1942-05-01

[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. G. TURGEON (Cariboo) moved that the second report of the special committee on reconstruction and reestablishment, presented to the house on April 30, be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CYRUS MACMILLAN (Queens) moved that the first report of the special committee on fend settlement of veterans of the present war, presented to the house on April 30, be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

War Appropriation

[Stage Direction]
BRITISH	COLUMBIA-HUNGER STRIKES-PROCE-

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. A. CRUICKSHANK (Fraser Valley):: I should like to ask the Minister
of Labour two questions with respect to a matter which I believe is of urgent national importance, owing to the prominence it has received in the Vancouver Daily Province of April 27. What steps are being taken to maintain the prestige of the authorities in connection with the hunger strikes by the Japanese in British Columbia? Are wealthy Japanese allowed to settle wherever they see fit, and in whatever manner they desire, for the duration?


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: My reply to the first question is that any Japanese guilty of breach of discipline are being promptly dealt with by the British Columbia security commission, and those who do not comply with instructions are immediately interned. With regard to the second question, no Japanese, regardless of their financial standing, are being allowed to relocate in any part of British Columbia or anywhere else without first receiving the permission of the security commission.



WAR APPROPRIATION BILL


[Stage Direction]
Thev house resumed from Tuesday, April 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 to his majesty aid for national defence and security-Mr. Ilsley-Mr. Bradette in the chair.
Mr. ADAMSON:: As a member of the
house I believe I have the right to speak on matters of vital importance, despite the fact that I happen to be a member of the armed forces. Naturally there are certain limitations with respect to what I can or should say, and I shall follow the procedure in the British House of Commons. Having due regard to those limitations I shall endeavour to bring before the house certain matters which I consider it is my duty to discuss. There are a number of things I may say here, and a number I may say in another place. I shall endeavour to keep the subjects I may discuss here separate .from those of another nature which may be discussed elsewhere.
Discussing Canada's war effort a British general, not now in Canada, said to me the
other day, "One of the greatest difficulties you have in Canada, one of the besetting sins of the Canadian war effort, is the office-bound staff."


Mr. RALSTON:: The office-bound staff?


Agar Rodney Adamson: Yes, and by that he
meant that the officers on the various staffs do not visit the training establishments as they should do. I believe I have had a rather unique experience in that not only have I had the opportunity and the ability on frequent occasions to visit national defence headquarters, but I have been in the districts and with the field formations. What we are up against in the army to-day is the task of correlating our points of view. There is a certain point of view in national defence headquarters, a second point of view in the districts, and still another point of view in the field formations. All the difficulties which have arisen have been largely due to the fact that the points of view of the districts, the field formations and national defence headquarters have been divergent. We have tried to work as a unit by carrying on too much correspondence, and that is the first point I wish to discuss to-day.
In over two years of war I have had only one visit in my own branch from a superior officer attached to national defence headquarters. I suggest that visits between the districts and headquarters should be very frequent, and I also suggest that the district staff officers should have more opportunity to visit the field formations. To show the enormous size of the work may I point out that during the last year I travelled between 25,000 and 30,000 miles for the department. Even so, there were in one district two establishments I was not able to visit in that one year. That is the first problem we are up against.
I would suggest that the training officers should be rotated between the basic and advanced training centres and by headquarters. The officers responsible for the training of the Canadian army would then have the point of view not only of headquarters but of the districts and the training centres themselves. We have tried to do this by correspondence, but the main difficulty is the fact that correspondence ties officers to their desks at headquarters. One visit of a training officer, even a junior officer, to the training centres would do more good than all the correspondence one could write. I believe they should be rotated.
I wonder whether the house realizes the complexity of the Canadian army to-day. First you have the headquarters establish-
War Appropriation

meat, then the districts, then the command headquarters, then the basic training centres, advanced training centres, technical training schools, veterans' guards companies, specialized units, and active army units in the fourth division. Each of these units has a definite and unique part to play. Unless the members of these units are rotated with their own headquarters, we shall not achieve the true efficiency that we should have in our army.
I should like to mention one or two matters as examples. I would refer first to the syllabus for physical training. The training centre officers tell me that with the PT syllabus now in effect they find it difficult to keep the interest of the men. They have no authority to alter this basic training syllabus. Our training is in a constant state of evolution, and they tell me that if this syllabus were modified even slightly it would help the morale of the troops and make them more keen about their training. Hon. members will realize that it would be manifestly impossible to allow the officers at the training centres to alter the training syllabus as they wished. But I do suggest that there should be an opportunity for the officers in the directorate of military training at Ottawa to go to these basic training centres and find out how these syllabuses could be altered. Our training changes after practically every new action or campaign fought in the war.
Another matter has to do with the basic training centres. The first thing you try to do with a new recruit is to make him enthusiastic about the army. The first few days in the army constitute a most vital part of the young man's military life. The first thing you do is to give the young man an old Ross rifle, dated 1905, probably with the bolt missing or the sight gone. He is told that this is to be his personal weapon of protection. This rifle may be all right for drill purposes, but it is good for nothing else and the psychological reaction is bad. I believe the department should consider providing a complete set of the most modern weapons for each basic training centre so that the young soldier, instead of seeing these dreadful old guns, can be shown the modern Lee-Enfield rifle, the two-inch or three-inch mortars and the rest of the excellent weapons we have. I understand that in the United States army the first thing they do with their recruit is to take him out on the range, give him a rifle, and tell him that there is the target, try to hit it. He is thus given confidence in his weapon. I mention these old Ross rifles as a sample of what we are up against.
Then there is the selection of men for the specialized branches. This selection is made

at the basic training centres which I consider a most important part of our army. The raw recruit comes into the basic training centre, in most cases wanting to do a job. After h$ has spent the prescribed time there, he is selected to go into the infantry, the artillery, the ordnance, the signals, the medical corps or some other branch of the army. This is just one more reason why we should do everything in our power to provide adequate equipment. With such equipment we would be able to find out more about the capabilities of our troops.
The next step is from the basic to the advanced training centre. In the advanced training centre considerably more equipment is available. Naturally you cannot teach a man to run before he walks, and a much better job of equipping is done at the advanced training centres. It is here that the soldier really begins to appreciate his responsibilities. It is here that he realizes the job ahead of him. He begins to realize what a lot he has to learn. Here again I earnestly suggest that training officers be rotated so that the advanced training officer in the advanced training centre will know the difficulties which the district headquarters are up against and what national defence headquarters is up against. If the officers were rotated in this way, a tremendous amount of correspondence that is now carried on would be eliminated.
From the point of view again of the advanced training officer, he is trying to do a job; he is up against a difficulty; he is out with the troops. He explains that difficulty in writing as well as he can, and it has to go through the district headquarters and from there to national defence headquarters. If the officer at national defence headquarters would come to the training centre and spend a day in the field; if he would perhaps live for a month at the advanced training centre, the advanced training officer could explain to him in ten minutes what he is up against, rather than have to put it in writing and send it through the usual channels. In this war of movement time is absolutely vital, and time is just as vital in training as it is in actual combat. I do suggest that this method would speed up your training and make it more efficient.
Stonewall Jackson said this about war:
War means fighting. The business of the soldier is to fight. Armies are not called out to dig trenches, to throw up breastworks, to live in camps, but to find the enemy and strike him; to invade his country and do him all possible damage in the shortest possible time. This will involve great destruction of life and property while it lasts; but such a war will be of necessity of brief continuance, and so would be an economy of life and property, in

War Appropriation
the end. To move swiftly, strike vigorously, and secure all the fruits of victory is the secret of successful war.
If anything has shown that he was right when he said that, it has been the successful campaigns of the German army in the present war. Each of them has been violent, rapid, and tremendously destructive, but I think it can also be said of them that they were all economical of life compared with a long campaign of attrition, compared with battles like Passchendaele in the last war, compared with trench warfare. If we are to defeat the powers arrayed against us, the type of warfare described by Stonewall Jackson is the type of warfare we shall have to fight. I believe that is generally realized, but it must be driven home every day to every officer and every soldier in the Canadian army that tremendous speed is essential.
Officers returning from the recent campaign in Libya-we have seen quite a number of them and have talked with them-have said that one of their difficulties was the breakdown of communications, the lack of coordination, shall I say, between the air force and the army. In this war every man, particularly every officer, and more particularly every staff officer, has to think in a three-dimensional plane. If you are in the army you must think also of the air force. If you are in the air force you must think also of the army. You must know the limitations of the weapons of the sister forces, their capabilities and their characteristics. I suggest to the government that that is one of the things we in Canada are not teaching. I suggest that there should be a joint staff of officers who are trained in the air and on the ground. I make that suggestion most sincerely. Suppose an air officer is put in a tank. At once he gets an entirely new conception of its limitations of vision, the hazards of ground, and other features of tank warfare. Or put a tank officer from one of the armoured divisions in the air, and at once he gets an entirely new conception of camouflaging his tank, of its vulnerability, its ability to move with speed and a thousand and one other things. It is an extremely technical matter and one that requires constant study. One requisite in the army to-day is constant education. No one should be in the army who is not prepared to work at his job and to learn all the time. Every new campaign has new lessons to teach. Let me give an example of the sort of thing that happens at the present time.
The other day in England an officer wanted photographs taken of a certain area. He telephoned to the local air force command saying he wanted those photographs taken. The air
force commander asked, "What is your ceiling there?" The army officer could not tell him what his ceiling was. He did not know as elementary a thing as that about the sister force. Every army officer who is in charge of the movement of troops should be able to cooperate with the air force and know and understand the limitations of aircraft. Here, simply because of a lack of knowledge of the air arm, a request was made which it was impossible to carry out.
There are one or two small points I might also mention. There have been a number of accidents to mechanical transport. We have standing accident boards. They have them in England. The air force asked me, "What are you people doing about night blindness?"
I do not know what is being done about night blindness, but we have had quite a number of accidents which have been caused by people whose vision at night was faulty, who were suffering from some degree of night blindness. Here is another example of how the air force and the army can cooperate. I do not know what is being done about night blindness, but the subject is very important. To a man driving extremely valuable equipment, and going into action in the dark, vision is one of the most essential things. We have found that many accidents in England have been caused by night blindness.
A word about discipline. It is no secret that one of the principal troubles is absence without leave. It is not as general as many people think, but it does exist, and is probably responsible for 80 per cent of detention crime in this country. Absence without leave is punishable by stopping a man's pay, perhaps for fourteen, perhaps for twenty-eight days, but the loss of pay goes on much longer than that because his allowance is paid to his wife and family, while he draws no pay on pay day. His psychological reaction is a loss of interest in the army; his attitude is, "what's the use?" This matter has been brought to my notice, as a member of this house, by constituents of mine who are in the army. They say, "We lose heart when we find that we are not to get any pay for a month, or even two months. There is no incentive to do well; why should we not go absent without leave again?" One tries to argue with such a man, but his is really a psychopathic case; a great deal of work has to be done on it, and if the condition goes on for a considerable time, his wife, family and dependents suffer also. I have a suggestion to make in that connection in a minute.
Another point I want to mention is that a great many soldiers have to wait a considerable time for district courts-martial. The judge
War Appropriation

advocate-general's department is required to prepare cases for courts-martial, and nearly all of them are for absence without leave. They are always very busy.
My suggestion is that the training centre commandants be given more power to deal summarily with these cases. There should be some system of immediate punishment, such as punishment drill, so that the man who is on leave and is tempted to outstay it will reflect, "I shall have to walk up that so-and-so hill a dozen times if I don't get back to the camp in time", and will make every effort to avoid the penalty. Let the punishment be immediate. Do not keep men hanging around in detention, not carrying on training, waiting for district courts-martial. Remember that we are terribly short of time for training.
There are a few other matters, concerning dependents' allowances, which I think should be brought before the committee. First let me mention the matter of soldiers' children. The soldier, going overseas, leaves his wife and family here in Canada. The wife gets a job in a munitions factory, and there is, I think, every reason why she should. It is important that everybody should be usefully employed, and many of these women are doing an excellent job. But they leave for work at an early hour in the morning and they do not get back before six o'clock at night. In the interval the children are entirely without parental supervision. Consequently we find in Toronto -and I believe the situation is general-a large increase of delinquency among children. I suggest that the minister's department should consult with other departments to see whether something cannot be done such as they are doing in England. In the schools of England a meal is provided at mid-day for the child whose parents are working. Also they have established certain types of nursery schools to take care of the children of soldiers and others whose work prevents them from remaining at home. Nothing can be more upsetting to the soldier overseas than to read in the newspaper or have somebody report to him that his eight-year-old boy has been haled before the children's court for stealing chocolate bars or throwing stones through a window. This is a matter for interdepartmental cooperation, and it should be attended to right away, for it affects the morale of the army. The soldier concludes that we who are still in Canada are not looking after his dependents, and there is nothing more likely to destroy his confidence in the cause for which he is fighting.
I have had mothers come to me and say, 'T get no allowance although my boy is in the army, because he was on relief before he
fMr. Adamson.]
joined up and was not contributing to my support." For that reason, it appears, the department take the attitude that they should not be held responsible for the support of the mother. That attitude, it seems to me, is definitely wrong and false. It penalizes the soldier. If the man does not go into the army he can get work at $6 or $7 a day and thus support his mother, but if he enlists she is penalized because he was previously unemployed. Some attention should be paid to that, and very quickly.


Mr. McNIVEN:: Have you brought such
cases to the attention of the dependents' allowance board?


Agar Rodney Adamson: I have brought one case to their attention and I did get action on it.


Donald Alexander McNiven: I have had no difficulty
with them.


Agar Rodney Adamson: In two cases I got
action, but several other cases have been reported to me in which nothing was done.


Mr. MUTCH:: The provision is there.


Donald Alexander McNiven: It is the law, and there
should be action.


Agar Rodney Adamson: There has not been
action.


Mr. GOLDING:: That is a long time ago.


Agar Rodney Adamson: It was six months ago.


Donald Alexander McNiven: It must have been at least as long as that.


Agar Rodney Adamson: No; it was not more
than six months ago.


George Alexander Cruickshank: The hon. member started late.


Agar Rodney Adamson: No. I started long before that.
Another matter that I have in mind has reference to pensions in respect of men killed or injured in Canada. Very often men have been on leave, on pass away from military duty, and have been injured or killed, but the department has taken the attitude that it was no responsibility of theirs. That attitude should be reviewed. I consider it is the responsibility of the government just as much in Canada as in England.
I leave these suggestions with the government. The most important thing of all is to see to it, from the point of view of headquarters, from the point of view of field formation, that there is correlation. Do not do it by letter. Let us have an interchange of views so that we can get down to brass tacks with the men actually in the camps and training centres so that we shall know

War Appropriation
what we are trying to do, and so that they will know our difficulties and we shall know theirs. Five minutes spent in such discussion is worth all the correspondence in the world.
I am not going to bring up the question of reserves, nor am I going to bring up the question of home defence personnel in the active army, except to say this. I believe that the Canadian army should be the Canadian army and that, now that the plebiscite is over, there should be no distinction as to where a man serves. The sooner we can do away with home defence personnel in active units, the better it will be because we shall then be able to strike the greatest blow for improved morale in the Canadian army.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend has mentioned quite a number of points that may be interesting to other members of the committee and perhaps I might be permitted to deal with them, though not at length, to indicate to hon. members what has been done and what is being done along the lines to which the hon. gentleman has referred. I do not think he does the British officer whom he quotes quite justice. I am not quite satisfied that the British officer, if he is of the type of British officer I know, made any such statement as that the besetting sin of the Canadian war effort was the office-bound staff. I know British officers well enough to know that they do not criticize in that tone or spirit, and I suggest to my hon. friend that he make the criticism his own and not bolster it up with a statement by a British officer whose name he does not give and whom, I am satisfied, he misquotes in using that expression.
My hon. friend has referred to the matter of personal contact between headquarters and districts. He has referred to something that is so elementary that I do not think it needs much emphasis from any of us. We all understand that if it were possible by personal visit to indicate all the things that have to be communicated in connection with the army or in connection with business, it would be highly desirable to do so, supplementing it with matters on record, so that people will not misunderstand what has been said. That is impossible in connection with the army and has been from the beginning. We have been just as busy as we could be in raising, equipping, organizing, feeding, clothing and transporting the army, but there has been no possibility of building up this staff as we should have liked to build it up. I know there is some criticism in this house in certain quarters, indicating that we have too much staff. I say to you, Mr. Chairman,
that this view is not shared by very many who know the organization of the armed forces, either navy, army or air.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: You do not say anything about the source of the criticism.


James Layton Ralston: What I am endeavouring to do, and I say this frankly, is to increase the staff in order to meet the very natural demand which comes from all quarters, not simply from districts but from headquarters as well, for particulars, to study problems on the ground, to meet with officers on the firing line, if I may put it that way, and to endeavour to assist in their problems. My hon. friend is aware, I know, that I do not profess to suggest for a moment that the liaison has been perfect, but I do suggest that there has been considerable; and the fact that he as an intelligence officer has not been officially called to headquarters, or that he has had only one visit from an intelligence officer at headquarters, does not by any means represent the liaison between headquarters and officers in the district.
Let me say this in connection with the district officers commanding. As my hon. friend knows, there was, as soon as the chief of the general staff and I came back from England a year ago, an immediate conference of D.O.C.'s from all over the dominion. We cannot have them in very often, but we brought them in then to discuss the whole matter with regard to the war prospects, and they were brought in again only quite recently. But that does not represent liaison, because, particularly in some parts of the country which have been concerned with regard to their defence, there have been visits from senior officers from headquarters. I instance the chief of the general staff who in December, went to the Pacific coast, and the vicechief of the general staff, who went at the time I went to the Pacific coast, or three months thereafter. The chief of the general staff has been on both coasts, and so far as the staff officers are concerned, I have made it a rule in connection with every convoy to see that some senior staff officer is there.
Perhaps I might give to the committee a list of the conferences which have been held at headquarters. That means officers coming from districts. The D.O.C. conference was held some time ago, and there was another in March this year. The A.A.Q.M.G.'s held a conference, and district recruiting officers held two conferences in the last six months-about six months. In January we had a conference of commandants of all basic training centres straight across Canada, and this is a matter
War Appropriation

to which my hon. friend devoted a considerable portion of his remarks, namely, work in the basic training centres. We brought the commandants of the basic training centres in in the month of January, and we had a conference of commandants and officers of training centres and advanced training centres as well. That was the middle of last year, the latter half of the year. We had a general staff officers conference in September and district ordnance officers conferences in October, 1941, and February, 1942. At the present time the chief of the general staff, with Brigadier Weeks, who is officer in charge of training, and a deputy chief of the general staff, and Brigadier Macklin, from the adjutant-general's branch, are on a ten-days' tour. They are not attempting to cover all Canada by any means but are making a meticulous visit to all training centres in Ontario. They will be out for something like ten days. As a matter of fact we have arranged the organization of the general staff so that we shall have an officer on the road practically all the time in connection with training. We have so arranged it that there are two officers under Brigadier Weeks, that is, Colonel Whitelaw, who is in charge of the regular military training, and under him is Colonel Sparling, who was overseas and who now has come back. In the other branch of training we have Colonel Kennedy, who is director of trades training and who also came back from overseas for the purpose of taking up that work. Then we have a liaison officer who himself can go out, or who can take the position of officers in the department in order to permit them to go out.
In connection with this matter of training my hon. friend lays down again what I think are some pretty elementary principles. He says that at the basic training centres-I believe this was the expression he used-there should be a full or complete set of the most modern weapons, and he deprecated very much the idea of issuing what he called the old Ross rifle. I wish to assure my hon. friend that there are not very many new Ross rifles in the Dominion of Canada or anywhere else. There are not very many new mark I Lees, or new mark II Lees, or new mark III Lees. These are old rifles, but that does not interfere with their efficiency. I suggest to the committee that while we would like to supply all basic training centres with complete sets of the most modern weapons, we in this country have some obligation to the people who are on the firing lines at the present moment, who are using weapons of that kind and who are calling for more. Speaking for myself, I do not propose to take the position that we will insist on having the most modern

weapons in the basic training centres in Canada when they are needed more urgently elsewhere, where the fighting is active.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I did not suggest that the whole establishment should be issued with the modern weapons, but a complete set of these weapons should be there, to be seen.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend said that a complete set of the most modern weapons should be at each basic training centre. The hon. member went on to say that we were issuing a lot of old Ross rifles, and he deprecated that very much. A soldier cannot be issued anything but an old Ross rifle. He may see one of the modern weapons; that is a different story (


Agar Rodney Adamson: He could be issued a Ross rifle that would fire. These things were made in 1905, without any sights or bolts.


James Layton Ralston: Perhaps I do my hon. friend an injustice, but I was sure the impression he left with the committee was that it was all wrong to issue a recruit an old Ross rifle.


Richard Burpee Hanson: To be perfectly honest, are they not obsolete now?


James Layton Ralston: No, not for training. I would say that one could teach recruits the grip, the firing positions, trigger pressing, aids to rapid fire, and so on. I think the only thing one could not teach them on a Ross rifle, and it could be taught by means of diagrams, would be the sight, because the Ross rifle sight is different from the Lee sight.


Agar Rodney Adamson: These rifles are without sights and without bolts.


James Layton Ralston: I say to my hon. friend that he does not know what he is talking about when he states that large numbers of men at basic training centres are issued Ross rifles without sights andwthout bolts. He had better go to the basic training centres and see.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There are rifles issued at the basic training centres which, when the butts are grounded, have the bolts fall out. That has happened.


James Layton Ralston: I understand that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Then why deny it?


James Layton Ralston: I am not denying it at all. I am saying that rifles issued at the basic training centres are, generally speaking, not Ross rifles with the bolts out. I want to tell my hon. friend that these rifles are issued for the purpose of teaching musketry, and the recruits are given sufficient rifles with which

War Appropriation
to fire. I say to the committee quite frankly that I propose to follow this course until we have enough rifles for active work. I find that there has been practically no complaint from the basic training centres in that connection.
Let us understand this rifle situation. I have indicated before, and I have never concealed from the house, that the rifle situation is not as we would like to have it. At the same time we are doing everything we can to use the rifles we have to the best advantage, in the places where they are most needed, having regard to their condition. If my hon. friend and the committee knew as much as I do with regard to requirements for rifles in connection with this war, there would not be any complaint as to the fact that Ross rifles, some of them even without bolts, happen to be used in the basic training centres. We cannot issue complete sets of the most modern weapons to the basic training centres. Further, the training carried on there is not being carried on by those of us who have not been overseas in this war. It is being carried on by men who have come back from England and who know what training is going on there for the sort of warfare that we anticipate in this war.
I just want to give the committee a list in this connection. I have mentioned it before, but now I have the list under my hand. We have fourteen British officers here for three months as instructors. We have eleven officers from Canada on exchange with the British army at the present time. Some 93 officers have just returned to assume duties as second in command and as commanders of companies. Some 145 officers and 368 other ranks are now abroad or in transit for courses, and they will be brought back here later. Some 263 officers and 900 other ranks have just returned for instructional duties at advanced and basic training centres. That is the thousand men I mentioned the other night.


Agar Rodney Adamson: They have just arrived?


James Layton Ralston: Certainly. My hon. friend laughs about it. What is wrong with that?


Agar Rodney Adamson: I said it was an excellent thing.


James Layton Ralston: Thank you very much. Then seventy-two officers and other ranks have just returned from overseas after attachment for three months to the Canadian army overseas, and seventy-six are now going the other way for three months. These are the sort of men who are carrying on the training in these basic training centres. I do not profess to know very much about training. I can only give the syllabus as I have it, but
I want to say to the committee that the syllabus is under constant review by the training officers, who I think know their jobs fairly well. The changes are issued from month to month, as the opportunity arises. I would think-and I want to make sure about this, because my hon. friend struck a point in which I am very much interested- that the suggestion of a practical officer training men would receive the utmost attention and would be acted upon, unless there was something wrong with it. What my hon. friend said was that an officer at a training centre was not allowed to change the syllabus. Obviously you cannot have a syllabus prepared by people who we think understand what is required in that connection, and having due regard to the practice in the United Kingdom, and then have it changed at will by someone who thinks he knows a better way. But you can immediately take up any suggestion which is made by any officer. I agree with my hon. friend in this respect-and I have tried to preach it in connection with the Canadian army-that I believe not only is there always a difficulty in bringing together the people in the district and the people at headquarters, but there is a difficulty to some extent in bringing together the ranks themselves, that is to say the man who is very much senior and the man who is junior. The man who is junior is working away at his job, and he gets the idea that was expressed by my hon. friend, that any suggestion he makes will, of course, not be listened to by the people up top. As a result he does not make the suggestion. I have said I felt that our army, in order to get along and make the most of its opportunities, should have people pressing from the bottom up and from the top down in order to get together in connection with these matters.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is that known among the junior officers?


James Layton Ralston: I have tried to make it known, and I know the chief of the general staff has tried to make it known.


Agar Rodney Adamson: That is just what I want to bring about, the interchange of junior officers. Do not send a general round to the basic training centres and try to get ideas from your junior officers. They will not give them to him.


James Layton Ralston: Junior officers do not generally talk to the inspecting officer. The junior officer talks, I think, to the man with whom he works in the training centre. But the general, whoever he may be, is the man who has authority on the ground to make the change. I think that is the advantage of
War Appropriation

the minister going around once in a while. I say that because there are certain things which can be done off the bat. Otherwise, if you sent a junior officer he would have to write or to wire to his headquarters and be supported with documents. The result would be that the matter would get into the mails and it would be some time before action could be taken.
If at all possible, there is advantage in sending a senior officer who has power immediately to make a change or to give instructions that changes be made. There is no difficulty if the principle I suggest is adopted on the part of the senior as well as the junior officer, namely, that the senior officer sees to it that the junior officer's ideas are given a fair trial and a fair chance, and that they are receptive to suggestions which come in, notwithstanding the fact that they do not come from people on his staff.
The vice-chief of the general staff and I were out west for some time. I hope the committee will pardon my mentioning myself so much, but I make these observations simply to illustrate how time and again we ran across suggestions which had been made by a junior officer. We might find some equipment which was not there, and which the district did not know about. We would be told, "I have indented for it"-that is the favourite expression, as my hon. friend will know. That is the favourite word used in the district, the training centre or anywhere else.
. Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury): It means a requisition?


James Layton Ralston: Yes, a requisition. It would mean that he has signed a request. Then he might get the idea that that is all that ought to be done. He may be discouraged and think that there is no use doing anything else, and that that is the army way of doing things. In the army you can get after a thing, indent, call up somebody on the telephone and say, "Did you get it; is it on your desk?" He probably finds it on his desk, with twenty or thirty other files. There may be need to deal with that quickly, but if it is not called particularly to a person's attention it may go to the bottom of a file, and . not be dealt with "for the next day or so. Then it may go next day to the master-general of the ordnance and be sorted' out there, with the result that it may take four or five days, or a week to deal with the matter. But in connection with a particular item a junior officer can follow it through. He can be encouraged to follow it through, either by telephone or otherwise; and if he were we would get certain things done that are necessary.

I beg the committee not to thirds that you can break down army or business routine and make it work. You will have chaos if you do. But you can have a sense of proportion in connection with the army, as well as with anything else. You can try to pick out things that are important.
Of course I am talking of departmental procedure. The danger is that a red tag may be placed on the file, marking it urgent. But everything of a routine nature will be tagged, with the result everything becomes urgent, and you are back to where you started. So I say there is room for initiative, and the actions of junior officers should be encouraged so that they would press, and do a little more than just indent. They should realize that their representations should not only receive consideration, but be acted upon.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not know a great deal about the army, but I talk to officers who do know. Recently I had a conversation with an army officer with respect to this very matter of equipment. He made an observation to me which I shall pass on to the minister, because I believe it is sound. He said, "Is it not true that a man in training should, while training, have the weapons he proposes to use when he goes to war?" That is the idea, as briefly as I can express it. The minister has said it is not possible-and I quite agree. But should that not be the objective? It will be understood I am not raising this question with a view to reverting to the scolding the minister gave my colleague. I thought the minister was, perhaps, a little unfair, but I am content to let that pass. I suggest that the principle is sound, if it can be achieved. I believe it is a question of the ways and means, and the ability to achieve the objective.
The minister made it quite clear-and I agree with him-that if Lee-Enfield rifles are required elsewhere more than on our training fields, then they should be elsewhere. He will find no criticism I am sure from this side of the house on that score. But we are now in the war two and a half years, and I had thought that the rifle situation had improved. I should be glad if we were told just what the position is in that connection.


James Layton Ralston: The leader of the opposition has enunciated what I believe is an absolutely sound principle. I am not speaking as an expert, but it is obvious that if you can give a man the exact weapon he will use in the field, then that must be absolutely desirable. I agree that that should be the objective. I believe we have attained that at training centres with respect to every weapon except the rifle-and the hon. member for York

War Appropriation
West will have some information on that point. With respect to rifles we are using, shall I say, a different model from the rifle which may be used. As a matter of fact there are four marks of Lee-Enfields, two marks of Ross, besides the Springfields to which reference has been made. I could give the committee privately what the situation is in that regard; I believe I intimated it during the secret session. I can say only this, that the rifle situation is improving. It is improving very steadily, so far as production is concerned. The point is that demands, as well as production, are increasing; and that is the difficulty. The further point is that Canada's rifles are pretty well supposed to go round the world.
I referred to the officers who had been brought over from the other side, to indicate that there was liaison in that respect. I did not mention something which the hon. member for York West may know better than I, namely that conferences are held from time to time by the district officers commanding with the officers in command of units of the reserve army, and with the officers in command of the training centres in their districts; as well as of the active units in their districts.
I know that some general staff officers in charge of training pay visits more often than others. But what we are doing at headquarters, and have been doing-and we are endeavouring to do the same in the districts-is to go over the staff so that these visits can be made. So I leave that particular subject with the same thought with which I began the discussion of it by saying that I am thoroughly in accord with the idea as it has been expressed concerning the desirability of personal visits in every possible instance.
The hon. member mentioned joint operation. I do not believe the committee realizes just how closely the three arms of the service work. I have tried to make that clear before. We do work at headquarters through interservice committees. We have joint service committees on magazines, hospitals, pay and allowances, chemical warfare and conservation. We have a joint chiefs-of-staff committee which meets each week. We have a defence council which meets every week and which consists of the three ministers, three deputy ministers and the three chiefs of staff. There is the junior war staff at Kingston teaching combined operations. So really we are not neglectful of the principle which has been suggested, namely that as far as possible we should be familiar with the aims and work of the other armed services.
I am not in a position to give the committee further information with regard to the advance and progress which has been made along that line. But I can repeat what I said the other night, that definite progress is being made in connection with having the air force and the army combine and work together; and there are certain plans and programmes under way in Canada along the same line.
My hon. friend referred to night blindness. A great deal of research work is being done along that line. We have ordered machines for testing night blindness, and the testing will start just as soon as the machines are available. As a matter of fact there are more on order for the army. The hon. member mentioned absence without leave and suggested that the officer commanding be given more power.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Yes, power to deal summarily with these cases.


James Layton Ralston: I think I km right when I say that the officer commanding can give up to twenty-eight days' detention, and I should think that that is about power enough for the commanding officer. I believe the soldier has the right to elect to take court-martial if he so desires. I do not think we could give very much more. I would prefer not to give more power to the commanding officer than he has already, that is, the power to give twenty-eight days' detention, which in fact may mean twenty-eight days' imprisonment. As a matter of fact, that is the provision in' the army act. It does not follow that it is right simply because it is in the act or has been in force for many years, but one would think the test of time would have indicated that that is the extent of the power which should be given.
My hon. friend referred incidentally to the matter of creches for children of soldiers' wives. That is not strictly an army matter, but it has to do with the man-power problem. The problem to be considered by this country has to do with the drafting of women into industry in order to relieve men and make them available for the armed forces. I intended saying, when I was speaking just for a minute or two on that subject, that that was one of the many measures which has to be worked out and adopted if this plan of using women in industry is going to be effective. There are going to be married women who are soldiers' wives and married women who are not but who have children, and these children will have to be looked after if the services of the women are to be used in industry. It is not only a matter of training the women, it is not only a matter
War Appropriation

of moving them to industry, it is not only getting the employer to agree to have them; there is the additional problem of looking after their families while they are working.


Agar Rodney Adamson: That was the important part of the question I was asking.


James Layton Ralston: I just want to say a word or two about headquarters organization, in reply to the point raised by my hon. friend and along the line of what I have said already. My hon. friend suggested that the people at headquarters should go out more. There are two directorates of military training, one headed by Colonel Kennedy and the other by Colonel Whitelaw. In addition-I think I said this before-there is a liaison officer whose duty it is to travel to the training centres or to replace other section heads by staying at headquarters when they are travelling. I would say that the same principle is being developed in connection not only with the general staff but also with the adjutant-general's branch, the quartermaster-general's branch and the branch of the master-general of the ordnance. At this minute we have the quartermaster-general on the east coast, the master-general on the west coast heading east and the chief of the general staff with his deputy in charge of military training and one of the deputy adjutants-general travelling in central Canada. I am sure my hon. friend will not complain about the number of visitors from headquarters who are out on the road endeavouring to deal with the very problem to which he has referred.
I was dealing with the point raised by my hon. friend about junior officers not being able to amend the syllabus when I am afraid I got off on a pet hobby of mine. I am greatly interested in the necessity of paying attention to the recommendations of junior officers and seeing to it that we get the benefit of their views and experience. I only want to say that we are encouraging these suggestions. We are trying to get them through the officers in command of the basic training and advanced training centres. We are seeing to it that they do not fall by the wayside by providing these additional visitations from headquarters, either the district or national defence headquarters, in order to see that the suggestions are put into practice. As I say, we issue every month an amendment to the training syllabus embodying suggestions that we get from overseas and practices which we find from experience can be well adopted for our purposes. This is done in an endeavour to keep that training syllabus right up to date.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: Is there any record
of a shortage or incompleteness in medical stores in the training centres? I am referring particularly to Petawawa in 1941.


James Layton Ralston: Does my hon. friend
mean improper shortages, or that they had not been ordered?


George Hugh Castleden: Lack of supplies.


James Layton Ralston: No, I have not; that has not been brought to my attention.


George Hugh Castleden: Could the minister
find out whether there is any shortage?


James Layton Ralston: Whether there was any
during last year?


George Hugh Castleden: Yes.


James Layton Ralston: I was there three months ago. If my hon. friend has been there he knows that the field hospital is a well-conducted establishment. I talked to the officer in command and I did not hear of any shortage of medical stores. I shall certainly find out.


George Hugh Castleden: The case I have in mind is that of a young man who about July 8 last year jumped from a truck during night manoeuvres of anti-tank battery F and ruptured himself. He reported sick next day and was sent to hospital and was supposed to be furnished with a truss. He was reboarded and he reports to me that he did not receive his truss until January of this year. He went back to Saskatchewan on furlough and he received a wire to report to No. 12 military district depot in Regina. He paid his own fare into Regina, which he has not been able to get back, and received his truss. I am hoping that this is not the general practice, and I should like to have an assurance from the minister that it was due to some oversight.


James Layton Ralston: I will go further than that. I will give my hon. friend the assurance that that is not the way the medical service is conducted as I know it. That particular case will be gone into. If my hon. friend cares to send me the name, he may do so, but if he does not I think the circumstances he has given are enough for me to ascertain just what happened.


George Hugh Castleden: A letter will be in the mail this evening.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The medical services are said to be very good.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: Because the comments I have made from time to time to the minister in connection with the administration of the

War Appropriation
army have not always been complimentary,
I should like to express my appreciation to the minister for his remarks to the house the other day and again to-day in defence of those who are administering the Canadian active army, particularly against the attacks of those whose military knowledge is, generally speaking, acquired from observing the army from a sidewalk. There have been times when I have expressed views in this house and in certain other places which were not complimentary to the individuals charged with the administration of the army, but generally speaking I believe that a bad dentist is better than a barber for a toothache, and an imperfect staff officer is probably more valuable to the administration of the army than many of those who criticize it. But having said that, may I add that I do not think there is any reason for the minister to be over-satisfied with the administration, nor do I think that he is absolutely satisfied.
Leaving the administration out of it for a moment or two, I should like to make some observations with respect to something new in the administration of the present army and offer some suggestions in connection therewith. I refer to the new basic training centre which has just been established and which has been designed to take care of those men who have been unable under the present set-up to assimilate the basic training during the period of two months which is assigned to them. I think everyone who has had anything to do with the administration and training of the present army will realize the need for such a training centre until those who are in the army have been helped to the point where they are able to take training in the basic or advanced training centres or are eliminated from the army. But, by the same token I would not like to see any development of that practice because I think it would be tackling the problem, which I suggest is a serious one, from the wrong end. It is true that we have a considerable number of men in the active army in Canada who either should not be there at all or require special consideration in order to enable them to keep up with those who are training. It is my hope, and certainly it is the policy of the department, that the personnel selection boards will be able to take care of that situation. I think perhaps in most districts at the present time they are doing a fair job in weeding out men who have been enlisted as physically perfect but who by reason of one handicap or another have been unable to keep up with the training in the basic training centres. In some cases they have got to the advanced training centres.
But that is tackling the problem after the men are in the army. I would like to have the assurance of the minister that something will be done to eliminate the necessity of such an institution as has been opened recently. The method of doing this does not matter a great deal so long as it is done, but I suggest that a personnel selection board officer might be attached to the various recruiting centres throughout the dominion to report on the recruits before attestation. I believe in that way you could eliminate within a comparatively short time the necessity of dealing with these men afterwards-these problem children, if you like to call them that, who are being provided for in the new basic training depot.
Arguments have been advanced against giving these men their examinations before they are attested. I know some of the difficulties in that connection because I am handling recruits every day that I am not here and have been doing so for nearly two years. At the same time, whatever the immediate cost and whatever the scarcity of suitable personnel selection board officers may be-and that is a real problem-I do not think this trouble should be allowed to grow.
About a year and a half ago some of us in this house were concerned over the fact that too many men, after having been duly enlisted and attested, were being discharged from the army before six months' training on the ground that they were not likely to make efficient soldiers. I expressed my opinion on that at that time; the regulations were tightened up, and the problem disappeared for some time. I suggest that it is in danger of recurring as a result of the weeding-out process which is now being carried on. Probably it is a good thing to insist on selection and intelligence tests for these men, certainly so long as we are able to get as many men as we can take care of in our present organization; nevertheless I believe the policy has been carried to an extreme. There have been cases and there are cases where adequately trained officers and men have been weeded out of their units at the age of thirty-three or thirty-four or thirty-five on the ground that they are too old. It seems to me that our Canadian army is thinking in terms of two and a half years of training, rather than in terms of what is the usual active life of a soldier, which is one hour or two. The worth of a soldier is determined by his courage and efficiency in action. There are all kinds of men who have been rejected for service who would live their hour, which is the life of a soldier, with gallantry and distinction but who have no place in the army at all, chiefly by reason of the fact that we have had
War Appropriation

very few casualties. We have been engaged in a two and a half years' endurance contest and great numbers of these men have not been able to make the grade. But that is not all it takes to make a soldier. I wonder if there are not here old soldiers of the last war who can remember the time when a forty or forty-five year old sergeant has had to carry on his back, figuratively speaking, some twenty or twenty-five year old subaltern until he found his feet. I wonder if there is anybody who was in the last war who does not remember the man we used to call the perfect soldier. Every company had one, almost every platoon, and in rank they ran all the way from corporal to colonel. They sat on a horse like a centaur, looked the part on parade, had a voice that could be heard for four blocks-in other words they had everything it took, except the courage to kill and die if necessary in the clutch, as the army calls it.
We have been concentrating on a perfect army. But even if we had a two-corps army composed entirely of men of the calibre of the commander I do not suppose it would, in the last analysis vitally affect the issue of this war. We are told that we have the best trained and most highly mechanized of all armies, but the experience of the last two and a half years has taught us that we must contemplate as a possibility our whole army, quite naturally and without any disgrace to themselves, entirely disappearing in the course of a forenoon. It seems to me that the department and the minister might give a little more attention to the expansion of the reserves of that army, and not so much attention to developing an overseas army of men who are super-soldiers. That is all right when you are preparing for a war five or six years from now, as we are told Hitler did, and we saw the effectiveness of that system at the beginning of the war.
There is one other thing I would draw to the attention of the minister. I understand at the present time it is not the policy of the department to allow any non-commissioned officer to proceed overseas with his rank. If I am correctly informed with respect to that-


James Layton Ralston: As a reinforcement.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: Quite so; then I would suggest to the minister that that is something which should be reconsidered. To begin with the difference between being a private and a sergeant in hundreds of instances is the difference, if you are a family man, between being able to enter the service and make anything like adequate provision for your family, and not being able to enter it at all. While on the face of it the present arrange-
ment seems eminently fair, and one can understand that the commanding officers in England naturally want to promote men who have been overseas for some considerable time; while one can understand the reasonableness of that attitude and their desire to promote men with whom they are familiar, I question whether it is in the interest of efficiency of the service. Certainly the result is that we have throughout our whole training set-up in the Dominion of Canada too many A category men who cannot be forced to revert, who cannot afford to revert, and who are stuck in this country by virtue of that regulation, when they would prefer to be on the other side of the ocean. If there is any disposition to doubt that, I will give you a list of a hundred odd of them. I know whereof I speak.
With respect to the question of discharges from the service, there has been some improvement since I spoke to the committee before. With respect to discharging men from the present army discretion has rested in the district officers commanding to take men who are in C category and who have jobs to go to, and discharge them from the service and return them to civilian life. To the best of my knowledge that authority has not been abused. On the other hand, under this present system of reviewing these men by the personnel selection boards, we have a certain number coming back from basic and even from advanced training centres of a category which makes it unlikely that they will become efficient soldiers. They are sent back for duty in a depot, for example, where duties do not exist in any considerable numbers, and we are having a considerable number of these men being boarded out on medical grounds. In effect it means that they are classed mentally deficient; that is to say they are incapable of assimilating military training in the prescribed time.
We have not in this country anything in our army in the nature of a labour battalion. I know the arguments against the labour battalion, and I am not particularly hopeful of a sympathetic hearing for what I wish to say with respect to that. I do say, nevertheless, that there is a place in every district for, perhaps, a labour company. There are duties to be performed, particularly in winterized camps, permanent camps, which could be performed by men of this category, who would be more usefully employed in this war effort than they would be by being returned to civilian life. That is debatable, no doubt, but in my experience and in my opinion it is unquestionably true. I am not looking for labour battalions in the sense of a refuge for crocks, as has happened at times in the past.

War Appropriation
But useful men can and should be employed. When I have made that suggestion on occasion I have been told, "Oh, there is a farm labour shortage; let those men who are unable to take training go back and work on the farms." Well, this country has paid the price of the thought, conceived mostly by city people, that anyone can farm. If men are not able to assimilate basic training at the present time, it is very doubtful whether they would be of any use in the war-speeded industry in the Dominion of Canada, and I am quite sure that they would be largely useless under the pressure of modern agriculture. So if anything can be made of their training and their physical condition-and I think it can-we should have organized in every district labour companies for the purpose of performing these duties.
It has been said frequently, and the minister has suggested again to-day, that it is impossible to have any real elasticity or any individual responsibility in an army, and I suggest to the minister that, while channels for the evolution and development of new ideas exist, they get horribly clogged at times. I am not going to use either the expression "bottleneck", or to try to suggest where it is. But I do know this, that it takes a long time for ideas to reach the place where they can be carried into effect; they are quite often not recognizable when they get there, and if they are good, sometimes they have even changed their paternity. But there is provision for that within the army itself. Not only the junior officers but the men in the ranks are being encouraged, if they have ideas, to report them and bring them forward. Some hon. members know the routine. It goes from the private to the sergeant, from the sergeant to the sergeant-major, from the sergeant-major to the company commander, from the company commander to the adjutant, from the adjutant to the colonel; and I do not pretend to follow it after it reaches district headquarters-it is supposed to go to national defence headquarters; but if everybody does his duty and anyone who is responsible sees it within three months, it is a miracle. Somewhere in the senior ranks of national defence headquarters there should be somebody to whom any private can write a letter and give his ideas. It does not matter how goofy it is, it won't be any crazier than some you get at times from the higher ranks, and if you get only one that is of real value, that officer's time will have been well spent.
Regarding our training, in connection with the general set-up, we are told in one breath that every soldier, under conditions of modern warfare, is his own general. I have been told
that by training officers who have had experience on the other side in this war. I have listened to it with approval, and I hope that in fact it is being carried out.' But we are told almost in the same breath that if the officer commanding a district in British Columbia wants an extension on his telephone, he will probably have to get treasury board approval for it. Somewhere between those extremes the truth may lie. I have no doubt the minister is working on it.


James Layton Ralston: I have done it, about telephones.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: Good. Those are the two extremes. There are all kinds of men in the army at the present time with enough business ability, quite apart from whether they ever saw a uniform or a Ross rifle or any other kind of rifle, to administer all the technical details of a military district anywhere, without [DOT]visitations from district headquarters or anything more in the way of a link than a telephone call-and the telephone calls need not all go to one desk.
I commend the minister for the fact that there has been some attempt to break down this old system, but if anybody this side of heaven tried to indicate on a chart, even using lines so fine as to be almost undiscernible, the number of connected chains of transportation to get ideas from anywhere to national headquarters, it would be a chart which could be examined only under a powerful microscope.


James Layton Ralston: Nobody hesitates to write to the minister. I can assure the hon. member of that.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: I suggest to the minister that very few of us who are concerning ourselves in the matter would-


James Layton Ralston: I am talking about the ideas.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: The men in the ranks, I am sure, hesitate to write to the minister. I have had letters returned to me with instructions to reprimand men who presumed to write to a higher authority which was not nearly as high as that. I am speaking perfectly frankly in this respect. I do not disagree in principle with the practice, because that is what is laid down at the present time. But a bit of a barrage on some of these regulations would short-cut a lot of them. If a man thinks he has an idea, it does not matter how crazy it is, it is important to him; he wants to get it to somebody, and provision should be made for doing so.
I do not think you can administer all the districts in Canada with the same establish-
War Appropriation

ment. In a country as wide as this, with our variations of population and our varieties of climate, with the different dispositions and the various geographical distinctions, I do not think it is possible for national defence headquarters to evolve anything with respect to training which will fit more than two or three of the districts. With reference to what the hon. member for York West said before, about the importance of headquarters' staff visiting districts, I was glad to hear the minister say that the provision for that sort of thing is being expanded.
There is one thing I should like to emphasize before I conclude, and that is that more consideration be given to the work of the personnel selection board before a man is attested. Otherwise I can see a long chain of grief in a long chain of basic training centres. I am well aware that it is going to cost a little money. It is going to delay things a little bit, but we are in the fortunate position of having men come in under conditions and in numbers which at the moment we can handle. I would recommend again that the selection be made not in the basic training centres, and certainly not in the administrative centres, but in the recruiting offices throughout the country.


Mr. GERSHAW:: The question of forming a labour battalion has been mentioned. There is one suggestion which I would offer the minister, and I shall be glad to hear his reply, to see whether it is within the realms of possibility. In southern Alberta there are a large number of people who have very strong convictions against handling rifles or shedding blood. It would seem that the young men in these particular groups or colonies would want to take part in this great struggle, and would want to hold their heads up with other young men and be regarded as Canadians. In 1923 a colony came in to one particular municipality and since that time they have doubled their holdings, and six new groups have come into the same municipality. They find that by their way of living and through their farming practices they are able to extend rapidly. The provincial government have recognized the danger and have passed a law to prevent these people from acquiring more land for the duration of the war. The population is about 1,866, and 700 of them belong to the Hutterite colony. Ordinary people of that municipality feel quite keenly on this point. They consider that in this great democracy all should be on the same basis and that these particular people should be on the same basis as other Canadians. Everyone realizes that they are protected by an agreement, order in council P.C. 1678

passed on August 12, 1899. At that time no one anticipated that we would be in the condition we are now in, such great changes have taken place. Inasmuch as there are a large number of these people, my suggestion is that the agreement might be reviewed to see whether all parties have lived up to it, and whether some of these young men could be enrolled in a labour battalion to do certain work. If they could, they would become interested in military affairs and become better Canadians.


James Layton Ralston: I have consistently hesitated about taking on anything more in connection with the Department of National Defence than matters relating strictly to the military effort. The hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) the other day advocated the same idea with regard to a group of citizens out west as we have heard this afternoon from the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Mutch). The question of labour battalions is in mind. We have employment platoons whom we have been using in camps and in connection with special work in the way of fatigues and things of that sort. If labour battalions are necessary in connection with army activities, that is one thing, and I am willing to consider it. If, however, you are only forming a labour battalion, or using the Department of National Defence to form a labour battalion, for the purpose of doing civilian work on parks or other projects of that sort, then I suggest that it should not be under this department. The hon. member for Lake Centre had the better idea, that is, to allow the Department of National War Services to call them up, if that is necessary, and form a battalion, if you like to call it that; but it should be under some department other than National Defence. We have a good many activities and we are trying to keep our eyes on the target, which is to fight the enemy, and not to deal with matters which are extraneous, even though in connection with them organization might be useful. I will take into consideration the question as it affects army activities, but that is as far as I should like to go in that respect.
With regard to the matters mentioned by the hon. member for Winnipeg South, I spent a very fruitful and profitable three hours with the adjutant-general and Brigadier Chisholm, who is in charge of personnel selection, last Sunday on this very point to which my hon. friend has referred. He is right with regard to the matter of examinations. I think that the number of discharges could have been reduced substantially had the discharge taken place at the other end, in the sense that they

War Appropriation
should never have been accepted. The test for mental aptitude has not been sufficient;
I am satisfied about that. As hon. members know, the test has been made entirely by medical boards. There is a very general provision in the medical regulations with regard to aptitude, and I am sure that a certain number of doctors have felt themselves not qualified to pass on that phase of a man's ability to serve. They have found him A, so far as physical condition was concerned, and have let it go at that; but very often the man has not been able to keep up training, so that you find him in the group, of whom many are going to North Bay for what the air force would call a cease training course. The air force had the same idea in connection with their work, and it has been, by the way, under a member of this house, the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Massey). We are doing the same thing, and I do agree that a change is called for, and it has been made. '
As I explained the other night, the directorate of personnel selection has not been functioning for more than six months, and weeding out has taken place as a result of the activities of that branch. To some extent the medical regulations are now being amended and provision is being made with regard to a test, I will not call it a psychological test, but rather an aptitude test, which is being given. Provision is being made for supplying medical boards with additional skilled help if needed to deal with aptitude as well as with physical condition. As the hon. member hinted, the men available for that are not too plentiful across Canada, and we have' provided for special instruction for groups of men. They will not be fully trained in that respect, but will understand the fundamentals which are needed to find out whether a man gives good promise of becoming an efficient soldier. Hon. members know that there is a small discharge from the air force, and the disparity in that regard has struck me as one calling for an exhaustive investigation. The short way of explaining it is this. The air force requires, so far as educational qualifications are concerned, that men shall have gone to the eighth grade, whereas the army qualification is practically one of literacy. Practically, that is all that is required, if the man is to take the training laid down; and perhaps the severest feature in the matter of literacy is the map reading under the basic training syllabus. He is then taken on, and the men who are not up to that standard are finding it difficult to get along. That is why the change is being made and a new organization is being set up.


Agar Rodney Adamson: The air force have the M test before they are attested.


James Layton Ralston: I did not use the words "M test". I said they would be given a test for aptitude.


Agar Rodney Adamson: They have a test?


James Layton Ralston: Yes, the M test.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: If some of the suggestions offered by the hon. member for Winnipeg South and others this afternoon were adopted, K.R. and 0. might have to be rewritten. Probably some amendments to it would be in order in any case. However, I should like to ask the minister a few questions in connection with the men taken into the army under the National Resources Mobilization Act.
In the first place, how many of these recruits for home defence have completed their training to date? How many have volunteered for active service? How many men are there in the Canadian army whose service is limited to Canada or the territorial waters thereof? Are some units in the Canadian army made up of both these recruits for home defence and others who have offered themselves for active service in any theatre of war; are they combined in one unit? If so, what units in Canada are composed of both these recruits for home service and the active service personnel? Is the minister in favour of having these recruits for home defence and the active service personnel mixed together in the same units for training? Has any plan been worked out to separate these home defence personnel and active service personnel in case any of these units should be sent out of Canada on short notice? Then is the dependents' allowance paid to dependents of recruits called up under the National Resources Mobilization Act?


James Layton Ralston: I wish my hon. friend had sent me a note of these questions. He is asking what really should be an order for return.


James Arthur Ross: I shall be glad to send the minister this list of questions. If these dependents' allowances are granted, are they paid when these recruits are called up for training, or only when they have completed their basic training?


James Layton Ralston: What is that?


James Arthur Ross: If dependents' allowances are granted, do they commence when the recruit is called up for training or do they commence after he has completed his basic training?
War Appropriation


James Layton Ralston: The moment he starts to get his pay, I should think.


James Arthur Ross: This afternoon the hon. member for York West raised a question which has given me some considerable difficulty. It is the case of a young chap who enlists, and who applies for a dependents' allowance for his mother. Quite frequently the board will point out that at the time the young chap enlisted, his family were on direct relief; that he was not making any cash contribution to the upkeep of the household, and in such cases the allowance is. not granted. It seems to me that these matters should be considered on the basis of necessity. If the family required assistance, and the young chap was not able to obtain gainful employment, I believe the allowance should be granted. I know of many applications that have been refused on the ground I have mentioned.
I am sorry I was not in the house last Tuesday, but I read in Hansard the discussion which took place between the hon. member for Lethbridge and the minister as to responsibility for the hospitalization of soldiers' dependents. To me the answer given by the minister is not very clear. As reported at page 1946 of Hansard he said:
The way I dealt with it was to indicate that the dependents' board of trustees, which was established in November or December, has as one of its functions and one of its authorities to pay such supplementary grants or to give such special assistance in those cases where it is satisfied that such supplementary grants or special assistance are necessary to prevent hardships arising because of unusual circumstances. . . .
Could the minister say definitely whether that does become the responsibility of his department or whether there may be considerable bickering with the municipal authorities, whose responsibility normally it would be to look after those cases? Is that clearly understood?


James Layton Ralston: Does my hon. friend wish me to answer that now? I understand that he is speaking about the hospitalization of dependents. What I said was that there was some suggestion from hon. members that this was the responsibility of the municipality. That is fundamentally so. I said that under the provisions of the dependents' board of trustees-I have not the exact terms before me at the moment-there is a regulation which permits the board to pay grants or give assistance in emergent cases or cases of hardship, such as the serious illness of members of the family. I do not know what the conflict is with the municipalities to which my hon. friend is referring, but I said it seemed 
to me that was the best answer I could make in reply to the suggestion that the federal government should undertake the responsibility for the hospitalization of dependents. I have never before known this to be recognized as a federal responsibility, even indirectly, and I do not think there is any intention to assume responsibility for the hospitalization of dependents, except in a case of hardship or great need. It is extending the Pension Act and the provisions of the dependents' allowance board beyond what I should think they were ever intended to cover if one were to say that when a soldier enlists he is entitled to his pay and allowances, his wife is entitled to separation allowance, his dependents are entitled to allowances, and the family are entitled to hospitalization. That is not so. In a case of hardship, under the provisions with respect to the dependents' board of trustees, in order to bridge a gap the board may help in a difficult situation by making a grant for that purpose.


James Arthur Ross: The point I was trying to make is that to me it is distinctly a case of hardship any time it becomes the responsibility of the municipality.


James Layton Ralston: That is a matter for the board.


James Arthur Ross: I think if the municipality had to report the matter to the board it would be distinctly a case of hardship ; otherwise it would not have become the responsibility of the municipality.
Then I should like to support what was said by the hon. member for Winnipeg South with regard to work units. Ever since we declared war I have felt keenly that we should have work units or labour battalions as part of the army. In going round to the various camps I have seen a great deal of work being done and very fair rates of wages being paid, considering the training many of these men had to have in order to undertake the work. Certainly the pay was very much in advance of that being received by the men who enlisted, though much of the work could have been done by ordinary men. I do hope the army will see fit to organize work units or labour battalions, as part of the army itself.


James Layton Ralston: Perhaps I may deal with some of the questions asked by my hon. friend. I think his first question was as to the number of men called up to the basic training centres. The total number called for four months training up to April 9, 1942, was 41,606, with an additional 10,730 who already had received thirty days of training and who were called up for the remainder of

War Appropriation
their training. That makes a total of 52,336. My hon. friend asked then how many came out. I am sorry I have not those figures here, but the hon. member will realize that we cannot get the reports concerning those who were called up in January for another month or two, because the first class of those who entered the camps in January will not be coming out until May, and so one cannot tell how many of those called up since January will graduate or come out of the training centres.
Then the hon. member asked as to the proportion of enlistments. I gave a statement to the committee on this question the other day, giving the number of men called out under the national war services regulations who, while under training, have enlisted voluntarily in the armed services. Of the four months classes, beginning March 20, 1941, and ending with the class which went in on October 2 and graduated on January 31 [DOT]-I have not the enlistments from the training centres since that time, but the other night I indicated to the hon. member for Lake Centre that I thought those enlistments during that time would be in the neighbourhood of between three and four thousand.
The number who actually were accepted in that period between March 20, 1941, and October 2, 1941, was 25,892. That is, they were accepted in training centres. The number enlisting in the Royal Canadian Navy was 322; in the army, 6,185, and in the air force, 2,843, making a total of 9,350; or 36 per cent of all of those who were accepted in the training centres enlisted in one of the three services. I believe that percentage has been pretty well kept up. I cannot tell my hon. friend for certain, but I believe I used the same percentage when I estimated between
3,000	and 4,000 for January, February and March.
My hon. friend asked if there were battalions which have in them home defence personnel and active service personnel. Most of the battalions in the sixth and seventh divisions at the present time, and most of the artillery units as well, have both home defence personnel and general service personnel-and I prefer to use that expression-in the same units. My hon. friend has asked whether I favour that method. My reply is there are things to be said for it and things to be said against it. But from the practical point of view it was impossible to have these home defence personnel as they came out of training centres go to a separate unit. In order to give them training and get them used to operational work both in the artillery and as coast defence battalions it was necessary to have them gradually come into the units. We
figured it was on a basis of about 10 per cent a month, so that they would be gradually absorbed in battalions or batteries, as the case may be. At the same time that releases general service personnel which could go overseas and follow the inclinations for which they originally enlisted.
With regard to the home defence personnel I would say that when I was out west there was some complaint about it. I can quite understand that complaint, because I had the same complaint when I was overseas in the last war. Men came to us who had come in under the Military Service Act of the last war. But those men came in and were absorbed in the battalions.
People are saying we should use the manpower of this countxy. We cannot use the man-power of this country, I submit, if we are not willing to take these men in and train them for operations. When I was talking to officers there I said, "You are commanding officers, and are training battalions for operation; you are citizens of Canada as well. You want to see the man-power of Canada utilized, and the way to utilize those men to the best advantage is to have them come to units and gradually become acclimated so that they may be able to carry on."
That is the situation with regard to this personnel and, as my hon. friend knows, I regard the units as active units. Certain of the personnel cannot be sent out of Canada except, as the Prime Minister explained, under the War Measures Act; and certain of them can. When the time came either the War Measures Act could be used, or other personnel could be put into the units, or these men could volunteer. Those are the three alternatives.
My hon. friend has asked if dependents' allowances were the same for home defence and general service personnel, and the answer is yes. He has asked whether payments start from the time men are called up, or after they have completed training. The answer is that dependents' allowances start at the same time as the pay.
I know the hon. member has asked a number of questions I have not answered; but I am endeavouring to answer the questions immediately, rather than leave them over. If he would remind me of others I would be pleased to give answers.


James Arthur Ross: What is the total number of home defence forces for the Dominion of Canada at the present time?


Mr. BOUCHER:: And would the minister discuss, too, the subject of dependents' allowances for members of the reserve army while in training?
War Appropriation


James Layton Ralston: The number of home defence personnel, for service in Canada, in units of the Canadian army, is 15,269. Those are in addition of course to those in training. My hon. friend asked, I believe, for the number in the units.


James Arthur Ross: I wished to have a general picture of the total number of troops for defence purposes in Canada.


James Layton Ralston: The number is 15,269 home defence personnel in units. In addition there are in training-not in the units-16,074. That is out of a total strength in Canada at the present time of over 150,000 active and home defence personnel.


Mr. G REEN:: For several days we have been considering that portion of the war appropriation bill which provides funds for the army for the fiscal year beginning on April 1 of this year and ending on March 31 of next year. Hon. members who are interested will find the break-down of the army's portion of the war appropriation at page 1688 of Hansard. The total amount for the army is $997,000,000-in other words, practically half of the total amount provided in the war appropriation bill.


James Layton Ralston: That is for what?


Howard Charles Green: For the army. Breaking that expenditure down again we find that almost exactly half the money for the army is to provide funds for Canadian formations and functions at present overseas, including increments. The amount under that heading is approximately $495,000,000. Then, over a quarter of the balance of the money for the army is for Canadian formations and functions to be sent overseas during the fiscal year 1942-43, the amount being slightly over $135,000,000. The balance of the army's appropriation is to be spent on formations in Canada.
It seems to me the committee would be well advised at this stage to try to get a broad picture of Canadian army activities both abroad and at home. First of all, we have our Canadian army in Great Britain. It is an army of which the Canadian people may well be very proud and one which, I am sure, will live up to and perhaps surpass- although that will be difficult-the traditions of the Canadian corps in the last war. That army in Great Britain can be sent anywhere; there are no strings on where the men can serve.
We have another army in Canada which cannot be sent anywhere. The one exception, I believe, is the fourth division which is preparing to go overseas. As the minister has just

said, most of the units of this army contain home defence personnel, soldiers who have been called up under the National Eesources Mobilization Act which was passed by this house in June, 1940. As hon. members know, this act provides that men called up cannot be required to serve outside of Canada. The act is chapter 13 of the statutes of 1940, and section 2 gives the governor in council the power of-

requiring persons to place themselves, their services and their property at the disposal of His Majesty in the right of Canada, as may be deemed necessary or expedient for securing the public safety, the defence of Canada-
And so on, but there is another section, section 3, which contains a restriction and which reads:
The powers conferred by the next preceding section may not be exercised for the purpose of requiring persons to serve in the military, naval or air forces outside of Canada and the territorial waters thereof.
The minister has just told us that there are 15,269 men, known as home defence personnel, who were called up under the act and accordingly are subject to the restriction contained in section 3. They are scattered throughout the various units of the army in Canada. As we all know, there are many more of this same class of soldier training in the training centres. Some weeks ago either the Minister of National Defence or the Prime Minister said that the seventh and eighth divisions, which are to be raised this year for the defence of the east and west coasts, would be composed largely of men called up under the National Eesources Mobilization Act. This means that these divisions cannot be used beyond the boundaries of Canada or the territorial waters thereof. If this restriction were removed our army in Canada, like our army in Great Britain, could be used anywhere.
In my opinion, and I cannot emphasize this too strongly, that is necessary for the army on the Pacific coast. They will probably have to go abroad sooner or later, either to the adjoining state of Washington on the mainland, or to some of the islands which form part of that state, or to Alaska or Siberia. They may have to cross the ocean to fight. Let us always remember that Canada must avenge Hong Kong, and we cannot do that on this side of the Pacific ocean. Hong Kong must be avenged across the Pacific, and so far as Canada is concerned that can be done only by troops who go from the Canadian Pacific coast.
This Canadian army may have to serve in Australia. It may be that fighting in Australia will be the best way to defend the Pacific

War Appropriation
coast of Canada, just as fighting in Great Britain or on the continent of Europe is considered by the government to be the best way to defend our Atlantic coast. The Prime Minister pointed out the wisdom of such a course in his radio address on the plebiscite on April 7, when he used these words:
One thing is perfectly certain. If the enemy is not kept at bay on the oceans, and defeated beyond the waters of the Atlantic and the Pacific, the final battles of the world conflict will be fought in the waters and upon the soil of Canada and the United States.
I repeat that the Canadian army on the Pacific should be composed of men who can go anywhere. Then they could take their part in the attack on Japan which must eventually come. May I point out to the minister that Canada should be building, and building speedily, an "Army of the Pacific". This should be composed, not only of men who can be sent anywhere, but men who have been trained just as thoroughly as the troops in Great Britain. Men who have been completely trained should not be taken from this army, as has happened in recent months, to be replaced by men who are only partly trained. That sort of thing should stop. Once the men in this "Army of the Pacific" have been trained, they should be left there and not drawn away as drafts to be sent overseas or to some other part of Canada. This army should be equipped as completely as the Canadian army in Great Britain and it should be supported by an adequate air force and by units of the various types that are needed in modern warfare. This has not been done. There is nothing even remotely approaching a set-up of that kind provided for the "Army of the Pacific" in Canada.
In this war Canada has two fronts, the Atlantic front and the Pacific front. Let the Canadian government, this House of Commons and the Canadian people realize that clearly. If they do not, sooner or later disaster may strike this nation. On the Atlantic front Canada is preparing to fight an offensive war in or from Great Britain; on the Pacific front she is preparing to fight, not an offensive but a defensive war. She is preparing merely to hold on, to fight a holding war. The Prime Minister in his radio speech, from which I quoted a few minutes ago, summed up the effect of such a policy quite clearly with these words:
We cannot defend our country and save our homes and families by waiting at home for the enemy to attack us. Every country that has stood behind its own defences in this war has
sooner or later been attacked. To remain on the defensive is the surest way to bring the war to Canada.
Yet that is exactly the policy that is being followed by this got ernment so far as the "Army of the Pacific ' is concerned. On the other hand, the United States is fighting an offensive war on the Pacific. Troops are being sent abroad to various centres where they may meet the enemy far from American soil. If Canada pursues her present policy, and if the Japanese should attempt an invasion of this continent, the result may be that Canada's portion of the Pacific coast will be chosen for the attack. I point out these facts to the minister and to the hon. members because they merit the most careful consideration.
Let me ask hon. members to look again at the broad picture. What is parliament going to do about this situation of having units made up of men some of whom can be sent out of Canada and some of whom cannot?-a situation where one man in a company can say, "I do not have to go outside of Canada," while the man beside him has to go. That is, from a military point of view, and I am quite sure the minister will agree with me, placing a great handicap on our commanding officers and also on the troops themselves. What is parliament going to do about that situation? What is this House of Commons going to do about it? What are the members of this house going to do about it?
This week, only five days ago, the Canadian' people freed our hands. That can be clearly seen in an advertisement which appeared in the Ottawa Journal of April 25 asking for a "yes" vote. At the bottom of the advertisement we find these words, "Free Canada for all-out war. Vote yes." Now the Canadian people have spoken and our course is perfectly clear. It is, I suggest, to free our own hands at once; and free them without further delay, because if we do not act soon it will be impossible to amend the National Resources Mobilization Act before the fall. Action should be taken now, without further delay, to remove the restriction which we ourselves imposed in section 3 of the National Resources Mobilization Act. If we take that action we shall show the Canadian people-and the Canadian people are watching us very closely at this time and are much concerned over the sort of leadership the Canadian House of Commons is going to give-we shall show the Canadian people that this House of Commons means business, that the plebiscite was not just a sham and that we intend to keep faith with them.

War Appropriation

I say further that our course is clear also in this, that we must do more leading and less following behind, less running along behind our people in the grim business of waging relentless war. The Canadian people have been ahead of parliament and ahead of the government on most occasions from the very beginning of the war. That should be stopped now. We have in this House of Commons a grand opportunity to lead them, and I hope that the Canadian members of parliament will seize that opportunity and give courageous leadership, not only at this time and under these special circumstances, but also throughout the remainder of this grave but challenging period.


James Layton Ralston: What the hon. member is saying so far as a Pacific army is concerned is, I think, what he has been advocating for some time. I have tried to assure the house and certainly the people of the Pacific coast that I have very much in mind the defence of that coast, in connection with which most active and effective measures are being taken. My hon. friend also said that we have not anything [ike a Pacific army now.


Howard Charles Green: I know the minister does not want to misquote me. Perhaps he did not follow me closely. What I said was this: I was advocating the building up an "Army of the Pacific" which could be used abroad, perhaps not as big as our army in Great Britain but an army that would be able to fight on its own, fight by itself. I said that we had not in British Columbia anything even remotely approaching such an army at the present time, and principally because the units are composed of men who cannot be sent beyond the boundaries of Canada.


James Layton Ralston: Then my hon. friend was making two points. One point was that he was asking for the defence of the Pacific coast, and he was saying that there were two fronts in Canada. I know that he does recognize that, but sometimes when he has spoken I have wondered whether he did so, because he has been very strong in connection with the Pacific coast but seldom mentions the Atlantic.


Howard Charles Green: I do not like to have a statement like that made, because on every occasion when I have spoken in this house with regard to the defence of Canada, while I have pressed the needs of the Pacific coast

naturally as I represent a Pacific coast riding-just as firmly and as definitely as I could I have always referred to the needs of the east coast as well. If the members from the minister's own province have not gumption enough to get up and urge that steps be taken to improve

the defence of the Atlantic coast, I do not think it helps very much to accuse somebody else who speaks of the needs of the Pacific coast of being unfair to Canada. The onus is just the other way. I say, give the Atlantic coast everything they need, and I have pleaded for that, not as strongly perhaps as I might have for the needs of the Pacific coast because I do not know all the facts. I do not appreciate the minister or any member getting up here and making accusations against me in that way. What he should be doing is speaking to the members of his own party who come from Nova Scotia, for example, and asking them why they do not get up and press the needs of the Atlantic coast. They are the people who should know them.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend is simply setting up a straw man to knock him down again. I made no accusation against him. I said, and the members of the committee will bear me out, that there have been times in this house when my hon. friend has not seemed to realize that there were two fronts, but only one.


Howard Charles Green: I object to that. The minister should withdraw that because his statement is incorrect. If he can quote anything from Hansard to show that I have ever taken that stand I am prepared to let it go. But if not, I ask him to withdraw it.


James Layton Ralston: It is twenty minutes to six o'clock, and while I hope my hon. friend will refresh his memory by looking up Hansard, I will withdraw my statement and say nothing more about it.


Howard Charles Green: The minister is the one who should look up Hansard.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend was suggesting two things. He suggested an army of the Pacific and said that there was nothing like that now, and the reason there is nothing like that now, he says, is that there is no power to send men beyond the boundaries of Canada.


Howard Charles Green: That is one reason.


James Layton Ralston: Is there any other reason that my hon. friend suggests why there is not an army of the Pacific, in practice if not in name?.


Howard Charles Green: Perhaps the minister would have been better off if he had been listening a little more closely as I spoke. I suggested that he should build up an "Army of the Pacific" with the idea that it would be able to strike out. I suggested that if should consist not only of men who could be sent anywhere but also of trained men, men who

War Appropriation
had received as thorough a training as our Canadian army in Britain. I said further that the practice should be stopped, if it is not already stopped, of taking away from the Pacific men who have been trained. Certainly within the last few months trained men have been taken away from there and sent elsewhere. I further suggested that such army should be equipped just as completely as our army in Great Britain, and that it should be adequately supported by the air force and the other arms of the service. The minister knows that it is not built up on that basis at all at the present time.


James Layton Ralston: I still think that my hon. friend's fundamental objection to the measures we are taking on the Pacific was the fact that the troops were not in a position to be ordered abroad. I can assure my hon. friend that in the other respects every attention is being given and every effort is being made to form an army of the Pacific, not in name but in effect. I do not know of anything which is going forward with greater acceleration and more energy and vigour than that very thing of providing additional troops on the Pacific coast, and additional establishments for them, and training the men as fast as they can be trained. I can also assure my hon. friend that we are equipping them to the fullest extent we can provide, having regard to all the necessities with respect to equipment in active theatres.


Howard Charles Green: Is that army being built up as a striking force which could be used to strike, say, in Alaska, if necessary, or in Siberia? Is it the intention of the department to build up an army of that type, or is the department merely building up an army to hold the coast?


James Layton Ralston: The department is not going to state its intentions with regard to what it is going to do with the army. What it is doing is building up two divisions, the seventh and eighth, and my hon. friend knows as well as anybody else the way divisions are built up. You have to start with the divisions themselves and carry on training and equipment in the normal way. What these divisions will be used for afterwards or where they may best be disposed are matters which will have to be dealt with as the circumstances arise. A large proportion of those two divisions are being provided and established near or adjacent to the Pacific coast.
With regard to the other matter, his question is, what will happen as a result of the plebiscite? That is really what my hon. friend was after.


Howard Charles Green: I meant exactly what I said. The minister need not say what I was trying to aim at. If he can understand English he knows what I said. There were no hidden motives or anything of that type. He need not try to drape them around me.


Mr. POULIOT:: He answered my hon. friend.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend need not be short about it. The situation is that that is the effect of what my hon. friend was saying.


Howard Charles Green: That is the minister's interpretation.


James Layton Ralston: I can only say, with regard to sending men out of the country, the Prime Minister has already indicated that, as far as going to the Aleutian islands or to Washington is concerned, there would be no hestita-tion in using at any time the provisions of the War Measures Act for that purpose, if occasion arises. I do not think that that is what was in my hon. friend's mind. I think he had in mind an expeditionary force: although he speaks of an "Army of the Pacific", it is an expeditionary force he is thinking of.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order. The minister is trying to put words in my mouth.


James Layton Ralston: Then I will say, I suggest that that is what he has in mind.


Howard Charles Green: I did not make any suggestion at all. I wish the minister would leave my speech as it is and not try to twist it around.	*


James Layton Ralston: I say, I suggest that what he has in mind is an expeditionary force. That matter will be dealt with and taken care of when the time comes. The situation at the present time is this. The hon. member speaks of trained men being taken away. Men are coming from these units and going overseas, and men who come from training centres are taking their place. That is the situation with regard to units on the Pacific coast now-


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the minister a question?


James Layton Ralston: If the hon. member will let me finish the sentence; I say, my hon. friend suggests that that is not the way it is done. I only say that in the last war battalion after battalion after battalion was broken up in Canada and used for reinforcements. What we are doing here is maintaining the battalion and sending trained men to take the place of the men who are going overseas. I have been through that experience in the last war. It is not a figment of the imagination.
War Appropriation


Howard Charles Green: The minister has missed the point.


James Layton Ralston: I have tried to make another one, anyway.


Howard Charles Green: That is what I object to. He is trying to make two or three other ones. The point I was trying to make was that there should be set up an army of the Pacific, just as we have an army in Great Britain. I think it is unwise, when you have sent men into British Columbia, for this "Army of the Pacific", and they have finally become trained, to take them away from their units and send them-I don't know where, but I know and the minister knows that that has been done in the last few weeks, and raw recruits sent in, when the position is such that there might be an attack on that coast at any time.


James Layton Ralston: In the first place, the men who were taken away, if I understand the situation correctly, were men who were going overseas-


Howard Charles Green: I don't know. They may have been taken east for instruction.


James Layton Ralston: -and the raw recruits, as my hon. friend calls them, were men from the training centres who had had four months' training. There may have been some raw recruits among them, I do not know, but generally they were men who came from the training centres. Surely my hon. friend does not mean to lay it down as a military proposition that you must maintain the same units in the same job all the time. If you have men who are fit for general service, who have enlisted for general service, and who want to go overseas, and you have men to take their places, there is no reason why you should not use the man-power of Canada for that purpose. It is still an "Army of the Pacific" to use my hon. friend's expression. They serve and they are trained; they are armed, and they are prepared to carry on-


Howard Charles Green: May I put it this way-


James Layton Ralston: Will my hon. friend permit me to finish the sentence? The only trouble in my hon. friend's mind is that they cannot be sent beyond the bounds of Canada. So far as the Aleutian islands and Washington are concerned the Prime Minister has indicated that he is prepared to send them any time it is necessary. With regard to sending them as an expeditionary force to Australia, or to Japan, that is another matter, which has to do more with the result of the plebiscite.


Howard Charles Green: With regard to this question of taking away trained men, consider this example. Suppose a regiment of artillery is sent into the Pacific area only partly trained; the training is completed and that unit is ready to fight, and then say half the regiment are taken away, sent I do not know where, and replaced by green men without that training. I submit to the minister that, in view of the danger of attack on the coast, that is not a very wise thing to do. That sums up my complaint-the taking away of men, once they are trained and prepared to fight, and replacing them by green men. The comparison with the last war is not a fair one, because at that time the fighting was all done in Europe. This time the fighting may be done in Canada.


James Layton Ralston: All I will say to my hon. friend is, with regard to the illustration he gives, that taking away half the men at one time and replacing them with green men, certainly would not be wise. But I do not think that his hypothesis is correct, on either ground-


Howard Charles Green: My proportion may be
wrong.


James Layton Ralston: -either that they were green men or that half were taken away. I believe the practice is to release not more than ten per cent of the strength at one time and substitute them with men from training centres.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman-


Richard Burpee Hanson: With
regard to this question which has arisen-


The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bradette):: With due respect to the leader of the opposition, I saw the hon. member for Temiscouata.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, I
have been on my feet three times.


Jean-François Pouliot: I regret I must state that I rose two or three times before the hon. gentleman. The answer to part of the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver South is to be found in Hansard of April 23, at page 1905. It is a quotation from a statement by Major-General Browne. Here is what the hon. member said:
I think General Browne gave the picture quite clearly when he was quoted as saying at that time, "The reserve force may have to fight and it must be ready to fight as soon as possible." he said. "After all, there is no more war overseas than there is here now, and we may have some here sooner than they have, in view of the threats to our coast."

War Appropriation
This is the declaration of an experienced soldier, and we find it on the lips of my hon. friend. It is to the effect that this country is threatened. The hon. member quoted a speech of our revered leader to the same effect, and all ministers have spoken the same way. The Minister of Justice said that Japan and Germany had their eyes on Canada, and even an admiral has stated that before long submarines were expected to come into the St. Lawrence river. I am not revealing any secret. All those statements can be found in public records, either in Hansard or in the press of the country. The question that we are discussing now is high above the heads of the Minister of National Defence, his colleagues and all of us. I am greatly sur-'rised that the present discussion is not being carried on in camera. I am all for complete information- to be given by ministers, but I find that information such as that which has been given this afternoon publicly by the minister-I do not complain about information being given, because I want to have information-is not such as should be given publicly. It has been stated by our Minister of National Defence this afternoon that the number of troops in our home guard in Canada is 15,000, if I heard rightly, and that is information which might be very valuable to the enemy. I am the last one to refuse information to the press if it is not as dangerous as this, if it is information that would not be used against us by the enemy.
I want to be clearly understood. Like the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green), I want complete information; but I repeat, that information should be given in camera without any strangers in the gallery. It should be given for the benefit of hon. members who have a right to know what is the policy of the government. What I say now I do not say for the purpose of suggesting to the minister that he should refuse any information about the conduct of the war, about our home forces, about our forces overseas, or about munitions or anything like that. What I suggest is that there are things printed in the press that should not be so printed. I do not accuse members of the press gallery or owners of their newspapers. They take what is given to them, and they do well to take it when it is publicly given. But in view of the very difficult time through which we are passing it is important that we meet together, without any party consideration, to get all possible available information, and to keep it for ourselves, simply making any suggestions which we may see fit to offer to the Minister of National Defence.
Here is where I disagree with the hon. member for Vancouver South. He is all for the
defence of British Columbia, and in that regard I agree with him. I know that he is broadminded enough to concede that members from other parts of the country want those parts of the country defended as well as British Columbia.


Howard Charles Green: Certainly.


Jean-François Pouliot: I know that. But this is the point on which I do not agree with him. He suggested some time ago that some troops should be sent to Australia as a token of friendship. We have the greatest possible admiration for the wonderful people of Australia, but what is their trouble? Why did they call on the United States to send them men? It was because the Anzacs were in all parts of the world except in their own country. That is why they had to call on the United States for help; and as the hon. member for Vancouver South complains that the defence of his great province is not now what it should be, that is one more reason for not sending any human token to Australia in these times.
My second objection to what he said is this. He said that, in view of the answer which was given by the Canadian people in the plebiscite, section 3 of the Mobilization Act should be amended so as to send our men anywhere, wherever they are needed. I disagree with him completely. I would have no objection to conscription for service overseas if we had such a supply of men as to ensure our complete home defence first. Then we could send the overflow outside. But the answer "yes" to the plebiscite is not so much an answer "yes" to conscription overseas, as has been suggested by some hon. members. I say that for this reason. I have met English-speaking members of this house, for whom I have the greatest respect, as I have for all hon. members, and they have told me that they were positively opposed to conscription, and their electors also, and that they voted "yes" just because they were told that conscription would not be imposed if they voted "yes."


Richard Burpee Hanson: Who told
them that?


Jean-François Pouliot: I will mention one, Senator Gouin, who said that over the radio, and he was introduced by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Claxton). He said, "If you vote 'yes' in the plebiscite, the plebiscite is to keep conscription away"-and it is reported on the last page of Le Canada. I do not agree with him on that, but this was said over the radio, and the senator was introduced by a member of this house who was strongly in favour of "yes." These things should b* known to the country.
War Appropriation


Richard Burpee Hanson: The senator was introducing the member?


Jean-François Pouliot: No; the member was
introducing the senator over the radio, and that appears in the headlines in Le Canada. I have other quotations like that, and it is well known by all French members who read Le Canada. The suggestion I have made to the government is twofold: first, to improve our means of communication throughout this country, so as to facilitate the transport of troops from one point to another in case of emergency; and, second, to have mobile units. One hon. gentleman said that our army was more mobile than any other. That is true. No soldiers are left here; they have all gone away; it is a mobile army. My idea is that this country should be defended first. It must be defended precisely for the reasons given by our military leaders, the leaders of the army as well as of the navy, by the Prime Minister, and by all his colleagues. I find it most illogical to say that this country is threatened, when at the same time we have no men to defend it. It is more important to have men to defend the country, when the country is the arsenal of the empire; and this is one more reason why our enemies have had their eyes on this land.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Crerar the house adjourned at six p.m.
Monday, May 4, 1942