March 8, 1954

ROYAL CANADIAN NAVY

NEW PLAN FOR PROCUREMENT AND TRAINING OF JUNIOR OFFICERS

LIB

Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence)

Liberal

Hon. Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence):

Mr. Speaker, I think hon. members will be interested to learn that approval has been given for the immediate implementation of a new plan for the procurement and training of junior officers for the Royal Canadian Navy. Entitled the "Venture Plan", it offers a seven-year short service appointment to young men between 16 and 19 years of age possessing the necessary qualifications, including junior matriculation or the equivalent. Cadets who show a desire to make the navy their career may later obtain permanent commissions if they have the necessary qualifications. The plan has been devised to meet the continuing demand for officers for the Royal Canadian Navy. It does not replace any existing officers' entry plan, but is a supplement to them.

LLater:]

On the orders of the day:

Topic:   ROYAL CANADIAN NAVY
Subtopic:   NEW PLAN FOR PROCUREMENT AND TRAINING OF JUNIOR OFFICERS
Permalink
PC

George Randolph Pearkes

Progressive Conservative

Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Esquimalt-Saanich):

Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence arising out of the statement which he made in the house this afternoon. What is the degree of shortage of officers for the Royal Canadian Navy which has made it desirable to introduce this new plan for training naval cadets? Will this plan require a new establishment?

Topic:   ROYAL CANADIAN NAVY
Subtopic:   NEW PLAN FOR PROCUREMENT AND TRAINING OF JUNIOR OFFICERS
Permalink
LIB

Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence)

Liberal

Mr. Claxfon:

Mr. Speaker, I have not the figures for the difference between the establishment and the present strength for officers of the navy, but it is quite a manageable figure and I will send it to the hon. member. This plan requires no new establishment.

Topic:   ROYAL CANADIAN NAVY
Subtopic:   NEW PLAN FOR PROCUREMENT AND TRAINING OF JUNIOR OFFICERS
Permalink

BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT

AMENDMENT WITH RESPECT TO TENURE OF PLACE IN SENATE

LIB

Frank Sidney Follwell

Liberal

Mr. F. S. Follwell (Hastings South) moved

for leave to introduce Bill No. 354, to amend the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1952, with respect to the tenure of place in the Senate.

83276-174J

Topic:   BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENT WITH RESPECT TO TENURE OF PLACE IN SENATE
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Explain.

Topic:   BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENT WITH RESPECT TO TENURE OF PLACE IN SENATE
Permalink
LIB

Frank Sidney Follwell

Liberal

Mr. Follwell:

I have always believed that the Senate should be reformed and this bill, if accepted by parliament, will bring about a measure of reform by amending the British North America Act so that senators will retire at the age of 75 years. This would bring them in line with judges who retire at the same age. When they get the bill hon. members will find that the second amendment which I propose will not apply to any person summoned to the Senate before the coming into force of the act.

Topic:   BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENT WITH RESPECT TO TENURE OF PLACE IN SENATE
Permalink
CCF

Stanley Howard Knowles (Whip of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation)

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Knowles:

Why spoil it?

Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

Topic:   BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENT WITH RESPECT TO TENURE OF PLACE IN SENATE
Permalink

PRIVATE BILL

FIRST READING


Bill No. 340, respecting Canadian Nurses' Association.-Mr. Stick.


QUESTIONS

GRAIN-DIVERSION CHARGE

PC

Mr. Dinsdale:

Progressive Conservative

1. What is the diversion charge made on grain moving through Port Churchill?

2. What is the reason for this charge?

3. Who pays the charge and who collects it?

4. When did it first go into effect?

5. How much has it amounted to for each year since it went into operation?

6. Does the diversion charge have any effect on the price differential on grain sold through Port Churchill and grain sold through the head of the lakes?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   GRAIN-DIVERSION CHARGE
Permalink
LIB

Mr. Howe (Port Arthur): (Minister of Defence Production; Minister of Trade and Commerce)

Liberal

1. 1J cents per bushel.

2. Revenue in lieu of terminal earnings.

3. The Canadian wheat board pays the diversion charge on wheat which it orders shipped to Churchill. The diversion charge is paid to the elevator company originating the shipment.

4. The diversion charge predates the operations of the Canadian wheat board and probably goes back to the first shipments to the port in 1931-32.

5. The board has only paid the diversion charge in crop years when wheat was shipped from Churchill subsequent to date (September 27, 1943) when the board became the

Questions

sole agency to receive and market wheat. No wheat was shipped from Churchill between August 1, 1940 and July 31, 1946.

1946- 47) No separate record in board

1947- 48) accounts for Churchill diversion charges paid

1948- 49 $ 83,041.37

1949- 50

104,526.011950- 51

100,219.901951- 52

111,796.951952- 53

123,862.116. Not under present circumstances.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   GRAIN-DIVERSION CHARGE
Permalink

FRASERVIEW HOUSING PROJECTS

PC

Mr. Diefenbaker:

Progressive Conservative

1. Have any contracts been awarded since the 1st day of January. 1951, by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for the construction of houses etc., to the Vancouver Associated Contractors Limited for a project known as Fraserview housing projects?

2. If so, what is the total amount of all such contracts?

3. How much has been paid to date to the said company and how much is still due and owing?

4. Did the corporation before making payment or payments under the said contracts to the said Vancouver Associated Contractors Limited require proof *hat subcontractors of the said company had been paid?

5. What is the amount, if any, which the records of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation indicate said company is owing to such subcontractors?

6. Does the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, as a regular procedure before making payment to contractors, require proof that subcontractors or suppliers of material have been paid? If not, why is such course not followed?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   FRASERVIEW HOUSING PROJECTS
Permalink

March 8, 1954