1942-03-06

[Stage Direction]
Mr. VINCENT DUPUIS (Chambly-Rou-ville) presented the first and second reports of the joint committee of both houses on the printing of parliament, and moved that the reports be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Since I answered a question of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) yesterday regarding the status of the discussions with reference to the construction of a highway to Alaska, a recommendation of the Canadian section of the permanent joint board on defence on this subject, which had been referred to the appropriate military authorities for examination, has been considered and approved by the war committee of the cabinet.
I am now therefore in a position to make a statement on the subject to the house.
The advisability from a military standpoint of constructing a highway to Alaska has been under review by the defence services of Canada and the United States. After final consideration by the permanent joint board on defence on February 25 and 26, a unanimous recommendation favouring the construction of such a road was addressed to the two governments. This recommendation has now been examined and approved by both Canada and the United States.
The recommendation of the defence board, which has been endorsed by the military authorities in each country and approved by the respective governments, is based on purely military considerations. The dimensions of the road, the type of construction and the route chosen have all been selected on this basis and this basis only.
The road as approved will start at Fort St. John in northern British Columbia and follow the general line of the airports which Canada has constructed at Fort Nelson, Watson Lake and Whitehorse; and thence via Boundary and Big Delta to Fairbanks. The highway will thus connect with the existing road systems of Canada and Alaska.
The United States government, appreciating the burden of war expenditure already incurred by Canada since her entry into the war, and in particular on the construction of the air route to Alaska, has offered to undertake the building and war-time maintenance of the highway. At the conclusion of the war that part of the highway which is in Canada will, of course, become in all respects an integral part of the Canadian highway system. This offer has been accepted, and its terms will be set forth in an exchange of notes which will be signed and made public in the very near future. Canada will, of course, provide all necessary facilities, including the right of way for the road. Meanwhile, United States engineers who have been selected to make the survey and to lay out a pioneer road have been authorized to commence work without further delay.


Mr. GEORGE BLACK (Yukon):: Following the question asked of the Prime Minister yesterday afternoon by the hon. leader of the opposition, as I feel quite keenly on the subject of the Alaska highway I took it upon myself to write a letter to the Prime Minister on the subject. Probably he has not seen it yet. In the letter I referred to what he quoted to-day, that the road will begin at Fort St. John and go north through Canada, out of the valley of the Mackenzie river into the Yukon, and thence into Alaska. It will be about 1,200 miles in length. It goes for the most part over tundra and muskeg, the most difficult and expensive terrain on which to build a serviceable road. If the United States want to take more men and supplies to Alaska now-and I think they should, although to my knowledge, because I have seen them go, vast numbers of men and great quantities of war materials have already gone there by sea and air-the way to do it is to take them by rail to Prince Rupert, now, not next year or the year after, and from Prince Rupert send them by sea-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


George Black: If hon. members
will allow me for a moment; up to the present the matter of time has not been much of a consideration in this house.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As a matter of privilege let the hon. member finish.


Mr. SPEAKER:: If it is the wish of the
house that the hon. member be allowed to make this explanation on the orders of the day, of course the Chair will accede to it. But I wish to point out that exception has already been taken in the house to questions and statements following the answer to a question put on the orders of the day and leading almost to the
Alaska Highway

proportions of a debate. I do not think that is a proper procedure. If the Prime Minister wishes that the hon. member continue his statement-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In this case I think my hon. friend wishes to bring out a matter that he feels is of urgent and immediate importance, and if the house will permit him to make his statement I think it would be helpful.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: The hon. member is perhaps asking a question on the orders of the day covering the matter referred to, and the statement of the Prime Minister dealing with the same subject rather foreclosed him. Perhaps the house will be good enough to hear him for three minutes longer.


Mr. HANSELL:: I rise to a point of order. I have no objection to the hon. gentleman making a statement, perhaps a very necessary one, but if one hon. member is allowed to make a statement others may wish to discuss the same matter. There is more than one hon. member who is interested in this particular matter, and if it is a question of discussing routes and so forth there is a good deal that may be said. I suggest that the Prime Minister provide some opportunity for discussion of this matter.


Georges Parent: The hon. member is
following on the lines of what I have already mentioned. The Chair is in the hands of the house; in this case the leader of the government has consented to the hon. gentleman's completing his statement, and I take it he has now practically completed it. In this case therefore there might be an exception, but I wish to point out that the Chair should not be placed in the position of having to discriminate between hon. members in matters of this kind.


George Black: I was saying that if men and equipment are taken by rail to Prince Rupert they can be shipped from Prince Rupert to Skagway by what is virtually an inland passage, a series of islands all the way on a run that could be easily protected. From Skagway they are taken across the pass by rail to Whitehorse, where a road is now being used to transport goods and passengers from Whitehorse to Dawson, and from Dawson to Fairbanks, which is the centre of activity for Alaska and from which railways and good roads radiate. It is only a short jump from there, and if they want quick action that is the way to go.
I am not opposed to the ultimate construction of the road from Fort St. John north. It is a splendid thing to have, but it cannot be done in a hurry.


Mr. H. C. GREEN (Vancouver South):: May I ask a question of the Prime Minister arising out of his statement? He said nothing whatever about any terms of the agreement covering the actual construction of the road, whether it is to be built by Canadians or by citizens of the United States. Has any agreement been reached on this point?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In the statement which I made to the house a moment ago I said that the offer of the United States government has been accepted, and its terms will be set forth in an exchange of notes which will be signed and made public in the veiy near future.


Howard Charles Green: Can the Prime Minister not give that information in the meantime?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It would have to be given in both countries at the same time. I am making this announcement to-day because it is being made simultaneously in Washington.


Mr. J. R. MacNICOL (Davenport):: The Prime Minister has stated that the Alaska highway will start at Fort St. John. By what route will the road south of Fort St. John reach that point? There is only one bridge over the Peace river, and that is at the town of Peace River. Is the road to go through Peace River?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I regret that I cannot answer my hon. friend's question at the moment. Full information will be given
in due course; that is all I can say.



INITIAL PRICE-REPORT AS TO CLOSING OF WINNIPEG GRAIN EXCHANGE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. E. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle):: I desire to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, based on a report emanating from Winnipeg this morning, to the effect that the Canadian wheat board gave notice this morning to the Winnipeg grain exchange that the initial price paid by the board would be advanced and it suggested the closing of the exchange and freezing prices at yesterday's close. Yesterday No. 1 northern closed at 77J, and May wheat at 79}. The idea of freezing the price was to arrange for settlement of trades, this to be done pending a further definite announcement by the government. Is this report correct? Has any representation been made by hon. members of this house to have the Winnipeg grain exchange closed permanently or for the duration of the war, and if so does the government propose doing so?

Plebiscite Act


Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The hon. member is essentially right in his reference to the directions that have been given by the wheat board to the Winnipeg grain exchange. I purpose introducing to-day a bill to advance the price of wheat, and I hope to be able to speak on the bill at the very earliest opportunity the house will give me. As to the second question, regarding the closing of the Winnipeg grain exchange, no such representations have been made that I know of.



MAGNESIUM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. E. McGARRY (Inverness-Rich-mond):: May I ask the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) whether, in. view of the importance of magnesium in our war industry, the government has under consideration the advisability of developing the valuable and extensive dolomite deposits at East Lake Ainslie, Inverness-Richmond?


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Munitions and Supply) :: We have not considered it. We have ample supplies of dolomite located adjacent to hydro power. I might say that the supplies of dolomite in this country greatly exceed the' possibilities of manufacturing it into magnesium.



GASOLINE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Burpee Hanson: May I ask the Minister of Munitions and Supply if his department or the oil' controller have given any consideration to the further development of the oil shales in the county of Albert, New Brunswick, having regard to the gasoline situation?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I believe I have a report from the oil controller regarding that situation, but it does not seem to favour any such development at the present time.



JAPANESE NATIONALS

[Stage Direction]
EEPOnTED INFLUX INTO PROVINCE OF ALBERTA
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. II. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge): IIas any report reached the Minister of Justice concerning an influx of Japanese into the province of Alberta, travelling in their own cars and trucks? If so, will the minister
inform the house to what extent such report is based upon fact? If the report is correct, what measures has the minister taken to deal with the situation?
Hon. L. S. St. LAURENT (Minister of Justice):	.No such report has reached the
department. I inquired of the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police as to whether he had any information at all regarding it and he told me that he had not, but would communicate with his chief officer in that province to see if there is any local information in respect of this matter.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. G. ROSS (St. Paul's):: Yesterday the hon. member for Brantford City (Mr. Macdonald) referred to an article appearing in the Toronto Globe and Mail which he said stated that a full platoon stepped up, one hundred per cent, to go active. He neglected to read further from the article, which says-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: This is a question of privilege.


Georges Parent: May I ask if it is a question of privilege by which the hon. member is directly affected?


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The point is that of the fifty-nine men in the platoon, fifteen were from Toronto, most of them from my own riding.



PLEBISCITE ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): As a private Liberal member of this hon. house, referring to page 1066 of Hansard for yesterday and page 131 of the Votes and Proceedings of yesterday, on a question of order may I ask the Secretary of State why, while reading the senate amendments to the plebiscite bill, he omitted to mention the thirteenth amendment, which related to a change in the wording of the French question?
Hon. N. A. McLARTY (Secretary of State):: I think those who were in the chamber yesterday will realize that I did not undertake to give an exhaustive reading of all the amendments. There were a limited number of changes in the wording, changes which I was advised were calculated to make Clearer
Wheat Board Act

the intention of the act. If I overlooked any one it was purely by reason of the fact that I thought any such amendment as the one mentioned-and I must say it was not called to my attention at the time-was one of those amendments made for the purpose of clarification only.


Mr. POULIOT:: It was only one word. INTERNMENTS



REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION AND RELEASE OP INTERNED ANTI-FASCISTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. VICTOR QUELCH (Acadia):: Having in mind the brief presented to the Minister of Justice by a delegation of twenty-five persons from the national conference on democratic rights, has the government taken any action to investigate the cases of interned antifascists, on their individual merit, to the end that those held merely on the charge of having been members of the communist party may be released?


Georges Parent: Order. This is a question of the kind which is not capable of an immediate answer without previous notice. I suggest that it be placed on the order paper.



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935, by making provision for the payment of an increased rate per bushel on wheat delivered by producers.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Fournier (Hull) in the chair.
Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: I understood from the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) yesterday that a statement would be made on Monday covering all the details. The other day the Minister of Trade and ( ommerce said it would be some time soon. Monday is to be the day, is it?


James Angus MacKinnon: It will be discussed on Monday if it can be brought on that day.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. MacKinnon (Edmonton West) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 13, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CANADIAN ARMED FORCES


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, March 5, consideration in committee of Bill No. 5, to provide for the reinstatement in civil employment of individuals who enlist for service in his majesty's forces or who perform essential war employment-Mr. Mitchell- Mr. Fournier (Hull) in the chair.
On section 1-short title.
Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this bill is to help the men of the fighting forces to get jobs upon their return to civilian life. I believe there is no doubt that all hon. members are in favour of everything possible being done along that line, because we recognize that these men of the fighting forces will have done a great service for the nation, that they will have made sacrifices, and that in trying to become reestablished in civilian life they will be handicapped to a certain extent.
Therefore this bill says to employers, "You must"-it does not say "Will you please?"- it says ou must back up this fighting man who was your employee when he enlisted."
I do not, think it. is asking too much of the government to suggest that it say to all its civil servants, including employees in this House of Commons, that it will go equally far. At the present time there may be an order in- council which provides such protection for civil servants, but if there is I am not aware of it; I do suggest, that the government, in order to make its own position clear, should pass an order in council giving these civil servants just as much protection as we are forcing private employers to give to their employees.
But the government is failing to back up the men of the fighting forces in another way.
It is failing to back up other fighting men who are even more numerous than those who will be benefited by this measure. I do hope I shall only have to draw this to the attention of the ministry in order to have the necessary steps taken to remedy the situation. I refer to the men of the fighting forces who try to get work through our new national employment agencies. After all, the great majority of the returned men who will get work will get it through those agencies. Those men will have given the same service to the nation and will have made the same sacrifices as the men protected by this bill. Nevertheless under our present laws, when they go to the national employment agencies they must take their chances with civilians seeking employment through the same agencies.

Forces-Reinstatement in Employment
In other words, the Department of Labour -and I am afraid it is that department rather than the Department of Pensions and National Health which is the sinner-has not adopted a policy whereby men of the fighting forces shall receive the preference in these new national employment agencies. It is true that in a few of the larger agencies-I believe only about fourteen or fifteen-provision has been made whereby the Department of Pensions and National Health may install an official known as a veterans' welfare officer. This official sits in the national employment agency, but he cannot do any actual placement work. In other words, if a returned soldier goes to the agency looking for a job, the veterans' welfare officer cannot accept his as a special case, and go out and find the work. For some reason or another the Department of Labour will not allow the official of the Department of Pensions and National Health to do that.
The same point was under discussion before the special committee on the Pension Act which met last year. I would refer hon. members to page 672 of the proceedings of that committee, at which point I asked Mr. Woods certain questions. Mr. Woods was in charge of the veterans' welfare division of the Department of Pensions and National Health. These are the questions and answers:
Q. If an employer sends in for five men under the new plan that request will go to the general employment officers?
A. Yes.
Q. And there will be no preference for the ex-service man; he just takes his chance with everybody else who is registered there?
A. Unless the employer registers a preference.
Q. In most cases probably the employer will not. In other words, you are trying to put the onus on the employer to ask for the soldier. Suppose he does not. Then the returned man will just be treated as another individual, and your welfare officer sitting in that same office will not have the power to go out and seek jobs for the returned men.
A. No, not under the new set-up of the dominion employment service.
That means, to sum up, that no preference is given in our dominion employment offices to the men of the fighting forces; and that, in my opinion, is wrong, and should be remedied without further delay.
This committee brought in recommendations, and the Minister of Labour will find at page 503 of the Votes and Proceedings for last session a recommendation as follows:
We recommend that the Department of Labour instruct and require their placement or employment officer's to cooperate with the veterans' welfare division officers and to give preference in employment to ex-service men.
Furthermore, the Department of Pensions and National Health has set up honorary committees across Canada, and has asked those committees to try to find ways of placing these men of the fighting forces. The inference has been throughout that the work of the honorary committees was to persuade employers to give preference to returned men.
I believe the Minister of Pensions and National Health will agree with me when I say that.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: That is correct.


Howard Charles Green: We have such a committee in Vancouver, and there are similar committees in other parts of the country. They have run up against this very problem. I quote from a report made last December by a subcommittee of these citizens. I might add that Mr. Woods was present at the meeting. I might state, further, that I do not believe there is a more efficient or more progressive man in the civil service than Mr. Walter S. Woods. We find this statement in the report of the committee of citizens:
It has been generally recognized by this committee that where possible veterans should receive preference in all employment openings. We think that a definite policy should be laid down by the Department of Labour m this question and that staffs should be instructed accordingly.
That is not the condition at the present time.
Then this committee go on to explain the reasons for their recommendation. I quote again from the report, for the information of the Minister of Labour:
We are always aware of the psychological effect on the veteran when registering tor employment. He feels, and always will feel, that he is entitled to just a little more consideration than is given to those who did not serve in the active forces. So, if we can gi\e him some direct service, we will go a long way toward dispelling the ever present fear that he is going to be the "forgotten man . Therefore we feel that some authority should be instituted right in the unemployment office to see that the veteran gets his fair share and percentage of employment.
That means, in effect, that the government is not backing up these men of the fighting forces who go to the national employment agencies seeking work.
The Minister of Labour is a new man on the job and I believe he is a very able administrator. I urge upon him most sincerely that he remedy this situation at once; that he direct his employment offices right across Canada to give preference to the men of the fighting forces. Further, where there is a representative of the Department of Pensions and National Health in an employment office, the Minister of Labour should direct that such man from the other department shall have the utmost freedom in going out to find jobs and in acting as a placement officer.
Forces-Reinstatement in Employment


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I must say that I am in substantial agreement with almost everything my hon. friend has said. I realize that he brought up this question last year before the committee of this house. At that time the issue was as to the actual placement of ex-service men. I must say that even with the limitations existing, the work performed by the veterans' welfare officers has been magnificent. They placed a thousand men in January alone. According to our records, of nearly 45,000 men discharged from the forces, there are 1,062 out of employment at the present time. That is a marvellous record for the Dominion of Canada. Of course, there are exceptional conditions prevailing in the country at the present time.
I agree with the suggestion that the actual placement of these men should be in the hands of those who are charged with that special responsibility. My colleague (Mr. Mitchell), who is himself a returned man, I am sure will agree with the suggestion of the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green). I hope the condition to which reference has been made will be corrected as soon as possible. There should be absolute cooperation between the departments, and the placement of ex-service men should be in the hands of ex-service men themselves.


Howard Charles Green: Can we take it that this will be the policy of the Department of Labour from now on?


Mr. MITCHELL:: My hon. friend can rest assured that there will be absolute cooperation between the two departments. Anything that is practicable will be done for the returned men of this country.


Howard Charles Green: The Minister understands my question?


Humphrey Mitchell: I understand it clearly.


Howard Charles Green: I am asking that the representative of the Department of Pensions and National Health shall be free to go out and seek jobs. After all, the effectiveness of this plan will be decided only when there are many more men being discharged than have been discharged to date.


Humphrey Mitchell: I understand the
question.


Howard Charles Green: My other suggestion was that in the national employment agencies preference should be given to returned men.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I will try to advocate that as strongly as I possibly can. I think the principle of this bill should be applied as widely as possible. tMr. Green.]


Mr. MARTIN:: How many veterans' placement offices are there in Ontario?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I could not say offhand, but I think there are about six. There is one in each of the main centres. I understand there is one in Windsor.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think there are about six or eight in Ontario.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It strikes me that that is
an inadequate number of placement offices for a population of 3,000,000 people. There is a very good officer in Windsor, but it is not very convenient for people who live many miles outside the city to come to see him. As a matter of fact, I have had some experience in this connection. There is not enough publicity given to the existence of this officer or to the existence of the office. I think the minister should consider increasing the staff.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I shall be glad to give attention to it.


Howard Charles Green: The Minister of Pensions
and National Health has gone part way. but he has not answered my question. He says he will advocate that men from the fighting forces be given preference in the employment agencies, but he may not be a successful advocate.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That happens frequently.


Howard Charles Green: I should like to know from the Minister of Labour whether or not his department will change its policy. These business men who are helping you to place soldiers are worried about this. They are the ones who have brought the question to a head. One of them sums it up by saying:
At present when a man is through with the department of pensions and health and goes to register with the Department of Labour, there is no follow-up programme. The staff of the employment service includes many veterans who quite naturally will give a discharged man every consideration. But the Department of Labour has not established it as a policy that veterans shall receive preference, although the dominion government have asked industry to do so.
That is exactly the point. Will the Department of Labour announce a policy and give directions to its employment agencies that preference shall be given to the returned man who comes seeking a job? This is a point which is vital to many men and1 the ministry should make up their minds about it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What was the date of the statement which my hon. friend just read?

Forces-Reinstatement in Employment


Howard Charles Green: This letter was written in
January.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is not correct.


Howard Charles Green: It is correct in Vancouver,
unless conditions have been changed since I left there.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am sorry, but I must disagree. The Department of Pensions and1 National Health are charged with the responsibility of following up every discharged man who is not employed. There are four or five different classes of benefits available to him, such as vocational training, education and otherwise. If he is not able to take advantage of any of these, the department is charged with the responsibility of finding him employment. If it cannot find him employment, it provides him with benefits for fifty-two weeks within a period of eighteen months of his discharge. So, whoever wrote that letter was not very familiar with the actual terms of the legislation.


Howard Charles Green: That was written by a man who is on a committee which is helping my hon. friend to place these men. The fact is that in the majority of the employment offices across Canada there is no representative of the Department of Pensions and National Health; they are staffed entirely by the Department of Labour. The Department of Labour have not said to their employment offices that preference in jobs shall be given to men coming back from the forces. I submit that instructions to that effect should go out to every employment office across Canada. The result would then be that when a returned man goes into an employment office, no matter where it may 'be and whether or not there is a veterans' welfare officer there, he will receive first consideration. If there are two or three men applying for one job, the preference will go to the soldier. My question is perfectly simple: Is the government prepared to direct its agencies to that effect, or is the government not prepared to do so?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I say to my hon. friend that as far as the department of pensions is concerned, we follow up every discharged case. Where employment is not provided, it is our duty as a department to follow up the case. This is done through our welfare officers. If we cannot find employment, there are four or five other ways of looking after the case.


Howard Charles Green: The Minister of Pensions and National Health should be supporting me instead of trying to knock me down.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am.
Mr. 'GREEN: The position is that the representatives of the Department of Labour in these agencies have not had instructions to give preference to the men sent to them by the Minister of Pensions and National Health. I am asking that the Department of Labour give their men those instructions. That would help the Minister of Pensions and National Health when he has 50,000 men, instead of 1,000, to handle. He will need all the help he can get from the Department of Labour. I should like to know from the Minister of Labour whether instructions to that effect will be given.


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not think I can go any further with my hon. friend than I did last time, and say that so far as the Department of Labour is concerned there will be the closest cooperation with the Department of Pensions and National Health. Everything practical that can be done for the returned soldier will be done. I take it from the statements of my hon. friend that up to the present moment there has been very little or no criticism of the treatment of the returned soldiers.


Howard Charles Green: Will the minister look into this question of instructing his agencies to give a preference to the returned men?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Certainly.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is there one of these placement officers in New Brunswick, and if so, where is he located?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I have not the full details because this is really not my bill; but if any hon. member feels that the welfare officers in any province are insufficient in number to look after the situation adequately, I shall be very glad to recommend an increase in their number in any centres which are appropriate for the purpose of looking after our returning soldiers,


Mr. MacINNIS:: I do not know, Mr. Chairman, whether this discussion is strictly in order, but yesterday evening I called attention to the danger we are in of dividing the returned men, on the one side, from the ordinary workers on the other. I saw too much of that after the last war. If we are going to take the position now that there are not going to be sufficient jobs to go round after the war, and that consequently people are going to find themselves in difficult circumstances, we are at once admitting defeat in our attempts to reorganize society after the war is over. The position we shall have
109S
Forces-Reinstatement in Employment

to take in this house is that in this Dominion of Canada one of two things must be done: employment must be provided or, failing that, adequate maintenance for every man who is willing to work.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Hear, hear.


Angus MacInnis: I base my position in this house on that principle. It may be good policy from a political point of view to advocate a preference for the returned men.


Mr. HOMUTH:: That is not fair.


Howard Charles Green: On a question of order, Mr. Chairman, the member is making an unfair implication.


Angus MacInnis: I make no implication, but if my' hon. friend is so touchy, I will not put it in that way.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If I may interrupt, for the last twenty-five years every single party in this House of Commons has agreed on a preference for the ex-service men.


Angus MacInnis: I agree and have always agreed on a preference for the ex-service men in the civil service and in various other services. But you will find employers who will be quite willing to say that they want to give a preference to the returned men, but who, when the war is over and demobilization comes, will pit the returned men against the men who did not go to the front.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: No.


Angus MacInnis: Then disprove it. I know it, from what happened after the last war. I have seen returned men used to break up workingmen's organizations, and come pretty near to killing men at that, too.
The first thing you will be confronted with, and particularly in connection with your employment offices-that is altogether a different thing from the civil service, to which I shall refer later-is this: On the one hand you will have elderly men looking for work, men who could not get into the armed services. On the other hand you will have young men who were not of an age to go into the armed services. Why in the matter of employment should you discriminate against the young man who was not old enough to go into the armed services, and who. if he had been, would have enlisted or, if he had not, would have been conscripted into the forces? The employment offices are definitely a part of the unemployment insurance scheme. The man who, when working and a contributor under the scheme, becomes unemployed, if he does not get a job through the employment

offices, will receive unemployment insurance benefits. Would it not be better, instead of making a division between the men who went to the war and the men who did not go to the war, to pay adequate maintenance to the returned man until such time as there is a proper employment for him? To do otherwise would be only for the benefit of those who wTant to make a division in labour's ranks. While the war is on, and before this problem is pressing upon us, we should first decide on the principle and then stick to that principle that every man, woman and child in Canada who is willing to work shall get work or adequate maintenance.


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: I do not agree with the argument of the hon. member who has just spoken. I do not see how this legislation causes any cleavage whatsoever. As the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) has said, the members of this house, regardless of party, have given lip-allegiance at least for the last twenty-five years to the principle of a preference to the men who have served their country, and I for one do not want to see that principle departed from regardless of the argument advanced by the hon. member.
4 reading of this legislation shows that while it is a step in the right direction, it is rather haphazardly put together. Without regard to party all hon. members believe that the surest guarantee that men will be employed after the war is the arousing of a public sense of responsibility now. We know that in the transition period from war to peace great difficulties will be experienced in order to assure to those who serve their country' the right which their country owes them of receiving back the job they gave up in order to go to war. We do not want these men to return to the humiliation and despair of unemployment and to an economic struggle once more against those whose physical standards will be very much better than theirs.
I think, too, that this bill is designed to prevent the exploitation of the returned men by any employer who would take advantage of their situation. Looking over the bill, however, I find it difficult to understand why many changes have not been made in order to provide against a large number of contingencies, not possible contingencies, but those that face us even now. I am not going to be critical and say that this is piecemeal legislation. But I do think the house should approach the whole problem of rehabilitation of service men after discharge at once.
Let me run over the bill, without going into unnecessary detail. I would point out first that it merely' touches the fringe, the very out-

Forces-Reinstatement in Employment
skirts of the problem. It does not include that vast army of men who, when war broke out, were unemployed and enlisted in the armed services. Again, it does not include all those who were employed; it covers only those who were employed on September 9, 1939, in other than a temporary position. In other words, the man who was employed on September 9, 1939, does not come under this legislation at all unless he was then permanently employed. Again, it does not include all those who were unemployed on September 9, 1939, but secured employment after that date. It covers only those who were employed after that date for at least six months in other than a temporary position. Therefore, as far as the bill before us goes, it pertains to only one group of the men- those who had jobs that were permanent jobs.
It does not cover men who had temporary jobs or those hired from week to week or month to month. It is well to know that of the men who have returned from overseas since the outbreak of this war, as unfit for service, numbering 3,932, only 1,109 had been pensioned, and it would be of interest if the minister could tell us how many of those men who have come back from overseas, who are not now in the army in Canada, and who are not now receiving pensions, are unemployed.
I do not very often pay compliments, but in fairness to the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) I want to compliment him upon the sympathetic assistance he has invariably given in order to relieve situations such as the one to which I will direct the attention of the committee provided, of course, he possesses the necessary legislative authority. But this is one in respect of which he cannot give relief because of the law as it now is. '
A man in my own constituency joined the veterans' guard in July, 1940, served for seventeen months, and was discharged as unfit for further service. At the time he joined he had land under the soldier settlement board. Like so many soldiers settled after the last war, he did not pay his indebtedness and was still indebted at the outbreak of the present war. When he joined the veterans' guard an order in council which had been passed some years ago was resorted to by the board, and his wife's dependent's allowance was reduced by $15 a month during the time he was in service, and was applied on account of his indebtedness to the government of Canada. When he came back from service unfit for service there was only one place to which he could go and that was back to the farm.
This bill is based upon an order in council passed in June, 1941, which is in almost identical words. Neither the bill nor the order in council covers the position of a man in this ex-soldier's position. He went back to his farm after discharge from the army. He has not had a crop for several years and applied for some assistance, and I would refer the committee to a letter he received from the district rehabilitation board in reply. He said to them that he could not get employment and was not entitled to unemployment insurance-such as the minister referred to as being payable in certain cases-and was in a bad financial plight. This is the answer he received:
Applicant was established on soldier settlement board farm at the time of his enlistment, July 8, 1940. During his period of service his wife carried on with the operation of the farm with the aid of hired help, and when discharged Hemmings returned to the farm to continue farming operations on the same basis as at the time of enlistment. Under these circumstances an award cannot be made under section 3, and if the family is in need it is a case for the municipal authorities.
That was February 18, 1942.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What branch of the service was he in?


John George Diefenbaker: The veterans' guard.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Was he overseas?


John George Diefenbaker: He was overseas in the last war, but not in this one. He was fit when he joined; he gave service, and now that he is discharged he does not get a pension. During the time he was in the army, $15 was being deducted from his wife's dependents allowance, and he is now advised to ask for relief assistance. I know that all hon. members will agree with me that relief is neither the award nor recompense that he deserves, and, I repeat, this bill affords him no consideration, and to take relief is all that remains for him.
Let me give another instance, that of a man who returned from overseas, invalided home in 1941 and discharged at Regina, on December 23, 1941. His pay ceased on his discharge, and his wife's allowance was thereupon discontinued. The stores in his district cannot be expected to continue to give him credit, and he is now compelled to apply for relief, after having been in the sendee of his country overseas for a very considerable period of time.
These are two examples of men who have enlisted and who have been honourably discharged, and there is nothing whatever to cover their plight under this bill. They are not entitled to pension. There are three cardinal principles that guide all governments who are trying to do their part for these men. Those principles are these: Measures designed to assist
1100	COMMONS
Forces-Reinstatement in Employment
soldiers in resoration to health, or pensions to be paid for disability; training the ex-soldiers for trades, giving students an opportunity to complete their education; and finally employment assured to discharged soldiers or in default of employment, the payment of unemployment insurance.
If the conditions to-day are such as I have described, when we have so few men discharged, what would happen if the war should end now and 400,000 men were discharged from the army, the navy and the air force, and 700,000 men in war industries became unemployed because the industries in which they are employed were no longer necessary.
I find nothing to indicate that the experience of the last nine or ten months since the order in council came into being, the experience of Canada since even the outbreak of the war, has in any way resulted in the embodying of the results of such experience in this bill. As a matter of fact, it is based on the British act which was passed at the outbreak of the war before Britain had any experience at all. The provisions of the order in council of June, 1941, are unchanged. This bill does nothing but embody the terms of the order in council because of a promise to that effect that was given at the time by the then minister of labour. My suggestion is this: None of us wants these men to return to the relief rolls. But this bill will only prevent our ex-soldiers returning to the relief rolls in the event of their coming within the amibit of the bill which is very limited in its application in that it refers to ex-soldiers who were not in temporary employment when they enlisted.
I suggest that the whole bill be submitted to a committee of the house, as was the plebiscite bill. Let it be redrafted and made to cover the various contingencies and eventualities that can arise and have already arisen. Other legislation is being introduced in connection with ex-soldier problems such as land settlement and the like-I believe it is to be introduced next week. Have the whole matter of service men's rehabilitation placed before a committee of this house and hold up the bill for the time being. No harm will occur, as the order in council is still in effect. There is no rush in having it passed. Let this parliament produce a bill that will give hope and courage to the men of the armed forces, and will provide in unmistakable terms for every contingency and eventuality that may arise or has arisen in connection with the whole problem of rehabilitation of our soldiers upon their return to civilian life.
I entirely agree with my leader's statement that as it stands at present the bill is difficult of enforcement, because there are

loopholes in practically every section. Without going into details now I would point to section 4 which defines the circumstances under which an employer must reemploy a returned soldier who was formerly in his employ. It contains several loopholes, as do several other sections to which I shall make reference when the individual sections are being discussed. Experience has proven in my opinion that parliament cannot legislate a people into doing that which public opinion does not demand or sanction and actively support.
If this debate has done nothing else, I believe it will rivet the attention of the people of Canada to this problem of rehabilitation. If we are going to discharge our responsibilities in fairness and equity towards these men before the problem becomes too great and with the experience we have already had, I suggest that the whole matter should be submitted to a committee of the house so that the fullest consideration will be given to this problem. The whole matter should be canvassed now before it is too late, in the interest of the men who are in service overseas and seeking to prevent the difficulties that will arise when the war end's unless action is taken now, and in order to remove the feeling of resentment that must inevitably arise in a community where men in the position I have referred to return and find themselves on relief. We do not want our men to receive as their recompense for military service overseas the opportunity to go on relief rolls.


Mr. COLD WELL:: I think no group or member of the house would deny, that we should endeavour to give this bill and its principle every support. But as the hon. member for Lake Centre has said, it touches only the fringe of a very large subject.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We admit that.


Mr. COLDWELL:: His suggestion is not new; it has been made in this house on a number of occasions, although I am glad he repeated it this afternoon.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It was not made before on this bill.


Major James William Coldwell: But this bill touches only the fringe of the problem that has been referred to many times in this house. The suggestion is that a committee of the house should be set up to go into the whole matter of reestablishment, rehabilitation and so on, both now and after the war. I believe that we shall be faced with a grave problem following the war. The hon. member for Vancouver East a few moments ago pointed out that we

Forces-Reinstatement in Employment
may set one group of men against another group, which would be not only wrong but deplorable and against the public interest. We must see that that does not happen; we must see that we do not divide the people of this country.
In discussing this matter let us keep clearly in mind that at the conclusion of the last war we failed to provide for the returned men, for their rehabilitation, and failed to provide for the men and women who had performed a service to industry. While to-day the men on the battle front take the greatest risks and suffer the greatest dangers and privations, let us not forget that the men who remain here tilling the soil and providing the food, and the men and women who work in the factories engaged in the production of essential munitions and supplies, render a service that is also essential to the winning of the war.
To my mind we are going about this problem in the wrong way. It cannot be tackled piecemeal. We must consider the whole picture, and when we do, we shall find that many more things will have to be done than we have yet dreamed of doing. This war, let me repeat, is in the minds of many of our people not a war in the ordinarily accepted sense of the term. It is a revolution in the best sense of the word. People throughout the world, particularly in the democratic countries, are becoming more and more determined-and this parliament must awaken to a realization of the fact-that we have to formulate a policy which will prevent our people from going back to relief lines. As the hon. member for Lake Centre has said, our young men are not encouraged to enlist voluntarily when they see other men demobilized and going on relief, or even obtaining from the unemployment insurance fund assistance which after all is limited to fifty-two weeks or the number of weeks the man has served in the armed forces. I know from correspondence I have received and the hon. member for Lake Centre says he has received, that the return of men to the relief lines here and there in the country, and, may I add, the treatment of widowed mothers who are unable to get the same provisions that wives get by *way of separation allowance, have militated against recruiting.
A bill of this description is insufficient to meet the needs of the situation. We must do something in a bigger way. It is about time that this parliament told the government that we want the ablest committee that can be established to go into the whole problem of present rehabilitation and post-war reconstruction and rehabilitation. If we approach the problem with open minds we may find that we can and must do much more than is provided by this bill.
When I was in England last autumn, as other hon. members of the delegation will remember, we found many committees working on this problem of post-war reconstruction.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Just one.


Thomas Miller Bell: They were not all
government committees. The government committee was acting as a sort of clearing house for all other committees established by various organizations all over the country. We have nothing here yet comparable with that.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, we have.


Thomas Miller Bell: We have not the same sort of committees operating to the same extent-not as many and not as representative. We have a committee established by the government, and while it comprises some very fine men it consists substantially of only one type of individual-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Oh, no.


Thomas Miller Bell: Well, to a large extent.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Organized labour is represented, and industry, and agriculture.


Thomas Miller Bell: One man from labour.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: One out of six.


Angus MacInnis: Is that the proportion labour bears to the rest of the dominion?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Would my hon. friend say that Tom Moore is not a good man to represent labour
interests?


Angus MacInnis: Yes; I have already stated so publicly, but he is only one man in six.


Thomas Miller Bell: Does the same thing apply to agriculture?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Agriculture has one out of six, too.


Major James William Coldwell: Let me point out to the minister that these representatives of groups or bodies should be chosen by the body or group itself, rather than nominated by the government. If they are going to represent agriculture, let them be chosen by agriculture. If they are going to represent labour, let them be chosen by labour. Then we shall know that they are representative of those groups.
I want to say as clearly as I can that in my opinion this bill, while the principle can be approved, is utterly inadequate even to
1102	COMMONS
Forces-Reinstatement in Employment
meet the situation which it pretends to meet. I believe we should urge upon the ministers who are here this afternoon and upon the government on every possible occasion-and I am taking this opportunity now-that from the membership of this House of Commons we should appoint the ablest committee we san select in order to formulate plans for the care of the men who return from overseas or who come from the armed forces in Canada; for the care of those who are incapacitated in industry and are no longer able to serve in that field, for they are serving, too; and that we should make plans now for the post-war situation. Surely that is our responsibility. If we fail to make adequate plans, I dread to think what the conditions will be when this war ends.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Just before the minister speaks I should like to say something, and I believe the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) has something to say. I rise not for the purpose of discussing further the principle of this bill, but to give my earnest support to the suggestion that has been offered by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). I believe this bill and all the subjects related thereto; the proposed bill with respect to land settlement, which is a rehabilitation measure; the vocational training bill, which is a rehabilitation measure, and all kindred subjects should be submitted to the best committee, to use the words of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, that this house can select. Let them make a study of it. Then we shall get away from the charge of having piecemeal legislation. It will be much more than a gesture; it will show the country that the House of Commons, with the government backing it, is getting down to a real study of a problem which is bound to raise its head more and more as the war [DOT] goes on and men are sent back to this country from the various armed forces. I earnestly beseech the two ministers who are guiding this measure that they withdraw this bill at the moment and have the cabinet give consideration to this suggestion over the weekend. They will get the support of every group in this house and every body of public opinion if they show that they want to meet :his problem now in a wholehearted manner and try to cover the whole field, as far as it can be foreseen. That is the suggestion I make to the minister, that he withdraw this bill and send this whole question to a committee.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There seems to be among hon. members of this house a tremendous misconception *bout

this bill. It was never intended to be a major part or portion of the reconstruction programme. It was introduced, only at the specific request of the leader of the opposition himself, to implement an order in council which has been in effect since June, 1941. Many persons have already found employment under the provisions of the order in council. Surely no one thinks for a second that this bill could be considered as a major portion of the reestablishment provisions. It is only very, very limited in its scope. But I must correct certain observations which have been made by various hon. gentlemen. I was very much disappointed yesterday to hear the remarks of the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) and the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Roebuck), both of whom displayed a complete lack of knowledge of the terms of the order in council passed by this government on October 1, 1941.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: They are not in this bill.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They were not intended to be in this bill; but I want to tell my hon. friend that if he studies the specific benefits conferred under that order in council, he will find that in our legislation we have gone further than any other part of the British empire or any of the allied nations in our attempt to help those serving their country in the armed forces. Instead of displaying a complete lack of knowdedge of the order in council, which I personally directed to them by maii for their information in case they should miss seeing it in the Canada Gazette; instead of paying so much attention to some flaws-for there will always be flaws and deficiencies in pensions and reestablishment legislation- they should have some pride in what this country has done in regard to the men serving it to-day. I met the reconstruction committees in England, as did the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar; I told them what we had done in Canada in regard to reconstruction and reestablishment proposals, and they all told me we were more advanced in Canada than they were in England or in any other part of the empire.
Look at the provisions of the order in council of October 1. Look at the provisions with regard to education; for assisting a man who is awaiting the return from his enterprise on the farm; for vocational training; for putting men back on a parity with those in insured employment; for looking after men by way of out-of-work compensation; for free medical treatment for one year. I say, and I will not hesitate to say it to those who are competent to discern, that in this dominion

Forces-Reinstatement in Employment
we have done more in the last year for those serving their country than we did in the previous twenty-five years. Hon. gentlemen should be proud of that, instead of finding fault. Any case that comes to my attention that can be met will be met, as the hon. member for Lake Centre was kind enough to say, and I greatly appreciated his remarks. The hon. member for Weyburn mentioned a case yesterday, which only reached me after he had spoken. That case will be met. Any case that it is within my power to meet will be met and will receive the most sympathetic treatment possible. But I think at this serious time of war hon. members should be constructive in directing attention to these problems, instead of creating among those who may be considering enlisting the impression that Canada is not being generous or sympathetic or fair to the men who are going to fight the battles of freedom in the years to come.
4 he hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar mentioned a committee on reconstruction, and the leader of the opposition applauded his suggestion. Do you recall, Mr. Chairman, that in 1940 the Prime Minister placed upon the order paper a resolution providing for the very committee for which my hon. friend is asking. Does the hon. gentleman remember what happened? We came upon very dark days in the war; we had the tragic episode of Dunkirk, and after consultation it was decided by this house, and I think properly at that time, that we should devote all our energies to the immediate problems connected with that great disaster and with the mobilization of Canadian men for war purposes. Therefore that resolution was withdrawn from the order paper. I ask my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, as I ask the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar: Is the situation to-day brighter than it was at the time of Dunkirk, when hon. members unanimously concurred in the withdrawal of that resolution in regard to post-war problems? I tell my hon. friends that the great thing to-day is to secure victory; otherwise we shall not have a word to say in deciding post-war problems in the Dominion of Canada. That is where our energies must be directed. If, however, the judgment of this committee is to the effect that we should have a committee such as that, I shall be very glad indeed to bring it to the attention of my right hon. leader, and to recommend it to him.
We have a committee now-a Committee of six eminent Canadians. I am sorry if they are not in good odour with my hon. friends.


Major James William Coldwell: No; that is not right; I want to correct that.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I accept the correction, gladly.


Major James William Coldwell: But the committee is not extensive enough, not representative enough.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Well, let us see. The committee represents labour, in the person of the finest champion of organized labour in Canada. I refer to Mr. Tom Moore. The representative of industry is Mr. J. 8. McLean. Education is represented by the principals of McGill and Queen's and the secretary-general of Montreal university. It is representative of agriculture, through a gentleman bearing a fine old Scotch name, namely Mr. Donald G. M. Mackenzie of Winnipeg. That committee has formed; numerous subcommittees dealing with questions of agriculture, production and finance, and in due course their representations will be received by the government.
May I say to my hon. friend that we have gone much farther with reference to the problem of reconstruction than they have gone in England. We are in touch with organizations such as he may have visualized, including the economic section of the League of Nations and others. We have carried on the work in regard to the specific problem of the rehabilitation of soldiers.
It is my considered judgment-and I believe the committee knows where my heart lies- that once the measures to be introduced in the house have passed we shall have all the legislation necessary to look after the problem of the reestablishment of ex-service men. The administration may fall down, but the power is there; the legislation is there. There will always be things which must be corrected, but the general purpose and general purport of our legislation is not to-day approached in any part of the British empire. I defy any' hon. member who knows What has happened in the other dominions to prove I am wrong in that.
So let us all work together. In years gone by we have given much attention to this problem of ex-service men. It has not been and it should not be a party question. The present bill should not be a party question. Special committees of the house have always studied measures I have introduced. It will be so with the land settlement bill.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I must say that I deprecate the engendering of any feeling of pessimism and defeatism in regard to the will and the purpose of this dominion, and any questioning of my honourable intentions with respect to these matters. There is no doubt as to what Canada should do for those who are now serving her. The whole resources of the nation should be mobilized to see to it that
4	COMMONS
Forces-Reinstatement in Employment
economic security shall be the least we can assure them upon their return. Let us assure them of a condition of national vitality, and that they will not return to a devitalized homeland.	,
I trust that in making this explanation I have exploded the myth that the government has been somewhat hesitant with respect to legislation for ex-service men. We are doing this. It may be a slow thing, 'but we shall do more, and more and more as the years go by. In our effort I trust we shall receive the cooperation of all hon. members, to ensure that those who are now fighting our battles will come back to a land that will give them the best that Canada can give.


Mr. REID:: Mr. Chairman, my chief purpose in rising is to ask the Minister of Labour a question, but before doing so I should like to refer to a statement made a short time ago by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, a statement which has been repeated on one or two occasions. These hon. members have pointed out that the men who were doing war work in factories were just as essential to the war as others. With that I am in accord. But I think I must say that, after all, there is nothing which can take the place of the man who offers his life.


Thomas Miller Bell: I said that last night.


Thomas Reid: Every hon. member has his own reason for not taking part in this war, or the last one. But I can say, as one who was in charge of making shells and guns, that I would not for one minute suggest that my work was comparable with that of the man who takes his life in his hands when he flies in the air to meet the enemy, meets him on the high seas or in the trenches. There has been the suggestion that those in this country who are earning high wages are on the same plane as those who are offering their lives. The suggestion has been repeated on one or two occasions. However, I do not believe the hon. member who repeated it a few moments ago had that in mind.


Thomas Miller Bell: I qualified it.


Thomas Reid: We could not for one minute begin to offer full payment to our returned men which would be adequate for the sacrifice they are making. But we can do something, and the minister has pointed out that this measure represents but one of the first steps.
We say to the man who has left his occupation, "We will give you an insurance, of some kind, so that when you come back you will have your job." The very fact that the government has seen fit to introduce a measure of this kind seems to show that after the last war there must have been some employers

who were not friendly to ex-service men. True, I know and every hon. member knows of many employers who were not favourable to the employment of ex-service men. But I would point out to the Minister of Labour that this bill will not entirely solve the problem of those who leave, and then come back.
It will bring other problems as well. I have in mind men who saw service in the last war, and who are taking the place of men who are now serving in this war. I know that representations have been made to me respecting these men. I have been asked, "Why is special privilege being given to men enlisting in the present war? Some of them saw three years' service in the last war, in France, but could not get a job; but now that they have one, we are going to take this job away from them after the war, and give it to someone who saw service in this war." I draw this point to the attention of the committee and the minister.
Someone has said that you could drive a coach and four through this legislation. Well, I am not a lawyer, but I have heard enough to believe that that could be said of almost any act on our statute books. A lawyer, if he saw fit to do so, and if his fee was large enough to prompt him to do so, could drive a coach and four through any act.
At the present time this bill is very popular, and it will remain popular as long as the war lasts. But I am wondering just how popular it will be after the war, with a certain class of employers. How popular will it be after the anxiety and excitement die down?
My question to the minister is this: Has the government considered what position this bill will occupy in the country if someone raises the point that it is not constitutional for the dominion government to impose this legislation upon the provinces? Personally I want employers to be placed in a position where they will be compelled to take the men back, if they are not willing to take them back voluntarily.
But I have heard arguments about old age pensions and other acts being unconstitutional, and ultra vires of the dominion government. I am wondering if the Minister of Labour has considered that point of view, and if he has placed safeguards in the bill, so that no one may raise a constitutional question. No doubt other hon. members have heard constitutional questions raised, but we do not want that to happen with legislation of this kind.


Humphrey Mitchell: That thought was in our minds when the bill was drafted. If the hon. member will turn to the preamble he will find these words:

Forces-Reinstatement in Employment
And whereas it is deemed expedient for the security, defence, peace, order and welfare of Canada that provision should be made for the orderly reinstatement in their previous employment of such persons aforesaid.
These words were incorporated in the preamble to take care of the point raised by the hon. member for New Westminster.


Thomas Reid: I am glad that has been done, because it may pave the way for further social legislation.


Thomas Miller Bell: I should like to address a few brief remarks to the Minister of Pensions and National Health. I hope he does not misunderstand the temper of those of us who are discussing this matter.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No.


Thomas Miller Bell: He spoke with considerable heat just now. I want to assure him that so far as we are concerned we want to give every cooperation we can to the solution of these problems. We are not discussing them from a partisan point of view at all. I do not care who gets the credit for doing some of these things that need to be done; I just want to express my opinion as strongly as I can that certain things should be done.
I agree with the hon. member for New Westminster that the men who are in the line, on the sea or who fly, are subject not only to many dangers but to a mental strain that few of us realize. I shall not forget the night we spent at a bomber station. You will remember it quite well, Mr. Chairman. I can still see the strained look on the faces of those young men who were flying over Germany night after night. Many of those boys will come back unable to cope immediately with civilian life, and we want plans prepared to deal with every situation that may arise.
The minister said a few moments ago that we were doing more in Canada than was being done in any part of the British empire. I am not going to dispute that statement. I was just a little bit disappointed with what I found in Great Britain in that regard. I am just going to make that statement and go no further. I think I know the reason why, but I shall not discuss it. I do not want to see our country, no matter what may happen in other parts of the commonwealth, fail to prepare for this post-war condition. I warmly support the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson), the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), and others who with us have urged-


Richard Burpee Hanson: The hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) suggested it first-


Major James William Coldwell: -upon the government the establishment of a committee to study the situation and prepare for the post-war condition. This is not showing a want of confidence in what is being done now; it is simply that we want to feel that we are doing our part in making these preparations for the circumstances that will arise hereafter.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I just want a moment to deal with the constitutional point which has been raised. I had it on the tip of my tongue to raise this yesterday, but I did not want to interject into this discussion a question which might be deemed to be outside the purview of the intent of the bill.
I should like to point out to the minister certain decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada, and especially of the privy council, on this question of the use of the powers under the British North America Act in connection with peace, order and good government. What is the pith and substance of the legislation? That, in the final analysis, is the criterion which the privy council has applied to legislation of this kind. In war time there is no question that this legislation is constitutional, but having regard to the decisions that have been made as to the conferring of legislative powers upon the federal parliament under that general clause of the constitution, which I think is right and properly used in given cases, the fact remains that the decisions of the privy council have narrowed and whittled them down until they could not be applied. We found that out in connection with the legislation for the so-called new deal. I may tell my hon. friend that some of those decisions were a great shock to me. I redrafted the preambles of two or three of those measures to strengthen if possible in the recitals the legislative jurisdiction under the peace, order and good government clauses of the constitution. I thought we had gone the whole limit and that we were on entirely safe ground, only to find out that notwithstanding the magnificent judgment of the chief justice of this country, the privy council had narrowed the viewpoint down to the old pith and substance principle. My hon. friend may find that that may happen here. I hope that will not be the case. If the ministry is going on with this bill I hope no one will attack it after the war on the grounds of constitutionality. I agree with the justice of this bill, but I am just pointing out a possible danger.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I be allowed to inform my hon. friend
1106	COMMONS
Forces-Reinstatement in Employment
that we did take this up definitely with the Department of Justice. I had some reservations in connection with the point he mentions. The opinion of the department reads in part as follows:
Matters relating to employment are, as you suggest, ordinarily provincial, and fall to be regulated by provincial legislation. The bill under consideration, however, relates primarily to the military forces; conferring rights upon the members thereof and imposing obligations, enforceable by criminal proceedings, on those persons who employed them at the time of enlistment. The bill requires employers to reinstate former employees who have served in the military forces and have been honourably discharged therefrom. The pith and substance of the proposal is, as is stated in the preamble, to relieve persons who have left employment to enlist of any cause for concern in regard to their reinstatement in employment, and that there should be uniformity of treatment in the matter of such reinstatement.
Parliament has exclusive power to legislate in relation to militia, military and naval service and defence and in relation to the criminal law. The bill would appear to me to constitute a valid exercise of these powers, but, in any event, can readily be supported as an exercise of emergency power to legislate for the peace, order and good government of Canada, and is consequently valid, even though constituting an invasion of the provincial field.


Mr. MARSHALL:: As I listened to the remarks of the Minister of Pensions and National Health a few moments ago, I wondered whether we should place this baby on his doorstep or on the doorstep of the Minister of Labour. After hearing his remarks I am satisfied that he is the father of the bill; consequently I shall direct my remarks to him.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is not correct.


John Ritchie MacNicol: You are not disowning the baby, are you?


James Alexander Marshall: When the bill received second reading yesterday we in this corner of the house consented to its passing, thereby placing our stamp of approval upon the proposals embodied in it. The Minister of Pensions and National Health has stated time and time again that the proposals embodied in this measure are only a small part of a large general scheme which has been formulated or which is in the process of being formulated to take care of the problems of the post-war period. The Minister of Labour concurred entirely in the views expressed by the Minister of Pensions and National Health.
For a minute or two I should like to examine this planning for the post-war period, which after all is exactly what we are doing. To-day under the strain and stress of war we are apt to allow ourselves to be carried away by high-sounding phrases. We have had

ample evidence of that within the last two or three weeks during the victory loan campaign.
Planning for the post-war period sounds well, but it has sinister implications. Yesterday we heard a violent diatribe from the member for Parry Sound (Mr. Slaght), who in effect accused those of us who sit on the opposition benches of using tactics tending to delay and hinder the war effort, and suggested that such an innocent and inoffensive measure as the one which we are now discussing should be passed without delay. "Let us get on with the war," he shouted. I should like to tell the hon. member that he Should direct that warning to the leader of his own party. We have a right, I believe, to scrutinize any measure and every bill with meticulous care to see whether or not it will solve in its entirety or solve only partly the problems with which it deals. The expression "planning for the post-war period" has much t'he same meaning as if I were to use the expression to my room-mate, the member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell), "I am laying plans for next year." If I were to repeat that to him a sufficient number of times I am satisfied that very soon he would ask me something like this, "What are you planning to do? What objective have you in mind?" When an engineer is going to build a bridge or a painter is going to paint a picture, or when I am going to build a house, each of us has an objective or goal and each of us prepares his plans with this specific goal or objective constantly before him. Hitler and the German nation have a goal or objective towards which they are relentlessly driving. Their plans have been carefully and thoroughly made to enable them to reach their objective. That objective I believe is the complete annihilation of the British empire. The taking of Norway, Belgium, Holland and France were just small bits and pieces of their general plan.
The Japanese to-day have an objective or goal, which seems to be the domination of the Pacific, and ruthlessly they are driving towards that objective. The destruction of Pearl Harbour, the fall of Singapore, Hong Kong and Java are only bits and pieces of their entire general plan, not for the post-war period, but for the war period. But "the best laid schemes o' mice and men gang aft a-gley," as Bobbie Burns says.
Now look at this question from the point of view of the allies. The allies thus far have not yet fixed their goal or abjective, and in consequence they have no definite plan.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Did they not do it in the Atlantic charter?

Forces-Reinstatement in Employment


James Alexander Marshall: I do not 'believe so, and if the hon. member will wait a moment I shall enlarge upon what I have just said. The allies are being kept too busy withstanding the onrushing hordes of barbarians. The point I wish to emphasize and drive home is that the essence of a plan is that it is a means to an end and not an end in itself. A plan presupposes an objective, an objective which has already been decided upon. The planning of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) reminds me of the common expression: "We don't know where we're going but we're on our way."


Humphrey Mitchell: I agree with my hon. friend that he does not know where he is going but he is on his way.


James Alexander Marshall: Then we are in the same boat, but I think the minister is worse off than 1 am.


Humphrey Mitchell: I should like to know, Mr. Chairman, what strategy in the Pacific has to do with this bill?


James Alexander Marshall: If the hon. gentleman will wait a moment I shall show him what it has to do with this bill. Considerable latitude, Mr. Chairman, has been allowed in the discussion so far and I do not see why I should not be allowed to develop my point.
Press reports tell us that the cabinet has set up a special subcommittee within itself to form plans for the post-war period. The time has come when the government must tell us what our objective or goal is in relation to the post-war period. What do you aim at with these various bills that you propose to bring in? What is the objective? What is the goal? Having settled upon the question of the objective, we should then be given a broad outline of the general principles of the means by which the government proposes to reach that objective. Surely a subcommittee of the cabinet composed1 entirely of Liberals should not have a complete monopoly of the formulation of the plans for the post-war period. If we are to continue as a united nation we must be taken into the confidence of the government in respect to its plans. Until this is done we cannot conscientiously give our assent to a plan which is being presented to us in bits and pieces. By giving our assent to this bill we are blindly endorsing something which might perhaps in the general scheme of things be dangerous and detrimental to the welfare and future happiness of the people of this country and to the men in the fighting forces. We might wake up some fine morning to realize that we had been gradually eased into state capitalism, so cunningly called socialism.
There is a sinister movement on foot to-day to bring about a union of nations in which these nations would lose some of their rights, with the government centred in a body having at its back an international police force to force its will upon any nation. Is this what we are heading for? If it is, then these plans which are being introduced in bits and pieces should be definitely halted until we can get the whole picture in its true perspective.
The Minister of Pensions and National Health made a speech in Toronto on August 27 of last year. On that occasion he dealt with the proposals embodied in this bill. He said:
The first essential is to provide adequate employment opportunities for our returning service men and those who are no longer required in the munition factories of the nation.
With this sentiment I entirely agree. But he also said:
Collective security would be based upon collective force and collective preparedness and not upon collective idealism.
Further along in the same speech he said:
Reconstruction plans must be coordinated with those in the United States and other portions of the empire.
Then again:
The standard of living that is low in some nations should be universalized and maintained by a real league of nations or a freedom area which shall be the guardian of the liberties and comforts of mankind.
Now that we are embarking on broad plans, before we proceed any further with those plans I think I have a right to know, parliament has a right to know, the people of Canada have a right to know, what the minister meant. How far have we gone towards the consummation of the ideas which he expressed on that occasion? What does he mean by collective force? How far has the subcommittee of the cabinet gone in its plans of coordination with the United States and the British empire? I wonder what significance would be attached to the expression when the minister places the United States before the British empire.


An hon. MEMBER:: Is that in the bill?


James Alexander Marshall: No, but I think it is relevant to the bill. What does he mean when he says the standard of living must be universalized and maintained by a real league of nations? We must have an explanation from him, and I should be glad if at this time he would give me an explanation.
I suggest that we must drag these planners and their plans right out into the open. We must know, and the Minister of Pensions and National Health must tell us, what is

1108	COMMONS
Forces-Reinstatement in Employment
going on behind the scenes. We must know if these things as set forth in this speech of his are the objective or the goal towards which we are striving. If they are, that declaration should be made on the floor of the House of Commons instead of on a public platform somewhere in Toronto.
We must first declare positively and in no uncertain terms what our objective or goal is with respect to post-war rehabilitation; secondly, having decided upon our objective- and that in my opinion is the main thing- we must formulate plans, and not until then; and thirdly, we should then employ experts to carry out these plans, freed from the fettering influences of bureaucracy. Until this is done, all talk of democracy is idle and futile, and all plans must be relegated to the waste-paper basket where they rightfully belong.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I wish to ask the minister a question, but I might make an observation with regard to his recent outburst. I think the Minister of Pensions and National Health totally misunderstood the mind of the house, because I am sure there was no wish on the part of members in this corner to find fault with him or to cast aspersions on the conduct of his department with reference to returned men.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I make an explanation? I think my hon. friend said yesterday that nothing had been done for two years until 1941. Here I have the complete file of orders in council-a bulky file it is-of the actual attempts made to meet the problem before the time my hon. friend suggests.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yes, but the really effective work has been done by the minister's department under P.C. 7633-which was not passed until October 1, two years after we entered the war-and subsequent amendments.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: But much was done before then.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: But not the effective work that is being done now. What was done left much to be desired, as the minister must agree. The hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) said last night what was in the minds of most of us. We have always found the minister not only courteous and prompt in any matters referred to him, but one of the most sympathetic ministers in the cabinet in dealing with returned soldiers' problems. I do not want him to get the wrong impression. But I would say to the minister that when hon. members, whether on the government or on the opposi-

tion side, are trying to present a point of view, it does not help for any of us to get up and blow off steam. Impassioned speeches will not solve this problem.
The minister is not fair when he says hon. members have spoken with complete lack of knowledge of the orders in council. Hon. members who spoke from this corner were perfectly familiar with the orders in council to which the minister referred. What the minister did not understand was that we were pointing out, not that these things had not been taken care of in orders in council, but that the provisions were not in this bill. The minister says that no one in the government said they were. That is true. But what we are contending is that we should have legislation. These orders in council are passed under the annual War Appropriations Act, but they are not permanent legislation. We ought to have permanent legislation covering the whole field, both the immediate situation and the post-war situation. I think on reflection the minister himself will agree with that point of view. What is going to happen if something is not done now to centralize this whole problem is that after the war it will be split up among many different departments, and the average man is going to get what the soldier calls "the run-around". We are getting it to some extent now. We have, for instance, a soldier settlement board under the Minister of Pensions and National Health, vocational training under the Minister of Labour-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is under my control and that of the Minister of Mines and Resources.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: and something else under the Minister of National War Services. The result is that men often do not know under which department a particular matter comes. I should like to see this whole question of rehabilitation put under the Minister of Pensions and National Health, or under a separate department or commission or some specific body, not scattered over half a dozen departments and so requiring a coordinating committee to hook them up. Every hon. member knows what it means when a particular matter is split up among departments; we run from one branch to another and from one department to another.
I still think that the suggestion made by other hon. members and by myself could be carried out. These measures having to do with rehabilitation should be referred to a committee. Provision is already on the order paper for two committees, one for vocational training and one for soldier settlement. These committees could be lumped

Forces-Reinstatement in Employment
together, probably enlarged to forty-five or fifty members and then broken up into subcommittees to deal with vocational training and resettlement under 7633. The subcommittees could come together for general discussion, and all legislation dealing with related matters could be referred to them. The whole picture would then be presented. The objection is not that the government has ever said that this bill is all-inclusive, but that we have not had anything that is all-inclusive.
What machinery does the government propose to set up under this bill to make it operative? I said yesterday that this bill is an empty gesture, and the Minister of Labour said that was not fair. But I ask the minister to look at it. I am not a lawyer, but I cannot find anything in the bill providing for the setting up of the administration to make it operative. I asked yesterday across the floor what a man who finds that his former employer will not reemploy him does to make this bill operative.


An hon. MEMBER:: He goes to the placement officer.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The placement officer operates under the Unemployment Insurance Act. So far as I can see, this bill does not envisage any machinery for carrying out its purposes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: He goes to the crown attorney.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It does not even say under what department or what minister it will 'operate. What will be the procedure by which a man wishing to avail himself of the benefits of this legislation can do so? To whom will he go? Does he have to lay a charge before the attorney general?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The crown attorney.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Unless we have a statement as to the machinery that will be set up and how it will operate, this bill will be just a dead letter. It can be worth something, and that is why we want the minister to give some content to it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Under section 11 of the bill some contingent powers are provided. The department over which I preside has administered the order in council since last June and has not had the slightest difficulty. Our welfare officers all over Canada are instructed that if any cases of complaint come to them of an employer or municipality or school board refusing to reinstate an ex-service man, immediate action shall be taken. A case came to my attention yesterday afternoon, and that 44561-711
will be dealt with. There is no necessity to report to any legal tribunal. We will take the necessary action.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If we had had that explanation earlier it would have cleared the point up. But the bill does not say it will be operated by the minister's department.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It was in the past,


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As I understand the set-up now under order in council PC. 4758, the Minister of Pensions and National Health is directly chargeable, but this bill does not say so.


Humphrey Mitchell: The bill is to be discussed clause by clause. This would come under the last clause, and I shall be prepared to answer at that time.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The short title indicates that this bill relates to returned soldiers and their reinstatement in civil employment. I think the minister should make a comprehensive statement on this clause. I pointed out the other day, from experience following the last war, that returned soldiers will not all be reinstated in industry. Some will; a large number may not. I hoped that the minister would tell us just what is going to be done, because the bill does not tell it. Some hon. member this afternoon pointed out something that is very clear to me now, but I did not think of it before-that a large number of returned soldiers from the last war are at present employed in industries. I know many myself, hundreds, perhaps; many of those men might be displaced by men coming back who have to be provided with work similar to that in which they were engaged before they enlisted. Neither the minister nor anyone else wants returned soldiers of the first world war to be displaced. There should be some provision to take care of those men.
To-day the hon. member for Lake Centre made an excellent suggestion; I had made it myself on Wednesday last. In the United States they are setting up a research committee or board which I take it would correspond with what the hon. member has in mind. It is imperative that some board or committee, either of this house or outside, men qualified to deal with industrial employment, should be set up to discuss and present to the minister a plan under which returned men can be reemployed. On Wednesday last I said, as reported at page 1037 of Hansard:
I suggest that the minister set up a committee. I shall be glad to serve on any research committee free of charge in connection with the job of providing jobs. The munitions plants should be kept going if at all possible.
1110	COMMONS
Forces-Reinstatement in Employment
In the United States part of the work of the research committee now operating there is to compile thousands upon thousands of things which can be made in those plants that will cease operating when the war ends. Then I went on:
I suggest, therefore, that some research board or committee be put into operation to look for opportunities to keep these plants going, which ordinarily will cease production at the end of the war and consequently throw men on the streets.
In a word, it seems to me very clear that one of two or three things must be done in the interim or transition period, from the time the men return until they are absorbed into industry, either in their old plants, which must take place within three months, or in the making of new lines in the present large munition plants. In the first place they might be kept enrolled in the services under pay and allowances, if that is the correct military term, or at any rate maintained until they have something to do. I would not limit the period to three months, for I remember very well what happened after the last war when the men came back to the plant in which I had the great privilege of serving. Many of them were not able to go back to the plant in three, four or six months. It was not that all had been wounded; the nerves of many had been so wrought up by shot and shell that they were not able to steady themselves sufficiently to return to work. But in due course they came back, and I believe they were all reestablished, in the plant with which I was associated. So there is an interim period for which provision must be made, for I hope and pray that they will not be allowed to wander about the streets with nothing to sustain them.
In the second place I said the other day, and I repeat now, that there are countless thousands of jobs that can be provided by the government covering the interim period, in connection wdth works that will be self-liquidating. Someone said the other day that this could not be done, but I have had a great deal of experience in these matters and I know it can be done. These works can be paid for, and I know that in the last analysis they will not cost the country anything. Above all, no matter what it costs, it is essential that these returned soldiers be employed either by the government or by industry, or else be maintained with pay and allowances. I had hoped that before this section passed, the minister might tell us something about just how the interim or transition period is going to be dealt with.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Was my hon. friend in his seat when I spoke previously this afternoon?


John Ritchie MacNicol: Yes, I was, and I appreciated very much what the minister said.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Later in the session I had intended to go comprehensively into the discussions we have been having-they are only discussions so far- exactly in reference to the point now raised by my hon. friend. The estimate of very prominent men in industry to-day is that 40 per cent of those now working in W'ar industries will be displaced when peace comes again. Therefore in my judgment it is the primary duty of any government to lay plans to see that provision is made for the care of these men during that transition period, which is exactly the point raised by my hon. friend, as I followed him. Just as we transferred from a peace-time to a war-time industry, with all the organization necessary to complete that process, so I think we should have control boards in every industry of Canada to start now, or in the very near future, to prepare plans for the reorganiaztion back from war-time to peace-time industry. Later on I hope to expand on that theory, but I thought this bill was a very minor piece of legislation, and I was not prepared to, deal with that matter in a comprehensive way.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: Probably a word or two still needs to be said before we leave this stage of the bill. A wide latitude has been allowed in this discussion, and I think rightly so. We ai'e just beginning to confront the real problem that is going to face us, and there should be a good deal of frank and unimpassioned discussion among hon. members, with the object of trying to find a solution.
During the discussion a good deal has been said concerning a new order. Last spring we had the Prime Minister, I believe, speaking of a "new heaven and a new earth." Last night I listened to the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Harris) talking about a new order. I listened closely, to try to find out what he had in mind regarding the new order, but I was not at all satisfied. I am afraid that this good man, for whom I have a great deal of respect, represents in his uncertainty a very large cross-section of Canadian public opinion. Let me draw to the attention of the minister something which I am sure he does not need to have drawn to his attention; the fact that we cannot have a new order by just talking about it. First you have to know what you mean by your new order, and then you must devise means by which you can achieve that new order. I wish the Prime Minister had taken a little more trouble to tell us, and perhaps he may do so yet, what he conceives to be the new order. In a way we in the west were all built up over his "new

Forces-Reinstatement in Employment
order" .speech. Then, as I recall it, he spoke in Edmonton and quite dashed our hopes, for there he gave us to understand that all that was in his mind was the unemployment insurance bill, and that was a terrible let-down.
With respect to this new order the ministers have in mind, I wonder whether this measure, together with half a dozen others that are proposed to be introduced, constitute what they regard as the new order. If that is so, I wonder in what respect the new order is going to differ from the old order that ruined us during the twenty years following the last war.	Once they have determined what
really the new order is to be, I wish one of the ministers would give us some inkling as to how this new7 order is to be brought about and how it is to be maintained.
I should like to say just a word or two 'about the bill before I discuss further what I have suggested in my remarks thus far. I am inclined to agree with the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) and the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Roebuck) that this bill is simply a gesture, and a very empty gesture-a very hollow reed upon which the men will break and fall as soon as they begin to lean upon it.
The hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Slaght) seemed to be indignant last night because some of us had criticized the bill. The idea conveyed by his remarks and, I am afraid, by those of the Minister of Pensions and National Health, seemed to be that by criticizing this bill w7e are going to destroy the boys' confidence in the bill.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No.


John Horne Blackmore: I am glad the minister negates that. No words which could be uttered in the house would disillusion the boys any more than they are already disillusioned. If anyone imagines that the bright, clear-minded, upstanding, fact-facing young men who are to-day in our army are deceived by all the mummery we are going through in this chamber, then he ought to get in contact with a few of them. Just spend a day in the smoking car on any railway train. The ministers ought to remember that members of the air force in Canada have to pass a rather rigid educational test before they can become members of that force. The boys are using that education in thinking out what is going to happen in the future. Things like this bill are simply nauseating to them.
All a man needs to do is to use the illustration which a fine young schoolteacher now in the air force used in my presence. He said, "in the school from which I came, already two former teachers have enlisted; I am the
third one. When the time comes to give us back the job, which of the three of us is going to get it-or is the man w7lio has gone in after me, going to get it?" That is enough to illustrate how trashy and flimsy is the bill. I do not wish to be unkind, but it is flimsy. As the leader of the opposition has said, it is altogether too easy for an employer to excuse himself-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order. If I heard him rightly, the hon. member used the words "trashy and flimsy".


John Horne Blackmore: You heard me aright.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I suggest to my hon. friend that the genesis of this bill was a resolution submitted to the government on September 1, 1939, and resubmitted in March, 1940, by the Canadian Legion, representing the organized ex-service men in Canada.


John Horne Blackmore: What is the point of order?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That these epithets as applied to this legislation are uncalled for and unjustified. The recommendation of the legion was as follows:
Statutory provision that every man enlisting shall on his return from service, if not incapacitated for his former occupation, be entitled as of right to reinstatement in his original employment if still existing, with the same rights and seniority as when he enlisted, with appropriate penalties, including compensation, if he is discharged without cause, say within three years after reengagement.
We have carried out exactly the request of the organized ex-service men of the Dominion of Canada.


John Horne Blackmore: All that has been done in this bill is that an attempt has been made to carry out that request. Those men were not recommending the bill before us; they were recommending a principle.


Humphrey Mitchell: Would you say the British bill is trashy-or the Australian bill, or the New Zealand bill?


John Horne Blackmore: We are not discussing the Australian bill.


Humphrey Mitchell: It is the same thing.


John Horne Blackmore: I have' plenty to occupy my time, by devoting my attention only to our Canadian bills.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is the same thing.


John Horne Blackmore: I have not had a chance to get the wording of the Australian
1112	COMMONS
Forces-Reinstatement in Employment
or the British bill; I may do so later on. I am merely giving my views in reference to this bill.


Ernest George Hansell: He did not say it was trashy, either; he said it was flimsy.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: He said it was trashy, too. I think I heard him rightly. I will withdraw immediately, if I am wrong.


Richard Burpee Hanson: He admits "flimsy" but not "trashy".


John Horne Blackmore: It is altogether too easy for an employer to escape responsibility under this bill. That will be found just as soon as the men begin to have recourse to it, in any considerable numbers.
I wish to say a word or two about the new order concerning which there has been some talk. This is one of the high-sounding phrases being used throughout the country, not only in Canada but in the United States.


The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. Fournier, Hull):: May I interrupt the hon. member?
Great latitude has been given in the discussion of section 1 of the bill, but I suggest that such latitude should bear some relation to the subject matter of the bill. I cannot see where a discussion of any new order or new system has any relation to the bill, and I would ask the hon. member to direct his remarks to the subject matter before the committee.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I agree with that. I was peremptorily called to order by the Deputy Speaker, and I was wondering how long this was going to continue.


Alphonse Fournier: I think this is the end of' it.


John Horne Blackmore: I have been sitting here all afternoon expecting that the minute I began to talk about anything real I would be ruled out of order. This is no reflection on yourself, Mr. Chairman.


Alphonse Fournier: I would ask the hon. member not to cast reflections on the Chair; I believe I have been tolerant.


John Horne Blackmore: I do not reflect upon you; I suspect others would have done just the same. But this is an all-important question which must be asked, not only regarding this bill but regarding every measure which is proposed. How are you going to do it? Where are you going to get the money to do it?


John Ritchie MacNicol: Where we are getting it to fight the war.


John Horne Blackmore: Someone says that we shall get it from the same source from which we are getting it to fight the war. Were we using that source during the dreadful years of the depression? No; of course not. We could not use that source even to prepare ourselves effectively to fight a potential enemy. The Minister of Pensions and National Health knows the truth of that statement.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No one knows better.


John Horne Blackmore: No one in Canada has suffered more because of that than this same minister.


Mr. McNEVIN:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


John Horne Blackmore: Gladly.


Thomas Bruce McNevin: Would he care to tax that S25 a month?


Alphonse Fournier: Order. The question was out of order, and I am sure the answer would be out of order, too.


John Horne Blackmore: At present the money with which this war is being fought is being borrowed. I 'believe it is proposed that we are to borrow $900,000,000 in the present loan. Let me ask any hon. member if he supposes that a proposal to raise a similar amount of money would receive any consideration, if the war were to come to a close?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What was the hon. member's question?


John Horne Blackmore: Let us suppose that we have finished the second war, and that we are a year 'beyond it. Let us suppose that we are endeavouring to pay the interest on the colossal debt we are now amassing. Would a loan like this be considered for a moment to care for essential services? No.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Am I supposed to answer that question?


John Horne Blackmore: Yes.	.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I can only express my personal opinion. I am not speaking for the government at all, but I believe that after this conflict has been concluded, the people of the Dominion of Canada will insist upon obtaining the necessary finances for social security as they are now obtained for war purposes.


John Horne Blackmore: I am glad to hear that, but I ask the minister if he believes that the people of Canada will insist on lending the money with which to do it?
MARCH 6, 1942	1H3
Forces-Reinstatement in Employment


Ernest George Hansell: Will the minister insist that the government get the money?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I cannot deal with a hypothetical or contingent question as to what the people of Canada may decide to do. The people of Canada are always in control of whatever government may be in office. They will decide that according to their sound judgment, as is evidenced by the formation of this parliament.


John Horne Blackmore: The same general principle will apply to this bill. If a government coming in after this government sees fit to sabotage this bill, it will be sabotaged.


Humphrey Mitchell: That is not fair.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There is no foundation for that.


John Horne Blackmore: We will just leave that aside. Considering the main motion, let us keep in mind1 that the great sums of money which the government is able to collect to-day by way of taxes and loans are in a large measure the result of huge expenditures by the government, which expenditures have resulted in a greatly increased national income. As soon as the war is over and government expenditures on their present scale cease- and according to the minister's own speech which I have read and regarding which I should like to commend him for its beauty- these expenditures absorb forty per cent of the production of Canada-the national income of Canada will fall off at such an astonishing and disconcerting rate that it will be impossible to get the money. I hope I am not being gloomy in my forecast, but I lived through the last war as did the minister. We can judge what is likely to come in the future only by what has happened in the past. With respect to where the money could come from, I am not free to discuss that at the moment. If I said anything about that, I would be ruled out of order immediately.


Mr. GRANT:: You are out of order already.


John Horne Blackmore: That is a brilliant remark. We must face the fact that the money must come from somewhere. Unless some provision is made for a source of income other than the one which we now have in sight under our orthodox system, namely borrowing and taxation, this and other measures will be simply impossible. I have in my hand the order in council which has been discussed lately, and the small sheet which has been distributed to hon. members, the Department of Pensions and National Health
information leaflet. I have, too, the postdischarge reestablishment order. If the wastage of this war is anything comparable with that of the last, the total amount needed to meet the promises in these two documents will be simply staggering. These promises are not worth the paper they are written on unless we have some means of rendering financially possible what is physically possible in Canada. I think I have said all that I rose to say on this aspect of the question. I hope the members of this house and the people of this country will ask this inflexible question every time a proposal is made: How are you going to do it, and where is the money coming from? Until you can answer those questions, it is idle to talk about what is to happen.


An hon. MEMBER:: You ought to know.


John Horne Blackmore: I think I know where the money could come from, but I do not think my hon. friend knows.
I am going to make one short reference to the committee which has been set up to examine into ways and means. In his speech the minister has said that economists and scholars are at work. I am not very much impressed with the knowledge or ability of those economists and scholars. There are two groups in this house that represent some sort of an approach to the new order. At least they have some new ideas. However, neither group is represented on this committee, nor is there anyone on the committee who knows what these groups know. If the recommendation of the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) is to be taken in good faith 'and executed with sincerity, surely anyone wrho has a new idea as to how a new economic system might be brought about ought to be invited in.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would the hon. member include Principal Wallace of Queens university?


John Horne Blackmore: I should like to know something about what Principal Wallace knows. I would say with all respect to Principal Wallace and gentlemen in his position that they are bound hand and foot. They dare not say what is in their minds because they know that there are university chancellors whose opinions may not agree with theirs.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Does the hon. gentleman know Principal Wallace?


John Horne Blackmore: I am not saying anything about Principal Wallace except that if he expressed ideas which did not agree with
1114	COMMONS
Forces-Reinstatement in Employment
those of the chancellor of Queens, in all probability he would soon cease to be Principal Wallace. All one has to do is to consider what happened in another great university in Canada within the last ten years. But we will leave that aside. If the minister is going to play fair with the people of Canada with respect to this committee; if he is going to play fair with the millions of young people who are rising in this country; if he is going to maintain respect for himself and his committee, he must bring in men with new vision, men who are ready to try something new. I shall reserve what else I have to say for a later occasion.


Mr. BOUCHER:: I should like to refer to two aspects of this bill. The bill is predicated upon the employer having a duty to take back his employee, and that limits its scope. It might be enlarged if it were predicated upon the industry or the enterprise.


Humphrey Mitchell: What section is the hon. gentleman talking about?


George Russell Boucher: I was referring particularly to section 2.


Humphrey Mitchell: Why not discuss that when we get to the section?


George Russell Boucher: What I have to say really refers to the whole bill. The onus is on the employer to take back his employee, and there is only one possible employer whom the bill will affect-the one who is not nobly doing his part by the returned soldier, and whose attitude is abhorrent to the Canadian people. Taking in as it does the body corporate or politic, the bill refers to kinds of enterprises, but only so far as the management of the business is concerned, not the business itself. Reference should be made in the bill to the actual enterprise or business which the man left to enter the armed forces, so that it will be the duty of that enterprise, as best it can, to take the man back into employment, even though the personnel governing the enterprise may have changed.
With respect to enforcement, the type of case that will come up for prosecution under this enactment will be that of an employer who does not show the right spirit in the matter of assistance and support for the returned soldier, and fails to do his duty as a Canadian citizen, thus compelling the soldier to have recourse to the courts. A measure of this kind should be administered by the government along the lines of the fair wage legislation. In every large community at least the government should appoint a man who would investigate these cases and institute prosecutions. It should not be left to the
[Mr. Blackmore.l
individual soldier to do so, at his own expense, and perhaps to his own ignominy. The returned soldier should not have to hale his employer into court at his own cost. The government should go a lot farther in that regard. I trust that these two points will be taken into consideration in enlarging the scope of the bill for the very purpose for which it has been introduced.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: By order in council the Department of Pensions and National Health has always taken the responsibility of bringing prosecutions where prosecution was necessary. The onus was not on the individual in any case.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: I think sufficient has been said on this bill to let those who are responsible for it know that there is something very seriously wrong with it. We agree with it in principle, but the objection is that the bill does not carry out the principle which is professed in the preamble. The bill is not progressive enough. It places the onus upon industry to provide work for the returning men, and industry will not provide work unless there is profit. Industry as it is organized in this country has failed to do so in the past. We are not forgetting that there were over one million unemployed in Canada and over a million on relief at a time when industry should have been employed in providing goods and services which were needed, and in the production of which man-power was essential. But industry is not concerned about the welfare of humanity.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That is altogether an unrighteous statement.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Humanity and industry are inseparable.


George Hugh Castleden: Industry and humanity, I say, are very separable. Industry was not much concerned about the unemployed that we had in Canada for a period of ten years.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The hon. member does not know what he is talking about.


George Hugh Castleden: Is that so? I have seen men go without work and our people in need of food, clothing and shelter, when industry would not turn its wheels, and when industry should have been operating to provide those needs if it had any interest in the welfare of the people. That old set-up 'has failed. Industry refuses to operate unless there are profits.


Mr. PURDY:: What did my hon. friend do for industry?

Prairie Farm Assistance


George Hugh Castleden: If you want to make
your little speech go right ahead. I am talking of what I saw of unemployed people in this country.


Gordon Timlin Purdy: What did you do to provide work for those who were unemployed?


John Ritchie MacNicol: Did you ever give a man a job?


George Hugh Castleden: I have found it hard
enough to find a little job for myself. But I know that there were a million unemployed people in this country. This bill is just like trying to put a patch on an old worn-out tire. The bill provides that after the returned soldiers have forced their former employers to give them work, the employers must keep them in work for six months. What happens after that? We do not know. There is no question that the reestablishment and rehabilitation of the returning men is most important, but I want to tell the administration and those who are responsible for this bill that the working men and soldiers of Canada do not want a reestablishment of the old set-up that they had in Canada a few years ago. The right of every man to exchange his labour for a decent living must be recognized.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I agree with that.


George Hugh Castleden: But that right has not been recognized in the past, and unless we do something to see that the men shall have that opportunity-and this bill does not provide it- then I say we are failing to do our duty.
Section stands.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Crerar the house adjourned at six p.m.
Monday, March 9, 1942