James Layton RALSTON

RALSTON, The Hon. James Layton, P.C., K.C.

Personal Data

Party
Liberal
Constituency
Prince (Prince Edward Island)
Birth Date
September 27, 1881
Deceased Date
May 22, 1949
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Ralston
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=1e31f4aa-36bd-40a6-a784-7d94f0e97979&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
barrister

Parliamentary Career

November 2, 1926 - May 30, 1930
LIB
  Shelburne--Yarmouth (Nova Scotia)
  • Minister of National Defence (October 8, 1926 - August 6, 1930)
July 28, 1930 - August 14, 1935
LIB
  Shelburne--Yarmouth (Nova Scotia)
  • Minister of National Defence (October 8, 1926 - August 6, 1930)
  • Minister of Pensions and National Health (June 19, 1930 - August 6, 1930)
January 2, 1940 - January 25, 1940
LIB
  Prince (Prince Edward Island)
  • Minister of Finance and Receiver General (September 6, 1939 - July 4, 1940)
March 26, 1940 - April 16, 1945
LIB
  Prince (Prince Edward Island)
  • Minister of Finance and Receiver General (September 6, 1939 - July 4, 1940)
  • Minister of National Defence (July 5, 1940 - November 1, 1944)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 1 of 1993)


November 14, 1957

Mr. Ralston:

But my hon. friend Is adopting Trenton instead of Borden.

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Full View Permalink

April 9, 1945

Mr. RALSTON:

It will be remembered that at that time 4,500 additional general service men were to be found out of the general service resources in Canada, and it was proposed that another 500 might be found, provided that the pulhems tests were regraded to some extent. I at that time expressed my dissatisfaction with that, because I thought that we should not lower the grading, and my successor came to the same conclusion. I was wondering if the change that is now made is any reversal of that policy or in what respect the lowering is being made whereby "S.l' is now not as good a grading from the point of view of stability as "S.l" was prior to this change in February.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE
Full View Permalink

April 9, 1945

Mr. RALSTON:

I am glad to hear that, but if my hon. friend will take the figures which were forecast as being the numbers on hand at the end of each month, add the percentage he has given to-night and thereby arrive at the figure which is actually on hand now, and compare that with the saving in battle casualties he might find that not only does the increased percentage which he has given result from the lower battle casualties, but also that it takes these savings in battle casualties to make up a considerable part at least of the original number which it was forecast would be on hand.

I am emphasizing that if what my hon. friend says is correct, then there ought to be a substantial number of trained reinforcements on hand who could be utilized for the purpose of relieving men who have been in line four and five years, and very greatly increasing the number on rotation leave.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE
Full View Permalink

April 9, 1945

Mr. RALSTON:

I recall that in November when the matter was discussed there was a proposal whereby, by a certain lower grading, particularly having regard to the "S" classification in the pulhems system, and possibly the eyes, although I am not sure about that -anyway the proposal was that by lowering the grading it might be possible to raise five hundred more men.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE
Full View Permalink

April 9, 1945

Mr. RALSTON:

In reference to the figures which have been given by my hon. friend with respect to reinforcements on hand and the lowering of casualties, with what I assume to be a consequent improvement in the reinforcement situation, I was pressing upon my hon. friend the other night this proposition. Assuming that the forecast we were given last November represented a satisfactory situation

War Appropriation-The Army

if it was attained; assuming what my hon. friend has just said, that the situation has been bettered by. the saving of some 12,000 casualties in all arms and about 9,000 or seventy-five per cent of that total in the infantry, then I am asking whether it is not possible to utilize the additional 9,000 for the purpose of granting very much more extensive rotation leave than has been granted so far. I-t would seem to me that this would follow, provided that the situation without taking account of the savings in casualties was as forecast last November.

In that connection I wish to mention to my hon. friend that I think he ought to check the figures and see whether the position would have been as forecast last November if it had not been for that saving in casualties. Speaking in the house the other night my hon. friend said, at page 577 of Hansard:

The principal reason why the infantry situation is better than forecast is, of course, that battle casualties have been lower than estimated, although this has been in part offset by a higher incidence of sickness and other non-battle casualties brought about by the extraordinarily difficult conditions under which our troops have been operating.

I feel that on the figures given by my hon. friend to-night, if I know anything about it, the statement that the principal reason why the infantry situation is better than forecast is the lowering of battle casualties is really an understatement; and I feel that my hon. friend ought to look into the question as to what the position would have been if the battle casualties had been as forecast, to see what the reinforcement situation would have been in that event. I must say that on a quick calculation it would almost appear, but I wanted my hon. friend to cheek, that the situation would be worsened than forecast if it had not been for the decreased battle casualties.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE
Full View Permalink