1941-03-14

Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of personal privilege affecting me as a member of parliament. On February 25 last, when the estimates of the Department of External Affairs were under discussion, in a speech expressing views concerning the Japanese in Canada differing from those expressed by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis), I made certain remarks which can be found at page 1020 of Hansard. In my remarks I pointed out that in my opinion the Japanese in Canada were an unassimilable race. Here are my exact words:
In answer to a question of mine it was admitted by Japanese that they owed allegiance first to Japan, and so long as every Japanese born here is registered in Japan -and is looked upon as a Japanese national he cannot be truly a Canadian. Hence my objection to -them as a class. They are not an assimilable race, and are different in their outlook from any other nationals in Canada.
This morning I received a copy of a newspaper called the New Canadian, published in Vancouver by the Japanese, in their own interests; and I am now going to read to the house an article which appeared in the issue of February 28, which contains a scurrilous personal attack upon both the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) and myself, which I do not intend to let go unchallenged. This is the statement:
Some rather caustic comments concerning Canadians of Japanese origin were bandied about in the House of Commons this week, in

War Expenditures Committee
a manner to suggest that several British Columbia members of the house are still unprincipled politicians, first, last and all the time.
Mr. A. W. Neill, the honourable member from Comox-Alberni, was once again the leading spirit in an attack upon the quality of our loyalty and our Canadianism. With due assistance from his companion in prejudice, Mr. Tom Reid from New Westminster, he sawed violently away at his favourite plank-one, by the way, that he has exploited to considerable advantage for many a year-"once a Jap, always a Jap."
With due deference to his prestige, his position and his fossilization, the editor of this weekly presumes to disagree. And with all respect to the honourable members, he publicly challenges Mr. Neill and Mr. Reid to an open debate to determine which proposition is the more valid:	"Once a Japanese, always a
Japanese," or "Once an oriental-baiting politician, always an oriental-baiting politician."
An agreement as to time, place or conditions may be deferred until the honourable members of the house have considered, with what means they have at their disposal, somewhat more pressing problems of Canadian unity and the Canadian war effort.
These statements are not only false; they are malicious, and I want to repudiate in the strongest possible terms this personal attack upon myself. At no time have I endeavoured to arouse hostile or racial feelings against the Japanese in British Columbia. It is true that I have endeavoured in this house to point out certain dangers which I believe exist in British Columbia or might exist if the franchise were granted the Japanese. I have also urged that control of our fisheries by the Japanese in British Columbia should not be permitted to continue. My statements, first that the Japanese are an unassimilable race and second that most if not all Japanese in this country, whether born in Canada or elsewhere, are registered in Japan as Japanese nationals, have never been refuted by anyone, not even the Japanese themselves.
Such a vilifying personal attack, Mr. Speaker, comes with poor grace from a race of people who have enjoyed, with the exception of the franchise, every phase of our Canadian social and economic life.



WAR EXPENDITURES


Mr. J. T. THORSON (Selkirk):: By leave of the house, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Bradette) that the first report of the special committee on war expenditures, presented to the house yesterday, be now concurred in.


Hon. R. B. HANSON (Leader of the Opposition):: I do not rise for the purpose of dissenting from this report. Mr. Speaker, but there is one feature of it with regard to
which I think some explanation should be given. I refer to the matter of printing. The report contains a recommendation that so many copies of the proceedings in English and so many copies in French be printed at the discretion of the committee, which is quite unusual. I should like some explanation from the chairman as to why the committee desires to retain this discretion rather than have the usual resolution put through-simply an order of the house that the proceedings be printed.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Mr. Speaker, the committee reserves to itself the right to determine from time to time whether its minutes and evidence shall be printed. It has been decided, until the committee determines otherwise, that the sessions of the committee shall be open sessions. If the committee should decide that in the interests of the nation its sittings shall be in camera, then the committee reserves to itself the right to determine whether the minutes and the evidence shall be printed. I suggest that that is a very proper reservation to make.


Mr. J. H. HARRIS (Danforth):: While
concurrence in this report was granted by hon. members of the committee, nevertheless I think it ought to be pointed out that the motion for concurrence was carried on division.
With regard to the matter of printing, we know that a clause was inserted in the report now before the house providing that that matter should be left to the discretion of the committee. But I should like to reiterate the position I took on a previous occasion when the resolution was being considered, and to suggest that so far as possible all meetings of the committee should be general meetings, that the evidence not printed should be kept to a minimum and the maximum printed. I say this for the following reasons. The report asks concurrence in the proposal that the committee be empowered to divide itself into subcommittees, which subcommittees. in common with the committee itself, shall have power to call and examine witnesses, and so on. But, without thought of anything of a political nature-I am satisfied that no one serving on the committee is thinking of it in that sense at all-I must point out that the composition of the committee is such that it consists of only four members from His Majesty's Loyal Opposition, one member from the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, and one from the Social Credit group. That leaves a committee on which there are eighteen members of the government party. In reply to an observation from the other side I will add "in charge of that committee." I hope, Mr. Speaker, that they realize they are in charge, and will not dominate the committee.

Royal Canadian Mounted Police
I hope they will leave their domination on the doorstep before they come in, and remember that while we are at war we are going to look at this matter from a big, broad point of view, to help the present situation.
But coming to the point I want to emphasize, those four members are anxious to study the problems which come before the committees-


An hon. MEMBER:: So are we.


Joseph Henry Harris: -in common with their fellows on the committees. Four members cannot sit on five committees; therefore I suggest that the main evidence be taken and the main portion of the work conducted by the general committee. In like manner a maximum of the evidence should be printed, for the added reason that all hon. members will want to know what is going on, and the only way they can know is by their reading of the printed record. And, more important than the membership of this house, Mr. Speaker, the people of Canada will want to know what is going on.
With all due respect to those who have cast reflections upon some of the members of the fourth estate who occupy seats up above us, they are perhaps even better fitted than we are to inspire public confidence and to remind Canada that we are at war. We look forward to the press doing a real job of encouraging our people in their war effort, and of reminding those in Canada who are not thinking about a war that there is a war on.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) if it is true that he, or one of his officials, has written to the provincial governments who have outstanding loans from the dominion government to ascertain whether they are in any position to reduce or to pay off such loans. I should also like the minister to tell the house what replies, if any, have been received. I base my inquiry on a press dispatch from Vancouver. British Columbia, which asserts that the premier of British Columbia has taken the attitude that his government is not obligated to repay loans granted for the purpose of providing relief for unemployment.


Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the best way to reply

to the question is to produce the correspondence which has passed between this government and one or perhaps more of the provincial governments. It is very difficult to summarize the correspondence.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What the minister has suggested would be satisfactory.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It would be difficult to summarize it in the way in which perhaps someone has attempted to summarize it in the newspaper article. If the leader of the opposition will place a resolution on the order paper, or permit this request to be regarded as a request for the tabling of the correspondence, I shall be prepared to table it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is
very satisfactory.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday of last week, March 5, the hon. member for North Battleford (Mrs. Nielsen) read a letter, or part of one, which she had received from James L. Hatton, of North Battleford. Subsequently the letter was laid on the table of the house. In it there were statements which cast rather damaging reflections on the Royal Canadian Mounted Police-


Richard Burpee Hanson: What about the latter part of it?


Ernest Lapointe: -and its work in that locality. In fairness to the force, and as the high repute of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is one of the most valuable assets in Canada, I wish to lay on the table of the house a statement dated March 10, 1941, signed by the same gentleman, which has been given to the inspector in charge of the mounted police in that part of Saskatchewan. The statement is countersigned by the inspector.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Read it.


Ernest Lapointe: I have no objection. It is as follows:
James L. Hatton, auctioneer, states as follows:
Inspector Spriggs has to-day shown me a copy of a letter which I wrote to Mrs. Dorise Nielsen, M.P., on the 25th of February, 1941. I recognize this letter as a true copy of the one which I wrote.
At paragraph (3) of this letter I stated that I had had a conversation with Sergeant Hill on the 22nd and that he had stated the following:
"The-

Trans-Canada Air Lines
I am sure the house will excuse me if I do not repeat the two following words-
-can't she see that the same law will put her behind the wires, whether she believes it or not, and believe me she'll be there before long if she keeps up the pace she's hitting for they'll frame up something somehow either under the 5th Column or agitation against the war effort or disloyalty.
She should remember she's not a lawyer and she may leave a loophole somewhere and if she ever does in she goes. I'd imagine she should be able to see that she can do a lot more good by having her freedom than in an internment camp for the duration. Of course if she wishes to become a martyr to the cause she can be one by being interned, but I fail to see what she can ever gain by that. First thing she knows she'll be down there keeping Houde of Montreal company."
The foregoing statement in quotation marks embodies the full contents of what I had personally in my own mind and unfortunately, I quoted it as having been made by Sergeant Hill, believing it would have more weight and make a greater impression than it would have made on Mrs. Nielsen had I been expressing my own thoughts. The most important feature of the whole letter was to make her realize the seriousness of the attitude she is now taking towards the defence of Canada regulations during the war. This letter was absolutely a confidential letter and has been exposed to the public without the consent of the writer who had no intention in his mind of being disloyal or causing friction anywhere at any time other than between Mrs. Nielsen and himself. I deeply regret that my confidence has been betrayed, at a time when I thought I was giving confidential advice as to her better conduct in the future.
The actual conversation which took place between myself and Sergeant Hill on the 22nd of February, last, was dealing with newspaper articles in which Mrs. Nielsen had been reported as having taken up the part of persons who had been interned. Sergeant Hill was pointing out to me the impossibility of trial by jury in these cases, he -said that such procedure would be applicable in peace time but not in war. However he did not make any definite statement such as I have embodied above in quotation marks. I personally considered Mrs. Nielsen to be going too close to the border line and taking too much of a chance of overstepping or making some statement under which she might be charged as a fifth columnist or as an agitator or even for disloyalty.
As a result of my conversation I thought this matter over very carefully for a couple of days and decided that if I could make Mrs. Nielsen think that these things came from some one in authority she might take them more seriously and perhaps change her attitude as a result, and nut her support back of something that would be of vast importance towards the winning of the war or the relieving of distress where it was needed.
This statement has been given voluntarily by me without any pressure having been brought to bear from any quarter, and it is still my opinion that Mrs. Nielsen should change her attitude towards the war and the defence of Canada regulations.
J. L. Hatton.
Witness:
F. E. Spriggs,
Inspector.



REPORT AS TO QUESTIONING AND INVESTIGATION OP TWO JOURNALISTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Burpee Hanson: I should like to direct the
attention of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) to an article in this week's Saturday Night, which just by chance relates to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and their activities, for which body I have the greatest respect. This article purports to have been written in reply to certain statements made in this house by the minister on March 4. In the article it is categorically stated that two journalists, whose loyalty is unquestioned, namely Miss Judith Robinson and Mr. Oakley Dalgleish, have been questioned and investigated by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. It is suggested in the article that the purpose of this questioning and investigation was to intimidate these journalists who have been critical of this government's war effort. The freedom of the press is a matter of such vital importance that I believe this house is entitled to a full and complete explanation from the minister.


Ernest Lapointe: I have not read the article in question and I have no knowledge of what my hon. friend alleges has happened. However, I shall secure the information.



TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES MONTREAL-MONCTON-HALIFAX MAIL SERVICE- HALIFAX ON MAIN TRANSCONTINENTAL AIR ROUTE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. B. ISNOR (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to direct a question to the Postmaster General. In view of the important part that the port of Halifax is playing in Canada's war effort, may we hope at an early date for an improvement in the air mail service out of Halifax?


Hon. W. P. MULOCK (Postmaster General) :: The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Isnor) was kind enough to give me notice of his intention to ask this question. I would advise him that with the concurrence of the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) I have pleasure in stating that the Trans-Canada air mail service will be extended on or about April 15 from the former eastern terminal at Moncton, New Brunswick, to Halifax, and that the frequency of service between Montreal, Moncton and Halifax will be increased to two round trips daily including Sunday. This will furnish a direct air mail service between Halifax and Vancouver, and by eliminating the necessity of a transfer of
Trans-Canada Air Lines

mails and passengers at Moncton will further reduce the elapsed time necessary to fly between the Atlantic and Pacific shores of this dominion. The inclusion of Halifax on the main transcontinental air route is the logical outgrowth, not only of the continually increasing volume of air mail destined for and originating in Halifax, but also of the progressive policy of the Post Office Department in furnishing Canadians the best possible air mail service, an air mail service second to none.


Mr. MacDONALD (Halifax):: May I
inquire as to the type of equipment that will be used in carrying out this extended air service?
Hon. ANGUS L. MacDONALD (for the Minister of Transport): May I say that it is proposed to put on the route from Moncton to Halifax the regular type of plane used in other parts of the Trans^Canada service; that is, Lockheed planes, each with ten seats. The Postmaster General has already stated that there will be two planes a day in to and out of Halifax. I might add that the exact date when this service will commence is not known at the moment to the officials of the Department of Transport because there are stall certain works to be performed on the air field near Halifax, but there is every indication that the estimate given by the Postmaster General will prove correct. I think that before the end of the month of April this service will be in operation.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is it the intention that the regular Trans-Canada air liners shall continue to have their terminus at Moncton, or will they proceed to Halifax? Will there be what is known as a taxi service between Moncton and Halifax?


Mr. MacDONALD (Kingston City):: I am not able to answer that question definitely. The objection hitherto from the point of view of Halifax has been that planes running from Moncton to Halifax were only six-seater planes and consequently there was a good deal of congestion. Sometimes as many as twenty to twenty-five passengers might want to take the plane, and with the six-seater plane making only one or two flights a day a number of passengers were unable to get accommodation.
The great desire of the people down there was not that Halifax should be the terminal but that some arrangement should be made whereby the congestion at Moncton might cease and passengers from Montreal and points west be assured of accommodation.



ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. C. G. POWER (Minister of National Defence for Air):: Mr. Speaker, in view of
the recent series of unfortunate flying accidents, I think it is advisable to make a statement to this house. The following particulars are available concerning the three fatal accidents which occurred yesterday at No. 8, Service Flying Training School, Moncton; No. 4 Service Flying Training School, Saskatoon and No. 31 Air Navigation School, Port Albert, in which eleven personnel were fatally injured, two seriously injured and one uninjured and six Anson aircraft were destroyed.
Moncton. Two aircraft on a normal formation flight practice interlocked at 2,000 feet. In one aircraft with a crew of three on board, two pilots were unable to abandon the aircraft and crashed with it, killing one and seriously injuring the other whilst the third pupil pilot abandoned by parachute and landed safely. The other aircraft broke away after collision and fell straight down killing the only pilot on board.
Port Albert. Two Anson aircraft took off at a fifteen minute interval on separate exercises approximately in the same direction. The weather was clear everywhere. They came into collision, and it appears one knocked the tail off the other and both aircraft crashed out of control. The aircraft w'ere flown by experienced staff pilots. Seven of the occupants of the two Ansons were killed and the wireless operator, the only one to survive, was seriously injured. From evidence at hand it is considered that they may have been blinded by the sun on a turn. Why they were at the same place and height is unknown.
Saskatoon. Two Anson aircraft were on a normal formation flight. One overtook the other and collided. Both aircraft disintegrated in mid-air at 3,000 feet, killing both pilots. All the above accidents were on normal routine training flights. No evidence of mechanical failure is considered likely.
Accidents during 1940. The following accidents occurred during the first year of operation of the British commonwealth air training plan:
Fatal-25.
Tniured-33.
Total-267.
Hours flown-233,056.
Total accident rate-1-10 per thousand hours.
Fatal accident rate-0-11 per thousand hours.
Only 32 schools were in operation during this period, that is from April 1 to December

Air Force-Flying Accidents
31, but the 233,056 hours flown indicates the intensive training which was canned out. During this period the accident rate per 1,000 hours flown was:
Fatal accidents-0-11 per thousand hours.
Injured accidents-0-14 per thousand hours.
Uninjured accidents-O'94 per thousand hours.
Total accidents-1-19 per thousand hours.
Out of the total of 267 accidents which occurred during 1940, the major number was caused through normal errors of pupils during flying training, such as (a) not being able to correct a swing on landing; (b) carelessness in taxi-ing; (c) faulty manipulation of ancillary controls. Nine accidents occurred through collision in the air, which in most cases can be attributed to either bad weather or lack of vigilance by the aircraft crews.
No aircraft of any particular type used in training has revealed itself to be more prone to accidents than any other type, and in comparison with the flying hours carried out, the rate of accidents per hours flown was found to be not abnormal.
Accidents have increased during the first month of 1941, that is in January, as follows: total serious and minor accidents, 163 (18 deaths); flying hours carried out, 99,460; accident rate, 1-6 per 1,000 hours.
The flying time of 99,460 hours during the one month of January 1941 is very nearly 50 per cent of the total flying carried out during 1940 and the accident rate of 1-6 compares with the 1-19 of 1940.
I have not worked out the fatal accident rate for the month of January.
With respect to the action taken for the prevention of accidents:
1.	Air regulations are promulgated by the Royal Canadian Air Force to cover regulations which affect all schools throughout the service and flying orders are promulgated by each station for local regulations affecting their own locality only. One copy of air regulations is issued to each qualified pilot and one to each two pupils. These regulations cover such things as: minimum altitude at which aerobatics are carried out, the operation of aircraft on cross country flights, forced landings, restrictions imposed on various types of aircraft, low flying, et cetera.
2.	Courts of inquiry. Courts of inquiry are held on all accidents of a serious nature, the courts being composed of qualified officers who thoroughly investigate all circumstances surrounding the accident. The court makes findings and recommendations to prevent a recurrence. The findings and recommendations
of the court of inquiry are fully considered by command headquarters and in turn by Royal Canadian Air Force headquarters who take the appropriate action on the recommendations and findings.
3.	Analysis of flying accidents. Each command is required to make a summary analysis of each accident quarterly. This quarterly analysis of accidents is circulated within the command and all pilots must initial as having read and understood.
4.	Syllabus of flying instruction. Pupils are given individual instruction in the air by their flying instructor in aerobatics and spinning, to enable them to be fully conversant with the methods of recovering from any unusual altitude which they may inadvertently get into. They are also given instruction in low flying which is limited to dual only, and the importance of keeping a continuous lookout in the air.
5.	Syllabus of ground instruction. Syllabus of instruction at flying training schools require the chief instructor to give lectures based upon the analysis of flying accidents to all pupils under training. The chief instructor gives details of the causes of these accidents and explains in detail to the pupils steps which they should take to guard themselves against being involved in any accident.
6.	Posters. All flying training schools are supplied with a number of posters to bring home forcibly to the pilots the serious effects which result from disregard of air regulations, which have been brought into effect as the result of many years' experience. New posters are in the course of production.
7.	All possible steps are taken to prevent accidents, both in the air and on the ground, but in spite of these precautions accidents still occur. A large proportion of them are due to the human element for which it is impossible to legislate.
May I add that repetition of such accidents is far from making us callous. Indeed we view with the utmost anxiety the great loss of life involved in these accidents, and we shall continue by every means in our power to try to protect these young men not only against unforeseen occurrences but in many cases against their own carelessness.


Mr. JACKMAN:: May I ask the minister whether the statement he has just made with reference to flying hours refers to plane hours or passenger hours? Was he speaking of how many hours the planes had flown, or of how many hours the passengers and pilots had flown?
Air Force-Flying Accidents


Charles Gavan Power: I take it to be the plane hours. I would not assume that any one of our pilots had flown 200,000 hours.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: No, not one pilot.


Charles Gavan Power: May I take advantage of this question to place on Hansard a comparison with the training figures of the Royal Air Force in Great Britain? During the months of July and August, 1940, which are regarded as good flying months, there were 66 deaths in the Royal Air Force during 293,700 hours of flying. In the same two months, although conditions are not comparable, in the Royal Canadian Air Force there were 34,298 hours of flying, with no deaths. But an almost comparable figure with 66 deaths in 293,000 flying hours is 25 deaths in Canada in 233,056 hours.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I do not believe that the minister quite understood what I was driving at. A plane which is up for an hour with five men in it represents an equivalent of five passenger hours as against one hour of flying time for the plane. I wish to be certain as to what the minister intended. It makes a very great difference in the percentages.


Charles Gavan Power: I take it that that is actual hours during which the aircraft was in the air.



REPORTED TRANSFER OF WESTERN COMMAND HEADQUARTERS FROM REGINA TO CALGART

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: May I ask the Minister of National Defence for Air in consequence of a report I have received through the mail to the effect that the western command of the Royal Canadian Air Force now located in the city of Regina is about to be transferred to the city of Calgary, whether such a decision has been arrived at, and if so-


Charles Gavan Power: The answer is no, so that my hon. friend need not ask any more.



NATIONAL REVENUE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. H. A. BRUCE (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance with regard to dominion income tax exemptions? In the case of the hosts to all guest children in Canada, will exemption be granted on account of these children whether they are govemment-spon-

sored or not? May I remind the minister of his promise, when this matter was under discussion at the last session of the house, to take it into consideration?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is just as familiar with the provisions of the act as I am. He is aware that the act stands as it was passed at the last session. If his inquiry is directed to the question whether there is to be a change in that respect in this budget, it is an inquiry which it would be most improper for me to answer.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: My purpose was to bring it to the minister's attention anyway.



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. H. BENCE (Saskatoon City):: Can the Minister of Labour give me any further reply to the question I asked on Monday last as to whether the government had under consideration assisting by way of either grant or loan those provinces which have indicated that they are unable to provide sufficient funds for their relief requirements?


Hon. N. A. McLARTY (Minister of Labour):: Yes, I can, Mr. Speaker. So far
as the Department of Labour is concerned I made inquiries and was advised that that department had received no such request.


Alfred Henry Bence: I wonder if the Minister of Finance could state whether any such representations as I have mentioned have been made to his department.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I will get the information for the hon. gentleman.



ST. PATRICK'S DAY SUGGESTED ADJOURNMENT AT 6 O'CLOCK ON MONDAY, MARCH 17

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ROBERT FAIR (Battle River):: On Monday next, Irishmen and their friends throughout the world will celebrate St. Patrick's day. May I ask the Prime Minister whether the government has considered the adjournment of the house at six o'clock so that hon. members and their friends may celebrate in a proper manner?

War Appropriation Bill


Mr. MacNICOL:: The answer is, no.


Robert Fair: May I ask the Prime Minister if he will answer my question, or at least take it under consideration?


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I did not catch my hon. friend's question. What I gathered was, would I give an undertaking that the house would not sit on St. Patrick's day.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No-in the evening.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well, it would depend upon the condition of the house on that day.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.



CANADIAN FORCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Alexander Bruce: I desire to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the statement made last night by Major Tisdall, nutrition expert and adviser on nutrition to the Department of National Defence, as to the necessity of providing vitamin B-l in flour as a means of preserving vitality, will the minister take the necessary steps to see: (1) that this type of bread only is supplied to our fighting forces, and (2) that only flour containing this vitamin is exported to Britain during the war?


Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) :: I listened to the address last evening of Major Tisdall and also the address which followed, delivered by Mr. Newman, of the cereals branch of the Department of Agriculture. The information I gathered from the two addresses is that the result of investigations in connection with the elimination of vitamin B-l from wheat through the present milling methods is to the effect that that vitamin is eliminated by present milling methods. But the information which has so far been gathered with regard to new methods of milling in order to produce the type of flour which would contain vitamin B-l is still in the experimental stages, and I do not think it will be possible at the moment to carry out either of the suggestions which are made in the hon. member's question.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I was under the impression after reading the newspaper report that these mills could preserve vitamin B-l.


James Garfield Gardiner: I might say that it is possible, but it requires a change in the present milling methods.



TRANSPORT COMMISSION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. E. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: The other day I asked a question of the then acting Minister of Transport with regard to the discontinuance of the railway and the removal of the tracks between Beiseker and Langdon, Alberta, and I would like now to direct this question to the Minister of Agriculture.
In view of the decision rendered by the board of transport commissioners to tear up that track, and considering that there is going to be a great shortage of storage space for grain, will the Minister of Agriculture do something, if necessary under the War Measures Act, to see that that road is continued and those elevators are kept open for storage?


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid the question has been directed to the wrong minister. The control or administration of anything having to do with elevators comes under the Department of Trade and Commerce.


Charles Edward Johnston: Well, then, may I direct it to the proper minister, the Minister of Trade and Commerce?
Hon, J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce): I will take the matter under consideration.


Charles Edward Johnston: I understand that, if something is not done right away, this service will disappear, so that immediate consideration should be given to the matter.



WAR APPROPRIATION BILL


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, March 13, consideration in committee of a resolution to provide sums not exceeding §1,300,000,000 for the year ending March 31, 1942, for the carrying out of measures consequent upon the existence of a state of war.-Mr. ILsley- Mr. Fournier (Hull) in the chair.
War Appropriation Bill
Mr. HAZEN:: Just prior to adjournment last evening I was speaking of the importance of making the best use of our available tonnage. I had pointed out that, owing to insufficient harbour facilities, there had been a serious congestion of shipping at the port of Saint John this winter, and that this was delaying our war effort. I had pointed out, further, that the national harbours board held a meeting in January in the city of Saint John when this problem was considered. I was about to say, when the house adjourned, that I had read in the press recently that the government proposes, in order to assist in relieving this congestion, to build a timber wharf, a trestle wharf I believe it is to be, about nine hundred feet long, this wharf to be ready when the winter port opens next autumn. That is a step in the right direction; it will improve the situation, but unfortunately it will not, in my opinion, fully meet the need. The representations made by the city of Saint John to the national harbours board should be carried out. I should like the Minister of Munitions and Supply or the government to tell us just what steps they have in mind to improve the situation at the port.
At the port of Saint John we have the wharves; we have the longshoremen and we have the railway connection. I understand that last summer some ports in the country were congested, but the port of Saint John was more or less vacant during the greater part of the summer. In order to prevent congestion in other ports in Canada and to facilitate the dispatch of cargoes of war materials and supplies overseas, I urge the government to consider the advisability of using the port of Saint John to a greater extent during the coming summer.
In conclusion, I would again urge the government to take a broad and statesmanlike view of the manner in which our war expenditures for manufacturing plants are to be made, and to take advantage of the opportunity that I believe is now presented to it of implementing, to some degree at least, the Rowell-Sirois report by improving the financial and economic position of the maritimes through the establishment this year in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia of war industries which will have a possibility of surviving as peace time industries after victory has been achieved. Out of the amount of 8307,000,000 that is being advanced to build industrial plants in this country, the very small sum of $182,526 has been spent in New Brunswick. This is not good enough.


Mr. GREEN:: In connection with the
statement which was made to the committee earlier in the week by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston), I think it would be well if either he or the Minister of National War Services (Mr. Gardiner) would give us a more detailed explanation with regard to the calling up of young Canadians for training under the National Resources Mobilization Act, and also with regard to the whole compulsory training scheme.
There is much doubt, much uncertainty, and I think much bewilderment in the minds of the Canadian people about the present method of calling up our young Canadians and about the compulsory training scheme. The time has come when the ministry should tell the committee and the people the purpose of this compulsory training. Let us know the aim of the government in connection with this whole scheme. For example, is it to give all our man-power a short period of training, or is it to train men for the reserve army, or is it to obtain recruits for the active army, or is it for some other purpose? My point is that the government should make some clear-cut statement as to the purpose so that the Canadian people will know. There are thousands and thousands of these young men who are vitally interested, and more thousands of their relatives who are also interested, and there is great general interest across the country in the purpose of the scheme.
Last summer, when the blitzkrieg struck and France was falling the Canadian parliament enacted the National Resources Mobilization Act; a few weeks after its enactment we were told, if I remember correctly- and if I am wrong in any of my points I would ask to be corrected by one of the ministers as I go along-that the purpose of the compulsory training was to give all the man-power in Canada preliminary military training. I think we were told that about
300,000	Canadians ranging in age from twenty-one to forty-five years would be given training for a period of thirty days. I also understood that another purpose was to provide a force which could be used for the defence of Canada. There were to be practically no exemptions from this training with the exception of the Doukhobors, the Men-nonites and perhaps one or two other classes.
When the house met in November Canada had had two or three months' experience with the plan, and I think it will be admitted

War Appropriation Bill
that it had then developed that there was no real tie-up with the fighting forces. For example, all the young men who received the training were posted to reserve army units, but merely by having their names included on the roster, in other words, the names were on the rolls, but the young men were not actually taking part in the work of the reserve army unit to which they were attached. Further, that reserve army unit could not recruit them into its ranks if it wanted to. I believe that until some time in January the reserve units were not allowed even to recruit the young men who had been posted to them.
Further there was no chance, or very little, given to these young men to join the active army; recruiting was not open; no facilities were provided for them to get into the active army if they wished to do so. I understand that they were asked whether they were willing to serve in the active army, but that was as far as it went. I believe, further, that the navy and the air force took steps to go into the camps, or set up recruiting stations near the camps, and did their best to persuade the young men to join their respective forces. The active army, however, refused to do that; it made no attempt whatever to get these young men into the ranks. Many of these young men who took the month's training went back into civil life.
The training was, of course, very short, and I think the house was unanimous in the belief that, to be effective, the training should be extended. In November, the Minister of National Defence announced that the period of training would probably be extended to four months, and that is now to be done.
But the position is far from clear. The government has decided that twenty-one year old men are to be called up, and I understand that the exemptions are to be wider than when the men were being called for the thirty days' training.
The present scheme is not entirely fair to these young men of twenty-one. During the period between the adjournment of the house in December and the reopening of the session in February, I heard many expressions of opinion to that effect. I think these young men feel they are being picked on. They find difficulty when they apply for work. Prospective employers ask their age; and when they find that the men will soon be twenty-one, the answer is, "Well, we don't want you. You are going to be twenty-one in a short time and you will be taken away from the job, so we will not take you on." Many of these young men are sons of men who served in the last war. It just so happens that setting this age at twenty-one means that 14873-98
a great many of the sons of men who served in the last war are included. The young men feel that if the call should come for men to fight, they, having been trained, will be chosen. I believe they are just as willing to serve as anyone else, but there is the feeling that the burden should be spread over a larger number of shoulders.
Will the Minister of National Defence or the Minister of National War Services explain whether the intention is that, after these young men have had their training, they should go back into civil life, or is it intended that they should go into the forces? I ask the ministem to inform us now as to the aim of the government in this regard. If the aim is to obtain as many recruits as possible for the active fighting forces, then I suggest that the government should go all-out to persuade these young men to enlist in the active army. Give them every possible facility for getting into that force. If it is also desired to build up an army for the defence of Canada, it does seem to me that other steps should be taken than those in contemplation at the present time. If the plan is to build up an army' for the defence of Canada, why not put these men into the active army, for service in Canada only, after they are trained? Under the terms of the National Resources Mobilization Act they can be called only to serve in Canada. Why should they not be put into the active army on that basis? We need many trained men to defend our shores should such defence be necessary, and it is far better to have too many than too few. At the present time I doubt whether we have a sufficient number of trained men in Canada for our defence, should an attempt be made at invasion.


Mr. RALSTON:: Does my hon. friend mean an attempted invasion of Canada?


Howard Charles Green: Yes. If some step such
as I suggest is taken; if these men are put into the active army-I do not suggest that this should apply to the men now under call but rather it should apply to those who attend future camps-I think the government should choose from a much wider age group, and that such choice should be made by lot, by much the same method as is being followed in the United States at present. I believe also that much wider exemptions should be granted. Where men are needed in industry; where men are needed at home, they should be exempted from service. The main thing is that the government should announce whatever policy it has, now, or just as quickly as possible, in order that the people of Canada may see the picture and may know at what we are aiming. If

War Appropriation Bill

that is done, the government will get far more understanding and far greater support across the country than it is getting at the present time.


James Garfield Gardiner: Most of the questions raised by the hon. gentleman have to do with the Department of National Defence, and, I am sure, will be dealt with by my colleague, but perhaps I might answer that part having to do with the Department of National War Services.
We are asked to call out the necessary number of men to make up the camps. It has been estimated that the twenty-one year old group, together with those who were called for the thirty-day training but had their training postponed for one reason or another, will be sufficient to cover at least a considerable part of the present year. For that reason the first call has gone out for approximately six thousand men of the twenty-one year old group; that is, those who have become twenty-one since July 1 last and those who were twenty-one before last July but who did not train in any camp during the previous year.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is, those whose training was postponed?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. As has been indicated, the first call has been issued to these men, who will report to a medical practitioner for examination, just as the men did under the thirty-day plan.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Before the minister goes on to deal with the medical examination, would he be good enough to enlighten me with respect to one point. Which department determines the category to be called? Is it his department or the Department of National Defence? That is to say, who determines whether only the men of twenty-one will be called? Is that the prerogative of his department or of the Department of National Defence?


James Garfield Gardiner: The decision to call those of twenty-one years of age was based largely upon an examination of the records by both departments in order to obtain the number required to fill the camps that are being set up by National Defence, starting with those twenty-one years of age for the first call. Then the medical examiner determines whether the man is in a category which would require him to report to the camp. The individual has then the right to apply, not for exemption but for postponement, to the board at the centre of the military district, and, if necessary, the board may require the individual to appear in person to be examined in connection with his suggestion that his training should be postponed.
TMr. Green.]
I do not know that it is quite correct to say that the groups whose training is to be postponed have been enlarged. It is just possible that reasons for postponement will be accepted now that were not accepted for the shorter course. At the moment I would not care to go further than that. Two or three days ago, I think, I said that the regulations would be laid on the table before the end of this week. The only reason why they have not been laid on the table is that they were referred to the Department of Justice, which just finished looking over them to-day. As a result, some changes in phraseology have to be made, but I am hopeful that we shall have them by Monday or, at the latest, Tuesday of next week. Therefore, at the moment I should prefer not to go into detail with regard to certain matters as to which I have not seen the final phraseology. Generally speaking, however, the postponements will be for reasons similar to those under the thirty-day training, giving consideration to the fact that persons will have to be away from home or from places of business for four months instead of thirty days. So far as agriculturists are concerned, or those who have seasonal employment, some concessions will be taken into consideration. For example, agriculturists will not be compelled to go to camp under the first call, or, I would say, under the second call; but they will be expected to go for the third four months' period, which will be in the winter months of next year.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What is going to be done in the case of the dairy farmer?


James Garfield Gardiner: A choice will be given. Of course it is not compulsory that one who is in one of the seasonal employments should remain out of camp in the summer months. If he desires to go to camp in the summer, in order to avoid having to go in the winter months,' he will be permitted to do so. I should imagine there would be some divisions in families as to whether they prefer certain groups to come at one time or at another, although it is not likely there would be more than one in the twenty-one year old group. In that group, however, there might be a hired man as well as a member of the family.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have in mind an actual case which came to my attention. This was the case of a widow with only one son, who was twenty-one years old and had been called. As it happens, he was milking twenty-one cows. She and her son came to my office during the recess, and appeared to be greatly perturbed over the situation. I told her what I thought was the

War Appropriation Bill
position. I said that I believed he could get a postponement, but that sooner or later he would have to go, and that the mother would have to hire somebody to take his place. She then pointed out the difficulty of securing help on the farm, on account of the fact that so much labour was being attracted by the work going on at that season of the year in various communities in the province.
My point is that in a case like that there ought to be some provision for selectivity, and that that boy ought not to be called at all. I advised the young man, however, that I thought the four-months' period of training was approaching, and that he might be wise to go to camp. I believe he did so. I do not know whether the mother milked the cows, or what happened. Possibly this was an extreme case, but certainly it was one where the boy should not have been called, under present circumstances. That is one of the weaknesses of the scheme. There is no provision for selectivity, and I am reminded by my colleagues that the case I have described could be duplicated in many instances throughout the length and breadth of the land. The minister would not be doing any violence to the condition he has set up if that sort of thing were considered. Having regard to the number of twenty-one year old men available, I am satisfied that that young man ought not to be called, or, in any event, at least not until later.


James Garfield Gardiner: Before the last call was made under the thirty-day plan, and at a time when the four-months' plan was under consideration, a letter went out signed by myself as Minister of National War Services, after consultation with the government, to the effect that in cases such as the one now described the board could give special consideration for the last thirty-day period, in view of the fact that the whole plan might be changed, in which event we would probably be giving consideration to regulations of a different kind. I imagine a number of cases were dealt with during the last period on that basis.
Under the new regulations, while it has not been provided that anyone can be exempted, it is set out that consideration should be given in cases of hardship. As I understand it, there is a hardship clause in the British conscription measure.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And in the United States.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, and in the United States. We have attempted to write the same principle into our regulations, despite the fact that our law is not a conscription law, in the sense that the others are. We are, however, having them appear before the 14873-98J
board. That is, the individual must make application before the board, and indicate his desire that special consideration be given his case. Having made that application, while he would not be exempted his case would be postponed, and he would be subject to call from time to time, or as conditions might change. In that event he would probably be called up, or from time to time he would be asked whether his condition had changed. What happened would depend somewhat upon the circumstances surrounding any particular case.
So far as groups are concerned, it is the present intention that industrialists should make application in a manner somewhat similar to that in which they applied under the thirty-day plan, if they desire to have a group in their plant considered for postponement, either because they are keymen or because they are taking part in an industry where it is essential that, for the time being, the staff ought not to be disturbed. Again, in this instance postponements would be allowed.
But postponements under the present regulations are not limited to twelve months; they can be made for a longer period. The thirty-day plan postponements were all confined to the twelve-months period.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Within
twelve months.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes; within twelve
months they were called again. But postponements made under the present regulations extend beyond that.
These men report to camps, and after they have reported and have passed medical examinations in the camps they are entirely in charge of the Department of National Defence.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: As I understand it, since the training has been extended to a four-months period, under the present basis of utilizing man-power there will be a sufficiency of young men attaining the age of twenty-one years, and the call will never go beyond the twenty-one year old class. Am I correct in my understanding?


Richard Burpee Hanson: That has been stated.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yes, in the press.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is not a sufficient number of young men of the twenty-one year old class-at least, I do not believe there is-when we take into consideration those whose participation will be postponed either on account of their connection with industry, or because of training they may be following
War Appropriation Bill

in universities, which may be considered of as much importance as other training, or for other reasons. Taking all matters into consideration, I would doubt that there would be enough young men in the twenty-one year old class to make up the 6,000 a month.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: For four
months.


James Garfield Gardiner: Six thousand are called' every month until we get to 24,000, and then
6.000	go in and 6,000 come out, which means that we call 72,000 over the year. I doubt very much if, in the result, there would be
72.000	available out of some 96,000 of that age group.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Is 96,000 the total number of the twenty-one year old
class?


James Garfield Gardiner: About 96,000 is the
number in the twenty-one year old class. We must consider the percentage turned down because of physical condition, others whose cases may be postponed because they are engaged in certain important industries, others who have joined the forces voluntarily, and who are of that age, and others who are taking training in some acknowledged military school. Therefore it is just possible that there may not be enough in the twenty-one year old class to carry right through the year.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: How many will become twenty-one years of age in each year?


James Garfield Gardiner: Approximately the same number that are in the year age group called up. There may be a few more or a few less, but it would be about 96,000.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: At the time the new programme was announced, it was stated in the press that enough men would be found in the twenty-one year old group, and that it would not be necessary at any time to go beyond that group. As a result of that press statement, there was a feeling in many quarters that some other basis for selecting these men ought to be found. It was considered that it was not fair always to insist that the twenty-one year old men must break into what they were doing and take their training, and that the men of twenty-two, twenty-three or twenty-four years should go scot-free for the duration of the war. It was contended that if there are sufficient young men in the twenty-one year old class to keep the training scheme in operation, then a hardship would be suffered by those in that age group, and that the result would be that no responsibility would be placed on other young men at other ages.

I suggest to the minister that if, as the programme progresses, he finds that only the twenty-one year old men are going to be called, and that the men in that class will be available in sufficient numbers to fill the requirements, the government ought to give consideration to working out some other basis of selection. It might be done by lottery, as it is done in the United States, or on some other basis. Otherwise only the twenty-one year old men in Canada will have training, and the other young men in other age groups will not be compelled to take that training.


James Garfield Gardiner: If the war were not going on year after year and a system of this kind were established, we could say that probably only the twenty-one year age class would be called up. If we kept calling out the twenty-one year age class and then sent them home after four months, in ten years every one between the ages of twenty-one and thirty would have received training. I do not, however, anticipate that this will be the condition. I may say that the announcement made to the press was not to the effect that the twenty-one year age group would be the only group called; it was to the effect that if there were sufficient men in the twenty-one year age class, that would be the only class called; if it were necessary to go beyond that class in order to obtain a sufficient number of men, that would be done. The twenty-one year age class was the only one mentioned, but I think it will be found that the wording was sufficiently broad to cover what I am saying.
Men are enlisting continuously, and it is just possible that if 25 per cent of the twenty-one year age group should enlist, there would not be enough men to fill the camps. They might enlist in the air force, the navy or somewhere else. As we go on with the war, it may become more and more necessary to take in the higher age groups in order to fill the camps if we are going to continue to have four months training. I should not like it to be understood that it is definitely decided that we are going to call for training only those in the twenty-one year age group. The intention is to start with that group and continue calling them as long as we need men for the camps.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Is it the
intention of the government to take a larger body of men? Are the facilities to be extended so that they can take more than 6,000 a month as time goes on?


Howard Charles Green: Is it the intention to train
72,000	men a year, or will there have to be deducted from that total those who are found to be unfit after having been called up?

War Appropriation Bill


James Garfield Gardiner: I would rather leave
those questions for the Minister of National Defence. As a matter of fact, our duty is to get the number of men asked for by the Department of National Defence. If they were to ask for more than the registration figures indicate we have, we would have to notify them, but so long as the request is within the number we have, we try to get the men for them.


Howard Charles Green: A minute ago the minister mentioned that there were some industrial training schemes which took men from under the National Resources Mobilization Act. What are those training schemes?


James Garfield Gardiner: The Minister of Labour has some schools which are operating to train men for certain lines of work. There may be a limited number of those training for industry who would be engaged in something that might be considered part of the war effort. It was military training schools I had in mind a moment ago.


Mr. GOLDING:: With further reference to the remarks of the leader of the opposition, I have had representations made to me in connection with cases which are similar to the one he quoted. I should like to give two illustrations. Just east of our town is a young man whose father is dead and who is working 150 acres all alone. He was called out for training, and I advised him to take the thirty-days training because there was a probability that it might be increased to four months. He had to hire someone to do the work of the farm. This boy is about twenty-four years of age and he put in his thirty days. Spring is now coming on; seeding will have to be taken care of, and then there will be the harvest later on. It seems to me that in a case like this it is just too bad to take this boy off the farm.
The other case I have in mind is that of a young man just north of our town. His father was in hospital for two or three months and has not been and will not be able to do anything because he has a severe case of diabetes. There are two boys, one twenty-one years of age and the other seventeen. They had to take the younger boy out of collegiate on account of a heart condition. The result was that there was only the one boy to work the farm. I took this ease up with the department here and with Mr. Martin, the divisional registrar, and I must say that the case received kind consideration.
These two cases are representative of many others throughout the country. In these days when farmers are having a difficult time, when they can hardly get any labour, it seems a
hardship that young men like these should be taken from the farms under the present trying circumstances. I am glad the leader of the opposition brought this matter to the attention of the committee, because I had intended to make representations when this question was up. Some provision should be.-made to look after cases of this kind.


Mr. SENN:: I am in hearty agreement with the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Golding), as well as with the representations which were made by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson). It seems to me that it would be a hardship for young men who are the only persons on farms to be taken at any time. There are large sections of Ontario where the work of the farm is just about as great in the winter as it is in the summer. This is true of dairying or any other type of farming where live stock is kept. The work of caring for live stock is increased in the winter when the stock must be kept in the stables. The minister should give serious consideration to providing complete exemption for these young men.
If they are taken away from the farm for any length of time, it will mean a serious loss in farm production. We have been told that farm production is necessary for the winning of the war, and I believe it is. The time is coming, and not far distant, when we shall need increased supplies of all kinds from the Canadian farmers. Again I ask the minister to give serious consideration to exempting all young men who are bona fide farmers and who are alone on farms.
While I am on my feet I should like to refer to the suggestion offered the other day by the hon. member for Hastings-Peterbor-ough (Mr. White), that it might be wise to set up boards of exemption to be headed by county judges. If a number of these boys are called up on any particular date, there is likely to be congestion before boards sitting in the military districts. The boys from my particular locality will have to apply to the board in Toronto, and undoubtedly there will be a large number asking, for exemption. If there is congestion, it will mean that the boys will have to wait for some time before their cases are heard. I cannot see why the county judge, who is impartial and should be fair, could not be vested with authority to say whether a postponement or an exemption should be granted. I leave this to the minister's discretion.


James Garfield Gardiner: Under the regulations as now drafted it is not necessary that a man should appear in person. He may make his request in writing. In all probability, if a man has a bona fide case and presents it in
War Appropriation Bill

writing, his training will be postponed for the one call. He may be asked to prove his position before the second or third month, but the first call would likely be postponed.


Mark Cecil Senn: It seems to me that a difficulty would arise there. There would still be congestion as each case would have to be considered on its merits. A boy might wait until the last day before he is to go to training camp in order to hear from the division where his case was being considered. He would not know whether to hire someone to take his place, if it was possible to hire anyone, and he might have to leave the next morning without having made provision to carry on the work of the farm.


Mr. BOUCHER:: I had a case in my office quite recently. The minister will remember that within eight days of the call a young man is supposed to apply for exemption if that is desired. This particular young man had sole charge of a small farm, with a small herd of cattle. He was called for service and he got exemption. There were eight days within which, if his exemption was not granted, he would have to make arrangements for someone else to operate the farm. The uncertainty causes a great deal of hardship where there is only one man to manage the farm. He may be the only son of a farmer. I think advance notice of at least a month should be given so that a young man, if he is not granted exemption, can make arrangements for having his farm looked after while he is undergoing military training. I would urge that there be a little more certainty in this regard so far as calling farmers' sons is concerned.


Mr. HOMUTH:: Are any of the exempted classes being called and used in other work than soldiering? I refer to the Mennonites, the Doukhobors and so on. Are they being called up and used in some war effort?


James Garfield Gardiner: Up to date there has been no call other than the military one. This question came up during the thirty-day training period. The Mennonites, for example, had asked that some means be found whereby they could perform a service to the state, which they asked the privilege of doing, but it was thought best to leave that matter until the question of a longer training period which was then being considered had been decided. Now that this question has been decided, there are provisions written into the regulations making possible the setting up of other methods of training and other methods of service which may be helpful in the prosecution of the war in which these persons may be engaged. I cannot give the details at the 
moment because the matter is being worked out with these people at the present time, but later on we shall probably have something to suggest in regard to it.
With regard to the period of eight days within which the young man will know whether his training is going to be postponed or not, after all there are only thirty or thirty-one days in a month and 6,000 calls are being made each month, so the month is pretty well divided up between the time of notice for medical examination, the time after medical examination and the time they are supposed to apply for postponement. Therefore I do not see how we could extend the time very much beyond the eight days and be able to carry on from month to month.
I would, however, say this, that as soon as the terms of the regulations are known, every individual has an opportunity at least to find out what they are, and these discussions here from time to time will perhaps enlighten them more or less with regard to what is expected. One does not need to wait until he is called in order to get full information with regard to the whole matter. A man can apply for postponement immediately after his medical examination, or even before medical examination. I do not think there is anything to prevent that. At all events, immediately after the medical examination they can send in their application indicating their position. That would speed up the time within which a reply could be received from the board. I do not, however, see how we could extend the time very much beyond what is allowed now.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Could notice not be sent out sixty days ahead?


James Garfield Gardiner: Everyone who is
approaching twenty-one years of age has his notice now that he is likely to be called at any time. We call first those who were twenty-one last July. The next group is those who were twenty-one last August. The next group is those who were twenty-one last September, and so on. Therefore every young man who reads the newspapers or the regulations knows when he is likely to be called.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Could a man
not get notice on April 1 that he was to report for training on June 1?


James Garfield Gardiner: No. The young men
who became twenty-one last July, and a sufficient number of those who became twenty-one last August to make up a total of 6,000 men, would get their notice to report on the 20th of March. The next group would begin

War Appropriation Bill
from there, going on through August, September and so forth, taking the different age groups.


Mr. BROOKS:: I should like to say just a
word about farmers' sons attending camp and the difficulties occasionally experienced. Out of some 2,200 men who went through my camp I had probably half a dozen to twenty cases which might be called serious ones. The trouble with most of them was that the men had not applied early enough for postponement of training. If they had applied for postponement as soon as they received their notice, it could probably have been arranged, but they left it until it was nearly time for them to report at the training centre and then it was too late for the board to arrange for substitutes to take their place. One department concerned has to supply a certain number of men for training and the other department has to train them. Therefore, when a man leaves his application for postponement to the very last minute, it is impossible for the board to notify other men to take their place and fill up the 750, or 1,000, or whatever may be the number required. I would suggest to the department that it might be well to send out their notices a little earlier and at the same time advise these men that if they wish to apply for postponement, they should apply immediately. In that way much of the difficulty would be obviated.
There are other cases that come up during training. The father, or a brother who has been left at home to look after the farm, may become sick and a request be made that the young man be released from the training camp and be sent home to look after the farm. That happens quite frequently. When the case is properly presented to the authorities, I can state that there is very little difficulty in having the man sent home. He is given credit for the time he has spent in training, and he will come back at some later date to complete his training.
I do not like to quote individual cases, but the most extreme one I had was that of a young man who had left his brother at home to look after the farm, with a housekeeper. His mother and father were dead, and the brother who was left at home had infantile paralysis. The housekeeper, who was not a young person, felt that she could not look after this invalid brother and the stock as well, and she left in the middle of winter. The chap with the infantile paralysis tried to look after seven head of cattle, some hogs and a couple of horses. I got word from a neighbour of his that this invalid man was dragging himself around on his hands, trying
to get water for the stock and looking after the pigs and cows, and he wanted to know if something could not be done to release the brother immediately. I took upon myself the responsibility of releasing the man and notified military headquarters at Saint John, and they approved what I had done. There is not as much difficulty, when these cases are taken up, as sometimes we might think there would be.


Mark Cecil Senn: I should like to ask the minister about one particular case I have in mind. He stated that the young men who were twenty-one last July or August are being called up in the first draft. He also stated that postponement will be allowed in certain cases where it is considered necessary. If those postponements go through the next two training periods, the man will be over twenty-one; he may be twenty-two or more before he is called up. What will happen in a case of that kind? Will he still be called after he reaches the aige of twenty-two?


James Garfield Gardiner: When once he is called, he is subject to call any time later. The postponement may be, in some instances for a definite time; in others, it may be with power to call him at any time. He may not be called for a year and a half if he is working in some particular industry, but he is always subject to call.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is not wise, I suppose, to generalize from isolated instances such as have been presented here to-day by myself or others. I wonder, however, whether the minister, in giving this matter consideration-and I know he and his officials must have given grave consideration to the principle upon which this draft is made- has definitely barred out the principle of selectivity. It seems to me that the door should not be barred to a change, having regard to the fact that the war effort, especially the industrial war effort, of the country is increasing in tempo all the time. I invite the minister and his advisers to give attention to incorporating in their regulations the adaptation of the principle of selectivity which obtains in other jurisdictions.
We have been dealing with isolated cases of farmers' sons, or where there is an only son, or where the son is head of the family, and so on. I suggest to the minister that some people should stay on the farm, and some people should stay in industry. Unless there is an invasion of Canada there are those who should definitely remain at their jobs, while others of a different category of age and so forth can much more easily be spared for the defence of the country and should take on this army training. I have thought that
War Appropriation Bill

the principle is too rigid, confined as it is to a particular class, and without any attention being paid to exceptions unless in cases where we are said to be under contract, if I may use that expression, with particular communities, communities of religious thought, or with conscientious objectors-and I include them in the same category. Would the minister say whether the principle of selectivity has been definitely abandoned? I think it is a fair method and it is followed in other jurisdictions.


James Garfield Gardiner: If by selectivity the
hon. member means the drawing of lots, or anything of that kind, as to what person should be called-


Richard Burpee Hanson: No; I am not speaking of that.


James Garfield Gardiner: I would say that we are not making use of it. I would not say that it is not being considered or not being thought of. The same thing might be said to be true if the suggestion is that, let us say, all agriculturists engaged in a certain way in farming should be exempt. In that sense we have not accepted the theory that selectivity should apply. To the extent, however, that a person's time of training might be postponed because he is engaged in a certain industry, particularly in a seasonal industry, or that the time of service might be postponed because he is at present engaged in something essential to the prosecution of the war, that is some manufacturing industry, to that extent there is selection. That is, instructions are, through the regulations, being given to the boards which are sitting that certain things are to be done which would result in a selection being made, leaving some persons working at industries which are regarded as important, and taking others for training, for the time being. In that sense the selective element enters into what is being done.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is
quite a limited sphere.


James Garfield Gardiner: I would say it is limited.


John George Diefenbaker: With regard to
choosing this number of 6,000 a month, will the choice be made in direct proportion to the population of the several provinces?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is made in proportion to the number of twenty-one year olds, or whatever class is being called, that the registration shows to be in that district; that is, in relation to the number desired by the Department of National Defence. The department ask us for so many men for a certain camp in a specified military district. We then

try to find the numbers there are in certain regions of that district, and divide up proportionately in those different areas.


John George Diefenbaker: I should like to
know something with respect to these exempt classes to which reference was made some little while ago. I noted that, when the minister replied, he referred only to the Mennonites and to the willingness which they had expressed to be of assistance in the war effort in other phases than those which are directly military. I noted, however, that he made no reference to the Doukhobors, and they constitute a problem in Saskatchewan, as well as further west, which to-day is causing considerable unrest. Have the Doukhobors made representations to the minister's department that they will not serve under any circumstances, regardless of the call which may be given to them, even though such service be connected only with the construction of roads and work of that kind?


James Garfield Gardiner: In making reference a few moments ago to the Mennonites, I did so because, before anyone, I believe, had made a suggestion that they should accept training, the Mennonites themselves intimated that they desired to have some sort of training provided for them. I believe they went so far as to say they were prepared to attend at camps and take training in first aid and ambulance work, indicating that they had no objection whatever to facing danger, that they were prepared to go into no-man's land or anywhere else and do a service for the country, provided they were not asked to kill. That is, they do not desire to take human life, or their belief is that under no circumstances should they take human life; but, short of that, they have no objections whatever to serving in any way the country desires them to serve, and they are willing to undergo any kind of training. They went even further than that; they said, "We are prepared to give free of charge to the state an equal term of employment." I believe they intimated, when we were using the thirty-day plan, that they were prepared to give two days for one, that is sixty days' labour to the state, in any work we liked to put them at, and that without any charge to the government. I mentioned the Mennonites because of the liberality, if I might use that expression, of the Mennonite people in making offers to do other things, since they object to military service itself.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Has that offer been accepted?


James Garfield Gardiner: We are trying to work out a plan. There is objection to having work
done gratis for the government at a time

War Appropriation Bill
when some people are unemployed, but possibly there is not an objection to using these men to get the camps ready and do other work of that kind which is needed in connection with the training itself, and we are trying now to work out plans in that direction.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Would you organize labour battalions and give them the same pay as the soldiers?


James Garfield Gardiner: They are not concerned about the pay. We probably would if we put them in, but they have not stipulated pay of any kind.
In dealing with the Doukhobors the problem is a little different; as far as I know, they did not come forward with an offer of that kind. Recently some inquiry has been made as to whether something might be done which would be satisfactory; whether the inquiry came first from the Doukhobors or began in our office I am not certain. There has, however, been correspondence between our office and the organization of Doukhobors along similar lines, that is, to find out what their attitude would be to service of that kind, and I am informed that a very considerable number of them are prepared to take part in similar training, or similar service. It is true there is a small proportion of the Doukhobor people, taking the numbers in western Canada as a whole, whom we shall probably find difficulty in getting to accede to any part of our regulations without some trouble. I do not know just what the final outcome will be, but at the moment we are negotiating in the hope that it will finally result in as nearly as possible one hundred per cent of both Menno-nites and Doukhobors being satisfied to take on some kind of training.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Are there any conscientious objectors in Canada apart from these groups that have been mentioned?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, but the number is comparatively small.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Are they being made use of?


James Garfield Gardiner: Not up to the moment, but they would be subject to the same kind of thing.


Howard Charles Green: What are the provisions for dealing with conscientious objectors?


James Garfield Gardiner: The regulations as
drafted now are on exactly the same terms as the British. We did have different regulations for a time, but we found in practice that they do not work satisfactorily except in the form the British now have them drafted; that is, if a person claims to be a conscientious objector and can pretty well establish the fact, that is accepted.


Mr. QUELCH:: When a boy is called up for a medical examination and is classed as C, would he be accepted? Can the minister state the basis of the classification?


James Garfield Gardiner: I assume it is a matter of health. There is no one called for training below Cl. Classes A, B and C are called up; we require them all in order to furnish the number necessary for the camp.


Victor Quelch: Exactly what state of health is indicated by class Cl; how bad would a man's health have to be in order to be classified as Cl? Would he have to be below normal in eyesight? Would a man who had to wear very strong glasses be called up, or would he be classified as Cl?


James Garfield Gardiner: I think I shall have to let some of the military men answer that question, either that or bring in the exact schedules on which the examinations are made. I am told that glasses are all right.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Glasses are not all right in the navy.


James Garfield Gardiner: I will place the exact schedules on the table.


An hon. MEMBER:: Mennonites and Doukhobors have been mentioned; in what class are the Hutterites?


James Garfield Gardiner: They are in a different group from the Doukhobors and Mennonites in that I do not think they have any legal rights to exemption in Canada, but they are conscientious objectors in the matter of military service, their beliefs being very much the same as those of the Mennonites and Doukhobors.


Thomas Reid: I realize the difficulty the minister has in connection with the Doukhobors and Mennonites, but I trust the government, in their desire for unity, will not lean too far back and cause more unrest among our own people, because I can tell him that the Doukhobors in British Columbia are the only group I know of that successfully defied the laws of this country, and got away with it. When a law is passed and regulations are put into effect, those regulations and that law should be enforced, irrespective of who is concerned, even if it causes a little fuss.


Mr. LEADER:: The statement of the minister regarding the attitude of the Mennonites should not pass without comment. Their offer to seek training in any line of military endeavour-except of course the necessity to kill-is deserving of commendation. They are willing to go to the front lines and serve as stretcher-bearers or in the medical corps, and for that they deserve credit, because

War Appropriation Bill

these people were admitted to Canada, I believe in 1873, under an agreed upon exemption from military service. We believe now that this was a mistake. I feel quite sure that the laws of Canada should demand of all her citizens that they be available for the defence of the country if the necessity arises. I feel confident that the younger generation of the Mennonites have the same idea and are willing to fulfil their obligations. We have quite a few Mennonites in my riding and quite a number of Hutterites, and I know a number of citizens of other races in my riding do object to seeing able-bodied men of this racial group who have come to Canada to make their home, staying at home and enjoying perhaps some increase of prosperity while other Canadians go and fight their battles. The very fact that the Mennonites have offered to do something in this war is a good omen and they should be encouraged to do more. I believe that the government should in future adopt the policy of not exempting any group from taking up the obligations that they owe to the state.
I was pleased to hear the minister say what he did for the sake of the Mennonites who reside in my constituency, and I wish to add my word of commendation that they have offered their services in this time of need.


Mr. McNEVIN:: I wish to refer briefly to some remarks made by the hon, member for Peterborough West with respect to the operation and production of the munition plant at Lindsay. On two occasions I believe that the hon. member has spoken disparagingly with regard to the production and operation at this plant. The first occasion was in the first session of this parliament on May 30 last, as reported on page 384 of Hansard of 1940. I was reviewing the production there, and he remarked that at the Lindsay plant they were only producing brass sheets. I had to correct that statement and the point I want to emphasize is that the source of the hon. member's information at that time was unreliable.
Then, as reported at page 873 of Hansard of this session the hon. member referred to a statement by one of the aldermen of Lindsay, as reported in the Peterborough Examiner, and went on to say, "It is patronage of the worst kind." The only reference I desire to make to the statement of the alderman is that this plant has been in operation for approximately two years. In that time hardly a week has passed when I have not met or been in conversation with at least some members of the city council, and during that entire period I have not heard the slightest complaint from the council as a body, or from any member of the council, with regard to the operation of the plant. Further, at one council [Mr. Leader 1
meeting which I attended the mayor was kind enough to say that I had not broken my word in connection with any pronouncement I had made regarding the production or the expected production at the munitions plant.
I want to emphasize that these suggestions of the hon. member reflect adversely upon two groups of officials. In the first place, they reflect upon the official in charge of the Lindsay office of the employment service of Canada. Hon. members who have given careful consideration to matters of this kind will, I am sure, agree that it is difficult to conceive of any position more difficult to fill than that of an employment officer, selecting men to be employed in any industry. That applies particularly where there is a large surplus of applicants for work; where, as in this case, few of those applying had any experience in the metal trades, which meant that a large number of applicants would come under the same classification. Perhaps there would be five or ten applicants for every job to be filled, and I am sure no official could administer work of that kind without disappointing someone. I should think that would be inevitable.
The other group of officials upon whom this suggestion reflects adversely are the superintendent and those associated with him in the administration and management of the plant. A great many of these men have been with the Department of National Defence for a long period of years, associated in various ways with the production and inspection of munitions. Latterly, of course, they have been in the employ of the Department of Munitions and Supply. These officials have had to perform a most trying and difficult task. In the first place, a government plant must do a certain amount of pioneering and experimentation with new machines and improvements on old machines. I am sure these officials have given freely of their skill, patience and perseverance and have put in very long hours, with a great deal of overtime, in an endeavour to produce munitions of the highest possible quality.
Just in that connection I should like to refer to the conferences I had with the senior officials of the Department of National Defence during the early negotiations leading to the reopening and putting into production of that plant. I am sure the present Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie), who at that time was Minister of National Defence, would agree that at those conferences and in those negotiations many difficulties were encountered in connection with this production. Some of the officials referred to the work done in that plant during the last war. I recall

War Appropriation Bill
one high ranking official who took no pains to hide his disgust, though that may be putting it too strongly, at the results obtained in that plant at that time. Another official went so far as to say that on an average the production of that plant had not been more than 50 per cent perfect; in other words, that 50 per cent of the production had been rejected.
From the beginning of the negotiations with regard to that plant it was my greatest desire, as I stated time and again, that the production should be of the highest quality, in order that our men at the front might be backed up with the very best type of munitions.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question?


Thomas Bruce McNevin: I should like to conclude first; then I shall answer any questions.
These officials went to the Lindsay plant with the idea in mind that they were going to make this a success, and I am happy to say on their behalf that I have known of much material that has gone through that plant that was 97 per cent, 98 per cent, and, in some instances, 100 per cent perfect. Therefore I do not think we in this house, or the senior officials of the Department of Munitions and Supply, can say too much in commendation of those employees who, under adverse conditions, have attained that measure of success.
I should like to make it abundantly clear that I do not bear the slightest ill will towards the hon. member who brought up this matter in the house. If anything further develops, he has only to telephone me and I shall be happy to come to his office, sit down at his desk and explain or answer questions freely. That is the best way to deal with some of these matters which perhaps are not as important as many other things with which the ministers have to deal. I have many warm friends in the riding of Peterborough, and I would not want to utter a word that might create the slightest conflict between that riding and my own. At all times, and particularly at this time, we must seek to develop the most friendly feeling and active cooperation not only between ridings, between members and between parties, but also between provinces and people of all classes, in order that we may put forth our very greatest efforts.
I might give an example of what I mean. Last summer officials of the civil aviation branch of the Department of Transport were searching for aerodrome sites, and it became known around the Peterborough district that they were having difficulty in finding a suitable site in that locality. The mayor of the city was kind enough to write me and we were able to arrange a conference so that I 14873-99J
could meet with the mayor, the clerk of? Peterborough, some of the aldermen and a. number of the prominent citizens.
They said to me, "Mr. McNevin, if you are able to find a suitable location in your riding you can depend upon it that we will go down to Ottawa with you and back you up in every way, shape and form in order to assist you." That is a splendid spirit, and I want to foster and maintain it. The president of the Peterborough exhibition is a business associate of mine and a warm friend; I could go on and give further names. But I do wish to make it abundantly clear that I have nothing to hide and nothing to fear in connection with this matter; and, as on this occasion, I am going to defend fearlessly the management and those who are concerned with the matter I have discussed.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Chairman, the speech to which we have just listened opens up a very interesting avenue. I would ask the hon. member what jurisdiction he has over the arsenal at Lindsay. He does not represent the people, in that sense. What jurisdiction does a member of parliament, situated as this hon. member represents himself to be, exercise over the arsenal at Lindsay? He talks like a proprietor.


James Garfield Gardiner: The right to go in and look at it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: You and I have the right to go into it.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is not so convenient for us.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The whole tenor of the hon. member's remarks was that this plant at Lindsay is being shepherded by him, that he has control of it, and that what he says goes. By the same token he undertakes to give a certificate of character to the Murphys over the Moriarities. He makes a comparison between production in this war and production in the last war, a comparison which may or may not be justified.
The speech to which we have just listened illustrates the contention which has been made from time to time from this part of the house that there is partisan participation in production in Canada. That ought not to be. If that sort of thing gets into the minds of the people of Canada, as I fear it has got in, what possibility is there of our having a united war effort? What possibility is there of having a united people behind the drive now in preparation to produce, we will say, a thousand million dollars for the war effort of Canada? I suggest to the ministry that they take this hon. member behind the curtain and say to him that he should have nothing whatever to do with the operation of the
War Appropriation Bill

arsenal at Lindsay. Would it not be presumptuous on my part if I went to Colonel Brooks, my colleague, and suggested to him how he should run the thirty-day training plan camp of which he has command. I think he would kick me out of the door, and he would be justified in so doing.


James Layton Ralston: Not because of partisanship, but because you did not know anything about it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Oh, perhaps I know more about it than some people think. No, it would be because of interference on the part of a sitting member. That is what I object to, and that is all I am contending at the moment.


James Garfield Gardiner: I thought the hon. member had suggested how the thirty-day camps ought to be run.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, I suggested how the training should be done-and by the same token I might as well deal with it right now.
I had intended to say something about the thirty-day training plan. I could repeat what I said on an earlier occasion, and in a moment I may revert to what I said in the house on November 22 of last year. First of all I would say that with respect to the number of men who have been trained it was the understanding of the people of Canada that large groups from 21 years to 24 years would be called. This afternoon we cross-examined the minister-and I believe we did so in a constructive w-ay. We attempted to ascertain the facts, without introducing bitterness or anything of the kind. It is quite understood, I believe, that none of these groups is exhausted-not even the 21-year-old group. The purpose of this form of conscription-and notwithstanding what the minister or anybody else may say, it is a limited form of conscription-was primarily to train an army of men for the defence of Canada on this continent, and incidentally, as we have been told on more than one occasion, to acquaint young men in this country with army life. In this manner it was in+ended to give recruiting an additional impetus, if a larger army were needed immediately. Those were at least some of the objectives which were stated to the house and the country, and upon which the thirty-day training plan was predicated.
Furthermore, if I may be permitted to allude to the fact, the chief of the general staff was put up at the Canadian club of Ottawa last summer to introduce the subject to the people of Canada.


James Layton Ralston: I denied that once before. Nothing of the kind happened. Will my hon. friend permit me to make a statement?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend suggested the same thing before. I want to tell him that the chief of general staff was not put up at the Canadian club. The chief of general staff, without any knowledge of mine, was asked by the Canadian club to address the Canadian club, and I gave my consent to his doing so.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I accept
the minister's word, and I withdraw the words "put up." But the chief of the general staff did give at the Canadian club at Ottawa a statement of the government's position with respect to the thirty-day training plan. He could not have done it, in announcing a policy of that calibre and that character, without the full concurrence and consent of the government. And the people of Canada understood that he was speaking on their behalf.


James Layton Ralston: He did not announce a
policy at all.


Richard Burpee Hanson: He did
not?


James Layton Ralston: No; he gave a statement as to what the policy had been.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What the
policy was to be.


James Layton Ralston: And he said he recommended it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What the
policy was to be, he said.


James Layton Ralston: No, no.


Charles Gavan Power: There were two camps on
the day he made that statement.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, there had not been two camps at the time he made that speech. The speech to which I refer was made at the Canadian club at Montreal, in the summer time.


James Layton Ralston: No, no.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes, it was made in the summer time.


James Layton Ralston: The chief of the general
staff made a speech at the Canadian club here in Ottawa.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And it was a long time anterior to the first camp.


James Layton Ralston: No.

War Appropriation Bill


Richard Burpee Hanson: Anyway, he made a speech. One of the reasons he alleged that only a thirty-day training plan could be instituted was the inadequacy of the equipment then available. A further reason was that these young men had to be taught something of their national obligations- neither of which, I suggest, was a reason creditable to Canada or to the government. I will leave it there.
Offhand I cannot remember the date, but I am satisfied I am correct. Then, shortly after the scheme was put into operation it was found that the training was wholly inadequate for the primary purpose of the defence of Canada.


Charles Gavan Power: It was during the session.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I overheard the Minister of National Defence for Air say that it was during the session. I made my speech here on November 12.


Charles Gavan Power: It was about that time.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And the session began-


Charles Gavan Power: On November 7.


James Layton Ralston: I can give the exact dates. As I remember, the first camp was called for October 9, the speech was made on October 23.


Richard Burpee Hanson: All right.


James Layton Ralston: And that is not an
announcement of policy at all.


Charles Gavan Power: I will apologize to my hon. friend if he will apologize to me.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I certainly will, in the interests of good fellowship and good feeling. That just shows how frail is the human memory, but it does not alter the course of my argument. In the speech which I made on November 12 I did not condemn the scheme. I pointed out what I thought were the weaknesses, but I pointed out also what I thought were some of the advantages. I did that on eye-witness evidence, and in the belief that I should bring it forward in this house. My colleague did the same thing. He did not condemn the plan in toto; he said it served a useful purpose and he was rather proud of some of the men and the advance that they had made.
I suggest to the minister that it must have been known to him soon after the scheme was put into operation that the training was wholly inadequate for the primary purpose of the defence of Canada. Upon trial it was found that the limited training period was not long enough to prepare these men to be put into the field against a well-trained and disciplined enemy. There were reasons for that. In the
first place the syllabus was too crowded, being based upon a seven and a half hour day for twenty-two of the thirty days. The daily Syllabus comprised ten forty-five minute periods. There was a total of 220 periods with a five minute rest allowed between periods. The syllabus provided for drill, gas, bayonet, rifle, field craft, road marches, military education, physical training and anti-aircraft work. Spare periods were also included, and all these items were taught within the short space of 220 forty-minute periods. In other words, each trainee was given about 146 working hours of instruction, less what he spent on fatigue or picket duty or in the hospital. That last item became very important during the last training period because of the prevalence of flu. This was nobody's fault, of course.
It was found that the average recruit or trainee could not properly absorb all the material in the short space of time allowed. To spend more time on each subject would cut down the period of training and consequently fail to achieve even an approximate basic training. Therefore, there was no alternative but to lengthen the period of training. When the defects of the crowded training period became apparent, I think I was among the first to suggest the lengthening of the period. I should like to refer to a statement I made in this connection on November 12, during the debate on the address. At that time I made some very constructive suggestions which were offered after discussion with some of the best military men in Canada. These men had examined the matter without prejudice and in the light of a desire to do the best under the circumstances for these trainees and in the belief that we were not getting value for our money. I quote from page 23 of Hansard:
Mr. Ralston:	I said they are attached to
a non-permanent active militia unit.
I intend to deal with that phase of the matter at a later time. I then went on to say:
After giving the matter the best consideration I can, and having obtained the best advice I can, I am going to make two concrete suggestions. I hope the minister will give heed to them, because these suggestions are offered in the best of good faith, designed to achieve an objective which I think both he and I have at heart.
The first suggestion is that the length of time of training for these men be increased to at least four months, and that we train three groups a year instead of ten. The first eight weeks of this four months' course should be designated the basic recruits' course, and the second eight weeks the trained men's weeks, and graduation being required from one course into the other.
I pause here to say that apparently the government has incorporated the principle
War Appropriation Bill

of that recommendation into the new scheme. For that I am grateful. It seems that the government are receptive to constructive suggestions.


Charles Gavan Power: We should be grateful to the hon. gentleman for making the suggestions.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Exactly, but it is not up to me to say that. It is up to my hon. friend, and he has just done the right thing, for which I thank him.


Charles Gavan Power: I am doing it for the benefit of the Minister of National Defence.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I then went on to say that I was not going to compare what we were doing with what they were doing in the United States. I quote further:
My second concrete suggestion is this. I propose that all men, when they have received the four months' course, should be posted to the local non-permanent active militia units, not merely put on the reserve, as I understand is the present position. If I am wrong I hope my hon. friend will correct me. This would ensure their training being continuous and would prevent them from forgetting most of the rapidly given instruction already received, as will probably be the ease under the present plan. It would keep up their morale, which to-day I am glad to think is magnificent. These young men have fine morale and we ought to keep that up.
The non-permanent active militia units are robably able to absorb one or two groups, ut their facilities for doing so would soon be overtaxed. Therefore it is extremely difficult to post the trainees from the thirty-day course to the non-permanent active militia units because of excess of numbers and lack of facilities. The saturation point would soon be reached.
That position has been given effect to, in principle if not in detail. But what bothers me and a good many people in the country is this: after we have given a four months' course how is the country going to capitalize- if I may use that term-upon the investment we have made in these young men? I am not a military man and I do not understand all the terms used by the Minister of National Defence and his colleagues. My hon. friends run off the alphabet just as people do in the United States when referring to the new deal, and it does not mean anything to me. But that is my fault. These men, as I understand it, are posted into the non-active army, but that is only on paper in many cases. When they have completed their thirty-day course, or their four months' course as it now becomes, a poll is taken as to whether they will enlist in the active army or in other active war services.


Charles Gavan Power: It is taken after two months.


Richard Burpee Hanson: At some period.


James Layton Ralston: Is my hon. friend talking about the present plan?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I was talking about the thirty-day plan. The present plan has advanced that position somewhat, but the same basic weakness is there as was apparent under the thirty-day scheme. How is the country going to capitalize-I am not sure that is the proper term to use-how is the country going to retain its equity-if that is not too inhuman a term to use with respect to men-how is the country going to retain its right to the services of these men under the present regulations and the present plan?


Thomas Reid: They will be attached to the militia.


Richard Burpee Hanson: On paper only, and that is not good enough.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend uses the word "right". I do not think he means that. He asks: how is the country going to retain its right to the services of these men? There is no question that the country retains the right to their services. If my hon. friend will permit me, perhaps he means to say, how is the country going to get the benefit of the training they have already done?


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is the idea. The country theoretically has the right-


James Layton Ralston: Absolutely, not theoretically.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well then, absolutely. The country has the right absolutely to the services of its nationals for the defence of the state.


James Layton Ralston: No, but under these
regulations.


Richard Burpee Hanson: 
James Layton Ralston: It is not fair to include that, is it?


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is fair to include part of it. Just how much you should allocate to the individual training periods or for the individual trainee I do not know. I have not made a calculation. I know that this is capital expenditure, just as the purchase of a uniform is treated in the first place as capital expenditure, but the one runs off much more slowly than the other. A huge sum of money has been spent on this training plan, and if the system were to stop now, the cost per unit would be exceedingly high. I do not wish at this time to get into a discussion of the cost of the training plan because I propose to discuss that a little later. I notify the minister now that I am going to have something to say about the construction of some of these camps. I venture to suggest that in the mad rush and haste that was exhibited by the government after it really started to do something in June last, the country has lost a huge sum of money; that proper business administration was not brought to bear, and that these camps have cost at least twenty-five per cent more than they ought to have cost.
If I might digress for a moment, I took the trouble to ask the best builder I could find in New Brunswick to go over the specifications in connection with these hutments, and I know what he said about the cost of construction. When I get the break-down of these figures I hope I shall be able to demonstrate-


James Layton Ralston: You do not hope that.


Charles Gavan Power: You should be sorry.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister's smile and his words are very disarming. I will change my expression out of consideration for him and his feelings and say that I think I shall be able to demonstrate that the officials of this department did not have very much consideration for the public treasury. That is a substantial weakening from what I had intended to say, thanks to the disarming smile and expression of the minister. However, perhaps it serves my purpose just as well.
There is no doubt about it, Mr. Chairman, that no consideration was given to the taxpayers by the permanent officials of the army in building these hutments. Look at the specifications for the lumber that went into them and the mad haste with which the material had to be procured in order to satisfy them and keep construction going.
Take the case of Debert, about which I happen to know something. It is not one of the training centres but it will illustrate my point just as well. Requisitions were made on the Department of Munitions and Supply by the Department of National Defence for lumber of a kind and quality and of specifications which under normal lumber manufacturing conditions in eastern Canada could not readily be supplied in the quantities wanted. The big mills are manufacturing their stocks to-day based largely on the quality and calibre of the round logs which are delivered to them, and which the sawyer has to utilize to get every foot he can out of the logs. This manufacturing is done in very limited quantities of lumber of the specifications that were required by the Royal Canadian Engineers who had charge of this work.


James Layton Ralston: Will my hon. friend name a particular sample?


Richard Burpee Hanson: 
An hon. MEMBER:: What would be a fair price?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I would say that $20 would be a big price.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Hemlock is an inferior class of wood.
War Appropriation Bill


Mr. PURDY:: I would hate to have to pay my men on the basis of receiving $20 a thousand for hemlock.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I happen to have had something to do with lumbering, and the mills I represented never in their lives got $35 for hemlock. I admit that the price of $35 included truckage, although there was a siding right on the camp. But the stuff was trucked into camp from Little Mills in Colchester county. The man from whom this lumber was bought for the Debert camp was H. J. Mackenzie, a life insurance agent in the town of Truro, and he was my hon. friend's campaign manager in the last dominion election.


Gordon Timlin Purdy: On a point of order, I ask the hon. gentleman to withdraw the statement that Harry J. Mackenzie was my campaign manager.


Richard Burpee Hanson: All right; if the hon. member denies that he was his campaign manager I will take that back. But I will say this, that he was a life insurance agent.


James Layton Ralston: It	was sold to this
purchaser?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes.


James Layton Ralston: This expert purchaser?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes. I will give the minister the name if he wants to know. I prefer not to put it on record, but I will tell him who he is and what firm employs him. He bought at least 280,000 feet of these boards from Mr. H. J. Mackenzie, life insurance agent of the town of Truro, who is represented to me to have been the campaign manager of the hon. member for Colchester. If the hon. member says that is not true, I accept his word absolutely. But he was not a producer, and as far as I know he did not have a dollar's interest in a lumber mill in the county of Colchester.


James Layton Ralston: Will my hon. friend permit me? Of course, it is not in my department, and I have not heard either of the names before: I have not yet heard the name of the lumber buyer.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I will give the minister the name of the lumber buyer.


James Layton Ralston: I would be interested to know why this lumber buyer would go to an insurance agent to purchase.


Richard Burpee Hanson: So would we-absolutely. I should like to know how he got in touh with Mackenzie.


James Layton Ralston: I thought he was given
a certificate of character.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes. Because of the pressure on him to get the stuff in; he could not get it from the big mills in New Brunswick; he could not wait. It was the old story of "Cox can't wait." Perhaps my hon. friend knows that.


James Layton Ralston: Yes. Who was the lumber buyer?


Richard Burpee Hanson: The lumber buyer was a Mr. McCabe of Campbell, MacLaurin Lumber company.


Gordon Timlin Purdy: And he was a Conservative candidate in Toronto.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I never
heard of his being a candidate. I have not any idea of his politics.


Gordon Timlin Purdy: He was also president of a Conservative association.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I hope so. I know his principal is a first-class Conservative; and he gave this man's services to the timber controller at the timber controller's request, and he operated without a dollar of expense to this government.


Charles Gavan Power: This looks like collusion
between the Grits and the Tories. It is a "fishy" deal.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Perhaps it is. May I ask the hon. member for Colchester if any of his production went into those camps through Mr. H. J. Mackenzie. I do not know, but I am not debarred from asking that question.


Gordon Timlin Purdy: I ask the right to answer that question here and now. Not one stick.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I accept the hon. gentleman's statement without question. I make no charge. I do not know. But I have the right to ask that question.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not think you have.


Thomas Bruce McNevin: Have I not the right to say what I did this afternoon?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Surely.
The hon. member has the right to say anything he wants to say in this chamber, so long as he does not violate the rules of the house. And I have the right to criticize what he has to say. Let me proceed.
To come back to the general principles, the cost of the camps was greatly increased because of the pressure of the national defence departments to get these camps built in order that they might be put in operation. If there had

War Appropriation Bill
been proper business administration, these camps could have been built at a saving to the country of from one-fourth to one-third.


James Layton Ralston: That would have meant
some delay, and that would have been "red tape" then.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Possibly
it would. Of course, we always leave an avenue open.


James Layton Ralston: It would have been "red tape."


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not
know any people who ought to know more about red tape than the representative of the defence departments.


James Layton Ralston: But I say that if all this business care had been taken, it would have been characterized as red tape.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not think so. I believe that the tender principle in this country is still a good, sound, safe principle, even in war time.


James Layton Ralston: I thought the man who
purchased was a man who could himself purchase. I did not know that the hon. gentleman suggested that the man who purchased was not a good buyer.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister has got his wires crossed.


James Layton Ralston: What did the hon. gentleman talk about the tenders for?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I spoke of tenders for the construction of these buildings. Perhaps it is my fault that I did not make it clear. I would not suggest for a moment that the minister's mind was obtuse; that would not be fair.
Coming back for a moment to the construction of these camps, to tell me that the camp at Fredericton cost $254,000 is to advertise to this country government incompetence and government waste, and I believe that an analysis of the whole break-down will reveal it.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend will have a full opportunity to show it if he can.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am
taking the opportunity. I am under no obligation to the minister for that.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend thinks that taking up time at this stage, at the tail-end of the week, to bring up these matters, with no chance to reply, is taking a proper opportunity, when he knows that there is a committee on expenses going into these very matters?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think I am entitled to take my own time and my own method to make my presentation. I notice the government does not give very much consideration when they want to make a presentation. They seize time by the forelock; they take whatever time they want, and we are not to be denied the like privilege.


James Layton Ralston: Nobody is denying any
privilege. I am only saying that this is not the right way. If my hon. friend thinks this is the way in the public interest to investigate these matters, nobody is stopping him.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The public are talking about this. My whole city is seething about the cost of these thirty-day training units.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is because the hon. gentleman lives there.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I could
give the hon. gentleman a lot more. Who was put in charge of the construction?


James Layton Ralston: I cannot tell my hon.
friend.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The Liberal zone captain in the city of Fredericton was put in charge of the construction, and he had the hiring of these men. Hon. members can imagine what happened. I will give the minister his name if he wants it. His name is Hayward Allan.
We have already dealt, sufficiently I think, with the question of the defects in the medical examination. That was discussed here on a previous occasion, and I must say that the number rejected after they got to the training centre seemed to me very large. I do not, however, think any blame can be laid on the department for that. The defect was that there was not uniformity in the preliminary medical examinations. I do not believe that the doctors who examined these men were fully instructed. The result was that a large percentage were rejected when they came to the medical board at the training centre. That may have been inevitable. One should not be dogmatic about that unless one has satisfactory proof of the facts, which I have not.
I am not going to take up the third defect of the thirty-day training scheme, connected with the question of withdrawal of men from essential war industries. We have debated that subject quite sufficiently, and I believe that the regulations, if they are to be put into effect, will provide satisfactorily for noninterference with war industry. The only argument that I can draw from that, and the recommendation I make, would be that there
War Appropriation Bill

should be some form of selective draft so as not to interfere with war industry or with the farm boy who cannot be spared.
I suggest that another defect of the scheme was-and this will be rectified in a measure by the four months' scheme-that it was too expensive, with a constant turnover of men. Partly to train a man and then return him to civilian life where he would forget all about this very preliminary training was unsound. The better plan would have been to complete his course entirely and then absorb him into the active army.
The plan for the future provides that the twenty-one-year-old class will be called up for training and the call will be confined to them. Six thousand will be called up the middle of this month-I think the call is out now and they will be on hand next week- and 6,000 each succeeding month; then there will be a rotation. These men will all receive basic training for two months. After this they can volunteer for service in any branch of the army, navy or air force for service overseas if openings are available, otherwise *they will be retained for a further two months for specialized training in one or other of the branches of the army. Some of these young men will be taken into the active army at the end of the first two months if they wish to enlist. But there is no obligation.
I suggest to the minister in all frankness that that is a real defect in the system. He might give consideration to remedying that defect as time goes on. I am sure he is of the same mind as I am. If he cannot give effect to that principle now, will he take it into consideration and possibly at a later stage in the war give effect to it?-because I believe that should be done.
I shall not go further into this aspect of the matter, but there is one other point to which I should like to refer. The minister has partly cleared it up in the statement about the officers' training courses that are to be set up. During the present break period instructional staffs in the various centres should I think have been given a uniform course of advanced training. The young men who went into the training centres as instructors were very keen, but they themselves had had only a limited training course, because, owing to the drain, that had been placed upon our instructional staff for the overseas divisions, they were new men. I think at one time I suggested to the minister that it might be good policy for the department to bring back from England some of the non-commissioned officers and other

trained men, and it may be that partial effect has been given to that principle. But there was a great weakness in the system because the officers themselves knew little beyond the syllabus of the thirty day plan. They were new men as a rule-some of course were older; all they had had themselves was partial training over a period of two or three weeks, and what they could gather night by night by the most intensive study-


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend is wrong about that; they were not new men.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well a great many of them were new men. The minister says categorically they were not new men; I tell him many of them were new men in the work of instruction.


James Layton Ralston: The way my hon. friend
puts it, it sounds as if they were brought in off the street.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, the minister knows better than that. I did not say that, and it was no proper inference to take from what I said. These staffs of instructors consisted for the most part of officers and non-commissioned officers from the non-permanent active militia units. Their training was limited. Anyone knows how much training the non-permanent active militia had before the war. It was negligible. There could not be proper training. It is of no use to harp on that now; it is past and gone, and no one in particular is responsible-we just felt that we could not afford it. In the light of after events we see now that it was a mistake, but none of us have at a given time all the vision we ought to have in respect to what may happen in the future.
It is suggested that there should be set up between periods not only these officer training schools that the minister has I think very properly intimated will be established, one at Brockville and one in the west, but also schools at various centres for the training of the non-commissioned officers. My information is that these after all are the men who do the actual work of instructing and training under the supervision of an officer. I may be wrong, but I do not think the officers themselves are the actual instructors. I understand the instruction is given by the noncommissioned officers under the supervision of the officers. There ought to be more intensification of their instruction in order that they may be able to instruct the trainee. Whether we have enough trained instructors among the non-commissioned officers in these training camps to proceed with a four months'

Questions
syllabus I do not know, but I am informed that we have not. If we have not, the matter should be rectified, and I have no doubt it is receiving attention from those in authority.


James Layton Ralston: I propose on Monday to give a statement in answer to what the hon. member for Vancouver South has said. I should like very much to accept the invitation of the hon. member to give a short statement with regard to the object of this training.
I regret that the leader of the opposition thought fit to bring these matters up, particularly with regard to the purchase of lumber, and so forth, in the absence of my colleague the Minister of Munitions and Supply. I shall endeavour, however, to get information about that also and give it to the committee on Monday.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Ilsley the house adjourned at 6 p.m.
Monday, March 17, 1941.