that we could cut down our magazine requirements from those which had previously been estimated in order to take care of outstanding commitments, and, broadly speaking, the decision was to expand our requirements at Renous and at Kamloops in approximately the same proportion. We are adding certain magazines at Renous and a similar number at Kamloops, and our storage requirements on the east and west coasts will be approximately on the same basis. The result will be that the estimated expenditures to which I have referred will be about cut in half, and we shall be expanding only about half as much as we had expected at Kamloops, and in the same proportion at Renous. Ammunition, of course, has to be stored under proper conditions. If we have surplus ammuni-
t-ion we are faced with the alternative of either taking it out to sea and drowning it or of storing it in proper magazines. After going over all the circumstances, the decision that has been taken is that by drowning, if I may use that term, what we really believe is surplus ammunition we shall require expansion to only about one-half of what we had previously anticipated at Kamloops and at Renous. The storage at Kamloops and Renous will be expanded to a certain extent to take care of the ammunition that we now have and that will be delivered in the immediate future and for which storage provision must be made.


Percy Chapman Black: Before this
item passes I would ask the minister to make inquiry into the possibilities of using the surplus ammunition that he says will probably be dumped at sea for the purpose of opening up drainage ditches in our marsh lands in the maritime provinces. While we in the maritime provinces dislike very much to admit it, we have to accept as it were crumbs from the rich man's table. The western provinces-I and other members voted for it-were granted $20,000,000, or $2,000,000 a year, for prairie farm rehabilitation, and we in the maritime provinces have been asking for some policy that would protect our fertile marsh lands at the head of the bay of Fundy, but no such policy has yet been decided upon. I understand that explosives are used effectively at times under certain conditions in clay soil for opening up drainage ditches, and before this surplus explosive is dumped at sea I would ask. the minister to examine the possibilities of using it as I have indicated.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I shall certainly make inquiries as to whether some of these surplus depth charges can be used in Cumberland county to open up ditches there. I do not know whether they are suitable for the purpose or not.


Frank Exton Lennard: I would suggest that the depth charges be not dumped too quickly but that they be divided among the various ships in the navy and used as long as they last because they make for very good fishing.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is a good point, but
I do want to impress on the committee that surplus high explosives .are not something that you want to leave lying around, stored in the open. If they are really surplus; if there is no reasonable probability of their being used for operations or training in the near future, they just cannot be left lying around. We must either be prepared to incur capital expenditure to provide the necessary magazines to store them or else take steps to dispose of

Demobilization-Naval. Services
them. Naturally I must be guided by the advice of expert ordnance officers in these matters, and the decision has been taken that we should expand our magazine requirements to the extent I have indicated at Kamloops and Renous to store these very dangerous explosives, and that the remainder, which so far as we can see, are not going to be required, should be disposed of.


Frank Exton Lennard: I was really serious, Mr. Chairman. The personnel of the navy do like their fish occasionally and I know of no better way to get it than by the use of depth charges.


Douglas Charles Abbott: There is something in that, but I do not believe that that would absorb all the depth charges which we have to dispose of.	.


Douglas King Hazen: Our fishermen object to that.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Have adequate precautions been taken to obviate such a fright as people got all over this country at the threatened explosive disaster at Halifax recently?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I attempted to answer that as fully as I could last night when I believe my hon. friend was not in his seat at the moment, but he-will see in Hansard the statement that I made. .


George Randolph Pearkes: I am not vying with the hon. member for Kamloops for a magazine. I am quite satisfied with having a royal naval college in my riding. But could the minister tell us what is to happen to the joint service magazine at Esquimalt which covers quite a big area and includes several buildings?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not know that I can
give a definite answer. I imagine that that magazine will serve a similar function to the one at Halifax, at Bedford, and will be primarily a loading magazine. The main storage magazines will be at Renous on the east coast and at Kamloops on the west. The magazine, at Esquimalt serves the same purpose at Esquimalt as the Bedford magazine serves at Halifax on the east coast. I would hope that the individual storage magazines would be kept at somewhat lower levels than were necessary for operational purposes during the war years.


Mr. CARDIFF:: Does this item include
shells for hunters' guns and that sort of thing?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No; we do not indulge
in duck-shooting in the navy except by accident.	[DOT]


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Armament stores, $24,716,825.
Mr. CASTLEDEN:: Would the minister
give us a break-down of this 824.000,000?


Douglas Charles Abbott: This item is to clean up
liabilities for guns, small arms and depth charge projectors, fire control gear and certain modern anti-aircraft weapons ordered for Canadian naval ships designated for the Pacific war. The estimated amount represents a reduction from the estimates of 1944-45 of approximately only SI,700,000, but the actual expenditures for that year were $42,311,787, so that the estimates for this year, as the committee will realize, represent a substantial reduction from the actual expenditures for last year. It is evident, therefore, that the new commitments necessarily incurred this year prior to the cessation of hostilities in Europe, and for the Pacific war, have not been unnecessarily heavy, in these days of rapid development in offensive weapons.
Included in the present estimates is the cost of the provision of certain equipment for the Tribal class of destroyers which are now being built in Canada. I could, if my hon. friend wished, give him some break-down of the item as between the various amounts. It is only by ships and not by classes of particular equipment. Perhaps the statement I have already given will indicate the general trend. It is to clean up. We are ordering no new armaments. Anything that could be cancelled has been cancelled, and in effect the amount which is included here represents a carryover from commitments made during the period prior to the cessation of hostilities. The amount actually expended in the first six months has been $5,604,958, or about twenty-three per cent of the estimated amount.


George Hugh Castleden: I understood that
there was some rather expensive electrically controlled fire equipment used on these ships. I wondered if we were completing the equipment with that installation of the vessels which are being maintained, and whether that . cost is included. '


Douglas Charles Abbott: That will undoubtedly be
included. The equipment of the carriers, for instance, and the Tribals which are now in course of construction, wmuld be included in the estimates under this head. I have not before me at the moment the break-down of what that particular type of equipment would cost, but if my hon. friend wishes me to get it I think probably such could be obtained.


George Hugh Castleden: I should like to get it.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I will see that it is made available. I will get it later if I cannot do so to-night.
Demobilization-Naval Services


Wilfrid Garfield Case: I think the minister has answered in part in his break-down the question I had in mind. I should like to know, however, the amount actually required for, shall I say, current operations. He says that he is paying a lot of this money for previous commitments.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Entirely, I would say. As I have pointed out before, these estimates really reflect plans and comitments w'hich were made while the war was on. From V-E day we started to cut down, but we were then contemplating a Pacific war with a different type of vessel, so that certain new commitments were made for the Pacific fleet between V-E day and V-J day. Since V-J day we have made no new commitments, but we are obliged to liquidate the commitments which had previously been made, and this item in effect represents the fulfilment of those commitments.


Mr. ISNOR:: It is difficult to hear back here. This item includes the marine craft; that takes in the R.C.M.P.?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No. This is armament
stores, item 8.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: And marine craft?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No; this is just armament stores.


Howard Charles Green: The item includes rifles,
machine guns, naval guns, et cetera. What percentage of this type of equipment was manufactured in Canada, and is it planned to maintain our manufacturing facilities? I know that certain types of naval guns were produced in Canada. Are we to take any steps to. maintain those factories, to stay in a position where we can manufacture in future our own naval guns?


Douglas Charles Abbott: My hon. friend has put one of those questions which,, of course, it is difficult to answer. We have a fairly ample stock of the type of weapon which is suited to the craft we now have, but we do not know at the moment whether they are the type of weapon which will_be required in future years. As he knows, probably even better than I do, types have changed rapidly during this war. We have placed contracts for the manufacture of certain types of guns, and by the time we obtained delivery and installed a few of them a later type has come out and we have had to shift over to the newer type. I suppose that is inevitable in the course of any war. The main source of manufacture of those guns has been the industry of Canada; and I hope that in the future there will be a very close liaison,

if I may say so, between the planning departments of the defence services and the general industry, heavy and other, of Canada. It is evident to all of us that in modern war a country depends upon its industrial system, and the manufacture of guns as well as of a number of other types of modem warlike equipment is done by the industry of the country which in peace time is devoted to manufacturing cars and other types of heavy equipment. The plans of the defence departments, as I understand them, are to endeavour to see that the skills which have been built up during the war in Canadian industry for making war equipment will not be lost.
I am sorry that I cannot answer the question in a more definite way. It is not, so far as I know, the intention of the government to maintain special plants to manufacture guns as such. As the hon. member for Vancouver South knows, they have been manufactured by concerns which in peace time make peacetime equipment; and I think that, for any large-scale production in war time, in future wars, if there are any, which I hope there will not be, we shall have to rely on the industry of the country to produce war equipment instead of peace equipment.


Howard Charles Green: Would it not be wise for the government to make some arrangement with the industries of Canada so that those industries are able to keep in touch with improvements made from time to time in different weapons, and so that they will be in a position to manufacture those weapons in the event that this becomes necessary at a later date? It seems a shame for us to let our present industrial efficiency in the manufacture of weapons be lost, and it may be very well be lost unless there is some scheme under which the government and industry will cooperate in the future.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I agree. I was endeavouring to express the same thought, perhaps not as well as my hon. friend did, that there should be a close liaison between the defence departments and the industry which the country would have to rely on in the event of war, to manufacture the instruments of war. I think that, in particular, heavy industry, which is the industry most vital in modern war, should be kept advised of the developments of the newer weapons. I feel sure that no government, whatever that government may be, would neglect taking that elementary precaution. I entirely agree with what my hon. friend has said.


Howard Charles Green: Has any committee been set up or conference arranged with representatives from the defence forces and from industry?

Demobilization-Naval Services


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes. I indicated this afternoon that the so-called defence committee of the cabinet now consists of one or two members of the government, the chiefs of staff, and three or four representatives of Canadian industry. That committee now exists, but as to whether it will be continued in that form or whether some similar committee will be created, I would not want to make a positive statement to-night. I should think, however, that in peace time some liaison should be maintained between either the government at cabinet level or at least between the defence departments and the representatives of industry in the country in order that we may be kept informed of the newer developments in weapons.


Howard Charles Green: Was that merely a war-time committee?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Speaking from memory,
I believe that committee was set up early in 1940 and it has functioned ever since.


Howard Charles Green: Is there any coordination with Great Britain and the other nations of the commonwealth in this matter of producing arms?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Up to the present time and during the war there has been the closest cooperation and exchange of information not only with Great Britain but with the United States, and again expressing only my own personal views, if I may, I cannot conceive of any war in the foreseeable future in which the United Kingdom, ourselves and the United States would not be fighting on the same side. Therefore it seems to me, and I am sure every member of the committee will agree, that it is of the most vital importance that we should know what the others are doing. We have known during the war, and1 I for one hope that a close liaison will be continued in peace time. It is most desirable that it should, and I am sure every member of the committee would agree with that view.


Howard Charles Green: We agree.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: Returning to the minister's answer to my previous question, I would ask two questions: Is he still accepting deliveries of goods, or still receiving from the contractors goods for the navy for which commitments were made, and has he found it necessary to cancel any contracts or will it be possible to do so?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The short answer to that is that we have cancelled everything we could, but we have had to take a good deal that was completed. We give notice of cancellation, but it may develop that the article is
completed and as we have to pay for it anyway we might as well take it as pay cancellation charges. We are, however, cancelling everything that we can.


Grote Stirling: That is, through munitions and supply?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: You have cancelled all that you can up to the present time, but this sum of money might be subject to some revision and you may be able to make further cancellations or save some money there.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I would hope so. I do not want to speak in the first personal pronoun too much but I have urged, the deputy minister has urged, we have all urged that everything that can be cancelled should be cancelled, because it is only common sense that, the war being over, there is no purpose in going on with the manufacture, but if there should be another war any supplies that we might have would be available. To put it bluntly, we want to get out of that end of it as cheaply as we can. The navy has no incentive to do other than cancel, but if the stuff is completed we might as well take it and see if we can use it rather than just pay cancellation charges and take nothing.


Gordon Graydon: In the southern part of my constituency there is one of the large producers of small arms. There is a small arms plant at Lakeview, called Long Branch, and it was said at the time the plant was built and put into operation that it might be regarded as the possible Birmingham of Canada for small arms. The plant has now gone down, naturally, because there are fewer requirements such as were needed for war-time purposes. But I would ask the minister, having in mind the importance of production through that plant, whether it will be kept in such shape- that it can be utilized in case armed hostilities break out once more. If that plant is closed entirely it may of course be converted to some other type of production, and all the research, all the equipment and so on which might be needed very quickly at another time would be entirely lost. What is the policy of the government with regard to that plant in the production of small arms such as it formerly turned out?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I would prefer to have my hon: friend direct that question to the Minister of Munitions and Supply when his estimates are up, because, as my hon. friend knows, the primary responsibility for planning and arranging production has been his, and while perhaps I could give a rather general answer to the question I think my hon. friend

Demobilization-Naval Services
would get a complete and much more satisfactory reply from the Minister of Munitions and Supply than from myself.
Mr. GRA\ DON: I shall be glad to accept that suggestion.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The Minister of Munitions and Supply has estimates in this appropriation, and I suggest that the question of plans for the continuation of specific plants which have been built up under his direction might be directed to him, because he could give a better informed answer than I.


Gordon Graydon: It is a government plant in any event?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is right.


Grote Stirling: Do I gather from that that the minister anticipates continuing to order through the Department of Munitions and Supply? For instance, I am thinking at the moment of torpedoes. We have ten or twelve destroyers in commission and they will have to be kept supplied with torpedoes.


Douglas Charles Abbott: For the time being the department of munitions is still the purchasing agent for the government. I understand that the minister proposes to introduce Shortly a measure to combine the departments of supply and reconstruction, and I imagine that in due course the purchase of munitions will revert to the method that was followed before the war.


Grote Stirling: To the navy?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The navy or the defence
departments if the defence departments are combined. But for the time being supply will continue to be the purchasing agent.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I was going to ask a question similar to that put by the hon. member for Yale. I recall, when the change was made in the early stages of the war, I felt that each branch was in a better position to know its requirements and control its purchases than is the case under the system now in vogue. The hon. member for Yale probably had the same idea in mind when he asked his question, ihat the sooner we change back to the old system, giving greater control over purchases :o the department, the better our stocks will be iept and the greater control the navy stores officer will have over his supplies and requirements. There will be a better service to the men. I have in mind a large amount in contracts recently placed in connection wiL. jumpers, jackets, underwear and so on, a list of which I saw about a month ago, certainly since V-J day. If the department of defence, naval services, had complete control, as previously, of purchases the difficulty would be 
overcome to a far greater extent and there would be greater control than at the present time. I suggest to the minister that from a business point of view, he should look into this question and restore at as early a date as possible the old system which I believe operated to good advantage in peace time.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The views of the senior
hon. member for Halifax in a matter of this kind are extremely valuable, because his extensive business experience enables him to judge how purchases should be made.


Edmund Davie Fulton: There are two questions I
should like to put to the minister on this item. The first one is a follow-up to the remarks made by the hon. member for Vancouver South. Has any consideration been given to the establishment of arsenals in Canada on the same lines as those in the United States and Great Britain which might combine the manufacture of naval and army guns?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am not in a position to
go into details in reply to my hon. friend's question. The whole question of arsenals was the subject of a report; and, speaking generally, I believe that a special crown company has been or is being set up to handle the various arsenals, projects which are to be continued for the time being at any rate. But again, this is a matter which has been primarily directed to my colleague, the Minister of Munitions and Supply, and I should appreciate it if my hon. friend would put very much the same questions to him when his estimates come up. I suggest that because I think he would be able to answer it. I know he would be able to give my hon. friend a more informed answer and maybe a more satisfactory answer than I can give.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I shall be glad to do that.
Could the minister give us information as to who is making the report, and tell us when it will be tabled in the house?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The report was an interdepartmental report; it has been made. The plan which I have indicated as having been adopted or about to be adopted arose out of that report. I do not wish to commit myself to details because I am not informed on them, but if in the course of this discussion my hon. friend would put his question to the Minister of Munitions and Supply I know he would be in a position to give a full explanation of what recommendations have been made, and a full statement as to what steps have been taken or will be taken with regard to the matter.

Demobilization-Naval Services


Edmund Davie Fulton: Is the minister in a position to give us information as to the name of the crown company which is being set up or which is contemplated?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No, I am afraid I cannot do that at the moment. Perhaps I can get that. Again I suggest that he put his question to the Minister of Munitions and Supply. Iam assuming that he will be on very shortly in the course of this discussion, and I am sure the minister will be glad to give a full explanation of just what is proposed. I could get it myself and give it in the course of these proceedings. Perhaps I may do so on the army estimates because all three services are interested, but I really think a more lucid and satisfactory explanation will be given by the Minister of Munitions and Supply than by myself, because I would have to brief myself from him and get his views on the matter, and I know he has the thing at his finger-tips. '


Howard Charles Green: It might help to get two explanations.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I appreciate the minister's suggestion, and I shall' not pursue the matter any farther here except to say that I wish he would give further consideration to making a statement when the army estimates are up, because I think it should be considered when the defence estimates are under discussion.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I shall be very glad to do that. I will get the necessary information if my hon. friend will let the matter stand until we are dealing with the army estimates. I will consult with my colleague, get the information and give him the statement.


Edmund Davie Fulton: My other question on this item goes back somewhat to the question of magazines and storage. It has to do with the storage of rifles, machine guns and naval guns. I do not imagine it is the question of the storage of naval guns because they are in a little different class. I shall leave them out for a moment, but on the question of rifles and machine guns, is space being provided in those magazines; they are called magazines? I do not want to deal with them; they might as well serve as weapon stores. Is space being provided in those magazines for the storage of weapons? Further, they are regarded to some extent as stores or reserves of ammunition and weapons over and above the requirements of the immediate permanent forces to be available in the event of our having to call out our armed forces again. Will a reserve be accumulated?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes. The main magazines to which I have referred at Renous and Kamloops are not for the storage of guns or armament as such; they are purely for ammunition. Guns are stored in the dockyards at Halifax and Esquimalt and perhaps elsewhere. There is no danger involved in the storage of guns, whereas ammunition has to be stored-


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is purely a storage problem.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes. I suppose they have to be greased and put in such condition that they will not deteriorate, but there is no danger involved in that. They do not have to be stored in a specially designed type of building to guard against danger to surrounding property. The Renous and Kamloops magazines are for the storage of ammunition, not for guns or weapons.


Mrs. STRUM:: I confess this means very little to me in the matter of technical details, but I should like to know from the minister whether this represents our Canadian naval defence and whether in the event of our contributing to a pool for international defence- that is, if under the terms of the San Francisco charter we begin to build collective security do we anticipate diverting part of this, or will it be in addition to this?


Douglas Charles Abbott: We are on the item of armament stores. I suppose that our contribution to whatever provision' is made under the collective security agreement for defence measures would come from our navy, army and air forces, and the stores which they might have to support their operations. Dealing with the item of armament stores, if we had some six-inch guns which were not needed for our own ships we might supply them to some other ships of a joint force under the collective agreement. I would have to be fairly general on that. The estimates which I am presenting now represent the amounts which the government is asking to defray the costs of the naval service up to March 31, 1946. I suppose from a practical point of view it is unlikely that any of the current expenditures would be devoted to the cost of some force set up under the collective agreement.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: The minister then anticipates that we would have two forces in that event; that we would maintain Canadian defence separately from the international pool?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I would think that we must maintain our own domestic defence force for the policing of our own territorial area, for instance, with the -appropriate staffs, establishments, and so on; and that whatever con-
Demobilization-Naval Services

tribution we might undertake to make to a world force or to a joint force would be made from that establishment. If we undertook to contribute so many men or so many ships and our domestic establishment were were not adequate to provide those in addition to what we needed for our own territorial defence we would expand our forces. That is about as definite as I can be.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: Do the pay and allowances include merchant seamen in addition to the regular-


Douglas Charles Abbott: I hate to take this technical position with the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, but we are proceeding item by item here. We disposed of pay and allowances some time ago. We had a long general discussion on civil salaries in which general remarks of all kinds were permissible. We have been taking the different heads item by item, and I. am reluctant to go back on the items, but I will answer my hon. friend's question. It does not include anything for merchant seamen.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Fuel for ships, $9,915,270.
Douglas King Hazen: Could the minister give us some particulars about this item? I presume some of the fuel would be coal, some oil, some gas, and perhaps some wood. Could the minister give us a breakdown of the figures? Could he let us know also if part of the fuel was purchased outside this country? Then I would ask the minister how the actual expenditures for last year compared with the estimate?


Douglas Charles Abbott: To answer the last question first, the actual expenditures for last year were $26,245,347. The estimated expenditures for last year were $27,806,604, or roughly $1,000,000 more than the amount actually spent. This item includes, in addition to fuel oil for ships' bunkers, coal for ships, diesel oil, gasoline and lubricating oil for ships. I have a break-down of items for the current fiscal year:
Fuel oil	 $ 9,565,252
Diesel oil	 358,529
Gasoline	 336.048
Steam coal	 108.879
Fuel for heating	 89,580
Lubricating oils	 448,732


Douglas King Hazen: What is that fuel for heating?


Douglas Charles Abbott: It would be coal, I suppose, and perhaps fuel oil used for heating ships as distinct from fuel used for steaming. It is all grouped into the one heading. From that total is deducted $1,000,000 which is estimated as covering a portion of future years' require-

ments, leaving a balance of $9,907,020. The cash appropriation for the first five months was $5,009,782, and the net additional requirement estimated is $4,897,238. As the committee will see from the above summary, by far the largest proportion of the amount is represented by fuel oil for the ships.


Alan Cockeram: That is the item of
$9,000,000?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is correct. The estimate represents a substantial reduction, $17,891,334, from the estimate for the previous year, which, as I indicated a moment ago, was within $1,000,000 of the actual expenditure.


Douglas King Hazen: Where was the fuel oil or
coal purchased?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is purchased by the
Department of Munitions and Supply, and I am afraid I cannot give my hon. friend the information.	.


Alan Cockeram: That is the old standby.


Douglas Charles Abbott: My hon. friend the Minister of Munitions and Supply is just as capable of answering questions as I am, perhaps more so.


George Randolph Pearkes: I did not hear the minister mention anything about fuel oil or fuel for the fleet air arm. Is that not included for the aircraft and the carriers? Are they to have any fuel?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The arrangement at the
moment is that we pay the admiralty for that up to March 31. It is included in the general estimates, but there is no specific appropriation. My hon. friend will recall that we expect the first of the carriers to be commissioned about January 15 and the second perhaps six or seven months later, so that there will be a period, presumably, of some two and a half months during which provision would have to be made for the operation of that carrier.


George Randolph Pearkes: And the aircraft on it?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is right.


Douglas King Hazen: Has the department disposed of any fuel as surplus anywhere?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am advised that everything not needed is reported as surplus, and we receive directions from War Assets Corporation to turn it over to commercial companies.


Douglas King Hazen: But the question was, has
the department disposed of any as surplus?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am advised that we have disposed of substantial quantities.

Demobilization-Naval Services


Douglas King Hazen: At what bases would there be surplus fuel?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Sydney, Halifax, Shelburne, Prince Rupert.


Mr. MOORE:: Under the item of fuel for
ships could the minister tell us how much per ton that fuel cost the government?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is one of the questions I am sorry to have to keep answering in the same way. The fuel is purchased by the Department of Munitions and Supply; the navy department does not purchase it. We indent, as it were, the Department of Munitions and Supply and tell them to get us so many tons of fuel. They set the price and deliver the fuel to us. If my hon. friend will make a note to ask the purchasing department what they paid for it he will be able to get the information.


James Alexander Marshall: At the same time they supply you with fuel, do they not also supply you with an account covering the fuel?


Douglas Charles Abbott: They bill us from- time to time and we pay the price they set. We pay in bulk.


James Alexander Marshall: Therefore would it not be possible to calculate exactly what the fuel cost?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I think it would be possible, by dividing the total number of tons of fuel we have burned by the total price we have paid, to get a unit cost, but I do not know that this has been done. If I may say so, we are not particularly concerned. We do not have to drive the bargain. The Department of Munitions and Supply makes the deal and we pay the bills.


Alan Cockeram: As I understand it from the minister, the navy department pays these accounts. They do not pay the Department of Munitions and Supply; they pay the accounts direct. Is that right?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is correct.


Alan Cockeram: If that is so, the minister should be able to tell us who are the suppliers. I think he should answer that question and not put it over to muntions and supply.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Perhaps we could get the information, because we receive the invoices, but as I have said the purchasing department is the Department of Munitions and Supply. They keep the records; that is their job. They do the buying, and I suggest that questions as to the people from whom supplies are purchased should be directed to those who
do the purchasing. I could get the information, but I suggest it is much more efficient to get it from the. man who does the buying. If my hbn. friend insists, perhaps I could ask my staff to check up with munitions and supply, or go through the invoices; but it has been the job of the Department of Munitions and Supply to do the buying and that is the department to give the information. One of its functions is to give members of the house that information.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Do you not get a credit when you turn over these supplies? Let us take the first item of $9,000,000, which we have authorized the department to spend for fuel. Supposing you turn back $1,000,000 worth of fuel, what happens? You have $9,000,000 and you require to spend only $8,000,000. Do you not get a credit?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No, we do not. It may be poor accounting, but our books will show that we have spent $9,000,000 and War Assets Cor-portion gets credit for the $1,000,000. It is the same in connection with corvettes. We show that we have spent $750,000 in round figures for a corvette, and I see by the newspapers that War Assets Corporation is selling them for $40,000 or $50,000 each.


Alan Cockeram: I suggest that is not good accounting. As far as capital ships and capital expenditures go, that may be all right, but in connection with fuel and other ships' supplies I certainly think the minister's department should get credit on a one hundred per cent basis. It goes through War Assets Corporation, it goes through an independent channel; it is passed on from there to independent dealers who sell the oil to other ships. I do not think there is any accounting. The minister's department should receive credit for that and he should be able to give us that figure.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Perhaps my hon. friend is right, but it is not done. The net recovery in the final analysis comes back into the same pocket, the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.


Alan Cockeram: It is not salvage to that extent.


James Arthur Ross: The minister said that considerable fuel had been turned back to munitions and supply Or to War Assets Corporation. Can he give us a breakdown of that in amounts? There is a different set of figures for this department from what there is for the other service departments. What is the value of gasoline, fuel oil and coal that the department has burned up, and from what places was it purchased?
Demobilization-Naval Services


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have not the information here but I am advised that it can be obtained.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: The public of. Canada are asking the question: what does it cost annually to run our navy? From what the minister has said it would appear they are getting the same kind of nonsense in this case that they get in connection with most questions they ask. Apparently they are not going to get a correct answer about the cost of their navy. This is just in keeping with most of the actions of this government. They must go to the Department of Munitions and Supply to get the correct answer. It is the old runaround the soldiers and everybody else are getting. The people of Canada should know what this navy is costing. When goods belonging to the navy are sold, the navy should get the credit. Otherwise we do not have a true picture.


Frank Exton Lennard: I can understand the
Minister of National Defence for Naval Services not being able to furnish information as to where the oil has been purchased, but I think it is certainly poor accounting when the officials of his department do not know what price they paid for these different fuels.


Douglas Charles Abbott: We do know. I have given my hon. friend the gross amount. I can get him the information from naval service headquarters. We can get the number of tons of fuel oil, and that number can be divided into $9,000,000, which will give him the amount paid. It is simply a matter of arithmetic.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Tell the people of
Canada what it costs to run the navy.


Frank Exton Lennard: I understand that we are to get a break-down, of what has been turned over to War Assets Corporation?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes; I promise that any information of that kind will be given. I hope the committee is not under any misapprehension. This is all available, some of it more readily than others. Hon. members will realize that it is almost impossible for me or for the deputy to anticipate the great variety of combinations of figures which may be asked for in committee. All I can do under such circumstances is to say that we will get the information and give it to the committee at the first available opportunity.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Some questions are fairly obvious.


Douglas Charles Abbott: But others are not.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think the minister will admit that this is quite a legitimate request.

We find that $9,000,000 is being voted, and I would think the estimates would foresee and perhaps take into consideration that there would be a credit received because some was turned over to War Assets Corporation.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I hope I am not giving the impression that I think these questions are frivolous or foolish, because I do not mean that for a moment. I confess that I did not even know myself that some of this oil may have been turned back. I can get the information and it will be given very readily.


Frank Exton Lennard: Would I be in order to ask that this item be allowed to stand and that we go on to another item so that the minister can get that information?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have given an undertaking to furnish it. It has been the practice in the past, when hon. members asked for certain information which required some time to obtain, to promise that it would be made available at a future time. In this case officials will get the information as soon as pos

sible, and I will place it before the committee, either on a later item or, with the consent of the committee, when some other minister is putting through his estimates.
I think it will facilitate the progress of the business of the committee not to hold up the item. I give the formal undertaking that everything which has been asked for to-night and which can be obtained will be furnished. We are making a careful note of everything that has been asked for and it will be furnished at the first available opportunity.. I think it is certain that the discussion on this resolution will carry on for some considerable time, whether on naval estimates or otherwise, and I will see that the information is given.


James Arthur Ross: Having asked the question, may I say that that is quite satisfactory to me. I would not ask that the item stand as long as the information will be provided, possibly when we are discussing one of the other service departments.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Those of us who have sat on previous committees will recall that that has been the practice in the past.


John Bracken: I am sure the minister does not mean to suggest that we cannot revert later on to one of these items if someone has a legitimate question to ask.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The practice in the past has been to cover the items. It may be that I am unable to give the information asked for, but in each case I have undertaken to give it at a later day. I suggest with great diffidence that that is the only way we can

Demobilization-Naval Services
expect a reasonable expedition of business in the committee. If we reopen each item, then each one of two hundred odd members will have an equal right to ask other questions. If there is some matter of vital importance which has been overlooked, personally I would not want to stand on any technical ground, but once we have passed an item I would not want to see the committee revert to it for the purpose of reopening the whole matter.


John Bracken: The hon. member has referred to the practice in the past. The practice in the past has been to have a resolution dealing with each separate item. When the resolution was passed, then we were done with it. But that has not been done with these estimates. We have only the one resolution dealing with SI,365 million. It was not proposed that there be a general reopening of these items once we have discussed them, but I hope the minister is not taking a firm stand that if there is some question to be asked later about any of these items we shall not be able to ask it. I hope he is not taking the position that we cannot go back to it.
I think we are all anxious to help the minister expedite the business of this committee, but since we have this one general resolution under which we can, under our rules, raise any matter at any time, I do not think the minister should take a firm position.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Technically the leader of the opposition is perfectly right but, as he probably knows just as well as I do, in five years of dealing with these war appropriation resolutions we have invariably followed the practice which is being followed in this debate of separating the various service estimates into groups of expenditures, allowing a general discussion at the outset of each department, passing each separate group one by one and then not reverting to the particular items. That has been the practice which has been followed for five years. I agree with the hon. member that perhaps legally and technically it is perfectly open to the committee to go back to any one of these items and under those circumstances it is impossible for me to take a firm stand. I simply point out to him what has been our practice and I think it has a good deal to commend it.
I am willing to take just as much time as he wants on any one of these individual items. We are now discussing the question of [DOT] fuel, and if the committee wants to, I am prepared to discuss fuel until eleven o'clock to-night. There is no difference between setting up an item of 39,000,000 for fuel under war appropriations, as we are doing here, and having
a separate item in the civil estimates for the same amount. Under civil estimates, when we have voted an item for $9,000,000 for fuel, it would be concluded and we would not go back to it.
I agree with the leader of the opposition and I will not take any firm stand on it. Legally I think the committee is entitled to go back to any item. But I hope that, except under the most unusual circumstances, when we have passed an item I can really take it that we have finished with it and can go on to the next one.


John Bracken: Perhaps I was the first on this side of the house to say to hon. members opposite that we would try to discipline ourselves to keep within that general practice because as the minister says if we do not do that, we should be here for a long time. But a couple of times the minister has referred to people over here going back to an item already passed. I have in mind the hon. member for Qu'Appelle. She asked about a matter that had not been dealt with, and the minister argued that the item had been passed and that he did not want a precedent established by going back to the item again. I am not suggesting that we start in and go over all the items that have been passed. There is not much difference of opinion between us on that. But I hope that the minister will not take too firm a position if some legitimate question was overlooked that should be raised.


Douglas Charles Abbott: May I point out in closing that the leader of the opposition is the first one who has raised this question in the five years that we have been dealing with war estimates.


John Bracken: I just want to add this, that if the minister is going to take that strong position he will be a longer time in getting through his estimates than he otherwise would be.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am prepared to take just as much time as the committee wants to take. I will take two or three or four weeks, just as much time as the committee requires. I do not want my hon. friend to think I was attempting to be adamant. I was merely pointing out that for five years we have followed a certain practice, and1 in replying to my hon. friend the member for Qu'Appelle I was simply voicing my view as to the practice that had been established in this house. I do not think any hon. member who was here in the last session will contradict me when I say that the point which has been taken by the leader of the opposition has been taken for the first time with respect to the war appropriation.
Demobilization-Naval Services

His point is well taken; I have conceded that to him, and now having established the legal position, I express the hope that we shall continue the practice that has been followed for the past five years.


Frank Exton Lennard: When I made my suggestion a few minutes ago that this item should stand and that the committee go on to another item I did not know that during the past five years there had -been a new procedure followed in this house because, when I sat in the house prior to the second world war, I remember that on many an occasion a minister would allow an item to stand and go on to another item, perhaps because he had not the information before him that the committee asked for or because something else necessitated1 that stand.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am prepared to do that. The only point I was making was with reference to the established practice on the war appropriation. It has been the practice, of course, sometimes to pass on to another item and give the other information asked for at a later time. I am in the hands of the committee. I do not care. It is nothing to me. I have all the time in the world.


John Bracken: It is not a matter of time at all. That was not the question that was raised.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I should not have said that.


John Bracken: It is a question of whether in the event of some matter being overlooked the minister is going to permit us to go back to an item already passed. So far as I am concerned', we are willing to help to get through all these items, but we do not want to be held too strictly to the procedure the minister has just stated, because he is not in a position to argue for that in view of the way in which these war estimates have been brought before the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to say a word in connection with the procedure which is now being questioned by the committee, and I wish to say it as a member of the opposition which is concerned with the close scrutiny of what is going on on the government side.
I hold in my hand a copy of the civil estimates for the current fiscal year. I remind members of the house that there are some very important items in the civil estimates and that we have not had a chance in this house to discuss civil estimates since August, 1944. While it is perfectly true that we can take all the time we want on the resolution now before the house, hon. members should realize that the more time we take on the war appropriation, the less time there will be for

the civil estimates. I have been here long enough to know the speed at which the business of the house moves and the pressure that is put on in the last two or three days of a session. Not only are there civil estimates to consider, but the order paper is full of all kinds of important legislation to come before the house, and it seems to me that those of us on the opposition side should have an interest not only in spending time on one subject but in budgeting our time so that we shall not be pushed for time when important matters come up toward the end of the session.
I would say this to the leader of the opposition, that a member who wishes to go back and ask questions that he has overlooked on some item already passed is well protected by the fact that after this resolution is passed a bill has to be introduced and given a first and second reading, go through the committee stage and come again before the house for third reading, so that there are plenty of opportunities for a member to bring up later anything he has overlooked.
I feel, Mr. Chairman, that I am arguing the case of the opposition, not the case of the government, in what I am saying. Surely as members of the opposition we are interested in budgeting our time to consider the matters to come before the house, and we should agree to this procedure of passing these appropriations item by item. The leader of the opposition is perfectly right. Technically this is one resolution, but in our own interests I think we should agree to the procedure and try to expedite the business of the house.


James Arthur Ross: Surely the minister
did not mean-I do not think he did-that we were going to continue passing estimates in peace time in the same fashion as we did when the war was on, when we realized the uncertainties of war and gave the war departments a blank cheque. Surely the minister and the government do not expect that we are going to continue that practice, issue a blank cheque as the minister has suggested this evening. We are prepared as members of the opposition to cooperate in trying to get these items through as quickly as we can, but I think the minister was a little too stiff in his stand on the practice that has obtained in the last five war years.


Douglas Charles Abbott: 
John Bracken: Perhaps we have wasted
too much time on this discussion, but I say that we were the first to offer to discipline ourselves to keep within the general procedure adopted in discussing the war appropriation. I rose only because the minister objected to some hon. member on this side asking a particular question on an item which had been passed. The item had passed before the question could very well be raised. We do not want to make a general practice of that. It is not that we want to do that at all, and I do not think there is much difference between us.


Mr. BURTON:: Well, let us get on with the business.


John Bracken: If the hon. member for Humboldt is attempting to lecture me, may I suggest that he apply his lecture to some of his own party, because it was they who suggested that we revert to this item.


Mr. McIVOR:: I sat in the house this afternoon for two hours listening to questions coming from youth and age in the opposition, and I was surprised at the courteous way in which the Minister of National Defence answered those questions, and at the splendid way in which the information came across. I think the minister is to be commended. He is not so old as some of us but he is far wiser. I should like to pay tribute to him for his patence; and he did not have a chip on his shoulder once to-night.


John Bracken: I think we can join with the hon. member in the comment he has made. I am sure I can.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I think I had better rise and take a bow, Mr. Chairman.


Alan Cockeram: We are discussing the estimate for fuel for ships. In a statement a few minutes ago the minister said that War Assets Corporation or the Department of Munitions and Supply or some second or third party had disposed of approximately one million dollars worth of fuel oil or fuel for ships for his department.


Douglas Charles Abbott: May I interrupt? I mentioned no amount.


Alan Cockeram: The minister said, approximately a million.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I beg my hon. friend's pardon. I said, "a substantial amount," but I mentioned no figure, because I have no information.


Alan Cockeram: At any rate the minister said that they had sold fuel for his department. A month or two afterwards he comes along and asks us to pass estimates for $9,915,270. It is amazing that, if the department's requirements for the coming year amount to over $9,000,000, they should dispose of any fuel oil in the months which have gone by. I suggest, that an explanation in that regard is due to the committee.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Of course the answer to that one is fairly obvious. We shall have surpluses at certain places at certain times, and I do not know that it would be either in the [DOT] interests of the navy or of would-be consumers of fuel-


Alan Cockeram: What does the minister mean by that?


Douglas Charles Abbott: We may have at Halifax to-day a surplus of fuel oil. Let us say for the sake of argument that we are not going to need that fuel for two or three months. We therefore advise munitions and supply that we have this surplus and they dispose of it. Four months later we need some more and we make another purchase. But we overestimated our requirements. We obviously made commitments and purchased, before the termination of the Japanese war, beyond our immediate needs. That is the answer as far as that is concerned. We have a surplus in certain ports, and we have to purchase in others. But we would not go on buying fuel which we did not use.


Alan Cockeram: Yes, but the department must have a great storage capacity, has it not?
Demobilization-Naval Services


Douglas Charles Abbott: We have a substantial storage capacity. But the point I made a moment ago is that it is not in the interests of the community where there is a shortage of fuel supplies to keep for three or four months supplies which we are not going to need; it is better to allow them to be used in the district in which they may be located, replacing them from later shipments. I cannot speak from any personal knowledge of what was done, but that is the general explanation given me by the deputy minister.


Alan Cockeram: What loss would you take per ton on sales you have made? I assume that there is a loss.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I could not say whether there would be any loss. I doubt whether there would be. They dispose of the fuel at the current market price. As my hon. friend knows, all these items are in short supply. The problem is not to have a surplus of coal but to have enough, and pretty much the same principle applies to gasoline and fuel oil.


Alan Cockeram: What about handling charges?


Douglas Charles Abbott: There may be some loss in handling charges, that is * true.


James Alexander Marshall: Ships of other nations call at Canadian ports and refuel. What arrangements have been made by the department with other nations with respect to this matter? Is there anything in these items which would cover transactions of that sort?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not know that these estimates contain any specific items for that. I am advised that during the war, at points like Newfoundland, where probably the only available supplies would be naval supplies, we would supply ships of the Royal Navy, for instance, and charge them with the cost of the fuel supplied, but according to my information that was not done on a substantial scale.


Ronald Stewart Moore: Since I was the unfortunate individual who raised this question, I want first to say that I am satisfied with the minister's explanation. He told us precisely where we could get the information desired. When ** asked the question I was merely looking fin information. Had I ever thought that the discussion of that one little point would last this long I would never have brought it forward. However, I want to thank the minister for his explanation as to where we can get that information, and I hope the incident will be considered closed.
[Mr Cockeram.J


Wilfrid Garfield Case: I have just one or two observations to make. First, I should like to join with the hon. member for Fort William, in this sense, that I appreciate the courtesy of the minister, but I cannot understand why the hon. member said he was surprised at it. After all, I do not think he should be surprised; I think the minister simply treats us as we like to be treated.
We have been speaking of fuel for ships, and I understand that requirements are less because there are fewer corvettes and so forth. But when you sell the fuel back to the Department of Munitions and Supply, the credit balance should be the same. There might be a shrinkage, but I cannot imagine any depreciation in the value. If you made a reasonably good purchase you should get the same amount of money back. So that probably that point was not well presented.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I, too, might perhaps associate myself to a certain extent in the compliment paid by the hon. member for Fort William, but I should like to point out that the minister has SI,300 million involved, and I could wear a smile for quite a long time for SI,300 million.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Only $299 million, just a bagatelle.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Some bagatelle. However, the point I raise in connection with that is that the minister has yet to give us information, in order to complete the picture, as to the amount which might be accounted a re-credit for the disposal of certain items by War Assets Corporation; that is, in connection with the sale of fuel. In order that we may have the picture clearly, would he be prepared-possibly he may be able to do it for the rest of the items of the navy and for the same items under the army-to get the same information and let us have it, in connection with other items? The next item we come to is, "acquisition, construction, charter, repairs and upkeep of ships," and I can foresee that there might be quite a heavy run of disposal of these stores through War Assets Corporation. I believe we would be very much interested in knowing whether there is a large sum which we can re-credit to the department, in connection with the passing of these estimates; whether, for instance, there will be a substantial amount off that $50,000,000, and off the next items. To save us asking each time an item comes up, perhaps the minister can give us an undertaking on. that matter now'.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The position I am in is this.
I can tell the committee what particular-

Demobilization-Naval Services
physical items were declared surplus, but I cannot tell the committee what those items realized after being sold by War Assets Corporation, because, as I explained earlier, the system of accounting, rightly or wrongly, does not credit the navy appropriation account with the amounts. I could tell the committee what items were declared surplus or have already been declared surplus under these particular items. I think I should point out that under certain headings it might involve a considerable amount of work to get the information accurately. Under fuel it would be comparatively easy because that is dealt with in bulk, but as regards miscellaneous stores and equipment I do not know how easy it would be. The deputy minister tells me that there are literally thousands of declarations on surplus items. Perhaps the same information in total might be obtained under munitions and supply estimates or some appropriate item by asking what amounts had been realized by War Assets Corporation from the disposal of surplus naval stores. Probably that information in total would be available readily.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I was asking whether the minister could ask his colleague to give him that information.. If it is going to take three or four days, or perhaps weeks, and involve the work of a large part of the staff we might let it drop, but that information would be of great value to us. If it is possible to get it or to get part of it I would appreciate it.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I will make inquiries and see what information can be readily made available.


Percy Chapman Black: How much of this $9,915,270 is it proposed to apply to the purchase of coal, and of that how much will be used in purchasing imported coal and how much of the estimate is for the purchase of oil?.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have already given those figures.


Percy Chapman Black: I will not ask the minister to repeat it if it is on the record.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is on the record. I have given a break-down as between fuel oil, diesel oil, steaming coal and the like, but not as to whether it was imported or not. As my hon. friend knows, the purchase is made by the purchasing department, and what coal is purchased depends upon them. The difficulty in recent months has been to obtain any kind of coal, imported or domestic.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
William Ross Macdonald: The next item is:
Acquisition, construction, charter, repairs and upkeep of ships, $50,695,563.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I might anticipate the discussion of this item by making a brief explanatory statement. The item asks for provision for $50,695,563 as against a similar provision made in the preceding fiscal year of $82,282,000 and actual expenditure in the preceding year of $97,063,122, making a decrease from actual expenditure of $46,367,559, and an estimated decrease of $31,586.437. The largest single item making up the total of $50,695,563 provided in this year's estimates for acquisition, construction, 'charter, and repairs of ships is the sum set aside for repairs, which amounts to $34,866,758. Although a great number of the ships comprising the Canadian navy will finally be disposed of, it will take some time to carry out this programme, and in the meantime it has been necessary to winterize those ships which will have to remain in commission during the forthcoming months and to take steps to prevent undue deterioration of those parts of vessels which, if not properly cared for, will rapidly depreciate in value. In addition, those vessels which are to be retained in the navy must be kept in repair and fighting condition. A certain amount of work of refitting, which was projected for the types of ships designated for Pacific operations, will be completed in respect of those ships which it is proposed to retain, In the interests of efficiency this must be done. Another important factor which contributes to the relatively large provision for repairs is that work previously done by naval ratings, the cost of whose pay was previously included under the heading of pay and allowances, will now be carried out largely by civilian labour whose wages are included under the heading of repairs to ships.


Grote Stirling: There is a question I have been wanting to ask the minister, but I did not know under which item to ask it. What does it cost to pass one of our naval ships through the Panama canal? The Crescent is about to go through from east to west; from what has been said the cruiser Uganda will shortly be passing from west to east, and I should like to know under this item what it costs to pass a destroyer, a cruiser or an aircraft carrier through the canal.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have not that information at the moment, but it is readily available and I will get it and give it to the committee.


Douglas Scott Harkness: How much of this estimate is for Fairmile motorboats and how much for the completion or the cancellation of contracts?
Demobilization-Naval Services


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am advised that, as far as present information goes, there is nothing included in this item for Fairmiles. Those contracts were all completed before the current fiscal year. The deputy minister advises me it is possible there may be some few outstanding bills, but the contracts were all made and commitments entered into long before the beginning of the fiscal year which is now under consideration.


Alan Cockeram: What does the minister mean by "acquisition"? Will he be buying major ships? How much is covered by that section of the appropriation?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is simply the old title of this heading. We have not acquired any ships and do not contemplate acquiring any during the current fiscal year. It would include commitments made with respect to Tribal destroyers which are now in course of construction in Canada, but aside from that there are no new purchases.


Alan Cockeram: What is the cost of the Tribal vessels under this item?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am afraid I have not that figure here. We shall have to get a progress figure and give it to the committee.


Alan Cockeram: What is the cost of building a Tribal destroyer in a Canadian shipyard as compared with the building of a Tribal destroyer in a British shipyard?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am informed that it is higher but I cannot give the figure. It is substantially higher.


Alan Cockeram: Would it be three times higher?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I could get the figure.


Alan Cockeram: I understand that it is possibly three times higher than the British cost and therefore I want to know what the economics of building ships in Halifax is.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am informed that it is nothing like as high as my hon. friend suggests. It might be seventy-five per cent higher, but I do not know.
Mr. LENNARiD: What ships at the moment are chartered by the Canadian navy?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am advised that a certain number of smaller ships are still under charter. We are rapidly disposing of them. The charters are running out but I have no details of particular ships. There is a small amount included in the estimated expenditures for the future. The actual expenditure from April 1 to July 31 was 836,663. The charters are running out; .the ships are being disposed of. They are, I believe, altogether smaller vessels.


Alan Cockeram: I should like to ask a question which has been asked in the house before. What was the cost of the Bras d'Or, the Otter and the Raccoon?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am not sure that I have the cost here. I am afraid I have not that figure with me, but I shall get it and give it to the hon. member later this evening or on Monday.


Alan Cockeram: The reason I ask that question is, as the c6mmitt.ee well knows, that these were the three ships which were the subject of certain charges by Commander Carr. Those three ships foundered in the Atlantic. I believe my colleague, the hon. member for St. John-Albert tried for many years to obtain information as to the cost of those three ships to the Canadian navy, and it was always a matter of secrecy as far as the department was concerned.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I can give the gross figure for the thirteen yachts. In all there were thirteen yachts acquired at the beginning of the war for the naval service. The total cost of the thirteen yachts was $1,795,000, a rather low figure, if I may say so, considering the fact that the smallest of the vessels was some 130 feet long. I will get for my hon. friend the price which was paid for the two or three yachts which he has mentioned.


Alan Cockeram: And the tonnage?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes; I will get the figure for tonnage and the price paid for the three vessels. Apropos of that-


Alan Cockeram: Full particulars.
Mr. ABBOTT;.-I would remind the committee that at the time those yachts were acquired we had only a very few vessels in Canada's navy. It was important to take prompt steps to see that some kind of vessels were made available, and the navy went out and did acquire the ships that were available. It acquired those thirteen yachts. I may say that with the exception of the two or three which were sunk, all those yachts remained in use and in commission until the end of the war. Hindsight is very easy with respect to cases of this kind. Let me say to the committee that the yachts which were obtained performed invaluable service in the early days of the war when we did not have very much in the way of naval equipment.


Alan Cockeram: Who was responsible
for the purchase of those ships? Was there a naval board to pass on those ships at that time, or was there one officer who decided?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Of course, as my hon.
friend knows, it was long before my time,

Demobilization-Naval Services
and it -was before the time of the deputy minister who is sitting beside me. That information is available; I can give it to the committee; I have not it here to-night.


Douglas King Hazen: I think it only fair to tell
the committee that when I put that question on the order paper the then minister of defence for naval services spoke to me about it. He gave me certain reasons that I thought were good ones why the information should not be made public at that time. I should like to say that in case there is any misunderstanding about the matter. I was satisfied with his explanation. He told me the story at that time and I thought it was a satisfactory one.


Douglas Charles Abbott: As the committee will appreciate. I have no personal knowledge of what was done. I have given the gross figures for the purchase of those yachts. I have given the broad basis on which I believe the neces-ity for acquiring them arose, and I think it is evident. I will get the information which the hon. member for York South has asked for as to the cost of the three particular craft to which he has referred, and their tonnage.


Alan Cockeram: And their age.


Douglas Charles Abbott: And their age.


Alan Cockeram: Is there any way in
which the results of the courts of inquiiy on those sinkings can be presented to this committee?	[DOT]


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am not prepared to table the findings of the courts of inquiry themselves, on the basis that those documents are never tabled in parliament, but I shall be glad to give the committee a statement as to the circumstances surrounding the sinking of the three yachts, and a summary of the findings of the court of inquiry. If the committee would wait a moment, perhaps I have the memorandum here.
The first one to which the hon. member referred was the Otter. His Majesty's Canadian ship Otter caught fire and foundered with heavy loss of life off Halifax. The charge is that there was danger of fire because of faulty wiring in this ship. I may say this was the allegation that was made in connection with the charges to which my hon. friend refers- danger of fire because it is said that faulty wiring in this ship had been pointed out to the proper authorities verbally and in writing and by signal on various occasions during the period of her service. It is charged that only a few days before the disaster the commanding officer of H.M.C.S. Otter was warned by an officer of long experience that 47696-99
[DOT] it was his duty to refuse to proceed to sea until his ship had been rewired. Here are the facts. The Otter sank on March 26, 1941 as a result of a fire. A naval board of inquiry was immediately convened to make a full inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the loss of the vessel. While the cause of the fire could not be definitely ascertained, the board expressed the opinion, after examining all relevant witnesses, that the fire was caused by the sudden overloading of one of the vessel's generators.
Earlier in her commission the ship had been found to have faulty wiring and she was rewired in the summer of 1940 by Messrs. Lambert, German and Milne, naval architects of Montreal. In January, 1941, her wiring was again checked in Halifax. The board of inquiry adduced no evidence to indicate that the wiring of the ship was at fault. The commanding officer of the vessel, Lieutenant D. S. Mossman, R.C.NR., who was questioned at considerable length made no reference to the alleged warning.
The second case was the Raccoon. The charges were that the Raccoon was known to be considered unseaworthy by experienced officers long before the day she disappeared into the gulf of St. Lawrence. There were other incidents. It is said that local fishermen at certain seaports reported) that she was detached for patrol and rescue duties there, but was considered so unseaworthy that during bad weather she was anchored under the lee of an island, while they, the Nova Scotia fishermen, had to go to sea to rescue merchant seamen whose ships had been torpedoed off our coast. There is no information, however, regarding any incident in which the Raccoon was forced to anchor as suggested.
It can be stated that the yachts acquired by the Royal Canadian Navy as stop-gap patrol vessels, that is to say, pending the completion of new construction escort vessels, were the most seaworthy of suitable vessels available at that time. They were inspected before commissioning and refitted from time to time. The disappearance of the Raccoon was not a matter of seaworthiness; the vessel was torpedoed by an enemy submarine.
It is alleged that in the case of the Bras d'Or, her commander, an experienced officer, was said to have protested that he was far from satisfied) with the condition of the ship's boilers, even after the refit that was completed shortly before she foundered. It is alleged that that was why an engineer overseer officer was sent specially from Quebec to inquire into the protests of the officer commanding.	,

Demobilization-Naval Services

The facts in connection with the matter are as follows. His Majesty's Canadian Ship Bras d'Or was lost on October 19, 1940. She had been completely refitted shortly before that day, but because her boilers had previously given trouble an engineer overseer officer was sent to observe them in operation. A naval board of inquiry was convened, to make a full inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the loss of the vessel. After examining all relevant witnesses, the board expressed the opinion that the ship was apparently in good condition when refitted but that she had been grounded off Rimouski just over twenty-four hours before she sank. This grounding was not reported by her commanding officer, Lieutenant Charles A. Hornsby, R.C.N.R., presumably because of his zeal to carry out shadowing orders which had just been received. While no apparent damage was caused by the grounding, the board was of opinion that the strain suffered at that time was the chief contributory factor in her loss during rough weather on October 19.


Grote Stirling: Under this item do we understand that the Creiscents have been acquired and are being paid for?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Those two ships are under loan.


George Randolph Pearkes: Could the minister say how much of this item is allocated to the acquisition or repair of the landing craft to be used in connection with the combined operations training which he assured us would be carried1 out, although he could not say definitely that it would be carried out at Comox?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am advised that landing craft belong to the army, in any case; that the navy never does any more than operate them, and nothing is included in these estimates for landing craft.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Would the minister break down the figures and give us the amount which has been allotted to the repair and upkeep of the. ships?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes, I can do that. As I indicated a moment ago, the amount set aside for repairs is $34,866,758.


Frank Exton Lennard: Would it be too much
work for the department to furnish the names of the other ships in that group, and the amounts paid for them? I believe the minister mentioned thirteen ships.


Douglas Charles Abbott: When I am putting them
on Hansard I think the thing to do is put in a table showing the amounts paid for the thirteen. I thank my hon. friend for that suggestion, and I will carry it out.
fMr. Abbott.!


George Randolph Pearkes: Until quite recently the
navy was responsible for certain repairs in connection with landing craft used on thf Pacific coast in combined training at Comox. Could the minister tell us when the change was made and that responsibility handed over to the army?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am advised that we did
the hull repairs on these ships, but we have never made a service charge for that work.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Naval stores and harbour defences, $29,645,280.
Douglas Charles Abbott: Perhaps I had better give
my usual explanatory statement in regard to this figure. We are asking for provision this year of $29,645,280 as compared with an estimate last year of $42,678,967 and an actual expenditure of $49,091,842. This item is made up of naval stores; small boats; antisubmarine equipment; fire fighting equipment; charts; miscellaneous special equipment; training equipment; photographic equipment; furniture and galley equipment; motor vehicles; harbour defences. Of the total requested, $18,152,000 represents carryover of unliquidated liabilities from 1944-45, and $7,568,338 represents estimated expenditures to August 31, 1945. Provision has also been made for the liquidation during the seven months' period ending March 31, 1946, of commitments entered into during the first five months of this fiscal year, and for stores of the Canadian naval air service, most of which are not in stock. The amount provided for harbour defences is wholly for the liquidation of unpaid accounts and expenditures already made.
It will be noted that the amount requested this year is approximately $13,000,000 less than was requested in the estimates of 1944-45 and approximately $19,500,000 less than the amount actually spent during that year. That reduction is reflected in the drop from the peak buying which was under way to equip new ships in 1944-45 and to procure more modem technical equipment for anti-submarine detection, harbour defences and life-saving gear; also to replace other equipment which was wearing out or was found to be not up to the standard required, particularly in the anticipated operations in the Pacific where new tactics had developed.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I should like to know
what this particular item for mine-sweeping is. It seems to be the only type of operation particularly specified anywhere in the estimates.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Under this item?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes.

Demobilization-Naval Services


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am not quite clear as to just what information my hon. friend wants. Of course we operated a considerable number of minesweepers. The cost of operating those ships would be under various headings, including pay and allowances, repair, upkeep and maintenance of ships, and so on.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes, but you did all
sorts of operations: escort duty, patrols, destroyer flotillas, and so on, but the only particular operation specified anywhere in these estimates is that of minesweeping. I am wondering why it is there.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Where is that specified? I cannot find it.


Douglas Scott Harkness: On page 550 of Hansard, under naval stores. You have small boats, minesweeping, degaussing, and so forth.


George Randolph Pearkes: May I suggest that is
minesweepers' stores?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is minesweeping equipment, winches and all that sort of thing. The word "equipment" should be there.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I should like to ask the
minister where any Fairmile motorboats, which I understand are not included in the item we have just passed, come under this small boat item? [DOT]


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am afraid I did not make myself clear. I did not say they did not come under the previous item; I said my information was that the estimates for this year did not include any item for Fairmiles, that the liability had been incurred in preceding years and would be included under the previous item, under the acquisition of ships. They would not come under the category of small boats referred to in this item.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Then I would ask the
minister how many Fairmiles were declared surplus this year; what would be the age of those motor boats; would they have been built last year or the year before, pr when, and what was the cost of building these vessels?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I shall have to get the information. Substantially all Fairmiles have been declared surplus. I beleive we are retaining a certain limited number-how many I am not quite sure-for training purposes on the west coast. I shall have to get accurate information and give it to my hon. friend. The same comment applies with respect to the cost of the Fairmiles.


Howard Charles Green: There has been a great deal of criticism of the fact that these Fairmiles, which cost about $195/00, have been disposed of for S3,000 each. I do not know whether that figure is correct 47696-994


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not either. As I have explained several times, we have no control over the price received for ships disposed of. We turn them over to the disposal agency responsible for selling them and the price which is paid is in the hands of War Assets Corporation.


Howard Charles Green: Is there not some way by which the navy can advise as to the approximate price that should be charged for these boats? I know a great deal of adverse comment has been raised on the west coast because they were sold for such a small amount. After all, $3,000 does seem a ridiculous amount to pay for a boat that cost $195,000. People think these boats are being given away, and that is about what it amounts to. This is a serious matter because it affects canvassing for the victory loan. This is one of the examples held up as to what a government should not do. Is there not some way by which further sales of this kind can be avoided? I think the minister will agree that it looks very bad.
Mr, ABBOTT: Yes, on the face of it it does. Howeyer, I feel sure that there is an explanation for it and I am satisfied that that explanation can be given by the Minister of Munitions and Supply, whose department is responsible for War Assets Corporation.
Like a great many others, I have been on a Fairmile. These boats served a very useful purpose during the war, but they are not the type of boat I would want to travel on in peace time. They have a high-powered engine which uses high octane gasoline. I do not believe they are a practical boat for peace-time operations. Anyone buying one of these boats would have to take out the engine, put in a new engine and really rebuild it. I am not prepared to say what price one could get for a considerable number of boats of that type, but the job of War Assets Corporation is to get the best price they can for them. The figure reported in the papers seems quite small, taking into account the known cost of the boats, but I am not in position to offer any explanation hr comment. I do not know whether that is the actual price which was received and, in the second place, I do not know why that price was accepted. From my own personal knowledge the Fairmile is not a boat which could be used in its present condition for any civilian purpose I can think, of.


Mr. REID:: It is not that I am coming to the rescue of the minister, but I received a communication similar to that received by
Demobilization-Naval Services

the hon. member for Vancouver South and, I presume, others. I served on the war expenditufes committee, and I have seen something of the building of these Fairmiles and know something of their cost. I, too, was astounded when the information reached me that these Fairmiles were being sold for $3,000.
This is the information which I obtained yesterday and which I sent to the parties in Vancouver who appealed to me. The minister told me that two marine experts had looked over these Fairmiles. It was reckoned that it would cost $75,000 to convert the boats to commercial use. After they had been fitted out as commercial vessels they would then be worth in the neighbourhood of $80,000. The members of the war expenditures committee [DOT] visited the plant, and I know these boats are of heavy construction. The information given to us was that it would take about 100 gallons of gasoline an hour to keep . them running. The boats were totally unsuitable for commercial purposes. The advice given by the marine experts was that if the navy or the department had no use for them they would be well rid of them at $3,000 unless they could be used for war purposes.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: Has the joint board of defence afforded any facilities or entered into any agreement with the United States for the use of these ports?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not know of any specific ararngement for the joint use, but these ports, as well as other defence facilities in Canada, are all reviewed by the permanent joint board, of which General McNaughton is now chairman.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: Is there an agreement with the British navy and, if so, has it been [DOT]extended to the United States?


Douglas Charles Abbott: We have always granted the British government the use of our naval ports.


Mr. COLDWELL:: Is that a courtesy or an obligation?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is an understanding or right which goes back for a great many years.


Major James William Coldwell: 1912, was it not?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am informed by my colleague that when they gave up their property in these ports it was on the basis that the facilities of the ports would continue to be .available to them.


Major James William Coldwell: Are we under obligation to improve these facilities for the convenience of the Royal Navy?
[Mr. Rfiid.l


Mr. MACDONALD (Halifax):: Make them available.


Major James William Coldwell: Has the same arrangement been made with the United States?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not think any formal arrangement has been made.


Howard Charles Green: The United States have a huge naval base on the same sound on the west coast.


Major James William Coldwell: I was thinking of Halifax particularly.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: To go back to the Fair-miles, in view of the sacrifice price that seems to have been obtained for these boats, has the minister considered retaining a greater number in the naval service or offering them to other departments, such as the air force for use as crash boats, or the Department of Transport? I was wondering if some of the _ other departments could not re-engine them with diesel engines and bring them into use.
I notice there is an item for marine craft in the air force estimates and undoubtedly there will be similar items for the Department of Transport.


Douglas Charles Abbott: These craft, as well as any other items of this kind, are offered to the other defence departments before being declared surplus. That was the case with these Fairmiles, but boats that use 100 gallons of high octant gas an hour are not very good boats for braining or patrol purposes in peace time.


George Hugh Castleden: Were they considered to be efficient patrol boats by the naval engineers?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am advised that they were considered to be efficient patrol boats for the purpose for which they were designed in war time.


George Hugh Castleden: What was that purpose?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Close escort work. The trip I had on one was out of Gaspe harbour, and they were operating between Gaspe and Anticosti and between Gaspe and Newfoundland. They were escorting convoys in those waters.


George Hugh Castleden: Is there any record that they encountered U-boats or enemy vessels? I understand that they have a speed of only twenty-four knots.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Only twenty-four knots? That is quite1 a speed.

Demobilization-Naval Services


George Hugh Castleden: That is not to be compared with the speed' of the boats that were used around the English shores.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not know what speed they make; I doubt if they make as much as twenty-four knots.


George Hugh Castleden: How many different types of engines were tried out in these boats?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Two types, the Sterling and the Hall Scott.


George Hugh Castleden: Just two types?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is right.


George Hugh Castleden: Were both found satisfactory, or was there trouble about breaking jackets when the boats were speeded up?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Both were satisfactory, but one which was obtained in the United States became unprocurable.


George Hugh Castleden: Were no Rolls-Royce engines installed in Fairmiies in Canada?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No.


Mr. LANGLOIS:: On the question of the speed of Fairmiies I might mention that those equipped with the Hall Scott engine could do something like eighteen knots and those equipped with the Sterling, twenty-two knots. The hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard asked if any other department had taken any of those ships. I can inform him that the R.C.M.P. have taken' nine, if not eleven Fairmiies..


Howard Charles Green: I think the situation is not quite as good as the hon. member for New . Westminster would have us believe. According to press reports, seven of these Fairmiies were sold to Thomas F. Hamilton of Malibu club, Princess Louise inlet. One was reported sold for a private yacht to Mr. Garfield Weston, and one to some other person. In cases like that, there is no excuse for selling these boats for $3,000, and there should be some control over War Assets Corporation to prevent sales of that kind from being made.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I suggest that that question should be directed to the minister in charge of War Assets Corporation. Let me tell my hon. friend that no one will use any one of these Fairmiies as a private yacht without putting in another engine because, as they are now, you cannot hear yourself think on board. I have been in them, and the hon. member for Gaspe will bear me out when I say that no one will use a Fairmile as a private yacht without putting in a new engine.


George Randolph Pearkes: Now that the war is over, is it necessary to keep these degaussing stations going?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not know if I can answer that question. The degaussing station is being moved away from Vancouver, and the question whether it will be maintained anywhere else is under consideration. I will make inquiry from the chief of the naval staff and find out what the staff view is.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Do navy blankets come under this item for miscellaneous stores?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That comes under item 5, for personnel supplies. But if my hon. friend wants information about it I will consider his question as coming under this item.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: I just wanted to ask if these surplus blankets were sold for twenty-five cents apiece?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have to repeat the answer I have often given that the navy does not sell anything. We declare them surplus and they are turned over to the crown assets allocation committeee, which turns them over to War Assets Corporation, which sells them.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: This country is being asked to contribute clothing for the peoples of the overrun countries of Europe, and if these blankets were sold at twenty-five cents apiece they certainly should not have been sold for that price.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Does my hon. friend know that they were sold for twenty-five cents a piece?


Lewis Elston Cardiff: No. I asked the question.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Before making such a statement, my hon. friend should make sure of his

facts.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: I was informed that they were sold for twenty-five cents apiece, and if they were I say that it is ridiculous under those circumstances to ask this country to supply clothing for the peoples of Europe when this material could have been made available to them.


Ronald Stewart Moore: In the decommissioning of ships, I presume that some dismantling takes place before decommissioning. Can the minister give us any idea how much equipment is removed from a ship before it is turned over to War Assets Corporation? I presume they would remove the guns, the radar and the wireless. Do they remove the power plant, the auxiliary electrical machinery and equipment such as that?
Demobilization-Naval Services


Douglas Charles Abbott: As my hon. friend has indicated, secret equipment is removed and must be destroyed or mutilated to preserve secrecy. Sto'res and equipment for which the navy has a continuing need are removed. In all other cases the stores and equipment are left on board and War Assets Corporation is supplied with an inventory of these stores. That practice serves two purposes. First, it obviates the necessity of the naval service removing and storing equipment for which they have no need, and, second, it materially assists War Assets Corporation in making a sale because the ship then contains a great deal of equipment necessary for running purposes.


George Hugh Castleden: A considerable amount of money was spent in the war to provide merchant ships with guns and other protection from the enemy. What has been done with that material?


Douglas Charles Abbott: It was taken off the ships and put back into naval stores or naval ordnance.	.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Miscellaneous stores and services, $10,844,578.
Douglas Charles Abbott: The provision made this year is $10,844,578 as against $8,873,210 in the preceding year and actual expenditures in the preceding year of $8,268,811. While this item includes such sundry expenses as printing and stationery, books for service use, reference books, typewriters and office machines, laundry and dry cleaning, storekeeping materials, inspection and testing of water for ships, by far the largest and most significant item is wages, which account for $8,472,623. Wages are paid to civilian storekeepers, magazine workers, laundry assistants, motor vehicle operators and mechanics and other monthly paid and hourly paid civilian employees other than civil servants, dockyard tradesmen, labourers and maintenance personnel. As in the case of civil servants, dockyard workers and maintenance personnel, provision has to be made for replacement of naval personnel in cases where the functions and activities in which naval personnel were engaged must continue. This item is one which would include amounts for services such as those referred to by the hon. member for Camrose earlier in the discussion.


Mr. BOUCHER:: Where this $8,000,000 is paid to other than regular members of the naval forces, to permanent civil servants, is the money paid by the civil service department to which they originally belonged, or is it paid by the naval department?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Expenditures for civil service-I use that term in the .broad sense- come under item 1, civil salaries. The estimated amount is about $7,000,000. The amount here is for civil employees who are outside that category and, as I indicated in my explanatory statement, are storekeepers, magazine workers, laundry assistants, that type of employee, a good many of whom would be on hourly rates of pay.


George Russell Boucher: Would they be, in the main, technical men?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No, I would not think they would be technical men; they would be, go to speak, miscellaneous employees, say workers in bakeries-I mention that because I went through some of the naval bakeries- also storekeepers, people working at, for instance, Bedford magazine, other workers in the Renous and Kamloops magazines, all kinds of odds and ends of civilian workers. I do not use the term "odds and ends" in any derogatory sense, but miscellaneous types of workers, largely on hourly rates of pay.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Is that the reason why this is distinguished from item 1, because in item 1 you have not only civil salaries but wages. I should like to be certain that there is no chance of a duplication. You speak of wages for workers of miscellaneous types, but you have "wages" up above. What would the first item of wages include?


Douglas Charles Abbott: To get the correct picture as to the amount paid in salaries and wages of civilian personnel, if I may so describe them, one should take the $7,000,000 in item 1, plus the $8,000,000 which is included in this item, making a total in round figures of $15,000,000, plus the amounts included under construction and repairs of ships and under maintenance of above establishments. That gives the over-all picture with respect to salary and wage payments to civilian employees, some of whom are straight civil servants employed through the civil service commission, some of whom are temporaries whose engagement is subject to approval by the civil service commission, some of whom are labourers engaged to work in magazines, dockyards and shipyards.


George Russell Boucher: It is very difficult for us to make any check on expenditures of this kind. Can the minister give us any particulars of what relationship this cost totalling $15,000,000, of which he has just spoken, bears to the cost of other years, and particularly with reference to how much it has been reduced in the current year?

Demobilization-Naval Services


Douglas Charles Abbott: 
George Russell Boucher: The amounts seem very large. I do not emphasize the point with any critical intent, but an increase of $2,000,000 over last year in a total expenditure of $15,000,000, at a time when such duties as the minister has explained should be abating rather than increasing, seems rather high. The fact that the total cost of the first six months is approximately $3,500,000, and yet the appropriation is about $15,000,000, is hard to understand.


Douglas Charles Abbott: No; I am only giving the three millions against the ten millions here.


George Russell Boucher: I suppose the ratio with the civil service is similar under the other item.


Douglas Charles Abbott: No; under the other item the ratio is higher, about forty-six per cent as against thirty-two per cent here. My hon. friend's question is a perfectly appropriate one. It is an increase which it is quite proper should be queried. But I would point out to the committee that this year involves the liquidation and de-storing of the major portion of our navy, including all those small ships we are laying up, and that involves a great deal of work by temporary civilian employees. We shall do as much of it as we can, of course, with service personnel who are or have to be kept in the navy. But in preparing the estimates it was contemplated that to do this work we must make a provision for substantial expenditures, which would, of course, not be recurring expenditures.


George Russell Boucher: It does seem to me strange, however; that they should be increasing at this time, because one would think that he would need more civilian employees of this kind in building, equipping, maintaining and serving the naval force through the period we have gone through, rather than that the number would then be cut down. I think the point does reflect to some degree at least upon what appears to be tardiness in relieving the personnel of the civilian employees under this section. I do not like to go into any more detail, but the minister has not given us very much on which we can base any judgment as to the sufficiency or efficiency of the cutting down of expenditure in this regard. I think the minister would be well advised if he had more particulars on this item to give us.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is pretty hard to give more particulars. Perhaps I could get some more.- I have given the amount actually expended in six months, which is only $3,500,000. If that rate is not exceeded the total expenditure will be seven instead of the ten million which is shown here. We may have been unduly careful in estimating increased civilian expenditures. I can only assure the committee that I am convinced that the navy is using every effort to get the work done as cheaply as possible, but it must be done either by service personnel or by civilian personnel. If it is done by service personnel it will be reflected in pay and allowances; if it is done by civilian personnel it will be reflected in this item together with the item of civil salaries and also items under repairs, et cetera, of ships.


John Oliver Probe: I notice that this item includes the heading "teletype rental". Would the minister explain the nature and extent of the proposed service for this year, the cost, and the companies or persons to whom this money for teletype rental is proposed to go?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I shall see if I have that information here. I am afraid I shall have to ask my hon. friend to allow that question to stand. This information is available, it is in the books of the department, but it is not broken down in the figures I have before me. That is one of the many services the navy obtains, and I shall get the information as to what is included in those estimates for teletype services during the current fiscal year.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I have a question I should like to ask the minister which relates perhaps to all the items rather than just to this one. Of these naval expenditures, is not a certain large proportion of them paid to the Department of Munitions and Supply, and is it
Demobilization-Naval Services

really not a government book entry, rather than being paid direct by the department for naval services to the contractors?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No; we pay the supplier direct. We indent the Department of Munitions and Supply to do the purchasing. They make the contract and we receive the invoice and pay the supplier direct, I am advised.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
William Ross Macdonald: The next item is:	-
Sundries-postage, pilotage, prize funds and rehabilitation grant, $10,033,446.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The provision asked for in the current year is 810,033,446 as against a provision asked for last year of $2,748,101, an increase of $7,285,345 in the estimates. The actual expenditures last year under this item were $2,188,764. Provision is made under this head for numerous small expenditures such as telephone, telegrams, cables, postage, pilotage, funeral expenses, bonding, premiums, tuition fees for naval officers undergoing courses in the United Kingdom, and other items not otherwise provided) for. The one large item included in the total is provision for rehabilitation grants, which amounts to $8,751,132, out of a total of $10,033,446. This item represents one month's pay for each officer and1 rating discharged from the service and is in addition to the plain clothes gratuity of $100 paid to each dischargee and included in the provision for pay and' allowances and in addition to the war service gratuities and credits paid by the Department of Veterans Affairs. The remainder under sundry expenses will, of course, show a considerable reduction on account of the over-all reduction in naval operations.


George Russell Boucher: Can the minister give the particulars of the various items in this $10 million in relation to actual expenditures last year?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The actual expenditures last year under this heading amounted to $2,188,764. We are asking for $10,033,446 this year, and if we deduct provision for rehabilitation grants the net balance amounts to $1,282,314 as against the $2,188,764 actually expended last year, a reduction of something under $1 million.


Grote Stirling: What do the words "prize funds" in this connection mean?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have not that here. It is a small item amounting to $500 to provide prize money for proficiency in gunnery, pistol shooting and so on under the authority of certain regulations.
(Mr. Merritt.]


Edmund Davie Fulton: It has nothing to do with prize ships?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No.


Howard Charles Green: Who pays that?


Edmund Davie Fulton: How is the prize money for captured ships accounted for?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I understand that certain salvage and prize money is received for rescuing ships, but what disposition is mgde of it I do not know. Perhaps some other member of the committee is better informed than I am. I believe it has a long traditional background in the Royal Navy, but what the basis is I freely confess I do not know. Perhaps the hon. member for Yale can tell us.


Grote Stirling: I do not pretend to know much about it, but I always understood that the exchequer court arranges the sale and that the funds derived from the sale are divided into certain proportions. As the minister says, it goes back into antiquity.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is perhaps an unfair
discrimination that this money should be paid for proficiency in gunnery. In the army the unfortunate officers were always expected to put up the money to pay the prizes for shooting, and I do not see why the navy should have a special fund provided by the government. However, we can let it go, seeing it is only $500.
There are two other items which I wish the minister would explain. I do not understand why the navy should have pilotage, particularly in war time. Another question is this: On October 22, in reply to a question by the hon. member for York South with respect to the increase from two to ten million, the minister stated that it included thirty days pay. At page 1385 of Hansard he stated that every department puts it in-that is, this thirty days' rehabilitation grant-although all ' might not put it under the same heading. I have studied the items for the other departments; I have looked at the break-down for air services and can find no record there of any such item. There is a decrease in nearly every item under the air force except item 9.
I do not think the rehabilitation and thirty days pay could come under that. Can the minister explain this difference in accounting?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have not studied the air force estimates. It might have been well to include under item 2, pay and allowances, where there is a big reduction from the previous year, in which case this reduction would have been less. We have included it in the navy under the heading of "sundries". I do

Demobilization-Naval Services
not know why. It is the same item as is included in the estimates of all the other services. When my own army estimates are up I will indicate the item under which it is placed, and under the air estimates my colleague will be glad to advise the committee what particular item the rehabilitation grant comes under and what it amounts to in the case of the air force. It will be greater than $8 million.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I would appreciate some measure of uniformity. As regards pilotage, why should the navy pay pilotage to anyone, particularly in war time?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I cannot tell why they have to but they do. Expenditure for pilotage in 1944-45 was $86,797.46 for 125 ships, or an average of 8695 per ship. I see that there is included in the estimates an amount of $6,000 to cover ten ships which it is estimated1 will pass through the Panama canal at an average cost of $500 per ship. I suppose they have thrown in an additional $1,000 for good measure.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: If my hon. friend wants more information about pilotage, I may say it is paid to naval officers when their ships are in inland waters where a civilian pilot is required. Instead of putting on a civilian pilot at so much a mile, the navigating officer and the captain of the ship are entitled to take charge of the safety of the ship and claim pilotage, which is much less than the pilotage paid to civilian pilots, and therefore the navy department is saving quite a lot of money there.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Does the officer turn the
money over to the prize fund?


J. G. Léopold Langlois: No; he keeps it for himself.


Howard Charles Green: Before the item carries I
should like to bring to the attention of the ministry once again our request that a standing committee of the house be set up on defence matters. When the war appropriation measure first came up for consideration we made that request and I think the idea was approved by all parties in the house. When the minister dealt with it he left the impression with me at least that he would wait until next session to set up this committee. I am not asking that the committee function during the present session, for the defence estimates will be passed in a few days. I think it will be in the interest of both the members of the house and the people of the country that such a committee should be set up. I suggest that the decision be made fairly soon and provision made for a change of the rules so that 47696-100
the committee could be set up and the members actually named. If that were done, the members who were on the committee could be paying particular attention to defence matters from now until the next session. They would acquire a great deal of information which otherwise they might not get; further, the officers of the forces would know for a matter of some months that they would have to appear before this committee, and furthermore, and even more important, they would know that they would have the support of the committee and of the Canadian people.
Under present conditions I think it is of vital importance that the house and the Canadian people should stand behind the defence forces to a far greater degree than has been the case in the past. I believe that end will be accomplished in the most direct way if provision is made for this committee within the next two or three weeks instead of waiting until the opening of a new session, when there would be delay, and the question might have to be argued all over again; the result would be that the committee could not do effective work for perhaps some weeks or even months after the new session opened. Therefore we suggest that the government make provision for naming the committee in the very near future.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Again I thank my hon.
friend for that suggestion. As he knows, I am very sympathetic to it. Personally, I shall see that it is given active consideration at a very early day.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I wish to make an observation in connection with the statement made by the hon. member for Gaspe regarding fees paid to pilots. He said that it was very much less than those paid to civilian pilots. I wish to point out to him and to the minister that civilian pilots operate under the Department of Transport. They depend entirely upon their fees, while the charges made by the naval officers who take over the ships in inland waters are in addition to their regular salaries. I think the hon. member made an unfair comparison.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: I agree with what my
hon. friend says, but he must remember that the ships were not operating only in Canada. I myself have done some pilotage in Bermuda and in Northern Ireland, getting into Londonderry. It is only fair to the naval officer who is in charge of the ship, as commanding officer or navigation officer, because under the regulations the navigating officer is responsible for the safe navigation of the ship. He is responsible for the safety of his ship . even if he has a civilian pilot on board. He

Demobilization-Naval Services

is still in charge of the ship, and if anything happens to it he is held responsible for it. Therefore he is the man who deserves to get the money. I can tell my hon. friend I went up to Quebec and took over a ship from the Morton Engineering company. I did not take on a pilot from Quebec to Father Point. I got $35 for it, including the trials between Quebec and the Saguenay river for about ten days, besides the trip from Quebec to Father Point. I got $35 for all this work, which means that besides standing my watch of four hours I had to be on the bridge all the time. If we had taken a civilian pilot on board it would have cost the naval department, or they would have received a bill for something like $250 or $300. I think the naval * officer, besides having charge of his own ship, even if there is a civilian pilot on board, is entitled to get that.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I am not disputing the fact that the safety of the ship is in the hands of the officer, but I was pointing out that the hon. member was unfair to the civilian pilot who depends entirely on his fees. He comes under the Department of Transport.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
Douglas Charles Abbott: I should like to table a copy of the order in council regarding military transportation rates which I promised the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) this afternoon.
PRIVILEGE-Mr. McILRAITH


Mr. G. J. McILRAITH (Ottawa West):: I rise to a question of privilege affecting myself and arising out of an item that appears in the Ottawa Journal of to-day. The item is as follows:
Mr. George Mcllraith suggests the parliamentary committee on foreign affairs should hold its meetings in private. This secrecy stuff, permitted during the war, must be stamped out in peace. A parliamentary committee is set up simply to facilitate discussion of a complicated subject. It should meet in public, as does the Commons for which it is acting.
i might point out that there is no parliamentary committee on foreign affairs. I presume it was intended to refer to the standing committee of the House of Commons on external affairs. In any event I at no time suggested that the committee should hold its meetings in private. The item is therefore wholly without foundation.
On motion of Mr. Usley the house adjourned at 1053 p.m.

Monday, October 29, 1945.