1943-05-24

Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to table
copy of volume 4 of the proceedings of the National War Labour Board, inquiry into labour relations and1 wage conditions in Canada. This issue deals with the sitting of May 14, 1943.



PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. D. F. McCUAIG (Simcoe North) moved-:
That the first report of the standing committee on privileges and elections, presented to the house on May 20, be now concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. STOKES:: 1.	Who is the power controller of Canada?
2.	What other public offices, or functions, does he hold, or perform?
3.	Is he a director of any privately-owned Canadian power corporation?
4. If so, what privately-owned Canadian power corporation, or corporations?
5.	Is he a director of any privately-owned international power corporation?
6.	If so, what privately-owned international power corporation, or corporations?
7.	Is he financially interested in any privately-owned Canadian power corporation?
8. If so, what privately-owned Canadian power corporation, or corporations?
9.	Is he financially interested in any privately-owned international power corporation?
10.	If so, what privately-owned international power corporation, or corporations?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	Herbert James Symington.
2.	President, Trans-Canada Air Lines, 'director, Canadian National Railways, member of the Materials Coordinating Committee of United States and Canada, member of the Inter-departmental Committee on International Civil Aviation, member of the Wartime Industries Control Board.
3.	Yes.
4.	Director, Calgary Power Company, Limited, director, Prairie Power Company, Limited, director, Ottawa Valley Power Company.
5.	Yes.
6.	Director, International Power Company, Limited, president, Porto Rico Railway Light & Power Co., Limited, director, Porto Rico Power Company, vice-president, Monterrey Railway Light & Power Co.
7.	Yes.
8.	45 shares common stock, Calgary Power Company, Limited, qualifying share, Prairie Power Company, Limited, qualifying share, Ottawa Valley Power Company.
9.	Yes.
10.	Shares in companies shown in answer to No. 6.


DOMINION MAGNESIUM COMPANY
[Stage Direction]
Mr. MacNicol:
1.	What is the total advances to the Dominion Magnesium Company, whose plant is at Haley's, Ontario?
Questions
[Stage Direction]
2.	How many tons of magnesium have been produced to date?
3.	What is the average cost of the metal per pound?
4.	What is the actual capacity of the plant, and how close has production approached that capacity?
Mr. HOWE:: 1.	Advances to Dominion Magnesium Company are as follows:
Capital cost	 $3,349,504 03
Working capital	 820,000 00
Total advances	 S4,169,504 03
2.	As of April 30, 1943-1,186 tons.
3.	Average cost, October 1942 to March 31, 1943, 41'02 cents per pound; average cost for the month of March, 1943-operating-36-042 cents per pound; average cost for the month of March, 1943-total-39-709 cents per pound.
4.	Actual capacity is 10 tons of magnesium ingot metal per day. Capacity production per day has been attained frequently. The average production for the month of March, 1943, was 8-5 tons per day.
Note: Whilst the costs per pound of producing magnesium metal are higher than the original estimates the costs are steadily declining and will be further reduced when full capacity is reached and when certain contemplated improvements together with increased skill in mechanical operation are achieved.



FUEL SUPPLY


Mr. NICHOLSON:: 1.	How much, if any, has the dominion government invested in Emergency Mining Limited, at Flin Flon, Manitoba?
2.	What arrangements have been made for operating Emergency Mining Limited?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	None.
2.	Emergency Metals Limited, a wholly owned subsidiary of Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting company, operates the mine.


CANADIAN ARMY-REINFORCEMENTS
Mr. ROY:: 1.	Is there at present a number of trained army divisions destined to be sent overseas as reinforcements for the troops already there?
2.	If so, (a) what is the actual number; (b) to what army corps do they belong; (c) do they consist only of volunteers, or are conscripts included?


Mr. RALSTON:: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the hon. gentleman intends to have this question dropped.


Mr. ROY:: Yes.
Question dropped.

Questions


JAPANESE NATIONALS-INTERIOR HOUSING PROJECTS
Mr. MacINNIS:: 1.	How many persons of Japanese origin are now maintained in the interior housing projects?
2.	Where are those housing projects located?
3.	What is the population of each housing project?
4.	How many of the total population in these areas are males of employable age?
5.	How many are, (a) employable; (b) unemployable?
6.	Is the national selective service, or any other body or organization, trying to find employment for the employable males and females in localities referred to above, (a) in British Columbia; (b) elsewhere?
7.	Is there resistance on the part of the Japanese in these projects to take work in other provinces?
8.	If so, what reasons are given for their reluctance to leave the area?


Mr. MITCHELL:: 1.	At April 27, 1943, 12,146 persons of Japanese origin were resident in the interior housing centres, of whom an indeterminate and varying number were on full or partial maintenance.
2.	The interior housing centres are located in British Columbia at Tashme, Greenwood, Sandon, Slocan, Lemon Creek, Kaslo, New Denver and Roseberry.
3.	The population of each interior housing centre is as follows:-
Tashme	 2,612
Greenwood	 1,204
Sandon	 900
Slocan	 2,806
Lemon Creek	 1,881
Kaslo	 950
New Denver and Roseberry 1,793
12,146
4.	Male Japanese in the age group 18 to 60 years total 2,401 in the interior housing centres.
5.	(a) Employable, 2,246; (b) unemployable, 155.
6.	(a) The staff of the commissioner of Japanese Placement at Vancouver and in the interior of British Columbia work in cooperation with employment and selective service offices throughout the province, and agricultural and industrial associations, to find employment for the Japanese, (b) Placement officers for Japanese are employed under the Commissioner of Japanese Placement, at Lethbridge, Winnipeg, Port Arthur, Toronto and Montreal, who work in cooperation with local employment and selective service offices, provincial agriculural representatives, and voluntary organizations to find employment for Japanese.
7.	There has been reluctance on the part of certain groups among the Japanese in the interior housing centres to take work east of the Rockies, but this is gradually declining.
8.	The reluctance of the Japanese to take work in other provinces may be attributed to fear of movement into unknown territory, to reports of an unfriendly attitude in certain eastern localities, and to a desire to enter only specific lines of employment with which they are familiar.


ALUMINUM COMPANY OP CANADA
Mr. KNOWLES:: What depreciation allowances were granted to the Aluminum Company of Canada, Limited, for each of the following years: 1937, 1938, 1939, and 1940?


Mr. GIBSON:: Mr. Speaker, it has never been considered to be in the public interest to divulge information as to the affairs of individual taxpayers, and in any case to do so would be contrary to the provisions of section 81 of the Income War Tax Act.


COST-OF-LIVING INDEX
Mr. KNOWLES:: 1.	Has the dominion bureau of statistics, since the outbreak of the present war, made any revisions in the method of determining the cost-of-living index?
2.	In the determining of the cost-of-living index, are the following factors taken into consideration, (a) deterioration in quality of goods available; (b) indirect increases in cost of living resulting from that amount of increased taxation being used to subsidize certain lines of consumer goods; (c) disappearance of certain lines of consumer goods from the market; (d) the virtual disappearance of so-called bargains and special prices?
3.	Is the dominion bureau of statistics completely independent from the wartime prices and trade board in its work in connection with the determining of the cost-of-living index?


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: 1.	The present cost-of-living index replaced the bureau's index on the base 1926=100 in August, 1940. This new record covers the period commencing January, 1935 and extending to the present time. No change in method has occurred since August, 1940, although two revisions in the index budget have been made. In January, 1941 several items were added to the budget, and in February,, 1943 further adjustments were made to take account of wartime changes in consumption. These are considered in detail in a published memorandum entitled "Revised Explanation and Description of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics Cost-of-Living Index". From July, 1942 onward, additional taxes on cigarettes and tobacco have been excluded from indexes calculated for the purpose of
Questions

reckoning cost-of-living bonuses by instruction of order in council P.C. 6219 as amended.
2.	(a) For many years the bureau has asked stores reporting clothing and home furnishings prices to report estimates of quality changes in addition to changes in price. A reported decrease in quality of 5 per cent is treated exactly the same as a price increase of 5 per cent.
(b)	The cost-of-living index measures changes in the cost of a budget of goods and services from month to month. Indirect taxes, with the exception of tobacco noted above, are included since they form a part of the actual price paid by the consumer. Direct taxes are not included in the cost-of-living budget since they do not change the consumer price of budget items.
(c)	As already indicated, certain adjustments in the index budget have been made resulting from the disappearance of consumer goods from the market. The full cost of such items has been distributed among other similar budget items in the same group, so that this operation results in no reduction of the index. Movements in the index continue to reflect only the influence of price changes upon the cost of the index budget.
(d)	The cost-of-living index has always been based entirely upon regular selling prices.
3.	The Dominion Bureau of Statistics is accountable solely to the Minister of Trade and Commerce for work connected1 with the cost-of-living index, as for all other work which it does.


FUNDS HELD IN TRUST FOR INDIANS
Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: 1.	Has a letter been issued by the superintendent of Indian agencies at Regina, notifying the Indians that only part of the interest accruing from money held in trust will be paid to the Indians during the war?
2.	If so, what is the reason for such action, and upon what authority is it based?
3.	Is this policy being adopted with reference to all Indians living on reservations in Canada?


Mr. CRERAR:: 1.	No. An attempt has, however, been made through inspectors and Indian agents to persuade Indians to forgo temporarily, in whole or in part, the distribution of interest earnings and other moneys held in trust for them.
2.	The earning power of the Indians generally is much higher than normal. Opportunities for gainful employment are the best in many years. Demand for Indian labour in all industries, and particularly in agriculture, lumbering and fishing, is strong. On the Pacific coast the restriction placed on the Japanese has created an unprecedented

demand for Indian labour in the fishing fleet and factories. Lumber camps welcome all Indian labour they can get. On the prairies Indian camps are combed for all available farm labour. Lumber and wood camps, farms and fishing stations readily absorb all Indian labour they can get. Fur prices are better than they have been in the past two decades. The army and other forces have accepted a great many of the Indians and pay and allowances to dependents are far above the normal Indian living standard. Crops have been good and prices for grain fair and for 'live stock produced on reserves better than average. It is considered sound policy in times of relative prosperity and urgent need for the full utilization of manpower and high wages to provide against a day of possibly greater Indian need and to that end to encourage the saving of the unearned income of the bands.
The representatives of the bands have been consulted, local conditions and local needs examined and considered. Many bands have voluntarily consented to the deferment or curtailment of annual distribution of their unearned income. Some have voluntarily offered to invest it, or a substantial part of it, in war savings certificates. Many bands, where local conditions or contractual obligations warrant it, have been paid in full.
3.	Yes.


CROWN COMPANIES-COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS
Mr. GILLIS:: What crown company plants have collective bargaining agreements with unions which are affiliated either with the Canadian Congress of Labour, the Trades and Labour Congress, or the Confederation of Catholic Workers of Canada ?


Humphrey Mitchell: The following crown companies have negotiated collective agreements with trade unions or are presently negotiating with trade unions with a view to the consummation of a collective agreement:
Research Enterprises, Limited, Toronto, Ontario (Local 1039, United Steelworkers of America); Small Arms, Limited, Port Credit, Ontario (Local 519, United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America); Toronto Shipbuilding Company, Limited (Several craft unions of the American Federation of Labor); Victory Aircraft, Limited, Malton, Ontario (Lodge 717, International Association of Machinists); National Railways Munitions, Limited, Montreal, P.Q. (Canadian National Railways System Federa-

Questions
tion, American Federation of Labor); Cutting Tools and Gauges, Limited, Toronto, Ontario (Company in negotiations with a local of the United Steelworkers of America).
The United Steelworkers of America and the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America are affiliated with the Canadian Congress of Labour. The other unions or federations are affiliated with the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada.


DAY NURSERIES
Mr. NOSEWORTHY:: 1.	What is the name, location, date of commencement, and daily capacity of each day nursery now in operation under dominion-provincial agreement?
2.	What is the name of each nursery school unit that has come under the day care provision of the dominion-provincial agreement?
3.	What is the number of children in each of these units?


Humphrey Mitchell: Ontario
Unit No. Location	Date of opening	Daily Capacity	Registration1. 95 Bellevue Ave., Toronto	Oct. 6, 1942	50	502. 73 Charlotte St., Brantford	Dec. 28, 1942	50	503. 16 Chestnut St.. St. Catharines	Feb. 1, 1943	50	364. 300 Centre St., Oshawa	Feb. 1, 1942	35	125. Fairbank, Toronto	Feb. 1, 1943	35	356. 703 College St., Toronto	Mar. 1, 1943	50	507. Dawes Road, Toronto	Mar. 15, 1943	50	509. 20 Claremont St., Toronto	Apr. 5, 1942	35	3510. 125 Rose Ave., Toronto	Apr. 12, 1943	35	35Quebec	1. 2035 Coursol St., Montreal	Mar. 1, 1943	40	402. 375 Willibrod St., Montreal	May 1, 1943	40	272. Each nursery school is named Dominion-	CANADIAN FORCES-	-GAS RATION TO	PERSONNEL ONProvincial Wartime Day Nursery, Unit No. ..	SPECIAL LEAVE	In addition the following schools have day	Mr. HATFIELD:	school care:- Name of school	1. Do members of any extra gas ration special leave?	the armed forces receive to use when at home on	
Toronto.
Hamilton.
. Alexander Muir Charles G. Fraser Danforth Park Dewson Dufferin Duke of York Frankland Givens
Jesse Ketchum
Niagara
Park
Silverthorn
.W. H.. Ballard Bennetto Queen Mary
Lakeview Beach
3.	Answered in question No. 1.
2. If not, does a car owner receive any extra gas ration to supplement his own when the car is used by a member of his family who is home on special leave from the armed forces?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	No.
2.	No.


CANCELLATION Of' GUN CONTRACTS
Mr. BRUCE:: Have the contracts been cancelled for the production of the following guns or other war materials, (a)	3-7 anti-aircraft guns; (b)
40-mm. Bofors; (c) Sten machine gun; (d) Boys anti-tank rifle; (e) artillery shell production or, if this is not cancelled altogether, has it been sharply curtailed; (f) 25-pounder artillery guns, all or in part; (g) 6-pounder anti-tank guns; (h) carriages for guns above mentioned; (i) Bren guns, cancelled or reduced? If the latter, by what amount?
Questions


Mr. ILSLEY:: Military information concerning cancellation of specific contracts for guns etc., cannot be divulged as it is not in the public interest to do so. See also minister's statement in Hansard, page 2708:
I do hope that there will be no further speculation of the kind contained in the article. Announcements will be made as soon as the facts of the situation can be determined. We have laid out a new production programme that will require certain adjustments. Just what the adjustments are, and their extent, will be determined as rapidly as possible, and announcements will be made in the plants concerned. Certainly the workers in the plants concerned are entitled to the first official notice of changes, and it is our intention to send out the notifications in that way. I trust that there will be no further speculation either in parliament or on the part of hon. members regarding the matter.


CANADIAN ARMY-PAY
Mr. KNOWLES:: 1.	What percentage of men in the army, in Canada, who, by reason of length of service only, would be entitled to an increase from $1.30 to $1.40 per diem, have been awarded such increase.
2.	What percentage of men in the army, in Canada, who, by reason of length of service only, would be entitled to an increase of $1.50 per diem, have been awarded such increase?
3.	What percentage of men in the Canadian army overseas, who, by reason of length of service only, would be entitled to an increase from $1.30 to $1.40 per diem, have been awarded such increase?
4.	What percentage of men in the Canadian army overseas, who, by reason of length of service only, would be entitled to an increase of $1.50 per diem, have been awarded such increase?


James Layton Ralston: I would ask my hon.
friend to drop this question in its present form. I think the information he wants will be given on the discussion of the resolution which is now before the house. He will see, if he reads the question carefully, that it is based on the assumption that some men would be entitled to increase of pay simply by reason of length of service only. That is not the case.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This question was on the order paper before and it was suggested that I drop it or re-word it. The re-wording here was given to me by the department through the minister's parliamentary assistant.


James Layton Ralston: What was given?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The parliamentary
assistant to the Minister of National Defence gave me that re-wording with respect to 1 and 2, the only addition being that I suggested I might put on the same questions with relation to men overseas. This accounts for 3 and 4. But as regards 1 and 2 the re-wording was given to me by the parliamentary assistant.
[Mr. Bruce.J


James Layton Ralston: I had not seen the form
of the question, but it would appear to me, on looking at it, that the hon. gentleman was under the impression that men were entitled to increase of pay simply on the basis of length of service. That is not so. If my hon. friend wishes us to answer the question in a hypothetical sense, that is to say, on the basis of the number of men who would be entitled to increase of pay if they could qualify for that increase by length of service, we will do it in that way. I rose to tell my hon. friend, however, that I shall have the information in the course of the discussion, unless for some particular reason he wants it earlier.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Since the question is
worded as the department gave it to me, I should prefer to have it answered.


James Layton Ralston: Wre will answer it on a
hypothetical basis.
Question stands.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: 1.	Are officers or men, medically fit, 30 to 35 years of age, employed on the headquarters staff of the Department of National Defence, (a) in Ottawa; (b) overseas?
2.	If so, how many?
3.	What are their names, and their ranks?


James Layton Ralston: Return tabled.


PERMIT TO E. G. OSBORN OF LONDON, ENG., TO VISIT CANADA
Mr. REID:: 1.	Was an application made by Mr. E. G. Osborn, London, England, requesting a visiting permit to Canada during June, July, August, or September, 1942?
2.	If so, was a visiting permit granted him?
3.	If not, what reasons were given for refusing the application?


Mr. CRERAR:: Order for return.


Mr. GRAYDON:: In view of the fact that the question seems to refer to only one department, why should there be an order for return?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The request might come from the immigration department or through external affairs. There are more departments than one involved, and they would harm to be circularized in order to obtain the answer.

Questions as Orders for Returns


SARNIA, ONT., SYNTHETIC RUBBER PLANT
Mr. HATFIELD:: 1.	Does the government own or operate a synthetic rubber plant at Sarnia?
2.	If so, what are the names of the officers of the plant; what are the names of the chemists at the plant?
3.	What is their experience in rubber?
4.	Where were they previously employed?
5.	By whom were they recommended?



DEPUTY MINISTERS SINCE 1867

Mr. GAUTHIER:: What are the names of the deputy ministers, and their tenure of office, since 1867, of the Departments of Marine, Transport, Public Works, National Defence, Agriculture, Justice, and Secretary of State?



FERNAND CHOQUETTE

Mr. ROY:: 1.	Has Mr. Fernand Choquette, lawyer, of Montmagny, Quebec, been employed by the government during the years 1941-42 inclusive?
2.	If so, (a) in what capacity; (b) what amount was paid to him during each of these years ?



CANADIAN ARMY-ORDER A-317

Mr. ROY:: 1.	Has the government bought any amount of the article covered by order A-317 for the use of men in the armed forces?
2.	If so, what quantity, and at what price?



NEWSPRINT INDUSTRY

Mr. MacINNIS:: 1.	What amounts were paid into and withdrawn from the newsprint stabilization pool by various companies in each of the months of January, February, March, and April, 1943?
2.	(a) What government restrictions are there on the use of the amount of funds retained in the pool; (b) is this fund subject to taxation?
3.	How long will profits continue to be paid to non-producing firms under the stabilization pool arrangement?
4.	(a) What provision has the government made for employees who lose their jobs because newsprint plants are closed down; (b) what payments have been made to employees who have been transferred to other industries?



RECRUITING STATIONS

Mr. BRUCE:: 1.	How many recruiting stations are there in Canada?
2.	What personnel is required to man them?



CENSORSHIP-INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE

Mr. DORION:: 1.	How many times during the last twelve months has the inter-departmental committee been called by the director of censorship?
2.	Who attended these meetings?
3.	At what date were these meetings held?
4.	Who was the president, or the chairman, of these meetings?
5.	Who elected, or selected, the president of these meetings?
6.	When was the Order in Council constituting the directorate of censorship adopted?
7.	Has this committee made any reports?
8.	If so, to whom?
9.	Are the deliberations of this committee taken by writing?
10.	Is there any minutes of the proceedings of this committee?
Mr. LaFLECHE: Subject to the ordinary reservations, may this be passed as an order for return?



PRINTING OF SPEECHES OF MEMBERS OF THE GOVERNMENT

Mr. BENCE:: 1.	What speeches of the Prime Minister, and/or any members of the cabinet, other than those set out in answer to question 21 in sessional paper 176, have been printed, since the commencement of the war, at the expense of the government?
2.	How many of such speeches were printed in each case, what was the cost thereof, and how many were sent out for distribution?
3.	By whom were such speeches printed, and under whose authority?



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-EXAMINATIONS FOR POSITIONS


Mr. NICHOLSON:: 1.	Is Wartime Housing Limited building permanent houses at Sarnia, Ontario?
2.	If so, what are the terms of the agreement under which these houses are built?
3.	How many houses are being built?
4.	What is the unit cost of these houses?


MOBILIZATION ACT-NOTICES, POSTPONEMENTS, ETC.
Mr. NICHOLSON:: In each of the administrative divisions under the National Resources Mobilization, Act, from December 1, 1942, to April 30, 1943-1. How many medical notices have been sent out by each administrative division of the mobilization administration?
2.	How many medical notices have been returned undelivered?
3.	How many medical notices have been returned with information that addressee had enlisted?
4.	How many notices have been returned with advice that the man in question had been reported killed in action, or missing?
5.	How many medical examinations were given ?
6.	How many of the examinees were placed in "A" category?
7.	How many postponements were granted?
8.	How many notices were issued to report to training centres?
9.	How many notices "to report" were returned undelivered?
10.	What was the number reporting at the training centres?
11.	How many were rejected at training centres ?
12.	How many entered as N.R.M.A. recruits?


CUSTODIAN OP ENEMY PROPERTY
Mr. REID:: 1.	How many properties or halls belonging to, or controlled by those of Ukrainian birth or nationality, have been taken over by the custodian of enemy property, giving a list of same, by provinces, and showing the assessed value in each case?
2.	Have any of these properties or halls been disposed of by the said custodian of enemy property?
3.	If so, how many have been sold, to whom, and at what price?


NAVAL SERVICES-LIAISON, PUBLICITY AND PUBLIC RELATIONS OFFICERS
Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: 1.	How many liaison, publicity, and public relations officers, are employed by the Department of National Defence for Naval Services, or by the Department of National War Services for naval services?
2.	What are the names, ages, rank, salaries and expenses, from date of employment, of all persons so employed?
3.	What are the duties of each such person, where located, whether in Canada or elsewhere?


FARM PRODUCTS-INSPECTION FEES AND CERTIFICATES
Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: 1.	What sums were due the Department of Agriculture by each of the shippers on June 3Q, 1934, for arrears for inspection fees and for inspection certificates for potatoes, hay, turnips, and apples, stating amounts owing by each person, their names and addresses, for the provinces of, (a) Prince Edward Island; (b) New Brunswick; (c) Nova Scotia?
2.	Have such arrears been paid since? If not, what sums are still owing, stating names, and individual amounts?
3.	What sums have become due since June 30, 1934, and remain unpaid?


IMPORTS OF RAW SUGAR FROM CUBA
Mr. FAIR:: 1.	What is the value of raw sugar imported from Cuba during the years 1939, 1940, 1941, and 1942?
2.	Is shipping space still available to facilitate importation of Canada's requirements of raw sugar from above source?


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: For a copy of all agreements and conventions made between Canada and other nations, whether within the empire or foreign, since January, 1936, respecting air routes or air transportation in general, together with all notes exchanged between Canada and other nations with reference to the control of international air routes, or the operation of international or commercial airlines now or after the conclusion of the war.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: There is no
objection to passing the motion on the understanding that for security reasons certain agreements cannot be produced. There are agreements with other governments respecting air routes and air transportation which are confidential and which the other governments concerned are unwilling to have made public. These agreements are not included in the list. They are valid only for the duration of the war or a short time thereafter and can have no effect upon the control of international air routes or the operation of international or commercial air lines after the conclusion of the war. I shall now table the documents requested,


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. MacINNIS:: For a copy of the agreement between the Canadian government and the government of the United States relating to the employment by American contractors of Canadian labour on the Alaska highway and related American projects.

Royal Canadian Air Force


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker,
I now table copy of the supplementary agreement between the Canadian government and the government of the United States relating to the employment by American contractors of Canadian labour on the Alaska highway and related United States projects. The agreement itself regarding the Alaska highway was tabled on March 18 and is printed in Votes and Proceedings.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: For a list of the names and addresses of all the textile firms to whom contracts have been awarded during the fiscal year 1942-43, and the amount of each contract.


WASHINGTON CONFERENCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: Has the Prime Minister any statement to make to the house in connection with the Washington conference from which he has just returned?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like very much to be in a position to make a statement to the house in reference to the conference. Hon. members will realize that it was of an exceptionally confidential character and I would not be at liberty at this time to make a statement of any length with respect to any of the matters related to or arising out of the conference or to the conversations I had with the President and Mr. Churchill. However, a little later, possibly in a week or later on, I may be taking up the estimates of the Department of External Affairs and I should hope by that time to be in a position to make some reference to matters incidental to the conference on which hon. members might wish to be informed. I should prefer to leave any statement until that time.


ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. C. G. POWER (Minister of National Defence for Air):: I have been in receipt of communications from a number of members of this house and from people outside with reference to rumours regarding the recent loss
of a number of members of the Royal Canadian Air Force by the sinking of a ship in the north Atlantic, and I desire to make the following statement on the facts.
The vessel in question was a ship of British registry of 8,862 tons, designed for peace-time carriage of both passengers and freight, and having a speed of fifteen knots. She carried a crew of 86 and the passenger accommodation consisted of 12 two-berth rooms with bath, and 29 other berths, providing cabin accommodation for 53 passengers. She was fitted with lifeboat capacity for 231 and travelled in naval convoy.
Under the recently revised regulations agreed to by the United States authorities, the joint United Kingdom and United States shipping board, the Admiralty, the Air Ministry and the Canadian authorities, a vessel of this description travelling in convoy is permitted to embark as crew and passengers a maximum of seventy-five per cent of the lifeboat capacity. The lifeboat capacity as stated above was 231, seventy-five per cent of which is 173. Personnel on board consisted of the crew of 86, and R.C.A.F. personnel numbering 53, a total of 139, well within the prescribed limits.
Because of the superior type of available passenger accommodation, the speed of the ship and the provision of naval convoy, the offer of the entire available space to the R.C.A.F. was immediately accepted. Rumours to the effect that this was a slow freighter not suitable for passenger accommodation are, of course, not in accord with the facts. Every precaution was taken to safeguard the lives of these gallant young men. It should be pointed out that on account of the serious shipping shortage every available berth on such ships must be used, and had the space not been taken up by the R.C.A.F., officers of other arms of the services would have been placed on board. It should also be stated again that the submarine is still the enemy's most powerful weapon and that the battle of the Atlantic is not yet won. Any ocean trip to-day in any part of the world is fraught with danger and I think I may safely say that our record in transporting our soldiers and airmen to the United Kingdom is one of which we may all be proud.
No one deplores more than I do the loss of thirty-seven of the finest of our young men, who gave their lives for their country as surely as if they had done so in actual combat with the enemy, and I extend my deepest sympathy to their loved ones in their bereavement.
Mutual Aid Bill


VICTORIA DAY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, I think the
House of Commons on this twenty-fourth day of May might appropriately and profitably take time for a moment to pay tribute to a greatly beloved monarch of yesterday, the late Queen Victoria, and at the same time do homage to that great empire with which her name has always been affectionately associated, the British commonwealth of nations.
In the last great war the British empire came out of that severe testing period with colours flying high. In the second great war the empire is emulating successfully its achievements of the past. Its colours still fly high and I think that this house may appropriately at this time pause and pay a well-merited tribute to the British commonwealth of nations and all that it stands for in the realm of freedom and righteousness.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I agree with my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) that it is very fitting that to-day a tribute should be paid not only to the memory of the great Queen Victoria but also, as he has said, to the British commonwealth of nations. I can think of no greater tribute that could be paid than that which is being paid to-day by the armed forces of Canada in the part which they are taking in this great war for freedom, by the part which is being taken by the men and women in our various war industries and by the people of Canada generally in all that pertains to the war effort. The magnificent response which was recently made to the victory loan indicates how deeply the people of Canada have at heart all that relates to the preservation of liberty and freedom. Certainly no reign in history was more identified with the obtaining of many of the liberties we enjoy to-day than that of Queen Victoria.
I thank my hon. friend for having risen to recall to the memory of all present what we owe to so great a sovereign, remembering in this particular the queen's illustrious great-grandson, our present king. If I may be permitted to make the suggestion it would I think be most fitting for hon. members to rise and join in singing the national anthem on this Victoria Day.
(The members rose and sang the national anthem.)



MUTUAL AID BILL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, on Saturday of last week the Right Hon. Clement R. Attlee, Deputy Prime Minister of Great Britain and Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, sent a telegram to me as Prime Minister of Canada in reference to the passage of the Mutual Aid bill.
This communication was, I understand, given out in London either on Saturday or yesterday. It has appeared in some of the press of Canada this morning. It is fitting, however, that it should have its place on the records of parliament and I shall accordingly read the communication.
It is dated London, May 22, 1943, and reads:
From the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs.
To the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
The following for your prime minister (begins):
On the occasion of the passage of the Mutual Aid bill through its final stage, I wish to express to you the gratitude and admiration ot the people and the government of the United Kingdom for this magnificent contribution.
When last year the government of Canada made a gift of a thousand million dollars to the United Kingdom, Mr. Churchill spoke of it as [DOT]being unequalled in the whole history of the British empire. Canada has herself now surpassed her previous contribution. By this measure and by steps she has taken to purchase interests of government of the United Kingdom in Canadian munition factories and to assume financial responsibility for R.C.A.F. squadrons, Canada has provided means for Britain and other members of the united nations to obtain from her a continued flow of war supplies to the value of over $1,800 million. These unselfish and far-sighted measures have not only added immeasurably to common reserves in fighting for freedom but have prevented accumulation of ivar debt which would be a burden on prosperity of the world in years to come.
Canada's role as an arsenal and storehouse has become ever more important as the war progresses. The supplies furnished by Canada under billion dollar gift were a powerful factor in the success of the Eighth Army. Now that the day is coming for the final assault on the enemy, the new supplies now to be made available will enable Canada's strength and power to be felt all over the world.
I ask you therefore to accept this expression of the deep appreciation of His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom for a statesmanlike gesture which affords a most hopeful augury not only for accomplishment of the present task but also for the development of future understanding between nations on secure and lasting foundation.
C. R. Attlee.

The Late William Aberhart



THIRD INTERNATIONAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Angus MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Justice. In view of the announcement over the week-end that the Third International had been dissolved, will the minister state to the house whether the government has given consideration to giving the communist party in Canada legal status?
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice):	Mr. Speaker, if I understand the
hon. member's question he wishes to know whether, in view of the declaration made in Russia on Saturday the government had given consideration to giving legal status to the communist party in Canada. There has been no opportunity for the government to consider that matter since the announcement was made. I might point out to the hon. member that it would probably require both the deletion of a regulation in the defence of Canada regulations and an amendment to the criminal code to give legal status in Canada to any party that might advocate the overthrow of the existing institutions by means of force. It struck me when I read the declaration that it perhaps made it unnecessary now to give any further consideration to section 39(c) of the defence of Canada regulations, which was passed at a time when the communist party of Canada formed part of the Communist International. If that organization has now been dissolved and the group in Canada which formed part of it follows the recommendation which the newspapers have reported as having been made by the Comintern, there would no longer be any useful purpose in referring to the matter. It would be an organization that had disappeared, and it would be of no interest to anyone w'hether or not it remained banned. If any other party or group should be made up of men who formerly belonged to this organization, it would depend upon the attitude they adopted as to whether or not any further action should be taken with respect to them.



WATER POWER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. K. ESLING (Kootenay West):: In view of recent press dispatches can the Prime Minister inform the house whether this government has been approached by the United States government for permission to construct
storage dams on the Columbia and Pend d'Oreille rivers north of the international boundary?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am sorry I am not in
a position to give my hon. friend an answer offhand, but I shall seek to give an answer to his question to-morrow if possible.



THE LATE WILLIAM ABERHART


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of -the day:
Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: I should like to refer to an occurrence which took place since we last met. Since this house adjourned on Friday last an event occurred which to hundreds of thousands whom I have the honour to represent has come as a tragedy. Social Crediters everywhere, as well as all people sincerely interested in reform, heard with the deepest regret of the death of Premier William Aberhart of Alberta. Even those who for various reasons opposed the famous monetary reform leader have felt the loss to our generation of a man so able, so sincere, so public spirited, so courageous and energetic as was the dynamic Alberta premier. Upon the request of the press yesterday I issued the following statement, which I ask the indulgence of the house to read into the record:
In the passing of William Aberhart a great man has gone, a great man with a great message. He was an ardent Britisher, a tireless advocate of the principles of true British democracy. Of the leading statesmen of his time, some spoke of freedom from want and fear; some promised it; he alone pointed the way by which, without loss of individual liberty, such freedom from want and fear can be attained. He lighted a light that men must not allow to be put out.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to my hon.
friend who has just spoken that before he rose I received a note from my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Gray-don) asking me if I thought I should make a reference to the passing of the late Mr. Aberhart. The thought had occurred to me [DOT] before I came into the house, but in seeking for precedents as to references to the passing of provincial premiers, I have been unable to discover any, and it seemed to me that the general tradition of confining references of the kind to members or ex-members of the federal parliament or to personages who have held very high position was perhaps the one to which I should adhere. For that reason alone I made no reference to the passing of Mr. The Late William Aberhart

Aberhart, the late Premier of Alberta, in whom we all recognized one who played a great part in the affairs of his own province; one who, from the point of view of my hon. friend and his followers, deserved, I am sure, the encomiums which have been expressed by the leader of the Social Credit group. My. hon. friend will realizie that while we all, I think, respected Mr. Aberhart and had a high opinion of not a few of his qualities, there are many of us who did not agree with some of the measures and doctrines he advocated, and for that reason might not be expected to express ourselves in reference to his public services in quite the same terms as have been used by one who was a devoted disciple and follower.
I hope the hon. gentleman will feel that I speak on behalf of hon. members of this house when I express the desire that our sympathy should be conveyed to Mrs. Aberhart and the members of the family in the bereavement they have sustained. I join very sincerely with my hon. friend not only in expressing sympathy to those who have been so greatly bereaved but, so far as I am individually concerned, in expressing a sense of personal loss in the passing of one who was a friend, though a friend with whom I differed considerably in matters of policy.


Gordon Graydon: I should like to add just a word to what has been said in reference to the deceased premier of the province of Alberta. In my opinion Mr. Aberhart's passing will be mourned by a great section of this country, for three reasons in particular. First, whatever may have been the differences among people with respect to their social, economic or political views, Mr. Aberhart was a Christian gentleman who by his example did a great deal for public life in Canada. In addition, he was an enthusiastic pioneer in social and economic reform. Then perhaps it is particularly appropriate on this 24th day of May that it should be said also that, the premier of Alberta was a staunch supporter and earnest devotee of all the principles and ideals of the British commonwealth of nations which we have commemorated this afternoon. Therefore I join with the Prime Minister and the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) in expressing to the widow and family our very deep sympathy in their bereavement.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, this group wishes to associate itself with the statements of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon). We extend our sympathy to the leader of the Social Credit group and his party in their loss.



WAR APPROPRIATION BILL


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, May 21, consideration in committee of a resolution to grant to bis majesty certain sums of money for the carrying out of measures consequent upon the existence of a state of war-Mr. Ilsley- Mr. Bradette in the chair.

Mr. ROSS (Souris) :: This being May 24,
Mr. Chairman, and fitting reference having been made in this house to the British commonwealth of nations, may I add that I am sure the conference which took place last week in Washington will go down in history as a gathering of great national and international importance; I believe the future will prove the truth of this statement. I am sure all hon. members join with me in welcoming back the Minister of National Defence after his participation in that great gathering.
Last Tuesday, just before the minister left, I was quoting from the Winnipeg Free Press in reference to medical practitioners and the No. 3 casualty clearing station. At that time I was not sure of the date of the article, but since then I have checked it up and find the date to be April 28, 1943.
Now I should like to say a word with respect to dependents' allowances, for I think some amendments should be made and some improvements brought about in this connection. I have a letter dealing with a case which I have discussed from time to time with the parties interested; this is not an isolated case by any means, and I should like to quote a paragraph from the letter in order to bring out the point more clearly:
In this case the husband , deserted the wife some time prior to his enlistment, and when she endeavoured to have a warrant served upon him under the Deserted Wives' Maintenance Act the police were unable to find him, so that the [DOT]warrant was never served.
He proceeded overseas and since he has been there his wife has been refused maintenance because maintenance is being paid to a woman with whom he was living in Winnipeg prior to his departure overseas.
While I can understand the regulation of the dependents' allowance board that no allowance will be granted to a wife who is living apart from her husband and he has not contributed, if in a financial position so to do, in the six months preceding enlistment, I cannot understand a regulation which permits the payment by a husband so deserting his wife, to another woman whom he decides to leave his wife to live with. This seems to put the onus on the wrong party-if anyone has to establish the right surely it should be upon the husband to prove his wife is no longer as deserving as the

War Appropriation-Army
mistress whom he has replaced her with. It outrages both my sense of decency and my pocket as a taxpayer that this woman should be denied an allowance in such circumstances.
This case has been discussed before, both in the house and' in committee, and I suggest it should be cleared up.
Another matter I would mention has to do with children sixteen years of age. I believe when they attain that age they are no longer permitted to receive dependent's allowances. Where it can be shown that they are continuing their education, and making progress in that regard, in my opinion assistance should be continued for another year or two, until they have reached the age of seventeen or eighteen years. I trust that some provision will be made in this respect.
When the minister spoke he said there were several items with which he had not time to deal. I would refer however to transportation, a subject which is causing many people considerable concern. They are not sure, nor are their representatives in this chamber, that all this transportation of armed forces is necessary. Certainly it creates a great congestion of traffic. I suggest the minister should state what the' transportation costs have been in Canada in the past year. I realize that in respect of certain specialized training, when training centres are located at different points across the country, it is necessary to move the troops back and forth so that they may obtain the required training. I doubt, however, whether it is necessary to the extent it now obtains, and I believe there has been considerable waste effort in this respect. Let me give one example-and it is not an isolated example by any means. A young chap whose home is in a city not far from here was home on leave, and while there applied to his officer commanding, in Vancouver, for an extension. The extension was refused. He reported back to Vancouver, only to be informed immediately that he was to proceed to a training area near Toronto. I have known many such instances, and it seems to me this condition could be checked, thereby preventing a great amount of unnecessary travel. I would ask the minister to explain whether it is essential to have this constant movement of armed forces back and forth across the country, because, apart from the cost entailed, it certainly does congest traffic.
I had intended to say something about man-power, but I assume that subject will be dealt with in detail by some other hon. members; and further, I do not wish to take more time of the committee just now.


Mr. MACDONALD (Brantford City):: Mr. Chairman, my first words on rising to take part in this discussion will be words of congratulation to the Minister of National Defence upon the very clear and precise statement he gave the committee. He has had a terrific task. Canada's peace-time army of 4,500 has grown to a war-time army, with all the various ramifications demanded by modern warfare, numbering 450,000 men. This has been indeed a terrific undertaking. Had it not been for his organizing and executive ability I doubt if such accomplishment could have been possible. No man charged with the responsibility of carrying out any part of Canada's war effort has had a greater task to perform, and no one has done it better than the Minister of National Defence.
During his remarks he referred to the Dieppe raid. A number of hon. members who have followed him in the debate have made similar references most of which however have been critical. I do not intend to discuss the raid in great detail, but I shall refer to it briefly. Truly it cannot be said to have been a great military victory, but it was a great feat performed by armed forces, so far as the planning and carrying out of plans, the courage and devotion to duty, and- the self-sacrifice of those who took part in the raid were concerned. The loved ones of the heroes of Dieppe must take great comfort from the fact that much valuable information was obtained from the raid, information which will be invaluable in the days to come when the armies of all the united nations attack the shores of France.


Mr. HARRIS (Danforth):: Would not the information obtained be of equal value to Germany?


William Ross Macdonald: Well, I do not know how it could apply to Germany. The information was obtained by Canadian troops for the benefit of the troops of the united nations. I have no doubt the united nations have gained much benefit from the raid. My point is that the loved ones of those who gave their lives in that raid will derive great comfort from the fact that many others will now be enabled to raid the continent, go on to victory and come back in safety to their loved ones in Canada.
In reporting upon the raid, the Minister of National Defence held nothing back. He told our people what had taken place, and the casualties which had resulted therefrom. In this connection I refer to a Canadian Press dispatch bearing a New York date line, and appearing in the Brantford Expositor. I have

War Appropriation-Army

ao doubt the same dispatch appeared in many other dailies across Canada. The article is headed, "No Sugared Report on Dieppe Raid", and states:
New York, September 24. The New York Daily Mirror, tabloid morning newspaper, editorially complimented Canada to-day for the frankness of defence minister Ralston's report on the Canadian-led Dieppe operation last month. . . .
Captioned "Canadians get no bunk, no evasions," the editorial said: . . .
The people of Canada got no sugared report, bluntly, Defence Minister Ralston announced that the 5,000 Canadians who made up five-sixths of the raiding forces suffered 67 per cent casualties, killed, wounded and missing. . . .
In short the story of Dieppe, as it was told by the government of Canada to the people of Canada accomplished these strengthening results:
1.	The people of Canada accepted their casualties because the necessity for casualties was explained.
2.	The people of Canada were taken "inside" the story of Dieppe; though they were separated from the fighting front by the width of the Atlantic, they were brought to the ringside of a battle fought largely by Canadians.
3.	The people of Canada were reinforced in their belief that their government does not permit any admirals or generals to cover up or twist the details of "costly" operations.
Here, in America, we can learn mueh from Canada's example. . . .
Canada had to show us the way to price control. Now Canada shows us the way to fighting morale.
I place that on record so that we may recall that with respect to Dieppe we were told about the casualties, we were told the cost, and we were told something of the great results obtained. I am confident that in respect of future operations the Minister of National Defence will keep the house and country advised of the part Canada is playing.
In his statement the minister gave us figures showing the number of men now in the army. They total approximately 450.000. Of' this number, 190,000 are abroad. These men have been waiting in England; they are eager to fight and yet they have been restrained for the last three years. They have had a splendid record in England. It is not an easy thing for an army to wait and wait and wait. Canada's army are well trained and this country is more prepared to-day than she ever was to strike a blow when the time comes. I should like to read an excerpt from an article which appeared in the London Daily Sketch and which I feel pays a well-deserved compliment to Canada. It reads: Ready and Waiting
The Canadians like England and Wales, and love Scotland, but it is no good telling them they are doing a grand job in defending these islands. Their reply is they are not concerned so much with defence as with smashing the Hun and getting back home.
[Mr. W. R. Macdonald.1
Then the article goes on:
Their morale has not suffered during the long wait; they are keen, smart and training hard.
And again:
They are extremely well behaved, and the cases one sometimes reads about are the exceptions to the rule.
The article then goes on to refer to the fact that only one man a week 'out of 16,000 is brought before the magistrate's court, and it continues:
Do you know of any town of 16,000 population that has only one police case a week, or a city of 100,000 inhabitants that has only six a week?
To my mind that is a great compliment to the men in England who have been waiting all these months for the day and the hour in which to attack. A short time ago an hon. member of this house, discussing reinforcements, stated that the number of reinforcements for Canada's army was not more than ten or twelve per cent. That hon. member did not know what he was talking about; nevertheless his statement appeared in the press from one end of the country to the other. What are the facts? The minister has stated that at the present time there are
190,000	Canadians in England. This force is made up of five divisions. If we estimate the number of men in a division as 15,000, the five divisions would total 75,000. Then let us say there are 25,000 men in the divisional corps and acting as army troops. Over and above the men in the army and those 25,000 who belong to the divisional corps and are acting as army troops, there are still 90,000 trained men in England. So that in England alone there are reinforcements to the extent of ninety per cent.
But that is not the whole story. The minister has told us that at the present time there are 80,000 men in training in Canada. These men are rapidly being trained to take their places with the men in England. If we add these 80,000 men to the ninety per cent which we have in England, instead of having only ten or twelve per cent reinforcements we find that we have to-day reinforcements to the extent of 170 per cent. I submit that reinforcements to that extent are ample and should give confidence to those whose loved ones are abroad. They will know that there are many men ready to take the place of those who first go into battle.
The minister told us that the total number of men in Canada is approximately 240,000. I have referred to the 80,000 who are in training to be sent abroad. There are 80,000 who are in the home establishments, that is, men who are in the training centres. I should like to pay a tribute to these men in the

War Appropriation-Army
training centres. There is a training centre known as No. 20, near Brantford. I have watched this training centre grow up and I know something of the spirit of the men. I can say that the officer commanding and the other officers take a keen interest in every man in the training centre. I can say the same for the non-commissioned officers and other instructors. There is a great spirit in this training centre; they feel that they have a job to do. I think what can be said for No. 20 can be said for the other training centres throughout Canada.
Then there are 80,000 other troops who are to be used for home defence. I take it that the sixth, seventh and eighth divisions are part of this 80.000. It recently came to my attention that the men belonging to the sixth, seventh and eighth divisions in Canada are now wearing patches of different colours on their sleeves. I remember when in the last war the custom was established of putting patches on the sleeves of the men in order to distinguish them in battle. Every one knows that in the heat of battle the various divisions and brigades and regiments get mixed up and these patches were used so that a man could distinguish those who belonged to his battalion, and to make it easier for the battalion to get together. It came to be looked upon as a battle honour. It was a distinction for the man who had really served in the line of battle. What do we find to-day? We find that these home defence division's which will probably never be in battle as divisions are distinguished by these patches. Recently I read an article in the Globe and Mail, written by Ralph Allen, a man who had served in the ranks of the Canadian army for a number of years. He received his discharge from the army and has been writing some most interesting articles on the life of the soldier in England. Word of these patches has reached England and the men over there are greatly dissatisfied to know that the patch is no longer a battle badge, but is simply something to be worn by members of the forces no matter where they may be.
Another unfair feature about the wearing of these patches is the fact that there are many hundreds of men in Canada who have volunteered for active service but who do not belong to any particular division. These men are being trained; they would like to go abroad and probably they will go abroad some day, but in the meantime they do not belong to any division; therefore they wear no patches. I think it would bring about an improvement in the morale of the Canadian troops if no patches were worn by the men, 72537-1881
no matter' to what division they might belong unless they have been in an overseas division.
As I said before, the minister stated that there are approximately 80.000 men on home defence. In other words, these men are defending Canada from the shores of Canada. I realize that we must have defensive forces in Labrador, in Newfoundland, in Nova Scotia and along the Pacific coast line. However, it does seem to me that 80,000 men are, under present circumstances, more than enough for this purpose. I know that many young Canadians who have not volunteered for service abroad are just as patriotic, just as loyal and love Canada just as much as those whc have gone abroad. Most of these young men would willingly give their lives for their country: they would fight to the death for Canada. Unfortunately many of them are under the impression that this is not Canada's war but that it is Britain's war, and that we are fighting to help somebody else and not to help ourselves.	.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: Not now, surely.


William Ross Macdonald: Of course that view is entirely wrong. The armies that drove the axis forces from North Africa did just as much to save Canada as they did to save North Africa itself. Just because we are further removed from the actual place of conflict does not mean that we are likely in case of defeat to escape the horrors and terrorism of nazi domination. I have always believed' and still believe that the only way to keep war from Canada's shores is to send men abroad to seek out Hitler in lands far from Canada and fight nazism wherever it can be found. This is Canada's war just as much as it is Britain's war or the war of any of the united nations. Make no mistake about it, Canada is fighting for her very existence.
Under the provisions of the National Resources Mobilization Act, every young man called for military training is being trained in Canada to fight anywhere in the world, and by a stroke of the pen he can be required to go anywhere in the world. However, as long as we have an ample force of men who have volunteered to fight abroad there is no point in forcing others to go who, in the very nature of things, would not be as good soldiers as those who have volunteered. Nevertheless I have no doubt that if our armies abroad require reinforcements, every man in the army in Canada who is physically fit and properly trained will be sent abroad for that purpose. Until that day comes, and if our home defence force is to be increased beyond 80,000, at which number
War Appropriation-Army

it now stands, I suggest to the minister that draftees who will not volunteer to serve abroad' should be sent in ever-increasing numbers to Alaska to defend Canada from that corner of the country. By a recent order in council, draftees can be sent to Alaska and to Newfoundland and other places adjacent to Canada. At the present time Alaska is being defended to a large extent by soldiers of the United States. If Canada sent her draftees there, the United States soldiers could be relieved to fight in other parts of the world, and we would be cooperating with them in the best interests of the cause for which we fight.
The minister in his statement referred to the future of our army. He gave the house the number that would be required for the army in the year to come. At that time he stated that it would probably not be necessary in the future to produce certain equipment which Canada is now producing. I am quite in accord with him.; in fact I mentioned such a 'contingency when speaking in this chamber last year. On June 19, 1942, as reported in. Hansard, page 3501, I stated:
No doubt at the present time we have a greater need of munitions than of men, but with the ever-increasing output in Canada, and more particularly in the United States, and with the ever-changing ebb and flow of battle it is possible that within a comparatively short time we may need men to fight with the munitions rather than men to make the munitions.
When this war started it was stated that Canada would probably become the arsenal of the united nations. That is a great ambition, a great goal towards which to strive. But, Mr. Chairman, there is something greater than being the arsenal of the nations. To my mind it is much greater to provide the fighting men to fight with the equipment which is made in the arsenals. Canada has played a great part as an arsenal, but as the war progresses we are going to need men in the army more than we ever needed them. The day is fast coming when the arsenals of Canada will slacken in their output, and at that time the forces of Canada must increase. The minister has stated that 700,000 men is not an excessive army for Canada. To my mind it is far from an excessive number. We can have an army in Canada of many more than seven hundred thousand. Those men will come as the years go by. To-day more than ever before we need an all-out war effort, not only in the arsenals of our country, but to keep up our army and to increase its numbers.
Let me however at this time suggest to the minister that if men are coming from the war industries to the army it might be possible to transfer some of them from the war industries to the farms. I am not one of those who

believe in cutting down our armed forces indiscriminately in order to take men for this job and for that job. After all, it is the army that is going to win the war. True, the army must be fed and equipped, but with all the food and equipment you cannot win a war unless you have a well-trained army. Yet, we need food, and our farmers must have help. I suggest to the minister that when men are being released from the war industries, a proportion, not necessarily large but as many as can be spared, should be sent to the farms to assist in producing the food which the workers and the soldiers, sailors and airmen must have.
At the present time men are granted leave to assist farmers with seeding. This leave was granted on or about May 5. Ten days have elapsed since these men were sent home to assist on the farms. What are the conditions on the farms? We have had almost continuous rain. In most parts of Canada it has been impossible to get on with the seeding. These men have been home ten days and the seeding is not done. Probably twenty days of their leave remain, but they cannot complete the seeding in that time. I therefore suggest to the minister that all men who have been granted leave for seeding should have that leave extended, because it is a fact that the farmers cannot get their seeding done in the remaining twenty days which are left for the men who are on leave.
I would make another suggestion. I am not a farmer and do not profess to know anything about farming, apart from the fact that I know that seed is put in about this time of year, that late in June and early in July the hay must be taken off, and that hardly has the hay been taken off before the harvest is ready to be garnered. County councils throughout the province of Ontario have passed resolutions requesting that men who are given leave should not merely receive four weeks' leave to do seeding, then go back to their regiments, and then in say six weeks have another six weeks' leave to help with harvesting. After due inquiry has been made and it has been established that these men are needed on the farms, would it not be better to give them three or four months' continuous leave so that the farmer could get all his work done and would not worry, when he got his seeding done, how he was going to get his haying off, and when he got his haying off he would not worry how he was going to get his harvest in.
During the debate on this resolution hon. members have referred to the increase in pay which has recently been given the members of the army in order to put them on a par with men serving in the other two forces. Not only has there been an increase in pay but there has been an increase in the

War Apprupi-iation-Army
dependents' allowances. I wish to commend the Minister of National Defence and the government for this increase, which to my mind was long overdue but which none the less will be quite welcome to all those who are serving in the forces and to their dependents at home.
With the increase in dependents' allowances in Canada, the rates paid to the dependents
of our men are the highest of any nation which is fighting in this war. I have a table which was released at the time the increases were announced, giving the allowances paid in Canada, the United States, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and the United Kingdom. Hon. members would no doubt like to have this statement on Hansard. It is as follows:
Total Monthly Amount of Dependents' Allowance and Minimum Assigned Pay (including cost of living bonus where payable) received by dependents of a private (after six months' efficient service)
Wife	Wife and	Wife and	Wife and	Wife and	Wife and	Wife and	Motheronly	1 child	2 children	3 children	4 children	5 children	6 children	onlyCanada 	$59 40	$72 60	$84 60	$94 60	$102 60	$110 60	$118 60	$48 00United States...	50 00	62 00	72 00	82 00	92 00	102 00	112 00	37 00Australia 	42 78	58 80	69 48	77 52	85 56	93 60	101 64	42 78New Zealand ...	34 92	59 10	69 84	77 91	85 98	94 05	102 12	24 18South Africa ...	42 09	48 78	55 47	62 16	68 85	75 54	82 23	34 67United Kingdom	24 06	33 22	41 26	48 18	55 10	62 02	68 94	27 24
With regard to increases now given to children, the following are the allowances. Where there is one child, the allowance is $12; where there are two children, each child gets S12; the third child gets $10; the fourth, fifth and sixth children receive $8 each and the wife of the soldier receives $35 a month together with the cost of living bonus. The mother receives $25 and is allowed to make in all $65' a month.
The other day one of the speakers in the opposition referred to the allowance to mothers. In my opinion the mother should get the same allowance as the wife. Why should a wife whose husband is supporting her receive $35 a month and cost of living bonus and the mother whom a son was supporting receive only $25? More than that, I would point out that when a soldier who has no children goes overseas his wife gets $35 and cost of living allowance. If there are children she gets the additional allowance I have mentioned. But what of the parents? I know of a case-I am sure other members know of similar circumstances-where a boy went to the war, leaving not only his mother, who was an invalid, but his father who was also an invalid, both of whom he had been supporting prior to enlisting. To-day all the allowance that goes into that home is $25, although that boy before enlisting supported both mother and father. In that case there should be special allowance if both parents are unable to work and have been supported by the son before his enlistment. I have never
yet heard a satisfactory reason why a mother receives less than a wife when her loved one enlists.
In the course of the debate the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) referred to the provisions now being made for men returning from the front. From my knowledge, the present Minister . of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) has taken great interest in the men returning from this war. A recent issue of the Legionary, the official organ of the Canadian Legion, dated May, 1943, had an article entitled, "PostDischarge Benefits Increased." The opening paragraph of that article reads:
Substantial increases in the scale of postdischarge benefits to members of the armed forces pending reestablishment, and improvements in the provisions for treatment of men suffering from disabilities were announced on April 28 by the Hon. Ian Mackenzie, minister in charge of rehabilitation.
These changes were with respect to the following matters: (1) Additional consideration, for all ex-service men in providing individual rehabilitation; (2) substantial increases in the scale of post-discharge benefits; (3) improvements in the treatment of men suffering from disability; (4) early consideration of 405-bed wing to Christie Street hospital for which $580,000 has already been appropriated.
Last year several acts were passed by this house with regard to men returning from the present war. There was an act giving the right to those who had served on the farm*
War Appropriation-Army

to return to the farms and to receive substantial benefits. They are to be reestablished on the farms. Another act was passed to enable them to take up their old employment. It required employers to reestablish them in their former employment if that was in existence. Another act was passed, a general rehabilitation measure.
This government is taking great interest in the returned men, as both it and all other governments have taken in the men who returned from the last war, and it should be a matter of some satisfaction to members of the committee to know that pensions paid to Canadians are higher than those paid to the men who have served with any other army. In Canada the widow of an ex-service man killed in action receives, if her husband was a private, the sum of S720 a year; in New Zealand she would receive $281.39; and in the United States $456. This goes to show that this country tries to be fair to those whose loved one did not come back, as well as to those who did but who had suffered some disablement. It is true you can never repay a man for offering his life and for suffering for his country. What we can do is to try to put him in a position to compete with his fellow workmen in Canada when he returns from his service abroad. I am confident, Mr. Chairman, that as this war goes on more measures will be brought down which will be of benefit to those who have offered their all to save their country.
In conclusion I would say to the Minister of National Defence that the people of Canada have confidence in his leadership. They feel that he is directing the armies of this country along the paths which will enable them to play their part when the day comes for final victory.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I shall not endeavour to follow the hon. member for Brantford City (Mr. Macdonald), who has just taken his seat. With much that he has said I am in agreement, particularly his request of the minister that consideration be given to equalizing dependents' allowances for mothers. This afternoon I intend to deal with only one subject, namely, the matter of man-power as I see it, not only in reference to reinforcements for our army overseas but in regard also to the allocation of the necessary man-power for industry and agriculture.
I listened to the minister as he made his statement, and I have read and reread the speech he delivered, and I do not think I overstate it, Mr. Chairman, when I say it is apparent to anyone reading between the
.Mr. W. R. Macdonald.]
lines of his statement that the minister realizes the tremendous difficulty that faces the government of this country in securing reinforcements for the army overseas and the proper allocation of man-power for agriculture and industry in Canada. I am going to read just one portion of the minister's statement. At page 2664, after setting out the purpose we all have in mind, namely, the defeat of the axis, the minister said:
To accomplish this, our job has been and is, and will be-because it is far from over yet-(a) to organize and maintain the strongest force of which we are capable, well forward in the main theatre of operations, for use wherever Germany and Italy can be met and overcome; (b) to cooperate in the defence of North America ...
And finally:
. . . preserving a vitally important source of supply to the Canadian army here and overseas and to the united nations of raw material, foodstuffs and ammunition.
With these three items I intend to deal this afternoon. Let me say at this stage that while the hon. member for Brantford City found no difficulty in being able to assure the people of Canada that the necessary reinforcements for the Canadian army overseas are available, he had to resort to speculation, and finally to computation based upon speculation, to arrive at that conclusion. What we on this side of the house ask for, and I think we have a right to demand it on the part of the people of Canada, is 'clear and definite information on tfie subject of the adequacy of reinforcements for the army overseas. The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green), the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. White) and the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) have dealt with various phases of this question. We have the right to demand not only an assurance that reinforcements are available, but also specific information showing, within the bounds of safety, the nature of those reinforcements and their availability. That is not the phase I am going to deal with in particular this afternoon, but rather the general problem- of man-power, which cannot be discussed piecemeal.
Although this house has been in session now for over three and a half months, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) as yet has been unable to place before parliament and the country the situation with respect to man-power. That responsibility rests upon him and no one else. In the discussions which have taken place here within the last

War Appropriation-Army
few days on the estimates of the Departs ment of Agriculture, and also when questions were asked of the Minister of Munitions and Supply, the ministers seemed desirous of placing this responsibility on the Minister of Labour.
I have here two issues of "Canada at War", May, 1943, dealing with man-power, and February, 1943, dealing with man-power, and they are identical in wording:
"Responsibility for mobilizing and allocating all man-power in Canada rests with national selective service, under the Department of Labour. All departments concerned, such as the Department of Munitions and Supply, Agriculture and the armed forces, are cooperating."
The minister has stated that the war is far from over, and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has stated that the united nations now face their supreme hour. We are in a different position at this stage of the war from the position we were in during the last war, because our casualties so far, comparatively speaking, are small, amounting to 5,786 as of April last. I think the experience and the victories of recent days, and the fact that we have been assured over and -over again during the last three years that the necessary man-power is available, have resulted in the people being less disturbed than they should be over the man-power situation. There has been little sacrifice yet except in the families of those who have given their sons. In spite of the fact'that we have been more than three and a half years at war, the production of luxuries, which should be at an end, is still being continued. Civilian goods are being purchased certainly not in any decreasing amount. In 1942 the total civilian purchases were nearly as great as in 1941.
After three and a half months in session this parliament has yet to learn whether the government has a plan for the allocation of man-power. The Prime Minister dealt with this matter on March 24, 1942, and set out the situation with respect to man-power at that time. Now, one year later, and we are still in the same position. There is no man or woman in Canada to-day other than the government itself,-and sometimes I doubt whether the government has a plan-who can say what the man-power plan is for Canada. Having regard to conditions, I accept as my thesis these words, that the man-power issue must be faced by this parliament; and whether or not it will be popular from the point of view of votes, it will have to be settled." We in this house must take stock of the man-power situation; for our outstanding problem is to assure the necessary men for the armed services while at the same time retaining indispensable men in industry and
agriculture. For the next eight months
177,000	men will be required for the armed services.


James Layton Ralston: No; that is for the fiscal year. The men who have come in during April and May are a contribution to that total of 177,000.


John George Diefenbaker: Very well. In addition 200,000 men will be required for industry, and there are available only the 12,000 young men and women coming of age every month. I think at this stage I will make a historical review of the situation-


James Layton Ralston: Where does my hon. friend get that figure of 200,000 men for industry?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Couper, who is special assistant to the deputy minister, made that statement during the course of a speech in the city of Toronto, according to a press report. I am going to show a little later that the very fact of his having made that statement shows there is not the cooperation between the Department of Labour, industry and the armed services that there should be. A year ago the Prime Minister stated that there were three aspects of the problem. To summarize he said: First, we must estimate the number of men and women required for the different war services; yet even to-day, fifteen months later, that estimate has not been given to this house or to the people of Canada. Then he said we must increase the man-power resources available for war purposes. What has been done in that regard? The third statement was that available men and women must be directed into the most useful forms of war service. I repeat that this house has not been informed as to what is the plan. Little has been done to bring about an effective increase in the man-power resources; little has been done to direct available men and women into the most useful form of war service. The government has obtained the powers; every few months additional powers have been secured. The difficulty is not lack of powers on the part of the government; as I see the situation it is a lack of decisive action in utilizing the powers that are available. I revert to last fall and to the recommendations made by Mr. Little. I am not going to enlarge upon them except to say that Mr. Little went out because of the fact that he could not or did not get the cooperation, of the minister.


Humphrey Mitchell: Of course I deny that. Mr. Little had every cooperation. The difference between Mr. Little and myself was this, that I had to stay with the ship and he did not.
War Appropriation-Army


John George Diefenbaker: Well, one must
read the statement of Mr. Little together with what the minister has said. In a letter written to the minister Mr. Little stated:
When you called me to Ottawa, you will remember that I stressed that I must receive your complete cooperation, regardless of political considerations.	.
While I have made every effort to obtain your assistance, I have not only failed to do so but have found your actions inconsistent with your word. This makes my position as director of national selective service an impossible one.
Knowing our problems; thoroughly aware of the clash in jurisdictions; aware of the critical demands being heaped upon selective service,-
Then he goes on to point out the circumstances-


Humphrey Mitchell: Just to get the other side of the picture I would ask my hon. friend to read my reply to Mr. Little, so that it may be on record as well.


John George Diefenbaker: Certainly, though I would have preferred to get the answer of the minister as he gave it himself, rather than by an ex parte method. The answer of the minister may be summed up in this way. After setting out certain facts he said-


Humphrey Mitchell: Quote it.


John George Diefenbaker: If the minister
wants to quote it all he will have an opportunity to do so. I am placing on record such parts as I think are pertinent:
These facts speak for themselves. I prefer not to answer several statements in your letter since I feel they arise from misconceptions and are scarcely worthy of you.
That pretty well summarizes the answer of the minister. Now, what has been done since last October?


Humphrey Mitchell: Let me tell my hon. friend that he would1 be amazed.


John George Diefenbaker: In all fairness I want to say that I do n.ot blame the minister; for I do not think he is getting sufficient cooperation from the other departments. The other day the Minister of Agriculture was asked about the man-power situation in regard to agriculture, and he replied that it was not his job and that it belonged to the Minister of Labour. A few days ago the Minister of Munitions and Supply made a statement on the situation that must arise following the reduction in the number of factories on war work, or the laying off of men employed in those factories by reason of a change in ground war production, and when he was asked with regard to manpower he said that that was the responsibility of the Minister of Labour. I am not criticizing the Minister of Labour personally.
(Mr. Mitclu-ll.)
I think he desires to do something, but I do not think he has received the cooperation to which he is entitled. What is the record since last October; what has been done? Take the various orders in council and the situation reveals itself. The more recent ones were: March 5, 1943, the reconstitution of the national selective service advisory board; April 1, 1943, making provision for the preservation of group insurance benefits and medical service plans; April 2, 1943, provisions for transfer of employees to more essential employment; April 7, 1943, provision for the service of Doukhobors, conscientious objectors and others; April 12, 1943, further regulations regarding the transfer of employees to more essential employment.
I do not think the minister has had cooperation, I repeat. Look at the record. Men are not answering the call. An endeavour is made to administer properly the National Resources Mobilization Act. Notices are sent out. Are they answered? Well, let me refer to the record in that connection; for it shows conclusively that in Canada to-day there are approximately 300,000 young men liable to service who have paid no attention whatever to the call.


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not think my hon. friend is serious when he quotes figures like that.
Mr. DIEFENBAKER [DOT] I received the return on April 4, and I shall place the figures on the record. They tell their own story. The number of calls sent out was 1,028,753. Of that number 135,890 did not turn up at all. That leaves a balance of 892,863 w'ho should have reported. From this number must be taken those, numbering 327,150, who were medically unfit. 178,759 received postponements. Out of the million calls the number accepted was 181,178. So that there are still 205,776 totally unaccounted for.


James Layton Ralston: What is the return number?


John George Diefenbaker: It is a return
brought down on April 5 to a question asked by myself. It indicates that the administration of the whole system has fallen to pieces. Instead of using city police forces, provincial police, mounted police or other agencies of the kind, instead of using the vast selective service organizations across Canada, which in the last seven months has multiplied about three times, how does the government go about finding defaulters? It has hired a credit agency in Toronto, which is to be paid at the rate of $2.50 per head if successful in locating defaulters.

War Appropriation-Army


Humphrey Mitchell: I should not like my hon. friend-and I know he wishes to be fair-


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


Humphrey Mitchell: -I should not like the impression to go out to the country that that is the only agency being used.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, if other
agencies in addition to the credit agency are being used, it just shows how bad the condition is, when about 200,000 men are loose in the dominion and cannot be found.


Humphrey Mitchell: The agency is the state.


John George Diefenbaker: What else have the government done? Last December they issued an order to the effect that all who were in default would have to register-a perfectly proper order. Then, on January 28, by P.C. 740, defaulters in Canada were advised that if they reported by February 1 all would be forgiven. On March 8 another order was issued extending the time to March 15. I should like to know how many turned up as the result of that order. How many have accepted the amnesty promised? Why the necessity for extensions from time to time, if it wras not the fact that there was a desire to put off the evil day?
Then, 'what other orders were there? On May 4, 1943, there was an order which I shall not cite in detail, requiring those engaged in barbering, working in beverage rooms and the like, to report, and providing that they may be directed into necessary services. They had until May 19 to report. I have asked questions several times in regard to this matter, and the answer was given that the authorities have not had time yet to ascertain just what the results have been.
I might go through the various orders which have been passed. On April 12, 1943, there was an extension of the powers conferred upon the board. P.C. 2665 was passed on April 2, 1943, giving power to the minister to forbid any employer to retain in his employ men subject to service. Selective service officers were granted the power to direct such persons to take work where it would be in the public interest. What does this all add up to? It means that the government has continued to take further and further powers. But it was not until May of 1943, under the orders of May 4 and May 17, that the power of compulsion was first given to the Minister of Labour.
I was impressed to-day by the statement made by the hon. member for Brantford City, who, I felt, during the greater portion of his speech was speaking on behalf of the government. A discernible trend toward
72537-1S7
compulsion in Canada, in respect of labour, has resulted from the orders in council of May 4 and May 17. The hon. member for Brantford City made the statement that it would not be very difficult-all that would be required would be the scratch of a pen- to send men in Canada who have been called under the National Resources Mobilization Act overseas, for service in any part of the world. It is my personal belief that the steps taken in May by the Minister of Labour indicate the government now realizes that the only method through which men can be secured for reinforcements for overseas is by bringing into effect, conscription for overseas service.


William Ross Macdonald: 1 *was speaking for myself. Anything I had to say was an expression of my own views, absolutely.


John George Diefenbaker: I am glad to have that assurance from the hon. member, but I think he was foretelling events fairly well, even though he was speaking only for himself.


Mr. POULIOT:: But he should be praised for expressing his own views.


John George Diefenbaker: The cursory review I have made of these orders in council show there is no man-power plan in Canada capable of enforcement. No one can deny that selective service has been inefficient and ineffective in its operations; and that while regulations have been passed there has been no proper enforcement. Expedients effective for a short while have been brought in from time to time. I suggest that the government should do away with this policy-what I choose to call a nibble-nibble policy-and bring in a comprehensive one which will attack the problem forthrightly. Let the government meet the problem squarely, instead of using the method of nibbling from time to time on the outside of the problem without effectively attacking it from within.
I believe it can be said that the record of the administration of the man-power regulations in Canada in the last year, about which the Prime Minister spoke on March 24, 1942, has shown that the policy has been dominated in part by political considerations. Again I am not laying responsibility upon the Minister of Labour. The record shows confusion in the man-power policy-national registration, thirty-day plans, four-month plans, conscription for service in Canada. All these things have been done to one end, namely, the postponement of the facing of the issue which, now in 1943. because there has been no comprehensive man-power policy has brought the whole matter to the fore.

War Appropriation-Army

The time is past when palliatives can be administered to avoid cures, and when continuing postponement of necessary action can take the place of decisions. I believe hon. members of the committee recognize, and it' is axiomatic to say, that in this country no man should be the master of his choice of service in our war effort or of the decision as to where and when he will serve.
I said a while ago that there was no agreement among the ministers. I shall not go in to this in detail at the moment, except to quote what two of the ministers have recently stated. The Minister of Munitions and Supply is reported to have said at page 2622 of Hansard of May 13. He said:
. . . but I would point out that there is a very serious over-all shortage of man-power in war industry to-day. I know of very few plants that have the number of men required to permit them to obtain the desired output.
On May 18, as reported at page 2765 of Hansard, the Minister of National Defence said this:
I should think that there would be a shrinkage, as time goes on, in the requirements for men in industry, particularly war industry.
And a little later on:
-but I should think this new condition would be bound to make it possible to undertake comb-outs of men who in the past have been postponed because they were essential in war industry, and in addition, it should release men from the non-essential industries.
I asked the minister for his plan in that regard. The question I asked was this, as reported at the same page.
Has the minister an estimate of the number of men it is expected will be combed out within the next six months from industries now being closed down, or from changes in production?
Mr. Ralston: No, I have not. That is not a figure I would have; it would be a matter for my colleague, the Minister of Labour.
Certainly there is no agreement between the statement of the Minister of Munitions and Supply and that of the Minister of National Defence. A moment ago the Minister of National Defence asked me where I got my figures with regard to the needs of industry. In September, 1942, a document issued by the bureau of information indicated that there were 2,000.000 persons employed in nonessential industries in Canada; that there were
1,250,000	workers on farms, and 1,200,000 workers in essential utilities and mining. The total number of persons in Canada between 'the ages of 14 and 65 years was estimated to be 7,000,000. Brought up to date, this means that Canada has less than fifty per cent of her available man and woman-power mobilized as compared with some sixty-six per cent in Great Britain. Some will say that

there is a shortage of man-power, but I do not believe that there is a man-power shortage in Canada.


Humphrey Mitchell: When I get a chance to make a speech on man-power I think the hon. member will find that the figures I will put before the house will not be so far behind those of Great Britain.


John George Diefenbaker: I say that it is the fault of selective service, which cannot act efficiently under the powers it has to place man-power where it should be placed. Instead of a nibble-nibble policy of interfering with a few trades and occupations during the past month, it is necessary in the interests of national survival that we administer this problem with equality from the Atlantic to the Pacific. I repeat that there is not a shortage of man-power to-day, but there is a shortage, and I quote, of "the right labour, in the right place, at the right time."'
During the past few days we have heard it said that we are short of manpower, but in answer to that argument I would refer to a statement made by Mr. W. J. Couper, executive assistant to the deputy minister of labour. Speaking in Toronto on April 13, 1943, he is reported to have said:
An increase of 250,000 to 350,000 workers in Canada will be required within the fiscal year ending March 31 next, and present employment in non-essential industry will be curtailed to the extent of some 200,000 workers by the end of that period.
Then follow these words, which I think indict the government as has no other man in the service of the Department of Labour to the present time:
We are suffering a labour shortage now because we don't have the right labour in the right place at the right time.
And again:
In the efficient utilization of labour, this is supposed to be rationed between employers and the armed services, but the former are not experienced in dealing with national emploj'ment service and similar lack of experience obtains for employees. . . . The national employment service machine begins to creak from time to time.
That is the story of the executive assistant of the deputy minister of labour who gave his explanation of what has happened.


Humphrey Mitchell: What does a motor car
do when it goes uphill? It begins to creak.


Gordon Graydon: It is more likely to
rattle going down.


John George Diefenbaker: In connection with industry I shall not go into details except to say that lumber production is far below the

War Appropriation-Army
war needs of the nation because of a shortage of some 46,000 men who ought to have been allocated by the national selective service to this work. Our railways are operating to-day with fewer men than ever before and yet are handling greatly increased freight and passenger traffic. In April, 1943, our railways were operating with sixteen per cent less manpower than they had at the outbreak of the war. Their revenues were some forty per cent more than at the outbreak of the war and yet national selective service are calling up experienced men from the railways and sending them into the armed services of the country with the result that the railways will be forced to recruit green men to take the place of those removed from the transportation systems and placed in the army.
For the past year opposition members have been trying to tell the government the real situation in connection with coal production. It was pointed out that there would be a national calamity in this regard and little regard was given thereto. In May, 1943, the minister was given tremendous powers and the Prime Minister admitted we are to-day faced with one of the greatest emergencies in this regard in our history. Was there any allocation of men during the past year for the cutting of wood? One could not get men in western Canada to go into the bush to cut wood because wages had been fixed in 1941 at a time when wood cutting was just casual work undertaken by homesteaders and the like.
Recently there was an article in the press which indicated a lack of coordination and cooperation between the departments of government. This article showed that an automobile plant manufacturing a front-line vehicle was recently short 1,000 men while at the same time private machine shops and machine shop workers in Winnipeg were idle, and this at a time when naval escort vessels were required to be built. I might add that one of the leading men in the press gallery wrote an article in the Winnipeg Free Press within recent months stating that the objectives of selective service have not been reached, that employment offices have not tried to direct labour to the proper war industries but have issued permits letting labour go where it pleases, and the closing down of non-essential industries has not been followed.
To-day the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Bruce) received an answer to a question asked of the Minister of Munitions and Supply. He asked if contracts had been cancelled for the production of certain guns and other war materials. I shall not give the details of these because they will appear in Hansard. In answering the question to-day the minister,
after saying that military information cannot be divulged since it would not be in the public interest, quotes with approval his own statement, as reported in Hansard, at page 2708.
I do hope that there will be no further speculations of the kind contained in the article. Announcements will be made as soon as the facts of the situation can be determined.
The information is denied, although in a United States magazine published in Washington, it is stated that there is to be a reduction in ground war production and some of the munitions and guns mentioned in the question asked by the hon. gentleman are referred to. "When that reduction takes place, thousands of men will be out of employment. What assurance can the minister and the government give that these men will not be hoarded in any one industry, that they will be transferred into some other industry immediately a closing down or a reduction of manpower becomes necessary in the industries in which they are working? For, unless something is done now, and unless the selective service administration is stopped creaking, we shall have an unemployment condition which will have most serious effects when regard is had to the necessity of war production being kept to high levels.
I am not going to pursue this matter further, except to make some suggestions. As far as we on this side of the house are concerned we have at all times advocated the effective total utilization and the proper allocation of man-power for war, by compulsion where necessary. The government has decided this month that compulsion is necessary in order effectively to allocate labour in certain designated industries. It brought in compulsion for military service in Canada. It has gone that far in enacting compulsion. I was astonished at the import of the suggestion made by the hon. member for Brantford City, that in the interests of cooperation Canada should take those who are called up for service and send them to Alaska, so that Americans, who fight in all parts of the world, should be relieved for the purpose of fighting. I thought that was a most peculiar proposition to advance in the interests of amity as between these two nations.
What about the call-up system? I am not, going to deal with it at any length to-day except to say this, that under the present system there is no equality of administration or equality of enforcement everywhere throughout Canada. As a matter of fact, under the National Resources Mobilization Act. while the government in the reports issued in "Canada at War" would indicate that there is equality of sacrifice, that about 2-9 per cent of those eligible for call are
War Appropriation-Army

called up, everywhere in Canada, they do not reveal the true facts, in that the percentage is based upon the number of men there were in 1939 and the national increase which has taken place since, without deduct ing from the figures the numbers of men who have enlisted for overseas service. I ask the minister, why were these particulars of enlistments removed from "Canada at War"? On page 20 of the January issue full particulars of the intake of the armed forces were shown. In the month of February the same information was given. I took it upon myself in February last to analyse these figures. In the issues of March, April and May no reference is made to the numbers of men enlisting, the numbers who are called, or the proportion of those who actually answer the call. Why are these facts omitted?
The great criticism I have of the National Resources Mobilization Act is that it is conscription masquerading as voluntaryism. Men are forced to voluntarily enlist thereunder, and the result is that there is no selectivity. Fear of the draft forces into the armed services many men-mechanics, coal miners and others-who are needed in Canada, and who, if the selective system were carried into effect, would be kept at their respective occupations. Men must be directed into the place where they will render the best service, otherwise the condition in which industrial life finds itself to-day through the shortage of man-power will grow worse with the passage of time, and we shall find ourselves with insufficient men on the farms of this country, insufficient men in industries in the right place at the right time, insufficient men in the armed forces of this country and due to failure of selective service to allocate man-power.


The CHAIRMAN:: The hon. member has now spoken for over forty minutes.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have just a few remarks to make in this debate, in which I have not yet taken part.
In the first place I will read a letter, which is in French, but I will summarize it afterwards. My correspondence is very extensive, and it comes from all over the province of Quebec and from many parts of the country. But here is a letter which I have received tom Black Lake, Megantic county: {Translation) Dear Sir,
I am writing to you in the hope that you may help my son who is at present in the camp at Farnham; he has been there two months; re was arrested while in hospital where he

had just undergone a surgical operation; he had not fully recovered; the doctor had ordered a treatment which the officers forbade, claiming that he was well enough.
(Text) It is a young fellow who was sick and who underwent an operation. He had to follow treatment afterwards, but the army doctors at the camp told him not to follow it, that he was well.
(Translation) On the very next day he was ordered to scrub the floor of the clink and had to sleep on the floor after an operation; this was not very pleasant.
(Text) The following day they forced him to wash the floors of his cell, and they ordered him to lie on the floor. After an operation that is not very funny.
(Translation) Besides, sir, he had a discharge from the active army in his pocket when he was arrested at the hospital; the officers have taken it and now they will not admit having done so.
(Text) He had a discharge from the active army in his pocket. They took it from him and they did not give it back.
(Translation) He had enlisted twice at the Saint-Jacques recruiting office, in Montreal, but hail failed to pass the physical test and had been given a discharge. I fail to see why they keep him in the reserve army while sick.
(Text) He went twice to enlist at St. James street. Montreal. He did not pass, and he had his discharge.
(Translation) The doctor had told him that he would have to be operated on for liver trouble; he has had no treatment since; they give him nothing but laxatives. He has been in the clink for two months and is about to be transferred to a detention camp. I have been told that you alone could prevent him from going there; he must not go to a detention camp in his state of health. You would be rendering us a great favour if you were good enough to take this matter up. My son's name is . . .
The name appears in the letter.
(Translation) I have not told you why he has been arrested; it is because he. left the reserve army on account of his bad health. His discharge paper was taken from him at the Quebec citadel. If you are unable to help him, let us know. Thank you.
(Text) I think it can be summarized this way: that fellow went to enlist in the active army and was found unfit; then he was accepted in the reserve army, stayed home to undergo an operation, and before he had completely recovered they came and got him and forced him to wash the floor.
I appreciate many things which the hon. member for Lake Centre has said. He has spoken without any partisan spirit. I congratulate him upon this; it is the only way to take up such matters before the committee. I intend to show no political bias

War Appropriation-Army
of any kind. I want, first, just to state facts and explain to the committee the situation with regard to farmers, and a little later I will take up the case of the army doctors.
I will confine myself to farming. In the first place, it is useless for members to rise and ask questions on this matter if it is taken for granted that all men of military age who are physically fit should be in the army. If that stand is taken we might just as well stop the discussion immediately. But in my humble view there are certain occupations that are essential to the war effort and also to the welfare of the community, and those occupations require men who are physically fit and young. Agriculture is one of these occupations and railroading is another. As I said a year ago, it is impossible to expect young men to come from the Lady Grey hospital in Ottawa and work as firemen or brakemen on the railways, and it is equally impossible for such men to engage in agriculture. If the minister does not admit that agriculture is an essential occupation I will discontinue my remarks at once, but I know he will not say that. He cannot say that agriculture is not an essential industry.
Going through my correspondence, I find a letter which I received from a well educated lady of the eastern townships who married a lawyer. He dropped his legal practice, however, to take up farming. This letter is dated April 30. I will not mention the lady's name, but I can give it to anyone who asks for it. I am prepared to give the first page of her letter. I quote:
Huntingdon, Que.,
April 30, 1943.
.T. F. Pouliot, Esq.. M.P.,
Riviere du Loup, P.Q.
Dear Sir:
I believe that you may be interested in knowing what is the situation in this part of Quebec and enclose herewith copy of letter I have written to Mr. Ladouceur, director of national selective service at Valleyfield, situated about 20 miles from our farm.
I have read with considerable interest your efforts to get parliament to deal with the pressing matters of interest to the ordinary man and farmers of this country.
I have been getting Hansard and read it. I must say it is both grim and amusing.
She used to be on the Hansard staff, but I pass that over.
My husband took leave of absence from his law practice in Toronto early in summer of 1914 to assist his parents who were old and in difficulty. War broke out and he never was able to rid himself of responsibility. He became active in cooperatives, organized Montreal Milk Producers Association, built up a pure bred Holstein herd, becoming president of Holstein Association of Canada, etc.
We have always had plenty of grief with the help problem but in 1940-41 it became desperate with enlistments and call-ups. Our herdsman got a job as inspector when military camp was built at $7 a day then a job of tire chief at a munition plant at $3,000 a year. . . . Finally we had a sale in September, 1941, some purchasers being Senator Raymond, Hon. F. Leduc, Hon. Geo. S. Henry, Macdonald college, etc. Dr. J. E. Lattimer stated that this herd was the highest producing per cow at the lowest cost per gallon of all herds in cost of milk survey.
But we had no alternative but to sell out as we could get no assurance of help. Our course has been justified as things have gone from bad to worse, as per letter enclosed.
Now listen to this:
Agriculture faces ruin under price ceilings, lack of labour and confiscation of profits under income tax law. Farmers will not expand operations only to get a penalty instead of reserve for old age, replacements, etc. All our fences are down from ice and snow and the fields are strewn with shingles blown from the barn during hurricanes of last winter. Our neighbour's barn collapsed from weight of snow and ice.
This is a pretty sad story, and it comes from one who has a practical knowledge of farming and who knows the circumstances. She sent me at the same time a copy of a letter from the selective service man in Valleyfield. I will keep that until the labour estimates are under consideration. What I have given, however, is sufficient to show the distress of agriculture at the present time, and farmers are asked to do more at this very time. This is something I cannot understand. The minister has given certain figures, but to me it is inconceivable that men should be taken from the farms in large numbers and that we should expect the work to go on just as well. I have read statistics that were tabled by cabinet ministers on Friday last and there is one bit of information that is missing. That is the number of farmers' sons and farm help who are in training camps in Canada and in the army on both this side and on the other side of the Atlantic, and elsewhere. We want to know the number of such men. We do not want percentages. I do not believe in decimals and fractions in connection with matters of this sort. I should like to know the number of farmers in the army, in various training camps both in Canada and outside.
This is not the first time that I have spoken on this subject. I suggest that selective service should have been established long ago. It came much too late. Indeed, I had to fight and fight very hard to have the idea of selective service acted upon. I have been told that once the selective service receive requisitions from the Department of National Defence, those requisitions have to be filled.
War Appropriation-Army

wouldn't bo much as reply to five other letters we have written to him since. We even enlisted the cooperation of agronomist Rinfret, who went to the trouble of writing in our behalf, hut with no more success than we'd had. That's the unaccountable part of it.
Could you not suggest some one else to whom we might write or could you not personally lend us a hand, for you are the only one from whom we have not yet sought assistance.
Our letters to the commanding officer were in two instances accompanied by a medical certificate definitely attesting my utter unfitness for service. I have over fifty arpents under cultivation, 4 cows, a team of horses, 3 calves, a breeding sow and 3 ewes. It's a foregone conclusion that unless I can get my boy's help to put in the crop this spring, I shall have to give up the land and go destitute together with my whole family. You can well imagine that in our present plight my boy's help is absolutely indispensable to me.
I should be most grateful to you for any help you may give us in securing this exemption we have so long endeavoured to obtain.
We shall take pleasure in supplying you with any particulars you may require, and trust we may hear from you in this regard.
(Text) This fellow complains that there is some propaganda to give the farmers the idea that they are well looked after. I do not entirely blame the Department of Labour or the national selective service, but I say that in the army things are going very badly so far as the farmers are concerned. There are no experts on agriculture in the army, andi they have the idea that- it is the duty of a young man to be not on the farm but in the army, that he should not be on the farm unless he is unfit for military service. That is the view of Captain Andrews, in particular, and later I intend to speak about him. The people of this country have been fooled by that propaganda, after all the trouble we took in explaining to national selective service andi the army the distinctions that should be made. In the opinion of the army as long as a man has been to camp, even if he has not had any-training at all, he comes under the Department of National Defence. If he is a farmer he must watch out; it will be very hard for him to get out, even if he is badly needed at home. Then here is a letter from the county of Laprairie:
(Translation)
Sir,	.
Though a stranger to you, I am a Canadian and the father of eight children, two of whom are in the army. . . .
This man has two boys in the army.
. . . and Mr. Maxime Raymond managed to obtain for one of them a six weeks' leave to help my brother who farms 138 arpents of land and who needs him the year round. You are under a serious handicap when, after deciding to cultivate a big garden you lose your hired help before the planting is done. We immediately sent another request to his commanding officer and we arc anxious about the 
reply. I have made up my mind to ask your assistance, after reading an article published in Le Devoir of March 5, 1943, in which the minister of the selective service said, in a letter addressed to you, that a draftee would be given three months in order to find employment on a farm. My son does not have to look for employment; on the contrary, my brother Adrien, a farmer at St. Jacques le Mineur, whose children are still too young to help him, w-ishes to hire my son who has always worked on farms and has as much experience as any real farmer, because he was born and brought up on a farm up to the age of 21, and he is now 25 years old. If you need more information, kindly get in touch with Mr. . .	.
Other young men from around here have obtained postponements for an indefinite period, while my son got but six weeks. When he obtained his leave, he was at the Rideau military hospital, Ottawa, his regimental number was . . . ; he was under Major Dunlop's orders who required that all our requests be written in English. We complied with his wishes and see what we obtained. He is the only one from around here who is in that position; how-ever, according to the newspapers and the answers that are given you on the floor of the house, the orders in council are not to that effect.
Trusting you -will suffer this little sacrifice in my behalf, I remain,
Yours admiringly,
(Text) This man has a son who was an experienced! man on. the farm. Now his brother is alone on that big farm and cannot get any help. He wanted his nephew to help him, but- all he was able to get was six weeks' leave, which was not enough. Moreover, the commanding officer insisted on the request being made in the English language. He did not consider a request made in French, so that the man put his request into English, but I do not know if he succeeded in getting what he wanted. I place this case before the minister and the committee.
I have before me another letter from Bona-venture county; these are only samples I am reading. I have to work from nine o'clock in the morning until twelve o'clock at night to read all these letters. I cannot read them all now, but I must point out to the committee that the plight of agriculture in Quebec is real; it is not exaggerated.. If it is not remedied by the army as well as by national selective service, we shall face famine next winter. No food for our armies in Canada, no food for our civilian population, and no food for export to our allies outside Canada, across the seas, would be a serious matter.
Once I had the privilege of listening to a very fine speech over the radio in which it was said that food does not grow on the shelves of a grocery store, but that it grows on the land. Food comes from the farmer, and it is because I do not want anybody to

War Appropriation-Army
suffer from famine or from hunger that I am insisting upon this point. I hope the minister will give careful consideration to what has been said.
This is what is said by another gentleman from Duret, Bonaventure county:
(Translation) Dear Sir,
I am writing to you concerning my son Gelasse in order to secure for him a six months' postponement. Last year I asked for such a postponement on his behalf so that he might work on my farm. I am a farmer and have no other son. I am sixty-five years old and unable to work. Last year the application for postponement was rejected. I have been able to put in only half of the crop. My son was in training at Valcartier and he himself came to do whatever small harvesting I had to do. He did not return to his camp since last summer. Once the harvest had been completed, he was taken ill and was attended by Dr. Paul Lacroix of Port Daniel Station. He is not yet well enough to return to his camp. If you wish to know exactly to what extent he has been ill you may get in touch with Dr. Paul Lacroix. I am asking a six months' postponement for my son so that I may put in and harvest my crop. Last year I did only half the work. I have a large farm and he is my only son. His regimental number is . . .
(Text) I can, show this letter to the minister. In this instance the young man went to help his father who has a big farm. While so helping his father, he became ill, had to be attended by a doctor and) then could; not return to camp. He wants ah extension.
I was saying a moment ago that the farmers have been deceived by the publicity and propaganda broadcast with respect to the orders in council of March of last year in connection with selective service. No exception was made with regard to leaves or postponements for farmers. What farmer can make a distinction between a postponement and a leave? It means the same thing to him. It is immaterial to him whether he obtains a postponement or a leave, so long as he is permitted to remain on the farm. They are not familiar with the technical language. They know their own business well. In one respect they are technicians; but they are not technicians, as writers. They do not split hairs, because they have no time for that, having something more important to do.
The greatest publicity was given the provision exempting farmers. I was in Toronto the day after, and I saw published in every paper the big headlines stating that farmers were exempted from training. Farmers stayed at home, on the understanding that they were exempt, and did not have to go. When they received notice to report they thought it was a joke, or something like an April fool prank. Their reply was, "We saw it in the newspapers. We heard over the radio that all farmers were exempted, because agriculture is an essential industry. Why should we go for further exemption, and be subjected to red tape, when we are already exempted?"
There is no more sensible man than the Canadian farmer, and that was the kind of reasoning he did. The propaganda and publicity were for the purpose of making farmers believe they were exempt; otherwise that would not have been the way it was done. Over the radio and in the press no distinction was made with regard to national selective service, and the Department of National Defence. I appeal to the memories of hon. members now listening to me; it was something to relieve the farmers' minds, before the plebiscite. It was just political propaganda, and I denounce it bitterly. It was done in order to induce the farmers to vote "yes" on the plebiscite, and that is the only reason why it was there. That is the charge I have made against the Minister of National Defence, who did not dare to put the plebiscite question as it should have been put.


James Layton Ralston: I did not put the question.


Jean-François Pouliot: The question was, are you for or against conscription for overseas? and in order to induce farmers to vote "yes" on the question as it was put, orders in council were passed-and they were in effect three days before they were published. I am sure the Minister of Justice has not forgotten the correspondence we had on that point.


James Layton Ralston: I do not know what my hon. friend is talking about. I did not frame the question for the plebiscite, and had nothing to do with the passing of the orders in council, except as a member of the government.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will explain what I have said. What I have said was that the Minister of National Defence did not have the guts to say to the Canadian people that the question was, are you in favour of or against conscription, yes or no?


James Layton Ralston: The Minister of National Defence was not framing the question at all- and the Minister of National Defence takes no second place to the hon. member in the matter of guts.


Jean-François Pouliot: That is right; the Minister rises, and I am glad he does so. But what I said-and what I repeat-is that the Minister of National Defence made several speeches, and did not say anywhere to anyone, not even to his constituents, "The question is, are you for or against conscription for overseas?"
War Appropriation-Army


James Layton Ralston: I put the question as the question was framed; that is how I put it.


Jean-François Pouliot: And it meant nothing.


James Layton Ralston: A lot of people in Canada thought it meant something.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am glad the minister has risen like this. It is a good thing for him to
speak, because finally he will admit something.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Order; the hon. member has spoken for forty minutes.


Jean-François Pouliot: I beg your pardon, Mr. Chairman; I have been interrupted by the minister. I should like to speak for another forty minutes.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The interruptions do
not entitle the hon. member to speak again, because he did not even take his seat while they were made. He would have the right to speak again, after he has taken his seat.


Mr. GRAHAM:: As I listened to the hon.
member for Lake Centre I was struck, as usual, with his vehemence and his earnestness, and also by the amount of his research into booklets and his perusal of letters in order to make the speech he made this afternoon.
As I listened to him I thought that had I never heard him before, with his voice, his head and his finger carrying conviction, as a new listener I would have felt the British commonwealth and the allied nations were trembling in the balance, and that in particular his majesty's government in Canada must be in a very bad way. As a matter of fact, however, the hon. member for Lake Centre displays the same degree of intensity in the presentation of any case he makes to the house. If hon. members will think back over the last three years, they will realize that on occasion, at least by implication, we have found him suggesting apparently that all men of military age should be in our armed services; on another occasion that they should be all overseas; on still another occasion, when he thought we might be threatened here at home, that they should all be on * home defence; on another occasion that they should all be on the farm producing foodstuffs; on another occasion that they should be in our industries producing the materials that are needed in the war. Now I have no doubt that the hon. member wras entitled to present the views he held on these subjects.


John George Diefenbaker: I should like to hear the dates on which these various nonexistent statements were made.


Roy Theodore Graham: However, I would say to the hon. member for Lake Centre that it is three years since this parliament came into existence and since the present government was placed in charge of the war effort of this country. During all that time the hon. member for Lake Centre seemed to have nothing but condemnation for the government. He continuously puts forward the suggestion of complete failure on the part of the government in conducting the war effort of this country.
Let us look at the facts in this fourth year of war. The Minister of National Defence has told us that this small country, starting from scratch, has now an army overseas and at home totalling some 440,000 men. In addition, we have heard the Minister of National Defence for Air tell us that we have now in that force a personnel of some 180,000 men. We know also that in the Royal Canadian Navy there are some 55,000 men. In addition, great numbers of aur young women have enlisted and are taking part in our war effort.
Let us view the results that have been obtained during the years the hon. member for Lake Centre has been condemning the war effort put forth by this government. Does he not agree with me that Canada's war effort is magnificent? In the light of the results it cannot be spoken of other than highly. The production of foodstuffs is constantly mounting; and not only do we in this country, but our allies stand amaze'd at our production of armaments, of guns, of shells, of planes, of ships, and of all the accoutrements of war. I suggest to the hon. member for Lake Centre that he view these things with a little more reason and that he try to see some value in the leadership that this government has given to this country during this time of war.
My main purpose in rising was to bring to the attention of the committee something which I think reflects great credit upon the government, and particularly upon the Minister of National Defence. This is something that came to my attention only during the Easter recess. In this connection I must plead a certain amount of neglect in not knowing that such an organization had been set up. Since my return I asked four other members of this house if they knew about this organization, and I found that they also had failed to notice it's existence. I thought I could do justice to the Minister of National Defence and perhaps give some publicity to this most excellent organization by bringing it to the attention of the committee to-day. I refer to the dependents' board of trustees set up by the Department of National Defence.
This board has been in existence since January, 1942. It was created by order in council to operate under the authority of the

War Appropriation-Army
Minister of National Defence. Its headquarters are in Ottawa and it has branch offices throughout the dominion. In my own province of Saskatchewan there is a branch office at Regina and one at Saskatoon. The purpose of the dependents' board of trustees is to provide special assistance to the dependents of men serving in the Canadian navy, army or air force. This assistance may be either financial, over and above what is received already under existing marriage or dependents' allowance regulations, or it may be non-financial in character. The regional committee can offer advice and arrange for assistance to be given in all types of problems through the various organizations in the different communities. Of course, only those who are in receipt of dependents' allowances are entitled to assistance under this particular board.
Application is made direct to the nearest dependents' advisory committee, and eath application is investigated carefully by a qualified person. I may say that I secured my information from Mr. Dunn, formerly of the dependents' allowance board. I seized the opportunity of finding out some of the details of the benefits given by this particular board. I was greatly pleased at the work that is being done throughout Canada. Grants may be allowed to help to meet expenses due to sickness, hospitalization, doctors', dentists' or opticians' bills, X-rays, surgical appliances, et cetera. They are also given for funeral expenses, special educational costs, losses due to calamity, extra living expenses of large families which consist of more than four children, although this particular item is largely made inoperative by the change in the separation allowance provisions. Other cases of unusual financial difficulty may be taken care of at the discretion of the board.
Apparently wide discretion is given to the board. Where the need is certain; where it is known that the income of the dependent is not sufficient to take care of the need, the board is sufficiently equipped with authority and with means to make an investigation and to act quickly. For instance, I was told that should a man in one of our armed services be lying at death's door, let us say in Halifax, and his dependent was in my home city of Swift Current, if she were unable to provide the funds to get to her husband's bedside, these funds would be furnished by the dependents' board of trustees.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: How long would that take?


Roy Theodore Graham: I gathered from Mr. Dunn that it would take only a very brief period of time because the board recognizes that if they are to be of use in such cases, the assistance must be given speedily.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Roy Theodore Graham: When the committee rose at six o'clock I was outlining the work of the dependents' board of trustees and the assistance which that board was prepared to give to those in receipt of dependents' allowances. I have only a few more words to say with regard to that particular matter.
The pamphlet which I hold in my hand, and which is issued by the board, makes it clear that grants made by the board are not loans; that they are not repayable, and that they do not affect regular pay and allowance cheques. The board does not offer charity. Its object is to "help dependents in cases of special hardship or emergency.
1 feel, as I said at the opening of my remarks on this particular matter, that the Minister of National Defence and the government are to be given a great deal of credit for thus taking care of a difficult problem in a very practical way. I would suggest to the Minister of National Defence that, since it was apparent to me that a great many hon. members were unaware of the work which was being done by this board, which I understand has spent in the neighbourhood of a million and a quarter dollars on this work, some greater degree of publicity be given to the board. Its work will recommend itself, I believe, to everybody in Canada. Remembering back to my own experience in the army, I am certain that nothing will give greater comfort to those who are serving away from home, on land, on the sea, or in the air, than the knowledge that the ones whom they leave at home are being taken care of in any emergency that may present itself. Those who have had the experience will agree with me that, when it is suggested we are fighting for democracy, or for Canada, it is only in our better moments, when we meditate upon it, that we realize that this is true. It is rather vague and therefore' difficult for the average person to make the thing tangible and real to his own mind. But there is a little portion of a person's world, inhabited either by his mother, his wife, his children, or perhaps his sweetheart, which is very real to him and which accompanies him in the worst moments of battle; and it is a source of very great
War Appropriation-Army

comfort to that soldier, that air force man or that sailor to know that the government and the people of Canada are collectively seeing to it that his dependents are not faced with some emergency while he is away fighting for his country.
Therefore I suggest to the minister in the light of my own experience, and despite the fact that Mr. Dunn, the officer, who displays a great deal of enthusiasm and interest in this particular work, assures me that the board is in every way possible publicizing its existence and the benefits it gives to the dependents, that even that is not sufficient and that further publicity should be given. As Mr. Dunn and I were sitting in a car a soldier happened to sit opposite us, and I tested the publicity which had been given to this matter in the army by asking him if he knew of the provisions of the particular order in council setting up this board of trustees. First, he said he did not, and then, as I recalled some of the benefits, he said, "Yes, I recall now that it was posted on the order board." But unfortunately soldiers are usually busy; when they are not busy they are probably in a hurry to get somewhere else. The result was, the soldier readily confessed that he failed to read carefully the particular publication which gave his unit the notice on the order board. So that I suggest to the minister, knowing soldiers, that probably it would be wise to have the officers of each unit, during a lecture on discipline, if you will, or on some other suitable occasion, read and point out the advantages of this particular measure, and that the soldiers be invited in turn to send word to their dependents.
I find that there is considerable knowledge regarding this particular board in the centres where the district offices are. But Canada remains largely a rural country made up of farms, villages and towns; and I suggest to the minister that he use the weekly newspapers to give further publicity to the advantages of this particular board.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weybum):: May I ask the hon. member, merely for information, whether he knows how many officers are established to-day in Saskatchewan and how many grants have been made. Has he that information?


Roy Theodore Graham: I have not that information with me. There is one point raised by the hon. member for Weyburn which I should like to emphasize to the minister, namely, that the investigation be speedy, though necessari'y thorough, and that the relief be given as quickly as humanly possible under the circumstances.
May I say to the committee-and to the public, if my voice reaches that far-that a necessary corollary is that those of us who have the opportunity, in the communities in which we live and where dependents are entitled to the benefits of this measure, should try to see to it that the type of persons we denominate as chisellers are kept out of the picture. As I look back over the previous war and its aftermath, the pension acts which were in force, and, in the interval, the relief acts and other measures of that kind, it is clear that the person who deliberately, on false pretences, secures a measure of assistance to which he is not entitled, is the person who creates the necessity for rigid regulations and a slow process of securing the benefits of these remedial acts, and causes a great many of our difficulties. I think the time has come in Canada when, before embarking on any programme of enlightened social service, we should try to educate our communities and our people to recognize that they are partners with government in the giving of these benefits, and that "chisellers" are only taking from those who deserve that measure of benefit and that easy access to benefits to which they are entitled under the act.
There is another matter I should like to draw to the attention of the minister. In speaking to an officer-a veteran, by the "way, of the Dieppe affair-who recently returned from England, I naturally took the opportunity of asking about our troops overseas. He reported that in his opinion the morale was very high indeed. But in our discussion he made it clear to me that he was concerned about a matter, which the minister himself has mentioned on more than one occasion in this chamber, namely, the sending to men overseas, by relatives or friends, perhaps with good intent, letters stating that something terrible has happened to a loved one at home. This officer, who was a company commander, told me that he has noticed excellent men in his particular company for whom, on receipt of that type of news from home, the whole world seemed to have collapsed and who lost that spirit of high morale which every soldier should have and to which he is entitled in the environment he is in. The minister has called our attention to this, but I wish to pass on to him the suggestion this particular officer made. He thought it was sufficiently important for the morale of the troops overseas that some arrangement be made whereby officers commanding the different units would have authority to cable to a central office in Canada, which office through the different war services could collect the correct information

War Appropriation-Army
with regard to the particular case, and send it back by cable, so that if the news were untrue an authoritative denial could be given to the soldier, and if unfortunately there was some measure of truth in the news imparted by the relative, it could be broken to the soldier in the proper way and as much salvaged from the domestic trouble as possible. I pass that on, because I was much impressed with the emphasis which the officer, so lately home from England, placed on that particular point.
The last matter I wish to deal with before I sit down is one which fortunately is receiving, I understand, exhaustive inquiry, and that, by a body of men authorized by the government and including not only members of the armed services but men in civilian life; I refer to the use of our medical men in the armed services, having in mind also the need for them among the civilian population. I am given to understand that there are approximately eleven thousand graduates of medical schools in Canada. Some three thousand of these are in the armed services. In Canada- and I speak only of Canada-there are approximately 1,400 in the army, 576 in the air force and 270 in the navy. The Royal Canadian Army Medical Corps, in addition to its usual work, takes care of prisoners of war, the allied units training in Canada, a great deal of work in connection with army hospitals, and, I assume, other duties which I have not noted. My point in raising this matter is that the minister, when the report of the committee which is making an exhaustive and overall survey of the use of medical men, both in the army and out of it, in Canada to-day, and which report is, I think, coming down fairly soon, is submitted, he have the benefit of at least my opinion with regard to the subject.
My own attitude has been determined largely by my experience in the last war, by many conversations I have had fairly recently with army medical officers and with civilian medical men, and, in addition, by the information which I gained on the war expenditures committee. I am sometimes of the opinion that, with regard to the use of our medical men, we are still back in the days of the Boer war. I am informed that prior to that time medical men were not attached to units as such; they were not on the establishment of the unit. They did not have in those days the standing which they have now and which they properly deserve, but for a long period it has been the custom, as we all know, to attach a medical officer to a unit. The battalion has its medical officer and he is on the establishment of that particular unit. We
all know that men who are enlisted are in a very healthy state; fortunately their ills, other than injuries, are not usually many or serious; and the work of the average medical officer in a battalion is comparatively light. It seems to me, therefore, that we are not recognizing the immense step-up in transportation, in the facility of getting medical men to a given group-I am speaking only of Canada and not of conditions overseas-and we should recognize this fact and make more economical use of our medical men in the armed forces.
In discussing the matter with the director general of medical services to-day, I am happy to say that the committee is aware of almost every thought that I had on the subject and is giving it consideration. I have no doubt the report will deal with these matters. My belief is that we would be wiser to adopt the method of not attaching medical officers to any given unit but rather of keeping them in a pool so that they could be used for any group that might require medical assistance. With modern methods of transportation that assistance could be placed very quickly at the disposal of men anywhere and would save man-power, and, in addition, large sums of money, and would give to the men in the service even better medical attention than they now receive.
I have also in mind the fact that there is a shortage in many districts in Canada, and I suggest that we should make the best use of the man-power in the medical sendees for our army and our medical needs. The two of them must be considered together. I feel, too, that there is a wastage, and I say this after my own experience in the last war, if it is paralleled by the experience gained in this. There is a wastage in the capabilities of the doctor himself. It is trying for an expert not to use his expert knowledge over any long period, and there is an inclination for the doctor who has very few duties to vegetate and to lose that capacity which this nation will need not only now but in the post-war period.
I suggest to the minister, therefore, that when the report of the committee is presented to him he should not regard it in the light of conditions as they now exist either here or in the United States or in the mother country, because, as in all things in this war, the use of our medical men should be viewed from the year 1943 and the knowledge we now have, and the very best possible use made of our manpower resources in that particular regard.
There is nothing else I wish to say. I have already stated that the committee is examining into all these matters and I anticipate with
War Appropriation-Army

great interest the submission of that report. I trust that our whole position will be studied carefully by the government and particularly by the Minister of National Defence.


Mr. ADAMSON:: What I shall have to say in regard to any military matters will deal purely with questions of policy. I sympathize with the minister in the lack of interest shown by this committee and by the public in the war. I also sympathize with the minister in the fact that he had to put his long and complicated statement on the record in dribs and drabs, fifteen minutes here, ten minutes there. I know that nothing is more difficult than to put a long and complicated statement on the record over a period of several days.
The condition in which we find ourselves and a lack of fighting fnterest in the war can be blamed on the policy of the government in easing the country carefully and slowly into total wftr. I know I shall be met with the criticism, what about the victory loan? True, the objective was reached; in fact a greater sum was raised. But it was raised, despite the increased number of individual buyers, very largely by floating capital and financial institutions. Invested savings accounts are still to a degree intact in our financial institutions. I think that is a symptom of the lack of real warlike spirit evident in the country to-day, and, as I say, the minister has my sympathy.
A good deal has been said in this committee about Dieppe. I will confine my remarks to matters of policy concerning this operation. There was a certain amount of surprise felt by the minister and others in the fact that the Germans were in a state of preparedness, awareness, and had recently reinforced their coastal area. That, in my opinion, is due very largely to our policy of advertising. On July 16. 1912, the London Times carried this item, and the Daily Telegraph practically devoted its whole front page to Canadian manoeuvres on the southeast coast. The Times headline reads:
Biggest invasion manoeuvres. Canadians, Navy and It.A.F. in action.
It goes on to say:
The biggest raid and invasion manoeuvres ever held in European waters have just been completed by a powerful Canadian force working in conjunction with the Royal Navy and the RAF. A Canadian war correspondent describes it as "a prelude to what may be major military operations on the European coast."
It went on to say that several naval craft put out to sea and mentioned that General McNaughton, General Crerar and Lord Mount-batten watched.
A description of the craft engaged in the manoeuvres was given. It is very easy to see
[Mr. Graham.1
what happened from the giving out of this information. It was obvious to the Germans that we were planning some type of raid. They [DOT] must have known it through the German embassy in Dublin. The English newspapers pass freely to Dublin, where they are no doubt read in minute detail by members of the German embassy staff. We had given them fair warning that there was a raid coming off. That was on July 16. Dieppe took place on August 19. The Germans know, as we know, that an amphibian raid upon a coast can be carried out only at certain phases of the tide, in certain types of weather, with a certain amount of cloud cover and favourable direction of wind. They know that just as well as we do. Therefore the German, being a reasonable animal, must have been extremely alert over that period when tide, moon and weather were favourable to,a raid. I think such a policy of giving out information about manoeuvres, particularly large manoeuvres on that scale, is a faulty policy; I think it is the wrong policy.
There was at that time another army in England) also carrying out training in amphibian attacks, an army which -was also preparing for a landing. That army was the first army. Yet nothing at all was said in the press about the training of that army. That was the right policy. The other policy was, I think, in error. I believe it had much to do with the awareness of the Germans, and their great concentration of forces all up and1 down that coast. We hacl given them fair warning. I think that is a just criticism.
The success of any commando raid-j. shall not go into detail-is judged by the speed with which the raiding force gets off the beach. There has recently been published a book entitled, "Combined Operations", an official document published by his majesty's stationery office, giving the official description of the Dieppe raid. I would strongly recommend it as reading to all members of the house. From it they will be a"ble to judge the speed at which the raiding force was able to get off the beach.
There is one other item with regard to the Dieppe operation upon which I wish to touch, namely, the time of the raid. It was a daylight or early morning raid. "Combined Operations" say that the raid took place in daylight. The timing is a question of policy. The experience of the Russians in repelling the Germans on prev'ious occasions, particularly on one of the islands in the gulf of Finland, was that a daylight or early morning raid did not give the chances of success that complete darkness did.
Before leaving the subject of Dieppe I should like to quote the last four lines in "Combined

War Appropriation-Army
Operations", which is the official document on the operation. These are the lines, at page 140:
By now-
It is speaking of the second attempt to reinforce.
-it was obvious that the headlands to the east and west of Dieppe could not be captured in time to permit an entry into the town; the doors were, in fact, still closed. It was decided to withdraw those who had been assaulting them and the town so intrepidly.
This chapter in the book should, I believe, be read by all hon. members. It is official, and gives one of the most interesting descriptions of combined operations. That is all I mean to say on the Dieppe operation.
This afternoon in this house a most extraordinary suggestion, was put forward. The suggestion was made that the draftees, now given the opprobrium of "zombies", should be sent to Alaska to relieve the United States garrison there which would then be free to fight in combat service. If that suggestion should be adopted there would be more Canadian casualties ip the bar rooms of the world than we ever suffered in war. No Canadian would dare show his face anywhere outside Canada; we would be the laughingstock of the world. If Clare Luce, Colonel McCormick and those other wild people in the United States ever hear of this suggestion, we shall have a lot of explaining to do. Our reputation will be as low as that of the Portuguese after the last war. To suggest that we allow somebody else, another nation, to do our fighting for us is the most fantastic thing ever to have been said in this house, and I wish to protest as vigorously as I possibly can against that suggestion, which I think is simply appalling.
We have mentioned the question of manpower. I want to deal with that matter, looking at the situation as it at present exists. The danger of an invasion of Canada is becoming more and more remote. I was never one of those who thought we were in serious danger of invasion, but perhaps that was because I come from the central part of Canada. I listened to expressions from east and west and said nothing, because I thought the people on the spot should know the situation best. Now, however, with the attack on the Aleutian islands; with Attu virtually fallen and Kiska probably coming next; with the invasion of the continent of Europe imminent, I believe the danger of an invasion of Canada by a land force must be regarded as extremely remote. We have troops earmarked for that contingency. I believe one of our first duties should be to
evaluate the situation and see what can be done to make these troops available for combat service overseas. I do not know what percentage of the sixth, seventh and eighth divisions are home defence personnel, but I submit that the keeping of these three divisions as a potential against invasion is an unsound use of mam-.power.
These are some of the matters with which I think the government should deal at a secret session, when the minister could give us a free and frank evaluation of the possibilities of invasion. He is in possession of reports and information not available to others; but to the lay mind it does seem that there is very little possibility of these troops being used in any operational role in Canada.
The coastal garrisons offer another source of man-power. Naturally we cannot be told where the garrisons are, or their size, but the troops making up these garrisons are not as likely to be called upon to defend our coasts now as they were last year or the year before, and I believe at a secret session we should have a frank statement of . the possibility of releasing some of these operational troops for combat duty overseas. The minister spoke about a home war establishment of eighty thousand. We should be able to reduce that establishment. He spoke about forty members of the training staff, headquarters staff and so on being required to train one hundred recruits. Despite the fact that this appears to be a large number, I think it is quite reasonable. The training establishment in Canada has been well and efficiently conducted. The job of training men for the army is being efficiently carried on, and I am quite convinced that the training given in Canada during the four months' period is equal to the training given in a similar period of time anywhere else in the world; in fact I believe in most instances the Canadian training is superior. The training centres are well run and well managed. and they are doing a fine job of training our men. I believe that from now until the end of the war the role of the army in Canada will be purely that of training, and that operational troops will not have a necessary function to fulfil.
We have spoken of the fact that we have raised 750.000 in all services, army, navy and air force, with a population of eleven and a half or eleven and three-quarters million. I do not wish to make unnecessary comparisons; but before we take unto ourselves too much credit for having raised this many men, let us look for a moment at what Australia has done, a country with a little over six million people.
War Appropriation-Army

The official news letter from Australia contains a statement by Prime Minister Curtin to the effect that in the past three months the men sworn into the fighting services had risen from 750,000 to 800,000. That is from a country of slightly over six million people. The Australian imperial force, the Royal Australian Air Force and the Royal Australian Navy has increased in three months from
422,000	to 500,000. Those are overseas troops. This news letter contains the further information that more than one man in three, of those between the ages of eighteen and forty, had joined the overseas armed forces.
The criticism will be made that Australia is not as great a manufacturing or industrial country. But Australian factory workers in essential war jobs number 539,000, or seventy per cent of the nation's total factory employees. That is a very, very magnificent effort. Before we talk about our having reached our largest possible army, or our saturation point in respect of man-power, we should look at the Australian figures, and see what is happening in that commonwealth. I shall not mention New Zealand, where the figures are even better.
It is apparent that in our industrial war effort we have reached a climacteric, and that we are changing over from smaller weapons to larger ones. I gather from the press that we have ceased the manufacture of tanks. We have reached the stage where the gun is beating the armour. That will require a very great dislocation of industry.
I am fearful, not of a lack of man-power to fulfil the job; I am more fearful of unemployment than anything else. It takes time, trouble and industry to retool factories. How many of them will have to be retooled, and what the changes will be, I do not know. But we are warned that they will be very considerable. Let us beware that we do not find ourselves with a period, temporary if you like, of unemployment.
There has been a suggestion that the Canadian army should be broken up, that our army overseas should be split and merged -with other parts of the British army. I hope that is not government policy. I hope it is not the policy of this government to split up the army. It is easy to sit comfortably here and suggest that the Canadian army has not done any fighting. It is also easy to adv.ocate sending somebody else into battle. The only reason for advocating battle training is that when the Canadian army does attack the fortress of Germany it wil 1 have fewer casualties.
The one basic reason for training is to be able to kill the enemy before he kills you.
fMr. Adamson.]
That is why the well-trained army suffers fewer casualties than the army which has not had those training advantages. I submit it was a mistake not to have allowed some of the Canadian units to see service in Africa. Whether it was offered or not, I am not in a position to say. But had we had a brigade, or even a division of troops in Africa-


James Layton Ralston: The hon. member has said it was a mistake not to permit Canadians to be used in Africa. There is the suggestion in that remark that someone refused permission,
Mr, ADAMSON: I never said that permission was refused.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend's expression was that it was a mistake not to permit them. May I say to him there was no suggestion of not permitting them. I have made it clear to the committee that there has been the freest opportunity for suggestions to us to make any use which, could be made of the Canadian army, either in units or as a whole. North Africa was one of them. But there was no suggestion that they would not be permitted, to go there, if it had been so desired or suggested.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I should not have used
the word "permit." Rather I should have referred to an opportunity. I believe that had a brigade or a division had experience in Africa, it would have been in better position now to undertake the very serious job of attacking the continent of Europe. When this attack will come, how it will come or where it will come is known only to the high command. But that we shall take part in it is obvious.
Despite what the minister has said, I hope the Canadians will act as an army. I do not know any reason for splitting them up, but there have been reports in the press to the effect that there are possibilities of splitting the Canadian forces. In my opinion that would be a mistake.
There are two jobs to-day, one in Europe and the other in the orient. It is unthinkable that we should consider that our responsibilities are confined only to the continent of Europe. We are a Pacific power just as much as we are an Atlantic power. Our responsibilities in the Pacific are just as great as they are in the Atlantic. We must consider that we have an enemy in the Pacific as well as an enemy in Europe. We must be prepared to attack the enemy in the Pacific as well as in Europe. We must be prepared, as all the members of the united nations must be prepared, in the words of Mr. Churchill, to come

War Appropriation-Army
to grips with the enemy on the largest possible scale in the shortest possible time. That is our problem; that is our responsibility.
To have a large army which can see service only in Canada will become more and more difficult for our national pride to bear. As the tide of war turns, certainly after a bridgehead has been established, we shall be the subject of ridicule for keeping a home-defence-only army in Canada. If it is,the stated policy of the government not to send the home defence personnel out of Canada under any circumstances, then that fact should-be stated and stated fairly soon. If it is the policy of the government to send home defence personnel out of Canada, in fairness to the men themselves they should be told what is expected of them. I submit that the whole question of man-power hangs on this one thing, the home defence army. Are we prepared to face our responsibilities as every other member of the united nations has faced them and be ready to seek out and destroy the enemy where we can, or are we to play the role of keeping back large forces in Canada-[DOT]


James Layton Ralston: Surely my hon. friend
knows there is a limitation on sending troops out of Australia? He knows there is no conscription of any kind in South Africa. What does my hon. friend mean by saying that all the other nations send their troops out of the country?


Agar Rodney Adamson: Australia is in imminent danger, or was up to a short time ago and probably is still.


James Layton Ralston: And her conscription act permits her to send troops only as far north as the equator.


Agar Rodney Adamson: She was in imminent danger of land invasion.


James Layton Ralston: I do not see that that is justification for my hon. friend to say that other allied nations have the right to send their troops anywhere.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Australia was definitely in a war zone. Australian troops have suffered casualties while on Australia territory. Australia is in a war zone; we are not. That is the difference between the Australian system and ours. That is the point I was trying to make. The South African system is, of course, different.


Mr. MACDONALD (Kingston City):: Does my hon. friend know that the system in Australia is the same as the system here, perhaps not quite as strict?


Agar Rodney Adamson: I was explaining to the Minister of National Defence that Australia had been subjected to physical enemy attack. Apart from a few shells fired from a submarine, our country has not been subjected to attack and it is unlikely that we shall be. The war is receding from Canada; the war is not receding from Australia.


James Layton Ralston: Therefore?


Agar Rodney Adamson: Therefore I contend that to compare our system with that of Australia is not a tenable argument.


James Layton Ralston: I am not arguing; I am just correcting my hon. friend on the facts. My hon. friend stated, or at least I understood him to state, that other allied nations had the right to send their troops anywhere. I am pointing out that that is not true in Australia or South Africa.


Agar Rodney Adamson: The case in South Africa is probably similar to ours, but the combat zone is receding from South Africa.


James Layton Ralston: South Africa has no conscription. They had to pass an act to allow them to send volunteers out of the country.


Agar Rodney Adamson: The South African situation is one that we would hardly like to-


James Layton Ralston: I am simply stating a fact and I think my hon. friend might accept the fact.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I will accept the fact about South Africa.


James Layton Ralston: And about Australia?


Agar Rodney Adamson: The difference between us and Australia is the fact that Australia is in a combat area and we are not. I grant to the minister that Australia, has limitations on the sending of men outside the country north of the equator, but the situation is not the same because Australia is definitely in a combat zone, and troops called up for service inside Australia have become casualties and have been subject to enemy attack. There was a time, at Port Darwin particularly, when an enemy landing on Australian soil was considered quite probable. I think the situation in Australia is different.
Compared with Canada, that country is sixty per cent the size, but it has raised 500,000 men for overseas service, and has in its armed forces a total of 800,000 men. Actually the force they have raised is much larger than what we have raised.


James Layton Ralston: Where does my hon. friend get those figures?
War Appropriation-Army


Agar Rodney Adamson: This is an extract from the Australian imperial force and the Royal Australian Air Force news letter for the week ended April 29, 1943. The document comes to me with the compliments of the high commissioner for the commonwealth of Australia. Does that satisfy the minister?


James Layton Ralston: I have some figures here which were given me in confidence.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I am sorry the minister's figures are not up to date. I shall be glad to give him these when I have finished with them.


James Layton Ralston: These figures were given to me in confidence; I did not know they had been published.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I heard them over the air.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Would the hon. member give the figures by services?
-Mr. ADAMSON: They are not broken down into the different services. The women's auxiliary service has jumped from 28,000 to 36,000 in the last three months.


James Layton Ralston: Would my hon. friend repeat the figures? Has he the figures for the navy, army and air?


Agar Rodney Adamson: I will read the whole paragraph:
No country is more fully geared to a total war effort than was Australia, the Prime Minister (Mr. Curtin) claimed in a speech at Perth. He quoted figures showing a substantial rise in Australian enlistments and war production figures during the past three months.
"Diversion of people from their normal pursuits has meant increasing stresses and strains on the Australian economic structure," said Mr. Curtin, "but these have been far less than they would have been had this country not effectively resisted [DOT] occupation by the enemy. No civilian in the commonwealth has had impact with an enemy land force. This is a state of affairs in striking contrast with that of people of many other countries. It has been made possible by the stoutness of the resistance which our fighting forces have exhibited. The support the services have had has been magnificent, but that support must be sustained."
In the past three months, the Prime Minister stated, the number of men sworn into the fighting services had risen from 750,000 to 800,000. This figure represented one man out of fewer than every two of the male population between 18 and 40 years of age, or one man in fewer than every five of the total male population.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend does not suggest that that means that Australia has a force to send outside Australia of anything like 800,000, does he?


Agar Rodney Adamson: Wait a minute. I am
coming to that. f.Mr. Ralston.1


James Layton Ralston: If my hon. friend will permit me, does that not include what we call our reserve army?


Agar Rodney Adamson: If the minister will let me get on with this, I will tell him the size of the force they have sent outside Australia.
If the men of the United States have been enlisted in the same ratio of enlistments to population, there would to-day be more than
15.000.	000 men in the American services. The number of men -who had volunteered to fight anywhere in the world with the Australian imperial forces, the Royal Australian Air Force and the Royal Australian Navy, had increased from 422,000 three months ago to 500,000,-
That is, troops to fight anywhere. I submit that that is a larger number than we have in Canada.


James Layton Ralston: What is that?


Agar Rodney Adamson: That is a larger number than ours.


James Layton Ralston: We have in Canada nearly
400,000	in the army, volunteers for general service; we have something like 160,000 in the air force, volunteers for general service; and we have in the navy between fifty and sixty thousand.


Agar Rodney Adamson: With a larger population.


James Layton Ralston: Well, I say that that is nearly 600,000.


Agar Rodney Adamson: more than one man in three of those between 18 and 40. Men on full-time war work-including members of the forces-now totalled
1.506.000,	or sixty per cent of the 2,560,000 Australian males between 14 and 45.
Other figures quoted by Mr. Curtin included:
Australian factory workers in essential war jobs numbered 539,000-70 per cent of the nation's total factory employees.


James Layton Ralston: Is that men?


Agar Rodney Adamson: It does not say.


William Ross Macdonald: How does that compare with Canada?


Agar Rodney Adamson: The hon. member can find those figures himself.


James Layton Ralston: Is that men?


Agar Rodney Adamson: 
Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I have to inform the hon. member that he has spoken for over forty minutes.


Agar Rodney Adamson: May I just finish my statement? I was interrupted considerably.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Mr. MacNICOL:: Be fair. The hon. member was interrupted.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.


Agar Rodney Adamson: All I was going to say was that this is the whole crux of our manpower problem: either these men should be told to be prepared to fight anywhere, or, as the war recedes, some other use should be made of them.


Jean-François Pouliot: When we discuss estimates we must come down to some elementary facts, and there must be some admissions of certain elementary truths which serve as the basis for a discussion. Since I see the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton in his seat, may I tell him I regret what I said the other day, on account of the courageous stand he took on behalf of the farmers of his county last year. I want to give everyone his due, and sometimes in the heat of discussion words are said which are more or less regrettable. The hon. member has well defended the farmers of his county and of the east, as also has the hon. member for Lambton-Kent; I give them credit for that.
At six o'clock we were discussing agriculture. The hon. member for Swift Current said a few words about it; and I was following the hon. member for Lake Centre, and speaking of the question which was put at the time of the plebiscite and the meaning of it. What astounded me is that after the plebiscite was over, anyone could have thought that the
majority which voted "yes" was for an altogether different question from that which was put to the people. I have not the exact terms of that question, but it was to this effect: Are you in favour of relieving the government of the pledge that has been given to the Canadian people, and so on: yes or no. The question, Are you for conscription for overseas or not? has not been put by any minister. Just before six o'clock, according to the notes I have taken, the Minister of National Defence admitted that he had not put the question, and he added the second time, " I did not frame the question for the plebiscite and had nothing to do with the passing of the orders in council except as a member of the government." And then he said, " I have put the [DOT] question as the question was framed." That was clear. I did not accuse him of having drafted the question. But there is ministerial solidarity, and as a member of the cabinet he was just as responsible as anjr other minister for the drafting of these questions, whether they were penned in his own hand or that of one of his colleagues; that is immaterial. But what I say is that the question which was put to the Canadian people was not one which justified conscription for service overseas, and many hon. members representing constituencies outside Quebec have told me after the plebiscite that there was at the time no question whatever of conscription for service overseas.
There is another question that is very important. It is the corollary of the basis of the discussion, namely, that agriculture is an essential industry in times of war as well as in times of peace. That is fundamental, and I am not afraid to say so in view of the numerous speeches from all corners of the house in defence of the farmer. And that defence has been made quite eloquently by a number of men of imperialist feelings. But, here is the corollary to the first statement. It is that the farmer has not been given the same glory, the same glamour as the man in the army-and of course they are different occupations. But my contention, considering the numerous speeches that have been made by a large number of hon. members, is that the farmer is just as necessary and just as honourable as the soldier. The soldier has been eulogized at the expense of the farmer. Mind you, it is often much more pleasing for a boy who comes from the country to be in one of the branches of the army than to be on the farm, and- if he stays on the farm it is because he has a family duty to perform in helping his aged or sick father to run the farm. I know manv hovs who have enlisted
War Appropriation-Army

and are content to be in the army, and others who would like to join but cannot do so because they are obliged to stay at home to do some important work on the farm. They cannot leave, and when they do not join the army they are at times regarded as slackers, men who do not do their duty.
This was the feeling of the ex-chairman of the Quebec board. That is the way he thought and the way he spoke on many occasions. He considered all the young ablebodied farmers who stayed on the farm as slackers, unworthy of Canadian citizenship. The orders in council of March last, regarding selective service, were simply an inducement to the farmer to vote "yes" to that senseless question that was then put to the people of Canada. Some farmers were fooled by it, and afterwards it was said that they had been in favour of conscription for service overseas. The stand I take is that if the army is to be maintained, one thing is essential, namely, that it should be provided with proper food and clothing, and the army can get this only from the farms. Therefore the work of the farmer is essentia], both to the army and to the civilian population. That is my point, and I cannot understand why the farmer receives from the army treatment different from that which he receives from the Department of Labour.
The other day I asked a question about a phoenix of the Department of National Defence, a brass hat. I am told by some people who have been to his office that he is very bold and lacks manners entirely. Here is the question:
1.	Is Captain K. D. Andrews employed in the Department of National Defence at Ottawa?
2.	If so, (a) since when; (b) in what position; (c) what is his age?
3.	What is his military record?
4.	What experience has he had as an agriculturist, where, and for what period?
5.	Are there other agricultural experts employed in the Department of National Defence?
6.	If so. (a) what are their ages; (b) what is their military record; (c) what agricultural experience have they had?
1.	Yes
2.	(a) 8th December, 1941.
(b) Staff captain.
(e) 47 years.
3.	Jamaica Militia Artillery 1913-15. British West India Regiment 1916-19. Royal Regiment of Canada since August, 1940. Saw active service during 1914-18 in Egypt, Belgium, France and Italy.
4.	None, so far as is known.
5.	No personnel are employed for the purpose of serving as agricultural experts.
6.	Answered by 5 above.
Here is a man in the adjutant-general's branch who knows nothing about agriculture. He has no experience. They have no experts
fMr. Pnuliot.l
in agriculture in the Department of National Defence, and yet they decide whether a farmer who is in the army should stay in the army or go back to the farm. They know nothing about it. I have the admission of the minister, and all hon. members have the faculty of seeing that. The return is dated May 6, but I do not know whether it was tabled that day. According to what was said by the minister, there is not a single agricultural expert in the Department of National Defence, and they are the people who pass judgment upon the usefulness of a man on the farm or in the army. There is a password, "Get as many men as you can, whether they are sick or well. Get the men and keep them there." If I started to discuss those who are sick and are kept there doing nothing, paid by the government, and in hospital, I would have a long story to tell. But I can give numbers that cannot be denied. I will not give names, but I can give numbers, and every file from which I have obtained information is at the disposal of the-minister. For six months each year I have been listening to complaints of soldiers. I have received them by hundreds, complaining of the way in which they have been dealt with by these men who pass on their record. Did this man really have that military record? He went through the world to fight in the last war. but-


James Layton Ralston: What is that statement?


Jean-François Pouliot: He went through the world, Egypt, Jamaica, everywhere, but he did not see any farm; he did not work on a farm; that is the only thing he did not do; and he is deciding on farmers in a very bold way. I know the minister will defend him. He is like a hen that has been sitting on ducks' eggs.


James Layton Ralston: I suggest that this gentleman has about as much ability to decide on farmers as my hon. friend has to decide about soldiers.	[DOT]


Jean-François Pouliot: I will inform the minister about what is going on in his department and I will tell him the truth. I will not flatter him, and when 1 am through with him he will be finished. Let us ask him another question. How many condoms did he requisition from the department of health? Will he tell me the number of condoms he purchased from the Department of Pensions and National Health? I want his answer. Is it true that once-


James Layton Ralston: Will my hon. friend-


Jean-François Pouliot: Sit down, please. I have not finished my question.

War Appropriation-Army


James Layton Ralston: Mr. Chairman, this wild man has asked me a question.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, I want
him to withdraw that word. He has no reason for calling me "wild" when I use mild language.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The hon. member for Temiscouata was asking a question of the minister, and surely the minister should have an opportunity to reply.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend has asked me three questions already. There is an item coming up in the estimates in connection with medical supplies, and I will answer my hon. friend's question then.


Jean-François Pouliot: That is all right. Let the minister use his pencil and take notes. He will have to take many notes. We will ask about condoms wrapped1 in fake Nouvelles Catholiques-English condoms wrapped in French, in fake Nouvelles Catholiques to hide them.
But let us proceed with the farm worker. I have a few papers in front of me, Mr. Chairman. I have much more to say about medical supplies, but I will leave that for the moment. I shall also have a word to say about a brigadier who was degraded. He was the one who had kept a member of parliament for forty-two days in gaol.
I want now to give the case-and I am not wild; I am quiet-of a young man, Roland Pinette, aged sixteen, who enlisted without the consent of his father. I wrote in April to have him sent home. No definite answer has yet been given. I hope the minister will look into this matter. This young man was born on September 7, 1926. I wonder if he will be kept in the army until he is seventeen and if they will then say: It is too late.


James Layton Ralston: Is my hon. friend handing me the file?


Jean-François Pouliot: Oh, yes. This young man is at Rimouski.


James Layton Ralston: What is my hon. friend doing? Is he going to give the particulars? I cannot do anything if there is just a reference to somebody who enlisted when he was just sixteen unless his name and number are given.


Jean-François Pouliot: That is all right; I will satisfy the minister. I have the particulars under my hand. The name of this young man is Roland Pinette, fils d'Honore, of St. Eusebe (Riviere Cabano), Temiscouata
county. His birth certificate was sent to the officer commanding at Rimouski, and the minister's department has been notified.


James Layton Ralston: Did he enlist, or was he called up?


Jean-François Pouliot: He may have enlisted, but without the consent of his parents. He was only sixteen.
There is another thing I cannot understand. There was a dispatch in the Evening Citizen of March 24, 1943, headed "To retain only men with A categories". The item is as fallows:
Calgary, March 23-Men called up for military service under the National Resources Mobilization Act, who receive a medical category lower than A1 or A2, will not be inducted into the service but will be allowed to return home, it was stated in new instructions received to-day by the Calgary board.
In a few cases men who are graded as B1 will be retained if they follow a special trade.
In the past, all men who received a category of B2 or higher were retained in the service.
I have received many letters from parents of soldiers who needed their sons at home. They would write me and say: My son is in category B or category C, and I want him at home. They had seen in the papers this item of news from Calgary. It has been published in all the Ontario and Quebec papers, and in view of that item in the press I cannot understand why the army keeps these young men who are in B or C category'.


James Layton Ralston: If these men are in the army and are in category Bl, B2 or C, they are kept in the army because there are certain places where men in those categories can be used. The reason for the rule to which my hon. friend referred a moment ago whereby men below category A1 or A2 were not being accepted was that we did not want to get the service filled with low category men. It may be that we shall have an opportunity to take in more men. We are not releasing those who are already in, but we are not taking in any more of them except for special jobs.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank the minister for his answer. It is much better for him to proceed in that way than to call me "wild". He will get much farther by answering me in that way than he will by calling me names. Howevqr, the minister must understand the confusion in the minds of the parents after reading that item. Certainly they have been greatly embarrassed. But if the army needs mostly category A and A1 men I do not see when an application is made to release a farmer's son in B or lower category, why it should be refused.
296S
War Appropriation-Army


James Layton Ralston: The answer is that if we let him go we will have to fill his place with a category A man.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank the minister for his answer, but I doubt that he is right, because it is very easy for the army to get other men who are in categories lower than A and who are ready to enlist. I am sure that if the minister has listened to the speeches which have been made about man-power requirements in agriculture, he will agree that agriculture is just as essential as the army and that it would be unfair to keep in the army as secondary help men who would be of primary help in agriculture. The minister knows very well that a man who has only one eye but who is able-bodied may make an excellent farmer, although he would not be put in categoiy A in the army.


James Layton Ralston: He will very often make an excellent soldier, too.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes; he may make an excellent soldier, but I know of young men who have been rejected because they had only one eye. Here we see the viewpoint of the minister. I submit that such a young man may be a good farmer; the minister may agree, but in order to keep that young man in the army he says at once, "Oh, he will make an excellent soldier." I know of young men who have been put in category E because they had only one eye, and that is fair. If they have to use a rifle they need their eyes badly; unless they put the rifle to the wrong shoulder-


James Layton Ralston: It depends upon which eye a man has lost.


Jean-François Pouliot: The right eye is badly needed. Then let me tell the minister something else, in all kindness. If the Department of National Defence keeps on in this way, it will completely destroy agriculture in this country; it will be the cause of a famine, unless it admits that agriculture is just as important as the army, not only for the sake of the army but for the sake of the civilian population as well. That is simple language, but I will tell him something more. I have been informed that the reason why the Conservative party as a whole-I do not mean the individual members, who are very fine fellows-has not come to the defence of agriculture is that the party is afraid that, if it should do so, the government would at once press for service overseas. I do not say that is true, but T do say that such matters as agriculture never should be used as political footballs. Let me tell the minister, hon. members on this side and hon. members on the other side, that the best way to get and keep the confidence of the people

is not by trying to play politics but to do what one thinks is right, without any thought in mind of power or personal advantage or future ambition. I would ask hon. gentlemen to do as I do, to consider their own constituents before anyone else; then they will have the satisfaction of having done their duty.
I now come back to the farmers. Here is the case of another young man who is in the army; he is No. D-611207, at Valcartier. I have a letter from his father making his third request for the release of this boy from the army. He says that since his son has gone he has had to neglect his farm, because he is alone and cannot do the heavy work. His farm consists of 275 acres, with twenty-seven milch cows, four young calves, three horses, seventy-five hens and a sugar bush with 800 trees. His only help is a young man in feeble health, who delivers the milk; the other children are going to school to complete their studies. He says that his son would be of great help to him and could do his war effort in producing food for the allies. That gentleman lives at Magog, in Stanstead county, which seat is vacant just now.


James Layton Ralston: How long has the man been in the army?


Jean-François Pouliot: This letter is dated April 6, but it is the third request.


James Layton Ralston: Was he called up, or did
he enlist?


Jean-François Pouliot: I do not know; I think he
was called up. .


James Layton Ralston: Then he would have an opportunity to apply to the board for postponement.


Jean-François Pouliot: No; he must apply to his officer commanding.


James Layton Ralston: When he was called up he would have the right to apply to the board.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, but the board said, "Go to the army."


James Layton Ralston: Then it was not the army who said that; it was the board.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, on the requisition of the minister for more men.


James Layton Ralston: The hon. gentleman will remember that the board is not composed of army men. It is headed by a judge and composed of people who are in no way connected with the army, and there is an agricultural representative in attendance. That board must have refused the application of that young man; it must have decided that he was not essential to agriculture. Why put the blame on the army?	.

War Appropriation-Army


Jean-François Pouliot: I may tell the minister that the representative of agriculture on the Quebec board is a lumber scaler who has been appointed by the minister for air, who lives at St. Pacome and who has not even a garden. The only satisfaction I have obtained for farmers has been from the representative of the selective service, who is a Quebec manufacturer.


James Layton Ralston: How does he know anything about farming?


Jean-François Pouliot: He has common sense,
which is a good thing to have. There is a letter on file from the secretary-treasurer of the town of Magog, certifying that he has known this young man for several years; that the young man has worked on his father's farm, and that his father delivers about 150 quarts of milk daily in the town of Magog. The father is described in this letter as a model farmer, and this gentleman recommends that the son be given leave of absence from the army for the summer and fall months so that he may return to his previous occupation. That letter, as well as the letter from the father, is sworn before a notary public. There is a sworn statement also from the official agronomist to the same effect, who mentions the 800 maple trees and says that this man is a good farmer. There is also a letter from the parish priest, sworn before a notary.
I have much more to say about the farmers, but first I have something else to tell the minister. He knows about farming, of course; on his registration card in 1940 he stated that lie had milked a cow for three months in the maritimes. Perhaps that was not the. only time he milked a cow, but that was something, so that he cannot say that he has totally ignored the problems of agriculture.
There are other cases. I have in mind particularly blacksmiths' helpers, who are most necessary to the farmers. They must be available all year round, not only to shoe horses, but also to repair sleighs, carriages, wagons, express trucks and agricultural implements. At the time of mobilization it was well understood that blacksmiths' helpers were badly needed in rural communities. Petitions were signed by mayors, councillors and leading farmers in several communities, asking for postponement of training of certain farmers and blacksmiths.
But the blacksmith is not alone. We could also mention the tinsmith. We do not find a tinsmith in every parish or township. Petitions were signed and resolutions passed by municipal councils and leading people in rural communities asking that blacksmiths be given
postponements, in order to help farmers. Then, what about saddlers, shoemakers and masons? We know it is necessary to have masons within certain areas, so that they may be available to build and repair chimneys, foundations and the like. No one is self-supporting. The agricultural class need help, just the same as the army.
What was the trouble at Dieppe? It was that the auxiliary services were destroyed, and that was the most lamentable part of the battle, with the exception of the loss of life. From the military point of view the destruction of a large part of those auxiliary services was one of the great handicaps suffered by the Canadian army.
We may have in mind a man who has spent his time in building houses or barns for farmers. Perhaps those barns have been destroyed by fire, or in some other way. Such- a man may have to report to his commanding officer. I will tell the minister how that works out in the province of Quebec. When hon. members from other provinces learn how people in Quebec are dealt with, not only by the brass hats here in Ottawa, but by certain French Canadians in charge of regiments, they will have greater sympathy for us than the hon. member for York West may have for the Minister of National Defence-and it will be more sincere.
The young man working on the farm who is called to the army must pass his medical examination, something about which I shall have much to say. May I tell hon, members it is not always pleasant to make observations like that, but I am in- duty bound to do so. And when I have finished my storv it will be just as useful in other constituencies as it is in mine. But that is not the reason why I do it; I do it because it is my duty.
A young farmer may be called by the registrar to attend for medical examination. This happens, after he has heard over the radio and read in the press that farmers' sons are exempted, and are to be treated leniently. He reports to the board and, thanks to the fairness of the present chairman, and certain officials of the national selective service, he may sometimes receive a favourable answer. But if we refer to page 2920 of Hansard for May 21, 1943, we shall find, to the astonishment of the minister himself, and all hon. members, that the city of Quebec has the second smallest percentage of postponements granted. The smallest percentage is credited to Regina, with 61 per cent; Quebec, second, with 70 per cent. London, Ontario, has 93 per cent, or 23 per cent more than the city of Quebec.
War Appropriation-Army

' Mr. RALSTON: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I think we ought to keep reasonably close to the subject at hand, namely the estimates of the army. The postponements to which my hon. friend is referring have nothing whatsoever to do with the army. They are postponements made by a board appointed under the Department of Labour, and carrying out selective service regulations.
I should imagine the hon. member has almost finished his forty minutes, and I shall make a suggestion to the committee. A statement was made some time ago by me, in the presence of all hon. members in the committee, with no dissenting voice, with regard to a suggestion which had been made as to the way in which the estimates of the various war departments should be dealt with, in order that they might be handled expeditiously and in an orderly fashion.
That suggestion was that each minister should make a statement, and that when the estimates should be discussed, along the same lines as we conduct discussions in respect of ordinary civil estimates. A break-down was given for the army, the navy and the air force, in respect of various items. Since last Tuesday night I have been waiting to enter upon a discussion of those estimates. I realize that hon. members would wish to have a certain amount of general discussion with regard to the army's programme and policy. I believe my hon. friend has had his share of discussion in regard to general matters. Now he is going into various details which, it seems to me, might better be discussed under the appropriate item.
I suggest to the committee and to him, since he happened to be on his feet when I rose, that we could safely enter upon a discussion of the items themselves. I am sure hon. members of the committee will find ample opportunity to discuss any cases with respect to the administration of which the army is responsible. I think we shall get along more regularly and make better progress if the committee will enable me to do that. If that is agreed, I can now table a statement which gives a comparison with 1942-43 of the various items which have already been set out in Hansard. I suggest that we enter upon a discussion of those items. This does not shut out my hon. friend at all from dealing with the matter he has in mind when he comes to the proper item.


Jean-François Pouliot: Speaking to the point of order, I will tell you, sir, one thing. The matter is so mixed up that we have to make quotations. I remember the minister stating that

the procedure of the committee would be as he has just indicated, but on the other hand I wonder why the discussion is so restricted precisely when the member for Temiscouata has the floor. Why was that not done when the first question was put to the minister after he had concluded his statement several days ago?


James Layton Ralston: The reason is that my hon. friend is taking just twice the time taken by any other member of the committee. I thought that having had an opportunity of speaking for eighty minutes instead of forty minutes he might agree that this was the desirable thing to do. I am still speaking to the point of order. I submit that my hon. friend is not in order in discussing postponements under the national selective service regulations when we are dealing with the administration of the army. I think my hon. friend will agree with that. If he does, then the other point comes up. I made the suggestion when I was discussing the point of order that there would be ample opportunity to discuss anything in the estimates of the army.


Jean-François Pouliot: I had the floor and I was talking to the point' of order, and strictly to the point of order. No member has the right to speak twice. The minister interrupted me and spoke twice on the point of order, and in violation of the rules he made his observations.


James Layton Ralston: I answered a question.


Jean-François Pouliot: The minister has no right to speak twice to the point of order. He has made his case and I want to make mine. I am not discussing army matters; I am discussing the application of the rules of the house to the present discussion. As a member of parliament I have protested several times against the shameless division of the tremendous amounts we are called upon to vote. I registered my solemn protest against there being only eleven items for an amount totalling nearly $1,800,000,000. How can a member of parliament stick to the subject matter when the average amount of each item is from three to five hundred million dollars? To do so creates embarrassment for you, sir; it creates embarrassment for us, and finally it creates embarrassment for the minister. It reminds me of the time when the chairman of the civil service commission and other officers were appearing before a committee to make what they called a presentation. The question is not to have a presentation; it is to have these estimates prepared as carefully as the estimates are prepared for the congress of the United States where much larger sums are voted. How can a member stick to one item when it involves such formidable amounts?

War Appropriation-Army


James Layton Ralston: It should be much easier to do so with larger amounts than with smaller amounts.


Jean-François Pouliot: Oh, no. The minister has just returned from Washington, and no doubt he has seen the telephone directories of New York city. The estimates tabled by President Roosevelt in congress make up a volume much larger than the telephone directories of New York city put together. I cannot understand why such a procedure is not followed here.


James Layton Ralston: This is not to the point of order, I submit.


Jean-François Pouliot: It is impossible to know when it is the right time to speak about a definite item.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Before I rule on the point of order, may I say that the hon. member has spoken for more than forty minutes, and I have allowed him seven minutes for interruptions.


Jean-François Pouliot: When there is an interruption I have the right to speak for another forty minutes. That is my right. The minister disputes my unquestionable right. He is a fascist.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: No one is denying any right to anyone. It is not in the mind of any member of this committee to deprive any other member of his right. The minister has been very plain in what he has said, that the hon. member for Temiscouata will have ample opportunity, when the time comes, to discuss what he has been discussing this evening. He must realize that the Chair has allowed him considerable latitude. It is not an indulgence or anything of that kind. The committee has listened attentively to what the hon. member for Temiscouata has had to say.


Jean-François Pouliot: There is an item of
$8,000,000 for civil salaries and wages, and it is the civilian employees who intervene in making decisions regarding the farmers. Most of them are retired from the army; they are drawing pensions, but they are the ones who make the decisions. There are a number who wear uniforms but who have never been in any theatre of war, and yet they make the decision, to send farmers and farmers' sons to the different theatres of war, to take them away from their farms. Speaking on this item of $8,000,000, I say it is my right to go on with my fight for the farmers of this country. The minister objected to my going on, but this is only one of two items. The other one concerns work that is not done by the army; it is done by the brass hats.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend has made the statement that I objected to his going on. I objected to his discussing postponements under the national selective service regulations. If my hon. friend cares to go on, he may discuss anything that is relevant under the first item.


Jean-François Pouliot: I want to speak about those in the army.


James Layton Ralston: That is perfectly in
order; there is no objection whatever to that. There is no necessity of my hon. friend getting excited about this thing. He will have plenty of time to discuss these matters without showing any heat. I was saying that I was ready to circulate a statement showing the expenditures for 1942-43 as compared with the estimates for 1943-44, under similar headings. I would point out that my officers tell me that these comparisons cannot be taken as exact, because there have been changes in the accounting procedure which makes it impossible to 'have the figures and the items absolutely comparable. However, they do give an approximate idea of the differences in the items for the two years, and with that reservation I shall have the table circulated.


Gordon Graydon: May I ask my hon, friend a question with regard to the table he is about to circulate. I believe that in the early days of the discussions with respect to the war appropriation bill, or perhaps on the orders of the day, the Minister of' Finance indicated that he might be prepared to bring down not only the comparable figures with regard to the previous year but also those with regard to the two years prior to that again. I did not press the latter request because I realize that .there might be insuperable difficulties with respect to the earlier years; but I was wondering whether the minister had taken that into consideration, because it is part of the request which I made to the Minister of Finance on the original occasion.


James Layton Ralston: We did take that into
account. I discussed it with the officers who had to do with the financial accounting, and they felt they could not give figures on which they would expect me to make definite answers, or answers which I could give with any assurance, with respect to comparable figures under these headings in previous years, without an exhaustive examination of the accounts and seeing to it that certain changes were made. There have been changes from year to year of the headings by the treasury and accounting officers of the different departments. It would have taken a good

War Appropriation-Army

deal of time to make sure that the items put under these heads for 1941-42 were composed of the items which are under those heads to-day. But they have dealt with 1942-43 and the estimates for 1943-44, and we can give an approximate idea of the comparative expenditures under the groupings which are referred to in this memorandum. I have not attempted to break down the comparative figures for previous years. All that this memorandum consists of is the items which are already on Hansard, which were put on
Hansard by my colleague, the Minister of Finance. They appear under column D, "estimates 1943-44." Column C shows the expenditure for 1942-43 (estimated), allocated under similar headings, and I see a note at the bottom:
Figures are not strictly comparable due to changes in accounting procedures resulting in different groupings of expenditures in the various years.
With that reserve, I ask that this table be put on Hansard, and will have it circulated. It is as follows:
Summary of Army Expenditures for 1942-43 and Estimates for 1943-44 By Grouped Objects of Expenditures
A-Army Services
A	B
Line	Objects of expenditure by groups
1.	Civil salaries and wages	
2.	Pay and allowances	
3.	Travel, transportation and freight	
4.	Construction, purchase, repairs and operating expenses of
properties	
5.	Personnel supplies and services: food, medical and dental
stores, clothing and personal equipment	
6.	Signal and wireless equipment, line construction, etc	
7.	Ammunition and bombs	
8.	Armament, including rifles, machine guns, mortars and guns
of all descriptions	
9.	M.T. vehicles; trucks, tractors, trailers, tanks A.F.Vs. and
repair parts	
10.	Operating cost of mechanical transport, fuel maintenance, etc.
(not including repair parts)	
11.	Sundries, including printing, stationery, telephones, telegrams
and other costs not included in above items	
Totals	
B-Sundry Services
Departmental administration	
Dependents' allowance board	
Internment operations	
Dependents supplementary grants fund	
Inspection board of the United Kingdom and Canada. Miscellaneous services	
Totals	

Expenditure
(estimated)
$	5,300,715
383,411,423 54,453,570
75,861,194
143,298,170
14,552,932
1,7,327,329
63,832,169
272,206,108
12,934,421
17,329,969

$	1,118,700
565,100 4,595,535 1,210,000 8,112,023 2,047,642
$	17,649,000

Estimates
$	8,832,687
539,730,211 74,190,760
109,401,172
185,868,300
27,826,751
273,325,890
123,070,907
371,853,674
35,187,833
14,711,815

$	1,526,405
657,700 8,430,895 1,285,000 10,600,000
$	22,500,000
Note.-Figures are not strictly comparable due to changes in accounting procedures resulting in different groupings of expenditures in the various years.


Gordon Graydon: I cannot see any special [DOT]eason at the moment why we should' ask for i more detailed explanation of these figures. Jnless it is absolutely necessary I do not think we should take up additional time of the busy men in the national defence department.


James Layton Ralston: The committee have, of course, the right to ask for it at any time.


Gordon Graydon: Quite so.


Clarence Gillis: Down in this corner it is doubtful when one can say anything. I agree with the minister that it is desirable at this

War Appropriation-Army
time to go into the matter of his estimates as specifically as possible, but it is unfortunate that that ruling is not enforced from his side of the house, because most of the time occupied in general statements has been spent by hon. members opposite.


James Layton Ralston: No; my hon. friend is wrong about that. I believe there have been only two speeches from our side, or, counting the hon. member for Temiscouata, who made two, there have been four.


Clarence Gillis: He occupied eighty minutes to-day, which is not bad for one man, and he sits on the minister's side of the house. However, I agree with the minister as to the way in which the business should be carried on. My remarks are not going to be extensive. The things I have to say are of a general nature, in an endeavour to bring to the minister's attention matters which are of an administrative character and could be handled by his department, details with which perhaps he is not familiar, for I know it is not possible for the minister to keep his finger on the many ramifications which are involved in his department.
The hori. member for Weyburn stated very fairly the position of this group with respect to military matters of an international nature. Before I proceed to bring specific matters to the attention of the minister, I should like to say, in the interest of fairness, that having listened to a good deal of criticism from both sides respecting military matters generally, I look back to 1940, w'hen I first took my seat in this house, and I do not envy any of the heads of the defence departments who accepted at that time the responsibility of organizing Canada on a military basis. The ministers faced a terrific job, with many difficulties to overcome; and, looking back to that time and seeing what they have done, I am prepared to say that they have done an excellent job of organizing Canada from a military point of view.
I wish to pay tribute to one member of the Department of National Defence to-night. If I were awarding medals for meritorious service and devotion to duty, I would have no hesitation in awarding one to the private secretary of the Minister of National Defence. There is one person who is doing an excellent job, performing 100 per cent service. Personally I can say that every matter I have brought to her attention has been handled expeditiously and satisfactorily in accordance with the regulations as they are laid down.
There is an organization under the Department of National Defence which appears to be very little known in the house; at any rate very few hon. members have made reference to it. I had the pleasure last summer of visiting North Bay and looking round a camp there. It is an edricational training school, where young men from across Canada who went into the military forces without the advantage of an education, having been weeded out, are concentrated and educated. I pay tribute to the men who organized that school and who have been administering it for the past two years. They are doing excellently an important work which in my opinion should1 be extended in the aftermath of the war. It is one which was wholly neglected before the outbreak of the present war.
I was surprised to hear the hon. member for York West state that a member of this committee proposed to take the trainees who are in Canada at the present time and send them to Alaska in order to make available the United States forces for military sendee elsewhere. I cannot suppose that anyone here would seriously suggest that, because I do not think there is any necessity for it. I believe that, of the men who are called up under the mobilization bill and have seen fit to remain in Canada, ninety-nine per cent would voluntarily cross the ocean and help their comrades in arms on the other side if the Canadian army went into action and the necessity arose for reinforcements overseas. I think it is a reflection on these boys for anyone in this house or outside it to suggest that they should remain in a certain section of Canada in order to relieve the troops of another country to cross the sea and fight somewhere else. I believe that most of these boys are in Canada as a result of lack of organization and of the proper approach. I think when the time comes and they feel it is necessary, and the parliament of this country calls on them, they will gladly cross the ocean and take their part on the other side.
I also wish to make a few observations on the proposal to split up the Canadian army. I do not know who is responsible for holding it intact in England to be used at some time in the future as a unit for whatever purpose may be designated by the military authorities. I commend the person responsible for that, whoever he may be, because I think .it is a move in the right direction. That unit could not be split up under any circumstances. Having had a little military experience, I know it is absolutely essential, and if the Canadian army, artillery and air force can work together as a unit, in the event of their going into
2974
War Appropriation-Army

action, it would be the greatest morale booster for them in action, to know that their own auxiliary forces are behind them.
There is one grievance I wish to bring to the minister's attention regarding the old soldiers' veterans guard in Canada who are performing essential service, men who went through the last war, many of whom are not in any condition to be discharging the duties they are discharging at the present time. They are essential because they have released thousands of younger men for the forces who might proceed overseas. The veterans guard when first mobilized were given to understand, I believe, that they would be utilized as far as possible in their own provinces. That has not been done. There are men from the maritimes in Ontario and vice versa. This places the men at a great disadvantage. In several letters I have received from them they complain that men from Nova Scotia are in Ontario, and they are entitled to a 48-hour leave once a month, but they are not in a position to take it and have nowhere to go. If an emergency arises and they are obliged to go to their own homes, it costs them approximately S40 to get from Ontario to Nova Scotia and vice versa. These men have families.


James Layton Ralston: I do not know where my hon. friend got the idea with regard to any assurance given the veterans' guard that they would be employed in their own provinces. I have never heard of it, and I am quite satisfied that the offer of the veterans, which was certainly most enthusiastic and pressing at that time, was that they wanted to serve anywhere and preferably overseas-and they would be separated from their families more than they are now. I shall certainly inquire into that, but apart from that I want to point out that the veterans' guard is composed of about
10,000	now; 7,000 or more are employed in the administration of the prisoners of war camps, and they would have to serve where those camps are. That would present a difficulty in the way of confining their employment to their particular provinces.


Clarence Gillis: I appreciate that there are administrative difficulties. The information came to me from a number of the veterans' guard themselves, particularly from Graven-hurst, where there are a considerable number of Nova Scotians. I understand that the department has made some transfers. I also agree with the minister that most of these men would like to serve overseas, where possible; but where they are subject to service in Canada, many of them were given to understand that such service would be performed, as far as possible, in their own provinces.

There may be many of them not abroad, but there are many who are. I suggest to the minister that where it is possible that arrangement should be made. Where men make application and set out extenuating circumstances to show why they should be as near as possible to their families, some consideration should be given them.
They also point out that, in the 48-hour leaves they get, a considerable amount of money is wasted because they cannot get home. That money is thrown away, whereas, if they had a furlough every so often, by means of which they could get home at a reasonable cost, they wrnuld save that money, and it would serve some useful purpose in their homes.
That is the line of argument given by the men themselves, and I have letters to that effect.
Another outstanding grievance is the matter of free pass on the railway for men on furlough or on embarkation leave. That has been brought up in the house many times. The average man going into the army to-day gets no more leave than that; that is about all he will get between the time he enlists and the time he goes overseas. He may get a furlough the first six months; his next leave is embarkation; and the soldier in the rank and file, on his present pay, if he is obliged, to go from Petawawa, or from any of the central camps in Ontario, to Nova Scotia or Saskatchewan or Manitoba, has to spend three or four months' pay which has been religiously saved if he hopes to get anywhere near meeting the cost of transportation. It is not too much to ask for free transportation for these two leaves.
Another matter that causes a great deal of concern is this, and I bring it to the minister's attention because it is responsible for much irritation. You may talk as much as you like about building the morale of the army, but you will not build it from the top or With propaganda or flowery language. You must build it up from the bottom. These things that cause irritation must be cured, and then the morale of the army will take care of itself. It is the small things that go unnoticed that irritate the rank and file and cause trouble, absenteeism and many infractions of the King's Regulations and Orders, which otherwise would not occur. The matter of stopping dependents' allowance for the wife and family in Canada of the men who go absent is something that causes trouble. That has been taken care of to some extent. The department now permits the extension of dependent's allowance up to six months. If after six months the man is still absent without leave, the dependent's allowance is cut off. There are

War Appropriation-Army
many cases where this works considerable hardship on the family in Canada. It is a problem for the woman with three or four of
a family to receive notification from the department that on a certain date her allowance will be discontinued. She is waiting and worrying for that time to arrive; it does arrive, and she receives notice that at the end of the month her allowance is discontinued. She is then in this position. Under the regulations to-day the merchant is not permitted to carry the family beyond the regular pay period; and if it is monthly, at the end of the month the grocer 'has to shut her off and she finds herself in the middle of the road with nothing. That is an embarrassing position for a woman with a family, and it does happen from time to time. I call attention to this because I think it should be taken care of. The man who commits an infraction of the military laws and is under the jurisdiction of the sergeant-major should pay the penalty, and not his family, and where the wife's allowance is discontinued it is the family that is penalized. But he is taken care of if he is in the guard room, because he has no worries about where he is to get something to eat.
Another thing that causes friction in Canada is the call-up. The national selective service sends a call for military training, and when it is received the man reports to the military board and comes under national defence. He is taken into service for four or five or six days and given a medical examination, and in many cases he is rejected for military service. There does not appear to be any coordination between the national defence board that rejects him and the national selective service board that calls him up. I know of instances where a man was rejected this week for military service. He went back to work with his mind free; he was not going to be taken into service because he was medically unfit and he made commitments financially. But two or three weeks later he gets a call to report back.


James Layton Ralston: The procedure is this.
When the call-up comes the man may go to a local physician and ascertain whether he is physically fit. If he is physically fit, he has then to go for medical examination. He goes to the military board my hon. friend speaks of and he is still not in the army. He is examined by the board and, if rejected, he is still under national selective service. He is only examined by the board. If rejected, he is still under national selective service. My hon. friend says that there is no cooperation or coordination between the medical boards
and national selective service. I have in mind that if a man is rejected he is given a return ticket, is he not? National selective service has told me that what they do is to send in the return half of the ticket, to be given to the man in case he is rejected.


Clarence Gillis: In this particular case the man did not travel any distance. He reported in the city.


James Layton Ralston: Was it an army medical board?


Clarence Gillis: Yes.


James Layton Ralston: What city?


Clarence Gillis: In the city of Toronto. I know of another case in Nova Scotia where a boy was in the army for fourteen months and then discharged as medically unfit and sent home. He took employment at the naval station in Sydney and worked there for about three weeks. Then he got a call from national selective service to report for military duty.


James Layton Ralston: That is another matter. Probably my hon friend has gone into it fully himself. But as I understand it, when a man is examined by a civilian doctor and is turned down, or rejected as my hon. friend says, the national selective service boards have a medical revision officer who looks over the medical report which has been made by the civilian doctor on the man who has been called up, and if that board feel that the doctor has made a mistake in classifying the man they may order him in. [DOT] I think that is what happened in the case of which my hon. friend speaks. But that again is a board under national selective service, and not under the army.


Clarence Gillis: The man I mentioned was in the army for fourteen months and then discharged. But that case has been taken care of. I got in touch with the authorities at Halifax, and they informed me that the trouble was the lack of proper records, that a mistake had been made.


James Layton Ralston: It sounds like a bad mistake.


Clarence Gillis: The Toronto man was in the service for five or six days, and was medically examined, then given a rejection slip as being medically unfit. He was in category E. I think what the board should have done was to notify national selective service that this man had been discharged as medically unfit, but that apparently was not done because the man has since been called up twice, all within two months.	.


James Layton Ralston: Is this Toronto too?
War Appropriation-Army


Clarence Gillis: Yes; that is Toronto. The man was let out as medically unfit, and he understood that the army was through with him. He bought a house and involved himself in contract commitments. Then a week later he was called back in again. He just does not know where he stands. I think the board that rejected him should' notify national selective service that he is through so far as calling him for military service is concerned. It is a matter of perfecting the mechanics.


James Layton Ralston: Did the hon. member chase that case down? Was it remedied?


Clarence Gillis: No; it has not been remedied.


Humphrey Mitchell: What is the man's name? Perhaps my hon. friend would give it to me afterwards.


Clarence Gillis: The fact of the matter is that I was going to bring it to the attention of the minister's secretary. I find her the best fixer-upper in Ottawa.


Humphrey Mitchell: Along with the minister.


James Layton Ralston: I am interested in a man being in the army for six days and then buying a house. We must be treating him well.


Clarence Gillis: He was rejected and was out for about a month when he thought he could safely undertake this commitment. I will let that matter rest there because I think it has been sufficiently discussed to be understood.
There is another matter which I have discussed in the house on several occasions. It is the case of the soldier who .adopts a child prior to enlistment. Under the regulations you cannot receive an allowance for a child you have been maintaining unless you go through the regular adoption proceedings. But there are cases where that is not possible. One case I would bring to the minister's attention is that of a man in the veterans guard. He is the grandfather of the child, who is nine years old, and has been maintaining that child. It is the child of one of his daughters. Under the regulations he cannot receive an allowance unless he adopts the child. The grandfather does not want to adopt his daughter's child. I think there should be some flexibility in administration to cover cases of that kind. You cannot make hard and fast regulations that will cover everything. There should be some latitude to cover cases of this kind and settle them on the basis of common sense. There are borderline cases, perhaps not many, but hardship is caused if there is not flexibility in the regulations. I have received many letters from different people who have told

me that it is impossible, on account of relationship, to go through the regular adoption proceedings, and there is a child suffering as a result.


James Layton Ralston: The. hon. member is suggesting a dependent's allowance in the case of a child who is a blood relative but is not adopted?


Clarence Gillis: That is right.
There is another matter. I have received several resolutions from religious organizations across the. country to the effect that in the camps, army, navy and air force, there is not sufficient building space to permit the different religious organizations to carry on their church services in the camp. I do not know what the actual situation is, but there seems to be some basis for the complaint because these representations are made in resolution form and come from both east and west, and from the Catholic Women's League of Canada particularly. I would' like the minister to check up on that, if possible.
There is another matter relating to the women's auxiliary services. We protest the differential in pay that exists for men's and women's services. When we appealed to the women of this country to don the uniform, it was on the basis that they would be relieving men for active service overseas or for some form of active military service that could not be done by women. When a woman gets into uniform and performs the same job as the .man she relieves was performing, I think she is entitled to the same rate of pay that he was getting. I notice that in Ottawa and other cities women are taking over the driving of ambulances, running jeeps and other vehicles, relieving men for essential military service. In such cases the differential in pay should disappear, and they are entitled to exactly the same rate as is paid the men. That also applies to trades pay. When a woman takes a job that a man was doing previous^., the same rate of pay should apply throughout the service.
Another point is that the women's auxiliary services are not entitled to dependents' allowance,. I do not think there would be very many affected; but there are cases where a girl enlists, maybe two from one family, leaving behind an old father and an old mother, not old enough to receive the old age pension, but too old to work, being between sixty and seventy years of age, and the old couple may have been absolutely dependent upon the income of the two girls. The. regulations do not permit the paying of an allowance in that case. I think the regulations should be changed to permit the

War Appropriation-Army
payment of dependents' allowance in circumstances such as that in respect of a girl who is in the service.
Another matter the minister would be well advised to check up on is the increase in pay. I think he is aware himself that there is considerable friction over this matter, not only in Canada but also overseas. The statement was made by the government that army pay would be increased to $1.50 for the soldier, and so on for non-commissioned officers up to a certain category. That has not been applied as a general increase. It was accepted as a general increase by the service and the public at large, but. in the application certain restrictions have been imposed which make it almost impossible for many men in the service to obtain the increase. For example, the administration of that order is in the hands of the commanding officer, who has complete jurisdiction. After a boy has been in the service for four months, he is entitled to apply to the commanding officer for the first ten cents a day, provided he has no crime sheet, and if he is considered an efficient soldier, and has taken the basic training. There are many men in the service, in the postal corps and many other branches, whose work did not require them to take the basic training. A number of them have been in the army for two or three years; they have not had their basic training; but in order to qualify for that increase they must go back and take basic training, though it is absolutely unnecessary in their branch of the service. Many men are writing back from overseas that though they have been in the army for three years they have not been recommended and have not received this increase. They may have committed some slight infraction of king's regulations and orders, which is considered as militating against them, so that the increase in pay is not forthcoming.
I want hon. members to stop for a moment and visualize the position of the men overseas, who have been pretty much inactive for the last three years. This situation has tended to get a number of the younger fellows into minor difficulties, such as being absent without leave, for which they have been confined to barracks. We can all understand that this is a natural reaction to the life they have been leading during the- last three years. In view of the fact that this was advertised as a general increase for the services, which was warranted at this time; in view of the fact that the whole army may be in action very shortly, I think it would be a fine gesture, as well as something absolutely merited, if the government would eliminate these stumbling blocks and restrictive measures that are
irritating thousands of our boys to-day, and as a result of which they have not received these increases. Hundreds of these young men do not understand the regulations; they do not know how to go about making theii applications, and no one takes up the matter for them. Therefore I think the minister would be well advised to do something about it now.
I am sorry I have had to take up so much time on these general matters of an administrative nature, but I wanted to leave them with the minister. There are other matters that we can perhaps discuss under his estimates.


James Layton Ralston: I wonder if we could consider that we are discussing the first item, just in order to proceed as regularly as possible. I do not want to be strict in holding people down; I know that to a certain extent civil salaries and wages apply to these other items as well.. That is to say, there are civilians engaged in administering some of these services, but perhaps we might consider that we are proceeding under the item of $8,832,687.


Jean-François Pouliot: I rise to a question of privilege as a member of the House of Commons. I protest -most solemnly because the list of these civil employees of the Department of National Defence, together with their salaries, is not given in the estimates, as it was previously. No names were given, but at least we knew there were so many positions at certain salaries. Now all we know is that eight million dollars is to be spent under this item. I contend that such an estimate is an insult to parliament.


Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: I will try to confine my remarks to the first item, and I wish to support what was said by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) in regard to increases in pay. In checking up in Peterborough, we have not been able to find any dependent who has received any of this extra assigned pay.


James Layton Ralston: Where is that?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: In
Peterborough.


James Layton Ralston: That really comes under item No. 2.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: This document we have been given is headed *' secret." Does that mean we cannot take it away from here?


James Layton Ralston: No.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Then I shall reserve my remarks until the next item.
War Appropriation-Army


Mr. HAZEN:: I should like the minister to give us some more detailed information about the first item. The amount it is estimated will be expended1 is $8,832,687. Who receives that money? How many persons receive civil salaries and wages to that amount from the army? Do these people all reside in Canada?


James Layton Ralston: Perhaps my hon. friend will let me answer one question at a time. I presume he is asking about the estimate for the coming year?


Douglas King Hazen: Yes.


James Layton Ralston: Of course the estimate for the coming year is based on the requisitions which have been sent in by the different districts and which in turn have been gone over by the director of civilian personnel and, shall.I say, netted; the result is the estimate for the coming year. I cannot give the exact figure, but for Ottawa the estimate is permanent staff, 58; temporary staff, 2,982, or a total of 3,040. Those employed outside Ottawa are estimated as: permanent staff, 108; temporary staff, 4,318, or a total of 4,426, giving a grand total of 7,466. That is the estimate of the number who will be required this year, and is an increase of about 3,300 over last year. That increase will amount to about 1,300 in Ottawa and 2,000 outside Ottawa. That takes care not only of civilian clerks and office help, but also of caretakers, heating staff,
. engineers and all that sort of thing in the different establishments throughout the country.


Douglas King Hazen: That is what I wished to get from the minister. Apparently these people are paid by the army, but they are not in the army. What is the nature of their work?


James Layton Ralston: I have mentioned the sort of work they do, and here are some of the branches in which they work in the militia services here in Ottawa; the branches of the C.G.S., the adjutant general, the M.G.O. and1 the quartermaster general, all have civilian staffs. I think the number of permanent employees there is something like sixty. Then there are the miscellaneous services, which are principally in Ottawa and include subdivisions of the military branches, and the directorate of public relations. Then outside Ottawa, in the different military districts, in addition to clerical assistants and storemen, and people of that kind, these employees would be mostly engineers and people having to do with the administration and servicing of the different establishments.


Douglas King Hazen: The 5,000 are outside Ottawa; are any of them outside Canada?


James Layton Ralston: I understand there are 400 in the United Kingdom.


Douglas King Hazen: None in the United States?


James Layton Ralston: Very few in the United States. Possibly some in connection with the military attache.


Douglas King Hazen: The minister mentioned some being employed in public relations. What are their duties?


James Layton Ralston: The branch of the director of information has to do with contact with the press, the radio and with films. He handles matters of publicity, and the gathering of information. They are stationed in the different districts. Possibly the hon. member will know Colonel Jennings in Saint John, who was formerly with the Telegraph-Journal. They have a certain amount of civilian staff under them. He is in charge of information for the army.


Douglas King Hazen: Is there any connection
between them and the wartime information board?


James Layton Ralston: No, no functional connection. One does not take orders from the other. But there is coordination in that the directors of public relations in the different branches and different departments do meet at stated times with the wartime information board in order to coordinate the dissemination of information, and the collection and compilation of information for the public.


Douglas King Hazen: How many people are employed in the public relations branch, and
what are their salaries?


James Layton Ralston: I cannot tell my hon. friend offhand. It is mostly military personnel.


Douglas King Hazen: The minister mentioned
Colonel Jennings. He wears a uniform and has, I think, the rank of lieutenant-colonel. He was a newspaperman, and stepped into the army a few months ago with the rank of lieutenant-colonel. I believe he saw service in the last war.


James Layton Ralston: Yes.


Douglas King Hazen: But, with his uniform, he would not be classified as civilian personnel?


James Layton Ralston: No; he would not.


Douglas King Hazen: He would not be included in that item.

War Appropriation-Army


James Layton Ralston: No; the hon. member asked about the work which was done, and I was simply stating who was in charge of it. I said there was a certain number of civilian personnel, but that in connection with the director of public relations they are mostly military.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Why is there an increase of $3,500,000 this year?


James Layton Ralston: All I can tell my hon. friend is that there are increased activities all across Canada, and that these requisitions have come in from the different districts. There are some, of course, doing away with military personnel, and using civilian personnel. All I can say is that this is simply an estimate. As a request for an appointment comes in, it is looked into first by the deputy minister, and afterwards by a representative of the civil service commission, who must examine the representations put forward as to the necessity for employment, and who certifies, or otherwise, as to whether or not employment should be given. This is making a provision for employees who will not actually be employed until the civil service commission has certified that their employment is necessary.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: And that will be $3,500,000 extra.


James Layton Ralston: About $3,300,000.


Jean-François Pouliot: With regard to this item, in my humble view all civilians should be under it. When I speak of civilians I speak of those who wear the uniform, without having gained any experience in any theatre of war, but who are here at headquarters. I have one in mind, a district magistrate, who was gazetted as a captain or a major, and who is now a lieutenant-colonel. He was just a district magistrate or recorder here in Ottawa. Because he has been transferred to the branch of the judge advocate-general he has become what we call in French un foudre de guerre-a thunderbolt.
How is it, sir, that here in Ottawa we see many fellows who are very strict as to their uniforms, who are the Beau Brummels of the town, and who rise in military rank without gaining any further military experience.


James Layton Ralston: I say to my hon. friend that they are not included in this item.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will speak about them in due course. I will come back to the farmers then. Here is the case of one fellow
-and I do not wish ,to put it over you, Mr. Chairman; I have too much respect for the Chair to do that. .


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Order. I believe the minister has said that the subject of farmers comes under the Department of Labour.


Jean-François Pouliot: No; the farmer is in the
army.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: We are discussing the first item in the summary.


Jean-François Pouliot: The minister stated he had no objection to discussing the cases of farmers who are in the army, provided that we leave aside the mobilization board.


James Layton Ralston: No; I said I had no objection to the matter being discussed under the appropriate item, and in my judgment the appropriate item would foe the next one on the list, namely, pay and allowances.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes; but now, sir, I will say something about that. With great respect, many people who look after the soldiers, after they are in the arniy, are paid by virtue of this item. Therefore, because they have their word to say with respect to the draftees being kept in the army or being granted leave, I submit that the farmers come under this item.


James Layton Ralston: I know, or at least I think I know that my hon. friend does not wish to make just a hollow sham of what the committee is endeavouring to do, with the full consent of the house. And it would be making a hollow sham of it if he continued his discussion under this item, when there is an item, No. 2 on the list, under which the subject could be properly discussed. It is no doubt true that there may be some stenographer who probably has written a letter to some soldier who possibly may have been a farmer; but this is not the proper item under which we should discuss a substantive case such as my hon. friend is about to bring up.
I say again to my hon. friend that he is an old parliamentarian, and I do not know whether or not he wishes to be the bad boy of the party, but I suggest to him that he should discuss the matter under item No. 2, the proper one, and not under item No. 1.


Jean-François Pouliot: That is exactly what I
have said. I have asked repeatedly for a list of these men who received pay under this item, and the answer that has been given to

War Appropriation-Army

the hon. member for St. John-Albert is as clear as mud. I am surprised that the hon. member is satisfied with it.


Douglas King Hazen: You got up ahead of me.


Jean-François Pouliot: He is very generous. Here we have an item amounting to 88,832,000, or about 83,500,000 more than last year. Why? Because this year we shall have more to do. Is that the reason? Who are those who are to be employed this year, who were not employed last year?


James Layton Ralston: I have said that I do
not see how in the world I can give the names of people who are not yet employed. I have said that this was an estimate to provide for the employment of people if the civil service commission, when application is made for their employment, authorizes the employment. Until that comes about, we cannot give the names.


Jean-François Pouliot: Here again the civil service commission is the smoke-screen. Have you any information about the $5,300,000 last year? The answer I get is, "No, sir."


James Layton Ralston: Have you asked for it?


Jean-François Pouliot: No, I did not ask for it. We have the expenditures for last year and the estimates for this year. The fiscal year has been ended for nearly two months, and we do not have the precise figures with regard to the expenditures of last year. It is not so much a question of dollars and cents, or finding the fraction of a cent regarding the amount paid to anyone; what we want is who these people are, what they are doing and -how much they are paid. That should be easy to get. Why have we been refused that? Why is the Department of National Defence hiding information from members of parliament?


James Layton Ralston: That has never been
asked from any department under any peacetime estimate, so that I do not know what my hon. friend means when he says we are hiding it. If my hon. friend wants me to give him a list of the people drawing salaries to the total amount of 85,300,000, I suppose it could be done, but it would take a good deal of time and I do not think the committee would expect me to do it.


Jean-François Pouliot: What about the billion
dollars the government is giving away to other countries?


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I do not see how the
billion dollars has anything to do with this item. I must ask the hon. member to keep
f^Ir. Pouliot.]
within the item so that we may get ahead with the work of the committee. It is
absolutely impossible to make any headway the present way.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am not insisting on that, but when the minister says that no one has asked for the names of those who have been employed under this item he should remember the numerous questions I asked1, some of which were answered and some of which were not. He must remember that I asked the Prime Minister a question about the whole civil service, and he said he would improve the public accounts in order to give me that information. I asked the Minister of Finance for that information, and he said it would take too long to give it to me. Let us look at the future. Let us look at the estimates for this year. We are to provide $8,800,000 for civil service salaries and wages. The minister says that these men will be appointed by the civil service commission. Can he give us a pledge that no man will be appointed under this item by order in council? Can he give us an idea of the number of people who were appointed last year by order in council under this particular item instead of by the civil service commission? This information is given in the United States and in England. It must be given in China because the Chinese are sensible and they want to do things well. It is probably given by Joe Stalin in Russia. I am not sure about China and Russia, but I presume that they do it because they do things well. We want to know how many men will be appointed and to what positions. Perhaps the appointments have not yet been made, but I presume the minister can give an approximate idea. Can he inform us who will be appointed and what will they do? Will he take only physical unfits for these jobs?


James Layton Ralston: The provisions of P.C.4759 will be adhered to. That order in council provides that men are not taken if they are physically fit.


Jean-François Pouliot: I ask the minister kindly to table a copy of that order in council to-morrow so that we can read it.


James Layton Ralston: It has been tabled already.


Jean-François Pouliot: The members have not been supplied with it.


James Layton Ralston: That is under the War Measures Act.


Jean-François Pouliot: There are many things we do not see, especially the order in council which appointed the minister perpetual acting Minister of Finance.

Passports


James Layton Ralston: The order in council has been tabled and the hon. member can see it.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will get it. I wonder if the order in council gives only a direction to the civil service commission, or "will it govern all future appointments by order in council.


James Layton Ralston: Read it and find out.


Jean-François Pouliot: That is a fine way to get out of it. I want to know what these positions are. The minister says that nobody has asked for these names. Does he not remember that last year I produced a copy of the budget of the United States as an example. The Minister of National Defence may suffer from amnesia, but the other members of this committee do not.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Surely the hon. member does not mean the implication he has made against the minister. I ask that he follow standing order 58 and keep within the item. The personal condition of the minister has nothing to do with the item before the committee at the present time.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, May 25, 1943