1941-03-24

RUSH-BAGOT AGREEMENT EXCHANGE OF NOTES AS TO APPLICATION AND INTERPRETATION IN LIGHT OF PRESENT CONDITIONS

Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Minister of Mines and Resources):: At the request of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), who is absent to-day, I wish to make the following statement:
1.	I am tabling, for the information of members of this house and for distribution, the following documents, both in English and in French:
Exchanges of notes, June 9, June 10, 1939, and October 30 and November 2, 1940, between the Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs and the United States Minister to Canada, relating to the application and interpretation of the Rush-Bagot agreement.
2.	The Rush-Bagot agreement was embodied in an exchange of notes between His Majesty's minister at Washington and the United States Secretary of State, concerning the naval force to be maintained on the great lakes (Washington, 28-29, April 1817). This exchange is to be found in the publication filed in the Department of External Affairs, entitled "Treaties and Agreements Affecting Canada, in force between His Majesty and the United States of America, with subsidiary documents 1814-1925'' at pages 12 and 13. This volume is, of course, available

Rush-Bagot Agreement

to members of this house and to the public generally in all libraries, but for the convenience of the members of the house I shall read into the record a short excerpt from Sir Charles Bagot's note, which sets forth the operative provisions:
His Royal Highness, acting in the name and on the behalf of His Majesty, agrees, that the naval force to he maintained upon the American lakes by His Majesty and the government of the United States shall henceforth he confined to the following vessels on each side-that is:
On Lake Ontario to one vessel not exceeding one hundred tons burthen and armed with one eighteen-pound cannon.
On the upper lakes to two vessels not exceeding like burthen each and armed with like force.
On the waters of lake Champlain to one vessel not exceeding like burthen and armed with like force.
And His Royal Highness agrees, that all other armed vessels, on these lakes shall be forthwith dismantled, and that no other vessels of war shall be there built or armed.
His Royal Highness further agrees, that if either party should hereafter be desirous of annulling this stipulation, and should give notice to that effect to the other party, it shall cease to be binding after the expiration of six months from the date of such notice.
3.	In modern terminology it may be said that this was an agreement for quantitative and qualitative naval limitation on the great lakes. It is more than a century old and for a good while both Canada and the United States have mutually recognized that the technical scheme and definitions do not fit the actual present-day conditions, and that in fact they can reasonably and safely be waived without vitiating the underlying political spirit and objective which must be maintained.
4.	It is clear from a study of the documents relating to the negotiation of the agreement and its early history that the objective of the negotiators was to provide a solution of an immediate and urgent problem arising out of the war of 1812, and the terms of the agreement themselves support the view that its indefinite continuation in force was not anticipated. The governments of Canada and the United States have in fact from time to time by informal interchanges mutually recognized certain variations from the technical scheme and definitions. The agreement itself, however, has survived unchanged for more than one hundred and twenty yeans, and with the passage of time has assumed a symbolic importance in the eyes of the peoples of Canada and the United States.
5.	Recent negotiations between the Canadian and United States governments, affecting the agreement, took place in June, 1939. It was the desire of the United States government at that time to substitute other naval vessels of larger tonnage for certain naval vessels
'Mr. Crerar.]
already in the great lakes. The United States government also desired to use these vessels for training purposes and to equip them with armaments of heavier calibre than those permitted under the terms of the agreement. It was found possible to give effect to the wishes of the United States government by means of an informal exchange of notes and without the necessity of amending the agreement itself in any way.
6.	The outbreak of war brought about the need for a further understanding between the two countries with regard to the problem of naval construction on the great lakes. It was therefore suggested by the Canadian government that a further "interpretation" of the Rush-Bagot agreement be made, without involving any deviation from the basic intent of the agreement, namely that important naval vessels should not be built for service on the great lakes. An understanding was accordingly effected by an exchange of notes in November, 1940, to the effect that armaments might be installed on vessels built in great lakes shipyards, but dismantled for the voyage to the sea.
7.	It will be observed that the exchanges of notes, now being tabled, are in the nature of informal understandings as to the interpretation and application of the original agreement. They are not intended to rescind the Rush-Bagot agreement or to prejudice in any way the principles underlying that agreement or the underlying political spirit and objective which both countries have maintained. The position is continued whereby the great lakes are recognized as being an area in which naval armaments are not maintained by either country. At the same time, an arrangement has been worked out whereunder the resources of both countries within this area can be utilized to facilitate the defence, both of Canada and the United States, from external attack.
The documents which I now table contain the correspondence referred to in the statement I have just made, and they are submitted in both English and French.


Hon. R. B. HANSON (Leader of the Opposition):: What the minister has told us, if I followed him aright, is that within recent years there has been a reinterpretation of the Rush-Bagot treaty, without going through any particular formality; but I do not understand that the principle of the treaty has been in any way waived. My recollection, without having looked up the matter for a long time, is that this was a treaty to which effect was given by the senate of the United States.

Questions


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The documents speak for themselves. It is referred to as an agreement.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is
referred to in both ways.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: In any case I am not informed as to what has taken place down through the years. I presume my hon. friend the leader of the opposition has reference to this statement:
The governments of Canada and the United States have, in fact, from time to time by informal exchanges, mutually recognized certain variations from the technical scheme and definitions.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is, a reinterpretation.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I regret that I am not in a position to inform my hon. friend as to what they were, but doubtless that information can be made available. The documents tabled contain the exchange of notes in 1939 and 1940.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
Hon. H. A. BRUCE (Parkdale) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 21, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1940.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to provide that the unemployment insurance commission created by the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1940, shall cooperate with other authorities in the dominion or provinces for the purpose of collecting information concerning any plan for providing medical care or compensation in cases of ill-health.
The provisions were found in the Unemployment and Social Insurance Act, chapter 38 of
the statutes of 1935. This act, having been declared to be ultra vires by a majority of the supreme court, and subsequently by a judgment of the privy council delivered the 28th day of January, 1937, was repealed in 1940 by section 103 of chapter 44 of the statutes of that year, being the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1940.
The competency of parliament to legislate in regard to unemployment insurance now has been settled by the amendment to the British North America Act of 1940. It is highly desirable to reintroduce these health provisions into our dominion law.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first
time.

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

Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: 1.	How much did the government pay elevator companies for the storage of wheat during each of the last ten years?
2.	How much did the government pay farmers for the storage of wheat during the same years?
3.	Does the government pay storage to the elevator companies while the wheat is in transit to the terminal elevators?
4.	If so, for how many days, and how much has been paid in this regard during the above period?
Mr. MacIvINNON (Edmonton West):
1.	The wheat board was established August 1, 1935, and there is no record, therefore, of any storage which was paid prior to that date.
The storage paid for each year ending July 31, since August 1, 1935, is as follows:
Period
ended
Elevator	Government
companies	elevators	Combined
July 31, 1936....
July 31, 1937....
July 31, 1939....
July 31, 1940....
December 31, 1940

$* 178,805 74 *	4,958 61
327,408 19 740,669 35 502,341 42

Estimated conservatively.

$1,754,183 31	$30,264,866 02
2.	Farm storage paid or accrued to March 15, 1941-$1,141,693.97. No payments were made to farmers for the storage of wheat except during the present season.
3.	Yes. When the board entered into an agreement with the elevator companies in 1935, payment of carrying charges continued until two days after unload. The "two days"
was provided as being the time necessary to obtain the documents from the terminals at the head office of the companies, and for them to make delivery of the documents to the board.
The following year the companies asked for three days, on the basis that documents could not be made available in two days, and their request was granted.
Questions

Beginning with the 1939 crop, the board placed a time limit of thirteen days after date of bill of lading for which the storage would be paid. During that crop year and the present year, when lack of storage space became acute, the transit time of cars between country elevators and terminals has widened materially. Right at the present time there are cars loaded with wheat standing on practically every siding in the west, many of which will require at least a month to six weeks to reach terminal points. The "thirteen days" really represents ten days' storage with three days for delivery of documents, and is accepted in lieu of interest on delayed cars, except in extraordinary circumstances such as embargoes.
4.	Crop year ended July 31, 1936-Storage paid until two days after unload.
Crop years ended July 31, 1937 and 1938- Storage paid until three days after unload.
Crop years ended July 31, 1939 and 1940- Storage paid until three days after unload, with maximum of thirteen days from date of bill of lading. The amount thus paid is not available.


*ARMY CANTEENS
Mr. SHAW:: 1.	What are the regulations governing the operation of army canteens?
2.	Do men operating army canteens in Canadian military camps receive pay and allowances over and above regular army pay?
3.	If so, what are the rates of pay or allowances for this work?
4.	What operating costs, if any, are charged against the revenue derived from these canteens ?
5.	What are the regulations governing the distribution of profits accruing from the operation of army canteens?


Mr. RALSTON:: My hon. friend is asking for the regulations governing the operation of army canteens. As my hon. friend will understand, these regulations are quite voluminous, and I wanted to tell him and the house that the matter of canteens, particularly the central fund and also the disposition of moneys accruing from canteen operations other than those already covered by agreements with the auxiliary services, is now being examined into by a committee appointed by the government and consisting of the following members: Mr. J. M. Maedonnell, of Toronto, general manager of the National Trust Company; His Honour Leonce Plante, recorder of the city of Montreal, and Mr. Watson Sellar, auditor general of Canada. The powers and authority of that committee are ^et. out in P.C. 7520, dated December 21, 1940, and in an amendment, P.C. 1087 of February 14, 1941. Copies of these orders will be

laid on the table. There was another order in council, P.C. 224, of January 13, 1941, which substituted His Honour Leonce Plante, recorder of the city of Montreal, in the place and stead of Mr. Rodolphe Deserres, K.C., of the city of Montreal, who had been appointed by the order in council to which I have already referred; that is, P.C. 7520 of December 21, 1940.
I shall have to ask that this question be made an order for return if my hon. friend wishes the regulations with which that committee is now dealing, but it occurred to me that possibly he would prefer to wait until the report of the committee is received. The hon. gentleman also asks some further questions, the answer to which I shall table tomorrow; that is, in regard to questions 2, 3, 4 and 5. Perhaps between now and to-morrow my hon. friend can consider whether or not he desires to drop question 1.


Mr. HOMUTH:: Has the minister any
idea whether that report may be received shortly?


James Layton Ralston: The committee has been working since February, and I should not think it would be very long before the report is received. I shall make inquiries about that also.


Mr. SPEAKER:: No. 1 answered; Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 stand.


MAGDALEN ISLANDS FISHERMEN
Mr. ROY:: 1.	Did the Department of Fisheries, during 1940, receive any reports from its officer in the Magdalen islands bearing on conditions in connection with the sale of fish, and the distress of the_ fishermen?
2.	If so, what are the details of such reports?


Mr. MICHAUD:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Contents of reports by employees of departments of government are privileged and cannot be disclosed.


MARKETING OF LOBSTERS-W. G. AKINS
Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: 1.	Has Mr. W. G. Akins been employed by the Department of Fisheries in connection with the advertising and marketing of fish or lobsters? If so, what was his previous experience?
2.	What is his profession or business and is he connected with an advertising agency?
3.	Did he or any advertising agent or agency enter into contracts or perform services in the marketing of lobsters in the years 1939 or 1940? If so, state, (a) the salary paid to each person or agency; (b) the expenses paid to each; (c) the commissions paid to each; (d) the total cost of the advertising campaign; (e) the total cost of the lobster marketing undertaking: (f) the number of cases marketed, the average price and total price received?

Questions


Mr. MICHAUD:: 1.	(a) Mr. W. G. Akins volunteered his gratuitous services to help market canned lobster purchased by the lobster controller, and such services were accepted.
(b)	Several years experience in commercial advertising and market promotion.
2.	Mr. W. G. Akins is an advertising agency executive.
3.	Mr. W. G. Akins acted without salary as assistant to the lobster controller for the marketing of canned lobster in the fiscal year 1940-41.
(a)	Nil.
(b)	To Mr. W. G. Akins $1,463.63 for expenses only in connection with marketing of canned lobster.
(c)	Nil.
(d)	To January 31-$44,294.30.
(e)	To January 31-$12,756.46.
(f)	To January 31-4,41 Of cases, $18.38- $81,079.20.
Note.-Figures subject to correction as value unsold goods are estimated and will vary on account sales tax, discounts and freight.


INCOME TAX-CORPORATIONS
Mr. PERLEY:: 1.	How many corporations filed income tax returns for their latest business year, of which the national revenue department has record?
2.	How many of these corporations are shown by their returns to be inactive?
3.	How many of these corporations have made a return showing no taxable income?
4.	How many of these corporations have made a return showing a taxable income?
5.	How many of the corporations showing a taxable income are more than six months in arrears in payment of their taxes?


Mr. GIBSON:: 1.	31,748.	1939 taxation year as at 31st
January, 1941.
2.	Inactive corporations are not called upon to file returns of income.
3.	18,179.
4.	13,569.
5.	The tax is a liability of any company immediately after the close of the fiscal period. It may be paid any time within four months therefrom without interest; the balance thereafter (if any) may be paid by instalments with interest at 5 per cent over the next four months. Thereafter, the rate of interest is 8 per cent.
The daily variable number more than six months in arrears is not known.


PUBLIC SERVICE-EMPLOYMENT OF PERSONS NOT DOMICILED IN CANADA
Mr. BLACKMORE:: 1.	How many persons has the dominion government employed since the outbreak of war who were not domiciled in the Dominion of Canada at least six months before September 1, 1939?	.
2.	What is the position of each?
3.	What special qualification in each case
justified his employment in preference to a Canadian?	,
4.	What income is given each, whether as salary, living allowance, expenses or other form of payment?
5.	What are the names of all persons on the government payroll who receive in excess of $6,500 per annum?
6.	What is the amount each receives, the duties he performs, the qualifications he possesses and the length of service he has rendered?


Mr. CASGRAIN:: Mr. Speaker, a reply to this question would require a tremendous amount of work. It refers not only to civil servants, but also to others in the government service, and to persons in companies under the control of the government. I believe, too, that it refers to persons who might be taken on temporarily, to serve only for a short time, and then to be released. Would the hon. member give some further explanation as to what he desires before we attempt to answer the question? Meantime I would ask that it stand.
Question stands.


FOREIGN EXCHANGE CONTROL-IMPORTS OF MOTOR VEHICLES
Mr. CASSELMAN:: 1.	Has any change been made since the passing of the War Exchange Conservation Act in the conditions under which motor vehicles may be imported into Canada?
2.	If so, what is the nature of such change and for what purpose was it made?
3.	Has any ruling been made limiting an American motor vehicle manufacturer who might desire to establish a factory in Canada to a specified quota?
4.	If so, how was that quota determined?
5.	What was the purpose of such ruling?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Instead of refusal of all permits, permits are now granted for imports for three months based on a quota of 20 per cent of average imports for the comparable three monthly periods of the years 1938-1940.
3.	In addition to such limitations as may be imposed from time to time by the controllers of steel and machine tools, the motor vehicle controller, on the instructions of the government, has refused any new manufacturer the right to produce or assemble in
Questions

Canada more cars than can be imported under the import quota. Firms not producing cars in Canada prior to December 2, 1940 will not be permitted to produce more cars than they could obtain under import quota.
4.	This quota was made equal to the import quota the manufacturer would have received had the factory not been established in Canada.
5.	The prohibition of imports, in addition to imposing hardships, probably greater on the whole in the automobile business than in other businesses affected by the War Exchange Conservation Act, has also had the effect of leading some companies to consider setting up manufacturing facilities in Canada under conditions which cannot permit of economical production and at a time when machine tools and skilled labour are extremely scarce and required for war work.
When control of the entire industry was decided upon, the government took the view that the most effective plan was to allow the importation under permit of a very limited number of passenger automobiles as a part of a general plan of control. The plan will result not only in conserving machine tools and skilled labour for war work but also will save more foreign exchange than would have been possible, had new factories for the purpose of assembling cars in Canada with a low Canadian content been allowed to be established.


WAR EXPENDITURE, 1914-18
Mr. RAYMOND:: How much did Canada expend for war purposes from, (a) August 1, 1914, to March 31, 1915; (b) for each successive fiscal year thereafter to the end of the war?


Mr. ILSLEY:: War and Demobilization Expenditure
Fiscal Year ended March 31
1915		 $ 60,750,476.01
1916		 166,197,755.47
1917		 306,488,814.63
1918		 343,836,801.98
1919		 446,519,439.48



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. AYLESWORTH:: How many requests in the form of resolutions and/or petitions from public bodies or others advocating war-time restrictions on the sale of liquor have been received by the government, or any member thereof, since July 24, 1940?


ILLEGAL STILLS IN MANITOBA
Mr. COLD WELL:: 1.	How many cases have been prosecuted in the province of Manitoba for operation or possession of illegal stills in the last three years?
2.	Who were the prosecuting attorneys in each case?
3.	How many offered to plead guilty?
4.	In how many cases did the accused plead guilty?
5.	How many pleaded not guilty?
G. What fees were paid in connection with each case?
7.	Has Mr. S. Hart Green, K.C., of Winnipeg, Manitoba, been the only counsel engaged in the prosecution of such eases since April 1, 1940? If not, what other counsel were engaged?
8.	In how many cases since April 1, 1940, has the plea of guilty been made by the accused and accepted by the court?
^ 9. What sums were paid to Mr. S. Hart Green, K.C., for legal services for the three years prior to April 1, 1940?
10. What sums have been paid to Mr. S. Hart Green, K.C., since April 1, 1940?


FOUNDATION COMPANY, LIMITED
Mr. LACOMBE:: 1.	Who are the directors of Foundation Company, Limited, and has this company secured a contract for the manufacture of munitions at St. Paul l'Ermite, Quebec?
2.	Who are the directors of Canadian Car Munitions, Limited, and is this company executing part of a contract awarded to Foundation Company, Limited?
3.	Upon what dates and in what year were the abovenamed companies incorporated?
4.	Who are the presidents and managers of these companies?


FEDERAL LOANS TO PROVINCES
Mr. McGREGOR:: 1.	What loans have been made by the dominion government to the provinces which are now outstanding?
2.	What is the amount of each such loan?
3.	What is the date upon which each such loan was made?
4.	What is the maturity date of each such loan?
5.	What was the purpose for which each such loan was made?



FOREIGN EXCHANGE CONTROL-AMENDMENTS TO ACT

Mr. CASSELMAN:: 1.	Have any amendments, alterations or changes been made by order in council or otherwise to part 1, schedule 1, of the War Exchange Conservation Act, 1940?
2.	If so, what is the nature of each such amendment, alteration or change?
3.	What was the purpose of each such amendment, alteration or change?



WOOD ISLAND, P.E.I.-CARIBOU, N.S., FERRY SERVICE

Air. BLACK (Cumberland):: 1. What have been the expenditures and estimates for acquisitions of lands for wharf, terminals, dredging, harbour approaches and the improvements at Wood island, Prince Edward Island for the projected ferry service, (a) to December 31, 1940;	(b) to complete
the project; (e) total cost completed; (d) annual maintenance costs?

Loans to British Columbia
2.	What have been the expenditures and estimates for acquisitions of lands for wharf, terminals, dredging, harbour approaches and the improvements at Caribou, JPictou county, Nova Scotia, for projected ferry service, (a) to December 31, 1941; (b) to complete the project;
(c)	total cost completed; (a) annual mainfpnnnr-p posts ^
3.	What have been the total expenditures (a) for purchase, (b) rental, (c) subsidies, for boats to operate the projected ferry service, stating to whom such payments are made?
4.	What ferry service is proposed for 1941, stating, (a) name of boats, size, draft, carrying capacity of automobiles, trucks and freight tonnage; (b) the schedule for daily trips, including Sundays, and rates or fees for passengers, automobiles, trucks and freight; (c) the owner and operator of the boats; (d) the annual subsidy and other costs, also period contract to run?



ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE-OFFICERS

Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	(a) How many officers, non-flying, special reserve, under 33 years of age, hold commissions in the directorate of personnel R.C.A.F.; (b) of this number, how many hold the rank of flight lieutenant or higher rank, acting or temporary?
2.	(a) How many officers, non-flying, special reserve, holding commissions in the directorate of personnel R.C.A.F., have had active service in a theatre of war with the R.F.C., R.N.A.S., or R.A.F.; (b) how many of these officers have the rank of night lieutenant or higher rank, acting or temporary?
3.	(a) How many officers, non-flying, special reserve, of 33 years and over, hold commissions in the directorate of personnel in the R.C.A.F. who have had no service in an active theatre of war; (b) how many of these officers hold the rank of flight lieutenant or higher rank, acting or temporary?
4.	(a) How many officers, non-flying, special reserve, from N.P.A.M. units hold commissions in the directorate of personnel R.C.A.F., with the rank of flight lieutenant; (b) of these, how many have served in an active theatre of war from 1914 to 1918; (c) how many have served in Canada or England only: (d 1 how many had no service in the war of 1914-1918?
o. How many recruiting officers are there in the R.C.A.F.; (a) with previous service in the R.A.F. in a theatre of war; (b) with previous service in the R.A.F., in England or in Canada; (c) with previous service in the army or navy in any theatre of war; (d) with previous service in the army or navy, but not in a theatre of war; (e) without previous service in the army, navy, or air force?
6.	(a) How many commissioned officers of recruiting centres are there; (b) what is the rank, acting or temporary, of each recruiting officer as at March 15, 1941; (c) what is the record of service of the commanding officer of each recruiting centre?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That when this house adjourns on Wednesday the 9th of April next, it stand adjourned until Monday the 28th of April, 1941.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Burpee Hanson: May I ask the Minister of Finance, in view of what I read in the newspapers over the week-end, if any further telegrams, letters, memoranda or other documents have been exchanged between the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance himself and the premier or the minister of finance of British Columbia since March 17, with reference to a request that the province of British Columbia take steps to pay off or to reduce outstanding loans of that province. If so, will they be tabled?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not know that they should be tabled. As we go along from day to day some correspondence is exchanged between Mr. Hart and myself with regard to this matter.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What is the nature of it? Surely the country is entitled to know. They owe us a lot of money, and there was at least a suggestion by the premier of British Columbia of repudiation. I suggest we ought to know what is going on.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I have no desire to keep anything from the house; but it is very difficult to summarize each stage when letters are exchanged between the governments of the dominion and the province. As soon as any agreement is arrived at, or as soon as it is apparent that no agreement can be arrived at, I shall report the matter to the house.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Bring them down once a week.



SIR FREDERICK BANTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the wide publicity over our own radio broadcasting system and in the newspapers, and the disquieting stories regarding the accident in which Sir Frederick Banting lost his life, would the Minister of National Defence for Air be prepared to make any statement to-day, or at some later time?


Hon. C. G. POWER (Minister of National Defence for Air):: All I can say to the house is that that flight was not under the control of the Royal Canadian Air Force. When the British government requested the Newfoundland government to make an inquiry into all the circumstances surrounding the unfortunate
War Savings Certificates

occurrence, the Newfoundland government requested the Royal Canadian Air Force to lend them two of its officers to be members of the board of inquiry, and they also requested that the Department of Transport should lend one of its officers. The report will be made to the Newfoundland government and not to the government of Canada. The only connection our department had with it was the loan of personnel to act on the board of inquiry.



WAR SAVINGS CERTIFICATES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. G. ROSS (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw the attention of the Minister of Finance to a question connected with the sale of war savings certificates. I believe I might best put my question by reading from a letter appearing in the Toronto Globe and Mail of March 24. It says:
On March 17 we received by post from Ottawa five letters, each containing a war savings certificate fully registered in our name, on which, of course, no postage was required. We believe your attention has been previously drawn to the lack of thrift in the wastage of time, clerical labour, paper, etc., in sending to purchasers enclosures under five covers where one would suffice.
Would the minister give an explanation?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I have received many letters making representations similar to those made by the hon. member. In answering them I have explained that these war savings certificates are put in envelopes by machinery and that it is much more economical to put one, and one only, in an envelope, than it is to put several in an envelope, even though they may all be going to the same person. The matter was fully and carefully considered, and it was decided that this was the most economic method of proceeding. The condition arises as a result of the use of machinery in placing them in the envelopes rather than doing it' by hand.



WAR APPROPRIATION BILL


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, March 21, consideration in committee of Bill No. 19, for granting to his majesty aid for national defence and security-Mr. Ilsley-Mr. Fournier (Hull) in the chair.
On section 2-Appropriation.
Mr. McLARTY:: I regret very much that
I was not in the chamber on Friday afternoon when the hon. member for Waterloo South
TMr. Power.]
(Mr. Homuth) asked for an explanation of certain orders in council which had been passed by the government on the recommendation of the Minister of Labour. My absence was unavoidable because I had made an appointment to attend a meeting in Montreal in connection with some important labour problems.
I realize that the orders in council to which the hon. member referred are of extreme importance and I have been advised by quite a number of the hon. members of this committee that they are desirous of discussing them. When I arrived in Ottawa to-day I received my first intimation that matters which had to do exclusively with labour would be debated in this committee. I am not suggesting that there is anything improper about that, but these matters are so important from the standpoint of labour that perhaps the purposes of the committee would be better served-I have no intention of delaying the discussion-if they were discussed either on the labour estimates or on the supplementary estimates.
To divert this discussion, in connection with which the service ministers are being held here, to purely labour matters would probably not be a kindness to the committee, and certainly would not be a kindness to them. I know that many hon. members of the committee wish to discuss these matters, and it is only natural that they should. One of the orders in council, P.C. 7440, is most important and far-reaching. If it meets with the approval of the committee I would undertake to deal with this matter on the earliest possible occasion rather than to inject it into the debate at this time. I understand that this procedure meets with the wishes of those who urged that this matter be taken up. I wanted to give this undertaking to the committee.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: In view of the minister's
assurance that we shall have an opportunity of fully discussing these matters, I shall not delay the proceedings of the committee. However, I should like to remind the minister that there have been times when bills have been brought before the house at seven or eight minutes to eleven o'clock, which rather catches one off guard. If those who are interested could be given some intimation, perhaps the day before, as to when these matters are to be brought up for discussion, it would help greatly. Perhaps the minister can assure us that such notice will be given.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I have no hesitation in
giving that assurance to the hon. member for Waterloo South. Personally I welcome discussion in this committee or in the house.

War Appropriation Bill
As the hon. member suggests, these orders in council are of a far-reaching nature, and the more thoroughly they are discussed and digested, the more helpful it will be, not only for this house but for the government itself. I shall endeavour to give my hon. friends plenty of notice and will not bring these matters into the house at eight minutes to eleven o'clock when many hon. members may not be present.


Mr. STIRLING:: Does the minister propose to give to-day the statement to which he alluded the other day with regard to the details of the training scheme, and particularly with regard to what methods are being employed to bring trainees who have completed their training into contact with those who are ready to employ them?


Norman Alexander McLarty: We are endeavouring to
see that the trainees receive employment at the earliest possible moment. Under the directorship of Mr. Thompson a committee has been set up which will keep in contact with the trainees as well as with prospective employers. I believe that everything possible is being done to see that trainees who have received their training shall be placed as soon as possible.


Grote Stirling: Is the official to whom the minister refers resident in Ottawa?


Norman Alexander McLarty: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


Grote Stirling: What machinery does he use to get in touch, say, with those who come out of the training classes in British Columbia?


Norman Alexander McLarty: This work is carried on in cooperation with the provincial governments. Mr. Thompson was director of youth training and is now director of war emergency training. There is a seLup in each province which, subject to the supervision of Mr. Thompson, looks after the placing of these trainees. The hon. member realizes that in some provinces war industries are not concentrated to the extent they are in others and it is necessary that there should be a certain exchange of trainees, the trainees being brought to the industries. This whole matter was discussed at a conference which was held last week and at which I believe all . the provinces were represented. The whole plan was considered and I am told that the opinion was expressed that every possible step was being taken to see that trainees are brought into contact with industries that require them. In other words, it is a matter of dominion-provincial cooperation.


Grote Stirling: Is this committee a child of the provinces?


Norman Alexander McLarty: It is perhaps a child of the provinces and the dominion. The provinces appointed representatives to attend this conference. Along with Mr. Thompson and Mr. Crawford, the latter in charge of the plant training plan in Ottawa, it was decided to secure the most effective cooperation in placing trainees as well as in developing trainees.


Grote Stirling: What progress has been made in seeing that young men who have actually received this training get employment in the industries?


Norman Alexander McLarty: I shall have to supply my hon. friend with that information. I can give him the number being trained, if that would be of any assistance.


Grote Stirling: I think the minister
referred to that the other day.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I have referred to that already. I would have to get the figures as to the actual number of trainees placed.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Of course that is the test.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Quite. Generally speaking the placements have been most satisfactory. I shall place on Hansard the exact figures as to the number of placements. Sometimes it is a little difficult to get the proper records. For instance, a trainee may move from one point to another and neglect to advise us that he has been placed. We can give some figures, but we cannot undertake that they will be complete.


Grote Stirling: Before I left home at the beginning of February I attended the classes which were being held in my town and I was impressed with what I saw. These young men had acquired a considerable handiness and knowledge in a comparatively short time. But the principal and the instructors were worried over the next step, over how these lads in southern British Columbia were going to bring themselves into contact with industries which could use their services. I want to impress that fact upon the minister.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I appreciate that. I intended to give the hon. member for Yale some information in that regard. There were about fifty of these basic training schools to which he refers, and at that time definite plans were being made-I am speaking purely from memory-to place the trainees in an aircraft manufacturing plant in Vancouver. In other words, the plan is reasonably well coordinated. In one western city, for instance, we had 500 trainees. There was no employment for them there; and we had to move them, which we did, and I think every one of them has
War Appropriation Bill

been taken care of. With reference to the particular school to which my hon. friend refers, the plan is to find employment for these trainees in the aircraft manufacturing plant in Vancouver, with, I think, the Boeing company.


Mr. GREEN:: What number of men who have been discharged from the forces and what number of middle-aged men have received or are receiving training at the present time under these training schemes?


Norman Alexander McLarty: I am afraid I cannot give definite figures to the hon. member. I try to keep as up to date as I can on the number of trainees, but to answer that question I would have to have one of the officials of the department here.


Howard Charles Green: Perhaps the minister could tell us what proportion of the trainees are young men, what proportion are men who have been discharged from the forces and what proportion are middle-aged.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I would say-and I must put this in most general terms-that the training in the vocational schools is of young men from eighteen to thirty. There is, it is true, training of older-aged groups, but I could not advise my hon. friend as to the exact number.


Howard Charles Green: Have active steps been taken to train these older men who could be fitted in perhaps much more easily than the younger men? Is that a factor at all?


Norman Alexander McLarty: Yes; it is a factor, but I would say that the great number of the trainees are between eighteen and thirty.


Howard Charles Green: What provision has been
made for training ex-service men?


Norman Alexander McLarty: Under the war emergency training plan, preference is given to ex-service men who wish the training. It is definitely set forth in the war emergency training programme.


Howard Charles Green: Is any large number of them in training?


Norman Alexander McLarty: I do not think it is a very great number, but there are some. The definite arrangement was made that preference would be given to them in the war emergency training programme.


Richard Burpee Hanson: This is an important matter, and it has been published in the press as one of the achievements of the Department of National War Services. I am not very familiar with the programme myself, but as we are endeavouring to pass this bill to-day-at least that is the hope I entertain

I would ask the minister, before the committee stage is passed, to give us 
definite information on this training plan. I have the idea that in the maritime provinces this training programme has not been effective at all, but I should not like to speak too strongly as to that. I know an attempt was made in my own city to find work for these unemployed but no jobs could be found for them because no war industries are established and no new plants are being built in the maritimes. These men are willing to go to central Canada to find employment if they have to, but they have not had the opportunity.
I do not want to delay the passage of this bill, but we ought to know a little more about this training programme. It has been advertised to the country as one of the things we are going to do, and the point raised by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) is of importance. We have already brought back a large number of men. I have had some of them on my doorstep who cannot find employment.
The minister has also been advised of the situation existing in the county of Northumberland, New Brunswick, where unemployment threatens to be very, very serious this year due on account of a falling off in normal activities in that part of the country. Many of these unemployed are young men, and we have to do something about them. They cannot be left there to starve. Relief is cut off by the government of New Brunswick, and the municipality itself is so far in debt that it cannot possibly sustain these four or five thousand men who are threatened with unemployment if not actually now out of employment. I had hoped that this training scheme would be of great material benefit, and certainly, if labour is scarce in some places, work should be found for those who are trained. We have undertaken to train these young men, and the application of the scheme should be national, embracing the whole country.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I know the situation in the county of Northumberland to which the hon. leader of the opposition refers. It is a matter about which he and I have conversed, but I doubt if the situation there is one that could properly come under the training plan. I think it would have to come under some such thing as he suggested, namely, the building of wooden ships or some definite activity of that kind.
With regard to New Brunswick generally, it is true that there are not as many receiving training in that province as there are in some other provinces. Perhaps I might give the figures for New Brunswick. The number in training on February 1 was 212; the number enrolled in February was 91. I agree that in

War Appropriation Bill
comparison with the total figures that is not a large number. The number who left during the month was thirty-seven. The number training at the end of February was 266.


Richard Burpee Hanson: How many of them were placed?


Norman Alexander McLarty: There were twenty-four finished but not placed. That would mean that the number placed was forty-six. That is not a large number, I must admit, as compared with other provinces. It might be fair to the committee for me to put on Hansard a general statement as to the training plan as the leader of the opposition has suggested, and with the permission of the committee I shall follow my notes pretty closely.
The emergency war training programme has its legal basis in the Youth Training Act. This act, passed in 1939, provided grants to the provinces to meet 50 per cent of the cost of training and rehabilitating unemployed youth. With the outbreak of war, emphasis in training necessarily shifted from rehabilitation to the fitting of young persons to meet the demand for semi-skilled and skilled labour in war production. Although the programme was changed in this way it has continued to operate under the youth training legislation. The youth training work proper has rapidly declined, while the special training for war occupations has been so expanded that additional war appropriations have been secured to finance the expansion of the work. The provinces have made their technical schools and equipment available to the dominion for the work of the programme, while about 85 per cent of the additional expense involved is being met by the dominion government.
The war emergency training has two phases:
(1) Training in vocational schools.
(2) Training in industry.
The former is in charge of Mr. R. F. Thompson, dominion director of youth training; the latter phase has been assigned to Mr. A. W. Crawford, former dominion director of technical education, who has been loaned to the dominion government by the Ontario department of labour.
With regard to the vocational schools, we were fortunate in having laid a foundation for further expansion in the experience already had in youth training. New curricula for war production occupations were drawn up, suitable instructors were secured, and many of the schools were placed on a two-shift and even on a three-shift basis. To date the supply of applicants for training has been adequate and the programme has proceeded according to schedule. It is proposed to train
50,000	persons for industry and the armed forces in the 75 vocational schools in the
present calendar year-14,000 for the army,
6,000	for the air force and 30,000 for industry- and I am glad to report that in the first two months of the year this schedule is being met.
The numbers in training were:
At the first of January, 6,585.
At the first of February, 10,381.
At the first of March, 11,422.
Since the average duration of the courses is about three months, this means that an average of about 4,000 persons can be graduated monthly. Moreover, the output of trainees can be expanded as the need arises. In the summer vacation months, when the ordinary day pupils of the schools are on vacation, another shift of war production trainees can be introduced. We are also informed by the provincial authorities that, on short notice, the facilities will permit the training of perhaps 25 per cent more persons. Moreover, new centres may be added if required. I am confident that our objective of 50,000 vocational school graduates for service in war production will be attained.
That figure was arrived at, as probably some members of this committee know, as a result of the investigation of the interdepartmental committee on labour supply, comprising various departments of the government interested in it.
With respect to the plant training phase of the programme it is difficult to speak in the same precise terms. No governmental assistance is being given to employers to meet the cost of training new workers. Up to the moment we have adopted the position that the cost of training in industry should be borne by industry itself. This being so, we have no control of the activities in this direction and are unable to insist upon detailed statistical reports covering the extent and nature of their training plans.
While available figures indicate that the estimate of 50,000 trainees in industrial plants will be exceeded, it should be borne in mind that the constantly changing situation in each industrial establishment makes it impossible to predict the future with any great degree of certainty.
There is some difficulty in getting the figures from the industrial plants. For instance, in the case of one large firm where, I know, they are training about 500 men, they say, "We are not training them, because they are not in a plant school; they are being trained in the plant itself." In the case of other industries, every man they take on will be in training under direction, no matter how short the training that is given. The result is that it is a little difficult to get figures for the industrial plant schools.
War Appropriation Bill

The point is this, however. I feel that the programme is doing well. The reports I obtain on it are that we shall have no difficulty and will train in the vocational schools over 50,000 during the calendar year ind will train in the plant schools also 50,000 luring the calendar year.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is a very substantial programme, and I wish it every success. What, in the opinion of the officials of the minister's department, is the proper course to pursue; is it better to have these trainees trained in the technical schools, or in the plant schools, or in the industry itself? The good old-fashioned system of apprenticeship obtained in this country for many years and I always regretted that it went on to the scrap hill. I would assume that all three methods might properly be utilized and that the training in technical schools is, possibly, the least conducive to immediate employment. That is just a hazard, a guess. The objective, of course, is to put these men to work in the appropriate place, so that they may become self-sustaining and preserve their self-respect and become good citizens. The crux or true test of any of these schemes is the success which has been achieved in finding employment, and the minister cannot give us very much information on that at the moment. I should like to know what the results are.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Of course all three plans
which the leader of the opposition suggests, namely the technical school, the plant school, and the apprenticeship system, have been worked. The difficulty with apprenticeship is the time it takes, a matter of four or five years; and necessarily the number of apprentices is limited. The vocational schools are giving training in respect of branches of industry in which it appears that there will be the first shortage of labour; in the matter of welding of various kinds we are dealing with those in an endeavour to avoid a shortage. In the plant schools-and perhaps it is a misnomer to call them "schools"-or in the plants, the training they are giving is directly related to the work which they are going to do.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The particular industry.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Quite true, the particular industry. We are trying through the vocational schools to anticipate the demand which there will be for the scarcer varieties of labour. For instance, we are turning out a great number of aircraft mechanics for the air force and a great number for the aircraft manufacturing companies. We are endeavouring to fill the gap which is caused by the lack

of certain forms of skilled labour, such as welders, not related to one particular industry but to a number of industries.


Mr. GILLIS:: Would the minister give the figures for Nova Scotia? My experience with the training plan in that province is that it is as hard to get into those schools as it is to get into the university.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well,
that ought not to be.


Clarence Gillis: For instance, over the weekend I had personal letters from 115 boys in one ward in the town of Glace Bay. They were advised to write the government, and they wrote me. Their ages range from nineteen to thirty years. They have never had a job, and they are endeavouring to get some information as to how they can take advantage of these schools, or whether there is the possibility of employing them somewhere. From another ward in the same town there were forty-seven individual letters registering complaints. Under whose supervision in Nova Scotia, is the work being carried on, and what are the figures relating to trainees?


Norman Alexander McLarty: I shall be glad to give the hon. member the figures for Nova Scotia. I cannot recall offhand the name of the particular individual in that province who is in charge. The number in training at the first of the month was 158; the number enrolled during the month is 97; the number in training at the end of the month is 253. The industrial schools in Nova Scotia are, the Halifax, N.S., technical college, and the New Glasgow training centre, trainees' training centre; and for the army, the Halifax, N.S., technical college, and, at New Glasgow, the training centre.


Mr. MacNICOL:: If a young man wants
to get into the big central school in Toronto, by what procedure does he obtain that privilege?


Norman Alexander McLarty: I would say, Mr. Chairman, that the procedure would be to apply to the school; and if there should be any difficulty in getting in, he would be at perfect liberty to take it up with the Ontario authorities.


John Ritchie MacNicol: My information is that
there is great difficulty in getting into these schools, that young men who apply are told that they might get in six months hence or nine months hence, but that at present the classes are filled up. By what method are selections made of those who enrol?
I have had a great deal of experience with such work as is taught in the technical school, particularly that relating to iron and steel,

War Appropriation Bill
and I do not know just how much a young man could learn in the length of time which a course in that particular work, according to what I read in the papers, is supposed to cover. After all, it takes time to train expert machinists, tool makers, die makers, and the like. In my day a man had to work two or three years, or longer, before he learned enough to be really worth much. Are we going to get out of this technical training scheme everything we should get out of it so far as the prosecution of the war is concerned? -for that is the real purpose of it. A young man who gets a smattering in two or three months in a technical school might be helpful if he went to work in a plant. I have no doubt the teachers in those schools are doing everything they can, working early and late and on Saturdays to try to fill the gap. I remember a few years ago telling the then minister of labour that it was high time some effort was made to retain in this country expert mechanics who at that time were going to England to work in munitions plants-as tool and die makers, experts of particularly high type-but nothing was done. I feel that what the minister is trying to do should be appreciated, and I hope something is coming out of it.


Norman Alexander McLarty: The particular school to which my hon. friend refers-


John Ritchie MacNicol: The Central Technical
School.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I would not be surprised if difficulty were being experienced in getting in there; it is pretty well filled up. Por instance, there were 391 trainees at the first of the month, and 272 joined during the month. It is one of the major schools. They probably have a waiting list.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Yes, I tried to get one
m myself.


Norman Alexander McLarty: In regard to the training, we are giving three months' training on an average. As the hon. member says, you could not turn out a highly skilled tool and die maker in that time, such as you used to get under the apprenticeship system. What we are trying to do is to give the fundamental knowledge, to try to grade up, so to speak, and at least teach them the fundamentals to make them useful in the plant. As to how useful they are, the only information I have comes from those into whose employ they go, and I would say that employers have been uniformly favourable in their comments on the helpfulness of the training and the advantages to industry which are flowing from this work.


Mr. LOCKHART:: Is there any shortage of instructors?


Norman Alexander McLarty: We could perhaps train more men if we had more instructors and more equipment. If there are any shortages it is in instructors and equipment.


Clarence Gillis: The minister's answer to my question would indicate that in Nova Scotia the whole scheme is concentrated in one end of the province. The figures are very low. So far as the training of industrial workers is concerned or of boys who are to take part in future industry -he might well move that Halifax school down to the other end of the country where there is the greatest concentration of industry as well as the greatest number of unemployed boys. It would save money for the government, transporting men from one end of the province to the other. In addition you have the big steel plant down there, and if the minister is receiving the cooperation from industry that he should be receiving that is the proper place to train the trainees.


Mr. POTTIER:: What would happen in the other end of the province?


Clarence Gillis: You have practically everything there now; that is the trouble. The last time I was home I met hundreds of these boys in our end of the country who had absolutely no knowledge of the scheme or who was handling it or whom to get in touch with to inquire about it. There is very little advertising in Nova Scotia with respect to it. I suggest that an examination of that question in Nova Scotia is necessary. As I see it, the training of industrial workers is being done at the wrong end of the country. The whole thing is concentrated in Halifax. The few times I have been in Halifax since the outbreak of the war I found everything so congested that one did not know what he was doing or where he was going.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I have had the opportunity of visiting the Halifax technical school on at least two occasions. I have been immensely impressed with the training they are giving and the work they are doing.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is a good school, but in the wrong place.


Clarence Gillis: I am not objecting to that.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I should be glad to give consideration to the representation of the hon. member, but I would not want to move the Halifax school, which is doing extremely efficient work.


Clarence Gillis: : I know the Halifax technical school is capable of doing a very good job for a limited number of trainees, but to
War Appropriation Bill

handle the situation, the government is faced with at the present time an addition to that school is necessary. They are not equipped to handle the programme you are embarking on.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I shall be glad to consider that.


Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: I want to commend the minister, but I am in agreement with the hon. member for Cape Breton South, except that I do not think the technical school should be moved from Halifax. There is no sound excuse for not having a school of large capacity in Cape Breton to give mechanical training to the young men there, because that is the industrial centre of the province. The minister's department and the government of Nova Scotia have not done all they might have done in setting up school in Nova Scotia. Schools of this kind should be established in other industrial centres in the province At New Glasgow a plant school has been organized in recent months, but there is not a training school in the town of Amherst, which has been a prosperous industrial centre but has suffered in recent years. 1 asked that there be a school set up to train workmen for the aeroplane plant there, which I hope will soon be in full production There are hundreds who have been expecting to be given employment in that aeroplane plant. A munitions shop is also being set up and should soon be under way, but no training of this kind is available except the limited mechanical training that the public school has been able to give.
The department has sent a limited number to Halifax, at great expense to the federal and provincial governments and at great inconvenience to the students from Cumberland, but the school at Halifax has been congested and cannot do the best work.
The figures the minister has given of the number of young men in training in Nova Scotia do not reflect great credit on the department or on the government of Nova Scotia. A special effort should be made to establish these schools in centres which are industrial, such as Cape Breton. Pictou and Cumberland counties. Nova Scotia is the most industrial province in eastern Canada, and young men and boys in that province have not had the opportunity to get the training that they have sought by the thousands.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: In the Globe and Mail, under the caption "Plane Output Hits Forty a Week says Director"-this relates, I believe, to the tour of inspection by members of the parliamentary press gallery-I was very
[Mr. Gillis.J
much interested to read this paragraph, in which one of the writers gives, in part, his impressions of the tour:
3.	The need of recognition that young men of twenty-one are veteran craftsmen in the airplane industry and that conscription of these workers tor four months' military training is a threat to essential expansion of production. Each one of the plants visited has lost trained men and some of them key men to military service in the last -week.
4.	The threat to airplane production that the rapidly rising repair problem presents. Already overhaul jobs have flooded the repair sections of the plants and by midsummer, officials admit, this problem will, assume critical proportions.
We in this house have been talking about the four months training plan and the need for some differentiation in the selection of the trainees. The views we have been expressing are borne out by these members of the press gallery who have been through these plants. In my opinion, at a time like this when aeroplanes are needed so badly we should do nothing to disturb the work going on in these plants. I have been through some of them myself, and I know the opinions that are held in them. I would say, though, that as time goes on these men might be taken into the air force, when new men come along who are capable of doing their work, but I do not think it is right at all that they should be taken from their work now when we are trying so hard to expand our production.
While I am on that point I should like to say a word with respect to the schools in Toronto training older men. I have seen some returned men and others who have been out of jobs for some time and who need a little brushing up, but who have found it impossible to get into the technical schools at the present time-that is, the schools training men of forty and over.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Perhaps what the hon. member has in mind are the schools for men from eighteen to thirty. In the general war emergency training programme enlisted men and returned men are definitely supposed to receive preference, and my understanding is that they do receive it. Certainly that was definitely laid down in the programme.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: There is no doubt that you cannot produce a skilled mechanic in the length of time these men are given instruction in the training schools, but you can give a man the fundamentals. What I am trying to get at is that some of these men, who have the fundamentals, should be given the opportunity to brush up. We have great need for shipbuilders, for instance, and it seems to me we should have some place to send men who have had a certain minimum amount of experience, where they may get

War Appropriation Bill
further experience in order that they may not be a burden when they go into the shops. Something further should be done to provide training for men of thirty years and older.


James Layton Ralston: Perhaps I might say just one word with reference to my hon. friend's remark that the four months training is interfering with industry. I do not know where the hon. gentleman obtained the information which my hon. friend quoted, but I want to repeat to this committee what I have said time and again, that so far as the army services are concerned-and I am sure this is also true of the navy and the air force- there is not the slightest disposition to take what we call key men from the aeroplane industry or any other industry which has to do with war production. And I want to say further that in my judgment there is ample provision in the regulations whereby these men may have their training postponed. If that is not done I think it must be because the manufacturer has not seen fit to make application. The provision is that training may be postponed-the provision does not mention any industry at all-when the employer presents a plan; and, as was stated by my colleague the Minister of National War Services the other day, the employer has a right to present a plan and any such postponement is not limited to twelve months. It seems to me it must be clear that there is no attempt or any likelihood of disturbing war industry; and that this must be a case where either the industry itself has not made application for postponement or where the man is not regarded as so essential that it is necessary to do so. If my hon. friend can bring to my attention one case in which a key man in industry-and I mean a real key man; I am not talking about a case where perhaps the same result could be obtained by a shift of employees-has been taken to a military camp and has not been granted a postponement, I should be glad to take it up immediately with my colleague the Minister of National War Services, and will see that he gets in touch with the chairman of the board.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: Under the new regulations do the firms apply for postponement? Do not the men have to make personal, individual applications for it?


James Layton Ralston: As I remember it, the
employer submits a plan.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am asking because I had some conversation with some of the newspaper men who made this trip, and their impression was that under the new regulations the men must make personal,
individual application for postponement; and that they were being told, "Yes, your training will be postponed, but you will have to take it next June or next September," and they were saying that if they had to take it anyway they might as well take it now. The objection apparently came not so much from the men but rather from those in charge of aircraft production, who were saying that after some of these young mechanics had been trained for a year, and just about when they were becoming useful, they were being compelled to take their training, either now or when the next group was called up. The impression was that the men must make application for postponement individually and that an industry could not, as heretofore, submit a plan.


James Layton Ralston: I have not the regulation before me, but I was told by the gentleman who was closer than anyone else to the making of these regulations that the regulations were the same with regard to the employer presenting a plan, subject to this, that the previous requirement that a man must take his training within twelve months had been eliminated, so that the postponement could continue in the case of such a man.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: There appears to be some misunderstanding which should be cleared up. As I stated, I was reading from an account which appeared in the Globe and Mail, and the matter should be straightened out in order that these people may know their exact position.


James Layton Ralston: Does the hon. gentleman recall the names of the plants?


Douglas Gooderham Ross: They went to several plants-Vickers, Fairchild and Noorduyn.


James Layton Ralston: Does the report indicate which plant had suggested it was having this difficulty?


Douglas Gooderham Ross: These were the impressions gained by the reporter on that tour. I should be very glad to let my hon. friend have the clipping.


James Layton Ralston: I am satisfied that the impression is wrong and has resulted from the fact that the employer either did not know the regulation or did not consider the employee such a key man as to warrant an application being made.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: That is the impression many of these men have given me.


James Layton Ralston: We publish the regulations and do everything possible to let people know what they are. The national labour supply board, which is composed half of
War Appropriation Bill

representatives of employers and half of representatives of employees, has been over the important points in these regulations. That board knows what the regulations are, and surely it is not too much to ask that employers should find out what they are before making complaints.


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: I am afraid that if the minister follows the suggestions of the hon. members for Cape Breton South and Cumberland, we shall find training centres in Nova Scotia only at Halifax, Glasgow, Sydney and Cumberland. I gathered from the remarks of the minister that the suggestions of the two hon. members who have just spoken would be considered. May I assure him that in the western part of Nova Scotia we have young men who would like to take training. I believe we have as large a number there as will be found in other parts of the province. I would be opposed to the transfer of the training school from Halifax to Sydney, at the other end of the province. When the minister is considering the suggestions of the hon. members for Cumberland and Cape Breton South I would ask him also to consider the suggestion that western Nova Scotia be kept in mind in connection with the training scheme.


Clarence Gillis: I was under the impression when I first spoke that there was an industrial training school at Halifax. The Minister of Labour has cleared up that point; I do not believe there is. But if the work is being carried on in the Nova Scotia technical college at Halifax, I should think there would be only sufficient equipment to care for their peacetime needs, and that they would be operating on the same basis as they have in years gone by. I believe practically nothing is being done in the province in connection with industrial training. At least that is my opinion,; I cannot find out anything about it, although when I was home on the last occasion I tried to do so. In the part of the country from which I come there are hundreds of men between the ages of nineteen and thirty years who have never had work, and who are running around in circles. They were given some encouragement when the government advertised that a trainee's programme was to be put into operation. Hundreds of them came to me trying to find out something about it. I did not know who was in charge, but I did carry on some correspondence with the minister of education in the province, and made application for some of the boys. As to whether any results were obtained I do not know. Since that time I have not been in Nova Scotia and have not heard what progress has been made. I have, however, received

115 personal letters from one town, and 49 from another, in connection with the matter.
I had no intention of suggesting that the technical school which has been in Halifax for years should be moved. But if the government has any intention of carrying out the programme outlined by the Minister of Labour an effort must be made in Nova Scotia to develop industrial schools. If that is to come, then the proper place to do it is in the industrial centres.


Norman Alexander McLarty: There is one point which members of the committee may be overlooking to some extent. In the first place we are utilizing seventydive vocational schools throughout Canada. In each case those schools are the property of the province-


Richard Burpee Hanson: Or the school board.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Yes. There has to be a fairly complete equipment in order that those schools may be operated. In other words we cannot say, "Well, we will go to some place and open up a school." In some instances we are endeavouring to obtain the necessary equipment and put it into the schools, but in the majority of instances we have chosen schools most completely equipped. I believe hon. members will agree that that is the most reasonable course to pursue. In view of the terrific demands for equipment in Canada to-day it is not the easiest thing in the world to obtain additional equipment; consequently we have been taking those schools, the property either of the provinces or of the school boards, which are best equipped to cany out the training programme. I shall be very glad, however, to see that investigation is made by the director of training into the Nova Scotia situation. After all we are not anxious to prejudice one section of a province against another. If the equipment and trainees are there, we will try to bring them together.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: With reference to the young men called for thirty days' training in my district, may I point out that the registrar has insisted that the recruits make personal application for the postponement of training. The other day the Minister of National Defence put on Hansard a record of the number of trainees who were willing to volunteer for active service. Can he say how many of those trainees are actually in the active service army?


James Layton Ralston: I have not that information here; I could not get it. In the committee stage some one was ingenious enough to suggest that I might take the number of those who went through the training

War Appropriation Bill
schools and the number of N.R.M.A. recruits found afterward, in the rolls of the reserve units, and that the difference would be those who had enlisted in the active service force.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But that does not necessarily follow.


James Layton Ralston: 
Howard Charles Green: Would it be accurate to deduce from these figures that not more than 4,958 have enlisted in the fighting forces?


Richard Burpee Hanson: That
would be misleading, too.


James Layton Ralston: It is quite possible that some of them may have gone from reserve units to the active service force, after having been posted to the reserves. Yes, I think it might be correct to say that up to March 17 not more than 4,958 had enlisted. But I am going to put a caveat in on that, because I am not sure of it. It may be that some did go into the reserve units previously, and subsequently enlisted in the active service force.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But there is no available data on it?


James Layton Ralston: No.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Before
leaving the question of technical education, I should like to say something with regard to what was said by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis). I am very much disappointed at the number of men who have come out of the schools in the maritime provinces. In New Brunswick we have no technical college such as they have in Nova Scotia; but in Saint John we have a large vocational school, and there are some smaller schools, one of which is in Fredericton. The work undertaken in these institutions is exceedingly limited. At Fredericton I do not think the studies go beyond motor mechanics and subjects of that kind. Women attend these schools and learn to make hats and the like. But this is war business in which we are now interested. Could the minister tell us where the courses of instruction are given, and what those courses are?


Mr. McIYOR:: I should like to say a word about the outstanding value of the vocational school at Fort William. They had the hearty cooperation of the school board and the teaching staff. Extra classes were opened up at 6.30 in the evening, using the same equipment and the same teachers. Boys and girls and young men and women were taken in. If a man was found to have had previous training as a mechanic he did not have to stay there very long. Courses were given in arithmetic, in filing, in the machine sewing of fabrics, in welding, and so on. There is no doubt about the outstanding value of that school. At one time there were about one hundred in the class and it has been kept going right along.


Percy Chapman Black: Could the minister place on Hansard a statement showing by provinces the places in Canada where training of this kind is given, as well as the number of pupils receiving training? The minister gave some of this information at the last session, but it would be most helpful if we had it now.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I suppose the hon. member means a break-down as to provinces?


Percy Chapman Black: Yes.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I would have to go over rather extensive figures to give it now, but I shall be glad to place it on Hansard at the first opportunity.
In answer to the leader of the opposition, I may say that the schools in New Brunswick are the Campbellton high school, the Fredericton high school, the Moncton high school and the Saint John vocational school. I can assure my hon. friend that we do not include in the list trainees who are learning to make hats. As a matter of fact the trainee must be
War Appropriation Bill

receiving training in some essential work connected with the war. For instance, we would not include the training of hard-rock miners in Nova Scotia. Would the hon. member like to have the number of pupils in each school?


Richard Burpee Hanson: No.


Norman Alexander McLarty: The army schools are at Campbellton, Fredericton, Saint John and Woodstock.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They are limited to motor mechanics?


Norman Alexander McLarty: Mechanics generally, and motor mechanics.
Mr. O'BRIEN: There is a good vocational school in Newcastle and another one in Chatham. The one in Newcastle is particularly active. In view of present conditions in Northumberland county and those which may have to be faced in the near future, may I ask whether more use could not be made of the school? Perhaps it could even be enlarged.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I shall be glad to give that consideration.


Percy Chapman Black: Does the
department contribute to the maintenance or the providing of equipment or the upkeep of the plant schools?


Norman Alexander McLarty: No.


Percy Chapman Black: Is that done exclusively by the industry?


Norman Alexander McLarty: What we do is to try to keep in contact with them and develop the schools. We pay our administrative expenses, but we make no contribution to the industrial plants for the training which they do.


Howard Charles Green: There is a very serious
feature about this whole situation which should be considered by the committee. Both the Department of Labour and the Department of National Defence are drawing from the same age groups. The Department of Labour take mostly young men for this industrial training scheme, while the Department of National Defence are calling men of twenty-one years of age for compulsory training. It is true the Minister of National Defence has said that the time of training may be postponed, but sooner or later these young men will have to go to the camps. Would it not be possible to train more older men for industry, the men who will not be called up for compulsory military training? I am afraid our troubles are only beginning. More and more men will be required for compulsory training, and as more and more men are needed for industrial training, there will be conflict. AVe will not have enough

men for both schemes and there is bound to be a scramble sooner or later. It seems to me that a definite policy should be laid down under which the older men would be trained for industry leaving more of the younger available for the military training. I do not see how we can prevent a clash between the two departments.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I think that situation is
being kept in mind by the interdepartmental committee. They made definite recommendations which I believe are being carried out, because the direction of this plan is under their control. They recommended that we should not try to train men who will be called out under the four months training plan, and that defence should endeavour not to call on the men we are training to join the four months training plan. Let me make this perfectly clear. According to the advice I have received there has not been any shortage in applicants for training. It might be that if this situation should develop we would have to have a more definite differentiation between industrial and military training, but I believe that the situation which has been worked out by the committee is a satisfactory one. So far as my information goes, it has not resulted in the slightest bit of conflict.


Howard Charles Green: As I understand it this
committee has set up a priority list to govern the taking of men into industrial training?


Norman Alexander McLarty: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: The first group is made up
of veterans of the great war and those who have been discharged from the armed forces during the present war. This afternoon the Minister of Labour led us to believe that comparatively few men in that category are being trained.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I did not intend to convey that impression; I said comparatively few when the total number was considered. AVe had 11,423 in training in February and the number of veterans of the last war and returned men of this war would be relatively small. I shall be glad to get the figure for the hon. member, but, for instance, it is not over ten per cent.


Howard Charles Green: There have been over 18,000 discharged during the present war.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I am simply stating that
the relative number is not great. I do not wish to mislead the committee.


Howard Charles Green: Then the interdepartmental
committee say it will be necessary to train in increasing numbers men over forty years of age. Apparently very few of these are being

War Appropriation Bill
trained now. Women make up the third group. All others are in the fourth group. It seems quite clear that the great bulk of the men being trained are young men, probably eighteen or nineteen years of age. Within a year or two these men may be required by the Department of National Defence, and then comes your trouble. Would that not be avoided by training more older men?


Norman Alexander McLarty: I think the best thing to do would be to have a break-down giving the ages of the trainees.


Howard Charles Green: I asked for that earlier in
the afternoon.


Norman Alexander McLarty: It will take a little time to get it, because it would mean a thorough survey throughout the country. However, I shall endeavour to get it. I can assure the hon. member that we are endeavouring to live up to the priorities, but up to the present time there has been an abundance of applications for training. For that reason, I take it that it has been a matter of dealing with them in the order in which they come.


Howard Charles Green: Does the fact that you have a lot of applications provide a solution? Thousands of young men of eighteen or nineteen years may be offering themselves for training, but that does not get us over the difficulty.


Norman Alexander McLarty: The hon. member referred to the training of women. We have not yet come to the point where we must train that class of labour to any great extent.


Howard Charles Green: The trouble is that the Minister of Labour is drawing on the young men and the Minister of National Defence is drawing on the young men.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend has said that two or three times and I really think he is making it hard for himself and for the committee. The situation is not quite as difficult as he thinks, although I realize that there are difficulties. Here is the difficulty my hon. friend puts up. He says that my colleague the Minister of Labour is training men eighteen years of age, and that some day the Department of National Defence will want them. It is true that three years from now, when they become twenty-one, the Department of National Defence may want them, but the Department of National Defence has indicated, at least by the present regulations, that if these men have become key men essential to war industry they will not take them. So there is no conflict there. I do not know what other conflict there is. My hon. friend reads
the list of priorities to the committee. The army is not in conflict there in any way. The first to be trained are the veterans.


Howard Charles Green: But they are not being
taken-that is the point.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend means they are not going to be taken?


Howard Charles Green: I say they are not being taken. I did not say they are not going to be. Probably 20,000 men have been discharged already.


James Layton Ralston: Does my hon. friend mean that they are not applying, or that they have been refused?


Howard Charles Green: I say that nobody is going after them very strongly.


James Layton Ralston: The rule is that the
veterans are given the preference in connection with training. Those over forty years of age and the women are next. There are three classes we do not ask for, and the fourth is the group from forty years down to eighteen. There is only one class in that group whom we are calling to take training and that is those twenty-one years of age, and of those the army says "We do not want and will agree to the postponement of those who are twenty-one years of age and who are engaged in key posts in essential war industry." My hon. friend I think is making it harder than it really is, because the army, as I have said time and again and now repeat, is not in competition with industiy but in cooperation with it, and when we narrow our requirements for compulsory training down to the twenty-one year old class and say that of that class we will postpone calling, if necessary, those who are key men, and still leave all these other classes from eighteen to forty, I do not think my hon. friend has much ground for assuming that there is conflict.
Furthermore, this whole matter has been the subject of discussion by the labour coordination committee which is composed, not only of representatives of labour and representatives of the army, but of representatives of labour, representatives of the defence services, representatives of the national war services and representatives of the Department of Munitions and Supply. They all come together on that committee, and that committee is recommending this course. My hon. friend has a right to press as hard as he can to see that that is working, but on the principles which have been laid down he will find there is not very much competition between labour and the army training plan, and I want him to take what I say at one hundred per cent. We are endeavouring in
War Appropriation Bill

every way possible. to promote the interest of the essential war industries in order that equipment may be produced; and the four months plan which I outlined some time ago had that idea very definitely in mind.


Howard Charles Green: The minister must remember that there are also the men who will be required for the active army-


James Layton Ralston: I am remembering them.


Howard Charles Green: -and the men who will be required by national defence for air, and the men who will be required for the navy. There will be competition there, too, with the Department of Labour. Can the Minister of National Defence tell us how many men have been recruited for the active army this year? He announced in January that from
40,000	to 80,000 would be required. I asked him on Friday last how many have been recruited, but I notice that he did not answer. How many have been enlisted so far this year? I think he is going to wake up one day and find that it is hard to get recruits. We go on now as if there were plenty of recruits waiting to come in, but that may not always be the case. How many men have been recruited for the active army this year?


James Layton Ralston: I am sorry I overlooked that my hon. friend had asked for that information. I gave him the quota which had been called. I think I can get this afternoon, before the committee stage is through, the other information he wants.
Let me also say to him in connection with the 40,000 to 80,000, that that requisition goes before the same board along with the requisition for industry, and the requisition for the potential requirements of the air force and navy. So that the problem is before them on the drawing board, as it were, and I assure my hon. friend that we will try to keep fully awake to it. I realize, as my hon. friend says, that there may come a shortage some day, but I assure him that it is not because of any short-sightedness that we have adopted the policy under which we are working. I will get my hon. friend the information he asked for regarding enlistments.


Norman Alexander McLarty: There was one remark
made by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) to which I wish to refer. He said that we were not going out in this training programme to look for the returned men. He said that was true of both this war and the last. That is quite correct, but without qualification that remark would carry the inference that we were looking for other classes of trainees and neglecting the

returned men. On the contrary, we have provided for preferential treatment for them when they apply, but, as I have tried to make clear to the committee, we have not had to go out and look for a single trainee at any point. We have had more trainees than our facilities would allow us to handle. I do not want the impression to go out to the country that we are looking for a particular class and not observing the preference to the returned men. If the applications have been coming in from the returned men, the priority, I assume, is being carried out. I just wanted to make it clear that it is not so that we are looking for a certain class and not looking for another class.


Howard Charles Green: Would the Minister of
Labour give us the figures showing how many in each of these four classes are being trained or have been trained, and also the ages?


Norman Alexander McLarty: I shall have to get the
ages. I could give the number of trainees in all the classes. Does my hon. friend want the number of those being trained in the wrar emergency training classes for the army and for the air force?


Howard Charles Green: I am not at the moment
asking for information as to the air force or the army.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I will see what information I can get along that line.


Howard Charles Green: From the minister's figures I take it that two-fifths of these men who have been trained had actually been recruited for one or another of the forces, so that they are no*t for industry at all.


Norman Alexander McLarty: No.


Howard Charles Green: That is about the way it works out. And the others we are training for industry.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I shall endeavour to get the information during the dinner recess.


Mr. MacINNIS:: I think this discussion has shown thait there is need for much more training facilities than we have at the present time. I do not quite understand what my hon. friend for Vancouver South has in mind. Even if these young men who are being trained join the army later or are taken in'to the armed forces, I cannot see why we should refuse to give them training at this time if there is nothing else for them to do. I think it would be a tragedy not to give them the opportunity to fit themselves for some kind of work until the time comes when

War Appropriation Bill
they go into the armed forces, or are drafted into the armed forces, whichever may come first.
I do not think you can make a mechanic out of a man by giving him four or five
or six weeks' or even six months' training at a training school. I am satisfied you cannot do that. But you can train a man to tend a machine, and that is what a great deal of our manufacturing work consists of in this age-machine-tending, doing some one particular job. A mechanic is an altogether different man. He is a man who knows how to do a thing from experience and the training of hand and eye. But a machine-tender just tends a machine, while the machine does the work. You can 'train young people to do that kind of work in a training school. But there are all over Canada, on our western farms and possibly on our eastern farms and in various other parts of the country, a great many people who at one time were skilled mechanics in some particular trade. There should be an opportunity, particularly in view of the cutting down of farm production in western Canada, for these men to be retrained in their old vocations so that they could be absorbed into industry.
That is one of the first things that should be done. The other day I read in a United States periodical statistics of age groups in the skilled trades, and it was interesting to note that more than half of the really skilled men in industry are over forty-five years of age.
There is another point to which I wish to refer. I do not know to what extent it is being looked after. When these men are trained are they compelled to register a't the employment offices, and are employers compelled to seek their men at these offices? If this is not already being done, the minister might take it into consideration and advance this aspect of the work which is to be performed by the unemployment insurance commission. It need not wait until the whole system is set up; it is needed now in order to take care of the labour supply for war services. Every man should be required, as soon as his training is completed, to register at an employment office, specifying his skill and grading and so forth, and in much the same way the employer should be expected to send in his applications for men, giving the necessary particulars. I hope we shall not take the position that, because later on they are to be drafted into the army, men are not to be given the opportunity, while they are waiting, to fit themselves for something else.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I believe that the suggestion of the hon. member for Vancouver East is an excellent one. He will remember that when we were discussing the employment offices in connection with the Unemployment Insurance Act, it was suggested that they could perform an admirable service. We are now endeavouring to have them established at the earliest possible moment. I assure my hon. friend that I shall endeavour to have his suggestion with regard to the registration of trainees at the offices, and their employment through those offices, definitely adopted by the commission.


Mr. GRAYDON:: Something was said this afternoon about applications for industrial training of men who have been discharged from the army during the present war. It was said that the schools are taking in only those who have applied. There is quite a difference, in the matter of applications, between men who have been discharged from the army, and those who come in through the ordinary school processes, because, as the minister well knows, in the high schools and collegiates the principals usually have a full knowledge of what is required of the young men who are expected to take training. I have no doubt that the active and energetic principal singles out a number of his pupils and suggests that, if they want to go into the training courses, they will receive every encouragement. That kind of invitation is not comparable to the facilities extended to men who are discharged from the army.
In a desire to offer some constructive suggestion in this respect, may I invite the Minister of Pensions and National Health or the Minister of Labour to consider whether it should not be the duty of one or the other department to draw to the attention of every man discharged from the army in this war, immediately upon his discharge, the facilities available for his training and for his rehabilitation in industry and in the ordinary life of the country. I am a little concerned as to whether there is a welfare service which will take him under its wing and show him just what is available. There is hardly a member of this committee who has not found from time to time that he did not know until some time afterwards what vacancies were open in certain lines. We have a definite responsibility and duty in this regard to the men discharged in this war. It is all very well to say that we will try to find them jobs. But the difficulty is that many of them are not trained for any particular employment. Perhaps before the war they were unemployed for a number of years, and their training had not been brought up to date, because the trained man of fifteen years ago in certain
War Appropriation Bill

lines may be almost an unskilled man in the present general industrial set-up. At the very least, every discharged man should be furnished with a list of the possible avenues of employment open to him, and should be encouraged to go into some training scheme, and it should be pointed out to him that he will have a preference in the matter of entry to the training schools. Already the number of discharged men is fairly considerable, I believe around 20,000, and a good deal of difficulty and much criticism of the government by the country generally will be avoided if we will tell these men, "We are going to give you the best we have in the way of training and do all we can to rehabilitate you in the industrial life of our land." By so doing we may hope to avoid some of the mistakes which have been made in the past.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: To a limited extent that is being done now, and it will be done to a complete extent as soon as the new welfare division of the Department of Pensions and National Health is organized. The civil service commission is now reviewing applications from all over Canada for the appointment of these officers, and there will be complete liaison and cooperation with the Department of Labour, and complete information given to the discharged men as to what amenities or facilities may be desirable.


Gordon Graydon: I understand that when the new welfare officers are appointed, these will be part of their duties?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Gordon Graydon: May I ask the minister a question which I intended to ask him a week ago, but because of the course taken by the debate I was unable to do so? Could the minister give even an estimate of the number of discharged veterans of the present war who are unemployed? There must be in the department some records of the number who are looking for work.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I took notice of my hon. friend's question a week ago, and immediate steps were taken to ascertain what he has asked. The information is not yet available, but I hope to have it for the committee of the house which will deal in a week or so with all questions relating to the rehabilitation of ex-service men.


Mr. ROY:: Are any of these industrial training schools located in the province of Quebec?


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: While the minister is looking that up, would the Minister of Pensions and National Health include in that
[Mr. Graydon l
schedule the number of returned men who have been discharged in this present war who are taking the training referred to?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes; that question was also asked last week, and we are getting that information. It is difficult in some instances to get the information asked for by the hon. member for Peel, but as far as it is available it will be presented.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Answering the hon. member, the schools situated in Quebec are: the Hull technical school; the dominion-provincial aircraft school, Cartierville; l'ecole d'arts et metiers, Lachine; l'ecole technique de Quebec, Quebec city; 1'eeole d'arts et metiers, Lauzon; l'ecole d'arts et metiers de Maisonneuve, Montreal; 1'ecole d'arts et metiers, Rimouski; l'ecole technique de Montreal, Montreal; the Shawinigan technical institute, Shawinigan Falls; l'ecole d'arts et metiers, Sherbrooke; l'eeole technique, Trois Rivieres; and l'ecole d'arts et metiers, Verdun.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: Will the minister give the latest figures he has on unemployment in Canada, both skilled and unskilled?


Norman Alexander McLarty: I shall be glad to supply the figures, but I have not them with me here.


George Hugh Castleden: In the particular area of Saskatchewan where I live they were building an airport last fall, and there were so many unemployed that over six hundred men registered at the employment office and notice was given that there was no use in any more registering. These people are still looking for work. Is the Department of Labour doing anything with regard to seeing that such unemployed men are moved to industrial areas where apparently there is a lack of labour?


Norman Alexander McLarty: It is a rather slow and difficult course to do that. We have moved a number of men from the prairies, but it must be remembered that except for particular skilled classes of labour there is, as far as I am aware, no shortage in any part of Canada.


George Hugh Castleden: That is what I wanted to know.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There is a surplus of ordinary labour?


Norman Alexander McLarty: Yes. There are exceptions; I understand in Halifax, for instance, there might be some shortage, but areas in which there is any suggestion of shortage except for skilled labour do not exist. Therefore the situation would not be helped by moving unskilled people from one section of the country to another on a large scale at the present time.

War Appropriation Bill


George Hugh Castleden: May I take it then that there is unemployed unskilled labour in every area?


Norman Alexander McLarty: With the possible exception that I mentioned I understand that is the situation; that is the advice I receive.


Gordon Graydon: I hope the minister is not forgetting the great scarcity of agricultural labour practically all over the dominion.


Norman Alexander McLarty: No. I assumed the hon. member meant industrial labour. I am advised that there is a definite shortage of farm labour. That is a problem to which the interdepartmental committee on labour supply is giving attention. The hon. member referred to the construction of an airport and said that six hundred men had applied for work on it, so I took it he was not referring to farm labour.
Mr. O'BRIEN: Did I correctly understand that these payments are made to the provincial authorities and that they determine how the money is used?


Norman Alexander McLarty: The hon. member is
referring to the contributions?
Mr. O'BRIEN: Yes, from this fund.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Perhaps it would be fair to say: yes, in the mechanics of the thing that is the way it is done, but it is always done by consultation between the province and the dominion.
Mr. O'BRIEN: As to how it is to be used?


Norman Alexander McLarty: Yes; we agree on that.
Mr. O'BRIEN: How much has already been paid to New Brunswick, and has any amount been appropriated to that province for the future?


Norman Alexander McLarty: I am afraid I cannot answer that now, but I shall be glad to obtain the information.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And the same for Nova Scotia.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I shall get it for all the provinces.


Clarence Gillis: I notice in this appropriation there is $3,885,000 for that purpose. How much of that is allocated to Nova Scotia, and what has been spent there to date?


Norman Alexander McLarty: I shall be glad to get that


Mr. JACKMAN:: What steps are being taken to increase the number of instructors? The reason why I ask is that some months ago a small advertisement appeared in the Toronto dailies suggesting that if there were any old employees who were still of some effective
use, they make their services available for training these young men for war industries. I communicated with a constituent, an expert machinist, who had recently been pensioned by the Consumers Gas company, and he wrote to the department in Ottawa, I assume the Department of Labour, and received a reply saying he should make his application to the Ontario department of labour, which he did and received a formal acknowledgment. That was some months ago and he has not heard anything further.
I notice in this war emergency training programme the administration seems to be pretty well under provincial jurisdiction. It says on page 6:
While the control and administration of training in the schools is a provincial responsibility, continued and greater federal financial assistance will be necessary for war training purposes.
Does it not seem that this programme might be better carried on if it were directly under the Department of Labour of the dominion, which is putting up practically the entire resources for it? If that were done, then we might be assured of a greater supply.


Norman Alexander McLarty: If there were any suggestion that we are not getting a sufficient supply, there might be some merit in the proposal.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Supply of instructors, I mean.


Norman Alexander McLarty: The instructors are drawn primarily from the vocational schools themselves. I understand that where there has been a shortage they have, in some instances, drawn on the railway employees and retired skilled men brought in for that special work. I would not say there is any set plan that has to be followed. It is in the charge of the vocational schools, and they take such steps as they consider advisable to obtain the instructors that they need.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: But what are those steps?


Norman Alexander McLarty: The steps would be for the principal of the school and those in charge to arrange, through the sources of information they have, to obtain competent instructors in the particular work in which training is being given. In other words, I do not think you could say that they should go to so-and-so, to the railways or the large industries. I understand they go to both. The course taken to obtain competent instructors depends on the classes that are being taught. It would be impossible to lay down a hard and fast rule.
As to the federal government taking over the schools, I have pointed out that they are owned by the provinces or the local school boards. We are using in great measure their
War Appropriation Bill

equipment, and since we are defraying most of the expenses, if it were suggested that the system was weak in any way we might have to do something. The policy, however, of cooperating with the provinces and having them cooperate with us is much more effective than if the dominion were to take over the whole thing.


Mr. ADAMSON:: If a municipality had been seriously considering before the outbreak of the war the construction of a technical school-I am speaking of the township of York, and particularly the highly industrialized lake shore area, where they were considering seriously the erection of a technical school-could the minister give any information to the municipalities as to whether the government could assist in the erection of this technical school, which is badly needed in this industrial area?


Norman Alexander McLarty: I think this question of the dominion government contributing to the cost of erecting a school was brought to my attention before. Of course this government has always left the matter of education strictly to the provinces; and while under certain circumstances a war condition might justify our contributing to the capital cost, certainly I would not be in a position to give any commitment that we would pay some part of the cost of erecting a school. We do contribute to the cost of putting in certain equipment; we do contribute to the expenses, but in no instance of which I have knowledge have we made a capital outlay for the construction of a technical school.


Agar Rodney Adamson: If the municipality should be prepared to erect the school, would the government be prepared to assist in providing the necessary machines and equipment for training?


Norman Alexander McLarty: We would be able to assist in connection with that school in the same way that we are willing to assist every vocational school that has the proper equipment, We would1 not be prejudiced against that school in any way, if that is what the hon. member means. I would not want to give a blank cheque in this connection, of course, but certainly there would be no reason why we should not consider giving training in that school, as we do in every other available school in Canada.


Clarence Gillis: I understood the minister to say that in the Halifax area there was a shortage of skilled workers in certain trades, and also that in certain sections of Canada there was a shortage of agricultural workers. Would it be possible at some time in the near future to inform the committee as to

the particular trades in which there is a shortage in Halifax, and about how many workmen are required, as well as with regard to those sections of Canada which require agricultural workers, and the number required. I know hundreds of boys who have never had jobs who would like to get them, and it is quite possible that there may be available a good many men skilled in the trades in which there is a shortage.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Perhaps the hon. member misunderstood my statement. I said that in some parts of Canada there were some shortages of the more highly skilled mechanics, but that the only place I had heard it said there was a shortage of unskilled labour was the city of Halifax. I shall, however, be glad to take note of the hon. gentleman's question, and if I can get him the information I shall be glad to do so.


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 
James Lorimer Ilsley: I shall have to refer the
question to my colleague the Minister of Munitions and Supply; I am not in a position to answer it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Would
the information not be in the minister's department?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not think so. We are
getting into a very big field now. If it is to be gone into thoroughly, it will require a list of all the plants to which capital assistance has been given.


Richard Burpee Hanson: We have
that.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I suppose my colleague the
Minister of Munitions and Supply would have formed some opinion as to the use to which these plants might be put after the war, but I should be doubtful if there would be anything definite about it. Quite a lot would, in some instances, depend upon developments. 1 think it is hoped that they can be used for certain puiposes in times of peace, while in other instances it is doubtful whether they can be so used. I know that in a good many instances, private companies making the expenditures are allowed to write them off in a limited period of time; I do not know whether it is two years or three years.


John George Diefenbaker: I was referring
particularly to government-owned corporations.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That would not be the case with government-owned corporations. All I can do is bring this matter to the attention of the Minister of Munitions and Supply when he returns. Perhaps the department would be able to give me some information in the meantime. I should be sorry if this matter were to hold up the passage of this bill. If the question had been asked when the resolution was in committee, perhaps we could have gone into it; but this is a late stage to be asking for a very large amount of information to be brought down. On the other hand, it is a proper, legitimate inquiry, and it may be that the information could be given at some other stage. For instance, I am going to introduce a supplementary appropriation bill for the current year; and while, strictly speaking, this information should not be given during the discussion of that bill, I do not think I would be disposed to take too narrow a view of the matter.
Mr. DIEFENBAIvER:	I thank the minister for that assurance. I realize his difficulty in attempting to answer questions of this kind at this time. No doubt, however, he would be able to answer questions in connection with advances to private companies, first, so far as capital assistance is concerned and, second, with regard to assistance by way of additional working capital. When the resolution was introduced, the minister mentioned the difficulty of deciding in advance with any degree of certainty what would be the expenditures for the next year, and he pointed out that one of the difficulties in the way was the fact that he was unable to anticipate what moneys would have to be advanced to private corporations during the course of the ensuing year.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not think my hon.
friend is quite right about that. I think one of the difficulties was to ascertain the duplication between the estimates of the Department of National Defence and those of the Department of Munitions and Supply. It is true that there is some uncertainty as to the amount which will be advanced to private companies, but it is not as great as might be first thought. The capacity of the country is limited, and we believe we are now very near the capacity. We cannot go on indefinitely starting new enterprises, because we shall in that way spread our activities too thin. It would mean that we would start many things we would not finish. It would be better to start fewer, and obtain our objectives.
That was not the difficulty I mentioned. The difficulty I mentioned was this, that when we place in our estimates an amount of $180,000,000 for assistance to private companies and for expenditures on government companies, and when we also place in the defence estimates an amount of $666,000,000, there is a certain degree of duplication, the extent of which cannot possibly be ascertained. That was one of the factors entering into the uncertainty about which I spoke. That was the point I made.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister is
recorded as follows at page 823 of Hansard:
But as the house will realize, there are very great difficulties in making precise estimates of war expenditures. In particular, there are at least three factors which make accurate estimates impossible.
First,-
I need not read that part, because it does not affect the subject we are now discussing. Then he continued:
The second factor has to do with the capital assistance which has been given to manufacturing plants through the Department of Munitions and Supply. Large sums of money

War Appropriation Bill

have been advanced, and additional sums will be advanced, to contractors to pay for adding to their plants or to build new ones. Additional sums will be advanced to provide working capital. In many cases Canada and the United Kingdom are making advances on a joint basis, but in some of these cases the division between the two countries has not been settled.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I said a good deal more, though. The hon. member stopped in the middle of it.


John George Diefenbaker: In view of the fact that this is a matter which comes under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Finance, I would ask him certain questions regarding advances to private corporations. I find that out of the many millions of dollars advanced to private corporations, the only advance to Saskatchewan is to the M. and C. Aviation company of Prince Albert, which received some $81,000 for overhauling a base for the air force, and $450 for office furniture. Have there been any applications from Saskatchewan for advances to private corporations to permit them to build additions to plants so as to make provision for the filling of war orders?
Who determines the amount to be advanced to the different companies by way of capital assistance?
How are the allotments made?
Why is it that in certain instances among companies in the same industry exceptionally large advances are made to some, while others receive only comparatively small advances, each of the companies being capitalized on about the same basis?
Would the minister explain whether or not this system of advancing moneys to private corporations is in effect in the United Kingdom?
Upon whose recommendation was this system brought into effect?
In view of the fact that many millions of dollars have been advanced to these private corporations, as an incentive or by way of assistance, has consideration been given by the government to the powers it possesses under the National Resources Mobilization Act to take over those plants, or to have them operated by private corporations throughout the period of the war, under the direction and supervision of the government?
By these questions I direct the attention of the minister to the type of information to which I believe the committee is entitled.
On whose recommendations are these advances made?
Who are the trustees who look after the advancing of moneys, and the collection thereof?

In other words, I want a general statement of the whole situation.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I can give a fairly general statement. First, I would point out that this is a matter administered by the Department of Munitions and Supply, not by the Department of Finance.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But the Department of Finance has to find the money.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes. The Department of Munitions and Supply applies to the treasury board for the approval of draft estimates which, in effect, is approval of certain of the advances, as those advances are required, and that department supplies the Department of Finance with information which makes a case for the approval of the draft estimates, whereupon the estimates are approved, and taken out of the war appropriation. This is done by the treasury board.
After that, when the agreement is made with the particular company to which the advance is made, authorization for that agreement is obtained by order in council. Thousands of these orders in council go through. Of course there are not thousands which relate to capital advances, but there are thousands relating to agreements made by the Department of Munitions and Supply with companies and firms throughout Canada. They go to council, as a matter of fact, there is a committee of council, known as the government business committee, which examines these recommendations to council. If there is anything extraordinary or unusual about them, they are brought to the attention of council as a whole. If we did not adopt some such procedure, council would be so greatly overtaxed that it would never finish the work it has to do.
So far as the Department of Finance and council are concerned, there are those two stages. First, there is approval of the draft estimate. This does not approve the agreement with the company, but merely makes the money available, and places the matter in the same position as if it were an amount voted by parliament. After this, the Department of Munitions and Supply must make a recommendation to council for approval of the particular agreement it is making with the private company. There are those two stages. The real work, however, is done in the Department of Munitions and Supply. The theory underlying the practice is that they have to get ahead; they have to get action. They have to have things manufactured in Canada, and must get things done.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They
initiate the particular objective?

War Appropriation Bill


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, for the purpose of
getting munitions and supplies-it may be a supply of chemicals, or a wide variety of other goods. They do it for the purpose of getting these facilities for the British government or for the Canadian government. If facilities for making the particular type of munitions do not exist and they have to be supplied, the question then arises as to what is the best, the most effective way of getting those facilities established.
There is no use in going to a private corporation and telling them to take a chance, to risk their capital, to put up one or two million dollars because they owe it to their country to risk it. They probably will reply that -they cannot afford to put up two million dollars, run their plant for a year and a half or two years, and then find it is not worth anything or is not any good. We have to have some better arrangement than that. Therefore all kinds of arrangements have been made. Sometimes they are willing to put up their own money provided they are allowed to write it off within a certain period, to charge it off to operating revenue. In that event there is no advance from the government; the only thing they get from the government is a market. Either the British or the Canadian government buy their products, and it is with that money that they pay for the plant in the year or two years or three years, as the case may be. In some instances this is not good enough for them and it is necessary for the government to lend them money. Sometimes the government will build the plant and retain ownership in it, or sometimes it will put up an extension to the plant. As a matter of fact, there is no consistent principle followed. It is not a government ownership system and it is not a private ownership system; it is whatever system will get results.
The Department of Munitions and Supply have a number of exceptionally able men who have had a tremendous amount of business experience. They have a large legal staff and a number of trained accountants. I have been impressed with the great ingenuity and ability which they have displayed in making these arrangements, and in getting the wheels of industry turning. Canada is not primarily an industrial country, but the strides which have been made are tremendous.
I was asked if there had been applications from Saskatchewan. I do not know whether there have been applications; I shall have to find that out. It is quite possible that there have been applications and that these have been turned down.


John George Diefenbaker: 
James Lorimer Ilsley: The Minister of Munitions and Supply. I do not know whether he does it personally or through his deputy or officials, but he must take the responsibility.


Richard Burpee Hanson: He has
an executive committee.
Mr. ILSLEY; Yes. They have a good organization and they go over all these applications. They do not please everyone by any means, but they deal with them and are usually able to give good reasons for their decisions. I may say that the Department of Finance keep an eye on things during the early stages. These large expenditures of money are being made under arrangements which are not in line with ordinary civil service procedure. The comptroller of the treasury and the treasury board have been very much alert in obtaining reasons why these things were being done. I must say that in practically every instance the reasons for the course taken appeared to be overwhelmingly convincing.
The next question was: How does it happen that some advances are large and some are small? That would depend upon the requirements of the individual case.
The next question was: Is this in effect in the United Kingdom? I have no information on that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think it is.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not know what they do there. I think I am safe in saying that it is not correct to state that it is done here simply because it is done there. This is something which grew up by itself in this country. These men were brought here from all over Canada; they were men with experience, and they went to work with great enthusiasm to try to get production in any way that could be reasonably defended. That is what they have done.
The next question was: Upon whose recommendation was this system brought into effect? I do not think it is exactly a system; it is a set of systems, and they were brought into effect upon the recommendation of the Minister of Munitions and Supply and approved by the government.
The next question was: Was consideration given by the government to the powers which it has to take over these plants or to operate them? Yes; consideration was given to that, but it is a pretty drastic step to take over a plant and run it directly. Many of these plants are being run on a management-fee basis.
1S04
War Appropriation Bill


Richard Burpee Hanson: The government would not do that unless there was refusal to cooperate.


James Lorimer Ilsley: No, they would not do that. They would let the existing organization function in so far as they could because, in most instances, they would get better results.


Richard Burpee Hanson: As I
recollect it-and I speak subject to correction -during the last war the government did not advance into the new fields which have been taken over by the present government. In order to encourage industrialists to produce munitions, which was the big item-we have gone into many other things since-if the government was satisfied as to their capabilities, plant and so on, a trial order would be given at a high price. If they were successful with that order, then the order was renewed at a progressively lower rate, until it was got down to a decent basis. I have often wondered whether there might not be opportunity for abuse in connection with this writing off for depreciation. I understand that most of these depreciation accounts are to be taken up in two years.
I should like to refer to another governmental activity in connection with the providing of additional storage facilities for wheat. In that connection the government has made what I consider is a most generous gesture to the elevator companies by allowing them to write off the cost of structures in two years. I was reading the order in council to-day. .These companies are being allowed to write off in two years the cost of new structures which may be good for from five to ten years.


James Lorimer Ilsley: At the end of the two years they must lower their storage charges.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There are some limitations. At the moment I am not critical of that. I think some inducements had to be offered in order to have them make the necessary capital expenditures. I discussed this matter informally with the Minister of Mines and Resources, and I told him that I thought the principle was one which the government would have to recognize, but 1 certainly did not visualize a write-off in two years. That, however, is only by the way. What care is the government taking to protect the income tax branch with respect to these write-offs for depreciation by industrial plants? For instance, do they take into account what salvage value there might be?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Could the minister tell us anything about that particular feature?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The McTague board is the one that sanctions the write-off arrangements. The first thing this board does is to estimate the salvage value at the end of the period for which the write-off is allowed. For instance, if the period is three years and it is estimated that the salvage value will be 25 per cent, then at the end of the three years they permit a write-off of only 75 per cent, which would be 25 per cent per annum for the three years. Then, after that, I assume there would be the regular write-off at income tax rates.
The public is, however, protected in connection with these arrangements in two ways. In the first place, if munitions are being supplied to the government-and the government will be the purchaser-as soon as the supplier has had his plant completely depreciated, his costs drop. That write-off disappears as an element of cost, and the price that he can get from the government comes down. That is protection No. 1. Protection No. 2 is that if there should be an intervening period where that was not the situation, the excess profits tax comes in and takes 79J per cent of his excess profits for the dominion, and he also has to pay from 5 to 10 per cent of those profits to the province, the rate depending upon where he is. So industry is pretty well under control, even with these write-offs.


James Layton Ralston: May I now give to the
hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) the figures for which he was asking. I do not see any objection to giving them, but I would prefer to give the total figures, and I will let my hon. friend see the division by months. The total up to date for 1941 is between 12,000 and 13,000; that is, recruits for the active army. That does not include the air force or the navy.


Howard Charles Green: Has the minister the
figures for the reserve army?


James Layton Ralston: Does the hon. member
mean the enlistments?


Howard Charles Green: Yes, for this year.


James Layton Ralston: I will get that information.


Mr. McNIVEN:: May I ask the Minister of Labour if an item in the Ottawa Morning Journal of Saturday last has been called to his attention? It is headed "Enough Ontario Labour" and reads:
Labour Minister Norman Hipel said to-day that no importation of labour from outside Ontario is needed for the province's war industry except in such highly-skilled trades as tool and die-making.
That can be interpreted as a notice from the government of Ontario to the people of

War Appropriation Bill
1S05
the rest of Canada that the people of Ontario want a monopoly of employment in Canada's war industry, for war industry is largely situated in that province.
Last June I made some inquiries and learned that employment in Ontario was arranged for the proprietors of those war industries through the Ontario government employment offices, and I was likewise informed that in order to get employment through the Ontario government employment offices one had to be a resident of that province for two years.
I protested to the Minister of Labour at that time, and I believe that this regulation was relaxed, but we have here again a warning from Ontario's minister of labour to the rest of the people of Canada to stay out of Ontario because "you are not wanted, you are not required, you are not needed, for we demand for Ontario residents a monopoly of employment in Ontario's war industry".
How does that affect us in other parts of Canada? In my own city of Regina, with a population of 55,000 people, we have, on relief, 1,044 men who are fit for war work. They are not unemployable. They are healthy vigorous men, heads of families, who desire and require work in order to maintain themselves and their families. As an alternative to employment they must be provided with relief. The same condition prevails in Moose Jaw and in practically every other urban centre in Saskatchewan. Frankly, we do not like notices such as the one I have just read from the minister of labour of Ontario that that province intends to monopolize labour employment in Canada's war industry.
Further, the greater part of the moneys that have been advanced to subsidize war industry has been invested in Ontario, and the greater part of the army training, of the air training programme, is centred in Ontario. Likewise, the great military camps are centred in Ontario. An analysis of pay and allowances shows that the great bulk of that sum also goes to Ontario.
What is the situation in our province? War conditions or the particular facts concerning war strategy make it impossible or inadvisable for us to sell our wheat; freight rates, or the lack of power or the lack of this or that also make it impossible for war industries to be established in Saskatchewan, so we are told. The necessities of dominion government finance also make it necessary to refuse any further advances for relief.
I ask you, Mr. Chairman, to visualize the situation of Saskatchewan where there are one million people anxious and willing
and equipped to do their part in this war effort and to pull their full weight. They are precluded from so doing by the facts just enumerated and emphasized now by an announcement such as I have just read. If that situation continues, there is going to be a definite protest, couched in more definite language, from all the rest of Canada and a demand that this centralization of war industry shall cease, that war industry be decentralized and spread out so that all the people of Canada will be given a chance to do theii part.


John George Diefenbaker: Again referring to the matter of advances, may I say first that I entirely agree with what the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. McNiven) has just said, and that is the reason why I have asked the questions I have been asking. I wished to ascertain why, when approximately $300,000,000 is advanced over a period of time to assist corporations in other provinces in the building of plants or in making extensions to their plants, only $75,000 or so has been advanced in Saskatchewan, to this one company, in the city of Prince Albert, although we have in Saskatchewan the coal and the power available to handle a greater share of war industry.
I wish particularly to ask the Minister of Finance what considerations govern in the granting to corporations of advances for working capital. That is quite a different thing from some of the instances to which he refers, namely, advances of money in order to help in the construction of plants or advances to protect industrialists from the day when there is a change from a war-time economy to a peace-time economy. On whose recommendation are these advances of working capital made?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The same.


John George Diefenbaker: The same. So that the recommendation in every instance is made by the Minister of Munitions and Supply?


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is correct.


John George Diefenbaker: Who are the
trustees who look after these advances that are made particularly for working capital?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not know of any
trustees.


Mr. POULIOT:: I agree with what my good friend and esteemed colleague from Regina City has just said about the industries in the large centres. We have, of course, to a very large extent a centralization of war industries; and as a result of that, in many instances the employees cannot find suitable homes. The large cities are filled with workers of every description, and small centres cannot have their share. When we make representations, we are never listened to.
War Appropriation Bill

I have taken the trouble to study the set-up of the Department of Munitions and Supply, and it is far from being satisfactory. I regret that the minister is not in his seat at present, so thaft I could question him. His duty is to be here to-day to listen to hon. members who have observations to make.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: He is on duty.


Jean-François Pouliot: His duty is to be here; as when something arises affecting the Minister of Pensions and National Health, it is the duty of the minister of health to be here. All right, but he cannot answer for the other minister. Moreover, he is not the leader of the house. I want him to keep quiet while I am speaking.


@Acting Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: I do not want any disturbance ; and further, I do not need any brotherly advice from my hon. friend the minister. The duty of the Minister of Munitions and Supply is to be here, especially when a bill like this is before the committee. It is a most important bill so far as his department is concerned, and we are spending millions upon millions of dollars; yet the minister is not here. Where is he? I do not know.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I can tell the hon. member that the minister is absent from Ottawa on work of the very greatest importance.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes; but I am very sorry he is not here now. This is important for him to hear. I am very sorry he is not here to listen to it, because I am sure he has no time to read Hansard, and these remarks will not come to him.
I have to complain very bitterly about the set-up of the Department of Munitions and Supply. Except for a few branches, it is impossible to get any satisfactory answers. Once I had to write to one of the controllers, who had never replied to my letters, asking him when he would answer me that he did not reply to any letter; then I got an answer.
There are a large number of people in this country who are willing to work, who are willing to do their bit for Canada, who tried to enlist but were not accepted by the medical authorities, or were discharged, and cannot secure work anywhere. Their experiences were very unfortunate when they went to the employment office in Quebec city. It happened that on one occasion there were two people who had letters "To whom it may concern", signed by a minister. They w7ere not direct recommendations, but they were indirect recommendations to the effect that these men were worthy of employment. When they went

to 'the office they were told that no recommendation would be accepted. Afterwards they had a recommendation of the same kind from another minister. It was addressed to the man who was supposed to be in charge of the office. When they went there they were informed that he was behind a screen. He had a sore toe; he was behind the screen, and nobody could see him.


Charles Gavan Power: I hope the hon. gentleman does not say that I gave the letters.


Jean-François Pouliot: No, I do not say that. I say, moreover, that the letters were "To whom it may concern".


Charles Gavan Power: I have never given any of those letters.


Jean-François Pouliot: I know, and I appreciate the fact, that my hon. friend is very busy. But these letters were given, and I do not blame ministers for having given them. Those in charge of the office are very hard to see, and the business is arranged in a very strange way in Quebec city. The members do not play politics; they give a chance to everyone; they try to satisfy everyone in Quebec city, whether he is a Tory, a Grit, a "Socred" or to whatever political group he belongs. That is all right; if I had enough to serve everybody I would give a chance to everybody, Conservatives as well as Liberals. But the poor devils who come from outside cannot receive anything; because they come from outside, because they do not live in that Mecca, they are barred from employment in Quebec city. It seems that every man who is willing to work should have a share of the employment. Why are those of Quebec city privileged at the expense of poor country people who are willing to work, who try to enlist and are not accepted for medical reasons, sometimes because they have not the required weight? Whatever may be the reason, when a man who is willing to qjilist has been found medically unfit or has received his discharge, and when he goes to the employment office, it is not a pleasure for him to be turned down.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to make any speech, but my idea will be to mention just a few facts especially relating to the bill which is now before the committee. It is entitled "An act for granting to his majesty aid for national defence and security." The word "security" must have

War Appropriation Bill
a meaning, and the meaning should be that there should be protection for every part of the country. I wonder what protection the part of the country in which I live and which I represent in this house may have at the present time against any possible attack by land or air or water. In other words, I should like to know what is the military protection for the city of Riviere du Loup and the county of Temiscouata. I have made representation to the Department of National Defence for a military training centre, a military camp in the vicinity of Riviere du Loup, and the experts of the department have not yet answered. I had occasion some years ago, when the estimates of the Department of National Defence were increased for the first time, to say what I thought of those experts, and I shall judge them after they have given an answer and I see what it is.
In connection with all that expenditure there is something that should not be overlooked. I shall quote a few words spoken by a great lady who has a very clear mind and a very generous heart. My quotation is from the Montreal Gazette of October 8 last year. The heading is:
Home Services must be continued declares H.R.H. Princess Alice.
Holds they are no less important than war projects though they lack glamour-Urges aid to Magdalen islands-Speaks to Women's Canadian club.
The report continues:
No less important than direct war work, though it lacked glamour and romance, was the task of keeping important home services going, said Her Royal Highness Princess Alice when yesterday she addressed the luncheon meeting of the Women's Canadian club held in the Windsor hotel. She stated that it was "more than futile" to spend all the money available on the actual war effort to the neglect of essential home services, for when peace came the youth of the country then would be wholly unfitted to share in the great task which lay before it.
In saying that, Her Royal Highness expressed what many people in every part of this country are thinking.
An objection that is made by some people is that we have not enough trained men. Of course they consider only those who live in big cities, they pay no attention to the skilled workmen who live in smaller communities or rural districts. Anyone who lives in the country knows that there are trained men of great ability in such places, but they have no opportunity to work on war projects because they are not residents of a city w'here there is some large war expenditure.
I shall now make a few suggestions to the government regarding what could be done to give to men of good-will an opportunity to do their share even if, for physical or other
reasons, they are unable to enlist. This afternoon I received a pamphlet about advertising good roads, a short cut to Alaska. Of course Alaska belongs to the United States and there is a route projected from there to Alaska. But there are other routes of no less importance; from the United States to the St. Lawrence there are three. There is the King Edward VII highway between Montreal and Rouse's Point; there is the Levis-Jackson route, and, finally, there is a route from Madawaska, Maine, to Riviere du Loup through Edmundston. This is an old military road, and it should be maintained in good order now that we are supposed to receive military supplies from the United States by truck. It may surprise the committee to know that the province of Ontario has received more than 814,000,000 for the trans-Canada highway, and has a very big project for this year, while the province of Quebec until last year received only 8400,000 for the same project. We did not have our share, and since we hear now only about war projects, I do not see why the government does not take this opportunity to redress the wrong that has been done to the province of Quebec in the past, by spending a certain amount of money on repairing and putting in good order the military route between Edmundston and Riviere du Loup and keeping it open in winter time.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Hear,
hear.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am glad to hear my
hon. friend say that because he knows the place very well; he travels there often and he knows it is an old military road. There is no reason why it should not be made up to date immediately. It would be at the same time an evidence of good-will to our neighbours who are our allies and associates in this war.
Then, with regard to the manufacture of wooden boxes for shells, immediately after the start of the war there was no question of manufacturing wooden boxes for shells; the shells were wrapped in corrugated paper, just like bottles of Scotch. I wonder whether that was done by Mr. Dunning or on his advice, because he was interested in the Consolidated Paper company and other pulp companies, or Mr. Belnap or Mr. Crabtree or another. It would help the smaller industries in various parts of the country if those boxes were made in the same way as in the last war. I understand that now the Department of Munitions and Supply is starting to do it again.
Another thing that some of my friends know and that my hon. friend the leader of the opposition knows also is that ships have
War Appropriation Bill

already been built in the estuary of the Riviere du Loup by the Fraser company. I remember that a steamship was built there. It is a fine place to build ships, and I do not see why our people should not be given the same opportunity that is given other people to build ships in other parts of the country. There are before the government at the present time requests that this work be carried on there, as well as requests for dry docks at that point, and I believe these projects would further our war effort and at the same time give many more people an opportunity to do their share.
I might leave the matter at that. I am very sorry the Minister of National Defence is not in his place, but perhaps at another time I may ask further questions. In any event I have placed these facts on record. I would say further that we must have regard to the unemployable unemployed in our country, as well as to those who are unemployed at the present time although able and willing to work. They must be given a chance. Canada does not consist only of the capital cities of the provinces and the great centres of population; Canada is more than that. Canada is every part of this country from ocean to ocean. War industry must be decentralized to as great an extent as possible. These industries should be located not only in the constituencies represented in this house by ministers but also in the constituencies represented by private members. I say that because in all constituencies the people are subscribing to drives of all kinds, and the men are enlisting. In Riviere du Loup, for instance, with a population of 9,000, some 550 men have enlisted voluntarily in the army, the air force and the navy, which is an average of over six per cent. We must not overlook the fact that Canada is a large country; that it is represented here by 245 members, and that each constituency is entitled to have a share in the work necessary to win the war.
The men now unemployed must not be allowed to starve after April 1, although it has been decided that this government will not contribute in any way to relief after that date. I would direct the attention of members of the government to certain facts which I placed on Hansard last year, and I urge as strongly as possible that we follow as closely as we can what is being done for the unemployed in the United States. Many boys have been found unfit for army service because they have not been properly fed. That was because the unemployed did not have enough to eat and did not receive the medical attention to which they were entitled, and 
which the unemployed were given in the United States. This is a humanitarian business, and the country receives some benefit in return. I was appalled at the proportion of young boys who were found medically unfit for military service. Two of the war ministers stated that about one-third of those who applied for enlistment were not accepted for physical reasons. In a country like ours, where the climate is so healthful, there is no excuse for that sort of thing. Often I have heard hon. gentlemen from the west say that in this country where the elevators are full of grain there is no reason for anyone to die of hunger, and I agree with that. In my humble view the government should act as a pendulum and try to correct all wrongs of this kind. This is not entirely a question of charity, because the country will receive much in return. For one thing, if the unemployed are treated as they should be, the proportion of men fit for military service will be greatly increased.
There is another aspect of the matter. If no consideration is given our young people in all parts of the country, there will be unrest which will grow deeper and deeper until eventually it may cause great social problems. That is my fear. Our own citizens should be given the first opportunity to earn money in this country. At the present time Canada is a dumping ground for all the countries of the world, and sometimes the fact that a man is a Canadian is an obstacle to his appointment to the civil service, or to consideration which is given other people. I do not mean that we should be other than generous to those who suffer now, but when it comes to filling a position and there is available a Canadian citizen who is competent to do the work, I do not see why he should not get the job.
According to some of the sessional papers, in 1931 there were 3,500 people employed in the Post Office Department who were not born in Canada. In 1937 that number had increased to over 7,000, and now I wonder whether if it is not 10,000. I do not place the blame for this on anyone in particular, but I find it strange that 10,000 people not born in Canada should find jobs in one department of this government while many of our own people are still unemployed. The conclusion is, I think, obvious. It is that we must think first as Canadians. When we give help to Great Britain or any other friendly country in the world we must do all we can; we must do our utmost for the very worthy cause for which we are fighting, but on the other hand

War Appropriation Bill
we must never forget that we are Canadians and that we must give our own people the first chance.


Mrs. NIELSEN:: Mr. Chairman, there was lengthy discussion when the resolution preceding this bill was in the committee stage, yet this evening I feel that before this bill passes it is necessary that I should say something about one section in particular. Section 2 of the bill mentions the security, order and welfare of Canada. I have sat through these last few days listening to a debate, much of which has had to deal with technical matters. I feel there are some points concerning the welfare of Canada itself which perhaps have not received from the committee the amount of consideration that they should have. It was most encouraging this evening to hear the hon. member for Temiscouata quote the words of the Princess Alice, who said that although these matters of concern to the people of Canada are not perhaps as glamorous as some others, yet they are necessary. It is of those things I wish to speak.
The very first time I spoke in the house I said I would try always to speak in the interests of the lives of the Canadian people. To be consistent, I must continue in that direction. In January, 1941, President Roosevelt said that this was no time to stop thinking about the social and economic problems which are the root cause of the social revolution which is to-day a factor of supreme importance in the world. We can never forget, even in a time of crisis such as this, the needs of our own people.
I was greatly alarmed the other day when I listened to the remarks of the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power) when he told the house about the number of young men unfit for service. On Monday, March 17 the minister said, as reported at page 1605:
There will be for training this year 93,000 young men of the age of 21 years. Without hesitation one can knock off 33 per cent of those as being unfit even for military training camps. That is, they would be placed in classes C-l or C, and unfit to walk five miles.
If so large a proportion of the men called for military service must be classified as C or C-l, then what must be the proportion of our civilian population who are to-day unfit because of ill health to help carry the burden of the war effort. We are fighting a war which not only falls upon the shoulders of the young men in uniform, but is placed upon the shoulders of the civilian population. For this reason the question of the health of our people in these years is one of primary importance.
During the last war there were people who enjoyed what might be called comparative 14873-115
prosperity; yet after that war, when we went down into the slough of depression they suffered unduly. This war is being fought after a period of depression, during which time the health of the people of Canada suffered. I feel that, as time goes on, the health of our people will suffer even more- not only in the immediate future, but after this war is over. We must not forget these things.
After the last war we had the money to pay interest on the debt which accumulated during the war. But during the years of depression we did not have' sufficient money to start a national health scheme. I am wondering whether perhaps right here and now is not the proper time and place to begin thinking about the problem of national health. We ought not to leave it until after this war is over.
Recently I came across a pamphlet entitled "The Fight For Life," written by Grant Lathe, M.D., who places on record some startling figures. Among other things he said that in Canada to-day we are needlessly losing many of our children. He said that a needless infant death occurs every hour. There would be
6.500	more Canadian babies alive to-day if the rest of the country had enjoyed as low a rate of infant mortality as does British Columbia. He says that 59'9 persons out of every 100,000 of the population die each year from tuberculosis. That makes an average of
7.500	persons a year. He states that in Canada there is a shortage of 3,500 beds for patients suffering from tuberculosis. He states, too, that syphilis in Canada is causing more than 3,000 deaths each year, and that in 1937 the total number of new cases stood at more than 8,000. Canada has almost as many new cases of syphilis as has Great Britain, despite the fact that Great Britain has a population four times as great as ours. He points out that mental hospital accommodation in Canada falls short of requirements in the amount of 8,657 beds. Dementia praecox takes a terrible toll of our young people. Every fourth hospital bed in Canada is occupied by a person suffering from this disease. He goes on to point out that more young people enter our mental asylums than enter our universities. The inadequacy of existing public health service in Canada is shown by the fact that the average expenditure by municipal departments of health for public health services was only fifty-one cents per person per annum. Yet the minimum necessary is placed at one dollar per person per annum. Only one city in Canada goes beyond that amount. That is the city of Toronto, which shows a rate of $1.21 per person. On the

War Appropriation Bill

other hand, Halifax spends only about twenty-two cents. Roughly, two-thirds of our Canadian citizens, or about 66 per cent, are unable to afford the medical care which should be theirs, as human beings.
When we consider these things we feel there is no time like the present for the government really taking into consideration the needs of the people and devoting some of this huge appropriation to the beginning of a health scheme in Canada which would give our people an opportunity to maintain that vigour which is so necessary, if they are to give their very best in the war effort, as they are being asked to do.
There is one other factor which I feel is of the utmost importance. We are fighting a war to preserve and to extend democracy. There is no place where the principles of democracy can be better taught than among our children in the schools of the nation. That must be done, if we are to preserve democracy, because democracy is founded upon the premise that we shall have an intelligent and educated people, and by discussion we shall decide what shall be done. That cannot be effected if we have a population part of which is to be denied the right of education.
Recently the Canadian Teachers' Federation published a bulletin which I believe would be of interest to hon. members. I feel that I could not do better than turn to that group for ideas concerning what should be done in connection with education. As a body they have information on the subject. The federation say they are concerned with the fact that Canada to-day is setting a course which in the future may lead through uncharted seas, and that we are not giving the solicitude to education which as a nation we should give. Education more than any other agency can, by its power, save the ship of democracy, or, by its impotence, scuttle the ship.
The brief which should have been submitted to the dominion-provincial relations conference contains a number of statements about the condition of education in Canada. I believe there was in the Sirois report a statement to the effect that in some parts of Canada education has been terribly neglected and that children in the various provinces do not have equal opportunities. I find this in the brief:
The present system of financial support for education in Canada is such that only two provinces (Ontario and British Columbia) can take rank in the upper half of the American states in per-pupil expenditure, while four provinces (Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick) must rank in the lowest quartile of the American states.
It goes on to say that about 49 per cent of all Canadian teachers receive less than $770

per annum, which is below the average initial salary of women teachers in most British countries. In 1938, over 32 per cent of Canadian teachers were paid less than $600 per annum. The teachers' federation say that in England in 1914, after the start of the war, the British parliament voted an increase of about six millions for education. They go on to say that in Canada they feel that the dominion government should-I believe that a body of this kind has every right to state these things-make available a substantial sum, and they suggest $10,000,000 annually, as a grant in aid for education to those provinces which are found by a competent survey to be deficient in tax-paying ability.
I know that to many people these things do not rank with the same importance as the industrial production for our war effort. Yet I cannot help but stress the fact that in a war to preserve democracy these things are of fundamental importance and we cannot afford to neglect them at any time. During this debate we have had many examples of politics, but I feel that to-day it is not politics that matter so much as statesmanship. We should not be thinking of the present or of the next few months; we should be thinking of statesmanship of the future; we should be thinking of the generations which are to come and which will benefit from the things for which we are fighting to-day.
After all, the children of this countiy cannot speak for themselves. Many children throughout the dominion have no way of knowing that they have unequal chances; they have no way of knowing that they are being deprived of opportunities which would benefit them in the years to come to make a contribution to Canada.
When we come to analyse the income of the average Canadian we realize that it is insufficient for him to give his children a decent standard of health and a decent standard of education. The Canadian federation of agriculture has stated that from 1930 to 1937, roughly eight years, the average net income per farm was $400.50 and the average income for industry was roughly $1,031. There is a great difference between the two incomes.
I think we must all realize that neither of these incomes is really sufficient to maintain the standard of health and education which is necessary for our people. Recently the dominion bureau of statistics made a study of the budgets of working-class families. This really was a striking exposure of the underprivileged position of most of our working families. They broke down the figures to show the amount spent by the average family upon food. A family with a yearly income of around $775 would spend roughly seventeen

War Appropriation Bill
cents per person a day upon food. A family earning $1,000 would spend roughly twenty-one cents; a family earning $1,200, twenty-three cents; a family earning $1,400, twenty-five cents; a family earning $1,600, twenty-seven cents, and a family earning $1,850, twenty-eight cents.
Early in 1940 the Canadian Medical Association, with the best dietetic advice it was possible to obtain, drew up a series of menus for families of different sizes. These menus listed only necessary food substances. For the average family of from four to five they placed the cost per person a day for food requirements at twenty-six cents. A family earning $775 per annum can spend only seventeen cents per person a day upon food, and we must get up into the income bracket of $1,400 before we find a family able to spend twenty-five cents per person a day for food. When we find that our farmers are earning roughly $400 per annum and our industrial workers $1,031, we begin to realize that no people earning these sums are able to provide the necessary food to give their families a decent standard of health.
We cannot get away from these facts and I do not think they can be disputed. If they can, I should be only too glad to know it. This investigation shows that one year ago about 85 per cent of our population were forced to live below the minimum standard of nutrition. I fear that now a far greater number of our people will have to live that way. If that is so, how can we expect the people of this nation to make the maximum effort which they would like to -make when they have not sufficient in their daily rations to provide the health and strength necessary for a maximum effort. These things simply cannot be done. When these huge appropriations are being made, I feel that the government should inaugurate a health programme in this country, and they should set aside an appropriation for education as aid to such provinces as are needing it. Certain things by way of legislation are needed to get the income of our people up to that level where health can be maintained1.
Before very long we may have an opportunity to discuss the need for legislation to provide a floor below which agricultural prices cannot drop, so that our agricultural population may be brought up to a proper standard. Then in the industrial world there are certain orders in council passed by this government which have limited and which will limit the right of our working people to work and to obtain a better wage which the increased earnings of industry warrants. This afternoon the Minister of Labour (Mr McLarty) said that 14873-1X5*
later on we would have an opportunity of discussing certain orders in council which have had the effect of restricting wages. There is no doubt that the matters which I have mentioned are part of our war effort. I feel that with this appropriation bill the government is being one-sided in its war effort. It has not given sufficient thought to nor has it brought forward sufficient legislation for these things which I have mentioned.
There is no doubt that to-day we as a nation need greater vision in looking toward the future. We cannot expect to have the benefits of democracy if we are not willing to put into the lives of our people those things which are so necessary to encourage democracy and to make it flourish and function. I feel that in the advisers of our government to-day there is too strong a representation of business and industry. In -the governmental committee assisting in the war effort where are the educationalists? Where are the members of the medical profession? Where are those people who have a broader and wider vision? This committee which is aiding the government in its war effort is made up almost exclusively of business interests. As long as that is so, the war effort of the government will continue to be directed more or less in that one direction and will not be directed into those various channels so necessary in a fight for democracy.
This makes it quite easy for those people interested in industry to talk loudly of their patriotism. But patriotism consists of more than mere words. To-day patriotism is like charity, it should begin at home, in and around the lives and homes of our own people. Those of us who are prepared to take this course have as great a claim to patriotism as any of those interested in the business side of the war effort, who are continually wanting to concentrate and focus the attention of the nation upon those matters, to the detriment of others.
Before a bill of this kind is passed, the ordinary people of this country should have a better knowledge of what is going to be the foreign policy of this government with regard to the future. There is no doubt whatever in the minds of most of us that we are in this war because Britain is in this war. We have not through the years had a very definite foreign policy, and a great many people these days are wondering greatly what will be our future foreign policy. Are we in our future foreign policy to be guided and directed by those same business interests which to-day are guiding and directing this war effort; if so, what will be their interest, and how will it guide the destiny of this nation?
War Appropriation Bill

Some hon. members may have read a book by John McCormac called "Canada-America's Problem", in which he says:
Canada's foreign policy has . . . consisted largely of a refusal to have any. This almost purely negative attitude has involved the surrender of any right to fashion in peace the imperial policies for which the dominion has to fight in war.
And again:
The poorest voter in London's east end has more control over Canada's foreign policy than a member of Canada's parliament.
We the common people, before we see the appropriation of such sums as this for war, want to know what is going to be the foreign policy of this government in the future. Are we to be committed to more wars because those who are standing behind the government's war effort to-day can see further profits in involvement in further wars? These are some of the things I feel we cannot pass over without more information.
There was a famous man of the United States who at one time was facing a crisis which was as great perhaps as that which faces us to-day. I am speaking of Abraham Lincoln, who said at the time of the civil war:
I have two great enemies, the southern army to the south of me and the financial institutions in the rear, and of the two the one in the rear is my greatest foe.
As one of the common people I would say this, and I think there are thousands who would say it with me, that if business and industry are to control entirely our war effort, and if they are to concentrate upon the business side of things for the profit which will be gained from it, rather than allocating some of this money to education and other services of which the people are in need; if this business concentration is to guide the destiny of Canada in the future as apparently it is guiding it to-day, then I think we can bring the words of Lincoln up to date by saying, "We have two great enemies, Hitler to the front of us and the financial institutions in the rear, and of the two the one in the rear is our greatest foe". That is, from the point of view of the common people, the financial institutions are at the present time our greatest foe.
I was pleased to hear the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains (Mr. Lacombe) say on March 5:
One of the war aims of the allies is the defence and preservation of democracy. Of course, all forms of government are handicapped by imperfections inherent in their contingent and human nature. For that very reason should they not ever strive after justice, honesty, and sound and true freedom, which cannot possibly be derived from the favouritism and ambition of exploiters, who invariably subordinate the welfare of the people to their own interests?

I can certainly endorse those words. I feel that to-day we are fighting against Hitlerism and fighting also for the preservation and extension of democracy. I do not want this war effort to be a one-sided war effort. I want it to be an effort which will truly preserve democracy so that in the years to come we people will be able to say that here in Canada, "a loftier race than ere the world hath known shall rise with the flame of freedom in their soul and the light of knowledge in their eyes."
I feel that in the name of the people whom I represent I must oppose this appropriation bill because it neglects some of the fundamental things for which we as a nation believe we are fighting.


Mr. CHURCH:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to
call attention to three or four matters on clause 2 of this bill, which is to appropriate $1,300,000,000 for the war. The larger the amount of the appropriation, the less likelihood there is of its being well spent. The main purposes of the bill are to provide for home and overseas defence and for the matters set out in paragraphs (b), (c) and (d). Three weeks ago I asked the government if they would take into consideration the works which Canada has established for the defence of this north American continent. We decided to spend a large amount on defence works on the Pacific coast long before the United States had any idea of passing the lease-lend bill. At that time, two years before the war, Canada was spending about twice as much on postage stamps as on defence by sea and air.
Under the lease-lend act of the United States, Canada ranks with Britain, and I maintain, Mr. Chairman, that with the passing of this appropriation bill we should revise our clause 2 herein and also our elaborate system of exchange and the work of the foreign exchange control board, and that an agreement should be made between Canada and the United Ctates for the parity or near parity of our dollar with the United States dollar, notwithstanding any law, statute, usage or custom to the contrary. As I said, Canada, by a ruling handed down by the attorney general of the United States, is to receive equality of treatment with the mother country under the lease-lend measure. I feel that the people of this country from coast to coast are willing to make any scarifices to win this war, and I believe they will support this appropriation if they believe the money is essential to the winning of the war.
I believe there has been too much talk altogether, judging by the statements I have heard from the government, about home

War Appropriation Bill
defence. Home defence is not as essential here as it is in Britain. Britain is only a few minutes by air from the continent of Europe and is within easy range of German air power, bombers and flame parachutes.
I believe that under this bill the Canadian government should take up with Washington the question of making an arrangement to recoup the people of Canada for the expenditures they have made on defences by land, sea and air. When all is said and done, what is the basis of Canada's foreign policy? As a matter of fact, we have never had any foreign policy at all. As to defence policy, the Minister of National Defence two or three years ago-we had only one Minister of National Defence then-laid down two cardinal principles of our defence. One was home defence, and the other was to protect our neutrality against any foreign power that might want to use our harbours and ports for non-neutral purposes to attack the United States. With very little change that is the policy of the government to-day. So I say that the government should take this matter up with Washington, and I believe they should pay part of this bill, because the purpose of most of this is to protect the neutrality of Canada in case the United States is attacked.
Another matter, Mr. Chairman, I referred to the other night. Mr. Wendell Wilkie got a glorious reception to-day in Toronto-the leading recruiting district of Canada; they came there from all over Canada to seek recruits for units spread all over Canada for Canada's forces. Mr. Willkie could tell this parliament and the people of Canada some things which his country has done for its soldiers that we have not done for ours. The first relates to national insurance for soldiers. This parliament has adopted a measure of insurance for those civilians who stay at home. Then why should not the soldiers who are going overseas to risk their lives for the people of Canada be insured also? The last time this resolution was being discussed I proposed to put on Hansard something which was not allowed to be inserted, though hon. members may notice that in the same day's issue three or four treatises of ministers were included. A bill for national insurance for soldiers which the president signed at Washington three weeks ago insures every soldier in the United States for a large sum of money. The policy contains a_ clause which protects his dependents and provides for contingencies-demobilization, unemployment, sickness after the war, and all that kind of thing. The United States had a form of insurance during the last war. It saved^ the taxpayers large sums of money in pensions and assisted the men when demobilization came. I believe we should
have a national form of insurance for our own soldiers. Toronto insured for one thousand dollars all its soldiers in the last war.
Another reason why I am suggesting it is this. I have here a form of insurance contract whioh every soldier has to sign who, when he goes to war, has an existing policy with any insurance company in Canada. I might say first, as hon. members may be aware, that it is impossible for a Canadian soldier, or for that matter a Canadian civilian travelling overseas, to remain insured under any policy purchased since September, 1939, if he leaves the confines of the Dominion of Canada and the continental United States of America, unless he is prepared to pay an exorbitant additional premium. If that extra premium is not paid, and death should occur, the insurance company are liable only for the return of the premiums plus three per cent. Further, if the soldier should die from any cause whatsoever within six months after his return to Canada, a death claim will not be paid.
I have here a copy of the uniform war clause contained in all Canadian war policies issued at the present time. The soldier's policy, unless he can pay the additional premium, is practically vitiated. I believe that the government would have been well-advised if, in place of some of the expenditures provided for under this bill, they had inserted in the estimates under a national insurance plan for soldiers, a small amount to protect the lives of the soldiers who are going overseas. My view is that there should be an immediate investigation by a committee into the matter. I wrote about it to the inspector of insurance, Mr. Finlayson, because I believe that in view of the small number of casualties which we have had in this war as compared with the last war, the premiums charged by Canadian companies are exorbitant and should be inquired into by this parliament, in the interests of the soldier, of this country, and of the future of insurance in Canada. The life insurance companies are not doing their duty.
Just one or two other matters. I may say that so far as the soldier is concerned, Mr. Willkie could tell the people of Canada' what his country is doing for its soldiers travelling on the railways. While recently on a train,
I noticed that troops coming from Petawawa are required to pay $1.25 to $1.50 for a meal, and similar rates apply to men travelling from one camp to another all over Canada. Under the United States government the railways have had to come to time on the rates for soldiers' meals. On the Union Pacific a day's meals can be had for ninety cents-twenty-five cents for breakfast, thirty cents for lunch, thirty-five cents for dinner, or three meals for
War Appropriation Bill

ninety cents, or for less than the price of one which on our railway systems, is being charged soldiers who receive $1.30 a day.
Another tiring that Mr. Willkie could have told us is what the United States is doing about soldiers' fares. How did it come about that Canada, where it is estimated 700,000 passes are issued annually by the railways, has not enough money, under clause 2 of this bill, to transport its soldiers? How did it come about that a country which is paying out $4,000,000 a day cannot spend the equivalent of one-half hour's expenditure to give its soldiers free transportation? Every day on the trains I see men, connected with almost every department of the public service, travelling on annual passes, many in contravention to the Railway Act. Why does the government not do as the United States and other countries have done-compel the railways to carry the soldiers free? In addition, in the United States they copied what was done in the last war by the city of Toronto, where soldiers travelled without charge on the street-cars: it is not done in this war, but some arrangement should be made by the government with the municipalities for free transportation of troops who live in the large cities and have to travel long distances from the suburbs to the place of recruitment or to a camp, and the federal power should pay for it.
I have here some tables of railway fares, and they are exorbitant. The rates paid by soldiers are, sometimes one-third more than those at which, from time to time, civilians can travel on special occasions from the maritimes, for instance, to central Canada. I called this to the attention of the railway commission and asked them to stop this discrimination of their own volition as the Railway Act empowers them to do, but nothing was done. They would not do anything. They seem to have also the parliamentarian's religion, the policy of following the line of the least resistance and doing nothing. Everybody in Ottawa seems to be afflicted with it and with this virus of inaction. I might mention that out of this vote of $1,300,000,000 large sums will be paid the railways for transporting troops vast distances across Canada to camps which never should have been erected; yet apparently we cannot afford any money for the particular purpose I have mentioned. Illegally, as I contend, an order was passed prohibiting hitch-hiking and making it a military offence, over parliament's head. I have here a letter from the Ontario minister of highways, Hon. T. B. Mc-Questen, in which he says that he had not seen the order to which I referred, but that (Mr. Church.]
neither his department nor the Ontario government had ever at any time objected to hitch-hiking by soldiers. Civilians are permitted to hitoh-hike, and why should soldiers be discriminated against by some officers who have federal cars at camps? The order is illegal, and I hope it will be at once withdrawn. The railways inspired such an order of prevention. Under this vote an adequate amount should be included to pay transportation for soldiers on leave. In spite of the hundreds of thousands of dollars provided under this vote for the transportation of troops, I venture to say that when the monthly bills come in, twice the amount of money will be due to the railways on this account as in the last war.
At Camp Borden on Saturday five or six young men were sent to gaol for fake railway tickets. It is a disgrace to the people of Canada that this should be so, when 700,000 passes are yearly issued on the railways and some military officers have passes, and in view of the huge sums which the railroads will be getting under this vote, increasing their receipts-according to a financial column in the morning paper the other day-from forty to forty-five per cent as a result of the war and the transportation which they are paid to give, to all these camps across Canada. Fancy taking Ontario's troops to Winnipeg and Petawawa! I see that there are some Toronto soldiers, the Toronto Scottish, at Three Rivers. Others have to go out to the coast and the maritimes. Why move them all over Canada and put money in the pockets of the railways, in defiance of economy, the nature of the military situation, training purposes, good business, and the interests of the soldier? These young men of whom I have spoken deserve a break, because they were first offenders of whom the commanding officer at Barrie at the trial spoke most highly, and said he would take these -men back. At the -trial it came out that this was the result of the two railways' influence in stopping hitch-hiking. I do not see any members of parliament hitch-hiking, or any members of the government, or any of the seven hundred thousand people in Canada or officers of camps, who have passes. The Duff report of 1931 sets out at page 154 reforms which should be made in transportation passes and suggests changes in the whole system, but nothing has been done.
This vote is too large; the railways are getting too much; those matters should be looked into; we should -have a rescinding of the illegal order to stop hitch-hiking, and camp officers should ignore it. Leave is refused if a soldier has not enough money for

War Appropriation Bill
fares. An inquiry should be held into the [DOT] whole matter by a committee of the house, and into all these matters.


Mr. HAZEN:: I wish to ask the Minister
of National Defence whether instructions have been given to officers commanding army units and other army officers to observe by-laws passed by municipalities for the purpose of preventing fires, and to cooperate with the civil authorities in avoiding fire hazards on army premises.
There have been a considerable number of fires in premises occupied by the army in different parts of this country. There were fires in the exhibition building in Fredericton, which was destroyed; in the O'Regan building in Saint John, which was destroyed; in the exhibition building in Saint John, which was destroyed; in a building in Yarmouth and in other buildings not only in the maritimes but in other parts of Canada.
I am bringing the matter to the minister's attention because I recently saw a report, dated January lt>
last, made by Colonel E. J. Mooney, building inspector for the city of Saint John, to the common council of that city. In the course of that annual report he said:
Another local condition I would like called to the attention of the council is the way the defence department is doing work without taking out building permits, which means that I have no authority to inspect the work done.
I spoke to Major Blake, commanding officer of engineers at headquarters of military district No. 7, and he informed me that the engineers could design and build according to their own ideas and local civic authorities had no jurisdiction. As a result all kinds of infractions of the building and fire laws and common sense have been made and on several occasions due to lack of common knowledge such things as furnaces in our exhibition buildings were placed on thin concrete slabs on top of wood floors, stovepipes carried through wood partitions without proper insulation and as a result our fire department had to be called out to extinguish fires in these buildings.
About a month after that report was made, the exhibition buildings in Saint John were burned down. As far as those buildings are concerned, my information is that in the exhibition building proper there were five stoves, and the chimneys of those five stoves were all connected with a seven-inch jointed stove pipe that must have been about forty feet long running up through a fibre board false ceiling to the upper floor, and then to the roof. In the blind space between the ceiling and the floor above, there must have been a great accumulation of dust, and there is information that the dust fell down from the floor into this space when the upper floor was swept. There were a great many panes
of glass out in the front of the building-as a consequence, there were plenty of blobs of dust floating around, and the chimney, without any sort of insulation, must have been red hot at times, which would set fire to this dust.
The board of fire underwriters looked into the matter and made two reports. I am informed that the first report showed that there were great fire hazards and they were ordered corrected, and the report went on and said that they had been corrected. A second report, however, was subsequently made which said that not only were the former hazards replaced but they were greatly increased. Not only was the exhibition building destroyed and a number of other buildings adjoining it, but some valuable equipment was destroyed. One man lost his life, and if the fire had happened at night instead of in the middle of the day, in all probability a great many men would have lost their lives.
At the present time in the barracks square back of that building there are many temporary huts. My information is that they are constructed of light inflammable wood with pitch roof, false fibre board ceilings, and with jointed stove pipes running up through to the peak, wfith no insulation whatever; that some of these huts must accommodate a great many men, and that at any time there are likely to be further fires in these huts.
In addition, I should like to ask the minister whether these fires were investigated. If they were, who investigated them? After they were investigated, were reports made to the department, and can these reports be tabled? Further, was any action taken in consequence of these reports, and was any disciplinary action taken against any officer in consequence of these fires breaking out?
There is another matter to which I wish to refer. I do not wish to trouble the minister too much, but could he outline to us how promotions are made among officers in the army in Canada? There have been a great many promotions. This matter must be of considerable importance to the Minister of Finance. How' are these promotions made? Is it a matter of time; does a man have to serve a certain length of time in one rank before he is promoted to another? I may tell the minister that there is some dissatisfaction. among officers who volunteer and go overseas and do not get promotion, while those who stay home do, in many instances get promotion. Might not some way be evolved whereby promotions at home might be a little slower,, even though the officers have to take on some other duties?
War Appropriation Bill


James Layton Ralston: Regarding the fires, I wish my hon. friend had drawn my attention to this matter so that I could have obtained a report from the quartermaster-general as to the matters of considerable detail1 with which he has dealt in connection with construction at Saint John. I cannot tell him at this moment whether or not actual orders go out requiring cooperation with the civic authorities. I do remember that in the case of one of the fires to which the hon. gentleman refers, high praise was given some of the military personnel who assisted in putting out the fire and in saving the equipment.
With regard to the matter of fires, I can only say to the hon. gentleman that I will make inquiries and give an answer either to him personally or to this committee. The practice is to hold courts of inquiry, and the findings of those courts are placed before the officers concerned, after which action is taken. I cannot give particulars at the moment; I remember the Yarmouth fire and the one at Saint John. Those are the two that have been brought particularly to my attention. I can assure the hon. gentleman, although I imagine I hardly need to do so because I believe he knows himself, that the district engineer officer at Saint John, Captain Blake, is an experienced officer who would not, I think, wilfully or carelessly put up buildings which did not conform to proper requirements with regard to fire hazards. However, I shall be glad to look into the matter and see if there has been any negligence or lack of care.
With regard to the matter of promotions, let me say to my hon. friend that promotions are made on the recommendation of the commanding officers concerned. These recommendations are passed upon by the district officer commanding, and then they come to national defence headquarters for approval.
With respect to staff appointments, as I think I have already told the committee, these appointments are made, after examination, by the selection board at national defence headquarters, based upon recommendations which are received from all over Canada as to officers in each district who are regarded as suitable for promotion or appointment to particular staff positions. These reports are gone over thoroughly, and the selection board itself makes the selection on the merits of the case. Although I should be disappointed to hear of it, at the same time I should welcome any instance my hon. friend can give me in which promotions have not been made on the basis of merit, whether in connection with the forces in Canada or for overseas service. If there is one thing I have tried to emphasize, and I think the officers

[DOT] at headquarters have tried to emphasize, it has been that particularly at a time like this, and, as far as that goes, at all times, promotions must be based on merit. I want to say to my hon. friend what I stated to the committee the other day, that I am a bit radical in respect of this matter of service and seniority. There are instances when it seems to me promotions ought to be made even over the heads of more senior officers, when the merit and the services of particular men may warrant that being done; and I wish to say to the hon. gentleman that I think this principle does govern the selections which are made at national defence headquarters. I had a talk on the same subject with the district officers commanding when they were here, and I would very much expect that this policy is being followed.
I say again that if my hon. friend has any instance in which he thinks an injustice has been done, I should be glad if he would bring it to my attention, although I want to tell him that I am taking the only ground that a minister can take if he is going to administer an armed force; that is, to see to it that there is no interference from national defence headquarters with the responsibilities of officers commanding in connection with making recommendations for promotions. We hold the officers commanding responsible for the administration of their units, and if we attempt to thrust upon these officers people whom we at headquarters may think desirable men, then the chain of responsibility is broken.


Major James William Coldwell: Arising out of the
interesting speech made by the hon. member for North Battleford (Mrs. Nielsen), there is a question I should like to ask the Minister of Pensions and National Health, who happens to be out of the house at the moment although he has been here almost continuously since the beginning of this debate. Yesterday in the New York Times I read a report by a United States doctor and a group of nurses who spent a considerable time this winter at the port of Halifax. That report was rather alarming, particularly since we have heard nothing about the matter in our own newspapers or in this house. The situation, it seems to me, concerns not only the Minister of Pensions and National Health but the ministers of the various branches of the defence forces as well.
The report stated that during the past few months Halifax had been a cesspool of preventable disease; that there had been a large number of cases of diphtheria, influenza and meningitis. When I heard the hon. member for North Battleford say that Halifax

War Appropriation Bill
expended only twenty-two cents per capita,
I think, on health services, I felt that someone ought to bring this matter to the attention of the ministers concerned, particularly because so many boys from all over Canada are at Halifax at the present time. What is being done by the Dominion of Canada to supplement the exceedingly inadequate health services in that city?
The story I read in yesterday's New York Times, dealing with the report made by this group who were sent to Halifax by the Rockefeller institute, made me feel not only alarmed but ashamed that such a condition could exist at this time in a Canadian city. It was remarked, of course, that ships from the four corners of the earth were coming to Halifax bringing various diseases, and that new types of diphtheria and other diseases were being brought to that city from abroad. But with thousands of young men passing through Halifax at the present time; with our sailors and those of the British navy in and out of that port, I felt that someone in this house should ask what steps are being taken by the dominion government to supplement the wretched health services that apparently exist in Halifax.
It may be said, of course, that we look after our own troops, but the health of our own troops cannot be better than the general health of the community in which they are stationed for the time being. You cannot easily give them immunity from some of these diseases, and I am asking the Minister of Pensions and National Health what he can tell us about the situation at Halifax, whether any steps have been taken to deal with the serious condition which has developed in that city during the past several months.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I regret very much that I was not in the chamber when my hon. friend raised this question, but I intend to make a full statement with reference to the situation at Halifax when my estimates are under discussion. Briefly, however, there has been complete cooperation between the federal Department of Health and the authorities at Halifax with regard to the situation described by my hon. friend. According to my understanding, the visit of the clinic from Harvard was purely for research purposes. At the commencement of that visit I believe there was some misunderstanding, but later on that was entirely cleared up and complete cooperation was established. I shall be glad to give my hon. friend further information in that regard at a later stage of the session.


George Hugh Castleden: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. During 1940 many of us did our
best to get the government to consider the matter of free railway transportation for soldiers on furlough. At that time a number of hon. members seemed to believe that it was our intention that every soldier who wanted leave at the end of the week could get a free pass on the railway. That was not my intention when I spoke of the matter last summer, nor is it my intention now. I should like to know, however, whether the minister would be willing to bring down an estimate of what it would cost to grant free transportation to soldiers on their furlough after six months' service, which furlough is, I believe, for about two weeks. I should like the estimated cost in dollars and cents, say for the past year, (a) of free transportation and (b) for men taking such leave if they had been required to pay a one-way fare for the first three hundred miles, and then had been given free transportation for the balance of their trip. I do not think there is any other action which would do more toward bolstering the morale of these men or improving their attitude toward the government and toward those officials who are placed in control over them. I believe it would improve their opinion respecting the general attitude of the government toward those men who are willing to make the greatest sacrifice of all.
Any action the government might take would have a splendid effect upon the morale of parents, brothers and sisters at home who might see again their loved ones who may never come back. The men who are to do the fighting do not know what they are going into over there. I believe the general attitude of the people will be improved if they feel the government is humane in this respect, and if they hold the view that when the boys come back the administration will take care of them.


James Layton Ralston: Mr. Chairman, I believe there is some misapprehension in connection with this matter, and I am confirmed in that view by what the hon. member has said. There have been all sorts of suggestions with respect to free transportation. Generally, the suggestion has simmered down to free transportation on embarkation leave, as it is called.
I do not think hon. members have a clear understanding of the procedure in connection with embarkation leave. The idea apparently in the minds of hon. members is that men who are taken to a port should be allowed a few days' leave before sailing, so that they might go to their homes, and that on account of their being a great distance from their homes free transportation should be allowed. The committee will understand that it is impossible, from the point of view of our

War Appropriation Bill

conducting a war, for us to give even the slightest indication as to when- men are going to embark.
What we endeavour to do is this: When men are moved from their home stations, and when we have in mind that it is quite possible those men are being moved for the purpose either eventually or in a comparatively short time of going overseas, the custom is at such time to give what is called- embarkation leave. That embarkation leave is not a serious financial burden to a man. It would be serious if he were 'taken from the port of embarkation, or from a point near the point of embarkation, and sent back to his home. Generally speaking, however, embarkation leave is given some time before embarkation, and given when the men are at points comparatively close to their homes.
As I say, we endeavour to meet the convenience of the men, as far as possible. I did have one serious complaint from Calgary, where it was pointed out that men had not been given sufficient notice, with the result that they felt they could not take embarkation leave, and go home-to Edmonton, I believe-and get back in time. But that was a case which arose through misunderstanding, and I believe that had there been proper administration, those men would have got their leave. As I say, however, the rule is to give embarkation leave at a time when they are near their homes, and, if necessary, we see to it that an advance is made in their pay in order that they may have the benefit of that leave. But we do not give free transportation. The rules with regard to transportation state that the men travel on a one-way fare.
This question of transportation has been raised frequently, and I do not propose to make any extended statement with regard to it to-night. Let me say, however, that I have gone over the records for the last war, and I find no instance of free transportation having been granted, except in one special case in connection with harvest leave. I am speaking from memory, but I believe what I say is correct. Free transportation was never granted, as part of a soldier's privilege, for the purpose of visiting his home. It has been granted only in the event of some special mission, such as the one I indicated as harvest leave, when men were sent home, free of charge, because it was believed to be in the interests of the country so to do.
The granting of free transportation simply means the addition of that much to a soldier's pay; that is what it means. In this war we have increased the pay of the men, and we have provided for dependents' allowances as well. But that is nob all. In this war the
(Mr. Ralston.]
dollar buys considerably more than it did at the time of the last war. Therefore there has been a substantial increase both ways, both in the amount paid to the men and in the amount the dollar will buy.
I might as well say to my hon. friend that I see no likelihood of the government's reconsidering the decision it has made-and the matter of providing free transportation for men going on leave has been brought to our attention repeatedly. Rather we would endeavour to meet the convenience of the men, as far as possible, and see to it if we can, that leave is granted in such a way that it will entail comparatively small expense if a man wishes to visit his home.


James Arthur Ross: Has the minister any idea as to the cost involved in granting free transportation? Could he give us an approximation of what it would cost? If not, would he consider negotiating with the railway companies to the end that soldiers might receive the cent-a-mile rate used in connection with excursions offered civilians? It has been pointed out that people coming home from Newfoundland are granted in Newfoundland a free pass to the coast. Then, travelling on the same trains as civilians from the coast to, we will say, Toronto, their tickets cost $22.75, whereas those of civilians who travel on excursion tickets, cost only $15.
It has been urged that the distribution of soldiers in Canada is somewhat different from what it was at the time of the last war. They are not training in their local districts, as they did before, and in many instances they have been moved to coastal areas. Many boys from my constituency in Manitoba are training at points so far away that it cost them from $50 to $60 to secure a round trip ticket.


James Layton Ralston: From where?


James Arthur Ross: From Nova Scotia to Winnipeg, round-trip fare. That is a large item, and costs the soldier more than the civilian who travels at excursion rates. It has occurred to me that the railways, upon representations by the minister, might be prepared to make some concessions in this respect, and that a reduction would mean a great saving to a soldier who wished to travel to his home, some distance away. It seems to me that the railways might make some concessions if they were asked by the Department of National Defence.


James Layton Ralston: I know representations have been made to the railways in the past. I shall, however, be pleased to take note of

War Appropriation Bill
the circumstances outlined by the hon. member, and see if they form any ground for reopening the matter with the railways.
The subject of leave from Newfoundland is in very much the same category as leave from overseas. We are endeavouring to provide reliefs for the units in those outposts, so that they will not be away too long, while they are based in Canada, and so that they will have an opportunity to visit their homes and enjoy the privileges of leave in this country. When the men are on duty in Iceland, Newfoundland or in the Caribbean, it is quite impossible that they should pay for leave home, and it is not expected that they will get leave home, because they are on duty, for the time being, just as were the men in France and as are the men in England to-day. I shall, however, look into what the hon. member has just said, and see if it forms any ground for reopening the case with the railway companies.


Mr. REID:: I know the minister has given a great deal of consideration to this matter. While it is true he has looked into the records for the last war, may I point out that while the dollar may be worth more, it does not buy more by way of transportation. Transportation charges are just the same. There are many aspects of this war which were not in evidence at the time of the last one.
I know some cases which should receive special consideration. I know of boys, officers and men who at times are out four months at a stretch on patrol duty on the Atlantic. Many of those boys come from the Pacific coast. One in particular, a friend of my family, spent four months on the Atlantic, and upon reaching Halifax was given one month's leave of absence. It cost him $175 for his fare from Halifax to British Columbia to see his people. That is far too much.
I join with the last hon. member who spoke in urging upon the government, if it is to continue its policy of not granting free transportation, to see that strong representations are made to the railway companies to do as they did before the days of the combine, when they took men from British Columbia at a rate of one cent a mile. That would be a splendid thing for the boys and I am advocating it if the government is going to continue its policy of not providing fares for our men.


Howard Charles Green: The minister did not answer the question asked by the hon. member for Souris as to the estimated cost to the government of providing free transportation for the men. This question was brought up last year, and surely the government must have made some estimate as to what it would cost. I
think it would be money well spent to provide free transportation for men going on leave after six months' service.


James Layton Ralston: I have just completed signing a letter to someone dealing with that same subject. As I said to him, I think this is about as nebulous a computation as you could possibly find. You would have to estimate the distances to be travelled in the individual cases and other indefinite factors which make it almost impossible to arrive al even a rough figure. I do not think the roughest sort of estimate would be within, shall I say shooting distance of what it might cost. I shall endeavour to see if we can find any basis upon which the cost could be figured.
I am dealing with the question more on the matter of principle. I have been interested in the number of people who have spoken with regard to providing free transportation, and I have been wondering where the idea came from. It has never existed in Canada before, and I should like to know what has been behind this proposal for free transportation. As the hon. member knows, during the last war when we had leave from France we were given a leave warrant. But that was at the front; it was not in Canada. On principle, I really find it difficult to see why if transportation is provided, other concessions should not be asked for which would, in effect, be additions to the pay and allowances of the men. No one knows better than I how much we owe to these men, but at the same time we have to deal with the matter man fashion. As I said a moment ago, I am not in a position to give any hope that there will be any change in the government's decision. I am not in a position to-night to make even a guess as to what the cost might be.


Howard Charles Green: The position is different from the last war because then men were enlisted and sent overseas in a comparatively short time, whereas in this war many battalions are being kept in Canada.


James Layton Ralston: Where does my hon. friend get that idea? I enlisted in September, 1915, and went overseas in October, 1916.


Howard Charles Green: I think the minister will admit that his battalion was never far from home when it was in Canada.


James Layton Ralston: Some were and some were not. My hon. friend said that the men enlisted and went overseas right away.


Howard Charles Green: The majority did. In the present war we have, for example, troops from Manitoba located on both coasts and
War Appropriation Bill

being kept there for indefinite periods, perhaps for as long as a year. To-day troops in Canada are much in the same position as were troops in England during the last war when the front line was in France. Now the front line is in England. While we were in England we got free transportation, and I think the same thing should be done in Canada to-day. If the government will not provide free transportation for everyone, why not set aside a certain sum to provide transportation for those men who have the farthest to go to get to their homes? If something like that were done, it would provide relief in many instances. I do not think the government should just shut the door and say it is not going to do anything about this, the men can get home as they like. I believe regulations have been promulgated to prevent the men from accepting free rides on the highways. Is it true that troops of ours are not free to accept transportation on the road?


James Layton Ralston: The other day I brought down a return containing an order which was issued requiring compliance with the Ontario act which prohibits solicitation of rides by those on the highway. This was with regard to Camp Borden.


Howard Charles Green: It is the same in all
provinces?


James Layton Ralston: I do not think so.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: That would not prevent a civilian driver from picking up a soldier?


James Layton Ralston: No.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: I should like to supplement what has been said by making some observations with special reference to Peta-wawa. I do not intend to go into the question of inadequacy of equipment and so on or to rehash other matters which have come up lately. In this case, the commanding officer must initial a railway ticket before a soldier can get a pass.


James Layton Ralston: That is what I understand.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Many of these men are gunners, and at the end of a month a man has about $19 left after having provided the minimum $20 to his dependent. These men have been recruited from various parts of Ontario-from Simeoe, Tillsonburg, Brantford, Hamilton, Dundas and other points. The railways advertise a return fare of $6.25 between Ottawa and Toronto, but these men cannot take advantage of that because they must present a ticket before they can get a pass.
I do not want to delay the deliberations of this committee, and perhaps the minister could give me a few minutes to discuss these

matters. At the present time these men are rather confined, and they will not be out on the wide open spaces for a week or 60. I think they should receive some consideration, and I should like to have an opportunity	to	outline to	the minister	an ideawhich	was developed	yesterday by	some of
the non-commissioned officers. If this were carried out, I think it would go a long way to satisfy the soldiers.
. Mr. RALSTON: I shall be very glad to give my hon. friend two or three minutes, or as many more as he wants. Let me say to him that he is not the only one who is interested in the men at Petawawa camp. There	is	a battalion	from Prince	EdwardIsland	at	that camp.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And one from New Brunswick.


James Layton Ralston: The men of those battalions have farther to travel than the boys from Hamilton. My hon. friend will not blame me if I am at least sympathetic.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: It should be possible for these boys to take advantage of the $6.25 fare on week-ends rather than to have to pay $10.55 minimum.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister did not seem to be clear as to where the idea for free or assisted transportation came from. He stated it did not exist in the last war, but there were two reasons for that, and there may have been many others. The system of training in this war is different from that carried on in the last. We have specialized groups located in different areas for training. Generally speaking, a man who enters the army service corps will go to Petawawa, as would a man entering the artillery. This would be the situation no matter in what part of Canada he might enlist. If a man joins the tank corps, he goes to Camp Borden. If a man is in the infantry, the chances are that he will train fairly close to home, but that does not apply to the special units and most of the men are in these units. The result is that many men are long distances from home.
I had an example of this coming down on the train when I met a man who had joined the forestry corps in Nanaimo, British Columbia, and who had been sent to Valcartier. He said that was where they were training the forestry units. At the end of his period of training he was given leave and he found himself faced with an impossible situation. If it had not been for the assistance given by some of his wife's people, he would not have been able to go back to Nanaimo at the end of one year's service.

War Appropriation Bill
Second, there are large bodies of men being placed on garrison duty. We have the third and fourth divisions disposed of on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, and a man may find himself posted on one coast, perhaps many miles from his home. At the end of a year these men are given a furlough, but it is no good to them unless they can raise the money to go back home.
There is a changed situation to-day, and that is why the demand has arisen.
What I said applies also to our sailors to some extent and to our airmen, but I mention sailors particularly because every time I happen to be travelling between here and home there are sailors on the train, either sailors going from Halifax to Calgary to their homes, or returning to Halifax from Calgary. The railway fare is, of course, veiy high. They get only one leave a year, and a good deal of the pay they have saved up is absorbed by the railway fares to take them home.
Those who are advocating government assistance in the matter of transportation have in mind, not free transportation, but assisted transportation. Certainly a man who is stationed 1,000 or 1,500 miles away from home should receive assistance in buying his transportation back home. I know the minister has quite a problem there and that it is not easy of solution, but perhaps a special rate could be worked out with the railways, or else when a man is granted his furlough, if his home was beyond a certain distance, let us say 500 miles, he might be given assistance to cover any distance beyond that.
Certainly the situation to-day is not a happy one for a man who finds himself 1,500 or
2,000	miles from home; it is a situation I knew quite a few men to be faced with before Christmas, and if the man has not the means, he cannot take advantage of his furlough to visit his loved ones back home. I hope the minister will give consideration either to working out an arrangement for giving assistance above a certain mileage, or to arranging with the railroads for a rate of one cent a mile to help these men when they go home on furlough.


George Hugh Castleden: Perhaps the quickest way to deal with it would be for the minister to bring down an estimate.


Mr. QUELCH:: I think the stand taken by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) was a sound one. The minister has stated that transportation was not given in the last war, but once the soldier got overseas, free transportation was given. Unquestionably the soldiers are being kept in Canada for a longer period in this war than in the last. I was overseas for four years
during the last war, and during that whole time I do not ever remember having to pay my transportation. I was in Canada for a period of five months only. To-day, however, there are many soldiers who have been in Canada for a year or more. There is also this question of the soldiers being moved from the west to the east, and when they are granted leave we know that it is impossible for ninety-nine out of a hundred of them to pay their fares back home if they live any distance away.
If we cannot get free transportation for the soldiers, some form of pool rate should be worked out so that soldiers who have been moved from one end of Canada to the other should not be penalized. In addition to a special rate, some form of pool rate should be worked out. It is not the soldier's fault that he is moved from Calgary to Petawawa. Contrast the soldier in that position with one whose unit is stationed just outside the city only a few miles from his home and who can get home for a few cents. It is a very unfair situation. If we cannot get free transportation, there should be a special rate, and on top of that a pool rate.
So far as embarkation leave is concerned, there should be free transportation on embarkation leave. Some soldiers have told me that it would not help very much because often they have only 'three hours' notice before they embark and leave is not granted, but in some instances it is granted, and in such instances free transportation should be provided.
The minister has stated that he is not sure where the demand comes from. The demand has been caused by public opinion. It is not coming from just any one section; public opinion throughout Canada is absolutely behind the demand for free transportation, and I think it is the least we can do for a man who has enlisted and is prepared to sacrifice his life for his country. He should at least be given an opportunity to go home and see his wife and family, but under present conditions that is not possible in many instances unless the soldier is prepared to commit a crime. If he has not the money to pay his fare home, he will take the train to some nearby point and then go on by freight, which is listed as a crime. In this way we are breeding crime within the army and causing discontent. So I hope that the government will seriously consider ways and means by which special rates can be given so that the soldier can travel at least as cheaply as the civilian. As it is now, we find that civilians get special fares -while the soldier has to pay a higher rate. That is absolutely unjust. Finally, I suggest that the government should give consideration to establishing a pool rate.
War Appropriation Bill


James Layton Ralston: I want to say in reply to the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) and the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch), who were good enough to give me their ideas of what gave rise to this demand at this time, that artillery men came to Petawawa in the last war just as they do now, and Camp Borden was going in the last war just as it is now. At Camp Borden now you will find, not specialists so much, but whole units as in the last war. I do not think there is much difference, and if there is any difference it is that the camps are more spread around now than in the last war.


Victor Quelch: The soldiers are held in
Canada for a longer period than during the last war.


James Layton Ralston: I am thinking of my own personal experience, and my hon. friend is no doubt thinking of his, but I would have thought that the soldiers spend about as long here now as they did in the last war.
With regard to the units on the coasts, to which the hon. member for Weyburn referred, we are trying to meet that situation by moving a whole unit back for relief, so as to give them each a turn. That is regarded as a line duty. The same is true of the units in Newfoundland and Iceland. As a matter of fact, Iceland was one of the matters I discussed with the war office when I was in England a short time ago.
I would say to the hon. member for Acadia that I have already told the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) that I will look into this matter to see if there is any ground for reopening the situation with the railways. That is the best I can give the committee to-night, but I have taken note of everything that has been said with regard to assisted rates and special rates, to see if any better arrangement can be made with the railways in that respect.


Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: One of the reasons why free transportation is asked this time is that we have more automobiles in the country than we had in the last war. People then did not see the soldiers travelling back and forth as much as they do in this war. During the past week I have talked to soldiers, and they claim that at Debert you cannot get leave unless you can show the paymaster that you have $30, for instance, if you are coming to Peterborough. That would cover the ticket amounting to $24.60, and on top of that enough to pay for meals on the train. If the soldier is going to the coast, I believe he has to show $100 because the fare is about $80. I mentioned this away back in June. I believe I was the first to mention it.


James Layton Ralston: I cannot believe that anybody mentioned it before the hon. member for Broadview.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I was second, then. At that time the reason why free transportation was asked was that a number of soldiers' wives had not received any pay or allowance. The men had sent them money from their own pay in order to carry on, and the men had to walk. The other night I picked a man up in the car and drove him home. He had taken the train as far as Kingston, and he said he would not have been able to get that far unless he had been lucky at poker. I think that is the situation with a number of them.


James Layton Ralston: Where did he come from?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: He came from Debert.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I wanted to ask one or two questions of the Minister of Labour; I know he can answer them promptly. I could not understand what he said this afternoon in reply to my question as to how students can be taken on at the technical schools in connection with the government's plan of training young men for work in munitions plants.


Norman Alexander McLarty: The hon. member means, how they get admission to the schools?


John Ritchie MacNicol: Yes.


Norman Alexander McLarty: As the hon. member
understands, that is a matter directed by the provinces. My understanding is that to a large extent admission is arranged directly with the particular school itself by the applicant. I assume that in some instances the applicant could be placed by application to the provincial director, but generally, no doubt, the application would be direct to the training school.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Quite a number of
young men have come to me from time to time and have told me that they had to go to the department of labour in the legislative building.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Yes. In some provinces that would be true.


John Ritchie MacNicol: They came back with the story-I have no way of proving it; it may not be worth proving, anyway.-that they had to get a letter from somebody, and when they told me the name of the man they had to get the letter from, I knew it was no use for me to do anything in the matter. Whether what they said is a fact, I do not know. I could not pin it down. I hope that is not the situation.

War Appropriation Bill


Norman Alexander McLarty: I can assure the hon. member for Davenport that if he can give me evidence of any practice of that kind, it will, so far as I can direct it, be discontinued at once. I did not believe that any preference of that kind was being shown, and I hope that it is not true; but if it is, we will see that it is discontinued.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The young man came back to me with this statement after being interviewed at the parliament buildings. They may have turned him down because he was not a satisfactory candidate for admission to the school, and that may have been the excuse which they gave me. I have heard the same thing in connection with the Galt school. There may not be a word of truth in it. The hon. member for Waterloo South, who, however, is not here, would probably know more than anybody else about that.


Norman Alexander McLarty: The hon. member for Davenport knows that the federal government does not direct the trainee to a particular school.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I know that, but I was just reporting what has come to me. I am not prepared to say whether it is true, nor am I pursuing the matter any further.
One other matter. A young man goes, let us say, to the central technical school at Toronto, where, if he is going to work in a munitions plant, he will probably be given some instruction in the operation of a shaper, a drill, a planer, a lathe, or all of them. I assume he receives a limited knowledge in all of them, because the school is equipped with these various machines, and has some excellent teachers. How long is the student kept at the technical school, and is he paid while in attendance?


Norman Alexander McLarty: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have some information on the matter of payment. The average course of training is, I believe, three months, although it varies under some circumstances. As the hon. member for Vancouver East said this afternoon, you cannot turn out a skilled mechanic in three months, but you can train him to some extent in the use of machines.	My hon.
friend mentioned, for instance, the Galt school, with which I am more familiar than I am with some of the others, because I have been through it a number of times. We try to keep definitely in contact with employers who require labour in war industries, and we endeavour also to turn out trainees in the particular course which is related to the work for which they are required. I do not think it would be fair to say that each trainee goes through the same course. Certainly that is not the situation at Galt. Some men may
go to a firm at Brantford; some are required, let us say, for the Massey-Harris company; the training they receive is largely designed for the particular work which they will be called upon to perform after the course is given.
In connection with the amounts paid to trainees, the weekly allowances to be paid by the dominion to trainees in industrial training centres and preemployment schools are as follows: Single trainees living at home shall not receive any allowance except (a) where they have given up employment to attend a class, or (fa) where there is a financial need. In such instances the maximum weekly allowance shall be $3.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Three dollars a week?


Norman Alexander McLarty: 
John Ritchie MacNicol: Will the minister let me finish my one or two questions? During the afternoon the minister said that many more young men are offering themselves for these various schools than there are facilities for training them.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I would say that was the present condition.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I have been wondering whether any consideration has been given to training young men in the plants themselves. I have visited many plants, and I have in mind one very large one which is now being erected. Instead of sending a young man to the technical school at Toronto, or to any other technical school, where no place can be found for him, is there a plan whereby he can be sent direct to the plant, and the company advised that "this young man is now going to train, and we will allow the same amount for him as a trainee as he would receive in a technical school if he were attending there"?


Norman Alexander McLarty: No, Mr. Chairman; there is no provision made for any allowance for trainees in the plant schools. The term "plant schools" is perhaps a little vague. There is no question that industry is now training at a substantial rate. I gave a figure this afternoon but pointed out that it was a little
War Appropriation Bill

difficult to get a definite figure because of the different categories of the training in the various plants. For instance, one plant where I know they are training over five hundred said "we are not training any in a plant school", because they are training them in their factory. Another firm will send a list of every person in their employ as trainees even though some were there only seven days. That branch of the training plan is under the direction of Mr. Crawford, a former superintendent of technical education. He has set up a staff in the various provinces; he has visited all the industries where training would likely be carried on throughout Canada and is endeavouring to correlate the work. He advises me that the training is going on at a higher rate than estimated by the committee when it made its estimate in November last.


John Ritchie MacNicol: They do not receive
anything?


Norman Alexander McLarty: No; nothing is paid by
the government to any trainee in an industrial plant.


John Ritchie MacNicol: When a young man is graduated from a technical school after three months training, is there some provision or plan whereby he graduates into a plant? I ask because I have visited quite a number of plants in the last few week-ends. I go to the employment office and sit in with the employment agent-I know many of them, have been associated with many of them up and down the years-and I listen to them interviewing applicants. A man will come to the employment office; he will be asked to sit down; his whole record is carefully investigated, his age, schooling, experience, and all the time the employment agent is carefully looking him over. They are careful about getting the most gentlemanly men they can; if a young fellow sits with his hat on, or if he is not courteous in his replies, usually he is not taken on. What I want to mention, however, is that these men are of all ages, and they go directly to (he employment office of the plant. What chance has a young fellow who has served three months in technical school to compete with the type of man to whom I am referring who goes to the employment office at the plant? Has the government set up any machinery whereby the young man whom they have paid $3 or 87 a week, as the case may be, and thus have invested that in his training, is taken into a plant after serving the three months in the technical school?


Norman Alexander McLarty: In the large majority of cases the way they would be taken on is that
lMr. McLarty.]
the plants are in direct contact with the schools, and vice versa the schools have contact with the plants-	[DOT]


John Ritchie MacNicol: Does the government arrange that?
Mr, McLARTY: The government supervises and directs it through the provincial officers, and one of the functions of the directors is to make or to expand that contact. It would be more in that manner than through the employment offices that placements are made. As was mentioned this afternoon, when we have the employment offices operating under the Unemployment Insurance Act I believe they can serve a useful purpose in performing just the function that the hon. member has mentioned.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I was coming to that. That is the British system, and it works satisfactorily. I have investigated many of those offices. In Great Britain, all applicants for employment go to the government employment offices. I was going to ask the minister whether that is going to be part of the programme in our set-up later on. In England, the employers are almost, if not actually, compelled to apply to the government employment offices for their help.
Now a final question, which perhaps I should address to the Minister of National Defence, regarding troops overseas, or wherever located, perhaps in Canada too; they probably have a good: deal of off-time. Is there any type of school or educational facilities in the camps in England or Canada whereby the soldiers -should I address this question to the Minister of National Defence?


Norman Alexander McLarty: The Department of Labour has not instituted any such schools.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Then I will ask the Minister of National Defence. Is there any plan under that department whereby soldiers have an opportunity of being trained in their off hours along the lines of business or any kind of technical or mechanical training?


James Layton Ralston: That is done not by the Department of National Defence itself, but by the auxiliary service organizations, of which the Canadian Legion is one. The legion conducts educational courses I think in almost anything within reason that a man would wish, something of the type of correspondence courses, and men are given an opportunity in the camps to go to classes. That is the only educational work which is carried on in off hours.


Grote Stirling: Who is the head of that now?

War Appropriation Bill


James Layton Ralston: Doctor Chateaugard on the other side, and Colonel Bovey in Canada. The department also has the training school for tradesmen which is being established at Hamilton.
The hon. member for St. Paul's this afternoon read a newspaper report indicating that there were complaints by manufacturers, particularly aircraft manufacturers, with regard to the four months' training interfering with their work. That was mentioned as one of the highlights of the visit which had been paid to the three aircraft industries, Canadian Vickers, Fairchilds and Noorduyn. I said to my hon. friend that if there was any case where a key man in an essential war industry had not had his training postponed, I should like to hear about it, because I want to bring it to the attention of my colleague the Minister of National War Services. I did bring the matter to the attention of General LaFleche, the deputy minister, in the absence of the minister, and I should like to put on record letters from two of these concerns. I have not as yet received word from the third. I asked General LaFleche if there had been complaints from these industries, and he said he would look up the records. I told him of the specific instances that had been given me with regard to the Noorduyn company, and he is following that up.
Let me read first a letter from Mr. Decary, divisional registrar at Montreal where Canadian Vickers are located. Apparently Mr. Franklin of Canadian Vickers had written to H. B. Chase, labour relations officer of the Department of Munitions and Supply, complaining that seven men had been taken from the Vickers aircraft plant and sent to camp. This is the letter from Mr. Decary, with whom General LaFleche communicated after he had heard about the complaint from Mr. Chase:
Montreal, Quebec, March 18, 1941. Major General L. R. LaFleche,
Associate Deputy Minister,
Department of National War Services,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Re:Canadian Vickers Limited, Aircraft Division, National Labour Supply Council
Dear Sir:
1.	With reference to your letter of March 17. 1941, enclosing copy of a letter dated the 14th of March, 1941, addressed to you by Mr. H. Mitchell, secretary to Mr. H. B. Chase, director general of labour relations, Department of Munitions and Supply and a letter addressed to Mr. H. B. Chase by Canadian Vickers Limited, I beg to report as follows.
This is the registrar reporting with regard to complaints which were received from Canadian Vickers.
2.	Out of the seven (7) men mentioned in Mr. Franklin's letter to Mr. H. B. Chase, the following have received notices military training:
E 60382-Gibbs, Kenneth, training centre No. 41
E 60146-Patenaude, Gerard, training centre No. 41
The five (5) other men have not yet been sent notices military training, because I had sufficient number of men to fill the quotas without calling them.
Of the seven men named, these are the two who the registrar says were called.
3.	Out of the two men mentioned in the above quoted letter, employed by the United Shoe Machinery of Canada-
Here I pause to say that the United Shoe Machinery Company was a sub-contractor of Canadian Vickers, and therefore Canadian Vickers were interested in men called up for training who were employed by the United Shoe Machinery Company.
-the following has received notice of military training:
E 61781-Cicchillitti, Nicholas Feliz, training centre No. 44. The other E 60283, Clement, Marcel, being unfit.
So we have three men, not seven, who the registrar says have been called: first, Gibbs; second, Patenaude, and third, Cicchillitti. Then he goes on:
4.	I have communicated, by telephone, with the chairman of the board, who is out of town for the week, informing him of your letter also giving him the information above quoted. He told me that the men ordered to report for military training could not be postponed.
5.	I then communicated, by telephone, with Mr. D. G. Campbell, superintendent of personnel, Canadian Vickers Company, Limited, and advised him that only Patenaude and Cicchillitti were being ordered to report for military training, and aJso Gibbs.
6.	I inquired from Mr. Campbell whether the fact that these three (3) men were going to go to military training during the period opening the 20th of March, 1941, would hamper war production and I was informed that he was quite satisfied it would not.
7.	During the conversation with Mr. Campbell I was told that the absence of Mr. Patenaude would cause them inconvenience, but that he would try and let another man go if Patenaude could be released.
That is, he would furnish another man in place of Patenaude.
I told him that could be arranged. A few minutes later Mr. Campbell called me back informing me that Patenaude could be dispensed with now, as another man had been found to replace him.
Very truly yours,
Pierre Decary, Divisional Registrar, Administrative Division "E"
I think that disposes of the Vickers company, which had three men called. The chairman felt that their training could not
War Appropriation Bill

be postponed; a call was put through to Mr. Campbell, superintendent of personnel, who was asked whether their absence would hamper war production and who replied that he was quite satisfied that it would not. Then he said the absence of Patenaude would cause them inconvenience, and he was told that perhaps he could get some other man to train instead of Patenaude, but a few minutes later he called back to say that the services of Patenaude could be dispensed with because another man had been found to take his place.
Another firm mentioned was the Fairchild company. General LaFleche, to whom I spoke this evening, sends me this memorandum :
Following your telephone call at about 8.15 to-night, I proceded to my office and there found the attached copy of a letter dated March 18th, 1941, addressed to me by Mr. Pierre Decary, divisional registrar "E", National War Services, 405 _ Transportation Building, Montreal, on the subject:
Canadian Vickers Limited,
Aircraft Division,
National Labour Supply Council.
I spoke to Mr. H. M. Pasmore, president. Fairchild Aircraft Limited, who told me that Mr. Bell-
That is Mr. Ralph Bell, director of aircraft production.
-had inquired of him this afternoon. The telegraph company has just 'phoned in the following telegram from Mr. Pasmore:
"I understand reports are circulating to effect that calling out of our employees for military training programme has interfered with our production. We wish to report your department has given every satisfaction in regard calling out of these employees for training in the past and for period beginning twentieth instant and that we have no complaints whatsoever."
I tried to reach Mr. Noorduyn but he was out and not expected home until after eleven o'clock to-night. I asked his office to request Mr. Noorduyn to phone me to-morrow morning.
I know the committee will be glad to learn, as I am, that in at least two of the three cases mentioned this afternoon by the hon. member for St. Paul's, the companies seem to be completely satisfied that war production is not being interfered with.


Grote Stirling: I have been awaiting an opportunity to ask the Minister of National Defence a question with regard to the equipment of units training in Canada. When the minister dealt with the formation of the armoured division he said he was not going to give information with regard to their equipment. That is a matter the minister must decide. If he sees fit not to give that information, we certainly will not press for it. I think, however, it would be a good thing if the minister could see fit to give us information with regard to the equipment of units training in Canada.
fMr. Ralston.]
The other day the minister gave the house some advice; he said that hon. members frequently were in a position to give information to the public and help the government along. With that I entirely agree, but hon. members must have that information in order to be able to impart it. I do not think there is any subject on which I am asked questions more often than on this very matter of equipment. The reason for that is, I think, that among one's constituents there are many who have sons, brothers or acquaintances training with units in different parts of Canada, and in their communications these men pass on to our constituents statements with regard to the equipment available.
There is no doubt that one reason for originally deciding on the thirty-day training was a shortage at the time of the necessary equipment. There is little doubt in my mind that to some extent the equipment situation has improved, but here we have infantry units and specialized units of many kinds. For instance, there are four or five motorcycle regiments training in Canada. I do not know whether they have the necessary motor cycles for their training, but certainly a technical unit of that description cannot get very far without motorcycles and the necessary facilities for keeping them in operation. In addition, there are signallers, anti-tank regiments, anti-aircraft companies and so on. These are all technical units, and without equipment they cannot get on with their training.
Would the minister see fit to give us some information in this regard? He will remember quite well that we of the opposition did not feel satisfied last year in respect of the amount of information forthcoming with regard to Bren guns. It did not seem to me then, and certainly it does not seem to me now, that it is reasonable to withhold information with regard to the output of Bren guns. Certainly infantry units cannot get on with this most necessary part of their training if they have not Bren guns in numbers greater than simply those necessary to look at, as unfortunately was the situation some time ago. We should like to be informed that it has improved. As yet the minister has not explained the reason for his extraordinary omission with regard to the entire change in the John Inglis contract when he spoke on November 15. He spoke two weeks after that change had taken place, and my recollection is that the space occupied in Hansard in referring to the Bren gun was only about three-quarters of an inch. He dismissed it very lightly. It was not until the news more or less accidentally tumbled out that the

War Appropriation Bill
public in Canada knew anything about the complete change in the John Inglis company contract.
The minister will no doubt explain to us why in that speech of November 15 when he, as Minister of National Defence was describing the progress his department was making in the war effort, he did not refer to that. If, however, the minister chooses to take the line that information with regard to this equipment in some detail would be of assistance to the enemy, again we must content ourselves, and remembering that the responsibility is on the government we must make what answer we may to the constituents who ask us for information.


James Layton Ralston: At this hour, and I was going to say after a long day, I have not the information with me. As a matter of fact, I should like to go over with the staff the matter of equipment, just in order to see what information the staff feel I should give the committee. I assure my hon. friend I will give the committee all I can. According to the newspapers I have been erring on the wrong side, in giving rather too much information.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I had not heard that.


James Layton Ralston: That is with regard to
certain matters which have been spoken about. It is suggested that there has been an error on the part of the government in giving too much information. But if my hon. friend will agree that it might stand, I shall have an opportunity to-morrow morning to get a statement and to present it to my hon. friend.
Let me say with regard to the Bren gun that I really was surprised at my hon. friend's reference thereto. With respect to the new contract for the Bren gun, I do not think it was signed when I spoke on November 15, and if it had been I would not have mentioned it. The question was as to the rate of supply, as to how fast we were getting the Bren gun. It was not my job-the matter of making the contract with the John Inglis company.


Grote Stirling: But the information,
when it did come out, gave the public to understand that on October 31 the change was made. I think October 31 was the date of the order in council. I do not have it before me.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: November 29.


Grote Stirling: It was most decidedly in the press which reached me in v ..stern Canada that the change dated from October 31.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is right.


Grote Stirling: And the minister was
speaking in this house-


James Layton Ralston: What change was there
that I would be giving with regard to the rate of delivery of Bren guns? What does my hon. friend mean?


Grote Stirling: I should say the Minister of National Defence would describe to the house such change in the John Inglis company's contract that considerably increased any production which would be forthcoming from then on.


James Layton Ralston: The increase in production was, as I understand it, very largely an increase in production on account of British orders.


Grote Stirling: Under the new regime,
the new contract, from what the Minister of Munitions and Supply tells us there is a possibility of turning out tens of thousands of guns.


James Layton Ralston: Tens of thousands of guns in a long time. But I was dealing with the deliveries. I had given my hon. friend the number up to the end of September. This is what I say at page 149 of Hansard:
Regarding Bren guns, I have given my hon. friend the number up to the end of September. I am not giving the number delivered each week, but it is a figure which I must say is most satisfactory having regard to what was planned on when production started at the plant. These weekly deliveries are increasing steadily and by the end of the first year of production we expect to have three times as many guns delivered as were called for by the contract.
Is there anything in the world which calls upon me to tell the house that my colleague is negotiating a new contract with the John Inglis company in order to reduce the cost of them? The production which was being increased was with regard not only to the Bren gun, but to other items. The Browning machine gun was one which had not been previously manufactured there at all. I plead guilty to anything for which I am to blame, but I do not take the responsibility for this. I am sorry if my hon. friend feels I should.
With regard to the matter of equipment, I shall be pleased to have a statement prepared, if the matter may stand over.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not wish to detain the committee at all, but it does seem to me there was a lack of frankness on the part of the administration with respect to the new set-up of the John Inglis company.
War Appropriation Bill


James Layton Ralston: I wish my hon. friend had brought up the matter when my colleague the Minister of Munitions and Supply was here, because he made the statement about it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I know he did. He told the house how it came out, first of all by an error on the part of his secretary, which I think was not quite cricket, and, second, through the inquisitiveness, if I may so describe it, of a newspaper. I do not think the country feels the government was quite candid with respect to this whole Bren gun situation. The new contract was made while the house was still in session, and we were not apprised of what was going on. I do not think that was candid. I am not, however, going to stir up that old sore now. It is not worth while.


James Layton Ralston: I must take issue with my hon. friend about the matter of frankness.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I find the Minister of National Defence never admits anything, and the Minister of National Defence for Air is much more candid. He tells us his difficulties, and we forgive him.


James Layton Ralston: Yes, yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And he gets away with it.


James Layton Ralston: But at the same time, I do not propose to plead guilty to this.


Richard Burpee Hanson: All right.


Agar Rodney Adamson: With respect to the training of specialists and tradesmen in the vocational schools, what steps are taken? I understand the vocational school in Toronto is now being used by the army. I do not believe that was brought out in the minister's statement.
I believe that in the long run he would find it in the interests of economy to get the railways to cooperate in some way in connection with the matter of troops going on leave. A great many suggestions have been made, and it is my belief that over a period of years the government would find it an economy.
One further point. Fire underwriters have said that the fire protection at Camp Borden is a model for all other military camps in Canada. I suggest that hon. members having camps in their districts should see the methods by which the huts at Camp Borden are protected from fire. There is a stand pipe in each hut, and a permanent hose connection. The underwriters' association have reported favourably on that method of fire protection.


James Layton Ralston: I understand my hon.
friend is referring to the trades school being set up in Hamilton.


Agar Rodney Adamson: And in Toronto.


James Layton Ralston: We are providing for the training of about 2,000 men. There will be a normal three months' course, and for certain trades that course will be lengthened, depending upon the degree of specialization required.


Agar Rodney Adamson: For the ordnance corps.


James Layton Ralston: Yes, for the ordnance corps particularly, and for the army service corps.


Agar Rodney Adamson: What are the methods of recruiting for that course?


James Layton Ralston: We are not recruiting for the course. Men are enlisted, and are then sent for training.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They are selected.


James Layton Ralston: We are not recruiting for the course. The men are recruiting into the army, and then taken there for training in their special trades.


Howard Charles Green: Did the Minister of Labour obtain figures showing the number of men and women who have taken or are now taking industrial training, dividing the information into the four classes of priority? Perhaps the minister could also tell us what arrangements have been made for training men in shipbuilding. Then the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services might tell us whether the government has in contemplation the training of merchant seamen. The Minister of Munitions and Supply announced the other day that Canada was to build her own merchant ships. Many losses have been suffered by the British merchant marine, and it may be only a matter of time until merchant seamen may be required from Canada.


Norman Alexander McLarty: We are doing some training of those who will be absorbed into the industry, but the industry itself is doing most of the necessary training and upgrading of its own employees. While we give basic training in the use of machines used in shipbuilding, the real training can be done only in the shipbuilding yards. I shall give the figures asked by my hon. friend as far as I have been able to obtain them, and there will be an opportunity later on to give them in a more complete form. The total number in the war emergency and youth training plans at the end of February was 11,423. Of that number, those in the industrial classes totalled 6,351.

War Appropriation Bill


Percy Chapman Black: Is that the number in training or those who have been trained?


Norman Alexander McLarty: The number in training on the last day of February. The hon. member for Vancouver South referred to the number of veterans of the last war and those who had been discharged in this war who were in training. The number in the industrial classes was 436. Perhaps I could give an indication of their ages, as follows:
16 to 19	years	
1820 to 29	years	
7630 to 39	years	
4240 to 49	years	
235Over 50 years	
65
According to the ages they would seem to be practically all veterans of the last war.


Howard Charles Green: How about those in the
second class, civilians over forty?


Norman Alexander McLarty: I have not the breakdown of civilians over forty. I have the figures of those in the war industrial classes only, as follows:
16 to 29 years-
Male	 1,535
Female	 121
20 to 29 years-
Male	 1,936
Female	   94
30 to 39 years-
Male	 579
Female	 13
40 to 49 years-
Male	 339
Female	 4
50 and over-
Male	 150
Female	 13


Howard Charles Green: Perhaps the Minister of
National Defence for Naval Affairs could answer my question with regard to the training of men for merchant ships?


Mr. MACDONALD (Kingston City):: This matter really does not come under the Department of National Defence for Naval Services; it belongs rather to the Department of Transport. I do not know of any plans having been made by the government for the training of men for merchant ships. The suggestion has been made that some attention should be given to the formation of manning pools in various parts of the country, so that merchant seamen may be allotted to those ships which may be short of crews.


Percy Chapman Black: Is there any restriction on the use of wooden ships with diesel engines? This is a matter of great concern to Nova Scotia. Many of these
ships can travel just as fast as steam transports.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I do not know that there is any restriction in the formal sense, but as far as convoy work is concerned I do not think anyone would think of using ships of wooden ship size. I doubt if anyone would think of a ship of less than 6,000, 7,000 or 10,000 tons, and with those sizes you are out of the wooden ship class. The opinion of naval men and of those engaged in merchant shipping is that for convoy work you cannot have a great number of small ships because they are as much trouble as a large ship.


Percy Chapman Black: The controlling factor would be speed rather than size, would it not?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: They are slow ships, generally speaking.


Clarence Gillis: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar). I notice that there is an item of $147,000 under this department to provide for the detention of alien seamen who refuse to perform their regular duties in Canada. There are rumours to the effect that in some parts of Canada the reason for this refusal is the fact that the government has offered them lower rates of wages than are paid to Canadian seamen. Last summer there were some 200 French seamen off four or five French boats which had been brought into Sydney from the banks and tied up in the harbour. These men were roaming around apparently without any supervision or means of livelihood, and most of them could not speak the language of the country. Was anything done for this particular group of men? In just what way .is this $147,000 to be spent?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: When my hon. friend says that the government offered them a lower wage than they have been receiving, that must be incorrect because the government does not operate any transatlantic steamship service, and the pay of merchant seamen is entirely a matter between the seamen and the shipping company which employs them.


Clarence Gillis: These men being detained by the government, the government would have something to say with respect to their employment.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: The government would have nothing to say with respect to their employment. They were detained, I presume, for some offence under the Canada Shipping Act. The government would have nothing to say as to the rate of wages because they are not government
War Appropriation Bill

employees in the same sense that men in the navy are. The government does not operate a merchant marine service across the Atlantic.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: If I might add a word to what my colleague has said, sometimes we find sailors deserting their ship when it reaches Canadian shores, and then they come under our immigration laws. We insist that they shall return to their ship, and if they do not they are taken into custody. These sailors are of many nationalities, and a great majority of them cannot be deported to their own country. Consequently they are detained in custody in Canada until they express a willingness to return to their vocation as sailors. This sum of money is to cover the necessary expenses incidental thereto.


Angus MacInnis: Can the minister give us the number of these men, their nationality and the names of the ships they deserted?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I cannot give that information now, but I could probably get a fairly accurate summary prepared.


Clarence Gillis: The sailors I spoke of did not desert their ships, but the ships were detained in Sydney harbour for some months. Perhaps they are still there. The 200 sailors were not detained but were moving about from place to place, living pretty much on the charity of anyone who would take them in.


Mr. KINLEY:: Didn't they sell their fish in Sydney?


Clarence Gillis: I do not know. My connection with them was to try to secure relief for them, and I was wondering how that group of men was taken care of. Their ships were detained and they were prohibited from taking employment anywhere.


James Arthur Ross: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The Ottawa Journal of March 17 last has an article headed "Teachers Offer to Take Census Free of Cost". It goes on to say:
The Canadian Federation of Teachers volunteered to take the census free of cost to the government, it was announced on Saturday by Miss Eleanor Anderson, president.
Miss Anderson was speaking at the annual meeting of the federation of women teachers for districts 12 and 13, in the Chateau Laurier. She said no reply to the offer of voluntary help had been received.
She thought most of the appointments had already been made and were likely to be political. Miss Anderson told the Journal that
25,000	teachers in Ontario alone were available for census work and would like to undertake it in June.
My question is, does the government consider it an essential part of the war effort to take the census at this time? And has the government refused the offer of the Canadian

Federation of Teachers, which would save the country approximately 83,000,000 at this time? We know that census commissioners have already been appointed on a patronage basis. Will the minister say on what basis the enumerators will be selected?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Just before my colleague answers, I want to enter a protest, Mr. Chairman, against this discussion going any further than is necessary at this time. There is an item in the main estimates covering the census and the discussion on the census should take place on that item, not on this clause. If we get into a discussion on that subject now, there is nothing to prevent us from giving the rest of the week to it if some of the members continue the practice of the last few weeks. If my colleague desires to answer to oblige the hon. member, and then the matter is let go at that, I have no objection, but I certainly would object to the committee entering upon a discussion of the census under this clause.


James Arthur Ross: That will be quite satisfactory to me. To take the census would cost a lot of money, and I thought, therefore, my question had a bearing when we are now voting this large sum for the war.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
On section 4-Loans authorized.
Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister has not in any way divided the amounts which may be raised by loan and by taxation. I know this is the exact wording that was used in last year's bill, but I think some restriction should be placed on the total amount that can be borrowed and on the amount to be raised by taxation. The whole $1,300,000,000 could be borrowed under this clause. It is too wide, and I want to enter a formal protest against that kind of procedure.


Major James William Coldwell: Before the clause
carries, I want to take this opportunity of doing something which was declared out of order when the resolution was before the house. ,


James Lorimer Ilsley: Will the hon. gentleman do me the favour of giving me a few minutes before eleven o'clock to present supplementary estimates to the house?


Major James William Coldwell: I shall be very glad to give way to the minister now because what I have to say would take until eleven o'clock.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Thank you.
Section stands.
Progress reported.

Army Canteens



FURTHER SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1940-41

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting supplementary estimates for the financial year ending March 31, 1941, was presented by Hon. J. L. Ilsley (Minister of Finance), read by Mr. Speaker to the house, and referred to the committee of supply.
On motion of Mr. Crerar, the house adjourned at 10.55 p.m.
Tuesday, March 25, 1941.