1944-04-17

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, hon. members will have learned with deep regret of the passing, during the Easter recess, of the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, Mr. Hugh McKinnon.
Before resuming our sessional duties, I should like to express the sense of loss we experience to-day as we realize he is no longer with us.
Mr. McKinnon was a member of this house for nearly ten years, having been first returned to parliament in a by-election in September, 1934. He was reelected at the general elections in 1935, and again in 1940.
Mr. McKinnon was bom in Kenora, and at the time of his death had all but completed his fifty-ninth year. His interest in. public life first manifested itself in municipal affairs and, later, in provincial affairs. He was, for a time, member of the town council of Kenora, and at the age of forty-one was a candidate for the Ontario legislature. Though unsuccessful in the contest, he lost none of the personal popularity he enjoyed among those who knew him best, and when first nominated as a candidate for the federal parliament he carried the constituency by a majority of over six thousand.
Mr. McKinnon will be remembered by his fellow-Canadians for his deep interest in and practical knowledge of the problems of labour, and of railway labour in particular. He himself had become a locomotive engineer when he was scarcely twenty-one years of age, and his knowledge of our country's political as well as industrial problems was gained in the school of practical experience. He was a devoted member of the Brotherhood of Loco-

The late Hugh B. McKinnon
motive Engineers. There could be no higher testimony to his ability and , fidelity than the regard in which he was held by the entire membership of this enlightened and powerful organization. Recognition of this confidence found expression as early as 1928 in his appointment as one of the technical advisers to the Canadian delegation to the conference of the International Labour Office of the League of Nations, which was held at Geneva that year.
As we in this parliament recall our association with the late Mr. McKinnon, we think of him as one of the kindliest and most modest of men, faithful in his attendance at house sittings, constant in his interest in its proceedings, and deeply solicitous in his own quiet and unassuming way, of the well-being of his fellowmen wherever opportunities to serve their interests arose.
In my last conversation with him in one of the lobbies of this house, he spoke with great earnestness of some of the problems he saw looming on the horizon and of the manner in which he believed they could be most effectively met. I need hardly add that our conversation had to do with the closest possible cooperation of all classes in the prosecution of the war, and in the solution of post-war problems.
Our country and our parliament owe a great debt to men of the type of the late Mr. McKinnon, who look to what is best in human nature, and whose constant effort it is to remove distrust, and to establish confidence wherever that is possible in the affairs of industry and of the state.
I personally feel very deeply the loss of so loyal a supporter and so true a friend as Mr. McKinnon was to me at all times. This sense of loss I know is shared to the full by my colleagues and by all hon. members who sit on this side of the house. I know I can say, wholly irrespective of party political affiliations, that Mr. McKinnon's passing will be felt by all hon. members as a distinct loss to the membership of this house.
Mr. McKinnon is survived by his wife and seven children, four daughter and three sons, two of 'whom, still young in years, are serving in the armed forces, both have been overseas.
I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to convey to Mrs. McKinnon and to all the members of her family, the expression of the great respect in which her late husband's memory is held by all members of this house, and of the deep sympathy felt by hon. members for her and for all the members of her family in their bereavement.


Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the friendship of the various men with whom one comes in contact is one of the treasured prizes of public life. Hugh McKinnon was a member of the house whose friendship I was honoured to have. I liked his approachability, his open manner, and regardless of any political divisions in this parliament I am sure he was beloved by all hon. members. He was one of the workers of Canada who had been raised to high positions of honour by those who knew him best. He was in every respect what is known as a self-made man, and for this we in the House of Commons honour him.
As the Prime Minister has pointed out, Hugh McKinnon was a great exponent of the principles and ideals of the Labour movement. He wTas a member of that movement, and the very last time I heard him speak in this chamber was in connection with that beloved topic of his. His words always carried exceptional weight in this house, despite the fact that the opportunity of debate Was not always his, because every member believed that when he spoke he expressed his true convictions.
Mr. McKinnon represented one of the great developing constituencies in Canada, and his friendship particularly for those who worked with him through the years in the railway brotherhood was something which I think all of us would wish to have brought to the attention of the house, as the Prime Minister has done to-day. His only two sons of military age are in the armed forces, and two Sons-in-law have been overseas in this war, so that what the late Hugh McKinnon himself contributed by way of public service to his country is being continued, and the torch carried by his family to-day.
I want to extend to the Prime Minister and to the government on behalf of His Majesty's Loyal Opposition our sympathy in their great loss of a respected and beloved colleague. To Mrs. McKinnon and the family goes out our deep and genuine sympathy, and I should like to be associated with the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, in the message of sympathy which you have been asked to convey to the bereaved wife and family.


Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, we wish to join in this expression of sympathy for Mrs. McKinnon and the family, and also to associate ourselves with those who have expressed sympathy with the Prime Minister in the loss of a faithful friend and follower. From time to time when we
Mutual Aid-French Agreement

reassemble after an adjournment we are shocked to find that one or more of our membership have passed to the great beyond. Indeed, in the midst of life we are in death, and I think that is brought home to us in this house more directly than in most other spheres of peaceful activity.
Mr. McKinnon, as the Prime Minister has said, was a good member of this house, and a good representative of the calling which he followed. I have heard engineers of the town of Kenora say, when I have been visiting there, that Mr. McKinnon was one of the best engineers who served the great railway system which he joined many years ago. I had the privilege of meeting him on the committees of this house more frequently than perhaps in any other parliamentary activity, and I always appreciated his kindly manner and the sense of responsibility which he displayed under all circumstances. We of this party wish to join in the expression of sympathy which you will convey, Mr. Speaker, to his widow and family.


Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, the words of the Prime Minister and of the two other hon. members who have preceded have pictured a very fine man. I knew Mr. McKinnon personally and have a similar opinion of him, and I desire to join with the Prime Minister and those who have already spoken in words of appreciation of this good man's good life and in words of sympathy to those who are bereaved.


Mr. J. H. HARRIS (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to add a word of tribute to the late Hugh McKinnon? It was my privilege four or five years ago to have him at my home in the city of Toronto for a week, at which time he was very much interested in the transportation problem that we had in that centre, and I must say that we enjoyed having him with us. He was a Christian gentleman of the highest order. He had intensely studied the subject in which he was interested, and it was a great pleasure to be associated with him. While he was in Toronto he gave his earnest attention to some of the industrial problems of that great centre, for he had a conception of what the industrial life of the centre of the central province means to his own community.
I have felt keenly the passing of the late Hugh McKinnon, and I desire that it go on record that we thought highly of him, and that we extend to his good wife and the members of his family our sincere condolences. I trust that you, Mr. Speaker, will find a way of embodying these sentiments in the records of the House of Commons.



MUTUAL AID


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table copies of the mutual aid agreement which was signed on Friday last with the French Committee of National Liberation.
Hon. members will recall that on March 16 I gave a lengthy statement on the mutual aid agreements with the United Kingdom, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and Australia. Since that time a similar agreement has been signed with China. The present agreement with the French committee is thus the fifth to be concluded. All agreements are substantially the same in form and are identical in purpose and principle. The present agreement differs from the agreement with the United Kingdom only in a few minor particulars-chiefly matters of terminology- arising out of the fact that the committee has not the formal status of a government.
The agreement which I am tabling sets forth the general terms and conditions under which war supplies are being transferred under the Mutual Aid Act. The fact that no agreement has been signed until now does not, of course, mean that no supplies have yet been sent under the principles of mutual aid. The agreement merely sets out in formal terms the conditions under which such aid has already been sent and under which it will continue to be sent in future. As I pointed out on March 16, there will be an opportunity of discussing the terms of the various agreements when the mutual aid legislation is before the house, and at the moment I wish only to acquaint the house with the fact that this further agreement has been signed, and to make public the terms.
It gave me particular pleasure to sign this agreement, just as it now does to lay it before the house. We have, in the provision of mutual aid, a tangible and most practical demonstration of the cooperation between Canada and the French committee in the prosecution of the war. The committee is carrying forward the great traditions of France in its unrelenting fight against our common enemy, and it will be, I am sure, a source of satisfaction to all the people of Canada that we are able to help in this direct and practical way.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: May I
ask the Prime Minister to make a statement of some kind with respect to what, if any, extraterritorial rights Canada had in China?
[Mr. Coldwell.l

Canada-China Agreements


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend has anticipated the next subject on which I wish to speak.
Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury: I beg pardon. Great minds run in the same channels.


Mr. POULIOT:: Regarding the agreement which has just been tabled between Canada and the French Committee of National Liberation, Major-General Vanier is the ambassador of Canada in Algiers, and I see that the agreement is signed for and on behalf of the French Committee of National Liberation by "G. Bonneau." I wonder what is the title of Mr. Bonneau, and how it is that the committee has no ambassador here, as we have one there. I wonder also if the ambassador over there represents the King of Canada as well as the territory of Canada, and what would Mr. Bonneau represent, and why it is not an ambassador who signs? Why does not the French Committee of National Liberation treat Canada as well as Canada treats it?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: General Vanier has the status of an ambassador, but he is not sent as an ambassador to the French committee. The committee, as I have mentioned, is not in the same position as a recognized government, and Mr. Bonneau in Canada is the representative of the committee. Canada will welcome the opportunity of receiving in accordance with customary diplomatic practice, an ambassador from France just as soon as France again has a duly constituted government.


Jean-François Pouliot: Has Mr. Bonneau the status of an ambassador also?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, he has not the status of an ambassador. He has the status of a representative in Canada of the French national committee.



INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I desire to table three copies of the treaty between Canada and the Republic of China concerning the relinquishment of extraterritorial rights and the regulation of related matters, with exchange of notes, signed at Ottawa on April 14, 1944.
With respect to the treaty which I have just tabled, it is similar in its terms to the British extraterritorial treaty concluded on be-100-130
half of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland and India on January 11, 1943, and to the United States treaty with China, concluded on the same day.
On the coming into force of the treaty, all international agreements which authorize British or Canadian authorities to exercise jurisdiction in China over Canadian nationals are abrogated. The government of Canada agrees to cooperate w'ith the government of the Republic of China, to the extent that any Canadian interest may be involved, in arrangements for the abandonment by foreign govenments of special privileges hitherto held by them in Peiping, Shanghai, Amoy, Tientsin and Canton.
The relinquishment of extraterritorial rights does not affect existing rights of Canadian nationals with regard to real property in China. It is agreed that Canadian property in China will be subject to Chinese laws concerning taxation and national defence. Real property held by Canadian nationals in China may not be alienated to the government or nationals of a third country without the consent of the government of China. The Chinese government agrees to apply this restriction on alienation in an equitable manner, and undertakes to take over the property in question and pay adequate compensation therefor, if the right to transfer is refused.
Canadian nationals in China are to be accorded the right to travel, reside and carry on trade in China. Each country is to endeavour to accord to nationals of the other, treatment not less favourable than that enjoyed by its own nationals in regard to legal proceedings, the administration of justice and the levying of taxes.
Consular officers of each country may re side in such places as are agreed on. They are to have the right to interview and to communicate with nationals of their country, are to be informed whenever any such nationals are under arrest, and may visit such nationals and receive communications from them.
The treaty provides that, not later than six months after the cessation of hostilities, the two governments will enter into a comprehensive modern treaty of friendship, commerce, navigation and consular rights; meanwhile, questions affecting the rights of Canadian nationals in China and questions affecting the sovereignty of the republic of China, which are not covered by this or previous treaties, will be decided in accordance with generally accepted principles of international law.
Chinese Immigration

This treaty forges yet another bond with our great ally China, which has so long resisted our common enemy. It is evidence, not only of the solidarity of the united nations in the present struggle, but of their determination to preserve the good relations which have been built up during the war and to continue them into a lasting peace.
With regard to the question which the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) asked a few moments ago, I would say that the treaty will 'be brought before parliament for the purposes of approval, and will subsequently be ratified. At the time that the treaty is before the house for approval I shall seek to give my hon. friend the answer to the question he has asked.



CHINESE IMMIGRATION


Richard Burpee Hanson: When the Prime Minister makes the statement which he has promised, will he tell the house and the country what consideration, if any, was given, at the time of making the treaty, with respect to the Chinese exclusion bill which was passed by his government in the early twenties.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon.
friend's thoughts and mine are running along the same line.
On January 17, 1944, we presented the Chinese minister with a draft of an immigration treaty, which, if approved and implemented by Canadian legislation, would supersede the Chinese Immigration Act of 1923 against which so many protests have been made.
The draft treaty provides for the admission to either country on renewable permits for temporary residence of nationals of the other country belonging to approved categories (merchants, doctors, ministers of the gospel, et cetera). The treaty is entirely mutual and reciprocal and will, we hope, meet Chinese views without causing opposition in any part of Canada.
The draft treaty has no parallel in any other country. The. United States is meeting the same problem by admitting a small number of Chinese as permanent immigrants under the American quota system.
We are now waiting for a reply from the Chinese government to our proposals.



WHEAT BOARD


Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: On Friday, March 24, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley) gave me notice of the following question :
Has any action been brought in the courts against the Canadian wheat board for an accounting? If so, by whom was such action brought, on what date and in what province? If action has been brought, has any judgment been rendered, and what is the effect of that judgment ?
I am informed that an action for an accounting was commenced by Arthur Henry Oatway of Lilyfield in Manitoba against the Canadian wheat board on the 18th day of October, 1943, but that the action has not yet been tried.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 66, for the relief of Wilson Allan Martin.-Mr. Fulford.
Bill No. 67, for the relief of Victoria May Larkin Kirkcaldy.-Mr. Casselman (Grenville-Dundas).
Bill No. 68, for the relief of Nellie Blinkhom Cowie.-Mr. Maclnnis.
Bill No. 69, for the relief of William Mace.- Mr. Casselman (Grenville-Dundas).
Bill No. 70, for the relief of Pauline Hislop Ralph.-Mr. Casselman (Grenville-Dundas).
Bill No. 71, for the relief of Ethel Mary Moffatt Shaw.-Mr. Whitman.

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

Mr. DOUGLAS (Weybum):: 1.	VTiat is the total cost of erecting and equipping the synthetic rubber plant at Sarnia, Ontario?
2.	How much of this cost -was borne by the Canadian government?
3.	By whom is this plant now being operated, and on what basis?
4.	What is the cost per pound to the Canadian government of synthetic rubber manufactured in the above named plant?
5.	What is the total amount paid by the government to the firm operating this plant as at December 31, 1943?

Questions


Mr. CHEVRIER:: 1.	Approximately $49,500,000. This includes all units in the self-integrated plant.
2.	Entirely.
3.	(a) The responsibility for operating the various units has been delegated as follows:
Dow Chemical of Canada Limited-Styrene Rant.
St. Clair Processing Corporation Limited- Feed preparation units; butadiene plant; butyl rubber plant; steam and power plant; pumping station maintenance buildings.
Canadian Synthetic Rubber Limited-Buna S. copolymer plant.
(b) Each of the above operating companies operates its .respective unit or units on a management-fee basis for Polymer Corporation Limited, which is a government-owned corporation, all the shares of which are held in trust by the Honourable the Minister of Munitions and Supply for the Canadian government. The Polymer Corporation Limited assumes, on behalf of the Department of Munitions and Supply, general responsibility for coordination and supervision, engineering approval, purchasing, financing, accounting, and sale and servicing of products. The operating companies assume direct responsibility for production, plant management, requisitions for supplies, employment and direction of operating personnel.
4.	It is not considefed in the public interest to give specific costs at this time on rubber production. Please refer to the minister's statement on approximate costs page 1774 Hansard, 1944. Also please refer to page 1872 Hansard, 1944, regarding the giving of cost figures on critical munitions and commodities.
5.	The only operating company to have received a management fee as at December 31, 1943, was the Dow Chemical of Canada Limited. Payment was as follow:
Ethyl benzene management fee (for ethyl benzene produced over and above that required for the manufacture of styrene, which surplus was shipped to the Rubber Reserve Co.)	$ 1,250 81
Styrene management fee	 41,143 20

No management fee has yet been paid to Canadian Synthetic Rubber Limited or to St. Clair Processing Corporation Limited. In the case of the former, the management fee was under negotiation at December 31, 1943 and was only recently agreed upon. In the case of the latter, the operating contract has not yet been settled, although the basis for determining the remuneration for its services will be similar to that applying to the other two operating companies in that it will be paid its costs and a reasonable management fee for its services and technical skill.


OTTAWA NAVAL SERVICE BUILDING
Mr. BENCE:: What was the total cost of the naval service building constructed for the Department of National Defence on Cartier Square, facing Elgin street?


Mr. MACDONALD (Kingston City):: $885,-*69.63. In addition, there is an outstanding settlement at present under negotiation of approximately $3,000, the exact amount of which has not yet been determined.


AIR TRAINING PLAN-AIRPORTS
Mr. CASTLEDEN:: 1.	What new airports under the empire air training plan were opened in Canada during 1943?
2.	What was the total cost of building each of these airports?
3.	Upon what date were these airports opened for training?


Mr. MacMILLAN:: 1.	Souris, Man.; Mohawk, Ont.; Abbotsford, B.C.; Gimli, Man.; Mount Pleasant, P.E.I.
2.	See Appendix "A" below.
3.	Commencement date
for training
Souris, Man	
8	March,	1943.Mohawk, Ont	
12	April,	1943.Abbotsford, B.C	
6	Sept.,	1943.Gimli, Man	
6	Sept.,	1943.Mount Peasant, P.E.I. .. 20	Sept.,	1943.
100-130i
206S
Questions

Appendix "A"
Royal Canadian Air Force British Commonwealth Air Training Plan
Statement of Commitments and Cash Expenditures
Schools Opened in 1943
Commitments to Date
Fiscal Years
1940-41	1941-42	1942-43	1943-44	Total
No. 1 I.F.S.,
Mohawk, Ont	 $ 544,845 00 $1,010,856 85 S 361,751 71 $1,917,453 56
No. 10 B.G.S.,
Mount Pleasant, P.E.I. $188,200 00	453,435	43	2,800,534	44	565,874	66	4,008,044	53
No. 17 S.F.T.S.,
Souris, Man	
2,282,181	66	46,860	90	26,699	84	2,355.742	40R.l Hartney, Man	
419,043 00	58,047 55	
477,090 55R-2 Elgin, Man	
77,300 00	120,150 00	
197*450 00
No. 18 S.F.TJ3.,
Gimli, Man	
2,642,151 00	119,531 65	2,761,682 65R.l Netley Lake, Man	
840,030 00	17,148 10	857,178 10Abbotsford, B.C	
4,000	00	4,256.868	7S	648,768	50	4,909,637	28Totals	
S18S,200 00 $3,780,805 09 $11,775,499 52 SI,739,774 46 $17,484,279 07
Cash Expenditures to 29th February, 1944
Fiscal Years
1940-41	1941-42	1942-43	1943-44	Total
No. 1 I.FJ3,
Mohawk, Ont	 $ 32,527 34 $ 529,613 00 $ 829,715 99 $1,391,856 33
No. 10 B.G.S.,
Mount Pleasant, P.EI	 216,981	01	756,439	51	1,729,224	43	2,702,644	95
No. 17 S.F.T.S,
Souris, Man	
961,433	97	1,247,357	15	39,836	33	2,248,627	45R.1 Hartney, Man	
88,007	32	321,864	67	25,172	49	435,044	48R.2 Elgin, Man	
5,815	16	37,009	69	87,762	57	130*587	42
No. 18 S.F.TB.,
Gimli, Man	
1,414,989	88	1,073,910	26	2,488,900	14R.1 Netley Lake, Man	
436,342	95	277,137	70	*713*480	65Abbotsford, B.C	
1,831,700	09	2,382,190	89	4,213,890	98Totals	
$1,304,764 80 $6,575,316 94 $6,444,950 66 $14,325,032 40

Questions


WHEAT-STORAGE AND CARRY-OVER
Mr. PERLEY:: 1.	What is the volume of wheat in storage and in transit to the account of the Canadian wheat board as at March 1, 1944, and what is the estimated value of same?
2.	What is the volume of other grains in storage and in transit to the account of the board as at March 1, 1944, and the estimated value of same?
3.	What is the volume of wheat from the 1942-1943 crops still in the growers' hands to be delivered to the board in accordance with its purchase arrangements with the farmers, and what is the estimated value of same?
4.	What is the volume of other grains from the 1942-1943 crops still in the growers' hands to be delivered to the board, and what is the estimated value of same?
5.	What is the estimate of the probable wheat carry-over as at June 30, 1944, and the estimated value of same?
6.	What is the estimated carry-over of other grains for which the board is the purchaser as at June 30, 1944, and the estimated value of same ?
. 7. What is the estimated gross purchase cost to the board of such wheat carry-over, and the estimated purchase cost to the board of other grains carry-over?
8.	What is the gross aggregate sum in dollars at prevailing market prices as represented by the carry-over of both wheat and other grains?
9.	How is this gross amount being financed by the wheat board, and. what is the estimated interest-rate cost of financing?


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: 1.	Wheat in storage and in transit at 29th February, 1944-264,620,636.53 bushels. Estimated value-$325,155,387.31.
2.	Flaxseed in storage and in transit at 29th
February, 1944-6.661,206.39	bushels. Estimated value-$16,576,094.06.
3.	Not ascertainable.
4.	Not ascertainable.
5.	Not ascertainable.
6.	Not ascertainable.
7.	Not ascertainable.
8.	Not ascertainable.	[DOT]
9.	Grain values, as shown in answers to "1" and "2", are financed by the banks either by direct loans to the board or to the companies, who are agents of the board, and from surplus funds. Interest rates are from 3 to 4 per eent depending on location of stocks.
NJ3. 3. A Canadian Wheat Board survey indicated that as of March 17 there remained to be marketed during the present crop year
91.000.	000 bushels. The Dominion Bureau of Statistics estimate as of March 31 indicated
210.000.	000 bushels was still on farms, but only part of this amount would be deliverable under the 18 bushel quota per authorized acre. The balance would be used for seed, feed and farm carry-over. Because the grades are unknown, no estimate of the value is obtainable.
4.	According to the Canadian Wheat Board survey as of March 17: barley 27,000,000; oats 65,000,000; rye 1,000,000; flaxseed 1,000.000 bushels. The Dominion Bureau of Statistics estimate of March 31 farm stocks was barley
83,000,000; oats 194,000,000; rye 2,450,000; flaxseed 3,100,000 bushels, but these stocks also include seed, feed and farm carry-over stocks, as well as grain to be delivered. Likewise, because the grades are unknown, no estimate of the value is obtainable.
5.	The Dominion Bureau of Statistics forecast of the July 31 wheat carry-over in all positions is 375,000,000 bushels. The amounts in each position ranging from farms to seaboard are not ascertainable in advance, and no estimate of the over-all value is obtainable.
6.	The Dominion Bureau of Statistics has made no forecast of the July 31 carry-over of other grains.


WOOD FUEL SUBSIDY-YUKON
Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: 1.	What wood fuel dealers in Yukon have applied for subsidy on wood fuel?
2.	What amount of subsidy has each applied for?
3.	Who, of those who have applied for subsidy, have been paid, and how much has been paid to each?
' Mr. ABBOTT:
1,	2 and 3. The total amount paid by way of subsidy on wood fuel to dealers in the Yukon to March 28, 1944, is $180. A statement of government policy in connection with revealing the names of applicants or recipients of subsidy appears on page 2672 of Hansard for May 14th, 1943.


SUBSIDIES ON PRODUCTION OF FOODSTUFFS
Mr. HATFIELD:: 1.	How much in subsidies has been paid by the Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation on the import, domestic and export production of the following foodstuffs, (a) fresh meats; (b) canned vegetables; (e) canned fruit; (d) fresh fruit; (e) tea; (f) rice; (g) prunes; (h) coffee; (i) grapefruit juice; (j) raw sugar; (k) refined sugar; (1) potatoes?
2.	How much in subsidies have they paid on the import, domestic and export production of the following manufactured goods, (a) fertilizer; (b) fertilizer material?
3.	How much have they paid in subsidies on all the imports, domestic and export production of all foodstuffs?
4.	How much have they paid in subsidies on all the import, domestic and export production of all manufactured goods?


Mr. ABBOTT:: 1,	2, 3 and 4. A complete list of import and domestic subsidies paid by the. Commodity
Questions

Prices Stabilization Corporation from the inception of the price ceiling, December 1, 1941 to December 31, 1943, is to be found in appendix F on page 55 of the report of the wartime prices and trade board, April 1, 1943 to December 31, 1943.
The Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation has no authority to pay subsidy on goods for export.


CANADIAN ARMY-DOCTORS
Mr. LACOMBE:: 1.	What are the names of the doctors who examine young men called for training at Longueuil ?
2.	What is the racial origin of each of these doctors?
3.	What remuneration is received by each of these doctors for professional services?


Mr. MACDONALD (Halifax):: 1. Army medical officers-	Speaks English,	Rates of	Dependents'French or	pay per	allowanceRank and name	both languages	diem	per monthLt.-Col. A. L. Delahaye	$11 00	NilMajor G. Gill	9 25	$71 12Major A. E. Parks	9 25	71 12Major J. A. L. Walker	9 25	57 20Major J. E. Mathieu	9 25	57 20Major F. F. Ramey	9 25	93 12Major E. A. Stuart	9 25	57 20Capt. D. Miron	7 50	NilCapt. R. Therrien	7 50	66 12Capt. H. M. Wachs	7 50	52 20Capt. C. Bertrand	7 50	66 12Capt. J. N. Fortin	7 50	78 12Lieut. F. Beaubien	5 00	61 12Capt. J. P. G. Maroosis	7 50	52 20Lieut. A. Tardif	5 00	47 20Major T. E. Dancey	9 25	71 12Major P. Lariviere	9 25	57 20Capt. W. I. Breslin	9 25	52 20Capt. A. Demers	7 50	NilCapt. E. G. Jenkins	7 50	66 12Capt. W*. D. Ross	7 50	52 20Capt. V. Voyer	7 50	66 12Capt. F. C. R. Chalke	7 50	52 20Capt. R. Cote	7 50	66 12Civilian doctors	Dr. P. Archambault	Dr. A. Carreau	Dr. J. T. Ryan	Dr. P. Prendergast	Dr. A. Roy	Dr. H. Aubry	Dr. H. Michaud	Dr. J. Kolber	Dr. J. E. Bernier	Dr. P. Salgado	Dr. S. S. Sperber	Dr. S. Venne	Dr. A. Issenman	Dr. J. E. Racicot	2.	Army documents do not show racial origin, but indicate whether personnel speak English, French, or both. See answer to question 1.3.	Army medical officers-see answer to question 1.

Civilian doctors-the civilian doctors enumerated in question 1 are all paid at the rate of S9.70 for six hours' work. They are employed as required. Their employment depends on the number of men reporting for examination and they are only paid for the work done by them.

Questions


ALLOTMENTS OF RUBBER FOR MANUFACTURING AND PROCESSING
Mr. KNOWLES:: 1.	What companies in Canada during the year 1943 were allotted rubber for manufacturing and/or processing purposes?
2.	What quantities of rubber were received by each of the above companies during the ' twelve months ending May 31, 1941, (a) for civilian purposes; (b) for defence purposes?
3.	What quantities of, (a) crude rubber; (b) reclaimed rubber; (c) buna-S rubber, were received by each of the above companies during the year 1943, (i) for civilian purposes; (ii) for defence purposes?


Mr. CHEVRIER:: 1.	A. C. Rubber Mfg. Co. Ltd., The Acton Rubber Limited, American Wringer Co. of Canada Ltd., Armstrong Cork & Insulation Co. Ltd., Asbestonos Corporation Ltd., The Ault & Wiborg Co. of Canada Ltd., B.B. Chemical Co. Ltd., Backstay Standard Co. Ltd., Barringham Rubber Co. Ltd., Bata Shoe Co. of Canada Ltd., Biltrite Tire Co., M. Bloomfield & Son Ltd., Boston Insulated Wire and Cable Co. Ltd., British Rubber Co. of Canada Ltd., Cambridge Rubber Ltd., Campbell Mfg. Co. Ltd., Canada Wire and Cable Co. Ltd., Canadian Carborundum Co. Ltd., Canadian Colloid Products Ltd., Canadian Durex Abrasives Ltd., Canadian General Electric Co. Ltd., The Canadian General Rubber Co. Ltd., Canadian Industries Ltd., Canadian Johns-Manville Co. Ltd., Canadian Raybestos Co. Ltd., Canadian Triangle Wire and Cable, Chamberlain Engineering, Chemicals Limited, Dewey & Almy Chemical Co. of Canada Ltd., Dominion Oilcloth and Linoleum Co. Ltd., Dominion Rubber Co. Ltd., Dowsewell, Lees & Co. Ltd., Dunlop Tire and Rubber Goods Co. Ltd., Federal Wire and Cable Co. Ltd., Firestone Tire and Rubber Co. of Canada Ltd., Francis, Perry & Co. Ltd., B. F. Goodrich Rubber Co. of Canada Ltd., The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. of Canada Ltd., G. L. Griffith & Sons Ltd., Gutta Percha and Rubber Ltd., W. H. Hodgson, Holtite Rubber Co. of Canada Ltd., Jem Rubber Company Ltd., Johnson & Johnson, Ltd., Kauffman Rubber Co. Ltd., I. F. Laucks Ltd., Meredith, Simmons & Co. Ltd., The Miner Rubber Co. Ltd., National Tent and Awning Co., Northern Electric Co. Ltd., Novelty Rubber Co., Panther Rubber Co. Ltd., Phillips Electrical Works Ltd., St. Lawrence Rubber Co. Ltd., St. Maurice Chemicals, Seiberling Rubber Co. of Canada Ltd., The Sherwin-Williams Co. of Canada Ltd., The Singer Mfg. Co., A. G. Spalding & Bros, of Canada Ltd., Stedfast Rubber Co. (Canada) Ltd., Sterling Rubber Co. Ltd., Jos. Stokes Rubber Co. Ltd., Tillotson Rubber Co., Viceroy Mgf. Co. Ltd., Western Rubber Co. of Canada, S. C. Williams, F. E. Woodward & Sons Ltd.
2.	Inasmuch as rubber is an extremely critical commodity, it is not in the public interest to give the information requested. This information was made available to the war expenditures committee (of which the hon. member is also a member) in secret session, but it should not otherwise be made public.
3.	See answer to No. 2.


PENSIONS-OLD AGE AND BLIND
Mr. KNOWLES:: 1.	Are any of the provincial governments now paying supplementary grants to old age and blind pensioners beyond the amount provided by subsection (1) of section 9 of the Old Age Pensions Act, as amended by order in council P.C. 6367, dated August 10, 1943?
2.	If so, which provinces are paying such supplementary grants, and what are the amounts of the same?


Mr. ABBOTT:: 1.	Yes.
' 2. According to information given by the provincial authorities, supplemental allowances are paid as follows:
British Columbia-$5 a month to each pensioner.
Alberta-$5 a month to each pensioner plus an amount up to $5 a year where income is less than $365 a year.
Saskatchewan and Manitoba-An amount up to $125 a month is paid to certain pensioners not entitled to an increase in pension under order in council P.C. 6367 of $1.25 a month or more.
Ontario-15% of the amount of pension payable under the Old Age Pensions Act prior to the passing of order in council P.C. 6367.
Nova Scotia-The pension authority has discretionary power to pay a supplemental allowance not exceeding $10 a month to any pensioner provided his total income does not exceed $365 a year. The increase in the maximum pension payable under this act has reduced the maximum amount of the supplemental allowance from $10 to $5 a month.


SUBSIDY ON IMPORTED POTATOES
Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: 1.	On what basis was the subsidy paid by the Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation Limited on imported potatoes?
2.	What amount was paid to each individual or corporation in this connection?
3.	How are the records kept as to expenditures for subsidies paid on imported potatoes?


Mr. ABBOTT:: 1.	A subsidy was paid by the Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation Limited on
Questions

imported new .potatoes ordered on and after May 3, 1943 -and entered for consumption between, June 3 and 6 pm. July 3, 1943. Potatoes for which forward contracts had been placed prior to July 3, 1943 were eligible for subsidy if entered for 'consumption or shipped on a through bill of lading before midnight, July 8, 1943. Imports up to and including July 31, 1943 were eligible for subsidy only if a permit for the importation had been obtained from the Foods Administration. Subsidy was payable to the importer obtaining title from the supplier in the U.S.A.
The subsidy payable was the amount by which the laid-down cost of the potatoes at the Canadian distribution point to which the potatoes were shipped by the foreign supplier exceeded the wholesale ceiling price for carload lots at that point as set by order 236 of the wartime prices and trade board and its amendments. Applicants were permitted to claim, in addition, a shrinkage allowance equal to 5 per cent of the total value of the potatoes at ceiling prices. Orders on and after June 3, 1943, were ineligible for subsidy if the price per 100 lbs. f.o.b. foreign supplier's shipping point exceeded either (i) the OPA ceiling price plus brokerage and other charges recognized by the OPA, or (ii) $3 (U.S. currency) including brokerage, whichever was the lesser.
2.	A statement of government policy in connection with revealing the names of applicants or recipients of subsidy appears on page 2719 of Hansard for May 14, 1943.
3.	The records of the Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation Limited on expenditures for subsidies paid on imported potatoes are set up on the basis of the dollars and cents value of claims paid to each individual applicant.
veterans' land settlement act, 1942


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: 1.	How many parcels of land have been purchased to March 1, 1944, in the province of Manitoba, under Veterans' Land Settlement Act of 1942?
2.	What is the highest price per acre paid for a parcel of land, and in what municipality is it located?
3.	What is the lowest price per acre paid for a parcel of land, and in what municipality is it located?
4.	How many applications have been received from veterans for land settlement in Manitoba?


Mr. CRERAR:: .
(As at February 29, 1944)
1.	(a) For full time farming, 33; (b) for small holding settlement purposes, 5.
2. (a) .For cultivated land for full time farming purposes 822 an acre in the municipality of Portage La Prairie; (b) for cultivated land for small holding purposes S200 an acre in a municipality adjacent to Winnipeg.
3. (a) For cultivated land for full time farming purposes S10 an acre in the municipality of Dauphin; (b) for cultivated land for small holding settlement purposes 840 an acre in a municipality adjacent to Winnipeg.
Note: The average price paid for cultivated land for full time farming purposes in Manitoba up to the end of February, 1944, was 815.17 per acre and the average price paid for cultivated land for small holding settlement purposes was $125 per acre.
4.	Forty-five.


WHEAT BOARD
Mr. PURDY:: What has been the total cost of the Canadian wheat board and its operations to the treasury of Canada from inception to date, including an estimate of losses, if any, which as yet have not been finalized?


James Angus MacKinnon: Total cost to the dominion treasury of the wheat operations of the Canadian wheat board from its inception to 31st July, 1943:
1935	crop deficit	'	
$11,858,104 181936	crop deficit	
49,574 881938	crop deficit (together with .accrued interest to date of funding)	
61,525,691 191939	crop deficit	
8316210 36Less:	882,249,580 61
Surplus, from the operations of wheat holdings acquired from the Canadian Co-operative Wheat Producers Limited... 824,809,988 42 Surplus from the operations in respect of special account-
P.C. 1803	 1,990,310 13

 26,800,298 55

Questions


CHARLOTTE COUNTY, N.B., TRAINING CAMP
Mr. HATFIELD:: 1.	Did the government purchase land in Charlotte county, New Brunswick, for the training camp known as "Utopia"?
2.	If so, from whom did the government purchase the land?
3.	What price was paid for the land?


Mr. MACDONALD (Halifax):: 1.	Yes.
2 and 3.
Bridges Brothers	 $39,384.80
Arnold Alexander	 2,000.00
Trynor Brothers	 4,817.40
Harry Fraser	 2,080.20
Robert Spear	 255.20
Mrs. Margaret Mitchel	 322.96
Alva L. Langmaid	 199.32
Harold Gillespie	 338.84
Mrs. Amanda Hunter	 133.32
Joseph Jack	 585.30
Leslie Armstrong	 341.74
Mabel Spear	 110.00
Connors Bros. Ltd	 1,102.20
James Boyd	 1,274.59


WARTIME SALARIES ORDER-INCREASES AUTHORIZED IN NOVA SCOTIA
Gordon Timlin Purdy: Under P.C. 1549, wartime salaries order, how many salary increases have been authorized in the province of Nova Scotia, and how many in each county in that province in, (a) concerns engaged entirely in war work; (b) concerns engaged partially in war work; (c) concerns whose normal activities have been greatly increased by war work?


Mr. GIBSON:: 137. No records are kept in respect of counties.
(a)	28.
(b)	No records are kept in respect of these concerns.
(c)	No records are kept in respect of these concerns.


UNIVERSITY SCIENCE STUDENTS REGULATIONS, (u.S.S.R.)
Mr. TUSTIN:: 1.	What are the names of the universities which have engineering faculties recognized by the university science students regulations (U.S.S.R.) ?
2.	How many graduated in engineering in each of these universities in 1943 and 1944?
3.	How many of these graduates volunteered for technical appointments in the three services under the provisions of the university science students regulations (U.S.S.R.) ?
4.	How many of these were found to be medically unfit?
5.	How many received technical appointments?
6.	How many enlisted in the services in nontechnical capacity?
1.00-131


Mr. MARTIN:: 1.	The University of British Columbia, The University of Alberta, The University of Saskatchewan, The University of Manitoba, The University of Toronto, Queen's University, McGill University, Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal, Laval University, Nova Scotia Technical College, The University of New Brunswick.
2.	In 1943, the University of British Columbia, 95; the University of Alberta, 55; the University of Saskatchewan, 63; the University of Manitoba, 46; the University of Toronto, 205; Queen's University, 118; McGill University, 99; Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal, 39; Laval University, 11; Nova Scotia Technical College, 28; The University of New Brunswick, 30.
In 1944, no information available.
3.	623.
4.	97.
5.	401.
6.	7.


WHEAT DELIVERIES-WESTERN DIVISION
Mr. PERLEY:: What is the total number of bushels of wheat of each of the standard grades delivered to the Canadian wheat board in the western division in, (a) crop year 1940-1941; (b) crop year 1941-1942; (c) crop year 1942-1943?


James Angus MacKinnon: Statutory grades delivered by producers-
(a)	Crop Year 1940-1941	BushelsNo. 1	Hard	
363,325-20No. 1	Northern	
213,675,719-20No. 2	Northern	
126,176,972-05No. 3	Northern	
30,679,056-10No. 4	Northern	
3,2S9,637-30Other grades	
21,170,811-55
395,355,522-20
(b)	Crop Year 1941-1942	BushelsNo. 1	Hard	
1,334-10No. 1	Northern	
23,411,259-15No. 2	Northern	
41,073,310-10No. 3	Northern	
19,625,167-30No. 4	Northern	
1,452,214-45Other grades	
13,977,205-30
99,540,491-20
(c)	Crop Year 1942-1943	BushelsNo. 1	Hard	
176-20No. 1	Northern	
12,723,085-30No. 2	Northern	
48,832,727-00No. 3	Northern	
63,505.527-55No. 4	Northern	
18,307,139-10Other grades	
24,137,875-50
167,506,531-45

Questions


CANADIAN ARMY-MEDICAL CORPS, VALCARTIER CAMP-DR. J. N. FORTIN
Mr. LACOMBE:: 1.	Was Captain J. N. Fortin attached to the medical corps at Yalcartier camp from January 30 to March 10, 1944?
2.	Is Captain J. N. Fortin a physician or a chemist?
3.	What were his duties during his stay at Valcartier camp?
4.	Why did he leave Valcartier camp?


Mr. MACDONALD (Halifax):: 1.	Yes, from 20th September 1943 to 15th February 1944.
2.	He is a physician, duly registered with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of the province of Quebec.
3.	He performed the normal duties of a regimental medical officer.
4.	He left Valcartier camp to proceed to duty at the army reception centre in Montreal.


OLARK-RUSE REPAIR PLANT, LAKEBURN, N.B.
Mr. EMMERSON:: 1.	Was there a lay-off of employees at the Glark-Ruse Limited repair plant at Lakeburn? If so, when?
2.	How many men were laid off?
3.	How many women were laid off?
4.	Through what medium of selection for layoff were the employees named?
5.	Were maritime employees laid off and outsiders retained? If so, why?
6.	What disposition has been made of those employees who were laid off?


Mr. MARTIN:: 1.	Yes. Started March 21, 1944; ended March 28, 1944.
2.	180 males.
3.	92 females.
4.	1st-Those on military deferment except
key personnel
2nd-Seniority under collective labour agreement 3rd-Efficiency.
5.	In some cases maritime employees were laid off and outsiders retained. The cases where this occurred were those where the outsiders were senior to the maritimers and protected in their seniority rights under the collective labour agreement; and those where skilled workers who were outsiders could not be laid off and replaced by maritimers because the maritimers laid off were not qualified by training or skill to take the place of these skilled workers.
6.	Male employees-33 immediately called to the armed forces; 30 placed on local orders; 43 transferred to other aircraft plants in Ontario; 24 returned to their home territory

(trainees who had been taken on, having just completed their course. These will, within a matter of a few weeks, be placed with Victory Aircraft, Malton, Ont.); 31 were refused permits outside agriculture .(these returned to their farms); 19 returned to fishing.
Female employees-62 placed with Victory Aircraft, Malton, Ont; 9 placed on local orders; 1 returning to school teaching; 2 voluntarily enlisted W.R.C.N.S., Saint John, N.B.; 5 refused to take work and returned to homes vicinity of Moncton; 13 placed with Goodyear Rubber Company, Toronto.


MINISTERS OR MEMBERS TRAVELLING OUTSIDE CANADA
Mr. ROY:: 1.	Since 1936, did any ministers of the government or members of the House of Commons travel outside of Canada at the expense of the government?
2.	If so, (a) what are their names; (b) at what dates, and on what occasions; (c) what were the duties or mission of each; (d) what was the amount of expenses incurred and paid for each of them?


Mr. McLARTY:: 1.	Yes.
2.	All the information requested and which is available in the records of all departments of government in respect to the answer to this question has been published in the reports of the auditor general each year.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE-CONTRIBUTIONS BY INCOME CLASSES
Mr. ROSE:: 1.	Does the unemployment insurance commission compile monthly figures of the number of contributors or the proportion of total contributors to the unemployment insurance fund by income classes?
2.	If so, what is the number or proportion of contributors for each month by income classes since the start of the unemployment insurance commission?
3.	What are the results of question 2 for, (a) maritime provinces; (b) Quebec; (c) Ontario; (d) the prairie provinces; (e) British Columbia?'
4.	Are these figures available by industrial classifications?
5.	What was the total number of contributors to the unemployment insurance fund by months since its inception?


Mr. MARTIN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	See statement below.
3.	4 and 5. Not available.
fist-oot
Proportion of	Contributors	for Each	Month by Contribution	Classes from July	1941 to	February	1944	Per	cent of	the total	in each	class	19 4 1	Contribution Class	July	Aug.	Sept.	Oct.	Nov.	Dec.	Jan.	Feb.	Mar.	Apr.	May	JuneEarnings per week	%	%	%	%	%	%	%	%	%	%	%	%0	Less than 90 cents a day	or	under 16 years of age .	3-1	1-7	1-6	1-5	1-1	1-6	1	$5.40 to $7.50 	3-6	2-3	2-0	2-0	1-6	1-5	2	$7.50 to $9.60 	5-1	3-8	3-7	3-5	3-2	3-2	3	19.60 to $12.00 	7-2	6-0	6-0	5-8	6-0	5-5	4	$12.00 to $15.00 	11-0	10-7	10-1	11-0	10-4	9-8	5	$15.00 to $20.00 	17-9	19-0	18-5	18-9	18-6	17-6	6	$20.00 to $26.00 	21-3	23-0	22-6	22-0	22-1	22-1	7	$26.00 or more 	30-8	33-5	35-5	35-3	37-0	38-7	100-0	100-0	100-0	100-0	100-0	100-0	....19 4 2	Jan.	Feb.	Mar.	Apr.	May	June	July	Aug.	Sept.	Oct.	Nov.	Dec.%	%	%	%	%	%	%	%	%	%	%	%0	Less than 90 cents a day	or	under 16 years of age .	1-3	1-3	1-2	1-3	1-2	1-1	1-5	2-1	1-9	1-5	1-3	1-21	$5.40 to $7.50 	1-2	1-5	1-5	1-3	1-1	0-9	M	0-9	0-9	0-9	0-8	0-72	$7.50 to $9.60 	2-8	3-0	2-9	3-1	2-5	1-9	2-2	2-2	2-0	2-0	1-8	1-43	$9.60 to $12.00 	5-4	5-5	5-4	5-2	4-6	3-9	4-4	4-8	4-6	4-1	3-5	3-44	$12.00 to $15.00 	10-9	10-0	10-0	10-3	9-3	9-8	9-1	7-9	8-9	8-1	8-1	7-55	$15.00 to $20.00 	18-1	17-1	18-4	17-7	17-5	17-5	17-9	17-1	17-1	15-7	16-4	15-96	$20.00 to $26.00 	21-9	21-0	21-3	21-0	20-6	21-6	21-9	21-2	20-1	20-5	21-2	20-47	$26.00 or more 	38-4	40-6	39-3	40-1	43-2	43-3	41-9	43-8	44-5	47-2	46-9	49-5100-0	100-0	100-0	100-0	100-0	100-0	100-0	100-0	100-0	100-0	100-0	100-0
Questions

Proportion of Contributors for Each Month by Contribution Classes from July 1941 to February 1944-
Concluded
Per cent of the total in each class
1 9 4 3	1 9 4 4
Contribution class	Jan.	Feb.	Mar.	Apr.	May	June	July	Aug.	Sept.	Oct.	Nov.	Dec.	Jan.	Feb.Earnings per week	%	%	%	%	%	%	%	%	%	%	%	%	%	%0 Less than 90 cents a day or under 16 years of age 	1-2	1-3	1-4	1-4	1-4	1-4	2-3	3*5	2-6	1-9	1-7	1-9	2-0	2-01 $ 5.40 to $ 7.50	0-7	0-6	0-7	0-9	0-7	0-5	0-7	0-6	0-7 .	0-6	0-4	0-7	0-5	0-62 S 7.50 to S 9.60	1-8	1-5	1-8	1-6	1-2	1-3	1-4	1-6	1-2	1-1	1-2	1-2	1-3	1-23 S 9.60 to S12.00	40	3-1	3-9	5-2	2-9	3-0	2-9	3-9	2-8	2-6	2-8	2-6	2-9	2-74 $12.00 to $15.00	8-1	7-5	8-2	7-4	7-4	6-5	6-6	9-1	6-7	6-2	6-1	5-9	6-8	6-15 $15.00 to $20.00	15-8	16-4	15-8	14-9	15-0	14-8	14-3	6-7	13-6	13-3	13-1	13-1	13-0	12-86 $20.00 to $26.00	20-4	21-2	20-9	19-9	19-9	20-0	20-2	13-7	19-3	19-2	18-4	18-7	18-7	18-77 $26.00 or more	48-0	48-4	47-3	48-7	51-5	52-5	51-6	60-9	53-1	55-1	56-3	55-9	54-8	55-9100-0	100-0	100-0	100-0	100-0	100-0	100-0	100-0	100-0	100-0	100-0	100-0	100-0	100-02076	COMMONS
Questions

Questions


MOBILIZATION ACT-REJECTIONS-NUMBERS IN DIFFERENT CATEGORIES
Mr. WHITE:: 1.	What is the total number of persons in Canada who have been examined as to fitness for military service under military service regulations from September 1, 1939, to date?
2.	How many persons so examined have been rejected as unfit for military service?
3.	How many persons examined for medical rating have been placed in each category?


Mr. MARTIN:: 1.	The total number of persons in Canada who have been examined under mobilization regulations from the beginning of operations to February 29, 1944 is 1,014,498. This does not include men examined by army boards on applying for voluntary enlistment.
2.	The number of persons so examined who have been found unfit for active service is 562,150.
3.	The number of persons placed in each medical category is-A. Fit for front line combatant duty, i.e. active service, 452,348; B. Fit for ordinaiy general duty but not for full combatant duty, 123,364; C. Able to stand home service conditions, 130,316; D. Temporarily unfit, 23,415; E. Unsuitable for army service anywhere in any capacity, 285,055-Total 1,014;498.


CHRISTIE STREET HOSPITAL, TORONTO
Mr. BRUCE:: 1.	Have plans been completed for all the units of the new Christie street hospital to be built at Sunnybrook Park?
2.	Have contracts been called?
3.	When will contracts be let?


Mr. FOURNIER (Hull):: 1.	No, but well under way.
2.	No, but expect tenders will be called for the grading and road diversion within three weeks.
3.	This contract should be let within three weeks.


FUEL CONTROL-NEW BRUNSWICK-EXPORT OF FUEL WOOD TO MAINE
Mr. HATFIELD:: 1.	Has J. C. Veness been appointed fuel controller for the province of New Brunswick?
2.	Was he asked to make a recommendation or a brief in regards to the export of fuelwood to the state of Maine during the season 1943-44?
3.	If so, what plan did he recommend?
4.	Was his plan put into operation by the fuel controller at Ottawa? If not, why not?


Mr. CHEVRIER:: 1. Mr. J. C. Veness served as regional wood fuel officer for the maritime provinces from
April 1, 1943, until March 31, 1944, on which date he returned to his former position with the Department of Mines and Resources.
2.	The matter of the export of fuel wood to the state of Maine was receiving consideration by the fuel controller and in his capacity as regional wood fuel officer, Mr. Veness made certain proposals to the wood fuel controller.
3.	His plan contemplated the issuance of permits for exports of fuel wood to the United States in proportion to the quantity of fuel wood placed on the Canadian market by each exporter.
4.	The proposal was modified by the controller at Ottawa with the concurrence of the then acting regional wood fuel officer in favour of regulations which in all the circumstances met the situation more adequately.


AMMONIUM NITRATE
Mr. HATFIELD:: 1.	Since the beginning of the war, what amount of ammonium nitrate was produced in the following plants: Alberta Nitrogen Products Ltd., Consolidated Mining & Smelting Co., Ltd., St. Maurice Chemical Ltd., and Welland Chemical Works Ltd.?
2.	Of this, how much was exported to the United States for use as commercial fertilizer?
3.	What quantity of the production of each plant was sold in Canada as commercial fertilizer?
4.	What was the price per ton of the ammonium nitrate exported to the United States?
5.	What was the price per ton of the ammonium nitrate sold in Canada?


Mr. CHEVRIER:: 
MANUFACTURE AND IMPORT OF MOTOR VEHICLES
Mr. HANSELL:: How many automobiles were, (a) manufactured in Canada; (b) imported, for private use in the years 1940 to 1942?


James Angus MacKinnon: (a)	Passenger Cars
Year	No.
1940		 109,911
1941		 96,603
1942		   12,236
No passenger cars produced since June,
1942.
(b)	No information.


SELECTIVE SERVICE EMPLOYEES
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: What are the names, addresses and salaries of all officials and employees of national selective service receiving $3,000 and more per annum ?


Mr. MARTIN:: Names, addresses and salaries of all officials and employees of N.S.S., receiving S3,000 or more per annum:
Ball, Gordon, Lord Elgin Hotel,
Ottawa, Ont	 $3,600
Buss, P., 20 Vine st., Thorold, Ont. 4,200 Caron, G., 1637 Sherbrooke st. W.,
Apt. 6, Montreal, Que	 3,000
Christie, Dr. H. H., Chelsea road,
Quebec	 5,000
Cowel, J. B., 2745 West 38th ave.,
Vancouver, B.C	 4,500
Crumb, Robt. Whitney, 111 Woodfield rd., Toronto, Ont	 3,600
David, E. V., 292 Strathmore blvd.,
Toronto, Ont	 3,600
Davidson, Lt.-Col. R., 394 Avenue
road, Toronto, Ont	 3,600
Davis, R. J., 263 First ave., Ottawa,
Ont	 3,600
Deas, Geo., 107 Bellwood ave., Toronto, Ont	 3,600
de Gaspe Tache, A., 365 Chester ave.,
Town of Mount Royal, Que		4,500
Desaulniers, Dr. R., 3488 Laval ave.,
Montreal, Que	 3,600
Dupuis, Hector, 1461 Ste. Catherine
st., Montreal, Que	 4,800
Eaton, Mrs. F., 275 Friel st., Ottawa,
Ont	 4,800
Edwards, E. W., 303 Wolseley st.,
Port Arthur, Ont	 3,000
Paid by Dept, of Labour		1,449	96
English, Robert, 12510-106th ave.,
Edmonton, Alta	 4,020
Farquharson, Dr. W. D., "E" McDonald Apt., Edmonton,	Alta,... 3,600

Goulet, Paul, 216 Metcalfe st., Apt. 4,
Ottawa, Ont	
Grier, R. M., Miss, 236 Rideau terrace, Ottawa, Ont	
Harris, Arthur Balfour, 50 Gerrard
st., London, Ont	
Haythorne, G. F., Rideau Park, Billings Bridge, Ont	
Henderson, R. K., 536 Vancouver
ave., Nanaimo, B.C	
Henry, C. J., 130 MacLaren st.,
Apt. 34, Ottawa, Ont	
Hooper, J. P., 143 Euston st., Charlottetown, P.E.I	
Lamoureux, Dr. L., 1404 rue Fullum,
Montreal, Que	
Martel, F. Mrs., 13 Ducharme ave.,
Montreal, Que	
Martin, Wm. A., 742 Waterloo st.,
London, Ont	
Mills, Dr. C. V., 1206 Ouelette ave.,
Windsor, Ont	
Mingo, Col. E., 44 Chestnut st.,
Halifax, N.S	
Mooney, Col. E. J., 167 Paradise row,
Saint John, >N.B	
MacGregor, Dr. R. R., 148 Earl st.,
Kingston, Ont	
McAllister, Dr. R., 410 McCallum
Hill, Regina, Sask	
McDonell, L. G., 63 West St., Kingston, Ont	
McLaren, S. H., 333 Metcalfe st.,
Ottawa, Ont	
McLeod, J. W., Donkin, Cape
Breton, N.S	
McNeil, Dr. N. M., 5689 Angus drive,
Vancouver, B.C	
McPherson, Lt.-Col. C. D. Law
Courts, Winnipeg, Man	
McRae, John Stanley, 902 McArthur
bldg., Winnipeg, Man	
Needham, C. F., 93 Brule Gardens,
Toronto, Ont	
O'Neill, A. E., 330 Metcalfe st.,
Ottawa, Ont	
Parry, Dr. G., 331 Bay st., Toronto,
Ont	
Pennock, C. G., 1759 Haro st., Vancouver, B.C	
Pickersgill, T. B., 79 Victoria st.,
Eastview, Ont	
Rainville, Dr. R., 141 4ieme ave.,
Quebec, P.Q	
Ranger, Raymond, 17 Marlborough
ave., Ottawa, Ont	
Ritchie, Geo. Wm., 250 Riverside
Drive, Toronto, Ont	
Robinson, C. C., Box 635, Steves-ton, B.C	
7.000
3.000
3.900
5.800
3.600
3.900
3.600
4.200
3.000
3.900
4.080
3.900
3.900
3.900
3.600
3.900
6.000
4.200
3.600
4.020
3.600 6,000
3.600
4.200
4.020 4,500
4.080 5,400
4.800 3,000

Questions
Rodier, P. E., 1117 Ste. Catherine
st. W., Montreal, Que	 4,020
Ross, Sheldon, 38 Marlborough ave.,
Ottawa, Ont	 4,800
Scott, Willard, 274 O'Connor st.,
Ottawa, Ont	 4,800
Thomas, J. D., 237 Laurier ave West,
Ottawa, Ont	 4,200
Thomas, W. R., Suite 8, Frontenac
apt., Winnipeg, Man	 3,000
Wadge, Herbert Wm., 148 Maryland
st. W., Montreal, Que	 4,020
Westman, L. E., Chateau Laurier
hotel, Ottawa, Ont	 6,000
Wilson, F. C., 2217 Argyle st., Regina, Sask	 4,020


FARM MACHINERY
John George Diefenbaker: What is the value of, (a) farm machinery, including tractors and threshing machines; (b) parts thereof, sold in each province during each of the years 1938 to 1943 inclusive?


James Angus MacKinnon: 
TRANSFER OF EMPLOYEES FROM NOBEL TO VICTORY AIRCRAFT, MALTON
Mr. NOSEWORTHY:: 1.	How many employees have been transferred from Nobel to Victory Aircraft at Malton?
2.	For how many of these were travelling and moving expenses paid, and by whom, and what amounts are involved?
3.	How many of these have been assisted by the government in finding homes for their families in the vicinity of victory Aircraft?
4.	How many of those whose families have remained at Nobel are receiving assistance by way of bonuses for the extra expenses in living costs created by reason of the transfer?
5.	WThat are the amounts of these bonuses?
6.	Have any adjustments been made in rent by wartime housing for those families remaining in those houses at Nobel ?


Mr. MARTIN:: 1.	475 men and 46 women-total 521.
2.	Train fare from Nobel, Ont., to Toronto, Ont., in each individual case amounted to
Questions

$5.15. This multiplied by 521 equals $2,683.15. The aforementioned amount was charged to Victory Aircraft. No other expenses were paid by either the government or the employer.
3.	Employees were assisted in finding suitable locations for room and board by company officials, Y.W.C.A. and Y.M.C.A. and the housing registry. However, employees were fore-warned that a housing shortage existed in the Toronto area and were advised through a special agreement with wartime housing that they may leave their families at Nobel until such time as other suitable accommodations can be found for their families:	No other
action was taken on the part of N.S.S. or the government to assist these people in locating homes for their families.
4.	Bonuses and supplementary living allowances are not being paid.
5.	Nil.
6.	No adjustments were made in the rental costs of the wartime houses in the Nobel village. The amount involved for small houses is $23 a month. For the larger two-story homes, of which there are few, $31 per month. Of 200 homes originally occupied by D.I.L, employees 146 have been vacated since the first of January, leaving a balance of 54 still occupied. Of this balance 27 are occupied by ex-employees' families and the other 27 by maintenance men and guards who are still with D.I.L.


R.C.A.F.-No. 7 EQUIPMENT DEPOT, WINNIPEG
Mr. KNOWLES:: 1.	What was the total number of civilian personnel employed at No. 7 equipment depot, R.C.A.F., Winnipeg, as at December 31, 1941; June 30, 1942; December 31, 1942; June 30, 1943, and December 31, 1943?
2.	What is the total number so employed at the present time?
3.	Of the above, how many were classified civil servants, and how many were unclassified personnel as at each of the above dates, and what are the figures for each of these groups at the present time?
4.	Have any civilian personnel at No. 7 equipment depot been replaced by service personnel during the past twelve months? If so, how many, month by month?


Mr. MacMILLAN:: Non
Date	Classified Classified Total
December 31,	1941	224	217	441June 30, 1942 .	255	272	527December 31,	1942	275	301	576June 30, 1943 .	293	302	595December 31,	1943	374	248	622March 31, 1944....	385	178	563
4. None.

_ GASOLINE


John George Diefenbaker: How many gallons of gasoline were sold in Canada in each of the years 1938 to 1943 inclusive, (a) by retail; (b) by wholesale?


James Angus MacKinnon: Sales of gasoline in Canada.
Gallons
1938		 762,592,300
1939		  807,446,999
1940	  883,158,020
1941	  977,882,073
1942		 896,871,545
1943		 903,549,709
Separate retail and wholesale data are not available. Exports are excluded.


PORT ELGIN, ONT., HARBOUR-DREDGING
Mr. NOSEWORTHY:: How much money was spent by the government on dredging, dock repairs and other harbour improvements on Port Elgin harbour in each of the years 1930 to 1940 inclusive?


Mr. FOURNIER (Hull):: Construction		
	& Improve-		
Fiscal Year	Dredging	ments	Repairs1929-30	. $ 27.75	Nil	$ 1,428.701930-31	. 2,870.00	Nil	17,916.531931-32	. Nil	Nil	529.791932-33	. Nil	Nil	Nil1933-34	. Nil	Nil	Nil1934-35	. 314.15	Nil	Nil1935-36	. 1,398.55	Nil	Nil1936-37	18,151.50	Nil	2,239.281937-38	, 4,238.44	$2,508.63	Nil1938-39	. Nil	Nil	2,511.221939-40	11,262.54	Nil	2,026.121940-41	Nil	Nil	Nil



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. HANSELL:: 1.	What is the estimated cost to date of the building and equipping of each of the air training schools in Canada under the Commonwealth air training plan?
2.	What is the location and type of each school?
3.	When was each school officially opened?


CANADIAN ARMY-HEADQUARTERS    OFFICERS IN M.G.O.'S BRANCH
Mr. ROSS (Souris):: 1.	Since the outbreak of war, how many officers with services with field units overseas have been appointed to the M.G.O.'s branch at N.D.H.Q.?

Questions as Orders for Returns
2.	How many in this branch at the present time have had such experience?
3.	What are the names in each case?



WAR MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT AND FOOD- PAYMENTS BY CANADA

[Stage Direction]
Mr. LaCROIX (Quebec-Montmorency):
1.	Is the government obliged to purchase from England the bombers of Canadian squadrons overseas ?
2.	Are the airplane engines built in England and not manufactured in Canada supplied to Canada on a gratuitous basis?
3.	Are the British destroyers that have been added to the Canadian fleet coming under the British mutual assistance, or must Canada pay for them?
4.	Is the Canadian army overseas supplied the necessary food free, or obliged to purchase same?

Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	How many prosecutions by provinces or military districts have been taken against defaulters under the National Resources Mobilization Act?
2.	How many convictions have been registered?



PAYMENTS FOR. LEGAL SERVICES

Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: _ 1. What payments have been made or authorized for legal services by the Department of Justice since the outbreak of the war to the following solicitors or their firms, stating the subject matter of the employment: Mr. R. M. Fielding, K.C., M.L.A., barrister, Halifax, Nova Scotia; Mr. J. E. Rutledge, K.C., M.L.A., barrister, Halifax, Nova Scotia; Mr. J. W. Godfrey, K.C., barrister, Halifax, Nova Scotia?
2.	What additional accounts have been rendered by each and not yet paid?
3.	What additional instructions have been given involving legal services to each?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Return tabled.



NATIONAL HARBOURS BOARD

Mr. DORION:: 1.	Does the government or the national harbours board own cold storage plants in Canada? If so, where are they situated?
2.	What is the value of each?
3.	What salary rates are paid to the employees of such cold storage plants?



DEFENCE COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED

Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: 1.	When was Defence Communications Limited organized by the government?
2.	Who were appointed general manager, chief engineer, assistant chief engineer, and the executive officers?
3.	What are their salaries, and what have been their expenses to date?
4.	What expenses have been incurred by each of these executive officers and this organization at the Lord Nelson hotel, Halifax, Nova Scotia?



NATIONAL WAR SERVICES-NATIONALITIES BRANCH -PROFESSOR WATSON KIRKCONNELL

Mr. ROSE:: 1.	Is Professor Watson Kirkconnell, of McMaster university, a member of the nationalities branch, national war services?
2.	If so, since when?
3.	How much salary and how much expense money has he received as a member of this branch?
4.	Has he ever been in the employ of any other government department?
5.	If so, in what capacity?



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF

Mr. HANSELL:: 1.	What was the total amount of money spent by the federal, provincial and municipal governments for the purpose of relief during each of the years 1930 to 1940 inclusive?
2.	What was the federal government's share of this expense in each of these years to each province?
3.	Are the provinces considered to be in debt to the federal government for these advances?
4.	If so, how much has each province paid, and how much is still owing by each province?



MOBILIZATION ACT-NUMBER CALLED UP, ETC.

Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	How many men in each administrative district have been called up for medical examination under the National Resources Mobilization Act from the commencement of the act to January 31, 1944?
2.	Of these, how many have been found physically fit?
3.	Of those found physically fit, how many are now members of the armed forces, (a) for service anywhere; (b) for service in Canada only?
CANADIAN VICKERS LTD.-CANADIAN BAYER *	COMPANY


Mr. COLD WELL:: 1.	Has the government made inquiry into the ownership of Canadian Vickers Limited, together with alleged associations of Losanac Limited, as recorded at page 1920, Hansard, March 28, 1944?
2.	Has the Minister of National Revenue inquired into tax evasion practices alleged to be followed by Canadian Bayer Company, as directed by I. G. Farbenindustrie and Sterling Limited, as reported by subcommittee on war mobilization, of the committee on military affairs, of the United States senate, referred to at .page 1920 Hansard, March 28, 1944?


Mr. COLD WELL:: May I suggest that part one of this question was answered by the Minister of Munitions and Supply on March 31, as appears on page 2048 of Hansard; therefore it need not be included in the return.
Motions for Papers



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. CO'LDWELL:
For a copy of all letters, telegrams and other correspondence between the federal government, the government of the United States, the province of British Columbia and any electric power interests, together with any reports by or references to the international joint commission, on matters concerning the Columbia watershed and those tributary thereto, from January 1, 1940, to date.


Mr. QUELCH:: For a copy of the resolution passed by the united nations relief and rehabilitation administration at Atlantic city in December, 1943.



PURCHASES OF PROPERTIES IN PRAIRIE PROVINCES

John George Diefenbaker: For a statement showing location of and price paid for all properties purchased by any department of government in the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta during each of the years 1941, 1942 and 1943.



HYDE PARK DECLARATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: Press dispatches during the
Easter recess have indicated that the government is preparing to issue a statement announcing the suspension of the Hyde Park agreement, which was entered into between Canada and the United States earlier in the war. I should be glad if the Prime Minister will inform the house whether or not this agreement is to be suspended, altered or revoked, and at the same time inform the house of the reasons behind such a move.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As my hon. friend perhaps is aware, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) at the present time is absent from Ottawa in connection with business related to the forthcoming victory loan. I should like to consult with him before making any statement on this matter. As soon as the minister returns I shall see that the house is informed of the situation.



CONFERENCE WITH PROVINCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: Is the Prime Minister yet in a position to announce the date of the proposed dominion-provincial conference?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No doubt my hon. friend has.read the return which was tabled shortly before the recess, in which was included the correspondence between the federal government and the governments of the provinces with respect to the dominion-provincial conference and the efforts being made to find a date that will be generally convenient. From that correspondence it is apparent that the task has not thus far been too easy. Up to the present the government has not been able to fix a definite date.


Gordon Graydon: May I suggest to the Prime Minister the fact that there are prospects of three provincial elections being held may be a factor in delaying the calling of the conference? Would that in any way be a factor?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend evidently has more knowledge about the prospects of elections than I have. I cannot tell him whether there are to be any or not, but I do know that, at the present time, representatives, I think, of the treasury departments of all the provinces but one are working on preparatory material for the dominion-provincial conference. Though no date has been fixed I hope it will not be felt that any time is being lost in getting together in advance as much information as possible, so that when the conference does take place all governments may be supplied with the material which will be required in carrying on discussions.


Gordon Graydon: I thank the Prime Minister for his compliment in suggesting that I may know more than he does with respect to elections. Of course, that would obviously be impossible. I heard the suggestion made that the delay may have been occasioned by the fact that the government here felt it possible that there would be three changes in governments when those elections took place.



POST-WAR CIVIL AVIATION CANADIAN REPRESENTATION AT LONDON CONFERENCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: During the Easter recess newspaper reports indicated that Lord Beaverbrook, Britain's cabinet minister in charge of aviation, and Adolf Berle, the State Department's assistant secretary, together with seven other United States and British aviation experts, conferred in London with respect to post-war civil aviation. Was Canada invited to this conference, and, if so, who represented us? If Canada was not represented, has this govern-

Post-War Civil Aviation
ment been advised as to the conclusions and decisions reached at the conference? If this government has been so advised, will the minister give a statement to the house in regard to the matter.


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Munitions and Supply):: The conference referred to between Mr. Berle and Lord Beaverbrook was one of a series of bilateral conferences that are being held on this subject. In the conference between Canada and the United States, the United States was represented by Mr. Berle and Mr. Warner, and Canada was represented by myself, Mr. Robertson and Mr. Symington. The Canadian conference was held prior to the London conference. We were not invited to the London conference, of course since it was a bilateral conference, as was ours. We did not invite Britain to our conference and naturally Britain did not invite us to theirs, but there has been a full exchange of information. A statement of the subject matter of both the Canadian and British discussions has been published in the press. I believe there is nothing that can be added usefully at this time.


Gordon Graydon: What I read in the papers was not a very comprehensive report of the discussions. I had hoped that I might be able' to elicit something further from the government with respect to the matter.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: Has the Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Finance anything to add to the statement he made to the house on March 27 in connection witii the present acute rental situation?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No, I have nothing further to add.


Gordon Graydon: Has the parliamentary assistant anything to add as to the possibility of the government doing something in connection with temporary housing for these people?	'


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: Order.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have no statement to make on that at the moment.


Gordon Graydon: Does that mean the government has no policy with respect to that?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, I still have some rights in the House of Commons, and I have always found that you have protected me in that regard. Surely I have the ri^ht to ask a supplementary question of the parliamentary assistant without a general harangue of "order" from all parts across the way. I think, Mr. Speaker, that there will have to be an end to that sort of thing, because the questions I have asked are an accumulation built up during the Easter recess, and we desire information on them. I do not think I 'have overstepped the mark in that regard. I have asked a civil question of the parliamentary assistant and I have a right to have it answered.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I thought I gave an answer; I said I had no statement to make in answer to my hon. friend.


Gordon Graydon: I could not hear the hon. gentleman because of the number of people who were calling "order" at the same time.


Mr. FRED ROSE (Cartier):: I should like to ask the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance if any negotiations are under way with the Montreal city council regarding the acute housing situation facing the people of that city on May 1.


Douglas Charles Abbott: As far as I am aware there have been no negotiations between the city council of Montreal and the federal government.


Mr. LOCKHART:: Since we are talking about housing, hon. members have been supplied with copies of the five or six reports on reconstruction but as yet we have not received the report on housing. I understand that such a report has been prepared. Why has it not been supplied to us along with the others? Perhaps some member of the government could answer that question and tell us when we may expect it.


Mr. BROOKE CLAXTON (Parliamentary Assistant to the President of the Privy Council):: I understand the report is in the hands of the printer and will be printed just as soon as facilities are available to turn it out.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. ERNEST BERTRAND (Minister of Fisheries):: If the house will bear with me for a few moments I should like to make a short statement on a question of interest to the prairie provinces. Following special investigations made last summer into questions
20S4
Fisheries in Prairie Provinces

connected with the marketing of prairie province fish, which have an important place in our export trade with the United States and in interprovincial trade, a conference was held in Ottawa last week to consider what action might best be taken to maintain and improve the quality of fish production in these provinces, to increase the handling and marketing efficiency, and thus to increase the return to the fishermen. I had the privilege of presiding over the conference, which was attended by Hon. Mr. McDiarmid, minister of mines and natural resources of Manitoba, which department is concerned with fisheries matters; Hon. Mr. Kerr, who is the Saskatchewan minister of natural resources, and other fisheries advisers from all three of the provinces, as well as by officials of my department and of several other federal services. Hon. Mr. Tanner, the Alberta minister of lands and mines, had expected to be present but later found it impossible to be in Ottawa at the time. He was represented by Mr. E. S. Huestis and Doctor Miller.
Briefly, the conference decided that for the present attention should be given particularly to whitefish production and marketing, and three major steps were unanimously agreed upon. First, the provinces will make surveys of their whitefish-producing waters, under the guidance of the federal fisheries research board; second, the board will undertake a programme of fresh water fisheries research; third, machinery will be set up, by my department and the provinces jointly, under which all whitefish intended for shipment out of any of these provinces will be subject to inspection.
The conference was assured by the provinces that the lake surveys will be started this summer. As for research, I expect in the next few days to be able to announce the appointment of a highly competent chief biologist. The research programme in the provinces thereafter will be developed as quickly as may be efficiently possible. In connection with this, though I do not mean that this particular step can be undertaken at once, we intend to establish in the prairie provinces a permanent fisheries research station, broadly similar to stations such as the research board now operates on the two coasts.



CARTELS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. SASSEYILLE ROY (Gaspe):: A
dispatch from London to the Canadian press, dated April 5, quotes a Russian magazine

which accuses British and American cartels of continuing to deal with German cartels under certain agreements, operating through Switzerland. Is the Prime Minister prepared to make a statement on this very grave accusation?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend has asked me a very large question, dealing with international affairs and concerning, as I understand it, Russia, Britain, Germany and Switzerland in relation to cartels. Not only should I want time to prepare an answer; I should want a great deal of time, and I am not sure that even then I could give an answer. The hon. gentleman has referred to an accusation or an assumption, and whether it is the one or the other I cannot say.



RECONSTRUCTION


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to establish a Department of Reconstruction with authority to formulate and coordinate reconstruction plans and carry out such plans during a certain number of years following the cessation of hostilities to provide for the employment of officers, clerks and servants necessary for the proper conduct of the department; and to provide for the proper and efficient administration of the act.
Gordon Graydon: I take it that either now or after we have gone into committee on the resolution the Prime Minister will make a statement with respect to this matter.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Bradette in the chair.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As I indicated on the eve of the recess, Mr. Chairman, the government is bringing forward the different resolutions appearing on the order paper to-day to enable the bills based upon these resolutions to be brought before hon. members at the earliest moment possible. I hope it will suit the convenience of the house to have the discussion on these matters of social legislation take place on the bills rather than on the resolutions. Unless we agree to that I am afraid a great deal of the time of parliament will be taken up in discussion which will be duplicated when we are on the bills, and this at a time when it is necessary to make as much headway as possible unless the session is to be very greatly prolonged. The

Department of Reconstruction
bills with respect to most of the resolutions have been prepared and could be introduced as soon as the resolutions are carried.
The resolution now before the committee relates to one of three measures mentioned in the speech from the throne, each having to do with the broad field of post-war planning. Hon. members will recall that the speech from the throne mentioned that it was intended to establish the following departments of government:
(1)	A department of veterans' affairs to have charge of the rehabilitation and reestablishment of members of the armed forces, and the administration of veterans' pensions and allowances;
(2)	A department of reconstruction to promote and coordinate planning for national development and post-war employment; and
(3)	A department of social welfare to organize and to assist in administering activities of the federal government in the fields of health and social insurance.
The resolutions on the order paper immediately following the one now before the committee relate to the departments of veteran's affairs and social welfare. If the resolution respecting the department of reconstruction is carried and the bill introduced, the next order will be the resolution relating to the department of veterans' affairs. I do not think it would be advisable to proceed at present with the third resolution, respecting the department of social welfare. We should, I think, wait for the further reports of the special committee on social security, since matters may come from that committee which it might be desirable to have incorporated in the bill. The necessity of establishing a department of reconstruction is, I believe, self-evident. I imagine that there is no difference of view as to that-as between any of the parties in this House of Commons.
As an illustration of the need for this department of government I. might mention briefly two or three essential considerations. The problem of reconstruction will involve the reemployment of nearly two million Canadians now in the armed forces, the merchant navy or war industry. Employment must be productive and must contribute to a rising standard of living. The great industrial plant created for war purposes must be transformed to meet peace time demands in Canada or abroad. Markets must be found and retained for our greatly increased food production unless we are not to face an agricultural depression. Railways, highways and other capital equipment which has suffered the strain of war must be repaired. Civilian aviation and other new means of transport and communication must be developed. Public works and conservation and developmental projects will
be required, particularly while private industries are being converted to peace time operations. New housing, both urban and rural, improvements to existing housing and community planning can contribute at once to the volume of employment and the improvement of the standard of living.
These are merely a few of the directions in which reconstruction planning requires to be carried on. Obviously most, if not all, of these functions relate specifically to some existing department of government. A question naturally arises as to why, if that is so, the planning should not be left to each separate department? It will be, I think, obvious that if the government were to proceed in that way there would be the possibility of much duplication and there would not be the opportunity for the coordination of post-war planning which is essential. Moreover, the problem is so large and at the end of hostilities it will be so urgent, that some special agency is necessary to see that plans are made and action is being taken in all the varied fields in which action will be required if we are to achieve and maintain the full employment and full production which are essential to secure the prosperity and welfare of our people.
The bill which will be based upon this resolution, what it sets forth of the method of proceeding with regard to industrial reconstruction, provides for action similar to that which has been taken in the United Kingdom. There, as hon. members know, Lord Woolton has been selected as minister of reconstruction. Lord Woolton has not a department of government of his own, rather he presides at meetings of his colleagues representing other departments of government. Along with the experts by whom he is surrounded, he meets with these ministers and brings forward plans of reconstruction, obtains information from the different departments of government as to the projects that are already being proceeded with, and makes suggestions as to methods by which existing and other plans can best be furthered and developed.
In Canada, we propose to have, in addition to a minister, a department of reconstruction, in order that there may be, so far as this country is concerned, the necessary machinery of government to effect the coordination that will have to take place, not only between the departments of government at Ottawa but also between the dominion government and the several provincial governments as well as municipalities in the provinces. The intention is to make provision for a minister of reconstruction, a deputy minister, and such staff as may be needed to carry on the work.
Department oj Reconstruction


Gordon Graydon: No parliamentary
assistant?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It will be
necessary to have a parliamentary assistant. I think this is one case where a parliamentary assistant will be of great assistance to the minister and to hon. members of the house. I would say that most certainly there will be a parliamentary assistant.
Perhaps I could indicate, by reading from a section or two of the bill, which will later be introduced if the resolution is carried, the scope of the work for which 1 the minister will be responsible. The interpretation section defines what is meant by "reconstruction," and I shall read that section because it gives the comprehensive picture which I think hon. members will wish to have. It reads:
"Reconstruction" means the reestablishment in civil life and reemployment on demobilization of the men and women of the armed services, reestablishment of persons released from war industries, and the reorganization of industry, in order to provide maximum production and full employment during and following the change over from war time production of industry to peace time production, and includes every undertaking by dominion, provincial or municipal authority or by any corporation or other person which may contribute to such reorganization.
Industry is defined in the following comprehensive terms:
"Industry" includes merchandising, manufacturing, trading, engineering, construction or building operations, the operation of public utilities, transportation and the production of all natural products including the products of farms, forests, mines and fisheries and also any other undertaking by any person including His Majesty in right of Canada or of any province involving the employment of persons during reconstruction.
It is not the intention under this legislation to appoint as minister, for the present at least, anyone from outside the present membership of the cabinet. It is intended that one of the members of the present administration will be appointed minister of reconstruction and will have that responsibility. The reasons for this will be quite clear. It is obvious that the minister who is to be in charge of reconstruction should be a member of the government who is already familiar with the work of the administration. Equally important, he should be one who knows his colleagues intimately, that he will be in a position to confer readily with the ministers of all departments in a manner which will best serve to gain their full cooperation in carrying out the government's policies with respect to reconstruction.
I should like to read what Lord Woolton had to say in the House of Lords in describing his functions. Under the proposed legislation

the Canadian minister of reconstruction will have functions which are very similar. The wisdom of following a similar course will be admitted when hon. members hear what Lord Woolton has said. Speaking in the House of Lords on December 8 last, Lord Woolton gave the following indication of the scope of his functions:
The preparation of plans, the primary responsibility for formulating the plans rests with the ministers in charge of the departments. These plans of reconstruction are not going to be carried out by me. They are going to be carried out by a number of ministers and government departments. The primary _ responsibility for executing them, must continue to rest with the departments concerned, working under the direction of their ministerial chiefs. That is why there is not going to be any ministry of reconstruction. There is going to be no minister of reconstruction with a large staff attached to it. What I have to try to do is to see the reconstruction plan-as a whole, to lay out the various parts which have to be worked out by the departments, to bring the plans of the various departments in relation with one another and to make sure that there are no gaps, no overlapping, no conflict.
The responsibility therefore of the minister of reconstruction is quite clearly defined. It is his business, with his colleagues, to see that all these plans come into one orderly whole and that nothing is left undone by his colleagues that ought in the opinion of the war cabinet to be done.
In our case it will not be the war cabinet, it will be the full cabinet.
In doing so I shall be helped by a very strong committee of the war cabinet.
In the procedure that we intend to follow, the minister will be assisted by a committee of the cabinet which will be formed subsequently. The names of its members are not set forth in the proposed legislation.
I have received the following additional information about Lord Woolton's functions through the Canadian high commissioner in London, with whom I communicated some time ago:
He has, of course, to keep in touch with a numerous body of committees, both governmental and extra-governmental, who are concerned with the problems of reconstruction. He has to be in continual consultation with his colleagues in the government, and to deal with the innumerable private interests involved in anjr far-reaching scheme of national planning. Not the least difficult part of his task is that he must induce the various government departments involved in any one aspect of reconstruction to maintain the same tempo in their planning and execution of reconstruction policies, so that no one part of a given scheme lags behind the other.
In this work, he is assisted by a very small staff of four specialists, in addition to his secretaries and personal assistants.
The staff contemplated for the Department of Reconstruction is a deputy minister, and

Department oj Reconstruction
such other officers, technical assistants, clerks and employees as are necessary for the proper conduct of the business of the department.
I think I have sufficiently indicated the functions of the minister. His powers will extend to the right to institute inquiries, to require return of information, to consult with representatives of producers, industry, science and labour, to establish committees and inaugurate conferences. The minister will also be obliged to submit an annual report to parliament. Provision is also made for the transferring of civil servants from other departments, and equally there is the power to transfer certain branches of departments, if that be thought advisable, to carry out some of the work that may have to be undertaken by the new department.


Gordon Graydon: If I may be permitted a question at this point, the new department as envisaged from the statement of the Prime Minister will differ from other departments of government because it will have a sort of supervisory character and give directives to other departments. Is that the principle that is followed under Lord Woolton's plan?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The principle is the same. As to giving directives, I am not just sure that that is the word I would use. My hon. friend will recognize at once that all government departments are pretty sensitive about their own prerogatives.


Gordon Graydon: That is what I was
thinking.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is one of . the reasons why it is thought advisable, in the early stages at all events, to entrust the position of Minister of the Department of Reconstruction to a member of the government who is already known to be persona grata to his colleagues, as all members of the present government certainly are.


Gordon Graydon: Would it not mean that the new minister would have some superpower over and above that of the ordinary cabinet minister if the present proposal is carried out?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No'. Decision on policy will rest, as it does in all matters, with the cabinet as a whole. The directions that will be given to other departments, if there are directions-I would prefer to say the procedure expected to be adopted-will be given by decision of the cabinet as a whole. Matters will be discussed in council and ministers informed as a result of a round-table discussion of what will be expected of them in their respective departments. The minister will probably also have plans of his own which
he may wish to submit, involving, for particular purposes, the expenditure of public money. Just under which particular department work of the kind would be carried out would depend on the decision that would be reached by the cabinet. All moneys will necessarily be appropriated by parliament. There are in the civil estimates expenditures for public works and other basic services, many of which will fit into a scheme of reconstruction. There are also in the war appropriation estimates, items for many projects that will relate themselves to the work of reconstruction, and the minister himself may bring forward to parliament a bill to appropriate money for reconstruction purposes, a bill similar in form to the war appropriation bill of to-day, or he may seek to have necessary expenditures provided by supplementary estimates. Hon. members will realize that certain projects in connection with the work of reconstruction will necessarily run over a term of years before being finally completed.


Gordon Graydon: Such a bill would be different from the war appropriation bill, for whidh the Minister of Finance is responsible?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There would be amounts placed in the estimates for the projects for which it was desired to have public funds appropriated, or a bill for the sums needed for reconstruction might be introduced. By either method the necessary amounts would be asked for from the house, so that there would be opportunity for members of parliament to discuss the projects fully on the floor of the house.
As I have said, some of the projects may run over a term of years. For such projects it may not be possible to limit the required amount to one specific fiscal year. There would have to be some leeway in the matter of expenditures. For the present, until at least we get into the period after an armistice, I do not think that much will be required in the way of expenditures; but certainly expenditures, if they are to be effective and we are to see to it that when our men return from the front there will be no lack of employment, will have to be thought out with a great deal of care.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I desire to ask a few questions of the Prime Minister in connection with this matter.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I add one sentence as to the duration of the measure. It is proposed that the duration of this measure will be for four years after the end of hostilities between Canada and Germany and also Japan; that is, four years from the end of the session that we may be in at the time that hostilities cease.
Department of Reconstruction


Richard Burpee Hanson: That last statement of the Prime Minister's is I think rather a vain hope. My experience in connection with government and departmental matters is that once we establish these bureaux they strive valiantly to live, and it is pretty difficult to extinguish them or extinguish a department. Other ministers have tried it in the past, and they have run up against a stone wall. However, bureaucracy was ever thus.
What I desire to say to the Prime Minister is this. I am left rather confused because in the earlier part of his remarks he stated, as I Interpreted his remarks, that this new minister vould have no administrative functions. To use the words of my colleague the leader of the opposition, it was largely consultative and directive. Now, I understand, that is not to be the case, but this department is to ask parliament for an appropriation for schemes of reconstruction to provide employment. Are these schemes to be carried out under the aegis of this proposed department, or are they to be carried under departments already established, such as public works and pensions and national health? I think we need some clarification of that point.
I wonder whether the Prime Minister heard the broadcast over the C.B.C. on Sunday morning. Perhaps he was at church. Air Marshal Bishop, V.C., made a speech in New York, I believe on Saturday night, to some military or veterans' organization.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: A United States branch of the Canadian Legion.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The New York branch of the Canadian Legion. He deprecated so much attention being paid to the post-war period and to blueprints for postwar reconstruction, when this war is not yet won. He advanced a theory which I have advanced in this chamber on many occasions, and which I reaffirm to-day. The primary and fundamental duty of parliament, the government, and of every one of us is to keep an eye on the ball, and to win the war before we start to revolutionize the world. I hope that hon. members will pause and consider the underlying theory which I am trying to state. As I look over the war fronts and visualize what may take place almost immediately, I say that this nation requires to concentrate its courage, its industry and its every thought upon what is about to happen in the summer of 1944. Anyone who thinks that the war is over is living in a fool's paradise. Anyone who believes that victory is in sight ought to have his head examined. The longest and the hardest pull on the part of the united nations is still ahead, and the people of Canada are being lulled to sleep by too much talk about
rVlr. Mackenzie Kine 1
post-war rehabilitation and reconstruction. I am all for post-war rehabilitation of the armed forces, but is it not our immediate duty as members of this house, and particularly is it not the duty of the government of the day-I am sure the Prime Minister will agree with this-to insist that the main and fundamental objective of parliament at this time is to concentrate on the winning of the war? I do not mean that we should obliterate from our minds all thoughts about the post-war period; of course we must think about it. But the setting up. of a ministry merely for the purpose of consultation, and without any administrative functions, if I correctly interpret the Prime Minister's statement, is not going to carry us very far. I would ask the Prime Minister to clarify this matter a little more, because, I confess, my mind has been left confused, and I think the mind of the country will be confused, as to just what the functions of this new ministry are to be. It will be established at considerable expense. We are to have a minister and all the paraphernalia and the bureaucracy which go with the minister, and the staff will grow-make no mistake about that. We are to have a parliamentary assistant, another fifth wheel of the coach, and the first thing we know we shall have a huge structure without any administrative functions. I believe the people of Canada are looking for something more than that. It seems to me that the formation of a ministry without administrative functions is premature. I leave that thought with the Prime Minister.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I answer my hon. friend at once. To-day the departments of government are carrying on different kinds of work, all of which will relate also to work in the future. The question which the administration had to ask itself in framing this legislation was, first of all, shall we make as much use 'as possible of existing departments, and seek in that way not only to avoid unnecessary waste and expense, but to get the benefit of the experience of expert administration, or shall we create a new department which will duplicate what is being done in other departments of government? I cannot think of any single branch of reconstruction which would of itself necessitate the creation of a new department of government. Viewed collectively, all branches of national work are, I think, one way or another included in the existing departments of government.


Richard Burpee Hanson: True.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend has mentioned public works; there are also mines and resources and trade and commerce;

20S9
Department of Reconstruction
and at the present time the Housing Act is being administered by the finance department. One might run through the entire list of departments. He would discover that somewhere in one or the other will be found a branch of government which could appropriately administer any conceivable reconstruction projects. But it must be equally obvious that to allow departments of government each separately and individually to make plans and carry them out without any form of consultation to effect the coordination of effort, or to prepare plans without first having a general scheme of reconstruction carefully thought out, and accepted, would be to ignore what will be exceedingly important in the period of reconstruction. Perhaps I might indicate the minister's functions by quoting from the clause of the bill which mentions his duties:
4.	The minister shall prepare, formulate and coordinate plans and projects for reconstruction, and, with the authorization of the governor in council, provide for the carrying out thereof.
5.	It shall be the duty of the minister:
(a)	to inform himself fully of the needs for new employment of the men and women in the armed forces and in industry and the opportunities that will be available to meet those needs as men and women are demobilized from the armed forces and as war production declines;
(b)	to coordinate the actions of other departments and agencies of the government of Canada for the purpose of ensuring that the transition from a wartime to a peacetime economy shall be effected as quickly and as smoothly as possible;
(c)	to formulate plans for industrial development and conversion, public works and improvements, housing and community planning, research and the conservation and development of natural resources, and with the authorization of the governor in council, to provide for carrying out such plans;
(d)	to correlate information relating to plans for reconstruction.
I cannot imagine that there will be any difference of view on the part of hon. members. first, as to the wisdom of having as much of the work of reconstruction carried out as may be possible, by departments already established, and second, as to the wisdom of having some agency which will be responsible for the proper co-ordination or integration of all reconstruction work to be carried on, and responsible to this House of Commons for what is being done in that way.
As to my hon. friend's other remark, he is quite right when he says that I feel very strongly, as he does, that all of us must keep our minds concentrated, that we cannot keep them too much, concentrated, on the war and on the necessity of winning the war. Very few people, I believe, appreciate how very heavy is the task that lies ahead before victory is achieved. I would be the last to ask
parliament to consider any measure at this stage if I felt that it was going to have the effect of taking the minds either of members of parliament or of the people away from the war effort as the first of all our national obligations. I realize, however, as hon. members will, that we owe everything to the men who are fighting at the front, and among our obligations one of the greatest, I think, is to give those men, in the fullest measure possible, the assurance that we are thinking of them while they are fighting our battles and that we are making provision for them when they return, which will help to ensure better conditions than they have hitherto known.
Nothing would more discourage the fighting forces of the country than the thought that this parliament did not have them and their future continually in mind. I appreciate the stress which my hon. friend lays upon the importance of not allowing discussions in this parliament even to assume an emphasis, with respect to post-war matters, which would cause anyone to believe that the war is going to be over soon; and that we can take it for granted that there is not a long and arduous road to be traversed before some of these projects can begin to be put into effect. But our duty, as I see it, is not to delay in the endeavour to make our plans as complete as possible, and to get under way whatever measures we can that will help to give that assurance to those who will be seeking above all else steady employment when they return to this country, and as well new employment, not only for those in the armed forces, but for workers in industry who, during the period of war, have lost or been transferred from their former fields of activity and will have to enter upon new occupations once we return to the days of peace.


Jean-François Pouliot: We must come to an understanding about this proposal. The hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) spoke very well about the soldiers and what is to be done for them. But they are not to be fed with words. Soldiers are realists. Once over the Columbia Broadcasting System network I heard a soldier who was returning from somewhere in the South sea islands making this statement: We are not interested at all in what we may have later on after the war; we want to know what the government is ready to do now for us. He was an American speaking to Americans.
We have heard a good deal about a new order. Will the foundations of the new order be the same as those of the old order? That
Department of Reconstruction

is one point. It is impossible to satisfy the minds, the legitimate desires, of those in the army by telling them of future happiness when there is nothing to give them when they come home right now. I shall have a good deal to say about the resolution concerning the new department of pensions. Now, sir, what is the idea of this department? It will not be an administrative department. The minister will be a kind of liaison officer between heads of departments. The Prime Minister said that this minister will be naturally a member of the cabinet who is familiar with his colleagues, who will speak to them about what they should do with regard to so-called reconstruction.
All the members of the cabinet meet in the council room. Why, therefore, should they need a liaison officer? Why should there be a minister acting as a liaison officer when he is on good terms already with all the ministers and may speak to them about reconstruction? I presume all ministers are on speaking terms. Therefore, why should they not speak to each other about their own problems?
My idea of the cabinet is that the ministers meet together to discuss their own problems and that they accept the decision of the majority of themselves. Why should there be a minister who is just a messenger of council, who goes to the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar) and says, "My dear colleague, why do you not do so-and-so for. the miners", and then goes to the genial Minister of Fisheries and says, "I have here a problem for you to consider in regard to the fishermen". And then take the farmers. No minister would speak to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) except the liaison minister, who would go to him and say, "My dear Jimmie, I think you should do so-and-so for the farmers; is it not a good thing for you to do for them?" And he will do that on the suggestion of experts, brain-trust men.
Have we not enough plans now? We are submerged by plans that come from every part of the country. There is not a board of trade, not a chamber of commerce, not a municipal council, not an organization or society in this country that is not planning something for reconstruction after the war. Is it possible to apply all these plans? A selection will have to be made and the selection should be made by the ministers in council, not by one man but by all of them together, subject to the majority of themselves. That is my idea of government.
Why should the government delegate its authority to one minister who will be spokesman, to speak to each one of them? That is the destruction of the principle of govern-

ment as it has been established in England, a principle which has functioned so well for so long a time. Of course, we have heralds who speak over the radio. I do not know whether they speak officially, but they speak over the radio and announce policy. They announce policy before we know it in the House of Commons.
My great fear is the fear of bureaucracy. As was said in the Quarterly Review of the university of Toronto by Professor MacGregor Dawson in the spring of 1941-he is a sensible man although he is in the university of Toronto-we are facing a crisis of authority. No one is ready to take responsibility for what is being done. It is the old story of the little boy who breaks the window. You ask him who did it and he says: "It was my little friend." "Who is that little friend?" He says: "He was passing by and he did not do it himself, but the stone was thrown by the neighbour of my little friend." You ask him: "W'ho was that neighbour?" He says he does not know. No one knew. It is like that. No one is responsible for anything. If we are to have new departments let us have departments where the ministers have authority to do something and where they will be responsible to the House of Commons. It is impossible now to get any information. How often have I asked the Prime Minister to give me some information about expenditures in each department? It is no better now than it was before although fine promises were made.
We are here to maintain at all costs the principle of responsible government. We are here to maintain that during war as well as in peace time, and there is no reason why that should not be done. I see my hon. friend the leader of the Canadian Commonwealth Federation across the way, who has visions and a mirage in mind for this country. When he sees someone suffering he says: "Here I am, I shall make you recover. I have a cure for you." When you ask him what that cure is, it is impossible for him to tell you.
The reason why I object to his policy is that he stated not so long ago that he would use the same people in the service that we have now to promote his own policy. I find that they are not good. I find that most of them should be kicked out. I said that to the hon. member for Parry Sound and the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard. I said: "The trouble with you, gentlemen, is that you are two great lawyers. The trouble with you is that you consider the matter as expert legal minds. You make such subtle distinctions! The thing for you to do is to buy a pair of lumberman's boots, take a fork and a

Department of Reconstruction
shovel and shovel those people out." That is the way I understand it. What can you do with bad tools? What could the leader of the C.C.F. group or any leader do with the tools that we have now? They come from universi-ities and they have no practical experience. They have those dreams, but they are far from being equal to Plato, the great Greek philosopher, who thought of an ideal state. What most of them do is to have a scheme, or plan, that will give them the opportunity to have two maids instead of one and change their old car for a brand Dew one. It is a scheme they turn to their own advantage because parliament has no control over bureaucracy. That is it.
What is the use of speaking of parliamentary rights and of the supreme control of parliament when we are treated like children? When we come here it is to impose taxation and approve the spending of money. To-day we have a resolution to constitute a new department. After the bill is passed and the department is constituted, the minister will be just as independent of parliament as any one of his colleagues. We shall have no return. We shall have no public accounts. We shall have no information, and when we ask for some information we shall be told it is too expensive to give it. That is it.
I shall tell the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, as well as the leaders of other groups that it is time to apply the scissors to bureaucracy. It is time to stop. It is time to think of the date when bureaucracy will be reduced at least by one-half and when we shall dispense with all the fine brains produced by the universities. Some years ago I complained of the teachings that were given especially at the university of Toronto by King Gordon and at Queen's university by another gentleman and at McGill university. What happened? Sir Edward Beattie did not say anything to the students at McGill, but he went to Queen's university and gave a calling-down to the students there. I asked him for a copy of his speech. He sent me others but he did not send me that one. Then what happened? It was the ambition of the key men of the C.C.F. to shape the minds of the university students, to shape them like their own. Then what happened? What happened is that business has taken over the control of universities. The young men who are now students in political economy and political science and like subjects are not used any more by private concerns for statistical work or private planning. They are sent here to the government to look after the interests of big finance. I denounce them now for that very purpose. I knew that most of the Canadian
universities are controlled by big finance. If I am told that the chancellor of Toronto university is the venerable Sir William Mulock I reply that it is easy for anyone to look at the board of governors to see that I do not exaggerate in any way when I speak of the role of high finance on the board there; not only on the board but also on the teaching staff and in the formation of students who come out of that university.
Now, sir, it is time to think deeply. We are here as private members, all of us. The members on the treasury benches as well as those on the opposition benches and back benches are here to discuss the problems of the future of this country. We wonder what will happen. Nothing will be decided by fine phrases or by eloquent speeches. We have to come down to facts. We must be realistic. We must realize that the first thing to do for this country is to cut down the dominion civil service to the minimum, to make a selection and then to have the courage to dispense with those who are useless. How is it that some people who do absolutely nothing in their own offices are kept here? They are kept here because the minister knows them and is afraid to receive complaints from those people if they are fired. In my view it will be a benefit to the country to dispense with a few men at the top and some others at the bottom in order to give the country a breathing spell.
Can we continue to institute new boards, new organizations, new departments? How would it be possible for a businessman to pay for all that? Where is the businessman who is not handicapped by taxes? He has to pay for social work; and1 if we have so much social legislation, it is precisely due to the increasing taxation. Before taxation was at such a height it was possible for private charity to do marvellous things. It was possible for private charity to help a large number of people that no government could provide for. With the burden of taxation ever increasing the Canadian people are becoming slaves in their own country. That is why the government is going after social legislation. I am not against the social happiness of the people. I am all for it. I remember the time when I asked the Prime Minister to help me to prepare statistics with regard to hours of work and minimum wages in the various cities of Canada. I did that before Tom Moore ever spoke of it. I did it before the C.C.F. party ever spoke of it in the House of Commons. I think it was in 1928; anyway, it was a long time ago. I did that with the help of the Prime Minister. I was rebuffed by Tom Moore and the trades and labour congress because I was not a labour man. I was not of the type of Dorothy
Department of Reconstruction

Thompson who makes a million dollars a year and belongs to the C.I.O. in the United States, I am not a hypocrite like that. I was doing that for the welfare of my own people.
What help have we had from the other groups in regard to the welfare of Canadian citizens? They are like Moses; they want to lead the Canadian people into the promised land, but the leader of the C.C.F. party must remember that Moses never got there. What is their suggestion in regard to reconstruction? How do they want to reconstruct this country? Should it be done, as Mr. Woodsworth said during the special session of 1939, by conscripting bank accounts? Is it to be done by preventing people from having any profits? In my view the Canadian people should be just as wealthy as they deserve to be. Every citizen should be entitled to a profit, to enable him to live decently. We must have private initiative. A man has a right to what he earns; a man has a right to save money in order that he may enjoy the comforts of life. A labouring man has as much right as a millionaire to the comforts of life, though he may not have so much money with which to get them. Every man must be enabled to bring up his children decently, to live well, to have all the clothing he and his family needs, and to enjoy at least the life of a decent citizen.
I think this department should be called the pigeon-hole department. It is not that I am against social reconstruction or against the welfare of the Canadian people. I see one of my hon. friends laughing; let me tell him that what I say now is what I have been thinking ever since I read his description of our future happiness. It is dangerous to lead people to expect more than it is possible, to give them. That is what creates communism and disrespect for parliamentary institutions. The situation is so bad that the committee to consider the rules of the house, which was presided over by Mr. Speaker and on which were at least two ministers, the Minister of Pensions and National Health and the Minister of Justice, stated that there was general criticism of parliament throughout this country. We have to think of the safeguarding of our national democratic institutions. A faux pas might have the most serious consequences, and before they go farther I hope the members of the cabinet will think seriously not of what I have said but of the facts I have presented. I am tired of playing the role of Cassandra in this house. I hope what I foresee never will come about, but we must visualize the worst and must act in such a way as not to disappoint the men who are fighting with the Canadian army and

who have every right to expect decent treatment from this country when they return, even before the war is over.
If this proposal goes through, someone will be appointed as minister of reconstruction. In that connection I should like to bring a certain matter to the attention of the Prime Minister, and this will conclude the remarks I have to make at the moment. The late Senator Dandurand described himself in the "Parliamentary Guide" as president of a bank, director of an insurance company, and so on. At the present time one of the Prime Minister's colleagues describes himself as director of the Great West Life company. I see no wrong in that as long as the fact is made public that a cabinet minister is a director of a company. Other ministers, however, have resigned their directorships of banks and other companies before entering the cabinet. I wonder which policy is right, to retain a directorship and make that fact public so that all may know it, or to resign that directorship. Then there are ministers who inform us only through British publications as to the directorships they hold. They form a third class. I ask the Prime Minister to tell me what is the policy of the government concerning ministers who are on the boards of banks, insurance companies, and so on.


Major James William Coldwell: I was hoping that we might discuss the appointment of the minister and the setting up of the department when we had the bill before us, because I think that would have facilitated the business of the house and would have given us an opportunity of seeing exactly what is contained in the bill and therefore of discussing the matter more intelligently. I am not going to say very much at this stage. While I agree that the war is not yet won and that we must make it our business to provide everything necessary in order to win it, nevertheless I regard it as imperative that at the same time we should lay the foundations of reconstruction as rapidly as possible. Indeed, throughout the war I have held, as I hold to-day, that the preparations for the prosecution of the war and the foundation of the reconstruction period ought to be considered indivisible.
This afternoon the Prime Minister stated the problem in a very few words. He drew to the attention of the house the fact that at some time we shall have to find something like two million jobs for those who to-day are engaged in war industry or who are serving in the various branches of the armed forces. I am quite in agreement that a minister of reconstruction shall be appointed, but I do think we need to do more than appoint a minister. I am not quite clear as to what

Department oj Reconstruction
will be the duties of this minister, nor shall I be clear about it, of course, until I see the bill. However, it does seem to me that it is not the coordination of the work of the established departments that is necessary but rather that we should be sure we comprehend both the resources we have and the possibilities of using them in the post-war period. It is all very well to say, as the hon. member for York-Sunbury did, "Well, we have to win the war. Meantime these other things may wait." The war is not yet won, but I suppose no problem is more in the minds of the young men and women who are in the armed forces than the problem of what is to become of them when the war ends. Yesterday on the train coming to Ottawa I was talking to two or three men who were sitting in the sleeper. I was not paying particular attention to a young man sitting on the opposite side of the aisle, but all of a sudden he chipped in. He heard us talking about the war and the possibilities of the post-war period. He was a young airman and he said, "Like millions of other boys I am thinking of what is going to happen to me when this war ends if I come back again." It is all very well to say that we have td win the war first, but we should make some adequate preparations so that when people are let out of war industry or return from war service they will not have to go in the bread lines and be put on relief or have to take all kinds of unproductive jobs. The people of Canada are expecting this government and this house to take these matters under consideration now and to be thoroughly prepared when the time comes.
No one will ever be able to make the excuse again that Canada cannot provide for her people. No one ever again will be able to say that there is no money to maintain the essentials of life and to provide a reasonable standard of living for everybody in this country. We have demonstrated in this war, even with the type of planning that has been done-it has been rather haphazard

what might be done in a peace-time period. The first task given to the minister of reconstruction should be that of making a thorough survey of all our resources, both human and material, the laying down of some plans to utilize our material and human resources and to absorb the labour of two million people when this war ends. I believe we can do this if we make up our minds that we will lay down, adopt and follow a far-reaching national plan for the conservation and development of the natural resources we have in this country. This does not mean that this
can be done without some attention being given to external problems of trade and so on, but I believe trade problems can be solved by coming to proper types of agreements with those who are willing to trade with us as we are willing to trade with them.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Much of the former has
been done already.


Major James William Coldwell: I have not seen very much of it. We are being told constantly that this kind of thing has been done, but I should like to see some real evidence of its having been done. I have just come back from the .west where I spent a few days. After leaving Ottawa and the other centres in this part of Canada and going out on the prairies I could not help noticing some of the farm homes that I saw. I found some conditions appalling. Of course, some are also appalling in some of our cities, but on the prairies I saw unpainted villages and tiny homes on the farms with very little in them. A few days ago I was in the home of a mother whose son had recently been taken prisoner of war. I saw a tidy, clean, humble home with very little in it, and I realized that while that mother had sacrificed a boy, this country had given her very little in the way of human and material comfort as compensation for the loss and anxiety that she has undergone. As I say, I should like to see a thorough survey made of the possibilities of this country, including rural rehabilitation. I notice the hon. member for Essex East looks rather worried or hurt when I say that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Not hurt. May I say
what is in my mind?


Major James William Coldwell: The hon. member can reply in a moment, if he does not mind. Let me say to the hon. member for Essex East that it is no use just having a blueprint unless we are prepared to carry it out.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I agree with that.


Major James William Coldwell: The hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) pretty well expressed the psychology that is abroad when he said this afternoon, "Why consider these matters now; why not leave things more or less to work themselves out?" I Suppose we are to leave things to so-called private enterprise. May I say again that in my opinion along those lines lies disaster. I have on my desk a quotation from a statement made by one of the great students of social and economic relationships. On May 24, 1943, Sir William Beveridge was interviewed in this city by one of the local newspapers and, on
Department oj Reconstruction

being asked whether he thought private enterprise could cope with the post-war problems, made this statement:
I am not at all sure that private enterprise can take the responsibility of both maintaining enterprise and showing a profit. It seems to me difficult, perhaps impossible, thus to serve two masters. I doubt if employment can be maintained without a very considerable proportion of public monopoly in the national economy.
He was then asked, "Don't you think private enterprise should be given a chance?" and he replied:
No, I don't. Not if it can't do the job. I want to take no chances on the maintenance of employment-it's far too important a matter. I would not entrust it blindly to private enterprise any more than private enterprise should be trusted to run a war.
I fear that that is what we are inclined to do as a country, to leave too much to what sometimes is called private enterprise. _
As I said, I did not rise to enter into a prolonged debate on the setting up of this department. I think it should be done, but from what I have heard this afternoon I do not think the functions of the department are sufficiently wide. I do not think they are sufficiently comprehensive. The hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) has referred to bureaucracy. I dislike bureaucracy and I believe that in the future we shall have to devise ways and means of making democracy work. Let me add that we have never been under a greater bureaucracy than the bureaucracy of big business, of private monopoly and of international cartels.


An hon. MEMBER:: And of the financial houses.


Thomas Miller Bell: And of the financial
monopoly. It seems to me that the time has come when we must devise democratic methods in order to control these great economic functions in the interests of the people. And it can be done. When the bill comes down I shall look it over carefully to see just what hope there is in it for the planning of the postwar period in the interests of those who have served in this war and for all those who will expect opportunities for an adequate livelihood when peace comes.


Mr. MacNICOL:: Mr. Chairman, I am going to support the resolution. In my opinion, next to the national defence departments, of which there are three, the munitions department and the finance department, the proposed reconstruction department will be the most important. I am one of those who firmly believe that next to the prosecution of the war the preparation for peace is the most important. In supporting any plans for the preparation for peace I do not intend for one moment to

neglect anything I can do to prosecute the war. For the last three years I have been advocating the doctrine of war first and the preparation for reconstruction second.
I believe, further, that this resolution is in line with what was sent from the reconstruction committee which was headed by the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Turgeon), who made an excellent chairman. I am sure that he and the other members of the committee, including myself, have done our best to search out from among the proposals that came before us those that would be the most effective in providing employment after the war. I cannot for a minute see why this department should not have been set up some time ago, as the reconstruction committee recommended a year ago, or at least during last session.
I remember very well what happened in 1918. I was in big business then. I quite agree that no one can say that the war is going to end this year, but on the other hand no one can say that it may not end this year. It may end as suddenly as it did in 1918, and suppose it did end this fall, are we ready? We certainly are not. We certainly have not anything ready that I know of, and if this new department can have something in shape and ready it will have done a good job. We should have many projects ready to send thousands and thousands of men to work upon as soon as the war ends, to provide employment while industry is retooling.
I know something about industry; I ought to. I do not for one minute endorse what the hon. member who has just sat down has said about industry. I am going to discuss that for a moment because I am getting tired of listening to that kind of talk. Anyone who has served in big industry for years should know something about it. The man who has not can have his own opinion, but his opinion does not influence mine one iota. Canada owes a great deal to big industry, for the honesty of purpose of big industry and for what it has done for this country. If industry had not given employment to hundreds of thousands of men and women before the war and during the war I should like to know what would have happened to the prosecution of the war. Neither will I endorse what my hon. friend said about private enterprise. I am in favour of private enterprise. I have seen too much waste and too much excessive costs through government conducting business that should have been conducted by private enterprise. But that is not what I rose to say.
People all over this country have been confused over where to send their recommendations on reconstruction, and perhaps the bill

Department oj Reconstruction
to be founded on this resolution will settle some of this confusion that I have found everywhere across Canada, and I have been over most of it. Boards of trade and municipal councils have asked me to whom they should send their reconstruction recommendations. They say that we have three or four committees working on reconstruction, the cabinet committee, the Doctor James committee, the Senate committee and the House of Commons committee on rehabilitation and reconstruction. If this new department will mean the concentration of recommendations and representations before one body, well and good. That will be better than it is to-day, and in saying that I am not casting reflections on any of the committees that have been set up.
Someone has said something about blueprints and specifications. There have to be blueprints and specifications; and if the new minister, whoever he may be, and this new department that is to be set up will take some little advice from the humble member for Davenport they will make many blueprints and many specifications, go into many details and have their plans and projects ready. I could give them a hundred projects myself, every one which is absolutely necessary and for which blueprints and details could and should be prepared now, so that the projects will be ready to start when the war ends. The blueprints and specifications could in the meantime be pigeon-holed after all the details have been worked out, so that when the war ends all that it would be necessary to do in order ta have this or that project started would be to call for tenders and get the men on the job. It would not be necessary to order production of the material in advance, for it would have to be ordered some time; and if everything is in readiness when the war ends, the new department could announce at once that so many million brick would be required for this project, so many thousands of tons of steel for that project, so many million feet of timber for the other project, and so on all down the line. I endorse the proposal, and if the department has not the necessary authority-and the hon. member for York-Sunbury seemed to doubt that it had the necessary authority-I hope that before the bill passes the house the Prime Minister will see to it that the department is given absolute authority to make all preparations necessary for providing men and women with jobs following the war.
I believe there will be about two million jobs required; if you do not make preparations, exactly the same thing may happen that happened after the last war, and there is not
a man or woman in this house who wants to see that occur again. When I say that, I am not blaming any previous government because they had no experience in after-the-war matters. But now we have had the experience of not being ready, and this government has seen what happened through not being ready. I endorse this attempt to get ready, so that when the men return from overseas there will be jobs for them, and jobs in the meantime for men who have already returned and for men who are thrown out of employment from industry. Some days ago I was in an industrial plant which employs several thousands of men and women. Ordinarily, that plant would not run twenty-four hours after the war is over, for the very good reason that it is making things that are wholly needed for the prosecution of the war. I know that some people say: Oh, you will have to keep these plants running, producing munitions and guns that probably will not be needed again for one hundred years, and the guns will be obsolete by that time. That, to me, is not sound economies. I would rather see this new department prepare to do something for Canada, by making plans and preparations for projects all over this country where men and women can be put to work. Many of these projects will be self-liquidating, and a great many of them should have been started years and years ago, projects which in the long run will not cost the country a dollar. When the department is set up I shall be glad to send it lists of projects which I have surveyed myself here and there across this dominion, because I am absolutely sincere in believing that all preparations should be made ahead of time and everything be ready when the war ends. Of course, it will be some time before the soldiers start to return after the war, but many of them have already returned. The hon. member for Temiscouata mentioned, and I had intended mentioning it myself, that many of those who have returned are not working, and if this new department can provide them with jobs and provide with jobs those who are let out from industry, that will be a start. What preparations are made for them? Every day men and women are being released from industries throughout this country. Where are they to be sent? The department should make plans to provide employment not only for those who are returning from overseas but for the great number who are engaged in making munitions of war.
I should like to ask a few questions. When the bill comes down I shall have much more to say. As I understood the Prime Minister, he intimated, although he may not have used these words, that there would be an effort by this department to invite new lines of
Department of Reconstruction

industry. Certainly a vast number should be introduced, for there is much opportunity for them in Canada. Perhaps this department will enable many industrial organizations now established on the other side of the water, and with a number of which I am acquainted, to set up their activities here for this market. I believe that, operating with the consent and assistance of other government bodies, this new department will find here a wide field of usefulness. Some person or some committee having the authority could make a survey of, say, a thousand and one new lines of industry for this country, many of which, if the proper surveys are made beforehand, could be installed in munition plants which, being single purpose plants, will likely close when the war ends, and for which, otherwise, no use might be found. If that is to be part of the work of the new ministry it will have my heartiest support. I am sure that thereby much employment will be provided.
I should like to know also whether this new reconstruction department will be empowered to dig into and set on foot the St. Lawrence deep waterways power project. If that programme, which is known to almost every hon. member as well as to most engineers, were comprised in the activities of the new department, there would be fifty thousand jobs to begin with. Further, the electricity produced by the deep waterway on the St. Lawrence river would provide hundreds of thousands of jobs in new industries. The international section of the St. Lawrence deep waterways alone can generate an additional million cheap horse-power for Ontario, and the Quebec section would allow for the production of another three million horse-power, apart from what will be produced in the United States. This means great numbers of additional jobs.
In my opinion the new department will have to be ready when the war ends to furnish employment for hundreds of thousands of people. I do not believe that the men who come back from this war will tolerate what their fathers had to put up with following the last war, and nobody in this chamber would want them to do so.
I should like to know whether the new department will have any power to associate itself with the vast transportation project which has received the endorsation of engineers and economists, namely the construction of the St. Lawrence deep waterways, which would open up a vast transportation route all the way from Fort William to the strait of Belle isle, a distance of two thousand miles, and, according to the best authorities, would add from three and one-half to five
rMr. MacNicol.]
cents to the value of every bushel of wheat produced in the west. We all know that anything which improves the lot of the western wheat grower will increase purchasing power throughout this country and provide thousands of jobs in industry. Will the new department have anything to do with the construction of the great lakes-St. Lawrence seaway?
One other question. Will the department have anything to do with the programme which, though I make not the slightest claim to its initiation, I strongly supported on February 3, of a giant irrigation project in the west? This would mean directly or indirectly the provision of another hundred thousand jobs. Will the department have anything to do with providing water for the cities of the plains? I have here numerous clippings from western papers in reference to the situation of some cities-Moose Jaw, for one-in respect of water supply. Will the new department be able to initiate a programme of damming the South Saskatchewan river, irrigating the land between Riverhurst and Regina, and providing water in abundance for Regina and Moose Jaw? I am not finding any fault with Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, which has done a fine job. This is not the time to digress and deal with its work, but on an appropriate occasion I shall compliment P.F.R.A. for the work it has done in the matter of dug-outs and small irrigation projects. This new department should be enabled to tell the P.F.R.A. administration to "go ahead and construct the ten thousand projects they have surveyed and approved but which they cannot carry out for lack of money." There, again, would be thousands of jobs. Will the new department be permitted to throw its weight behind projects to rehabilitate the west by providing water where water should be provided? If so, there is another important programme in which it can engage.
I shall not take up the time of the committee to mention other projects, though when the bill comes down I may have more to say along that line. I agree with the Prime Minister that all the work cannot be done in one year or in two years. A large programme must be laid out, perhaps for a period of ten years, and provision must be made for men who will need positions during the after-the-war interim. It will be remembered that after the last war, when the factories were retooled and had caught up with the demand for consumer goods, another big depression came.
If the Prime Minister and the government have the vision which I have of what a department like this can do there will not be an unemployed man or woman in Canada.

Department of Reconstruction
Employment will be available for everybody at good wages. Contracts could be let to provide everybody with jobs. There should not be an unemployed man or woman in a country like ours, filled to overflowing with resources. No country in the world has the resources which Canada has, but access is denied to many of them because of lack of transportation. I believe the Prime Minister mentioned roads. There is room for vast development in that direction. Will the new department have to do with providing the facilities by which these vast resources can be reached?
Further, what cooperation will it have with the provincial governments and the municipal authorities? Apart from the very large projects which will be purely federal government business, will ordinary works be constructed by the provincial governments and the municipalities under the direction of the new ministry? Will the ordinary works, municipal and provincial, be constructed by the municipalities and the provincial governments under the direction of the new ministry, or what will be the association of the new ministry with the provincial governments and the municipalities? I presume it would not really have any association with the municipalities but it could at once do something of vital importance. It could advise the provincial governments and, through them, the municipalities how much money they can have.
If the chairman of the reconstruction committee says a word, as he may, he will tell the committee what I will tell it now, that delegations that came before the house reconstruction committee asked this question:	How
much money are we going to be allowed, and where is the money coming from?
I would like to have the Prime Minister amplify his remarks in that regard. Where is the money to come from? What is the programme for providing the money, or advising the provinces and the municipalities as to how much money they can have? We all read daily of the various provinces setting up reconstruction committees and some have already gone so far as to say that they will put the matter under a minister. They will, therefore, wish to know immediately the programme in reference to finances for the provincial reconstruction departments.
I feel that if the government is sincere-and I have no reason to suggest that it is not; I should not like to suggest such a thing-then, next to the prosecution of the war, we have here the biggest thing it can do, namely, to make preparations to provide employment for the glorious sons of Canada who have demonstrated on fields throughout the world that no soldiers anywhere can surpass them in valour, 100-132
or all equal them. That is about all I have to say. When the bill comes before us I shall go farther in reference to some of these items, but in the meantime I should like to have answers to some of these questions.


John Horne Blackmore: There are two matters which will have to be taken care of in connection with post-war rehabilitation. I do not know who is looking into these matters, but the first question to be answered is this: Where is the money to come from to do all the things which it is proposed shall be done? You can pretty well gather together a committee of fourteen-year-old boys from all parts of Canada and they will tell you what should be done. They would know the roads that need to be built, the irrigation projects that should be constructed, the forests that have to be planted, and all the other things which it is necessary for us to do in order to rehabilitate the country. Similarly, there would not be a combination of eleven-year-old boys who would not know that it is necessary to provide jobs for all the people who come back. What is needed, however, is intelligence in high places to tell the people where the money will come from to pay for all these things, and until that question is answered all talk about reconstruction and rehabilitation is, to use the Prime Minister's favourite phrase, idle and futile.
The second question is this: Where are you going to find markets in which to sell the goods that will be produced? In other words, how do you propose to distribute the production which the country is capable of producing? The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) is fond of telling us how private enterprise has failed. Private enterprise, so far as I have been able to discover in the moderate amount of study that I have given the matter, has nevet failed when it could obtain markets for its goods. A private coal mine, granted plenty of markets, will provide all the jobs that a coal mine can be expected to provide, just as many jobs as ever a government could provide if it owned the coal mine. Then how it is that people fancy that government ownership of industry would provide jobs where private ownership fails to provide them, granted the same market conditions, I simply cannot see.
Certain it is that in this country there must be provided a method of distribution. Distribution means money once more. Not only must money be found for the construction of great irrigation projects and the like, but it must be found to provide purchasing power in the hands of the people to enable them to consume the goods which industry stands ready to produce. I submit, therefore, that until

Department of Reconstruction

the Prime Minister explains where the money can be found for these two purposes, he is simply wasting his own time and the time of the house and the country in talking about reconstruction and rehabilitation. If he pretends that the mere appointment of a ministry of reconstruction and rehabilitation will solve the problem, then I am very much afraid that one would have to apply to him a harsher word than I should care to use. I am not questioning the need of a department or a minister to take care of the manifold jobs which are required; but I am saying that until the two main requisites are provided for, this is mere shadow-boxing. It is mere pretence.
I shall say one more thing before I resume my seat and it is this. When the money is being provided, the money must be provided without additional taxation and without additional debt; for we have reached the point now at which it is exceedingly dangerous to add a dollar to the debt of the country, and we have also reached the point at which it is exceedingly dangerous to add a dollar to our tax structure. Hon. members might just as well face the facts. If the money which I have referred to in the earlier sentences of my remarks cannot be found without additional debt and additional taxation, then I contend that what this House of Commons needs to do, what the government needs to do, is to appoint a committee to find out where the money can be got without additional debt or taxation. If we knew where the money could be got we would have very little trouble in taking care of post-war rehabilitation and reconstruction.
I propose to support the Prime Minister's proposal to appoint a minister and build up a department, but I say positively that unless the difficulties to which I have referred are taken care of, I can see quite clearly that the whole thing is idle and futile.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: I want to make one or two comments on this resolution, and I would .call the' Prime Minister's attention to the words in the latter part of it, to provide for the employment of officers, clerks and servants necessary for the proper conduct of the department. There are strong feelings throughout the country about the present set-up of government departments, such as the wartime prices and trade board and others, the army of controllers and deputy controllers and assistants, and the office accommodation and thousands of telephones that must be provided.
Let me take a minute or two to direct the attention of the committee to the type of situation which is developing in connection with these top-heavy departments. I think the

country is beginning to wonder when there is to be a curtailment in some of the branches of the service that have outlived their usefulness and at the present time are tryipg to justify their existence. How soon will there be a curtailment in these activities?
I wish to give one or two illustrations and then I shall postpone any further remarks I have to make to a later stage when the bill is introduced. I desire to direct the attention of the Department of National Defence for Air to a development that is going on in connection with the wartime prices and trade board and other groups that are, I repeat, top-heavy in personnel. I am in total agreement with private enterprise. I shall give one illustration of private enterprise that looked after the needs of elementary schools and the like during the past four years of warfare. Recently what do we find? We find that the Department of National Defence for Air formerly called upon private enterprise to furnish coal necessary for the running of elementary schools. They are now proceeding to buy their own coal and asking private enterprise to-become cartage agents only for the distribution of these materials. If the Prime Minister or any other department wants to know the facts I am prepared to give them.
I wish to say to the Minister of National Defence that nobody in this country ever heard of that department buying the coal direct as necessary to heat an armoury. Dealers are now being asked to tender on the cartage only, the coal to be bought here in Ottawa by controllers. Before we start setting up machinery to provide for the employment of officers, clerks and servants necessary for the conduct of a new department, we had better look well to the present set-up to see when we are to give the Canadian people evidence that there is some curtailment of unnecessary expenditures being made. I just wish to leave that thought with the Prime Minister. I am prepared to give him evidence of the facts that I have stated. It is high time that somebody in these departments stepped in and, as the hon. member for Temiscouata said, used the scissors, and used them liberally. The time has arrived when there must be a reduction in this type of thing.
In conclusion, may I say this in connection with a later resolution dealing with social welfare. I did not hear the Prime Minister say anything about holding that up until after the dominion-provincial conference. He referred to other delays which may be necessary. These are the kinds of things that are upsetting the people to-day. The sixth victory loan is about to be launched, and when you look around you hear some of the wartime-

Department oj Reconstruction
prices and trade board personnel referred to in the municipalities as derelicts. It is about time we used the paring knife on some of the present departments that should have long since ceased to exist, since they have served the purpose for which they were appointed.


Gordon Graydon: further criticism after we have seen the bill itself and have had an opportunity of examining its proposals.


Brooke Claxton: It is evident from the actions of the government, as well as from the speech from the throne, that the winning of the war remains the first of all objectives. It is equally clear that the second objective of the government is the institution of measures to provide' full employment after the war. That point is dealt with in the speech from the throne in these words:
In the opinion of my ministers plans for the establishment of a national minimum of social security and human welfare should be advanced as rapidly as possible. Such a national minimum contemplates useful employment for all who are willing to work. . . .
It is in order to implement thjs statement that the resolution, and the bill which will be based upon it, are brought before the house. Several questions have been asked about the role which will be occupied by the minister in charge of the proposed department. From what the Prime Minister has said it is obvious that the minister will have to coordinate the plans of other departments. He will have to work through other agencies, if there are any other agencies; he will have to see that a particular plan is carried out by an appropriate agency, governmental or otherwise; he will have to cooperate with provincial and municipal governments, and if no other way is found to carry out a task he must be ready to do it himself. The powers which were read by the Prime Minister provide for that being done.
It should not be thought that the new department and the new minister start from scratch. As hon. members know, a great deal of work has been done in this connection by parliamentary committees, by interdepartmental committees and by the advisory committee on reconstruction and all its subcommittees, the reports of which have been tabled in the house. All that work has been done and will be available to the new minister when he is appointed. From that starting point he can go forward.


Gordon Graydon: Is it to be a new minister?


Brooke Claxton: It is to be a new minister of reconstruction, though not necessarily a new minister.


Gordon Graydon: That is as clear as the Prime Minister's explanation of his position.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: An old minister with a new name.


Brooke Claxton: The leader of the opposition knows very well that we are debating a resolution preceding the introduction of a bill

to set up a new department, over which there will be a new minister who will be the first minister of reconstruction. That should be clear enough for him.
In conclusion, may I say that during the war the people of Canada have become conscious of their resources to a degree they have never known before. We now see something of what the people of Canada can do. We have seen an enormous increase in our industrial capacity and in the skills of our people; and I think most Canadians have faith that these resources and skills can be put to use after the war is over. Useful jobs can be provided for all Canadians wiling to work, and that will be the object of this new department.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like to express my appreciation of the attitude of hon. members toward the resolution which is before the committee, and to thank them for the support they have given the principle of the establishment of a new department of government specially concerned with reconstruction. My old friend the hon. member for Davenport has asked me to answer one or two questions. I think they help to elucidate the significance of the work of the minister of the department of reconstruction. The hon. member asked whether the department would be concerned with seeking to have new industries developed in Canada, with furthering the possible development of the St. Lawrence waterway, with the matter of irrigation _ in the west, and projects of the kind. These questions serve to illustrate exactly what I have said, that all matters which relate to the development of resources, of industry and the like will be part of the work of reconstruction. It will be a part of the duty of the minister of reconstruction to seek to gather from his colleagues of the other departments information as to the projects which they feel should be developed in the interests of the country. He will bring such matters before the cabinet, together with his recommendations, after consultation with the other ministers as to whether or not they should be proceeded with. All the subjects mentioned by my hon. friend would in my opinion be among those which, at some time, would find a place somewhere in a general plan of reconstruction. Then I was asked as to the possibility of providing roads. That question illustrates another phase of the work of the minister. That is, he is not merely to be concerned with matters exclusively within the jurisdiction of the federal government but by conference with the provincial governments, and through cooperation with

Department of Veterans' Affairs
them, work out means whereby plans of theirs might come to be associated or coordinated with plans the dominion government might have under way. Cooperation with provincial governments generally would be part of the work of a minister who would seek to coordinate matters as a whole.
Then my hon. friend the leader of the social credit party asked where the money was to come from, and said that when the time came to administer the act there would have to be intelligence in high places. I will not say anything about where I think the most intelligence will be found in the matter of finding the means essential to carry out a reconstruction programme, but my intelligence would cause me to hesitate somewhat in accepting the proposals that are made by his party to carry on government, as he says, without increasing debt or taxation. I do not think anyone could undertake sincerely to carry on government to-day without debt or without taxation. I think I added the word "increasing." If I am not mistaken my hon. friend's original statement was, "Where is the money coming from? We could have it, but without debt or without taxation." I cannot see that it is going to be possible to do any work of government without having some taxation or incurring some debt.
My purpose in speaking in answer to my hon. friend was, however, to point out that if [DOT] it has been possible in this time of war for this country to raise the enormous sums which have been raised to help pay the cost of the war, running into billions of dollars, if it has been possible to raise at least half of the total cost of the war at the time of the war itself, it should be a very much easier task for the government to raise the money that will be necessary for the purpose of reconstruction. It should be easier for this reason. The money we are raising to-day is being raised unfortunately for the purposes of destruction of human life and property, and this on a colossal scale. The money that we will have to raise for purposes of reconstruction will be money that will be used for purposes of construction, used to further increase all commodities in order to satisfy human wants. Once a human want is satisfied, it seems to be the case that new wants are thereby created which will also have to be satisfied. I think it will be possible to satisfy many wants by maximum production of useful and usable commodities. It should not be difficult to obtain the money, in other words the effective demand, which will be essential, and at the same time I would hope to reduce taxation and also debt.
Just a last word to my hon. friend the leader of the opposition who has referred to the minister of this new department as a straw
boss. I prefer the term which has been used in the British parliament in reference to Lord Woolton, who has been referred to as the coach of the team. If my hon. friend ever comes to have any experience with government I think he will come more and more to realize that there should be no bosses, but that "whosoever will be chiefest shall be servant of all."
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Mackenzie King thereupon moved for leave to introduce bill No. 82, to establish a Department of Reconstruction.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock. VETERANS' AFFAIRS



ESTABLISHMENT OF DEPARTMENT TO DEAL WITH THE CARE, TREATMENT, TRAINING OR REESTABLISHMENT OF MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to provide for a Department of Veterans' Affairs to replace in part the Department of Pensions and National Heajth and to assume the management and control of and to consolidate in such department all matters not by law assigned to any other department relating to the care, treatment, training or reestablishment of members and former members of the armed forces and other persons and all such other matters as may from time to time be assigned; and to provide further for the appointment of such officers, clerks and employees as are necessary for the proper and efficient administration of the act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Bradette in the chair.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Chairman, hon. members will, I believe, agree that having regard to the experience we have had since the last war in dealing with veterans' affairs and realizing what the war veterans' problems are likely to be after the conclusion of the present war, the time has come when there should be established in Canada a department of veterans' affairs which will have immediate supervision, control and direction over matters of concern to the war veterans. The parliament of Canada, in recognizing an obligation of this kind, will again be giving to our armed forces an assurance that this parliament at this time has very much in mind these matters which will be of

Department of Veterans' Affairs
the deepest concern to them and that parliament is anxious to make the fullest provision for all matters that are likely to arise which may have a bearing upon their interests through the period that is to follow at the conclusion of this terrible war.
My colleague the Minister of Pensions and National Health has, as hon. gentlemen know, had more to do than any other member of the government with the administration of veterans' affairs during the last few years. He himself some time ago proposed the establishment of a department of veterans' affairs, and has had much to do with the preparation of the bill which is to be based on this resolution. I would ask the committee if before beginning to discuss the resolution at any length they would permit my colleague to make a statement on the resolution which will, I am sure, help to clarify discussion.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Mr. Chairman, following the remarks of my right hon. leader, I believe it will be recalled that when we had a select co'mmittee of this house studying the question of land settlement in 1942, in giving evidence on June 30 of that year I suggested that it might be appropriate to set up in Canada a department of soldiers' or veterans' affairs. That suggestion received, I think, universal commendation, not only from veterans' organizations across Canada but from every political party represented in this house. It is not necessary at this stage to enter upon any prolonged discussion of the adequacy or inadequacy of the preparations made for the rehabilitation of those who are at present serving Canada in the various armed forces. There will, of course, be other occasions when ample opportunity will be given for such discussion. This resolution is merely to set up a new ministry, and possibly it might be of interest to recall for a moment or two the various changes that were made by parliament in regard to meeting the problems of the last war and of this war.
Early in 1918 we had formed in Canada the Department of Soldiers' Civil Reestablishment, with two branches, the first known as the invalided soldiers' commission and dealing with hospitals, sanatoria and other services, and the second continuing the board of pension commissions already in existence, and reporting to the privy council through the Minister of Soldiers' Civil Reestablishment.
After the war, as hon, members are aware, the hospitals which were under the control of members of the Royal Canadian Army Medical Corps became civilian hospitals, and in 1920 this parliament gave statutory authority to pension regulations which were passed during the

great war. At the same time in 1920 pensions arising out of the Northwest rebellion and the South African war were brought into line, as regards the scale, with the great war pensions, and questions in regard to pensions for militia men in training were adjusted in this house in 1921.	,
The Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment was responsible for many services in connection with the placement of discharged men in civil life with one definite exception, that of land settlement, which was placed under the Minister of the Interior. The measure to be based upon this resolution will place both the Veterans' Land Act and the other soldier settlement system under the Department of Veterans' Affairs. That was one of the recommendations, hon. gentlemen will recall, that was made to this house by the same select committee which studied the question of land settlement and which was responsible for the amendments to the Veterans' Land Act adopted by the house at that time.


Gordon Graydon: The present Department of Pensions and National Health passes out of existence with the setting up of these two new departments?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Consequent upon the passing of this measure, part I of the act of 1928 setting up the Department of Pensions and National Health will be repealed. Part 1 of that act deals with soldiers' affairs, hospitals, pensions, treatment, rehabilitation and the like. That part of the act will be repealed and the new measure based upon this resolution will be substituted therefor.


Gordon Graydon: Why was the word "pensions" left out of the wording of this resolution? That was one of the reasons why I asked my question.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is something I was not really aware of. The resolution was carefully considered and the measure will certainly deal with all aspects of pensions and all aspects of treatment and of rehabilitation. The changes are more necessary now than ever because of the expansion of hospital work during the present war and the development of pensions. Already the number of pensions is becoming substantially large. It is due also to the scope and the sweep of rehabilitation measures which this house has dealt with from time to time, mostly in select committees.


Gordon Graydon: I am sorry to interrupt, but the minister's answer to my question with respect to the passing out of existence of the present Department of Pensions and National

Department of Veterans' Affairs
Health was not very clear to me, particularly his reference to part I and part II of the act. I should like to have this made clear: when these two new departments, that of veterans' affairs and that of social welfare, are finally constituted, will there still be the Department of Pensions and National Health?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No. But this particular measure deals only with part I of the act of 1928 which is entitled, "An Act respecting the Department of Pensions and National Health." Part I confines itself to peculiarly soldier problems; and Part II may be merged in any social welfare legislation which may subsequently be brought down in this house. Therefore, unless the two bills would be enacted concurrently it might be necessary to enact this present measure by proclamation. So that the part of the pensions and national health measure dealing with national health would remain as such unless the house were ready to deal with social welfare legislation at the same time as we deal with and assent to this legislation.
The department will deal, as I said, with pensions, demobilization, medical care, vocational guidance and training, the rehabilitation of our men in civil life, the War Veterans' Allowance Act, and allowances to non-pen-sioned widows, and will also take over the Veterans' Land Act, the Soldier Settlement Act and such other measures as may be referred to it from time to time, the idea being that all measures affecting generally the welfare and rehabilitation into civil life of the members of our forces will be embraced within the ambit of the measure which will follow upon the resolution which is now before the committee. I believe that if hon. members will compare the sections of the new bill with the sections of part I of the Department of Pensions and National Health Act they will find that many sections are the same. Some have been modified to a slight extent, and some have been completely recast as a result of the changes which have taken place since 1928.
That is, as succinctly as I can make it, an explanation of the structure of the legislation; and I hope that, just as all the veterans' organizations through Canada have endorsed the principle of this bill, every hon. member will give it his support.


Mr. REID:: I rather gathered from the
minister's remarks that the old Soldier Settlement Act will be included in the provisions of the new bill, and that the Veterans' Land Act will remain under the minister.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I beg pardon; evidently I did not make myself clear. Both these land settlement bills will be under the minister of veterans' affairs.


Gordon Graydon: I have no desire to enter to-night upon a lengthy discussion of soldier re-establishment or rehabilitation, because an opportunity to do so will be presented on other occasions, particularly when the second reading of the bill takes place, and during the committee stage. There are, however, one or two matters of sufficient importance to be raised at this preliminary stage.
I was interested in the minister's explanation of the manner in which two departments will replace the present Department of Pensions and National Health. Under the word^ ing of the resolution it was not clear to -me that this did include the Pension act and the present Department of Pensions and National Health, although I recognize that the term used, namely re-establishment of members and former members of the armed forces, may cover it in a general way. I was about to raise objection, were two departments to be added to the present departmental set-up.
During the debate which was concluded just before the dinner recess to-day, it appeared that the resolution which forms a basis for a new department provides that it shall take the place of a department which would normally pass out of existence with the w-ar, the reconstruction department then taking its place. I look with some jealousy upon increases in departments such as might be envisaged by changes of this kind. We now have nineteen cabinet ministers if we include, besides the Prime Minister, the leader of the Senate, and also seven parliamentary assistants. We are now to lose one department, although, to judge from the interest which the present Minister of Pensions and National Health takes in this legislation, and the pleased way in which, in collaboration with the Prime Minister, he helped to introduce the measure, it would not appear that we are likely to lose the minister, at least until the appeal to the people comes. In any event we are adding another department to the government, and so continuing to encroach markedly upon the private membership of the government forces. I presume that this process meets with considerable approval on the government benches, but from the point of view of economy and general organization so far as the ministry is concerned, I regard this as a good time to caution the government not to set up too many departments. Some holders of existing portfolios cannot be said to be overworked. Indeed, there is not enough work for them to do; their jobs could be doubled up. I say that plainly and frankly, without making any reflection upon any minister. It comes down to this, that there should be a reorganization, of the cabinet to take care of this situation properly. I raised the question once before, because we have
Department of Veterans' Affairs

voted from time to time increases in tlie number of junior cabinet positions which brought them to the number of seven, and now will increase them to eight. I think the Prime Minister should conduct a reorganization of cabinet positions. The duties involved in some of these posts are hardly more than formal. One recognizes that this condition may change in peace time, but we are now making provision for the perpetuation of some jobs which started in the war era, and carrying on at the same time the peace-time cabinet positions. I protest, therefore, against the appointment of additional cabinet ministers so far as this government goes. I would not object to a rearrangement of cabinet posts, but there is no justification or excuse for adding to the number of cabinet ministers and parliamentary assistants that we already have, in view of the fact that a good deal more work could be added to some of the existing portfolios.
I see clearly, and it seems to me a move in the right direction, that there should be a department devoted especially and particularly to veterans' affairs. I have always had due sympathy for the Minister of Pensions and National Health, though I have never felt that he needs very much. At one time in the course of certain remarks I was making he suggested that he needed a parliamentary assistant, but that is one of the luxuries which every minister feels that he should have. I have some sympathy for him, not because I have ever thought that he was overloaded with work in the two portfolios but rather because his special line seemed to be that of veterans' affairs rather than looking after the medical interests of government enterprises. When he was being examined in committee from time to time with regard to his estimates I always felt that while he was able to reflect fairly well the views of his departmental heads, there was at the same time need for a separation of these1 two departments, that of health and that of pensions, as previously constituted. That becomes more particularly necessary now inview of the fact that under the old health department there will be jurisdiction with regard to the administration- of the various measures which will be introduced in connection with social security legislation which it is hoped the government will implement. That is a matter, however, which can be discussed afterwards.
In the meantime, perhaps one ought to say a word with respect to veterans' affairs. In this connection may I say seriously that in a large measure the future of Canada will depend upon how well the department of veterans' affairs handles the requirements and
fMr. Graydon.]
the needs of those who come back to take their place in the civilian activities of the country.
After this war we cannot afford to have our veterans complaining that the dominion had not offered them the kind of practical gratitude, if you like to put it that way, which is so essential if there is to be a contented population coming back from overseas service. The men who are serving have never asked for any concessions from government; all they have asked for is a decent opportunity, a fair chance to make a living, without being penalized as a result of their service in more dangerous fields of activity. I shall deal in greater detail with this aspect of the subject on another occasion, but I think the government should take into consideration changing the approach of the department to the applications or the claims for pensions and other considerations which may be brought forward by the men in the armed forces after this war. Instead of the applicant for a pension having to prove certain things, going to considerable trouble in having his claim substantiated, I suggest that after the war we ought as a nation to make sure that whatever is coming to the men of the armed forces who have served this country will be coming to them with the least possible effort or expense or trouble on their part.
I wish to leave this thought with the minister, having in view the time when we come to solve the problems of pensions after this war, if he is then in charge of the department. Let him consider this point. When a man 'is accepted into the armed services of Canada in accordance with the physical and medical standards that are set; when he is accepted by the army, the navy or the air force, then whatever may happen thereafter, during his service, he should not have to prove that it was attributable to his war service. That should follow automatically. I hope that when the new set-up is made and a new department of veterans' affairs is established there will be a complete reversal of the old idea, according to which a man coming back as a veteran from active service had to prove that his disability was attributable to service. Instead of that, the government must assume from now on that whatever happens, resulting in a diminution in the man's health, is actually attributable to his service. That, I submit, must be the assumption, and the onus of proof must be on the government rather than on the man himself. He should not be called upon to prove his case in that respect.
I trust that the whole attitude of the government and of the department will be entirely

Department oj Veterans Affairs
changed, that there will be a new approach and that all the old cobwebs will be swept away, because this is a new war, a new era, and we are dealing witlr different people. Let us be guided by the experience of the past and not repeat the mistakes that, we have made in the past.
Before concluding I should like to make a suggestion to the minister. It might properly be made at another time but I bring it up now because of the urgency of the matter. I have had occasion before to bring this matter to the attention of the government and I repeat it now. Some things that affect the men in the armed services may be regarded by some people as little things. I deprecate the idea that what to us or to some people may seem little things, but which mean a great deal to the men themselves, should be in any, way minimized. I do not suggest that the, government is minimizing any of the matters affecting the soldiers and I simply want to warn them against such a tendency.
If there are little things which the men in the services require and which they feel are big things, then in my opinion that should be taken as the yardstick for us to use and we should treat them as big things from the point of view of the nation. These things may not be very significant to some people and yet may be of vast consequence to many members of the armed forces who are being discharged.
Let me mention briefly now and in a sketchy way, because I do not want to prolong the debate, one matter which I regard as quite important. I am bringing it up at this early stage not because I am anxious to criticize the government but because I wish to bring pressure to bear to get them to change the present regulations. If the minister will give some consideration to the matter I shall be happy because I do not want to be in the position of having to criticize the government farther in this regard.
I refer to what I think has been the inadequate provision for clothing allowance for the men who have been discharged. I know the question has been brought up before and I bring it up again to-night because I want to give it the sort of setting which will emphasize its importance. I am not saying this by way of criticism, because I can find plenty of other things to criticize the government about, but so far as clothing allowance is concerned I should like the government to change the present regulations even before the bill is brought in for second reading.
As the committee knows, there was at one time an allowance of 835 for clothing for discharged men-a pitifully small amount. Then,
of course, the government, seeing that there had to be an additional amount, made an increase, not to an adequate figure but to the sum of 865 for the non-commissioned officers and for the men. I do not wish to do more than say to the goverment that I believe that double the amount of $65 is perhaps still inadequate with which , to send a man out into the world. I believe the government will recognize that fact. It is not right to send our men who have had to fight, into the world with an amount inadequate to supply clothing-because they are being sent out to secure jobs. If they are to be rehabilitated and reestablished, then in all fairness they should be at least comfortably and well dressed.
In conclusion, may I say that in making a. survey of the various items which go to make up the outfit of a soldier who would be entering civilian life, an outfit which would include a suit, an overcoat and various other items of wearing apparel, I find that the amount for the ordinary person would amount to well over 8200, perhaps to $213. Then, for a summer outfit, without having regard to clothing for any other season of the year, the cost would be about $107. For winter attire alone, the cost would be about $121.60. I realize that prices may change, but I wish to leave this one thought in the mind of the government, namely that the amount of $65 is inadequate for our men who are coming out of the services. I would ask the government to make an investigation, as I have done. Find out what it costs to buy a decent suit of clothes, and these other things which are required. If the government finds that $65 is sufficient, then my objection vanishes. But I may say this, that I believe it will find that double $65 is little enough to take care of the ordinary requirements of the ordinary man who will come out of the army and compete once again in civilian life.
I make this sincere and honest appeal to the minister, because I believe it would be in the government's interests, in the interests of the nation and the interests of parliament if he would accede to the request I have made.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My hon. friend knows that is the responsibility of the Department of National Defence- although, of course, it is a government responsibility.


Gordon Graydon: Yes, it is the government's responsibility, and since it comes under veterans' affairs I thought this wTas perhaps the time when I should discuss it. In this way it will come to the ears of the government which, in any event, has the responsibility.

Department oj Veterans' Affairs


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is one matter to which my hon. friend referred upon which I believe hon. members will expect me to comment. I refer to his statement that the creation of this new ministry may be adding to the total number of departments of government.
May I say to him, to make the position clear, that when war' came on, and as it has progressed, it was found necessary to increase the number of departments of government. There was at the outbreak of war one Department of National Defence. For some little time we continued with the single department; but it was found necessary to expand, and to create a separate department which would have to do with air defence-National Defence for Air. Then there was a necessary further expansion in the creation of a separate Department of National Defence for Naval Services. As the war continued, it became necessary to create a Department of Munitions and Supply.
All of this was anticipated when the war began. It was not possible at the outset to see what departments might have to be added; but that some would necessarily be added was self-evident. However, at the time of the expansion of departments I made it quite clear that when the war was over, there would necessarily be a reorganization of government, either by the present government or by a government which might succeed it, and that undoubtedly at that time there would be contractions in the number of departments-just as there were expansions at the beginning of the war.	.
I cannot say how soon any of these newly-created departments may pass out of existence. But I should not like to wait until that moment before anticipating the new departments which will be absolutely essential if we are to deal adequately with the problems which will present themselves in the period of transition from war to peace. For example, as my hon. friend has pointed out, the department which was dealt with this afternoon is essentially a new department. But it does not increase the size of the ministry. The present department we are discussing does not mean an additional minister.


Gordon Graydon: May I say to the Prime Minister it may mean an additional minister, in the light of the new social welfare ministry, which is now to be appointed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend means that there will have to be a new ministry for social welfare. But he will see that if the department of social welfare is to be concerned with post-war problems, by that time possibly there will no longer be the neces-

sity for the Department of National War Services. Therefore the establishment of a new department would not mean an increase in the number of ministries. [DOT]
May I point out that in other respects this ministry has not any departments of government which did not exist prior to the time that it took office. We continued with the departments which were found necessary under previous administrations, and which have been found necessary for a great many years past. What I would like my hon. friend to do, if he thinks that we should get rid of certain departments of government, is to tell us which of these departments he thinks are superfluous.
First, in the ministry are my own department, which-


Gordon Graydon: Is my right hon. friend asking which ministers I think are superfluous -or ministries?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Which departments; I would not be as personal as that, nor do I think my hon. friend wTould expect me to be.


Gordon Graydon: I would not think so.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: And I should
think he would be polite enough not to ask anything of the kind.
However, the departments which for years past this country has found necessary are the Department of Mines and Resources; the Department of Public Works-which, by the way was joined with the Department of Transport, at the beginning of the war. The two were brought together because we thought we could effect an economy in that way during the war-time period.


Gordon Graydon: Does my right hon. friend say that the Department of Public Works and the Department of Transport had been amalgamated?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: They were for a time. As the war developed and the work of transport and of public works became increasingly important, we had to separate them. Then, there is the Department of Pensions and National Health, with which we are now dealing; the Department of National Defence; the Department of Finance; the Department of Fisheries; the Department of Agriculture; the Department of the Secretary of State; the Department of Trade and Commerce; the Post Office Department; the Department of National Revenue; the Department of Justice and the Department of Labour.
I do not imagine that any new ministry in office would find it possible to abolish any of those departments of government, no matter how much it might wish to do so, having

Department of Veterans' Affairs'
regard to the requirements and problems of the country, and the matters requiring the special attention of those ministries. I must say I do not think the ministry exceptionally large having regard to the problems with which Canada is faced at the present time.
I mention this because I think the public rather expect my hon. friend, quite as much as myself, to keep before the people of the country what is necessary in the matter of government administration; and unless he is prepared to say that some of these departments are superfluous and to tell us which they are, I do not think he should say we ought to get rid of them. If I misunderstood him; if he said he thought there were certain ministers who should be changed, I differ with him absolutely in that regard. I do not share that view; and, if he can, I should like him to substantiate his statement that any of the ministers might be said to be formally holding office. I know something of the work the ministers are doing, and I want to say that every one of my colleagues is pulling his full weight in the war effort of Canada at the present time. There is not one of them who is not working to the limit of his time and energy, not only in his own department but in assisting those in other departments to carry on their work. If my hon. friend had been in office at any time in the past I think he would weigh his words more carefully when he begins to criticize the burdens that fall upon a ministry, and the number of competent persons who are required to carry on the business of government in Canada, with the problems as they have become.
I wish to take exception to another comment made by my hon. friend this evening, a comment which he has made once or twice previously. I have in mind his references to parliamentary assistants. Either in regard to them, or in regard to the ministers, or in regard to both, the hon. gentleman used words to the effect that it was a matter of furnishing so many jobs.


Gordon Graydon: No.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Those are the words my hon. friend used, "more jobs". If he says he did not say so I shall be most happy to accept his statement at once.


Gordon Graydon: My recollection of what I said in that regard is that I referred to the encroachment made by the appointment of parliamentary assistants upon the general rank and file of the government supporters in the house. I shall always be guided by what Hansard says, but I cannot recall having made mention of jobs; in fact I am quite certain I did not, and I do not think the Prime Minister would want to quote me as having done so.
Already he has misquoted me or misinterpreted what I said in regard to the first point he brought up, and I want to correct both matters now.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What my hon. friend now states just illustrates what I believe happens on occasions; that is, he speaks without thinking and does not really realize what he has said. This time, fortunately, we shall have Hansard to prove it. If my hon. friend will look at Hansard to-morrow he will find he made reference to "jobs." I took down the word and put it in quotations when my hon. friend used it, feeling that it was part of my duty to take exception to that term. I hope he will not say that I am trying to misrepresent him, because he will find the record of Hansard this evening precisely as I have indicated.
In regard to the parliamentary assistants I want to say that for far too long this country has gone without the additional assistance which a ministry should' have in this parliament. Instead of believing that we have too many persons concerned with the administration, especially that part of it which has to find its representation in parliament, I think we have too few, and- that we have had too few for a long time. The British government have parliamentary assistants in all their departments. In addition, some departments have financial assistants and assistants to assistants; ministers have also parliamentary secretaries as well as private secretaries. This has been found necessary in the parliament at Westminster because of the increase in business and the necessity that parliament should be given as much information as possible and its affairs conducted as efficiently and as effectively as possible. I am sure that having given that aspect of our procedure in this parliament the trial we have thus far given it, hon. members generally-unless they are thinking in terms of jobs-will readily say that this addition has been of value to the parliament of Canada and should be retained and enlarged. I know the value the parliamentary assistants have been to the ministers. They have not all taken the part in the affairs of this house which would begin to indicate the services they have been rendering; but if opportunity were given for them to speak for themselves, or others to speak for them, I venture to say that hon. members would be surprised at the extent of the assistance they have given since they have been appointed.
I want to add this further thought. The public life of our country is becoming more and more difficult, and will become increasingly difficult as the years go by. I hope that by

Department of Veterans' Affairs
degrees we may get at least far enough away from purely party considerations to believe that because a ministry has some of its younger supporters brought in as assistants, they are not merely seeking to give them jobs but are helping to prepare men more effectively to play a larger part in the public life of our country. This House of Commons will change considerably after the next general elections; and while many of us who have had to do with this strenuous period of parliamentary activity will be prepared to serve as long as there is a possibility of service and as long as the public wish us to serve, and will be ready to do our part at all times, yet it would be most unfortunate for this country if younger men were not learning to-day from the inside, and from their intimate association with the ministers, something of the manner of meeting problems which will have to be dealt with in this parliament in the years to come. I must say that I am disappointed in my hon. friend, in references he has made time and again which I regard as a belittlement of the position of the ministry and others associated with the ministry. I say to him in all kindness that it does not make for the stability of government, in the broad sense of the word, throughout the country to have a minister of the crown referred to as he referred to one this afternoon, as a man of straw; or to have assistants to ministers of the crown referred to as they were tonight, as men holding jobs.


Gordon Graydon: The Prime Minister has outdone himself in misinterpreting-I do not say intentionally-the whole situation with respect to the various matters he has brought up. I am quite at a loss to understand the motive of the right hon. gentleman in attributing to me certain statements or certain thoughts on certain matters which he must know were not in my mind at all. He mentioned the words "straw man," for instance.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think the
words were "straw boss."


Gordon Graydon: Well, as the Prime Minister ought to know, a straw boss is something less than a superintendent, and for that reason I was referring to the hon. gentleman in question as an understudy of the Prime Minister. I think the right hofl. gentleman should have understood the implications of the words "straw boss," because they are very different from the implications of the words "straw . man," though, of course, if the Prime Minister had1 the latter idea in his mind- I do not want to be the one to make him change it. But I wish to say that I, too, am disappointed with the Prime Minister's

attitude to-night. This is not the first time this session that this attitude has been made manifest.
The government owes the opposition a little cooperation, and the opposition is going to ask for that cooperation. As leader of the opposition I have a perfect right to criticize the structure of the government if I so desire. I have done that to-night in the national interest and I shall do it again, just so long as I regard it to be in the national interest to do so. When the Prime Minister speaks of which one of these portfolios he is to do without, which one he should disband and abolish, he knows full well that I made no such implication, that I did not suggest he should abolish or abandon any particular one of the portfolios that we now have. What I had definitely in mind was the fact that there are some portfolios which I think could be combined. There would then be fewer ministers of the crown because of that combining. The Prime Minister must have known that, and in his own way he should not attribute to me the statement that we ought to do away with some of the portfolios that at present exist.
When I ask for economies and the better organization of the cabinet surely I should not be treated) by the Prime Minister in the way he has treated me to-night. I want to have fair play the same as he does, and I do not want to be criticized because of the attitude I take with respect to the government itself. I know there are certain touchy things about the Prime Minister, and this seems to be one of them. I did not intentionally try to touch a sore spot with respect to this matter to-night, but I should like him to understand that so long as I hold the position of leader of the opposition I am going to criticize the structure of this government and the government itself, and this is going to be done in each and every case as it has been done to-day, not for political considerations as the Prime Minister has dragged in in his statement to-night, but in the national interest. If he were sitting on t'his side and there were an other'government over there I believe he would foe the first one to say it was in the national interest that similar criticism should be offered.
There is a disposition on the part of the Prime Minister and the government-I do not say it is intentional because if I did bo I would be attributing motives to the government-to bully the opposition once in a while. I know the Prime Minister would not want to have that motive imputed to him, but nevertheless that is the fact. We may have only thirty-nine members in His

Department of Veterans' Affairs
Majesty's loyal opposition as opposed to the one hundred and seventy-five or so members over there, but let me point out to the Prime Minister that although we have only that membership in the House of Commons it does not represent the situation so far as the dominion and the electorate generally are concerned. The Prime Minister knows and the government knows that they have a mechanical majority behind them, a fictitious one at that.


An hon. MEMBER:: Order.


Gordon Graydon: We have our rights the same as the Prime Minister and we want to be free to criticize where criticism is due and where it is in the national interest.
I think the Prime Minister knows there is no one more anxious than I-this applies to the opposition as well-to cooperate with the government in connection with war-time activities. We have done that on every measure. But in asking for cooperation the Prime Minister must not assume that we are going to surrender. We are not prepared to surrender, but we are going to cooperate and carry out our duties as an opposition as we think they should be carried out.
Having said this to the Prime Minister I do not want him on future occasions to rise in his place and place upon certain remarks certain interpretations which he knows should not be placed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to my hon. friend that I hope when he speaks he will speak sufficiently clearly that it will not be possible for me to place upon his words an interpretation which it is not intended they should convey. I am quite prepared to leave it to Hansard to make clear whether or not I placed a false interpretation upon any words that he used to-night. I was very careful in listening to him and it was only the surprise that I experienced to-night as he went on speaking that caused me to feel it necessaiy to rise and take exception ,to what he was saying.
May I say something to my hon. friend which I hope he will not misunderstand. I have notifted that while he feels free to make criticisms of the government, he invariably seems to resent very strongly any exception we may take to those criticisms. He seems to feel that he has the full right to say what he likes and that on our part we have no right to take exception to what he says. I have noticed the 'tactics he adopts and I point them out to him so that he will not think I am wholly blind to the purpose of some of the things he says.
In replying to me to-night he referred to having touched "a sore spot" and he has also spoken about the government "bullying" the opposition. I leave it to hon. members to say whether any sore spot has been touched or whether there has been any bullying. The purpose underlying what my hon. friend says in this way has no reference to what takes place in this house. He is thinking of the headlines that will appear in his press tomorrow. We have seen, for example, references to the effect that the Prime Minister lost his temper. When my hon. friend opposite said that I had lost my temper I am sure the committee did not think that was what had happened. I will not say it was imagination or fiction on the part of my hon. friend, but I will say it was something intended to influence public opinion beyond the borders of this House of Commons.
I say this to-night because this evening he has again skilfully endeavoured to say a few things which he thinks may attract the attention of the country. I hope he will not feel that in anything I have said I have more than the wish to make perfectly clear the position of the ministry so that the true situation will be understood from now on.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, acting again as peacemaker I think I can summarize this little discussion by saying that both the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition have been at their best to-night. Now let us come to the resolution. This provides merely for a change in the name of a department. Will it be of any use? I have no objection to having any number of departments, provided each one serves the purpose it is intended to serve. If the veterans are receiving good service from the Department of Pensions and National Health, then I do not see any use in changing the name of the department. But if they are not, then it is not a question of changing the name, it is a question of changing the staff. That is where reforms are needed.
I have not made any speeches denouncing bureaucracy, but I must say that bureaucracy is' at its worst in the Department of Pensions and National Health. The only pensions given are those that were granted a long time ago, and the cheques go out automatically from the Department of Finance to those veterans who were fortunate enough to secure pensions in the good old days prior to a general election. Now it is impossible to get any satisfaction from the department of pensions. I know whereof I speak because I am in contact with my electorate. What I say now I have said to the big bugs of the army not long ago. The county of Temiscouata has given more
Department of Veterans' Affairs

boys to the army than any other rural county in Canada so that I feel I have a right to speak. I look after the boys who are in the army.
There is to be a change in the naihe. If there are to be no more pensions granted then I do not see why this department should be called the department of pensions any longer. It is impossible to get any satisfaction from the department. Many times in the House of Commons I have denounced the manner in wThich veterans are dealt with by the department of pensions. But always the same answer is given, that I am unfair to the poor and honest civil servants who are doing so much for their country.
We should get rid of the department of pensions. The salaries that are paid to these useless nonentities who are no good at all should be given to the men who have been in the service, to the men who have been wounded in the service. I have taken up many cases and I have always received charming letters from the minister, but they do not mean anything. If he would spend on his own department the time that he wastes on the future happiness in the three Thursdays week, it would be much better. We must go to the root of the problem and fire the nonentities that are in all departments. I know' that if I said that to a crowd of veterans I would be cheered to the echo because there is not a veteran who is satisfied with the treatment he has received from those men.
We hear it said: Oh, but there are veterans from the first war or from this war who are on the board. That is all right. I know that those men deserve consideration, but it does not follow that because a man has served his country well during the first war or during the present, he is a universal genius. We know that the civil service preference is used sometimes to give to veterans, simply because they are returned men, positions for which they are not qualified. I agree that the state should do everything for the returned men, but I say that we should put them in positions where they can render the greatest service to the state. Not only that, but it is not by putting a veteran in a position for which he is not qualified that the country is rendering service to the veterans. I know it is a most difficult problem but there should be a system of selection by which a man who is discharged from the army after serving overseas will be put in a position where he can render the best possible service to the community.
'Mr. Pouliot.l
The resolution deals with a lot of other matters. It provides for a department of veterans' affairs-
. . . to assume the management and control of and to consolidate in such department all matters not by law assigned to any other department relating to the care, treatment, training or reestablishment of members and former members of the armed forces and other persons- [DOT]
Who are the other persons who will receive military pensions if they have not served in the previous war or in this war? It goes on: -and all such other matters- as may from time to time be assigned.
Then it goes on to provide for the creation of a new department-with the old timber.
We^ have tried to find out the meaning and the purpose of this resolution. We have already stated in the House of Commons that those who have a right of priority over all other immigrants, all refugees, and all war guests in this country are precisely the veterans of the Canadian army. We moreover have the profound conviction that the first reforms to be made should be to improve the functioning of the Department of Pensions and National Health, and that they should start with the army itself. We have amply shown to the house that military doctors have often put in category "A" draftees wrho were physically unfit. I have put my files at the disposal of the Minister of National Defence in asking for the elimination of all incompetence in the army medical corps. A soldier who is not in good health is only a useless burden to the army and to the taxpayers.
According to paragraph 2 of section 11 of the Pensions Act, soldiers who have been in service in Canada -are entitled to a pension-
. . . when the injury or disease or aggravation thereof resulting in disability or death in respect of which the application for pension is made arose out of or was directly connected with such military service.
When a soldier is put in category "A" or "B" by the medical examiner and taken into the army and is afterwards put in a lower category or discharged, is there not a presumption that that soldier is entitled to a pension in virtue of the law? If he was in good health before his enlistment or training and then .afterwards he was declared physically unfit upon discharge, is it not to be presumed that he contracted that disability during his military service? That is the reason why it is so difficult for military doctors to admit their errors of diagnosis in their speedy examinations. Certain officers show a zeal that is untimely and uncalled for in suggesting to soldiers who are physically unfit that they sign their application for discharge and resign

Department oj Veterans' Affairs
from the arjny without any provision being made for a pension. Such officers pretend that they are doing this to save the taxpayers' money.
Here is an actual case. A man was found unfit and the officer came to him and said: "Now sign your discharge application," and the soldier signed it. Then he lost all his rights to a pension. That is robbery. It is most unfair to the man, and while the officer says he is saving money to the country, actually he is depriving the man of the pension to which he is entitled. It is a grave injustice to the soldier, and it is precisely to protect themselves against this sort of thing that many soldiers who could easily obtain their discharge stay in the army because, if discharged, they could not get a pension. That is a fact which anybody who is in contact with the soldiers knows. It may be denied by the officials of the department. The minister may say that I am wrong, but I know that what I say is correct because I am in contact with the men themselves.
Let me recall the case of the soldier whose regimental number was changed from E554765 to E109063. He had just received the last rites of the church at the camp, and while he was at the last extremity some officer made him sign his resignation from the army, thus depriving his widowed mother of his pension. He died a few days afterwards. His mother was an old widow whom I knew well. I wrote to the minister and asked him to reconsider the case, and on my representations he ordered that the mother should receive a temporary pension of forty dollars a month. I give credit to the minister for that. I appealed to his good heart and he realized that it was a case of patent injustice. But I think the pension of forty dollars a month should be paid personally by the officer who went to that man when he was ill and made him sign his resignation from the army to deprive his mother of a pension.
The deputy minister of national defence forced a commanding officer in British Columbia to pay the fare of a soldier from British Columbia to Temiscouata county because the officer had not respected a ruling under the mobilization regulations. It was the right thing to do to punish the officer personally. In the meantime I give credit to the minister for the temporary redress he has granted in this case. But is it not shameful? This is one of the worst cases which has came to my notice. I do not know whether it makes any impression on the committee, but to me it is incredible that an officer should go to see a man who is so sick, and practically
holds his hand to make him sign his resignation from the army in order to deprive the mother of a pension. Let us speak of veterans' affairs. This is a case where an injustice was done, and it was corrected by the minister, but if I had not seen to it, the injustice would still persist.
The creation of a new department will be of no use to the veterans so long as the necessary reforms are not made in the medical corps of the army, so long as certain unscrupulous officers are in a position to make soldiers renounce their rights to their pensions by having them sign documents which deprive them of assistance. What I have said indicates the two main reforms which are needed to safeguard the rights of veterans.
In March last, Mr. Millard W. Rice, of Washington, director of national service of disabled American veterans, congratulated the American magazine for having published an article by the Minister of Pensions and National Health entitled, "Canada Looks After Her Heroes". But newspapers have published photographs of a veteran, Joseph-Moise Robillard, of Billing's Bridge, who walked the streets of Ottawa as a sandwich-man with posters showing the way he was ill treated by the Department of Pensions and National Health when he returned from overseas.
There is also the case of veteran Peter A. Leclerc, who receives only $18.75 a month.
Veteran No. 4040395 in the last war went to England and France and was wounded in his right foot. He had a tumour, his foot is in very bad shape, and he cannot walk. In December, 1918, he was treated at the Red Cross hospital, Saffon Walden, England, for fracture of the foot. The pension commission decided first that the wound was anterior to his enlistment, but on appeal, it was decided that the wound was due to service, and his disability was fixed at five per cent, which gave him 83.75 a month for that invalidity. He tried twice to enlist in this war, but he was not accepted, he was found physically unfit, and was placed in category "C-l". Finally he obtained a temporary allowance of $20 a month.
A parish priest of the diocese of Rimouski has quoted the case of one of his parishioners, No. 23203 of the last war. This veteran served in the army from 1914 to 1919 in Canada, in England, in Fiance and in Belgium. The parish priest wrote me that this man, having been at the front during the whole of the last war, came back unfit, suffering from the effects of gas. He has a pension of $7.50 and a veteran's allowance of $40, or $47.50 a month to provide for a family of twelve people.

Department oj Veterans' Affairs
Draftee E621251 was in very good health when he began his training. At Debert he contracted a bad case of the grippe, which finally affected his lungs. Finally he was discharged with two months' rest at home. The pension commission decided that he suffers from spontaneous pneumo-thorax, which arose during his service in Canada, but gives no right to pension according to section 11, paragraph 2 of the Pension Act, because the evidence does not establish that it is a consequence of his military service. Here it is admitted that he contracted this pneumothorax during his service; yet they deny him a pension. We have to fight that case, because it seems to me that the man should have his pension immediately, without any undue discussion.
Private E621922 had suffered from pleurisy of the right lung before his training. The military doctors accepted him just as he was. He was sent to Debert, where he had pleurisy of the left lung. While on leave he was X-rayed, and the plate was shown to the doctors at Debert, who told him that he could go home if he signed a renunciation of his pension. Actually he is convalescing at home, and the pension commission has not yet decided his case, which has continued since last year.
In October, 1942, soldier E100251 had shoes which were too small and injured his feet; his size was eight, and he had shoes which were sixes. He asked that they be changed, but the sergeant refused. He was kept on guard for several months wearing shoes which were too small for his feet. Finally he was taken to hospital, and was allowed five per cent for his pension, or S3.75 a month. He is a big man, and suffers so much from his feet that during whole weeks he is unable to work. He is'the father of a family.
One of the saddest cases I have is that of E554528. While this draftee was doing commando drill he was required to ride a motorcycle at Valcartier. He had never been on it before; the non-commissioned officer put it in high gear; the motorcycle went forward while he was sitting on it, overturned, and the soldier broke his leg, the femur and tibia, in three places. Several inches of his tibia were so badly broken as to resemble dust. After six months in the hospital he walks with difficulty, using a crutch and a cane. On September 27, 1943, the Minister of Pensions and National Health wrote me, "I have now the pleasure to inform you that the Canadian pension commission has granted this soldier the right to a pension for fracture of the femur and the left tibia." We are now in mid-April, and the man has got nothing yet. He went to Quebec city to see a doctor, who first told him
	! El
that it was of no use for him to go to the hospital again, but aftervrards offered to admit him. The soldier said, "You told me it was of no use for me to go to the hospital. What I want is my pension. They cannot give me another bone to replace the part which has been broken."
I am quoting these and they are enough to show that what is most urgent for the rehabilitation of veterans is not the creation of a new department but a change of personnel. That is the reform which is urgent and which the army is asking for. To replace the present department of pensions by a new department, if the personnel is the same, would only change the place of the evil. To improve the conditions of the veterans it is not necessary to change the law. The only thing needed is to understand it and apply it according to its letter and spirit.
The soldiers I have met are all totally indifferent to fine promises that may be realized at the time of the millennium. All they want to know is what will happen to them the day they are demobilized.


Mr. KNOWLES:: We of the Cooperative
Commonwealth Federation would like to express approval of the general principle of establishing a department of veterans' affairs. From the point, of view of efficiency of operation, we think it is a particularly good idea to bring all matters relating to veterans under the'diree-tion of one department, and because of that *we have no hesitation in supporting the resolution that is before us at the present time. However, we want to point out that the creation of a new department, the setting up of machinery, and even the replacing of personnel in the department, as suggested by the last speaker, are not sufficient unless there goes with all these things a change of policy, and I would characterize the kind of change that is needed by using one word and saying that the policy should be far more generous in its treatment of veterans than has been the case thus far.
There are some things I should like to say of a general nature in connection with our proposal that the policy of the government towards veterans should be more generous, but before I do so I wish to report to hon. members something I learned a few days ago in the city of Winnipeg. I find that there are eight veterans of the present war on relief in that city, young men who have served in the forces, whose health or other conditions are such that they have had to be discharged, but for whom this government has made no provision. The conditions are also such that they are unable to secure employment. There they

Department oj Veterans' Affairs
are, eight men who have served in the forces during the course of the present war, young men, on relief in the city of Winnipeg.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Are those the men referred to in St. Boniface?


Stanley Howard Knowles: No. They are in Winnipeg, on the relief rolls of the public welfare department of that city. Their cases were brought to my attention by members of the city council who are on the public welfare committee, and these same members pointed out to me that the feeling of that committee and of the council as a whole is so keen on the matter that they are considering cutting these men off relief. Hon. members will recognize immediately that if this action is taken by the city council of Winnipeg it is not because the members of that council want to see these men destitute; it will be because they feel that something drastic should be done to bring to the attention of the government the shame that veterans of the present war, even now while the war is on, even while the government is talking about the wonderful things it is prepared to do for the men, even now while other departments are speaking of the need for man-power, should be on relief. So far as I know that action has not yet been taken by the Winnipeg city council, but I understand it is under consideration and it indicates how keenly the people of that area feel about this matter.
I said that we of this group heartily approve the policy of bringing under one department all matters relating to veterans, but none of us in this house should carry on under the illusion that by doing this by itself we shall satisfy the men in the armed services. What they are interested in is not the kind of machinery that we set up or even necessarily the personnel administering that machinery. What they are interested in is the policy behind it all and the results of that policy.
At the present time we are engaged in a terrific struggle. We are conscious of how important it is to the future of Canada that that struggle be won. Because of that recognition we are prepared to mobilize everything; we are prepared to spend all the money that is necessary. So far as this parliament is concerned, there is no limit at all. We are prepared to spend every dollar running as it does into billions, for the sake of winning the present war. That involves the payment of pay and allowances, provision of clothing, medical and dental services and other things to the men in the services; these things in thousands of cases represent far more than they had before they went into the forces. We are not only glad to do it; we feel it is
our duty; we feel it is part of the price we must pay to make sure that we win the conflict in which we are engaged.
May I point out that so far as our future in Canada is concerned, of equal importance with the winning of the struggle in which we are engaged is the kind of men these chaps will be in the years that lie ahead after the war is over. If these men come back and are discouraged, disillusioned by policies that they feel reflect ingratitude or lack of appreciation of what they have done, it is not only a matter of the loss of a generation, so far as the men themselves are concerned, but the future of Canada as a whole will suffer.
I feel, therefore, that we in this parliament should realize that if it is necessary to spend millions and billions, as is now the case, to enable these men to defend the country, we must also be prepared to spend millions and billions, if necessary, to rehabilitate these same men physically, psychologically, economically and in every possible way to make sure that we shall not have any disillusionment or discouragement, any soured generation, in the period that immediately follows this war. I feel that generosity most certainly should be the keynote in the years immediately following the cessation of hostilities. All of us are aware, although we in the house cannot fully appreciate it, what these men are going through. We are aware of the mental upsets that are taking place, as our young men engage in operational flights, night after night. We can sense something of what it means to these people to go through the experiences in which they are now engaged.
To many of these young men, not only has it been a period of stress and strain, but also it has been one in which they have been given something to do, something to work, to struggle and to fight for, and, if necessary, to die for. In that sense it has done something for them. It has lifted many of them from the uselessness they had experienced in the thirties, and has made them feel that they are part of the life of Canada. If, after the experiences they have had, these men have to return to ingratitude or to a lack of appreciation, we shall be storing up for ourselves very real and difficult problems. I would hope that we in parliament would see to it that we tackle the problem of rehabilitating the veterans economically, physically, psychologically and in every other possible way. I would hope that we would tackle that problem as one which is every bit as important as the problem of the defence of our country.
There will be some who, while prepared to admit the justice of the cause, and that these men are deserving of proper treatment, will
2114	COMMONS
Department of Veterans' Affairs
complain that the spending of money will impoverish the country and will demoralize the men. May I point out that that has not been so during the war. We took these young men, many of whom were riding the rods and were unemployed during the thirties and, for purposes of war, we have made available to them more goods and services than they had ever dreamed of. That has not impoverished Canada. At the present time our country has a higher level of production and a higher standard of living than at any time in her history. Neither has that policy demoralized our men but, as I have already said, it has given them something to live, fight and work for and, if necessary, to die for.
I am convinced these same men will not be demoralized by generous treatment v^hen the war is over. I am equally satisfied that Canada's economy would not be impoverished by such generous treatment. Therefore I express the hope that we will not imagine we have done a complete job merely by setting up more efficient machinery, as we are doing by bringing veterans' affairs under the direction of one department. We must go farther and, so far as our treatment of these men is concerned, we must infuse generosity into that policy. We must also realize that the problem of the rehabilitation of veterans is one of tremendous importance to the future welfare of our country.
While I am on my feet I should like to add my support so some things that have been said by other hon. members. I believe it was the leader of the opposition who spoke particularly about the constant use of the expression "pre-enlistment origin." It does seem to me that that is one place where generosity might be infused into government policy immediately. As members of parliament we have brought to our attention over and over again cases with respect to men who were accepted in the armed forces as "A-l", but who upon discharge are told that no pension is available because their ailments are of pre-enlistment origin. I need not stress the matter in this chamber beoause I am sure all hon. members know of many such oases. I am sure, too, that if the matter were put to a free vote of the membership of the house there would be no question but that there would be a wide change in policy in connection with the awarding of pensions to men discharged from the forces for medical reasons.
I would stress, too, the importance of liaison between the new department of veterans' affairs and the department of reconstruction, which it is proposed to set up. Indeed, to go farther, one might point out that there is need

for special liaison between the department of veterans' affairs and the government as a whole, for if we are to be able on a longterm basis to do anything for the men discharged either now or at the conclusion of the war, it will depend to a very large extent upon our whole economy. It is exceedingly important that we pay particular attention to the whole problem of reconstruction, and I would urge a close liaison between the department of veterans' affairs and the department of reconstruction. In fact, more than a liaison is required. It is necessary that the government realize that any successful handling of the rehabilitation of veterans will depend upon the effectiveness of the reconstruction programme of whatever government is in power.
May I express the hope that when this new department is set up it will be the occasion for revising many of the details of administration of matters affecting veterans. At the present time our thoughts turn naturally to those who are now being discharged, and to others who will be discharged when this conflict is over. Let us not, however, forget the veterans of the last war. When I say that I do not mean merely that we should continue paying to them those pensions or allowances they "are now receiving. Rather I urge that we give consideration to a revision of the Pension Act and the War Veterans' Allowance Act with a view to providing a better deal for those men who served a generation ago.
When the Minister of Pensions and National Health was speaking he made reference to widows who receive allowances under orders in council tied into the War Veterans' Allowance Act, but I did not hear clearly what he said. I would express the hope, however, that this might be the occasion for a revision of that act and a revision of the orders in council which govern the payment of allowances to widows of veterans of the last war. It is my hope that this might be the time when all these matters will be considered. I would hope that these matters might be brought to the new department of veterans' affairs, not just as a technical procedure of transferring from one branch to another, but with a view to bringing about an upward revision of the benefits and considerations given to these people. Hospitalization is another matter which must be thoroughly considered.
I have taken these few minutes to say that we in this group without any question welcome the introduction of this resolution. We agree that it is a good idea to bring under one department all matters relating to veterans, but we urge upon the government and hon. members generally that they must realize that is not the

Department of Veterans' Affairs
whole story. What counts is the policy to be administered by the new department, and we urge that it be administered generously.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The hon. member referred to eight cases on relief in Winnipeg. I had a report on March 3 from the superintendent of public welfare. Immediately we sent a welfare officer to Winnipeg to make an investigation. My information is that six of these are looked after. One is looking after a dependent mother, and his allowances are affected by that condition. The other two are problem cases, which I should be very glad to discuss with my hon. fiiend if he would be good enough to see me about them. I do not wish to mention the names here.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If the minister is referring to the same cases I have in mind, I am very glad something has been done about them; I heard about them only last week. If it is true that the efforts of the Winnipeg city council in behalf of these men have resulted in action being taken, that is fine, but it is too bad it was necessary for that sort of action to be taken.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Will my hon. friend give me the names privately some time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes.


Mr. FAIR:: I do not consider it necessary to enter upon a long discussion of soldiers' affairs at this time, since I believe we shall be given ample opportunity for discussion on the motion for second reading of the bill, and also when the bill is being considered in committee, but I believe, it is our duty to talk freely openly and frankly. In past years we have discussed at great length what we were going to do for our veterans when they came home. Now we are trying to put something in the form of legislation, and I hope that legislation will not be a let-down to the men and women who will be coming back from the fight in the very near future. We in this group welcome the introduction of his resolution. We believe that much can be done by having all veterans' problems under one administration, and for that reason we are going to support this measure. Personally I believe the present Minister of Pensions and National Health should be and will be in charge of this new department. I believe he has the welfare of the veterans at heart; he is himself a veteran of the last war and has had brought to his attention many of the unnecessary hardships which have been endured by those who came back from great war No. 1.
One of the first things that should be done after this new department is organized is to get rid of some of the blots that now appear on the record of the administration of the problems of soldier settlers in this country. I hope that in the very near future either the Prime Minister or the Minister of Pensions and National Health will tell us that clear title is being granted to those veterans of the last great war who have remained on the land. I am not going to discuss this point at length to-night; I intend to discuss it on the second reading of the bill. When the motion for second reading is before the house I intend also to offer some suggestions with regard to the improvement of the Veterans' Land Act. If those who are to be settled under that act are to make a success of their venture I feel that some improvements are necessary; and if we are to take advantage of the experience gained under the old soldier settlement board legislation, I believe we must make some drastic changes in the Veterans' Land Act. When the new crop of veterans returns I think we shall have rather a different problem to deal with than we had in connection with the veterans of the first war. This time we shall have to deal with a number of highly educated men and women, as a result of the work they have been doing. The cream of the country have been enlisted and sent overseas. When these men and women come back we shall have many discontented individuals with whom to deal, and unless their problems are properly dealt with, this country can look for trouble, which can be avoided if the government will do the job right.
The question of the clothing allowance was brought up by the leader of the opposition. Just in the past three or four days, when returning to Ottawa, I discussed this question with men of the three services, and I hope that in the very near future the government will see fit to raise that allowance from $65 to at least $100. We have shown the men and women of our armed forces that when they are on active service we can provide them with more than one uniform. Therefore, let us see to it that they are given more than one suit of clothes when they resume civilian life. Then I believe it will be necessary to provide positions which will guarantee these men and women a decent standard of living, and when I say "a decent standard of living" I mean just that. I realize that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Pensions and National Health have not ventured into the sphere of the full life, but I trust that they will not subject the returning men and women to allowances only as individuals. These men and women must be provided with a living for

Department of Veterans' Affairs
married couples and families, and I hope the government will see to it that jobs are provided which will guarantee these people that decent standard of living for themselves and their families.


Mr. WHITE:: I should like to add just a word to what has been said already. I am sure all hon. members will welcome this change if it is to be for the good of the returned soldier. For a long time I have felt that most of the difficulty lies in the administration of the Pension Act. No doubt the provisions of that act are wide enough to cover all cases, but I am sure all hon. members have had cases brought to their attention which show that in many instances the intent and purpose of the legislation are not being properly carried out. I should like to draw to the attention of the minister the very long delay that takes place in dealing with claims for pensions in the present war. It seems to me that at the present time the number of pension ( applications being dealt with must be very small. Therefore it is difficult to understand why, after the soldier is discharged, there should be such delay before he has his pension board and a decision is reached. Then, if there is an appeal from that decision there is another very long delay before the appeal is heard. I also hope that when this bill is in the committee stage the minister will be able to give the house and the country a statement as to what has been done to improve the conditions that existed at Christie street hospital last year. I hope he will be able to tell the house that many changes have been made, both in the way the hospital is run and in the conditions under which soldiers have to obtain treatment there. I think the house also will be interested to hear from the minister how far along the plans are for the new hospital at Sunnybrook.
I do not like to repeat what has been said already, but I wish to concur in the remarks of the leader of the opposition on one very important matter. I refer to the onus of proof being on the soldier, who has to prove his claim before the pension board. It has always seemed to me that pensions are handed out to returned soldiers in a most grudging manner, as though it were an act of charity. A pension to a returned soldier is something to which he is legally entitled, and I shall always contend that the onus of proof should be on the pension department, because when a man joins the armed forces he passes a most rigid examination, in the course of which he is often examined by at least three doctors. He is X-rayed and he must' pass the most rigid examination. As has just been said by the hon. member for Winnipeg North

Centre (Mr. Knowles), in too many of these cases where a man goes before the pension board he receives in due course a letter which is already printed and which states that his disability was not due to war service, but is a pre-enlistment disability. I cannot understand why a private or a non-commissioned officer should have to fight the entire pension board. Everything seems to be set against him before his case is even heard.
Once a man is accepted in A-l category I think it is only fair and just that any future disability should be considered a disability attributable to war service. There have been many soldiers in this war who have suffered from mental and nervous conditions, and I hope that when the bill is before us the minister will give us the number of these cases and whether they are being reviewed. In reply to a question which I asked some time ago a return was brought down which stated that the scale of pensions had been set some fifteen or so years ago and that there had been no change in the scale or rate of pension since that time. Since 1939 cost of living bonuses have been paid and other financial arrangements have been made for other people, but there has been no change in the rate of pension paid to soldiers. The pension for total disability is still S75, the same as it was when it was set fifteen years ago.
I should like to say a word about what the hon. member for Temiscouata said. He claimed that his county has supplied more recruits for the armed forces of Canada than any other county in Canada. Each one of us likes to feel that his county has supplied the largest number of recruits, and I think it would be most interesting and instructive if the Minister of National Defence once and for all would break down the statement and give us the exact number of enlistments by provinces.
In conclusion, I should like to bring to the attention of the minister the question of clothing allowances. It seems unfortunate that in many of these cases changes are made only when it is too late. First I should like to refer to the clothing allowance granted to officers. Up until some two or three months ago when a man received a commission he was given a clothing allowance of S150, and this was increased at that time to $250. However, as usual the change was not made retroactive. The number of officers 'who will now be taken into the army must necessarily be quite small. When the estimates of the Minister of National Defence under the war appropriation bill were before the committee

United Nations Agreement
I asked the minister if he would place on Hansard the means by which the department figured out the amount of $65 allowed to a soldier to refit himself for civilian life, but the minister did not care to do so. I appreciate what the minister said a moment ago that the matter of clothing allowance does not come under his department; yet this question is tied up closely to soldier rehabilitation. I trust that when the bill comes down the minister will be able to tell us that he is at least going to take up this matter and attempt to do something about it. There are other matters having to do with benefits to soldiers which I could take up, but I shall leave them until the bill is before the house.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Mackenzie King thereupon moved for leave to introduce bill No. 83, to establish a Department of Veterans' Affairs.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time. UNITED NATIONS



BELIEF AND REHABILITATION ADMINISTRATION- IMPLEMENTATION OF ACREEMENT OF NOVEMBER 9, 1943

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure for carrying into effect the agreement for the establishment of a united nations relief and rehabilitation administration, signed on the 9th day of November, 1943, and to provide that interim expenditures not exceeding $10,000,000 for carrying out the said agreement be defrayed out of moneys provided under the War Appropriation (united nations mutual aid) Act, 1943, and that all other expenditures incurred in carrying out the said agreement be defrayed out of moneys to be voted by parliament.
*
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Bradette in the chair.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of the bill which will be based upon this resolution is to enable the government of Canada to give effect to the agreement for the establishment of the united nations relief and rehabilitation administration. This agreement, to which the united nations were the signatories, was signed in Washington on November 9, 1943. The text of the agreement appears as a schedule to the bill. On June 18, 1943, I made a statement at some length on the draft agreement for the establishment of a united nations relief and rehabilitation administration. The draft agreement was printed in Votes and Proceedings of that day. On January 28 of this year I tabled a copy of the agreement itself, as signed in Washington
op November 9, 1943. This will be found in the treaty of Canada series, 1943, No. 16. It is therefore not necessary to do more at the present than to mention the most important features of the agreement.
I should first of all like to say that a meeting of the council of the united nations relief and rehabilitation administration took place in Atlantic City from November 10, 1943, to December 1, 1943. The head of the Canadian delegation was Mr. L. B. Pearson, minister-counsellor, Canadian embassy at Washington. The alternate was Mr. Brooke Claxton, M.P., member for St. Lawrence-St. George, who is parliamentary assistant to myself as president of the privy council. The other delegates were the Hon. Cyrille Vaillan-court; Mr. George Bouchard, assistant deputy minister of Agriculture; Mr. John Deutsch of the Department of External Affairs; Mr. A. W. Plumptre, financial attache of Canadian embassy, Washington; Mr. George Patterson cf the Department of Agriculture, and Dr. L. B. Pett, of the Department of Pensions and National Health.
The united nations relief and rehabilitation administration has been set up in the expectation that the military victory of the united nations will be followed by a period during which many, if not all, of the countries liberated from the enemy in Europe and in the far east will stand [DOT] in need of assistance in the form of food, clothing and other basic necessities.
The period in question is distinct from the period prior to military victory during which relief in various forms will have to b6 administered by the military forces of the united nations as part of the operations of war. The UNRRA will begin its work in each area as soon as it is practicable for it to take over from the military authorities. The form of its activities within the territory of a member government in which that government exercises administrative authority is to be determined after consultation with that government and with its consent.
The main purposes of the united nations relief and rehabilitation administration are:
(a)	To plan, coordinate, administer, or arrange for the administration of measures for relief of victims of war in any area under the control of the united nations through the provision of food, fuel, clothing, shelter and other basic necessities; medical and other essential services.
(b)	To formulate and regulate measures for individual or joint action by any or all of the governments for the coordination of purchasing, the use of ships and other procurement activities;
United Nations Agreement

(c)	To study measures proposed by aqy member government for individual or joint action by any or all of the member governments and make recommendations on the basis of its experience in planning and performing the work of relief and rehabilitation.
The bill based on the resolution empowers the governor in council to do whatever may be proper and expedient for giving effect to the agreement. The agreement is limited to setting up the administration, and the operative action will be taken by the UNRRA council and its committees. It is, therefore, also provided in the bill that the governor in council may do whatever is proper and expedient to give effect to any resolutions of these bodies made in carrying out the provisions of the agreement.
The council, w7hich is the policy-making body of the administration, consists of one representative from each member government. The central committee of the council consists of the representatives of China, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America, w'ith the director general of the UNRRA presiding without vote. Between sessions of the council this committee may make policy decisions of an emergency nature.
Mention should be made of another committee of the council, the committee on supplies, which consists of the members of the council representing those member governments likely to be principal suppliers of materials for relief and rehabilitation. Canada is obviously one of these countries and when the committee on supplies met, the Canadian member was chosen as chairman. The Canadian member was Mr. L. B. Pearson, the Minister Counsellor at the embassy at Washington. This committee is of particular importance because of the provision that the central committee of council shall invite the participation of the representative serving as chairman of the Committee on Supplies of the Council, at those meetings at which policies affecting the provision of supplies are discussed.
Article V of the UNRRA agreement provided that, in so far as its appropriate constitutional bodies shall authorize, each member government will contribute to the support of the administration. At the first session of the council, which was held in Atlantic City, New Jersey, from November 10 to December 1, 1943, it was recommended that each member government whose home territory has not been occupied by the enemy should make a contribution for participation in the work of the administration approximately equivalent to one per cent of the national income of the

country for the year ending June 30, 1943, as determined by the member government. It was further recommended that as much as possible, but not less than ten per cent, of the amount contributed by each member government should be in such form of currency as can be expended in areas outside of the contributing country; and that the balance thereof should be in the form of a credit in local currencies which should be available for the purchase of the contributing country's supplies and services.
When the Mutual Aid appropriations for 1944 are introduced provision will be made for the Canadian contribution to UNRRA. The present bill provides that interim expenditures, not exceeding 810,000,000, incurred in carrying out the agreement may be defrayed out of moneys provided under the War Appropriation (united nations mutual aid) Act, 1943. The purpose of this provision is to enable Canada to make a cash contribution at once for the administrative expenses of the organization in Washington, and to finance any orders for supplies that may be placed in Canada before next year's appropriation is voted.
It is particularly fitting that Canada should act promptly in this matter. Among the active belligerents Canada is one of the countries which have suffered the least material damage in the course of the war. The Canadian people, moreover, are well able to realize the enormous importance of relief and rehabilitation, not only from a humanitarian standpoint, but in order that the full fruits of victory may be garnered, and conditions established in which the constructive measures essential for the creation of a better world order can be undertaken.
I should add that the United States congress and the parliament of the United Kingdom have respectively approved of their countries contributing one per cent of national income for united nations relief purposes. I believe what I have said covers what is essential for the committee to know in connection with the resolution and the bill to be based upon it. As I have mentioned, the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George, the parliamentary assistant to myself as president of the privy council, was an alternate representative at the meeting which was held at Atlantic City, and he is very familiar with all aspects of this important matter. During the course of the discussion he perhaps may wish to add something to what I have said.


Gordon Graydon: The interim expenditures not exceeding 810,000,000 to carry out the agreement does not represent more than one per cent of the gross national income?

United. Nations Agreement


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think the
statement is correct. I am giving the committee the information that the officials of my department give me. When we come to the bill itself, if there is any change needed, I shall be glad to see that it is made.


Gordon Graydon: I find I was wrong in my calculations with respect to the one per cent.


Mr. STIRLING:: Mr. Chairman, if I remember aright, there are forty-four nations included in this arrangement. The Prime Minister has referred to the faot that there has been one meeting of the council. I wonder whether anything like forty-four nations were represented at that meeting, and whether it will be humanly possible in the future to hold meetings at anything like regular intervals of the representatives of so large a number of nations.
The Prime Minister also mentioned, as though it were an executive body, the representatives of the four nations, China, the Soviet, the United Kingdom and the United States. I take it that they will take charge of the necessary implementing of policy when it is not possible for the larger body to meet.
There are also to be two regional committees, of one of which Canada is a member-a collection of nations among the allied nations who are contributors and will be recipients. Canada, Brazil and the United States are included in the European regional bodies, are they not? But Canada is not included in the other regional bodies which take in the Asiatic and Pacific nations which will be recipients. I wonder how possible it will be for those various bodies to meet at anything like stated intervals and with sufficient representation of the nations interested; and where they will meet; and with regard to the sub-committees-technical affairs, supplies, and a third whose name I forget at the moment. Canada is particularly interested in the one dealing with supplies because the chairman chosen is a representative of the Department of External Affairs. Has that committee already located an office for itself, and set up and started the investigational work which, I take it, alone is possible at the present time, for I think that the preliminary operations of these various committees are largely those of collecting information, finding out what supplies will be available, and being ready when the time comes to give that information to the full council?


Brooke Claxton: If I may answer the hon. member: it should be understood that the policy-making body of the united' nations relief and rehabilitation administration is the council. That corresponds in a sense to a legislative body.


Grote Stirling: The forty-four nations?


Brooke Claxton: The council consists of one representative of each of the forty-four nations. At the first meeting of the council, held between the 10th of November and the 1st of December at Atlantic City, all the forty-four nations were represented; all of them took a very active part; and the committee can appreciate the extent of that representation when I say that there were 374 representatives of the forty-four nations present. Some of the delegations extended to twenty or thirty members; no country was represented by less than three or four. The second meeting of the council is to take place at Montreal on the 23rd of June, and it is expected that all forty-four nations will be represented there.
The Prime Minister referred in the house to the desire of all Canadians to welcome UNRRA and our satisfaction that the first meeting, of the council outside the United States should be held in Canada. If I may be permitted I should like to express my own pleasure, because it is going to be held in the division which I represent, and I had something to do with the preliminary arrangements.
With regard to the committees of UNRRA, the committee on supplies, to which the hon. member referred, has as chairman Mr. L. B. Pearson. That committee's function is defined by the agreement; it is that of advising generally on policies relating to supplies. The committee has met so far at Washington; it has held a great number of meetings, certainly more than ten when I last heard of it; and it is very active in advising the administration on supply questions.


Grote Stirling: There is something like a score of representatives on that committee, is there not?


Brooke Claxton: There are eleven representatives of the principal supplying countries and1 also one or two representatives of recipient countries. I could give the names of the countries if the committee wants them. In addition, there is the regional committee for Europe, which has on it the members of the council representing the countries located in Europe, and in addition, as the hon. member has said, three members representing the principal supplying nations-the United States, Brazil and Canada. That committee has met in London, where it has a secretariat and is established.. It is a going concern, and its function is to survey relief requirements and forward them to the administration's headquarters at Washington. The regional committee of the far east consists of the countries situated in the far east. I
United Nations Agreement

do not know whether that committee has met yet. The situation in the far east is far more uncertain than it is in Europe.


Grote Stirling: Is India represented on that?


Brooke Claxton: India is represented on that one. The administration itself has its headquarters at Washington, and there is seated the headquarters and executive of the administration under its director general, the former Governor Lehman, who has been in active control of its affairs ever since he was appointed by the unanimous vote of the nations at Atlantic City.
The administration is a going concern. As the hon. member indicated, its principal purpose now is to survey requirements and make its claims on the combined boards for requirements. That work is actively being carried on. A very large part of the staff necessary to do the work has been recruited. At the same time the work is being carried on in London with relation to requirements for Europe. So that the work of UNRRA is actively being carried on to-day.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Could the Prime Minister or his parliamentary assistant give some idea of the proportion of this ten million dollars which is required for administrative purposes and the proportion which is allocated for the purchase of Canadian goods? I believe the Prime Minister said that the money would be divided between these two purposes.


Brooke Claxton: The administrative budget of UNRRA was approved by the council at its first meeting at Atlantic City and it totalled ten million dollars. That was the estimate made by the director general in the light of the information then available to him. The total income that UNRRA expects to receive in consequence of the contributions of the member nations is in the neighbourhood of $2,000 millions, so that hon. members can easily calculate what portion of the total income of UNRRA is to be spent in administrative expenses.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And the administrative budget is allocated in proportion to the contributions?


Brooke Claxton: That is not quite so. The administrative budget is allocated between the countries on a different basis from their contributions. I can give my hon. friend some information as to the basis arrived at if he wants it. The proportion of the administrative expenses payable by Canada is three per cent of the total of ten million dollars, but Canada, in making her contribution, can count
fMr. Claxton.]
the amount allocated to her in the administrative budget on account of the total that Canada decides to give.


John George Diefenbaker: I should like to ask a question with regard to administrative staffs. From a reading of the debates in the United States it is indicated that quite a number of persons are being trained there for the purpose of taking positions in the alministrative staffs.
I should like to know whether any Canadians are being trained to-day, and the numbers of Canadians who may reasonably be expected to secure positions once the administration is in full swing, also the qualifications for the positions in connection with the administration.


Brooke Claxton: One of the resolutions laid down at Atlantic City by the council was that the staff should be recruited as a genuine international staff. I can quote the resolution if my hon. friend wants it. So far as I know, that resolution is being carried out by the administration. Director general Lehman, in recruiting his staff, is endeavouring to secure the people who are best qualified to do the job, without regard to the country which they represent. But at the same time he is endeavouring to see that the genuine international character of the staff is maintained. The list of the deputy directors general would indicate that. Sir Arthur Salter is the senior deputy director general. He is a member of the British house and a former minister of the crown in the United Kingdom, having great experience in transportation and other work. The other deputy director generals, I believe, come from seven or eight different countries. Sir Frederick Leith Ross is deputy director general for Europe, and a Canadian, Mr. Van Gelder, is deputy director general in charge of administration. There are a number of other Canadians on the staff of UNRRA already. When it is said in the newspapers that UNRRA is recruiting a staff for training for service abroad, I think the newspapers are rather in advance of the administration in that regard, because so far the administration has not been actively engaged in recruiting staff for service abroad. It has been engaged in organizing its work at Washington. To-day it has most of the staff necessary to carry on all the work it is carrying on. I am not quite sure how many additional people will be required, but if any Canadians do wish to apply they should apply directly to the UNRRA administration at duPont Circle building in Washington and their applications will be considered like anyone else's. It is not expected that any staff will be recruited by UNRRA for service in Canada.

United Nations Agreement


Grote Stirling: Will the deputy directors to whom the hon. gentleman referred remain resident in their own countries and be contact points for Governor Lehman, or will they come and live in Washington and do their work there?


Brooke Claxton: That will depend entirely on their functions. In the case of Mr. Van Gelder and the others having to do with either survey of requirements or provision of supplies or administration or personnel or finance, they will be located at Washington, but the deputy director generals engaged in the survey of requirements, such as Sir Frederick Leith Ross, will be located in London, and there will be others located in various countries in Europe when it is possible for them to get there. Similarly in the far east, their locality will depend on their functions. At the present time the majority of the senior personnel as of other personnel administration are located at Washington.


Fred Rose: There have been disquieting rumours to the effect that the military authorities have been holding back UNRRA from going into action. A few months ago I heard that they were told to go to the far east and to leave Europe alone. These statements may be only rumours, but they are going around and people believe them, and perhaps they have reason to believe them. Certain military leaders have said, "After we are finished with our military activities you people can step in." Well, that may be a long time, and in the meantime the situation in Italy has proved that if UNRRA had gone in in the first place, instead of leaving it to Amgot to look after feeding and supplying the people with the necessities of life, the situation in Italy might have been better.
Disquieting rumours are going around even to the effect that some of those belonging to UNRRA have become quite pessimistic. I am not making this statement because I am opposed to what UNRRA intends to do. In fact, we should all welcome every measure that is brought forward to help the people of Europe to rehabilitate themselves. Our own prosperity depends to a large extent upon what happens there. If there are people who are holding back UNRRA from going into action, it will be necessary for the government of Canada to speak up and to protest against those elements that tend to retard things.
There was a disquieting editorial in the Toronto Star in which it was said that the meeting of UNRRA which was to have taken
place at the Seigniory club would not be held there for reasons of anti-Semitism and consequently they had to go elsewhere.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Nonsense.


Fred Rose: I am quoting from the Toronto Star. This appeared in an editorial. I am glad to hear that it is not so, though, as I say, I am quoting from that newspaper.
I jiave read of the history of the Hoover commission and it seems to me that they got entangled in the political situation in Europe, with unfortunate results, because quite often, instead of supplying food to those who were in need, they devoted their attention to those elements that formed reactionary movements in Europe. I suggest that we should have progressive, broad-minded leadership in this matter so as to avoid political interference on the part of UNRRA in Europe.
There are many more problems in connection with UNRRA which I should like to discuss, but I will leave it to a later stage. We are all interested in these questions. For instance, there is the problem of UNRRA in relation to the Ribar and Tito Assembly in Yugoslavia. We must look upon that as a very serious matter, and then again there is the problem of UNRRA in relation to certain sections of China, especially in the area controlled by the Fourth and Eighth Route armies. There is a good deal of suffering there, although these people fight against a substantial part of the Japanese army. They are not getting medical or any other relief from the Chungking government. These are all matters that will have to be discussed when the bill is presented.


Brooke Claxton: I should like to answer some of the remarks made by the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Rose). He has referred [DOT] to certain rumours and I think I should deal with them. In the first place he mentioned the failures to go to the Seigniory club to hold the meeting there, on the ground that the club did not admit people of the Jewish faith. I can say at once that there is not a word of truth in that rumour. I was present with the representatives of UNRRA when they interviewed representatives of the Canadian Pacific hotels in Montreal, and when we spoke about the Seigniory club they said it was out of the question because the premises could not accommodate a meeting of that size. No other reason was given, and if you appreciated the size of the conference and contemplated the demand for meeting rooms, you would recognize at once that the Seignior}' club is not a suitable place. The Windsor hotel was chosen because it had suitable accommodation.
United Nations Agreement

With regard to the rumour that UNRRA is not allowed to enter the field because of difficulties with the military authorities, there are no difficulties that I have heard of, and I am assured by our representatives at Washington, and by the chairman of the committee on supplies, that there is the closest cooperation. Misunderstanding occurs by reason of a misapprehension of the agreement. Article 7 reads:
Notwithstanding any other provision herein contained, while hostilities or other military necessities exist in any area, the administration and its director general shall not undertake activities therein without the consent of the military command of that area, and unless subject to such control as the command may find necessary. _ The determination that such hostilities or military necessities exist in any area shall be made by its military commander.
That is part of the agreement signed by forty-four nations, and hon. members will recognize that that is an essential condition for the operation of relief in an area that is liberated. That provision is supplemented by various resolutions passed at Atlantic City.
Finally, my hon. friend referred to the use of relief supplies for political purposes. Two resolutions prohibiting that were adopted by council. It is the intention of all the nations who are members that it shall be prohibited and, so far as the administration can do it, that will be done.


John Horne Blackmore: I should like to know whether the food and other supplies to be advanced to needy nations are to be given to those nations, or only lent to them? For instance, we will suppose that France asks for assistance under UNRRA, and we will say that assistance to the extent of $50,000,000 is given. Is that given, absolutely, or is it only advanced with the idea that at some time. France will pay it back?


Brooke Claxton: The relief is to be made available to countries needing it, as they are liberated, and as they come within the terms of the agreement, without regard to their ability to pay. But a resolution adopted at Atlantic City provided that countries which are able to pay for relief will pay for it. France is such a country, as was indicated by their representatives at Atlantic City. She expects to pay in international currency, from resources which she has available outside France, for all the relief she gets. That is true of three other nations. They will pay for the supplies they get. But their requirements will be cleared through the combined boards, after consultation with the administration. So that the administration will look at the overall require-
[Mr. ClaxtonJ
ments of all the nations requiring relief, and see that they are met proportionately in accordance with the need.


John Horne Blackmore: Some nasty rumours have come to my notice, and I shall mention one or two of them. All one has to do is to read some of the current literature, and he finds enough proposals to make a person's hair turn gray. We hear suggestions on what is to be produced, what is not to be produced, where it is to be produced, whether there will be a high or a low tariff, and on what commodities, what the financial policy shall be, and whether there will be a central bank-and so on, and so on. I would like to know this: is it proposed to require that any applicant submit to any such restrictions, or any such agreement? I am very much concerned, because if this thing is being used-and I have heard such a rumour-to bludgeon the needy nations into an agreement to certain pernicious commitments, that is something which should be fully known. And this parliament is in duty bound to see to it that no such condition exists.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Chairman, I feel I ought to say a word to my hon. friend in regard to what he has just said. In the first place, I think it would be wise not to attach too much importance to rumours. By stressing rumours certain impressions grow, and in the minds of some people they become convictions. It would indeed be a great misfortune if those countries in Europe, which are suffering the worst possible kinds of torture, should have added to their agony, as coming from the parliament of Canada, even the thought that this or other governments with which they are connected were seeking not to assist them in their distress but were bludgeoning them. I am sure my hon. friend does not attach much importance to those rumours, and I hope he will not lend his position to giving emphasis to them by even assuming for one moment that they could possibly be correct.


John Horne Blackmore: I think the Prime Minister will agree it would be a great deal more calamitous if nations did unsuspectingly commit themselves to an agreement the full implications and extent of which they did not appreciate, and then found themselves suffering, after it was too late to effect a remedy. In consideration of the fact that so many different kinds of proposals have been put forward in so many different magazines, proposals purporting to be of authentic origin, I say the fullest, frankest and most definite understanding should be had by all members of parliament, and all nations of the world. I do not think there is any doubt that there

Judges' Act
is a body of men who are seeking to use this war, and the peace which will follow the war,
to foist upon the world a set of conditions which will make a worse mess than we have ever known before.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There are
scoundrels and skunks everywhere.


John Horne Blackmore: Exactly; and we want to find out where those scoundrels and skunks are, so that we may draw their teeth.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is right.


Gordon Graydon: Well, that would not do much good, so far as the skunk is concerned.


Brooke Claxton: It would be unfortunate if the impression were to get abroad that the administration could be used for the purposes indicated in the rumours mentioned by my hon. friend. Forty-four nations were represented at Atlantic City. This was my first experience at an international conference in an official capacity, although I have been at many of them unofficially. I can assure the committee that nations could not have worked together in greater harmony than did the nations at the Atlantic City conference. The attitude throughout was one of complete cooperation. They recognized that they had a big job to do, and they set up the administration to do it. The atmosphere was one of whole-hearted cooperation lay the nations to do a job which they could do only through working together.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Mackenzie King thereupon moved for leave to introduce bill No. 84, for carrying into effect the agreement for united nations relief and rehabilitation administration between Canada and certain other nations and authorities.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. SPEAKER:: When shall the bill be read a second time?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to press hon. members unduly, but this is a short bill. The agreement is attached. It has been before the house for some months. I believe what has been said with respect to the resolution covers practically everything that is likely to be said on the bill. If the house would grant its consent we might proceed with the second reading.


John Horne Blackmore: I am sorry, but I cannot consent to second reading until I have a chance to see the bill. This is a very important measure.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: All right.


Thomas Vien: Next sitting of the house.



JUDGES' ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution: Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Judges Act to provide for the salary of an additional puisne judge of the Exchequer Court of Canada.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. McCann in the chair.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Mr. Chairman, this is a resolution asking for leave to introduce a bill to carry out the terms of a bill to which royal assent was given on March 31, amending the Exchequer Court Act and providing for the appointment of an additional judge to that court.
Mr. GRAYDON This is the companion bill? Mr. ST. LAURENT: This is the companion bill to amend the Judges' Act to provide the salary for the additional judge of the exchequer court. The bill will merely change the Judges' Act by taking out the words, "a puisne judge, $9,000" and inserting the words, "two puisne judges at a salary of $9,000 each." That is the sole purpose of the measure.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. St. Laurent thereupon moved for leave to introduce bill No. 85, to amend the Judges' Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time. Mr. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read the second time?
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Now.


Gordon Graydon: Would there be any objection to allowing this motion to stand for the time being? I think perhaps we would like to see the bill.


Thomas Vien: Next sitting of the house. CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS



PROVISION TO MEET CERTAIN EXPENDITURES AND GUARANTEE OF SECURITIES AND INDEBTEDNESS

William Lyon Mackenzie King: (Prime Minister) moved the second reading of bill No. 64, respecting the Canadian National Railways and to provide for the refunding of matured, maturing and callable obligations.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. McCann in the chair.
[Stage Direction]
C.N.R.-Guarantee of Securities
On section 1-Short title.
Gordon Graydon: Is this bill in the same terms as the last bill of the kind that was passed by parliament?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes, Mr. Chairman; the terms of this bill are identical with those of the last refunding bill, which was passed in 1938.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Power for refunding.
John Horne Blackmore: May I ask if any considerable number of these bonds are held in Britain, or outside Canada?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I cannot give my hon. friend the information as to what portion of these maturing securities are held in Britain. When the measure was in the resolution stage I pointed out that the great bulk of the perpetual issues of the C.N.R. which had been held in Britain had been redeemed since the beginning of the war, leaving a comparatively small number outstanding. Speaking from memory, I think the great majority of the Canadian National issues held in Great Britain have been repatriated, but I am not in a position to give my hon. friend definite figures as to that at the moment. I did not anticipate that this question would be asked, and I have not the figures before me.


Joseph Henry Harris: Perhaps the parliamentary assistant could inform the committee why they project this so far into the future. This goes beyond 1953, though if I remember correctly they still have some $75,000,000 left from the previous transaction, which involved some 8200,000,000. Why is it necessary to project this so far into the future?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not think $75,000,000 is left from the previously authorized issues. As I remember it, two issues mature either this month or within the next two or three months. There either have matured or will mature during the period contemplated by the previous bill securities totalling 8196,220,709.23. As to projecting oneself so far into the future, this bill is for 8200,000,000, the same amount as the previous bill, as my hon. friend will recall.


Joseph Henry Harris: The previous 8200,000,000 was not all used up.


Douglas Charles Abbott: No; a very small portion of the amount authorized under the 1938 act is still available.


Joseph Henry Harris: Quite a substantial portion. What portion is left over?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Including the maturity on May 1, 1944, of 835,000,000, the Canadian National Refunding Act, 1938, will then have been availed of to the extent of 8196,220,709.23, which would leave roughly $4,000,000 available.


Joseph Henry Harris: Plus the 835,000,000 maturing on May 1?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes.


John Horne Blackmore: Would the parliamentary assistant give the committee some idea of the average interest rate obtaining on these bonds?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The average interest rate now is 4-13 per cent.


John Horne Blackmore: And could the parliamentary assistant give us some idea of what the average rate will be under the proposed refunding scheme?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I cannot give that information, other than to say that since the beginning of the war, as I pointed out when this resolution was in the committee stage, moneys have been advanced by the government instead of going into the open market, and the rate charged has been 3i per cent.


Stanley Howard Knowles: When we were in committee of the whole on the resolution which preceded this bill I asked the parliamentary assistant a question relating to the matter to which he has just referred. I asked if he could give us the total indebtedness of the Canadian National Railways before the war and at the present time, breaking it down into funded debt and the debt to the consolidated revenue fund. I was anxious to see the trend; I believe one figure goes up as the other goes down.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have that information. On December 31, 1938, the end of the last fiscal year of the railway before the war, the funded debt in the hands of the public amounted to 81,249,996,422.59. Loans from the government amounted to 848,144,804.73, making a total of $1,298,141,227.32. At December 31, 1943, the funded debt in the hands of the public was 8744,232,472.60. Loans from the government totalled 8537,323,765.07. The total indebtedness of funded debt and loans from the government amounted to 81,281,556,237.67, or an over-all decrease of $16,584,989.65. I think that was the information the hon. member asked for.


Joseph Henry Harris: 
[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 3 to 6 inclusive agreed to.
On section 7-Loans authorized to national company not exceeding aggregate amount of $200,000,000.
Joseph Henry Harris: I think in fairness to the committee and the house there should appear within the confines of the annual report to parliament a statement of what has been called and what it is proposed to call when the budget is presented for the coming year. The transactions of the current year are embodied in the railway report, but the budget does not give any idea, of what the policy for the year following will be. As I say, I think the railroad should recite their policy so that we may have some idea of what it is to be with regard to financing from year to year.


Mr. JACKMAN:: During the sittings of the railway committee I believe an item came up in connection with some two per cent C.N.R. bonds or C.N.R. equipment certificates which came due. Instead of the railway being allowed to go to the public market to replace these bonds with bonds bearing a similar rate
of interest, they had to borrow from the government at three and a half per cent, the rate just mentioned by the parliamentary assistant. I do not think any such discrimination would be allowed against a private railway company. While I am not one who believes that the public is best served by public ownership I see no reason why there should be discrimination in the case of this refunding when it is not likely that any private company would be so discriminated against, particularly in connection with the refunding of an equipment issue.
I like to see the things owned by the public and those owned by private enterprise kept on an even keel so that a fair comparison can be made. For instance, recently I was in the North Bay office of the T.C.A. and I saw there a safe marked "C.N.R." At Lethbridge and Calgary the trucks which refueled the plane were United States army trucks. How are we to know that the accounts of publicly owned corporations such as the T.C.A. or the C.N.R. are on a fair or comparative basis unless they are treated in the same way as our private companies? I would suggest to the Minister of Transport or the Minister of Finance or the parliamentary assistant that the C.N.R. be allowed to refinance its maturing obligations in the same manner as a private company.
I realize that it makes no difference to the people of Canada whether the financing is done by the government at three and' a half per cent or whether the railway company is allowed to go directly to the financial market to raise its own funds, but I think each compartment, if you like, should stand on its own feet. The C.N.R. should not be discriminated against in a special field of this kind.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. W. G. GIBSON (Minister of National Revenue) moved the second reading of bill No. 36, to repeal the Water Meters Inspection Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. McCann in the chair.
On section 1-Act repealed.
Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, this is the
kind of bill that I like, since I have moved similar bills to repeal some of Bennett's rotten social legislation. I was however, unsuccess-
Water Meters Inspection Act

ful. There should be a cleaning up of the statute book, and all pieces of legislation that are useless should be repealed. It- is not a question of water meters. It is a question of cleaning up the statute book now. The practice-Senator Dandurand explained it well in the other chamber-is that when a government brings in legislation that is considered bad by the opposition, the opposition condemns it, but when it comes into power, all that legislation which has been so bitterly criticized is still left on the statute book, and the same thing happens when there is another change of government. Therefore, in the old cupboard we find dirty sheets piled up over clean sheets. What a -mess! There is nothing clean at all. I submit that this
bill should serve as a precedent and that lots of bills of the same sort should be passed to clean up the whole statute book.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. MACKENZIE KING moved the adjournment of the house.
He said: I should like to thank the hon. members for the cooperation they have given during the day in getting through the various measures that have been carried this afternoon and to-night.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 11.05 p.m.