1942-04-23

[Stage Direction]
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 66, to amend the Canada Evidence Act.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr.   S@: The purpose of this
bill is to submit for the consideration of parliament an amendment following a recommendation of the commissioners on uniform legislation of the Canadian Bar Association. It would add a section to the Canada Evidence Act to make admissible as evidence photographic copies of entries in the books of banks or of the dominion government or of any of its departments, and incidentally permit the destruction of voluminous old records, thereby saving considerable storage space. A similar bill has already been adopted by five of the provincial legislatures and is being considered by the others.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	What are the names and addresses of the persons to whom cheques were issued (a) for over $10,000, (b) for $5,000 to $10,000 on wheat acreage reduction bonus?
2.	How were the amounts made up?
3.	How much did each receive?


Mr. GARDINER:: This question has been given further consideration and I would still suggest to the house that it be dropped, on the grounds stated a few days ago. I have no objection at all to the names being given to any member of the house who desires to have them, but I hesitate to set a precedent by bringing down a list of names out of a group of 186,000. It would require a great deal of work by the staff, and, if given with respect to this legislation, similar information might be asked for in connection with the Prairie Farm Assistance Act and other measures of the kind. It would entail an enormous amount of work if the house were to take the position that all these names must be given, together with the amounts received.
Only seven names are involved in this particular list. Three of them are names of companies, and four I think are names of individuals. I do not know any of the individuals except one in Saskatchewan; the others are in Alberta. There is no personal reason, involving the individuals themselves or the companies or the government, why these figures should not be given, and as I have said, I have no objection to giving them to any individual member who desires to have them. But companies have asked us for lists of these names for the purpose of using them in making collections. I do not want to be misunderstood when I say that. It is not a question of the individual, but they want these lists of names in groups in order that they may send out their collectors to make collections. We have not thought it proper to turn over to them lists which might be used in that way. They could be got indirectly through people asking for certain names in certain areas and by giving certain dates. But we hesitate to have that done, and for that reason I suggest that the question be dropped.


Mr. COLDWELL:: Mr. Speaker, before the question is dropped I would point out that a matter of principle is involved. If the government feels that it is not in the public interest to give certain information to the house, the government may withhold that information; or if giving it would entail too great an amount of work, the information may 'be withheld. But in this particular case there are only seven names, and regardless of everything else I think as a matter of principle we 
should insist upon this information being given to the house. I have asked from my place for the amounts paid to certain persons in the lower categories, and no objection was ever made to giving me that information publicly in the house. As to giving such information to companies which ask for lists of names, that is a different matter. But when members of the house ask for details of the expenditure of public moneys, for the information of parliament, I think the principle is sound that we should be given the information, and on that ground I hope the question will not be dropped.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, if I may be permitted, I do not recall ever having brought down in the house any list of names or any figures applying to individuals. The question has been asked a number of times and the same position has always been taken with regard to it as is being taken now. It is true that when we have been discussing a matter in committee back and forth across the floor some information has been given, as also when hon. members have written with regard to individual cases, but I do not recall any list ever having been given.


Major James William Coldwell: No. I asked what an individual had received, and I received the information in answer to the question.


Mr. HAZEN:: I put this question on the order paper, and I object to its being dropped. If you will examine the question you will notice that it asks not only for the names and addresses of the people who have received these large amounts, but also for further information; it asks how were the amounts made up. Under this wheat bonusing act, as I understand it, $4 an acre was allowed for land which was put in summer-fallow and $2 an acre was allowed for land which was put into coarse grain. This is public money, and we as the trustees and representatives of the people are entitled to know how that money was spent. Surely we are entitled to information of this kind. If we are not, I really do not know what good we are here so far as the public treasury and finances of the country are concerned.


Mr. STIRLING:: If I may, I would like to suggest that the question be not dropped to-day, that at least it stand over until the Minister of Finance has made the statement on subsidies which he proposes to make. It may easily link up with what is divulged on that occasion. I should like it to stand.
Question stands.

Questions


USE OP CHARCOAL IN PRODUCTION OF GAS
Mr. NEILL:: 1.	In view of the scarcity of gasoline, has the attention of the government been called to the widespread use in Australia of what is called producer gas units, whereby charcoal is used to produce gas, and over 13,000 have been fitted to motor vehicles?
2.	Would the government have the matter investigated as to the possibility of its introduction in Canada?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The government has had this -matter under active investigation since midsummer of 1941.


INCOME TAX CONVENTION-UNITED STATES COMPANY DIVIDENDS TO CANADIAN SHAREHOLDERS
[Stage Direction]
Mr. MaoNICOL:
1.	Is the income tax convention between Canada and the United States, signed at Washington on March 4, as announced by the Minister of National Revenue to this house on March 5 (official debates, page 1143), now effective?
2.	If not, why not?
3.	What action is the government taking with regard to certain United States companies which are still deducting 274 per cent from the dividend cheques of their Canadian shareholders, contrary to the provisions of the said reciprocal convention which now only call for a 15 per cent deduction?
Mr. GIBSON:: 1.	No.
2.	It has not received1 formal approval by congress.
3.	None, as the convention is not yet effective. When it becomes effective it will be retroactive by its terms and refunds will be made.



GASOLINE RATIONING


Mr. NICHOLSON:: 1.	How many brewery delivery wagons or trucks have been furnished with ration books for gasoline?
2.	In what category are these vehicles placed?
3.	What, if any, instructions have been issued regarding delivery of beer and other intoxicating liquors?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	Approximately 240,000 applications for commercial vehicle ration books have been issued. These cover all users entitled to commercial rating but no segregation has yet been possible to show the different types of commercial houses concerned.
2.	Brewery delivery trucks come under the commercial category -and as such are not rationed in gasoline.
3.	All deliveries come under the jurisdiction of the administrator of services of the wartime prices and trade board. There is close collaboration between the administrator and the oil controller. Deliveries, so far, are restricted to one per day.



QUEBEC FISHERMEN-REQUESTS FOR ASSISTANCE

Mr. ROY:: 1.	Are the fisheries of the province of Quebec, except the Magdalen islands, administered by the dominion or the provincial government?
2.	To which government, federal or provincial, should the needy fishermen of Quebec address their requests for assistance to procure nets and other fishery equipment they require?


Mr. MICHAUD:: 1.	By the provincial government.
2.	The federal government does not provide nets nor other fishing equipment to fishermen.



EXPORT OF SCRAP AND WASTE RUBBER-FAIRMONT COMPANY

Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: 1.	Does the Fairmont Company, Limited of Toronto export scrap and waste rubber to the United States?
2.	If so, is all the reclaimed rubber returned for use in Canada?
3.	If it is not all returned for use in Canada, what portion is returned?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	It is anticipated that the return tonnage of reclaim will be at least equal to the scrap rubber exported. So far, the receipts of reclaim into Canada from United States have been in excess of the scrap rubber exported to the United States.
3.	Answered- by 2.



LABOUR CONDITIONS-MIDLAND, ONT., SHIPYARDS

Mr. ROY:: 1.	Have the workmen in the naval yards at Midland, Ontario, been oil strike since April 16?
2.	Has the government taken any steps against the instigators of the strike?
3.	If so, what steps have been taken?


Mr. MITCHELL:: 1. A strike in the Midland shipyard in violation of the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act began on April 16. The employees returned to work on the morning of April 22.
2	and 3. On April 20 the situation was reported to the Department of Justice and that department has instituted prosecutions.
Vichy Representation



VICHY REPRESENTATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Grote Stirling: I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he can confirm or otherwise the rumour that the Union of South Africa has ceased diplomatic relations with Vichy, and whether he can make any statement on Canada's relations with Vichy.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I would say to my hon. friend the acting leader of the opposition that I believe the statement that South Africa has severed diplomatic relations with France is correct.
The severance of diplomatic relations between countries is always a serious and regrettable matter, and it would be doubly serious and regrettable, I think, in the case of countries which have been as closely associated as have Canada and France for a period of three centuries. Also, at a time of war, a matter of such grave concern should, I feel, be considered not only in the light of the feelings or interests of one's own country but also in the light of how one country's action may possibly affect the interests and relations of other countries with which it is allied. For that reason our government have felt it advisable to have a very complete exchange of views between the government of the United Kingdom and ourselves and the government of the United States and ourselves, before reaching a final decision * with respect to the attitude which Canada should take towards France as a consequence of developments in that country in the last few weeks. This exchange of views is still in progress. I am not in a position to make a statement this afternoon, but I shall be, I expect, in a position to make a statement to the house when hon. members reassemble on Tuesday next.



THE PLEBISCITE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Major James William Coldwell: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister, of which I sent him notice this morning.
It has been reported to me from several sources that some suspicion has arisen in the minds of the workers in various parts of Canada regarding an alleged purpose of the

forthcoming plebiscite. It is rumoured that the government intends to use an affirmative vote as an indication of approval for the further immediate regimentation of labour and as a means of controlling union organization and activities. In view of the influence this may have upon the outcome of the voting on Monday, will the Prime Minister make a statement to this house and to the country denying these rumours?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I thank my hon. friend for directing my attention to the rumours. I had not heard them, but I do give the most unqualified denial to them. As a matter of fact the government has had no intention of the kind in its mind, nor would its intention be influenced or affected one way or the other by the result of the vote on Monday next. Indeed, the vote on the plebiscite has no bearing whatever upon the question to which my hon. friend has referred.



JAPANESE NATIONALS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Some time ago some assurance was given us that all the Japanese in the coastal areas of British Columbia would be removed. Is the Minister of Labour in a position to inform us what length of time it will take to remove them from the coastal areas to beyond the Cascade mountains?


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: I had notice of this question just prior to entering the house. I think this may be said in fairness, that we have broken the back of the Japanese problem as it was presented to this house. The exact date I could not say, and I do not think anybody else can say, but the hon. member can rest assured that we are moving with expedition to carry out the will of this parliament in connection with the removal of Japanese from the coastal areas of British Columbia.


Thomas Reid: Is it the intention of the government to remove all Japanese from the coastal areas?


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. We have had questions along this line already. I think the question should be put on the order paper.

Cheese Agreement



STRIKE OF ROAD WORKERS-ARMED GUARDS FOR CAMPS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. A. CRUICKSHANK (Fraser Valley):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. What action is being taken to prevent a repetition of the sit-down strike of Japanese road workers while in camp? What action is being taken to place sufficient armed guards over Japanese workers while in camp?


Humphrey Mitchell: I received a copy of this question just as I entered the house. The hon. member is well aware that the question of discipline comes within the jurisdiction of the commission charged with the Japanese problem in British Columbia. I assume that they would be quite capable of putting into force any needed disciplinary measures. With regard to the second question, here again the commission has full responsibility for the placing of necessary guards over the Japanese while at work. If my hon. friend has any representations that he would like to be made to the commission through me with respect to the matter, I shall be glad to carry out his wishes.



POSTAL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. P. MULOCK (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, in Canada books for the use of the blind are transmitted free of postage under section 47 of the Post Office Act. In recent years an entirely new method of publishing books for the blind has been developed and is widely used by blind people throughout the country, namely, sound reproduction records or "talking books." It is understood that there are as many blind readers in this country reading from sound reproduction records as there are from the conventional books in raised type. In view of this fact I have in the interests of the welfare of the sightless people of this country issued instructions to the effect that sound reproduction records for the use of the blind may be considered as books for the use of the blind within the meaning of the Post Office Act and as such will be transmissible in the mails free of postage. This change will become effective immediately on publication of the usual notice in the Canada Gazette, which I expect will be this week.



NEW AGREEMENT WITH BRITISH MINISTRY OF FOOD IN RESPECT OF 1942-43 PRODUCTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. C. SENN (Haldimand):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Has a new agreement been reached with the British ministry of food for this year's output of Canadian cheese?
If so, what is the amount of the quota? Further, has the price of Canadian cheese been set for 1942, and is it the intention of the administration to continue to pay a bonus on high grade cheese?


Georges Parent: I think this question
should be placed on the order paper.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, in view of some very extenuating circumstances that arose last night perhaps the house will permit me to make a statement at this time, especially in view of the fact that it will be closed for the next two or three days.


Mark Cecil Senn: That is why I asked the
question.


James Garfield Gardiner: An order in council
was passed after the house rose last evening, and the passing of that order in council resulted in an announcement being made to the press. The reason for making an announcement last evening, as the hon. member who is asking the question knows, was the fact that to-day is the cheese board day and biddings on cheese will be made to-day all over eastern Canada. If an announcement had not been made last night, if it had been made to-day or to-morrow, considerable loss might have been taken by certain people who are dealing in cheese to-day. The new agreement entered into with the British government is to be effective from April 1 until April 1 next. I have here a summary of the agreement which I think I should place on Hansard.
The arrangement provides for the sale to the United Kingdom ministry of food of 55,800 tons, 2,240 pounds per ton, or approximately 125,000,000 pounds of cheese from the Canadian production of the fiscal year 1942-43. The ministry also agrees, subject to freight being available, to purchase such additional quantities within their requirements, as Canada may have available for export.
A schedule of quantities to be shipped each month from the present time to the end of April, 1943, is provided and the ministry assumes responsibility for providing marine
Cheese Agreement

transportation. Payment will be made by the ministry to the extent of 90 per cent of the value as soon as possible after the cheese are shipped and the remaining 10 per cent of the value will be paid within 28 days after arrival of the cheese in the United Kingdom, or in the event of the steamer being lost, within 28 days of the estimated due date of arrival.
The shipping schedule will necessitate storing of considerable quantities of cheese in Canada to await shipment during the months of scant production. Last year 90 per cent of the value of cheese held in storage by licensed exporters for later shipment was paid by the ministry of food when the cheese were placed in storage. This year the Canadian government will make the initial payment of 90 per cent of the value to the licensed exporters when such exporters place the cheese in storage, for export during subsequent months. When the cheese are shipped the ministry will reimburse the Canadian government for the advanced payment made to the exporter. This change in procedure of payment is designed to simplify accounting for the ministry of food.
Accuracy of weights is to be verified by the official weigher appointed by the Montreal board of trade, under authority of act of parliament. Such verification will be checked from time to time by an officer of the Department of Agriculture. The quality of the cheese is to be determined by graders of the staff of the Dominion Department of Agriculture. The prices to be paid f.o.b. ocean steamer Montreal or f.o.b. car Montreal for export through the winter ports are:
Cents per pound
For first grade (92 score and over)..	20
For second grade (87 to 91 score)...	19-50
For third grade (under 87 score)______	19
The ministry of food has intimated that the prices specified are higher than may be desirable in view of the probable effect that postwar conditions may have on the markets for cheese, but that subject to due consideration by the government of Canada of the proposed price in relation to post-war developments, the ministry of food is prepared to approve the agreement.
By way of explanation of that statement, which is taken out of the order in council, possibly I should say that the British government was concerned about the advisability of their agreeing to a payment of 20 cents per pound at this time. They believed that if they agreed to pay that it might have some effect upon the price which would be required from Canada for cheese after the war is over. They suggested that if the dominion government

would take the responsibility for saying that this price was necessary to production in Canada at the present time and that it would not necessarily affect prices when the war is over, then they were prepared to agree to it for this year. I may say that it was discussion over that point which somewhat delayed the announcement being made. We had hoped it would have been made not later than early in the month of March rather than at this time.
Information available indicates that Canada may supply not more than approximately 15 per cent of the cheese which the United Kingdom will receive during the current year, and in view of increased costs of labour and supplies required in the production of cheese, the prices provided in the agreement are not considered out of line with increased costs of production. The agreement has received formal approval of his excellency in council and, as already stated, the ministry of food has intimated it is prepared formally to approve the agreement.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Justice arising out of a complaint or complaints made to me by Allan C. Wright, Canadian Congress of Labour organizer at Vancouver. Mr. Wright makes two complaints of alleged intimidation of himself and union workers by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I sent to the minister a much fuller statement. One of the complaints made is in connection with security officer Payne, whom Mr. Wright accuses of asking workers about their trade union membership.
I should like to ask the minister if he will have an investigation made at as early a date as possible and take whatever steps are necessary to protect workers in their lawful activities.
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice): The hon. member's question will appear in Hansard; I shall have the matter investigated and give any information that I may be able to obtain.



VOCATIONAL TRAINING


[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour) moved the second reading of Bill No. 64, to assist in the carrying on and coordination of vocational training.

Veterans' Land Act
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the special committee on vocational training.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Pensions and National Health) moved the second reading of Bill No. 65, to assist war veterans to settle upon the land.
Thomas Reid: Before this bill is given second reading and passed on to the committee, there are certain remarks and suggestions I wish to offer. I approach this subject as one who has had close and intimate contact with those who went on the land under the old soldier settlement scheme, known as the soldier settlement board scheme, and I know something of the tragedies as well as some of the successes of that scheme. At the outset I wish to compliment the minister upon the forward step made in this bill. But knowing what has happened in the past I have one or two further suggestions to make.
The hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Senn) the other evening, following the fine speech made by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Sissons), suggested to the government that in the allocation of money or the settlement of men under this scheme his particular constituency or the province of Ontario be not overlooked. Might I point out this interesting fact, that when the soldier settlement scheme was put into effect many years ago British Columbia put more soldier settlers on the land than the provinces of Ontario and Quebec combined. In fact almost as many ex-soldiers settled in British Columbia as in Ontario, Quebec and the maritime provinces. Therefore we in British Columbia were more concerned, shall I say, and had' closer contact with the welfare of the men, than perhaps hon. members from some other provinces.
My first suggestion is in regard to amortization. The committee might very well look into the matter of straight annual payments rather than amortization, because if one looks at the scale of moneys payable over the years he will see that, under the amortization plan as proposed, a settler in ten or twelve years would pay less principal and more interest than he would under straight annual payments.
I am very well pleased that the suggestion has been made to reduce the interest from 5J per cent to 3| per cent, but I say frankly to the government and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) that he might just as well face the issue now and consider reducing the interest for those under the present soldier settlement scheme. They are now paying 5 per cent, and the government and members of parliament are going to be faced with this very issue. The veterans of the last war are going to ask: "Are we not as good soldiers as the soldiers of this war? We also offered our lives and services in 1914-18 and so should receive like consideration." I warn the government that they might just as well now look to reducing the interest under the old scheme from 5 to 3| per cent. Up until the end of last year the tot^l amount paid in under the soldier settlement scheme, in principal, was something over $31,000,000, whereas the interest payable totalled $24,670,190. While many reasons have been given why men left their farms under the soldier settlement board, to my way of thinking one of the grievous enactments was the 5 per cent interest rate. In the lean years and years of depression the debts of the soldier settlers mounted up, and many instances could be cited where after ten or fifteen years of toil and payments, soldier settlers found themselves owing more money to the government than they did when they first entered the scheme.
We hear a great deal about a new order after this war. I am going to leave this thought with the ministry and hon. members of this house: if we are thinking of that new order, why should not a start be made now in this bill? I am not unmindful of the far-reaching effect this bill will have, but I suggest that consideration be given to the scheme in operation in Australia. There if a man purchases land under a land settlement scheme-I am speaking of ex-service men particularly-he knows from the day he goes on that land that no matter how good or how bad the times are he will not be required to pay any more than the original debt. In other words the debt to the government is tax free.
I know there are those who were disposed to laugh when the leader of the Social Credit group the other day spoke about making a grant of farms or land to these men. After all, is there anything extraordinary or out of the way in giving to the men who offered their lives a portion of this good land of ours? Looking at the losses the government incurred under the old scheme, I say in all sincerity that we could very well have given the land free to every man who came under the old soldier settlement board scheme at its inception, and we would still have been money ahead, because, as has been pointed out by the minister, some $4,000 per capita has been lost under that scheme. I believe that $4,000 average is somewhat more than the average debt incurred by each settler under the original act.
Veterans' Land Act

I am therefore suggesting that the committee give some consideration to the Australian scheme. After all what is the real intention of this act? Is it to establish men on the land after the war? I know there are doubts in the minds of some hon. members as to why we should place men on the land at all, but in a country such as ours soldier rehabilitation must embrace some land scheme.
One of the important points not touched on by the speakers the other evening was the economic conditions which may exist after this war. While the minister pointed out that $144 per annum would be the total amount any soldier taking up land would have to pay under a total scheme-by which I mean one involving the limit of $3,600 plus $1,200 for stock and equipment-it should be remembered that to this amout must be added taxes and insurance premiums, so that roughly speaking a man taking up land under this scheme will be called upon to pay at least $200 a year. I think I can speak fairly well for the farmers of the province of British Columbia when I say that in many years few farmers can pay a debt of $200 and live decently. If you have no markets and cannot sell your goods, the amount of interest and even the unpaid principal will become a very great hardship indeed. I suggest for the consideration of the committee that the government might very well absorb these interest charges. According to the figures given by the minister when speaking on the resolution, $1,000,000 a year would, I believe, take care of all the interest which would be charged those taking advantage of this scheme. It might be well worth considering whether, when we help these men go on the land, we should further burden them with interest payments.
I am not so much enamoured of the suggestion contained in the resolution that the director should have the right to sell out any settler. We should be very careful in transferring a right of that kind from parliament to an individual. Remember that under this scheme a settler will be required to pay taxes. If he does not pay them he may be sold out by the municipality, subject of course to the interest retained in the land by the director or the board. But I doubt the wisdom of giving the director absolute power to sell out a settler in the event that such settler should fall down in his payments.
Another suggestion I have to offer is that the act should not be put into operation until the end of the war. I fdar that if we start in on, this scheme now, by the time the war ends so many things may be said against it 
that there will be no inducement to the great majority of the men, who might otherwise do so, to go on the land at the conclusion of the war. When this act is passed it should contain a clause providing that it shall not become operative except by proclamation; and I commend that suggestion in all seriousness to the committee that is to study this measure. I am particularly interested, however, in the "no interest" clause; for I believe that if you relieve these men of the payment of interest you will not only remove a great burden from their shoulders but you will give them more hope and more incentive to pay up and establish themselves permanently on the land.
There was one other thought I wanted to leave with the committee. I believe this scheme envisions a man working partly on the land and partly in industry. This idea was suggested many years ago by Henry Ford, who had) a scheme for establishing small Ford factories all over the country in which men might be engaged for five or six months of the year and sustain themselves for the remainder of the time by working on the land. Perhaps that is what is in the mind of the government in connection with this scheme, but it will not work in British Columbia. Later I intend to have a great deal more to say with regard to the centralization of industries in this country, which to my mind at any rate is going to bring about a troublesome uneconomic condition after this war is over. We have practically no industries at all in the Fraser valley, and I might almost say few in British Columbia, and I am just wondering where the men who take up land in that province, especially those who have only small farms, will be able to find employment. In the past in British Columbia many men went on the land with the intention of ranching; many others went in under the old soldier settlement board, and after they got settled on the land they all had to find additional employment somewhere in order to earn einough money to keep going.
Many of those who reside in the cities believe that a man on the land gets all his food free, that his eggs, his milk and everything else come to him without cost. To those who have that mistaken idea I want to say that generally speaking it costs the man living in the country these days more for his goods than it costs the man in the city. If he does get eggs he has to buy wheat and other grain to feed his chickens; if he does get milk he has to buy feed for the cow, so that his food does cost him more than his labour. I make this statement because I

Veterans' Land Act
rather got the impression the other day that some hon. members had the feeling that a man living in the country could manage to exist without any monetary cost at all.
I apologize for having taken up the time of the house to this extent, but having dealt with this matter for a great many years I thought I should offer these suggestions in the hope that they will be given every consideration when the committee meets to study this bill.


Mr. E. G. HANSELL (Macleod):: Before this bill is given second reading and sent to the appropriate committee I should like to offer a further suggestion which perhaps has not been particularly emphasized heretofore in this debate. I have often wondered why so much was said about the advantages of a new act as compared with an old one. It seems to be becoming almost a byword to say that a certain act is a great improvement over the old act, and so on; but I could never understand why, if that were so, the old act-whether this act or another one- was not changed and improved when it was found to be unworkable.
During the course of the debate on this bill many hon. members have said that of course this act does not in any sense guarantee security for the soldiers who will be settled on the land. Obviously, as the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) mentioned the other day, governments have no control over the sunshine and the rain. They have no control over the forces of nature, and many things may happen in the intervening years to make the situation desperately hard for these soldiers who will be settled on the land. We cannot help the reverses that nature may bring us, but we can so frame our legislation as to give these men the security they deserve. I do not believe anyone will disagree with the principle that any soldier who offers his life, as he faces shot and shell in bloody battle, on his return should be offered security for the rest of his life. I am not going to enlarge on the details and ramifications as to what he should do and what the governments should do. The principle that any soldier who offers his life in defence of his country upon his return should be given security for life, should be made clear and clean-cut. We do know that that has not been done.
I have a suggestion for the committee which will review the bill and will have power to make amendments and dress it up so that it may be acceptable to the house. I visualize that when the bill is passed and the time arrives for the government to purchase land under the scheme, there may be wholesale foreclosures on the farming public of Canada who are to-day in desperate need and debt. They may be made under the assumption that those who foreclose may then offer their land for sale to the government at a price satisfactory to the vendors.
I am suggesting that the committee give this possibility some consideration. We should cooperate with the provinces in bringing about certain just debt laws.
Let us not be misunderstood in this matter. We have never claimed that debt should not be paid. Our stand is quite the contrary, that the adjustment of the fiscal policy of Canada should be such that debts can and would be paid. Under the present fiscal policy of Canada with regard to agriculture, we are fast reaching the place where the sanctity of debt is regarded as being a little bit greater and more important than the sanctity of the home. That should not be so. I agree of course that if debtors throughout the years have had opportunity to pay off their debts and have failed to do so, they must be dealt with accordingly. In Canada agriculture has done its best to pay its way, but it has not been able to get out of debt.
The other day in this debate the Minister of Finance questioned the hon. member for Acadia as to whether the trouble under the old act had been that the land was purchased at the close of the last war, a time when there was serious inflation. I maintain that the difficulty was not so much that the land was purchased during a period of inflation as that a period of deflation was permitted to follow, which no government of that day had power to control. The minister's statement was an admission, not necessarily by his own government, that the government is powerless to control that which the banking institution of Canada can bring on when they desire.
May I go a step farther. It is all right to cry to high heaven and to raise the bogey man of inflation. But so far as the debtor is concerned inflation helps him, because in a period of high prices he is in a better position. If agriculture in Canada to-day were experiencing an inflation of their own commodity prices they would be in a better position to pay off old debts. I am not advocating that there should be inflation, but I am saying that there should not be inflation at one time and deflation at another, a circumstance which will cause even the measure we are now discussing to fall far below our expectations with respect to it.
Veterans' Land Act

I would ask the committee to consider the advisability of suggesting that the government should in some sense be restricted in the purchase of land. My particular suggestion would be that it should be restricted in respect to the purchase of any land which had heretofore been the subject of foreclosure. That may seem to be an extraordinary suggestion, but all things being equal I claim that in the great majority of cases as to lands with respect to which foreclosures have taken place there would be no guarantee of security for those who might take them at the close of this war. I suggest that the committee give serious consideration to placing in the measure a section which would say to the government, "In all purchases of land you must guard against purchasing those which in bygone days have experienced foreclosure." As I said earlier, there is a possibility that there may be wholesale foreclosures as soon as the act becomes effective. In such circumstances the government should be reluctant to make such purchases. There should be something in the act to prevent the repurchasing of that kind of land. If it could not produce to serve the interests of one man, I doubt whether it could produce to serve those of another. If there is one thing above all others we want after this war is over, surely it must be that full measure of happiness and sweet content which every last man in the fighting forces deserves upon his return home.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the special committee to consider settlement on the land of veterans of the present war.


[Stage Direction]
The bouse resumed from Wednesday, April 22, consideration in committee of a resolution to provide sums not exceeding $2,000,000,000 for the year ending March 31, 1943, for granting to his majesty aid for national defence and security-Mr. Ilsley-Mr. Vien in the chair.
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Chairman, this afternoon I should like to make a statement on the question of subsidies that are being paid in the application of the price ceiling policy. I am sorry that the statement is long but the subject is an important one; there has been much discussion in the press about it, and I feel that I should take the earliest opportunity in committee of the whole or in the house to make a statement to parliament. I do so in order to make clear 
the policies and principles being followed in the payment of such subsidies and the reasons why they are necessary.
There have been a number of questions asked about these subsidies and some concern expressed about them, both in this house and outside. There have also been some implied criticisms of what is being done, although no very specific or direct criticisms have yet come to my attention. I would like to tell the house as clearly as possible what is being done and why, so that there will be no misunderstanding and so that any comments and criticisms can be both specific and constructive. It is, I believe, the duty of members to understand this policy, which involves substantial expenditures for an essential purpose.
The payment of subsidies is an integral part of the general policy of price and income stabilization. Everyone is well aware that the government last fall undertook a vigorous programme to control prices and to secure the necessary stabilization of wages and salaries to make that effective price control possible. This control of prices was absolutely essential in order to defend this country against inflation and all the difficulties and dangers that it brings, all the chaos that it creates. It was necessary in order to enable us to devote our full effort to the war, unhindered by those difficulties to which inflation gives rise. We were faced with the prospect of a substantial reduction in the supplies available for consumers at the same time that the incomes of consumers were rising much more rapidly than fiscal and financial measures could offset. Prices were bound to go up, and go up rapidly, unless a limit was placed on them. The general method that was used in placing that limit on them by means of an overall ceiling is familiar to the house and was explained initially by the Prime Minister in a broadcast and subsequently in detail to the house by myself. The reasons why that rather drastic method was chosen have been fully explained, and I believe they have commended themselves to the Canadian people as well as to parliament. It has been understood that in order to control the price level, we have had to control all prices and to secure a stability of wages and salaries by means of various regulations.
In carrying out this policy, the wartime prices and trade board, with the approval of the government, has been very firm in refusing to permit any increases in prices above the ceiling. In a very few cases special circumstances have made it administratively impossible, or nearly impossible, to establish or maintain the ceiling; for example, in the case of fresh fruits and vegetables, and

War Appropriation
imported books. But these have been true exceptions and not any relaxation of the general rule. In addition, of course, the board recognizes and permits a normal seasonal variation in certain prices.
After thorough consideration of all the difficulties and all the conditions involved, and after continual re-examination of our experience up to date, the wartime prices and trade board has remained convinced, and the government has remained convinced, that we must really hold prices firmly if we are to hold them at all. We cannot let prices move up first in this sector, and then in that, in response to special conditions or pressures. We must make the ceiling stick. We are not doing this merely as a matter of principle or as a means of rejecting arguments for adjustments; it is being done for good practical reasons. Each increase in prices that we would permit by means of a flexible ceiling would be bound to lead directly to other movements. Sometimes they would lead directly to increases in the prices of goods made from other goods or into which the prices of other goods enter as a cost. In other cases, increases in prices would have their effect on many other prices through bringing about higher wages and consequently higher costs in many other industries. This sort of process would gather momentum like a snowball rolling down hill. It is, we believe, on the basis of all the information we can find, far more practicable and equitable to make whatever adjustments are necessary to prevent any prices from rising than to permit some of them to rise and then to make the necessary adjustments in others. Secondly, it would be manifestly unfair to permit some industries or some trades to increase their prices and not permit others to do so when they had equally valid reasons. Consequently, if we permitted any increases, we would be forced to consider other cases of the same kind throughout the whole economy. We could not, therefore, deal with a few of the most difficult cases without creating other cases at the same time. Thirdly, we wish to carry through a simple, straightforward policy and method that consumers can understand as well as traders. We want the women of this country, who do its shopping, to know what we are doing and to be able to see to it that the regulations are being observed. If we were always tinkering with prices, letting them go up a little here and a little there, the consumer would not be able to understand what we were doing, or to detect any infraction of the price regulations without great difficulty and study.
Finally, of course, we realize that any increase in prices, arising from the shortage of supplies of a particular commodity or service, would prevent some people from obtaining it because they could not afford it, or would force them to do without other things. It would be part of the process of inflation that we are trying to prevent. It would amount to permitting the supplies to go to the highest bidders, rather than to those who most require them. This we wished to avoid, and we do not wish to compromise with the evil that we are attempting to prevent.
From the beginning of our price stabilization policy it has been foreseen and understood that some unusual methods, such as subsidies, or their equivalent, would be necessary to meet a number of the special problems that would arise in carrying out the price ceiling policy. I mentioned this fact in speaking in this house in November on the price control policy, particularly in relation to imports. The British government has been paying subsidies for some time in order to stabilize the cost of living in Britain-actually 125,000,000 pounds last year. We realized that we would probably not be able to escape the necessity of paying subsidies ourselves if we were to succeed in holding prices steady despite rising costs, particularly of imports.
The necessity for subsidies or their equivalent arises from the fact that the costs of providing goods or services to the Canadian consumer cannot be completely controlled or from the fact that in some cases these costs were actually higher at the time the ceiling was imposed than the level of costs that was then being reflected in the prices charged. We can control and hold down most of the costs which enter into prices of Canadian goods and services, but we cannot control them all. In so far as these costs rise beyond the amount which the industry can absorb with fixed prices, we must either do without those goods, or raise the ceiling on their prices, or else pay subsidies or take some equivalent action to meet the rising costs without increasing prices. We have been firmly resolved not to permit the ceiling on retail prices to be increased in order to meet these increased costs. We are prepared to permit some non-essential supplies to disappear from the Canadian market rather than permit either their prices to be increased above the ceiling or to subsidize what are really non-essentials. However, there are a number of essential commodities the costs of which have risen beyond the amount which the industry can
War Appropriation

absorb at fixed prices, and the supplies of which must be maintained in the Canadian market as far as possible, and in these cases we have undertaken to pay a subsidy or else to make bulk purchases of them for government account and resell them to Canadian dealers or manufacturers at prices that will enable them to be sold to the public at the ceiling price.
By far the most important cases where we cannot control costs and where these have risen substantially since the ceiling period are found in the field of imports. This country always has been dependent on a very large variety of imported goods, and particularly of imported fuel, materials and semi-finished goods to be manufactured in Canada. We must continue to import a great variety of commodities in order to maintain essential civilian supplies, as well as for war purposes. Obviously we cannot control the costs of these imports up to the stage where they reach Canada, and these costs have risen in very many cases. In part the increased costs have been due to higher prices and higher costs of production in the United States and in the United Kingdom, where we obtain these goods. In both those countries costs have been going up during the last year, and in the United States prices have been rising rapidly since the time our ceiling was imposed. Furthermore, we have had to pay shipping and insurance costs, which are increasing daily, for all those commodities which reach this continent from overseas, and in some cases we have had to meet the cost of bringing them by more roundabout routes or more expensive forms of transport than would normally be employed. For example, in the importation of some goods from South America, I understand that the normal method was that they would travel approximately five thousand miles by water and five hundred miles by land, and that now, frequently, those same goods travel three thousand miles by water and two thousand miles by rail.
I would like to call the attention of the house to the fact that since the base period used for price control purposes the war has spread over all the oceans of the world, and has caused enormous changes in shipping and in sources of supply. The Canadian consumer has been protected by the price ceiling against any effects of this spread of the war on his cost of living. Without the price ceiling we should all have suffered higher costs of living because of the fall of Singapore and the German submarine offensive off the Atlantic coast. As it is, our prices are not reflecting these very serious developments, but somewhere the cost must be borne, and in part at

least it is being borne in the subsidies we are having to pay on imports in order to make supplies available to Canadians at ceiling prices. The disasters in the far east and the greatly increased scarcity of shipping have also shut off a number of our usual sources of supply and made us dependent upon more expensive sources. Consequently we have had to pay higher prices to obtain things from near at hand or from secondary sources of supply than the prices we were paying at the time the price ceiling was established, when we could buy in much cheaper markets.
As a consequence of all these factors, we have had to undertake to pay subsidies on imports, or in a few cases, to buy imports by means of government agencies and resell them to Canadian producers or dealers. This import policy was announced at the time the price ceiling went into effect. I shall give some details of this policy in a few moments but I wish to say something first about subsidies on commodities produced at home.
Here, the principal increases in costs which have given rise to the necessity for subsidies are those which originate in the difference in time at which things are produced and at which they are sold. The goods that were being sold during the base period from September 15 to October 11 were produced during an earlier period. Sometimes it was much earlier; sometimes it was only a few weeks previously. During the period between the time the goods were produced and when they were	sold,	costs	had	in many casesalready risen, but retailers and other dealers had not increased their prices to reflect the increased costs of producers and manufacturers. In other words, they were not taking an abnormal profit on their inventory. However, when the dealers and retailers had sold the goods	which	they	had	bought at thelower prices before the base period, they had to replace	them	with	goods purchased athigher prices, and yet	they	could not sell
these goods at more than the ceiling price, which was the price they had been selling at during the base period. This naturally reduced the margin between their buying and selling prices, which is the source of their revenue from which they meet their expenses and derive their incomes. It was this rise of costs in relation to selling prices which produced what has come to be called the "squeeze"-I am going to use some phrases now which have formed a limited new vocabulary-and which has caused many of the most difficult problems that the wartime prices and trade board has had to face.

War Appropriation


Mr. HARRIS (Danforth):: Squeezes and
squeaks 1


James Lorimer Ilsley: 

War Appropriation
for war production, which, of course, the government would purchase ultimately. Nor are they paid on goods imported directly by consumers themselves, or on goods imported prior to December 1, 1941, or where the increase in cost is trifling, or on goods the production of which is prohibited in Canada, or, finally, on any goods to which the price ceiling does not apply. Most important of all perhaps, from our point of view, a long list of various classes of goods regarded as non-essential was given on which subsidies would not be. paid. Of course, in addition to the restrictions on goods eligible for subsidy, there were also the restrictions under the War Exchange Conservation Act, intended to prevent the use of foreign exchange for the purchase of a great many non-essential goods. Consequently it should be noted that there is a double sieve, so to speak, to prevent the subsidizing of non-essential imports.
It will be noted that in the case of these imports we specified not those goods on which subsidies will be paid, but rather those classes of goods on which subsidies will not be paid. The reason for this is a very practical one. It is impossible to make a satisfactory list of the many thousands of materials and parts and other items that it may be necessary to import into Canada even for ultimate consumers' use. It is more practical to rule out all those classes of goods which we can identify as being nonessential. We have attempted to do that, first under the War Exchange Conservation Act, and again now in excluding them from subsidy. This selection of non-essential goods has been based upon a careful study of our import trade and our tariff items. Quite possibly it is not complete, and it is probable that as we go along we shall be increasingly stringent in classifying goods as non-essential and excluding them from subsidy.
However strictly we draw the line of essentiality, there are bound to be some borderline cases-some items which will appear to some of us as essential and which will appear to others as non-essential. Some types of food, for example, will seem to many of us unnecessary at least in view of what we can substitute for them from our own supplies, while other persons in this country will regard them as valuable articles of diet which cannot be satisfactorily replaced. To decide whether such items should be included or excluded involves questions of judgment which we must decide as best we can and in the light of a developing supply situation. In making any decision of this kind we must take account

not only of the character of the goods themselves and the possibility of substituting others for them, but also the possibility that by excluding them we may divert demand to other items, particularly domestic items, and thereby create serious shortages. We should remember that in those cases where prices have risen substantially when we classify an import item as ineligible for subsidy we are, in effect, placing an embargo upon its entry, and we must be prepared to deny ourselves entirely those supplies. Perhaps I should add that in the case of minor items, it may be possible that traders will continue to import them, even at a loss, simply to maintain certain connections and to continue to supply the markets which have been supplied in the past, but we cannot expect this to happen in any important cases.
In a number of cases it has been possible to avoid or substantially to reduce import subsidies by means of simpler action taken with regard to customs duties and other charges. For example, we hava eliminated dumping duties at this time, since there is almost no danger of unfavourable effects of such action. It has also been provided that on the recommendation of the board in specific cases, invoice values may be accepted for customs purposes instead of home market values, as are normally required. In other specific cases duties have been reduced or eliminated in order to enable goods to be imported at a cost that will make it possible to sell them at the ceiling price.
On other than imported goods, only a small number of subsidies are being paid, and most of them are not yet of significant proportions. Much the most important of these domestic subsidies up to date has been that on milk. This is a temporary subsidy being paid at the rate of 40 cents per 100 pounds for milk used in the manufacture of concentrated milk products, and of 30 cents per 100 pounds on milk sold for fluid milk in all areas where no increase in milk prices took place between August 1, 1941, and the date of the price ceiling.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: To whom is the subsidy paid?


James Lorimer Ilsley: To the dealer.


Major James William Coldwell: Would that apply in
the case of dried and processed milk?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am not sure about that. The purpose of this subsidy was to maintain the supply of milk for use in concentrated milk products and as fluid milk during the winter season when costs are normally higher and when this year producers faced a shortage of feed, and there was the danger that milk supplies would be diverted too largely to

War Appropriation
cheese production, as cheese prices were relatively high.


Mr. HOWDEN:: Whom do you mean by dealer?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No-I thought the question related to fluid milk, but it did not; hon. gentlemen were talking about concentrated milk. I am not sure to whom the subsidy is paid in that case. I will get the information. The subsidy is paid to the distributor or manufacturer under an arrangement by which it would be passed on to the producer. I think that is correct; it is the distributor of the fluid milk and the manufacturer of the concentrated milk.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: How does it get back to the producer?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Well, it does. I have said that this subsidy is a temporary one; already it has been announced that it will be discontinued at the end of this month and a better arrangement of prices for milk products substituted for it, which will enable us to meet our domestic requirements for milk and its products and also the abnormal demand for exports of cheese and concentrated milk products to the United Kingdom. The details of this new scheme were made public this morning.
Another domestic subsidy worth noting is that on the 1941 pack of domestic canned fruits and vegetables. The need for this subsidy arose from the fact that many retailers established their prices in the base period on the cost of these canned goods in the spring and summer of 1941, while the canners, on the other hand, had increased their prices over these levels before the end of the base period, thereby establishing their selling prices f.o.b. cannery quite substantially above those which the retailers had paid. Consequently the retailers were unable to replace canned goods for sale at the retail ceiling prices. In order to enable them to sell at the retail ceiling, it was decided to reduce the cannery prices of these goods, and some of the wholesale prices corresponding to them, to the levels of the spring and early summer of 1941. The costs of these goods have already been incurred and cannot therefore be reduced. It has been necessary, as a consequence, to provide a subsidy to enable these goods to be sold at the lower prices necessary if they are to be moved through the retail channels. Canners are being compensated by 80 per cent of the amount of the reduction in the selling prices that they have absorbed on their inventories, while the wholesalers whose prices are reduced are being compensated to the extent that the f.o.b. cannery price is
44561-1191	*
reduced, but wholesalers are being required to bear the extra carrying charges and sales tax incurred on the higher prices and for which they cannot recoup themselves in their new wholesale prices. Members interested in the details of these operations can find them in a press release and a statement issued by the board on March 24.
Some subsidies are also being paid to permit the sale of leather footwear and of leather clothing at the retail ceiling prices. In the; case of footwear, the problem arose from the fact that the goods sold during the base-period were made back in the spring of 1941 and the cost of manufacturing such footwear increased by some 15 per cent between that time and the base period. Somehow this increase in costs had to be borne without any increase in the retail price, if the principle of maintaining the ceiling was to be observed, as the board felt it must be. After a thorough investigation of all the circumstances, it was decided that part of the increased costs, amounting to about 8 per cent, would be shared equally by the manufacturer, on the one hand, and the wholesalers and retailers, on the other, and that the government, through the Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation, would pay a subsidy to manufacturers-equal to 7 per cent of the selling price of their shoes to enable them to sell at reduced prices. This subsidy was only to be paid pending the working out of measures to eliminate unnecessary costs. Advisory committees' have been established by the industry to devise methods of simplication and cost reduction, mainly I think by the reduction of the numbers of styles of shoes. Extensive plans are being made to that end. It is the intention of the board to see that as soon as possible costs are reduced to the point where the subsidy can be discontinued.
The case of leather for clothing is more complicated in detail, and I would refer hon. members to a statement of the board, dated February 13, and various orders issued at that time. Again the problem arose from the substantial increase in the cost of production that took place between the time when the goods sold in the base period were manufactured and the time that they were sold, establishing the ceiling for the seller. It was arranged that tanners would reduce their prices of leather below those they received in the base period, thereby absorbing part of the squeeze, some of which, however, was to be borne by the wholesalers and retailers. A subsidy was provided for the tanners to enable them to sell at these specially reduced prices, the amount of the subsidy being related to the reduction in the particular prices concerned. The
War Appropriation

various branches of the industry involved .are being asked to cut their costs as rapidly as they can, in order to make possible the reduction or elimination of the subsidy.
Announcement has recently been made of subsidies to be made available for about 40 grocery items specified in order 116 of the board, dated March 23. The need for this subsidy arises out of the same sort of time lags that have been noted above, in connection with leather items and the 1941 canned food pack. The manufacturers' prices for these goods have increased in the months preceding the base period, and many retailers were selling at prices below those appropriate to the higher manufacturers' and wholesalers' prices prevailing in the base period, although some other retailers had increased their prices to correspond with this rise in wholesale prices. The board and the administrators struggled with the problem created by this situation for months, endeavouring to find the most satisfactory solution to it, meantime imposing a very difficult burden upon many retailers. Finally the decision was reached that the only practicable method to solve the problem was to require the manufacturers to reduce their prices back to June 1941 levels, at which all or nearly all retailers can replace their goods at prices which enable them to sell at their ceiling prices. Those retailers whose base period prices were based upon higher wholesale or manufacturers' prices than the new ones are required to reduce their retail prices by an amount corresponding to the reduction in manufacturers' prices. To enable manufacturers to sell at their lower June prices rather than at the later prices of the base period, despite the increase in costs which occurred in the interval, the Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation is preparing to pay them a subsidy based upon and not exceeding the reduction in prices below those prevailing in the base period.
In the case of these grocery items, where the number of producers and dealers will likely prove to be very large and where there will be a difficult problem in assessing how far the industries and1 trades concerned are in fact able to bear the increases in cost without help by way of subsidy, a special condition has been attached to the payment of subsidies to provide a sort of automatic check that will ensure that subsidies are not paid to businesses which do not in fact require them in order to sell at the designated prices. This provision is to the effect that the subsidy shall not increase the net profits of the business after taxes beyond the level of net profits after taxes in the standard period as established for excess profits tax purposes. In order to carry out this
{Mr. Ilsley.]
provision, the corporation will only pay such subsidies in the form of accountable advances and final settlement of the subsidy claim will be delayed until the claimant is able to furnish the necessary information respecting his profits in the fiscal period concerned.


Joseph Henry Harris: Would the minister permit, a question there? Would the standard profit for the base period apply also to provision (B) in the Excess Profits Tax Act which sets a base? There are two bases, one the standard period of four years and the other agreed-on as standard profits.


James Lorimer Ilsley: As I understand it, it is the standard profits based on the four-year average. I do not remember what (B) is.


Joseph Henry Harris: Section (B) provides for a standard profit to be agreed upon.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Argeed upon by whom?


Joseph Henry Harris: By the manufacturer and the department.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am not familiar with section (B). The intention here is to take the standard profits under the Excess Profits Tax Act, whatever they are.


Joseph Henry Harris: The minister mentioned the four-year period, modifying the standard profits obtained by averaging the four-year period.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I shall have to get information on that. It is a point I am not able to clear up at the moment.
This concludes what I have to say at this time on subsidies or types of subsidies, but there are a few important points about them which I would like to emphasize.
In the first place it should be realized clearly that the subsidies are being paid in the interests of the consumer. They are paid when there is no other way of ensuring adequate supplies of a particular product for the consumer at prices permitted by the price ceiling. In principle, these subsidies are paid to the consumer to keep down the cost of living. In practice, because consumers are so numerous, they are paid to producers or dealers on condition that they maintain supplies and carry out the policy of the price ceiling by supplying goods to others at such prices as will permit them in turn to operate within the limits of the price ceiling.
Any statements therefore that the XY company or the AB company is receiving such and such subsidies are misleading. A subsidy may be of no advantage to the firm receiving it except that it will permit others to continue to buy from it. By law consumers are prevented from buying at higher than ceiling prices. It is an obligation of the government

War Appropriation
1879'
therefore to see -that goods are available at the ceiling prices.
When it has been determined that a subsidy is necessary, the point in the trade at which it is paid is a matter of administrative convenience. Since there are many more consumers than dealers and many more dealers than producers, subsidies (aside from import subsidies) are more likely to be paid to producers. What are in effect subsidies to consumers are paid at a point in the trade where the basis of the subsidies can be most readily and quickly verified.
The second point arises out of the first, and it is that the subsidy paid to any particular industry or any particular firm does not constitute a benefit given to it, for the subsidy is conditioned upon certain action which increases the costs or reduces the receipts of the industry or firm. It is a fundamental principle that the industry or trade receiving a subsidy should bear a part of the increased costs in respect of which the subsidy is paid. In other words, the subsidy, in conjunction with the special conditions attached to it, should leave the industry in a worse, not a better, profit position than before the price ceiling was imposed. The Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation makes every practical effort to check the facts supporting claims for subsidy and the good faith of the applicants, so as to ensure that all payments are within the principles which apply to the subsidy in question. Under the heavy pressure of a programme of such magnitude as universal price control, however, it is necessary to take shortcut methods of investigation, and to apply sound business judgment rather than the exhaustive statistical analysis which a more leisurely examination would make possible. It is essential that claims be dealt with promptly so as to ensure an orderly and continued supply of goods.
The third point I would emphasize is that the board and the government are laying great stress upon the reduction of costs by means of standardization, simplification and the elimination of all unnecessary frills and services. We hope by means of such reduction in costs to eliminate or at least drastically reduce the need for domestic subsidies. I think all business men are anxious to cooperate to this end, because they see the need for it and most of them, we find, are reluctant to accept subsidies from the government, even under present conditions, and they are trying to cut costs so that they will not need to depend on help from us. But the importance of this simplification programme extends far beyond the elimination of subsidies. The reductions in costs that can be achieved by eliminating frills, unnecessary services, unnecessary varieties and patterns, etc.,
are very real national gains at a time such as this. We cannot afford to waste either materials or manpower on frills or fancy varieties. Consequently I am, on behalf of the government, urging the board to press ahead with its cost reduction programme, and I am glad to say that the board itself is equally convinced of the very real value of this part of its work. I certainly hope that all businesses in this country-whether manufacturers or distributors-will cooperate to the full extent of their ability in this simplification programme.
I understand that in some conferences which have been held the question has been raised as to whether this is merely a board programme or whether it is a government programme. I want to make it very clear here to-day that this programme of standardization and simplification and economies in production has the sanction of the government, is in accord with the wishes of the government, and is regarded as extremely important by the government.
In combination with this programme of simplified practice being worked out in cooperation with industry, the system of subsidies constitutes a fully mobile, not static, defence against the pressure of costs on prices. We cannot hold up supplies while we are searching out the possibilities of cost reduction. Subsidies ensure current supplies. Simplification and standardization will reduce costs and permit subsidies to be discontinued. I do not suggest that all domestic subsidies can be thus eliminated, but many of them can and will. I referred earlier to subsidies made available on some 40 grocery items on March 23. Arrangements are being worked out which will eliminate a number of those items from subsidy. The picture which some people have drawn of a system of subsidies to vested interest, a system into which the government would sink deeper and deeper and never be able to withdraw, has no relation to the facts.
I should like to be able to give the house a reasonably accurate estimate of the cost of these subsidies this year and in future, but that is not possible. Their amount will depend on a large variety of circumstances which cannot be foreseen, particularly on the costs of import and of shipping, and on the speed with which savings can be effected by the simplification programme I have just referred to. Subsidies paid on a product of universal consumption will necessarily appear large in total. Of course the saving they make possible to consumers will be correspondingly large. After nearly 5 months of operation of the price ceiling, the subsidies actually paid make quite a small total, about 82,125,000 up to April 21. They will increase,
War Appropriation

of course, as the full volume of purchases is reflected in them and as more claims are submitted for imports that have been made. There is no evidence or reason to believe that they can ever reach the fantastic totals of several hundred million dollars suggested in some quarters. I have included, however, in making up the estimates I gave the house when I introduced this war appropriation resolution, an arbitrary figure of $50,000,000 for this purpose. Some details of the amounts expended in subsidies on various items are given in a table which I have here and which I will place on Hansard at this point, with the consent of the house.
Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation Ltd.
Subsidies Paid Up To and Including April 21, 1942
Domestic	$1,974,762 80
Milk	$1,387,630	34Footwear	
584,355	01
Leather garments... 2,777 45
Imports	
Spices, ground	174	52Lima beans	
459	65Rice	
5,468	00Tapicoa	
284	25Cocoa, beans, etc. ..	3,922	35
Fruits, dried and
evaporated	
31,245	33Grapefruit juice....	70,297	33Anaesthetics	
816	00Antimony oxide	2,645	76Peppermint oil	360	00
Inedible pigskin
grease	
1,217	13Tableware	
311	77
Brass and copper
* nails, etc	
125	45Cutlery	
660	14Tools	
160	28Hollow-ware	
132	73
Iron and steel
(manufactured)..	513	33Cotton linters	1,910	23
Cotton, rovings,
yarns, warps	5,127	76' Cotton woven fabrics	13,330	23Cotton handkerchiefs	246	92
Woven fabrics of
cotton or hemp.. .	872	04' Vegetable fibre rovings, yarns, warps	1,700	02
Wool, camel, goat,
[DOT] etc	
269	55Carpets, rugs, etc...	182	59Raw hides and skins	4,825	88' Broom corn	
6,089	07Sundry items of less than $100	
870	70
154,219 01

Just here I want to say to anyone to whom the sum of $50,000,000 looks large-


Angus MacInnis: It was large at one time.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes. In the United States I understand it is thought that unless the price situation is taken in hand, costs may rise at the rate of two or three per cent a [Mr. Ilsley.)
month. If costs were allowed to go; if we were to remove our control and let the price level rise in this country, and it rose not two or three per cent a month but twenty per cent in a year, and it that full twenty per cent were reflected in increases in government expenditures alone, the increased government expenditure would be $700,000,000, because in the next fiscal year our expenditures will be about $3,500,000,000. But the increased cost to the government is not the serious feature of the situation at all; it is not a one-hundredth part of the trouble the country would be in. It is not the taxpayer, as such, that is the victim of inflation, even if he does have to pay $700,000,000 more in the course of a year. It is the workman, the consumer, and practically everybody in the country. And more serious than that, in a period of rising prices such as that everyone begins to try to rectify his own personal situation.	He begins to wonder whether
others are not getting a little better treatment in the situation than he is. The economic situation is changing very rapidly. The person in receipt of a pension says, "I cannot stand this; I have to have an increase in my pension." The wage earner says, "I must have an increase in my wages." Strikes and disputes between labour and capital take place. There are differences of opinion as to the quantum of increase suited to the rising price level, and so on. The result is turmoil and disorder throughout practically all centres of your economy.
As I said last fall, I cannot imagine anything internally which would have a more destructive or disruptive effect on the war effort than a rapidly rising price level in Canada. So that if the cost of these subsidies can be kept within reasonable dimensions-and I am sure it can-it is an insignificant cost to pay, as compared with the evils which we will avoid by using it.


Mr. COLD WELL:: In other words it is insurance against inflated prices?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, it is a very reasonable insurance premium.
Attempts to estimate the ultimate annual total of subsidies are likely to be unprofitable because, as I have said, the deciding circumstances cannot be forecast. There are certain considerations worth bearing in mind, however. The fact that a subsidy is paid initially is no evidence that it will be continued indefinitely. Many interim subsidies have been established so that supplies can be obtained quickly and freely. Investigations are now proceeding to determine more precisely the extent to which economies

War Appropriation
and standardization can be effected, and what amount of subsidy, if any, will continue to be required, and whether alternative suptplies are available without subsidy. The basis of subsidies is continually under review. Experience will show which are essential and which are not.
If certain essential supplies are to be obtained, some increases in cost must be paid because those costs cannot be avoided. The question to be decided is whether they will be paid directly by the consumer in the form of higher prices, or by the consumers as citizens and taxpayers through the government treasury. I am satisfied that the cost to the country at large is much less and is much more equitably distributed by meeting these costs at this time by means of these subsidies paid on a conservative basis, rather than through permitting increases in prices above the legal ceiling and leading to great difficulties in the maintenance of the established level of prices.
There have been a number of questions raised concerning the amounts of subsidies paid to individual firms or businesses and requests that such information be furnished to parliament. After very careful study of this subject, I have come to the conclusion that it is definitely not in the public interest currently to give the names of persons to whom subsidies are being paid, or the amount paid to each. To do so would reveal to competitors and others intimate details of the nature and volume of such person's business. The principle of refusing such detailed information has always been followed in connection with both the payment and drawback or refund of duties and excise and other commodity taxes, income taxes and similar items. As I have already emphasized, subsidy payments by the commodity prices stabilization corporation are not really subsidies to any manufacturer, importer or dealer, but are in reality subsidies for the benefit of Canadian consumers, and are paid solely for the purpose of making goods available to consumers at prices prescribed by the board. Consequently the important facts are the amounts of subsidies necessary to stabilize prices of each class or kind of commodities or particular commodities, and not the channels through which such subsidy payments may happen to be made.
Moreover, the conditions attached to the payment of specific subsidies may reflect many different forms of adjustments, and payments to individual businesses could be most misleading without full reports in regard to all the arrangements made with the interested parties. For example, in some cases a subsidy nominally paid to manufacturers or distributors may carry a condition requiring the effect of it to be carried through a line of
dealers until eventually it appears in the cost at the retail store. Another example is the kind of subsidy arranged for milk, in which case it is paid as a matter of convenience to the milk distributors, on the specific condition that it be used to increase the price paid for raw milk delivered by the dairy farmer.
I am confident that when members reflect upon what I have said and the various examples I have given them of these subsidies, detailed information on which is available in the published statements and orders of the board, they will not continue to request information on subsidies currently being paid to individual businesses, which would only be apt to lead to misunderstanding and unfounded charges.
At the same time my feeling is that at the appropriate time information as to the individual recipients of subsidy payments should be given to the members of the house. I have carefully considered methods by which this can properly be done.
First, I was of opinion that I should offer to lay this information confidentially before the war expenditures committee. This course, however, has certain disadvantages. I am afraid that the information would be referred to in the house, not in breach of confidence, but in such a way as to cloak subsidy payments with an air of mystery. This is undesirable and would lead to misconstruction by the public.
The second method that I have considered is to see that the information is presented either in the form of a special report by the board or in the report of the auditor general or the public accounts with the other accounts of the fiscal year. The information would not then be presented piecemeal and with inadequate explanation but would be presented in such a way that the qualifications and conditions necessary to the presentation of a fair and complete picture would not be absent.
It must be remembered that we are in the early stages of a most difficult programme and it is possible that the implications of any method of presenting this information are not fully realized. My present view is that after the end of each fiscal year there should be a complete report of some kind along the lines I have indicated, and that course will be adopted unless, in the meantime, some compelling reason appears why it should not, in which case I will make a statement to the house before the end of the present session, a statement that the house will have full opportunity of debating.
I have given this matter full consideration, and, while I do not ask the committee at this time to accept this disposition of the matter, I wish they would consider it, because I think they will realize this is the best way to handle the situation.
War Appropriation


Mr. LOCKHART:: I realize that the
problem is an extremely difficult one to handle. Do I understand that matters such as I have raised privately, with respect to the importations of certain fruit juices, for instance grape fruit juice, and so on, are being given serious consideration?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: So that the public will not have any misapprehension about it.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, that is correct. In the list of subsidies the hon. member will find the amount of subsidy paid on the importation of that particular commodity.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: And an honest effort is being made to reduce that type of subsidy.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes; that particular subsidy has been receiving consideration, and is at the present time.
Before concluding, I would like to say a few words about some of the criticisms that have been made of our subsidy policy. Most of these criticisms have, I believe, been vague and general in nature and of a negative character, rather than constructive. I would urge those who wish to criticize the government's policies both in regard to subsidies and in regard to the price ceiling in general, to be as specific and precise as they can, and. to consider carefully the various alternatives to the policies which they criticize or condemn. It is only when there is an alternative open that criticism is really useful, particularly at a time like this when we must act and act quickly.
There are two general types of criticism to be considered-criticism of .principle and criticism of detail. In regard to principle, I believe I have set forth my views at sufficient length to make clear the answers to many of the points that have been raised. Many of the other criticisms of principle apply really to the whole price ceiling policy, and it would lead me too far afield to go into that at length to-day. However, there are a number of points in regard to subsidies which perhaps it would be well to take up at this time. The first is the charge that subsidies cost a great deal and that we cannot, or should not, afford them at this time. To this I would reply that the real issue is whether the goods in question should or should not be produced or imported under present circumstances. If these goods are required, someone must meet the element of cost being covered by subsidies until the time when those costs can be reduced, if they can be reduced. We feel that the best and fairest method of meeting these additional costs is by means of subsidies paid at the cost of the public treasury rather than through allowing prices to go up, bearing in mind both [Mr. IlsIey.J
the direct and the indirect effects of permitting prices to increase above the ceiling level. Certainly it is desirable, as I have emphasized, to eliminate costs rather than to meet them by subsidy or otherwise, at this time, and it is that which we are attempting to do to the limit of our ability, but until we can achieve those reductions, the subsidies are a useful and sensible means of ensuring supplies in the interim without disrupting our price policy. The cost of them is insignificant in relation to the very real benefits the country is deriving from the successful methods of preventing inflation at this time.
The seconds point I would mention is the suggestion that because we cannot estimate these costs we should not embark on this policy. I do not think a very extended reply is necessary to this point. Obviously at a time like this we must undertake action and measures the cost of which cannot be precisely forecast. If as time goes on we find the cost does become greater than is reasonable, greater than the value of the benefits which we obtain from our price control policy, then we will have to amend our policies, but as yet I see no indication that that contingency will arise.
Thirdly, there is the suggestion that the subsidies benefit or enrich certain producers or dealers. I think that what I have said above demonstrates clearly that these subsidies benefit consumers, and not the producer or dealer except to the extent that they enable the production or importation of necessary goods to be maintained. Subsidies are paid only when they are coupled with measures of control which throw a burden upon those who receive them and the net effect of price control and subsidies inevitably is to worsen and not improve the position of the recipients.
There is a fourth criticism that is suggested in some quarters: that somehow or other these subsidies are inflationary. The argument advanced in support of this point is apparently a subtle or even obscure one, but I think it desirable that we should take note of it. In my opinion, subsidies cannot properly be construed as inflationary. It may be suggested that the government by holding prices down with the aid of subsidies is encouraging the public to buy, and that somehow that is inflationary, and that it would be less inflationary if prices were allowed to rise and thereby cut down the buying of the public. This is certainly using the term "inflation" in an unusual sense. If supplies are dangerously short, their sale should be restricted by other means at this stage, rather than simply by an increase in prices that their producers and sellers are

War Appropriation
allowed to receive. To check sales by permitting prices to rise means in effect rationing supplies to the highest bidders, which means that those who have the long purses will get the most. It does not mean that there will be any fewer goods produced; it means that the people with the big incomes will get the goods. The government decided that that sort of thing should be prevented, and it had the support of the Canadian people in that decision. I believe that now more than ever it has their support. Moreover. if prices of goods were allowed to rise wherever the supply is short, that would put more funds in the hands of those who produce them and sell them, and would enable them to bid up the prices for labour and material to produce such goods, which would certainly be inflationary and might well interfere with our war programme. When we subsidize these items we are able to scrutinize and regulate the amount of production and to prevent this undesirable competition with the war programme and inflationary results. Perhaps those who suggest that the subsidies are inflationary have in mind that they somehow put more funds at the disposal of the producers, who will go on to spend them. This same effect, however, would be produced by a rise in prices, since the producers would obtain additional funds in that process just as they would through the payment of subsidies, and they would not be subject to the same control.
There have not been enough criticisms of detail for me to take them up at any length to-day. Such criticisms are appropriate subjects of discussion in this house, and I would certainly welcome any comments that members can make on the details as I have set them forth and as they are published by the board from time to time. One obvious line of detailed criticism will be as to whether or not various items being subsidized are essential; whether, for example, certain types of imports should be subsidized. That is a live issue at the moment. There are a number of items which we are importing from the United Kingdom and for which we pay in sterling. Under present circumstances it costs the nation nothing, or practically nothing, to obtain these goods as long as the British are able to send them to us, and a small subsidy paid to enable them to come in does serve a useful purpose. Other cases, however, will be less obvious, and undoubtedly members will wish to discuss them. It should be borne in mind that, where prices have gone up abroad or where higher shipping or other costs have increased the cost to us of imports by substantial amounts, to rule such imports ineligible for subsidy means placing an embargo upon their entry into Canada, and means
requiring the public to do without them. We can certainly ask the public to do without many things these days and I think we can take a fairly stern attitude in this respect and secure the wholehearted approval of the Canadian people in doing so. We must also bear in mind at the same time the effects on our own supply condition of diverting demand from imports or from relatively less essential to more essential goods.
Just a word or two in conclusion. I know the committee realizes, as does the public, the magnitude and difficulties of the task that the government has assumed in launching and applying its price ceiling policy. There is general recognition that no more courageous policy and no more difficult administrative task have ever been'undertaken in this or any other democratic country. The work of the wartime prices and trade board and of its chairman has been of an exceptionally high character. Mistakes have probably been made, but these have been minor. On the whole, the price ceiling policy and the work of the board have received the commendation and commanded the admiration not only of the Canadian people but of observers in other countries.
This policy is a test of the capacity of this democracy to organize and discipline itself in such a way as to wage total war on the economic front. I had many misgivings at the outset as to whether we could succeed. I now believe that we can and will. We can only do so, however, if this parliament approaches its task of criticism in the proper spirit. If any hon. member wishes to launch a frontal attack on the ceiling policy, it is needless to say that he has the right to do so. The issue can be squarely joined with such hon. member and the matter fought out on its merits. What I do ask is that if there are any hon. members who feel that way about the ceiling policy, they say so frankly and attack frontally.
If their criticisms are merely criticisms of detail, I ask that they make them -with a due sense of responsibility as to the gravity of the issues involved. Suggestions as to methods in which the policy can be improved in execution are, of course, welcome. These suggestions should, however, be constructive rather than purely destructive. They should take into account not one factor alone in the situation but, as far as possible, all factors in the situation. They should go beyond mere sniping at the board or at the details of administration.
I would like to feel that all hon. members of the house, whether they criticise or praise, will do so in a responsible and patriotic attempt to assist the government in making a success of its efforts to attain an end admitted by all to be of the utmost importance for the welfare of the nation and success in the war.

War Appropriation


Joseph Henry Harris: If it be in order, Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few general observations at this stage.
The general statement made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Usley) is appreciated not only by the house but, I am sure, by the country. But of what the minister said in the last five or ten minutes of his remarks the member for Danforth was not overly appreciative, because I am of opinion that very few members in this honourable chamber would desire to make indirect attacks which might undermine, although the minister did not use that word, the work of the board, rather than make a frontal attack. The minister did refer to indirect criticism which might tend to destroy the structure which he is at present building. With all respect to the minister I do not accept his last remarks, which had a sort of schoolteacher effect upon the mind of the member for Danforth at least.
The minister went to some length to explain that the government had adopted this price ceiling policy and now could not vary very much from it because, if they varied from the principles laid down-I presume when he said "principles" he had also in mind the basic period to which the price ceiling policy applied-not only those charged with the responsibility of producing products for the people of Canada but those who consume the goods, and particularly the housewives who in the final analysis do the greater part of the family purchasing, would be confused.
Just why the forty commodities mentioned in the grocery trade were taken out of the September-October bracket and put back to the June date is something which I hope will be enlarged on while this subject is under discussion. It certainly was confusing to most of those in the trade; and if a subsidy of the amount mentioned by the minister, namely $50,000,000, might obtain in the course of the twelve months, surely there was ample to take care of the period from June to September without confusing the entire section of the trade which had to do with that certain set of commodities. While the subsidy is available to those who are producing goods in the particular class even from June, 1941, the minister will agree with me that raw materials so far as cost of production is concerned, in comparison with other essential goods apart from those that are listed, went through a period of advanced costs from June to September.	The raw
material of the commodities was costing progressively more in June, July, August and September, and then the advance was halted in October. That is quite all right. But to take up that period from June to September

not only will create a hardship, which to some degree will be offset by the subsidies to be paid, but will cause those engaged in the production of these commodities to appear to be asking something which is not in line with what obtained in September and October, and it is going to bear very heavily on the subsidy fund.
The subsidy is to be paid to those who have just cause for compensation in that the ceiling price which obtained in June was much lower than that which obtained in September and therefore they experience a considerable loss in bringing the price back to the June selling price. But it is going to be controlled or checked. I am quite in accord with some method of control or checking. When I interrupted the minister, I did not wish to interfere with the sequence of his remarks, but as they were being read I recognized that he could return to the sentence at the point where he left off and not lose the continuity of his remarks. Under wartime price order No. 116 the base period of four years would govern the maximum profits which could be made by anyone claiming the subsidy. But I think the minister will agree that if during that base period an organization had a loss in each and every year, his putting in that phrase "four-year period" had not to do with the standard profits. I think his sentence should have stopped with the "standard profits in accordance with the act", rather than adding the phrase "over a four-year period".
I was going to ask the minister, although I might defer it to some later stage, whether, before a change is ordered, any contact is made with the trade that are supplying different commodities. There is some criticism that these orders are coming too thick and fast. I would prefer to see these subsidies used more to iron out difficulties to having regulations coming out one after the other, some of which in due course must be rescinded or amended. In other words, I am of opinion that in Canada we who are engaged in industry are getting regulations faster than we can take them,-leaving the impression that our democratic organization known as government has a tendency to become a little autocratic.
There is another observation I should like to make with regard to this ceiling, particularly referring to the June-September reversal or squeeze which caused some squeals and squeaks when it went into effect on March 24 last. The labour costs went on until September, and the cost of living bonus is taking care of the situation fairly well so far as labour is concerned. In passing, may

War Appropriation
I remark that the cost of living index as determined by our bureau does not take care of the actual increase; there seems to be something which is not included. But labour costs rose in that period, and for those manufacturing the goods to have to extract back from this fund the labour costs is just adding another burden. Whereas the industry and the individual workman received their increase, costs in respect of these forty items reversed as at June, although the average cost of living went up between June and September.
In the main this legislation is necessary now. Mark you, I am careful not to say that it is sound for an ordinary economy; it may be sound for a wartime economy. But in the final analysis it is driving individual enterprise to lean on governments and not exercise the initiative which ordinarily we find among the people of our country.
One other observation I should like to make. If the subsidy is going to be paid to any industry, and the sum payable is to be lessened by the amount of excess profits made during the fiscal period under review, then if there are sufficient excess profits in the industry there will be no subsidy, the only subsidy payable being that portion which is left after excess profits are deducted. Then they will find that they come into this difficult field: an industry may be in a score of lines which are not necessarily departmentalized. I think the act covers excess profits made in all lines of business conducted by the particular enterprise making a claim for subsidy.
I warn the minister and the department that this part of order No. 116 of the wartime prices and trade board is going to tend to break corporations down into smaller units. The units which are profitable will probably make their returns under one company, and those that require subsidies for the portion of their business which they are operating at a loss and which comes under this act, will be segregated in a corporation under their control. In that way the provisions of the order of the board providing for over-all profits on all their operations will be circumvented. I mention this as a constructive point, but I am sure that the department is apprised of it. I want it to go out to industry in this country that this parliament is fully aware of what is going on and of what might be running through their minds. I want it to be known that we do not intend to tolerate any circumvention of the act by that particular method.
I hesitate to mention any particular commodity, but this is necessary in order to illustrate the point I want to make, not only with 44561-1201
regard to imports coming into the country, but with regard to exports going out. Because of prevailing prices, particularly in the United' States, the export of certain lines of commodities from Canada has been quite profitable to-some of our United States friends who are in a similar line of trade. Large tonnages of commodities find their way to the United States market, and the result is that there are shortages of raw materials in this country. In order to meet the requirements of Canada, and in view of the fact that there is a ceiling on the selling prices of the finished Canadian products, Canadian industry has had to go farther afield for raw materials. This has caused increased costs, and they have suffered to some extent.
While it is not the example I have in mind, perhaps the one I intend to give will bring this matter more forcibly to the attention of hon. members than anything else. I refer to the export of live cattle, which is causing a shortage of beef . This one industry seems to-be curtailing their production of beef because they were losing a few shekels in that particular branch of their business. I suggest that the government could very well consider this situation and see to it that they keep' on producing the normal requirements of the Canadian consuming public until such time as prices in the United States and Canadian markets adjust themselves. They should not embarrass our Canadian economy by allowing a supply of that commodity to be exported off the market. If subsidies are to be available to take care of excess import prices, some consideration should be given to subsidies to balance export prices.
I am satisfied that in the main industry will work closely with the government to help out during this war-time crisis. I am also strongly of opinion that orders from the wartime prices and trade board1 should be slowed down a little in order to give the Canadian people a chance to catch their breath. Before I sit down I should like to leave one thought with those engaged in industry. I do not purpose to speak for industry only; I happen to be a farmer as well, in common with many others in the house. But I do hope that industry will hear the echo from this sounding board of public opinion, namely, the Canadian House of Commons, and understand that we expect them to carry on and play their full part during this war-time emergency, even though they find themselves not able always to have a credit balance.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I should like to say a word about the course this discussion has taken. It is in order for this matter to be discussed now, but at the same time it was arranged that so far as possible we would consider the army, the navy, the air force and muni-
War Appropriation

tions in. that order. I merely suggest to the committee that perhaps this matter could be more profitably discussed if the prepared statement which I delivered this afternoon were read and considered first. An appropriate time could be set later on for discussion in accordance with the convenience of hon. members. My colleague, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston), is ready to answer questions. As I said before, this is merely a suggestion. I do not know how far to go in attempting to organize the proceedings of the committee in connection with this particular measure. It would be in order for hon. members to go over the whole field of every department; but if the committee sees fit, it could go on with the army and then come back to this matter on some future occasion. If hon. members prefer to discuss this now, they are in order, but I would recommend the other course.


Major James William Coldwell: I am inclined to agree in the main with the minister that discussion would probably be more profitable after we have had an opportunity of reading his statement and making a study of it. I do not know the desire of the committee, but if there is going to be a general discussion, there are some things I should like to say now. If, however, it is agreed that we let this matter rest until we have studied the statement, I am quite content to reserve any remarks I have until that time.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I understand it is the wish
of the acting leader of the opposition (Mr. Stirling) that we go on with the army estimates. Is that correct?


Grote Stirling: I suggest that it would be quite convenient to those who sit around me if we proceeded with the original suggested order of army, navy, air force and munitions, and then at a later date, when hon. members have had an opportunity to read and consider this long statement by the Minister of Finance, this matter can be discussed.


Major James William Coldwell: I am quite agreeable if that is to be the procedure, although there are one or two questions that might be raised at the moment. For example, there is the situation that exists with regard to certain agricultural products, notably beef, of which we have been hearing, and the effect of the policy upon the agricultural producer of that and other commodities. I am, however, quite willing to proceed as suggested by the acting leader of the opposition and discuss these matters at a later date.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I think that would be best. The only reason why I broke in with this statement was because it had to be made;

there was so much discussion and so many surmises about subsidies that I simply had to make the statement, and so it was announced earlier in the week that I would.


Major James William Coldwell: Will the Minister of
Finance or the Minister of Agriculture be prepared next week to make some statement regarding these agricultural commodities, particularly beef, about which there is much controversy?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Not a thing has been done about beef. It is just controversy.


Major James William Coldwell: But we get a great many communications about it.


Mr. GRAYDON:: The controversy is because nothing has been done.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: Our group would be quite content to have the discussion come at a later time. I think, however, it is in order for me to say briefly that we support the minister in his efforts; we believe he has done a very fine job. Our one general criticism would be that too little attention has been given to the productive element of our economy; that is, not enough profit has been allowed, or not enough opportunity even to clear costs and make a living has been allowed to the farmers and other primary producers, resulting in just such things as the beef situation, and certain to result in trouble over sugar, molasses, alcohol, wool, and a great many other commodities as sure as we are here. Having said that, we will just call it a day as far as my group is concerned and be ready to go into the discussion at a later date.


Douglas King Hazen: I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence how many privates and non-commissioned officers of the Canadian army overseas have returned to Canada for the purpose of qualifying as officers? In this connection I should also like to know how many privates and non-commissioned officers in the Canadian army overseas have received commissions overseas without returning to Canada, if any.


Mr. RALSTON:: I cannot give an answer
to the last question. With regard to the first, the policy is to receive about one hundred a month from the ranks overseas for qualification at Brockville and Gordon Head. I cannot tell my hon. friend at the present moment how many have actually come back.
In that connection, dealing with something that was said by the hon. member for Cape Breton South yesterday and by someone else with regard to promotion of officers generally, I have inquired with reference to cadets training at Brockville, and I find that 65 per cent of the cadets training are those recommended

War Appropriation
from the ranks; about 35 per cent are officers, most of whom I think are those who have received commissions in the technical services, such as engineers, ordnance, signals, et cetera, men who are qualified mechanically or industrial engineers, who either have been at universities as teachers, or are university graduates who came from either civil life or directly from universities in order to take particular jobs where their special qualifications fitted them to serve. There are a few who have been recommended from the reserve army, but those are all active service men. As I understand it, those being recommended from the reserve army will from now on be very few, if any, on account of the low medical categories and age limits for the reserve army.


Mr. WHITE:: What is the educational standard that is set for non-commissioned officers and privates who are recommended for commission, if there is a certain standard, and what allowances, if any, are made from that?


James Layton Ralston: The minimum is junior matriculation.


George Stanley White: Is that always insisted upon, or is it waived in certain circumstances.


James Layton Ralston: Without looking over the roll I cannot tell, but that is the standard set. If my hon. friend knows of any instance, I shall be glad to look it up.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weybum):: I should like to ask the minister with regard to what seems to me a vicious practice that has grown up; that is the practice of discharging men (who have been invalided home, and turning them over to the Department of Pensions and National Health for care and support. I do not remember a great deal about the last war; but if I remember correctly, my own father was in hospital for a considerable time after the war. In the last war if men were wounded or invalided home, they were a charge upon the Department of National Defence and received pay and allowances until they were discharged. I find now to my surprise several cases of the kind I have mentioned. Take one in particular, a young man wounded in England, and invalided home. I saw him during the Easter recess. He still has a tube in his side, and has a prospect of perhaps half a dozen operations. He now finds he is going to be invalided out, discharged from the army and turned over to the Department of Pensions and National Health. That department will be responsible for giving him hospital and medical care. I believe he can claim some $9 a week. If he were married it would be 813.50 a week. It may be necessary for this man to get treatment over a long time. It is not quite so bad for a single man, but
I had a case of a man who developed pneumonia, one lung being affected. He was discharged from the care of the Department of National Defence and put in a sanatorium as a civilian. His wife found her separation allowance stopped. When she came and told me about it I could not believe it, but I got in touch with the authorities and found it correct. He is now a civilian under the care of the Department of Pensions and National Health, despite the fact that he is not yet able to take his place in a civilian occupation.
Could the minister give some statement as to what the policy is in that regard? Does the Department of National Defence discharge a man when it finds he is going to be invalided out? Does the separation allowance stop, and is that man dependent entirely on the S9, or $13.50 a week if married, for his support and that of his family?


James Layton Ralston: The general statement is that the Department of National Defence does discharge a man when he is physically unfit for further service. That is obviously necessary, otherwise we (would be showing o* our strength men who could not serve.
There is no break between the discharge and the Department of Pensions and National Health taking on and seeing that the man is given treatment because he has become a civilian. I do not think my hon. friend objects to that; if he is discharged he would become a civilian. Then he is taken over by the Department of Pensions and National Health and given treatment. If he is mendable he is not discharged; he goes to a military hospital for treatment. If the prognosis turns out eventually to be wrong and it is found that he cannot be restored to a category which would enable him to serve, then he would be discharged and go to the Department of Pensions and National Health.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As I remember, the practice in the last war was that even a man who had been badly wounded was not discharged. I have seen men in the Deer Lodge hospital who would never fight again, but they were in uniform, receiving army pay and family separation allowances. Why the difference in the treatment now?


James Layton Ralston: I think my hon. friend will find that when men are in England they are treated there and treated until they become convalescent. Then, of course, if the prognosis is such that they cannot be restored to their units, they are sent home here; and if further treatment is required, they are taken over by the Department of Pensions and National Health.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am not
referring to treatment in England, but after
War Appropriation

the last war men were in Deer Lodge hospital in Winnipeg for several years following the war. They were still soldiers, receiving army pay and allowances.


James Layton Ralston: Does my hon. friend
mean that Deer Lodge was operating under the Department of National Defence? I think Deer Lodge is under the Department of Pensions and National Health.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yes, but as I understood it, the men in the hospital were still in uniform, still receiving army pay and allowances.


James Layton Ralston: I am afraid my hon.
friend and I are at cross-purposes. Deer Lodge is a hospital under the Department of Pensions and National Health. My hon. friend says the men were in uniform, but I have said that, generally speaking, the men are discharged, and then go to the Department of Pensions and National Health as civilians. My colleague the Minister of Pensions and National Health tells me that as soon as the men are fully convalescent they are given vocational training, or some sort of rehabilitation training, during which they are kept on pay and allowances. Perhaps the best thing for me to do is to get a little more information about the matter. I am only telling my hon. friend the general principles, and I do not think my hon. friend has in mind what the army does, because I cannot conceive that a man, having been discharged from the army, would continue to receive pay and allowances. I shall, however, find out what compensation is given men after they have been transferred to the Department of Pensions and National Health.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Probably I
did not make myself clear. I was not referring to Deer Lodge hospital at the present time, but after the last war I had occasion to visit some of the military hospitals, and I noticed that even one or two years after the war was over, men were still wearing their uniform blue. To my knowledge, and I am trusting entirely to my memory-


James Layton Ralston: The blue is the hospital uniform.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: To the best of my memory these men were still receiving army pay, and their families were still being paid separation allowances. Apparently that principle is not being followed this time. What provision is made for a man's family upon his being discharged and turned over to the Department of Pensions and National Health?
[Mr. T. C. Douglas.)


James Layton Ralston: I said I would'find that out myself, but I would rather have my colleague the Minister of Pensions and National Health answer the question.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: If the man discharged is awaiting decision on entitlement to pension, family allowances may be granted for a period of 122 days. By that time, of course, the entitlement will be determined by the board. Of course, if the man is finally discharged from hospital, the various provisions of the postdischarge order of October 1 would come into effect, in regard to whatever sort of compensation he could qualify for; and in addition, of course, he is entitled to free treatment for most remedial conditions, but not to pay and allowances, for a whole year after his discharge.


Mr. GILLIS:: Just to follow that up, these things all sound very nice when explained in the house, and they look fairly well on paper, but in practice they are not working out in that way. Last November I had occasion to be in Halifax doing some work at Camp Hill hospital in reference to old soldiers. There was a board of inquiry there looking into the administration of the hospital; there had been numerous complaints. Doctor Miller was there at the time. The situation, as I heard it discussed to-day by the hon. member for Weyburn, worked out there in this way. A large number of men were coming in from the military districts. The regular doctors were boarding them. Take the case of a man who was recommended for discharge. The treatment branch of pensions and national health then found themselves with a civilian on their hands, and they had no authority to treat that man. I know of one or two cases in which a man required a serious operation. Apparently pensions and national health had no authority to have that operation performed, because the man was recommended for discharge. In one case the man had to go to Kentville and undergo the operation; he had to pay for it himself and then found that he was unable to accept employment. I do not know whether that case was settled, but at that time there was quite a controversy going off in the hospital. I took the trouble then to go across to the camp and talk to some of the officials there. I did not find one of them satisfied with the arrangement. I thought I had some conception of the regulations, but certainly my understanding of them was not being carried out there. The treatment branch of pensions and national health find themselves with a civilian on their hands, discharged by the regular army. They are without authority to treat him, or pay him allowances, or any-

War Appropriation
thing else; he must go through all the machinery of rehabilitation. That is the way in which it was working out at that time.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is not the correct way, according to the provisions of the various orders in council.


Clarence Gillis: I did not think it was.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If he is discharged while in hospital, he is either pensionable or not pensionable. If he requires treatment in the meantime, until such time as his pensionability is assessed, his family are entitled to allowances. If he is not a pensionable case, of course he would be immediately placed in the hands of our welfare officers, whose duty it is to look after him, follow him up, and see to what benefits he is entitled under the post-discharge regulations. I should be very glad if my hon. friend would give me privately the name of the man to whom he refers, in order that I may have it looked into immediately.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: I have a similar case. A man came home on leave from the camp at Calgary. While home, he was taken violently ill and it was necessary to perform an emergency operation. His father wrote me, stating that he had to pay for the operation, which was performed in a local civilian hospital. The boy went back to camp, and his father has been trying to obtain some adjustment from the military authorities. What could be done in that case?


James Layton Ralston: If my hon. friend will refer it to me, I will see what can be done, but this is the first I have heard of it. It must be an exceptional case. Of course, almost always in these cases which seem to be so obvious there is some fact which has been overlooked. I know nothing about the case, and I would not presume to pass judgment on it until I had all the facts, but I shall be very glad to look into the facts if my hon. friend will give me the name.


George Hugh Castleden: I can get it from my files.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: I should, like to ask a question in regard to a matter of general policy, in order to clear up some misconceptions. Let us say a man returns to Lansdowne park after serving in England for a year and a half. He is placed in category E and discharged'. Is the clothing allowance handed to him, or is the money given to some sergeant or other officer to spend as he wishes? In the
second place, how long does it take before the man gets his month's pay and dependents' allowance? Supposing he leaves here on April 15 and goes back to his home city; how long should it be before he gets his pay?


Mr. RA  LSTON@: I should think it would take only a short time, if all his documents were here.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Would the minister say two weeks would be too long?


James Layton Ralston: My guess, again right off the bat without knowing the facts, would be two weeks. I suppose my hon. friend is going to say it took two months?


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: No; but how can a man live in the meantime, a man who was getting only $1.30 a day, coming back to Canada without a cent in his pocket? Then he is given $35 for clothes, but is taken to a store here in Ottawa and apparently the money is spent without any direction at all on his part.


James Layton Ralston: I have heard that statement before.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: I should like to have some general direction.


James Layton Ralston: If I find it necessary I will deal with it myself.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Does the man receive $35 himself, or is it spent for him?


James Layton Ralston: There is no reason, so far as I know, why he should not receive it himself.
There were two or three questions asked me yesterday, and perhaps the committee would permit me to record my answers. Some hon. member asked me respecting the number of periods spent in connection with rifle and light ' machine-gun training. I have here a table respecting Camp Borden, which I shall place on record. This schedule shows the number of periods and the number of rounds fired at the various training centres.
Hon. members will recall that at Camp Borden there is basic [DOT] training; a Canadian armoured corps training centre, which would be an advanced training centre; an infantry training centre, which is an advanced training centre; and a Royal Canadian Army Service Corps training centre, which is advanced, too. As a matter of fact, there are two armoured corps and two infantry training centres. The following is the information with respect to the. standard periods of training in training centres at Camp Borden:
War Appropriation

Advanced Training Centres
Basic T.C.	C.A.C. T.C.	Inf.	T.C.	R.C.A.S.C. T.C.	Periods of Instru'* tion	Rounds Fired	Periods of Instruc- tion	Rounds Fired	Periods of Instruc- tion	Rounds Fired	Periods of Instruc- tion	Rounds FiredRifle	49	45	10	50	24	55	13	25L.M.G. (Bren Gun)..	34	0	10 (Bren)	100	28	120	18	50Anti-tank Rifle	
Thompson Machine	0	0	6	32 (-22') 5(-55")	6	32 (*22')	6	32 ([DOT]22*')Gun (Tommygun).	0	0	5	18	5	38	5	38
Hon. members will realize, of course, that when the period of instruction and the rounds fired for the Canadian armoured corps training centre, for instance, are indicated on the table, the amounts mentioned are in addition to the amounts indicated for basic training.
I might make a further explanation, with regard to the table in connection with the rounds fired from the anti-tank rifle. The ammunition for the anti-tank rifle has not been coming off in sufficient quantities for us to permit firing. But what we are doing is to use converters. That is to say, cartridges are fired through converters. Therefore a man gets practice in loading and aiming, but he fires a -22 bullet instead of a -55.


George Stanley White: While the syllabus shows
the number of training periods and the number of rounds fired, I should like to know if the required number of rounds are actually fired, or if this is in fact only a syllabus. Is it only a paper syllabus? Is it carried out, and are those rounds actually fired?
. Mr. RALSTON:	It is practical military
training; it is not a paper syllabus.


George Stanley White: The minister mentioned the anti-tank gun-


James Layton Ralston: No, not the anti-tank
gun; I referred to the anti-tank rifle. I shall deal with the anti-tank gun at a later time.


George Stanley White: I have been advised by
people who, I have every reason to believe, have given me correct information, that on account of lack of ammunition, no private or no non-commissioned officer fires an anti-tank rifle.


James Layton Ralston: As I have said, there is
no ammunition; converters have just now been distributed. As a matter of fact, firing has commenced. Converters are now being distributed for use in connection with the anti-tank rifle to enable firing for practice purposes. We expect some ammunition from

Canadian production within a short time. It is only recently that converters have been obtained and used.


George Stanley White: I said something yesterday
to the minister about the firing of machine guns, and I mentioned the firing of fifteen rounds. The minister has given a great many more rounds to be fired in the ordinary course of training.


James Layton Ralston: The hon. member is
talking about the Bren gun?


George Stanley White: Yes, or the Lewis gun. I
should like to be assured by the minister that every soldier training does actually fire, in practice, the number of rounds as set out in the syllabus. The minister said yesterday he dad not have the necessary information. I should like to have accurate information, and I should like to have the minister advise the committee that a soldier does fire the actual number of rounds set out in the syllabus.


James Layton Ralston: The chief of the general staff advises me, I can say, that that is the situation-that those rounds are fired.


James Lester Douglas: The minister was going to say something about the antitank gun.


James Layton Ralston: Did I use the words "antitank gun"?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yes.


James Layton Ralston: Well, so far I have been talking about the anti-tank rifle.
I wish now to say a word about the antitank gun, because I think some inquiries were made about that gun by an hon. member on the other side of the house. With regard to the two-pounder anti-tank gun the committee will understand that those guns are not weapons for infantry units. Antitank guns are weapons used by armoured corps and artillery units. I may say with regard to the anti-tank gun that the ammuni-

War Appropriation
tion is just beginning to come off the line. As a matter of fact, I have information to-day with respect to the number of rounds which have been distributed to the various training centres, and the number of rounds which remain on hand. Those are being fired at both types of training centre; that is, at armoured corps training centres and artillery training centres. Therefore do not be disappointed if you find that anti-tank guns are not being fired at infantry training centres. The reason is that they are not infantry weapons.	.


Mr. CASTLED  BN@: What is the muzzle velocity of the anti-tank gun?


James Layton Ralston: I cannot tell my hon. friend that.


George Hugh Castleden: Not even approximately?


James Layton Ralston: It would only be a guess.
Some hon. member asked about the filing of a syllabus. I do not know whether hon. members would be interested in the whole syllabus. I have consulted with the chief of the general staff, and as a result I have here a block syllabus for advanced training centres and infantry training centres. I do not wish to file particulars of the syllabus, but I should like to give a block syllabus which would
indicate the division of periods and hours with respect to the various items of training at both advanced and infantry training centres.
First, with regard to basic training centres-


Grote Stirling: I understand the minister is entering into a new subject. Perhaps he would deal with that at eight o'clock.


James Layton Ralston: Yes, because I wish to give an explanation.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


James Layton Ralston: When the committee rose at six o'clock I was proposing to comply with the request which had been made that I give the syllabus for the training centres. I have in my hand the standard syllabus which is in use at the basic training centres. I am sure that the committee does not desire me to read it in full, and if I may, I shall put the syllabus on Hansard, together with a memorandum explaining the abbreviations used. The syllabus shows the various subjects taken in, the total number of periods in the two months, and the number of periods spent in the eight weeks on these different subjects, with the total:
BASIC TRAINING CENTRE Block Standard Syllabus
Code	Subject		Total Peri- ods	Standard Typical Platoon Weekly Distribution								
												Total
(a)		(b)	(c)	i	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	
												(d)
D	Drill, Foot, Arm, Saluting	50	12	12	7	4	4	4	3	4	50PT	Physical Training	40	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	40FA	First Airl fS.TARV 	20	4	4	4	4	4	20M	Marching	23	2	2	6	4	4	5	23R	SAT Riflo	26	8	12	3	3	26R R	18	3	4	5	6	18R TiA	SAT A A (Riflpnnrl TAT O') 	9	9	9B	15	5	5	5	15L	30	5	5	5	5	5	5	30G	12	2	5	5	12FC	t	18	7	4	7	18MR	22	3	6	3	5	5	22FT	Fundamental Training	X	20	5	3	2	2	2	2	2	2	20OS	Organized Sports	14	3	3	2	2	2	2	14HG	20	io	10	20s	Spare Periods Pool	22	5	2	2	2	3	2	3	3	22Totals:	Periods	359	45	44	44	45	44	45	46	46	359
Hours 1		264	32-5	32-5	32-5	33-2	32-5	33-2	34	33-6	264
		Approx/										
f Fieldcraft should be visualized as a "course" within the Syllabus and should be worked in with map reading in the 6th and 7th weeks of training.	_	,
+ I T periods are only 30 minutes long. All other periods are 45 minutes. The weekly allotment includes one weekly "barrack-room" period under platoon NCOs for cleaning equipment, etc., as "make-and-mend periods".	...
N.B.-The periods laid down DO NOT include time for dally barrack-room duties, clothing or pay parades, ordinary recreational training, etc., time for which must be found outside the periods stated.
War Appropriation

I will just run over the first column of the above table. Drill, foot, arm, saluting, 50 periods. I indicated before that the periods were 45 minutes, and I am advised that there are 8 of them in a day. That means there remain fifteen minutes of each hour during which the man is still on parade, and that period is used for a break-off and also for changing from one place to another. If there are any blanks, the time is used in the ordinary activities around the camp. Next is physical training, 40 periods; first aid, 20 periods; marching, 23 periods; rifle 26 periods-that is musketry apart from the rifle range; rifle range course, 18 periods; antiaircraft, rifle and machine gun, 9 periods; bayonet, 15 periods; light machine gun, 30 periods; respirator course, against gas, 12 periods; fieldcraft, 18 periods; map reading, 22 periods; fundamental training, 20 periods; organized sports,	14	periods;	reception
and transfer, 20 periods; spare periods pool, 22 periods. The spare periods are for rainy days and give the course a flexibility which enables the chief instructor to introduce extra lectures or other matters which may come up and be of interest to those who are training and useful in connection with their work.
In addition, there are the usual activities around the camp, cleaning kit, making up bunks and all the work that has to be done in connection with accommodation and living, and all this is done outside the periods mentioned above in the syllabus. The total number of periods in the syllabus is 359, which means approximately 264 hours actually spent in taking the course, apart from the other activities I have mentioned.
For the advanced infantry training centre the syllabus is made up in much the same way, as follows:
ADVANCED (INFANTRY) TRAINING CENTRE Block Standard Syllabus	*
Code	Subject	Time Allotted	Typical Weekly Platoon Distribution	Hours	Periods	i	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10D PT M MR FT G R LA AA B AT 2M GR VJ ItC C OS HG	Common Training Drill	6 18 39f 15 12 HI 4) 71 3 12 2i n 71 ' 2 3 24 12 12	8 36(aJ 53 20 24(a) 15 * 6 *10 *	4 16 *	3 *10 10 4 32 (b) 16 ' 16	0 6 'o 3 6 6 ' 2	1 5 7 2 3 6	' 1 5 7 2 3 3	Physical Training	5 7 2 3	5 8 2 3	5 8 2 3	5 8 2 3	8 2 3	Marching	Map Reading	Fundamental Training	Protection Against Gas	VVT-Rifle	WT-LMG	10 4 2 3	WT-A nti-Air craft	VVT-Bayonet	2	2	2	2	2	2	WT-ATlc Rifle	WT-2" Mortar	10 4	VVT-Grenades	6	WT-VT, JD and FO	2	2	WT-Range Courses	8	8	8	8	Cooking in the Field	Organized Sports	2 8	2	2	2	2	2	2	2 / 8 /	Reception and Transfer	/ 8 /	/ 8 /Sub-Total	197|	283	47	47	47	35	30	30	22	(c) 25	/ 8 /	/ 8 /
E T	Infantkt Tbaining Digging and Wiring		24 371 15	32 50 20				3 8 2	9 8 1	8 8 2	12 10 4			
	Field Training											10 7		
	Spare Pool				2	1	1							
	Sub-Total													
		76i	102	49	48	48	48	48	48	48	48	/	/

IVar Appropriation
ADVANCED (INFANTRY) TRAINING CENTRE-Con. Block Standard Syllabus
Code
3M
3E
3F

DRf w) DR(c)

T ime A Hotted
Typical Weekly Platoon Distribution
Subject	Hours	Periods	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
3" Mortar Training												
39	52	11	17	16	8	9	12	12	13	18	2	16	Spare Pool	15	20	2	i	1	2	1	2	4	7	Sub-Total	7GI	102	49	48	48	48	48	48	48	48	/	/MT Training	1371	183	12	17	17	25	30	45	37Spare Pool	111	15	2	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	3	3Sub-T otal	1481	198	49	48	48	48	48	48	48	48	48	48Carrier Training	741	99	12	17	17	26	27	661 n	89	4	4S	3710	2	1	1	1	1	1	3
Sub-T otal		1481	198	49	48	48	48	48	48	48	48	48	48
MC Training												
1071	143	13	18	18	26	31	37	51	7	2	1	1	S	Sub-T otal	1121	150	49	48	48	48	48	48	48	48	48	48Totals Complete Advanced Training	Hours	Periods	Weeks274J	385	82741	385	83101	433	93461	481	103461	481	10
* Should be organized as a course" within the platoon timetable where possible.
Notes: (a) Thirty-minute periods, all others forty-live.
(6) To be carried out during field training.	.	_	.
(c) Total to be carried down as "17" in case of MT, MC and carrier, finishing m Weeks 9 and 10.
It will be seen from the table that the syllabus for the advanced infantry training centre is made up in much the same way. The drill is cut down very considerably, there being 8 periods; physical training, 36 periods; marching, 53 periods-there is much more time spent in marching; map reading, 20 periods; fundamental training, 24 periods; protection against gas, 15 periods. There is a good deal of weapon training; rifle, 6 periods; light machine gun, 10 periods; anti-aircraft, 4 periods; bayonet, 16 periods; anti-tank rifle,
3	periods; two-inch mortar, 10 periods; grenades, 10 periods; fire orders-that is along with judging distance and visual training-4 periods; range courses, 32 periods

that is actual firing on the range; cooking in the field-there is no provision for that in the syllabus, but it is carried out during the field training, and comes later in the syllabus; organized sports, 16 periods; reception and transfer, 16 periods.
In addition, under infantry training, digging and wiring takes 32 periods; field training, 50
War Appropriation

periods, and the spare poo] amounts to 20 periods. That makes a total of 385 periods which are spent by the normal infantryman. That is 274J hours.
In addition, a certain number of the personnel take mortar training. The three-inch mortar is the battalion weapon, and training in the mortar recruit course takes 52 periods; digging and wiring, 12 periods; field training, 18 periods, and 20 periods are spare. In the motor transport section, driving and maintenance of wheeled vehicles take 1S3 periods, and there are 15 spare periods. Under carrier training, which is another section of the headquarters company, there are spent on driving and maintenance of wheeled vehicles, 99 periods; with the carrier itself, 89 periods, and there are 10 spare periods.
Under motorcycle training, in the signalling section, driving and maintenance of motorcycles take 143 periods, and there are 7 spare periods.
The summary for the advanced infantry training centre shows a total for any infantryman, 385 periods or 8 weeks; for three-inch mortar personnel, 385 periods or 8 weeks; for motorcycle drivers, 433 periods or 9 weeks; for motor-transport drivers, 481 periods or 10 weeks, and for carrier drivers, 481 periods or 10 weeks.


Mr. GREEN:: The minister spoke yesterday of commando training and told us that a school was to be established in western Canada to give this new type of training. I suppose it would be difficult to expand that training to cover all the infantry recruits training in Canada, but would it not be a great help if that' commando training could be undertaken in Canada on a really large scale? Would it not help our army a great deal if several of these schools were set up and if eventually we could put all our infantrymen through such a school?


James Layton Ralston: I think I indicated yesterday that the purpose of the school was to train instructors, and the instructors are sent from the units. These instructors go back to the units; and I think I can say that the selection of instructors will be pretty general from all companies, and also from the trained soldier companies which are the graduates of the advanced training centres. They will be sending officers and non-commissioned officers as well to be trained. All my hon. friend is speaking of is the degree to which that training is to be done. We shall take into consideration what he has said about the comprehensiveness of it. But it is intended that the training shall get back to all the combatant units.


Howard Charles Green: It would not only greatly increase the efficiency of our army but also interest the men a great deal if they could be given this new type of training.


James Layton Ralston: That is one of the reasons why we are setting up the school.


George Hugh Castleden: The name of the party whom I mentioned before dinner is Gunner Metro Semenuik, L.600658. He is in the Canadian artillery, A.T.C., Fort Connaught, Halifax, Nova Scotia.


James Layton Ralston: Thank you.


George Hugh Castleden: Would the minister mind making a statement at this time with regard to the situation at Debert camp? Complaints are coming through, from western men at least, as to the dampness and the difficulty of heating the huts. I have seen several complaints that men find it very difficult to acclimatize themselves to that area. I was wondering whether there has been an unusual amount of illness there due to camp conditions.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend from
Saskatchewan is making some reflections on the climate of Nova Scotia. I was at Debert camp last week, and the chief of the general staff was there a day or two afterwards, under conditions-I mean as regards rain-which I should think were about as unfavourable as they could be. I have taken up with the quartermaster-general certain matters with regard to the improvement of the camp and seeing to it that the roadways and the general means of communication are better. I did not hear a single complaint with regard to the heating of the huts. Of course it was then getting on to spring; it may be quite different in the winter time. I shall certainly take this matter up with the quartermaster-general.
As everybody knows, Debert camp was selected at a time when we were looking for a place which would give the proper operational location and be not far from the air force. It was ideal so far as the map location was concerned, because the air force had located a very large and useful aerodrome not far away. You cannot have everything. I believe that whatever natural disadvantages Debert camp may have by reasons of soil can be overcome; indeed they have been to a very large extent overcome in the year and a half it has been operating. I must pay tribute to the troops who went there a year ago last fall.
I know what it was like, for I was down there myself. It was, so to speak, in the forest primeval; conditions were not too good. Bat they went at it with a will, and I must say

War Appropriation
that some of the western units, particularly, gave one an extreme sense of satisfaction at the way they took it in their stride.


George Alexander Cruickshank: They are good men, from the west.


James Layton Ralston: I found one unit busying itself taking stumps out of the parade ground in front of their particular hut. But Debert camp has great possibilities, and I anticipate that we can overcome the difii-eulties my hon. friend has mentioned, although as a matter of fact I have not heard that the huts were cold or anything of that kind. Generally speaking, it is a fact that the soil is heavy, the water does not run off readily, and therefore drainage and roadways must have very much more attention paid to them.


George Hugh Castleden: The minister has not
answered my other question: has there been an unusual number of cases of sickness at that camp?


James Layton Ralston: I must say that I did
not ask about that. I was in the hospital- I believe, in every ward-and talked to the officer in command there. He did not mention that there had been any abnormality. The hospital was running well. I believe I asked a good many men as to their illnesses, and as far as I remember, hardly any of them mentioned colds or any affection which would arise as a consequence of damp weather. To answer my hon. friend's question directly, I have not heard that there was an abnormal amount of illness at Debert camp. I shall certainly make inquiries.


George Hugh Castleden: Can the minister give
us an assurance that munition dumps in the east are placed where there is the least possibility of danger?


James Layton Ralston: I can at once assure the
committee on that point. This matter has been considered by the chiefs of staff and by the defence council. The location and construction of ammunition dumps were decided a good while ago, and the locations are such, I believe, as will provide for the greatest security and, at the same time, the greatest utility.


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: We have been discussing for over two days questions connected with the army, and as yet we have had no statement from the minister regarding recruitment for the active army or for the reserve. The only statement which I have seen in connection with the reserve is that men are enlisting in large numbers. That statement did not come from the minister.
In so far as active service units are concerned I think we should be informed how many men have joined during the past two or three months, and whether the numbers joining are sufficient for the purposes of the army, not only to provide for its needs at the present time but also to meet the contingency of our men overseas being actively engaged.
During the last four or five days I have received a large number of letters from farmers and farmers' sons pointing out that, in spite of the announcement made by the Prime Minister on March 24 last, every consideration would be given to not calling up farmers' sons necessary in agriculture at this time, by granting them a postponement for the time being, the situation is veiy unsatisfactory. As far as those men are concerned who are actually in service, the promise was made that, upon application to the commanding officer, favourable consideration would be given to releasing men engaged in agriculture on leave to assist with the spring work.
In the latest issue of Canada at War, April, 1942, the following appears at page 8:
Emphasizing the vital role being played in this war by food, farmers, their sons and farm labourers are granted an indefinite postponement of compulsory military service if they are doing essential farm work. They may enlist as volunteers in the armed forces, but they cannot accept any non-agricultural work except seasonal employment. . . .
The situation in western Canada, especially in Saskatchewan, is no better than it was when the announcement was .made on March 24. I have had letters from men pointing out that they have brothers overseas and have been called up, although they are the only remaining young men on the farm able to cany on the operations. When applications are made to the national mobilization board, they contend that not sufficient attention is paid to them. I have every regard for the men who compose the national service board in that province, but I do not believe these applications are finding their way to the proper authorities. We are adjourning to-night for three or four days .-I wonder why an adjournment is being had at this time of grave seriousness-until next Tuesday. We who come from the far west find ourselves in the position of having come to Ottawa, to do the business of the country, to assist in doing it in any event, and yet an adjournment is to be made until next Tuesday. I mention that because if this matter is allowed to remain without some consideration being given to it immediately, the situation in so far as agriculture in western Canada is concerned will become most serious.
War Appropriation

I suggest to the minister that he should issue instructions to the various boards throughout Canada-this does not apply only to Saskatchewan-which would provide some common denominator of action for all the provinces. It cannot be that men are wanted in the reserve army. There is not such a rush because only the other day Major-General Browne issued a statement which appeared under date of April 20. I quote:
Things are rolling along with the Canadian reserve army, says Major-General B. W. Browne, director-general of that force.
^"They^took on 2,000 men in military district No. 2 (Toronto) last week and other districts are getting lots of recruits, too," he reported to-day.
If that statement be correct and if recruits are rolling into the reserve army; if men find their way into the reserve, why the necessity during the period between April 15 and May 15, to call up men who are on farms? They are willing to serve; all they ask is that the government carry out the promise which was made on March 24, not only in the House of Commons but in a radio address to the country. I suggest to the minister that if recruits for the reserve units are piling in, no harm would be done to this nation if these men were allowed to continue the necessary work of assisting in the spring work. Unless something is done at once, many parts of western Canada will not be placed under cultivation this year.
I am not asking for any different consideration for these men from that given to any other group. If they have not been called up yet, why the unnecessary rush since April 12? I ask the minister to give consideration at once to informing the national mobilization boards in the different provinces of the need of allowing as many men as possible to remain on their farms during the next three or four weeks, by postponements granted for that period, and that those who are in the service be permitted to return to their homes to assist in the spring farm work.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend mentioned April 12, but I do not understand the significance of that date.


John George Diefenbaker: Two or three of the letters refer to being called up then.


James Layton Ralston: From men?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


James Layton Ralston: Men on farms?


John George Diefenbaker: Men on farms who have been called up.


James Layton Ralston: I thought I understood the Prime Minister to make an announcement that men who were on farms, who were wholly or mainly engaged in the occupation of agriculture on March 23, would be allowed to stay on the farms.


John George Diefenbaker: That is what was announced.


James Layton Ralston: I have no doubt that the boards will deal with that. All a man has to do is to call attention to the fact that he is wholly or mainly engaged in the occupation. I do not know of any occupation in Canada-I think I am correct in saying this-the utility and usefulness of which in connection with the war activity has been so recognized as the farming industry. The army simply gives up any claim to those men who can show that on March 23, 1942, they were wholly or mainly engaged in agriculture. This is done regardless of how many there are on the farm, unless there are special circumstances. In other words, the burden is placed upon the army or the boards of showing that these men are not essential in industiy. I do not know what greater concession my hon. friend wants than that.


John George Diefenbaker: The promise is all right, and I am not complaining about the declaration of policy. I am simply asking the minister to have representations made so that the policy will be carried into effect. It is not being carried into effect.


James Layton Ralston: I should like to know of a case where a man has shown the board that he was wholly or mainly engaged in agriculture on March 23 and has not been relieved, unless it was a case in which it was shown that he was not essential in industry. This comes under the Department of National War Services, but since I am representing the government here to-night I shall be only too happy to see that the matter is brought to the attention of the board. I thought we had that pretty well behind us so far as the army was concerned. We simply called it a day so far as the agricultural industry was concerned, except in those cases where we could show that a man was not essential in industry. In other words, the burden was on us. If he showed that he was wholly or mainly engaged in agriculture, I understood that the board would excuse him. If my hon. friend has some cases, I shall bring them to the attention of my colleague the Minister of National War Services (Mr. Thorson).


Mr. DONNELLY:: I have found no difficulty whatever in having farmers exempted from military service. The only criticism I

War Appropriation
would make is that not enough time is given to the men in Regina who call up these men. In other words, you will want some men for April 12 and you send word out to Regina asking that they be called up. It takes rp to ten days for the notice to reach some of these men, and it will take four or five days or a week for the notice to get back. These men do not have sufficient time in which to ask for an exemption on the ground of being farmers' sons. I think more time should be given. In many of these places there is only one mail a week. There are some districts in my constituency like that. The mail may get there the day after it leaves the main centre, and then it stays eight or ten days before it gets out. Then it will take probably another week for it to come back. I ask the government to consider the advisability of giving these men a little more time so that they will have time to ask for an exemption. Otherwise, I think this is working out very well.


James Layton Ralston: There would seem to be some mistake about the facts here. I called the adjutant-general to find out when the next two classes were called to report. I am not sure of the exact date, but it was between May 9 and May 15. I am sure it was no earlier than that, but I have an idea they had to report on May 15. By the way, the number for the first class is very small; I assure whoever mentioned one thousand men that there were not anything like one thousand men called in Saskatchewan in that first call. This is April 23; that is seven days until the end of the month; if the call is for May 9, that is sixteen days, and that call went out some time ago. That does not seem to me like too little time. I should like to get to the bottom of this thing, because on the facts as they are put to me there is ample time for these men to apply.


James J. Donnelly: I can assure the minister that what I have said is so. I went to Regina and saw the committee, and they assured me it was right.


James Layton Ralston: Does my hon. friend know what date he is speaking of?


James J. Donnelly: No.


James Layton Ralston: I have in mind that the next two calls are May 9 and May 15; both those calls have gone out now. But no matter what the facts are, I shall have inquiry made, because if there is anything understood by the Department of National Defence it
is that we have not much call on the agricultural community from now on as far as calling up men under the National Resources Mobilization Act is concerned.


George Hugh Castleden: What is the policy of the various units with regard to granting requests for spring leave for farm work?


James Layton Ralston: Just before I went west- that is three weeks ago-I received a communication from, I think, the president of the farmers' association of Saskatchewan representing that he thought it desirable that men have spring leave. I want hon. members to realize the situation. I am responsible for the maintenance and training, and operation if necessary, of the army in this country, and time is represented to us as flying fast. It is intimated in some quarters that we are not going fast enough.
I considered that my responsibility as Minister of National Defence would not permit me to give any wholesale direction with regard to releasing men who have come into the army, who have been trained or are in training, possibly for an operational role. The air force are not being asked to do it; the navy are not, and I did not feel that the army ought to be asked to undertake that obligation. At the same time I took occasion in Regina both going and coming to see the district officer commanding and discuss the matter with him. He fully realizes the situation and has taken up personally with Judge Embury cases which he thought or which Judge Embury might think were cases in which leave should be granted, and these are being considered. I went so rar, and so announced in the house, as to place in the hands of the board-which is separate from the Department of National Defence entirely, that is a board under the Department of National War Services, the power to say whether men should be relieved on compassionate grounds-that, of course, is the only ground on which these leaves could be granted-and we provided' in the regulations that the district officer commanding would take the recommendation or decision of the board in those cases notwithstanding the fact that the man was in the army: the only exception being one which you would expect, that is, if military exigencies were such as to make that impossible. That has been done and been discussed by me personally with Brigadier Trudeau in Saskatchewan, and I think, as far as can be, the serious cases are being attended to.
But I do feel that members of the committee ought not to expect me, as head of

War Appropriation
the Department of National Defence, endeavouring to mobilize, train and prepare an army for operation, to allow men in large numbers to go even for seeding operations. They are members of the army now; they had opportunity to apply for postponement; they did not, and I submit it is not fair at this time to ask that I simply issue a blanket order and say to the men, "Go home and do your seeding and then come back."


George Hugh Castleden: I did not ask that; I merely asked a statement of policy.


James Layton Ralston: It would completely disorganize the training. We have men going through this four months' training plan; we have men going out in the first month, the second, the third and the fourth; we are not using the training facilities to the limit. I want hon. members to put themselves in my place and realize that I have some responsibility and that we cannot make a general declaration, much as one would like to. There are a few units; we have listed them and sent the list to the district officers commanding depots, where we can give leave, and we are glad to do so as far as possible; but apart from that I cannot make any general declaration of policy which would allow the release of large numbers of men.


Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: Reverting to men being called up, I do not think there is any objection as to the period between the time they are called and the time they , have to report, but I think the objection is that the notice says they must have their application for postponement in within eight days, and sometimes they do not receive the notice until the eight days are up.


James Layton Ralston: That is an objection I can understand. I shall be glad to take that up with my colleague the Minister of National War Services.
I have now the dates. I was too modest But what my hon. friend says put another complexion on it, because if a man has only eight days in which to apply for postponement, the fact that the time he will have to report is a long way off does not make any difference. The next call is for May 15 and, after that, May 21, so we have actually three weeks before they report on the first call and four weeks for the next. But this eight days is something that I shall be glad to take up with the Minister of National War Services. I do not know whether it is set arbitrarily or not.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I
understand it is on the notice.


An hon. MEMBER:: Not all of them.
FMr. Ralston.]


Gordon Knapman Fraser: On
all in our district, and I know of men who have not received the notice for ten or fifteen days.


James Layton Ralston: Does it say eight days from the date of the notice, or from the receipt of it?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The date of the notice.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: In connection with
the point raised by the hon. member for Lake Centre, I think you have one group in a special category. Calls went out. before the Prime Minister made his statement of change in policy; some men had been called and actually did report and they are now in the army. The Department of National War Services in Regina takes the position that these men are now out of their hands and that any decision must be made by the Department of National Defence. I have in mind a young man, the only male worker on a farm of three hundred acres, to seed a tractor operated farm, and I am advised that it is impossible to get anyone to operate the farm. This young man is in the army. I made representations to the national mobilization board in Regina, and they said that this man is now out of our hands; that he will have to make representation through the officer commanding. In the light of what the minister has now said, the officer commanding will now turn him back to the board and it will be too late for this young man to be back home in time for seeding. Could not something be done with this group that was called to report for service before the Prime Minister's statement was made?


James Layton Ralston: That is, they had been actually called to report for service before March 23-24, but they were on March 23 or 24 of the class mentioned in the order in council?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Yes.


James Layton Ralston: That has not been called to my attention before. I shall take it up at once.


Mr. GRAHAM:: I can certainly appreciate the difficulty that the Minister of National Defence has in weighing 'the necessities of our war situation and the desire of the very important industry of farming to be maintained in the matter of man-power. I wish to express my sympathy with and support of the policy the minister is attempting to carry out so fairly, and with reasonable satisfaction. I think every Saskatchewan member would say that we have in that province a national war

War Appropriation
service board which has independently and without any suggestion of unfairness or partiality administered duties which must, in some cases, be very difficult.


Major James William Coldwell: We do not agree with that; in fact I thoroughly disagree with it.


Roy Theodore Graham: I must confess that my experience with the board, which is composed of Mr. Justice Embury, Mr. Bickerton, representing the Saskatchewan farmers, and Mr. Stewart of Yorkton, has been, most satisfactory, and it has seemed to me that they are devoting close attention to each application and dealing with it; in a fair, impartial manner. There is, however, one point which was brought out by the minister to-night and about which I should like to ask a question. He mentioned that he had a conversation with the officer commanding military district No. 12 at Regina, with regard to the spring leave which might be granted under certain circumstances to young farmers who have been called up for service. Was the same communication directed to the officers commanding other military districts in which Saskatchewan recruits may be now located? I have received letters from Saskatchewan boys who in the course of their training have been moved to British Columbia, Manitoba and Alberta, and I wondered whether the officers commanding those military districts had been instructed to give the same consideration to young Saskatchewan men applying to them for spring leave.


James Layton Ralston: No, I do not think I have had any communication with any other district officer commanding. The reason why I had that communication with Brigadier Trudeau was because I had a telegram I think from Mr. Bickerton, whose name was mentioned by my hon. friend and who, I believe, is president of the Saskatchewan farmers. I had the telegram that very day; I had it up at army council, and I wanted to find out from him what the situation was. But I did not give Bragadier Trudeau any instructions; I do not want anyone misled in that connection. I asked him what the situation was, and he told me that Judge Embury and he were taking up certain cases of particular hardship. I felt that Brigadier Trudeau had been there a good while and knew conditions, and I believed that he would deal with them as fairly as possible, having regard to what he knew as to the necessities of the army.


Major James William Coldwell: Since the hon. member for Swift Current has rather given the impression that Saskatchewan members have been quite satisfied with the operations of the Saskatchewan board, I just want to express my
disagreement with that suggestion. I am not going to discuss it with the minister now, because it is not in his department; but when the Minister of National War Services is here, we shall probably have some questions to ask him as to the operations of that board. I would suggest to the Minister of National Defence that perhaps some of the difficulties which have arisen, such as those outlined by the hon. member for Lake Centre, may have come about as a result of the attitude and actions of that board; I do not know. I do know of other cases, however, in which not very much sympathy has been shown for people such as those described by the hon. member for Mackenzie a few moments ago. I am not going to say anything more about those cases now, but I would suggest that the minister discuss the record of the Saskatchewan board with his colleague the Minister of National War Services.


James Layton Ralston: I think the best I can do there is to bring my hon. friend's remarks to the attention of my colleague.
A short time ago the hon. member for Lake Centre asked a question with regard to recruiting figures for the first three months of this year. I have already given the figure for the active army for January; it was 11,713. For February it was 8,152; for March, 8,821; and for April, up to the 18th, 7,060. Perhaps I should give all the figures while I am at it. For the navy the figures were 1,200 for January, 1,347 for February, and 2,175 for March. For the air force the figures were 5,774 for January, 3,104 for February, and 4,153 for March. That is something over 42,000 for the first three months, and there are also the 7,000 enlisted in the army this month up to the 18th.


John George Diefenbaker: Before the minister leaves that point, of those 42,000 how many were in the age group from twenty to twenty-three?


James Layton Ralston: I am sorry but I have not the faintest idea, and I have no quick way of finding out. We would have to look at the attestation papers.


George Stanley White: In regard to the matter just under discussion, that of farm leave, I should like to know if I correctly understood the minister to say that soldiers now in the army, in the active and reserve forces, might obtain leave for farm work. If that is correct-


James Layton Ralston: I do not want my hon. friend to continue on that assumption. That is not so.


George Stanley White: Is that not correct?


James Layton Ralston: No.
War Appropriation


George Stanley White: My reason for asking was this. I have had various cases brought to my attention, in which men in the active force found that their commanding officers refused to grant them farm leave. Therefore on April 11 I wrote the department, and under date of April 15 I received a reply from the deputy minister, in the last paragraph of which he states:
The above procedure applies to active force soldiers, as well as those called out under the National Resources Mobilization Act.
The point I wish to bring to the attention of the minister is that there appears to be a great difference of opinion between various officers commanding as to whether or not a soldier in the active force can obtain this farm leave. The minister has just borne out that statement by saying that an active force soldier cannot obtain leave, while at the same time I have a letter from his deputy minister in which it is said that an active force soldier may obtain leave by complying with certain requirements. I should like to have the matter clarified, as to just what is the position, and if an active force soldier can obtain farm leave, what procedure must he follow in order to do so.


James Layton Ralston: I thought I had made myself clear. I have not seen the letter of the deputy minister-


George Stanley White: I will send it to the minister.


James Layton Ralston: The letter outlines the procedure only; it does not state that he can obtain leave.


George Stanley White: Yes; in the last paragraph it definitely states:
The above procedure applies to active force soldiers, as well as those called out under the National Resources Mobilization Act.


James Layton Ralston: There the deputy minister is saying that the procedure applies, just as I might say that a certain procedure applied whereby you might sue me for S10.000; but the question of whether you could recover would be another matter, and the question of whether I could pay would be still another. There I think the deputy minister is outlining the procedure, rather than indicating the action which may be taken as a result of that procedure being followed.
Let me make myself clear; I hope I have not confused the committee. An hon. member asked what was the policy of the department with respect to farm leave for men in the active force. I replied that I had taken the position that I could issue no general order or general direction with regard to granting farm leave. There is always the provision for

compassionate leave. It may be that some individual cases may be so serious- and so desperate that compassionate leave would be justified, and those circumstances have to be taken into consideration. But I would think there would be very few cases in which farm leave would be granted on that ground. If there are some, they would be dealt with by the board, as I have said, and the recommendation of the board would be accepted. But I do not think the board could at all find that there were compassionate grounds in those cases. That would be taking into consideration another matter altogether, namely the national interest; They find a man in the army, and they do not take him out on compassionate grounds because of the fact that he has to operate a farm.


George Stanley White: What does the minister mean by "compassionate grounds"?


James Layton Ralston: That is a general term used in the army in connection with leave, and may cover half a dozen cases. Any case where there is no leave as of right, that is to say, no furlough, but -where leave is granted on special grounds, we put them all together and call it "compassionate leave". There is no general policy that leave can be granted from the army for seeding purposes. Previously we have had harvest leave, in which a general blanket order was issued so that men could be given such harvest leave. Such and such a proportion of a unit might be given harvest or seeding leave. That does not apply now. It is only in the individual or in the exceptional case that it can apply, if I am going to do my job of carrying on the army.


George Stanley White: Do I understand clearly
that men in the active forces cannot obtain farm leave ?


James Layton Ralston: Not as farm leave. But
they might show certain conditions on their farms, or certain family matters which might entitle them to leave. That is to say, there might be one man on a farm, conditions might be desperate, and the people would not be able to get along without having their boy at home to work the farm or to put in the crop. That might come within the designation or category of compassionate leave. But that would not be given as farm leave; they are two different things.
My hon. friend knows that harvest leave was granted, on the ground that the completion of the harvest was more important than the army. That is not the situation to-day, as we see it in the department. Therefore we cannot grant farm leave as farm leave, and I have so said to Mr. APRIL 23, 1942
War Appropriation
Bickerton in the telegram. The deputy minister tells my hon. friend that a soldier, if he is at a training centre, must make application in writing to his commanding officer. Such application will be entertained only during the first three months of his four months' training. But on completion of training and when dispatched to a unit he may apply at any time. Then the deputy minister goes on to speak about the evidence which must be given, and how the application is to be prepared. He says that is the way you go about making an application for leave. But he does not suggest that it is to be granted, simply because application is made.


George Stanley White: I might say I have the letter I wrote to the department, and I asked specifically for the department to advise whether or not this method of applying for farm leave applied to men in the active force. That is why the last paragraph is attached to this letter. Certainly, if one reads the two letters together, they could give only one impression, and that is that men in the active force could apply for farm leave in the same manner as men in the reserve force.


James Layton Ralston: Let me put my hon.
friend right, when he refers to applying in the same manner as men in the reserve force. By men in the reserve force he means men called up under the National Resources Mobilization Act?


George Stanley White: Yes.


James Layton Ralston: The provision for application for leave for men called up under the National Resources Mobilization Act is not for farm leave as such; it is only compassionate leave. There is where my hon. friend is either misleading himself, or has been misled. There is no regulation anywhere whereby a man gets leave or where there is procedure to apply for leave for farming. It is for compassionate leave-for special cases. The deputy minister tells my hon. friend that exactly the same procedure applies with respect to the active forces.


George Stanley White: The statement was made
by the Prime Minister some time ago, in March, that this was going to be a general regulation to help the farmers to meet a very serious shortage of labour. I never heard the word "compassionate" used before in connection with farm leave. My interpretation of "compassionate leave" was one arising out of a death in a family, an accident, or something like that. Then, under those circumstances, the term "compassionate leave"
was used. But for the first time to-night I hear the minister using the term "compassionate leave" as meaning permission to get home to work on the farm. I consider that an entirely wrong interpretation of "compassionate leave," as it has always been understood in the army. After what the Prime Minister said, I for one assumed there would be a general policy whereby soldiers of the reserve and active forces could now apply for leave to work on farms.


James Layton Ralston: And from the air force,
too, my hon. friend would have to say.


George Stanley White: Yes. I have a case where a man has got out of the air force, under the same conditions.


James Layton Ralston: I want to say to my
hon. friend that he and the hon. member for Lake Centre are the first two I have ever heard say that the Prime Minister said anything about leave to men already in the army. What the Prime Minister spoke about was what we might do from this time on. We took March 23 as the date because it goes back so that men could not change their positions in order to be affected by that order. The Prime Minister took that date, and he said that from that time we will say that if the Minister of National War Services wants those men, under the National Resources Mobilization Act, he has to show affirmatively that they are not essential to agriculture, provided they have been wholly or mainly engaged in agriculture on that date. But if my hon. friend or the hon. member for Lake Centre has a statement by the Prime Minister where the Prime Minister said that leave was to be granted from the army for men to go on farm leave, I. should like to see it.


George Stanley White: Would the minister deny
that a great many applications have been made since March 23, or a great many in March, for men to obtain farm leave, and that a great many have been granted?


James Layton Ralston: I have said that I have
no idea of a single case having been granted. I have said, too, that Mr. Bickerton, the president of a farm group in Saskatchewan, is the only one whose communication has come to my attention, and he very forcefully applied on behalf of a large number of men. He indicated that some general order should be made, and I had to decline to comply with his suggestion. I do not know of any individual case; there may have been individual cases granted, but they have been granted under the compassionate leave provision, and not under a provision for farm
War Appropriation

leave. I say that is so, unless they have been men in depots. As to those men we have made special regulations, and those regulations have gone out to all the districts. But there is no provision in the Department of National Defence for farm leave, and no application has been granted on the ground 'of application for farm leave.


George Stanley White: Would the minister say
there is any difference made in these applications for farm leave whether a man is in the active force or in the reserve force?


James Layton Ralston: Any difference?


George Stanley White: Yes.


James Layton Ralston: I do not think there is
any difference.


George Stanley White: Would the board give the
same consideration to an active force man as to a reserve force man?


James Layton Ralston: Remember, this is a
board-and it is not my board.


George Stanley White: I understand that.


James Layton Ralston: I say I cannot tell my hon. friend that, but I would assume that exactly the same considerations would apply.


John George Diefenbaker: Did I understand the minister to say that he now interprets the Prime Minister's statement to mean that it was to apply only to men called after March 24? If that be so, this whole principle is inequitable and discriminatory. The very point made by the hon. member for Mackenzie then comes into clear view. Here I have before me letters from men, each of whom is on the farm, and in several places the only help besides their aged fathers. The answer given to these men called for April 9 is that nothing can be done.


James Layton Ralston: I said about those cases that if they were men who were in farming occupations wholly or mainly, I would take the matter up. I did not know about that group of men at all, and I do not think my hon. friend need concern himself with making a case about them. I do not know what I can have done, if anything; but I will certainly look into the matter of these men, to see if they were wholly or mainly engaged in agriculture on March 24.


John George Diefenbaker: That is the point. One man I have in mind was wholly or entirely engaged on the farm; he was the only male on that farm. These boys have been called up, and nothing is being done about their cases.


James Layton Ralston: I can assure my hon. friend that this is the first time it has been called to my attention.
	.


John George Diefenbaker: I am sure the minister will now admit there was good reason to raise the point.


James Layton Ralston: Oh, I have been too long in the house to make admissions without looking into cases.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, but it is
equally wrong for the minister to say that since these men were called up prior to March 24, therefore the promise of the Prime Minister does not apply to them. As a matter of fact, the promise of the Prime Minister was based upon the needs of agriculture, not upon the time that the men were called up.


James Layton Ralston: Oh, yes, there had to be a time.


John George Diefenbaker: As long as we are perfectly clear that a man called up before March 24 does not come under the statement of policy set out by the Prime Minister, there is no further objection to it.


James Layton Ralston: I say there is a point to be argued there. The man was called up before. He was wholly or mainly engaged in agriculture, and he comes in after. I should be glad to look into that class of case, because it comes in that period while the order in council was coming into effect.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Is it the intention of the government not to pay dependents' allowances? I ask the question because in an address last night over the radio the hon. member for Lethbridge intimated to the people of Canada, and particularly to the mothers of Canada, that the reason for asking for an affirmative vote on the plebiscite was that the government was going to stop paying dependents' allowances. I do not know what he could possibly hope to contribute by that to the national defence of Canada or to its welfare or anything else.
I should like to quote a passage from his radio address, and I should like the minister to answer it, not for my benefit, but for the benefit particularly of the mothers of the men who are serving in the army and the mothers of the young men we want to join the army in the future. Here is this one sentence and I quote:
Without any explanation an affirmative vote on the question as it is worded could mean that the people are in favour of releasing the government from that kind of obligation.
I think it very important that the minister make it quite clear that no such thing w_as ever intended.


James Layton Ralston: What kind of obligation?

War Appropriation


George Alexander Cruickshank: Paying the dependents' allowance.


James Layton Ralston: Would my hon. friend just read something that indicates that. He has not put enough on the record.
Mr.	CRUICKSHANK:	I am	rather
ashamed to read it.


James Layton Ralston: I mean just the reference to dependents' allowance.


George Alexander Cruickshank: It is rather difficult to pick it out. I am not used to reading such stuff as this.


James Layton Ralston: If the hon. member wants me to deny it, I want to see what I am denying.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I want the minister to deny that it is the intention of the government, under an affirmative vote for the plebiscite or any other vote or for any reason, to cease paying the dependents' allowance. The hon. member insinuated, according to the radio report as I read it and as many people in Canada heard it, that it is the intention of the government, in seeking an affirmative vote on the plebiscite, to cease paying the dependents' allowance. It is unfortunate that some members, who apparently have not a proper sense of responsibility, should have the privilege of broadcasting from one end of Canada to the other a statement like that, which may do great harm to the defence of Canada. I think it is the duty of the Minister of National Defence to assure the mothers of our soldiers that, irrespective of anything which may be said in language such as that used by the hon. member for Lethbridge with respect to holding the plebiscite, the government and we as a parliament are going to continue to pay the dependents' allowance. I think it is the duty of the minister to make that clear, and to assure the people of Canada that in giving an affirmative vote on the plebiscite, which the Prime Minister, the leader of the Conservative party and the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation asked for in a straight-forward, manly way, they are not in any way endangering the dependents' allowance.


James Layton Ralston: I can say to my hon. friend and for the benefit of the committee that if any such statement were made, it is wholly inaccurate. There is not the slightest intention in the world of the government's discontinuing the dependents' allowance for mothers or wives or any others for whom dependents' allowance is provided,


John Horne Blackmore: I rise to a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman. After the distortion of my speech which the hon. member for Fraser Valley has given, I think it is his duty to read enough of the speech to make clear the reference of the words which he quoted. No wonder he does not want to read any more which would make clear what the meaning wTas!


The CHAIRMAN:: I would point out
that we are not discussing the plebiscite. That whole matter was out of order. As to the question which was put to the minister to ascertain the government's intention with respect to the dependents' allowance, I do not think the hon. member for Fraser Valley is called upon to read any part of the radio speech to substantiate his question. His question has been answered, and I would point out that an argument should not develop with respect to the plebiscite.


John Horne Blackmore: But, Mr. Chairman, a remark like that appears in Hansard and stands there opposite a man's name for generations. The hon. member for Fraser Valley has put on Hansard a remark which is a reflection on me.


Thomas Vien: It is the privilege of the hon. member, if he thinks he has been misquoted, to make a correction. If he has not been misquoted, there is no point of order.


John Horne Blackmore: The hon. member for Fraser Valley certainly gave a distorted version of what I said. Never a word did I utter that had any such meaning as he attempted to convey. He must have listened to the speech with a very hectic mind.


Mr. MacNICOL:: Better give it again.


John George Diefenbaker: There is one further question I asked of the minister, namely, the enlistments in the reserve army from January to the present day.


James Layton Ralston: Somebody else asked me that question last night, and I am sorry I have not the figures here. I intended to give them. I gave the figures up to April 9, I think it was. Perhaps I can get the other figures before the house adjourns.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister gave the numbers who had enlisted voluntarily between January and April 18, and roughly the enlistments in the army amount to about 7,000 a month.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend is wrong about that. It was 28,000 for the three months.
War Appropriation


John George Diefenbaker: It was 4,713 for January.


James Layton Ralston: No, 11,713.


John George Diefenbaker: I beg pardon. That would be approximately 10,000 a month.


James Layton Ralston: It was 2S.919 for the three months; for January, 11,713; February, 8,385; and March, 8,821.


John George Diefenbaker: 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?


James Layton Ralston: That is my advice. I think 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.


George Stanley White: When the minister is giving the figures for the men in the reserve army, would he at the same time give the number of men who have been called up for training under the National Resources Mobilization Act?


James Layton Ralston: I think I have given that.


George Stanley White: The reason why I ask is'this. I have in my hand a return brought down by the Department of National War Services, dated April 20, 1942, according to which the number of men called up since the four months training period came into effect was
44.846.	That seems a very small number for fourteen months, and I wonder whether it is correct or not.


James Layton Ralston: Is that given by months?


George Stanley White: No; it is just the total number.


James Layton Ralston: I have no break-down here of the figure, but I would think that is about correct. For how many months was it?


George Stanley White: My question was asked in the house on February 25, 1942, and I am quoting from the return that was brought down by the Department of National War Services, which shows, in answer to my question, that the number of new men called for the four months and accepted at national defence basic training centres was 33,955, and the number of 30-day men recalled for national defence, for further service, was 10,891, making a total of
44.846.


James Layton Ralston: I think that is right.


George Stanley White: When the minister is bringing that information down, or perhaps at the

present time, could he tell the committee what forces in Canada make up what is called the reserve army, or the reserve force, in addition to these 44.S46 men? I believe there is a certain amount of confusion as to what makes up the reserve army.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend does
want me to give the list of the reserve units?


George Stanley White: No-just the two or three categories which make up what is called the reserve army.


Mr. STOKES:: I should like to ask the minister whether I am correctly informed with regard to the extending of a military property at Barriefield. At the eastern side is a valuable property which produces large quantities of apples, and on which there is a good d-svelling; probably the west side is uncultivated land. I am informed just to-day that it is the intention of the department to expropriate the land to the east, and not the property to the west, which might be taken without putting any good, producing land out of production. As the latter property is vacant land, and the other property has produced in the last few years large crops of merchantable apples, I should be glad if the minister would look into the matter.


James Layton Ralston: If I had not looked into it already, I could quickly get rid of the question, by saying that I would do so. I can, however, assure my hon. friend that I have looked into it. I had a senior officer of the department with me for over two hours, looking over the map; I have had the real estate people and the engineers down there;
I went to the trouble of telephoning the real estate adviser who was in Toronto; I have talked to Mr. Harvey, who owns the land; and we have come to the conclusion that this property is necessary to the development of the training centre which we are building. We realize it looks peculiar to be taking an apple orchard for use as a training centre; but we have examined the cost of developing any other site to which we have been referred, and we find that, apple orchard and all, the cost will be considerably less than if w'e took another property. Further, the property just to the west is rough ground which cannot be used so advantageously. It would make a very poor location, indeed for a camp. The ground across the road is the ordnance training centre, which will be extended, and our only way of extension is toward the east. The development we propose has already grown three times greater than was originally planned, and we expect that it will grow even more. I have not myself looked at the ground, but I have examined its location on

War Appropriation
the map and have seen the people who have to do with it in the department. I am advised that there is not a chance of making a reasonable job of extending the camp, providing the necessary room for expansion, and at the same time providing a training ground, without taking that property.
Another property there, known as the Cartwright property, has been offered to us more than once. Though I am not crying down that property at all, it, too, is rough ground; my hon. friend probably knows it much better than I d-o. It does -not seem to be suitable for camp ground. We estimated that the cost of putting in the services and building a camp there would be greater than the additional cost involved in the purchase of the property my hon. friend has in mind, putting a camp there, and having room for development in the future. For better or worse I have passed the -project. I have advised Mr. Harvey, and I think he understands the situation. I believe he would have preferred to keep the farm because he has just bought it, but what we regard as the paramount interests of the service made it necessary that we should take it.


Angus MacInnis: Could the minister -give the committee a break-down of the figure of 44,846 men who were called up und-er the National Resources Mobilization Act; that is, how many of these have gone into the active forces, how many are now on home defence, how many have gone into the reserve army, and how many, after finishing their period of training, have returned to civil life?


James Layton Ralston: I have that information -here. The important thing which my hon. friend wants is, I think, the -percentage of active enlistments, and I am sorry I do not have it -for all the services. I can tell him that the percentage of active enlistments of those called up to report from March 20, 1941, to October 2, 1941, was 36 per cent. That is, 36 per cent of those accepted enlisted in the active army, the air force or the navy. I have not a -break-down of percentages as between the three services; but, roughly speaking, the division is 25 -per cent -for the army, 10 per cent for the air force, one per cent for the navy; that is, of active enlistments.
My hon. friend asked me how -many had returned to civil life. Of course he realizes that, of those who have -been- called- up, none have been returned to civil life unless they were discharged on account of being medically unfit or something of that kind, because they were all called up for service. -If my hon. friend wants the information, by tracing through the record of each individual I could
tell him to which units they have gone after they have come from the training schools, -but I d-o not believe -he would ask me to do that.
The chief of the general staff reminds me that my -hon. friend also asked how many went into the reserve army. None of these would go into the reserve army; all would be called up and be on full-time service.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister gave a statement of enlistments from January on in the active army; would he also give us the number discharged during the same period?


James Layton Ralston: I have not that here.


Howard Charles Green: During the last two days there has been some discussion about the reserve army, and perhaps this house might be of considerable assistance to the reserve army at this time. They have fallen upon better days at long last. As the minister explained yesterday, about three weeks ago a director-general of the reserve army was appointed in the person of Major-General Browne. I think General Browne gave the picture quite clearly when he was quoted as saying at that time:
"The reserve force may have to fight and it must be ready to fight as soon as possible," be said.
"After all, there is no more war overseas than there is here now, and we may have some here sooner than they have, in view of the threats to our coast."
In other words, as I see it, the reserve army has now been given its proper role, the defence of Canada in the event of an attempted invasion. General Browne has also been quoted as saying that he hoped the reserve army would be recruited to a strength of at least 150,000 men. Yesterday the minister told us, as reported on page 1861 of Hansard, that as of April 9 the strength was 71,737 men in reserve units, 5,062 men called up under the National Resources Mobilization Act and 1,523 men employed on training centre staffs. This gives a total of a little over 80,000 men.
There has been some talk to-night about the men called up under the National Resources Mobilization Act; but as I understand it, apart from the 5,000 odd, they have become part of the active force although they are only for service in Canada. The men called up under the National Resources Mobilization Act do not become part of the reserve army as it was described by the minister last night.


James Layton Ralston: The only National Resources Mobilization Act men who are part of the reserve force are about 60,000 men, the 30-day men who have not been recalled.
War Appropriation


Howard Charles Green: The 60,000 men to whom the minister now refers are men who took the 30-day course last year and who have now gone back to civilian life. They are merely names on the walls of the different armouries across Canada.


James Layton Ralston: It depends on the unit, really.


Howard Charles Green: Generally speaking, I think my statement is correct. The 80,000 men who now compose our reserve army are largely men who have enlisted for the defence of Canada. They are not in the younger age groups, being mostly over 35 years of age. There has been some complaint that men are not rushing to enlist in this reserve army, and it is in that connection that I think the house could be of great help. When I was in Vancouver during the Easter recess I found that many men had the impression that if they joined the reserve army, they might be sent off to guard a railway somewhere and kept there for months. That made it impossible for them to enlist. They were perfectly willing to serve in an emergency; they were prepared to train and fight if the country were invaded, but they simply could not give up their businesses and their families and go away to do guard duty. In other words, the feeling was that they should be used for an emergency. I believe that it is the intention of the Department of National Defence that these men should be trained and will be used only if there is an emergency of that type. I feel perfectly confident that if the minister will announce that to be the case; if he will say that this reserve army is to defend the homes of Canada in the event of an invasion; that that is the purpose for which he is calling for recruits for the reserve army, he will be surprised at the response he will receive. Members of the house could help a great deal by spreading this news throughout their ridings. In that way we could help a great deal in the recruiting of this reserve army.
Conditions in Vancouver with regard: to the reserve army have improved greatly within the last few days. For example, the night I left home there was a parade of the reserve brigade. I believe that this was extremely impressive and that many men made application to join after the parade. Another thing that was done was to have all the officers and men in the reserve units wear their uniforms to work, whether that was delivering milk, in a store or in an office. The idea was to impress the general public with the fact that the reserve force was really worth while and that there were excellent citizens serving in 
that force. I think the result will be to increase enlistments. Therefore I suggest to the minister that he make a statement to-night to the effect that the reserve army is to defend the homes of Canada; that that is the purpose for which it is being raised.
I have another suggestion to make. I think consideration should be given to changing the present rule with regard to the enlistment of married men. Until a day or two before we left here in March the reserve army was not allowed to recruit married men under thirty-five years of age. Then the minister announced a change and said that men from thirty to thirty-five years could be recruited in the reserve army. There are many younger married men who cannot join the reserve force at the present time and yet who are not subject to call under the National Resources Mobilization Act. As the committee knows, that act applies as yet only to single men and widowers without children up to the age of thirty years. Married, men may not be called for a matter of months or perhaps even a longer period.
I realize that the idea in not allowing them to enlist in the reserve army was that this might push them into the active force by the back-door. The hope was that, not being able to join the reserve army and not wishing to be still in civilian clothes, they would join the active force. I think the time has gone by when methods of that type should be used. These young married men should be allowed to go into the reserve force at this time. Physically they are the best group we could get into the reserve force. They are entitled to have training to be able to defend their homes and families just as much as the men over thirty years of age. Even though they are eventually to be taken into the active force under the National Resources Mobilization Act, or go in voluntarily, they should be given the chance to get training in the meantime. It would be of great advantage to them, and I believe that under the regulations as they stand at the present time they could still be called up for service in the active force even though they had enlisted in the reserve force. If I am wrong, perhaps the minister will correct me.


James Layton Ralston: That is right.


Howard Charles Green: That is the position at the
present time. There could be no question that they were sheltering from the active force by joining the reserve force.


James Layton Ralston: They would not be
"sheltered", to use my friend's word, from being called up, but they would be sheltered in this way, that they would be in the reserve

TFar Appropriation
army and perhaps would not feel the same urge to join the active army. I am interrupting my hon. friend, but let me say that this rule with regard to age limit did not come from the Department of National Defence; it was made on a suggestion to me personally by officers of the reserve army, who felt that the reserve army was being used, in some cases that they knew about, as a place where men went and felt that they were doing their full duty. It was the view of those officers that the reserve army was not intended for that purpose and that it was not quite fair to them in the reserve army to have that situation existing. I do not think it was some invention by someone who wanted to see that everyone was forced into the active force.


Howard Charles Green: I have had suggestions to the opposite effect made to me by officers of reserve units. Perhaps the viewpoint is changing a little as time goes on. There is a need to fill up these reserve units without further delay. I throw out the suggestion that the minister consider the position again, and if he does not wish to allow all married men in, he should at least allow men in, say from twenty-five to thirty years of age.
Another suggestion is that consideration be given to appealing to men in war industries to join these reserve units. For example, on the Pacific coast the role of the reserve brigade is of vital importance in the event of attack. It seems to me that the men who are working in war industries might be very badly needed in the reserve brigade should an emergency arise. I suggest that an appeal be made even to men in war industries to give up two nights a week and perhaps some time at the week-end in order that they may get at least some military training.
Then I think the department cannot be too careful to see that these reserve brigades are given at least enough equipment of all types with which to do some training. There has been that difficulty that men have joined these reserve units, found that there was no equipment and then became disgusted and left. There is a new enthusiasm now growing up, and I think this is the time to see to it that they get some at least of every type of the equipment with which they would be equipped were they fighting. They are all very keen; they have all had considerable experience in civilian life, and they are particularly interested in the new types of equipment and the more advanced training. I suggest that the department treat them with that condition in mind.


James Layton Ralston: I appreciate the spirit in which my hon. friend approaches this matter and the interest he has taken. I think every
point he has made has been made at these meetings of reserve officers which I have attended. The suggestion he makes with regard to some declaration respecting a limited role for the reserve army-I put it in that way-was made to me in Vancouver. It has not been made to me anywhere else. I do not say that by way of reflection at all.


Howard Charles Green: I think the reserve is more badly needed there.


James Layton Ralston: Three very responsible
officers came to see me about the matter and left me a memorandum, and it has troubled me considerably. But I say frankly that I am a little cautious about undertaking any obligations with regard to methods of using troops, particularly in view of the situation which faces us in this country to-day and the fact that we are having a plebiscite on a statement of that kind made some time ago. I want to be just as fair as I can and to encourage enlistment in the reserve army; but I do not want someone coming to me and saying, "You gave us a pledge or an assurance that we would not be used elsewhere than in our home community, and now you are taking us somewhere else." I heard my hon. friend say, "except in an emergency" which, of course, is an elastic phrase. But I have not shut the door on the idea. The reserve army has a place in the Militia Act, and everyone knows what the duties are. People should join the reserve army with the realization of the full implications of that duty, whatever they may be. I feel that they can join the reserve army with some confidence that they will not be called on unduly, but for me to say under just what conditions they will be used and under what conditions they will not be used, is something I hesitate to do.
A statement was prepared which I was asked if I would sign. It was prepared in a most careful way. The gentleman sought to make it as easy as possible for me to make that statement. It did not tie one down very much, but it was to give the impression at least that the reserve army would not be used outside the particular community or area in which it was mobilized.


Howard Charles Green: May I interrupt to point
out that I carefully avoided saying that they should not be used in other than their own communities. I said, to defend the homes of Canada; if the Atlantic or the Pacific coast were attacked, it would be understood that men from Ontario or Quebec would go, and I am sure they would do so gladly, to fight on either coast. But I mean, for example,



War Appropriation
that they should not be taken and put on full-time guard duty or be sent outside Canada.


James Layton Ralston: I have my hon. friend's representations. They are along the lines of representations I have received and they are being considered. The committee will understand my reluctance when I say that there is a specific place for the reserve army, and whether one should say anything indicating a limitation of its duties is something which should receive a good deal of consideration. Of course there is less consideration required when my hon. friend suggests that taking in men twenty-five to thirty-five-


Howard Charles Green: Married men.


James Layton Ralston: One of the arguments
which might be put forward for indicating a possible modification of the duties of the reserve army would be that the men were between thirty-five and fifty; but when you say, "no, we are going to put in men twenty-five to thirty-five and give them assurance that they are not going on coast defence duty or guard duty," that makes it more difficult. The suggestion was made at Halifax as to the age limit, and I told the officers there frankly that I could not agree to that alteration in the age limit.
My hon. friend mentioned another point with which I am particularly concerned; that is, men in war industries. I thoroughly agree, I think he has the right point of view, the point of view I tried to express yesterday. A man has the satisfaction of working at a lathe in a war industry, he feels he is doing a good job for the country, but his conscience is bothering him a bit as to whether or not he should be in uniform. The reserve army gives him an opportunity to work at his lathe and to turn out in uniform and be ready to do other duty if necessary. It seems to me that has an attraction for many of our citizens who want to do their duty; it gives them two chances instead of one.
I feel also that the appeal should not be only to war industry workers, but in some cases to employers, not only in war industry but in others as well. I have found a case or two, one in particular, in which I remember a man writing to me reporting that a man had refused to give him employment if he went into the reserve army. That came up at a conference, and I have taken it up directly with the firm concerned.
I do want to say generally that when my hon. friend speaks about war industries and workers in those industries, I feel that we should and I believe we can enlist the interest of the employers, who will not discourage but

will rather encourage their men, though they are doing good work where they are in connection with the production of munitions, to give at least two or three of their evenings to do this very important part of our war activity. I propose to do that at a very early date, and I appreciate the suggestion of my hon. friend that members of the House of Commons should do the same thing. I would ask them sincerely to join in influencing the people around them to do this. There is nothing formal about this work in connection with the reserve army. It is a real job; it is going to take some time, and perhaps occasionally it is going to be grim. I often think that people would far rather do without some ration of gasoline, do without tires and pay more taxes, but that time and particularly comfort are two things we find it hard to sacrifice. The reserve army does cut into comfort; there is no doubt about that. It does not leave men free in the evenings; they cannot play bridge or go out to entertainments, or anything like that, after a hard day's work. But this is something we have to do if we are going to win this war.


Howard Charles Green: What about equipment?


James Layton Ralston: I can only say to the
committee that I have dealt with that matter at every place we have gone. General Browne and the master-general of the ordnance have gone over the equipment situation thoroughly with the chief of the general staff. As I indicated yesterday, some priority will be given in connection with equipment. I can only say that the last bit of equipment that is available for the reserve army will be given to them; but that must always have regard to the necessities on the active fronts, as everyone understands. Someone said to me in Saint John, "You do not need to worry about equipment. You tell us that you will give us all that is available, and we will not expect anything more." Of course they cannot expect anything more, but we will try to make available everything possible, having regard to the needs of the active forces. Production certainly is increasing; there are some particular items in which the reserve army will, I think, be better served than ever before. I am sure we are not making any false moves in connection with this matter. We are asking the reserve army to improvise to some extent, as it always has done; to put up with one piece of equipment where it would like to have two or three. I believe we can make a success of this movement, which will make a splendid second line in connection with the defence of this country, should the worst come.

TPar Appropriation


George Stanley White: A few moments ago the minister said he would bring down a return in connection with the reserve army. When he does so, would he be good enough to break down that return as between infantry, rifle, machine gun, tank, artillery and so on?
I was pleased to hear the minister say a moment ago that at last the reserve army had a real job to do, and would be recognized to a greater extent. The minister mentioned the eleven brigades that have been set up for the reserve army. Those, however, will accommodate only about one-third of the reserve force units. I fear that- perhaps the minister is forgetting those other, orphan battalions and units which will not be included in these brigades. They are located in small cities and towns; in fact, some battalions are decentralized and split up between perhaps three, four or five different places. I think the minister will admit that in the days gone by, the reserve army supplied a great many instructors and men to the active force. At the present time one of the great difficulties in the reserve army is that they sadly lack qualified officers and noncommissioned officers for instructional purposes. The minister said yesterday that about a thousand officers and men had returned from England to act as instructors in Canada. I would ask if at least some of those instructors could not be allotted to various reserve force units.
Another point I should like to bring to the attention of the minister is that when a reserve force unit covers perhaps one or two communities, very often there is a distance of from fifty to a hundred miles between battalion headquarters and some of the company headquarters, and in attempting to carry on training there is that age-old difficulty of who is to pay the travelling expenses of the officers, non-commissioned officers and men who come to company headquarters to carry on drill at night, or to take part in week-end manoeuvres. I am sure this question has been a headache to the department in days past, but it is most important to the men, who are paid only a matter of some sixty cents for one night's drill. If they have to use their own cars and gasoline and oil in order to come to headquarters for training, I believe some plan should be worked out under which these men might be reimbursed in some way for their travelling expenses. I should like also to point out to the minister that now the question of gasoline is going to be of vital importance. Many of these men have to travel fifteen or twenty miles in order to
44561-121i
take their training, and I believe they should receive some consideration in connection with their gasoline allowance.
I was pleased to hear the minister state that every possible consideration will be given to the reserve force units in the allotment of equipment. I am sure the minister will agree when I say that nothing discourages the average recruit so much as to carry on continually with parade ground drill and lectures, with perhaps only an old Lewis gun for training. Naturally these young men are greatly interested in the newer forms of automatic weapons; and if the minister could give two or three or four of these newer weapons to each reserve force unit, I am sure that in itself would create a great deal of interest and assist materially in the recruiting of new men. Perhaps the minister might be able to tell the committee in some detail just what equipment he hopes to be able to furnish to the reserve force units. The minister shakes his head. He will realize, I am sure, that at present the average member of a reserve force unit has a rifle and a bayonet, and that is about all, with perhaps one or two old Lewis guns for the whole unit. If they could be assured that they would be given some of these newer weapons, or if they could be told in some detail what they may hope to get, it would be of great help in bringing in new men.


James Layton Ralston: I do not think I can say anything more than I have said already with regard to equipment. General Browne has had a full discussion with the chief of the general staff and with the master-general of the ordnance with regard to equipment. He knows the forecasts of production and the forecasts of needs. I may tell my hon. friend that I think we have been very frank with the reserve officers in telling them the situation, not in general terms but in some detail, giving some figures, endeavouring not only to have them realize the situation but to learn what they may expect.
With regard to the units which are not in the reserve brigade groups, I must admit that they will be on a lower scale than the reserve brigade groups. I am not forgetting them, by any means; I have not been allowed to forget them at the last three meetings I have attended. I am going to Montreal on Friday evening to attend another meeting in this connection, and I am sure that my hon. friend or someone representing his unit will be at a meeting which I believe is to be held in Toronto very shortly. All I can say is that they are
War Appropriation

not being forgotten by any means. They are regarded as part of the reserve army, but I do say that for tactical and operational purposes we feel it necessary to get these reserve brigade groups going first, a little in advance of the other units. It is not that the other units will not be training, but they probably will not have the same scale of equipment. The gasoline question is being taken up now with the oil controller. The point was made, as my hon. friend has made it, that men, and particularly .the officers, are long distances away in rural communities, and it is hard on them, in view of the small gas ration, to have to attend these exercises, manoeuvres and parades.
With regard to the matter of allowances for expenses, may I say that that suggestion has not been made before. All I can say is that it rises in connection with the work of the reserve army. I do not think there is anything more that I can say that will :be of use except to say that, as my hon. friend would, no doubt, anticipate, the points he has raised have been made by some of the officers in the meetings we have been holding. In fact, the chief of general staff just said to me a moment ago that one might almost think we were at a meeting of the reserve army command, because all the points my -hon. friend has brought up have been talked out there.


George Stanley White: What would be done about the payment of travelling expenses? The minister knows the great trouble there has been about it.


James Layton Ralston: That has not been brought up before, but I shall take it up. That is a new point, and I may say to my hon. friend that he is entitled, to credit for having brought A up for the first time. However, the matter of gasoline has been discussed frequently. There is another matter he has not brought up, and that is the matter of increasing the administrative staff. That, however, has really not anything to do with expenses. He is speaking more particularly of those units which are in isolated districts.


George Stanley White: The minister knows that in the past there has been a certain amount of confusion and a great deal of diffidence about the payment of travelling expenses. Troops have been led to believe that if they came to training, they would be .paid their travelling expenses. Perhaps it was a misunderstanding. They were, however, later advised that their travelling expenses would not be paid. In order that that condition may -not arise again, could the minister give some clear-cut statement through the district officers commanding regarding these travelling expenses? If so,

I am sure it would eliminate a great deal of grief which falls on the company commanders and the junior officers, and it would remove one of the great stumbling-blocks.


James Layton Ralston: Would my hon. friend elaborate his point? Has he in mind the expenses of officers coming to the armouries, or to the central places for purposes of attending parades?


George Stanley White: No; they are paid.


James Layton Ralston: The administrative officer is paid.


George Stanley White: Yes; I know that. I am speaking of the ordinary private or non-commissioned officer whose company headquarters is in a small village or town or city. Many of those boys have to travel from ten to twelve 'miles. It is quite true that a number of them may come in one car, but when they come two nights a week for many weeks it runs up to quite a total. There has been great grief in many places, because they were under the impression they were going to be paid. But after they have travelled for weeks they are suddenly advised that they are not to be paid.


James Layton Ralston: Were they ever paid? Have expenses of that kind ever been paid?


George Stanley White: In my own unit a great deal of dissatisfaction was caused. I do not know whether it received special consideration or not, but they were paid.


James Layton Ralston: Were they paid by the government or was the pay pooled?


George Stanley White: The cheques came from the government, and then there was some further adjustment through battalion funds.


James Layton Ralston: Was it considered as
reimbursement for mileage? Was it so much per mile?


George Stanley White: It was just put down to
travelling, on the usual mileage basis. I should like to impress upon the minister most strenuously that that is one of the greatest detriments to reserve force units recruiting in rural districts. If he will see that instructions are issued to district officers commanding so that there may be no further misunderstanding, and so that some reasonable allowance may be made, I am sure he will find there will be many more recruits.


Douglas King Hazen: Have any reports or complaints been received by the minister's department about excessive drinking among the troops in Canada? If such complaints have been received, has any action been taken? Has any investigation been held or any report

War Appropriation
made; and, if a report has been made to the minister by any investigating committee, would the minister care to say what it was? Does his department intend to take action? I have been prompted to make these inquiries by reason of statements appearing from time to time in the press.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend. has me
completely in the dark. Naturally, from time to time one -receives statements about this or that occurrence which may happen on a train, or somewhere else. But no definite complaint has been made to me, and so far as I can recall, no report has come to me with respect to excessive drinking generally amongst the troops. I have in mind two or three instances of, shall I say, parties which have been called to my attention, and with respect to which action has been taken. I have also in mind complaints made with regard to men on the trains. I had hoped that the lack of reports in the past winter might indicate a very considerable improvement. The provost service is very much strengthened, and I know that Colonel Piuze and Major Goad are doing a good job. But if my hon. friend has anything further in mind, I would ask him not to hesitate to say so.


Douglas King Hazen: I have no individual cases or parties in mind. I have been prompted to to ask the questions by reason of certain articles appearing in the press from time to time, arising from meetings of certain organizations which have passed resolutions. I was wondering whether anything had been brought to the minister's attention, and if any action had been taken.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: A similar resolution
was debated a year ago, and at that time the minister placed on record his estimate of what the expenditures would be in the year 1941-42. Could- he tell us what a similar estimate would be for 1942-43.


James Layton Ralston: I gave the figures a few
nights ago; perhaps my hon. friend has not seen them. I gave the break-down of a total of $997,000,000, divided into various functions and objects of expenditure. I believe I said at that time that the expenditure of that amount depended on deliveries and on operations. Having regard to some forecasts which we have received, and some forecasts we hope might be fulfilled, I believe it might be possible that deliveries would be such that expenditures would be considerably more than that. Judging by deliveries last year, and by the acceleration there has been, the amount has been placed at $997,000,000, with possibly
more to follow if deliveries are greater than expected, or -if the operations use up the materials faster than is anticipated.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: A year ago the minister said the expenditures would be $666,000,000. Can he say whether the expenditures were more or less than that amount?


James Layton Ralston: Up to the end of the
fiscal year they will run close to $600,000,000. In other words, it is $66,000,000 less than the estimated amount.


Mr. BOUCHER:: While we are in this
part of the discussion, would the minister feel it advantageous to the committee to make some observations by way of explanation relative to the allocation of various men in the army? There are many cases which might be taken into consideration, and concerning which the public might be enlightened. For instance, about a month ago we had a report to the effect that 150 senior officers overseas, in England, were being replaced by younger men. Those officers were giving up their rank, and coming back to Canada. Could we have an explanation as to what use has been made of those officers in Canada? We have the case where officers, non-commissioned officers and lower rank are being brought from England to take special courses in connection with officers' training corps instruction in Canada. What particular use is the government going to make of those men? Are they going to be retained- in Canada for instructional purposes? Are they going to rejoin their units overseas, or are they going to form new units in Canada?
What is the position of the department with regard to draftees who volunteer for active service? Does the army try to place them in the particular branch for which they are best adapted?
Then, take the veterans of the last war, too mature in age and perhaps not physically strong enough to stand the strain of overseas service; what particular use is the department making of them?
There is also the Canadian Women's Army Corps, which has been formed to take over certain duties in the armed forces.
There are a great many places in the army where these classes of people can serve their country efficiently and release those who are physically fit for more active service. Guard duty, mess duty, driving of cars and trucks, patrol duty, clerical work, and perhaps the less exacting kind of administrative work, are all branches of service in which various classes of people can be usefully employed in the service of their country, and I think the
War Appropriation

public would be pleased to have the assurance from the minister that the government is giving consideration to the proper allocation of those who are offering their services by way of draft or otherwise, taking into account their capacity, aptitudes and physical condition, and the duties they may be called upon to perform.
Fatigue duty has been discussed, and it was pointed out that the training of a soldier is not complete until he has had considerable training in fatigue duties. That is true, although it can be carried to excess, but undoubtedly certain forms of service do not call for as exacting qualifications as other forms.
Another question that comes to my mind, which I have been asked several times, is this: What assurance is given to the ladies at present in the Canadian Women's Army Corps, [DOT]that, while possessing other aptitudes, they are pot to be taken away from the particular spheres of endeavour for which they are qualified and in which they wish to serve?
I think it would be of great interest to the country if the minister would make a detailed statement along the lines of my suggestions and assure the Canadian people that the government is giving serious consideration to this matter, just as it is giving consideration in the mustering of the army to certain age groups, the restraining of employers in certain industries from giving employment to men of military age, and matters of that sort.


James Layton Ralston: What my hon. friend has last referred to is probably one of the most interesting and important phases of the whole army programme, or of any war programme. It means trying to put the right man in the right place and trying, if one possibly can, to save a man who is best equipped for a' certain job to do that particular job, letting somebody else perform a less difficult one. We have tackled that question in the department in a realistic way. There has been no fanfare of trumpets about it, but we have a personnel selection board under the adjutant-general, headed by Brigadier Chisholm, who has personnel selection officers at all the basic training centres, officers' training centres and district depots. Do not let me mislead the oommittee. That branch has been functioning for not more than six months, but already we have seen a marked usefulness and an improvement through its efforts. Everybody, of course, cannot do that work. We have had to some extent the benefit of personnel people from industry who have come in and helped us. We have tried to keep the idea of psychology out of it. I think it always scares a man to be put through a psychological or

I.Q. test. What has been done has been by way of interview and by wTay of test at the same time. The soldier will talk to a man who understands judging men, their mental capacity and mental aptitudes. Such a man will talk to a soldier for, it may be, only ten minutes, give him a test and be able to estimate pretty accurately his general capacity, and then endeavour to steer him along the line where that capacity can best be used. If statistics mean anything, at the present moment the number being tested and interviewed in Canada is 22,000. We have not a big staff; and when the committee realizes that we have 60 training centres across Canada, it will be understood that it takes a big staff to cover them all. But we have these staffs operating in every basic training centre, in the officers' training centres and in the depots.
To give the committee an idea of the results of these tests, 61 per cent of those taking them have been given normal placement in the armed forces; that is to say, they were found fit for the job they enlisted for. Thirty-four per cent were recommended as trades trainees, having particular aptitudes, regard being had to their previous training or to their whole mental outlook; for 3-7 per cent there were special recommendations, such as for special appointments or transfer to other services. If a man who has enlisted in the army is particularly adapted to the air force, I do not think the personnel selection board are averse to seeing the man go where he will give the most useful service. Then 1-2 per cent have been set over for further examination. Altogether there have been examined, interviewed, to be dealt with further, no decision or final classification having yet been made, 76,000 men. Therefore that particular branch of the service has been working at top speed.
That is what is done, and that is apart from what is being done every day in any well-regulated institution, and in every organization. The senior officer is over these men, and the non-commissioned officers are keeping an eye on them to see where they can best be used. When you have an army which contains, in some branches, 35 per cent of tradesmen you have to keep a watch upon them all the time. We are doing that; it is being done by the officers as well as the men. But this personnel selection branch is a growing concern, and we have got great value out of it.
As regards the use of C category men-I refer to that because it is generally illustrative of the class to which my hon. friend refers- he understands, of course, the battle which is going on and has been going on since the beginning of the war, and is now, I believe,

War Appropriation
intensified: that is to say, we are not using an A man for a C man's job. That applies particularly to the depots. I suppose that if the adjutant-general has one headache more than another, it is with relation to the depots. When men get into the depots it is difficult to get them documented, inoculated, and passed on to the next stage, to go to the training centre, because they are pulled off for this duty and that. The depot seems to be the place where you can get a man for a job, it may be a fatigue or what-not. We try to see that the administrative part of a depot settlement is filled as far as possible by low category men, so that active men can be spared for the service for which they were intended and for which they enlisted.
With regard to over-age officers, nothing *would give my hon. friend the information to which he refers except a nominal roll of each officer showing what disposal was made of him. I have in mind the list which came over about January 1, when the age limits were put into effect. I believe that very few of them have retired-


George Russell Boucher: About one hundred and fifty.


James Layton Ralston: -and I understand that many of them were absorbed in England at holding units, training centres and places of that sort; they were simply taken from field formations. As the committee knows, a number have returned and taken positions here, and they are, of course, proving exceedingly useful, because they have experience of the training and operations which are taking place in England. I believe that, generally speaking, they are giving an extremely good account of themselves.
With regard to the junior officers who are coming back, not as instructors but to take the junior war staff course, they will be utilized both in England and in Canada. I would not want General McNaughton to hear me say this, because I believe he has in mind that most of them will go back to the staff in England. But the search for capable young staff officers will never cease, and the men who are coming back here are needed to do real jobs when the crisis comes.
With respect to the instructors, I mentioned yesterday that about a thousand officers and non-commissioned officers have come home. They will probably stay here about eight months at their work, and they will then go back to England Some of them, we hope, can be spared to join units here and help strengthen the forces in Canada wherever they may be most needed. Certainly it is a great stiffening of our training to have them come
over here. At the same time it gives them a change and an opportunity to utilize their experience of the training they have had by imparting it to others.
This is very general and, I am afraid, sketchy. But the big point which my hon. friend made, and the one to which I want to refer, is, first, that we are trying to make use of the best in the men in order to get the greatest utility possible out of their capacity; and, second, we are trying to save the more active men to do the more active jobs.
The chief of the general staff reminds me in reference to the cadres we are forming now for the seventh and eighth divisions- for that matter, for the sixth division also- that for every cadre of officers and noncommissioned officers we form here for these units, a certain number are brought back from England. It is some recognition of their services there and it helps us here. As an illustration of that, just before I came in the house to-night I approved the recommendation of the selection board of no less than ten officers who are now overseas to commands in Canada. All of them have been recommended by our staffs over there to take commands here. If I published a list of these it would be quite a striking thing. I do not believe that the public of Canada understand how many men who have served in England are in this country at the present time and bow much help we are getting from them, nor do they realize how many are going to England. I find myself losing count of them; a week goes by and when I ask for this or that man I find that he is in England with an n.c.o. or two, attached to some battalion over there in order to get experience. This constant interchange is going on.
In reference to the Canadian Women's Army Corps, I speak subject to correction, but I do not believe that the personnel selection board have actually taken on work in relation to that corps. Primarily they are devoting their attention to four branches: one, dietetics, which includes cooking and waiting as well; secondly, clerical; thirdly, auxiliary services; fourthly, motor mechanics and things of that sort. The corps is, I think, making a great success. We are very much pleased with the work which has been done in the training of them at the school at Macdonald college. Accessions to the ranks have not been as rapid as we should have liked, not because of any lack of applications but because it is so difficult, with all the building that is going on, to provide accommodation. The committee will understand that we have had some difficulty in providing accommodation in camps, training centres and
War Appropriation

places like that for these young women, but it is being overcome, and overcome very rapidly. All the reports I have had about the work which these women are doing indicate that they are quite capable of taking the places of the men in the jobs to which they are assigned, and there is no doubt that they will be the means of saving a very substantial amount of man-power. I am extremely pleased and proud of the way in which they have carried on.


Howard Charles Green: What is the aim as regards the size of the Canadian Women's Army Corps?


James Layton Ralston: Just whatever is needed. We have applications now from every district for hundreds and hundreds more than we are able to give them: we could provide them if we had the accommodation. I believe that provision is being made at Gordon Head, Calgary, Kingston and Montreal. We are just now getting accommodation here, where problems of subsistence and living conditions are very difficult. At present the enlistments are about 2,800 or 3,000.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: What are the age limits?


James Layton Ralston: I am not sure, but I think it is nineteen. I know we made a change, slightly lowering the age limit.


George Russell Boucher: Could the minister not enlarge on what he has already stated to show to what extent he has used lower category soldiers and the women's army corps for the replacement of higher category men in such duties as motor mechanics, clerks, guards, chefs, et cetera?


James Layton Ralston: I do not think I can enlarge on that except to state what must be obvious to my hon. friend. Wherever possible, sedentary jobs and certain types of fatigue duty which do not involve great physical effort, are done by those in the lower categories; that is, so long as their mental equipment is all right. We are endeavouring to place these people all the time. I mentioned the depots particularly because there is a steady job there, as well as on the administrative staffs. I think of another place, the Royal Military College. Just the other day the question came up, and I was told that for some time the commandant has been employing a number of low category men. At any place where there are permanent or semi-permanent jobs, if anything is permanent in this war, we use as many low category men as possible. This is a very general statement, and I am afraid

it does not give my hon. friend much more information than he would have guessed himself.


George Russell Boucher: Could the minister give us any particulars as to the extent to which civilians are being used to replace soldiers?


James Layton Ralston: No. Of course, as my hon. friend knows, a great many civilians are being used in ordnance as well as at national defence headquarters. Civilians, particularly young ladies, are being used at district headquarters. The engineering service uses a great number of civilians, but they are more in the way of labourers and craftsmen than for office or administrative work.


George Russell Boucher: Perhaps the minister could tell us something about the civilian guards that are being used in connection with the mounted police, or it may be that is not under his department.


James Layton Ralston: No.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: There is not only the problem of making an intelligent allocation of men in the different branches of a service; there is also the problem of allocating men to the different services themselves. I know this is a ticklish and delicate problem, but sometimes fools rush in where angels fear to tread. Has any thought been given to this? I know of men who have trained in the reserve units and would have made first-class soldiers or non-commissioned officers. They went, however, into the air force as members of the ground crew. There is a certain glamour about that force; they have natty uniforms, and it seems to be attractive to the young men. I know a number of these fellows. They are splendid physical specimens, all in category Al, and yet they are members of the ground crew.
Has there been any collaboration between the army and the air force with a view to meeting this situation? I do not know enough about the matter to speak categorically, but from a layman's point of view it would seem that men in B category could do the work of a ground crew. I cannot understand why a man who is short-sighted or who has flat feet could not service a plane in an aerodrome. But that has not been done. As I say, many of these men in Al category are members of the ground crew in the air force. The day may come very quickly, should another front be opened up and there be many casualties, when we shall need as many Al category men in the army as it is possible to get. I know the Minister of National Defence for Air will not appreciate my suggesting this, but this problem will have to be faced. Probably

War Appropriation
it should have been faced earlier in the war.
Is any attempt being made as between the different services to allocate men? I know it is a difficult thing to say to a man that he should not join the air force, that he should go into the army or some other service. On the other hand, if one service has a waiting list as they have in the air force, and the army is just making its quota month by month, sometimes as a result of terrific work by the recruiting officers, something should be done. There has been a definite tendency for men to go into the one service. It is too bad when the government has spent a lot of money and the army a lot of time in training men, that they should go into a different service.


James Layton Ralston: I am afraid I can give my hon. friend only a very brief statement. Naturally, what he has said is not open to argument. There has been, not only consultation but collaboration with my colleague, the Minister of National Defence for Air. There is this to be said with regard to the ground crew. From the very beginning of the air training plan it was recognized-I was going to say 50 per cent-that a very large percentage of the activity of the air force would be in the ground crew. I shall not give the figures to-night, but most hon. members know the small number of air crew there is compared with the ground crew in a squadron. The real mechanization of Canada's army came later, and many of these men were already in the ground crew.
I do not argue for one minute against what my hon. friend has said about the possibility of our being able to utilize these men in the lower categories in connection with the air force. I would not want to be taken as saying that this is the case because I do not know enough about the air force and its service requirements. It may be that only certain men can stand up to the needs of the service. This matter has been the subject of earnest, thoughtful and intensive discussion between myself and my colleague, the Minister of National Defence for Air. We have an interdepartmental personnel committee which is considering how best we can help each other in connection with the matter of recruitment. We try not to step on each other's toes, but to assist one another. The matter of joint recruiting offices was considered, but there were reasons which I need not go into to-night which seemed to make that impracticable. We have always had the arrangement that one would send a man to the other if he seemed more fitted for a particular job.
I do not think I can say anything more to my hon. friend. I shall take note of what he
has said and bring it to the attention of my colleague, the Minister of National Defence for Air. This is discussed, I may say, at defence council more often than my hon. friend may believe. We are all endeavouring out of a limited field to get the men we need for the different services. So far, we have been able to do it. By this personnel selection board we think we are improving that situation, and we hope that it will result in the very best allocation of men possible, having regard to their capabilities.


Howard Charles Green: Is the army responsible for the defence of air fields and airports, or is that the task of the air force? That is a very important question, particularly in northern British Columbia and the Yukon, and on both coasts. There has been considerable trouble and difficulty about it in Great Britain. Has Canada got around that difficulty?


James Layton Ralston: The army accepts responsibility for the defence of air fields. I regard it as the army's job to see, if possible, that the enemy is kept far enough away that the planes at the aerodrome can get into the air. We do that by anti-aircraft guns and by keeping paratroops from landing on the field and things of that sort. Once the planes are up, they take care of the situation themselves. But it is the defence of a post, just as the defence of a naval base.


Howard Charles Green: It is recognized as a job for the army?


James Layton Ralston: That is right.


Douglas King Hazen: Reference was made a minute or two ago to employment of civilians in the army. I have in mind the employment of carpenters by the engineers. I think a good many carpenters are employed in some places. Has the government or the minister's department made any change recently in the employment of carpenters, or do they contemplate any change? Is it proposed to take such men into the army and have them work as carpenters in the army rather than to employ them as civilians?


James Layton Ralston: I know of no intention to make any change in that respect. We have some construction battalions in England.


Howard Charles Green: In yesterday's Montreal Star there was a dispatch from Victoria stating:
British Columbia may give Canada and possibly the United States, a new defence arm -the motor boat and automobile "emergency transportation squadrons". . . .
Harold Husband, representative of the Dominion Department of Transport here, disclosed that squadrons were being organized on Vancouver island and the "blueprints" would

War Appropriation

be made available to other parts of British Columbia and Canada as soon as possible. They also may be sent to authorities in the United States if there is any interest in them there.
Then, it goes on to describe the work of these transportation squadrons, which apparently is to supply automobiles and also motorboats for emergency transportation. Does the Department of National Defence know anything about this move?


James Layton Ralston: I have not heard anything yet. My hon. friend has the credit of having brought it first to my attention.


Howard Charles Green: I will send the clipping to
the minister and perhaps he might investigate. I think there is a good deal of merit in the suggestion.
Another question is with regard to what used to be known in the last war as the paper war. We get complaints repeatedly, relating to all three services, that there is far too much correspondence, too much passing the buck, letters from this department to that department and so on right down the line. Two or three months ago I had an unsigned, anonymous letter from an officer in the force; strictly speaking I suppose I am not entitled to read it, but he had some very good suggestions. I should like to read the one dealing with correspondence:
Speed-up of interdepartmental correspondence. At present the red tape that ties up interdepartmental business is dreadful. Officers and men are often kept kicking their heels about for weeks at a time doing nothing while their papers (documents to us) are undergoing some mysterious process. 1 myself had time to take five weeks training in another branch of the service while my papers were undergoing this process, and when they did call me in the papers were confused and nobody seemed to know where I was to go, so I went back to sitting in the mess reading the morning papers and enjoying life for another ten days, at $5 a day. Surely a telegraph service could be installed in each camp for the use of routine business, it would be an excellent training ground for the signal corps. In one case a letter from Ottawa was sent west for an officer to be dispatched east to catch a draft, the letter was mailed with a three-cent stamp. The time lost was made up by the officer being brought east by air travel. A good telegraph service linking every camp in Canada would be excellent training for the signal corps and put our Canada army in Canada on a war basis.
I realize the difficulty. In all our business, civilian as well as military, there is far too much letter-writing, but probably the army is very prone to develop in that direction. I's any attempt being made to cut out some of this letter-writing and, if so, what?


James Layton Ralston: I could show my hon. friend cases that make that one pale into insignificance.


Grote Stirling: Doesn't it make you mad1?


James Layton Ralston: No one knows better than the army the difficulties that exist. Constantly, steadily, all the time, slowly but persistently I think we are improving in that respect. Some most radical things have been done at headquarters with regard to cutting red tape; the trouble is, the organization is so big and has grown so fast, there have been so many people appointed who have to have a look at a thing and consider it, that it takes a long time to get around1. If a man could go to one man's desk and have him stop his work and attend to that particular thing you would get that through splendidly, but you would not get the day's work done. You must have some system. I have in mind now an improvement which has taken six weeks to get through, but I am sure it will result in a great deal of labour saving.
The difficulty in connection with army administration is to separate the big from the small. That is, each thing has to take the same amount of time, no matter how important or unimportant. The trouble is, a return may be asked for in the house in connection with something that amounts to only $100 which may cause more back-fire than something amounting to $10,000. That is why everyone is concerned in seeing that things are done regularly. But we have to take some chances in connection with the army as with everything else, and verbal instructions are given sometimes and confirmed afterwards on the file.
At the last district officers' meeting, instructions were given about this point of postage, that the telephone could1 be used and used freely in order to hasten matters, because a letter has to go to some central distributing office and so on. With thousands of letters in a day, it is the next day before the letter gets to the department; it may be the next afternoon before it gets to the officer who has to attend to it, and he may have to send it to different places to get notes in regard to costs and materials and so on. We are short-cutting to a reasonable extent, I think; we are toiling slowly upward-I would not say through the night

but we are making definite progress in that respect.


Howard Charles Green: Is the situation any better in Great Britain? Have they any better system? If they have, we might copy it.


James Layton Ralston: I would not want to comment. I am willing to say that anyone's

War Appropriation
system is better-I do not believe it, but I would not want to say that anyone's system is worse.


Grote Stirling: Certainly not in stenographic help.


James Layton Ralston: No. But, you see, we
have had officers who have been at the war office. The former chief of the general staff was there for three or four years, and we have had other officers attached there. I believe we have adopted anything from there that has seemed useful.


Howard Charles Green: What about this suggestion
that there should be a telegraph service between the camps? Is that feasible, or is it not? If a telegraph service could not be instituted, what about a wireless service? Would that not be possible?


James Layton Ralston: There is at present a
complete wireless service between districts. I think what my hon. friend means by a telegraph service is the up-to-date apparatus called the teletype. We have spent a good deal of the money of the people of Canada in connection with teletype service, and it has been of tremendous help. I do not want to make a public statement as to where the teletypes are located, but they are working every minute, and we are having to increase the number. We know they are well worth it, not only in connection with the money saved but in the efficiency produced and the speed with which we can get on.


Howard Charles Green: They come under the signal corps, do they?


James Layton Ralston: Yes. In some instances
one service puts them in and then puts in switch lines to the other two services. In other words, they just have the one teletype set for out-of-town service, and the three branches get the benefit of it.


George Russell Boucher: The minister has made
a very fair but extremely limited statement on the allocation of men. Perhaps he cannot enlarge upon it, but I am not yet satisfied that a useful purpose would not be served if we could be told a little more about the way a man seeking to enter the army is put in the place for which he is most fitted. I have in mind several cases which have come to my attention, perhaps more by hearsay than by direct contact. It seems to me that when a man goes to join the air force he is given almost every consideration in being directed to that particular branch of the air force for which his trade, training or experience best fits him. On the other hand, it seems to me that in the army, if you do not go to a particular unit, there is no place where you can get information as to the branch of the ser-44561-122.}
vice you should enter. With most of the recruiting depots being depots for all units, veiy little guidance is given to the recruit seeking to enlist, as to the particular unit or particular branch of the service he should enter.
One case drawn to my attention a short time ago was that of a man with experience in electrical engineering. Then, not two weeks ago another case was brought to my notice, that of a man who had perhaps five years' practical experience in connection with precision tools. In common with many other people he did not feel like sacrificing that experience by going into the ranks in any particular branch of the army, without some assurance that full use would be made of his training. I wondered whether the minister had given consideration to the position of the average man, who does not know as much about military life as he might, who has some special qualifications and who does not know where he can secure guidance as to the possibility of his particular knowledge being used in some particular branch of the service. Perhaps the minister might explain that a little more fully.


James Layton Ralston: I should be very much
surprised if one statement made by my hon. friend should be true. He said the recruiting offices were recruiting for particular units. That is not intended. If the recruiting officer is doing his job-and I have seen a good many of them; I have met them at conferences, and I have an idea they are on the job-


George Russell Boucher: I do not mean to cast
any aspersions on any recruiting officer.


James Layton Ralston: I appreciate that; but I believe these officers are qualified to do exactly what my hon. friend asks about. That is to say, my hon. friend is quite right in suggesting that a man is entitled to all the advice and all the information he can get about the particular branch of the service he would like to enter. But what I wish to impress upon the committee is this, though it may sound a little impersonal. First of all, a man has to make the decision as between the army, the navy and the air force. If he decides to go into the army; if he will only enlist for general service, I will undertake that when he meets these personnel selection people he will find them sympathetic; he will find that they know what the army has to offer, that they know.what qualifications are required for a particular branch. They will find out from him what qualifications he possesses, and they will put him in the right place. A man may say, "I want to be a signaller." He has a right to say that; that is his own decision.
War Appropriation

But if he wants help, I really think he should enlist for general service and then take the advice of these personnel selection people as to where he should go if he really wants full use made of his abilities. That is pretty simple, but I really think it is sound.


George Russell Boucher: I can appreciate that viewpoint in one who is, as it were, looking from the inside out, but according to the minister's explanation it puts a man with special qualifications in the position that, first of all, he must join for general service. He may have some diffidence about trusting his future to general service without first knowing-


James Layton Ralston: He does anyway.


George Russell Boucher: That is so, but not with the same degree of recklessness, perhaps, as he does when he joins for general service. Consider the man I mentioned a moment ago, with five years of technical experience. Apparently he had taken special training and had considerable experience in connection with precision instruments. He wanted to join some branch of the army in which he would have some reasonable assurance that he would use that experience, and would have an opportunity further to develop himself as well. From the inside looking out, one might be inclined to say that he should join the army for general service and trust to the efficiency of the army, about which he knows nothing, to put him in his proper place, to see that he gets proper pay and proper promotions. Yet it would put him much more at ease if, before signing on the dotted line and joining the army, he could be given much more guidance than, in my uninformed opinion, he gets now. I believe this point might be well worth consideration, and perhaps the minister might give a little further explanation in that regard.


James Layton Ralston: I have suggested the
method. We try to have the recruiting officers well acquainted with the needs of the various arms of the service. They try to size up a man, and I am really satisfied that most recruiting officers would be willing to give any man helpful, sound and useful advice. If it would help, I would set up a bureau anywhere, but that is what the recruiting officers are for. We have also formed these civilian committees to assist in that direction, because often a man does not want help about a technical matter but rather information about what his duties will be. It seems to me these civilian committees can be of great assistance in this regard.


George Russell Boucher: I would not want to suggest that this situation does exist; but very often a man, not knowing the army, not knowing the officers, has every reason to feel that

he possesses qualifications which should entitle him to a higher rank than that of a raw recruit just entering the army. Though perhaps I should not say so, frequently people are led to believe that, to some extent at least, you need a little pull, a little assistance or a little drag to get the better positions in the army. That very situation leads to that opinion, in so far as it may prevail.


James Layton Ralston: I have said all I can
about the matter of drag. I know that is the feeling not only about the army, but about almost everything-it may be the church, or anything else. It seems to be the idea that if you want to get anywhere, you must get someone to speak a few words for you. But I believe that the army is about as clear of it as it has ever been, or as any organization is.
Any man with the qualifications of a machinist, or with other technical qualifications, will be snapped up so fast, and will be taken so quickly, that it will certainly make his heart warm, if he is enthusiastic about the service. It is not a question of drag; it is a matter of taking advice, and of being satisfied with and having confidence in the person who gives it. We will do our level best to see that a man will not think he is being influenced by people inside. If he does get into the army, we will shift him around so that he can go to the place where he serves best. Having done that, I believe we have tried to serve him as best we can.


John Horne Blackmore: Is there any definite rule of procedure a boy in the service should follow? He may know that he possesses mechanical skill and may wish to be transferred to some other unit where that skill might be useful. Under such circumstances, what procedure would he follow? I have been told it is contrary to the rules for him to write to his member of parliament, and it seems there is no one else to whom he can write. If he happens to be shy, he does not wish to be paraded before his superior officer, and may not have the ability to express himself. Under those circumstances he might remain a long time without recognition.


James Layton Ralston: It is not a matter of
recognition. My hon. friend has put his finger on something which I know always presents some difficulty, and that is that the young man in the army feels that he cannot apply to his commanding officer. I am preaching and always have preached-and I believe I am sound in this-that an officer as nearly as possible ought to be a father to his men. By that I mean that that young fellow should immediately apply to his platoon officer-

War Appropriation
and he does not need to be paraded, either. The platoon officer will talk to him at any time. He might go to his commanding officer and ask to be transferred. If his qualifications are mechanical, he will be readily picked up. There is a general comb-out-I believe that is^ the right word to use-of all units. Men with mechanical qualifications are taken quickly. Without my hon. friend using any pull, or anything like that, I should like to know of any case in which that would not work. I do say that the young man should first of all exhaust that way of doing things. I say that because it is just this procedure of writing to a member of parliament, and something happening as a result of it, that gives the impression there is some sort of drag.
I believe that if the young fellows would go to their officers,' if those officers are the kind of men they ought to be they will see that ability is recognized. This pressure is not coming from below only; it is coming from the people above, as well, who are looking for these men and who are trying to get them to go to the trade schools at Hamilton, Barrie-field, Woodstock and other places where trades are being taught.
Just the other day a father came to me and, naturally, wanted me to write somebody on behalf of his son. I said, "I cannot do it; but tell your boy to go to his platoon officer." I have not heard from him since, and I do not know whether he took my advice or not.
That is another thing about soldiering; I do not think they teach the boys enough about army procedure. I should be very much surprised if the procedure I have suggested would not work, if the boy had the qualifications I assume he has.


John Horne Blackmore: My experience has been that the minister's officers are very considerate, once a matter like this is brought to their attention. They do manifest the interest the minister would like to have them show. But at the same time several cases have been brought to my attention where the boys were just too shy, and they did not know what to do. When I was approached I did not know what to tell them to do. The minister says they should approach their sergeant-major?
Mr. RALSTON; Their platoon officer. Those boys probably have not a platoon officer; they probably have instructors. Probably the boy whom the hon. member has in mind is in a training centre, and is not in a platoon. If he is in a training centre, he will surely be caught, because the comb-out officers will be all around the training centres looking for men with mechanical ability. If he is in
a unit, have him go to his platoon officer, or speak to the officer commanding. He does not necessarily have to parade before the commanding officer.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The training centres are organized in platoons, are they not?


James Layton Ralston: Yes. But with all due respect I never think the platoon officer in a training centre is quite as close to his men- because he knows his men for only a short time-as the officer who is in a unit and expects to have his platoon permanently.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As a matter of fact, I know what the minister has suggested is being done very often. I know some of the platoon commanders in some training centres, and I know that is what they are doing. A few weeks ago I had dinner with a young platoon officer, and he showed me that he was keeping a record of each man who went through his hands, to show what his aptitude was. I think a great deal more of that should be done.


James Layton Ralston: At six o'clock I believe we were talking about that, and I am delighted to hear it is being done. I have felt that in this war the army is too impersonal, the fault being possibly that of the training centres. We are trying more and more to impress upon the officers that their biggest job apart from training the men is to look after them and be a sort of father to them. When an officer sees that a man is in difficulty he should help him out, even though that man does not happen to be his man for all time. The officer on the job has charge of that man, and is responsible for his comfort as well as for his work.


George Hugh Castleden: Is there any delay with regard to promotions in the forces now in England? I have in mind a chap from the west who is in England, and who is an experienced druggist. He has been over there for more than a year. Although I have not done anything about the matter, it has seemed to me that there has been some difficulty with regard to getting his promotion confirmed on this siue. Are the officers in charge on the other side permitted to make promotions over there, or do they have to be recommended from Ottawa?


James Layton Ralston: They may make promotions over there, up to a certain rank. I am sure that rank is probably far above the rank to which my hon. friend's friend expects to be promoted.


George Hugh Castleden: What is that rank?


James Layton Ralston: I can say that it is up to lieutenant-colonel; I shall not say anything

War Effort-Result oj Plebiscite
further than that. I do not imagine my hon. friend's friend will plan going any higher than that.


George Hugh Castleden: He is still a private.


James Layton Ralston: Then I can say he need not await approval from this side.


John Horne Blackmore: If a boy's parents desire that he go home to work on the farm or to put in the crop, whom should be approach? The rule is that he must approach his commanding officer, is it?


James Layton Ralston: Yes.


John Horne Blackmore: I have known several boys who have been at a loss to know whom to approach. They felt somewhat shy about the matter.


James Layton Ralston: They should approach their commanding officer, through the platoon officer or whoever happens to be the officer next to him.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, until Tuesday, April 28.
Tuesday, April 28, 1942