1942-05-29

Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: For the information of hon.
members I table copies in English and French of an exchange of notes between Canada and the United States as to an agreement respecting Unemployment Insurance. The object of the agreement is to ensure that application of Canada's unemployment insurance law and similar laws in the various states of the United States shall be coordinated so that duplication of contributions in respect to the same services and duplication of insurance payments with respect to the same period of unemployment may be avoided. The agreement became effective on April 12 last.



CANADIAN FORCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Pensions and National Health): Yesterday the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) referred to myself in connection with a question dealing with the inequalities of pay and allowances of the three branches of his majesty's forces. Obviously that has nothing to do with my department, but I shall be very glad to direct the attention of the three ministers concerned to the question.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. B. HANSON (Leader of the Opposition) :: I should like to ask the Minister of Justice whether the letter appearing in to-day's press and reported to have been written by the minister to M. Harvey, secretary of the Quebec East Liberal Association, was in fact written by him. If so, may I ask him if he was reflecting government policy when he stated:
There is no intention for the time being to bring in conscription for overseas service.
Wheat Purchases

May I also ask him to explain what he meant by the statement that he-"would be true to Mr. King as long as he was true to himself and to his record."
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice): I did not write any letter to Mr. Harvey, but I did write to one Mr. Hawey, secretary of the Liberal club in the constituency of Quebec East. I have not seen it in the press. However, the phrases read by the hon. leader of the opposition sound like a correct translation of what I wrote. I expressed to the secretary of this club my own opinion as to what the situation was.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is not an answer to the question. I asked, was that a reflection of government policy, and what did the minister mean by the second statement?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I stated to the secretary of this club my opinion of the situation and of the purport of the bill before this house.



DISTILLING INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. T. FULFORD (Leeds):: I should like to inquire whether the government has considered the advisability of converting the entire distilling industry from liquor to alcohol for the production of butadiene rubber or other essential war materials?



AGREEMENT WITH WHEAT BOARD FOR FURTHER PURCHASES BY GREAT BRITAIN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I wish to make a brief announcement. The Ministry of Food of the United Kingdom has entered into another agreement with the Canadian wheat board to purchase Canadian wheat. The new contract, like the last one in November 1941, is for 120,000,000 bushels. A similar announcement is being made at this time in the British parliament.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What is the price?


James Angus MacKinnon: I wish to add a brief comment. This purchase is on the basis of futures, October and December. We have renewed our request to the British Ministry of Food that we be authorized to make the actual price figure available to

the house. To this request we have had a cable to the effect that consideration is being given to the matter, and we will be advised.
I should like to add that the outward movement of Canadian wheat and flour from August 1, 1941, to April 30, 1942, was 168,500,000 bushels, which is 28,250,000 bushels, or 20 per cent, above the 1940-41 figures for the same period. With a continuation of the present rate of disposition for the remainder of the crop year, there is every likelihood of a reduction of about 100,000,000 bushels in the Canadian wheat carryover at July 31, 1942, as compared with July 31, 1941.


Mr. COLDWELL:: Now that the former contract has been completed and a new one negotiated, could the minister tell the house what was the price under the former contract?


James Angus MacKinnon: In our request to the British Ministiy of Food to be allowed to announce the price under the new contract, we also asked that we be allowed to announce prices under preceding contracts.



POSSIBLE EFFECT OF OUTWARD MOVEMENT ON QUOTAS ACCEPTED FROM FARMERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: May I ask the minister whether or not, if the present movement of Canadian wheat across the water continues at the rate at which it has proceeded during the past few months, that will make any difference in the quotas of wheat that will be accepted from the farmers this year?


James Angus MacKinnon: That will depend entirely upon crop conditions as they become apparent a little later. It is impossible to estimate the crop exactly, or to forecast what the quotas may be, until we see the nature of the crop and the distribution of growth throughout western Canada.



INCOME AND CORPORATION TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Burpee Hanson: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue arising out of a notice of motion which appears in the Votes and Proceedings of to-day, in which he proposes to move that parliament approve the convention and protocol entered into by Canada with the United States concerning

Procedure in Divorce Legislation
rates of income tax upon non-resident individuals and corporations, and related matters.
First, have the convention and protocol been approved by the congress of the United States? Second, have the convention and protocol been printed and distributed to hon. members so that they may have the benefit of studying them in advance of any discussion that may arise on the resolution? I recall that just one copy was laid on the table; I understand it was not printed, I think it should be printed and distributed. It is not long, and the cost would not be great.


Hon. C. W. G. GIBSON (Minister of National Revenue):: I understand the agreement is coming up before the senate of the United States, probably to-day. It was expected to come up yesterday, but it was not reached. The agreement has been printed in both English and French, and it will be available to hon. members.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It should be sent to hon. members.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
On the order for second reading of senate bills:
Mr. SPEAKER:: By arrangement it was agreed that private bills should be taken first to-day. A large number of divorce bills appear on pages 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 of the order paper. Two of the bills on the list are not divorce bills. If it is the pleasure of the house I will call all the divorce bills together.


Major James William Coldwell: I am going to repeat the protest we have made each year when this procedure has been followed. If this were not a time of war we would insist that these bills be read and adopted separately, not because we are opposed to divorce but because we are opposed to this method of dealing with divorce cases. The thing is both a tragedy and a farce. Here we have a long list of bills to be considered and given second reading together, and I suppose very few members of the house know anything whatever about them. It is true that a small committee of this house gives these bills a cursory examination after a senate committee has looked into them. It is a blot upon the entire institution of parliament and the alleged progressiveness of a civilized country such as this that we should deal in this way with the dissolution of marriage. It is a grave responsibility for members of this house to assume. We undertake it lightly, and it becomes simply a formality. I want to protest against it as strongly as I can, and to reassert our belief that this is a matter which ought to be decided by the courts after proper inquiry into the grounds submitted for the dissolution of the marriage. If the present laws are inadequate, with regard to grounds and other matters, then the laws should be amended in order to modernize our whole procedure in this very grave matter.
I just want to add that if I am here when peace returns, I shall feel it my duty to see to it that each of these bills is read separately and every item of the bills discussed on the floor of the house. The sooner we get some agreement with the provinces concerned with regard to the granting of divorces, the better it will be for the good name of this parliament and of this country.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Speaker, there is a good deal to commend in certain portions of the remarks of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). To lump these bills together and pass them en bloc is, of course, just a vacation of the functions of parliament. At the same time we are endeavouring to conserve time, and perhaps no great harm is being done.
The whole thing comes back to the underlying procedure. These bills should not be here at all. Parliament has gone part way; we have arranged to set up divorce courts in certain jurisdictions in this country where there were no divorce courts in days gone by. In other jurisdictions there were divorce courts; we never had divorce bills from my own province, for instance. But parliament; should go the whole way. I do not see how anyone could object to the establishment of divorce courts in certain jurisdictions in this country, instead of continuing the present system, under which these bills go through as a matter of course and, in my view, in many instances without being properly considered. Certainly no attention is given to them in this house, and I doubt very much if attention is given to them in the private bills committee. I have not been a member of that committee for many years, but if any attention is given to them at all I think it must be just a matter of form. Occasionally a fight develops in connection with some particular case, where interested parties come, meet the members and put forth their points of view. Under such circumstances a fight will sometimes develop.
But this principle, this whole system, is wrong. The time of parliament should not be

Procedure in Divorce Legislation
taken up with the consideration of bills of this kind. We delegate many matters to the courts. We delegate questions of contested elections to the courts. We have gone part way in respect to jurisdiction concerning divorce. Parliament should go the whole way, and the government should step in and give a lead in that policy.


Hon. H. A. BRUCE (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to join my leader in expressing my strong disapproval of disposing of these bills in this way, and of dealing at all in the House of Commons with divorce cases, either singly or in bulk. I understand there are divorce courts in' most of the provinces-in fact, in all of them except two. Surely divorce courts might now be set up in those provinces, and thus remove a blot upon the functions of this parliament.
To-day we have this situation:	A number
of public bills have been passed over for several sessions of parliament. There stands on the order paper in my name, a bill which was introduced in 1940. It has appeared on the order paper at each session, and has been laid aside. Yet that bill is one of great public importance, because it has to do with the health of the people of this country. The domestic difficulties of individuals which result in divorces are not matters of any concern to the rest of the people of Canada. It is their own business. Let them go to the usual places, namely the courts of law, and there settle their differences. I must object most strenuously to the setting aside of bills of great importance to the people of Canada while we rush through the passage of a large number of divorce bills.


Mr. DANIEL McIVOR (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, it is our own fault if we are looking into these cases. In the committee we have a pile of divorce bills a foot high, and when you have read one you do not want to read any more. But we should not open the door wider for those who wish to get out of marriage wedlock, unless we narrow the door through which they come. If a young couple have a cigarette lighter, a little car and a rented suite, I suppose the leader of the opposition would say they have a perfect right to get married.
I would like to see the upper house take the whole marriage question into consideration. It should discuss how, when and under what conditions young folks may be married, so as to build up a stable and Christian home. They should have something to build on. But if we open the door and let them out easy, then we let them in easy as well. The whole matter should be discussed and legislation introduced. Not only should the divorce

question be thought out and laws enacted, but there should be reconsideration of the marriage law as well. Get married in a hurry, love for a little while and away they go. That is not the way to build up a Christian home in this Canada of ours, because the Christian home is the bulwark of Canadian citizenship and of civilization generally.


Mr. E. G. HANSELL (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, on several occasions hon. members in this corner of the house have voiced sentiments which seem to be in perfect harmony with expressions of opinion this afternoon by hon. members who have spoken. I was somewhat alarmed when it was announced by Mr. Speaker that by special arrangement these bills were to be placed before us this afternoon, and that they are to go through all together. I was not aware of that arrangement having been made, but perhaps that is my fault. I suggest, however, that we should have some little notice when such action is to be taken, because in the minds of some there may be the necessity of discussing one or more of these bills.
In my short experience in attending six regular sessions of parliament I have not yet heard a discussion of one of these divorce bills, taken by itself. I suppose the reason is that we have reached a point in parliament where divorce bills are just ground out from the mill. A certain procedure, which has become more or less stereotyped, has been followed. One reads the evidence of one case, and he has the facts of almost all of them, because they are all about the same.
Nevertheless, having read the evidence in some of these cases, I am a little disturbed at the almost exactly similar way with which each is dealt. It is disturbing to me, because I cannot help thinking that people are commencing to know the way to get a divorce, if they want one. I protest against that.
I do not know if I should say anything respecting the difference between the senate divorce committee and courts of law. I do not know personally the gentlemen comprising that committee. Perhaps some of them are lawyers, but I do feel that a court judge, with his knowledge of court procedure and his examination of evidence, is more competent and more fully qualified to deal with divorce.
I agree with other hon. members in the view that we have reached the point in our history where, in my opinion, the province ol Quebec should take the lead in the matter of referring its divorce bills to a proper court of law. What is to be the procedure with respect to these fifty-one divorce bills? Are they to go through now, all together?

Procedure in Divorce Legislation


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: No.


Ernest George Hansell: Do I understand we are to go into committee, and that each one will be placed before the committee?


Georges Parent: They will be referred to the committee on private bills. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?
Mr. LaCROIX (Quebec-Montmorency): On division.


Mr. J. SASSEVILLE ROY (Gaspe) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, I cannot let this entire series of divorce bills be carried through without voicing my opposition to so reprehensible a practice. Like the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Bruce), I believe that parliament is not qualified to pass judgment in such matters of private interest. They should be referred to the courts of those provinces who wish to legislate on the dissolution of marriage. At any event, as Catholics, we are absolutely opposed to divorce because it is contrary to the fundamental principle of Christian ethics. The fact that parliament is called upon to decide in these divorce cases places us in a very false position, as everyone understands. For us, therefore, the principle of divorce is reprehensible, and that under which the House of Commons is called upon to pass a whole series of divorce bills without knowing any of the reasons brought forth to substantiate these petitions, is an even more reprehensible practice and one to which I must voice my opposition.
Mr. LIGUORI LACOMBE (Laval-Two
Mountains) (Translation): Mr. Speaker, I fully share the views expressed by the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Roy), and I myself cannot refrain from protesting vigorously against the wholesale carrying of these divorce bills. Divorce is reprehensible in its very essence. On behalf of my electors and in the name of the great majority of the citizens of my province, I wish to protest once more against the carrying of these bills.


Mr. ALPHONSE FOURNIER (Hull) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the remarks just made on this divorce question by the two French-speaking members who preceded me. Briefly, here is the procedure followed in the matter: A petition is addressed to the senate with a view to obtaining a bill of divorce. Witnesses are called before the senate divorce committee. The two parties can be represented by counsel and have their witnesses testify. The senators decide
whether or not there are sufficient grounds or evidence of adultery, and they grant or refuse the divorce. These bills then come before the House of Commons, where they are read a first and second time. They are then referred to the private bills committee for consideration, one by one. Returning once again to the house, they are read and considered in committee of the whole, section by section. There is no limit set to their discussion. Then, after a third reading, these bills become law.
In the province of Quebec, almost everyone is opposed to divorce. All Catholics oppose it without exception. The procedure followed in Quebec is one that makes it extremely difficult for the citizens of that province to obtain a divorce; indeed, our legislators believed that the biggest obstacle to divorce they could find was to require the passing of a special act by the dominion parliament. If my hon. friend from Gaspe (Mr. Roy) will only consult the religious authorities in his riding, he will be informed that the clergy of the province of Quebec is opposed to the establishing of divorce courts there. At least that is the opinion of those to whom I have broached the matter.
A divorce case is dealt with by a court like any other case. Divorces are sometimes granted in other provinces in the brief space of fifteen minutes. If the case is ex parte, the judge only hears one side of the story, sometimes only one witness, before granting the divorce at the same sitting. In the province of Quebec, we believe that we can never make the securing of divorces difficult enough, because we do not recognize the principle on which divorce is based, and rightly so to our way of thinking. I should be very astonished to learn that members from other provinces intended to impose in the province of Quebec, which desires only to maintain the status quo, a system of divorce courts such as they have in their own.
I did not intend to speak on this matter to-day, otherwise I might have brought with me quotations to establish'that, in the past, the attitude I have taken has always been that of Catholic representatives of the province of Quebec. And I hold the conviction that we must, as Catholics, insist on the maintenance of the present procedure for obtaining a divorce. We are being asked to allow the second reading of these bills as a whole, but it is not on second reading that their consideration in detail may be undertaken. We are discussing the principle of these bills, but it remains for the private bills committee and the committee of the whole to discuss each case on its merits. I am irrevocably opposed
Private Bills

to divorce and as long as I retain a seat in this house, I shall do my best to make the securing of them as difficult as possible.



SECOND READINGS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 20, for the relief of Eleanor Adele Rea Barrett.-Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 21, for the relief of Eleanor Edith McKechnie Barlow.-Mr. Whitman.
Bill No. 22, for the relief of Dorothy Agnes Henrietta Russell Cantlie.-Mr. Whitman.
Bill No. 23, for the relief of Irene Coadic Murphy.-Mr. Hill.
Bill No. 24, for the relief of Lester Lewis Catehpaw.-Mr. Davidson.
Bill No. 25, for the relief of Annie Ruth Fisher Allen.-Mr. Hill.
Bill No. 26, for the relief of Alice Adelia LaFleur Johnston.-Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 27, for the relief of George Webb. -Mr. Boucher.
Bill No. 28, for the relief of Edith Morgan Black.-Mr. Mcllraith.
Bill No. 29, for the relief of Betty Leah Bregman Beloff.-Mr. Whitman.
Bill No. 30, for the relief of Malca Levitt, otherwise known as Atty Malcy Levitt.-Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 31, for the relief of Jack Simon.- Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 32, for the relief of Marie Louise McCarthy Smyth.-Mr. Boucher.
Bill No. 33, for the relief of Marie Glenna Grace Thomas Reynolds.-Mr. Hill.
Bill No. 34, for the relief of Isabel Jessica Black Jolley.-Mr. Abbott.
Bill No. 35, for the relief of Margaretha Elisabeth Buck Peereboom.-Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 36, for the relief of Ethel May Marshall James.-Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 37, for the relief of Anastasia Tkaczuk Wojtkowycz.-Mr. Mcllraith.
Bill No. 38, for the relief of Phyllis Wilda Valentine Park Evans-Mr. Abbott.
Bill No. 39, for the relief of Louise Mehliss Jackson.-Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 40, for the relief of Bertha Beatrix Berlind Ripstein.-Mr. Boucher.
Bill No. 41, for the relief of Lola McIntosh. -Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City.)
Bill No. 46, for the relief of Stella Kathleen Marguerite Winnall Barwick.-Mr. Hazen.
Bill No. 47, for the relief of Joyce Elizabeth Blackburn Gordon.

Mr. Hanson (Skeena).
Bill No. 48, for the relief of Kate Elizabeth Laidlaw McNiven.-Mr. Abbott.
Bill No. 49, for the relief of Margaret Livingstone Turnbull Woodard.-Mr. Boucher.
Bill No. 50, for the relief of Dorothy Sunsheine Steirman Cooke.-Mr. Bercovitch.

Bill No. 51, for the relief of Doris Golt Rosner.-Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 52, for the relief of Anna Pohopoluck Yacobchalc.-Mr. Hazen.
Bill No. 53, for the relief of Myer Levine.- Mr. Hazen.
Bill No. 54, for the relief of George Sutherland Cameron, junior.-Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 55, for the relief of Fred Catlow.- Mr. Hill.
Bill No. 57, for the relief of Mary Celina Broadhurst LaRose.-Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City).
Bill No. 58, for the relief of Elsie Epstein Cohen.-Mr. Casselman (Grenville-Dundas).
Bill No. 59, for the relief of Gertrude Pelletier Patenaude.-Mr. Boucher.
Bill No. 60, for the relief of Marieatt Venditello Diano.-Mr. Gray.
Bill No. 61, for the relief of Edna Annie Heazle Constable.

Mr. Boucher.
Bill No. 62, for the relief of Dorothy Reed Cushing.-Mr. Boucher.
Bill No. 63, for the relief of Sarto Desnoyers. -Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 70, for the relief of William Milroy Davidson.-Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 71, for the relief of Audrey Meredith Mann Harrison.

Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 72, for the relief of Frangois Henri Drack.

Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 73, for the relief of Gladys Irene Dale Weston.-Mr. Hazen.
Bill No. 74, for the relief of Ruth Ufland Fishman.-Mr. Mcllraith.
Bill No. 75, for the relief of Norma Brown Stevenson.-Mr. Claxton.
Bill No. 76, for the relief of Mary Cummings Bullock.-Mr. Whitman.
Bill No. 77, for the relief of Elizabeth Gertrude De Serre Gould.-Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 78, for the relief of John Clifford Stanley Darbyson.-Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 79, for the relief of Celia Reynolds Schellenberg.-Mr. Mcllraith.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. D. A. McNIVEN (Regina City) moved the second reading of Bill No. 69, to change the name of the Saskatchewan Life Insurance Company to Fidelity Life Assurance Company.
Richard Burpee Hanson: I think we ought to have some statement from the sponsor as to why this company is discarding its name. Is there anything significant in the change? I have no objection to their changing their name, since "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet". Is there any other "Fidelity" insurance company? There is a fire insurance

Private Bills
company known as the Fidelity-Phoenix, but I do not suppose there would be any danger of confusion on that account. What is the real reason for the change?


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: To keep track of the wheat board.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is this a pool organization?


Mr. McNIVEN:: The Saskatchewan Life Insurance company was incorporated by this parliament some fifteen or eighteen years ago and has been carrying on a life insurance business since that time, largely in Saskatchewan. They have now branched out and are going into some of the other provinces and may subsequently go into other countries. Therefore the management of the company felt that it would be wise to have a name of wider application than the name of one of the provinces. In making this change the officers and directors of the company have no intention or desire-nor would they if they could-to reflect in any degree upon the fair name of the province of Saskatchewan. In fact the management of the company has so conducted its business, and will continue to conduct its business in the future, in such a way as to be a credit to Saskatchewan.
The leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) has made reference to a possible conflict between the name chosen and the names of other companies. I am given to understand that prior to selecting this name the management submitted five names to the superintendent of insurance, who selected from the five the name "Fidelity" as being best applicable to the purposes and objects and scope of business contemplated by this company. So far as I know there is no company carrying on a life insurance business that uses the name "Fidelity". I believe there was a company incorporated some twenty odd years ago by this parliament for the purposes of carrying on the business of fire insurance, but up to the present time it has not carried on business. Then of course there is a company incorporated as the Fidelity and Casualty Company of New York. But with a full knowledge of all these matters and of all the possibilities that have been indicated by the leader of the opposition, the superintendent of insurance approved this name, and gave evidence to that effect before one of the committees of the other house, where the matter was fully debated.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.



CANADIAN DENTAL ASSOCIATION

[Stage Direction]
Mr. G. J. McILRAITH (Ottawa West) moved the second reading of Bill No. 42, to incorporate the Canadian Dental Association.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. McILRAITH:: The Canadian Dental Association has been in existence as an unincorporated association since 1902. At the present time it has a membership of about
4,000.	The dental profession is incorporated in each of the provinces, and each of the provincial incorporated associations has knowledge of the bill now before the house. The objects of the association are set out in section 2 of the bill. They are as follows:
(a)	To cultivate and promote the art and science of dentistry and all its collateral branches, and to maintain the honour and interests of the dental profession;
(b)	To conduct, direct, encourage, support or provide for exhaustive dental and oral research;
(c)	To elevate and sustain the professional character and education of dentists;
(d)	To promote mutual improvement, social intercourse and goodwill among members of the profession;
(e)	To enlighten and direct public opinion in relation to oral hygiene, dental prophylaxis, oral health and advanced scientific dental service;
(f)	To disseminate knowledge of dentistry and dental discoveries;
(g)	To have cognizance of and safeguard the common interests of the members of the dental profession;
(h)	To publish dental journals, reports and treatises;
(i)	To do all further or other lawful acts and things as are incidental or conducive to the attainment of the above objects.
Actual licensing and control of qualifications for the practice of the profession are, of course, left with the provincial associations. The bill is modeled after the act incorporating the Canadian Medical Association, which is chapter 62 of the statutes 8-9 Edward VII. The bill before us follows the scheme of that act very closely In case any members are interested in checking the matter, I might add that the Canadian Bar Association Act, chapter 79, 11-12 George V, follows substantially the same scheme.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and bill read the second time.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, May 28, consideration in committee of a resolution to provide sums not exceeding $2,000,000,000 for the year ending March 31, 1943, for granting
[Stage Direction]


War Appropriation-War Services
to his majesty aid for national defence and security-Mr. Usley-Mr. Fournier (Hull) in the chair.
Mr. CLAXTON:: Mr. Chairman, this committee has spent some time in a discussion of man-power and allied questions. I propose to raise a question of the greatest possible importance in the war effort. I refer to another branch of the minister's department, the bureau of information, and the work it carries on.
It is perfectly obvious that our enemies have taught us a great deal about the power of propaganda and the power of information. They have used it as one of the weapons of war, and although we have a better cause and better institutions we have been slow to make the utmost use of this weapon. It is clear that men buy bonds, make munitions, enlist, fight bravely, bear misfortune, have faith in victory, and give the last ounce that is in them because of their ideas and feelings, but it is particularly true of a country like Canada that it requires an effort of the imagination for the people to understand that this is our war, and an effort of the imagination and knowledge and understanding to appreciate that the best place to defend Canada may be ten thousand miles from our shores, and that the defence of Canada is not the same thing as defence in Canada.
This subject can be considered from three points of view. First, there is the operation of enemy propaganda and counter-propaganda on the enemy and to encourage the people in the occupied countries. Canada can only contribute to the counter-propaganda against the enemy in conjunction with the others of the united nations. Second, there is the use of information to inspire our own people to greater efforts, and I think this committee and this house might quite properly spend some time considering how that can best be done. I propose to limit my present remarks to a third aspect of propaganda, and that is the aspect of our relations with the United States, with our friendly allies, and to discuss how these relations can be improved.
This question has been raised in the house once or twice before, but so far as I am aware it has never been discussed at length. I bring it up now because I have a large number of American friends whom I have seen very frequently since the outbreak of war in the United States and Canada, and I hear them say, with others who have had a similar experience, that we should do more to make our story known in the United States. I think I express the view of every member of this house and of the great majority of the

people of Canada who know anything about it when I say that we should be doing more to make our story known in the United States and to cultivate the best possible relations with her, in the belief that our relations are founded on understanding, and that understanding is founded on knowledge. Persons in the United States say to me when this matter comes up: "Why on earth do you not do more to make the magnificent record of Canada known over here? Why aren't you doing something about it?"
We started the war with every possible advantage. Canada and the United States were the most friendly nations on the face of the earth. The relations between Canada and the United States were closer than those of any other two nations, they were more cordial than those of any other nations. We did not regard the Americans as foreigners, and they did not regard us as foreigners. The relations between Canada and the United States were, as Bruce Hutchison has said, founded on "nature, history, geography, necessity and men's hearts".
It is not too much to say that the whole structure of British-American and allied cooperation was begun in the declarations of President Roosevelt and Mr. King at Wood-bridge and Kingston in 1938, continued through the Ogdensburg declaration of 1940 and the Hyde Park agreement of 1941, and it is no detraction from the magnificent work of President Roosevelt and Prime Minister King to say that the basis for those agreements and for that whole structure of cooperation was the friendly relations of individuals in the United States and in Canada.
This relationship between the United States and Canada has enabled the two countries to cooperate more closely than any two nations have ever done before. We know that in the President of the United States we have a great friend; we know that with the members of his administration Canadians have the closest possible relationship and cooperation. But with President Roosevelt we want to have as friends also the 130,000,000 people who will elect President Roosevelt's successor.
This question is important; it is particularly important now, when we are partners in the greatest adventure the two nations have ever undertaken, and it will continue to be important because the two nations must go down the years together. The future of Canada is bound up in the future of the United States, since we both occupy this north American continent together. Never before has it been more necessary, never before has it been more important, that Canada and Canada's position, work and achievements should be properly

War Appropriation-War Services
understood in the United States. Yet at the present time the ordinary contacts of United States and Canadian citizens are being curtailed by the necessities of war. Last year
14,000,000 United States citizens visited Cam-ada. In ordinary years many hundreds of thousands of Canadians visit the United States. But these exchanges of visits, which produced closer personal relations than have existed between two peoples, are being curtailed because of exchange restrictions, passport and visa requirements, exit permits, and now travel restrictions with regard to gas and rubber. I suggest that we need to watch the undefended boundary line to make sure it does not become a frontier. We need to set a guard not on the border but on our actions to see that measures which may be considered necessary for some immediate purpose do not do far more harm than good in the long run to the friendly relations of the two countries.
Another reason why this matter is pressing now is that the United States itself is, naturally, becoming concentrated on its own war effort, and it will become interested in our work and achievements only in so far as they are news and in so far as that news is promptly presented to the United States.
A third reason is that we know that the enemy is seeking to divide the united nations everywhere he can. I could show you, if I took the time, clippings from United States newspapers indicating a close relationship, much closer than could be accounted for by mere coincidence, between enemy shortwave broadcasts, and the line taken in them, and the line taken in some papers published on this continent. If we do not do enough we shall leave a vacuum into which lies and rumours flow. Where our story is not told there is fertile soil for misunderstanding and rumours. We have seen instances of this. Last year, you will remember when there was a debate in the United States Congress on lease-lend, it was suggested that the Canadian people got cash on the barrel-head for everything they gave to Britain. That story was started and it has been difficult to catch up with. When our friends in the United States learn the extent of Canada's contribution of men-150,000-overseas, and when they think of the United States equivalent, they are amazed. When they hear the full extent of what we have done, I have found that there is a feeling almost of resentment at their not having been told the full story.
I do not suggest that our government should undertake anything in the nature of propaganda or high-powered1 publicity service. What I do suggest is that we should provide machinery for supplying news, because facts bum up rumours and prejudice as the sun bums up fog. I suggest that there is need of that shown even to-day. In the New York Herald-Tribune, a newspaper friendly to Canada, in a recent number following the plebiscite, two United States senators were quoted. One said he was disappointed that "so many people in Canada do not realize the seriousness of this war." Another said he was "glad to see that Canadians had voted to get into the war as we are." I do not suggest that these honourable gentlemen are representative of their people in their lack of knowledge, but it indicates a serious situation when two senators have such a small knowledge of what we are doing as to make statements of this kind. I may tell the committee that in this article those statements are used as a peg on which to hang an exceedingly complimentary and favourable story of what we are doing in the war.
This question has received a good deal more attention in the press of Canada than it has in this house. I suggest that if anyone should know what the true position is, and what the importance of the question is, it is the press of Canada, because they see the United States papers; they clip articles from them; they have contact with the United States press; they know what can be done, and they have a very strong feeling as to what should be done.
I hold in my hand a large number of clippings from Canadian papers expressing their view of this question. The Ottawa Journal says:
There can he little doubt that Canada has suffered considerably in the United States through lack of any coordinated effort on our part to let the American people know what we are doing.
The Toronto Globe and Mail says:
The lack of knowledge in the United States concerning Canada's effort has been exploited by the isolationists with substantial effectiveness.
The Saint John Telegraph-Journal:
We have still a long way to go before our system of information, especially to our American cousins, is satisfactory.
The Family Herald and Weekly Star:
Canada continues to receive a bad press in the United States, and it is high time something was done to tell the American people our story.
In an address delivered before the Canadian club of Montreal, Sir Willmott H. Lewis, Washington correspondent for the London Times, said:
There is not enough Canadian publicity in the United States or in the other American nations. . . .

War Appropriation-War Services
The Montreal Standard says:
Most people in the United States at the present time have no conception of the part Canada is playing in this war.
And again:
Canada is falling dangerously in the esteem of the American people because of the poor impression they have of our war accomplishments.
From the Montreal Star:
We have on several occasions advocated an organized campaign to make the details of Canada's war effort more widely known throughout the United States than they are.
From the San Francisco Chronicle:
The result-
That is, of our failure to give information. 

is that a great and vital story, as vital to us and our way of life as to Canada's goes untold.
It continues:
That is why we wish our Canadian friends were not so gun shy about propaganda. There should be official, recognized agencies of information, telling us at least as much about what the people next door are doing in their war, and our war, as we know from overseas.
From the Minneapolis Star-Journal: Doubtless Canada has been reluctant to carry on in the United States any thorough and systematic effort to make Americans better acquainted with her, lest she be suspected of propaganda for some ulterior purpose.
But it would be a service to Americans if she would do so. It would help to end misconceptions, and to make honest differences of opinion debatable as between friends, not strangers.
The United States and Canada are going to be more and more important to each other, whatever happens in the world. The better they know each other, tile more harmoniously they can work together for the good of both.
Then from the Daily Star, Windsor, Ontario: The American people are actually anxious to hear about Canada's war effort. This is a fact that we have been stressing for some time. It has taken certain persons in authority much too long to realize its truth.
The result has been that, because of timidity about spreading propaganda, Canada has suffered a volume of unjustified criticism.
From the Vancouver Sun:
Canada has been so diffident or incompetent about giving Americans the facts that the Minneapolis Star-Journal finds its readers pitifully ignorant about the whole Canadian situation. Some of them, says the Star-Journal, think that Canada is a dependency of Britain, paying taxes to the British treasury.
The Winnipeg Free Press, commenting on this, says:
The need for an alert, full-time Canadian information bureau in the United States has been apparent for a long time.
And they refer to these United States editorials.
What I suggest is that we should tell our 
story. No one else is going to do it for us. If I may make a constructive proposal it would be that we should have an office in New York. Hon. members may ask, why New York? New York is the centre of publicity, of writers, publications, the publishing business, columnists and radio. It is the place where the people who give the news get the news. This office should be staffed by a small number of people, exceedingly good people, including, in particular, one who would be by experience and qualification well able to meet with Americans and deal with United States publicity agencies. We all know the importance of personal contacts; that there is no field in which personal contacts are more important than this field of public relations. This individual should be a person who knows how public opinion is formed; he should be a Canadian who is in some way representative of the young people of Canada who are fighting overseas.


Mr. REID:: What would be the hon. member's view as to choosing from the press of Canada a body of men to handle our news, men who have had life experience in publicity?


Brooke Claxton: We have in Canada an able group of pressmen, and I would think that if one or more of them could be attached to this work in the United States it would be very useful. The person whom I have in mind to head the office in New York would not necessarily be a pressman, although he might be one who had had journalistic experience. He would have to be one who is alert to the needs of the modern press. He would have to have the kind of flair that good journalists have for news and how to get it across. What is needed is not an institution, it is a person. He should be the kind of person to whom Americans who make the news will naturally look for assistance and guidance. He should not try to influence public opinion in the United States directly, that would be fatal; he should try to be useful to the people who make public opinion there. He should see that news about Canada gets to the people who can give it to the American people. It would probably be a mistake to have this office attached to the Department of External Affairs, because our diplomatic representatives are used to a slower and more formal manner of conducting business. They have not the instantaneous quickness on the trigger that is necessary to deal with news on the north American continent. By the time anything gets through the diplomatic channels and the Department of External Affairs to the bureau of public information here, the value of the story would be lost; the front pages would have

War Appropriation-War Services moved on to something else. So I suggest that this individual or this office should be attached to the bureau of public information.
Another suggestion is that the minister in Ottawa could work in cooperation with this individual to encourage Canadians who have normal contacts with the United States-and there is a great number of them-to think, when they are making those contacts, of Canada's story and the possibilities' of getting it over to the United States. In fact, every hon. member must be a member of some association, medical association, bar association, trades union, having close associations and affiliations with United States associations of the same kind. All of us can use our natural contacts through these associations to bring home to our United States friends nothing but the facts.
Then, referring to the suggestion of the hon. member for New Westminster, it might also be possible to use Canadian journalists who have friendly associations with journalists in the United States. They might visit them from time to time; a man placed in the middle west might visit his opposite number in the United States middle west and maintain friendly associations with him so that when Canadian news comes to him through the ordinary news channels he would interpret it sympathetically and know the kind of slant to put on it.
I also suggest that this development requires a new attitude in Canada, an attitude whereby we recognize the real importance of this subject and do things in a way to make news. The one really first-class news development which has taken place in Canada, and which has had a continuously good press in the United States, is the work of the wartime prices and trade board. This shows what can be done through the use of good publicity and good publicity men. The fact that we have a price ceiling has from the beginning to date been a matter of news and interest and admiration in the United States.
We need better agencies for getting the news from the places where it is made, that is the fighting fronts, or places in Canada where there are news stories, into the hands of United States agencies. As I said to the house some nights ago, there are magnificent stories of Canadian heroism which have not even been told in Canada yet, and which would be just as useful in cheering our United States friends as in cheering our own hearts. We have reached a stage in the war where deeds count much more than words; where propaganda, stories of action, heroism and achievement, count much more than any speech, and our publicity and information service must be
geared to the task of getting stories from the places where they are made to the places where they are going to do some good. What I suggest is not a loud-speaker in the United States. What I suggest is a pick-up, if I may use a radio term, at the front where the news is made, and a connecting service through to the loud-speaker, which will be the ordinary United States agency which will use the news, if it is news, in the way that agency sees fit.
This, if I may say so, requires a new attitude on the part of our censors. I believe that ever since the beginning of the war stories that might have thrilled our hearts have been left cooling on the desks of censors, and I suggest that the censorship rules should be overhauled and coordinated, to see what can be let through. If it can be let through, send it through quickly, so that it reaches us while the story is still hot. There are stories to be found and to be told of the work of Canadian soldiers, sailors, airmen, the merchant marine and war industries. They are there to be found by people who have a nose for news. They are there to be written by men who can write in an attractive way, and sent back through improved agencies to Canada and thence to our friends in the United States. It is plain enough from stories like those of Larry Robillard and others that brave men are writing tales of heroism with their lives. The records are there; all that is needed is that the records be given a chance to speak for themselves.
I believe the minister himself, if one may gather from rumours abroad some time ago in the public press, is sympathetically inclined toward this idea. I have made these suggestions in the hope of fortifying his inclination, and I want to express my pleasure at the appointment of Mr. Charles Vining to go to the United States to look into this whole question. He is eminently fitted to do so. He has had journalistic experience; he knows the United States, where he has close connections, and I am sure he can make a report on this subject which will be very useful to the government. Whatever that report may be, I cannot help but express my strong conviction that we must do more to tell our story, or see that our story is told, in the United States. We have friends there who want to help us. We have 130,000,000 friends who want to help us. They want to be given the facts; they ask for them. They believe in us; they want to be given the facts to justify their belief. In the long run, relations between countries depend upon relations between individuals, and our relations with the United States will depend upon the relations between individual Americans and individual Cana-

War Appropriation-War Services
dians. Out of tlie last war and our achievements in it Canada achieved a new status and a new standing. I want to see that the exploits of our men in this war stand to Canada's credit also. As Churchill said in 1930, speaking of Canada:
No state, no country, no band of men can more truly be described as the finch-pin of peace and world progress.
I believe that statement may be made true, but it will not be true unless Canada earns and keeps the respect of other countries; and other countries, particularly our United States friends, will have respect for us if they know that we are pulling our full weight in this joint effort.
There is one other aspect of the matter; that is the effect on our own morale. If we continuously read in United States newspapers and in publications such as Life, of the achievements of United States airmen, and we do not see anywhere stories of the achievements of Canadian airmen, then we shall begin to feel that there is something wrong with us. There is nothing wrong with us, but if that continues to happen there will be something wrong with our publicity service. Morale is the most valuable thing in the world, and the least expensive. What more is to be done lies in the hands of the minister and the government, but I have no doubt that the wish of members of this house and of the people of Canada is that something more should be done.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have no intention of following the remarks of the hon. member who has just spoken, because in my view the debate on this resolution should be concluded. But I am wondering why he did not give any expression to the feeling of bewilderment that is very evident in the minds of the people of the United States, as expressed in the public press of that country and by individuals of prominence, owing to the fact that this country, which is professing-and I believe in most ways is endeavouring-to carry out a total war effort, as a matter of fact in one particular feature does not have a total war effort. They just wonder over there, and I have seen expression given to this view on many occasions in many United States publications, how in the world this country can have a total war effort if it does not practise total war. There is no doubt that there is a feeling of frustration in the United States with respect to our war effort. They know that our industry is in production; they know that we have a, good army overseas and a good army in training in Canada. Yet they know, from their own experience and

their own example, that according to their standard Canada has fallen down in one particular feature. There is no doubt about it.


Mr. GOLDING:: Do they think that of Australia?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Never mind Australia. The United States is our neighbour. They know what we are doing and what we are not doing. In the United States press the plebiscite was greeted as an overwhelming manifestation on the part of the Canadian electors in favour of total war; and when they find that it does not mean total war there is a feeling of bewilderment, to which they have given expression. They will never truly appraise our effort in this war until that position is cleared up.


Mr. THORSON:: The leader of the opposition has referred to a view that is widely held in the United States and frequently expressed by the people of that country. I wonder if it is expressed as frequently in the United States as it is expressed by certain persons in Canada. I would suggest to the leader of the opposition that he write to the authorities in Washington and ask them for the results of their draft system, in the number of men actually added to the forces since the draft system for compulsory service has been in effect. Get those figures, and then compare them with the number of men we have added to the strength of our armed forces, and my hon. friend will see the comparison.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is just begging the question.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: It is not begging the question at all.


Mr. JACKMAN:: Give us the figures.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I am prepared to say we are raising more men proportionately for our armed forces-


Mr. MacNICOL:: By coercion.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: -by our voluntary system, than the United States is raising at present by its draft system.


Richard Burpee Hanson: By the back-door method.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: No; by a voluntary
method. I do not know why it is that so many people in this country are seeking to decry the value of the voluntary effort.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Because of the back-door method.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: It is not at all back-door.

War Appropriation-War Services


Richard Burpee Hanson: Certainly it is.


An hon. MEMBER:: What was the plebiscite for?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: This, however, is perhaps not the debate in which to discuss that particular question.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister, however, does admit that the condition I have indicated prevails in the United States?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Yes, and prevails from a mistaken view of the facts.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Maybe not.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Much of that mistake is brought about by people in Canada who are decrying everything that is of a voluntary nature-


John Ritchie MacNicol: But it is not voluntary; you bludgeon them into enlisting.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: -and thereby, if I may say so, doing real harm to the effectiveness of our war effort.
I had not intended making any reference to that point. I expect this whole subject will be fully covered in the debate which will take place within the next few days; and in the course of that debate, in as cool a manner as possible, we can deal with the merits or demerits of compulsory service overseas. I think a strong case can be made for the maintenance of the present system, from the point of view of the effectiveness of the war effort of this country. After all, many of us are concerned with an objective, namely the maximum total aid this country can give in the cause of humanity. We are concerned with the effectiveness of the war effort more than with anything else. I think we shall wish to use that method which will make the greatest contribution to the effectiveness of the war effort, from the point of view of reality, and not from that of theory. I believe the debate which will take place, commencing, I hope, next week, will prove a useful forum for getting down to realities in connection with this subject, and go a long way toward dispelling the heat and frenzy that have grown up in many quarters, in some instances fomented and in other cases as opinions honestly held. We can deal with that question on its merits or demerits.
It was not I who introduced this question directly, but-


Richard Burpee Hanson: Before the minister leaves the matter of public information, might I ask, what are the functions of Mr. Paul Reading at Washington.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Mr. Paul Reading is
attached to the office of the legation which, in turn, is under the jurisdiction of the department of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I believe his official title is that of press attache to the legation at Washington.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But he is publicity man, is he not?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: No; I do not believe that would be the correct description of his status; I believe it is that of press attache. That, however, may have an indefinite meaning.
I should like to extend my sincere compliments and cordial thanks to the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George for the thoughtful contribution he has made to the debate. I agree that the information which exists in the United States with regard to the extent and nature of the Canadian war effort is not satisfactory.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And never
has been.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: And has never been satisfactory. At one time, prior to the entry of our great and good neighbour into this conflict, I think the isolationist press in the United States went out of its way to minimize the extent of the Canadian war effort, because the fact that we in Canada had, of our own free will, entered into the war, was the strongest argument against their own position-because we were both north American countries.


John Ritchie MacNicol: But we were a British country.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: We were both free to participate in the war, or not to participate in it. We were the first of the north American countries to see the issues that were at stake.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Oh, well, brush that aside. Did we not enter because this was a British country, and not because we were a north American country?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: We entered this war as a principal and on our own account.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes, and because we were afraid that if the British navy failed, the enemy would be camping on the banks of the St. Lawrence; of course we did.


Mr. McGREGOR:: Is there any reason why we should not?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Not at all. I was one
of the strongest advocates of our participation

War Appropriation-War Services
in the war by the side of Great Britain, and on our own account, urging that this country must give its maximum aid in the cause. In that debate I spoke as a Canadian with undivided loyalty to Canada, and I held that attitude.
May I go back to the situation in the United States. Here we were, two north American countries. We recognized the issues involved. We were both isolationist countries.


John Ritchie MacNicol: We were no such thing.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Let the minister speak for himself.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The minister may be.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: The majority of the
people in Canada, prior to 1939, were strongly of an isolationist view.


John Ritchie MacNicol: No, no.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No.


Robert Henry McGregor: Speak for yourself.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: Yes, speak for yourself.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I do not think there was much doubt about that. I am perfectly free to say I was one of those who believed it might be possible for north America to hold itself aloof from the quarrels of Europe.


John Ritchie MacNicol: And let the empire go to the dogs!


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: That view is one that
cannot now be held by any thinking person.


Charles Edward Johnston: It never
could, not by any thinking person.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: It was a view that I
had abandoned completely before I took part in the debate on Canada's participation in the war. I saw that no free nation could stand alone in this conflict, that all free nations must unite. During the course of that debate I expressed, the view that it would not be long before our great neighbour to the south, in whom the traditions of liberty are deeply ingrained, would enter this conflict. I believe the isolationists thought that Canada's entry into the war was the strongest argument that could be made against their case. If isolationists in Canada could see the light, why should not others who were formerly isolationists also see the light? What the isolationist press in the United States tried to do was to belittle the effort of Canada, and in so doing they received great aid from many Canadian newspapers.


Charles Edward Johnston: What is
an isolationist?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I do not think I should
begin a course of education for the hon. member for Bow River.


Charles Edward Johnston: It would
be interesting to hear your interpretation.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I doubt whether my embarking upon such a course of education for him would have any effect.


Charles Edward Johnston: I doubt it.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: We in Canada have been very careful indeed about our relations with the United States. We have treasured our relations with that country and have desired that they should be as cordial as possible. Our two countries are interdependent upon one another; we share similar traditions and our whole lives are based upon institutions inherited in common from Great Britain. We have been very careful not to indulge in propaganda in the United States. I was greatly impressed by one of the statements made by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Claxton), that we in Canada should not tiy to influence United States opinion, that that would be fatal. With that thought in mind, we never, prior to the entry of the United States into the war of her own free will, sought to promote propaganda in the United States. Those who have attempted propaganda in the United States have not increased the cordiality of the relations between that country and the countries of those who engaged in the propaganda.
There is a difference between engaging in propaganda and giving public information as to facts. I am in agreement with much that the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George has said. Now that we in the northern part of north America are united with our neighbours to the south in a great north American partnership, a new situation is brought about in which it is desirable that they should know as much of our activities as we know of theirs. I was very glad indeed that the Prime Minister was able to announce definitely yesterday that Mr. Charles Vining had been requested to make a survey of the whole situation in the United States, to find out what the attitude of the people there would be in the matter of public information, and make a report on the whole situation. The matter will then be reviewed in the light of the real knowledge that will be brought back, and I am hopeful then that we shall be able to embark upon a policy of public relations and public information as between Canada and the United States that will serve the purpose of enlightening the peoples of the two countries as to the activities of the other without in any way giving offence to either of them.

War Appropriation-War Services
I do not know that I can add very much to what I have said on this subject of our relations with the United States in the matter of public information.


Mr. HARRIS (Danforth):: Madam Chairman, after waiting twenty years it is my extreme pleasure to address for the first time a gracious lady in the chair of this committee.
I wish her many long years of happiness and service in this hon. chamber.
Madam Chairman, it is a rather sad day when a minister of the crown rises in his place at this time of war and attempts to make the people of this country think about isolation and the position of isolationists and how many isolationists there were in Canada a few years ago. No doubt some of them are still here.	.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Not at all.


Joseph Henry Harris: That was one thing that should not have been raised in this hon. chamber at this time. We have had a sense of frustration, but now another wet blanket has been thrown over us this afternoon. It is not fair to the hon. members of this chamber, it is not fair to you, Madam Chairman, it is not fair to the hon. members who served in the last war and who now surround the Minister of National War Services. I know that many of them will feel rather badly when they pick up the press to-morrow and find that the minister has raised in this chamber at this time the question of isolationism in Canada. That is all I shall say about it.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Nonsense.


Joseph Henry Harris: I do not want to hear another word about isolationism. I want to get on with this war. I want the minister to appreciate the realities and the realism he is talking about. Let us have more positive direction; let us have something with some merit so that we can get on with our war effort. That is the real problem before us. Why should the hon. gentleman rise in his place and make a speech to pave the way for an appointment which apparently was made a day or two ago? That is not reality or realism.
Some of the realities were faced by the minister last night, but he tried to dismiss them in the last paragraph of his speech before he moved that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again. He said that the government of this country could not do anything about the matter then under discussion, and he threw a wet blanket over the energetic efforts and enthusiasm of some 25,000 women in Canada who are trying to help the war effort. I refer to
the Canadian women's voluntary services, which was under discussion last night. I am going to make a plea to the minister now, not to close the gate to the energy and efforts of these women who are giving voluntary service. Try to find some way out of the tangle you have let yourself into in following along behind this organization with a paid organization with the same name-the tangle you have got into by order in council-and,
I would not say, usurping the name, but taking away the name which you had previously given to this organization in September, 1941, and by order in council using practically the same name. The name in the order in council to my mind is a misnomer. The order in council says that there shall be a body formed known as the Women's Voluntary Services Division. And the first thing you do is to engage paid help. The first thing you do is to spoil the name "voluntary" entirely by putting on the staff two persons who are paid from the treasury of Canada to do the work which this group of Canadian women have tried to do voluntarily, none of whom- and I ask the minister to mark this carefully -are being paid from funds received by the organization or from the government.
The minister says that the approach of the Canadian women's voluntary services organization is not the approach that he would like to have. Indeed, he says it is the opposite to the approach he wants to have. The minister wants his approach to this problem to come through the present social welfare organizations in Canada. Let us take a broad view of this situation and ask ourselves, who are the social welfare organizations? They are municipal, provincial and dominion bodies doing a good job, and earning their pay as such. But have the women who are at the heads of these social welfare agencies contact with the women of Canada who are giving their voluntary services in this war? Have they the kind of contact with them which will stir women's energies and arouse their patriotism in the form of war work? Some of these women in the difficult times from 1930 to 1940 found it necessary to appeal to the social welfare agencies for help. Not many of them did it, because they did not like to approach the welfare organizations, but a few women through no fault of their own found it necessary during the depression to appeal for assistance to these organizations, and they did so with a sense of humiliation hanging like a cloud around them, and with a sense of defeatism. But they were well treated by the minister's organizations which he now desires to dominate this whole picture. A

War Appropriation-War Services
very large body of women in Canada at that time had a perfect right to appeal to the social welfare organizations for help, but they refrained from doing it. They preferred to suffer in silence and do the best they could. Another very large group of women in Canada, representing probably all the women's organizations that we read about, the council of women, the daughters of the empire, and so forth, rather refrained from going to the social welfare agencies to get leadership in the type of work they would like to do for the war effort. Of course, they will cooperate with the Red Cross and carry out any rules and regulations; but for the minister to say that the approach made by the Canadian women's voluntary services is the direct opposite to the approach he wants to have, his approach being through the welfare organizations, is to put a wet blanket on the enthusiasm and effort of the women to whom I have referred.
What do these women do? They do very much like Lady Reading's organization does in England and similar organizations in the United States and South Africa. They t"ain for home nursing under the Red' Cross, learn creche and child management, act as mother-craft minders, train themselves for home management, take courses in preparedness, learn how to deal with emergencies in war under the direction of the Red Cross, study nutrition. There have been 2,045 classes given, and 2,980 women have completed or are taking these training courses. There have been 200 meetings addressed; 5,000 women have been enrolled and contacts made with 25,000. There are organized disciplined groups of women in each community who are prepared to act in war-time emergencies.
As the hon. member for Peterborough West so well said last night, these women are keen to go on working in a voluntary way. I shall not traverse the ground already covered by the hon. member for Peterborough West and by the hon. member for Lincoln. My plea with the minister is this: Do not stiffen your back on this thing and turn down the representations that are being made by the Canadian women's voluntary services. Let them continue in existence and give some real service to Canada. It is a simple matter for the minister's organization, which comes along afterwards, to say to these women: The government will drop this word "voluntary." Let the minister call his organization by another name, just as he gave names by order in council, dated October 31, to several divisions in his department-the national registration division, the mobilization division, the public information division, the war charities division, the salvage division. Do not use the 
words "women's voluntary services division." Call your organization the women's services division, if you will. Nothing is so hard on anyone, particularly on our womenfolk, as to find that the work they do in their homes and organizations, the knitting they do in every spare hour and late at night, the learning how to be of service in this war cannot go on as it has been going on hitherto, and that a paid staff is to be employed to direct their activities. They do not like the idea of having paid women in these organizations which are called voluntary organizations.
I suggest to the minister that he give very serious consideration to dropping the word "voluntary" which is used in the order in council, and that he encourage the Canadian women's voluntary services to stay in existence. I also urge upon him that he retract the suggestion that the approach of this organization is the opposite to that of the department. Let the view of his department be a little more elastic. Let him encourage the women to continue in existence and carry on the useful work they are doing. By no means discourage them, because in them you have a strong unit of workers, and it will make for a good deal of difficulty if they are washed out, as it were, so far as this particular job is concerned. Mr. Vining has been appointed to do a job in Washington; a woman is the selective service head in Vancouver. Women grow up to responsible paid positions through the social service organizations, and when they come up that way, let us be frank about it, Madam Chairman, and admit that they were nurtured in the cradle of politics right along before they attained to leadership in these different services.
Consider the history of these services. The minister knows it well, although he may be reluctant to cite it for the enlightment of the committee. He will admit that those who are at the heads of these social service organizations have maintained their positions in these organizations through actions which of necessity were political, and which got them into these organizations. That very thought is going to destroy the very idea which we should encourage and foster.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I deeply regret the controversy which has arisen over this matter, and I assure the hon. member for Danforth that I do not wish to close the gate to the activities of any organization. I hope nothing I have said indicates any such desire.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is what the minister has done more than what he has said.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: In that respect I differ from the hon. gentleman.

War Appropriation-War Services


Mr. LOCKHART:: Will the minister permit a question? Did not his director say, "We have to be you or you have to be us"?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Yes, there was some such phrase used. Will the committee bear with me if I try to deal with this matter in a way which will be helpful to all concerned?


Harry Rutherford Jackman: It is a very important matter.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I appreciate very much the concern which the hon. member for Danforth has shown about the work which is being done by this organization. May I deal with his first argument, that the employment of Mrs. West and Miss Held on a salary basis is contrary to the idea of voluntary service.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Are there no dollar-a-year women who would do the job?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Well, in a very careful search which I made over the whole field I was not able to find any dollar-a-year women with the background which was generally regarded as desirable for work of this kind.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: Few women draw big salaries from corporations, so that there could not be dollar-a-year women.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I am making an effort to deal with a question which has caused a great deal of controversy. Mrs. West was selected to head this division of a department of the government. It is the first occasion in our history when any woman has been appointed to head a division of a department of the government of Canada. The division was set up by way of recognition of the splendid work which is being done by the women o'f Canada in their communities, a work in which there is no glamour and much dullness, but in which tasks are performed which are absolutely essential to the maintenance of the integrity of the community. This division was set up for the promotion of that kind of activity, so that the communities of Canada might be fully organized within themselves, where leaders of community activity exist, on a basis of community solidarity.
The salaries paid to Mrs. West and to her assistant, Miss Held, are not enormous. I should like to make reference to the organization to which the hon. member for Danforth has alluded. I have before me the application of this organization for registration under the War Charities Act.


John Ritchie MacNicol: What organization?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: The organization of which we have been speaking.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Well, but what is the name?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: The Canadian women's voluntary services, Ontario division, fund. It is the registration of a fund. The registration shows the personnel of the committee in charge: Mrs. Stella F. Mackenzie, Mrs. Verna R. Conant, Muriel Gladman-


John Ritchie MacNicol: Is that the Mrs. Conant who is the wife of the attorney general?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: The wife of the Attorney General of Ontario. They asked for registration of this fund under the War Charities Act of 1939. On page 2 of the standard form they indicate that no branches are established yet and probably there will be no branches for the purpose of raising funds. Then they indicate the donations which have been given or which they expect to collect. The total amount of money expected to be collected by the fund is $10,000. Let me direct the attention of the committee to the principal objects upon which expenditures from the fund are to be made. The amounts expected to be expended in each case are as follow:
1. Specific services (itemize fully), $10,000. And this follows:
Part of the funds will be donated specifically to pay expenses of a woman who will thus be enabled to give her services as organizer. The rest will be used to pay office expenses such as postage, printing, et cetera, and travelling expenses of the organizer.
Mr.	HANSON	(York-Sunbury):	That	is
just out-of-pocket expenses.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: No salary, though.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: "To pay expenses of a woman who will thus be enabled to give her services as organizer".
Mr.	HANSON	(York-Sunbury):	Yes:	no
salary, but out-of-pocket expenses?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: No, no.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes.
Mr.	THORSON:	-"and travelling	expenses".Mr.	HANSON	(York-Sunbury):	Out-ofpocket expenses.


Joseph Henry Harris: And it has not been acted on.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Oh, yes; the organizer has received money from the organization.


Joseph Henry Harris: No-a private donation.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon. So that there is nothing in that particular contention. Mrs. West and Miss Held are officers of the department, respectively head and assistant head of the division of women's voluntary services, engaged in the promotion of the activities which I indicated.

War Appropriation-War Services
I should like to spend a few more minutes on this in order to clear up what I think are misunderstandings. The hon. member for Peterborough West stated that Miss Margaret Hyndman, K.C. and Mrs. Murdoch Mackenzie came to Ottawa and saw Mrs. West and Miss Held, and that this was part of their report.


John Ritchie MacNicol: To whom, may I ask?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: This report, I gather, is made to the advisory council of Canadian women's voluntary services, Ontario division, at a meeting on Tuesday, May 19, of this year. Now, three statements were made in this report, according to the hon. member for Peterborough West. I believe that a good deal of the misunderstanding as to the objectives of the various parties arises out of an inaccurate statement as to what took place.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Who says it is inaccurate?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I say it is inaccurate.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Miss Hyndman is a capable woman.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Fortunately I do not have to ask my hon. friend to take my word for it, because it is in print. I should like to put the three statements that are attributed to Miss Hyndman side by side with the statements that Mrs. West actually made at the press conference to which Miss Hyndman refers, which was reported in the Globe and Mail of May 12. This statement is made by Miss Hyndman:
1. That the government's plan is to have women's work done in communities by social agencies.
That is not correct. What Mrs. West did say is this:
Mrs. West said that the function of her department is "to unite volunteer war work and civilian services in such a way that the whole volunteer movement marches forward in a coordinated whole on a community basis."
She further explained that the department recommends that in communities having welfare councils, volunteer bureau, or citizens' committees, close cooperation be developed and overlapping, duplication of work, prevented. She also said:
"I am happy to say that Toronto has these facilities already in existence and that the welfare council has already established a bureau on the lines recommended by the department and has made worth-while contributions toward meeting a number of community needs arising out of the war effort. My department will be anxious to assist in its further development and coordination. In a war it is difficult to draw the line between war and home-front services. Peace-time agencies have many wartime duties ami give much advice to soldiers' dependents. It is important in the development of volunteer services to note that there is such a body as the welfare council and council of social_ agencies in existence, because such an organization has an intimate knowledge of community needs and resources and can direct fMr. Thorson.l
volunteer efforts in the channels in which they are most needed. If it works closely with groups engaged in war work, overlapping and duplication will be prevented. It also creates a volunteer structure that will continue as a nation passes from war to peace."
May I say this of the situation in Toronto, that I spent some time there meeting with various organizations, the citizens' committee and then another organization in the afternoon which is deeply concerned with the coordination of the voluntary effort of the citiz.ens of Toronto. I should like to pay tribute to the splendid manner in which the various organizations in Toronto have cooperated with one another in the matter of putting that city on the basis of community solidarity. If a city such as Toronto can do that, with the splendid results that have followed the activities of the organizations in Toronto, then that can be done in other large cities. So that there is a misconception in Miss Hyndman's report of what Mrs. West actually said.
With regard to the second statement attributed to Miss Hyndman and referred to by the hon. member for Peterborough West:
That no war work should be undertaken in a community until these social agencies who have their "ear to the ground as to the needs" give the word "go".
This is what Mrs. West said:
We do not want to stimulate volunteer effort beyond our ability to use it.
Then she went on to say:
There is a danger of making women feel that they are not contributing to the war effort unless they are outside their own homes doing something in a spectacular way. We want people to feel that there is an organization in every community that has its ear to the ground and is prepared to meet emergencies as they arise.
It is not only the women who are wearing uniforms or who are working in a munitions plant or in a war industry who are making contributions to the war effort of Canada. Many of the women who are working in the activities of the community, where there is no glamour, no publicity, no uniform, but only hard work and drudgery, are in my opinion performing at this time a war service of inestimable value. In performing the tasks of the community they are keeping the heart of the community sound'.


John Ritchie MacNicol: They have been doing
it for years.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: That is what is being
attempted by.these central volunteer bureaux and by people in the communities who are seeking to coordinate all the existing community organizations and activities. I want to emphasize that you cannot put a com-

War Appropriation-War Services
munity on what I have termed a basis of community solidarity unless you include in your organizations that are being brought together in a cooperative way those organizations that are concerned with social welfare and social need; for I repeat, they are the core of the community. I am not suggesting for a moment that war activity should originate with the social agencies; that was never suggested by Mrs. West; it has never been suggested by me. But I have recognized that you cannot have the community organized on the basis of community solidarity if you exclude from your list of organizations those that are concerned with social welfare and social need.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Were any excluded?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: The very statements
made by the hon. member for Danforth today and by this organization indicate that they have not associated themselves with the social welfare organizations in the city of Toronto.


Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: They got the children's aid society and the welfare council.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: One of them, yes, but I
do not think the officers of the organization in which my hon. friends are interested would dispute what I have said.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: They are disputing it.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: The third statement that is made, referred to by the hon. member for Peterborough West and likewise attributed to Miss Hyndman is this:
That women should not be trained for emergencies now, nor their free time utilized for war work except such "unspectacular" (as she called them) and relatively unimportant jobs as salvage and price control enforcement. Nor should they be encouraged to organize their lives to have free time which can be so utilized.
What Mrs. West actually did say, as reported in the press, is this:
We do feel that until the job is there to be done women can best serve by looking after their community, keeping a quiet home for a harassed husband to come into at the end of a trying day, helping with the salvage project, and price ceiling, and keeping in touch with the boys in the services here and overseas. There is need in this country to make the seemingly uninteresting jobs seem important to our women. There are only a very few jobs in Canada where there is any glamour! The vast majority of women will have to serve in the war effort in an unobstrusive way.
In so serving, the women of Canada, not concerned with glamour, not concerned with publicity, make a contribution to the effectiveness of the war effort which only they can make; it is a contribution of inestimable value
to this country, because if you do not keep the communities of Canada sound you cannot keep the nation sound. I say this. We have pledged our country to an all-out war effort. There cannot be an all-out war effort unless certain things are done in the communities of Canada. There are many things that must be done in the communities of Canada which can be done only by the men and women of Canada, working voluntarily. There are many things in the communities of Canada which must be done and which no government can do; only the men and the women of the community can do those tasks. If they do not do them, and do them voluntarily, there is not an all-out community effort.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Is there any intention of having regional paid officers?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: No.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Positively no other paid officials?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: There is not the slightest intention of setting up a large organization for this purpose.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Are there to be any other paid officials?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: No; I have not in contemplation the employment of any other officials.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: No other paid officials?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I cannot say what may possibly develop. It may be necessary to employ another assistant, but there is no thought of setting up a large and extensive organization. Nor is there any thought of this division seeking to regiment or direct the activities of a community. Rather it is intended to give guidance to a community, so that the organization may rise within the community.


Mrs. NIELSEN:: I do not want to take time to go into this matter any further, but I should like to impress upon the minister that the opinion has been expressed to me from certain quarters in this country that this department under Mrs. West is not giving a sufficient lead. I do not want to elaborate on that too much. I have met personally Mrs. West and her assistant, and I believe they are capable women. I am, however, well aware of the fact that they cannot go any further than the minister himself or his policy will permit them to go. They have held these positions for a comparatively short time, but I believe it would clear up a great deal of misunderstanding if the minister would give the committee a

War Appropriation-War Services
short account of the actual work that has been done by Mrs. West and her assistant, * and some details as to what they intend to do in the coming months, so that we may have a better understanding of the intentions of this division.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I should like very much to do that, if members of the committee would not keep on saying that my speeches are too long.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I do not think the minister realizes the importance of this matter.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: It is definitely important.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Just before the minister goes on with that, would he mind telling us what official or what branch of his department gave out the press release from which he read?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: The press release to which I referred was given by Mrs, West herself at a conference between Mrs. West and the officers of the central volunteer bureau in Toronto.


John Ritchie MacNicol: And Miss Hyndman would be present too, would she?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: No, not at that conference. The press report is from the Globe and Mail of May 12, 1942.


Major James William Coldwell: What does it say?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I have just been quoting it. I can quote it again, if my hon. friend wishes.


Major James William Coldwell: Was there more than that in the press report?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I have taken the three statements that are attributed to Miss Hyndman, and I have given what Mrs. West actually said. I have done that for the purpose of trying to indicate that there was a lack of understanding on the part of some people as to what really was being undertaken by the various organizations growing up in different parts of the country.


John Ritchie MacNicol: In the beginning I
gathered that the statement read was a rehearsal of the statement that was given to the press, and that the statement actually was given by Mrs. West while Miss Hyndman was present. Now I am told that this is the statement which was issued by Mrs. West. Has the minister a statement issued by Miss Hyndman?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: No; it is the other way round. Mrs. West had this press conference with officers of the central volunteer bureau in Toronto.
[Mrs Nielsen.]


John Ritchie MacNicol: And who were present then?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: The press and the central volunteer bureau.


John Ritchie MacNicol: And Miss Hyndman was not present?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: No; she was not. That release was given to the press and was reported in the Globe and Mail of May 12. Then the statements attributed to Miss Hyndman are said to be statements which she made on May 19 to the advisory council meeting of the Canadian women's voluntary services, Ontario division. We are trying to utilize the services of all organizations. The question of name, in the opinion of the organization itself, is not the most important consideration. In my view the name Canadian women's voluntary services-


John Ritchie MacNicol: Is it "voluntary" or
"volunteer"?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: It is "voluntary services". In my view that name is not altogether appropriate to the activities of this organization, because it is all-embracing. There are a number of activities in which this organization could engage. Likewise I do not think it should be permitted to grow into a national organization when there are many existing national organizations doing their tasks effectively. In my opinion the name is not accurately descriptive of the organization. I am quite prepared to grant registration of any fund for which such registration is applied- but under some other name. I am not putting this organization out of business, or even seeking to do so.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Would it not be better if they cooperated all round?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I think that is the solution. May I say that early in September I met the ladies actively engaged in this organization-Mrs. MacKenzie, Mrs. Conant and Mrs. Bryce-and indicated to them at that time, in Toronto, what the aims of our department were. I pointed out that I did not think they were proceeding in the way which would be most helpful to those aims. They were also advised to the same effect somewhat earlier. The organization sought the blessing of Lady Reading, but Lady Reading would not give it to them. The organization in Great Britain is nation-wide, and the situation there is not the same as it is here.
I assure hon. members that we gave this subject the most careful thought and consulted many people, and that the opinion was almost unanimous that we ought to embark

War Appropriation-War Services
upon a scheme having as its basis the idea of community solidarity. We ought not to try to regiment anyone, but should give guidance and direction, so that the leaders in the community might get together, cooperate with each other, and build their organization on a basis of community solidarity for peacetime social welfare and war-time activities. It was felt that on that basis they could serve the purposes of the community and the nation, and make their utmost contribution to the war effort.
I believe we can find work for these women.


George Taylor Fulford: Mr. Chairman, at the outset I wish to associate myself with the observations and suggestions of the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George with respect to lack of publicity in the United States respecting Canada and her war effort. I could go back to a time two years ago when I was particularly opposed to the principle of the foreign exchange control board, to that of restricting Canadian travel to the United States, and to the imposition by the United States of passport regulations respecting Canadian citizens. However, that is now water under the bridge.
I have no doubt, however, that those circumstances were the beginning of the rift which has been developing between personal friendships-and I do not mean national friendships-concerning Canadians and citizens of the United States. To counteract that condition it is most necessary that we give our United States friends as much publicity as possible with respect to what Canada has done and is doing in this war.
It has been said that citizens of the United States do not appreciate what we are doing because we have not conscription. I do not intend to discuss that point more than to say that when I addressed a meeting in Watertown, New York, about a month ago, and they heard how many men we have in uniform who are willing to serve the cause of democracy in any part of the world, they were astounded. After the meeting, one after another came to me and said that that was the most gratifying and pleasant news they had heard. They had no idea the condition was such-and Watertown is only twenty-eight miles from the international boundary line.
One peculiar feature in connection with the advertising of an internationally known product is that often an advertisement which will have tremendous appeal in the United States will have none in Canada. The reverse is also true. On many occasions something which will have appeal in Canada will have none in the United States. It has occurred
to me that one of the reasons why we are not putting the story of our war effort across in the United States is that we are not giving it the right appeal. For that reason I agree with the suggestion of the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George that we open a publicity bureau in New York city, and have it headed by the best man who can be chosen from this country. He need not necessarily be a publicity or newspaperman, although I should think a newspaperman would be an excellent choice. But when this office is opened I would suggest the retaining of the services of a first-class United States publicity or advertising agency.
I happen to be associated with a business which does advertising in both Canada and the United States. In Canada we do our advertising through a Canadian agency, but in the United States we use a United States agency because it understands the mass buying psychology of the citizens of that country. I know that United States citizens prefer to have their advertising in forms different from those we have in Canada. They respond more readily to newsreel publicity, and to pictures appearing in newspapers. Are we giving them enough of the kind of advertising they prefer?
May I at this time compliment the Canadian Broadcasting corporation upon the excellence of the international hook-ups carried by the big United States chains. I believe they have done a splendid job.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Do you mean Sister Susan and the like of that? I think that is the most awful stuff I have ever listened to.


George Taylor Fulford: We will leave "Sis" out of it. The point is that we are not going about this thing in the right way. It is vitally necessary that we do this because Canada forms an indivisible bond that links the British empire to the United States of America, and that bond must be stronger to-day than it ever was before. No doubt we are linked closer together because of our common effort in this war of survival than we have ever been before. Living as I do on the international border I realize, however, perhaps more than some who do not live on the border, that as individuals we are growing apart. Nothing in the last year or so has given me greater concern than that.
I hope the few suggestions I have made will be considered and that every effort will be made to publicize from one end of the United States of America to the other just what we are doing over here, what our soldiers, our sailors and our airmen are doing;

War Appropriation-War Services
we should let that country know that our armed forces are prepared to fight in any part of the world. Our airmen to-day are taking part in practically every major battle that occurs. It is an inspiring story, and if properly handled it can be put over in a big way.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Would the hon. member include in that story the present situation as to national unity in Canada?


George Taylor Fulford: I think that is a most inopportune statement to make at this time. I do not think that remark should have been made by the leader of the opposition. It is remarks of this kind that make the world believe we are not united.


Richard Burpee Hanson: We certainly have not national unity in this country and never have had. We never will have it under party government.


George Taylor Fulford: All I can say is that we hope we are successful in putting over this publicity in a right and proper way.


Mr. GILLIS:: Prior to coming into this house I worked for a living. I moved in circles where people were doing things. One of my great disillusionments has been to see the way in which serious business is conducted at this time.


John Ritchie MacNicol: In the House of Commons.


An hon. MEMBER:: You are wasting time yourself.


Clarence Gillis: I am not wasting time, and I shall prove it before I get through. A good deal of time has been wasted this afternoon. The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George and the last speaker referred to publicity in the United States. I think we are getting too much: there are a lot of things that we have no cause to broadcast or placard across the country. For the past two weeks I have sat here listening to the Minister of National War Services. In my opinion the majority of members of this house have no idea of the functions of that department, and I sometimes doubt whether the minister has. I say that quite frankly. I think I have some idea of the ramifications of the department under the minister's control. I have made some attempt to analyse its activities. When the Prime Minister tabled on March 24 the thirteen orders in council that set up the national selective service organization in this country, the status of this department changed completely.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Oh, no.


Clarence Gillis: That is my opinion and I am going to endeavour to prove it. During this

debate the minister has stood in his place and tried to answer questions which belonged rightly to three or four other departments.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: No.


Clarence Gillis: The Prime Minister's statement is set out on page 1563 of Hansard, and I am going to put that statement on the record again in order that we may discuss the functions of this department as they are related, not only to the calling of men for military service but to the mobilization of the manpower of this country. During the course of the discussion the minister has gone into matters that belonged rightly to the Department of Labour, the Department of Pensions and National Health, and several other departments. These matters will come before the house again at some time in the future and the discussion will be repeated. The Prime Minister said:
The primary responsibility for the extended scheme of national selective service has been placed upon the Minister of Labour. Under the Minister of Labour, the administrative responsibility for the direction and coordination of the policy has 'been vested in a director of national selective service and an associate director. Mr. Elliott M. Little has been appointed the director of national selective service, and Mr. Paul Goulet, the associate director.
The responsibility for increasing the total man-power available for war service has been largely centred in the Department of Labour.
The administrative responsibility for allocating man-power, for placing men and women in the most useful forms of service and for the direction of the women's organizations of this country, has been placed upon the Minister of Labour. The Minister of National War Services has been dealing this afternoon with the women's organizations. The minister took up much time and went to much trouble to analyse a problem that really belongs to another department. The Prime Minister continued:
The other departments of government which share in greater or less degree in the tasks of making man-power available for %var service and in the allocation of the available manpower are the departments of National War Services, Pensions and National Health, Munitions and Supply, Agriculture,-
The responsibility of dealing with men who may be exempt because they are engaged in the agricultural industry is the responsibility of the Minister of Agriculture.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Not at all.


Clarence Gillis: When the national selective service regulations were brought down there was a change in the status of the calling up of men for military service. Prior to national selective service being adopted the Minister

War Appropriation-War Services
of National War Services called up the proper age groups on the basis of their necessity for military service. When national selective service was set up the emphasis was no longer upon whether a man was eligible for military service, it was upon whether he was essential to a certain war industry.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: The national war services regulations are still in my department.


Clarence Gillis: That is quite true, but an entire administrative organization has been set up.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Not a new one.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Elliott M. Little.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Not for the enforcement of these regulations.


Clarence Gillis: He has to do with the mobilization of the man-power of the country.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Except the compulsory part.


Clarence Gillis: Your boards have changed.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: They are all the same.


Clarence Gillis: You may still have the same boards but the national selective service officers sit in on those boards.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: No.


Clarence Gillis: The minister stated a few days ago that they do.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Representatives of the director of national selective service have a right to appear before the boards and make representations, but they are not members of the boards.


Clarence Gillis: That makes the regulations crazier than ever. I had some confidence in the national selective service set-up which was to make plans for distributing our available man-power where it was required in relation to the needs of war production, after I had read some of the speeches that Mr. Little made since his appointment to the head of national selective service. I felt that it was in the hands of a man who was qualified both technically and practically for the job he had to do. I thought he showed a real grasp of the problem; and if Mr. Little were given latitude to organize things in the way he set out in his statements to the press and in his addresses to service clubs, I think he would do well in his position. But it is a different matter entirely if he is to be under the thumb of the Department of Agriculture, the Department of National War Services, the Department of Pensions and National Health and the Department of Labour, and if the complete mobilization of the man and womanpower of this country is still in the hands of a judge and a representative of agriculture. That is the board that is sitting now. I do not know who appointed the representative of agriculture.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: The hon. member is all mixed up.


Clarence Gillis: I listened as carefully as I could to the answers which the minister gave to questions as to the exemption of workers employed in agriculture, and he said that the exemption boards consisted of a judge and two other persons, one of whom was a farmer in the particular case.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: That was in Saskatchewan. One of the members of the board happens to be president of the United Farmers of Canada, Saskatchewan section.


Clarence Gillis: Does the same thing apply right across the country?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Not necessarily. In this case Mr. Bickerton is a member of the board.


Clarence Gillis: The government's national selective service organization does not mean a thing, for this reason. In the west the board still has a judge and a farmer on it. I do not know who sits on the board in the east, but we have had no trouble on that score in Nova Scotia.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Not the slightest.


Clarence Gillis: There has been absolutely no trouble with our board. It will be realized as we go along that national selective service is definitely related to the calling up of men for military service; and if Mr. Little is going to function properly, national selective service has to have some representation on the board. As I have said before, the emphasis is no longer upon whether a man is eligible for military service but whether he is essential to war industry, and who is going to decide whether a man is essential to an industry if there is not a national selective service officer on the boards in the different provinces? These boards sit in judgment on a question of life and death, deciding who is to be called up for military service. The national selective service officer in the different provinces is the head of the unemployment insurance office, and ninety-nine out of one hundred of the unemployment insurance officials in every section of Canada have been appointed because of political patronage.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: He does not decide
whether a man is to be called for military training.


Clarence Gillis: Who decides?
2906	COMMONS
War Appropriation-War Services


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: The divisional boards.


Clarence Gillis: And the national selective
service organization does not come into the picture at all?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: They d'o not make that decision.


Clarence Gillis: Here is something that happened this week, and I point it out to show why it is necessary for the national selective service officers to have the major say in who is to be called and who is not to be called.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I understood the hon.
member to say that he did not want them to have the say.


Clarence Gillis: I do. I say that the board is not in a position to segregate men into industry and the army and decide who is required for military service, without doing a serious injury to the industries of this country which are necessary to our war production. I have said all along and I repeat it now, that Canada's greatest war effort will be made along the production lines, and not in the field.
Here is a specific case that I wish to bring to the minister's attention. We know that aeroplanes are absolutely necessary on every front, that planes are needed and needed badly. Here is what happened at the de Havilland plant. On the 14th of this month some 400 employees of that plant were called up for military service. Nine of these men were expert tool makers who are essential to the industry and could not be replaced at a moment's notice. None of the men taken from this plant can be replaced inside of sixty days, by men equally efficient. As I say, 400 of these men were called up on the 14th of this month. One of these men, a tool maker, was ordered to go before his own private physician, where he had his blood pressure taken and his heart examined and he was declared Al. . He was given a ticket and sent to Ottawa to report at Connaught ranges. He was given forty-eight hours to do that job in.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Was he a first-class
tool maker?


Humphrey Mitchell: How old was he?


Clarence Gillis: Twenty-six. He tried to
get a week's extension from the examining board in Toronto so that he could straighten up his affairs, but they had no authority to grant him an extension. These 400 men are being sent to the different camps across Canada. Some of them came to Ottawa. The man to whom I was talking spent a week at Connaught ranges, and then he was reexam-[Mr. Gaiis.l
ined and) declared permanently medically unfit. He has been idle from the 14th to the 29th of this month.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Is he back at the
de Havilland plant?


Clarence Gillis: He was here in Ottawa to-day and is on his way back to de Havilland.
I say that to take these 400 men out of a very necessary war plant in this country and send them into the armed forces is doing a disservice to this country. Think how serious it is for an aeroplane factory to lose 400 men with experience.
I have three of Mr. Little's speeches here, and I can agree with every word of them. I do not think what I have described would have happened in Toronto if Mr. Little, with the ideas he has expressed, had sat in with that board. I think these 400 men were contributing more to the country's war effort in producing planes for our boys who are out in the field than they could do in pounding a parade ground somewhere in Canada. Armaments and munitions are what we need. That is why I emphasize that if the government had sufficient confidence in Mr. Little, who has a fairly good grasp of what is necessary in the mobilization of workers and of how to relate our man-power needs in industry to our war effort, then instead of involving national selective service with three or four other departments, they would allow Mr. Little and his organization to say who is essential to industry, and his organization should not only be given representation on the board which will handle the call-ups from now on but be given the major say. I would judge from what happened in this case that there is competition; the army wants more men and wants them in a hurry, and perhaps wants them before national selective service gets operating as it should operate and, I believe, as it will operate in the future. As I see it now, the whole question is handled by different departments, and there is nobody with supreme responsibility, nobody in a position to give direction.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There is no coordination.


Clarence Gillis: Somebody has to take hold of the thing and organize it, and I thought that that was Little's job.


Humphrey Mitchell: I may say to my hon. friend that it will be done-make no mistake about it.


Clarence Gillis: There is an aeroplane plant disrupted right now in Toronto. Take four hundred men out of a plant and it does not do it any good.

War Appropriation-War Services


Humphrey Mitchell: After all is said and done, the facts are not here. A toolmaker is a highly-skilled mechanic. The mere fact that a man says he is a toolmaker does not make him one.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: But he has been employed for three years.


Humphrey Mitchell: That may be. We have passed through the stage of the establishment of the regulations, and after some difficulties in Montreal we sent a representative of the national labour supply council as an adviser on the board there. As my hon. friend admitted this afternoon, the boards in his province have been very fair. Whether you and I like it or not we have got to put the women into industry and the young men into the fighting forces. It is not a question of what you want to do, it is a question of what you have got to do. I want first to see the evidence that this man is a toolmaker.
I will agree that while it is comparatively easy to get numbers of majors and colonels, and captains in the navy-I say this with no disrespect to them-it is very difficult to get highly trained toolmakers.


George Hugh Castleden: Then why are you taking them out of industry?


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend asks why am I taking them out. I have just pointed out to my hon. friend that first you have to have the evidence; the mere fact that a man tells me that he is a toolmaker does not make him one.


George Hugh Castleden: He was employed for three years.


Humphrey Mitchell: That is all right. You show me his card and I will tell you whether he is a toolmaker. I know what a toolmaker is. When the war broke out there were-on paper-only 6,300 toolmakers in the whole dominion-I mean persons who said they were toolmakers. I agree that if this man is a toolmaker it is criminal that he should be in the fighting forces. The national labour board has a representative and adviser on the board in Toronto of which this man spoke, and I am doubtful, when the thing comes to be analysed, and the man's card is examined, if it will be shown that the man is a toolmaker.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is a question of fact.


Humphrey Mitchell: Of course it is.


Clarence Gillis: I hope the minister is right. But four hundred men were taken out of a shell plant, nine of them being toolmakers
and one a charge hand. If there is a national selective service man on that board in Toronto Mr. Little should take him to task, because certainly he is not acting in accordance with the opinions expressed by Mr. Little in many of these press statements.
The minister says we must put the women into industry. I agree that that should be done when there are no longer any unemployed men in that section who could be used; women should then be trained to take their places in industry in order to fill the places of those who are going into the forces. Those who are charged with the responsibility of organizing this service must see to it that women are not brought into industry for the purpose of reducing wages. I have a letter from Hamilton, signed by the president and the secretary of a union, which says:
Specific cases at present show that male employees at an hourly earning of 80 cents per hour are being replaced by female workers at 33 cents per hour. These male workers are placed on other jobs at rates of 50 cents per hour and a few cases of 574 cents per hour.
We believe these conditions were only to be brought about in case of male employees being called for military purposes.
They thought, as the minister stated a moment ago, it was only when men were called for military service that they would be replaced, and then that the wages should not be reduced. If women are taken in the plant and do the same work which has been done by men, the same wages should be paid. That is a specific case from a Hamilton plant. I hope the minister will see that the matter is checked up.
With respect to the setting up of these boards and the question of exemption and the essentiality of the men to industry, the boards as constituted at the present time are in my opinion not competent to sit in and judge impartially in cases of the kind. Previously they were. It was a straight matter of calling men for military service.


Humphrey Mitchell: The question raised by the hon. member was just as important before national selective service as it is to-day.


Clarence Gillis: You have had the odd case. To-day you are going to get dozens.


Humphrey Mitchell: I admit that some will squeeze through the barrier. That happens in all big undertakings such as this.


George Hugh Castleden: Four hundred of them?


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend says four hundred, but he does not know what he is talking about. Perhaps he will let me finish my statement and we can get along. It was just as essential before selective service that
Royal Canadian Air Force

key men in essential industries should not be called up as it is to-day. The conditions then were just the same as they are now. I say that just to put the matter fairly before the committee.


Clarence Gillis: The minister is right to a certain extent, but from another point of view he is not. Many industries have been organized in this country during the past year. Practically all the available man-power of the country is either in the armed services or employed in industry; and as the age groups are advanced, when the call goes out for military service most of these people will be coming from either the essential or the non-essential industries. I have letters from several of the steel-workers' organizations. In that industry most of the men are trained for a specific job.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Crerar the house adjourned at six p.m.
Monday, June 1, 1942