1942-03-04

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, may I lay on: the table of the house a copy of the order in council appointing the British Columbia Security Commission, setting forth its powers and duties; also copy of the order in council setting forth the names of the advisory committee to the British Columbia security commission.


Hon. GROTE STIRLING (Yale):: May I ask whether they will be printed in Votes and Proceedings?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It has been requested that the orders in council with respect to the British Columbia Security Commission be printed in Votes and Proceedings as in previous years. I would ask His Honour the Speaker if he would direct the Clerk accordingly.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
SOLDIER SETTLEMENT-SASKATCHEWAN*
Mr. CASTLEDEN:: 1.	What is the number of soldier settlers'who
settled in Saskatchewan under the soldier settlement board?	.
2.	What was the total original indebtedness of these settlers to the soldier settlement board?
3.	How many of such original settlers are still on their land?
4.	What was the original indebtedness of the settlers who are still on the land?
5.	What are the total payments made by those who are still on the land?
6.	What is the present indebtedness of those who are still on the land?


Mr. CRERAR:: This question is answered, Mr. Speaker, but I wish to make a comment upon the answer. It was found that answers to questions 4 and 5 would involve a great deal of work, and I understand that the director of soldier settlement has had some communication with the hon. member who asked the question and has taken a cross-section of the accounts which will probably give a very fair reflection of the position, as a whole. With that qualification the question is answered as follows:
1.	6,164.

Questiont
2.	Land, $14,044,899.88; removal of encumbrance, $834,755.50; permanent improvements, $3,011,253.57; stock and equipment, $7,685,423.06; total, $25,576,332.
3.	2,308.
4.	For 750 accounts only, amount is $2,859,837.95.
5.	For the same 750 accounts as referred to in reply to question No. 5, amount is $1,508,534.69.
6.	As of January 31, 1942, $3,864,905.40.



MUNITIONS AND SUPPLY-1941 CONTRACTS

['1.\tThe National Steel Car Corporation Limited, Hamilton, is making 4 types of shell: 25-pounder, 3-7AA, 75-mm. HE, and 4-5AA.\nA section of the 4-5AA shell shop was closed from February 12 to February 23, 1942.\n2.\tFor lack of steel billets and difficulty in securing tonnage of steel to the extent required.\n3.\tAnswered by No. 1.', 'Questions as Orders for Returns']
Mr. HOWE:: It is not in the public interest to reply to this question. We have never disclosed our financial arrangements respecting contracts held by the British government, and it does not seem in the public interest to disclose the cost of war munitions.



Mr. GRAYDON:: 1.	How much was paid to hog producers in 1941 by way of compensation for loss from cholera?
2.	What areas, if any, in Canada are presently under quarantine ?
3.	How many hogs died from the disease in 1941, (a) in Canada, (b) in Ontario?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	$60,485.67.
2.	None.
3.	Figures are not available regarding hogs
that died from hog cholera. The number of hogs slaughtered in controlling this disease in 1941 was:	(a) In Canada-9,257;	(b) In
Ontario-7,468.


WAR SAVINGS STAMPS AND CERTIFICATES
Mr. GRAYDON:: 1.	How much have the people of Canada invested to date in war savings stamps and certificates?
2.	What amount have the citizens of each province so invested?


Mr. ILSLEY:: Sales of war savings certificates, May 27, 1940, to February 28, 1942
Province	Purchase Value
Prince Edward Island	$	455,675
Nova Scotia	 6,208,875
New Brunswick	 3,356,084
Quebec	 23,375,713
Ontario	 60,910,021
Manitoba	 8,548,614
Saskatchewan	 5,864,328
Alberta	 7,052,833
British Columbia	 10,554,293

The total of sales amounting to $126,326,436 is before deduction for certificates redeemed or received for redemption, the aggregate of which to February 28, 1942, was $3,820,022.
The amount of unredeemed war savings stamps in the hands of the public on January 31, 1942, totalled $3,896,957.75. Statistics are not available to indicate the distribution by provinces of the unsurrendered stamps in the hands of the public.


NATIONAL STEEL CAR SHELL SHOP
Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: 1.	Has the shell shop of the National Steel Car at Hamilton been closed?
2.	If so, for what reason?
3.	Whait type of shell was being produced in this shop?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	The National Steel Car Corporation Limited, Hamilton, is making 4 types of shell: 25-pounder, 3-7AA, 75-mm. HE, and 4-5AA.
A section of the 4-5AA shell shop was closed from February 12 to February 23, 1942.
2.	For lack of steel billets and difficulty in securing tonnage of steel to the extent required.
3.	Answered by No. 1.

Questions as Orders for Returns



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. PURDY:: What were the aggregate savings deposits in Canada, by provinces, at the end of each month for the year ending February 28, 1942, in (a) chartered banks, (b) other recognized saving institutions, including government agencies?


SALE OF SCRAP METALS TO DEALERS IN SECONDARY MATERIALS
Mr. DOUGLAS (Weybum):: 1.	Has the government sold any scrap metal to junk dealers during the calendar year 1941?
2.	If so, how much and at what price?
3.	What are the names and addresses of the concerns to which scrap metal was sold?


PAYMENTS TO JOHN INGLIS COMPANY
Mr. DOUGLAS (Weybum):: 1.	What is the total amount of money that has been paid to the John Inglis Company as at December 31, 1941?
2.	How much of this was paid on the Bren gun account?
3.	How much has been paid on other items manufactured by the John Inglis Company?


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. WRIGHT:: For a copy of all agreements, correspondence, telegrams and other communications exchanged between the government and any individual or company, regarding the erection and/or operation of a magnesium plant located near Haley station, Ontario.


DOMINION BOND ISSUES AND REDEMPTIONS
Mr. QUELCH:: For a statement showing the various issues of bonds by the dominion government since the outbreak of war, sold to (a) the public, (b) the chartered banks, (c) the Bank of Canada, showing the date of issue, date of maturity and rate of interest in each case?
Also a statement showing (a) Dominion of Canada bond redemptions since the outbreak of war, (b) holdings of dominion and provincial direct and guaranteed bonds by chartered banks of Canada, (c) holdings of dominion and provincial direct and guaranteed bonds by Bank of Canada.


VOCATIONAL TRAINING
[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:

Resolved, that it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide for the promotion of vocational training projects, the entering into financial assistance agreements with the provinces in connection therewith, the appointment of a vocational training advisory council and of such officers, clerics and other employees necessary for the administration of the act.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Grote Stirling: In view of information received from British Columbia with regard to the infiltration of persons of Japanese origin from the protected1 areas, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice what steps he proposes to take to prohibit the ownership of radio broadcasting and short-wave receiving sets, automobiles and other articles now prohibited within protected areas, and in view of the public meetings which are about to be held in parts of British Columbia outside the protected areas, what in general the government proposes to do to prevent settlement of persons of Japanese origin, except in work camps on highways under rigid supervision?
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice): Mr. Speaker, I understand that the hon. member addressed a notice of this question to my office. I was not able to receive it; it was communicated to me just a few minutes ago over the telephone.
Under the regulations as they exist at present, the Department of Justice has no authority to deal with Canadian citizens residing outside protected areas. Whether or not additional provisions should be made in the regulations is under consideration; and it was hoped that the matter might not be so urgent as not to give us the opportunity of having the advice of the British Columbia security commission upon such further provisions as should be inserted in the defence of Canada regulations.
With respect to the second part of the question; the regulations as they exist at present would empower the department to make some order with respect to the future residence, temporary or permanent, of persons

Japanese Nationals
of the Japanese race who were ordinarily resident in the protected areas when such protected areas were proclaimed. That also is something which is under consideration, and it had been hoped that we might have the opportunity of getting the advice of the British Columbia security commission as to what agency should have the determining of the portions of the province of British Columbia where these persons of Japanese origin might not go, even temporarily.
I trust that it will be possible to get at a very early date the advice of the British Columbia security commission upon those two points.


Hon. R. B. HANSON (Leader of the Opposition):: I desire to direct a question to the Minister of Justice relating to this Japanese situation. If he is not able to answer to-day, it may stand as a notice.
In a communication which I received to-day from British Columbia the question is raised as to who is to support the Japanese population now being removed from the protected area. They have been spoken of as being wards of the government. Will the Minister of Justice throw some light on this question, having regard to the allegation which has reached me that many of these Japanese are [DOT]well able to take care of their own requirements with respect to food and clothing? If they are to be interned in the ordinary sense, I understand what the position would be. If they are not to be interned in the strict sense of the word, of course they might be expected to look after some of their own requirements. I should like to know what the position is in this respect.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I shall be glad if this question may stand as a notice, for further Consideration.


PROVISION FOB GUARDING THOSE IN WORK CAMPS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. ERASER (Peterborough West):: Will the Minister of Labour explain what provision is being made to guard the Japanese in the government work camps?


Mr. MITCHELL:: That is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice. Ample protection is being provided through that department and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Is it just the police who are guarding the Japanese, or are soldiers put on that work also?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


IRRIGATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: I desire to direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Resources. Has the St. Mary and Milk rivers water development committee, appointed to consider the Lethbridge Southeastern water conservation project, yet submitted its report to the minister? If not, why not? Will the minister inform the house when, approximately, we may expect this report to be tabled?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I understand that the committee held its last meeting on February 16 for the preparation. of the report, which is now in draft form. That is going forward to Mr. George Spence, a member of the committee, and director of prairie farm rehabilitation operations in Saskatchewan, who is now in western Canada. It is expected that the report will be ready within a few weeks.


COST OF LIVING BONUS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Peel):: I should like to direct an inquiry to the Minister of Labour. There seems to be confusion in the minds of some wage-earners in Canada over the government's policy relating to the cost of living bonus. Some are paid it. Some are not. The reasons for the distinction in such cases are not always clear to the workers or to the public. The Ottawa Journal of last Wednesday cited the Minister of Labour as indicating that no general policy is being applied, and that each case is being dealt with on its merits. There may be good reasons for the lack of a general policy in this regard, but I wish to ask the minister if he will make a brief statement to the house clarifying the situation so that our working folk may clearly understand the policy which is now being pursued and the procedure to which they must conform in order to seek its application to their individual cases.


Humphrey Mitchell: A definite general policy in this regard is being applied by the government. That policy is set forth in an order in council, P.C. 8253 of October 24, 1941.
The principal mandatory features concerning cost of living bonus are:
Cost oj Living Bonus

1.	Employers paying a cost of living bonus prior to November 15, 1941, must continue to pay it and must increase it or decrease it by the amount of 25 cents per point for every point of change in the cost of living index from the index number for October, 1941. The changes are to be announced quarterly by the national war labour board. In February the board announced that there would be no change for the time being because the index did not change one whole point or more from October, 1941, to January, 1942, which was the primary requirement.
This in effect indicated that at least in the first quarter the government prices policy was functioning on all six cylinders, and we hope it will continue to do so.
2.	Employers not paying a bonus prior to November 15, 1941, are mandatorily required to begin paying one as soon as the national board announces that the cost of living index has risen by one whole point or more.
3.	An employer in the foregoing group may not pay a larger amount of bonus than the announced amount, or begin to pay one in any amount before an announcemet is made by the board, unless he applies for and is given permission to do so, or unless he is directed by the board to do so as the result of an investigation of his situation.
Provision is made in the order whereby an employer or an employee or any association or group of employees may apply in writing to a war labour board-that, of course, includes the regional boards as well as the national board, if it is a regional employer-for an authorization that a cost of living bonus be paid in such amount as the board may find fair and reasonable.
The reason why it was not made mandatory for all employers to pay a cost of living bonus of any amount larger than the amount dictated by the future movements of the cost of living index is this: that many employees have received wage increases since the outbreak of the war which have compensated them in whole or in part, for the rise which has taken place in the index to date. Furthermore, the government could not order a general payment of bonus without regard to the financial condition of a business which may be operating on a reduced margin owing to the price ceiling. On the other hand, the payment of maximum bonuses by all employers able to pay it, without regard to wage increases granted, would release taxable corporation earnings into channels of consumer purchasing at a time when the government is interested in restricting purchasing power for civilian goods.
[Mr. Mitchell.)
The house will appreciate, too, that some industries today are existing on government funds in the form of subsidy.
Employers required to pay future mandatory bonuses or who, having already paid a bonus, find that as a result the business cannot operate, have the right to apply for permission to reduce the amount of bonus or to defer the payment. In such cases, an audited financial statement is required by the board.
I think it was just as well to deal with this at length at the moment so that hon. members would have an indication of the policy.
When an application for bonus payment is received, consideration is given to all the factors mentioned. The board is limited in its authority in that it may not direct that a bonus be calculated in the rise in the cost of living index from a month earlier than the month in which the last general increase in wage rates was granted. The board has absolutely no authority to order that a bonus be paid retroactively, although, as stated, it may order calculation of the rate of bonus from an earlier date than October.
Although the hon. member asked only for remarks with respect to the cost of living bonus, this opportunity to remark in the wage control side of the order in council should not be foregone.
It has been stated in various quarters that wages are frozen and that, in consequence, injustices as between wage rates have become "frozen" also. This is not true. Just as in the case of bonuses, provision is made for application by employees of a revision in wage rates in cases where it can be shown that wages are low compared with the wage paid for similar or comparable work in a locality or a comparable locality.
Many workers do not know or have forgotten, but I have not and many members of this house will recall the situation of the wage-earner after the last war when his enhanced earnings bought far less than they did before that war, because in an uncontrolled economy wages always lag behind rises in the cost of living.


Mr. MacINNIS:: That is the argument for a planned economy.


Humphrey Mitchell: You have been asking for a planned economy for many years and now you have it.
To-day there is a formula which protects workers to some degree against rises in the cost of living. It was designed to be applied, and will be applied, to anyone who can show justification for it. It is feared that many workers not receiving a bonus-but often in

Divisional War Services Boards
receipt of increased wage earnings-do not recognize how much better off they are not to get a bonus for the reason that the cost of living does not justify it, owing to the effect of the government's policies on prices, salaries and wages. On the other hand, they would be playing leap-frog with a continually out of reach cost of living level to which a completely adequate bonus formula could not be applied without wrecking many business institutions.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: I should like to direct a number of questions to the Minister of National War Services based on communications which, in common with members of rural constituencies, I have been receiving daily from those who have been called up for service during the coming month, who desire to claim exemption on the ground that they are necessary in agriculture and who mistakenly believe that members of parliament may intercede on their behalf.
The questions are: 1. Is not the decision of each of the provincial national war services boards on the question whether or not a person is liable for service, final under the regulations now in effect? 2. What directions if any, additional to the provisions of regulations, have been given to the various provincial boards as to the particular circumstances that these boards should take into consideration in determining the question as to granting or refusing postponements? Finally, will the government give consideration to the appointment of a special government representative for agriculture, additional to the provision that now appears in the regulations providing for the fact that agriculture may have its own representative in each of the provinces, whose duty it would be to appear in all cases before the various provincial boards so that the imperative needs of labour and agriculture will be assured, with due regard, of course, at all times to the need of man-power in the army?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: With great reluctance I rise to a point of order. A year ago Your Honour ruled on the limitations that must be placed on questions asked on the orders of the day. At that time Your Honour gave a considered ruling on the question. I suggest that the rule is being broken every single day in this house.


Mr. LOCKHART:: These are emergency times.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I find that many questions of the kind suggested by the minister are being asked on the orders of the day, when they should rightly be on the order paper. I also find, however, that many of these questions have been sent to ministers and are replied to in the house. It seems to me that there is one way by which these matters could be regulated, namely, that if a member is sending a notice to a minister with regard to a question concerning his department, which question the minister considers to be out of order on the orders of the day and one that should properly be placed on the order paper, the member proposing to ask that question on the orders of the day should be notified accordingly, and the question would then appear on the order paper in the regular form. If that were done it would obviate such discussions as have been taking place recently on questions which are followed by supplementary questions, and further supplementary questions, until the proportions of a debate are reached. I suggest that the matter is one which is really in the hands of those asking the questions and of the ministers replying thereto.


Hon. J. T. THORSON (Minister of National War Services):: I am prepared to answer the questions asked by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), who was kind enough to give me notice of his intention to ask them. The questions relate to matters that are giving a great deal of concern to members of parliament, particularly at this time, and likewise to the members of the government.
As my hon. friend knows, the question of postponement of military training is vested in divisional boards.
There are thirteen of these divisional boards across Canada, each one of them headed by a judge of a superior court or other court in the province in which the board is located. These boards deal with all applications for postponement of the call for military training, and have exclusive jurisdiction to deal with such applications. It is not within the power of the Minister of National War Services or of the Department of National War Services or of any other person to bring about a postponement. That question is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the divisional board; the decision of the divisional board in respect of the matter is final, there is no appeal from their decision. That answers the first question of my hon. friend.
With regard to his second question, the matter is dealt with by the regulations; I would refer my hon. friend and other members of the house to section 14 of the National



Divisional War Services Boards
War Services Regulations as amended. This section gives directions to the divisional board. The divisional board may grant a postponement whenever it is of the opinion that it is in the national interest to do so.
Then in the case of applications for postponement from persons engaged in certain occupations such as agriculture, the board is specifically directed to take into account the supply of labour that is available and the importance of the applicant's occupation to the national economy. Those are factors which the board is directed to take into account.
With regard to the third question raised by my hon. friend, I should tell him that the government has already acted in connection with this matter. Until recently a representative of the Department of National Defence and a representative of the national labour supply council had the right to appear before the divisional boa*ds and make representations to those boards. Recently the regulations were amended, giving the same right to representatives of agriculture.


Mr. CHURCH:: Conscription for some and not for others under the minister's department. It should be abolished altogether.


Mr. ROWE:: Referring to the statement of the Minister of National War Services in reference to giving directions to the boards in Ontario, did I rightly understand him to say that they were asked to take their recommendations from the agricultural representative in the district?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: No, I did not say agricultural representative; I said amendments had been made to the regulations giving a representative of agriculture the same right to appear before the divisional 'boards and to make representations to such divisional boards as is now possessed under those regulations by the representative of 'the Department of National Defence and the representative of the national labour supply council.


William Earl Rowe: Would the minister take into consideration-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Georges Parent: When a question has been put to a minister and an answer given the asking of supplementary questions bearing on the answer that has already been given is objectionable, and should not be practised.


William Earl Rowe: I leave it to Your Honour to say whether my question is in order. It is whether in view of the embarrassment of agricultural representatives throughout Ontario the minister would give consideration to having some other representative, a judge or someone in some other capacity to make representations to the board.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I said nothing about the "agricultural representatives." It does not necessarily follow that the agricultural representative in any particular place is the representative of agriculture.


William Earl Rowe: No, but they are the ones who are being embarrassed at the present time.


BRITISH COLUMBIA FISHERIES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. OLOF HANSON (Skeena):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Has representation been made to the government this year for the establishment of fish traps in British Columbia waters, not including the Sooke area? If so, will he give the names and addresses of the applicants? What would be the government's policy in this respect.


Hon. J. E. MICHAUD (Minister of Fisheries) :: The answer to the first question is no. The answer to the last question is that the government's policy will be considered in due course.



PLEBISCITE ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. N. A. McLARTY (Secretary of State) moved the third reading of Bill No. 10, respecting the taking of a plebiscite in every electoral district in Canada and the taking of the votes at such plebiscite of Canadian service voters stationed within and without Canada.
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): This is no time for speeches. It is time for immediate action to assure and complete the defence of Canada. Therefore the question being proposed that Bill No. 10 respecting the taking of a plebiscite be now read a third time, I move, seconded by Mr. Parent (Quebec West and South):
That the word "now" be left out and the words "this day six months" be added at the end of the question.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Speaker, I have just a word to add on the main motion. I had not intended making any observations on the third reading of the bill, but quite unexpectedly the amendment asking six months' hoist, which has just now been voted upon, was moved. I believe a word is in order with respect to my position on the vote.
I opposed the principle of the bill on the ground that there was no necessity for a plebiscite. That is over. The government carried the second reading of the bill; it has been carried through committee, now stands for third reading and, after it goes to the other place, is to become law. I accept the will of the majority. Let us get this plebiscite over as quickly as possible and, in the meantime, let us get on with the war effort.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, before the bill is read a third time I want to say that I have opposed the principle of the bill at eveiy stage, and the plebiscite policy to the end. Fof ten years in this house I have at times stood alpiost alone in urging immediate rearmament, cooperation and coordination with Great Britain, as I saw this war coming on us. The enemy now is right at our door, in the Pacific. As has been said by the Prime Minister of Great Britain, we have lost command of the sea in the Pacific and our government should manage this war over here itself. I am not going to put party first, but the country, no matter who moves this resolution. I do not think I have ever voted against this party over here since I have been a member of the House of Commons first elected in 1921. But at the present time the matter of life and death for the empire and the defence of the realm is at stake and, as one who has urged for ten years rearmament at a time when it was unfashionable and unpopular to do so, I
Plebiscite Act

cannot see my way clear now to change my view, turn around and vote for such a measure in which I do not believe, and which is not war to beat Hitler.
I am not one who has sat in power for years and passed pacifist measures and votes and supported pacifist measures now to turn around and pose as a super patriot. While I have great respect for my leader, who has done so well in the house, and great respect for his views, I cannot accept any measure so fatal to a total war effort as a plebiscite, which shifts responsibility for the defence of our country over to a vote which will hurt our war effort. That is why I voted for the six months' hoist-not because I am in sympathy with the movers, or anybody who voted for that amendment. I dealt with that a iweek ago, and showed I was out of sympathy with those who moved the six months' hoist to-day. I have a duty to perform, and I have done it to the best of my ability. I am not a yes-man or nodder, and "your leader is your policy; follow your leader," is not my way. I have already given my views at various stages in opposition to this bill, consistently and strongly.


Mr. ROBERT FAIR (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, before the main motion carries, I want to say a few words on subsection 2 of section 4 which reads in part as follows:
(2) The persons disqualified from voting as . ordinary voters at the plebiscite shall be those persons disqualified from voting under the provisions of paragraphs (d) to (k), both inclusive, and paragraph (m) of subsection 2 of section 14 of the Dominion Elections Act, 1938. . . .
In order that the house may know what I am talking about, I will read paragraph (k) of subsection 2 of section 14 of the Dominion Elections Act.


Georges Parent: I cannot hear what the hon. member is saying. Is he speaking to a particular part of the bill?


Robert Fair: After explaining my point, Mr. Speaker, I intend to move an amendment. Paragraph (k) reads:
(k) in any province, every person who is an inmate of an institution which is maintained by any government or municipality for the housing and maintenance of the poor, if such person is by the law of that province disqualified from voting at an election of a member of the legislative assembly of that province, and did not serve in the military, naval or air forces of Canada in the war of 1914-1918.
I am quite satisfied that this provision excluding inmates of a poorhouse from voting is unfair, unjust and undemocratic. We have been told on numerous occasions that after this war is over we are going to have a New

Order. In my opinion it is not necessary to wait until the war is over to bring at least some part of this New Order into effect, and
I believe that the exclusion from this bill of the provisions of paragraph (k) which I have just read would be one of the best ways in which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) could show the country his good faith in the New Order he proposes. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Camrose (Mr. Marshall):
That this bill be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole with the instruction that they have power to amend it as follows: by striking out the words, "under the provisions of paragraphs (d) to (k)", in line 21 of section 4, paragraph 2, and substituting therefor the words, "under the provisions of paragraphs (d) to (j)."
I noticed on another occasion that a number of the members of this house were uncertain whether to vote for or against the amendment. Having had time to consult their conscience since then, they now have an opportunity to let us know their considered opinion. I should like very much to see the amendment I have proposed adopted unanimously.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am not quite sure whether I caught the point my hon. friend was making, but I gathered he was referring to persons in poorhouses being given the right to vote. If I recollect aright, that very point was brought up in committee of the whole and has already been voted on. In these circumstances I am inclined to think, Mr. Speaker, that the amendment is out of order. The point of order is that it has been voted upon already and disposed of.


Mr. HANSELL:: Do I understand the Prime Minister to say that the amendment is out of order because a similar amendment was passed on in committee of the whole?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It had already been voted on and disposed of in committee of the whole.


Ernest George Hansell: I do not appreciate that point. If it is well taken, no one can propose on the third reading an amendment that has been proposed in committee.


Angus MacInnis: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, the rules are quite clear, so clear that I do not think there need be any misunderstanding. Standing order 77, citation 813, reads:
When a bill comes up for third reading a member may move that it be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole for the purpose of amending it in any particular. The motion for third reading is debatable under standing order 38.

Plebiscite Act
I need not read any further. There is no limitation in the paragraph I have just cited, and whether or not the amendment now proposed was moved at any previous stage of the bill no member is debarred from proposing an amendment again at this stage. This is his last opportunity to amend the bill, and I submit that this amendment, whether or not it was discussed before, is quite in order to be moved now.


Mr. NEILL:: Mr. Speaker, if we are to have a ruling sustained that an amendment cannot be moved on the third reading because it has already been decided in committee, there is no occasion whatever to vote at all on the third reading; in fact, it would be quite out of order because the principle of the bill has already been voted on and approved on the second reading. Moreover I would point to the whole history of Canada with respect to the rule on this point. Such an amendment has been moved dozens of times.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Hundreds of times.


Alan Webster Neill: Yes, hundreds, and if we are going to accept a ruling such as has been suggested, I do not see what use our rules are at all, because after a bill has been accepted in principle on the second reading, if we are not allowed to amend it subsequently, we do not need to take a vote on the third reading.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Speaker I should like to support the argument of the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Neill). The third reading is the last point of attack which a member has on a bill, by moving that it be referred back. I can recall dozens and dozens of instances in which that has been done in the last twenty years. I submit that the amendment is quite in order. I would be astonished if it were not.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I agree with the hon. gentlemen who have taken a view opposite to the one I expressed. What I really had in mind was an amendment that had been considered by the whole house, but this particular amendment was moved in committee. Hon. gentlemen are quite right in saying that the proposed amendment is in order.


Georges Parent: I had intended so to rule.


Alan Webster Neill: I should like to say a few words on the main motion, Mr. Speaker, to explain the vote I propose to give on it. My views have been very largely, if not entirely, expressed by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church). It is not for me to criticize the actions of any hon. gentleman. I can only express my surprise that a large body of creditable men 44561-66
have spent six weeks here arguing strongly, logically and well, I think, against the principle of this bill and are now prepared to vote for it. I have pondered it carefully and cannot see my way to do so. Once the bill becomes an act of parliament and the plebiscite is put before the people, I shall do my utmost to get the people to vote in the affirmative because I think, once the question is submitted, that that would be the best thing for the country. But I was and am opposed to the introduction of the plebiscite at this time for reasons which have been stated scores, yes five score of times, and I cannot see my way to vote for it on this occasion.


Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the amendment. It seems to me quite invidious that in a war which is being fought for democratic rights we should disqualify any person in the Dominion of Canada from voting on this plebiscite merely because he or she is poor. This is a dominion plebiscite. The law under which this plebiscite is to be taken is a dominion law. While we should recognize the rights of a province to legislate in all matters which directly concern the province or provincial rights, this parliament ought to be and is supreme in the election of members to this House of Commons.
In the same manner, therefore, it is supreme in the granting of a dominion franchise and the taking of a plebiscite for all the people of Canada; and I contend that the objectionable provision is one which takes us back to the dark ages. Why, this is a relic of the Elizabethan poor law of over three hundred years ago. It is the sort of thing which Charles Dickens railed against in Great Britain until the disabilities of those who were poor were removed. I appeal to this house not to make ourselves a laughing-stock of democratic people, not only in our own country, but in other countries if they hear of what we propose to do this afternoon, but to give those who are poor the right, equally with those who are better off, to express themselves.
None of us knows what the future has in store for those of us who are members of this house. These are days of rapid and stupendous change, and it is not without the bounds of possibility that even we who occupy these seats may at some time in the future find ourselves under limitations of this description, and therefore unable to cast our votes in relation to matters which vitally affect the future of this dominion. I appeal particularly to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), whose long career in this country has been that of an advocate of democracy and of the rights of the ordinary man. He has

Plebiscite Act

given a great deal of time, study, and-at least-lip-service to the cause of democracy, and 'I appeal to him now to reconsider this provision of the bill, and to give those who by circumstances are poor the right to exercise their citizenship in this matter as fully as any other people in our dominion. I strongly support the amendment of the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair).


John Horne Blackmore: I rise to support this amendment. It was written long ago, "Honour thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long in the land". Many of the people who are in these institutions are fathers and mothers; they are to be deprived of the vote; they are thereby being dishonoured.
Considerable care, I take it, has been used in drafting this bill to eliminate as voters those people who might have a particularly strong selfish interest in voting against the plebiscite. The people who are in our institutions have had very great experience in this country; they have been through many campaigns; they know more than most of us know of what is to be learned from experience. To deprive such people of the vote on a matter of this kind seems to me clearly wrong. Many who are in these institutions are pioneers of this country. It makes my blood boil to think of our neglecting men and women who have gone out into the wilds and hewn out of those wilds the communities and provinces which constitute this dominion. Because of the fact that we are likely to be disfranchising many of the pioneers of this country, I would oppose the bill as it stands, and support the amendment.
Finally, let me point out that these people are least likely to be actuated by selfish motives. It is improbable that they have sons eligible for military service, although they may have grandsons. They are in the best position, I believe, to pass impartially on the question.
For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I shall support the amendment.


Mr. McLARTY:: It may be appropriate to say a few words and to clear up, perhaps, a little misunderstanding which appears to have arisen in connection with section 4 of the bill.
The amendment which has been suggested is an amendment to subsection 2 of section 4 of the bill. It has been suggested that people are being disqualified from voting merely by reason that they are in what, for lack of a better term, I call a poorhouse. That is not correct. The point is that in framing this bill we adopted section 14, subsection 2 of the elections act, which clause has continuously

been in the elections act for some time prior to the passing of the 1938 act, and have adopted in the matter of disqualifications-and it was the wish to make disqualifications as few as possible-the provisions of the various provincial laws dealing with disqualification of voters. It was not anything put in this bill with the thought of disqualifying those voters to whom reference has been made; it was purely to adopt the general provincial plan of disqualifications that this provision was inserted in the bill.
In other words, the special committee, in dealing with the matter, felt that there might be some argument made on one side or another regarding various classes, and it was felt that as the general scheme of the bill was to adopt provincial disqualifications, the exceptions should be and are very small and inconsiderable.
In certain provinces provision is made that this class of persons can vote; they were not restricted in voting in such provinces at all; it is only in the provinces where the province itself has enacted the legislation that there is any suggestion that this right of franchise will not be extended.
This provision is identical with the provision in the elections act which received the assent of this house four years ago.


John Horne Blackmore: I wonder whether there are not in this bill three or four very marked exceptions to the rule that, generally, the provincial laws are being observed. For example, in section 4, subsection 2, paragraphs (a), (b)-particularly (b)-and (c) are marked exceptions which have been definitely designed in view of the war.


Norman Alexander McLarty: We are on the third reading of the bill, and I do not wish to consume the time of the house; but what the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) says is quite correct, that they are there by reason of the fact that we are at war. If hon. members will read paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), those in internment camps, those debarred by reason of having claimed postponement, those affected by what we may as well frankly refer to as Japanese, are there, but the exceptions are all by virtue of the fact that we are at war.


Angus MacInnis: I think the reasons given by the Secretary of State (Mr. McLarty) are very lame indeed. In the Dominion Elections Act we have never closely followed the election laws of the provinces. We followed them where it suited us to do so and departed from them where it did not. For years in the province of Quebec women were not allowed to vote in provincial elections, but ever since we have had universal franchise in Canada women in that province have been allowed

Plebiscite Act
to vote in federal elections. To take the position that the Secretary of State (Mr. McLarty) takes would mean that if a province should put a prohibitory clause in its elections act, this parliament would be bound to adopt that provision in its election acts. That does not make sense. This is a sovereign parliament, and in enacting this measure we can put in it any provision we wish. I would urge that this house put content into our assertions about building a new social order, by extending the benefits of that new order to the least among us.


Mr. LIGUORI LACOMBE (Laval-Two Mountains):: This is a dominion plebiscite, as the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) said a moment ago. The hon. member is perfectly right in supporting the amendment. I will do so. The poor must have the privilege of voting on this plebiscite; consequently I am deeply pleased to support the amendment. Why disqualify the poor, who are making greater sacrifices than the rich in this war?


Hon. H. A. BRUCE (Parkdale):: I only wish to say a word as to my position in regard to the bill that is before the house. My leader (Mr. Hanson) has expressed my views as to why it is consistent to vote with the government at this time, because over a period of some weeks nearly all the members of the house have expressed themselves and some of us have stated our views in opposition to the bill. I still .find the bill as abhorrent as I did at the beginning, but if we must have this measure let us get it over quickly. That is why I am voting with the government to-day.
May I suggest, before the last rites have been performed over the remains of parliamentary government in Canada, that the members of this house observe the usual two minutes of silence for contemplation and that the Prime Minister and his cabinet apply to themselves the message that was brought to Canada yesterday in speaking before the Rotary club, Montreal, by a very distinguished brain surgeon, Doctor Penfield, who has just returned from Great Britain: "Get your heads out of the sand; you are not doing enough; it is later than you think."
The new Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) a few weeks ago spoke of the Prime Minister as the captain of the ship. I would carry the simile a little further and say that we members of the house are the crew, and now that the ship of state is hopelessly adrift in a terrific gale, we find the captain ignoring the crew and calling upon the passengers to help him guide the ship.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I had not intended to take part in the discussion of this amendment, but it might be proper to say a word in view of the remarks of the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Bruce). It is, I think, of interest, certainly to the country, if not to hon. members who are fully aware of the fact, to know that on the second reading the principle of the bill is always the main consideration. I would direct attention to the fact that all members of this house supported the second reading. There was no division, nor was any division even called for; every hon. member therefore, according to the records of parliament, was in support of the principle of the bill.
The hon. member for Parkdale has said something about the message brought by a distinguished gentleman to the people of Canada to the effect that they should get their heads out of the sand. I hope my hon. friend's head was not in the sand at the time of the division on the second reading, because certainly he supported the second reading of the bill or else was absent from the house and did not indicate any position. But, according to the records, his position is that he supported the principle of the bill, or at any rate did not oppose it. I am at a loss, therefore, to understand how, when all parties in this house have supported, and I think wisely and rightly supported, the principle of the bill, and members generally are now advocating that, when the plebiscite is taken it be supported by the people of Canada generally, some hon. gentlemen opposite should continue, as the hon. member for Parkdale has sought to do this afternoon, in the remarks which he has just made, to cast ridicule not only upon the bill and the purposes of the bill but upon parliament itself.
The house divided on the amendment (Mr. Fair) which was negatived on the following division.
++YEAS
Messrs:
Black (Cumberland)
Blaekmore
Bruce
Cardiff
Castleden
Church
Coldwell
Diefenbaker
Douglas (Weyburn)
Esling
Fair
Fraser
(Peterborough West) Gillis Green Hansell
Harris (Danforth) Hlynka
Johnston (Bow River) Kuhl
Lacombe Lockhart [DOT] McGregor Maclnnis MacKinnon
(Kootenay East) MacNicol Marshall Nicholson Nielsen, Mrs. Noseworthy Perley Quelch
Ross (St. Paul's)
Ross (Souris)
Rowe
Roy
Shaw
White-37.
Plebiscite Act

++NAYS
Messrs:
Abbott	McCubbin
Authier	McCulloch
Bercovitch	MacDiarmid
Bertrand (Prescott)	Macdonald
Black (Chateauguay-	(Brantford City)
Huntingdon)	Macdonald (Halifax)
Black (Yukon)	Macdonald
Blair	(Kingston City)
Blanchette	McDonald (Pontiac)
Bradette	McGarry
Breithaupt	McGibbon
Cardin	Mcllraith
Chevrier	Mclvor
Cleaver	Mackenzie
Cloutier	(Vancouver Centre)
Corman	MacKinnon
Cote	(Edmonton West)
Crerar	McLarty
Crete	MacLean (Cape Breton
Cruickshank	North-Victoria)
Davidson	McLean (SimcoeEast)
Dechene	Macmillan
Donnelly	McNevin
Dubuc	(Victoria, Ont.)
Dupuis	McNiven
Durocher	(Regina City)
Edwards	Matthews
Emmerson	Michaud
Eudes	Mitchell
Evans	Mullins
Farquhar	Mulock
Fauteux	Mutch
Ferland	Neill
Ferron	O'Neill
Fleming	Pinard
Fontaine	Pottier
Fournier (Hull)	Power
Fournier (Maison-	Purdy
neuve-Rosemont)	Reid
Fraser (Northumber-	Rheaume
land, Ont.)	Roebuck
Fulford	Ross (Calgary East)
Furniss	Ross (Hamilton East)
Gardiner	Ross (Middlesex East)
Gershaw	Ross (Moose Jaw)
Gladstone	Ryan
Golding	St. Laurent
Goulet	Sanderson
Graham	Sissons
Grant	Soper
Gregory	Stirling
Hanson (Skeena)	Sylvestre
Hanson	Taylor
(York-Sunbury)	Telford
Henderson	Thauvette
Hill	Thorson
Howe	Tripp
Hurtubise	Tucker
Ilsley	Turgeon
Isnor	Turner
Jean	Veniot
King, Mackenzie	Vien
Laflamme	Ward
Lafontaine	Warren
Leduc	Weir
Leger	Whitman
Little	Winkler
McCann	Wood-125.
Motion (Mr. McLarty) agreed to, and bill read the third time and passed, on division.



CANADIAN FORCES

[Stage Direction]
REINSTATEMENT IN CIVIL EMPLOYMENT OF PERSONS WHO ENLIST IN HIS MAJESTY^ FORCES
The house resumed from Monday, February 23, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mitchell for the second reading of Bill No. 5, to provide for the reinstatement in civil employment of individuals who enlist for service in his majesty's forces or who perform essential war employment.
Mr. J. R. MacNICOL (Davenport):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take advantage of this opportunity of congratulating the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) upon having risen from the ranks of labour to his present high position, in which I wish him every success. He follows in the footsteps of distinguished men in his office; in fact I believe no less a .person than the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) was the first Minister of Labour and had the honour of organizing the department. That is a mark for the new minister to keep in sight.
As one who for years served with many hundreds and thousands of working men, many of whom served in the first world war and many of whose sons and grandsons are serving in the present war, I not only rise to support this bill, but I will support any other bill that may be introduced providing for the reestablishment or rehabilitation of our soldiers on completion of their service. For years I was associated with working men and shared their joys and sorrows. I experienced with them their satisfaction at having fulltime employment with reasonable working conditions and adequate wages, to all of which the workers are entitled. I experienced with them their grief and distress when they and their families had to suffer through unemployment. Naturally any bill that has for its object the provision of employment will have my support; and while this bill does not by any means go far enough to suit me, at least it is a step in the right direction. I hope that what I and others who take part in this debate may say will encourage the minister to go further, if not in this bill then perhaps in other measures. As I have said, the minister has risen from the ranks of labour, as I did; he has been a union man, as I was, in my early days having belonged to a transport union. I am confident that his mind is sympathetic to improving the conditions of our working men, and as a rule, though not always, our soldiers are working men.
Everyone is not in accord on this bill. Recently I read two articles in which the writers took this house to task for proposing

Forces-Reinstatement in Employment
to discuss rehabilitation and reestablishment measures instead of proceeding with measures designed to prosecute the war. They argued that if we lose the war, any rehabilitation plans we may adopt will be of no avail. I do not agree with that attitude. I am not a defeatist, and that is a defeatist attitude. We will win the war; I am confident of that. 1 know that in the long history of the British empire on many occasions she has lost serious battles, but always she has won the decisive victory and dictated the terms of peace. I remember that in the first great war Admiral Cradock lost a whole squadron, except one ship, in the reverse at Coronel. We were driven out of Gallipoli with great loss. General Townshend lost a whole army at Kut al Imara, but we experienced the satisfaction of Scapa Plow. In this war our first great loss was at Dunkirk, then Hong Kong and then Singapore. But I have implicit belief that God in His infinite mercy will again vouchsafe victory to our arms, and that again we will have the pleasure and honour of the equivalent of a Scapa Flow. I say therefore that the minister is doing a worth-while service when he brings in a bill looking to the rehabilitation of our returning soldiers. Through its plans the government is making at least a start in that direction.
The cabinet has set up a special committee consisting of five of its ministers to study demobilization and reestablishment after the war. It has set up also an interdepartmental committee on demobilization and reestablishment. And outside-I do not know whether or not the government is responsible for this, but it may have had something to do with it-a committee on reconstruction has been formed1, to consist of educationists, labour leaders, leading industrialists, business men and others. In addition there is the British dominions immigration society which I hope will cooperate with the objective of the bill later to be introduced by the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie). I refer to the measure to settle returned soldiers on the land.
I should hope that after the war we would be in a position to bring out hundreds of thousands of those heroic soldiers from the old country, and that we might settle as many as possible of them on the land. Then, there is the British Empire Service League reconstruction committee. It would seem therefore that the work of these groups or committees, when added to the operation of the bill which is later to be introduced by the Minister of Pensions and National Health, and the operation of this bill, ought to develop something which would make impossible the dire conditions which followed the last war-conditions about which I shall speak a little later.
When the minister moved second reading of the bill on February 23, he made a brief statement to which for a moment I should like to refer. These were his words, as reported at page 807 of Hansard:
In my opinion the measure will provide for the orderly reinstatement of tens of thousands of men.
I hope that was just an expression of opinion, because we will have to provide not for tens of thousands but for hundreds of thousands of men. I suggest the word should have been "hundreds" instead of "tens". The minister nods his head, and I am pleased to note that he agrees with me.
Then he spoke about the British bill, the National Service Act of 1939, and made particular reference to that portion of the bill dealing with the armed forces. I have read that bill carefully, and I am convinced that in some particulars the bill now before us is a little better. There are one or two points however in the British bill to which I shall direct the attention of hon. members, and which seem to me to be a little better than our bill. Then, the minister may be able to tell me a section in the bill now before us which would be equivalent to the enforcement section in the British bill.
As I said at the outset, however, in my view this measure should go a great deal further. Conditions in Great Britain are to a great extent different from what they are in Canada. In the first place, Great Britain is a highly industrialized country. I should think that there is a greater population within a radius of twenty-five miles from St. Paul's cathedral than there is in the whole of Canada. They have thousands upon thousands of factories, some of which I have visited. Conditions are different in Canada, because we have only a few highly industrialized areas, and the majority of our people live outside the industrial areas.
I observe that in the United States a programme of works has been introduced, and I should hope that if not in this bill, then later, the minister might institute similar projects. I shall make further observations along these lines at the proper time. In other words, the government of the United States through its department of labour is planning means to provide hundreds of thousands of jobs apart altogether from those offered in industry. I am sure the minister has that in mind for discussion later.
I should like now to refer briefly to the bill itself, and shall deal only with the
1034	COMMONS
Forces-Reinstatement in Employment
principle of the bill. In the first part it appears to deal with almost any returned soldier. It is an act to provide for the reinstatement in civil employment of individuals who enlist for service in His Majesty's forces. That is the first part. And then, the second: to provide for the reinstatement in civil employment of individuals who perform essential war employment.
The bill deals with the first classification, namely, the reinstatement in civil employment of individuals who enlist for service in His Majesty's forces, and it contains the expression "service in His Majesty's forces" sixteen times. So far as I can see this measure pertains almost wholly to individuals enlisting for service in the armed forces. There may be a portion of it-and I must confess I have not been able to find that portion-which pertains to individuals who perform essential war employment. I assume that expression refers to individuals engaged in industrial plants.
Let us for a moment consider the soldiers who worked in the iron and steel business, with which I am more familiar, and include the men right back to the miners in the iron mine.


Humphrey Mitchell: The words "or who perform essential war employment" are to be stricken out. It was an error in drafting. I shall move an amendment for that purpose.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am sorry to hear that those words are to be struck out, unless the minister is to introduce another bill to provide for these.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What did the minister say?


Humphrey Mitchell: That those words are to be struck out of the title, and I am to incorporate a measure of that kind in another bill.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am glad to hear that.
The bill pertains largely to industry, and I call particular attention to these words:
And whereas many employers of persons who have enlisted to serve in His Majesty's forces in the present war have voluntarily undertaken to reinstate in employment such persons, following their honourable discharge or demobilization from His Majesty's forces . . . and whereas it is deemed expedient for the security, defence, peace, order and welfare of Canada that provision should be made for the orderly reinstatement in their previous employment of such persons aforesaid.
Let me say that the minister can depend on industry, almost to the extent of one hundred per cent, reinstating their men when they come back from overseas. I had something to do with that matter at the end of the last war, and I know the problems which must be overcome. It is a tremendous prob-

lem, and some time will be required to solve it. No one need doubt what industry will do, despite the scurrilous statements I have heard in the house frequently by men whose statements indicate that they know little or nothing about industry or employment in industry.
Industry will do its part. I have been through that phase, and I know it. But I hope when the bill is changed, as the minister indicated, there will be something in it for the government to do. Industry cannot do it all. I do not find anything in the bill outlining what the government itself may do thus to provide reemployment.
May I say a word about my experience following the last war. The plant with which I was associated had about one thousand employees, more or less, in the first week of November, 1918. Within a month or at all events within a reasonable time after the war, employment had dropped from one thousand to one hundred, more or less. I myself expected every day to be advised that my services were no longer required. Holding an executive position, I knew I was not earning my salary and could hardly look the paymaster in the face and take my salary. My point is that industry will not be able to rehabilitate and reestablish quickly large numbers of returning men, and I want that point to be considered if the bill is to be changed in any way. That interim period between the close of the war and the time when it might be possible for plants to take their men back is a more or less indefinite period, and later I shall suggest some provision to take care of that period.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: May I point out to the hon. gentleman that on the second reading of the bill, while a brief reference may be made to the subject matter of its sections, he should stick to the principle of the bill.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The principle is the reemployment of returning service men. I had just started to say that the minister has intimated that there will be changes made in reference to those performing essential war employment; and that will be a very large number to be provided for in the bill.
There is another group of men about whom I am worrying. The bill by section 2, paragraphs (b), (i) and (ii), applies to returned men who had employee status on September 9, 1939, and to those who had employment for six months after September 9, 1939. I should like to inquire, where will a great many of the men who enlisted in the first, the second and perhaps the third divisions come in? When these divisions were being mobilized, great numbers of young men from my own

F orces-Reinstatement
in Employment
riding who had never had any employee status in their lifetime rushed to join the colours. They had been out of work for years before the war and were trudging round1 the streets looking for work. When war broke out, thousands of these young men rushed to enlist.
I do not for a moment suggest that they enlisted because they were out of work. I say that they are patriotic, and I cannot find anything in the bill which would cover many of these young men who enlisted in the first, the second and perhaps the third divisions and who were not employed either before or after September 9, 1939. I know that the minister would be the last man in this house to bar them from employment. It may be an oversight that the bill does not cover them, and I hope that when it is in committee provision will be made for the thousands of young men who rushed to the colours when war broke out but did not have employee status. It would be manifestly most unfair if they wera debarred from employment under this bill, and I hope that the minister will take that into consideration when the bill is in committee.
The British bill has something to say about enforcement. The returning men who did have employee status may be turned1 down when they go back to the plants where they worked to seek employment, and somebody should be ready to assist them in getting reinstated. There may be something in this bill to that effect. Perhaps I am not sufficiently qualified to understand its legal terms, but 1 do know that the British bill specifically provides for that contingency. The British bill, chapter 81, George VI, by section 14, subsection 4-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What is the date of that bill?


John Ritchie MacNicol: It is the National Service (Armed Forces) Act, 1939, and is contained in Public General Acts and Measures, 2 and 3 and part of 3 and 4, George VI, 1938-39, Volume 11.


Mr. MACDONALD (Brantford City):: That was before the war.


John Ritchie MacNicol: No. The bill is entitled the National Service (Armed Forces) Act, 1939, and subsection 4 of section-14 reads:
(4) If the minister is satisfied that it is necessary to restrain employers from terminating the employment of their employees by reason of any duties or liabilities which they are or may become liable to perform or discharge by reason of their having been called from their civil employment for service connected with the present emergency, or to make provision for the prevention of evasion of the provisions of this section, he may make regulations for those purposes. . . .
There may be something in the present bill providing for the enforcement of its provisions. I trust that is so, because from my long association with working men-and I know the minister, too, has had a long association with working men-I know and he knows that working men would be diffident about enforcing their rights to return to work. If a working man went to get the help of a lawyer, he might be scared as soon as he got inside the door of his office and saw the desks, easy chairs and all the rest of the paraphernalia of a lawyer's office, and might at once back out again. So I hope the bill will contain some provision that will make it somebody's business to receive representations from the soldiers and to see that they get fair play in the matter of reinstatement.
Having had a lot to do with unemployment following the last war, I look forward with a very great deal of interest to what is going to take place after this war. As I said at the commencement of my remarks, I am hopeful, from the plans which the government is making, that the same conditions will not prevail after this war as after 1918, when soldiers returning to their home town were compelled to walk the streets for months and months looking for work, and often were turned away from the plants where some of them had worked before. I am most anxious, so far as I can assist, to see that the returned soldiers become reestablished.
The fundamentals in dealing with labour are clear and simple. I always think of what Mr. Herbert Hoover said in 1919, when he was chairman of the reconstruction committee in the United States, and later president of the republic. I have not his exact words, but they impressed themselves on me in my days of closer association with labour than I perhaps have now, and I remembered them as long as I had anything to do with actual labour. He said (1) that any man desiring to work should have the opportunity to work; (2) that his working conditions should be reasonable; (3) that his health should be protected while he was employed; (4) that he should have adequate wages or return for his labour to enable him to keep his family in reasonable comfort and provide for their education. I suppose, Mr. Speaker, that nine out of ten members of this house have come from humble working-men's homes. I did, and I am proud of it. The minister did, and he is proud1 of it. So the education of the working-man's child is allimportant.
Mr. Hoover's fifth point was that he should be able to pay for his home. I hope that after this war there will be no such conditions as
1036	COMMONS
Forces-Reinstatement in Employment
obtained following the last war. I remember the cases of many workmen who had paid their all into their little homes, and then, after a period of unemployment, became sick and died or their wives died, their families became scattered and their homes were lost. The present Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) has a long connection with sane labour organization; he never was an agitator. I remember that when he was in this house before, he invariably talked from a sane point of view on behalf of labour; and I have always tried to do the same.
I trust that these fundamentals will be before every hon. member in considering this bill, so that, after the present war, the humble labouring man will have, what he has not had as long as I have known him, constant employment, fair wages, and reasonable working conditions-all of which are his just due. I speak from experience. I have been out of work; I know what it means. The average working man is, after all, the best buyer, the best consumer, because God usually blesses him with a large family. When he is not able to buy, the purchasing power of the country goes down and down. If he is thrown out of work for any length of time-as happened after the last war, during the depression-he becomes a charge on his family, his friends, or his relations, and loses all he has. I hope that the minister, in this and other legislation, will see to it that these conditions do not recur, otherwise the war will have been fought in vain.


Mr. REID:: Do not forget the workman's old age.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I said a few moments ago that I would suggest some other things for the minister to do in this bill, because men have to be provided jobs-that is the purpose of the bill. All of them cannot be reemployed in industry in any reasonable length of time I know'; I have been through it. A number of industries will close their doors when the war is over. All the large munition plants will cease operations unless they have other demands to meet. Those old line industries which have transferred their activities from their own products to the making of war material will require some time to reestablish their plants on the former basis. In the meantime there will be an interim for which provision must be made.
According to what I have read, the United States department of labour proposes to set aside this year 1550,000,000 for after-war rehabilitation in just one line, the building of power dams and plants in the western states. Many individual states are also making preparations. Either Iowa, Kansas or Nebraska, I am not sure which, is appropriat-
ing from three to four million dollars a year for after-war rehabilitation. I suggest to the minister that he double up his good strong hand and come out boldly for full after-war rehabilitation. The Prime Minister, having himself administered that department, is perhaps more inclined to be sympathetic to its needs than are some ministers who are less familiar wdth labour, so the minister should be able to count upon his support in asking that a large annual vote be placed aside until the war is over, in order that the department responsible for seeing that every man who wants work shall have work will be able to discharge his fundamental duty. If in the United States they are doing it, we can do it here. There is ample opportunity.
After my last trip to Germany, a trip which thoroughly convinced me that war was in the offing, I speeded up my travelling across Canada until to-day, I believe, I have covered the greater part of the dominion south of the 58th parallel and much of it between the 58th and the 63rd parallels. I know that no other , country in the world has such resources as we have, resources lying wide open for development. Development is necessary to keep men employed; and once they obtain their wages they circulate those wages.
I never could see why men should not be provided with employment by the government. I remember that some years ago the previous government brought in a bill to vote $20,000,000 for the alleviation of unemployment. The amount was a mere bagatelle. Had the government brought in a bill to spend $100,000,000, it would have got through this house just as easily as the smaller sum, and the result might well have been to have started a programme of rehabilitation which would have prevented the depression. I say to the minister, do likewise; ask for large sums of money.
It may keep you in power for years and years. I am not particularly interested in whether I am on this side of the house or the other side. But I am and always have been interested, since I was a young man, in providing jobs for men, and I have provided or assisted in providing many jobs for men. There is nothing which delights one's heart more than to be able to do that. Our main duty here is to provide jobs. It matters little whether we are on one side of the chamber or the other, but it does matter that men and women shall have employment for reasonable hours and at reasonable wages, so that they may adequately take care of their wives and families.
During the last war the nations of Europe, the United States and ourselves spent a hundred billion dollars in destroying each other and destroying the treasure of the ages.

Forces-Reinstatement in Employment
It is not much to ask the government to vote millions of dollars to keep men employed. It is a thousand times better to keep them employed than to vote millions of dollars to destroy them.
Therefore I say to the minister, in conclusion, take a big bold stand for the provision of opportunities for men to work. Industry cannot absorb them all; it will help; then the government must provide works, and there is ample opportunity in Canada for works. If the United States can spend $550,000,000 on building power plants, we in Canada can do something. Last summer I saw a great power opportunity on the Slave river, and another one on the Peace river; the two combined would produce over a million horse-power, and if we could provide the horse-power we might invite industry to make use of it.
The Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) will undoubtedly have in view, for the settlement of some returned soldiers on the land, the country north of the Peace river, but we must not do what was done in the past, some thirty or forty years ago. We must not send men into parts of the country seventy miles away from any railway. As some pioneers north of Peace River told me, for thirty-five or forty years they looked in vain for railway transportation which they never got, and they were obliged to cart their grain by truck or horses. At one place, Notikewin, they were seventy miles away from any railway. There is ample opportunity to give thousands of men jobs which will provide abundant employment.
I suggest that the minister set up a committee. I shall be glad to serve on any research committee free of charge in connection with the job of providing jobs. The munitions plants should be kept going if at all possible. Surely there must be thousands of things that can be made in them and that should be made after the war. I suggest, therefore, that some research board or committee be put into operation to look for opportunities to keep these plants going, which ordinarily will cease production at the end of the war and consequently throw men on the streets. We must do something to keep these plants in operation so as to provide employment for men in the making of things which people will buy if only they have money. There is nothing like putting money into ' men's pockets. They will circulate it.
I am wondering what about the men returning now. When I go home on Saturdays I am besieged by returned men asking for employment. I cannot give it to them, and in that regard I would say to the minister that he should keep the men in khaki for a reasonable
length of time after demobilization, or at any rate after their retirement from service, so that they will have some income to look forward to in the interim before being regularly established.


Mr. D. G. ROSS (St. Paul's):: I have a few words to say in connection with this bill. We all know what national problems present themselves after every war. That is a matter of history. We must see to it that we shall not have a repetition after this war, of the condition that prevailed after the last war, the condition that has prevailed after other wars. Employers should be enabled to take back men after the war. That is a good idea and it is one that should be in the bill. It is admirable on the part of a great many employers to-day that they have made it a condition that men who have enlisted in the army shall be reinstated after they come back.
After the last war we had a depression resulting in unemployment, with men walking the streets. There was despondency among the people, who were wondering whether, after all, the fighting that had taken place had been worth while when men came back to the condition they found existing then. The government looked after men by way of pensions and so on, to the extent of a certain amount of money. We had not had a great deal of experience in those days, but we have experience now, and that experience must be put into practice after this war.
The bill is certainly a step in the right direction. We want to have a bill which will not be a deterrent to the enlistment of men in the army but one that will tend towards increasing the enlistment of men. The men returning to-day are to a great extent being absorbed in industry. Employers have done a good deal in the way of taking men back wherever possible, and where men have come back with disabilities they have been absorbed to a large extent. But it is in the time that will follow the cessation of the war that we shall have the tremendous problem on our hands. It is all very well to have a bill which has a compulsory feature such as this; but no matter how much you compel, you cannot compel people to do something they simply cannot do, and if it is impossible for employers to reemploy these men it cannot be done and no amount of compulsion through a bill such as this will be any good unless we have planning.
I want to give a warning to the government and to the house. When this war is over we must demobilize men slowly, both our armed forces and also the workers in industry. We shall have to continue making munitions long after we have need for them; we shall
1038	COMMONS
Forces-Reinstatement in Employment
have to keep a large army long after we have need for it. Neither must demobilization be precipitate. That is one of the great faults we have to avoid, and no amount of cry from the taxpayers should be allowed to interfere with any programme in that regard'. The cry of taxpayers should not be an inducement to any government at that time to shut down industry and to demobilize the army too rapidly, or anything of the sort. It must be done gradually.
What will be the position after this war? It will be different from the position after the last war. We shall have an army of technical people highly trained-because there will be both men and women. These people must be looked after, and therefore technical jobs must be provided for them. The bill will not be any good unless some of these things are thought of. The employees of the country are all highly trained technically, and that is the kind of employment that must be provided. There is no use talking about vast programmes of public works, and so on. We must have something more than that. We must readjust the industries that we shall have at that time to the needs of the future in order to keep up production. Everything that can possibly be done must be done for these people who come out of the army, and we must do the same for those who are in civilian life and who are technically trained. There is no reason why it cannot be done. The one thing to do is to keep always in mind the factor of importance, on which the prosperity of any country really depends, and that is the rapidity of exchange of goods and services among the individuals of the country. We must keep that rapidity in the exchange of goods and services on an even keel, not allowing it to go either away up or away down. There are a good many things that can be done.
After the war is over we shall need to replenish the supply we have of consumption goods, but we must not allow the increase in the supply of consumption goods to accumulate too fast. We shall have exploitation if we do. It must grow gradually. We shall still have a great many war controls such as ve have to-day in connection with prices and trade and wages and so on. We must keep these controls on and loosen them only gradually; otherwise we shall have chaos. Unless the government of the day take into consideration all these factors, and remember that we must have a gradual transition from wartime to peace-time industries; unless they plan far enough ahead, we shall have the same conditions as we had after the last war.
There are other things that must be taken into consideration. When the war is over

there is no doubt we shall have a very large increase in foreign trade. The question how the goods are to be paid for will be a matter for arrangement. We must not let the people of the country receive too quickly the benefits of that trade so that there will be too much prosperity all at once. It has to be done gradually. Then as time goes on we shall have the opportunity for creating new desires, for such things as labour-saving devices; opportunities for increasing the standard! of living; public works will not take care of everything, although there will be plenty of public works to be done. But we must not allow too much prosperity too quickly; that is the warning I give now.
There is no use in just having a bill like this; it is a good gesture, but to my mind there is a good deal of eyewash in it. Unless we do all these other things it will be only a scrap of paper, just the same as anything else that is not thought out far enough ahead. Therefore I suggest to the Minister of Labour that now is the time to set up a parliamentary committee which will have the time and can give a good deal of thought to the matter, and can call in economic experts to help them so that they can plan comprehensively for the future. That would be far and away ahead of trying to compel something, as this bill would do, which you cannot compel unless you take into' consideration all the factors of which I have just spoken. It is a tremendous problem.
People say to-day; Oh, we cannot do anything else now but think of the war. It is true that the war effort demands our utmost power, but there is no reason why the government should not be putting its best foot forward and preparing a plan for the future. This will aid our war effort. Anything that can be done to provide for our men when they return is all to the good. I am all in favour of it, but we should go further than that.
Another aspect of a situation such as this is that of contributory old age pensions.


Thomas Vien: I would call the hon. member's attention to the fact that old age pensions do not come within the purview of this bill and are not germane to the matter before the house.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I submit that it is quite in order for the hon. member to suggest them as an additional remedy for the condition he has in mind.


Thomas Vien: I will allow a certain latitude so long as I can see some

Forces-Reinstatement in Employment
connection with the subject matter before the house, but old age pensions is a subject by itself.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I suggest that if the hon. gentleman is not satisfied with the bill in principle, he should suggest something better.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I did not hear what the minister said. All I am saying is that we do not want charity for these men when they come back, and because old age pensions are not on a contributory basis they are looked upon as charity. We do not want people as they grow old to be objects of charity. Therefore I suggest old age pensions as another factor to be considered. The minister seems to think that I disagree with the principle of the bill. I am trying to say that I agree with the principle, but that is no good unless we have something more.


Thomas Langton Church: 
[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.