1942-03-05

OFFICIAL REPORT


[Stage Direction]
House of Commons
[Stage Direction]
©efjates
Thursday, March 5, 1942


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. C. W. G. GIBSON (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, for the
information of the house I would like to make the following announcement:
A tax convention was signed at Washington on the 4th day of March between Canada and the United States for the equalization of tax deductions at the source, for the avoidance of double taxation, for the prevention of fiscal evasion and for the general promotion of the flow of commerce between the two countries.
This convention follows along the lines of the previous convention which existed from, and during, 1936 until April of 1941.
Deduction at the source in the United States was increased in 1941 to 27J per cent on dividends, interest, rents, royalties and other periodic payments coming to residents in Canada. The present convention reduces this to 15 per cent as and from the first day of January, 1941. Canada also deducts 15 per cent in respect of interest, dividends and royalties going to the United States, so that there now exists substantial equality of deduction at the source between the two countries.
Individuals, resident in Canada, who are not citizens of the United States, are not subject to thp graduated rates of tax in the United States and are not required to file United States returns, unless they have an office or place of business therein.
For parent companies in Canada, receiving dividends from wholly-owned subsidiaries in the United States, the tax deduction at the source is reduced to 5 per cent. Dividends from Canadian subsidiary companies are, as heretofore, transmitted to parent companies in the United States free of any tax deduction at the source, but the Canadian government will be free to tax these dividends as it chooses, at a rate not exceeding 5 per cent.
As the convention comes into force on the first day of January, 1941, a refund will be made of all taxes deducted at the source in excess of the said 15 per cent or 5 per cent rate, without application being made therefor, as the refunds will be made by direction of the government of the United States through the medium of corporations and institutions which initially made the deductions.
The convention shall remain effective for a period of at least three years in respect of all its features, and continuously beyond the three years until at least six months' notice of termination has been given by either country, in which case the termination becomes effective on the first day of January following the expiration of the said six months' period.
However, after the fixed period of three years, the rate of 15 per cent may thereafter be altered without notice and without affecting other parts of the agreement, as it was felt that neither country wished to preclude a change in the tax rates at any time, if a subsequent parliament or congress desired to change them.
Canada for some time has been making representations in connection with tax claims raised by the revenue authorities of the United States on profits or gains made by Canadians trading in securities and commodities in the United States. The tax was claimed, even though in subsequent years losses were sustained which more than offset the prior years of profits on which the tax claim was based. While the profits were in hand, Canadians had no knowledge of their liability. In fact, there was a general belief that no such liability could be raised or would be raised.
Now by reason of this convention, all such persons may effect a settlement with the United States revenue officials on a basis of paying 5 per cent on the dividend and interest yield received by such investors in the years during which they held the securities, provided they file a request for settlement with the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Washington, within two years from the date of signature-not the effective

Tax Convention

date-of this convention. Otherwise they will not receive the benefit of this convention.
This is in effect a change from a capital gains tax to a 5 per cent deduction at the source, based on net revenue, if any, received from such securities.
Capital gains by Canadian residents derived from sources within the United States shall not be subject to tax therein, provided such Canadians have no permanent establishment in the United States.
There are certain extra-territorial features of the revenue laws of the United States, included not only in the 1941 act but in prior acts of that country, which impinged upon any Canadian company if 50 per cent or more of the income of the Canadian company were derived from sources within the United States. These extra-territorial features also impinged upon such Canadian company paying dividends to a Canadian resident, and also upon any such Canadian company accumulating undistributed income.
These are technical in character and the technical features need not now be mentioned in this general announcement. Those particularly interested should refer to the terms of the convention itself.
All these extra-territorial features, so far as Canadians, and Canadian-controlled companies, are concerned, have been eliminated by the terms of the convention.
Charitable organizations are exempt from deduction at the source, if the organization is a charitable organization within the meaning of the laws of each country, when read together. If a charity is such within the meaning of the United States law only, the terms of which perhaps are a little wider than the Canadian definition of charity, but is not a charitable institution within the meaning of the Canadian law, then the deduction at the source would not be waived. The charitable organization must be such within the meaning of our law as well as within the meaning of the United States law.
All persons in the employ of the dominion or provincial governments, or any political subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, whose duties require them to reside in the United States are to be taxed by the Canadian government, while like officials of the United States government, or any political subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, residing in Canada and paid from the United States are not to be taxed in Canada.
On the other hand, pensions shall be taxed in the country where the recipient resides and not in the country where the pensions arise. Life annuities also will be taxed only in the country where the recipient resides.

Each country will refrain from taxing any person from the other country, in respect only of compensation for labour or personal services, if such person-
(a) remains for a period or periods not exceeding 183 days, and
(b)	receives 85,000 or less in the aggregate during such stay;
or
(a) remains for a period or periods not exceeding 90 days, and
(b)	receives $1,500 or less in the aggregate during such stay.
This is intended to exempt a number of persons who are for a short time in industrial activities, but the convention by special mention does not grant exemption in respect of professional earnings such as those received by actors, artists, musicians, and professional athletes who are taxable in the country in which they exercise their skill.
The income derived from the operation of ships or aircraft shall be taxed in the country of registration.
Students or business apprentices are exempt from tax in the country in which they are studying in respect of remittances received by them for the purpose of their maintenance or studies.
Any actual case of double taxation within the purview of this agreement, and not otherwise dealt with, may be dealt with by consultation and appropriate adjustment between the countries.
Each country undertakes to supply the other country with information in respect of dividends, interest, rents, royalties and other periodic payments passing from one to the other.
There is provision in special cases, and at the request of either government, for consultation where the authorities of one country might desire information in respect of any particular taxpayer's activities in the other country.
Finally, there is provision for equality of treatment, namely that the citizens of one of the contracting states residing within the other shall not be subject to the payment of more burdensome taxes than those which are borne by the citizens of the other contracting state, or in other words, citizens of the United States within Canada are not to be discriminated against by more burdensome taxation than that imposed upon our own citizens within Canada.
It should perhaps again be stated that all moneys that have been deducted and collected at the source under the 16i per cent rate that arose immediately after the repeal of the former convention on the 29th April last, and all moneys collected under the 27J per cent rate as provided by the 1941 United States

Tax Convention
revenue laws, are to be refunded to Canadian residents to the extent that they are over the basic 15 per cent or, in the case of parent companies, over the 5 per cent rate now agreed upon, without application having to be made therefor. Hereafter, only 15 per cent will be deducted.
From a reading of the convention, it will be realized that this is probably the most extensive fiscal convention that has yet been entered into on the subject of direct taxation. It is tangible evidence of the growing intimacy between Canada and the United States.
The agreement itself, which, as I stated, was signed yesterday, will be tabled at the earliest possible date.


Hon. R. B. HANSON (Leader of the Opposition):: I was about to ask the minister, on the orders of the day, a question with respect to this convention. He has referred, I assume, to all the salient features of the convention and we shall be able to study it when it is tabled. There is, however, just one question that I should like to ask him at the moment. According to a newspaper report it is stated among other things that the convention also provides for a reduction in certain rates of taxation, and, it goes on:

for the establishment of an exchange of information between the United States and Canada in the field of income taxation.
I am interested to know just how far that goes, having regard to the practice and rule that income tax returns are secret. I can visualize this as a breach of the practice heretofore. May I call the minister's attention to the fact that income tax returns are not even divulged to the succession duties authorities of a province without the consent of the estate of the taxpayer. I am wondering how far this will go to take away the secrecy which heretofore has surrounded the filing of income tax returns.


Colin William George Gibson: The convention itself will
be tabled. It goes quite far in the exchange of information. Each country realizes that every effort should be made to avoid any loss of revenue from evasion of taxation, and my hon. friend will see the convention for himself when it is tabled. I do not think that I can go into particulars at this stage.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I would
point out to the minister, if I am permitted to do so, that income returns are public property in the United States. They have never been public property in Canada, and there should be some reservation. I should think, if it has not been arranged, it should be arranged that in-
44561- 67 j
formation with respect to Canadian taxpayers should be kept secret by the United States authorities at least as long as we keep it secret.
An 'hon. MEMBER: Why?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am not going to enter into a discussion on that. There is a principle involved. We have maintained that principle, and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Usley) has defended it on many occasions, as all finance ministers have done. As a matter of fact it is usually used in the United States to satisfy curiosity.


Mr. MacINNIS:: It is legitimate curiosity.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, it is not. It is no one's business how much my income is as long as I get it honestly.


Colin William George Gibson: It is my business too.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: I do not wish to intervene beyond saying that I recall that when this matter was under consideration some time before, the information in question related entirely to investments in one country of nationals of the other. It does not mean the disclosure of the entire income of any individual.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is reassuring.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The purpose as I understand it is simply to see that nationals of one country who have investments in another country are not taking advantage of that situation to escape paying the taxes they ought to pay to their own country.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have no objection to that.



PREPARATION OF CANADIAN INCOME TAX RETURNS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. FRASER (Peterborough West):: In connection with the statement made by the minister with regard to the collection of taxes at the source, will the minister say just what the Canadian income tax payer is to put on his tax return for 1941, since the tax at present is 27-J per cent, which has been deducted, and it is not likely that refunds will be made for some months to come.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mr. SPEAKER:: This is a question of the kind which should be placed on the order paper.


Colin William George Gibson: If the question could be placed on the order paper, I will answer it later.
Questions



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).

Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: 1.	What is the racial origin of those serving in the active service forces?
2.	What is the racial origin of those serving in the reserve forces?


Mr. RALSTON:: So far as the army is concerned the records concerning attestation papers do not contain information as to racial origin, and hon. members will understand that one would have to go back into the genealogy of an individual in order to ascertain his racial origin, that is whether he is of the Dutch, Scandinavian, Ukrainian, Polish or the many other races that are in this country. The only method by which it could be done-and it would not be at all accurate-would be simply to guess at the person's racial origin from his name, and I do not think that would be a satisfactory way to arrive at a matter of this kind. I can only say that at the present moment the department is not in a position to undertake to procure the information in that rough and ready way.
1.	Fresh fruits	
2.	Citrus fruits and fruits of a class or kind
not grown in Canada	
3.	Fresh vegetables	
4.	Grapefruit juice	
5.	Other fruit juices


BANFF AND JASPER NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. KUHL:: What was the amount of revenue derived by the government from the Banff national park and Jasper national park, for each of the years 1937, 1938, 1939, 1940 and 1941?


Mr. CRERAR:: Banff park Jasper park
1937-	38	
$137,948	11	$40,127	761938-	39	
153,154	77	50,737	621939-	40	
161,696	50	49,625	151940-	41	
181,892	14	63,137	661941-	42*	
206,179	78	60,354	67
*At Feb. 23, 1942.
The amounts indicated do not include gasoline, liquor, licence and other revenues collected by the government of Alberta since this information is not available.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES-CONTRIBUTORY LIFE INSURANCE
Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: What action has the government taken with regard to the advisability of making available to the general list of airmen, pilots and officers on active service, officers and other ranks of the army, or the personnel of the navy and merchant marine, some scheme of contributory life insurance such as that in effect in the United States?


Mr. ILSLEY:: The suggestion indicated in the question has been considered but no action has been taken.


FRUIT AND VEGETABLE IMPORTS FROM UNITED STATES
Mr. GRAYDON:: 1.	What was the total value of the imports of fresh fruits from the United States into Canada during the calendar year 1941?
2.	What was the total value of citrus fruits and fruits of a class or kind not grown in Canada imported from the United States during the said period?
3.	What was the total value of fresh vegetables so imported during the said year?
4.	Flow much grapefruit juice was imported from the United States in 1941, and 'what was the total value of such importations?
5.	What was the amount and value of the importations of all other kinds of fruit and vegetable juices from the United States during the year 1941?


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: Unit	Quantity	Value
$		$15,669,430
$		11,692,087
S		5,716,510
Gal.	2,087,436	769.642Gal.	459,705	408,629



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weybum):: 1.	What is the total amount of money that has been spent by the government in connection with the International Harvester building used for a barracks at Weyburn, Saskatchewan?
2.	What is the total amount paid for rent and what is the monthly rate?
3.	How much was paid for alterations and installations when the building was taken over in 1939-40?
4.	How much was paid for repairs and maintenance?
5.	How much was paid for taking out installations and restoring building to former condition in fall of 1941?
6.	To what persons was this money paid and how much was paid to each?


James Layton Ralston: Return tabled.

Alaska Highway


EXPORT OF FLOUR-SYNTHETIC VITAMINS
Mr. BRUCE:: 1.	What was the cost of the synthetic vitamins which were added to flour exported from Canada during the year 1941?
2.	Was this cost borne by (a) the millers, (b) the Canadian .government, (c) the British government ?


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES-CASUALTIES, DISCHARGES AND PENSIONS
Mr. GRAYDON:: 1.	What is the total number of men in (a) the army, (b) the navy, (c) the air force, wdio in this war, (i) have been killed on active service; (ii) have died of wounds received on active service; (iii) have died from other causes while on active service; (iv) have been taken prisoners of war; (v) are missing on active service; (vi) have appeared on the casualty lists for any other reason?
2.	How many men have been discharged from (a) the army, (b) the navy, (e) the air force, since the war began, by reason of (i) physical unfitness; (ii) injuries or wounds received while on active service?
3.	How many pensions have been granted for disabilities incurred while on active service in the present war?


NATIONAL HARBOURS BOARD
Mr. REID:: 1.	What harbour boards in Canada are under the jurisdiction of the national harbours board?
2.	What amounts of money have been loaned to the various harbour commissions and ports up to the end of 1941?
3.	What is the amount outstanding to the government by the various harbour commissions in Canada up to the end of 1941, in (a) principal, (b) interest?



WAR APPROPRIATION BILL


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide, inter alia,
1. That sums not exceeding $2,000,000,000 be granted to his majesty towards defraying any expenses or making any advances or loans that may be incurred or granted by or under the authority of the governor in council during the -year ending March 31, 1943, for-
(a)	the security, defence, peace, order and welfare of Canada;
(b)	the conduct of naval, military and air operations in or beyond Canada;
(c)	promoting the continuance of trade, industry and business communicatons, whether by means of insurance or indemnity against war risk or in any other manner whatsoever; and
(d)	the carrying out of any measures deemed necessary or advisable by the governor in council in consequence of the existence of a state of war.
2.	That the governor in council be empowered to raise by way of loan under the provisions of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, 1931, such sum or sums of money, not exceeding in the whole the sum of $2,000,000,000 as may be required for the purpose of defraying such expenses or making such advances or loans, the principal and interest of any such loan to be a charge upon and payable out of the consolidated revenue fund.
3.	That the governor in council be empowered to reexpend advance or loan moneys that may be received by way of refund or repayment of advances, loans or expenditure under the war appropriation acts of 1939 (second session), 1940, 1941 and 1942.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That a special committee consisting of Messrs. Bruce, Donnelly, Edwards, Fraser (Peterborough West), Lafontaine, Leger, McCulloch. Marier, Martin, Mitchell, Noseworthy, O'Brien, Reid, Shaw and Winkler be appointed to consider a bill intituled: "An Act to assist in the carrying on and coordination of vocational training" and that the said committee be empowered to send for persons, papers and records and to report from time to time.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Is this not a departure from the usual practice-the setting up of a special committee before the bill is introduced?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The bill is
referred to in resolution No. 9 under government orders.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The resolution is on the order paper, but to set up the committee before the resolution preceding the bill is introduced is, I think, unusual. I think this should stand until we get the bill.


Georges Parent: Stand.



ALASKA HIGHWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Burpee Hanson: I should like to direct an inquiry to the Prime Minister based on a Washington dispatch and to inquire what if anything is taking place or has taken place with respect
Sunday Labour

to the Alaska highway, and whether he has any announcement to make in that regard. Which country will build and finance it? The dispatches indicate that a definite agreement has been made to do the work with the troops.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I made a reference to the
Alaska highway a day or two ago, and there is nothing I can add to what I said at that time. My statement then was to the effect that the matter was under consideration and negotiation, but that no information of a public nature could be given out at present.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And that is the position to-day?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is the position to-day.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Do I
understand, then, that negotiations are still proceeding, and no agreement has been reached?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No agreement that I am aware of, and I think I would be aware of the agreement if there were any.



PRISONERS OF WAR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. P. MULOCK (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the house that arrangements are being made for the introduction of an air letter card service for correspondence with prisoners of war. A fee of ten cents will cover air conveyance in Canada, transatlantic air conveyance and transportation by all available air services beyond Lisbon. This service will be introduced as soon as the necessary forms can be made available. It is believed that this privilege will prove to be an important facility for those corresponding with relatives who are prisoners of war. Negotiations are being initiated with a view to securing reciprocal arrangements under which prisoners and internees in Germany, Italy or Canada may correspond with their homeland by air letter card.



SUNDAY LABOUR


[Stage Direction]
On tne orders of the day:
Mr. LIGUORI LACOMBE (Laval-Two Mountains) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I

wish to read a letter which I have received from the National Catholic union of the paper manufacturing industry and to draw thereto the attention of the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent):
Dolbeau, P.Q., March 3, 1942.
Mr. Liguori Laeombe,
Ottawa.
Dear Sir,
Having read an article published by you some time ago, we send you herewith a copy of a letter from the Department of Justice addressed to Mr. P. J. Martel, secretary of the central diocesan council, Chicoutimi, and copy of which has been forwarded to all the syndicates of the Chicoutimi district.
We should like to know why, in spite of the act referred to, the Lake St. John Pulp and Paper Company has manufactured newsprint at its Dolbeau plant on Sunday last March the 1st.
Yours very truly,
The members of the National Catholic Union of the pulp and paper industry of Dolbeau, Ine.
By L. Dumais,
Secretary.
This is the letter from the Deputy Minister of Justice:
Department of Justice, Canada,
Ottawa, January 29, 1942. Mr. P. J. Martel, secretary,
Central council of . . .


Georges Parent: Order. I understand that
the hon. member has read a communication from himself to the minister and is reading the reply he received from the minister. He is entitled to ask a question, but he should not take too long to lay the foundation. I think now that he has read the letter to the minister he should proceed to ask the question categorically.


Liguori Lacombe: Very well; I will direct
the question to the Minister of Justice.
(Translation):	In view of the fact that
again on Sunday last the Lake St. John Pulp and Paper company manufactured paper at Dolbeau, will the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) take immediate steps to ensure the observation of the law in respect of Sunday labour?
Hon. L. S. St. LAURENT (Minister of Justice): Mr. Speaker, having been unable to understand sufficiently the letters which the hon. member has read, I regret that I cannot give him an immediate answer. I will read them in the transcription of the reporter's notes and will endeavour to give him a reply to-morrow.

Canadian Army



REQUEST FOR ANNOUNCEMENT OF GOVERNMENT POLICY FOR PRESENT YEAR

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. M. NICHOLSON (Mackenzie):: I
should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and I am sorry I did not have an opportunity to send him notice. Before coming into the chamber I received a telegram with regard to meetings of farmers in my constituency, and asking when an announcement might be made with regard to the wheat policy of the government for the present year. I wonder if the minister could give any indication as to when this information may be made available to the farmers.


James Angus MacKinnon: I believe the resolution dealing with this matter will be on the order paper to-morrow, and will be proceeded with as rapidly as possible.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. NOSEWORTHY (York South):: According to the Toronto and Windsor newspapers, picketing is in progress at the Motor Products plant in Windsor, and arrests already have been made. On Tuesday the minister told us that the men at that plant had volunteered to return to work but that the management refused to take them back. Will the minister now tell us what success his department has had so far in getting these men back to work in a vital war industry?


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: The hon. member for
Essex East (Mr. Martin) asked me the same question this morning. I have no further knowledge than I had when the hon. member asked the question the other day. At that time I pointed out to him that these men were on an illegal strike; that they had been so informed by myself, and advised to return to work. I forwarded a telegram to the company suggesting that they take these men back to work, and at the moment Mr. Louis Fine, Toronto industrial disputes inquiry commissioner, is in Windsor dealing with the matter.



CANADIAN ARMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Layton Ralston: I want to refer to two matters which have arisen in the house in my absence. There was a statement made by the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot), during the course of a speech which he delivered on March 2, in which he intimated or left the impression that the inspector general for western Canada, Major-General Griesbach, had some responsibility for the dispatch of the expedition to Hong Kong. I can say to the house that Major-General Griesbach had nothing whatever to do with that expedition.
During the course of that same speech the hon. member read a letter from some young man at a training camp at Brantford, complaining that he had been subjected to some persecution on account of speaking French, and that in the course of an altercation which occurred he was arrested and put into the guard room. I have had a report from the training camp at Brantford, and the information I get is that a check of the guard reports reveals that only two men were confined in the guard room over the week-end of February 1, 1942, which was the date referred to, these being two drunks. Neither of these men was a French-Canadian. Inquiries made of all concerned reveal no knowledge of any such fracas as that described. There is no officer at this training centre by name of Lieutenant Wisseman, which is the name of the officer referred to by the hon. member in his speech.
Yesterday the hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. Tustin) referred to an order for a return passed on February 2, showing the number of men enlisted in the Canadian expeditionary force during each month of the great war, 1914-1918, and the Prime Minister promised to inquire with regard to it. I may say that that return was filed; the figures which were made up were checked, and it was pointed out that there was some discrepancy between the figures in the return and the figures in other papers or documents which had been published. The reason for the delay is to see that the figures are checked, and I expect to be able to file the returns to-morrow.
With regard to the matters about which 1 spoke first, may I point out that I have been attending the Hong Kong inquiry, and it is impossible to be in two places at the same
Wheat Acreage Reduction

time. That is why I was not in my seat to speak about these matters when the hon. member for Temiscouata spoke.


Hon. C. G. POWER (Minister of National Defence for Air):: With respect to a question raised about something which may have occurred in Brantford, may I point out that there is a service flying school there. It may be that the air force is involved, and I shall make inquiries.



TRANSFERS FROM RESERVE TO ACTIVE ARMY AT BRANTFORD TRAINING CENTRE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. R. MACDONALD (Brantford City):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak to a question of privilege. In view of the fact that the training centre at Brantford has been brought to the attention of the house, I feel it my duty to point out to hon. members the fact that last week there appeared in the Brantford Expositor a statement to the effect that one entire platoon in the camp had gone active. I am happy to read in this morning's Globe and Mail that a second platoon has also gone active. I believe this reflects great credit not only upon the commanding officer, but also upon the other officers, non-commissioned officers and men, for the splendid spirit which resulted in this action.



JAPANESE NATIONALS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Burpee Hanson: May I ask the Minister of Justice if he has a reply to the question I put yesterday.
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice): Yesterday the leader of the opposition asked who was to support the Japanese population now being removed from protected areas. The British Columbia security commission is empowered to prepare plans dealing with all the details of evacuation and care of that population. Pending the receipt of the plan there is no information I can give my hon. friend.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It has been pointed out that many of these Japanese nationals are quite capable of supporting themselves, and that they have assets in this country.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The security commission has working with it an advisory committee of twenty prominent persons residing in British Columbia, and I have no doubt they will have complete information on the whole problem.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They have full jurisdiction?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: They are required to prepare a plan for submission to the minister, and when the plan is approved they will have full jurisdiction to carry it out.



MEASURE TO PROVIDE ACREAGE REDUCTION AND CERTAIN PAYMENTS TO FARMERS

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a measure respecting wheat acreage reduction, to provide for the payment of certain sums to farmers in connection therewith, and for the administration of the act.
He said:	Before you leave the chair, Mr. Speaker, I should like to explain that a suggestion has been made to me that this resolution, another resolution introduced by the Minister of Trade and Commerce and a bill on prairie farm assistance, which I shall introduce tomorrow, should all be advanced to the same' stage before a general discussion takes place. This suggestion is made because there is some association among these measures. It is suggested that that should be the stage at which the bills are in the hands of hon. members.
I have discussed the matter with the three groups opposite, and I understand that the suggestion will meet with the approval of hon. members in those groups. If so I should like now to have this resolution advance to the stage where it will be possible to introduce the bill to be based upon it.
Mr. E-. E. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle): A few days ago I made the suggestion to the Minister of Agriculture that since this matter was being handled this session by way of bills rather than by orders in council, it would be satisfactory if we could see the bills before any discussion took place. These matters are interwoven, and all the measures would have reference to practically the same thing, namely the producing and marketing of wheat. I believe we could not segregate the two questions.
This is now March 5, and seeding will commence in western Canada in about a month. The farmers out there want to know what they are going to be asked to do with respect to reducing their wheat acreage, and also they wish information as to prices. If these bills were to go through in the ordinary way, and discussion were to take place on each before going to committee, any one of them might be delayed for three weeks or so. Therefore in order to facilitate the passage of these measures

Wheat Acreage Reduction
I have suggested that both ministers should make their statements, that we should advance all measures at least to first reading, and have any general discussion at that stage. If that is agreeable, I am sure our group would be willing so to proceed. I should like to hear a statement from each minister, so that in the discussion there w7ill be no overlapping and repetition. It might all very well be done at one and the same time.
Mr. COLDWELL:: I can assure the hon. member for Qu'Appelle we have given our assurance to the minister that the procedure he has suggested is satisfactory to us. I believe that is the best way to proceed.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: Our group hold the same view. We are very anxious to hear the government's policy at the earliest possible moment.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The arrangement is that both ministers shall make their statements to-day?


Mr. GARDINER:: No, that we make our statements on first reading.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If that is understood, I am agreeable.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: May we have some information from the government as to how soon the ministers will be in a position to make their statements? We are perfectly willing to follow this procedure, but the minister must know that we are receiving letters from all parts of Saskatchewan which indicate that matters are in a serious condition, and feeling is running high. This resolution has been on the order paper about a week. We would like to know particularly when the Minister of Trade and Commerce will make his statement.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is a resolution which has been advanced one stage, and in connection with which a bill will be introduced by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. So long as consent of the house is given to a change being made in the wording, so as to advance matters to-morrow, it will be possible to bring in the statements on Monday. If these resolutions can be advanced to-day and to-morrow, then those statements can be made by both ministers on Monday, and we can proceed from that point.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I want to understand the situation. Apparently all parties are in agreement, and the hon. member for Qu'Appelle is of the same opinion. He wishes to see the bills, and to have statements from the ministers. .The usual practice is for 44561-68
a minister to make a statement in the resolution stage, and personally I do not see any reason to depart from that procedure. But if my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle is satisfied, I am.


James Garfield Gardiner: I believe what the hon. member for Qu'Appelle says is true, namely that it is difficult to discuss one without the other. One would have to ask questions with respect to one bill before he could make a decision with respect to the others. The suggestion is made that we have all bills before hon. members before we start, so that we may read them.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And hear the ministers' statements.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Vien in the chair.
Resolution reported.


Georges Parent: When shall the report be received?


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is understood that the ministers will make their statements on the first readings, and that they will be made on the same day-on Monday.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Georges Parent: I would call the attention of hon. members to the fact that when a bill is read the first time there is no debate.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is just the point; that is the whole thing. We are departing from the rule. Let us stick to the rules; what are they there for?


Mr. TUCKER:: By consent.
Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury); It is an impossible position.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: May I point out to my hon. friend that it is quite usual for ministers to explain the principle on the first reading and then the bill can be turned over for debate on the second reading.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is very helpful.
Resolution read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Gardiner thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 12, respecting wheat acreage reduction.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

Wheat Board Act



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT


[Stage Direction]
On. the order, "Government notices of motions."
William Lyon Mackenzie King: In order to facilitate what has been agreed to, and in order that a statement may be made on Monday by the minister with respect to its subject matter, I would direct the attention of hon. members to the following resolution under government notices of motions which stands in the name of the Minister of Trade and Commerce:
Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935, by making provision for the payment of an increased rate per bushel on wheat delivered by producers and in addition the payment of a further sum by warrant in respect of wheat grown in the western division in 1942.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce intended to amend this resolution by omitting certain of its words. If the house will agree to return to government notices of motion and allow me to move that the resolution in the name of the minister, as amended by the omission of the words "and in addition the payment of a further sum by warrant in respect of wheat grown in the western division in 1942," be considered at the next sitting of the house, I will do so. The resolution would then appear on the order paper to-morrow under government orders.
I would say that His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I understand the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley) has intimated to the minister that he is agreeable to this, but the procedure is wrong. It is in defiance of the rules of the house and should not be considered a precedent for the future. The minute we depart from the rules we run up against snags in the future development of legislation and I think in the future we should observe the rules.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: You do it every day.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is the trouble; at the request of the government it is done every day. We are violating the rules of this 'house.every day. They do not seem to mean very much now.


Mr. E. E. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle):: We have been here well on to two months and there has been enough delay. There has been so much discussion on the plebiscite bill and on the address that I agreed to this for the purpose of getting something done so that the people in western Canada would know where they are at and where they are going to get off this spring. Take my own case for example; this will likely change my whole programme of farming this summer. I did this only to facilitate matters and get it through. I am not urging any further breaches of the rules. I simply want us to get on with this matter so that we can do something.


John Horne Blackmore: It has been most difficult to hear down at this end of the chamber what has been going on in the last half hour. I am not too clear about what it was the Prime Minister wished to do with respect to this resolution. It is simply impossible to hear what is going on. If the Prime Minister wishes to amend this resolution I should like to know just what the amendment is.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What I am seeking to do on behalf of the Minister of Trade and Commerce is to advance one stage the resolution which stands in his name. It is the first under government notices of motion. My motion is for the purpose of advancing the resolution one stage through complying with the formality whereby the minister declares that His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of the resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house. That is all I am seeking to do, except also to ask that the resolution be amended by striking out the words, "and in addition the payment of a further sum by warrant in respect o.f wheat grown in the western division in 1942." The minister wishes those words to be stricken out. I am seeking to have the resolution thus amended advanced one stage.


Ernest Edward Perley: Does this mean that the minister is going to change the bill altogether? The impression you get from this resolution is that there is going to be a price fixed and then provision is to be made for a bonus afterwards. Now you are going to eliminate that part of the resolution that provides for the payment of a bonus, so that the bill that will

Forces-Reinstatement in Employment
follow will be only half the resolution, so to speak. I do not think we should agree to that now. I think we should follow it up in the proper way. This changes the whole bill.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I was simply trying to meet my hon. friend's wishes. If he prefers not to proceed now, this resolution will be withdrawn to-day and another substituted for it to-morrow with the few words I have indicated omitted. The minister does not wish to have those words form part of the resolution. When the bill is introduced he will state exactly what its provisions are. The bill is prepared and the minister is ready to introduce it to-morrow so that it can be discussed on Monday, but the resolution would have to be advanced one stage to-day. Otherwise, we would have to wait until Tuesday, before a statement could be made on the bill.


Ernest Edward Perley: It would not be the same bill that is indicated by this resolution. There would be a change of policy.


Mr. COLD WELL:: I think we should agree to it, because if the resolution is withdrawn, and the government has the power to do it to make the changes, it would mean another delay. I must say that we did not hear what was said just now, but lately we have not been listening to a lot of the discussion that has taken place across the floor of the chamber because some of it seemed entirely too long and of little consequence.
Motion as amended agreed to.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Georges Parent: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Ottawa, 5th March, 1942.
Sir:-I have the honour to inform you that the Right Hon. Sir Lyman P. Duff, Chief Justice of Canada, acting as deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber to-day, Thursday the 5th March, at 5.50 p.m., for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
F. L. C. Pereira, Assistant Secretary to the Governor General.



CANADIAN ARMED FORCES


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, March 4, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mitchell for the second reading of Bill No. 5, to provide for the reinstatement in civil employment of individuals who enlist for service in his majesty's forces or who perform essential war employment.
Mr. A. W. ROEBUCK (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, the house is addressing itself to Bill No. 5, the principle of which is to secure to men in the active armed forces of Canada reinstatement in the civil positions which they occupied prior to enlistment upon their honourable discharge from military service. I wish to express my hearty sympathy with the object and purposes of this bill. The plight of the returned soldier, after months or perhaps years in the routine of camp and perhaps the din of battle, coming back to Canada and endeavouring to reinstate and reestablish himself in civil life, is one which should commend itself to the sympathy of all members of this house. To me this has always been and is now a matter of special and peculiar interest. I can imagine no more difficult and undesirable position in which to be placed than to be told that your time is worthless or your work is no good, that for you there is no place in the sun.
The last war, Mr. Speaker, was a terrible disaster. Undoubtedly, when you add up all the factors, I have described it correctly as a great disaster. But it does seem to me, and I will venture the statement that the long period of unemployment which followed the great war was a greater disaster; that, notwithstanding the loss of life of the great war and its tremendous cost in human flesh and1 blood, the moral degradation, the destruction of human fibre, was greater in those years of extensive unemployment than it was in the fighting period. That is perhaps a broad statement, but I believe that most hon. members who went through that period and associated with and saw the struggles of those attempting to find work to support their families, will agree with me.
It would be very easy indeed to criticize destructively the weakness and the insufficiency of this bill, if any public purpose were to be served by so doing. There are three outstanding weaknesses, or shall I say insufficiencies, in the bill.
In the first place, the bill seeks to grant its benefits only to those who held positions before
1054

Forces-Reinstatement in Employment
enlisting, so that it entirely overlooks the very large number of men who unfortunately, and possibly only temporarily, were without jobs at the time they entered his majesty's service.
Second, it assures to those who did hold jobs at the time of enlistment no better jobs than they had when they went away, irrespective of how poorly they were paid at that time and irrespective of changing conditions; with this exception only, that it does respect the seniority rights of those who enlisted, if such rights of seniority ever existed -and of course they exist in only a few cases.
A third insufficiency of this bill is that it does not make provision-and of course it could not do so-for those whose jobs will no longer exist by the time they return from war, and that may well be so in a very large number of instances, in the rapidly changing economic and social conditions of to-day.
The bill is little more than a gesture; on the other hand it is a good1 gesture; it is in the right direction, and it shows that the new Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) at least realizes the existence of the problem which Canada at some time must confront, that is to say, the return and demobilization of a large number of men.
The realization of the general problem, which is more interesting perhaps than the bill itself, is to be found in the preamble. The first words which I wish to quote are as follows:
... a great national problem will be presented when the members of those forces complete their service and are to be returned to civil employment.
And the next words, at the bottom of the paragraph:
... it is deemed expedient for the security, defence, peace, order and welfare of Canada that provision should be made for the orderly reinstatement in their previous employment of such persons aforesaid;
Now, if it is expedient that men should be returned to employment who had employment previously, surely the expediency is not confined to those persons only. It is expedient -most expedient-that all men on discharge from the armed forces of Canada be given employment. The importance is attached to employment for all, not merely to reinstatement for some.
The government evidently has realized1 one aspect of the problem, and I suggest that surely the government also recognizes the other horn of the dilemma.
Nor is that expediency to which I have referred limited to those leaving the armed forces. I am sometimes appalled at the thought of what will occur when we demobilize the army of Canada and perhaps half a million

men are thrown suddenly on the labour market, to join some seven hundred thousand men and women discharged from the munitions factories. So, Mr. Speaker, you have a picture of possibly 1,200,000 soldiers of Canada, workers if you like, those in uniform and those in overalls, all contributing at present to Canada's war effort, suddenly discharged upon the streets to be enlisted in the army of the unemployed. That is the picture which, I submit to this house, may well appal the boldest who looks forward1-something at which the stoutest heart may quail, as we look into the future and contemplate what may happen and what will happen if nothing is done to prevent it.
It is the duty of this parliament to study diligently that problem and to see to it, if it is within our power to do so, that no such post-war catastrophe shall occur in this country. That study should commence right here and now. It is a high task to which we are called; We are not alone in being called to that task. We are not alone in the concern which I am expressing and which all hon. members must feel, nor are we alone in the vision which some people at least are catch' ing, not of the disaster which is ahead of us if we are so foolish as to allow it to overtake us, but rather the vision of a new order and a better world which we can create if we have the wisdom to do so.
These thoughts are stirring everywhere. It may be that some other hon. members do not meet the evidences of this thought-though perhaps I am in no special position-as much as I do. I say "perhaps" because I see welling up around me on every side discouragement and discontent and the desire to meet in some way the problem which everyone feels is coming upon us.
May I call attention to one of the greatest documents of modern history; I refer to the Atlantic declaration. It has been referred to as the modem magna eharta of human freedom, and perhaps the description was justified. It was promulgated by the two great leaders of democracy, the Prime Minister of Great Britain and the President of the United States. It was approved1 by the self-governing dominions and by Russia. It was described by the Prime Minister of Great Britain as "a rough and ready goal towards which the democracies are marching."
I pass over the political clauses of the declaration, although they are of historic import, and I call the attention of the house to paragraphs 4, 5 and 6, because they embody the economic declarations of the charter and apply in general principle, or are of interest in a

Forces-Reinstatement in Employment
general way, to the principle of this bill. May I read these three short paragraphs from the declaration:
4. They-
When we read "they" it means the two signatories to the document, and behind them the great nations which they represent.
4.	They will endeavour, with due respect for their existing obligations, to further the enjoyment by all states, great or small, victor or vanquished, of access on equal terms to the trade and to the raw materials of the world which are needed for their economic prosperity.
5.	They desire to bring about the fullest collaboration between all nations in the economic field, with the object of securing for all improved labour standards, economic advancement and social security.
Social security is the object of this bill.
6.	After the final destruction of the nazi tyranny they hope to see established a peace which will afford to all nations the means of dwelling in safety within their own boundaries and which will afford assurance that all the men in all the lands may live out their lives in freedom from fear and want.
The declaration seems to recognize the disastrous part which social injustice plays as a basic cause for war and world upheaval, and it gives certain assurance that we, the members of this house-because included in those represented at that meeting are the members of this house-it gives the assurance, by ourselves and others, to both the victor and the vanquished, of access on equal terms to the trade and raw materials of the world which are needed for their prosperity, to the end that all men may live their lives in freedom from fear and from want.
The objects of the signers of the treaty are improved labour standards, economic adjustments, and, above all, security such as we would give to the young men discharged from the ranks of our soldier forces.
If that means anything, Mr. Speaker, it means greater freedom of trade, not a narrow protectionist doctrine such as I heard at least referred to in yesterday afternoon's debate by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) -freedom of trade, greater freedom at least, and not as he would have, greater restrictions.
If that means anything, it means equal access by all to the raw materials of the world; and of course access to the raw materials of the world can be secured only by access to the lands, forests, mines and other natural resources of the world, from which those raw materials are derived.
Speaking about unjust social conditions as a cause for war, surely we may assume that the German armies could never have been induced to make their attack upon the lands of Russia had they not been themselves debarred in some
way from free access to their own lands, debarred by unrestricted rents and prices of land charged to the poor German people by the junker class.
I give expression to these thoughts because they seem to apply to what I think are the three principles of social reconstruction which we must observe on the conclusion of this war, if we are not to run into great trouble and great cost. There are three points which I would mention seriatim.
In the first instance there must be a sufficient clearing of the avenues of trade to allow all commodities to pass freely within our own land and from our own land to other lands and back. For that purpose there must be a reduction in tariff levies, in quotas and restrictions of that nature; and then I suggest that there must be every possible improvement that we can make in the facilities for communication and transportation. I mention in that connection the St. Lawrence waterway. We should develop that great highway of traffic in order that it may contribute to our greater freedom of trade, the transporting of our commodities, the making of our inland lakes into ocean passages for freight, and the harbours of the inland lakes into ocean ports. That is one thing. We must have freedom of communication, and to the extent of our ability we must abolish, we must sweep away, obstructions to trade both physical and legal.
The next thing which we must do, it seems to me, is this. We must organize industry, and I include in that financial organization, so that business men may be prepared to launch enterprises which will make use of the raw materials of our land and thus absorb our population into profitable employment.
There is also a third principle-and this is the last point I am making in this series. There should be such governmental interference as may be necessary to ensure that Canada's natural resources shall be held by the owners in trust for use and not alone for profit. That is the most important of" the three statements I have made. First, freedom of trade and communication; second, organization of industry and finance so that the captains of industry may plan in advance the enterprises which are required for the use of our materials arjd the employment of our population; third, a recognition, individually and collectively by our people, recognition by our parliaments and in our legislation, that ownership is for use and not alone for profit. To keep any natural facilities out of use is at least an unpatriotic act.
Canada is standing on the threshold of a great opportunity, an opportunity which if neglected or misused means disaster, but which if seized by the men in control, with
1056	COMMONS
Forces-Reinstatement in Employment
the agreement of those who support us, and used with judgment and energy, may make of this country one of the greatest in the whole family of nations.
I want to compliment the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNieol) upon the most excellent speech which he made yesterday afternoon, with the spirit of which I most heartily agree. He is my next-door neighbour; is a good neighbour, and I like to see him address himself to problems of this kind. I think that he and I have the same outlook, if not the same philosophy. He expressed the hope that at the close of this war we shall not face the kind of conditions through which we passed at the close of the last war. Of course I echo that hope, but hope alone is not enough; what is needed is thought, serious thought, and thought followed by resolute action.
"Where there is no vision the people perish." We should be thinking of this problem now. To leave it until the war is ended and the disaster is upon us is not good enough; it will be too late. We should be thinking about this matter now and should be planning developments. We should see to it, to the extent of our ability, that we go on with the St. Lawrence waterway, thus adding some two or three thousand miles of coast line to our already extensive seaboard, and giving to the province of Ontario another million horse-power of electric energy. Let us combine this vast supply of electric energy with these unexampled facilities for trade, and then organize industry to make use of these wonderful facilities.
I wonder if this house catches the vision of these great lakes and the areas which surround them, the vision of a great industrial population, great cities, teeming populations of active and happy men engaged in production, if we but see to it that these resources are made available, that they are used and not ^simply held, and that the captains of industry intelligently apply their thought to the problem of bringing about the enterprises which are necessary to use the natural resources and employ our people.
I suggest to the Minister of Labour that he should be planning now-not little bills like this, although I heartily approve of this bill; he should be planning, if we are to avoid disaster, the broader development which should come to this country at the close of this war. We must plan the use of the lands, [DOT]the forests and the mines to this general end; the conversion of the factories which are now making munitions of war to the production of food and clothing and the distribution of the goods, and the general principles which apply in both cases.

Let us plan for the peace-for peace must come some time. During the course of the war between the north and the south, which to them was the disaster of history, Abraham Lincoln assured his people that "even this will pass"; and so will the disaster of the present war. Even this will pass; perhaps barker than we can at this moment realize, that time will be upon us, and we should to-day be planning for the days of peace with the meticulous care for detail and with the energy and foresight with which Hitler planned for war. We can do it, but if we are to win the victories of peace we must not approach the problem in the lackadaisical way in which we approached the problems of war.
I say to the Minister of Labour that he should at the present time be calling to his help and surrounding himself with men of knowledge, men of experience and judgment. There should be councils of workers and managers and owners and financiers, and these men should now be working out this problem. Work it out we can if we but give our unselfish devotion to it. Everyone who can contribute should be called around this council table to work out the details as well as the general principles.
This little bill is all right as a gesture; it may confer some benefit here and there, although it does seem to me that anything which the bill compels would be given voluntarily by any decent employer. There may be some employers who are not decent, and so far as they are concerned the compulsion applied by the bill will be of advantage. It is a step in the right direction, a step which I welcome, but only a step. If the Minister of Labour would attack the broader problem, he can solve the problem of employment. If he can organize in advance the industries which can employ these men, so as to avoid the disasters which followed the last war; if he can do this, the name of the present Minister of Labour will find a place in the history books of this country.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I should like to extend my congratulations to the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Roebuck) upon the very excellent speech he has made, and his far-seeing and prophetic outlook upon the post-war world. I only hope that the point of view he has expressed will be infectious and that some of his colleagues w'ill catch it, particularly some of those who sit on the treasury benches.
The problem of reestablishing and rehabilitating the men who come back from the fighting services is probably the most important question, next to the winning of the

Forces-Reinstatement in Employment
war, that can engage the attention of members of this house. In view of the sad experiences after the last war I am sure a great many people in Canada felt that we would do better during and after this war. I doubt, however, if that hope has been realized. It is interesting to go back and see what we have done to care for and reestablish our returned men in the two and a half years that Canada has been at war. I remind the house that in the first two years we were at war, that is, prior to October 1 last, we did absolutely nothing for the men who were being discharged from the fighting services. The sum total of our contribution to their welfare was to hand them one month's pay and turn them loose to fend for themselves. I think the most pathetic sight I ever saw was in walking down the main street of my own town and meeting a man whom I had last seen in uniform. He was pale, shaky and walking very slowly. To my amazement I found that this man had been discharged from hospital still running a temperature, with a month's pay in his pocket and a cheap suit on his back. He was looking for a job, but was not physically capable of taking one if someone had offered it to him. I took up his case with the responsible authorities. After a long exchange of letters nothing was done, and the Canadian Legion in my district finally succeeded in helping him to secure some employment.
Cur treatment of the men discharged from the fighting services in the first two years of this war is something that ought to make every member of this house blush for shame. I will say more; it has been a deterrent in our recruiting campaign. Nothing will tend more to keep young men who are thinking of joining the active service forces from doing so than to have returned to their community some man who cannot get a job and cannot rehabilitate himself, and for them to see him either going on relief or going from one government department to another to see if someone will not take care of him until he can find employment.
That is the situation. Hon. members will remember that in 1940, when this parliament was first convened, the Prime Minister had on the order paper a resolution calling for the setting up of a select committee of this house to study the whole problem of reconstruction and rehabilitation. For some reason which has never been explained to us, that motion was taken off the order paper. No committee was ever set up. I believe an interdepartmental committee was set up under the Department of Pensions and National Health, a committee composed of a number of university presidents and I believe a representative of one labour organization. But nothing has been done toward harnessing the abilities of this house, or of business, industry, labour and agriculture, to the problem of laying out a comprehensive and adequate scheme to take care not only of the dribble of men coming out of the armed services now but also of the hundreds of thousands of men who will be demobilized when peace comes.
To be fair, of course, one must say that there has been some change by the government in the past few months. On October 1, 1941, order in council P.C. 7633 was passed, marking the beginning of a recognition of the government's responsibility in respect to these men. Under this order in council returned men are given benefits under the unemployment insurance scheme, single men receiving $9 a week and married men S13 a week for periods varying in accordance with the length of their service but in no case to exceed fifty-two weeks. Under this scheme there is also some attempt to help these men get placed in civilian employment. But even here, tied up as it is with unemployment insurance, these men are finding it very difficult to be adequately taken care of. Only yesterday I received a wire from Edmonton, Alberta, which said:
Discharged soldiers this war starving Edmonton. Unemployment insurance cheques delayed repeatedly at Calgary. Must have action now.
The difficulty is that the problem of reestablishment and reconstruction is tied up with the unemployment insurance scheme, with only one placement officer in the province, to whom these men have not access. These men come back; they are confronted with all sorts of red tape and find themselves either inadequately cared for or improperly reestablished in civilian life.
Now, coming to the bill itself, I would say that while there can be no quarrel with the principle of trying to reestablish men in civilian life, this bill is of course merely an improvisation. The hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Roebuck) called it a gesture, but a beautiful gesture. I think it might better be called a gesture but an empty gesture.


Humphrey Mitchell: It is not fair to say that.


Mr. MARTIN:: Was this bill not approved by the legion?


Humphrey Mitchell: It was approved by the legion.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: By whom it was approved is not the important thing. The important thing is whether or not it will contribute materially toward reestablishing and rehabilitating men coming back, not only now

Forces-Reinstatement in Employment
but after the war. While it is a gesture, and is to be commended, I think it will have to be a part of something much bigger if it is to have any real value in the way it is intended.
For a few moments I should like to direct attention to the bill itself. In the first place it should be pointed out that it covers only certain classifications. That is, it covers men who have been in active service or men who, having taken training under the National Resources Mobilization Act, have been put on garrison duty. As I understand it from reading the bill, it will not take care of men who have been taken out of civil employment for compulsory training and released upon the completion of that training. They will not benefit under this legislation. I hope when we reach the committee stage the minister will tell us why these men who have been compelled to leave their jobs-


Humphrey Mitchell: I can tell my hon. friend now, if he will permit me. It is because they are already covered in the regulations dealing with men called up for military training, in somewhat similar but briefer language than this.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have a wire here from a man in Regina who was working for a certain concern, and who was called up for training. At the end of two and a half months, his health not being able to stand it, he is discharged as medically unfit. He goes to get his job back, and they say to him, "Your job has been filled, but we can give you another job." After working two weeks they say, "You are not physically fit to take the other job, because it requires a much stronger person"-and he is discharged. This man has no means by which he can compel the firm for which he was working prior to his being called for training to .rehire him in his former position. All his attempts have been in vain, and that is the position in which he finds himself.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Whom was he working for?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I shall send the letter to the minister.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Every single case which has come to my attention has been reinstated.


Richard Burpee Hanson: How many of them?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Not very many have come to our attention.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Most
employers are very generous.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, and in every case they have taken the men back. If my hon. friend would give me privately the facts concerning the case he mentions, I will see that the man is reinstated.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I thank the minister for that. But the case has already been referred once or twice to government authorities.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Has it come to my attention?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I do not tJhink it has come to the attention of the minister.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Every single case-one hundred per cent of them-has been reinstated, tinder the order in council. There has not been a single refusal.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Representations have been made to the Minister of National War Services and Minister of National Defence.


Mr. GOLDING:: When a quotation is made from a letter it should be laid on the table.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The letter can be laid on the table. But if the hon. member who is scratching with his pen would listen to the debate, instead of merely popping up and displaying his general ignorance of procedure in the house-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -it would be more to the point. Further, I did not quote from the letter.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I do not wish to interrupt my hon. friend, but there is authority under the old order in council which this bill now supplants. I must repeat that no case has come to my attention which has not been reinstated. I would ask him as a matter of kindness to bring to my attention the case he has in mind, and I will guarantee action on it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I thank the minister for that.


William Henry Golding: With reference to the hon. member's uncomplimentary remarks about myself, I do not think it is out of place to ask that any letter from which a quotation is made should be laid on the table.


Thomas Miller Bell: But it was not quoted from.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I did not quote from the letter; I merely referred to a case.
MARCH 5, 1942	1U59
Forces-Reinstatement in Employment
I wish to thank the Minister of Pensions and National Health for saying that the matter will be given attention.


William Ross Macdonald: I do not think the hon. member for Weyburn should have used the word "ignorance". He should be asked to withdraw.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I shall be glad to withdraw the word "ignorance" with respect to the hon. member.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Let us all control our tempers.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Of necessity the bill is very limited as to the number of returned men who will be affected by it. As I have already said, it will not touch, for instance, men who were unemployed prior to enlistment. That covers a large number. Any of us who remember the fall of 1939, and the thousands of men-


Paul Joseph James Martin: That will be covered in the other bills.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There are other measures to look after that situation. There are many other measures. I sent a circular letter to every hon. member in the house with reference to the terms of an order in council passed on October 1, 1941, in which there are specific measures for looking after those who were unemployed before.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister was out of the house when I referred to order in council P.C. 7633, and the provisions in respect thereto. But if he wishes, I shall pick up the thread of my argument.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The order in council in question cares for men who come under the unemplo3'ment insurance scheme for only a period of time equivalent to their length of service, but not more than fifty-two weeks.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is only one of six specific benefits enumerated in the order in council.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is quite correct. But let us consider the man who was unemployed prior to enlistment, and who now finds that when he leaves the army he receives the benefits under the order in council to which the minister has referred. He may be in a position to take the vocational training. But there will have to be something much more comprehensive if we are to guarantee
him two things: we have either to guarantee him care, and be responsible for him until he can be placed-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is exactly what the order in council does.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I must differ from the minister.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I do not think my hon. friend is familiar with P.C. 91, which was complementary to the order in council of October 1.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have it here as a matter of fact. I am pointing out that the whole problem of rehabilitation boils down to three things. First, the government must be prepared to accept complete responsibility for the men until such time as they are gainfully employed, irrespective of the length of time required for that purpose. Second, the government is responsible for the training of these people, so that they can be put into some-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is all arranged for.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Let him finish.


Paul Joseph James Martin: This whole discussion is out of order.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am surprised that my hon. friend is not more familiar with what has already been done.


Thomas Miller Bell: I rise to a point of order. The minister will have ample opportunity to reply to the statements made by the hon. member for Weyburn, and I suggest he ought not to interrupt, unless he has permission from the chair to do so. There is no hon. member in the house who rises more frequently to points of order with respect to other people than does the minister himself. I would ask him too to observe the rules.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I thought I was rising with the consent of the hon. member for Weyburn.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I rise to a point of order. This is an important discussion, but hon. members have not come prepared to discuss the whole question. The question before us pow is Bill No. 5, which has to do with a relatively small but specific problem related to the whole matter. I do not wish in any way to interrupt the discussion, because it is an important one, and one in which I purpose taking part. But we ought to discuss only
1060	COMMONS
Forces-Reinstatement in Employment
the subject matter which has been given us, and that is the subject matter of Bill No. 5. The hon. member may be discussing important matters, but surely he is not discussing the bill.


Richard Burpee Hanson: On a point
of order-*


Georges Parent: There is no point of order. This is debate on the second reading of a bill, and the hon. member is speaking within the rules.


Richard Burpee Hanson: On second reading of a bill surely it is the right of an hon. member to discuss its deficiencies. Surely he is permitted to discuss what is lacking in the bill. He could discuss alternatives in matters of policy.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, but that is not what is being done.


Georges Parent: I have already ruled that the hon. member is in order, and I would ask that he be allowed to continue without further interruptions.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I did not hear what Your Honour said.


Richard Burpee Hanson: He says you are all right; go ahead.


Georges Parent: I have said that the argument of the hon. member is in order, and that he is entitled to proceed without further interruptions.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I point out that the hon. member for Trinity discussed the Atlantic charter.


Paul Joseph James Martin: He was certainly at sea.


Georges Parent: Order.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The following words appear in the preamble to the bill:
Whereas in view of the necessity of raising large military forces for service in the present war and for the defence of Canada, a great national problem will be presented when the members of those forces complete their service and are to be returned to civil employment.
I take it that the principle of the bill before us has to do with the whole question of reestablishment and rehabilitation. I have no desire to enter into any controversy with the Minister of Pensions and National Health or with the Minister of Labour, but we should have from both ministers statements prefacing this bill and the bill respecting vocational training which is to come later.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I promised the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) at the last session that I would make

such a statement. It was my intention to make it when the war appropriation bill was before us, because I thought that that would be a more appropriate occasion than this to deal with the whole question of rehabilitation and reconstruction. The argument has broadened out this afternoon and it may be necessary to make this statement before then.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: My point was that this bill, the bill dealing with vocational training, and the bill dealing with soldier land settlement ought to have been prefaced by a comprehensive statement by one or more ministers outlining the whole scheme. No person can discuss this particular bill by itself. It is a small part of a great picture, and perhaps I was putting it too strongly when I said that it represented only a gesture; it is not much more than a gesture taken by itself. It must be considered in the light of what the government proposes to do in the whole field. This bill will touch only a limited number of people; it will touch only those who had jobs before the war. It cannot do anything for the man who joined the army from college or high school. This bill deals specificaby with that group of men who had employment and who were not filling jobs that had been held previously by other men who had joined the army. As I say, this is only a small part of a complicated jig-saw puzzle, and I think the ministers might have given us a panoramic view of the whole thing and then brought down the different measures they had in mind. Instead of that, we are going forward on a piece by piece basis, and it is not as easy to see the scheme they have in mind.
It does seem to me that of necessity there are two weaknesses in the bill. The loopholes left for the employer are very wide. It may not be easy to narrow them down, but they certainly are too wide at present. For instance, section 4 reads:
In any proceedings for the violation of section 3 of this act, it shall be a defence for the employer to prove,-
(e) that, by reason of a change of circumstances, other than the engagement of some other person to replace him, it was not reasonably practicable to reinstate him or that his reinstatement in an occupation and under conditions not less favourable to him than those which would have been applicable to him had he not been accepted for services with the armed forces was impracticable,
The difficulty, of course, will be to prove whether or not it is practicable to reinstate a man. I am not a lawyer, but I imagine that a good lawyer could drive through that with a two-ton truck. Then the next clause reads:
(d) that he was physically or mentally incapable of performing work available in the employer's service.

Forces-Reinstatement in Employment
That leaves pretty wide latitude to the employer. All he has to do is to prove that a man who has done service, who comes back as many men came back from the last war, not disabled but having undergone the rigours of three or four years in a theatre of war, is not physically or mentally capable of performing work. Then again:
In any proceedings for the violation of section 3 of this act, it shall be a defence for the employer to prove,-
(e) that he was employed to take the place of an employee who had been previously accepted for service in his majesty's forces and that such employee had been reinstated in his employment.
The same problem will arise there. Many men who will join the service from now on are at present holding jobs of men who joined the service before. When they come back, this bill will have no application.


Humphrey Mitchell: That is provided for.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: All the points raised by the hon. member are embodied in regulations which have been in effect since last June. I have had no difficulty at all in meeting any of these cases in administration.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: One would have to know how many cases the minister has been able to handle.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: All those that came to my attention.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What percentage were those in relation to the whole? One would have to know that before one could say that this is working successfully. One would have to know what percentage of returned men have been successfully placed in employment.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I can give that information later on in this debate.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It seems to
me that the second weakness is the fact that there is no machinery set up under which a man could take the necessary steps to secure reemployment in the event of his former employer not employing him voluntarily. Again, I am not a lawyer, but I imagine that since a fine is provided for, this would come under the criminal code and the case would have to be taken through the courts.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The department has placement officers.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That may be true, but what will be the modus operandi? Will a man have to start proceedings in the courts? Will he have tc go to the attorneygeneral of the province to have proceedings instituted, or will the placement officer institute proceedings in case reemployment is refused? When this bill comes into committee I think the minister should be able to set out clearly just what machinery will be available to these people. The average man has a dread of courts and lawyers.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Oh, no. You do not fear me, for instance.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: No, because I have not got into trouble yet.


Paul Joseph James Martin: And you are just an average man.


Mr. SLAGHT:: No honest man has a dread of the courts.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Machinery
should be set up which would be automatically available for a man who is not reemployed by his former employer. He should be able to go to the placement officer-I suggest to the minister that more will have to be appointed because one in Regina for the province of Saskatchewan will mean a great deal of travelling which these people cannot afford-and lodge his complaint and then the placement officer would have the responsibility of taking the necessary legal proceedings to see that the man was rehired or justice given to him.


Richard Burpee Hanson: To-day it is no one's duty.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As it is now, it is no one's business. The average man, not knowing what to do, will do nothing. He will simply grouch about it a bit and then put up with it. He will not know to whom to go, he will not know who is his champion, he will not know who is his advocate, so he will let the thing drop.
I was glad to hear the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) say that he proposes to make a statement on the appropriation bill. I hope we shall have an opportunity, not only to hear the minister but to discuss the government's scheme as a whole with reference to reconstruction, reestablishment and rehabilitation. This is a tremendous problem and it is going to tax the resources of this government. I am sorry the government has not seen fit to keep a standing committee in session during the years of the war. Such a committee would have been able to study the problem and to prepare and lay plans for the coming of peace.
As has been said, we are going to have, when peace comes, the greatest problem, apart
1062	COMMONS
Forces-Reinstatement in Employment
from the war itself, which has ever faced this country. By the end of this year there will be close to three-quarters of a million men in the fighting services. The number engaged in munitions factories and other war industries is probably close to three-quarters of a million. So we shall have anywhere from one and a quarter to one and a half million men thrown on the labour market following the "cease fire". That is going to create a problem which will tax all the capacities of this country, and we cannot afford to blunder along and wait until it is upon us.
There are a great many things to be done. Development of the St. Lawrence waterway has already been mentioned. This country from one end to the other is crying out for the building of houses; in practically every city there is a housing shortage. In this province of Ontario, according to a statement made the other day by the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe), there is a power shortage-this, in a country which has more potential hydro-electric power than any other nation in the world. That ought not to be. Plans should be laid for a tremendous electrification programme with the coming of peace.
Schemes should be worked out without delay to provide, I would say, three things:
First, to accept complete responsibility for these men from the time they are discharged.
Second, to accept responsibility for training those who want to be trained.
Third, to get these men placed as quickly as possible either in private industry or in some government projects.
Personally I believe it will be necessary, following the war, to institute a great programme of public works to absorb the employment slack until industry can be reorganized to take care of it. I trust that the government will not content itself with the odd little bits of legislation such as the bill now before us, but that it will give the house the entire scheme which it has in mind; that it will take some steps to set up a committee of this house before which various bodies in this country such as the Canadian Legion, representatives of labour, agriculture and industry can attend-a committee that will advance their plans and lay their schemes against the time when the problems of rehabilitation and reestablishment will be even more gigantic than they are to-day.


Mr. G. S. WHITE (Hastings-Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make only a very few and general remarks on this bill.
As far as the principle of the bill is concerned, I am sure that all hon. members, irrespective of party, and whether or not they

are returned soldiers, will approve what we are trying to do for the soldiers now in the armed forces, because I know that every hon. gentleman is only too anxious to help in their reestablishment and rehabilitation.
I concur in many of the remarks made by the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) as to both the advantages and the disadvantages of the proposed legislation. The one thing which I did not quite agree with, or did not quite understand, was what he said about being afraid of the lawyers-perhaps because he is a parson, or for some other unexplained reason.
The bill as presented is very broad in its application, but, as has already been pointed out, it will cover only a limited number of the men now serving in the armed forces. Large numbers of them have already been discharged, and because of the time limit in the bill they will be excluded. It also fails to provide for those who have enlisted just after leaving school or college, or who have left farms and have been employed in various industries which have been closed because of the war. Other categories are not provided for, including those who had no employment when they enlisted.
A feature of the bill which strikes me as most important is the various exemptions which it allows. While it is not clear what procedure is to be followed, no doubt it will be by way of hearings before a magistrate or a judge, which leaves these particular sections open to many and different interpretations. As was pointed out by the hon. member for Weyburn, the provisions are so broad that unless they are greatly restricted, either in the bill itself or under the regulations, many men who are only too anxious to do their bit will be deprived of the very benefits which the minister and the house are anxious to confer upon them.
The subject of rehabilitation has been raised in connection with that of reestablishment. I believe all hon. members will agree that the two must go hand in hand. While some steps may have been taken in the matter of rehabilitation, they fall far short of what we should do. At the present time a soldier receives, upon discharge, in addition to a small clothing allowance, one month's pay and allowances. If he is unmarried it amounts to about thirty-nine or forty dollars. Surely the very least that any soldier is entitled to in this connection is six months' pay. Hon. members can easily recall cases in the present war of soldiers who, upon return from overseas, have been discharged and received a small rehabilitation grant and have been unable within the one-month period to reestablish themselves. Many of those boys have had to

Forces-Reinstatement in Employment
accept help, or charity, from the municipalities. No one desires to impose upon any discharged soldier the necessity of accepting charity. Many of the boys were discharged with a lower medical category than they had at the time they enlisted, and so were unajble to resume their former occupation. I fear that many more will fall into that category, and under the relevant section of the bill they will be excluded from the benefits of the measure. To give one instance, a lawyer might argue that if a man when he left employment .was in category A, to get his position back he would have to be in the same category. I believe there are few who will contend that it is possible for any man who serves in the armed forces and goes through a period of many months or perhaps some years of actual fighting, to be in category A when he returns to his civil occupation.
No doubt, after the war is over, extensive public works will be carried on by both the dominion and the various provincial governments. I wonder whether the minister has any plan whereby some commission or board will be set up on which the different provinces will be represented so that in the undertaking of all these various public works, on which large sums of money will be expended, some preference or special consideration will be given to soldiers who do not come within the benefits of the bill we are now considering.
I have a further suggestion to make to the minister. After the bill is passed, his department should prepare a small book or pamphlet giving an explanation of the measure, the various benefits it confers, and so on, and a copy of that should be given to each soldier at the time he obtains his discharge certificate.
I should like to make one further suggestion somewhat along the lines discussed by the hon. member for Weyburn. When the house goes into committee of the whole it would be well for the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) and the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) to give a general statement as to precisely what has been accomplished to date in the reestablishment of the many thousands of soldiers already discharged, how their present plans have worked out, and what further plans or schemes the government may have in mind to take care of the thousands of soldiers who will not come within the benefits of this measure. I am sure that if they would consider that suggestion and make such a statement, it would greatly assist in dealing with the bill in committee of the whole.


Mr. G. J. McILRAITH (Ottawa West):: This bill is one of the measures being taken by the government for the rehabilitation of the service men now in our active forces and is something for which the government is to be commended. There are, however, two matters connected with the whole problem to which T desire to refer briefly. One has been mentioned this afternoon; it relates to the provisions made through the Department of Pensions and National Health: The rehabilitation grant of thirty days' pay and allowances for those having served not less than six months in the forces, which is to be found in P.C. 7521; the order granting free medical treatment to all those who served, for twelve months after discharge, which will be found in P.C. 2763; the establishment of a welfare division of the Department of Pensions and National Health; and the post-discharge reestablishment order, which will be found in P.C. 7633.
For some reason or another these provisions have received very little publicity, though they go much further than is generally thought. It would be useful if they could be brought before this house by the minister in such a way as to permit a full discussion of the whole subject matter of the rehabilitation of our men in the armed forces; and not only that, but in such a way as to place on the record a systematic indication of what steps have already been taken in that regard.
The second matter to which I desire to make very brief reference arises out of the remarks and the line of argument taken yesterday by my good friend the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church). As I followed his argument, he took the position that he was for protection; and by protection he seemed to refer to tariff protection as applied prior to the outbreak of this war. He argued that protection would have to be the backbone of this bill; that if protection was not the backbone of the bill, it would fail and would have nothing to support it. He went on to develop that argument by pointing out that we are now making agreements with other countries which will practically establish free trade and so injure businesses which might qualify ' under this measure. Then he went back to urge a return to the old days of protection. He went a step further in his argument and, referring to the Atlantic charter, declared that that document would interfere with and, indeed, kill the present bill. His reason for that was that the Atlantic charter proposes the abolition of tariffs on the south and north American continents. He referred specifically to two paragraphs of the Atlantic charter,
1064	COMMONS
Forces-Reinstatement in Employment
paragraphs 4 and 8. Perhaps it would be useful to put these two paragraphs on the record at this stage. Paragraph 4 reads:
They will endeavour, with due respect for their existing obligations, to further the enjoyment by all states, great or small, victor or vanquished, of access, on equal terms, to the trade and to the raw materials of the world which are needed for their economic prosperity.
The next paragraph to which the hon. member referred, paragraph 8 reads: '
They believe that all of the nations of the world, for realistic as well as spiritual reasons, must come to the abandonment of the use of force. Since no future peace can be maintained if land, sea or air armaments continue to be employed by nations which threaten, or may threaten, aggression outside of their frontiers, they believe, pending the establishment of a *wider and permanent system of general security, that the disarmament of such nations is essential. They will likewise aid and encourage all other practicable measures which will lighten for peace-loving peoples the crushing burden of armaments.
Mr. Speaker, may I say very briefly, with respect to these paragraphs and the arguments of my hon. friend, that the old order of tariff protection as he has set it forth is gone. We probably cannot properly discuss that subject on the bill which is now before the house, but I cannot allow this occasion to pass without stating my belief that the old order is gone. Not only do I believe it is gone, but I should not like it to be thought that by silence either the house generally or I myself in particular agree with the hon. member for Broadview in his statements on this subject. If there is one thing which the history of the last ten years has shown above all others, it is that such views on protection and trade restriction are no longer tenable and have disappeared.


An hon. MEMBER:: Forever.


George James McIlraith: Yes, forever; and the
young people will see that they do not make their appearance again. Not only that, but the men in the armed forces for whose benefit this particular bill is designed will make sure that the old order is gone. Indeed, it is the sure and certain knowledge that we are not returning to those pre-war ideas and conditions of the old order, and the vision of a new order, that will . sustain us in the hours of difficulty ahead and inspire us to greater action.


Mr. F. D. SHAW (Red Deer):: In my opinion one need not apologize for taking a little time when this important matter of reestablishment and rehabilitation is under consideration. I have listened with a good deal of interest to the various points of view which have been put forward by hon. members on both sides of the house. I wish in particular to congratulate the hon. member

for Trinity (Mr. Roebuck) upon his fine discourse. I trust that he will bring pressure to bear upon those with whom he is associated on that side of the house so that his opinion may be felt and understood and appreciated by them.
Two points of view are expressed with regard to rehabilitation, or perhaps I should say with regard to the discussion of rehabilitation. On the one hand are those who believe that such matters should not be discussed at this time, for, as they say in effect, we may lose the war, and then all our efforts in that connection will have been in vain. I feel like the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicoI) who stated yesterday that he is not a defeatist. None of us should allow ourselves to become defeatists; we must win this war. And in the light of that realization we must to-day prepare for the aftermath of the war.
On the other hand there are those who believe that now is the time to prepare for the days to follow the war. I am pleased to associate myself with that view. Many responsible persons in high office feel similarly. Reference has been made to the Atlantic charter. Surely that has been indicated to us as a step towards post-war reconstruction. We heard the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) say in effect that those who believe that conditions which prevailed prior to the outbreak of the war are going to be allowed to prevail after the war are going to be sadly disillusioned. We have also had the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) refer to the new heaven and the new earth. Therefore, to-day many are thinking of post-war reconstruction. Our attention, however, should not be centred entirely upon measures to meet conditions likely to prevail after the war; some of our energy should be directed towards making post-war conditions what we want them to be. The measure now before us is, in principle, commendable, especially, I think, to those who view world matters from a purely orthodox point of view. Any attempt on the part of any government to reinstate in civil employment those who left civil employment to join the services is commendable. But in that connection I deeply regretted hearing the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) say yesterday that he intended to move that the latter portion of the preamble, which has to do with the reinstatement in civil employment of those who perform essential war work, be struck out. He did mention a further proposal to take care of that difficulty when it arises.
I believe we are all able to appreciate the fact that, prior to the passing of the order in council of last June, many of our young

Plebiscite Act-Senate Amendments
men who left civil employment to join the services felt very uneasy because there was no guarantee of reinstatement in that employment. I am also satisfied that many occupying positions in civil life did not volunteer for service prior to that time because there was no guarantee that they would be given proper consideration in regard to reinstatement.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Would the hon. member allow me to say a word?


Frederick Davis Shaw: Certainly.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I was going to ask my hon. friend if he would agree, provided the house is agreeable to his doing so, to adjourn the debate at the moment in order that the house may consider the amendments to the Plebiscite bill which have been made in the senate. They are amendments which, I believe, will meet with the approval of the house, and if that were done it would enable assent to be given at six o'clock.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I am pleased to accede to the Prime Minister's request.
On motion of Mr. Shaw the debate was adjourned.



PLEBISCITE ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. N. A. McLARTY (Secretary of State) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the senate to Bill No. 10, respecting the taking of a plebiscite in every electoral district in Canada and the taking of the votes at such plebiscite of Canadian service voters stationed within and without Canada.
He said: While there are a number of amendments, I believe they are of a nature and character that the other house thought would improve the draftsmanship of the bill. With this I believe there can be no quarrel whatever. It makes the bill perhaps more acceptable. There is no change whatever, in so far as I am aware, in principle.
Richard Burpee Hanson: In the main I would say that the statement made by the Secretary of State is correct. I received these proposed amendments only a few moments ago; there are a great many and it is difficult to follow them all quickly.
The senate have changed the definitions; they have compressed them in a degree, and some appear to have been eliminated.


Mr. McLARTY:: I think those that have been eliminated have been reinserted, elsewhere, if the hon. leader of the opposition would refer to amendments to section 8.
Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury); Well, they have been taken out of their context. Some, perhaps not all, have been placed in other sections. Section 4, subsection 2, paragraph (b) has been changed in what, it seems, may be a substantial degree by inserting the provisions of section 17 or 18 of the national war services regulations. I have not those before me at the moment. The present bill, dealing with the question of disqualification, provides that persons disqualified from voting as ordinary voters shall include:
(b) every person who shall have applied pursuant to sections 18 or 19 of the national war services regulations, 1940 (recruits), or any amendment thereto for an order or direction of the board, as defined in the said regulations, postponing his military training, whether or not an order or direction shall have been granted, and unless and until it has been refused.
They propose a new paragraph (b) in which they substitute sections 17 or 18 in lieu of sections 18 or 19. I have not those sections before me, and my memory does not carry what they are. I think the minister should make that plain. Then section 5 has been redrafted, and at the moment I am unable to determine-


Norman Alexander McLarty: It has been redrafted in the same way.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But as yet we do not know the effect of it. With respect to the other items, section 8 has been redrafted, and there have been superimposed upon that section certain subsections defining the duties of the chief electoral officer. I do not think there is anything objectionable in that, but what is the effect of the addition of section 17 of the war service regulations?


Norman Alexander McLarty: The purpose that was in mind in making this amendment to this section, which also applies to section 5 of the act, is this. In the original bill we described sections 18 and 19 under the consolidation which took place in 1941. The other house felt that it might be of advantage to go back beyond the consolidation and1 refer to the original orders in council that were passed in the first instance. There is no change whatever in the intention, but in the original orders they were sections 17 and 18, while in the consolidation they are sections 18 and 19.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Should we not adhere to what is the law to-day under the regulations?

Plebiscite Act-Senate Amendments


Norman Alexander McLarty: I think my hon. friend1 will agree that in the matter of statute law, where there is a consolidation that becomes the law. Where orders in council are consolidated, some question might arise, and it was merely for greater certainty that the other house suggested that we refer not only to the consolidated order in council but to the original orders in council as well. In other words, this merely makes it more certain, but it does not in any way affect the operation of the bill when it becomes an act.


Angus MacInnis: This is a most unsatisfactory method of dealing with these amendments. They may be quite minor, but they are amendments to a bill which we discussed for several days in this house. Instead of the leader of the opposition reading something that no one can hear or understand, I would suggest that, since we have the original bill before us, the Secretary of State should take each amendment and read it, so that we may understand its effect on the section or clause to which it belongs. Then we shall be in a position either to approve or disapprove it; but it is unfair to ask us to approve amendments that we have not seen and about which we consequently know nothing.


Mr. FAIR:: I should like very much to add my words to those of the hon. member who has just taken his seat. After all, we are the elected representatives of the people, and I do not think we should approve changes that have been made by others, who are not elected representatives, without knowing exactly what we are doing.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I have no objection to that. In section 2, certain subsections are struck out; that is, subsections (a), "Canadian service voter"; (b) "chief plebiscite officer," and (c) "during the plebiscite." Inserted instead are the following:
(a) "Canadian service voter" means every person qualified to vote by virtue of the provisions of section 6 of this act, and "voter" or "ordinary voter" means any person qualified to vote in any electoral district other than a Canadian service voter.
The effect of that is to combine the definitions of "Canadian service voter" in (a) and "ordinary voter" in (h). In connection with (b), where "chief plebiscite officer" is stricken out of the definition clause, it is inserted later as a subclause of section 8. Paragraph (c) "during the plebiscite" was stricken out for the reason that in no particular place in the act is that phrase specifically referred to. "Electoral district" is again defined in section 8 as amended.

I need not take the time of the house to read the amendment in regard to the re-lettering of the sections consequent on these changes; that follows naturally.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weybum):: May I ask why the definition of "Canadian service voter" in paragraph (a) is struck out?


Norman Alexander McLarty: It is not stricken out; the "Canadian service voter" and the "ordinary voter" are put in one and the same definition, in one paragraph. It is not deleted at all.
Then there are some minor amendments, purely matters of wording. For instance, subsection 5 of section 3 of the original act provides that the proclamation shall be published forthwith, and so on. The amendment provides that it shall be published forthwith in a special copy of the Gazette and in two succeeding regular copies. The objection is purely a matter of wording. It is suggested that you cannot publish it forthwith both in a special copy and in other copies which will not be published until a week or two later. Consequently that amendment is made, and it is perfectly proper and in order.
Then there is a very minor amendment in subsection 4. The words "as defined in this act" in line 24 are deleted. That also is purely a matter of wording and does not affect the meaning or intent.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Of course that makes for certainty.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Exactly.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The elimination of these words removes the certainty, to a degree.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I have already dealt with the amendment to paragraph (b), subsection 2 of section 4, in answer to the leader of the opposition.


Mr. STIRLING:: May I ask a question in that regard, to see that I have the minister's interpretation aright? I understand that sections 17 and 18 of the war service regulations are identical with sections 18 and 19 of these regulations in their consolidated form?


Norman Alexander McLarty: That, I believe, is correct, and the same amendment applies to section 5 of the act. In section 6, at line 17, the words "taken under this act" are deleted for the same reason that applied in the preceding paragraphs. Then in section 8 these words are added, taken from the definition section and put into the substantive section:
The chief electoral officer under the Dominion Elections Act, 1938, shall be the chief plebiscite officer for the purposes of this act, and the returning officers appointed under the said act shall be returning officers for the purposes of this act.

Plebiscite Act-Senate Amendments
Both these definitions were previously included in section 2. Then another subsection is added dealing with the administrative district of Yellowknife. It was thought that a more precise definition should be given of this administrative district. I do not think it will be necessary to read the section, because it is purely for purposes of clarity.


Mr. HAZEN:: Is it long?


Norman Alexander McLarty: No; I shall be glad to
read it. It is as follows:
(2) For the purposes of taking the plebiscite only, the governor in council may appoint a returning officer for the Yellowknife administrative district, who shall have the powers and perform the duties of a returning officer under the Dominion Elections Act, 1938.
I believe the suggestion is that it gives a more positive right for the appointment of an electoral officer than is found in the defining section of the bill, where the Yellowknife electoral district is described.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That seems to be an improvement.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Yes, I agree with my hon. friend.
Then, subsection 3 of section 8 in the bill, as returned from the other house, is the same, with the exception of some minor amendments, as the original section 8 in the Bill.
Then section 9 is amended by striking out the words "for the purposes of this act" and the further words "for the effectual taking of the plebiscite" and inserting the words "for the purposes of this act." I believe that somewhat abbreviates this section, and no exception can be taken.
There appear to be no amendments to paragraphs 2 and 3 of section 9. There is however the addition of the following as subsection 4:
(4) The governor in council may prescribe the penalties that may be imposed for violations of regulations made under this act, and may also prescribe whether such penalties shall be imposed upon summary conviction or upon indictment.
The only purpose of that is to make more clear and definite any power to enact the penalties provided in subsection 2 of section 9.
I believe that substantially completes the list of the amendments.


Douglas King Hazen: May I refer to the changes
made in section 2 (a) and (h). Those are changes made with respect to "Canadian service voter" and "voter." I understand those are lumped together.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Yes.


Douglas King Hazen: Would that in any way
affect a Canadian service voter on leave?


Norman Alexander McLarty: No; I believe I can say
definitely that it will not. It is merely a consolidation.


Richard Burpee Hanson: May I
refer to the question of penalty as set out in the new subsection, namely subsection 4 of section 9? The difference is that at the moment the penalties appear in the regulations; the change is that it is now left to the governor in council to prescribe penalties which may be imposed for violation of the regulations made under the act. The governor in council may also prescribe whether such penalties shall be imposed upon summary conviction or upon indictment.
I suggest to the minister that that is an entirely new principle, and one just as objectionable as the one to which I referred before. This gives the governor in council power to impose penalties. I do not recall-and I speak from memory; possibly it is not very good memoiy-that the governor in council was ever empowered to impose or create penalties. Can the Prime Minister remember a case of that kind?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I believe there have been cases.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I should
like to hear of one; I do not think one can be found. This is a bad principle. It may not work out badly, but in principle it is indefensible.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I would remind my hon.
friend that the new subsection is subject to subsection 2 in the same section, which states that any regulations made must conform as nearly as possible to the provisions of the Dominion Elections Act of 1938.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But that does not answer the objection at all.


Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: With reference to the amendment allowing the governor in council to prescribe penalties, to-night's Evening Citizen says this:
A new section was inserted giving the governor in council power to prescribe penalties for violations of regulations made under the act. It placed, however, the maximum penalty at a fine of $2,000, or two years' imprisonment, or both fine and imprisonment. The other changes were of an interpretive and clarifying nature, and in no way affect the principle of the legislation.
Do the amendments provide those penalties?


Norman Alexander McLarty: The point to which my hon. friend refers is something which might have received consideration in the committee of the other house. However, no amendment
The Royal Assent

fixing the quantum of the penalty has been inserted in the amendments forwarded to this house.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is to be done after the bill becomes law.


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

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Mr. C. H. Larose, Assistant Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, His Honour, the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, the house went up to the Senate.
And having returned.
Mr. SPEAKER informed the house that the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General had been pleased to give in His Majesty's name the royal assent to the following bill:
An act respecting the taking of a plebiscite in every electoral district in Canada and the taking of the votes at such plebiscite of Canadian service voters stationed within and without Canada.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock. CANADIAN ARMED FORCES

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mitchell for the second reading of Bill No. 5, to provide for the reinstatement in civil employment of individuals who enlist for service in his majesty's forces or who perform essential war employment.
Frederick Davis Shaw: Just before the debate was adjourned at 5.30 p.m. I had offered the observation that this civil reestablishment measure had served thus far to allay some of the fears which were felt by many of our boys who enlisted in the earlier stages of the war. I also stated that many of those who feared to join the services because no guarantee had been given regarding their reinstatement in civil employment had now seen fit to join one or other of the different branches of the service. While this measure, I am sure, undoubtedly serves to allay these

fears, or many of them, I personally am not equally satisfied that it is going to meet the conditions in a manner possibly anticipated by those who drafted it. I realize that a great national problem is going to face the people and the government of Canada when the period of demobilization arrives. I realize too, as stated in the original order in council, that a measure of this kind may to a certain degree be deemed expedient for the security, defence, peace, order and welfare of Canada. But I think that possibly altogether too much emphasis has been placed upon the measure in that regard.
Personally I fail to see how a single measure designed to meet only a fractional part of the difficulties which are going to confront us can have such beneficial effects with regard to the security of the state, the defence of the state, the peace of the state and so on. I am sure that such a measure will assist to a degree during that wild scramble for a precarious existence which I am satisfied many are going to find themselves faced with at demobilization. In my opinion the transitional period following cessation of hostilities is going to be a dreadful one. I say that because I feel that the government of the day has not learned the full lesson which should have been learned as a consequence of the experiences which we had in this country following the cessation of hostilities after the last great war.
I think the measure itself anticipates a difficult situation in connection with post war unemployment, but I do not think it is going to alleviate unemployment to any great degree, because, as has already been stated here to-day, for every man reestablished under this scheme, the one who took his place at the time of his enlistment is going to become unemployed. Even if this measure has ever so many favourable features, the administration of it, the interpretation placed upon it, will be one of the most important aspects of its treatment. The permanent success of any arrangement of this kind will depend directly upon the character of the personnel who administer it. I have in mind boards or commissions or individuals assigned to offices, witih duties attached, having to do with the administration of the measure.
I suggest that all too frequently we have witnessed the spectacle of a well-designed piece of legislation, possibly lofty in purpose, being placed in the hands of what we are sometimes wont to call a high-powered, highly paid board, whose attitude towards the people in whose interests they are supposed to hold

Forces-Reinstatement in Employment
office, is a scarcely veiled antagonism, tempered only by fear of the consequences which may come as a result of their actions. I have already said that we must give consideration to more than a measure which is designed to meet certain conditions that may exist.
I believe that we should pay some attention to those conditions which we may wish to be the type of conditions which we shall want to see prevail at that time.
I do not .believe that a series of measures, which I may call patches, are going to meet satisfactorily the conditions which are bound to prevail after the war. I feel that possibly our attention is directed toward, let us say, palliatives or makeshift measures to meet a situation only for the moment. We must go deeper. We should take upon ourselves the responsibility and the duty of seeing to it that .when the period of demobilization comes, we shall shift from a war-time to a peacetime basis. We must concentrate, not upon the shutting down of industry but upon the expansion of industry, so that in place of the production of machines of war for destructive purposes we Shall revert to the production of those things required by the civilians of the country-something .which we failed to do before the outbreak of the war, but something which we must not fail to do after the war.
Someone stated earlier to-day that no satisfactory provision is being made to take care of many of those who found themselves unemployed at the time t'he war broke out. Last night the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) stated that many unemployed men joined the services in 1939 and during the months that followed. He said something to this effect: "I do not want you to believe that I think they joined because they were out of work." Well, we know all too well- and we are not casting any reflection upon their patriotism when we say this-that many of them did join because of the fact that they were unemployed.
In my humble judgment a very heavy responsibility rests upon us all. I believe that even though we did not see fit prior to 1939 to give to these young men of ours the consideration which was their right, a consideration which we, living in a vast country with such untold wealth, were capable of giving them, it is not a moment too late for us to realize that the very least we can do for them is to say to them that when this war is over they shall not have to return to those conditions of degradation in which they found themselves before the war.
I do not want to leave the impression that I am not aware and appreciative of the patriotism of our boys serving in the army, the air force or the navy; but when they come
to me and say, "We are the heroes of to-day, but what were we yesterday and what are we going to be to-morrow?" it gives one cause for thought. Prior to 1939 we used the excuse day in and day out, week in and week out, that for various reasons which we enumerated, the affairs of this country could not possibly be adjusted to absorb the unemployed and to give at least a square deal to all. Those men in uniform now recall that when war broke out there was no question of the inability of the government to give them employment. The argument advanced at that time that we could not possibly finance any reestablishment programme simply will not hold when this war is over. Having seen millions and even billions go for destruction, they are certainly going to demand that, not perhaps equal amounts of money, but large amounts at any rate, be made available for construction.
This is going to require that we have a plan, an over-all plan, of reconstruction and reestablishment. Even though it is intimated by the Minister of Pensions and' National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) that the government have enacted about six orders in council dealing with various classes of people who may be faced with difficulties, I do not consider that this is going to solve the over-all problem with which we shall be confronted after the war. Each of these proposals may have its place in a broad, all-embracing plan. There may be such a plan; it may be that I am criticizing too soon, but we can only speak on the basis of the information we have.
When I talk of a plan I have in mind that we have a land, shall I say slightly in excess of three million square miles in area, with a population of less than twelve million people, with broad expanses of countryside yet unsettled and vast potential resources. In view of that, surely it is no exaggeration to say that there is no logical excuse for a government claiming inability to set up a plan for properly taking care of our people.
If the government cannot do it, then I shall have to ask why they cannot? Is there some force over the government, some sinister influence behind the government? If so, I would say it is the duty of the government to indicate who and what those sinister forces are.
I fear the situation when this war is over. On the one hand we are going to have vastly expanded industrial equipment, a greater ability to produce and satisfy the needs of our people than we had before the war, and on the other, a colossal financial debt resting upon Canada. I fear that the government, realizing the physical ability of the country to support a plan, will be told by the forces on the other side of the ledger that inasmuch
1070	COMMONS
Forces-Reinstatement in Employment
as we have a huge financial debt, it is impossible for the government to use the resources of the country to satisfy the needs of our returned soldiers and others. If any government, regardless of its complexion, accepts a statement of that kind and fails to do the right thing, it will be absolute tragedy. It is a fact proven by history many times over that when the government of a country contemplates any major scheme of action it must procure permission somewhere. I have seen, in my short experience in this world, that statesmen are oftentimes dictated to; politicians are oftentimes dictated to; even journalists and jurists are dictated to, with the result that so frequently we have members of parliament saying, "I feel so frustrated; I came here with an idea that we might be able to do something really worth while." That frustration must be traceable to something; we must undertake to ferret out the cause of it.
Some hon. members may have an inkling of what I am leading up to. I have in mind the words of the Right Hon. David Lloyd George, Prime Minister of Great Britain during the last war, when, speaking of a certain phase of post-war reconstruction, he made this astonishing and astounding statement. Before I read it, let me say that I do not believe there is anyone in this house who would question the source of the statement, or who would be so bold as to question the fact stated. He said:
The international bankers swept statesmen, politicians, journalists and jurists all on one side, and issued their orders with the imperiousness of absolute monarchs who know that there is no appeal against their ruthless decrees.
I am satisfied that the Right Hon. David Lloyd George put his hand directly on the cause of the frustration which many governments experience when they undertake to solve some of the major problems with which they are faced. I say that the only solution of our post-war problems lies in our determination actually to give this dominion economic democracy. It will be quite an experience for the people of this country, and I believe it will be quite an experience for the country itself, because I am one of those who subscribe to the idea that while we have had our political democracy, economic democracy has yet to be experienced. It is utterly ridiculous for the government of Canada, or the politicians of Canada, and the thinkers of Canada, to allow themselves to be held in serfdom to the exigencies of any financial policy which may be dictated to them, because stooping to a condition of serfdom is not something very much to their credit or something that should be looked upon with any feeling other than one of disgust.
rMr. Shaw.]
If unemployment, with all its associated evils is to be banished from this fair land of ours then I say that the government will have tc face the issue. The government will not succeed in that endeavour by bringing down innumerable orders in council, many of which are quite irrelevant. The government will not succeed in properly establishing our boys who return from the war if they do not face facts. Therefore I say, let us once and for all wake up to the fact that the chaotic condition with which we were confronted in this country between 1929 and 1939, and many of the difficulties with which we are confronted at the present time, can be traced directly to a financial system which in my estimation is neither democratic, Christian nor humane. I realize that this is rather a strong charge. I realize that to say that a financial system is not democratic is a serious statement to make. To say that it is not Christian is also serious, and to say that it is not humane is equally so. But I have yet to hear any member of this house, particularly any hon. member who associates himself with those on the other side of the house, stand on a public platform or rise in his place here and endeavour to prove that there is anything democratic, Christian or humane about our financial system.
In order to substantiate one or two of the remarks I have made, let us go back to that period from 1929 to 1939. I believe it is directly associated with the problem now before us, because surely we learned something from that period which we can utilize in meeting the conditions which will prevail later on. During those ten years there was nothing wrong with the productive ability or capacity of this dominion or of its people. At that time I had an opportunity to see a goodly part of this country, including agri-' cultural, mining and various other areas. For the life of me I could not see anything wrong with our ability to produce. On the other hand I saw something seriously wrong with our right to consume. At that time we had a vast abundance of real wealth on every hand, yet we saw the national debt of this country increase by leaps and bounds until it reached the staggering net total of something in excess of three billion dollars. The financial institutions of this country did not worry very much about those twenty cents a day relief camps. They did not worry very much about the soup-kitchens or our young men riding the rods, to use the common western expression. They did not seem to care very much about the loss of homes, farms and businesses.
Let us take the present period of war, and I should like to make just one observation.

Forces-Reinstatement in Employment
The Canadian people are making and are willing to make a great effort on behalf of freedom. They are offering their lives; they are offering many of the conveniences of pre-war life. They are not complaining. They see lives lost; they see tanks, guns, shells, ships and planes destroyed, all of which are entered on their side of the ledger as debits. On the other hand we see certain financial institutions in this country, privately controlled, entering on their side of the ledger huge profits, with interest attached. In other words, our loss is their gain, so it would appear that we are working at cross-purposes.
In conclusion, let me voice the opinion that if we are to reestablish our men; if we are to give our people that new heaven and new earth; if we are to astonish those people who now believe we may have chaotic conditions after the war, let us say once and for all that we will see that the financial system of this country, which to-day is privately owned and controlled, which to-day has a life-and-death hold over this country, is made an instrument of the people, through their government. Then, Mr. Speaker, and only then, I say, are we going to be able to deal with post-war problems in a realistic and effective manner.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to address the house on the subject of this bill, and would not have done so but for two addresses that have been delivered here to-day. The first was by my good friend the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Roebuck), who, I am sorry to say, is not in his seat at the moment. The hon. gentleman occupied a very important position as attorney-general of Ontario, and in that position he had a record in the protection of the interests of the working men and of the soldiers of which he may well be proud. It is with some regret that I differ with him because of his treatment of this bill. AVith much that he said looking to the future I agree, and it is with regret that I differ with him, in the strongest possible manner, when he describes the bill introduced by our new Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell), the first piece of legislation introduced' by him, if my memory serves me correctly, as a mere gesture-just a gesture.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: I hear some very mild and modest "hear, hear's" from hon. gentlemen to my right. I shall be treating with one of their heroes in just a moment.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The hon. gentlemen angularly opposite to your right.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: I mean the two groups, for whose leaders I have great respect.


Angus MacInnis: Why not the rank and file?


Arthur Graeme Slaght: I said across, but to my right. Nobody is in doubt as to whom I am directing these observations.
I say to the hon. member for Trinity that the great development of his speech was a brilliant description of his ambition as to the future legislation and the future course which should be adopted in this country. With that development in his speech I am in full accord. But let me say to him that to use a phrase of that kind, namely, that the bill is a mere gesture, when it is introduced by our Minister of Labour, may, while not intended by my hon. friend so to do, work evil in the country. That will have an effect, more than the statements to which I shall refer in a moment or two, and which have come from across the floor.
Is it a mere gesture that a bill which, if it becomes law, requires employers to reinstate employees under conditions not less favourable to them than' those which would have been applicable had they not enlisted, should be placed on the statute books? Is that a mere gesture? Is it a cause of complaint, voiced in a mild manner, that there have been selected the members of the armed forces as those of .primary concern? Is it a cause of complaint that they shall first be reinstated in positions where they can earn their living? Is it a mere gesture that sections 5 and 6 of the bill would prevent an employer without reasonable cause from terminating the employment of his employee? Is it a mere gesture that under section 6 an employer may not terminate employment, in expectancy that the employee might enlist? Those are not mere gestures; they are definite statutory provisions.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: They turn out to be, though.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: A doubting Thomas over there says they may turn out to be.


Charles Edward Johnston: I am judging from your past action, from the way you treated the soldiers in the last war.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: You are?


Charles Edward Johnston: Yes.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: You are not judging from my past action.


Charles Edward Johnston: I am judging from the past action of the government.
1072	COMMONS
Forces-Reinstatement in Employment


Arthur Graeme Slaght: Are you? Well, if it is your philosophy of life that you must attack a bill which contains a plain provision, in language which anybody in high school could understand, simply because you think it is brought in by a government whose past action you do not approve-if that is your philosophy of life, then let me refer you to some other country, a European country, where you would belong.	-


Charles Edward Johnston: If this country were going to be under Liberal government all the time, I might do that.


Mr. REID:: If there is going to be a free-for-all, let us have it.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: May I request my hon. friend to leave the hon. member opposite to me.
I am not here to make a provocative speech. I want to lead the way for the hon. member for Trinity and the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas).


Thomas Reid: You are doing fine.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: Now, it comes to this: The hon. member for Weyburn used these expressions, if I heard him correctly: "The bill is a mere improvisation"; "the bill is an empty gesture." Is he reassuring the soldiers in the armed forces when he tells parliament and the country that this bill is a mere empty gesture. Is that the way to promote recruiting?


Mr. JACKMAN:: Is that what it is called?


Arthur Graeme Slaght: We are developing a number of humorists in the house! I regard the bill introduced by the Minister of Labour, whose shoe-strings the attacking member over there is not fit to tie, as one which ought to stand, and ought to receive the serious consideration of the house.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is a little too strong.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: The hon. member for
Weyburn says it does not matter whether the legion or labour approves the bill. When did he appoint himself to indict the approval of the legion in this country? Is he, like an absent leader, a self-appointed gentleman who will say to the legion of this country that they do not understand what they are doing when they approve the bill-or when labour approves it?
I only wish my hon. friend and other hon. members could understand that great harm can be done by that sort of loose attack. Of course it is loose attack. I find from the parliamentary guide that he has been here seven years. He came in 1935, when I did.
TMr. C. E. Johnston.]
He has many admirable qualities, and makes some excellent suggestions, with one of which the other day I agreed. But let me say this-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That does not make them excellent-because you agree with them.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: Oh, what wit! What
magnificent satire! Mark Twain must bow his head to my hon. friend!
We are not here to listen to cheap witticisms. I think my hon. friend has occupied his seat pretty regularly for seven years. When a bill comes along which in sections 3, 5 and 6-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: And 4.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: Yes, and 4-when a bill comes along which in sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 gives splendid recognition of the men who have worked, and the men who have been in the armed forces, he wants the country to understand that it is an empty gesture. Where was he for five years, up until the time war broke out? He could have introduced a bill of this kind.


Angus MacInnis: Oh, no, he couldn't.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: Oh, yes, he could; make no mistake about that. It is not a money bill.


Angus MacInnis: Of course it is.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: He could have introduced a bill of this kind up until war broke out.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Absolutely.	.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: He could have introduced a resolution providing care for those men, but he was as silent as the grave. Yet when the new minister, of whom he ought to be proud, introduces his first bill in the House of Commons, my hon. friend thinks it a smart thing to describe it as an empty gesture. Please do not let us try to get along in this way. I give my hon. friend great credit for desiring to be helpful. I paid a tribute to all three groups the other day and I repeat it.
I pay a tribute to my hon. friend's leader. He would not have made the speech my hon. friend made this afternoon. I rise only to say that if we are to get along, I do not believe that disruptive and provocative speeches such as we have listened to from the hon. member for Weyburn will reassure either the workingmen of this country or the soldiers in our armed forces.


Mr. J. A. ROSS (Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief, but I want to make a few remarks on this bill, notwithstanding what the previous speaker has said. This bill is to provide for the reinstatement in civil life of individuals who enlist for service in his

Forces-Reinstatement in Employment
majesty's forces. In my opinion it is simply a gesture, but I think it is a gesture in the right direction.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: You are getting into bad company.


James Arthur Ross: I want to get into company that will get us along farther than we have so far with this bill. I agree with the bill in principle, but in my opinion it does not go far enough to protect the exservice person or the employee. We must remember that those who join the armed forces to-day give up a great deal of their natural freedom. They must adjust themselves to a different mode of life under army discipline. They are away from their families and must do without many of the things which we enjoy. In many instances they do this for a greatly decreased remuneration. These people offer their all in defence of the worthwhile things of this life that we enjoy and, therefore, they are entitled to every consideration by the government of the day.
I think it has been recognized by authorities that those who served in the actual theatre of war from 1914 to 1918 have had their life span decreased on the average by at least ten years. Many of those people were not physically or probably mentally fit in some instances for reemployment, and they are entitled to consideration by the state. There has been some discussion about the statement made this afternoon by the hon. member for Weyburn. I feel, and I think the legion itself feels, that the manner in which some of those men have been discharged from the army of to-day is nothing short of disgraceful. To discharge those people with one month's pay and a small clothing allowance, to put them and their families on municipal relief, is not good enough for a nation such as this.
Ex-service people who have rendered a special national service should not have to become a municipal charge. As I have said already, those people have offered their all in defence of this country and they should not become a public charge. They should be taken care of by the state. Like the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Leader) who spoke the other day, I am of opinion that those men should not give up their uniforms until they are assured of reemployment or some satisfactory future security. I am sure that none of us looks forward with any degree of enjoyment to the readjustment period, but during this period the government should undertake the development of our natural resources in a big way. Certain public works should be undertaken, and financial assistance should be given to municipalities for the construction, development or improvement of worth-while community projects. The extension of power sites, increased electrification, the construction of public highways and buildings, water conservation projects, reforestation projects, the construction of recreational grounds and other matters should be carried out. These undertakings would be quite beneficial and bring about a betterment in the lives of these communities. These people must be taken care of in connection with employment.
I think we all realize that great social problems will have to be faced in the future by the government and the state. Reference has been made to certain sections of this bill. Section 4 places the onus upon the employee of instituting action if his employer does not want to take him back. Many employees will not take this action because they will fear that if they do so they will prejudice their chances of future employment somewhere else. In my opinion tribunals should be set up to handle these cases. Section 5 deals with prosecutions, and here again the onus is placed upon the employee. I think these sections are improper. The onus should not be placed upon the man who is trying to regain his former position.
In my opinion a committee of this house should be set up to study the matter of the rehabilitation of ex-service men and women in the broadest possible manner. That should be done immediately. Representatives of agriculture, industry, and other callings in Canada could give information to the committee.


Mr. DANIEL McIVOR (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I must say that when I looked at this bill I was pleased indeed. First, I should like to congratulate the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) upon assuming his present position. I think he is in the right place. I remember the night when news was coming into this house from the recent by-elections, and I felt quite happy over the results for several reasons. First, I knew that t'he Minister of Labour understands labour, which is an absolutely essential characteristic of any Minister of Labour who hopes to do his work properly. I speak from experience. When we were in difficulty at the head of the lakes during the years of the depression, the late Hon. Norman Rogers did his 'best to formulate a youth training scheme. His assistant, the present Minister of Labour, was sent to the head of the lakes, and from the way in which he conducted himself at that time I knew that he would be kind and decent, that he had some backbone which a cabinet minister certainly needs when someone tries to put over on him something which is not on the square.
1074	COMMONS
Forces-Reinstatement in Employment
Because the minister had a hand in the setting up of the youth training scheme, I am glad he is where he is to-day. This legislation is a forerunner of what we may expect from the Minister of Labour. He is getting ready for the days that lie ahead. As the distinguished lawyer who has just spoken said, you know the law was before the province, therefore the law was before the ministers. This minister certainly has the vision to see ahead and get ready for it. I should like to quote a man for whom I have always had the most profound respect. He is a great man and a great parliamentarian. Lord Bennett, of the House of Lords, speaking on February 16 said:
Unless we are prepared for what comes after the war we might as well not win it, because a war won without ability to carry on afterwards is equivalent to a war lost.
Whether this is the legislation which will be needed after the war is a question, because we are living in an age of change. I suppose that ideas which are expressed here this evening may be outmoded to some extent even before W'e read them in the paper to-morrow morning. Not so long ago most of us were unwilling to accept anything "red": we did not think very much of Russia. Yet to-day we take off our hats to the generalissimo and the generals of the Russian army and the men who follow their leadership; because of them we feel a little more secure. If I were a prophet I might be inclined to predict, looking a little bit ahead, though not perhaps very far, that when the Russians have defeated Germany, Germany will turn round and help us to overcome the yellow peril. To some that may seem imaginative, but I do not think it is improbable.
One important feature of this bill is that it provides for the future, and in that connection I wish to make a suggestion which may have been touched upon before; I do not know. The provisions of this bill should take in all soldiers, no matter whether they were or were not employed before enlistment. I know that at the beginning of the war many men in my district who had no jobs joined the 4th Field Ambulance. When they return, they will need to eat, so they will need to work; their wives will require the wherewithal to rear their families properly. I know that some men are good and some are not; some are efficient and some are not. But all need to live. Any soldier or any other man who is willing to give his best for his country should be made secure. I remember as a boy reading that old parable which tells us that a man who worked only one hour got paid for the whole day. I suppose the modern interpretation of that parable is that the Master Work-
[Mr, Melvor.3
man thought that that man and his wife and family needed to eat, therefore he required as much pay as the other men. I commend to the minister the suggestion that this legislation shall include all soldiers. We shall have something to say later on about legislation which will take in all unemployed who are willing to work. I know that the cost will be very heavy. After all, however, what good is money, whether of the "sound" variety or any other kind, if it does not help our fellow men to do their best work?
Another piece of advice I would offer the minister-it has been mentioned before-is that he surround himself with men who not only understand industry but understand labour. Have experts who are independentthinking and have received their education in the school of hard knocks. I would not engage academic experts only, but practical men who know.
Another suggestion from me which the minister may pardon, for it comes from experience, is that he should have in his department one or two clergymen. They are the finest type of men in the country, bar none. They are men who have gone into the valley of poverty and helped their fellow citizens in difficulty and distress. Many of our finest citizens, like the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol), have been bom in humble surroundings, educated in the school of common sense and trained in the Christian faith, so that their outlook is fine.
I know that this will be a terrific job for the minister and those associated with him, but I do not believe there is one hon. member, no matter to what group he belongs, who will refuse to hold up his hand and strengthen him.
We speak of a new order. But a new order which will not provide employment for every last human being is not, to my mind, worth the paper it is written on.
The hon. member for Davenport has said that industry is willing to cooperate. I have found that to be true in a great many instances, although not in all. Every industrialist is not like the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe), who looks after his men when they are unemployed.
I hope the Minister of Labour will surround himself with the right kind of experts, and with industrialists who. have the will to work and a love of humanity which will help them to rise to their highest and best.
It should not be overlooked that a scheme of this kind will certainly aid recruiting. The man who is about to sign up will know that the government is providing legislation for the security of himself and his family. Whatever

Forces-Reinstatement in Employment
may happen, to him, those who depend upon him will be secure. The man who gives his best deserves that the best shall be done for him.
I commend the minister for this legislation. I judge from what I know of him that no matter what the criticisms may be, or what bumps he may get, he is a man who can "take it" and go along and do better in the future; and I wish him the best kind of success, with the blessing of the Master Workman.


Angus MacInnis: I want to say a few words on this bill, although nothing in the way of specific criticism. That does not mean I am at all satisfied that it is what is required at the present time.
The purpose of the bill is the specific one of reinstating in their former employment persons who have served in the armed forces. But, as pointed out in the preamble of the bill, the fundamental reason for introducing it is that it may be part of a scheme to deal with some of the national problems which will confront us when this war is over.
The nature of our problem has been stated or intimated by a number of speakers, and I am not going to spend any great amount of time on it.
I would, however, point out that although the problem will be somewhat like the one we had to face after the last war, -and more particularly something like the problem we had to deal with between the years 1929 and 1939, it will in some respects be a different problem, because the psychology of many of the people concerned will be altogether different from anything that has confronted us up to now. Members of this house who have had an opportunity of travelling across the country, from one end to the other, during the last ten years no doubt have some inkling of what that problem will be.
From 1930 to 1939, we had a great many unemployed in the country-I do not think there is anyone in the house more conversant with this than the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell)-and most of them were young men who were living in the most deplorable conditions. As one hon. member has already mentioned, when those young men travelled from one place to another they travelled in boxcars, or some other kind of freight cars. We could see them by hundreds, in dirt and squalor, as we travelled in the ordinary mode of conveyance. But those of us who are travelling across the country to-day see these same young men under altogether different circumstances. They are well dressed and well fed, and when they travel from one place to another they do not ride in boxcars but 44561-69
in the day coaches, in the standard cars, in tourist cars; and they eat in the dining car like other civilized people. Let me tell the members of this house that these men are not going back to boxcars when the war is over. That is what we have to face. These men to-day are well fed, well clothed and well housed, and they are living dangerously; and I say they will not be satisfied with boxcars, unemployment camps and soup-kitchens after this war is over.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why should they?


Angus MacInnis: Yes, why should they? That is what the members of this house have to keep in mind in dealing with this matter. If this bill is merely an item in a whole scheme for the building of a new social order after the war is over, then it is all right in its time and place and I have no criticism to offer.
Prior to the commencement of the war, when we were suggesting better treatment for the unemployed, what did we hear? There was no money. Since the war began, I have heard members blaming this little group because the country was not better prepared for the war when it came. They said that we opposed rearmament-as if the government did not have a majority sufficient to do anything they wanted. This group did not prevent parliament from giving a better deal to the unemployed, but the unemployed did not get a better deal. This group did not prevent old age pensioners from getting better pensions, but the old age pensioners are not getting better pensions, though we have always been asking for it.
I believe it was in the first session after the Liberal government came into office that we made certain proposals in the house to deal with the unemployment situation that then confronted us, and the late Hon. Norman Rogers, speaking to the house on the question of unemployment, after making some reference to these proposals made the following statement as reported in Hansard of 1936, March 30, page 1593:
I believe it is useless for us to repair the superstructure of our economic life, as represented by our secondary industries, if its foundation as represented by our primary industries is crumbling away. I am not going to speak at length as to what may be done by public employment to meet the economic problem to which I have referred. I may state however that I am quite sure it has been proved by the experience of all countries that public employment of itself is not a solution. I repeat, it is not a solution. It would cost this country somewhere between $300,000,000 and $400,000,000 to put at work the employables in the category to which I have just referred.

1076	COMMONS
Forces-Reinstatement in Employment
Mr. Bennett:	Per annum?
Mr. Rogers: Yes, per annum. It is conceivable that this country might pursue a policy of that kind this year and the year after, but it is not conceivable that this or any other country could continue a policy of that kind without adopting with all its implications the philosophy of socialism.
I direct the attention of the house to that statement. It would cost $300,000,000 or $400,000,000, Mr. Rogers said, to put into effect-what? A wealth creating programme such as we were suggesting, the building of houses and schools, the building of hospitals, the building of roads. We could not stand that, we were told. But in 1940, I believe, the war expenditures of the country were $800,000,000-I am not quite sure of the figures. In 1941 we passed a bill for $1,300,000,000, and that was not all. This year we have before us an appropriation bill for $2,000,000,000. But is anyone talking about the country going bankrupt? No; what we are afraid of is that when the time comes for demobilization, when we are not spending billions of dollars on destruction, we shall have to spend a little bit of money to create more wealth, and we are afraid that we shall not be able to stand it and that a terrible calamity will overtake us. Surely we must be crazy. This war must have taught us that if once we can get it finished, we are ready to say that never again need the people of this country face unemployment, poverty, misery or want, because we have everything here necessary to satisfy all our needs. We are proving that every day of our lives now.
I should like to make a suggestion to the minister. But first I would say I am glad, as is the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) that there is at the present time a member of the cabinet who at least should understand labour.


Humphrey Mitchell: Does, not should.


Angus MacInnis: All right; we will watch you on that-who at least Should understand labour. Until he came into the cabinet there was not a man in it who had any understanding of the labour problem either from experience or from study or from any other source. That fact is certainly reflected in the labour policies which -have been followed in this country ever since the war began.
What I was going to say to the minister is that if he will get his colleagues in the cabinet to bring proposals before this house, be they ever so progressive, or radical if you like, this house will give them support, because this house is more progressive than the cabinet.
I would not be surprised if the country is more progressive than the house. My hon. friend s position in the cabinet may be some-

thing like that of President Roosevelt and congress; although not having the same power, the -minister is perhaps in a better position for getting his measures accepted- as far as this house goes than President Roosevelt is in relation to congress, because congress is far less progressive than the president is. The president had great difficulty in getting congress to accept his new deal policies, as -great difficulty in convincing them in that regard as he had- in convincing them where their duty and interest lay during the last two years. The minister need sot, therefore, be afraid, so far as this house is concerned, to bring before it any measure of social reform or social security.
The hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Roebuck), speaking this afternoon-and I think his speech must have been -better than I thought at the time it was, because of the criticism it -has received-referred to the problems that will confront us when the war is over. He said they would be such as to make the stoutest heart quail. I believe he would agree with this, that they could make us quail only if we insist on adhering -to old ideas and outworn institutions; but that if we are prepared to look forward, to take advantage of the knowledge and experience we have gained concerning production since the war -began, there is nothing, so far as the problems of production are concerned, and surely there is nothing so far as the problem of organization is concerned, that we cannot easily handle.
I wish to make one other point, not in regard to legislation that may -be brought before this house but in regard to its administration. We must be very careful not to pit the returned men against those -who did not go to war, as was done on so many occasions after the last war, when the returned men were made pawns of in order to support the selfish ends of vested interests. T-his must not happen again. I am satisfied that it will not happen again, because the returned, men to-day and the men who will return -from this war will be wiser than the men who returned from the last war and will not be so easily hoodwinked.
With these few words I shall leave the bill until it reaches the committee stage. I accept it as an almost infinitesimal part of the measures that will be required to meet successfully the problems with which we are and shall be confronted until we learn how to deal with them.
Hon. R. B. HANSON (Leader of the
Opposition): I have very few remarks to make on this bill. It has -been variously characterized by hon. members who have

Forces-Reinstatement in Employment
spoken; the hon. member for Weybum (Mr. Douglas) characterized it as a mere gesture, the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Slaght), who undertook to spank him, thought it was a fine piece of legislation. I do not think it is worthy either of great blame or great praise; it is but an instalment; I do not suppose it is intended to be anything more. I think that is a fair statement of the position. This bill, as every one who has followed it will know, is in compliance with the promise made by the former Minister of Labour in June last when he brought down a certain order in council.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: A promise made to my hon. friend.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Exactly so. We had an undertaking-I do not remember exactly how it came about-that that order in council would be followed by legislation at this session to give effect to its terms, and so far as I have been able to appreciate the bill, it is in fulfilment of that requirement. But to say it is a complete measure of rehabilitation for the returned soldier who finds himself out of employment would be far from the mark. This bill, and the order in council upon which it is founded, follow precisely a measure which was introduced in England, and it was merely - and I do not use that word in any derogatory sense-one short step to meet a situation which had emerged. I think the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) and the present Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) will bear me out when I say that, taking it by and large, employers of labour have cooperated with the government in an exceedingly fine spirit.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In no instance have we had any occasion to impose the order in reference to any large employer of labour in Canada.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am glad
the minister says that, because that clarifies the position, and corroborates what I thought was the case. There -may have been an odd instance where there has been refusal or inability to reinstate returned soldiers in their former employment. But I am glad to hear the minister say what he has said, that there have been very few cases in which application has been made to him to use the compulsory powers that are given in this bill.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Mostly in cases of municipalities and institutions, not in connection with industry.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Then that gives industry a clean sheet, though I did not 44561-69*
rise to ask for a clean sheet for industry. If this, however, is intended to be a rehabilitation measure for all the armed forces, I say to the minister that it falls lamentably short.
I do not think it was ever so intended; and the minister is grappling, not with the most important problem but with a minor part of it. He can say what he likes; we can all say what we like, but let us not blind ourselves to that fact.


William Ross Macdonald: It is a necessary part, though.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I agree, and I am not condemning the principle of this bill; the hon. member must not misunderstand me. It is good as far as it goes, though I want to tell the minister this-and I am going to have something more to say about it a little later on-that I think I could drive a coach and four through this bill in defending an action under it.


Humphrey Mitchell: You could with any bill; that is what they have lawyers for.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, that is a frank admission on the part of the minister. I doubt if any case will ever come before the courts under this bill. I hope it may never be necessary; but just by the way, who is going to take the action? The bill is absolutely silent as to that; the machinery is not there. It is deficient in that respect. But that is a detail which perhaps I should not discuss in dealing with the principle. I call it to the attention of the minister now, so that at a later date he may give us some information as to the intention of the government in that regard.
May I say what perhaps I should have said in the very beginning, that I am glad to welcome the minister, as I have told him privately. He and I were in the House of Commons together a number of years ago. I do not propose to pour upon him any fulsome flattery to-night. The minister understands something about labour problems, but I should not like him to arrogate to himself what I thought he was inclined to do just a moment ago, full knowledge of everything in relation to labour.


Humphrey Mitchell: I never said that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Perhaps I misunderstood the minister. I am going to try to help him in connection with this bill. In the committee stage I am going to point out some of the good features of it and some of its weaknesses. But the bill only touches the fringes of a problem with which this country will be confronted increasingly day by day during the war and in the post-war period.
1078	COMMONS
Forces-Reinstatement in Employment


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We agree with that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: This afternoon the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Roebuck) made a speech which unfortunately I did not hear in whole, but which dealt in a measure with the larger aspects of this question of rehabilitation. With a great deal of what the hon. gentleman said I am in agreement. It may interest him to know, however, in relation to his remarks about the Atlantic charter, it is the opinion of many persons, including one man who was in very high authority on the other side but who has recently ceased to hold office, that there will be as many interpretations of the Atlantic charter as there are bodies sitting in at the conference. That did not sound very good to me.


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: That is the case also in connection with the bible.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I suppose that is true, and as long as we are individualists and think for ourselves, that is quite proper. But it is not all going to be as easy as some people seem to imagine.
Coming back to this bill, I do not intend to deal with the whole question of rehabilitation in the post-war period. That, Mr. Speaker, is a mighty problem, and it is going to take the best minds and brains of the nationals not only of this country but of every democratic country in the world to solve these problems. But I do reaffirm what I said not many days ago in this house, that if industry and labour and governmental authority are wise; if they survey the situation sufficiently in advance, and if they make proper plans, there need not be a recurrence of the conditions we experienced after the last war. Therefore, as citizens of this country, as men earnestly wanting to do the right thing by our fellow citizens, it behooves us to begin to study these questions now. It is not too soon to talk about them; it is not too soon to study them. I commend the suggestion that was made in this house to-day, I think by the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas), who I thought hardly deserved all the condemnation that was heaped upon him by my hon. and learned friend the member for Parry Sound (Mr. Slaght) with respect to his observations on this bill. It is not too soon for this parliament to set up a committee of this house to begin now to study and explore what may be done for rehabilitation in this country, especially of the armed forces. Begin now. Let the Minister of Labour give us a lead and give the private members of this house an opportunity to show what is in

them. There will be ideas come forward, in a body of 245 men like this. I never had any difficulty in solving problems if I had ideas. The trouble with most of us is paucity of ideas. I have never in my life had any difficulty in clothing my ideas with proper language. My weakness has always been that I never had the right ideas, or enough of them, and I think that is the case with most of us. Originality is almost wanting in most of us, but let us get down to business and begin now to study the question of rehabilitation.
This bill will do something to take care of the soldier who had a job before he went to war and who comes back disabled. There are many soldiers in the armed forces. I shall not impugn their patriotism, but I suggest that at least fifty per cent of the men who enlisted in New Brunswick in the early stages of the war did so because they had no jobs. I have talked to many of them. I have had boys come into my office and ask me what they should do. They have had it figured out on a slip of paper, how much they were going to get out of it. I have always tried to tell them it was not a question of dollars and cents, that it was a question of their conscience, the duty they owed to their country, and that the mere pittance the country paid them was not the real consideration at all.


Mr. MAYHEW:: Does my hon. friend think that was the spirit shown at Dunkirk?


Richard Burpee Hanson: No; that was not the spirit shown at Dunkirk, and that would not be the spirit of these young men after they got into the army and saw some action. They would be just as patriotic as anyone else; but there is no doubt that numbers of men went from this country-let us be honest about it-because they were unemployed. That applies principally to the communities where there was no war employment. I do not know about the central provinces, where there was a great deal of war employment, but undoubtedly that was true in certain parts of the country. But do not let that be considered as a reflection on the patriotism of those young men who enlisted. That was not the sole motive; but they knew they would receive certain considerations, that their families would be looked after, and they joined up. That is nothing at all against them; but those men do not come under this statute. It is admitted; the minister will, of course, agree with that. That is the problem I suggest he has to face in the future. What about the reestablishment of the men who did not have jobs when they enlisted? That is the feature which I believe the hon. member for Weyburn was trying to impress

Forces-Reinstatement in Employment
upon the minister. I am not going to discuss the point he raised. I suggest that this bill is just a measure-


Mr. ROWE:: Just a gesture.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No; it is
perhaps more than a gesture. It is in fulfilment of a pledge given in June last when the order in council was passed. I believe the order in council was passed because of the pressure of public opinion upon the government to do something more than had been done. I believe it was very distressing in the early days of the war, when men were sent back, and especially those who had been overseas, because of physical disabilities. They were given what? They were given a month's pay and allowances.
One of the real difficulties the minister is going to find under the bill-and I point it out to him now so that the government may have an opportunity to think about it-one of the real difficulties to be encountered in operating under this bill is the case of the civilian who had a job before he enlisted, who went overseas and who, by reason of climatic conditions or for some other reason, is not able to come back and' fulfil the functions he performed prior to his enlistment. How many of them there are. I do not know. How many there may be, I cannot guess. But that is going to present a real problem to the government. If the returned man cannot perform the functions he performed prior to his enlistment, then that is a cause for rejecting him under one of the sections of this bill.
Those are problem cases. I am sure the Minister of Pensions and National Health realizes what the situation is. I hope the Minister of Labour will understand it, too. Those are going to be the difficult cases to deal with. The man who is competent, the man who can come back to his lathe or to his job-there will be no difficulties about him. The real difficulty comes from the man who wants to work, but cannot work.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Problem cases.


Richard Burpee Hanson: You may
call them problem cases, or whatever you like, but you may rest assured that there will be a great many of them, even though these men have not been through the rigours of battle. They have to be taken care of. What is the government offering them? It is offering nothing under this bill.
There are a number of aspects with which one might deal in discussing the bill. I believe the biggest problem of all is the man who enlisted, and who at the time of his enlistment did not have a job. He will come back, and unless there is something more than this bill offers, he will still be without a job.


Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I had intended reserving what I have to say for the committee stage, had it not been for the remarks of the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Slaght). I think they were misleading. In his remarks, when addressing the juiy, he makes the observation that this bill was endorsed by the Canadian Legion, and that it was endorsed by labour. Definitely and specifically he made that statement.
At the time he made it I was sceptical. I am a member of the Canadian Legion. I understand the machinery of that organization, and I have had considerable correspondence with it, in that section of the country from which I come. I am reasonably sure that there has never been a branch of that organization consulted as to whether they disapprove or approve this bill. In addition, there is only one democratic way of consulting labour, and that is through the medium of their organization. I do not believe any of the organized sections of the trade union movement in Canada have been consulted.
I do not think this bill is necessary, and in that respect I agree with the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson).


Richard Burpee Hanson: It ought not to be necessary.


Clarence Gillis: It is not necessary at this time, in the form in which it is presented to the house. The men we should be concerned about, as the leader of the opposition and others have pointed out, are those in that disinherited generation which rode the rods for twenty years prior to the outbreak of the war, the men who were the first to go into uniform. To date no provision has been made for them, except to relegate them back to the ranks of the unemployed whence they came.
The man who had a job when he enlisted will not have difficulty, upon discharge, in securing the employment he left. The order in council passed at the last session served the purpose in that connection. I have seen no difficulty, as far as they are concerned, in the different parts of Canada in which I have moved. But there are hundreds of men who did not have jobs and who are back with discharge certificates. The employers do not want them because they are not physically fit. They are told their discharge is not worth the paper it is written on.
The Department of Pensions and National Health is trying to do something, and it is my personal opinion that it is a mistake to shift the problem of rehabilitation from that department to the Department of Labour.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why?
1080	COMMONS
Forces-Reinstatement in Employment


Clarence Gillis: Because the Department of Pensions and National Health have made a start on it. They have set up a committee. They have set out certain regulations. If that department were handling the whole problem, it could be considered as a whole. But if the problem is to be divided up, by juggling it from one department to another, we shall wind up with accomplishing nothing, and with no one accepting responsibility.
As far as my experience in the house is concerned, the Department of Labour is the only department of government which is not enforcing the legislation it is supposed to enforce. As a worker I am badly disappointed with that department. Outside the house I have always indicated that department specifically as the one to which the worker may turn when in difficulties. But my experience in the house has been that the name of the department should be changed. It might to-day properly be called the employers' protective association. I say that because in that department there is legislation which directly applies to the difficulties which the workers have been getting into from time to time. It is very clear and plain to me that that legislation could be enforced by the department, if they were so inclined. But they seem to take the reverse stand, and it is the employer they are concerned about at all times. I need not elaborate upon that point. It has been demonstrated time and again-Windsor to-day; Kirkland Lake last week. It has been that way right along for the past two and a half years.
I had the pleasure of serving on a parliamentary committee on pensions and national health, and I listened to the discussion with respect to rehabilitation. I heard the minister speak. A report was presented by that committee, which dealt with the rehabilitation of the man who comes back from service. I believe that committee made the best start that could be made when it tabled its supplementary report in the house on Friday, June 13, 1941. That committee was representative of all political parties in this house, and its membership was made up almost entirely of ex-service men. It dealt specifically with the question of rehabilitation which we are discussing under this bill, and recommended:
That consideration be given to the retaining in the service for a period not exceeding six months after the date on which they would otherwise be discharged, lion-pensionable and non-disability members of the forces with no assurance of immediate post-discharge employment, with the object of enabling such members of the forces to obtain employment and to be reestablished in civil life.
If this bill contained something of that kind, it would be a start in establishing a new order 
of society. It is rather disillusioning and it lowers the prestige of those in this house who attempt to speak for the people when phrases like "the old order of things", "the new order of society that must come forth", "the new ideals and new concepts" and so on are used. We have heard phrases such as these from all sides since the outbreak of the war. But <each and every time those in authority should bring forward something by way of legislation that would lead us to believe that they were sincere in making these pronouncements or in giving this lip-service, or that they believed in a new deal after this war is over, they come back with exactly the same old story.
No consideration is given in this bill to [DOT] the man who did not have a job. This is simply legislation to maintain the status quo.
A man without a job is prepared to lay down his life for the institutions of this country. The committee on rehabilitation in Great Britain have recommended that the man who fights this war, who comes through Singapore. Hong Kong and the other battles that will have to be fought before this war is over, is not to come back to the ranks of the unemployed. The Department of Pensions and National Health have made a start. A man is entitled to S9 a week if he is single and $13, if married. That is a start, 'but it is still relief. At the expiry of the relief term there is no guarantee of a job.
Eighteen months after the war is over, public sentiment begins to cool off. People begin to forget that a man has fought. The men who came back from the last war had to take off their buttons in order to get jobs, and it was not very long before they had to do that. Ex-service men were considered as tramps and bums, and they were called that by many influential people. We do not want a repetition of that. We must make a start toward bringing in a new order of society. We must have this on paper by way of legislation. We must demonstrate to the people that we are not merely talking about this matter in order to fool them.
There are many sections of this bill to which I can give my own meaning. For example, section 2 can be used as a lever for conscription. The trainee is excluded. A man who is on a job and is called up for training, if he does not volunteer for overseas service he can be ruled out when he comes back from training. There is no protection for him in this bill as far as his job is concerned.


Humphrey Mitchell: I should like to point
out that the trainee is protected under the regulations.

Forces-Reinstatement in Employment


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Order in council, P.C. 7680 of October 7, 1941, brings such men within the provisions of the compulsory reinstatement order, P.C. 4758.


Clarence Gillis: I would be quite agreeable if this still remains within the jurisdiction of the Department of Pensions and National Health. Why is that not in the bill? My main objection to the bill is that it shifts responsibility which should remain with the Department of Pensions and National Health.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Not necessarily; read section 11, subsection 2.


Clarence Gillis: The trouble to-day is that
so many boards are functioning and so many orders in council are passed we do not understand exactly where we are going. Before this war is on for another year we shall have to hire lawyers to sit at our elbows and interpret the laws of this country. I am not blaming the Minister of Labour for this, because I know he did not write it. The chances are that he disagrees with it as much as we do.


Humphrey Mitchell: I want to tell my hon. friend that I do not disagree with it as much as he does.


Major James William Coldwell: It is just a matter of
degree.


Humphrey Mitchell: It is not a matter of
degree.


Clarence Gillis: I do not want to waste any
more time because we shall have an opportunity to discuss the sections in committee.


An hon. MEMBER:: You have wasted
enough.


Clarence Gillis: That is your opinion. I
earnestly suggest that the parliamentary committee which was set up by this house should continue to function in cooperation with the subcommittee that is functioning now. This whole matter of vocational training and everything pertaining to rehabilitation should remain under the Department of Pensions and National Health. I do not believe in giving bouquets, but since coming into this house my experience has been that in connection with any matter pertaining to ex-service men or any problem that I have had to present, the minister has been most efficient. He is on the job, and he understands the problem of the exservice man, being one himself. This department has been working on this problem for two years, and it should remain there.


Mr. J. H. HARRIS (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, my first observation is to welcome our old colleague (Mr. Mitchell) back in the house in the position which he now holds.
Perhaps we all look forward on behalf of Canada and our people particularly for some legislation of merit which will take some cognizance of the human element in our population rather than letting ourselves drift so easily into the channel of matters which are materialistic. I feel that this bill is only one step among many others, some of which have been taken and many more which will have to be taken before the unemployment probability becomes a problem. Yes; I would say more; we may not have an opportunity to face this problem if we do not conduct ourselves in the matter of the affairs of the nation in connection with one major matter which is in the minds, not only of us assembled here but of all the Canadian people. The fact that there is a war on, that the world is in flames; let us get through with legislation of this kind as quickly and as expeditiously as possible.
My words will be brief. I hesitate even to recite some of the ideas that run through my mind with regard to what will happen when the war is over. Where are these employers going to be? Some may be in bankruptcy and others will be out of business. As one generation succeeds another, many will fall by the wayside. This bill only touches, as someone said a moment or two ago, the fringe of the matters that are concerned. Let us then relate this bill to the war effort. Let us be sincere and genuine in anything that we promise these soldiers when they return. Do not promise them that certain things will happen when they return just to get them in the army, but rather establish confidence in them so that when they are in the army they will know, as the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Shaw) said, that their places in business or in the employment market will be ready for them when they return. Not only that, but establish confidence in those who are left behind-the mothers, brothers, sisters and others-so that the morale of our people may be kept on a very high plane.
The hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) referred to the new order. The new order is already here, or what parts of it are not here are coming along very fast; we welcome them and are anxious that they shall prevail. We consider the employment of these men when they return; of course we do. Is there one of us whose pleasure it is to have a payroll who has not said to his employee when he enlisted, "Good luck, and God be with you; and when you come back, as we pray God you will, you will be put back to your job with all the seniority rights which go along with it." A little while ago the hon. member for Red Deer made a speech, the first half of which was very good; but ag
1082^	COMMONS
Forircs^-Reinstatement in Employment
he went on he seemed to suggest, to my mind, that industry had no soul; he seemed to think that those charged with responsibility of the pay envelope for large numbers of employees did not give much thought to them. I asked him to go into a huddle with his seat mate, the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Hlynka). It was my pleasure, when he came to Toronto some months ago, to take him round to certain establishments, where he was shown payrolls, not of ten or fifteen employees but of 200 in one establishment and the same number in another. When he went over their employment cards he found that these men knew no other boss, they knew no other job. He will say, I believe, that there are some industries, may I say most industries, in Canada to-day that have a soul, that have a heart, and that are anxious to do something on behalf of their employees.
MR. SHAW: -On a point of order, may I say to my hon. friend that I did not cast any reflections on industry or the part which industry is playing; I criticized the financial system and the financial institutions of this country.


Joseph Henry Harris: I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that that is not a point of order, but I will try to answer the implication which is made. I wonder just how much the hon. member was helping employees and employers -financiers, if you will-and those who subscribe to victory loans and to everything else which go to make up our present war effort, when he questioned whether there -was a sinister influence behind the government. Where are the sinister forces; where are these money barons who promote or suggest to administrations ruthless decrees as to how our country shall be operated? Did that help the idea which is in the minds of one and all of us at this time? I congratulate the hon. member upon the first half of his speech, but I ask him, before he gets over into the funny money ideas, to give some thought to the war picture as it obtains to-day.
When my hon. leader observed that this bill ought not to be necessary, he propounded a question; he did not say that it was not necessary. In every line of endeavour there are those who have to be tapped on the shoulder and told to observe the rules; they may be quacks in the medical profession; they may be persons operating without a licence; but in every vocation you find those who have to be told. For those who have no soul in their business, who are not concerned about the rights of others, by all means put such legislation on the statute books. The minister must exercise his authority to remind people of this type, whom he may let me call "pikers"

-the minister and I understand that term- that there is a law on the statute books. Therefore -1 say, put this bill and other measures of a like nature on the statute books and you will help the general situation.
Let me go one step further. There is legislation, well worth-while legislation, known as unemployment insurance. I think perhaps you should have some employment insurance. There is provision in the statutes to-day for making inventory reserves in your financial set-up. I just wonder whether it would not be good business to legislate to permit employment of financial reserves to take care of post-war problems of this kind. If you are going to consider unemployment insurance for the employees, perhaps you might also give consideration to employment insurance for the employers, to see that they are kept in business to take care of the armed forces when they return.
The period we are now going through is just the close of another phase of the business cycle. We had a business cycle wherein efficiency engineers of all kinds came to the front and took charge of industry throughout Canada. They sat with stop-watches over an employee and his particular vocation to show how production might be speeded up, for example, from forty units to forty-five units an hour. These proceedings were necessary because the shareholders owning businesses were demanding returns on their investments. But one circumstance which was not, to my mind, put in the balance in that equation was the fact that the employees could not stand the pressure and the strain of high efficiency. When labour is plentiful that system may obtain, but when labour is scarce they slacken down on the degree of efficiency they demand from their employees. When labour is plentiful the soul of business goes out of the window; when labour is scarce the soul creeps -back in. To my mind this legislation, in common with other laws of a like nature will help to keep some soul in business, and in the final analysis will go a long way toward meeting the post-war conditions which we now fear.
In the meantime I say to the administration, all the elements in this bill which will help the war effort are commendable, but let us get on with everything which has to do with the direct prosecution of this war, so that in the days to come it may be our privilege to meet in the -broadest -possible way the situation which we are thinking about now, rather than, perhaps, have someone else, the dictator, say what we are going to do-and that individual will be soulless.


William Ross Macdonald: It is my intention to make just a few observa-

Forces-Reinstatement in Employment
tions on this important piece of legislation. Before doing so, may I take this opportunity of thanking hon. members in all parts of the house who were very kind in offering words of congratulation to me when I had the honour of seconding the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Those words were all too flattering but nonetheless greatly appreciated.	I also wish to
thank my friends in the press gallery for the complimentary references they made about mv speech. Many of them represent newspapers, the policy of which is diametrically opposed to some of the ideas I expressed, but they were in every instance most fair to me. This speaks volumes for those of our friends who sit in the press gallery doing an important piece of work. It is impossible for them to quote all the words said in this house; nevertheless it is their duty to interpret to the public what goes on here, and all members will agree with me when I say they discharge an important task very well indeed.
I should like to join with the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) in congratulating the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) upon bringing down this legislation, and I think it is to be noted that the first measure brought down by the new minister is one dealing with returned men. That will be to his undying glory. Of course it is natural that he should bring down this legislation, for he himself was a sailor and sailed on British ships during the last war.
It has been suggested, I believe almost entirely from outside this house, that this legislation should be left until the war is finished or almost finished. I am in full accord with prosecuting this war with all vigour and doing all we can to win it. Nothing must be left undone; no one must be taken from any service which would contribute to the winning of the war. That is our first aim, our important task at the present time. But there are doubtless some whose service cannot be used at this time directly in the winning of the war, and those people should, I believe, devote their time and their minds to the introduction of legislation which will assist in rehabilitating those who are giving their all at this time of the nation's peril.
In Great Britain great attention is being given to the question of rehabilitation. It was my privilege, together with five other members of this house, to be in the House of Lords when His Gracious Majesty delivered the speech opening parliament, and I will quote some of the words of that speech: 44501-70
My government, in consultation with the allied governments, and with the goodwill of the government of the United States of America are considering the urgent problems which will face them when the nations now enduring the tyranny of the oppressor have regained their freedom.
In Great Britain, therefore, it would appear that they are not leaving this problem until the war is over or almost over, but are tackling it now. We all recall that after the last war men were discharged from the army and had no employment. We have heard to-day from many members of instances they know of where men were discharged and never did regain employment. We do not want that condition to prevail when this war is over. Men must not be discharged from the army until they have some tangible means of supporting themselves.
I would join with the member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) in paying a tribute to the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie). I also sat on the committee on pensions and rehabilitation which functioned during the last session of parliament. I know something of the interest which the minister took in that committee, and I join entirely with all that the hon. member for Cape Breton South has said with regard to the minister. I know that the minister is devoting a great deal of his time towards devising ways and means so that the lot of the returned soldier will be made easier when the war is over. But not only must we consider the lot of the returned man; we must think of all of the working people of the country.
It has been said that this is a war of machines. Accordingly there are thousands of men now working in armament plants of various kinds who will be thrown out of work after the war. It should be the duty of this house to consider ways and means whereby these men will have other work to which they can go. None of us wants to live over again the years from 1932 to 1936, when thousands of people in this country were unemployed, The city of Brantford, which I represent, was before this war the fourth export city of the dominion. It is essentially an industrial city. But I recall that in the years from 1932 to 1936 practically twenty-five per cent of the people of that great industrial centre were on relief through no fault of their own. They suffered long continued and enforced idleness while their women and children suffered with them; and what was true of Brantford was true of practically every other industrial city, not only in this dominion, but throughout the world.

1084	COMMONS
Forces-Reinstatement in Employment
I remember that in England there were three million people unemployed, and it is said that in the United States there were 13,000,000 unemployed. I also remember reading that in Germany there were 7,000,000 unemployed.
It has occurred to me that the nazis could not have come into power in Germany if it had not been for the great masses of the people who were unemployed. Germany used those men to create instruments of destruction, and those men have now practically become slaves of the state. Our unemployed did retain their spiritual and political freedom, and now it should be our aim to assure them of economic security. As other speakers have said, it is not going to be an easy task. It cannot be done by the waving of a wand. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) has pointed out how difficult it will be. Nevertheless we cannot shrink from the task; we must endeavour to provide security for those who are now employed.
Our men are fighting for better living conditions for all. They do not want to come back to the conditions of 1932-1936. In fact they have been encouraged by the words of the Atlantic charter. This charter has been referred to by many hon. members to-day, more especially by my friend the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Roebuck). Let me just mention two points of that charter; the fifth principle is: " Security for all, improved labour standards, economic advancement and social security." The sixth-and this is very important-is, " That all may live out their lives in freedom from fear and want."
Subsequently to the Atlantic charter, representatives from twenty-six nations gathered in Washington and signed what has come to be known as the Allied Washington agreement. It was signed on January 2. The representatives from these nations bound themselves for their respective countries, to certain common principles in national policy, on which they based their hopes for a better future for the world. If we combine the thought of the Atlantic charter and' the Washington conference, we get the words delivered by the President of the United States when he said:
Our own objectives are clear: the objective of smashing the militarism imposed by war lords upon their enslaved peoples; the objective of liberating the subjugated nations; the objective of establishing and securing freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from want and freedom from fear anywhere in the world.
He went on:
When I say that this time we are determined not only to win the war, but also to maintain the security of the peace which will follow. . . . We of the United Nations are not making all
fMr. W. R. Macdonald.]
this sacrifice of human effort and human lives to return to the kind of world we had after the last war.
The men who are enlisting to-day are not offering their lives to return to the kind of world in which they lived immediately preceding this war. We have a great country; we have great resources. Our problem is to see that everyone, irrespective of his station in life, gets a fair share of the good things of this great land.


Mr. VICTOR QUELCH (Acadia):: 
[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Yien in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Chairman, this bill is one of some importance, and I am surprised that the minister in charge has sat practically silent throughout the whole debate on the second reading. I assume that he will now give the committee his ideas with respect to the bill, what purposes it will achieve, how far he thinks it goes, and what more is to be done to take care of the problems outlined.
loss	COMMONS
Forces-Reinstatement in Employment


Humphrey Mitchell: Mr. Chairman, I had intended to speak, but when the motion for second reading was put I was engaged in conversation with the Minister of National War Services (Mr. Thorson), and I had1 not an opportunity to rise in my place.
I deeply appreciate the sentiment expressed on both sides of the house with respect to the bill. I believe it can be fairly stated that all parties in the house agree as to its principle. It was never intended to be a rehabilitation measure, in the sense that we understand the broad question of rehabilitation. As indicated, the bill has been introduced largely because of the suggestion made by the leader of the opposition with respect to the order in council drafted about a year ago.


Richard Burpee Hanson: On the condition that the order would die.


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes. As I explained, this bill follows the legislation in Great Britain, the United States, New Zealand and Australia. I believe it could be fairly stated that they have found legislation at this time necessary., and that it was not altogether an empty gesture on their part. They must have felt, as we have felt, that legislation of this kind would be necessary to give leadership to industry, and to comment generally on the policy to be adopted at the conclusion of the war in connection with the return of the men in the fighting forces.
If the hon. member for Cape Breton South will examine the bill carefully, he will see the imprint of organized labour in it. It may be said, too, that in the bill will be found evidence of the work of the special committee on demobilization which sat under the chairmanship of the Minister of Pensions and National Health. As a matter of fact, the bill was approved by that committee. It was approved, too, by the national labour supply council, an organization representative of industry and labour, and all shades of opinion in those groups. It was approved by representatives of dominant employers' organizations in the dominion. It was also approved by the labour coordination committee, which crystalizes the viewpoint of the various departments on legislation of this kind.
The bill is sponsored by the labour department rather than by the Department of Pensions and National Health because the idea was born within the labour coordination committee, and then was passed on to the national labour supply council for official approval of representatives of industry and labour.
As is customary in connection with legislation of this kind, both sides of the house took a broad view of the question. I believe that

is the wise and sound thing to do in respect of any legislation or policy affecting the returned men in the armed forces. I say that because, after all is said and done, no political party in Canada has a first mortgage on the will to render assistance to the men who make it possible for this parliament to sit to-night.
As I said earlier, it is not my intention to speak at length. As the bill is discussed section by section its various aspects will be discussed. Criticism will be offered and met. When we are discussing returned soldiers' problems I think we must keep in mind the desperate position in which free people of the world find themselves to-day. One hon. member this afternoon mentioned that he had lived dangerously. I think most hon. members who served in the last war, who had the will to live and the will to sacrifice and to drive forward bad to live dangerously. I believe the same spirit will drive forward the men at present in our armed forces. My only hope and wish is that the same will to sacrifice, in greater and greater degree, may be inculcated in the minds of our civil population, so that we may pass through this most terrible period in the history of our civilization.
I do not think I should say anything more at this late hour. I believe I should permit the committee to proceed with the business of discussing the bill section by section.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am surprised that the minister has not gone more deeply into the matter. Perhaps questions by hon. members will elicit further discussion.
I should like to. ask the minister if in his opinion this bill does not reaffirm the .principle that private enterprise not only owes a duty to provide employment but is the best agency to provide employment. We heard a good deal in this discussion, and we have heard it elsewhere, that the government should embark on vast enterprises of public expenditures when this war is over.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) said that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes, he * was among those who did, and I am not disparaging the idea at all. I suggest to the minister that he should give to the committee and the country his views as to what agency is best capable of providing employment, having regard to the demand for employment that there will be from these men who come back.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: Let us get on and win the war.
M.r. HANSON (York-Sunbury): I do not think that interjection was called for any more than was the speech this evening of the

Forces-Reinstatement in Employment
hon. member for Parry Sound, if he will allow me to say so. I am trying to get from the minister the merits, to put it baldly, of government expenditures as opposed to private enterprise.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: What has that to do with this bill?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Of course that interjection is of a kind with the last
one.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: It is a question if I am permitted to ask it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It has
quite a lot to do with this bill, and I shall try to make it clear. This bill primarily is based on two theories. First, there is the duty of private enterprise and the theory that that is the best way by which these men can be rehabilitated. What I want to get from the minister is his views as to how we can best rehabilitate these men, through what agencies that can be done, whether part government and part private or whether all private. I want to know if he thinks the encouragement of private enterprise would provide the avenue through which employment might be obtained for these men.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: With all due respect to my hon. friend, I hardly think that his question deals with this bill. His question has to do with economic policy, and I suggest to my hon. friend, with the utmost deference, that any government in power must work with the economic system in existence until that system is changed. The purpose of this bill is to give the government the opportunity to avail itself of the resources of free enterprise until that might be changed by the free opinion of the people. Surely, to ask the minister whether a system of free enterprise or a system of socialism would be the best to get results is not germane either to the principle or to any particular section of this bill. I might say quite frankly that as far as I am concerned I think the duty of any government is to use to the utmost all the resources of free enterprise by cooperation with free enterprise.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is partly an answer to my question. I do not think the minister objects to answering the question. I invite him to give us his opinion.


Humphrey Mitchell: It is quite a large question.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I know it is, and I think the minister has some ideas.


Humphrey Mitchell: I have a lot of ideas,
but most of them are predicated upon whether or not we win the war, and I say that with all sincerity.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am not taking it otherwise.


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not think it is a fair question to ask on a bill of this description.


The CHAIRMAN:: 1 would point out that it is out of order. We are in committee, and under standing order 58 we must study the bill clause by clause. The question put by the leader of the opposition is beyond the scope of the bill and is clearly out of order.


Thomas Miller Bell: I have not said anything on this bill. I was going to comment on the question asked by the leader of the opposition, but since, Mr. Chairman, you have ruled on it as you have, I do not propose to deal with that except to say in one brief sentence that if we are going to discuss the implication of the bill within our economic structure, I want to make a speech. But this is not the place to do that. In my opinion the people are expecting us to get along with the business of this house with more rapidity than we have shown in the past month or five weeks.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You should have supported me when I objeetedi to the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas).


Major James William Coldwell: The hon. member for Weyburn was not called to order by the Chair or anyone else; the Speaker ruled that he was in order. I think we might get the minister to explain what he proposes to do when this bill is passed. Who is to be responsible for its enforcement?


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is covered by the last section.


Major James William Coldwell: I am quite aware that it is, but there is no indication in the bill as to who will be charged with that responsibility. I think the bill was properly described this afternoon by the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Roebuck) and by the hon. member for Weyburn as a gesture. There was nothing improper in characterizing it in that way because the minister himself indicated that this was but a beginning, as it were, and in that respect it might be termed a gesture. The bill is to provide for the reinstatement in civil employment of individuals who enlist for service in his majesty's forces or who perform essential war employment.
1090	COMMONS
Forces-Reinstatement in Employment


Mr. MacNICOL:: The minister has announced' that he is going to wipe out that last part.


Thomas Miller Bell: The last part is to be struck out, and I regret it because I think the men who are doing essential war work are performing almost as vital a service as the men serving in the armed forces.


Mr. TURGEON:: Not the same nature.


Thomas Miller Bell: Or not the same risk; I grant that immediately. I think we have forgotten to some extent that this war can be won only by those nations which can gear up their productive machinery to an extent that will provide the necessary goods. Consequently, the men who are engaged in these productive enterprises are performing a vital part in our war effort and ought to be provided for when war ends. Again I say that in all fairness it can be said that while the men engaged in industry are performing a vital work, they are not taking the risks of the men engaged in active service. I think the original intention of this bill should be carried out. The reinstatement in employment of men now in the armed forces will be only a part of the general problem of reemployment that we shall have to face when this war ends.
I am in accord with those who have urged to-day that a committee of this house should be established to go into the whole matter of post-war reconstruction and human rehabilitation. I think, too, that it would give many private members of this house an outlet for the energy which they have, energy which they feel has been to some degree frustrated. But as far as the beginnings go, the bill is a step in the right direction.
It is called the Civil Employment Reinstatement Act, and the very title of it would seem to indicate that the two groups should have been considered in the one bill, and that a mistake has been made in cutting off from this particular measure those who perform essential war employment.
I am not going to speak at any length to-night, because, as has already been said, the hour is late, and we shall have an opportunity of saying more on the various clauses as they are discussed. But I did want to bring to the attention of the committee that one point which I have very much in mind, that this problem of reemployment will involve not only the men who are engaged- in the armed forces, but all those who are engaged
[Mr. Coldwell.3
in essential war effort of every description; and, if I may say so, I do not believe that reliance on private enterprise will either solve this problem or win the war. Before we can win the war against the totalitarian powers, we shall have to have a total war effort, and that, in my opinion, will compel us to take out of the hands of private enterprise war industries and organize them as essential national enterprises.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We have done much of that already.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: In the preamble, in lines 10 and 11, it states:
. . . with conditions not less favourable to the employee than he would have attained had he not enlisted. . . .
It seems to me that this is slightly ambiguous. On page two-


Thomas Vien: We are not on the preamble. We are on section 1, "short title".


Gordon Knapman Fraser: We are just on the short title? Well, in that regard I should like to ask, will the men who enlisted, who used to work in the House of Commons, be covered under this bill? Will they be taken back in their former positions?


Richard Burpee Hanson: No.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I
should like to know that, because a number have gone from the employment of this house.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They do not come under this bill.


Mr. GREEN (Vancouver South):: Under this clause I want to ask a question which will take some minutes. I wonder whether consideration of the clause can be set over until to-morrow.


Mr. HANSELL:: Just before we close, I am a little hazy as to a point of order here.


Thomas Vien: There is no point of order before the Chair.


Ernest George Hansell: I am raising the point, because I should like to know. We are on section 1. I wish to know when we take the preamble.


Thomas Vien: After all the clauses of the bill, we come to the preamble.
Progress reported.	,


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Alaska Highway
Friday, March 6, 1942