1942-03-27

STANDING COMMITTEES


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:: That the name of Mr. Graham be substituted for that of Mr. Turgeon on the standing committee on agriculture and colonization.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 20 for the relief of Eleanor Adele Rea Barrett.-Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 21 for the relief of Eleanor Edith McKechnie Barlow.-Mr. Whitman.
Bill No. 22 for the relief of Dorothy Agnes Henrietta Russell Cantlie.-Mr. Whitman.
Bill No. 23 for the relief of Irene Coadic Murphy.-Mr. Hill.
Bill No. 24 for the relief of Lester Lewis Catchpaw.-Mr. Davidson.
Bill No. 25 for the relief of Annie Ruth Fisher Allen.

Mr. Hill.
Bill No. 26 for the relief of Alice Adelia LaFleur Johnston.-Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 27 for the relief of George Webb.- Mr. Boucher.
Bill No. 28 for the relief of Edith Morgan Black.-Mr. Mcllraith.
Bill No. 29 for the relief of Betty Leah Bregman Beloff.-Mr. Whitman.

Second Victory Loan
Bill No. 30 for the relief of Malca Levitt, otherwise known as Atty Malcy Levitt.-Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 31 for the relief of Jack Simon.- Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 32 for the relief of Marie Louise McCarthy Smyth.-Mr. Boucher.
Bill No. 33 for the relief of Marie Glenna Grace Thomas Reynolds.-Mr. Hill.
Bill No. 34 for the relief of Isabel Jessica Black Jolley.-Mr. Abbott.
Bill No. 35 for the relief of Margaretha Elisabeth Buck Peereboom.-Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 36 for the relief of Ethel May Marshall James.-Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 37 for the relief of Anastasia Tkaczuk Wojtkowycz.-Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 38 for the relief of Phyllis Wilda Valentine Park Evans.-Mr. Abbott.
Bill No. 39 for the relief of Louise Mehliss Jackson.

Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 40 for the relief of Bertha Beatrix Berlind Ripstein.-Mr. Boucher.
Bill No. 41 for the relief of Lola McIntosh.- Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City).
Bill No. 42, to incorporate the Canadian Dental Association.-Mr. Mcllraith.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: I think I should make a statement regarding the second victory loan before the house adjourns. The main part of this statement will relate to commissions and other remuneration paid in connection with the sale of the second victory loan bonds. I make this statement because certain hon. members of the house have been good enough to call to my attention certain reports which are apparently circulating in some sections of the country. These are so obviously false as to suggest that they have been inspired by sources which have a selfish interest in undermining and impeding Canada's war effort.
Unfortunately it will be some time yet before all the payments have been made and the returns completed in connection with the loan, and therefore I cannot now give the actual dollar amounts of payments that will be made to those who rendered services in connection with the campaign. However, I can and wish to give the house the basis upon which the payments will be made.
First, let me deal with the commissions paid to individual salesmen. The basis of these commissions will be five-eighths of one per cent on subscriptions to the twelve-year
bonds and three-eighths of one per cent on the six-year bonds. This represents an increase of one-eighth of one per cent compared with what was paid in connection with 1941 victory loan, but it must be noted that this time no commission will be paid on subscriptions classified as employee subscriptions. Moreover, no commission will be paid on conversion subscriptions to the two and one-half year bonds which were not issued for cash, or on subscriptions from subscribers included in the special names category. Last year we found that fin a good many instances, particularly in the case of salesmen working in rural districts or other districts which for one reason or another did not represent good sales territory, the amount of commissions paid served to do little more than cover out-ofpocket expenses of the salesmen. Provision was therefore made this time for more extensive pooling of part of the commission by provincial and local committees so that fair treatment could be rendered to each salesman no matter what the type of sales territory in which he was assigned to work. My hope is that this arrangement will result in reasonably fair treatment to all the individual salesmen. In this connection it should be remembered that the salesmen used in the campaign were drawn away from their usual occupations, and had not only to devote their full time to the sales of bonds while the campaign was on but also had to spend considerable time in preparation and training during the three weeks period before the campaign actually commenced.
Next I deal with the remuneration to banks, trust and loan companies, Quebec savings banks and other savings institutions (province of Ontario savings offices, Alberta treasury branches, and La Federation des Caisses Populates Desjardins). No selling commission of any kind will be paid on sales made to the public by the various branches of the banks or these other financial institutions. However, we will pay a service fee for the varied services they rendered in entering subscriptions and handling the payment and delivery of the bonds to purchasers. This service fee will be at a rate of one-quarter of one per cent of the par value of bonds serviced by each such institution calculated in accordance with the regulations.
With regard to the remuneration to be paid to investment dealers and stockbrokers, provision has been made for investigation of the services rendered and recommendation to me of a fair basis of remuneration for such services by a committee consisting of the chairman of the national war finance committee, the securities advisor of the Bank of Canada, and the deputy minister of finance. In arriv-
Second Victory Loan

mg at this basis of remuneration, the committee will take into account the number of different types of personnel made available to the national war finance committee for varying terms of employment, -which extended over a period of four months in many cases, and will also have reasonable regard to the past record of performance of the various firms in connection with dominion loan campaigns.
The house may recall that the total expenses in connection with the first victory loan campaign, including not only commissions and other remuneration for services rendered but also advertising and publicity expenses, printing and distribution of bonds, et cetera, amounted to only 1-09 per cent of the total amount of the issue. It is anticipated that total expenditures in connection with the second victory loan campaign will represent a slightly lower percentage of the total issue. There has been some criticism in certain quarters of some aspects of the loan campaign. In my opinion these criticisms are unfounded. The campaign itself was a striking success, the reports I have received pay uniform tribute to the highly efficient organization which was developed, and I think the house will agree that the percentage cost figures which I have just indicated represent a very economical cost of raising a public loan of this magnitude and character.
In conclusion, I wish to express at this time and in this place not only the keen appreciation of the government and myself, out also I hope of this parliament, for the one services rendered in this very important campaign not only by members of the national war finance committee, which includes the provincial chairmen, but also by a great many other voluntary workers in provincial and local committees who gave unsparingly of their time and energy to make the campaign the success it proved- to be. Because, apparently, there has been a rumour circulating to the contrary, I wish to emphasize the fact that with the single exception of one provincial chairman serving in a western province and who because he is devoting his full time to the work of the national war finance committee receives a modest compensation, these persons gave their services without any remuneration.
Before I take my seat, it may be of interest to the house if I now give the latest figures we / have available in regard to the results of the loan. Figures compiled as at March 14th, show a total number of subscribers of 1,643,013, and- a total volume of subscriptions of 1993,884,350. Of the latter total, $841,766,350 represented cash subscrip-

tions, and the remainder, $152,118,000, represented conversion subscriptions. These figures are not as yet final but they will probably approximate the final results. The house, I think, will agree that these are astounding results for a loan offered to the public in the middle of winter and only one month prior to the due date of heavily increased income tax payments.



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved that the house go into committee on Bill No. 13, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Bradette in the chair.
On section 1-Payments to producers delivering wheat.
Mr. WRIGHT:: Mr. Chairman, as one of the members who asked that the committee on agriculture should be called together to consider the bills relating to agriculture, I should like to make a few observations on this matter.
Last year I was a member of the committee which dealt with pensions and returned soldier problems. That committee accomplished a good deal of excellent work. We met as a group of returned men, not as members of political parties, to consider the recommendations which had been made, and as a result of our work w*e offered certain suggestions to the government, which to a great extent were accepted. I was in hopes that when the agriculture committee met, the procedure would be something similar, that we would meet as a group of members representing agricultural constituencies, to consider the problems of the wheat growers of western Canada.
I am sorry to say that this was not the case. Even before the committee met, its work was prejudiced by the remarks of certain members on the government side of the house. The hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross), speaking the day before the bill was referred to the committee, is reported at page 1382 of Hansard to have said:
The changes in policy this year, as brought down by the government, have been accepted by hon. members in the government and followers of the government in the house, and for that reason they will finally pass the house as they are. No number of speeches made by hon. members can change that position. They did not even know what was going to happen until it came down in the house.

Wheat Board Act
That is an entirely wrong spirit in which to refer any measure to a committee. We found when the committee met that the same condition prevailed in the committee. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) told us that we could make representations, but that it was altogether unlikely that the government would be prepared to accept them, and that it had already viewed these bills from [DOT]every angle. He pointed out that everything that could be said with respect to them had already been said in the cabinet, and it was doubtful whether anything we would recommend would be accepted, if it entailed any further expenditure of money.
Under such circumstances it was pretty hard in committee to get anything which would give western agriculture a better deal than it had been receiving in the past. We did, however, recommend certain changes. We recommended a change with respect to basic acreage, as covered in section 3 of Bill No. 12. But that recommendation was not accepted by the government, and the bill went through in almost the same form as that in which it had been presented to the committee.
There were many of us who thought that in the consideration of Bill No. 14, to amend the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, a change should have been made to bring into the bill the principle of insurance. We were told that this was ultra vires of the British North America Act. It will be remembered, however, that when the government wished to introduce unemployment insurance it found a means to get round that difficulty; and I am sure, if it desired, it could find the means of developing from the Prairie Farm Assistance Act a comprehensive insurance scheme. A recommendation which was made in the committee that the government give further study to this matter was voted down. The fact that the committee on agriculture voted down a recommendation that the government should consider and study the matter of crop insurance does not seem to reflect the exercise of any great amount of intelligence. In the United States this matter has been considered for a number of years, and they have introduced a comprehensive scheme of crop insurance not only for wheat but for cotton and many other agricultural products.
These three bills taken together do not place the western wheat growers in any better position to-day than that which they occupied last year. Last year, under the prairie farm income legislation the farmers of western Canada were paid approximately $20,000,000. Under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, as it operated last year, they were paid something over $11,000,000. This year that act has been amended so as to exclude
those having crops of from eight to twelve bushels to the acre. Last year $7,000,000 of the money paid under the act was paid to this class. Wheat acreage reduction payments last year were made on the basis of $4 an acre; this year the basis is reduced to $2 an acre. This means that $11,000,000 less will be paid under the act next year.
The basic acreage under the wheat acreage reduction bill was changed. Under the new regulations it will mean that the bonus will be paid on a million less acres than last year. This means another $2,000,000 less that the farmers of western Canada will receive. In all, a total of $40,000,000 less will be paid under the regulations this year than was paid last year. If we take the crop we had last year, one of 200,000,000 bushels, and pay an additional 20 cents a bushel on it, as is recommended under this measure, we find that we have an additional payment of $40,000,000. On the other hand-


Mr. CRERAR:: I do not think the hon. member is discussing this bill at all. He is discussing other measures which were before the house on earlier occasions. This bill provides only two things: first, to change the price from 70 cents to 90 cents and, second, to include the word "mills". My hon. friend is discussing the acreage bonus, and matters of that kind, which have nothing to do with the bill.
Mr. MaeINNIS: On the point of order, while I did not take part in the discussion, my understanding is that all the bills were discussed interchangeably, or at the same time. I believe that was done to facilitate discussion on the whole question. If the hon. member for Melfort believes that that procedure is necessary on this occasion, I suggest he should be allowed to proceed.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I would draw the hon. member's attention to the fact that an arrangement was reached in preliminary discussions, on second reading of these bills in the house. The bills were then sent to committee, and this bill was reported back without amendment. I suggest it is stretching the understanding too far if we are to permit the same discussion at this stage.


Percy Ellis Wright: I was discussing the other bills only as they relate to this one. I have, however, completed that phase of the matter, and I shall not pursue it further.
With respect to the bill before the committee, we were informed in the committee on agriculture that we could not be told the price we were receiving for our wheat
Wheat Board Act

because the British government did not think it advisable to state the price at this time. But it will be noticed that the British government have allowed proper prices on other agricultural products. We know the price for cheese, and the prices for pork, bacon and other products have been made public. But there seems to be some deep dark secret so far as wheat is concerned. Perhaps there is a good reason for this secrecy, but I have never been able to see what it was. It seemed very unfair to me that the British government should be willing to pay their own farmers the cost of production, but that it should insist that the price paid to the farmers of western Canada should be less than the cost of production. That does not develop good-will or unity among British countries, but it is a condition which has prevailed up to this year.
Under the billion dollar gift to Britain that condition has been changed entirely. The matter is now in the hands of the Canadian government, and it seems most unfair to us in western Canada to know that our wheat is being sold to Great Britain below the cost of production, thereby compelling us to pay an unfair share of that billion dollar gift. Everything else going to Great Britain under that gift is being sent at a price which at least equals the cost of production. We in western Canada feel that our contribution to the gift should be at a rate equal to our cost.
There are three things these bills do not do which I believe they should do. It seems to me that the 8 to 12 bushel class should not have been eliminated from the provisions of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, and there should have been no change in the basic acreage provision in the wheat acreage reduction bill.


The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bradette):: The Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar) was quite in order when he contended that hon. members should keep within the limits of the bill. Later on there will be another bill having to do with wheat acreage, but at the present time we are dealing only with the wheat bonus.


Percy Ellis Wright: As I say, the rate should not have been cut. This amendment to the wheat board act provides for a . price this year of 90 cents a bushel, but I believe that this price should have been at least $1 a bushel, Fort William, plus participation certificates which would bring the farmer at least a parity price for his product. It seems to me that with these bills we are doing just what the hon. member for St. Antoine-

Westmount (Mr. Abbott) referred to about a year ago when he stated that some people believed they were thinking, when they were in reality only rearranging their prejudices. It seems to me that in these bills we are simply rearranging the payments to the farmers of western Canada. We are paying but little more than was paid last year, and with the wheat grower working under the conditions which prevail to-day, this seems to me to be most unfair.


Mr. REID:: It has been said that this 90 cents is below the cost of production. I can visualize a man with a five-bushel crop and another one with a twenty-bushel crop, and I cannot just understand what amount a farmer would have to get to cover his cost of production. Could the hon. member tell me what the cost of production really is on a bushel of wheat?


Percy Ellis Wright: The cost of production must always be figured on an average yield. The average yield in western Canada for many years has been between 16 and 18 bushels per acre. In my own section of the country our crops are larger than that. My own average for the past twenty years has been over 30 bushels per acre, but I grow wheat only on land that is specially prepared. You must take the average in arriving at these figures.


Thomas Reid: In other words, this 90-cent price would amply pay some farmers, while it would not pay others; would that be correct?


Percy Ellis Wright: There would be few
farmers in western Canada who would have made a profit at 90 cents, taking the average for the past ten or twenty years. There may be exceptional cases where a profit would be made, but they would be exceptional. Western Canada asked for a parity price taking 1926-29 as a base, which would be much easier to arrive at than the cost of production. I have in my hand an article which appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press of March 4, dealing with what the western farmer is receiving to-day for his wheat. This reads:
The prairie wheat producers' purchasing power dropped to its lowest point in ten years in 1941, down nearly 21 points from 1940, an index prepared by dominion bureau of statistics showed to-day.
The index was based entirely on wheat. In cases where wheat farmers have turned to production of coarse grains or other products, their 1941 purchasing power compared favourably with that of 1940, officials said.
With yield per acre, farm price per bushel and value per acre taken into account, the bureau index for 1941 stood at 33-3 against 54-2 in 1940, 63-8 in 1939, 44-7 in 1935, 89-3 in 1928 and 100-1 in 1927.

Wheat Board Act
The index basis of 100 established in 1913, when yield per acre was 20'8 bushels, farm price 65 cents a bushel and value per acre was $13.62. In 1941 the yield per acre was 12-9 bushels, farm price 49 cents and value per acre $6.38.
The bureau noted the 1941 average yield was the lowest since 1927. In the present crop year, the farm price of wheat averaged 49-2 cents a bushel from August to December, or 2'4 cents a bushel less than the 1940-41 crop year average. The average value per acre of $6.38 in 1941 was the lowest reported since 1933.
I contend that the western farmer is entitled to at least a parity price for his wheat. That is what the delegation which came to Ottawa asked for; that is all western agriculture has ever asked for-equal treatment with other groups in the dominion.


Mr. FAIR:: Mr. Chairman, what I shall have to say has been said year after year and I expect it to receive the same consideration now that it has received in the past. When this delegation of 400 from Saskatchewan, accompanied by representatives from Manitoba and Alberta, came down here, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) agreed that their demands were reasonable and fair. On one occasion the Prime Minister went so far as to say that the wheat situation was Canada's problem. I wonder what the Prime Minister is doing about it? Is he going to make it the farmers' problem or Canada's problem as a whole? We have not received the same consideration as that which has been accorded to other groups. We have been picked out and treated as a poor relation. As has been pointed out by the previous speaker, we have been no better off this last year than we were before. I think this fact must be recognized, regardless of any figures which may be placed before the committee. We know from experience that we are in no better position to-day than we were in the past.
We are asking for parity prices for agricultural products, not for one or two products but for all. This group with which I am associated and for which I am now speaking have suggested for a number of years that a price of 95 cents per bushel at the local elevator should be paid. The cost of production has increased tremendously because of the war, and this year we asked for at least $1 per bushel at the local elevators. Of course this would apply only where a farmer has a crop. Where he has no crop, some sound system of crop insurance should be put into effect. This could be done quite easily by amending the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. Consideration of this matter was refused by the agriculture committee, for what reason I do not know. Perhaps the
main reason was prejudice and ignorance of the question under discussion. Any one who uses his brains for the purpose for which they were given would not refuse to ask the government to investigate the feasibility of instituting a sound policy of crop insurance.
I think it is admitted that we are not being treated the same as other citizens of Canada. Speaking on March 10, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) had this to say, as reported on page 1211 of Hansard:
I would say to him that any member of this house who carries back into western Canada the government's policy in relation to wheat and its policy in relation to other farm products can stand before any audience and explain to the people there that this is the best that can be done under the conditions with which we are confronted in the Dominion of Canada to-day, and the best that has been done in an attempt to settle their problems at any time.
Two wrongs, Mr. Chairman, never did make a right. I say without fear of contradiction that the wheat growers of western Canada have not received the cost of production since 1929, thirteen years ago. Put any other class in Canada in that position-industrialists, bankers, insurance men, or any other group-and after they have been producing below the cost of production for thirteen years what would you have? You would have sit-down strikes all over the country. But the farmers have never gone on a sit-down strike, and so I say that they are among the most loyal citizens of this country. We have also done our share in sending fighting men to the front, and the Minister of Finance will bear me out when I say that the farmers have done more than they were really able to in subscribing such large amounts to the victory loan, about which the minister spoke a few moments ago.
The Minister of Agriculture went on to say in that same speech:
We are taking every last dollar out of the treasury of Canada to deal with these problems which we feel it is safe to take at this present time.
Every other class is accorded its full share before the farmers are even considered. Why should we be treated as the orphans of this country? Why do we have to take the treatment of a stepmother, and carry on below the cost of production? I can see no reason for it. When money is required to pay interest on our national debt or to provide supplies for our fighting forces we can always float a loan -and just here let me say that the Minister of Finance has neglected the one institution which should do the most of Canada's financing outside of the money that is raised by taxation, and that is the Bank of Canada. The Minister of Finance seems to have neglected it entirely. Apparently his advisers and the rulers of this
Wheat Board Act

country have seen fit to decree that the farmers must continue in their present condition of poverty.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: Shame.


Robert Fair: Yes, because for a number of
years past we have produced figures in this house, supported by argument, to show that the farmers have been and are still producing at below the cost of production, yet the government has not seen fit to alter that condition. As I see it, we shall have to have others on the treasury benches before the farmers will get fair treatment. It is my intention when I go back to my constituency to tell the farmers, as I shall continue to tell this house, that until they organize and vote in their own interest when election day comes, they can expect no better treatment than they are receiving and have been receiving for years past.


Mr. KUHL:: I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture a question based on the quotation from one of his addresses in this house which the hon. member for Battle River has just made, to the effect that the government was taking out of the treasury to deal with agricultural problems every last dollar it felt safe in taking. If funds were made available to the department for raising the price of wheat from 70 cents to $1 or to a parity price or whatever is considered a just price, would the minister go so far as to recommend to his department that this money actually be paid?


Mr. GARDINER:: In the first place, Mr. Chairman, I made my speech on the second reading of the bill, and the statement which has just been quoted is fully explained in that speech. If my hon. friend wishes to read it he will find the explanation there. In the second place, this bill is introduced not by me 'but by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. No amount of money will be paid into my department, or for that matter into the Department of Trade and Commerce, to be paid out on wheat.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: Then I will ask my question of whichever minister is responsible. It is a pertinent question, and if the Minister of Trade and Commerce is the responsible minister I should like to hear his reply.


James Garfield Gardiner: No money is paid into a department to be paid out on wheat. The wheat is delivered at the elevators in western Canada, and the amount paid out on the wheat is paid out through those elevators. There is no money paid out on wheat through any department of the government.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: I think the ministry understand the question which I am trying to have

answered, and it is a fundamental point. The government has taken the position, as one would assume from the quotation from the speech of the Minister of Agriculture, that the reason the farmers are not paid more for their wheat is that there are not sufficient funds in the treasury. Is that so or is it not? I ask this further question: If the funds were made available for that purpose, would the government go so far as to recommend a price of SI or SL40 or whatever the parity price may be?


Mr. WEIR:: Parliament has to make the funds available.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: What has the Minister of Trade and Commerce to say?


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: The question is based on a statement alleged to have been made by my colleague -the Minister of Agriculture, not on a statement made by me, and I do not think the question can properly be addressed to me. In any event it is more or less a catch-question; I do not think the hon. member is really serious in expecting an answer.


Charles Edward Johnston: It is right enough that the Minister of Trade and Commerce should -not be held to account for the statements made by the Minister of Agriculture.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: I am much in earnest in asking the question and in expecting an answer. It has been definitely established, I -think, by all those who have spoken on hehalf of the agriculturists that they are deserving of far more consideration than they have received as compared with other classes in Canada. My opinion is that the reason the farmer is not being helped more is that the government is limited in its assistance to the farmers because of its financial policy and nothing else. If that is not correct I should like to be told so.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is not correct.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: Then I cannot understand the statement of the Minister of Agriculture that the government is taking every dollar out of the treasury to help the farmers which it feels safe in taking. Certainly more funds can be made available, and if more funds can be made available I see absolutely no reason why the farmers should not receive $1 or $1.40 for their wheat.


Mr. QUELCH:: I had not intended to take part in this discussion, but the point raised by the hon. member for Jasper-Edson (Mr. Kuhl) is an interesting one and, I think, should be answered. If the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) will

War Risk Insurance
not answer it I suppose we shall have to wait until the appropriation bill is before us and get the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) to answer it. All the farmers' organizations requested a price of $1 a bushel, and I do not think the Minister of Trade and Commerce or the Minister of Agriculture or any other minister has endeavoured to show that $1 a bushel would be an unfair price. The Minister of Agriculture, on the contrary, has stressed the fact that the government is paying every last cent out of the treasury to help the farmers, that it is scraping the bottom, so to speak. If SI a bushel is a fair price, and if the government feels that to pay the farmer more than ninety cents a bushel would, by increasing the effective demand of the farmers, be likely to bring about inflation, could the government not make up the difference between ninety cents and SI a bushel by giving the farmers war savings certificates maturing, we will say, at the end of the war? Then, as they would not be able to cash them, the danger of inflation would be removed, but at the same time the farmers would receive a price equal to the cost of production. They would be able to put these war savings certificates into a sinking fund, so that at the end of the war these certificates could be used to pay off the debts which the farmers are bound to incur as a result of not being able to get the cost of production. If the minister will not answer that, perhaps the Minister of Finance would? Well, we will raise it on the appropriation.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 12, respecting wheat acreage reduction.
Mr. STIRLING:: What are these amendments?


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member who at the moment is leading the opposition asks what these amendments are. There is no change in the meaning of the bill as a result of the amendments.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The amendments are printed in Votes and Proceedings, page 200.


James Garfield Gardiner: The amendment of the subclause which was in section 4 of the original bill to provide for members of the House of Commons and members of the Senate being paid the amounts which were allowed under the regulations of last year, as well as under the legislation this year, was considered by the Senate not to make the intention clear, and they have reworded it in order to make clear what was intended by this house and by the Senate. There is no change in what was intended by this house.
Then, in section 11, there is just a rewording of the clause. The clause dealing with the penalty now reads:
(a) wilfully submits false information or knowingly makes a false return with respect to any information or return required under this act or regulations thereunder.
Previously, it read in this way:
(a) in respect of any information or return required under this act or regulations thereunder, wilfully submits false information or knowingly makes a false return thereto.
It is exactly the same, but the words are arranged in a different order.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, amendments read the second time and1 concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the insurance of property against war risk and for the payment of compensation for war damage out of a special account of the consolidated revenue fund, and to provide further in connection therewith for the employment of such officers, clerks and other employees and agents necessary for the administration of the act.
Grote Stirling: Would the minister make a statement before going into committee?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Perhaps it would be better if I made the statement after we got into committee. If the hon. gentleman prefers, I will make it now; but I am sure that some questions will be asked, and I would be in a better position to answer them in committee.


Grote Stirling: The only point I wished to make is that on frequent occasions recently we have gone into committee without anything being said by way of explanation. But we are going to adjourn in a short time for the
War Risk Insurance

Easter recess, and if the minister would prefer to make the statement in committee, I think we ought to agree.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Thank you.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Bradette in the chair.


James Lorimer Ilsley: 
Mr. MacNICOL:: Is the minister quoting the British bill?


James Lorimer Ilsley: 
Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: If the resolution passes now and we get the bill later, after the Easter recess we would have full chance for discussion of it in the house?


James Lorimer Ilsley: When the bill receives second reading there will be opportunity for debate on it with the Speaker in the chair, which will not give opportunity for questions to be answered by the government. But I would hope that at that stage the bill would be referred to the banking and commerce committee, where it could be fully examined and questions asked and answered. The bill can be fully discussed by hon. members in the usual type of debate which takes place in the house on second reading.


Grote Stirling: Do I understand that, as the business is to be done by existing insurance companies, practically it will amount to the rewriting of policies now held to include the war risk? At the present time I believe only a small proportion of the policies written include war risk insurance.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is true. No new war risk insurance is or has been available since Pearl Harbour. I believe-certainly very little. Previously existing policies covering war risk, if not cancellable, have continued in force. Perhaps the hon. gentleman has not an accurate understanding of what we are proposing. These policies will be issued by the insurance companies as agents of the crown; it will be really the government that is issuing the policies through the insurance companies. The insurance companies will be making their organization and administrative machinery available to the government, that is all.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: As I have said
before in the house, there is need for some kind of war risk coverage on property. It will take some time to get the bill through. Does the government assume the risk at the present time, for example on the coasts? Does it now provide indemnity against damage, or what recourse in the meantime is open to individuals on the coasts? This is an important matter.
War Risk Insurance


James Lorimer Ilsley: They have not recourse at the moment, except that the government has given the assurance that they will be protected if there is damage before the bill is passed, to the extent that they would have been protected had the bill been passed. This does not mean-and I want to make this clear-that the government stands ready to make good any amount of damage or loss. These policies may contain a limit of liability; the government may not commit itself to private property owners in Canada to pay them the full amount of their loss. I do not want to get into the terms of the bill, but I may say that the proposal in the bill is to give free coverage to householders up to an amount of $3,000; that is, the person who is living in a some, who owns the home and has a loss as a result of the sort of enemy action insured against under this bill-


Thomas Reid: He would have to have a coverage?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No, he will be compensated up to S3,000 under this bill, if it passes. I must not give that undertaking now. His protection will be only the protection which is eventually provided for under the bill; but the government proposes-and it will be found in the bill-that there will be free protection of home owners, without the payment of any premium, up to an amount of $3,000.


Mr. GREEN:: That is even if the home owner has no policy?
Mr. ILSLE\ : Yes; and there is a provision with regard to the loss of chattels. The free coverage there is, I think, $600.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Will the government set up adjusters in this connection, or will they use the insurance company adjusters?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Just a moment until I get these amounts correct. Perhaps I had better withdraw that figure of $600, because these figures must be expressed accurately or it will do more harm than good. There is a certain limited free coverage for the loss of chattels owned by the householder; a certain amount for the chattels owned by his wife; a certain amount for the chattels owned1 by each child, and there are exceptions and limits to the amounts, and so forth. It is a little hard for me to describe this briefly in advance. One can hardly discuss it without the bill before him; but the proposal is that for the loss over and above the $3,000 there will be no protection unless it is covered by a policy, for which a premium will be paid, and that IMr. Douglas G. Ross.]
policy may contain such terms and conditions as may be thought fit. As I say, however, the protection will not be unlimited.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I asked a question about the adjusters. I understand that in England, as soon as a bombing takes place, government adjusters go around and check, and the report is in within twelve hours after the bombing or damage occurs. Will the government have their own adjusters in this case, or will they use the adjusters of the insurance companies?


James Lorimer Ilsley: We will use the adjusters, inspectors and so on of the insurance companies.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Will this bill take care of inland transportation insurance as well? For instance, will it cover goods during the time they are in transit, while they are on the dock, and until they are reshipped? That was what I had in mind in speaking about the matter before. Shippers do not want to get their stuff to the coast too soon at the present time because they cannot get war risk insurance for their goods. Is that included in this bill as well?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, property in Canada may be insured under this bill, whether it is real or personal properiy.


Mr. BOUCHER:: Are we to understand that at the present time the government have given an undertaking that in case of loss by virtue of enemy action the individual is to be protected to the full extent that he would be protected by an insurance company, after this bill is passed; and that when the bill is passed, the insurance company protects an individual as far as his residence is concerned to the extent of $3,000, whether or not he has a policy? If he has not a policy, after this bill is passed he can get protection only in so far as he has protection from an insurance company? My point in asking this question is this. When the bill goes through, does the condition prevail and continue whereby the individual householder gets protection through the insurance company, on behalf of the government, to the extent of damage to his house up to $3,000, without having a policy at all? Beyond that he gets protection only in so far as he has a policy with a particular company?


James Lorimer Ilsley: If damage is done before the bill is passed, and the bill passes exactly in its present form, then it is the intention of the government to pay a home owner his damage up to $3,000.

War Risk Insurance


George Russell Boucher: Is that changed after the bill is passed?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No. This provision is contained in the bill:
The minister may pay compensation to any person in the amount, not exceeding three thousand dollars, of the diminution of value caused by war damage to the dwelling house in which he ordinarily resides and of which he is the owner.
That is the section which it is proposed to insert in the bill.


Howard Charles Green: Is it the position that the government will treat this bill as having been passed at this time? That is, if damage should occur between now and the time the bill is actually passed, for all practical purposes the government will treat the bill as having been passed?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I cannot think quite quickly enough to grasp the implications of saying "yes" in reply to that question.


Howard Charles Green: I am not implying anything at all.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I know that, but I sometimes assent to statements which contain implications that I cannot foresee. This is the statement I made on December 24:
The question of providing insurance or compensation for property damage resulting from bombardment or other enemy attack has been and is receiving attention. It is not yet possible to say what form any plan which may be adopted will take or the terms and conditions which will apply. The plan will, however, be retroactive to this date.
That undertaking will be carried out; and while it is not good practice in committee to read sections of a bill that is only proposed, I may say the section which it is proposed to insert in the bill to cover that point is as follows:
If any person, during the period between the twenty-fourth day of December, 1941, and the thirtieth day after the commencement of this act, both inclusive, has sustained or sustains loss from war damage, and if he makes application to the minister on or before such thirtieth day aforesaid, to enter into a contract of insurance in respect of such property, the minister may enter into a contract of insurance in respect of such property effective from the beginning of the twenty-fourth day of December, 1941, but the amount of the indemnity payable under any such contract in respect of war damage to such property during such period shall not exceed fifty thousand dollars.


Howard Charles Green: That does not cover the $3,000 at all, does it?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No; the $3,000 case is covered by the other section I read in reply to the hon. member for Carleton.


Howard Charles Green: The minister has said in his statement that the burden of this insurance is to be spread over the whole of the nation.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: In other words, people on the coast who are most likely to be bombed are not to have to carry all the burden?


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is correct.


Howard Charles Green: Is the method of spreading the burden across the country as a whole the fact of making the first $3,000 free, or is it that the premiums are to be lower than they should be if they were actuarially sound? In other words, in what way is the burden to be spread out?


James Lorimer Ilsley: To the extent that the government pays under its free coverage commitment, the payments are made out of the consolidated revenue fund, which is built up from taxation on all the people in Canada. To the extent that the government pays out of the special section of the consolidated account, it will be paying out of a fund made up from premiums collected from people at various places in Canada. It may be that a larger proportion of the population in the coastal areas will insure than in the central parts of Canada. But the rate will 'be the same for all of them.
In one sense the country as a whole is carrying the burden, if there is no difference in rate. I am not talking about free coverage; I am talking about losses covered by policies. If we were to fix a rate twice as high in Halifax and Vancouver as in Winnipeg, the Halifax and Vancouver property owners would be penalized because of their geographical location, and the Winnipeg property owners would benefit thereby. But when the rate is the same everywhere, that condition does not exist.


Howard Charles Green: We will suppose a person has property valued at $5,000. Is the first $3,000 covered automatically by the government, the owner of the property himself insuring foi $2,000, or would the owner have to insure for the whole $5,000?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The first $3,000 in that case would be paid by the government, without any premium.


Howard Charles Green: There would be a premium only on the last $2,000?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I agree with the principle of making the rate low for the whole of Canada, but I do not see how it can be done without having a compulsory feature in it.
War Risk Insurance

While I am on my feet, may I ask the minister how the maximum was set at $50,000. I know that some of these men have larger amounts at stake. A man may have 'bank commitments, and may have goods to ship to the coast. He should be able to get something to protect himself to the full amount of his goods, because a bombing might wipe him out. The very fact that he cannot get insurance has a detrimental effect, because he will not ship those goods as quickly as he otherwise would. He will wait until a time when less risk is involved.
The feature with respect to spreading the risk over the whole of the country represents a big step, and one with which the banking and commerce committee could deal.
I am wondering why the $50,000 provision is in the bill.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I suggest that the $50,000 limit might be discussed in committee. That is all I would care to commit the government to in the meantime.
Mr. MaeINNIS: Did I understand the minister to say that since December 7, insurance companies have not been accepting war risks on the west coast?


James Lorimer Ilsley: My understanding is that, as a general rule, they cancelled where they could, and they did not issue any new policies against war damage.
Mr. MaeINNIS: Does that apply only on :he Pacific coast, or to the whole of Canada?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I understood it applied on noth the Atlantic and the Pacific coasts; I presume it applies everywhere in Canada.
Mr. MaeINNIS: To the whole of Canada?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I think so.


Howard Charles Green: The person who is renting would be covered for clothing and furniture up to a certain minimum?


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is correct.


Howard Charles Green: Up to $600?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I believe it is $600; the hon. member will find that in the bill.


Mr. ROSS (Calgary East):: Does Canada carry the entire risk, or are the insurance companies interested?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No.


George Henry Ross: Are they going to handle it, or will it be handled by officials assisted by the crown?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The insurance companies will handle it as agents of the crown, at cost.


Howard Charles Green: Why was it done in that way?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Instead of in what way?


Howard Charles Green: For example, could it have been handled through the Post Office Department?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I have great admiration for the Post Office organization, but not that much. I do not think they could have handled it.
Mr. MaeINNIS: They could, unless there were a raid.


Howard Charles Green: If it were handled through the Post Office Department, could it not be done considerably cheaper?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No.


Howard Charles Green: There are post offices in every community, no matter how small, whereas agencies will not be found in all communities.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not think it would be desirable to add this class of duties to the present duties of postmasters. I do not think they are qualified by training, experience or other qualifications to handle that kind of business. The insurance business, the procedure of making adjustments, receiving application and all that sort of thing, is almost, if indeed not quite, a profession. It is something which requires experience, and I should think the suggested method would be the most satisfactory way of doing it.


George Russell Boucher: The adjusters and valuators would be those of the various insurance companies. They would not be government officials. The government simply accepts the services, at cost, of insurance company valuators?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


George Russell Boucher: Even with regard to the first $3,000 of a risk?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I expect that will be the
case.


Howard Charles Green: In some centres at least, adjusting is done by independent adjusters. Are they to be engaged to do that work? If so, it would mean that the business would be handled by the insurance agencies and the adjusting would be done by adjusting firms, which are independent of insurance companies.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I must say I have not given much thought to the details of adjustment, but I believe that the same persons who are now doing adjusting would do the adjusting

War Appropriation
in the future. Whether the undertaking of the insurance companies to do this work at cost covers the adjusting, or includes the adjusters belonging to a different organization, I am not quite clear. I do not, however, believe there would be any difficulty along that line. Those are matters which can be discussed in committee on the bill.


Howard Charles Green: Should there not be some check-up, because adjusters would not be bound by any agreement reached between the government and insurance companies?


James Lorimer Ilsley: That can be looked into.


Howard Charles Green: Will the minister have that checked?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, I will have it checked.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Ilsley thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 66, to make provision with respect to insurance of property against war risks and the payment of compensation for war damage.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



WAR APPROPRIATION BILL


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, ^Vlarch 26, consideration in committee of a resolution to provide sums not exceeding $2,000,000,000 for the year ending March 31, 1943, for granting to his majesty aid for national defence and security-Mr. Ilsley-Mr. Bradette in the chair.
Mr. MacINNIS:: Some days ago I asked if the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) would make a statement on air raid precautions on the two coasts, and I believe he is prepared to make that statement.
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Pensions and National Health): A few days ago, and again last evening, I was asked by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) to make a statement, to which he has just referred, on air raid precautions on the Pacific coast. I think it may be preferable if I discuss the subject as it affects all parts of the dominion that have been designated for organization of A.R.P. work. Then, if necessary, I can particularize with regard to the Pacific coast area.
Air raid precautions basically are those measures which the civilian population can and must take for the protection of their own lives and property. They should not be
confused, as they frequently are, with the defence of the country from attack. That is the function of the armed services. The functions which make up air raid precautions are the ordinary functions of a municipality, such as patrolling the streets, fighting fires, conveying injured persons to hospital, repairing damaged public utilities, demolishing damaged buildings, et cetera. These are functions for which every municipality is normally equipped and organized up to a point, namely, to the extent necessary to cope with normal hazards. It is recognized that enemy air raids or bombardments greatly accentuate the degree of risk, and the ordinary municipal services must be greatly expanded in the interests of the public safety. It is considered that this expansion should take place in two ways, personnel and equipment, neither of which should impose any substantial or unbearable expense upon the municipal exchequer.
In regard to personnel, the number of trained and available personnel can be and has been increased through enrolment, training and organization of volunteers. There is nothing foreign to our genius in this method. In the smaller municipalities fire fighting and many other public services are performed by volunteers. The A.R.P. programme contemplates extension of this method into the larger cities where people have been accustomed in normal times to leave their public services to professionally trained experts.
In regard to equipment, the provision of additional equipment to meet the war emergency has been assumed by the dominion government. Thus the municipality, which must necessarily assume the direction and control of its own people in the matter of air raid precautions, is not called upon to undertake any great expense. Let me now, for the information of the committee, give a concise history of the development of air raid precautions in Canada.
In March, 1938, the departmental committee formed to consider the defence of Canada in case of war recommended to the cabinet that air raid precautions should be under the jurisdiction of the minister and the Department of Pensions and National Health. This was concurred in by the government. The Minister of Pensions and National Health immediately set up, under the chairmanship of the deputy minister, a committee within the department.
Ruling was made by the Department of National Defence that the following areas in Canada should be considered as subject to definite risk of enemy attack: Sydney, Halifax, Saint John, Quebec City, Vancouver, Victoria,
War Appropriation

attack take place when large numbers of people are in the down-town streets, provision of this type is necessary.
(c)	Public Assemblies. Here the minister has power to authorize a senior police officer to prohibit public assemblies. The minister can and will issue such orders to senior police officers upon the advice of his departmental representative on the ground when any special occasion for it arises. Senior police officers have inherent authority to keep public order, and this regulation is to meet any special emergency.
Black-out. Regulation 35 deals with control of lights, sounds and traffic. It is popularly known as the "black-out regulation". The general provision is that the minister of pensions or any person to whom he has delegated authority may issue orders prohibiting or regulating the display of lights, sounds on roads; to designate signals upon which orders shall become operative.
(Note: No such order shall apply with respect to the navy, army and air services, except with the consent of the minister at the head of the indicated service department.)
The minister of pensions has delegated his authority under regulation 35 to the provincial premiers with the exception of Nova Scotia, where it is delegated to the minister of health and Ontario to the attorney general, with authority to redelegate to provincial ministers and officials. The provincial minister thus commissioned may issue orders for the darkening of lights, the suppression of noises, and for the regulation of traffic, either in connection with an actual air raid or in training for such eventuality. It is for the provincial premier to prescribe the signals, to issue orders, and to enforce them. There is authority in regulation 35 for the provincial premiers to redelegate to officials or to municipal authorities within their own areas.
The three defence ministers have conferred upon the senior defence officer in each area their authority to approve such orders in so far as they may affect the services. However, on December 19, 1941, regulation 35 was amended by adding an additional provision that "no lights other than those used for street lighting purposes shall be displayed in any area	specified in	any order made"pursuant to	the	general	authority of	theregulation. The additional amendment also prohibited the display of lights in business premises except during business hours and while staff is present on the premises. There is provision that these regulations may be removed, either temporarily or permanently, by order of	the	minister	of pensions,	concurred in by	the	Minister	of Munitions	and

Supply. Difficulty was experienced at first in administering this regulation, and a conference was called in Ottawa on February 3, in order that a uniform code of regulations for lighting might be drawn up for the whole of Canada, if considered desirable. At this conference were represented provincial governments, transportation companies, retail merchants, and industry generally.
The conclusions of this conference were, briefly, that the new subsection in section 35 should remain and that each province should request the exemptions which they considered advisable for their particular province. These exemptions, with the exception of Quebec, have been completed, signed by the two ministers and issued. Exemptions were also applied for by the federal district and issued. Compensation.
(a)	Insurance for property:	The Minister of Finance on December 24 announced that a scheme of war risk and bombardment insurance is in course of preparation and that its terms shall have application as from the date of this announcement. This means that any damage caused prior to the enactment of the insurance plan will be covered by the scheme as it may ultimately emerge.
(b)	Personal injuries and death: A scheme of compensation comparable with that of workmen's compensation acts has been adopted by the dominion government for air raid precautions workers who may be injured or killed in performance of their duties as a result of enemy action or during a black-out. The scheme covers registered workers in an authorized air raid precautions organization.
Medical care, hospitalization, compensatory allowances for the injured worker and his dependents, and pension for the dependents of an air raid precautions worker who may be killed are included in the scheme. Administration is in the hands of the Canadian pension commission.
Certain classes of air raid precautions workers are entitled to compensation for injuries or death sustained during the training period. These classes of workers are auxiliary firemen and demolition squads, whose training is considered to involve a certain amount of danger to life and limb.
The order in council providing for compensation is P.C. 7147, of September 10, 1941.
The order in council providing for hospitalization and treatment is P.C. 115/9130, of November 22, 1941.
P.C. 7147 originally dealt with only eleven designated areas. The designated areas were greatly enlarged by P.C. 2/9660, of December 10, 1941 when the entire coastal areas were held to be subject to risk of attack.

War Appropriation
I come now to the types of work involved in air raid precautions. They include:
Patrol of city streets to ensure that regulations are obeyed and to detect and report incidents requiring attention.
Regulation of traffic.
Care of casualties.
Firefighting.
Decontamination in case of gas attack.
Demolition of damaged structures.
Repairs to damaged public utility services.
Transportation and communication services to facilitate the foregoing.
Prevention of panic.
Wardens are expected to become acquainted with all individuals in their respective blocks.
Wardens are expected to survey every house and building in their blocks, and to have full particulars regarding the number of persons domiciled therein, their status as to numbers of infants, invalids, et cetera, the availability of exits, and so on.
Organization Policy. The dominion government undertakes through the Department of Pensions and National Health to provide necessary equipment and supplies, training manuals and instructional literature.
The provincial governments have been asked to form air raid precautions committees and to encourage formation of local air raid precautions committees in the designated areas.
The Minister of Pensions and National Health asked the provincial premiers to be chairmen of the provincial committees, and suggested that the mayors of municipalities should be chairmen of local committees.
It was considered by the dominion government that the bulk of the work must be done by private citizens on a voluntary basis, and that organization and direction would be given to a large extent by permanent dominion, provincial and civic officials, selected from appropriate departments.
Committees were preferred to the rigid municipal organization, because it is considered desirable that groups of municipalities should organize their air raid precautions as a single unit, with provision for cooperation in such matters as firefighting.
Key officers in each area for the actual training and administration of air raid precautions must necessarily be chiefs of police, fire chiefs, medical officers of health and municipal engineers.
The duties to be performed by the voluntary organization are very largely an extension of the duties of the regular police officers, firemen, and maintenance crews of the engineering departments.
It was considered advisable, therefore, that voluntary groups should be trained and
directed by the permanent officials responsible for the various specialized types of activity in which volunteer air raid precautions workers are called upon to assist.
Where voluntary organizations exist, and are equipped to discharge valuable functions in connection with air raid precautions, these have been asked to cooperate in order that new organizations need not be set up.
For instance, the Saint John Ambulance Association has done a notable work in training air raid precautions workers in first aid.
The Red Cross society has also organized for the relief of distress which might arise in a raid.
The suggestion has recently been made that a number of firemen from each of the principal cities might, with advantage, be sent to train at special schools which are being set up in the United States for that purpose.
Already the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, at the suggestion of the director of air raid precautions, has sent one or two men to attend schools on transportation problems. It is believed that those to be trained at these special schools will be able to instruct others.
Care of Casualties. The plan is that air wardens shall patrol the streets and report where casualties occur. There should be in every locality, first-aid posts from which qualified first-aid workers can be dispatched with stretchers and other equipment to bring injured persons to hospitals or other centres where care can be given.
Doctors and nurses should be at key positions where they can supplement the efforts of the first-aid assistants.
The most seriously injured should be transported to hospital in vehicles, organized and held available for this duty. Hospitals should have emergency staff and space available to care for casualties thus brought to them.
Local committees should survey buildings in the vicinity of existing hospitals, wherein emergency accommodation can be given. The Department of Pensions and National Health has supplies of beds and bedding to place in such buildings.
It is considered that general hospitals can, on the shortest of notice, make emergency accommodation available by evacuation of a substantial percentage of their normal patients.
In every hospital there are convalescents and other patients who could, with little disadvantage, be cared for at home. By constantly checking their own population, hospital managements should be prepared to evacuate such patients speedily in an emergency. The voluntary transportation com-
War Appropriation

mittees in the air raid precautions organization can be asked to hold themselves in readiness to assist in the process.
The Saint John Ambulance Association from the outset of the war has assisted in training volunteer air raid precautions workers in first aid. The number of air raid precautions workers holding the association's first-aid certificate, on December 15, 1941, was 12,950.
Shelters. It is a function of local air raid precautions committees to survey their areas for premises in which people may take shelter during an air raid. The minister of pensions has authority to order that such premises may be used, and to restrain the owners or occupants from refusing access.
In all the more exposed areas, the necessary staff work for this purpose has been done so that, in an emergency, orders can be issued at the briefest notice.
Equipment. It was considered that the greatest expense would be in connection with the provision of equipment and supplies. This expense the department of pensions has undertaken to meet. Reserve stores of equipment were accumulated before the outbreak of war, and issue was made from these stores to the provinces. The provinces, in turn, were asked to make issue to the local areas.
Municipal areas should requisition their provincial committees for supplies and equipment. The provincial committees will, in turn, requisition the department of pensions.
It is considered desirable that, with respect to many types of equipment, only sufficient for training should be issued to local areas, and the remainder be held in central stores available to meet emergencies wherever they may occur.
The dominion government has, however, allocated small credits to each province for the purposes of financing organization expenses not covered by the provision of supplies and equipment issued from Ottawa. The procedure is for the province or municipality to obtain approval of a proposed expenditure, and then to submit a properly vouched account. The minister of pensions may then authorize payment thereof.
'In Nova Scotia, where a comprehensive system of air raid precautions has existed in the two leading urban areas for more than two years, the original grant of $5,000 for organization purposes has not been exhausted. Supplementary grants were made recently, however, when the areas to be organized were greatly enlarged.
In some provinces, there was a desire on the part of the provincial authorities to broaden the functions of the organization formed for air raid precautions purposes.

In view of the fact that the provincial authorities considered that useful public purposes could be served by asking the air raid precautions organization to assume other duties, the dominion government raised no objection, but it could not undertake financial responsibility for these other duties.
Instructional literature is considered to be included under the heading of "equipment and supplies". Municipalities desiring to issue circulars to all householders have obtained authority to do so, and the Department of Pensions and National Health has paid for the printing and other expenses connected therewith.
The following are the main types of equipment issued:
Badges and arm bands Crutches
Arm and leg splints First-aid haversacks First-aid kitboxes Pouches Stretchers Tarpaulins Anti-gas suits
Rubber boots Protective overalls Berets
Steel helmets Stirrup pumps Iron scoops Fire hose Respirators Fire pumps
Up to the most recent report, equipment had actually been issued to the value of $613,726. Other equipment is on order to the value of $789,642, making a total of $1,403,369. Our estimates for the coming year under the war appropriation bill, aggregate $4,805,000.
The department of pensions has administered air raid precautions up to date very largely by allocating the required duties to members of its regular staff. It is believed that provinces and municipalities can administer in the same way without engaging special paid personnel. This has been done quite successfully in the maritime provinces.
In December, however, when, on the advice of the Department of National Defence, the areas considered subject to risk of attack were very greatly enlarged, it was decided to increase our administrative staff at Ottawa. The Hon. R. J. Manion-a former minister-had offered his services to the government in any capacity in which they could be used. Doctor Manion was good enough to agree to accept the position of director of civil air raid precautions, and at the beginning of the year undertook his duties with his accustomed energy and ability.
The volume of work has been greatly increased by the enlargement of the areas designated for organization, and we now have four officials dealing in a specialized way with subdivisions of the work. Three of these are regular government employees assigned to A.R.P. duties, and the fourth was engaged from outside. It is possible that further additions may have to be made to our A.R.P. staff.

War Appropriation
No direct cash grants to provinces or municipalities have been made, nor can they, with propriety, be made. The dominion government does not delegate even to one of its own ministers the authority to make expenditures of money without prior submission to treasury board and approval of the proposed expenditure in all particulars. It follows that no minister can delegate such authority to a province or a municipality.
In certain areas there has recently arisen a demand for financial aid on a scale quite out of proportion to that accorded to the cities on the Atlantic coast, where efficient A.R.P. organizations have been developed and have operated for two and a half years. In some cities, some of the officials seem to have formed the opinion that effective air raid precautions will require a large paid staff. Our experience with the cities on the Atlantic coast suggests definitely that this is not correct, that the various duties can quite effectively be discharged by the ordinary municipal officials with the cooperation of volunteers. I am not, however, prepared to say that conditions in any two cities are identical and that because local conditions in one city permit a thing to be done, every other city can necessarily achieve the same results in exactly the same way.
Accordingly, after reviewing a budget presented by my home city and containing many items which certainly should not be charged against the federal treasury, it was decided to adopt a standard scale of organization and equipment. This suggested "establishment" was recently forwarded to the provincial committees together with a brief statement of dominion government policy with respect thereto. The model establishment took account of variations in population and variations in the degrees of risk as estimated by the government's military advisers. It indicated with regard to each type of city the minimum number of wardens, the number of auxiliary firefighters, the number of roof watchers, the number of first-aid detachments that would be required in such an area.
The scheme was 'heavily annotated, indicating circumstances under which the model scale of establishment should be larger or smaller. Account was taken of density of population, of the types of construction prevailing in an area, and appropriate comment on the variations indicated by such factors was included. This model establishment is not mandatory. The whole secret of air raid precautions is, in my opinion, to rely upon the special genius of the people in each area to work out their own methods. Our model establishment is intended as a guide to them, and also as a guarantee in this sense, that the
dominion government accepts the responsibility to supply equipment up to the minimum standard laid down in the establishment. We undertake to supply such equipment as and when it may be available.
With this in view, the plan itself contains particulars of the amounts of equipment required for an organization of the proportions indicated. With respect to certain types of equipment, such as identifying badges, there should be one item of personal equipment for each A.R.P. worker. With regard to certain other types, however, we need to provide only certain items. There was recently indicated in Vancouver and Victoria an assumption that every warden should receive a suit of protective clothing. This is, of course, quite incorrect. Protective clothing is required only for certain squads, such as the decontamination crews. We have indicated the appropriate number of workers to be trained and equipped for each such specialized activity, and we are prepared to supply equipment up to that number.
While discussing this subject of equipment, I must inform the committee frankly that we *have not been able to supply all the equipment which, according to our own standards, should be available. This is not due to any unwillingness or lack of forethought. It is due to absolute inability to obtain the materials.
Let me illustrate by steel helmets. We placed orders for these in very large numbers right from the outset of the war. As it happened, however, the armed forces also placed very large orders. The requirements of the pensions department for A.R.P. purposes had to take second place, and I am perfectly certain that there is not one air raid warden in Canada who would expect to be supplied with a steel helmet at the expense of a soldier. The limiting factor is, of course, the steel that goes into the helmet. Steel is a vital commodity for every branch of our armed services. Nevertheless we have from time to time obtained supplies of steel helmets, and just recently we found it possible to obtain quite substantial deliveries. These have been distributed as quickly as received to the most vulnerable areas.
With regard to equipment of which there is any shortage, we have had to adopt the principle that the requirements of the more exposed areas on the two coasts shall receive first priority. This has been explained to the provincial committees in the less exposed provinces, and the situation has been accepted in good part. Indeed, when last December the Pacific coast was considered to be under direct menace, the provincial government of Ontario, without hesitation, offered us the
War Appropriation

use of the entire forest firefighting equipment in northern Ontario, and this equipment was speedily transferred to the threatened zone.
As a British Columbian and as a member of the dominion government, I am glad to have this opportunity of expressing publicly the most cordial appreciation and gratitude to the government of Ontario for this unselfish and patriotic act. Only a few days ago the Ontario government again notified me that, if it were not yet possible to return the equipment, they were prepared to have it remain at the coast until we were able to replace it. I wish to assure the committee that every effort is being made to effect replacement at the earliest possible moment, because we are no more desirous of having the forests of Ontario exposed to any hazard from time to time than we are to incur risk for our own people of British Columbia. My fellow citizens of British Columbia are deeply grateful, as I have said, to Ontario for the splendid spirit of cooperation and support exemplified in this loan.
With respect to equipment generally, we have received every possible assistance from the priorities officers of the Department of Munitions and Supply and where we have not been able to meet the full requirements of certain areas, I can assure the committee that the difficulties are real and not due to any neglect.
At the time we sent out our model establishment we also laid down a general policy with regard to federal assistance which I shall state to the committee definitely.
The dominion government is to provide reasonable, initial, organizational expenses to the provinces.
We are to provide booklets and printed matter, and personal equipment-as such is obtainable by us-to the provinces, who will distribute them to the municipalities. The personal equipment for A.R.P. workers will be provided for numbers up to an established strength, as decided by the federal A.RP. office.
Special equipment, such as medical supplies, auxiliary firefighting apparatus, airraid sirens, and so forth-as such is obtainable by us-will be supplied according to local conditions, in amounts considered adequate by the director of air raid precautions. In the case of air raid sirens we will also pay reasonable costs of installation and maintenance. The above supplies will be sent by us to the provincial A.R.P. committee whose duty it will be to allocate them and distribute them to the municipalities concerned. 
The federal A.R.P. office in Ottawa has set up a model establishment for areas designated as liable to attack.
The federal government will pay 50 per cent of A.R.P. expenses of municipalities situated within the vulnerable areas, but such expenses must be kept within reasonable bounds, in every sense of that term.
No new paid staff should be taken on for A.R.P. work, unless absolutely necessary. No salaries may be charged against the federal government for any extra work performed by the regular and ordinary municipal staff.
The same principle is to apply to the use of public buildings or office space. In other words, where public buildings are available for this work, no charge for rent, heat, janitor service or other expenses shall be made. Municipal budgets must be submitted for examination to the representative of federal A.RP. in the area and through him to the provincial A.R.P. committee, or, if we have no representative in the district, then directly to the provincial A.R.P. committee. The latter, after checking the budgets, will send them to the office of the director at Ottawa. Only when the budget has been agreed to by the office of the director will it be recommended to and considered by the dominion government as one on which the 50 per cent may be paid.
It may strike hon. members as remarkable that, in two and a half years of war, this is the first fairly comprehensive statement with regard to air raid precautions that has been made to this committee. There is a very definite reason for that. As has been stated, we regard air raid precautions as essentially a local activity. The work is done very largely by volunteer workers. A successful scheme requires that every citizen shall have some knowledge of what will be expected of him in the hour of emergency. Therefore our effort at Ottawa has been to encourage the provincial and municipal officials to take the leadership in their own areas. We have felt that the more they rely upon their own efforts, the better the programme will be carried out. Or, to state the opposite, the more the local people are encouraged to look to far-away Ottawa for leadership and guidance at every turn, the less efficient will be their local organization. My policy, therefore, has been to keep quiet in regard to certain controversies that have arisen. We are glad and anxious to help where we can and when we are asked.
Our A.RP. officers have visited the various areas repeatedly to give advice and assistance, especially to help with that type of advice which comes from knowing what is going on in a number of centres. Each city or province has developed out of its own genius especially

War Appropriation
successful measures in some one particular field. Our federal officers are able to pass this information along to others.
We have sought no publicity. We have felt that the spotlight should rest on the local leaders, the chairman of the provincial and municipal committees. In the hour of emergency it is they who will have to take the responsibility and to whom the people must learn to look. There have been numerous misunderstandings and occasional lack of cooperation, but by and large the spirit of cooperation has been excellent. As compared with England, where I had opportunity last year of personally inspecting the wonderful A.R.P. organization, we have been one happy family. Their magnificent system of air raid precautions has been developed out of strife and friction and grief and bitter experience.
Despite all their precautions, when the great fire attack was made on London they were largely caught unawares; yet in a few days they managed to develop a system of defence such that I am confident no incendiary attack can ever again succeed in that great city. We have the benefit of studying their experience under actual fire, and we have maintained continuous contact with their organization, so that we know of their mistakes as well as of their successes. We have been strongly advised to avoid some of their most outstanding methods, methods which they would not adopt if they were starting from scratch again. This advice has been quietly passed along to our provincial and municipal committees, and I believe the responsible heads of the local organizations are reasonably well informed.
Large public shelters, and evacuation of population, are two measures that we believe to have been mistaken, and most of the authorities in Great Britain now agree that that is so.
In conclusion, I wish to pay my tribute to the tens of thousands of voluntary workers for their untiring efforts to build up in their own towns and cities an efficient system of air raid precautions. I wish also to pay my tribute to the provincial and municipal committees, consisting partly of public officials and partly of private citizens, who have given splendid leadership to their communities. In no aspect of our war effort have the people of Canada demonstrated more fully their loyalty and willingness to cooperate for the public welfare. The number of voluntary workers is now in excess of 150,000. All of these people have taken training courses in some phase of A.R.P. work. It is upon them that success depends.
This is an activity in which every man and woman must be prepared to do his or her part.
Old London learned a year and a half ago that the city fire department cannot cope with an incendiary raid. Every man must learn to be his own fireman; every woman in the home must know how to deal with a fire bomb on her own doorstep, or her own rooftop. Others will be too busy to help. Therefore I appeal to the people of this country to take this matter very seriously and that each one learn from the wardens in his own city block what measures he must be prepared to take. This is one phase of war effort that cannot be left to somebody else. It is the responsibility of each and every individual man and woman.
I think I have now gone into the matter fairly extensively and answered the questions asked by the hon. member for Vancouver
East.
Mr. GRAYDON; I should like to ask the minister a question. I know he will not take it as a reflection on his splendid work in connection with the departmental activities which he has just analysed, but last May I asked a question in the house, and the Prime Minister subsequently answered it, as to whether or not the Canadian government had under consideration the matter of appointing a minister of home security, as was done in Great Britain.
I should also be very glad if the minister would outline the reasons, to which I am sure he must have given much consideration, which led to the discarding of the idea that was then advanced.
In addition, I should like to ask as to the blackout method. I know there has been considerable controversy as to the efficiency of the blackout method of defence against air attack. Many people have pointed to the fact that Moscow, one of the great targets, used the direct searchlight method of warding off aerial attacks, while an article in a prominent magazine in Canada a week or so ago stated that there had been some change of opinion among authorities with regard to the efficiency of the blackout method as opposed to the searchlight procedure. Would the minister clarify those two points at this time?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: Regarding the first point I do not think my hon. friend would expect me to answer. That is entirely for the Prime Minister, and I shall be glad to direct his attention to the question.
With reference to the blackout method, my hon. friend has correctly stated that it is now a matter of controversy in London. In our entire organization in Canada we have followed the British system. We have the very latest details of the system used in Moscow, and I do not feel confident to

War Appropriation

express a technical opinion as to the merits of the blackout as against the other system. We have had visitors from Britain here; we have been over there ourselves, and in every case we have modeled our organization upon theirs, which by and large stood up pretty well to the attacks made.


Mr. GRAYDON:: Does the minister believe that it is possible to follow the British system entirely in view of the very different conditions existing in Canada? I hope he has taken that into consideration. No doubt he has.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We shall do that as things develop.


Mr. HATFIELD:: What is the policy of the government in regard to the establishment of air raid shelters?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I mentioned that, according to recent advices we have received, the policy is against the adoption of air raid shelters.


Angus MacInnis: I wish to thank the
minister for his exhaustive view of this matter. I do not know about other parts of Canada, but I know the people in British Columbia, and particularly in Vancouver, were much disturbed over this question. There was a very general feeling that air raid precautions, so far as British Columbia was concerned, were in a very bad muddle. I am not saying either that they were or that they were not; I am just mentioning some of the opinions that have been expressed, and I think the minister knows them as well as I do. For myself, I have refrained from giving opinions on this matter, as I have refrained from discussing most military matters and other questions in connection with the war. Whenever I found that I had to criticize the government I did so because of its attitude rather than on the facts of any particular matter.
I was surprised to hear from the minister that the provision of air raid shelters had been discouraged, if I understood him aright, and also that no provision was being made for the evacuation of the civil population in case of a raid or military action. That question is of considerable importance in Vancouver, where we are so hemmed in that there is really only one way out. Again I do not know what the technique should be in that case, but I rather believe that the people would feel safer-whether or not they would be safer-if some provision were made for the evacuation of at least women and children in case of bad raids.
The minister gave the number of air raid workers in the whole of Canada. Could he

give the number of workers in the Vancouver area? I should like to know also the amount of the credit granted to British Columbia, and how that credit was allocated among the various municipalities.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In regard to equipment, I have the figure only for the province, because we issue all equipment to the provincial committee, and the allocation is decided by that committee as among the various municipalities. I can get the other information for my hon. friend; I have it, but not here. For British Columbia the equipment delivered so far is valued at S161,823.30.	The value of the equipment
ordered but not delivered is $235,129.19, making a total of $396,952.49.


Angus MacInnis: And the value of the equipment for all Canada was something like $630,000?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is what has been delivered. The equipment, both ordered and delivered, for the whole of Canada amounts to $1,560,000, roughly speaking; I gave that figure a few moments ago. In regard to the number of air raid workers in British Columbia, I do not have that information here by municipalities, though I have it in my office. Roughly speaking in the whole province we have some twenty-one thousand workers.


Angus MacInnis: 
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We had some of our own officers go over there at the very outset; and though officially we have not had anyone here under government auspices, from time to time experts have come here from England and have travelled throughout Canada lecturing to our various organizations. As I said a short time ago, however, they have established special schools in the United States, and it has been suggested that we might send a few of our auxiliary firemen down there to take short courses, so they could come back with some training in the newest developments.


Howard Charles Green: I understood the minister to say that the dominion government was assuming full responsibility for the necessary equipment and supplies. Is that correct?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is correct, in this sense. We have assumed complete responsibility for all equipment except such as is normal to the peacetime activities of the municipalities, what you might call standard fire-fighting equipment

War Appropriation
and so on. After consultation with the fire chiefs, the underwriters' associations, and others; after obtaining the best advice we could get from sources in England and the United States, we decided to supply only auxiliary fire-fighting equipment. That is why there has been a certain amount of discussion with regard to fire hose, for example. We only supplied one and a half inch hose, whereas the standard equipment would be a larger size.


Howard Charles Green: Take the case of fire-fighting equipment. The cities and towns are called upon to buy far more equipment than they would otherwise require. Why is it the government will not assume any responsibility for that extra fire-fighting equipment?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Well, as I have said, the principle has been laid down and followed that we accept responsibility for such equipment as is rendered necessary by the fact that we are at war; that is in addition to the standard equipment. We do not accept responsibility for the replacement of normal fire-fighting equipment.


Howard Charles Green: But they require larger quantities of standard equipment in order to prepare against larger fires caused by raids in which incendiary bombs may be dropped. Surely it is only fair that the dominion should assume responsibility for the increased expenditure brought about by reason of the fact that the municipalities have to buy more of the standard equipment than they would otherwise buy.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We carefully canvassed the whole situation with some of the best experts available, and that was the advice we obtained and the advice we have followed.


Howard Charles Green: It is not necessarily a matter of the best advice we could get from Great Britain or the United States. We should be able to make up our own minds.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We did; we got advice from Canadians too.


Howard Charles Green: 
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In the first place, deliveries of equipment are entirely conditioned by the speed with which we can obtain them. In the second place, Canada is doing more in this regard for her municipalities than any other country. In the United States, though they have voted $100,000,000 to provide for air raid precautions, not a single cent has been given to any municipality.


Howard Charles Green: They 'have been in the war only two or three months. We have been in it three years.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: This is the situation. First, we paid preliminary organizational expenses in Canada. In the second place we provided this equipment and even the technical officers. In the third place, similar methods now followed by some of the public-spirited citizens in Vancouver have been resorted to in different cities for the same purpose.
While I understand the natural apprehension of my fellow citizens of Vancouver, as a matter of fact I can tell my hon. friend that Vancouver has received the best treatment of any city in Canada in regard to A.RP. We are doing everything we can. And I must say in regard to my colleagues that they have been absolutely sympathetic in every way in assisting me to get equipment for the Pacific coast as fast as possible.
I must say about the Atlantic coast that they have been remarkably patient. In Nova Scotia they have been magnificent, because
War Appropriation

until recently, they have themselves entirely shouldered, the whole cost of A.R.P. organization. I believe the first small grant we gave them was one of $5,000, and it was not all expended when we made the second small grant the other day. I was told by Doctor Manion, who came back from Halifax a short time ago, that he was there during a blackout, and he said it was one of the most efficient he had witnessed anywhere.
The whole trouble, if I may say so to my hon. friend, is that under the constitution of Canada, which decides what are provincial and federal responsibilities, you have tripartite control. Where you have divided control you are bound to have a certain amount of dissatisfaction and criticism.


Howard Charles Green: Does not the minister think that A.R.P. should be a national responsibility?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What would happen to-morrow if we made A.R.P. a national duty? There would be a nationalized fire service and police service in Canada. You would step into all cities and take charge of their police and fire-fighting forces. In other words you would interfere with the jurisdiction of the provinces and municipalities. That is where the danger arises. Frankly at the present time I do not think our municipal authorities want that to happen. The real basis of this -whole situation is cooperation. Give control of the organizations to the municipalities and provinces. We have endeavoured to carry that out. Unfortunately there have been a few difficulties here and there, but these are unavoidable. As long as I -have anything to do with the federal end of the matter we will cooperate with every area as best we can to obtain equipment and do all we can to help them in this very necessary work.


Gordon Graydon: The minister referred to the various jurisdictions, municipal, provincial and federal. Surely that can scarcely be an argument, in view of the provision of the British North America Ac-t for dominion jurisdiction where peace, order and good government are concerned.
I was struck by the minister's argument in one or two particulars, but it is still not clear to me. The matter we are discussing is one of the most important branches of our whole defence scheme. How do we differentiate by regarding it as the only one to be placed under the jurisdiction of the municipalities, and the provinces and the dominion, while in respect of every other part of our war effort from beginning to end the dominion government alone, and rightly so, has taken the initiative and coordinated the

whole undertaking? As I said last year, I am not criticizing the minister in this respect because I believe he is working under what is no doubt a worn-out policy, so far as his view of the situation facing Canada to-day is concerned. Until we get. a ministry of home security in Canada, where one minister would be the focal point from which all instructions would emanate, a minister who would have full authority and exercise complete supervision with regard to this important part of our national defence, we are going to have in years to come with respect to our whole A.R.P. set-up the same type of criticism that we have heard during the last few months. It is the most natural thing in the world that the municipalities and provinces should attempt to shift some responsibility from one to the other, but I think the time has come- and I am not speaking only for myself-for the setting up of a ministry such as I have described. There are many people permanently and closely identified with A.R.P. work and civilian defence who have expressed similar views to those I am expressing to-day. I feel keenly on this particular point. Undoubtedly it is most important, and the government should not for one moment remove it from consideration. I repeat that I do not see why we should separate this equally important branch of our national defence from the other branches. Why should we single it out for special attention and divide the supervision in respect to it into three different jurisdictional branches?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In Great Britain, where they have an excellent organization, and one which has had an experience extending over two and a half years, the administration is vested in the Home Office. There is a certain amount of cooperation from the Department of Health, but the major portion of it-I believe I can say practically the entire authority-is vested in the Home Office.


Gordon Graydon: I may be entirely wrong in the information I have, but I understand that Sir John Anderson, who was at one time Minister of Home Security-I cannot say whether he is now or not-had the entire supervision of the work of the A.R.P.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I personally visited Mr. Herbert Morrison, the present Home Secretary, in his office, and discussed with him the organization of A.R.P. in Great Britain. He was good enough to give me the time of his best officers so that I might get all the information they had at their disposal. He was in charge of that work, in cooperation with the ministry of health.

War Appropriation


Howard Charles Green: Who is it in Ottawa who revises the estimated expenditures sent down by cities in connection with this A.R.P. work? A budget was sent down by Vancouver, and it was turned down by some board in Ottawa. Quoting again from a newspaper clipping having reference to the city engineer:
Mr. Brakenridge prophesied that "if things get tougher" the dominion and provincial governments would be forced to take a greater hand in the development of A.R.P.
A.R.P. in Vancouver had accomplished a great deal, but had been consistently hampered by a lack of funds, largely due to refusal of Victoria and Ottawa to approve city expenditures.
The A.R.P. here is really between the devil and the deep blue sea. It has no power to raise money.
When we want something we have to go to Victoria, and our request is then sent to Ottawa. Ottawa generally replies "we don't know anything about this."
This is an impossible condition. I wish the minister would explain just how these matters are handled.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The budget of the city of Vancouver was sent to the premier of British Columbia. He sent it to Ottawa and it was examined by officers of the air raid precautions division in Ottawa. As a result of an analysis of that budget I wrote a personal letter to the premier of British Columbia, part of which appeared in the press, giving substantial reasons why items in the budget could not be passed by this or any other government. If my hon. friend would like to hear the letter I will read it, but I do not think the house would want to be troubled with it.


Howard Charles Green: The citizens are trying to raise $200,000.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: True.


Howard Charles Green: Is that all for expenditures in which the dominion government is not interested?
Mr.	MACKENZIE	(Vancouver	Centre):
Not at all. My hon. friend cannot put words like that in my mouth.


Howard Charles Green: I did not.
Mr.	MACKENZIE	(Vancouver	Centre):
I have the interests of Vancouver as much at heart as my hon. friend.


Howard Charles Green: I know that.
Mr.	MACKENZIE	(Vancouver	Centre):I have responsibilities	to the city	of Vancouver as a member, and to my hon. friend as a minister, but I also have a responsibility
to the treasury of Canada. There were items in that budget which could not possibly be passed-not even by my hon. friend if he were in my position to-day.


Howard Charles Green: The minister knows about the present campaign to raise $200,000?
Mr. MACKENZIE' (Vancouver Centre):
Yes.


Howard Charles Green: Does the minister say that those are expenditures a portion of which at least should not be paid for by the dominion government?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I have no information as to whether the campaign at present going on in Vancouver is to cover any of the items in the budget sent to me.


Howard Charles Green: Would the minister find that out. I read to him earlier to-day the statement that a portion of the moneys is to complete first aid posts, to establish additional A.R.P. posts, to provide protection around those posts, and so on. Would the minister check with regard to these present expenditures?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I understand that the present campaign has been conducted by an honorary committee of citizens; I do not think it has been conducted by the official air raid committee. Here is the reply I made:
This budget contemplates:
(2)	that the dominion government shall pay for light, heat and janitor services to the extent of more than $1,000 a month, in the Vancouver city hall and other civic premises;
(3)	that the dominion government shall pay the salaries of at least nine permanent civic employees of the city of Vancouver;
(4)	that the dominion government shall pay for the expense of operating a police car;
(5)	that we shall pay the salaries of some ten or eleven stenographers;
(6)	that we shall pay some $2,200 for a control room, already established in the city hall. This sum is indicated as a non-recurring commitment already made, and I am advised by my departmental officers that it consists of a room in the city hall containing some plain furniture and maps, for which separate items are submitted;
(7)	this budget contains the following extraordinary items which the dominion government is asked to approve:
Miscellaneous $105.20 monthly,
Miscellaneous $35.70 monthly,
Miscellaneous $6.10 monthly;
(8)	the budget includes several hundred dollars for telephone services upon which my officers are unable to comment without more definite information, either by way of your recommendation or personal inspection by our own representative in British Columbia. In
War Appropriation

any event, we have had no such item from any other city, although there are several in which efficient precautions have been maintained for two and a half years.
With deep regret and a full sense of my responsibility, both as a minister and as a representative of Vancouver, I must inform you that I cannot approve this budget.
Could any minister of the crown support items for which no details are given?


Howard Charles Green: You could have got the
details.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It was not even recommended to us by the provincial committee of British Columbia.


Howard Charles Green: Many of these expenditures have been caused entirely by the necessity of taking these air raid precautions. It is all right for hon. members from the central part of Canada to complain or applaud when the minister makes this statement, but I would point out to them that there are not many cities in Canada which are so close under the gun in connection with possible bombing as the cities on the two coasts. I suggest again to the minister that the department is being entirely too tough about what they will or will not pay for in respect to these air raid precautions.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am from the Atlantic coast, but if the city of Halifax sent in a bill for rental for part of the city hall, I would take exception to it.


Howard Charles Green: Some of the items may have gone too far.


Angus MacInnis: I think we should try to
discuss this matter as calmly as possible. Air raid precautions are made necessary because of war conditions. The question arises who is responsible for the condition arising out of military operations. I think it has been decided by experience and general practice that there are certain things that the cities and municipalities must do for themselves, unless the whole municipality is to be put under military law and control. Since air raid precaution work is made necessary by military operations, and since it is not desirable to put the municipalities under military control, the question then arises as to the division of expenses and jurisdiction. I think it is sound policy that the dominion government should provide all essential equipment, because the dominion government has taken to itself all the fields of taxation. The fields still open to the municipality are very limited, and they have great difficulty in getting money for the ordinary essential services. If the government can satisfy the municipality-the city of Vancouver in this instance-that the equipment

provided is sufficient and that the government is paying for it, it is only reasonable that the city should assume certain small essential expenditures on account of the work. As has been said, a great deal of the work is being done on a voluntary basis. I have refrained from criticism in this matter because I do not know enough about it. If I had more information I might be able to decide between the contention of the minister and that of the city. I think the minister has made a very reasonable statement.


Howard Charles Green: The minister was questioned as to whether or not arrangements had been made for the evacuation of women and children from the coastal areas. I understood him to say that the government had decided that evacuation was not wise.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That was the advice received.


Howard Charles Green: Has the government given
any consideration to what would be done in the event of an attempted invasion as distinct from a bombing attack? The two are quite different. If an attempt at invasion were made, the question of evacuating women and children would be of the utmost importance. I should like to know if the government has made any plans to meet that eventuality.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My hon. friend will have to address his question to my colleague the Minister of National Defence. That whole matter is covered by the defence of Canada regulations.


Howard Charles Green: I want to know if there is any government plan for the evacuation of women and children. I do not care which minister gives me the information.


Mr. RALSTON:: I am afraid my hon. friend will not be satisfied with my reply.


Howard Charles Green: It will depend upon the reply.


James Layton Ralston: The defence of Canada regulations provide that the Minister of National Defence shall give the sanction for removal and specify the class or number of people who may be removed from a certain area after a certain time. The arrangements for the removal are not matters for the Department of National Defence or the dominion government; they are made by the local authorities, and in some cities have been made already. The local authorities decide who are to be moved, make the arrangements for the moving-that is the physical removal-and decide where those who are being removed are to go. The Minister of National Defence is given the

War Appropriation
power, which power is delegated to the district officer commanding, to make an order which would give legal effect to the removal. This would enable the removal to be made in case somebody objects to it.


Howard Charles Green: That would be under the province and the municipalities?


James Layton Ralston: Yes.


Mr. EDWARDS:: I want to address a question to the Minister of National Defence, and one to the Minister of National Defence for Air. A great problem confronts the people of Canada, and they are exercising their minds over it. I wish to direct my question and the few observations I desire to make to the very pertinent problem of recruiting.
Coming as I do from Alberta, which has a favourable record in recruiting as compared with other provinces-and in the observations I am about to make I am not in any way casting reflections on my own province or boosting it unduly-I have a few suggestions to make which may be helpful in this time of peril and crisis. I have been critical in my own mind, although I have not hitherto given expression to it, of some of the recruiting methods and practices followed in obtaining men for the army. There are certain conditions, and certain practices which have been followed, which to my mind are not calculated to draw forth to the country's service the thoughtful and self-respecting young men of Canada to-day.
In the first place I would be critical of the recruiting offices as I have observed them in various places. It does seem to me that when we are asking the young manhood of Canada, the self-respecting, self-starting and selfreliant young men of our country, to offer their lives on the altar of sacrifice, they should at least be approached in a spirit and in a manner becoming free citizens of Canada, and be treated as self-respecting indviduals and not as automatons or people who can be pushed around or as people who can be drummed into doing their duty. It has been my observation that men have come for miles to some of our recruiting centres, and men living in our cities have also found their way to these recruiting centres, but where are these recruiting offices to be found for the most part? In out-of-the-way places, on side streets, and in many cases in second or third-rate buildings, poorly lighted, not well kept, not clean or attractive-and there, perforce, the cream of our manhood are invited to come and offer their lives as a sacrifice for this civilization of which we are so proud. It does seem to me that the best is none too good for men who are willing of their own volition to come forward and offer their lives for their
country, and I do think we might well give very thoughtful consideration to that phase of our war effort so far as the army is concerned.
I am glad to say that in my own home city within very recent months the army have moved the recruiting centre and have now got it in a fine office building centrally located, well lighted, cleanly kept, and where the volunteer is met by a civilian. The results have been remarkable. Why cannot we have decent recruiting offices across Canada, not merely in centrally located buildings but in buildings that are clean and wholesome and attractive, where our men who are volunteers will be courteously received and have no fear of being treated with contempt or be called yellow if they do not forthwith sign up in our forces.
I consider that the young men entering upon an army life, many of whom, in fact the very best we have, come from rural communities, would respond much more readily if they were met by civilians whom they would meet on equal terms, and with whom they could discuss their problems. Many of these young men who come to the cities to volunteer do not know for which particular branch of the service they are best qualified by training, experience and education, and in many instances they are met by an old recruiting sergeant and hustled in, it being taken for granted that they must join the army when they might be much better fitted for one of the other services.
I have also heard complaints and severe criticism of the recruiting centres themselves and of how they are maintained. I know of several men, including myself, who have gone into recruiting centres where there seemed to be no anxiety to meet or welcome you or any great concern whether you were there or not or as to the nature of your business.
Another criticism I have heard is of the treatment of the volunteer in many of the recruiting centres. In my own city of Calgary the recruiting office until recently was on a side street, and after arriving there the recruit was marched a mile and a half or two miles to another place for his medical examination. Then he was marched another mile or two to undergo a dental examination, and finally he would be told: "If you will come back tomorrow we will be able to tell you whether we can use you." Imagine having to go a mile and a half to be examined by a dentist, to find out whether your teeth are satisfactory!
Many of these young men who are coming forward have come miles and miles at their own expense to lay their lives on the altar of sacrifice for their country, only to be told that they will have to wait over until to-morrow
War Appropriation

at their own expense. It does seem to me that that is something which can and should be corrected. These men should be provided with accommodation, and given every consideration and consultation and advice. They should be treated as individuals. It has been my conception that fundamentally what we are fighting for in this war is for the rights of individuals, and it ill behooves us in any of our forces to treat the young men who are coming forward as recruits as other than self-respecting men wishing to do the right thing. We should respect the highest thing about them, their individuality and their personality.
I think that a great deal more inspection and supervision should be given to the recruiting centres as such and to the personnel who examine the men who are offering their lives. Why should the medical man whom I visit in his office as a private individual treat me any differently when I come forward to offer my life for my country? Yet does the young recruit take off his shoes and socks and disrobe in a clean room? Are there the same sanitary conditions as prevail in that doctor's own office were I to consult him in private? Ask any recruit; ask the men in the army to-day, whether those conditions prevail. It is not unknown that volunteers who came forward have, because of the delay and the treatment which they experienced, returned home and never bothered to wait and see what was the result of their examination. I suggest to the government and to the department that such conditions and treatment may be an explanation, at least in part, of the fact that we have not had as many volunteers for the army as, possibly, we should have liked.
I wish, however, to commend the government for the improvements being adopted and the army for the revision of the methods being used so far as the equipment, dress and treatment of the men are concerned. That instead of the battle dress we have given the soldier a walking-out uniform is something of which we should be very proud. One has felt we owed an apology to the boys who have come forward in thousands in past months and had only one uniform in which they worked, a battle dress, thus being compelled to go in these work clothes to their home or to see their sweethearts. You would not do it; your friends would not do it; the ordinary average working man does not do it. Yet these "right honourable" men, the only men who, to my way of thinking, are really entitled to that title, who have offered their lives for their country, have had to go home to greet their loved ones in a working suit-a glorified wind'breaker.
Progress reported.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major A. R. Thompson, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, His Honour the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, the house went up to the Senate.
And having returned.
Mr. SPEAKER informed the house that the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General had been pleased to give in His Majesty's name the royal assent to the following bills:
An Act to amend the Precious Metals Marking Act.
An Act to amend the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, 1939.
An Act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935.
An Act respecting Wheat Acreage Reduction.
An Act for granting to His Majesty aid for the purpose of financing United Kingdom war requirements in Canada and for national defence and security.
Am Act for granting to His Majesty aid for national defence and security.
An Act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1942.
An Act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1943.
An Act for granting to His Majesty aid for national defence and security.
On motion of Mr. Crerar the house adjourned at 6.15 p.m., until Monday, April 20.
Monday, April 20, 1942