1942-04-28

Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: I desire to lay on the table copy of agreement *made under the War Exchange Conservation Act between His Majesty the King in the right of Canada and Mid-West Chemicals Limited.



CANADA'S WAR EFFORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. B. HANSON (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I crave the indulgence of the house while I make a brief statement and put a question to the ministry. The people of Canada yesterday spoke emphatically. Now there is no stumbling block, real or imaginary, to total war. The hour has struck when every human and material resource must be mobilized for war service. Parliament now is free to act-there are no fetters upon the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) or his government. Let us act, and act now. We can decide and decide now that nothing shall limit our effort and we can repeal now those limiting or restricting

features. I invite the Prime Minister to respond to the people's will for total war, waged by total effort. Let him rise to the occasion now, and he will strike a great blow for victory. Let us go forward to greater and ever greater effort, secure in the knowledge that the people of Canada are ready and prepared for the sacrifices which that will entail.
The right of way is clear. What does the government propose to do about it?


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I hope my hon. friend
will be content to wait until the final returns of the plebiscite have been given to the house before he asks me to discuss any matters arising out of it. The questions that will have to be considered are all important and fortunately all members of the ministry and members of the House of Commons are now free to speak their minds without its being assumed for a moment that they are being influenced by any past commitments or considerations other than those which bear immediately upon the questions they are discussing. In due course the government will make known to the house what action it proposes to take in the light of the plebiscite vote of yesterday.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. LECLERC (Shefford):: May I ask the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) whether he is aware of a disastrous explosion that took place at the International Flare and Signal Company, Waterloo, Quebec, of which seven or eight persons were victims? Has the government any contracts with this company? Is there a scale of salaries for employees of these munitions plants, and if so what is it?


Mr. SPEAKER:: That question should be
placed on the order paper.



VICHY REPRESENTATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I intimated to the house
before the adjournment that I might possibly make a statement to-day with respect to Canada's relations with Vichy. Since the house adjourned I have asked Mr. Pierre Dupuy, who is in charge of Canada's legation to France, to return to Canada immediately in order that there may be an opportunity of conferring with him before reaching a final

War Appropriation
decision in the matter of our relations with Vichy. After I have had an opportunity of conferring with Mr. Dupuy, unless some occasion should arise to make it necessaiy to take action before he returns, I shall then be in a position to make a full statement to the house.


Mr. COLDWELL:: When does the Prime
Minister expect Mr. Dupuy to return to Canada?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Very soon.
He will, I think, come by the quickest route.



WAR APPROPRIATION BILL


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, April 23, consideration in committee of a resolution to provide sums not exceeding 82,000,000,000 for the year ending March 31, 1943, for granting to his majesty aid for national defence and security-Mr. Ilsley-Mr. Fournier (Hull) in the chair.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Before the discussion becomes general I desire to ask a question of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston). The minister will recall that on March 24 last, on a question of privilege, referred to at page 1583-4 of Hansard of that date, I asked him certain questions relating to a report, No. 47, sent out by -the military intel-* ligence section of the Department of National Defence, entitled, "Summaiy of Military Intelligence for Military Districts." This was referred to in the debate on the United Kingdom financing resolution on the Friday previous, March 20, by the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. LaCroix), as reported at page 1494 of Hansard. I then asked the minister three questions.
1.	Has the attention of the minister been called to this portion of the -hon. member's speech?
2.	Will the minister advise the house how the hon. member came into possession of what I assume to be a confidential military intelligence release?
3.	What does the minister propose to do about the matter in the premises?
The minister replied categorically: First, that his attention had been called to the report of the speech; secondly, that he had not the faintest idea of how the report came into the hands of the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency; and thirdly, that the -most rigorous investigation was being conducted to ascertain who was responsible for the hon. member receiving the copy and that appropriate action would be taken according to the circumstances.
I now desire to ask the minister what was the result of the most rigorous investigation to which he referred: how did the hon. member obtain the copy of the report; and what was the appropriate action taken in the circumstances?


Mr. RALSTON:: I have not made inquiries in the last few days. I have asked the vicechief of the general staff to look into the matter but he has not yet been able to ascertain how the hon. member got possession of the document or through whom. The investigation is still continuing and I assure the committee that from the point of view of the department as well as of the house it will not be discontinued until evei-y possibility is exhausted of ascertaining how it was that this particular document got into the hands of anyone outside the department.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am satisfied so long as the matter has not been lost sight of.


Mr. GRAYDON:: The points which I desire to bring to the attention of the committee this afternoon are confined very largely to matters affecting the morale and general conditions of the men and women of our armed forces. I shall not have a great deal to say, but I wish to touch upon one or two matters which I think are of prime importance and which, I believe, have engaged the attention not only of those in the armed forces but also of the public at large.
The whole question with respect to parity of pay and allowances in connection with our armed forces is, I realize, a matter that must be dealt with in the light of common sense and sober judgment in times like these, but I would call the attention of the minister and of the government to one particular phase of the situation which was originally brought before the house by the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver) and which later on was touched upon by myself. It is something that is very close to my heart and which on numerous occasions outside this house I have dwelt upon. Whatever may have been in the government's mind with respect to the question of rates of pay and allowances for our armed forces, there is one matter which has been to a large extent overlooked, whatever the reason may be.
I do not know what reasons may properly be advanced against a general rise in pay for the armed forces and I have never been greatly convinced by some of the arguments which have been put forward on that score, but I suggest that the government might well do
War Appropriation

something now with regard, to an alternative method by which the same object may be attained. I refer to a plan of savings, or a savings rehabilitation fund, which I mentioned in the house before and which I urge again. I believe we could do a great deal towards improving the morale not only of our men in the armed forces but of the people at home by a system of this type. In my opinion, the idea of a nest-egg for the men in the armed forces when this war is over has a twofold object. It would be a twofold achievement at the present time. One thing that occurs to me right away is the fact that it would bring up the standard of returns to the armed forces of Canada to a point at least within measurable parity with the returns which other people on the home front may be receiving. In addition to enhancing morale, which would normally flow from such a change, it would wipe out at one fell swoop many of the rehabilitation problems which various departments of the government are attempting to deal with and which they will have to solve at the end of the war.
I think the nest-egg plan, of putting something in addition to his present pay aside every month while the soldier or airman or sailor serves, can be justified on every ground-in the first place, on the ground1 of morale and secondly, it would remove one of the great obstacles to rehabilitation when the war is over. With all deference to those who have spoken from the government benches during the last few weeks on the very laudable efforts that have been made with respect to rehabilitation of the men in our forces, I would say that these are all promises relating to things to be done after the men are discharged. But I should like to see the government take hold of this problem and make sure that the men of our armed forces know that day by day and month by month, in addition to the rates of pay and allowances they are receiving, the government is setting aside a substantial savings fund for their use when they return. I want to emphasize that idea and impress it upon the minister.
Further with respect to the question of higher pay for our armed forces, I do not want the idea to become general that every little while someone must get up and raise that question just for the purpose of hearing himself speak. The reason I am making this statement now is that I honestly and sincerely believe that the programme which has been outlined, of a nest-egg for our armed forces, is not only justified but is

long overdue so far as government policy is concerned. I should like to see the minister take this matter into consideration without further delay. If there is no good basis for it, the government should let us know; we should at least be given some explanation and some assurance that the matter will be considered carefully from every possible angle.
I know, as does the minister, that in the United States legislative changes relating to this subject are now under consideration in the congress. To what extent they will improve standards with respect to returns to men of the armed forces I am. not prepared to say, but at least the United States congress has seriously under consideration legislation to improve the position of men in the forces of that country.
Also I want to say to the minister-perhaps I should do this when the estimates of the minister of naval services are before the committee, but I want to brin-g it to the attention of the Minister of National Defence -that there does not appear to me to be any justification for the vast difference in pay and in dependents' allowances of the naval services and the other services of Canada. Without any reflection on any of the other branches of the forces I am sure the people of Canada are sufficiently proud of the achievements of the officers and men of the navy to rise up in a body and cheer any government that would place that service at least upon an equal footing with the other services.
I come now to the question of dependents' allowances. In a speech made to this house by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) on November 14 last in relation to war allowances and provision for a board of trustees to look after dependents, the minister set out a plan which I think the country welcomed. But in the light of subsequent events that announcement fell short of being any real solution of the problem of increased allowances to the kin of the men on service. The trustee board deals largely with emergencies outside the normal course of life. The minister did not take into sufficient consideration the rising cost of living, which bears with great force upon the dependents of the men serving in our armed forces.
I took the trouble to make some investigation into the increase in the cost of living since the beginning of the war. At the beginning of the war a private in the army was entitled to dependents' allowance of $35 monthly outside of the provision made for

War Appropriation
children. I have no doubt that that allowance was based upon the cost of living as it existed at the outbreak of the war. But if it was a proper allowance in September, 1939- and I am sure the government must have given it every consideration; if they were convinced that $35 a month was a proper allowance for the wife of a private at that time, then surely the government must now take into consideration the rise in the cost of living since that time. Let me give a few figures which I have obtained from the bureau of statistics. In August 1939 the index figure was set at 100. By December 2, 1940, a year and three months later, the cost of living in Canada had increased 7-1 per cent. By August 1941 it had increased by 12-8 per cent, and on March 2 of this year the cost of living had risen, not 7 per cent, not 12 per cent, but 15 per cent over what it was when the war broke out. That gives us this very simple equation:	If $35 a month was a proper
figure at the outbreak of the war, now that the cost of living has increased 15 per cent I submit that the allowance for the wife of a man in the armed forces-I am speaking particularly of the army-should be $40.25 a month.
True, it may be said that the government has extended the field in which dependents' allowances may be paid; in other words have added an allowance for a third child and for a fourth. But that is merely a rectification of an obvious error at the beginning and can scarcely be regarded as an argument that the government has increased the rate of allowance so far as the wife is concerned. Order in council P.C. 8253 provided for a cost of living bonus of 25 cents a week for each 1 per cent increase in the official index figure over that of August 1939. If my figures are correct it would mean that the allowance paid to the wife of a private in the army, instead of $40.25, would be increased to $50 per month. I leave these figures with the minister, with the suggestion that this is not something to be bandied about this committee for the sake of argument, but something to which I hope the minister will give careful consideration, and which he might take up with the Minister of Finance. Many times it is argued here that something cannot be done because of the cost to the treasury. That is always an important consideration, but I do not think it is a consideration which should be the last word when we are dealing with the dependents of men who are risking their lives for all of us on the home and overseas fronts. I hope the minister will give this suggestion the comprehensive consideration which I feel it richly deserves.
I am going to offer another suggestion, also having to do with the morale and general welfare of our forces. I know this point has been brought before the house previously, and I raise it now only to emphasize the need for some change in this respect. Many good arguments may be advanced by the government and others against the general granting of free transportation to soldiers, airmen and sailors. Perhaps there are good reasons why that should not be done, but it seems to me the reason would have to be extremely good for the government to turn down the suggestion that in connection with furlough leaves and particularly embarkation leaves, free transportation should be made available to the armed forces. Since this war began the government have found ways and means of doing many things; surely ways and means can be found of seeing to it that the men of our armed forces are not required to scrimp and save out of their meagre pittance for months at a time in order to pay their transportation back home to their loved ones before they leave for overseas. I want to impress upon the minister the importance, in my view in any event, of making some change which will bring about free transportation for our soldiers on their furlough and embarkation leaves.
Let me say further that I am not so sure it is good for the morale of the soldier, or for the morale of any of us, that there should be any distinctions on the railways of this country. Some people are allowed to travel free, while others are not. If there is to be any distinction made; if any are to travel free, then let it be the men who are willing to lay down their lives for us. Surely that is not too much to ask, and I make this plea to the minister. I know that the question has been brought up time after time, but I do -want to make this one last appeal. I have spoken to many of these men. I know what they say and what they think, and, in view of that I am going to offer another suggestion, if there is still any doubt in the mind of the minister. This may not be quite orthodox, as far as military matters are concerned, but these are not the days of orthodox things. I suggest that the minister choose ten men from among the privates in the ranks of our army in Canada; have them form a select committee to meet with him, and get right to the root of this question. He could find out from them their views, and I think the views of the whole army, with respect to the matters I have mentioned, and particularly with respect to this question of free transportation on furlough and embarkation leave. I would not make this suggestion
War Appropriation

if it would affect in any way the discipline of the armed forces, if it had anything to do with questions of seniority or anything of the kind. This, however, is a matter entirely apart, having nothing whatever to do with the discipline or organization of the army. It seems to me that nothing would better show the democratic spirit of this great country than for the minister to select ten or more men from the ranks of our armed forces to advise him on this and similar matters. I hope the minister will give this suggestion his careful consideration.
There is one other question I should like to ask the minister, which he might answer in the course of his statement. This situation has been brought to my attention by men in the air force, but I must confess that I have not had it brought to my notice by men in the army. In connection with embarkation leave, we will take a man in camp in eastern Canada who has to travel perhaps thousands of miles in order to get home. I should like the minister to give the committee some explanation or some information as to whether or not the time required for that man to reach his home is added to his embarkation leave, or whether the time spent in travelling is included in the normal leave. I should like it very much if the minister could give us that information during the course of his remarks.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend referred first to the matter of deferred pay. I take it that he was really referring to an additional amount which would be deferred until after the war.


Gordon Graydon: Quite so.


James Layton Ralston: Then there is no question that my hon. friend was advocating an increase in pay, and simply deferring the time of payment.


Gordon Graydon: I am not apologizing for it.


James Layton Ralston: I am not asking my hon. friend to apologize, but I want to be clear about the matter, because as my hon. friend knows there is provision now for deferred pay. My hon. friend was rather protesting that he was not arguing for an increase in pay, but that was exactly what his suggestion amounted to. I am not arguing against it at the moment-


Mr. GRAA DON:: I meant increased cash pay.


Richard Burpee Hanson: For my own information would the minister say what the position is with regard to deferred pay?


James Layton Ralston: The provision with regard to deferred pay applies only to those who are overseas. If no assignment of pay has been made, then fifty per cent of the pay is deferred. If less than fifty per cent has been assigned the difference between the amount which has been assigned and 50 per cent of the pay is deferred. Those are the two points. That deferred pay is held at 3 per cent until the man is discharged or appointed to a commission. There are certain cases in which the deferred pay may be drawn upon. I know that at least every two or three days I sign authorizations for men to draw against their deferred pay. I believe marriage is one reason; or if there is illness on the part of his relatives, and I think there are some educational matters-


Mr. LOCKHART:: Does that apply to both officers and men?


James Layton Ralston: -for which he may obtain authority to draw against his deferred pay.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: Is there
deferred pay if a man assigns 50 per cent or more of his pay?


James Layton Ralston: War Appropriation
_ Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):	What is
included in the term warrant officer? Does that include regimental sergeant-major?


James Layton Ralston: The regimental sergeant-major, the regimental quartermaster-sergeant, the company sergeant-major, the company quartermaster-sergeant, the master gunner- I could give my hon, friend a complete list, if he wishes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is
sufficient.


James Layton Ralston: The table shows the
rates of pay allowed.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Would the minister supplement that by a statement showing what is paid to the higher ranking officers, from a brigadier up to a full general? I do not know that we have a full general.


James Layton Ralston: We have not.


Richard Burpee Hanson: We have
many major-generals.


James Layton Ralston: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The public would be interested in that information.


James Layton Ralston: It is no mystery.


Mr. COLD WELL:: Would the minister
permit a supplementary question with respect to dependents' allowances? He probably has noticed my question on the order paper.
. Mr. RALSTON: I am getting off the subject mentioned by my hon. friend; may I deal with it for a moment? With regard to pay and allowances I can say, without being euphemistic at all, that these matters are receiving constant study and attention. I certainly will give his observations every possible study. I am not holding out any hope, but with the situation as presented there are some points in connection with pay and allowances which I feel should be corrected. Certainly I will take my hon. friend's suggestion into consideration.
May I say this-and I do not say it by way of defence at all-that I believe my hon. friend will find the pay and allowances of soldiers in Canada's army are at least as high as and probably higher than the pay and allowances in other armies.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Higher.


James Layton Ralston: Probably. I have sent
out for the information with respect to Australia, but I believe with the possible exception of Australia our pay and allowances are higher than in any other army.
Then, the question of dependents' allowances follows directly after the statement I have just made.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Before the minister leaves the question of pay and allowances,^ sometimes it is alleged that there is discrimination between the pay in the army and in the navy. I have had many representations to that effect. I have been told with respect to that matter that when one considers - the allowances received by men in the navy, which the men in the armed forces do not get, the pays are almost equivalent. However, I have never had that point demonstrated to me, if it is so.


James Layton Ralston: In that connection I
recall a conference I attended on that very subject when I held the portfolio of finance. Certain proposals were made with respect to the pay and allowances of one of the armed forces, and the treasury board insisted on what has just been suggested, namely a parity of the services. There is a difference in one respect with regard to pay in the navy, although I am sure I cannot remember the particulars now. I think, however, that when the pay and allowances are added up they will be found to be about on a parity. Possibly this is in the field of my colleague the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services, but I shall be pleased to get the information.
I remember particularly one peculiar expression, namely an allowance for hard lying, which is awarded in the navy and not in the other services.


Mr. MACDONALD (Brantford City):: Does that apply to the air force, too?


James Layton Ralston: Yes, in the air force there are differences of pay, but not in equivalent ranks. It will be found there are a larger proportion of noncommissioned officers in the air force than in the army.
We are dealing now with the matter of dependents allowances. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar asked a question which is on the order paper, and with which I shall now deal. No doubt his quesion arises out of a report he saw in the press, with regard to action which has been taken by the dependents' allowance board in respect of the allowances to the wives of soldiers who had enlisted in the West Indies, who had come to Canada, but whose wives remained in the West Indies. In that case the dependents' allowance board apparently made an examination of the , cost of living in the West Indies as compared with the cost in Canada. The result was that they fixed the allowance payable to the wife at $20 instead of $35. A man with four children received allowances of $6, $6, $6 and $6 instead of $12, $12, $9 and $6. I may state frankly to the committee that the matter was brought to my attention

War Appropriation
when I was on the train going to the eastern coast; I had not heard of it before. In common with many hon. members, I believed that so far as a wife was concerned, in practice the allowance of $35 was inviolate, and that that amount was not to be disturbed. I can recall an occasion in the house when I was explaining the difference between the allowance payable to a mother and the allowance payable to a wife. I said then that the allowance payable to a wife was not disturbed or reduced, no matter how much the private income of the wife may have been. It was regarded as a matter of right. That was the way I believed it to be.
The matter was brought to my attention, and I immediately wrote the dependents' allowance board. I also wrote the correspondent who had written me. I have taken up the matter with the chairman of the dependents' allowance board and with the government. My position-and it is one which I know will be supported by the government, and carried out by the dependents' allowance board-is that notwithstanding the fact that the terms of the dependents' allowance regulation provide that the amount to be paid to a wife is such amount as the board may allow, not exceeding $35, at the same time in practice my feeling is that that amount should remain stationary, regardless of the cost of living of a particular individual who happens to be receiving the allowance. That rearrangement is being made. I have never taken that position with regard to the children. It does depend, I think, upon the cost of living, and there is no doubt whatever that the cost of living in the West Indies is very considerably less. I have not come to a decision in connection with that point, nor has the government. As a matter of fact I had not brought that part of it up because I was particularly concerned with the allowance to the wife.


Thomas Miller Bell: You have not decided as to the children?


James Layton Ralston: That has not been decided. It will be dealt with this week, as a matter of fact.


Mr. BOUCHER:: Has the minister decided the position of a wife drawing dependent's allowance and working for a department of the government? Is it possible now for a wife getting a dependent's allowance to work for a department of the government and not have her allowance decreased or diminished by virtue of such other employment?


James Layton Ralston: Previously a wife who was in the employ of the government could not get dependent's allowance, but I think that has been remedied. I just want to be sure that it has been remedied in full and that there is not some relationship between the salary received and the dependent's allowance.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Where a member of parliament is serving in the armed forces his wife receives no dependent's allowance.


James Layton Ralston: This is the reverse.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think this ought to be decided upon some principle. Assuming that the wife of an enlisted man or an officer is in the employ of the government and getting $1,800 a year, any allowance paid to her would be based more on her marital status than any question of necessity. Certainly there could not be any argument that it was necessary. I think these cases should be looked into most carefully. I do not say that she should not have it, but certainly she is not as much entitled to it as a wife who is not in the employ of the government.


James Layton Ralston: The answer to that is that the wife can obtain employment in a civil institution or private firm and receive her dependent's allowance and salary as well.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I admit that.


James Layton Ralston: There is also the fact that the public service has been finding it a little difficult to get female employees. Obviously private industry could bid against it and would be in a better position when a wife seeking employment would be entitled to a dependent's allowance and salary as well. The case my hon. friend mentions is the reverse of this. Where a member of parliament, or anyone else, is in the army and is drawing pay from a public authority-I think that is the wording-the assumption is that he is in a position to support his wife.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am not complaining about that, but I think it should i be understood, in justice to members of parliament-I know there is some criticism of members of parliament being in uniform and drawing the pay of their rank as well as sessional indemnity-and it should be pointed out authoritatively by the minister, that when these officers come to parliament they do not draw the pay of their rank. While they are serving in the army overseas their wives and children get nothing.
War Appropriation


James Layton Ralston: What my hon. friend says is absolutely true. The wife of a member of parliament who enlists in the army does not get a dependent's allowance. This applies not only to members of parliament, but also to members of the provincial legislatures, who get far less than members of parliament. There has been a ruling by the Department of Justice to the effect that provincial governments are public bodies within the meaning of the regulation.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am not
objecting to the rule applying to members of parliament, but I do know that this rule is working hardship on members of the provincial legislatures. The sessional indemnities paid by provincial legislatures are not large, and many of these women have the responsibility of looking after their husbands' constituencies. The minister knows from long experience what that means. I know of women in Saskatchewan whose husbands are overseas and who are deprived of dependents' allowances by virtue of the fact that their husbands are members of the legislature. It seems to me that while the rule ought to be applied in the case of members of parliament, some consideration ought to be given to members of the legislatures. There is considerable hardship in many cases because of the fact that the indemnity is quite small whereas the families to be maintained are quite large. It seems to me that some amount might be set; it might be said that if the amount received from a public authority was above, let us say, $2,000, a dependent's allowance would not be payable. In some provinces the indemnity paid to members of the legislature is only $1,200.


James Layton Ralston: If you fix an amount and take into consideration the cost of living, then you have exactly, I assume, what the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) was objecting to. The idea is that a man receiving pay from the government by way of pay of rank, plus pay from a government authority, either the government itself or some other public authority, is in a position to provide a dependent's allowance, which is not so in the case of those who are not in that fortunate position. If you started out by saying that dependents' allowance would be payable if the amount received from a public authority was not more than SI.000, then you would have to provide also for the question whether or not there was other private income. I am saying, rightly or wrongly, that in connection with the allowances for these wives, I have felt that they ought to be treated as being inviolate. The regulations are there. That is the practice which we have IMr. R. R. Hanson.1
instructed the dependents' allowance board to follow, and it will be followed so far as I have anything to do with the dependents'^ allowance people. I consider that that is inviolate, whether a wife is worth a million dollars or nothing at all. That is $35 a month she can depend upon, win, lose or draw, as some compensation for additional expenses because of the fact that her husband is awaj'.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is based on a question of marital status, and that alone.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If that principle is applied to wives employed by government bodies, will some consideration be given to applying it to the wives of members of the legislatures, for instance?


James Layton Ralston: She can go to another
employer, but she cannot go to another husband.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It seems to me that if you are to apply the principle of the dependent's allowance being inviolate to a wife who is employed by a government body, it should also be applied to the wife of a legislator.


James Layton Ralston: I meant the amount was inviolate. I had in mind a case-it may be the one my hon. friend is thinking of-of a member of a legislature out west, and I have also in mind the case of a member of the New Brunswick legislature in which it has been pretty hard going. I think the commission was accepted expecting that a dependent's allowance would be paid, and then it was found that it would not. In fact, in one case, I think the one out west, some refund had to be made and no doubt hardship was caused. I do not mind saying to the committee that I shall look into the matter again.
I have every sympathy for the hardship cases if you can make a rule which is going to make bad law. The hard cases frequently do that.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Does a member of parliament who is overseas and not able to attend the house draw full pay?


James Layton Ralston: I think there is a bill passed every session-I am not sure about this but I rather assume it is so-


Richard Burpee Hanson: In the legislatures.


James Layton Ralston: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think they pay in full.


William Ross Macdonald: Does the member have to be overseas?

War Appropriation


James Layton Ralston: I have an idea that we pass an estimate at the end of the session to provide for those who are ill or who are absent through some cause beyond their control. I think they are included in that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am sure they are.


Major James William Coldwell: I am very glad to hear the minister's statement regarding the allowance to wives, and I hope that the same consideration will be given to the children. I feel this way about it, that if a man came from the West Indies, let us say, and volunteered for service in the Canadian forces, his family should be treated as our own Canadian families are treated. I am glad the minister takes the position he does, because I was afraid that this might extend to other parts of Canada where it might be claimed that the cost of living is lower than in some other places, and that we might reach right back on to the Indian reserves; we would then have a very complicated system of dependents' allowances.
There is dissatisfaction among the men in some quarters because they feel that the matter of leave is not sufficiently well regulated by the department itself. What I have in mind is this. At the end of six months a man may get, I understand, fourteen days' furlough. There are married men in, for example, the veterans guard. In some battalions or companies the commanding officer will allow men who are married and living home a day or two at a time as compassionate leave when they may go home and visit their families. There is provision for compassionate leave, I believe, in other respects. Some commanding officers give compassionate leave for sickness, or to attend to sickness at home, or whatever it may be, and make no deduction from the fourteen das's' furlough which is coming to them at the end of a period of time. In other places that compassionate leave is deducted from the fourteen days' furlough, with the result that men who, perhaps because of sickness in the home, have had compassionate leave, find at the end of six months that they have no further furlough coming to them, while in other cases the commanding officers are much more lenient and do not deduct the compassionate leave. In my opinion some policy should be stated, particularly for the married men in the veterans guard. I suggest that where compassionate allowance is given for family reasons-good and sufficient reasons -commanding officers should be instructed not to deduct that compassionate leave from the fourteen days that a man gets at the end of a given period-say six months; I am not just
sure on that point. Lack of uniformity in this matter sets a group ini one company against a group in another company; it discredits, perhaps, one commanding officer and makes another popular. I think that kind of thing ought to be eliminated as far as possible. Would the minister give consideration to issuing an instruction that necessary compassionate leave, when given to these men, should not be deducted from their regular furlough?


James Layton Ralston: I have just spoken to the adjutant general. He tells me that generally speaking compassionate leave or week-end leave is not deducted from the regular furlough. As a matter of fact the adjutant general's branch have now under consideration the whole question of leave. We have had some very great difficulties in connection with leave, simply because, for operational reasons, leave had to be postponed. I remember one battalion-I visited it-which had gone out west and which had nearly 400 men who had been waiting for furlough for some months after the time when they were entitled to it. We are endeavouring to see if we can "regularize''' leave, as the adjutant general expresses it, and see to it that there is no discrimination. I assure my hon. friend that the point he has raised will be taken into consideration at the same time.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It will
have to be done under some general principle.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: I wish to ask the minister a question regarding a specific case which I have in mind. The wife of a soldier is acting as postmistress and for that employment gets a sum total of 8100 a year. Is that 8100 a year deducted from her dependents' allowance while her husband is in the army?


James Layton Ralston: On that point I have just received a statement from the chairman of the dependents' allowance board. Somebody over here asked me about it, and I stated that I thought that remedial measures had been taken so that a woman in the civil service is not deprived of her dependent's allowance. I find that it is dangerous in these matters to rely on one's memory. Here is the statement:
The dependents' allowance board advise that wives of soldiers who are employed under the civil service commission cannot draw dependents' allowances except they are employed as typists or stenographers grade 1, 1A, or 2. Clerks cannot draw allowances. Also exempt from order in council: certain laboratory workers in national research; employees of arsenals and munitions works; inspection boards of the United Kingdom and Canada.
War Appropriation

The order in council is P.C. 6/1248 of February 18, 1941. It is a regulation made by the treasury board, not by the dependents' allowance board, and it is much more limited than I gave the committee to understand. The only persons who draw dependents' allowance if they are in the employ of the government are typists or stenographers grade 1, 1A or 2, laboratory workers in national research, employees of arsenals on munitions work, and in the inspection board. That this is a regulation, not of the dependents' allowance board but of the treasury board, indicates that the motivating reason for it was the necessity of getting female employees.


George Russell Boucher: Would not the minister take that matter into consideration? Now that we are so short of help, and where the soldier is doing his part, surely it is only a reasonable expression of the good-will of this house and the department to let women who could be employed in private enterprise work in the government service without reduction of their dependents' allowance. Surely we should not penalize a woman who is a soldier's widow and perhaps the mother of two children in getting what work she can in the service of the state, or handicap her in comparison with those who can get work in an industrial concern. The pecuniary consideration does not come into the question, because she might get more money in a private concern than in the government service. A woman should draw her $35 a month as of right, and if she works in the government or the civil service that allowance - should not thereby be diminished.


James Layton Ralston: I will take it into consideration. I am now only speculating as to what was behind the original regulation. But what was in my mind is that there were people seeking employment who found they were being competed against by those who were already drawing dependents' allowances and were taking positions as well. That was in the days when jobs were scarce. To-day employees are scarce, and evidently that is the reason for the loosening up of the regulation. I shall take it into consideration, but I would imagine the treasury board would consider it more from the point of view of getting man-power than from the point of view of changing the principle. I shall be very glad to bring the matter to the attention of the treasury board, with the representations which have been made.


Mr. NEILL:: The minister, speaking a short time ago, alluded to an occasion on which he spoke in the house and to the record of Hansard where 'he said he had explained, or

possibly he had endeavoured to explain, the difference between a mother's and a wife's pension. I would be awfully obliged if he would put on record the page of Hansard on which the remarks he refers to appear, so that I can look it up, and also if he would explain, perhaps once more, to the house-I know a number of members must be interested, because these cases occur repeatedly-the reason for the difference between the allow-anc granted to the wife, which is $35 a month, and the allowance granted to a dependent mother, which is $20 a month.


James Layton Ralston: It is now $25.


Alan Webster Neill: It is now $25. They have
raised it? Yes, but both the $20 and the $5 are given only as a matter of charity, and there is a mass of red tape to go through. A man could get into the senate more easily than succeed in one of these cases. It is not right, and more than that it is a waste of time. I do not see why the woman should have to appear in jorma pauperis. I have heard this referred to as a "lousy" $5, and I have received enough letters to fill a cabinet. In one letter I was told by an official that I did not appreciate the situation, that even I should understand that the responsibility of a man towards his children is naturally greater than any responsibility he may have towards his brothers and sisters. This was a case where the man was the only support of his mother and three children and had gone to the war. They would not give the allowance. My answer was that I was not talking about responsibilities. I said that I was aware of the difference in responsibility between the case of a man supporting his children and the case where his responsibility was only towards brothers and sisters. I said I was talking about dependency, and that argument was not answered. I said that the dependency if it existed in one case was equal to that in the other, and indeed in some instances it is greater, for this reason, that a young, active woman can get around and chop her own firewood and do her own washing and things like that, whereas an old woman is unable to do these things and needs medicine and so on. So far as children are concerned, I cannot see that because a child happens to be a brother or a sister that fact makes it any cheaper to keep that child than if the child were the child of the soldier. I have been given different arguments, one of which was that they did it in Britain. I do not know what they do in Britain, but we are concerned with what is done here in Canada. Now, I want some justification which I can give to this widow and the children. I have to say to them, "You are in a different class.

War Appropriation
You may only get $20, or at most $25 handed out as charity, but the other person, the wife, can demand $35 by law." The minister said he was thoroughly convinced that wives should have as a basic sum $35 a month. I do want some explanation that I can take home to these people as to why dependent mothers are not treated in the same way. There are not so many, and Canada might afford it. It is not a matter whether he is responsible or not. The question is one of dependency and the government have admitted a certain amount of dependency. If the question is one of dependency, why not give her the same sum as the wife can claim as of right?


Richard Burpee Hanson: May I
add a word to that. Yesterday I was talking on t'he train to a young man who told me his story. Fifteen years ago he came from Glasgow, and he married his sweetheart also from Glasgow. They did not get along and she went home and he has not seen her for twelve years. She has never come back. Two children were born and his mother, who is a widow, took them after the wife left. This man enlisted. He had been earning $18 a week in a cotton mill-I forget what he was doing-and he was told that she would get $20 a month assigned pay, which was his, $20 dependents' allowance, and so much for each child. He assigned his pay and the mother gets so much for each child. She has never been able to get dependents' allowance although he was, I understand, the sole support of the family. It may be that twelve years ago his mother was able to work-I do not know about that-but the fact is that the dependents' allowance board draws a sharp distinction between the wife and the mother. Their rights are in entirely different categories. The wife has a legal right to support by her husband; the mother's right to support is based on another principle. My hon. friend objects to the words ex necessitate; he translates that into charity. I do not think it is quite that. Certainly the mother has not the legal right that the wife has, and that has been recognized in a degree; there is a discrimination in the amount. I am not objecting to the discrimination; there is a basic difference between the two.
All these cases of mothers' allowances and dependents' allowances cause members of parliament a great deal of trouble. They cause me much trouble, but fortunately I have somebody to help me. I should like the minister to give consideration to the question of the widowed mother who takes the burden in a case such as the one I have mentioned. The children of the enlisted
soldier are in a different category from brothers and sisters of an enlisted man. Certainly he is legally as well as morally responsible for the support of his own children. I do not think there is the same obligation for the support of his brothers and sisters.


Alan Webster Neill: The government takes it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Does the government take it? I can see a clear distinction between the case of children and that of brothers and sisters.


James Layton Ralston: The passage in Hansard to which reference has been made will be found at page 205-06 of May 24, 1940. I am not sure that the question that has been asked was not answered then. The leader of the opposition has indicated the distinction. All I can say further is that in all pension legislation-and this applies to disability pensions as well, after the man has been discharged-so far as I know there has been a straight line of distinction between the basis of assessment for the mother and that for the wife. The wife being the direct dependent, literally, of the husband is entitled as of right to the amount which is set out in the statute; that is to say, in practice, whether or not the statute may be mandatory or permissive. The rule has always been that the wife was entitled to a pension of a certain amount regardless of her own income or her financial position. What applies to the mother applies also to the father, and I would point out that if my hon. friend's argument applies to the mother it applies to the father as well, and the father would be entitled as being in the category of dependents. He would be a dependent, regardless of how much income he might have, on the ground that his son was in the army. The right of the mother depends altogether on this question: Of what has she been deprived financially by reason of the enlistment of her son in the army? What the country does is to try to make up to her financially the support of which she has been deprived to the extent to which her son has been supporting her. That is a clear distinction, and the principle is altogether different from that on which the allowance is made to the wife. Certain cases arose, which the committee will recall, in which the son would have supported the mother had he been able to do so but he had been prevented by reasons beyond his control, and an amendment was made to the dependents' allowance regulations to provide that the board could ascertain whether or not, in their opinion, the son would have
War Appropriation

supported the mother had he been able to do so; and if they found that was so, they made provision for her to the amount which would have been contributed had he been in a position to contribute. Now that is exactly the same practice, on all fours with the provisions of the Pension Act providing for dependents of soldiers after their discharge, and I think it has worked very well. It does of course require the assessment of the means of the soldier and of the needs of the mother, which is not required in connection with the wife, but it is a principle which has been in every piece of pension legislation that I know anything about. I think it is manifestly equitable because it endeavours to make up to the mother the financial loss she may have incurred by reason of the son's enlistment.


Alan Webster Neill: In that case why was it raised from $20 to $25?


James Layton Ralston: The maximum was raised. It was on the ground that here was something which had to do with the cost of living, because that was an up-and-down pension; it was not a fixed amount. The hon. member mentioned mothers' allowances; the $35 for wives in my judgment should not have been an up-and-down amount in practice. Then we have provided for supplementing that, in case the cost of living has gone up in a particular case, by the appointment of the board of trustees which deals with cases where the $35 is found not to be sufficient or particularly where there are emergent circumstances requiring assistance to the family from time to time.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: What are the trustees empowered to do? There seems to be some doubt about that.


James Layton Ralston: The dependents' board1 of trustees have about as wide powers as any board could have. The board was appointed by order in council P.C. 18 of January 2, 1942. I will not read it all but sections (d) and (e) of paragraph 4 provide that the dependents' board of trustees-*

may pay such supplementary grants or give such special assistance not provided for by the marriage allowance or dependents' allowance regulations as it deems necessary to or on behalf of or for the benefit of the dependents of ratings in the navy or dependents of soldiers and airmen below the rank of warrant officer class I in the army and the air force in those cases where the board of trustees is satisfied that such supplementary grants or special assistance are necessary to prevent hardships arising because of unusual circumstances or to relieve misfortune and meet domestic emergencies, including serious illness of a member of the family, or to assist a mother whose rMr. Ralston.]
dependent's allowance has been reduced by reason of the prior claim of more immediate dependents of the son;
To determine subject to the approval of the Minister of National Defence the terms and conditions upon which special advances may be granted to the local and regional dependents' advisory committees for the purpose of enabling the committees to provide supplementary grants or special assistance in eases of temporary emergency requiring immediate remedy not provided for by the marriage allowance or dependents' allowance regulations to the dependents of ratings in the navy or dependents of the soldiers and airmen below the rank of warrant officer class I in the army and air force, and, subject to the approval of the Minister of National Defence, to make such advances from time to time in accordance with the terms and conditions so determined.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Do I gather that they can give supplementary aid in addition to providing such things as teeth and glasses? The interpretation given in some places I believe is that only such articles of necessity are provided but no supplement to the $35 is provided.


James Layton Ralston: Oh, yes. I am very much surprised to hear that. It is giving me information which I am sorry to hear, but I am glad to have.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: I will give further information on that.


James Layton Ralston: As I think hon. members know, the board operates through regional advisory committees. The board is composed of a representative group of citizens who have had a great deal of experience in connection with the administration of matters of this kind. The board consists of: Chairman, Dr. Weir of Vancouver; A. H. Brown, formerly acting chairman of the Dependents' Allowance Board; Mrs. Catherine R. Collier, of Bracken, Saskatchewan; Madame Forget of Montreal; Philip Sydney Fisher of Montreal, who has been very active in connection with welfare work for a number of years; John Walter McKee of Ottawa; Lt.-Col. Joseph Gustave Raymond of Ottawa; Frank N. Stapleford of Toronto, who has had long experience there in connection with the Neighbourhood Workers Association, and J. Douglas Winslow of Woodstock, New Brunswick, the representative of the Legion. The dependents' board of trustees is at present established in the following cities: Charlottetown, Halifax, Saint John, Quebec, Montreal, Ottawa, Kingston, Toronto, Hamilton, London, Port Arthur, Windsor, London, Winnipeg, Regina, Saskatoon, Edmonton, Vancouver and Victoria. I am advised that applications are coming in and being dealt with promptly by the board. They work independently of the dependents' allowance board but are in the same build-

War Appropriation
ing and have the benefit of the files and organization of the dependents' allowance board. From the reports I get they are filling a real need in connection with emergencies and special cases where assistance is needed for dependents. The idea was that "he gives twice who gives quickly", and there is provision that the regional board themselves can make if necessary special advances of money to assist in urgent cases of need and misfortune.


Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: In
the air force if a man is reported missing, say on January 1, the assigned pay to the mother is cut off and she cannot get his effects or anything else for six months. Does that apply in the army and the navy? Why does it apply at all? It seems very unfair. The mother has to make other arrangements in order to live. If the man is reported a prisoner of war the assigned pay goes on, but if he is killed or reported missing the mother does not get anything.


James Layton Ralston: I shall have to inquire
and advise my hon. friend about that. I cannot tell him at the moment.


William Ross Macdonald: I
noticed in the press this morning a picture of a soldier in the new uniform. He looked very smart and I wish to congratulate the minister and those responsible in his department upon making it possibe for our soldiers to have respectable walking-out uniforms. It will add greatly to the morale of the troops and to the discipline. It never did seem to me fair that a soldier should have to wear the same clothes to go down town at night that he has worked in all day. A man working in a factory changes his clothes at night, puts on walking-out clothes, and it is only right that such conditions should prevail for our soldiers. I think this is a great step forward. Have these walking-out uniforms been issued to all units in Canada, and are they issued or to be issued to our troops overseas?


James Layton Ralston: The answer to the first question is no; they are being issued just as fast as they come in, but as yet they are coming in only in comparatively small quantities. I think the number of jackets on hand at this moment is seven thousand. That is the limiting factor. As a matter of fact there has been some delay, which I am not going to dwell upon here, but which I think could have bfeen avoided. It has nothing to do with the Department of Munitions and Supply or with the manufacturers, directly; but a situation which I think requires looking into has caused the delay in reference to manufacture. The matter is receiving the
personal attention of Mr. Eaton, the codirector general of the purchasing branch of the Department of Munitions and Supply.
The answer to the second point is that the walking out dress, as at present devised and planned, is not being issued to our troops in England. Hon. members will understand that with the overall and two suits of battle dress, the man already has a considerable weight to carry around. There is no question of parsimony in the fact that it is not being issued; it is because it is not regarded as practical.


Mr. GILLIS:: I wanted to say a few words while we were still on the question of dependents' allowances. There are many ramifications to the minister's department, and I think it would be well if we kept to one question at a time and endeavoured to settle it.
There is a matter in connection with dependents' allowances which I brought to the attention of the minister last year and which I want to bring to his attention again. Personally I find that this is causing considerable hardship on dependents; I am referring to the men who go absent without leave. After a man is absent without leave for twenty-one days he is posted as a deserter, and his pay and the dependents' allowances are cut off. As I see it, the man is not punished at all, except by being confined to the guard room. He is fed; he 's clothed; he is kept comfortable, and he has no worries. The family, however, is left on the outside, perhaps a wife with four or five children, having to go for three or four months at a time without any allowance or any income whatever. She has the family to provide for, children to send to school and so on, and in many cases she must go to the municipality and seek relief. If every hon. member receives as many letters and protests from dependents in this connection as I do, there are many cases of hardship across Canada. I receive perhaps three or four cases a day.


James Layton Ralston: Not of this kind.


Clarence Gillis: Yes; there is no doubt of that.


James Layton Ralston: Not cases of men in detention?


Clarence Gillis: Yes, cases in which allowances have been discontinued. If the minister will check with the board he will find that to be true. Perhaps we are getting them all down in Cape Breton; perhaps soldiers in other parts of Canada do not go absent without leave.
War Appropriation


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend is perhaps a little enthusiastic.


Clarence Gillis: Only to-day I had occasion to write to the board in connection with four separate cases, and I am at it continuously. Last year I suggested to the minister that the man himself should be punished instead of the dependents. If the man can just spend his time in the guard room, then step out and have his pay start again, it is an encouragement to him. I suggested last year, and I suggest again, that the dependents' allowance should not be touched. If a man goes absent without leave he should serve his sentence. His pay should be discontinued, and if he is fined a certain amount of money he should not receive any pay until such time as that fine is paid, after he returns to duty. It is a deplorable situation to have a woman come to you and say, "It is three or four months since I received any allowance. My husband is in the guard room. I have written to the board." In those cases the dependents are really taking the punishment. The sergeant-major is responsible for discipline. If the man were at home the wife would see to it that her husband got to work, and if the sergeant-major cannot keep him on duty the wife should not be punished because of that.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: She should not lose the assigned pay.


Clarence Gillis: Certainly not, but she does. While I am on my feet there is another matter I should like to mention, because it is not so easy to get the floor. I refer to the unreasonableness of the sentences that are meted out to young boys who go absent without leave. Only to-day I had occasion to write the minister with respect to one case jhat came to my attention. The mother wrote that she had a young boy in the army in Halifax, which is in military district No. 6. He went absent without leave; she did not say for how long. He was taken back to Halifax and kept waiting in the guard room for sentence for three months after being tried. Then he was sentenced to nine months' detention. In my opinion the crime of being absent without leave in Canada, in the case of a young, inexperienced soldier, does not merit a sentence of a year in the guard room. As I see it, the army is not making a soldier of that boy or any other boy dealt with in that way. It is making a rebel of him, and there may be considerable trouble with him in future. There are other measures that should be taken to handle boys who commit offences of this kind. The psychological approach is the proper one. That is not an 
isolated case; I have had several of them. As I say, I have written the minister with regard to this case, giving him the details, but I believe he should check up on the matter in the various districts in order that young boys who never had jobs, who never had any discipline, who get into the army away from home for the first time and perhaps get some money for the first time and then go absent without leave for the first time, should not be dealt with as though they were old, hardened, seasoned soldiers who understand K.R. and O. from cover to cover. I bring this to the minister's attention, and leave this thought with him.


James Layton Ralston: First with regard to the question of cutting off dependents' allowances; this is one of the cases in which one hesitates to express an opinion because of the fact that it appears rather obvious that some remedial measures should be taken. I am not going to express any opinion until I am better acquainted with the facts, but I would ask my hon. friend to give me say three of the cases he mentions, the three worst ones if he wishes. I appreciate that with regard to the court-martial case he has written me already, giving me the name of the soldier involved.
I shall be very glad to look into that matter, because there again on its face it would seem that the sentence was entirely too severe. As I remember it, these sentences have to be confirmed by headquarters.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I have had a few cases where the dependents' allowance has been cut off and the citizens have had to come forward and raise the money necessary to look after the wife, the innocent bystander, as it were, and the children. She has had to suffer for what her husband has done. I honestly feel that something should be given the wife in order to carry her over, even if it has to be taken out of the husband's pay later on.


James Layton Ralston: Just to get it on the record, I think it was the hon. member who just spoke who asked with regard to the practice in the army in connection with a man reported missing. In the case of a man reported missing, the pay and allowances are continued until such time as he is reported found or reported dead.
Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West:) That is in the army?


James Layton Ralston: Of course it is understood that after a certain time he is presumed dead and appears as such in the orders, from which time the pay and allowances are discontinued.

War Appropriation


Mr. BENCE:: Does the same thing apply in the air force?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: No, it does not.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: I should like to add a word to what was said by the hon. member for Peel with regard to the cost of living bonus for dependents of soldiers. I should like to point out that although the general index increased by fifteen points, the weighted food index compiled by the bureau of statistics increased by twenty-three points. The man himself, of course, is out of the picture; the government are taking care of him, his clothes are being bought, and all that sort of thing. But the cost of living really is up 23 per cent in connection with the food that has to be bought for the family. For the life of me I cannot see why we should give the civil servants of Canada the cost of living bonus while we refuse to give it to the dependents of our soldiers. They have just as much right to it as any other persons employed by or under the direction of the government.


Gordon Graydon: Far more right.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Yes, as my hon. friend says, far more right. In my constituency I have received many communications respecting mothers' allowances, and I must say that in dealing with them I "have received the most courteous treatment from the board and from others in charge. There is one point however which I caiyiot understand: they always say, "It comes down to a consideration of what she has been deprived of." Is this matter to be judged only from the point of view of what the mother is not getting from a boy who has joined the forces? The mother will get older, and I am wondering how she will be dealt with in a year or two. In the ordinary course of events she will suffer from losing that boy, and from having him away from her. Is she not entitled to a dependent's allowance, just as much as a wife would be? It seems to me that these points should be considered.
Then, some matters have arisen in connection with dependents' allowances. In my constituency to-day it is difficult to get living accommodation-rooms, houses or flats. In fact it is almost impossible to get accommodation anywhere. And I am as sure as I am of anything that the ceiling on rents is in many cases not being enforced. This sort of thing is bound to happen: an owner will want more money for his flat. It is all very well to say that he cannot have more, but he may make it so uncomfortable for the tenant by depriving him of hot water and other necessities
that he must leave. In these circumstances I suggest there should be some authority in the army who could bring cases of this kind before the rent control board.
Speaking in the house a few days ago the minister referred to the impossibility of obtaining reduced fares on the railways. Well, Mr. Chairman, every day of the week business men are commuting from Oakville and other outside points to Toronto, and they enjoy reduced commutation rates. Similarly, business men travel between Dorval, Lachine and other points and Montreal.
What can the men do who get week-end leave from Camp Borden? There is nothing much for them to do, with the exception of going to Barrie. That is about as far as they can go, because in these days they cannot get motor cars to come to Toronto. Motor car traffic is becoming less frequent. If business men can obtain commutation rates on a basis of a cent a mile return, or something like that, from Oakville, Port Credit and other outside points, to my mind there is no reason in the world why certain trains could not run at week-ends to take the soldiers to Toronto for about fifty cents return, or possibly less than that. I believe that is one solution of the problem.
Before gasoline restrictions came into effect the people in the Muskoka district, around) Camp Borden, were most generous; they did not hesitate to fill their cars with soldiers when they had the chance to do so. Under present restrictions however, because of a shortage of gasoline and tires, the men will not be able to travel as much as they did. I suggest the minister should take this matter up with the railways, to see if they will not do something about it.


Gordon Graydon: Would the minister
answer my question respecting embarkation and furlough leaves? Is the time used in travelling taken out of those leaves, or added on?


James Layton Ralston: They are given extra leave to compensate for the time taken in travelling.


Gordon Graydon: Is that full compensation?


James Layton Ralston: Not in every case; I shall find out exactly the number.


Mr. PERLEY:: I have found the discussion most interesting, and I have no doubt all hon. members have had representations with respect to dependents' allowances. I should like now to ask the minister what would happen in certain circumstances which I shall outline to him. A widowed mother in my home town had three sons. At the time of
War Appropriation

the outbreak of war the second son was the only wage earner. The youngest boy was going to high school and the oldest had spent one year in university. At the outbreak of war the second son enlisted. It was not until a year ago that we succeeded in persuading the dependents' allowance board in Ottawa that the widow should receive some allowance. Her husband had left very little insurance, and she had taken out so much per month. The board maintained at first that so long as she had some income from that source she should not have consideration. When that money ran out about a year ago the board put her on an allowance of about $20 a month, I believe. About a year ago the youngest son became of age to enlist, and did so. He was transferred to Montreal to act as instructor in the Royal Canadian Air Force. The other son continued his studies at the university, and after graduation joined the forces.


James Layton Ralston: The air force?


Ernest Edward Perley: No, I believe he joined some other branch of the service; he had studied pharmacy. The boy who had been overseas contracted either stomach or tubercular trouble, and about a week ago landed back in Halifax on sick leave. The first information the mother had that the son was coming back to Canada was a wire from Halifax to that effect. A few hours later she received a wire from Montreal -stating the boy had been taken off the train and had been sent to a hospital in that city. A couple of days before I left home she received a further wire from the doctors at the hospital suggesting that she come right away, because her son was dying. A few of the business men hustled around and sent her off by aeroplane that night. I have received word to-day that the boy is dying.
What consideration will that mother receive? The youngest son is in the air force, and the eldest boy is in one of the services. If the second son dies what will the mother receive? Will she receive special consideration on account of this boy, who was the only jrage earner? The other boys have never earned money which they could turn over ;o her.


James Layton Ralston: I do not wish to evade the issue, but the hon. member is really asking me what the pension board will do.


Ernest Edward Perley: Yes.


James Layton Ralston: This would not be a case for the dependents' allowance board. I am not in a position to say what would happen.

I do not wish to embarrass the pension board one way or another by attempting to guess what it should do. The hon. member says he was in the air force?


Ernest Edward Perley: Yes.


James Layton Ralston: I cannot tell, either, what the air force would do with regard to payment under those circumstances. I am afraid I shall have to refer the matter to the Minister of Pensions and National Health.


Ernest Edward Perley: Will it come before the pension board?


James Layton Ralston: Yes.


Ernest Edward Perley: Will the fact that the other two boys are enlisted affect her allowance?


James Layton Ralston: Does the hon. member mean the pension to be paid her?


Ernest Edward Perley: Yes.


James Layton Ralston: I cannot tell my hon. friend, and there is no use in my trying to guess. I assume there is assigned pay.


Ernest Edward Perley: Yes, I believe so.


The CHAIRMAN:: I have not wanted to interfere so far because of the latitude which has been granted to hon. members, but I would draw the attention of hon. members to the fabt that the last question is clearly beyond the purview of the resolution before the committee. If we carry on as we have been for the last hour or two we are bound to have a tedious repetition of questions that will be raised when the estimates of the Department of Pensions and National Health are being considered. The purport of the resolution is to provide $1,500,000,000 so that the government may carry out the war effort of Canada. While questions dealing with general principles involved in these expenditures are in order, and while we do not want to draw the line too tightly, it seems to me that hon. members should cooperate to help the committee dispose of its work.


Mr. GREEN:: Majesty's government feel therefore that in addition to the improvements announced above and to the revised war service grants scheme introduced in October, 1941, some financial aid should now be provided for other rank members of the forces against the needs which will arise in the period of post-war readjustment.
They therefore propose to introduce a system of post-war credits for the forces which will be of a simple and straightforward character. Under this system there will be set aside for all ratings and other ranks a sum of 6d. in respect of every day of paid service from the 1st January, 1942. In the case of the women's forces the sum will be 4d. per day, following the two-thirds principle adopted for basic pay and war pay. The sums so set aside will be accumulated and will be made available to the individuals concerned after the war and after discharge from the forces.
The method of payment of the credits will follow that which is to be adopted in the case of the special credits associated with the increases in the income tax made in the last budget-i.e. they will be made available to the individual in the form of a deposit in the post office savings bank (or in such other institutions as may be approved for the income tax scheme).
Why would it not be possible in Canada to provide these credits in the form of war bonds or war saving certificates which could be held for the fighting men?
The white paper concludes:
Arrangements will be made for the credits to be specially released to persons invalided out of the forces or to the estate in the event of death.
The minister has explained this afternoon that Canada goes part of the way along that road, in that ^he holds back some pay from those of our men who do not assign any of their pay, but I suggest that we go much further and make an extra payment to all our men in the form of a post-war credit, much in the manner that the British government has done.
The second suggestion is that steps should be taken to extend the wartime housing work so that it will help the dependents of these men in the forces. That scheme was initiated last year, but the Minister of Munitions and Supply explained on March 7 that it was meant only to help men in war industry. As reported in Hansard, page 1454, he said:
I should like to emphasize that this is not a general housing project but is confined solely to housing that is found necessary for the successful prosecution of the munitions programme.
He repeated the same statement last fall, when he said, as reported at page 4229:
These houses are entirely for the purpose of housing munitions workers.
Well, this position has arisen, that soldiers' dependents are being forced into the poorer houses. There is a demand for houses to rent, and as higher wages are being paid to civilian workers the soldier's wife goes down the scale

and is forced to rent poorer and poorer accommodation. I suggest that the work of Wartime Housing Limited be extended so that some provision can be made for the dependents of men in the fighting forces. These dependents should have suitable living quarters at a low rental, and now is the time to get busy on providing them with that type of accommodation.
The third suggestion is that Canada should pay an allowance for all the children of the man in the fighting forces. In Great Britain they do that. The scale of pay there is seven shillings and sixpence per week for the first child, five shillings and sixpence for the second child, four shillings for the third child and for any subsequent child. In Canada at the outbreak of war the government adopted a policy of paying an allowance for only two children, the idea being to restrict the enlistment of men with more than two children. I have never been able to see the wisdom in that policy, because the man with more than two children was allowed to enlist, but when he had enlisted no allowance was paid for more than two children. That in effect made his dependents pay the shot for his enlist ment. I believe the policy was based on the wrong line of thought. The Minister of Finance repeated the same policy last fall when he announced that Canada would pay an additional allowance for the third and fourth child. He used these words in stating, at page 4424 of Hansard, that the government would not pay for more than four children: -because we believe that definite steps should be taken to discourage the recruiting of men with large families.
The fair way to handle the problem, if it is a problem, would be to say, "We will not take any men who have more than four children." Then there could be no hardship suffered by the wife and the children. But if the government does not wish to do that,
I suggest that it follow the British practice and pay an allowance for all the children, no matter how many there may be.


James Layton Ralston: I did not get my hon. friend's point. He was making an alternative suggestion; what was it?


Howard Charles Green: My suggestion is that the minister should pay an allowance for all the children, no matter how many there may be.


James Layton Ralston: I got that. But I thought he said, "in the alternative".


Howard Charles Green: I suggested that if the government was not prepared to do that, men with more than four children should not be taken into the forces.

War Appropriation
The fourth and final suggestion has to do with a cost of living bonus for the dependents. That has been covered fully already by other speakers this afternoon, so I shall not take any time on it other than to say this. Canadian wage earners are getting this bonus as a matter of right. It is not a question of dragging a wage earner before some board and finding out whether his family are hard up or whether there is some other reason why he should get the bonus. He gets that bonus as a right; and in my opinion the members of the fighting forces should be placed in the same position-their dependents should get the cost of living bonus as of right. At the present time an increase is given only in the hardship cases, which means that there is a means test, and that, I submit, is not the proper procedure to follow.
Those are the four suggestions. Many others might be made, and I would urge private members not to be bashful in bringing forward proposals for the improvement of the lot of the fighting men and their dependents. Some will say that changes like these cost money. That is quite true. But I thought that great Canadian, Stephen Leacock, put the situation very clearly in one of his articles which advocated equal pay for the fighting men, when he stated, towards the end of the article;
But even if it looks too great a financial burden we must pick it up anyway. We who can do so little while they go to do so much, have no choice. Surely we can face a deficit for those who face death.
I appeal to hon. members to bear in mind those three words, "equality of sacrifice", at all times when questions of this type are being considered, and I should like to suggest to them that at all times our main concern in this house should be to help and take care of these fighting men and their dependents.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weybum):: The members of this group would like to associate themselves with the other hon. members who have pressed upon the minister consideration of the cost of living bonus to dependents. We raised this question last year. I do not want to labour it again now, but certainly it is worthy of consideration. The hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) said that the general cost of living had gone up 15 per cent since the beginning of the war. One of the western newspapers made a survey last August in the stores in the city of Winnipeg of the thirty-eight commodities which people buy most commonly in these stores-that is, the things which the common people buy. It was found that on these commodities the cost of living had gone up at that time 22 per
cent since August 1939. There is no doubt that the woman who is supporting a small family and whose husband is overseas has actually less purchasing power to-day in her allowance than the purchasing power which she received when her husband first joined the army. I hope the government will give consideration to this matter.
I want to ask the minister two questions; they are not related, but I thought I would double them up together because a number of hon. members will want to ask the minister questions. The first is with relation to the men overseas. I have had letters from a number of men overseas, and with hardly a single exception they have all mentioned the same thing with regard to the question of living allowance when they get leave overseas. A part of their pay is deferred. I was under the impression that all had some part of their pay deferred irrespective of how much earned pay they had, but the minister says that is not correct. These men had a certain amount of pay deferred and received only a small part of their pay. It took nearly all of that pay to buy necessities such as cigarettes, shaving materials and so on, and when they were granted leave they were not given any living allowance. I understand that in the British forces some living allowance is granted. These men I am speaking of are not given any, and a number of them actually found that it was better to stay in camp, but then they discovered that they could not stay in camp because the quartermaster's stores did not assign supplies for them on the ground that they were not on the roster for those particular days. For that reason they could not remain in camp. The complaint was that a good many of them who got leave would have liked to go to London or Glasgow but could not do so unless they could borrow money from their comrades or make other arrangements. Will the minister give consideration to that? I am citing the facts as they have been given to me in correspondence. The minister can check them up.
The other matter I want to mention has no relation to pay and allowances. I wish to raise the question of what coordination is taking place in the Canadian army that is being set up in England. One of the greatest military problems which the united nations have faced is that of unification or coordination of command. In reading Lord Gort's report, one of the things with which the reader was impressed was not only the lack of air power during those fateful days when France fell, but the fact that the commander in chief did not have the control and disposition of that air power because the Royal Air Force was under a

War Appropriation

different command. The escape of the Gneisenau and the Schamhorst a few weeks ago raised the same question in Great Britain. There they had three general staffs, and there was a feeling that there was not sufficient coordination and there might be need for complete unification of command. There is no doubt that if the Canadian troops go into a theatre of war, their success and indeed the lives of the men will depend to a large extent upon the amount of air support they get and whether or not the commander in chief has at his disposal that air support.
In the Canadian army under General McNaughton, will the Royal Canadian Air Force operating there be under his command or under the command of the Royal Air Force? Will he have, as army commander, control and disposition of the Canadian air forces, or will he depend upon the general staff of the Royal Air Force for such air support as they care to place at his disposal from time to time? That is important. No one doubts-and we say it with pride-that if operations are opened in Europe, the Canadian troops will be in all probability in the vanguard, and we owe it to these men and to their chances of success to see to it that they have the best type of air support and that there is complete synchronization in all branches of the service. That is possible only if the commander an chief has some voice and has under his command complete control of the Royal Canadian Air Force.
Would the minister now tell the committee about the new organization that is being set up in Britain in connection with the Canadian army under General McNaughton; what will be the position of the commander in chief with respect to the Royal Canadian Air Force, whether they will be under his command or whether they will continue under the Royal Air Force? Will General McNaughton depend upon them for such support as they choose to give from time to time?


James Layton Ralston: I cannot go very far into the question my hon. friend has asked except to say that the Royal Canadian Air Force * will not be under the command of General McNaughton-that is to say, the Royal Canadian Air 'Force as a whole. Most of the Canadians who go over under the joint air training plan become members of the Royal Air Force. There are 28 squadrons of the Royal Canadian Air Force which are operating with the Royal Air Force.
So far as the Canadian army is concerned, plans for the present time and for the immediate future have been discussed. The whole matter was discussed with General McNaughton when he was here, and definite representations have been made. As regards

the Royal Canadian Air Force, there is no difficulty. With regard to certain units being attached to the Canadian army for specific operation with the Canadian army, I cannot give the number, but it is a substantial number, which was to be increased as the organization developed.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Forming part of the Canadian army but under the direction of the Royal Air Force.


James Layton Ralston: This was to be under the strategic control of the army commander.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The army
cooperation squadron.


James Layton Ralston: And bombers too, of
certain types. That is the situation. The arrangement has not been completed at the moment, but the Royal Air Force is still in that picture, because the Royal Canadian Air Force is operating with the Royal Air Force at the present time. I anticipate an arrangement will be made which will be satisfactory to the army commander. It is definitely in the mind of the Royal Canadian Air Force, and we have it in mind and want to arrange to see that proper air support and cooperation are provided through squadrons with the Canadian army.


Major James William Coldwell: Is anything being done to train officers in ground regiments in air operations? Is there coordination of that type in connection with the various forces? The Russian and German armies provide that their officers shall receive some training in the three forces, the ground forces, the air and the navy, so that there may be coordination in their activities.


James Layton Ralston: I am instructed by the vice-chief of the general staff, recently returned from England, that in our army we are not teaching our own officers, but sending our officers to schools conducted by or under the direction of the Royal Air Force for the purpose of liaison with the Royal Air Force. They are learning all types of cooperation which are useful, and flying with them as well, so that the training may be coordinated, and in order that they may become acquainted with one another and understand the methods of operation of the air force.
With regard to living allowances on leave I must confess that that is a new subject to me. I have heard almost all sorts of suggestions with regard to leave but not that suggestion before. I have inquired whether it is done for the United Kingdom forces and am unable to get the information at the moment. I shall inquire into the matter. My hon. friend will, however,

War Appropriation
realize that rates of pay for United Kingdom forces are far different from our own. Nothing illustrates that better than the figures given by the hon. member for Vancouver South. For instance, a dependents' allowance of 7/6 per week for the first child would come to about $5 a month in Canadian funds, whereas our amount is $12. 'I mention that only to indicate that what is done for the United Kingdom forces in a matter of that kind would not be a precedent for us having regard to the very much larger amount of our pay and allowances. I shall, however, look into the situation with a view to giving it consideration along with these other matters.
Cost of living bonus has been dealt with. All I can say is that the measure announced by the Minister of Finance, the appointment of the dependents' trustee board, was intended to provide for cases where the dependents' allowance did not cover the situation and, as the minister frankly told the house and the country, the idea was not to make a uniform increase but to deal with cases on their merits.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Individual cases.


James Layton Ralston: Individual cases, because it was felt that the $35 paid1 the wife-and I cite this in support of my contention that the $35 should be $35-was being paid already, and therefore any addition to that caused by increased cost of living could be taken care of by the dependents' board of trustees. It would revolutionize the whole system of pay for soldiers and dependents if this were adopted. It would mean the scrapping of the dependents' board of trustees altogether and the dependents' allowances regulations. If that is the proper thing to do, nothing is impossible. I have made a note of the point in connection with the other matters to which reference has been made.
The hon. member for Vancouver South mentioned allowances for all children instead of only four. That was very carefully thought of and1 studied at the time the amendments were made. The allowances are $12 for the first child, $12 for the second, $9 for the third and $6 for the fourth, and without being facetious I think a man in England would have to have quite a family before he would approach in the aggregate the amount here, namely $39.


Howard Charles Green: I think the minister will admit that is not a very fair comparison because the cost of living is quite different there.


James Layton Ralston: I was in Great Britain lately and I must say the cost of living that I experienced there is not much different.


Howard Charles Green: But these people cannot live at the best hotels.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend's suggestion in a word is, allowances for all children. I agree with my hon. friend in this, that personally I am not in accord with the idea that a man should be discouraged from enlisting because he has a large family.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They still take them in even if a man has a dozen children.


James Layton Ralston: That is right. A man in my own constituency has ten boys. Seven are in the army; two are on the waiting list now for the navy and air force, and the last is being called up. That is not a bad contribution.
With regard to housing, that is a problem which has concerned me more than anything else. If we could settle that, it would be a tremendous relief all across this country among dependents of service men. The ground taken by my colleague the Minister of Munitions and Supply in regard to the Wartime Housing Act was that these men going to work in industry were moving in and becoming part of the establishment and these houses were being built as part of the plant. On the other hand, a soldier's wife presumably has a residence some place; she does not necessarily have to move, and therefore the provision she had should be sufficient. The complaints that come to me are not quite the same as those coming to the hon. member for Vancouver South, to the effect conditions are getting poorer and poorer because of the lack of dependents' allowances or ability to pay. I think the dependents' allowances permit them to pay rent if the houses are available, but what comes to me is that landlords are not enthusiastic about taking soldiers' wives; some are defintely reluctant.


Mr. ISNOR:: It is the scarcity of houses.


James Layton Ralston: The idea is they had a
house when the husband enlisted.


An hon. MEMBER:: It is sold over their
heads.


James Layton Ralston: The landlord has rented
it to some one else. We have not been taking on the question of housing because I have not felt that it was our responsibility. It is a financial matter and a national matter which has to do with housing conditions in Canada generally, not with soldiers' wives alone.
War Appropriation

What I have done-and my colleague the Minister of Munitions and Supply has been very cooperative about it-is to endeavour to get for the benefit of municipalities the use of ten or twenty or more houses in order that they may use them temporarily as at least a stopping place for soldiers' families who are moving. I must take this position- it is the position taken by my colleague the Minister of Finance-that this question of housing the citizens of Canada-not people moving transiently-is the problem of the municipalities rather than that of the federal government. I have appealed on a number of occasions to bodies in different towns who were anxious to do war work, and have received most heartening response; I said, "you can help by taking under your wing soldiers' families who are having difficulty, acting as big brother and getting them places to live"; and that has been done with the assistance of these houses temporarily loaned by Wartime Housing Limited. The problem is perplexing; we have not overlooked it. I know the situation in regard to the navy is very much the same; I have not heard so much about the air force. Whether anything can be done from the point of view of the service departments I am not able to say at the moment, but we have it under active study and attention.
Post-war credits are really the same principle as the deferred pay suggested by the hon. member for Peel, which I promised to look into. I notice the amount in the United Kingdom is sixpence a day, which is not very much translated into Canadian dollars, something like $25 or $30 a year. War savings certificates would probably be more appropriate than war bonds.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: Is there any arrangement whereby the dependent of a man who has enlisted in the forces of a friendly allied nation could receive dependents' allowance? I have had drawn to my attention the dependent of a man Who enlisted in the Netherlands army, and his wife would like to know whether she is eligible to receive dependents' allowance.


James Layton Ralston: No; she would not be eligible, but from what I know of our friends from Holland I am sure she would be looked after. She would not be eligible to receive the dependents' allowance from Canada.


George Hugh Castleden: It is their responsibility?


James Layton Ralston: Yes.


Major James William Coldwell: Is there not some way in which the government could do something .about these cases? Last year, of course, the

friendly allied governments were not allowed to exercise compulsion on their nationals in this country. I understand that more recently an order in council has been passed giving them power to call up their nationals resident in Canada. If those nationals are called up, then would it not be proper, in giving these governments that power, also to stipulate that something should be done for their dependents? Otherwise those dependents are going to be the recipients of relief in this country. Some arrangements should be entered into by the governments .concerned so that the dependents of men subject to call by the allied governments in exile would be protected to the extent of some living allowance. Would the minister look into that matter?


James Layton Ralston: I shall be very glad to do so, though really it is a matter for the Department of External Affairs.


Mr. QUELCH:: We in this corner would like to associate ourselves with the remarks of those who have been urging an increase in pay and allowances, and also with those who have been requesting free transportation for furloughs and embarkation leaves. I am not going to labour those matters at this time, because we have taken a consistent stand in connection with them.
There is something else I should like to mention, a matter which I do not think has been referred to this afternoon. Earlier in the day the minister stated that he believed the dependents' allowance should be kept inviolate.


James Layton Ralston: No; I thought the $35 payable to the wife should not be reduced on account of the cost of living.


Victor Quelch: I am wondering how the minister would justify the passing of order in council P.C. 138, 1936, which gives the soldier settlement board the right to attach a certain portion of the wife's allowance, not exceeding $20 a month. I would point out that the wife of the soldier is in the position that she has to hire a man to do the work her husband was doing; and for that reason, if for no other, she will need the allowance to pay this man's wages. The argument is advanced by the soldier settlement board that the amount seized would not be greater than the rent the wife would have to pay for the house in other circumstances. I would point out that the soldier settlement board have no more right to take that stand than a mortgage company holding a mortgage on a farm would have. The soldier enlists; the wife is left on the farm. The mortgage company would be equally justified in asking permission to

War Appropriation
attach the dependents' allowance for the purpose of charging that woman rent; or a storekeeper would have just as much right to say that he should be allowed to attach the dependents' allowance for the store bill. I cannot see why the soldier settlement board should be given this special privilege. They argue, of course, that it helps pay off the debt of the soldier settler, but exactly the same argument could be advanced by any private creditor, by a mortgage company or by a storekeeper. I was wondering what justification the minister could suggest for the passing of that order in council.
It is hardly necessary for me to point out to the minister that this action destroys the principle of section 118 of the allowance regulations, which states that the dependents' allowance cannot be attached. It also destroys the principle of section 98, which states that the allowance is for the purpose of promoting the well-being and efficiency of the military forces of Canada by providing that means to alleviate the financial anxiety of members with respect to the domestic welfare of dependents, while they are in the service of his majesty. I would point out that if there is one class of society in this country that is in financial difficulties, it is the soldier settlers. Certainly it is not going to relieve the anxiety in the mind of a soldier to know that a certain portion of the allowance is being seized instead of going to his wife. Would the minister say a few words in that connection?


James Layton Ralston: I was not in the house at the time, but I believe my hon. friend brought up that point the other night when my colleague the Minister of Mines and Resources was in his place, and I believe the minister made a somewhat extended reference by way of explanation of the provision.


Victor Quelch: He just took an individual case and justified it. He said in that case the dependent had seven children and was receiving a large allowance.


James Layton Ralston: I have sent for a copy of Hansard containing that discussion. I intended to discuss the matter with my colleague the Minister of Mines and Resources. My hon. friend has been very fair about it; I think he has given the reasons which the soldier settlement board give for taking this action. The principal reason that struck me was the fact that they were not charging any more than the rent that would have to be paid if the farm were leased, and under those circumstances it did seem that there was no hardship and nothing improper in asking that this amount be paid. I have not had a chance to
discuss the matter with my colleague, but I intend to deal with it more thoroughly and will talk to him about it. I am not in ; position, in view of the explanation which my hon. friend makes, to say that any change will be made, but certainly I shall look into the matter.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I suppose the technical question of a crown debt has some influence on the treasury.


James Layton Ralston: Yes. Just on that point the section which my hon. friend quoted, which indicated that the allowance was not garnishable or attachable, does not apply in a case of this kind.


Mr. MAYHEW:: I should like to bring to the attention of the minister the question of the hospitalization of dependents of soldiers. Quite a number of soldiers are getting into financial difficulties through having to pay hospital bills for their dependents. Not only are they creating hardship for themselves; they are creating hardship for many of the hospitals in the smaller communities. This matter has been brought to my attention in regard to the Nanaimo camp. The hospital at Nanaimo is now some $6,000 in arrears on account of soldiers' dependents being hospitalized there, and I am wondering whether there is not some way of taking care of this load for the men in uniform.


James Layton Ralston: That is in connection with the dependents?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is a new thought.


James Layton Ralston: Yes. I do not think I am prepared to say anything more, but I will have the matter examined. I think it must be a special case, of a large camp near a small town with limited hospital facilities, but I am just a little concerned about hospital bills-which I am sure must be reasonable- not being paid. Or is there a particular epidemic among the dependents of soldiers out there, which means that a large number of them are becoming ill?


Richard Burpee Hanson: If the hon. member will allow me, in my province the matter is taken care of by law. If the dependent of a soldier is in need of hospitalization and that person goes to hospital and is unable to pay, the municipality pays as a matter of law and a matter of course. That is the way I think it ought to be. It is not a charity; it is a community duty which is performed by the municipality under a well considered and well regulated practice.
War Appropriation

Mr.- MAYHEW: In British Columbia the municipalities pay so much and the provincial government pays so much, but there is something left which the patient is supposed to pay. That accounts for the amount left unpaid in this case. We talk about equal sacrifices. I think at least we have arrived at the point where we know we cannot make equal sacrifices, but I think we can do a great deal more to share the burdens of the soldiers. We are not doing it as far as hospitalization is concerned. Whether it should come from this government or from the municipalities or from any other source, it should not be a matter of passing the buck and leaving the soldiers stranded with a load of debt on account of their wives or children.


James Layton Ralston: I wonder whether that would not fee taken care of by the trustees of the dependents' allowance board?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: If they can go far enough.


James Layton Ralston: If my hon. friend has a case in mind I shall bring it to the attention of the chairman of the board of trustees.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Yes; I have a list of sixty or seventy cases from the Nanaimo hospital alone.


Mr. GOLDING:: The observations of the leader of the opposition are quite correct. I happen to be chairman of a hospital in Ontario, and I know that the governments of the province, the county and the municipality pay the full cost of indigent patients. No cost is charged to the patient if he is indigent.
Mr. CO'LDWELL:	But are soldiers
indigents?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Does the hon. member call a soldier an indigent person?


William Henry Golding: I was just talking about the cost they could not take care of themselves.


Major James William Coldwell: As the hon. member for Victoria, British Columbia, has pointed out, the distinction is that the wives and dependents of soldiers cannot be considered as indigent charity cases. They deserve something better than the poor law. That is practically what is done in New Brunswick, Ontario and, I may say, my own province of Saskatchewan. But the thing is wrong. Surely these peolpe are entitled to better treatment than the ordinary charity case in a municipal or other hospital.


Mr. REID:: The law in British Columbia is that the municipalities are called upon to pay seventy-five cents or a dollar a day, and the government pays a like amount. But that does not deter the hospital from sending a hospital bill to the patient.


Richard Burpee Hanson: This is not a question of the application of the principle of the poor law. It is a question of policy on the part of the civil authorities in a province or municipality. They must decide how people who cannot pay, whether they be dependents of soldiers or others, are to be cared for. If they can pay they are asked to pay, and if they cannot pay they are not asked to pay. No one who is not able to pay gets a bill. I am not prepared to say whether it is the responsibility of the government, but I know in my own province it is taken care of by the community. It is a community service and community obligation, and is in no sense a reflection on any of the recipients. If the suggestion is made in a derogatory sense, it is entirely out of place. It is community service rendered by reason of enlightened public opinion crystallized into law.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Many of the men in these camps come from provinces which have not laws similar to those in British Columbia or New Brunswick. Therefore there is no compensation for part of their keep. It must all come from the portion paid by the provincial government.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There is a residence qualification.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Yes, there is a residence qualification.


Alfred Henry Bence: I presume the Minister of National Defence has under his jurisdiction dependents' allowances for all the services- the air force, the navy and the army.


James Layton Ralston: The navy has a special set of regulations mentioned in the orders.


Alfred Henry Bence: Does the dependents' allowance board deal with them?


James Layton Ralston: Yes.


Alfred Henry Bence: The dependents' allowance
board- comes under the jurisdiction of the Minister of National Defence.


James Layton Ralston: Yes, but I try to keep my hands off the dependents' allowance board entirely. The only time I ever interfered with it in the slightest was with respect to a discussion of policy raised by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. That matter was discussed in a letter to which I referred. I do not know that I can help the hon. member much with respect to the navy or the air force.


Alfred Henry Bence: With whom, then, should we take up these matters?


James Layton Ralston: They should be taken up with the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services, if they are naval matters.

War Appropriation


Alfred Henry Bence: He is in a position to say that this comes under the dependents' allowance board, and the dependents' allowance board comes under-


James Layton Ralston: I made the recommendations with regard to the appointment of the dependents' allowance board, originally. But dependents' allowances for the navy are under naval regulations. Naval pay and allowance regulations are quite separate from army pay and allowance and air force pay and allowance regulations. Each service has a liaison with the dependents' allowance board; each service has a member on the board, so that my hon. friend would probably get better service and better information, if he has in mind a matter concerned with the naval service, if he would take it up with the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services, who would have communication with the naval member on the board. The same would be true with respect to the Minister of National Defence for Air. However, I should be pleased to make a note of any case to which my hon. friend might refer.


Alfred Henry Bence: I was going to ask someone to make a statement with regard to the great disparity between dependents' allowances for members of the navy, and those of the army and the air force.


James Layton Ralston: I will get all the information I can. But as I said a little while ago, the whole matter of pay and allowances was discussed by a joint committee. There is an interservice committee on pay and allowances which is considering these matters constantly. I believe the feeling was that they had pretty well arrived at a parity with regard to allowances, in view of existing conditions. However, if there is any point my hon. friend wishes to bring up, or any particular ranks he would like to compare, I will see that they are compared, and that reasons are given why one rate of pay is paid in one case and another rate in another.
As indicated by the leader of the opposition, the general principle was that taking it in the aggregate-that is to say, pay plus allowances -you arrived generally at a parity. There are some cases, more particularly in the navy, where they prefer their system to the systems used by the army and the air force.


Alfred Henry Bence: I have some figures with respect to differences between the army and the navy. It appears, so far as commissioned ranks are concerned, that exactly the same amount is paid to the wife of a naval sub-lieutenant as is paid to the wife of a naval commander, namely, 830. The army position equivalent to the naval sub-lieutenant is that of the army
lieutenant, and his wife is paid $45. The wife of the army lieutenant-colonel, who is the equivalent of a naval commander, receives $60.


James Layton Ralston: What about the pay?


Alfred Henry Bence: The pay of a naval lieutenant is $4 a day, whereas that of an army lieutenant is $5 a day. Consequently the total amount received by a naval sub-lieutenant, including pay and allowances, is $150 a month, as compared with an army lieutenant at $195 a month.
There is not such a great distinction in the higher ranks. However, the army lieutenant-colonel obtains a total of $360 a month pay and allowances, whereas the naval commander obtains $330 a month.


James Layton Ralston: Both married and with children?


Alfred Henry Bence: I am speaking of married men without children.
The minister made some statement with respect to men who are missing. He said it was the policy in the army that pay and allowances would be continued1 until some evidence had been found that a soldier was dead, or could be presumed dead. The presumption of death is arrived at after a period of six months.


James Layton Ralston: Is the hon. member asking me that?


Alfred Henry Bence: I am making that statement; that is the way I understand- it.


James Layton Ralston: I did not think I mentioned six months.


Alfred Henry Bence: No; I am saying that. I understand there is a presumption of death after six months following the notice indicating that a soldier is missing. Who determines that policy? Is it the Department of National Defence in connection with a soldier, the Department of National Defence for Naval Services in connection with a seaman and the Department of National Defence for Air in connection with the air force?


James Layton Ralston: The offices corresponding to the adjutant-general's branch in the army determine it for the navy and air force respectively.


Alfred Henry Bence: Is there any way in which there could be worked out a coordinated policy in that connection between the various services?


James Layton Ralston: If there is a time when the fur gets up on the back of my neck it is when someone mentions coordination. We are
War Appropriation

working out coordination constantly; we have interservice committees. For instance, we have a pay and allowances committee. Some things are different in the three services. Each service likes to do things its own way, but I do not think it makes any great difference which way it is done when it comes to the rate of pay. If the army are satisfied with their rates and practice as they are and always have been, and if the navy has a different practice in that connection and is satisfied with it, it does not seem to me that there is any particular public advantage in pounding their heads together and saying, "you must accept this other system." There are some traditions in connection with these services. I think the answer to my hon. friend's question is that there is coordination by means of the defence council and the interservice committee on pay and allowances. There is an interservice committee which has to do with personnel conditions. We try as best we can to have coordination, which is not necessarily absolute uniformity. I think we should distinguish between the two.


Alfred Henry Bence: As a matter of fact what I had down was "uniform policy"; I did not intend to use the word "coordination." I am pleased to have the minister make the statement he did, that pay and allowances are to be continued in the army in the manner in which they are. I am particularly concerned with the air force, because it is in connection with that force that we have so many men missing. If a man is listed as missing in the middle of the month, his pay is paid for the balance of that month, but after that it drops down to the $60 a month his wife would get in case of his death. I do not see why a distinction should be made between the services in respect of a thing like that. At the same time, his child is continued at the lower rate, namely $12 a month, and is not raised to the $15 a month which would be paid if he were officially declared dead. It seems to me that the same policy should be adopted with respect to the air force as is followed in the other services. A wife who receives information that her husband is missing should not have the additional blow of having her income reduced automatically.


James Layton Ralston: If I could I would be very glad to give my hon. friend an explanation, but it would be the merest guess and would not be informative. I would prefer that he take the matter up with my colleague, the Minister of National Defence for Air. It may be that they are following the practice of the Royal Air Force with which they are closely associated.
flVlr. Ralston.]


Mr. BLACKMORE:: The matter of the decision in regard to the payment of hospitalization of dependents was not cleared up to my satisfaction, although I may have failed to grasp what was said. As it was left in my mind, the only disposition made was that suggested by the leader of the opposition, that the municipality should pay. What information has the minister regarding that matter?


James Layton Ralston: The way I dealt with
it was to indicate that the dependents' board of trustees, which was established in November or December, has as one of its functions and one of its authorities, to pay such supplementary grants or to give such special assistance in those cases where it is satisfied that such supplementary grants or special assistance are necessary to prevent hardships arising because of unusual circumstances or to relieve misfortune and meet domestic emergencies, including serious illness of a member of the family. If the hospitalization which was referred to could not be handled by the soldier himself, I think it would come within that provision. I am not at this moment saying that the country should simply undertake the hospitalization of all the soldier's family. We must have regard for certain general principles. I am saying, however, that if the soldier is unable to take care of it, there is a provision which it seems to me could be made applicable and which seems, in terms at least, to be amply sufficient for the purpose.


John Horne Blackmore: I would say that
the idea behind the; minister's proposal is more sound than the idea behind the suggestion of the leader of the opposition. I would say that this burden should be borne by all Canadians, not by the people of a particular community in which there happens to be concentrated a large number of soldiers. I would feel a little better if the wording of the powers given to that board was a little more specific, that is, that there was more of a duty placed upon them to see to it that all necessitous cases were taken care of. As I understood the minister's reading of it, they just have permission to do it.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend understands that all these things are covered by enabling phraseology; that is, the authorization is given to spend money and to make grants.


Major James William Coldwell: I notice the Minister
of National Defence for Naval Services (Mr. Macdonald) is here, and I hope that when he comes before the house with his estimates we shall be able to have a full explanation of

War Appropriation
the discrepancy which now exists between the pay and allowances of naval ratings and members of the other services. We have had quite a discussion here this afternoon. I have met a large number of naval men in the last six or eight months and have found that many of them have a real feeling that they are being discriminated against. I have had no explanation which convinces, me that it is right and proper that dependents of naval men and the naval men themselves should receive allowances and pay which are less than those given to members of the other armed forces.


Mr. MACDONALD (Kingston City):: As the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) has indicated, there is some discrepancy. In some cases naval personnel receive more; in other cases they receive less. The chief stumbling block at the moment is the amount allowed to a man who lives out of quarters. The navy man who has to board and feed himself gets $1.45 a day, whereas one of my colleague's men gets only $1 a day. There you have a difference of from $14 to $15 a month to the advantage of the naval rating. It is true that for the last six months the wife and children of a naval rating have been getting somewhat less than the wife and children of a private soldier, but on the other hand the naval rating receives this greater amount for lodging and compensation.


Richard Burpee Hanson: On balance is there equality?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: That is a big question. Some officers receive a little better pay than the corresponding officers in the army, while other officers are not quite so well off. It is difficult to work this thing out to the last cent and decimal point. The whole matter of naval pay and allowances has been before the treasury board. I appeared before the board last week; I intend to appear before it on Thursday morning, and I hope that this whole matter may be adjusted then. However, the minute I ask that the dependents' allowance be raised, it will be pointed1 out that the sailor receives this S14 or $15 a month more than the soldier.


Thomas Miller Bell: That is only at certain times.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: When he lives out of barracks.


Major James William Coldwell: A man living in a port such as Halifax will find it an exceedingly expensive place in which to live.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: My hon. friend is quite right; living in Halifax is expensive.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Richard Burpee Hanson: In the artillery training camps have we any modem guns for practice purposes? For instance, it is represented to me that at Petawawa there is not a modern gun, and that they are using for training purposes old 18-pounders of the last war.


James Layton Ralston: I know there are 25-pounders at Petawawa. I have seen them, and I am informed by the vice-chief of the general staff that they are there. I cannot give my hon. friend the number, but I saw them in the gun shed there.


Mr. MARSHALL:: I do not know whether the Minister of National Defence has made any comment with respect to a question which I should like to ask him at this time. I understand that prior to the Easter recess he was giving sympathetic consideration to the proposal that the government should advance loans to medical students who are attending the various Canadian universities, to enable them to continue their studies, provided, of course, that they undertake to join the Canadian army medical corps. During the recess I discussed the matter with some of these students, and they were in a quandary as to what the department intended to do. I wish the minister would make a statement on this matter, because some of the universities are closing, and others will close in a very short time.


James Layton Ralston: I made a statement on this subject in the house about four weeks ago or perhaps a little more. The provisions with regard to the assistance were, first, that men who undertook to give their services in the national effort would be assisted, where the need existed, by the Department of Labour, who would give them scholarships. For the last two years those who enlisted would be given leave with pay and permitted to continue their studies. We had meetings with representatives of the universities. They have concurred in the plan, and the orders have actually gone out to the universities. As a matter of fact, I have myself signed a letter to either the deans of the medical faculties or to the presidents of the universities themselves, outlining the plan. In addition,

TFor Appropriation

the regulations were completed recently; I am told that they would have reached the universities about three days ago. Those regulations give full details as to what these young men should do. I think the matter is now wholly in order, and that the universities understand the procedure thoroughly.


James Alexander Marshall: Have any of the universities refused to accept the proposals?


James Layton Ralston: No-none of the medical schools. There are medical schools in only a certain number of the universities.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I should like to ask the minister a question with respect to the rehabilitation of men. I will put this case. A young man of very good education, bilingual, of French ofigin, teaching in an academic course in the maritime provinces, enlisted in the air force, was taken to the manning depot, and from there transferred to the air school, where he taught certain subjects connected with aeronautics. While there, it was discovered that he had a hernia; and he was to be transferred to the army for a course, on the theory that he would get hospitalization and have an operation-which I believe is very simple-and would then go into the infantry. I am now informed that no provision is made for hospitalization of this sort, and he is not able to afford the operation himself. I think I have read that some provision is made for the physical rehabilitation of men under such conditions. This man is of a very fine type, and I believe that if he could be rehabilitated physically he would be a valuable officer because of his bilingual qualifications; I understand that such men are all too scarce. What is the position with reference to a case like that?


James Layton Ralston: The case my hon. friend
cites is exactly the sort which the regulations and the policy announced a short time ago were intended to cover. There could only be one possible "out" in connection with it, and that would be if the officer or man referred to was too old; that is to say, that the doctors would not consider that a hernia operation would be sufficient to mend him to pass army requirements. My hon. friend is right in assuming that there is provision for such a case as that. The provision is that he is handed over to the Department of Pensions and National Health. I do not mean that we are shelving the responsibility, but that is the department which actually does the operation.
[Mr. Ralston.!


Richard Burpee Hanson: I shall
be glad to send the minister particulars of the case if he has not already received them.


James Layton Ralston: I would appreciate it.


Clarence Gillis: A few nights ago the minister intimated that it was the intention of his department to set up on the west coast a school for the purpose of training inspectors in the development of commando troops. Is there any .particular reason why that school should be set up on the west coast? If it is the intention to train troops for that purpose, and to establish a school, would it not be more economical, more in the general interests of the country, and serve a greater purpose if it were located more centrally? I presume some would be taken from the east coast for that purpose. Taking them from one end of the country to the other seems a rather silly operation, and I think the school might be established somewhere in the centre of Canada because it would then serve the whole dominion to greater advantage.


James Layton Ralston: Consideration along that
line has been going on for some time. The primary reason for considering the west coast-it was not necessarily the west coast, although I said the west-was the fact that conditions there prevail all the year round and are better for training than they are in the east. Moreover, at the present time we have a great many military establishments in the east.


George Hugh Castleden: Before the dinner
recess we were dealing with the matter of the health of dependents. Discussing this question a short time ago, a number of us came to the conclusion that it might be a good idea for the department to lay out some sort of plan whereby a form of state medicine or state health insurance might be provided for all dependents of soldiers. That might be extended to take in a number of old age pensioners, of whom we have so many in various parts of our province. A constructive suggestion that occurred to us was this. This is one branch of the minister's work that might be handed over to the Minister of Pensions and National Health. It would act as a proving ground for the question of state medicine on a small scale and we might learn some interesting and instructive facts from the experiment.
Then, would the minister give an outline of the steps that are taken to ensure that members of the armed forces shall receive supplies and equipment which are up to standard. What steps are taken by the Department of National Defence to inspect technical equipment? Are munitions, tanks,

War Appropriation
small arms, anti-aircraft guns and so on tested in Canada before shipments are made to our forces in other parts of the world?
A third matter which I would discuss for just a moment is that of seeing that men are placed in occupations in which they can do the most effective work in the forces. We saw a number of enlistment advertisements in which men were asked to join the armed forces. They were calling for tradesmen, and on one visit to the camp last year I ran across a man who had entered as a butcher and was then in the hospital, while a blacksmith was serving as a cook and a medical orderly was working as provost. In the early days of organization, of course, there must be some confusion; but would the minister give us a statement as to what is being done to ensure that men are being used in the armed forces in those occupations in which they were previously trained?


James Layton Ralston: With regard to the first question respecting health insurance for dependents, I have learned enough in my short career not to step into the field of other departments if that can be avoided. It is part of my responsibility in an indirect way, in connection with the welfare of the soldiers, to assist with regard to their dependents. But health insurance is a matter for two other departments, namely, the Department of Pensions and National Health, as my hon. friend has suggested, and the Department of Finance, under which the superintendent of insurance operates. I will bring the matter to the attention of these two departments. I will not say any more at this stage with regard to it.
So far as the matter of inspection is concerned, I could speak at length in reference to what I know of the organization; but let me say briefly that after-inspection is carried out by the joint inspection board of the United Kingdom and Canada under the direction of Major-General Locke, who came here early in the war, and is himself not only a most competent and capable organizer, but has a thorough technical knowledge of arms and equipment and the munitions which are being turned out. The board has employees running into thousands, both in Canada and in the United States, and every type of equipment and munitions is inspected by the board before it is accepted by the Department of National Defence or, for that matter, by the British government. I can assure the committee that nothing is left undone in the way of inspection and testing. I know of a number of proving grounds which they have, and tests are carried out. As a matter of fact, for our own satisfaction, these tests are supplemented or are preceded by tests with
44561-124J
pilot models made by the master-general of the ordnance, who is the provision officer of the Department of National Defence. The board has expanded rapidly and is most capable and efficient, the organization consisting of personnel who know their job thoroughly.
With regard to the question of personnel, since the committee was last discussing the resolution I have had an opportunity of a long discussion with the director of personnel selection at headquarters, Brigadier Chisholm, who has charge of the personnel selection branch, and I incidentally had an opportunity of visiting one of the training centres where his men are carrying on. At the present time in each training centre in Canada there is a personnel selection officer. He is one who has been trained in that sort of work, to give sample tests and also, by means of personal interviews with each man who is training in the training centre, to endeavour to establish the aptitude and capabilities of the men. Recommendations are made to the officer commanding the training centre with regard to the qualifications of a particular man. If they find a butcher, I think his presence will be advised to the quartermaster-general who has to do with the stores. If they find a blacksmith, his presence also will be advised to the quartermaster-general, and probably it will be notified as well to the commandant of the trade school at Hamilton where training in blacksmithing among fifty other trades is carried on. My hon. friend is quite right that many mistakes were made particularly when we were organizing the forces last year and the tremendous drive was on. We were building training centres and getting men there, getting staffs organized, and men were taken and trained in the particular subjects taught at that training centre. I have no doubt therefore that in many instances men were trained in one line even though their aptitude could have been put to better advantage somewhere else. I do not say that this has changed completely, but the system which has been in force is, if I may use the word, scientific; and I think it is a competent approach to this matter, which is extremely important and is becoming more so every day in connection with the armed services. The selection of mechanics particularly is vital to the armoured forces we have and to the mechanical trades which are needed in the infantry to-day. I have reason to believe that the personnel selection branch which has been organized for only a few months is doing most efficient work.


George Hugh Castleden: About how many men, skilled mechanics, have been taken out of the armed forces to go into munitions work?
War Appropriation


James Layton Ralston: I assure my hon. friend that if I can avoid it, none are taken out of the armed forces to go into munitions work, because there is room in the armed forces for every mechanic. As I said, there are nearly fifty trades, thirty-five at least in the armoured division; mechanical men who are physically fit enlisting in the armed services can all be used to good advantage.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They told us at Aldershot that they did not have enough skilled men.


James Layton Ralston: Aldershot, Nova Scotia?


Richard Burpee Hanson: No,
England.


Mr. MacNICOL:: Is the mechanical training school in Exhibition park at London, Ontario, under the minister's department?


James Layton Ralston: It is under my department. It is with the ordnance depot. I confess I have not been there. Our establishment is in new buildings there. Can my hon. friend tell me who is in charge? Is there an officer in charge?


John Ritchie MacNicol: I cannot say. There is one large building where there is an officer in charge; that is in the northeast corner of the city. But in the exhibition buildings there is a large mechanical school operated by the government. In my judgment that school is doing very fine work.


James Layton Ralston: That was our first
mechanization depot. We had a very large establishment there, put there primarily for the purpose of assembling and storing vehicles and having them ready to ship overseas as well as in Canada. Along with that the practical work provided gave opportunity to establish a school which has been operated for some time under the general staff and the master-general of ordnance. But whether the school to which my hon. friend refers is an army school I cannot tell. I have in mind that there is a commercial school as well.


John Ritchie MacNicol: There are two large depots, one of which does just what the minister says, assembles trucks and mechanical equipment from all round the country and repairs it and sends it forward. The day I was in the Exhibition park school there were perhaps one thousand young men learning all about cars, tanks and everything, and I was greatly struck with it. It is the only school I know of in the country where tlasses are taught by study of the actual
fMr. Castleden.]
machines and parts all cut open so that the classes can see just how they are put together. They told me they would be there for perhaps three or four months. I talked to many of the young men; they were all enthusiastic about how they were able to get along and learn. Apparently from there they are sent to different parts of the country. Why are there not more such schools, say one in the maritimes, and one in the western provinces? I believe the school is operated by a firm in the United States.


James Layton Ralston: Anderson's.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I could see from my knowledge of mechanical equipment that they were doing a splendid job, and I would suggest that we should have such schools not only in London but one perhaps in Toronto, one in the maritimes and one in the west.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend has tied it down so that I know the school to which he refers is the school operated under the direction of the Department of National Defence. We got the Anderson company to come from the United States. They are also doing some instructing at Barriefield. It is called a mechanics' training school. That is an army school. In addition, we have a driving and maintenance school at Woodstock and the ordnance school at Barriefield, also a signal school at Barriefield and the Hamilton trade school at Hamilton.


John Ritchie MacNicol: But is any other school set up like the one in Exhibition park, London?


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend knows the Hamilton trade school?


John Ritchie MacNicol: Yes.


James Layton Ralston: I have visited the Hamilton trade school and I had an idea that the Anderson school at London was along the same lines.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I thought the London school was much more advanced.


James Layton Ralston: About a year ago we found the necessity for mechanics increasing all the time and felt that the quickest way to get them was to get people who had made a success of such schools in commercial work. The Anderson company had schools in California and elsewhere and they came and set up these schools. We have found it highly desirable to concentrate as much as possible, equipment being difficult to get. The air force found the same situation when

War Appropriation
they started their first initial training school. Therefore we have concentrated as much as possible in order to save both equipment and instructors. I think the plan is turning out very well. Of course my hon. friend understands that what we call phase 1 of the training is basic training. Then phase 2 is done all over the dominion in what were formerly the provincial technical schools, who do the elementary work in connection with mechanics. These are helped by the provinces. We have had fine cooperation from the provinces in that respect. Schools all over the dominion have been turned into trade schools for the benefit of the army. Then they go from there to either Hamilton or London or Barrie-field or Woodstock or some of these schools to take phases 3 and 4. My hon. friend says they stay for four months. Men in some trades stay longer; in the trade of fitter, which is needed badly, the course takes longer than four months. Generally speaking, I think an excellent job is being done in training tradesmen. Many of these men, unlike the one to whom my friend referred a moment ago, are men who had not had training at all; they are simply taken off the street and found to have an aptitude and put immediately into phase 2 and then phases 3 and 4.


George Hugh Castleden: Are these men given special rates of pay after graduation?


James Layton Ralston: We have a tradesmen's establishment in connection with the various units. It may be a tank battalion or armoured battalion or any of these mechanized units, and the men in these establishments are given special trades pay.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A few minutes ago in answer to the hon. member for Yorkton the minister said the equipment was examined and tested by the Department of National Defence-


James Layton Ralston: The joint inspection board, representing the war office in England and the Department of National Defence in Canada.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Could the minister give some information about the results at the proving grounds in Canada? I am reluctant to ask any question tending to elicit information which the minister does not want to give, but at one time I heard some disconcerting reports, for instance about tanks made in Canada. The situation may have been improved since, or things may not be as I heard. Could the minister give any idea of the percentage of these tanks that had to be sent back from the proving grounds? Or if he is not prepared to give that, could he
say whether or not the percentage rejected has decreased to any extent? I should like some information with reference to other equipment as well, but particularly tanks.


James Layton Ralston: I can say to the committee sincerely that I have not heard of any large or substantial number of tanks being rejected. Of course the very object of the proving ground is to find defects, and some of the tanks are tested to destruction intentionally; that is they are driven until they wear out or break. Both our tanks, since there are two models, have been sent to Aberdeen, Maryland, where there is an extensive proving ground, and we are now turning out tanks of both types in commercial quantities. I do not think many are being rejected now that they are in production. Of course my hon. friend understands that beginning with the transmission and on to the suspension, the engine, the turret and the track, all these are inspected separately before the tank is assembled, as well as the wireless equipment and the guns. Therefore, what you inspect in the complete tank is a combination or an assembly of things which already have been tried and tested. Perhaps my hon. friend could tell me privately anything he has heard about tanks being rejected in any quantity, because I think his information is incorrect, or he may have been hearing about the time when we were trying out models and ascertaining the best material or best type to use. I think we are now past the teething stage in connection with tanks, and the output has been gratifying having regard to all the difficulties we have had to meet.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am very glad indeed to hear that.
Some time ago the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar placed a question on the order paper and I believe it was passed as an order for return, which as yet has not come down. Could the minister give us any information with regard to insurance agents canvassing the soldiers for the purpose of selling life insurance policies and also what I believe are called savings bonds?


James Layton Ralston: I think I saw the answer to that question, and I thought it had been brought down some time ago. I believe there were two questions asked, the first being whether or not insurance agents were allowed to go to the camps. I believe the answer was that this depended on the district officer commanding, in connection with the regulations of the camp. Of course these agents would not be allowed in during parade hours or anything like that, but after hours it would depend on the district officer commanding and the
War Appropriation

particular regulations of the camp. To answer specifically, there were no general regulations prohibiting insurance agents going into camps. The second question was whether the government had examined the policies which were being sold, and that question I think was quite properly answered by saying it had been referred to the superintendent of insurance, because that is not a matter into which our department would examine.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It would seem that there might be some conference between the officials of the Department of National Defence and the superintendent of insurance, with a view to examining into that situation. The government should satisfy itself that the policies being sold to these men are pretty good financial propositions, and that these savings bonds and things of that sort are not merely rackets. It should know something about the amounts being paid. As a matter of fact, I was hoping for something along the line suggested by the hon. member for Peel this afternoon. If we are going to have any type of savings scheme at all-and I believe there should be some scheme-I had hoped that the government itself might institute it. If there is going to be any type of insurance policy for these men to pay on while they are on active service, the government itself should initiate it. Failing that, it seemed to me that the department would have some responsibility for a very close supervision of anything being sold to the men. After all most of these men have not had a great deal of experience in taking out insurance policies, or buying savings bonds, or anything of that sort, and I believe it is the responsibility of the government to see that any people allowed into the camps to sell commercial propositions like these adhere pretty strictly to some sort of regulation and submit to the government the proposition they are trying to sell. Otherwise I am afraid a great many of these boys, some of whom are handling money for the first time, may be victimized by salesmen.


James Layton Ralston: Has my hon. friend any particular policy or any particular instance in mind?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: No, no particular policy, but I have had letters from a large number of men and also from soldiers' wives, saying their husbands had taken out policies. The mere fact that they were so indefinite as to the benefits and provisions of the policies led me to believe these men had taken out policies without knowing very much about such things as maturity, cash surrender values and so forth. It seems to me they have been simply persuaded to take

out policies, for which they were paying so much money, with very little knowledge of the benefits they might receive.


James Layton Ralston: The most important thing, of course, would be what would happen under such a policy in case the policyholder should become a war casualty. I would agree with my hon. friend that one should look out for matters of that kind in connection with these policies. Knowing the superintendent of insurance, I cannot imagine anybody selling a policy in the nature of a gold brick for very long in this country without being caught. I shall be glad, however, to have the officials confer with the insurance department, and also with one or two camp commandants, to see if policies are being sold and what is the nature of them.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I should like to add a further word in connection with the school in the Western exhibition grounds at London, Ontario. Since the school is filled with a great many machines which are fixed in place, is it the intention of the department to take over the exhibition grounds in London for the duration, as they have taken over the Canadian National Exhibition buildings in Toronto?


James Layton Ralston: I am afraid I cannot make any statement in that regard at the moment. We have the buildings at present, but to be quite frank with my hon. friend I have not in mind at the moment the terms under which we now hold those buildings. I imagine they are leased for the duration, though I am not certain. I shall, however, ascertain the position, and if I can make any statement to my hon. friend with regard to future policy I shall be glad to do so.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Personally I was sorry to read that the exhibition grounds in Toronto are not going to be used for exhibition purposes this fall. Perhaps they have been taken over at the request of the city; I do not know. Perhaps they have been taken over because the government needs the space which can be provided by the buildings, and I am sure, if that is the case, both the city and the exhibition authorities would be content to let the government have the buildings. But since reading that article I have been thinking: what about the great number of men and women who have been working in those exhibition grounds every year for perhaps the last twenty or thirty years? I have had a number of letters from people who have been in the habit of working there, wondering whether the government, in its agreement with the exhibition authorities

War Appropriation
to take over the buildings, is going to compensate those people who, after having worked ' there for perhaps fifteen or twenty years, now will lose their employment. Many of them have looked forward year after year to the extra money they make during the exhibition. That money is used for the payment of room rent, for the purchase of coal, and so forth. Has the department formulated any policy whatever to take care of people who are going to be unemployed as a result of the government taking over the grounds of the Canadian National Exhibition? The same remarks would, of course, apply if the government should take over the buildings of the Western exhibition at London.


James Layton Ralston: There is in the arrangement no provision to take care of those who may be unemployed by reason of the government taking over the exhibition grounds. I do not think there are going to be very many unemployed in the city of Toronto, though, of course, it may be that these are people who cannot work at other jobs. I am afraid, however, that in the exigencies of the war we shall have to ask them to make that contribution.
The taking over of the exhibition grounds was very carefully and seriously canvassed by defence council, by the chiefs of staff and by the deputy ministers of the departments concerned. I can say that it was not done at the request of the city or at the request of the province or at the request of the commission, though from all these sources we received the utmost cooperation that could be expected. A decision had to be arrived at after examining the alternative possibilities of moving out, as we have been doing in other years, or of building permanently a very large establishment somewhere else for all three services. As I said the other night, the navy have an establishment there, which is very well suited to their purposes, on the shore of the lake. They occupy that and expect to expand. The air force have a large establishment there as well, and moving would have meant interference with their activities. The army had not the same training situation as the other two services, but the army needed a depot, and needed it very badly. Having examined the cost of using the exhibition grounds for the duration of the war and paying a yearly amount therefor, implementing the arrangement which had been made between the city and the province, we felt that it was advantageous for the three services to stay there and that it was also in the national interest. An amicable arrangement was arrived at in very short order, having regard to the size of the proposal and the details which had to be worked out between
the city, the exhibition authorities and the province, and an order in council has been passed fully implementing the terms of the arrangement.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That was for Toronto.
Has anything been settled for London?


James Layton Ralston: Not so far.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: On the 26th of
March I asked a question which was passed as an order for a return in connection with the daily rates of pay and allowances for the army, navy and air force, also with regard to separation allowance and so forth. Another question was asked by the hon. member for Broadview on the same day. It would be interesting to have that information. How soon may we expect it?


James Layton Ralston: It ought to be down now.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I understand that the minister did table one return to-day. It would not take very long to complete the whole returns asked for.


James Layton Ralston: I do not want to say that others are in default and that we have all our returns in, but I am satisfied that the return from the army has gone in to the Secretary of State.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What is the policy of the department with respect to the erection at permanent camps like Petawawa, we will say, of large and expensive permanent buildings? I shall be frank with the minister. Information has reached me that an officers' mess has recently been built at Petawawa at a cost of $150,000. Having regard to the facilities at the training camps, that would appear to me to be a rather elaborate structure. I do not know whether there is any truth in what I have heard, but it came to me from a retired army officer, and he thinks it is a scandalous waste of public money.
May I ask where Vimy barracks are? Are they at Barriefield or at Kingston?


James Layton Ralston: Barriefield.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is another permanent camp. Have not some very elaborate buildings been erected there for officers' services-I will put it that way, not to use some other term? These are things which the public is questioning-expenses on these elaborate, I shall not say social structures, but structures that are there for the use of the officers, and erected at a substantial cost. I am told that the one at Petawawa cost $150,000. I do not know anything about it myself, but I am told that an elaborate mess has been built at Vimy barracks. The public
War Appropriation

of this country are quite willing to contribute money for the war, but I tell the minister frankly that they are not willing to see it put into an elaborate, shall I say, social establishment-you can take any interpretation you like out of that. I am asking for information; I am making no charges. I should like to know the history of these expenditures.


James Layton Ralston: I thank my hon. friend for bringing the matter to my attention. I cannot at the moment give him an answer about Peta-wawa, but I shall have the information before the committee rises to-night. We are making extensions at Petawawa all the time, but I would be surprised if just an officers' mess cost any such sum as that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I would, too.


James Layton Ralston: I am satisfied there will be some permanent buildings there because Petawawa will be a camp after the war.
With regard to Vimy barracks, if my hon. friend is referring to the officers' mess, it is the finest officers' mess I ever saw, but it was built pre-war. It was built as a relief project in the years between 1930 and 1935, if I am not mistaken. It is a very fine structure. Vimy barracks is also a permanent camp.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Then there is one at Calgary.


James Layton Ralston: That is Currie barracks.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Those are barracks?


James Layton Ralston: H my hon. friend goes to the officers' mess-it is the officers' mess, of course, and I do not want to interfere-he will find furniture and chairs which he will not find in many other places. That also was furnished some time pre-war, and I am advised that the furniture was purchased by the officers themselves.
Mr. HiANSON (York-Sunbury): I would assume that that was so. I am not criticizing; I want to know the facts.


Mr. NOSEWORTHY:: The minister a
few moments ago in referring to skilled trades or specialized skills in the ranks used the phrase, "if they find a butcher or a blacksmith". Is any definite policy or procedure followed to find) men who have specialized skills who are now in the ranks in units in which those specialized skills are not being used? A few days ago I met a radio expert and a hydro engineer who told me they had been trying for months to obtain a transfer to a unit in which their
specialized skills could be used. Is there any reluctance on the part of officers in charge of units to prevent the transfer of men with specialized skills to other units?


James Layton Ralston: I have mentioned the personnel selection branch. We put them to work at the very inauguration of the soldier's life at the basic training centres. To answer the hon. member's question specifically, the personnel selection men are on the move constantly on what we call a perpetual combing out of the units themselves, looking for men who have some special qualifications not needed in the particular unit. I would be obliged if my hon. friend would give me privately, if he does not mind, the names of, these men and their units, and I will do the rest. I found only last Saturday at a basic training centre a meteorologist in the ranks, but I also found that the personnel selection officer had already catalogued him and was sending his name in. I also found in the ranks two men who had had special jobs in the Department of National Defence at headquarters here. They had also been catalogued and their names sent in to the corps of military staff clerks.
The procedure at the basic training centre is for the personnel selection officer to interview each man. The selection officer calls for the roll of the men in the unit, and he goes through the ranks and ascertains the qualifications of the men.
My hon. friend asked, "are the officers of the units reluctant to let men with special skills go?" Having had to do with a unit myself, I know an officer is always reluctant to let such men go. He always thinks a radio expert, for example, might possibly go into a signal section before very long. At the same time, however, we have found cooperation. We have not found them intentionally hiding men with special skills, but they put up an argument to retain them for their own service, hoping they can be used in their own unit, and that is not unnatural.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I should like to have some particulars about the building which it is proposed to erect in Plouffe park here in Ottawa. A return shows that this permanent ordnance building is to cost around $800,000 and that the floor space is to be about 135,000 square feet. How did the department come to the conclusion that a permanent ordnance building worth $800,000 should be put up at the present time?

War Appropriation


James Layton Ralston: The central ordnance
depot is at Ottawa and it is necessary to have a permanent building.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: It seems to me that $800,000 is quite an amount of money to pay for a permanent building. Why could not a temporary building be put up?


James Layton Ralston: At the present time we are putting up buildings in Montreal which will cost between $2,000,000 and $3,000,000. These are necessary for the servicing of Canadian production which goes overseas. These buildings will not be permanent in the sense of being built of stone or anything of that kind, but they must take weights and stresses and permit the use, of cranes to carry quite heavy loads necessary in the assembling of tanks, guns and all the other trappings of war.


Mr. PAIR:: Has any attempt been made by the department to supply men in the service in Canada and overseas with tobacco at cost?
I understand that quite a large profit is made in this business.


James Layton Ralston: As my hon. friend is no doubt aware, that would be handled by the canteens and the auxiliary services.


Robert Fair: It has been suggested to me in different sections of the country that this be done. I think our soldiers are entitled to everything possible and they should not have to pay exorbitant profits.


James Layton Ralston: I shall make a note of the matter.


Thomas Reid: There are two small matters I should like to bring to the attention of the minister. The first has to do with the travelling allowance for men on active service. I am not going to raise at this time the question of free transportation for soldiers; what I have in mind is the reduction in fare allowed to a man going on furlough. This reduction is granted only to his home, and it may well be that his wife and family have moved to another town, or that he wants, while on furlough, to visit his mother or other relatives. Many men have told me that they feel they should be allowed the cheaper rate while on furlough, even though they are not going home or to the place where they enlisted.
The other matter has to do with certain men who are giving a service but who may be termed the forgotten men. When the war started it was the apparent intention of the military authorities to have it a drab war; that is, there were to be no bands and no flying of flags. The war has been drab enough, but I do not think the situation has been improved by the lack of martial music. Of
late, a certain attempt has been made to supply military bands, but in certain towns the colonels of the regiments have formed bands, not entirely at their own expense but on their own volition. These bands are used when the men are on parade. In many instances the boys supply their own instruments and pay their own upkeep, and yet the bands are used on parade. It is unfortunate that we have not had more bands to lead out our men. Here in Ottawa you will see a small platoon walking through the streets without music or even a drum. We are all human, and I believe a certain amount of martial music should be provided for platoons or regiments.
As I say, these men are giving their time as bandsmen; they are not receiving one penny more than the ordinary soldier, and I contend that they should be classified properly and given a little encouragement. They are serving a useful purpose. I was invited to meet some of these boys and found that they are supplying their own instruments and putting in their practice, and yet the military authorities will not designate them either as tradesmen or bandsmen. It is high time that some encouragement was given to these boys who are rendering such a splendid service.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend is right when he says that at the beginning of the war there were few bands authorized, but I think I am correct in saying that we have authorized a band for every active unit that has requested one. Not only have we authorized that the instruments be supplied, but we have authorized the personnel, to a limited number, of course.
I shall deal now with the question of trades pay. This matter has been up before. I am not quite as much impressed as my hon. friend is with the matter of trades pay for bandsmen. I know these men are rendering a splendid service. I happen to have had two bands in my own battalion, but they were men who were on the strength in the regular way and were giving their time. My hon. friend will be glad to know there was a pipe band as well as a brass band.
As I say, the matter of trades pay for bandsmen has been up, and up repeatedly. It is not settled yet as far as that goes. But I must say that I do not see the argument for trades pay for bandsmen as clearly as my hon. friend does. It seems to me that if men are taken on the establishment as bandsmen and love music as my hon. friend does, they will not insist upon trades pay in order to enjoy the privilege of playing. We have authorized a band for each advanced
War Appropriation

training centre; that is the establishment and the instruments. This is done on the authorization of the minister, and I may say that I have approved every application which has been made. We authorize the instruments for the basic training centres, but we do not authorize the men. They must be men from the establishment, but we make a small allowance of $200 a year. I want to assure my hon. friend that the matter of bands is not being overlooked. I think the real objection he has to our present system is the fact that so far bandsmen have not been recognized as tradesmen, but this matter has been under consideration for some time.


Thomas Reid: The minister should not forget that in many instances they are supplying their own instruments.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What
about bagpipes?


James Layton Ralston: The same thing.


Mr. CHURCH:: There are one or two
matters about which I should like to ask the minister. The first has to do with the dependents' allowance, as amended last November. There is a great difference of opinion as to how this is working out. May 1 is housing day, and a great many soldier families in military district No. 2 have been ordered out of their homes. They receive very little protection from the federal law. This is not the fault of the minister; I am free to admit that all parties in the house are to blame for our lack of defences because of their support of pacifism for years before the war and the league. It was not to be expected that you could rearm or do this in a year or two years or three years when you threw away your defences like you did. A high cost of living bonus is needed very badly by the soldiers' wives and families. They have been urged to get in their coal for next winter, and there is a great scarcity of houses in the city from which I come.
I urge the government to reconsider the proposal to give a high cost of living bonus to the soldier and grant it to them. I fail to see why all civilians who stay at home should be the only people to get the bonus, while those who are defending us for $1.30 a day in England are denied it. All should receive it equitably. Both classes need it.
The minister has made a great many improvements; I am free to admit that he did well over a year ago in appointing Colonel MacNamara, who has done splendid work while there in remedying inequalities and getting the pay cheques direct to the dependents.

On September 9, 1939, the house was given a schedule of pay for the army, the navy and the air force. The house was not consulted; it was a hard and fast schedule attached to the Canadian Patriotic Fund Act, and passed in about half an hour. The minister has been kind enough to promise to provide us with a list of the pay of officers and all ranks from a colonel down. The inequalities are apparent to anybody who looks it over. The inequalities are unjust and unfair. We shall soon be in the position of Kentucky and Missouri, where everybody wants to be a colonel or a judge; down there every lawyer is called judge, because if he is not judge to-day he hopes to be a judge to-morrow. So with our army. I repeat that the inequalities in the schedule of the three forces are very apparent. I trust that the house will give more attention to this particular matter, and seek a new and fairer schedule.
The vote yesterday shows that Canadians are greatly alarmed at the state of this country's defences. Germany has now entered her third spring offensive. What are we in Canada doing to meet the enemy, whether he comes to the front door, the side door or the back door-and dear knows he is at all the doors now. I contend that we should heed the handwriting on the wall. It may be necessary to change our whole method of training and strategy in the twinkling of an eye, in view of our allies' disasters. I know the minister has seen the report of Lieutenant-General Gordon Bennett made to the British government as to what was wrong with the Pacific campaign on land, on sea, and in the air. I wish that every hon. member could be given a copy of that report and would carefully study it. Remember that the training, the strategy and the equipment which we are now following may be obsolete and as worthless as a scrap of paper in twenty-four hours. The whole war and its conduct is a ceaseless change every year. A great deal of our present discussion for that reason may not be relevant later. There is need for effective coordination between the services.
As I interpret the vote of the people yesterday, it is a demand for not less but more real war effort, so that our sacrifices, which have been many, may not have been in vain; so that we shall make better use of the splendid men in our armed forces, see that they are properly armed, and give them a real show in battle. I admit that a great deal has been done; in many departments the war effort has been effective. But I press upon the attention of hon. members the report which was made to the British and Australian governments on the disasters in

War Appropriation
Malaya and generally in the Pacific so that we may not fall into similar traps. The report was transmitted to Australia, and as a result a serious effort at coordination has been made there. After yesterday we can get rid of our cobwebs, prejudices and inertia, come down from the clouds, and have a total war effort with clarity, energy, wisdom and strength of thought and action. We need more clarity and energy and more fearlessness of thought. The vote yesterday exhibits the anxiety of the average voter as to the outcome of this titanic world struggle; the demand is for a greater and better effort in view of the money we are spending-four million dollars a day.
What are our objectives for 1942 and planning and strategy in the light of the changes which have been brought about in the scope and strategy of the war by Germany and Japan and their directors of training? Our plans should be formulated and acted upon now before it is too late. This is the third spring of the German offensive. The first spring she captured the whole of western Europe. The second spring offensive began in the conquest of the Balkans and continued until the conquest of Greece. The third offensive may come to Canada. Nobody can tell. It is speculative, at present. It is generally supposed to be directed towards the Caucasus, but that may not be the only offensive. Hitler is the grand master of timing. So I say we should revise our schedule and syllabus, and revise our programme in view of this and other expected emergencies. The enemy is about to try a new effort and plan on the Atlantic. Hitler will probably invade Portugal; he may take Spain; and if he cuts our life lines of communications on the Atlantic with the United States, I do not know where the allies are going to be. We face now tremendous odds at sea and on the land. We may be assailed by Hitler from the direction of an attempt to take Iceland. Our fine friends of the United States have done a great deal well, but, as was shown in the Pacific, they are not ready for war and her rearming is far behind schedule to Russia and Britain. Japan destroyed the best part of their navy and they are confronted with serious strategic problems. It is not the will but the power that is wanting. In addition to that, they are not ready as a military power, and we cannot expect them to be ready, because they were an unmilitary power, untrained and unprepared, much in the position of Great Britain after Dunkirk. When they are ready, in a year the war will change at once. It will take them nearly two years to get completely ready, and Hitler is well
aware of the fact and wants a knockout in 1942. We should amend our programme to fit in with the realities of the third German spring offensive. Until Britain and the United States have regained control of the Pacific, Canada is in a very dangerous position. So are India, Australia, Ceylon, Burma, Madagascar and South Africa.
I sympathize with the minister in occupying the position he does at the present time.
I do not believe that he ever was a pacifist, but this house was imbued solidly with pacifism and disarmament, with the result that it is going to take us a long time to get us into the position in which we should be. Britain, France, and other democracies have suffered the consequences of the same attitude of mind, because they threw away their defences and friends.
I suggest that the minister is fully aware of the fact that we are opposed by a first-class naval and air power in the Pacific. For the first time in nearly 100 years Great Britain has been driven out of southern Asia and India. Japan, no doubt, has other designs and will engage in new attacks. Already she threatens Ceylon and India; she has overrun Burma, and there are reports of an attack on Madagascar, which would bring her to the front door of South Africa and her eastern shores in the Indian ocean. The threat to South Africa is a very real one, and all classes, including the natives, are being mobilized. She has had a bad scare, as has our whole empire.
In the Pacific, three dominions-South Africa, New Zealand and Australia-are near the danger zone. They are looking for aid to the United States, and while the United States is sending men of a good type, we know that men who are not fully trained are of little use to-day and are not ready. Here let me refer to a report which was made by Doctor van Mook, the great Dutch governor general and patriot of Java. Recently he flew to Australia, and he has given Australians some good advice. He does not say anything inimical to Britain, which had promised Java some help that failed to come; he has shown himself a great patriot; and his report is of real significance to Canada, because it proves that without an adequate armed force neither this nor any other dominion in our empire can continue to exist. Only one thing matters in our empire-the military power to defend it.
The very fate of the British empire is now at stake. It is threatened not only in South Africa, Australia and New Zealand but here as well. Let me give you the splendid advice which the great patriot
War Appropriation

soldier I named of the Dutch Netherlands gave to Australia-and Canada also should hearken to these recommendations. In the first place, he said, the war should be waged by air and sea. In the second place, the Japanese supply lines are vulnerable; and third, Japan has so many soldiers that even if a large number are killed it will not make much difference. They have, however, strained their resources and now are trying to link up with the Italian and German front in order to get a foothold in north and west Australia and with Italy and Germany. He recommends some simple truths as a means of avoiding the setting up of separate commands. Remember, he says, that this is a totalitarian war. Put aside politics and those aspects of it which do not directly bear upon the war. Do not use untrained men. Whenever the Dutch had anything like equal chance in Java against Japan in the air they dealt with them successfully, he says; but when we were outnumbered ten to one the merits of the pilot hardly entered into the calculation. That is excellent advice which that great man has given on military and political strategy to all our empire.
We are spending money on munitions and equipment that may be obsolete to-morrow. It has been shown since this war started that the methods which have been adopted have been inadequate to cope with Japan and Germany. Germany with her mechanized horde simply marched through Europe. It has been shown that at Singapore they were overmechanized. General Bennett has described the Jap tactics and the chief weapons they used. What we may be looking for if they invade Canada may not be the weapons that they will use. What were the weapons which they have already used? The machine gun, the tommy gun, the rifle and the bayonet. Their maim tactics consisted in infiltration by small, daringly led patrols who were sometimes mounted on captured cycles and who pushed far ahead of the regular troops. The House of Commons in London was told on March 27 that Singapore fell because munitions had to be given to Russia and Libya. That is wrong according to the Bennett report. This authority declares that it was the lack of sufficiently numerous and adequately trained and equipped and well commanded forces of infantry to counter the Japanese infiltration tactics that was responsible for the reverses, even though at Singapore their armoured force and their air force and artillery were outnumbered. These are only a few of the

matters which are dealt with in the Bennett report and by the commanding officer of Dutch Java.
I admit that the government is faced with a very trying and difficult task to rearm, especially the minister who has to bear the brunt of these three services, because I think he is bearing the brunt of the whole thing. I should like to see better attention paid to soldiers and their dependents. I should like to see a reallotment of pav and reconsideration by the military experts of the report of General Bennett, and other reports which have been submitted to the British government and which have stirred up criticism in conflict with the non-military experts. Japan got back to simple methods and more of the 1918 mentality of warfare- as I say, the infiltration tactics by the surprise of infantry. That was not a new venture in this war. It was adopted by the Germans in 1918 against Britain and France when they made raids without tanks, and it was successful. They captured a lot of equipment and prisoners, as did the allies also in similar tactics later.
Simplicity has been vindicated not only on land and sea but in the air on the Pacific and in other theatres of war. There is bound to be criticism; but criticism is a tonic, or to change the metaphor, it is a weapon that strengthens the hands of the minister. The government must expect reasonable criticism, and I may say that the_ criticism here cannot compare with the criticism that takes place in Australia and the United States. I hope that now a further contribution will be made to the dependents of soldiers and that there will be better equipment. The minister has said that he has been giving attention to this, and I believe he has been giving attention to it in the last twelve months.


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: There are a few matters which I wish to call to the attention of the committee with a view to securing from the minister certain information, which up to the present time the committee has not received. The vote on the plebiscite yesterday brought under immediate consideration the question of the mobilization of the man-power of this nation. On April 23, the minister, in answer to a question asked by myself as reported at page 1904 of Hansard used these words:
I thiqk I intimated when I spoke in February that my advice was that if enlistments were maintained within a reasonable distance, I think I said, of that level, we would be able to take care of our commitments.

War Appropriation
That answer was given to a question which I asked and which read:
Should the voluntary enlistments continue at the rate prevailing since January, would there be sufficient to meet the present needs of the army and the anticipated needs during the present year?
I think now, in view of the tremendous and overwhelmingly favourable vote yesterday and the decisions which will have to be taken in connection with further mobilization of our man-power, the committee should be made cognizant of the facts relating to the mobilization of our men up to the present time. The minister stated that during the months of January, February and March some 29,000 men voluntarily joined the active service forces of Canada, and he gave details of the numbers who had enlisted month by month.
I asked a question, the information with respect to which was not then before him, and I think it is necessary that this committee should be possessed of this information if it is to be in a position to have a proper perspective of the man-power situation. How many men were discharged during the same period?
Another question which I asked and on which the committee should have information is this. When the minister points out that some 29,000 men have enlisted in the army during the last three months, before we are in a position to know whether these were voluntary enlistments or not, we should be furnished with information as to how many of them were of the age limits 18 and 19 and then again from 20 to 24. When I asked the minister for this information the other day he said he was unable to give it at the moment. I hope he has the information now, because by no manner of means can many of those who enlisted in the active army be called voluntary enlistments,, having regard to the system which is now general over all this dominion so far as young men are being compulsorily called and who enlist in the active army thereafter are concerned. There is not a day passes that hon. members do not receive letters to the effect that after these men are called up they are subjected to all kinds of intimidation with a view to securing their enlistment for overseas service. They are badgered, bulldozed and browbeaten. Therefore, to be in a position to judge whether or not these are voluntary enlistments and the voluntary system can continue in the months to come to supply the necessary numbers, we must be informed of the ages of those who are enlisting.


James Layton Ralston: Let me interrupt to tell my hon. friend that I would have to go over
the attestation papers of every man who has enlisted in the last three months to find the ages.


John George Diefenbaker: Surely there are records showing the groups, twenty-one, twenty-two-


James Layton Ralston: I am saying to my friend that there are not.


John George Diefenbaker: Well the presumption from the fact that this information cannot be procured is that the major portion of the 29,000 are within these age limits and are joining the army because they do not wish to be called up for service in Canada and subjected to the treatment that to-day is being accorded to those called up. Without having that information neither this committee nor the minister is in the position of being able to determine whether, if the present record of enlistments continues, the government will be able to carry on with the present system. The present system operates against the youth of this nation, and under the guise of -being voluntary, it is taking young men of eighteen and nineteen and from twenty to twenty-five and placing them in a position where they must join the active forces, and that is called voluntary enlistment.
I suggest that now, in view of the lapse of three or four weeks since the selective system was discussed in the house, we have a right to know what the basis of the selective service system is to be and how the man-power is to be chosen thereunder. Is there to be an extension from twenty-five to, say thirty-five years of age? The time has come when manpower for overseas service should not be restricted to young men in the age limits now being called. The committee has the right to know the attitude of the government at this time, the stand it intends to take, the type of selective service it intends to adopt,, so that men all over Canada will be directed into doing their part in the types of service for which they are qualified. Without that information any discussion on man-power is purely hypothetical and of little or no consequence.
Furthermore, the minister says that the department has no information regarding the ages of the men joining for overseas service except by an examination of the attestation papers. Surely among the number of officers in administrative work here in Ottawa there is a statistical branch which could furnish that information without any difficulty. This country has the right to know m what age groups the man-power for overseas service is being mainly mobilized.
To-day's discussion was most interesting. The contributions of the hon. member for Peel
War Appropriation


Mr. POULIOT:: Why do they not go to Hollywood ?


John George Diefenbaker: That is not a bad suggestion in reference to this type of uniform. For all the world it looks like the uniform of a naval officer with peacock trimmings. The time has come when men in civilian air schools, while permitted to wear uniforms in order to identify themselves, should be required to wear uniforms that in no way detract from

War Appropriation
those worn by the men of his majesty's forces.
I realize that under the criminal code to wear a uniform of this kind may constitute an offence, but I believe the time has arrived when, in the interest of the men in the armed services, the practice which exists to-day should be discontinued.
People ask why men do not join the army, and in what I have to say now I refer particularly to those who live in areas in which there are congregated large bodies of conscientious objectors. I am not one of those who suggest that because a man conscientiously believes it is wrong to participate in war, every regard and consideration should not be given that man's religious feelings. That is right and proper, but here is the objection which I have heard stated so frequently by men living in those districts, who have sons and brothers overseas. The services of conscientious objectors consist in going to a national park for a period of four months, during which *time they are paid. After they have worked there for that length of time, their service to their country, for the entire period of the war, is over. Is there any justification for that? I suggest to the minister that while we should respect rigidly the beliefs of those who conscientiously object to war service, every man in this country within the age limit set out in the mobilization act should be required to serve for the same length of time, and that the contribution of these people in the period of service should be the same as that of the men who are subject to call for service in the army.
What I have stated, Mr. Chairman, in general summarizes the suggestions I have to offer, except for one further point which I raised last fall and which I raise again this evening. I have in my files a letter from a man who served overseas in the last war. He was blinded in the service of his country and receives a pension of $75 a month. On January 1, 1942, he received notification from the Department of Finance that in consequence of a ruling made by a department of government, his pension would be subject to the national defence tax. That was not a ruling of parliament. That ruling was not the consequence of a statute passed by parliament. It was made under a ruling of an administrative body, and not under an act of parliament. When I brought up this question the last time the Minister of National Defence for Air indicated that he would give consideration to the situation, with a view to ascertaining whether or not such a regulation was legally in effect and, if so, whether consideration might be given to the introduction of the legislation necessary to relieve these 100 per
cent pensioners from the payment of such tax. I think we all agree that the men in the army should receive the utmost consideration. I was glad to hear the minister say the other evening, if I understood him correctly, that the discrimination which heretofore existed in favour of the air force as against the army, in the matter of transportation, had been removed. It should be removed. On more than one trip from western Canada I had occasion to see men who were being sent from one part of Canada to the other, under conditions which were anything but favourable to enlistment by those who might see those men in those circumstances.
These may be said to be little things. But, Mr. Chairman, it is these little things which, when rectified, will result in a great improvement in the morale of our troops. All of us in this parliament want to do our part. It is not as a demagogue that I speak; that is not at all the spirit in which I have addressed these remarks to the committee. Throughout this day the arguments that have been advanced in regard to the problems of the soldier have come from this side of the house. That is not because hon. members in other parts of the house do not agree with a great deal of what has been said, but I do think that regardless of what side of the house we are on, it is our duty at this time to bring to the attention of hon. members and of the government such matters as we believe will improve the position of any service men and their dependents and will ensure that they will receive the consideration which can be accorded to them.


Jean-François Pouliot: In the first place it is my desire to congratulate the hon. member for Broadview and the hon. member for Lake Centre upon the remarks they have made to-night. They have spoken with knowledge of the subject, and have offered constructive suggestions which should not be forgotten.
This is the most important item of the estimates. Before the Easter adjournment $500,000,000 was voted, and the measure now before the committee provides for the expenditure of a further billion and a half. Our duty here is to check the expenditures, according to the old British principle of ministerial responsibility for the expenditure of public money. The responsibility is all the greater by reason of the fact that we have no detailed estimates for such tremendous amounts of money.
It has been the custom for several years for members of parliament to lay their grievances before the minister, as though they were laying them at the foot of the throne.
Of course, the function of the cabinet is
War Appropriation

entirely different from that of the throne, and if the throne has the right of grace, which the cabinet does not have, the cabinet has the duty to render an account of all expenditures, even down to the cents, which the throne has not. In order that there shall be no confusion, I establish that distinction before expressing my views on the discussion of estimates in this committee of the House of Commons.
What member knows the organization of the Department of National Defence as it now stands? Of course, there are charts made by draftsmen, showing the organization of each department. Those charts are not available to members. But, since necessity is the mother of invention, I have found a sketch of the department in the dominion government telephone directory. That is just a commonplace book which appears on the desk of every member of the house and of every official who has the right to a telephone number of his own. In this directory under National Defence Department (Army) there commences a list, under subtitles of the different branches of the department, starting at page 80 and going on for several pages. I see a mass of paper on the desk in front of the minister at the moment. There are several brief cases and a big box which must be full of information. That information we want, and we have a right to get it. When we are here in the committee of this House of Commons to discuss estimates, we are not here to put the minister through the third degree. We are here to know what is done with the public moneys which come from the pockets of the taxpayers of Canada. We want to know what use has been made of that money. If the use is good, the department is praised and so is the minister. If the use is bad, then the department and the minister have to be blamed. That is only common sense, and it is in accordance with the old tradition of British parliamentary practice, as is known to every hon. member of the house, even if it is ignored by a large number of dominion government officials.
At page 80 of this dominion government telephone directory, under the heading of National Defence Department (Army), we find first a subtitle-" Administration-Woods building-Minister," and under that heading several people are listed. The next subtitle is Military Secretary", and under that there are four people who have a telephone besides one for the military secretary himself. Next comes Deputy Minister-Woods building"; "Real Estate Adviser"; "Secretary of National Defence -Canadian building"; "Stenographic pool-Elgin annex".

Then there is the next subtitle-"Judge Advocate-General". This was an important function when the judge advocate-general was supposed to examine all contracts before they were signed by the Minister of the Department of National Defence. That was before the department was sterilized in the matter of purchasing ammunition, clothing and so forth. Now, however, all these purchases are made by the Department of Munitions and Supply, who have their own advisers, and the position of judge advocate-general has suffered what is called in Roman law a diminutio capitis-or in English, a reduction in status. The judge advocate-general looks after courts-martial, but as everyone knows, courts-martial are decided mostly by the officers commanding. Still the judge advocate-general travels from coast to coast.
The next subtitle is "Estates branch", and then, "Central registry-Woods building", and under that subtitle appear "Subject index"; "Charge-out"; "Personnel index"; "Charge-out"; "Confidential section"; "Mail room"; "Office services".
Next is the subtitle "Contracts branch- Canadian building"; then "Printing and Stationery branch-Elgin building"-that is a duplication of the king's printer, of the printing bureau. The next subtitle is "Translation services," followed by "Translation services"; "Stores audit"; "Inspector General (Central Canada)-Canadian building;" "Chief of the General Staff-Woods building," "Vice-Chief of the General Staff"; "Assistant Chief of the General Staff."
I am reading only the subtitles. I am not going into the details of the minor officials who have the right to have a telephone.
The next subtitle is "Directorate of Military Operations and Intelligence." Intelligence is very important in that department, and I am glad to find it there. There are several subheads under the "Directorate of Military Operations and Intelligence," such as "Operations"; "Intelligence"-double intelligence, apparently, and it is required, of course-"Censorship"; "Geographical section."
Then there is a subtitle, "Departmental library-Canadian building," and then we come to the next, "Directorate of Military Training-Canadian building"; "Directorate of Staff Duties-Woods building," and these last two cover a long list of officials. Next is "Historical section-Records building, Experimental Farm"-"sub tegmine fagi." That is from Virgil.
Next is the "Adjutant-General's Branch- Bate building"; "Deputy Adjutant-General (A) -Bate building"; "Deputy Adjutant-General (B)-Bate building."

War Appropriation
The next is "Personal Services-Bate building". Then we have "Selection board B". Then "Appointments, Promotions, Retirements (other than reinforcements)". Then "Officers Reinforcements Courses Routine Orders Gazette Discipline and1 Records". Here we have Major Leighton who is a good friend of the French-Canadians. That is a long name, just like some of those German names. It is just about as long as the name of the Spanish ambassador.
Then we have the "File Room" and "Organization and Administration". Then "Administration and Personnel", and "Discipline and Ceremonial". Then "NRMA Missions and CWAC". I do not know what that means because I have forgotten my alphabet. Then there is "Internment" and "Officer administering CWAC". Then we have "Mobilization and Recruiting-Bate buikL ing"; then "MR Section" and "RS Section". This seems to be the most important. They must have a lot of military secrets. Then we have the "Civilian Director of Recruiting" and "DAAG (siga)". I suppose that refers to signals. Then there is the "File Room" and the "Directorate of Personnel Selection-Bate building".
Then the "Regimental Funds Board-Elgin building", and "Medicals-Elgin building". There are a lot of those; there is Zumstein, Zinkann and Yanwart. Then we have "Medical Inspection Room", "Naval Medical Services", "X-ray Laboratory", "Central Medical Stores-Earlscourt building", "Directorate of Pay Services-Canadian building", and "Records-Daly building". I have nothing to say about that because I think it is important to keep records of the whole thing.
Then we find the "Corps of Military Staff Clerks Headquarters-Regal building". That must be a regal staff of clerks. Then "Dental Services-Fraser building", "Chaplain Services-Elgin building", "Chaplain Services- Royal Trust building", "Directorate of Public Relations-Central chambers", "Auxiliary Services-Carleton chambers", and "Quartermaster-General-Canadian building". This is divided up. Plato used to say that no one who could divide was divine. I am using the pagan meaning of the word for divinity, and I expect the minister to be just as good with his definitions when I ask him to give me the duties of these people.
Then there are "Engineer Services"; then "DDES Fortifications and Equipment Section". That must be something most important because it is in two parts. Next comes "DDES Works and Buildings Section". It
is not so important. Then there is the "Draughting Office (general)", and there is another "Draughting Office for Fortifications and Equipment". There is the "Ottawa Engineer Services Offices", "Engineer Workshop-Cartier square", and "Orderly Room RCE". There is "Supply and Transport", "Movement Control", "No. 9 Detachment RCASC-Landsdowne park". There is the "Master-General of the Ordnance-New Post Office building"; Deputy Master-General of the Ordnance", "Assistant Deputy Master-General of the Ordnance", "Directorate of Ordnance Services (administration)", "Assistant Officers", "General Office Clerks", "Director of Ordnance Services (general stores)", "Assistant Officers", "Clerical Staff", "Tools and Workshop Equipment", "Director of Ordnance Services (technical stores)", "Assistant Officers, Civil Clerical Personnel and Library", and "Joint Technical Stores Depot Office".
Then we find the "British Army Staff". There is a great duplication here. This is under Lieutenant-Colonel Fernyhough, AQMG. Here we have "Director of Mechanical Maintenance", "Director of Mechanization", "Mechanical Transport", "Vehicle Establishments", "Vehicle Records". "Vehicle Spare Parts", "Accounting and Records Branch", and "Director of Technical Research". Then we have "Chemical Warfare Research Establishment", "Signals", "Central Ordnance Depot", "Accounting Branch", "Ordnance Inspecting Officer-Cartier square", "Ordnance Stores-Cartier square sub-depot". There are a number of sub-depots. There is the "Morris building sub-depot", "Supreme Court building sub-depot", "Beach building sub-depot", "IMS building, sub-depot", "CPR freight sheds No. 2", "Garage and Workshop".
There is a long list, and it takes a long time to go through it. I do not intend to deprive hon. members of the pleasure of looking at this most interesting telephone directory. A tremendous amount of money is being spent in Ottawa. I have no objection to enough money being spent in Ottawa for the general staff and those who direct the military part of our war effort, but there should be order in Ottawa if we want order in the army. I say this mostly for the benefit of the rank and file who are told that they will be penalized and sent to "CB" if they report any unfair treatment they receive. My humble idea of the Department of National Defence is that it should be established along business lines and that there should be coordination between the various services in order that the minister could control all the actions of each one of the


Mr. WHITE :: In connection with the matter of compulsory deferred pay I am very much in favour of the .principle which has been adopted by the department. I am also very much in favour of the suggestion made this afternoon by the hon. member for Peel.
I believe-and I have expressed this opinion in the house before in connection with citizens of our country generally-that we should endeavour to supply them in some way with funds to be utilized at the end of the war; we should follow as far as we can the principle of putting the funds of this country into the hands of as many of our citizens as possible so as to assist in the transition from a war-time to a peace-time economy. In that connection I would ask the minister whether the sole purpose of compulsory deferred pay for soldiers overseas is to provide them with money as a nest-egg at the end of the war and, if so, why the same principle does not apply to soldiers in this country?


James Layton Ralston: I am afraid I cannot give an answer as to why it does not apply. ^ I think it was the hon. member for Broadview who indicated this afternoon that the dependents' allowance regulations had been brought into effect at the beginning of the war. They were studied for something like a year and a half by committees, civilian and service, and it was determined that this method should be adopted. I had often thought of it and, in fact, was pressed very strongly in the department to provide deferred pay for those serving in Canada, but it seemed to me that it might be regarded1 as breach of contract to start withholding pay after enlistment. It might be regarded as bad faith.


George Stanley White: But when they go overseas
the principle is immediately adopted.


James Layton Ralston: Yes; that is part of the
contract, but it is not part of the contract to have pay withheld in Canada. That is the sole reason. I think it is a sound principle and useful for the purpose suggested, and but for that I would have adopted it.
The hon. member for Lake Centre referred to the matter of discharges. He asked how many had been discharged during the three months period January to March. The exact number is 4,482, in England and in Canada. That is something like half of one
War Appropriation

per cent per month, which I think is quite a normal figure of wastage. The number discharged as physically unfit, included in that figure, is 3,261.
The hon. member asked how many had enlisted between the ages of eighteen and nineteen. As I advised him, I have not the figures, and the only way of getting them that I know of would be to go through the attestation papers individually. But it developed that the real reason why my hon. friend wanted this information was to be able to demonstrate that the enlistments, the record of which I had given for January, February and March, 28,686, had come from men who, to use his own expression, had been bludgeoned and browbeaten in the miltiary training centres and that he wanted to show that they came within that age limit. 1 can tell him that he does not need that information in order to find out pretty accurately how many were men from the training centres. Of the number who enlisted in that time approximately 16 per cent were men from the training centres. That means something like 4.000 out of the 28,000 enlisted from training centres or National Resources Mobilization Act camps. Therefore I do not think my hon. friend should feel that those enlistments are very seriously boosted or increased by men from training centres. The figures for April are now practically complete, because we are close to the end of the month. Over 10,000 enlisted, so that the figures for the first four months are something like 38,000 or 39,000 altogether, and of those, on the same percentage, something like 5,800 would have enlisted from the training centres.
I want to repudiate in the strongest possible terms the statement that men are bludgeoned, browbeaten and generally forced to join the army. I have stated to the committee on previous occasions that when reports have come to me from time to time or statements been made such as my hon. friend made to-night, I have investigated them and have found no grounds for any statement that there was undue or improper pressure except on one occasion, and I took prompt action in connection with that. I say to the committee that the recruiting figures are not built up to any extent by recruiting from the training centres. I do not think my hon. friend does recruiting good service when he makes statements of that kind. There is no doubt that in the training centres the men themselves, men who are "active" as they call it, bring a certain amount of pressure to bear, but I have also indicated that I have been in a number of evangelistic meetings in my youth in which exactly the same sort of enthusiasm

and pressure was used. I have said and I repeat that the instructions are that there shall be no difference whatever in treatment in the training centres. Leave is given to men who enlist to allow them to go home and arrange their affairs, but as far as treatment is concerned they are given exactly the same treatment as the others. The orders are that there is to be no discrimination of any kind, no undue pressure, no improper influence used. If any hon. members have any cases to bring to my attention, I will see that they are investigated as thoroughly as possible.
My hon. friend dealt with the matter of pay and allowances. That had a pretty thorough discussion this afternoon. I do not think there is anything I can add to what I have said.
The cost of living bonus was discussed to-night by the hon. member for Broadview. I did not reply to him because I had already said what I had to say on that.
My hon. friend referred to pay and allowances in the United States. He knows they are considerably below Canadian rates. Those below7 the rank of warrant officers get no dependents' allowance at all, whereas since the beginning of the war we have been paying them and paying rates higher than those in the United States. There is a movement going on now to increase the rates of pay there.
I have said I will give consideration to the representations made respecting dependents' allowances and the suggestion as to deferred pay.
My hon. friend made another suggestion, namely, in regard to Indians. I do not know whether he was in the committee this afternoon when I dealt with the matter of dependents' allowances to those who are in the West Indies. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar brought it up. When I went to investigate the question of dependents' allowances to those in the West Indies, Jamaica particularly, I found that a reduction had been made to some of the Indians in this country. Exactly the same action will be taken and, as a matter of fact, has been taken in connection with the Indians as I indicated would be taken with regard to those in the West Indies. That is to say, the amount of 835 for the wife's allowance will be paid in full, and will not be subject to any reduction. I may add that in connection with Indians there are some cases, as my hon. friend may understand-and this does not apply to Indians alone but also to other citizens of Canada-where it is thought well, both under the Pension Act and under the

War Appropriation
*dependents' allowance regulations, to appoint guardians for administration. There are some *odd cases of that kind.


John George Diefenbaker: It was a general principle in regard to Indians not to give their wives the full allowance.


James Layton Ralston: In that connection I am told that savings for future emergencies are being encouraged among the Indians. As has been intimated, no permanent reduction in allowance is contemplated. As a matter of fact, I am not sure whether there were any actual reductions in allowances to the wives of Indians, but I rather think there was, in some instances, a withholding of pay, and administration by the guardian. In any event I want to assure the committee that the full amount will go to their credit, as in the case of the wives of those in the West Indies whom I mentioned this afternoon.
My hon. friend had two other suggestions, one with regard to air observer schools. I heard what my hon. friend said, and he gave a graphic description, but I have not the faintest idea what is occurring there or who are these civilians wearing uniforms. Certainly I shall inquire into the matter, because I agree with him that there is no reason why civilians should be appearing in any uniforms which might be misleading, or which might indicate that they were in his majesty's service.
With regard to conscientious objectors, I think I caught the drift of what my hon. friend said. He was indicating, I understood, that they should serve in some non-combatant *capacity, for the same length of time as those who are called up to serve in the armed forces. There is no reason in the world, as far as legal power is concerned, why this should not be done, and I shall bring it to the attention of my colleagues who have been dealing with this question, one of whom has just come into the house.
This matter has been brought to my attention in another way. The suggestion has been made that there is a place in the armed forces where these conscientious objectors could serve; that is to say, in the medical corps. I have taken the position, rightly or wrongly, that the men who serve in the armed forces must be in a position to take on whatever is necessary in the army. I do not want a distinction made between the duties which *men may be called upon to perform. As a matter of fact, from time to time we may have medical orderlies who go into other branches, or who come from other services. Someone

may come from headquarters into the medical corps, or on the other hand a medical orderly may go to headquarters duty. I have a distinct recollection of a time when medical orderlies, cooks, batmen and everyone else went into the line. To make any distinction of the kind in a unit I do not think is for the good of the unit itself, so I would hesitate to have men in the unit who could not be called upon to do combatant service.
I think the hon. member for Temiscouata took a good deal of time, if I may say so, in explaining why he took the trouble to ask for particulars with respect to the estimates. I have no objection to any hon. member asking for particulars or for any information he desires. I thought the hon. member took nearly half an hour to get a running start at the real question he was going to ask. He put up some straw-men in order to knock them down again. He suggested that there was some idea of infallibility in the Department of National Defence. There is nothing of the kind-


Jean-François Pouliot: Hear, hear.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend just set up that straw-man and knocked it down again. I do not think he added to the strength of his argument, however, in doing so. I can assure him that I am the first to admit our fallibility, so there was no need for him to argue about it. Changes have been made in the Department of National Defence from time to time, and probably still more changes will be made. In fact, if one may judge by my hon. friend's prediction and suggestion, which he made on the public platform, a change in the minister probably will be the first thing he will advocate. The hon. member suggests that someone in the department has suggested that it is disloyal to offer criticism. No one has suggested anything of the kind. The hon. member simply makes that up as he goes along.


Jean-François Pouliot: No, no.


James Layton Ralston: He puts it up for the purpose of knocking it down again. No one has suggested that it is disloyal to offer criticism. I think I have taken as much criticism as anyone, and I have not accused anyone of disloyalty. The hon. member also suggests that there is some idea in the government that members of parliament owe the ministers a loyalty the same as that we owe the king; that is as I took down his words. That only has to be mentioned to
War Appropriation

indicate that it is simply a figment of the imagination which my hon. friend has built up to air on this occasion. Let me say to the hon. member that, while I have not the reference here, he is absolutely incorrect when he states that no estimates have been given except the global estimate. I read into the record the first day I was before the committee a statement showing the various objects of expenditure, and the various functions, or, in other words, a break-down of the $997,000,000. I quite agree that it was not in the detail which my hon. friend would, suggest. I believe it contained only seven or eight items altogether, but it did indicate to the committee the sort of expenditure which was proposed, and there was no objection whatever to giving any estimates of expenditure if my hon. friend wanted them.


Howard Charles Green: Just on that point, would it be possible for the minister to give a further break-down of the army estimates?


James Layton Ralston: I am advised that it would not be possible to give a further break-down of the total amount; but in regard to items such as my hon. friend asked for, namely salaries, there is no objection whatever to giving those. My hon. friend used these expressions. He said there were huge salaries being paid to brass hats, and huge salaries to men in the army who were not able to earn five cents before they got in the army. I just say to my hon. friend that this statement is absolutely without foundation. The men in the army do not profess to be infallible; but they cannot speak for themselves, and I say to my hon. friend that I do not propose to have a statement of that sort go unchallenged. I have received and this country has received loyal support and loyal and efficient service from the men in the army; and I want to say to my hon. friend! that I think it ill becomes a member of parliament to stand in his place here and make a statement of that kind.
In connection with the salaries which are paid to men in the army, I may say to the hon. member that as a matter of fact most of those men are not professional soldiers at all. They are men who have been in the militia. Most of them served in the last war. They have been called in and have changed their profession for the time being in order to help out .in connection with war work. There are a certain number of professional soldiers, and thank heaven there are, because we did not treat our pro-
fessional soldiers any too well, at least during the period when I was Minister of National Defence previously. I take my share of responsibility for that. From 1926 to 1930 the army and national defence services were nearly starved, and I make that statement now. It seemed to me that perhaps the most popular indoor sport in those days was cutting amounts off the estimates for national defence, and the hon. member for Temiscouata did his share of advocating that this be done. Now I say to my hon. friend that in spite of all that, the men who were professional soldiers did keep on. The organization that we have to-day, which does not suit my hon. friend, does not suit me nor does it suit the men who are in it, but it is an organization that had to be built from the ground up. I say that when you expand an organization from ten thousand men, as it existed on September 9, 1939, to about three hundred thousand men as it exists to-day in the army alone; when over 425,000 men have been enlisted; when you have had the expansion which the establishments of the army have had from the Atlantic to the Pacific, not only in connection with operations but in connection with training; when you have sent overseas the men who have been sent and the organizations which are over there, it has meant a tremendous amount of work. I was glad my hon. friend read the list which he did read, because it indicated the multiplicity of activities which are carried on by the Department of National Defence. We have to enlist and train and clothe and house and feed these men. We have to move them from place to place. We have to see that they are supplied with proper rations; we have to see that they are furnished with training facilities, that armaments are supplied, that arrangements are made for getting them across the country and over on the other side of the ocean, and then we have to arrange for the same things over there. Therefore the activities carried on by the department are not small, and I make no apology for the list which my hon. friend has read or the list which he could have put on record.
I say to my hon. friend now that if he will look at the tabulation which I put on the record this afternoon, he will see the salaries for the men in the army from the rank of colonel down, and I give now the information I was asked for this afternoon, a statement with regard to the salaries in the army from the rank of colonel up, so that my hon. friend and other hon. gentlemen will know exactly what salaries are being paid.

War Appropriation
The highest pay in the army is that of the Army Commander, General A. G. L. McNaughton-a total of $14,000 per annum, without any additional allowances.
The two corps commanders are each paid $10,585 per annum, with dependents' allowances in addition.
Divisional commanders are paid $8,760 per annum, with the same allowances.
District officers commanding are graded in class 3 with pay of $6,205 per annum, plus the same allowances. Where they are compelled to provide their own quarters and subsistence, an allowance of $365 per annum is added.
Other officers of the rank of brigadier and up usually hold staff appointments in which they are graded according to classification. The higher classifications are listed in article 124 of Financial Regulations and Instructions. The chief of the general staff is paid by order in council a flat amount of $10,000 without any allowance; the adjutant-general and the quartermaster-general are paid $7,300 per annum. The tabulation of classes is as follows:
Exclusive of dependents' allowances Per annum
Class 1	
$8,760	00"	2	
7,300	00"	2A	
6,752	50"	3	
6,205	00"	4	
5,840	00"	4A	
5,292	50"	5	
4,745	00
The vice-chief of the general staff comes in class 2A. While class 1 appears in the table above with a salary of $8,760 per annum, I do not think there is anyone in the department receiving the pay of that particular class at this time. So my hon. friend can take the ranks of the officers, put these figures beside them, and find the answer to his question about these huge salaries paid to brass hats and men in the army who were not able to earn five cents before they got into the army. That would give my hon. friend the information he wants, and I assure him that if I can give him any further information within reason which will be of help to him and the committee, I shall be glad to do it.


Jean-François Pouliot: I rise to a question of privilege. I do not wish the minister to misquote me and give another meaning to what I said. He has given the impression that I complained that the soldiers are too well treated, that the sailors are too well treated, and so forth. That is not the situation. I complained only of Ottawa; that is all.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend the leader of the opposition asked me with regard to the building of a mess at Petawawa. I have the figures here. I am advised by the deputy director of engineering services, which I might say for the benefit of my hon. friend the member for Temiscouata is what D.D.E.S. stands for, that the only mess construction during the year April 1, 1941 to March 31, 1942, at Petawawa was as follows:
Engineers' mess-reconstruction of old building to provide messing accommodation for a total of 160 officers.. . $ 6,555 Royal Canadian Artillery mess-reconstruction of old building to provide messing accommodation for a total of
160 officers	 3,150
Royal Canadian Artillery-reconstruction of old building to provide messing accommodation for a total of 160
officers	 14,000
Camp Headquarters mess-reconstruction of old building to meet present requirements	 2,544

For the benefit of my hon. friend the member for Temiscouata, I just want to say that the number of civilian employees at headquarters, is 1,673, and the total paid to them is $1,616,985. The military personnel comprises 385 officers and 900 of other ranks, or 1,285 altogether, with pay of $1,542,000. The total personnel, civilian and military, is 2,958, receiving total pay and allowances of $3,158,985, which is -32 or 1 per cent of the total cost of the Canadian army for 1942-43.


Jean-François Pouliot: I congratulate the minister. We have got some information. That is a start, and if I had not been so insistent about it we never would have got it. Of course I may have made a mistake when I said that we had no information about the $2,000,000,000 vote. But the details of the items were contained in only seven lines, as the minister said just a moment ago. That is perhaps less than fifty words to explain an expenditure of $2,000,000,000. Imagine what detail that is!


James Layton Ralston: One billion dollars.


Jean-François Pouliot: It is one and a half billion dollars. It includes that branch.


James Layton Ralston: I was speaking of the amount of $997,000,000.


Jean-François Pouliot: Even at that it is practically one billion dollars. Divide that into seven, and it means that each estimate is one-seventh of the one billion dollars. That was not very much detail to give, and it is a
War Appropriation

good thing that the minister has given us some information to-night. It is a good thing for his own protection in the department and a good thing to satisfy the minds of the electors of this country.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: They are satisfied.


Jean-François Pouliot: If they are satisfied, it is because they do not know. If they knew more, they would not be satisfied.


George Alexander Cruickshank: They would not elect the men they do.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will tell the hon. member for Fraser Valley I absolutely share his views regarding the defence of this country and what he said previously. It was his best speech.


George Alexander Cruickshank: No.


Jean-François Pouliot: There is a difference
between better and best. His best speech was when he complained of the brass hats in the Department of National Defence, and when he spoke on that I cheered him heartily and banged my desk and said to myself, here is one man who is not afraid to tell the truth.
I say that in the army there are not only good men but very good men. But the value of an officer is not in his uniform alone or in the shine of his boots. It is in his brains and in the kindness of his heart. The minister was right when he said the other day that every commanding officer should be like a father to those in his regiment under him. But what I find is that the soldiers are very often exchanging their fathers, meaning by that, that recruits and soldiers of my county are presently defending British Columbia. I do not complain about that. I understand that this is their country and our country from ocean to ocean. But what was extraordinary was this. I was informed by the Department of National Defence, dated April 6, telling me that a farmer's son had been given six months' leave to return to cultivate his father's land. I was greatly surprised two weeks later to receive a letter from this young man, who was at first at Valcartier, Quebec. It had been posted under date of April 20, at Nanaimo, British Columbia. This young man was awarded six months' leave by the constituted authority, the commission of national war services, but he could not enjoy that leave because the Department of National Defence did not stand by the decision of the commission which, according to the national war regulations, is final. The Department of National Defence did not respect the law; they took that boy and instead of sending him to his father to cultivate the farm, they sent him to British Columbia. He was never informed that he had been given that leave. I do not know if that was done in bad faith or through ignorance, but it was done just the same. Here we have an example of disrespect of constituted authority, disrespect exemplified by that action of the Department of National Defence.
The minister said, in the first place, that I spoke too long and, in the second place, that he was glad that I read part of the long list of departments under his control. He said it is costly because there are so many. I do not object to the minister having a number of branches in his department provided they are useful and provided that these people do not spend their time clicking their heels and spurs on Sparks street, Slater street, Elgin street and the other streets in Ottawa, showing how important they are. What they should do is not to show that they are important-I say this to the minister as well as to his subalterns [DOT]-they should show that they are useful, that they are defending this country well and are making the best possible use of the men who are serving in the three branches.
When we dare to raise our voices to complain of injustices we receive the spurn of contempt, we hear contemptuous laughing; we do not need that. I will tell the minister once again what the greatest soldier of our times, Marshal Foch, said about the military art. He said that it was based on common sense, meaning that every action of the army had to be justified on the basis of common sense. Common sense is accessible to all; it is not an unusual gift. If the minister acts in fairness to all, to the army as well as to the members of the House of Commons; if he wants to act in fairness to all, he should go on in the way of his first steps to-night. He should give us more information, not only about the salaries paid in the Department of National Defence, but also about the expenditures for travelling, for allowances and other things.
We want a policy of national defence that can be commended to the Canadian people, that will satisfy the Canadian people and that will mostly satisfy Canadian soldiers, Canadian sailors and Canadian airmen. The minister may be a great man. I am a humble private member of this hon. house, but I am ready to do anything to help the Department of National Defence provided we get rid of all the nonentities who are there and who are responsible for the things like the one I have

Extradition Treaty
just mentioned. They cannot be defended. If the minister wants the number I will give it to him.


James Layton Ralston: I would like it.


Jean-François Pouliot: I shall send it by mail to-morrow. The other night the minister said that agriculture was rendering great service in this war. That is quite true. However, I do not understand the exact position of the government with regard to farmers and farmers' sons, in spite of that general statement which was made. The minister has led the committee to believe that if a certain delay in the training could be given to new trainees, it was difficult for the department to give leave to farmers and farmers' sons who were already in the army.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, April 29, 1942