1944-05-01

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance) moved for leave to introduce bill No. 91 respecting banks and banking.
* He said: Mr. Speaker, I think I should give a very brief explanation on the first reading.
This bill is intended to constitute the basis of the decennial revision of the Bank Act. It extends the charters of the existing ten chartered banks for another ten-year period, in other words, until July 1, 1954. In addition, it provides for a great many changes in the 'resent legislation governing the operations if the banks, their powers and the limitations *hd controls to which they are subject.
Several of these changes are not only important but complicated, and some of them tie in with other legislation to be introduced at this session. I intend to make an extended statement on second reading in order to give the house as clear and complete an explanation as possible of these changes, as well as of the philosophy and guiding principles with which we approached this revision of our banking legislation. At the present time all I will do is to call attention to the more important changes we are recommending.
These changes may be listed as follows:
(1)	Changes regarding note issue, to be found in sections 60 and 61, taking away the right of a bank to issue or reissue notes in Canada after January 1, 1945, and providing for the complete retirement of such notes after January I, 1950. Right to issue outside of Canada is limited to ten per cent of paid up capital, and there are a number of consequential provisions.

(2)	Various provisions making the Bank of Canada the exclusive agency for redemption of notes, both of defunct banks and, by 1950, of the existing banks.
(3)	An amendment to section 92 to provide for transfer of unclaimed deposits,. et cetera, and the liability to repay them, to the Bank of Canada-after ten years.
(4)	Amendments to section 91, reducing the maximum rate of interest or discount which banks may charge from seven to six per cent, and allowing banks to make unsecured personal instalment loans on a basis equivalent to a five per cent discount for a one-year loan repayable in equal monthly instalments.
(5)	Various amendments to make it possible for additional types of borrowers to get credit under section 88.
(6)	Suggested amendments proposed for the consideration of the banking and commerce committee to simplify the complicated procedure now necessary in connection with section 88 loans.
_ (7) Various important amendments to sections 88 and 89 in order enable the banks to meet the special needs of farmers and fishermen, chiefly for intermediate credit. These provisions are to be, supplemented by other legislation, which I shall explain to the house on second reading of this bill.
Hon. R. B. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, can the minister state now when he proposes to move the second reading and make the extended statement to which he referred? I gather from what he said that the changes proposed in the Bank Act are numerous and important. I have not been permitted to examine a copy of the draft bill; I hope to be able to read it now. It is a bulky volume, and anybody who intends to give any study to this bill should be given time to do so, notwithstanding what is no doubt the desire on all sides to have the bill referred to the banking and commerce committee at as early a day as possible. But I suggest to the minister that twenty-four hours is not enough time, and we might arrange by consent that the second reading come up on Thursday, when he will make his statement, if that is convenient and satisfactory to the minister. Before the minister turns down that suggestion, I would point this out to him, if I have the consent of the house. We are now

Questions
entering on the fourth month of the session. This bill must have been in the minds of the administration for months before the house opened in January. Everybody knows that the Bank Act is revised every ten years, or, if it is not revised in the tenth year, the charters are extended for a very limited term. So that this bill must have been in preparation for a long time, and it is pretty late to be introducing it now. I am not complaining about that, because I imagine that the bill must have been revised and refined again and again; but I suggest that overnight is a pretty short time for hon members who are interested in this legislation to study the bill. I therefore ask the minister if he will be good enough to give the house assurance that before the second reading is called, before he makes his statement, hon. members will have an opportunity to read and study the bill, which we have not yet seen.


Mr. ILSLEY:: Mr. Speaker, I was very anxious to make the statement on the second [DOT] reading, at the same time that the bill was circulated, but I sounded out certain hon. members and learned that I could not get unanimous consent to that course; otherwise I should have liked to make the statement on the second reading to-day. I am most anxious to make it on the second reading to-morrow, and then the debate can be adjourned to such time as the house sees fit. This is far better from every point of view, because a fairly long speech will be necessary to explain the provisions of the bill to the house and to the country. My proposal, therefore, is that we take up second reading to-morrow, and the government will then consent to an adjournment if hon. members desire it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not suppose I have the right to say anything. On its face what the minister has said sounds like a very reasonable request, but I have learned from long experience in this house that government statements on bills are not always factual, that there is a great deal of propaganda about them, and for that reason I am rather suspicious of these statements. However, the minister is adamant and does not want to oblige me, and there is an end of it. I think we ought to have until Thursday to read this bill before we are asked to agree to the second reading.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: 1.	What is the total amount paid in bonuses under the wheat acreage reduction scheme?
2.	What was the total cost of administration?
3.	What was the number of individual bonuses paid?
4.	How many bonuses paid were, (a) under
$100; (b) $100 to $500; (c) $500 to $1,000; (d) $1,000 to $2,000;	(e) $3,000 to $5,000;
(f) $5,000 to $10,000; (g) $10,000 to $50,000; (h) over $50,000?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	$84,558,162 (to January 31, 1944).
2.	$2,459,975.77 (to January 31, 1944).
3.	1941, 181, 885; 1942, 179,033; 1943 (to January 31, 1944), 174,525.
1941	1942	1943(a)	71,960	108,743	84,569(b)	99,178	67,420	84,345(c)	9,040	2,540	5,002(d)	1,599	327	599(e)	100	3	8(f)	5	-	2(g)	3	-	-(h)	-	-	-
In addition to the individual bonuses listed above payments in the following instances were amalgamated on claims submitted;
In 1941 a lump sum of over $50,000 was paid to a company which submitted 237 separate claims for farms on which they hired operators. The same company was paid between $10,000 and $50,000 on claims submitted for 208 farm units in 1943.
In 1941 payments between $5,000 and $10,000 were made in one instance where three claims were amalgamated and another where several farm unit claims were amalgamated and one payment made to cover all claims.
Again in 1943 one payment in the $5,000 to $10,000 class was made on five separate claims.


CERTIFIED SEED POTATOES
Mr. HATFIELD:: .
1.	Were the growers of foundation A and foundation certified seed potatoes in the maritime provinces refused export permits?
2.	If so, why?
3.	Is the government considering any relief to cover their loss on this account?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	Permits were released freely practically all season for varieties in plentiful supply but
Questions

were withheld for certain varieties known to be in short supply to conserve such seed principally for the use of the seed potato growers in the maritimes.
2.	A sharp increase in the percentage of fields disqualified for diseases has demonstrated the necessity of retaining more high grade seed for foundation purposes. Regulations governing the production of certified seed potatoes now require foundation or foundation A seed to be planted in all fields entered for inspection for seed purposes. The production of foundation grades of the two principal varieties produced in the maritimes, namely Irish Cobbler and Green Mountain, in 1943 were estimated as barely sufficient to plant the normal seed acreages of these varieties in the maritimes in 1944,
therefore it was decided by the agricultural supplies board, on the recommendation of the science service, that no export permits be recommended for release for these varieties of foundation grades during the present season, except for those stocks in unsafe storages at harvest time and in danger of injury from frost.
3.	No. See answers to 1 and 2.


FREIGHT SUBSIDIES ON WESTERN GRAINS
Mr. HATFIELD:: 1.	How many bushels of oats and other grains were shipped from western Canada to each of the maritime provinces during 1943 and 1944?
2.	What was the amount of freight subsidy on the shipments to each of the maritime provinces ?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1. During the fiscal year 1942-43 the following quantities were shipped into each province (western grain and feeds):
Wheat Oats Barley Rye Screenings Millfeeds bus.	bus.	bus. bus. tons tonsNew Brunswick	
576,218	1,038,953	653,595	24,739	1,458	42,907Nova Scotia	
790,950	1,238,156	1,326,835	21,955	979	48,480Prince Edward Island	
336,666	297,647	351,696	3,811	188	10,867
During the fiscal year 1943-44 the following quantities were shipped into each province (western grain and feeds):
Wheat Oats Barley Rye Screenings Millfeeds bus.	bus.	bus. bus. tons tonsNew Brunswick	
799,546	1,548,218	1,171,800	6,846	683	44,430Nova Scotia	
1,309,716	1,651,376	1,490,700	1,685	420	49,049Prince Edward Island	
533,173	417,238	543,714	1,036	37	13,2922.	New	Nova	Prince EdwardBrunswick	Scotia	IslandFiscal year 1942-43	
$717,697 50	$1,026,189 00	$285,064 80Fiscal year 1943-44	
928,005 00	1,236,521 70	406,105 00


BARRIEFIELD MILITARY TRAINING CENTRE- BILINGUAL SECTION
Mr. POULIOT:: What was the number of French-speaking men at A-21, C.O.C.T.C., Barriefield. when the bilingual section was, (a) established; (b) abolished?


Mr. MACDONALD (Halifax):: No bilingual
section at A-21, C.O.C.T.C., Barriefield, has been (a) established or (b) abolished.
As French speaking candidates arrive at A-21, C.O.C.T.C., they are posted to sub-units andi given instruction in French by French, speaking instructors. New French speaking sub-units are formed at each regular intake to this training centre.
tMr. Gardiner.]


FREIGHT SUBSIDIES ON WESTERN BEEF
Mr. HATFIELD:: 1.	What was the amount of beef shipped from western Canada to each of the maritime provinces during 1943 and 1944?
2.	What was the amount of freight subsidy on the shipments to eac-h of the maritime provinces?


Mr. ABBOTT:: 1.	No information.
2.	The accounts of the Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation do not break down the amounts paid by way of freight subsidy on shipments of beef from the west according to the destination of such shipments. The total amounts paid by the Commodity Prices

Questions
24S7
Stabilization Corporation on movements of beef from the prairie provinces to destinations
in the east are as follows:
1943	$257,086.16
To March 31, 1944	64,223.94
Total	$321,310.10


FREIGHT SUBSIDIES ON POTATOES
Mr. HATFIELD:: 1.	What amount of freight subsidy was paid on the shipment of potatoes from British Columbia to eastern Canada?
2.	What amount of freight subsidy was paid on the shipment of potatoes from New Brunswick to Nova Scotia?
3.	What amount of freight or other subsidies was paid on the grade one table potatoes imported from Maine or other United States points iby the Wartime Food corporation during 1943 and 1944?


Mr. ABBOTT:: 1.	No freight or other subsidies were paid on British Columbia potatoes moved to eastern Canada. The potatoes were purchased by the Wartime Food corporation, f.o.b. Vancouver, at considerably below ceiling prices and were sold in eastern Canada at ceiling prices. The net trading loss incurred was $45,055.70 or 46 cents per 100 pounds.
2.	$3,039.33.
3.	No subsidy or trading loss of any kind was incurred.


RADIO BROADCASTING-&quot;OF THINGS TO COME&quot;
Mr. BENCE:: 1.	How many broadcasts have been given in the series "Things to Come", sponsored by the C.B.C.?
2.	How many broadcasts in such series have yet to be given?
3.	Have forum listening groups of citizens been organized to listen to these broadcasts and to report the results of their deliberations thereon?
4.	If so, to whom are such reports made? [DOT]
5.	Are such reports made available to the federal government or any members thereof, and if so, in what manner?
6.	Are such reports made available to anyone not directly connected with the organization of the C.B.C., and if so, to whom?
7.	What is the purpose of obtaining sueh reports?
Mr. LaFLECHE:
1.	23.
2.	2.
3.	The Canadian Association for Adult Education has organized listening groups.
4.	To the Canadian Association for Adult Education.
5.	No.
6.	See answer No. 5.
7. The Canadian Association for Adult Education prepares provincial summaries of the views of listening groups on the topic discussed the preceding week. These four-minute summaries are broadcast regionally by the C.B.C. at the conclusion of each broadcast in the series.


LONGUEUIL MILITARY TRAINING CENTRE-CIVILIAN PHYSICIANS
Mr. RAYMOND:: 1.	What are the names of the civilian physicians who have been in charge of the examination of recruits at the Longueuil military training camp since the opening of the camp?
2.	What time did each of sueh physicians devote to examining recruits, and what has been the total amount paid to each physician for his work since the opening of the camp?
Mr. MACDONALD (Halifax)-:
1 and 2. The following table shows the names of civilian physicians employed to examine recruits at Longueuil military camp
from 4th April, 1943 (date at which		camp was
first used for medical examination of recruits)		
to 31st March, 1944, the	number	of days
employed and the total amount paid to each physician. Days Amount		
Dr. E. Andrukaitis	. 18	$ 179Dr. P. Archambault	. 257	2,492Dr. H. Aubry	. 41	398Dr. J. E. Bernier	. 191	1,852Dr. G. Caisse	. 5	53Dr. A. Carreau	. 273	2,648Dr. L. Desrosiers	. 16	155Dr. C. Favreau	. 3	29Dr. R. Gariepy	[DOT] i	5Dr. A. Issenman	. 46	441Dr. A. Kimpton	. 195	1,891Dr. J. Kolber	. 65	635Dr. R. Lachiliere	. 3	29Dr. P. Lederer	. 2	19Dr. L. Latrienne	. 11	106Dr. C. Lippert	. 20	194Dr. R. Lussier	. 1	14Dr. H. Michaud	. 67	654Dr. E. Maillaire	. 17	169Dr. P. Potvin	. 16	160Dr. P. Prendergast	. 268	2,599Dr. J. E. Racicot	. 21	208Dr. A. Roy	. 81	790Dr. W. Runnells	. 118	1,149Dr. J. T. Rvan	[DOT].	. 265	2,570Dr. P. Salgado	. 29	281Dr. S. S. Sperber	. 165	1,600Dr. J. Thiboutot	. 4	38Dr. S. Venne	. 24	232
Questions


PRODUCTION OF POTABLE SPIRITS
Mr. AYLESWORTH:: How many proof gallons of potable spirits were produced in Canada in the months of, (a) January, 1944; (b) February, 1944, and (c) March, 1944?


Mr. GIBSON:: While the excise division has a record of the number of proof gallons of spirits produced in Canada during each month, in so far as production is concerned, it does not differentiate between potable spirits and' spirits used for industrial purposes.


INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND
Mr. STIRLING:: What nations participated in the discussions of experts on the establishment of an international monetary fund, recently tabled?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The discussions between experts concerning the establishment of an international monetary fund -have proceeded throughout on an informal and noncommittal basis and no fixed procedure was followed. For the most part the conversations with the experts of the different United Nations took place in series of bilateral talks with experts of either the United Kingdom or United States treasuries. Canadian experts have had several direct discussions with experts of the United States treasury and on two occasions participated in conversations held in London between experts of all the British Commonwealth governments. Recently conversations took place between experts of the U.S.S.R. and the United States. In one or two instances discussions were held between larger groups. On one such occasion when Canadian experts participated experts of the following countries were present; Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Czechoslovakia, Ecuador, Egypt, France, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Paraguay, Phillipines, Poland, United Kingdom, United States and Venezuela.


DOMINION CURRENCY
Mr. HANSELL:: 1. What is the total amount of paper currency media in use in Canada as at January 1, 1944?
. 2. What is the total amount of silver money in use in Canada as at January 1. 1944?
3.	What was the total amount of money
minted by the Royal Mint in Canada during 1943?	K
4.	Does the government of Canada print any of its paper currency?
5.	What firms printed paper' currency for the chartered banks in 1944?
6.	What firms printed paper currency for the Bank of Canada in 1944, and are copies of these contracts available to members of parliament?


Mr. ABBOTT:: l.Bank of Canada notes in circulation	 $874,395,312
Less: Bank of Canada notes held by chartered banks	 122,900,254
Bank of Canada notes in hands
of public	 $751,495,058
Chartered bank notes in circulation	$ 43,118,373
Less: chartered bank notes held by other chartered banks_________	918,459
Chartered banks notes in hands of public	 $ 42,199,914
Bank of Canada and chartered bank notes in hands of public $793,694,972
2.	Subsidiary coinage issued by mint less withdrawals:
Silver	 $51,009,046
Nickel	 4,826,033
Tombac	 1,407,425
Bronze	 6,300,627
Total	 $ 63,543,131
Less: subsidiary coinage held by Bank of Canada and chartered banks*	 8,196,798
Subsidiary coinage in hands of public	 $ 55,346,333
* Bank of Canada and chartered banks do not report details of subsidiary coinage held.
3.	Silver-50 cents	$1,564,000
25 cents	 3,402,000
10 cents	 2,078,000	$ 7,044,000
Tombac-5 cents	 1,238,000
Bronze-1 cent	 881,300


S 9,163,300
[Stage Direction]
4.	The government does not issue any paper currency.
5.	Not of official government record.
6.	Reference to notes of the Bank of Canada will disclose that the notes are engraved by the Canadian Bank Note Company, Limited and the British American Bank Note Company, Limited. The contract covering the engraving of Bank of Canada notes is a matter of internal management of the Bank of Canada and is not of official government record.

Questions as Orders for Returns

Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Since 1940, how many requests for leave or postponement of training have been submitted by the army to the Quebec mobilization board for soldiers or conscripts who were farmers, farmers' sons or farm helpers?
2.	In how many of such cases did the said board, (a) recommend leave; (b) refuse to recommend leave?


William Chisholm Macdonald: 1 and 2. The army does not maintain records on the number of applications for leave referred to mobilization boards nor on the number of those recommended or not recommended by such boards. To ascertain this information it would be necessary to examine the personal file in the district records office of eveiy soldier.
Application for postponement of training is made direct to mobilization boards by the individual concerned before his enrolment into the army.


MOBILIZATION ACT-POSTPONEMENTS OTHER THAN IN QUEBEC MILITARY DISTRICT
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Since 1940. how many requests for leave or postponement of training have been submitted by the army to the mobilization board of each of the military districts other than the military district of Quebec for soldiers or conscripts who were farmers, farmers' sons or farm helpers?
2.	In how many of such cases did the said boards, (a) recommend a leave; (b) refuse to recommend leave?


William Chisholm Macdonald: 1 and 2. The army does not maintain records on the number of applications for leave referred to mobilization boards nor on the number of those recommended or not recommended by such boards. To ascertain this information it would be necessary to examine the personal file in the district records office of every soldier.
Application for postponement of training is made direct to mobilization boards by the individual concerned before his enrolment into the army.	,


TREASURY BOARD
Mr. FAIR:: 1.	What are the names of the members of the treasury board?
2.	What are their duties and responsibilities? Mr. ABBOTT:
1. Minister of Finance, chairman; minister of National Revenue; Minister of Justice;
Minister of Trade and Commerce; Minister of Agriculture; Minister of Mines and and
Resources.
2. Chapter 71 of the revised statutes of Canada states that "The treasury board shall act as a committee of the Kings Privy Council for Canada, on all matters relating to finance, revenue and expenditure, or public accounts, which are referred to it by the council, or to which the board thinks it necessary to call the attention of the council, and shall have power to require from any public department, board, officer, or other person, bound by law to furnish the same to the government, any account, return, statement, document, or information which the board deems requisite for the due performance of its duties."



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: 1.	How much money has been expended by the government on, (a) construction; (b) additions; (c) repairs and improvements to quay wall and wharves at Pietou, Nova Scotia, in each fiscal year since outbreak of present war?
2.	Were such expenditures carried out by contract or by day work, stating amount paid for each project and to each contractor, and whether proposed work was completed?
3.	Were any expenditures made by day work, and if so, state amount, and who was company and person in charge, and amount paid for each contract?
4.	Is it proposed to make further improvements, and have public or private tenders been called within the past six months? If so, who were asked to tender, what was the amount of each tender, and to whom were contracts let?


MISS CLAIRE WALLACE
Mr. ROSS (Souris):: 1.	What department or departments of government is Miss Claire Wallace employed with?
2.	What are her duties?
3.	What salary is she now paid?
4.	What expenses is she paid?
5.	Does she broadcast over independent radio statiors? If so, what does the government pay for this privilege?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Wilbert Ross Aylesworth: For a copy of any or all orders in council dealing with the proposed production in Canada of an all-Canadian plane to be used by the-Trans-Canada Air Lines (Douglas D.C.4); together with a copy of any agreements entered
Motions jor Papers

into between the Trans-Canada Air Lines or any other person acting for the government and Canadian Vickers Limited of Montreal.
Also a statement disclosing the complete financial interests of the government of Canada in Canadian Vickers Limited, together with copies of documents setting out the terms and conditions for the operation of the plant at Montreal on behalf of the government.



SUBSIDIES ON POTATOES

Richard Burpee Hanson: For a copy of all claims made for subsidy on new potatoes produced in the province of New Brunswick together with all correspondence connected therewith, exchanged between the Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation and all others relating in any way to payment of same between August 1, 1943, and the present time;


Richard Burpee Hanson: I wonder whether it would be agreeable to the Minister *of Finance, or whatever minister has charge [DOT]of the commodity prices stabilization board, if there could be included the correspondence as to the potatoes produced not only in New Brunswick but in the two other maritime provinces as well. If that is too large an order I am content to let it go through as it stands, but the question has arisen with regard to the payments of subsidy in Nova Scotia. If the minister would allow me to amend the motion, I should like it to include Nova Scotia, at least.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I have to take exception to the motion as a whole, whether as amended or not. The principle which has always been observed with regard to subsidy payments is that information as to subsidies paid on recent or current business is not revealed, on two or three grounds which I have stated. One of these grounds is that it reveals to competitors of the recipient of the subsidy the nature and volume of the business that he does. I am quite content, if any hon. member requests information as to whether a particular dealer or person has received a subsidy, to see that that is answered yes or no, and also to give information as to the principle on which the subsidy is paid to him. But to go further and give particulars as to the claims made as to subsidy or the actual amounts of the subsidies themselves to individual recipients, especially on recent business, which this is, would be contrary to the principles which have been laid down with regard to the production of information, and I have to take the ground that it is not in the public interest [DOT]to give that information.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If I may be permitted, I should like to answer the minister. In the first place this was a temporary subsidy; it expired last summer. In the second

place, I can tell the minister from the information I have that a good many thousands of dollars were improperly paid and that it was due to an interpretation of the regulations. If he refuses to bring down the information, we are entitled to draw any inference we like from that position. But this is public money, some paid out properly, some of it, in my opinion, paid out improperly, and we ought to know what the papers are and what the position is. I just happen to know that an attempt was [DOT] made to get back some of this money and it failed after an opinion had been given by the Department of Justice that on a strict construction of the regulations the money could not be recovered in a court of law; nevertheless a substantial sum was paid out to producers and dealers, because the market price of potatoes did not exceed the ceiling price, whereas this was intended to take care of production in case the market price did exceed the ceiling price, to provide for the difference between the two. My information is that at no time in the Montreal market did the market price exceed the ceiling price-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Richard Burpee Hanson: -and
yet-


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker, I did not observe Your Honour on your feet.


Thomas Vien: The hon. member will realize that this is not a debatable motion.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have said all I want to say anyway.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Mr. Speaker-


Richard Burpee Hanson: If this is not debatable the minister has no right to speak.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I cannot allow charges like that to go by-


Richard Burpee Hanson: Give us the information, then.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Let the hon. gentleman state
the name of the person to whom subsidies were improperly paid.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is the old gag; it is the old bluff. Ask Mr. Hector McKinnon, he knows.
Motion dropped.

Loss of H.M.C.S. Athabaskan



SUBSIDIES ON FEED GRAINS

Mr. BURTON:: For a copy of all correspondence and reports by government inspectors covering the shipping points of Totzke and Bremen, Saskatchewan, in connection with the payment of subsidies on the sale of feed grains for the period from November 1, 1943, to date.


Mr. MACKINNON (Edmonton West):: The Canadian wheat board pays no subsidies on the sale of feed grain. On the delivery of oats and barley, advance equalization payments of ten and fifteen cents respectively are paid. These payments arise from the equalization fund provided for by order in council P.C. 8898 of November 18, 1943. When western oats and barley are exported from Canada an equalization fee may be charged and these fees are accumulated in a fund and paid out to the commercial marketers of these grains. If the hon. member for Humboldt cares to speak to me about this I think I can help him with the information I believe he is seeking.
Motion dropped.



STEVENSON FIELD, WINNIPEG

Mr. KNOWLES:: For a copy of plans prepared by the Department of Transport with reference to the enlarging of Stevenson field, at Winnipeg, as referred to by the Minister of Munitions and Supply, on page 2264 of Hansard for April 21, 1944.


Mr. HOWE:: Return tabled.



CAPE TORMENTINE-P.E.I. STEAMSHIP SERVICE

[Stage Direction]
Mr. BLACK (Cumberland:
For a copy of the contract entered into ''by the government for the construction of a ferry steamer to operate between Cape Tormentine and Prince Edward Island; also copy of contract or sub-contract for diesel oil engine and equipment to operate same.
Mr. MICHAUD:: Return tabled.



AERONAUTICS ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Munitions and Supply) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Aeronautics Act to provide for the establishment of an air transport board to perform the functions of a licensing and regulatory body in respect of commercial air services and to advise the minister on matters connected therewith. Provision will be
made by the said measure for the payment for services of the members of the board and the employment of necessary officers, clerks and employees.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to make an inquiry of the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services, notice of which I have given him.
We all read with mingled feelings of pride, admiration and sorrow of the naval action which was fought in the English channel off the French coast in the early hours of last Saturday morning. It was with pride that we learned that His Majesty's Canadian Ship Athabaskan fought back, and gave as good as she got until she was split in two by an enemy torpedo, and sank.
Our admiration was roused by the brave unselfishness of Lieutenant Commander Stubbs, D.S.O., of Victoria, B.C., who gallantly chose to risk death himself in order to save the crew of the Alhabaskan's sister ship, H.M.C.S. Haida, which later exacted quick revenge by driving one of the German destroyers ashore in flames. Coupled with the name of Lieutenant Commander Stubbs must be mentioned Commander H. G. De Wolf, of the Royal Canadian-Navy, of Halifax, commander of the Haida, whose coolness and daring was responsible for the rescue of many of the Athabaskan's crew. I have learned since that on the Haida was the son of the late lamented Hugh B. McKinnon, who was such an honoured member of the present House of Commons.
Canadian people heard with sorrow in their hearts the news of the brave lads who lost their lives in this further bright page in the valorous narrative of our new but powerful navy, of which every citizen in Canada is so justly proud.
I have taken the liberty of making these observations as a preliminary to a question which I desire to direct to the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services. Is the minister in a position, within the limits of security, to give the house any further details of this action beyond those which have appeared up to the present in the press?
2492'
Loss of H.M.C.S. Athabaskan

Hon. ANGUS L. MACDONALD (Minister of National Defence for Naval Services): Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend the leader of the opposition for his references, which I am sure are concurred in by every hon. member of this house. Certainly I myself share most genuinely his pride in the conduct of the Athabaskan's officers and men and his sorrow for those -who have given their lives.
We do not know and we shall not know for some time how many men have been lost and how many have been made prisoners of war. The direct question which my hon. friend put to me as to further details of the action beyond those which have appeared already in the press is one that perhaps I cannot answer properly at the moment, because I am not sure that I have anything to add to what has already been given to the public either in the press or on the radio. I can however give to the house a summary of the dispatches received at naval service headquarters.
During an offensive sweep in the English channel early on Saturday, April 29, 1944, licht forces of the Royal Canadian Navy encountered two enemy destroyers of the Elbing class in the vicinity of the He de Vierge near TJshant. The Canadian ships were:	His
Majesty's Canadian Ship Haida, under Commander H. G. de Wolf, R.C.N., and His Majesty's Canadian Ship Athabaskan, under Lieutenant-Commander J. H. Stubbs, D.S.O., R.C.N. Our ships immediately opened fire, to which the enemy replied with heavy and accurate fire. The Athabaskan w'as hit twice by shells, but continued firing until she was .struck by an enemy torpedo and sunk.
Repeated hits were obtained by our ships on the enemy, and one of the enemy shipsw'as driven ashore in flames. The remaining enemy destroyer escaped in the smoke and darkness. The action was continued to within close distance of enemy-occupied territory.
As to survivors:	One officer and thirteen
ratings, .whose injuries are not serious, are at present in the Royal Naval hospital, Plymouth, England. Six ratings, whose injuries are also not considered to be serious, are in the West Cornwall hospital, Penzance, Cornwall, England. One rating, slightly injured, is in the Royal Naval barracks, Devenport, England. Twenty-five ratings are also in the Royal Naval barracks at Devenport. That makes a total of forty-six of the Athabaskan complement that we know to be in England. Of that number one officer and thirty-nine ratings were picked up by the Canadian ship Haida, and the remaining six ratings made their way to the south coast of England in a motor boat dropped by the Haida before leaving the scene. The Haida [DOT]dropped other boats and rafts. It is reported

by the German radio that eighty-five prisoners, including six officers, were taken from the water and are now in German hands.
The next-of-kin of casualties are being informed as soon as possible. I am glad to say that there were no casualties whatever in the Canadian ship Haida, which returned safely *to port.


Mr. COLDWELL:: We associate ourselves with the remarks of the leader of the opposition. Does the procedure that has been followed in this case mean that a new policy has been adopted and that the loss of ships and so on will be announced before the relatives have.been informed as to casualties? I am sure we all sympathize with the relatives of the men in their period of anxiety and uncertainty. I thought the policy was that the announcement of losses would be made after the relatives had been notified of casualties. It seems to me that is the policy that should be pursued. When I heard the announcement on the air at noon yesterday I felt much disturbed because of the anxiety that I knew would prevail in a large number of Canadian homes.


Mr. MACDONALD (Kingston City):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the policy has been and still is to inform the next of kin of any casualties before any public announcement is made. But in this case, as I am sure many hon. members of the house know', announcements began to come over the German radio as early as Saturday to the effect that they had sunk a ship and that they had a certain number of prisoners; consequently it was felt that the only thing that could be done here and in Britain was that an announcement should be made by ourselves, giving such information as we had, meagre and sketchy though it might be. Furthermore, as to these men who are prisoners of war, my hon. friend will realize that it will be some time before those names are available. Often it takes as long as three months for this government to be informed of the identity of war prisoners. As my hon. friend undoubtedly knows, this information comes from the Red Cross. It would be necessary for us to make some announcement before the end of three months in any event, and our announcement would consequently have to be made before we had full particulars as to survivors.



RATIONING-UNITED STATES ALLOTMENT FOR CANNING PURPOSES-FRUIT JAR RINGS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Lorimer Ilsley: The hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Black-more) asked me on Friday to make a state-

War Appropriation-Labour
ment on the difference between the amount of sugar allowed for home canning in the United States and in Canada.
I understand that in the United States consumers may apply to their local ration boards for an allowance of twenty-five pounds per person for canning purposes. In Canada this year consumers will be entitled to obtain ten pounds of sugar for canning purposes by special coupons issued for that purpose. In addition twenty-six preserve coupons will be available each of which can be used either for the purchase of one-half pound of sugar or varying quantities of sweet spreads or canned fruit. It is possible therefore for a Canadian housewife wishing to put up her own preserves to obtain a maximum of twenty-three pounds of sugar for canning purposes in respect of each member of her household in addition to the ordinary weekly ration.
I want to make it clear that whereas in the United States the twenty-five pound allowance is granted only on application, in Canada application will not be necessary all consumers being entitled to the same amount of sugar for canning purposes.
Mr. BLACIvMORE:	Could the minister
tell us whether or not there is any limit on the amount of sugar which can be used for preserves, jams and jellies in the United States in addition to the twenty-five pounds?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I cannot tell the hon. member.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: I think it will be
found there is no limit.


Gordon Graydon: May I bring to the attention of the Minister of Finance, and also of the Minister of Munitions and Supply, a matter which is related to the one just mentioned? It may seem like a small matter, but it apparently is a big issue with the housewives of Canada, because many organizations have sent word to me asking me to plead the case in the house. I have not had an opportunity to do it and I would not do it now except that the matter has been mentioned by the minister. Apparently the quality of the fruit jar rings used in preserving last year was such that a great deal of loss resulted. Will the government consider that matter? I make no apology for bringing it to the attention of the government because of the pleas that those organizations have made to me.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I shall take note of the representation. I do not know that there is anything I can do about it, but I shall see if I can do something.


Gordon Graydon: It seems too bad if because of the quality of the rings some of the sugar now allotted for canning purposes should be lost by those who are making use of it.


John Horne Blackmore: Will the minister tell us some time soon whether or not there is a limit placed on the amount of sugar available in the United States for jams, jellies and preserves? If there is not, it makes a tremendous difference. I believe the minister said there were twenty-three pounds available in Canada for canning and for all kinds of preserves. There are twenty-five pounds available in the United States for canning purposes, and, as I understand it, there is no limit on the amount for jams, et cetera. If that is so, obviously there is a great deal of difference between the amount of sugar available in the United States and in Canada.



WAR APPROPRIATION BILL


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, April 28, consideration in committee of a resolution to grant to His Majesty certain sums of money for the carrying out of measures consequent upon the existence of a state of war-Mr. Ilsley-Mr. Bradette in the chair.
. DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR
National selective service programme, $11,002,429.
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: With regard to the address of the minister on Friday last, I wish to accept his summing up, as found on page 2447 of Hansard, of the task of selective service during the coming months. He said that the major task of the selective service system over the next few months will be:
First, to provide the required men for the armed services; second, to meet the labour needs of agriculture; third, to place in employment men discharged from the armed forces; fourth, to meet, as they develop, the urgent needs of certain key industries; fifth, to place men laid off as a result of changes in munition production schedules as quickly and efficiently as possible.
At the outset I wish to commend the Minister of Labour for the very full report he has given. His courtesy and willingness to furnish information deserve the highest praise. With some of the statistics he has given us I am not in agreement, but I do appreciate, as I am sure the committee does, the fact that the Minister of Labour is always willing to place before the house and the country the situation as he sees it. He claims that selective service
War Appropriation-Labour

has been very successful, but with that point of view I am not in complete agreement. I believe that the work being done by selective service in placing the men returning from overseas and those discharged in Canada has been most successful.
In that regard, I should like to ascertain what machinery has been set up to assist in the delhobilization of the armed forces, and to assure them of work. What about the men who since the beginning of the war have been employed in war plants that are to Be shut down? What about the men who joined the armed forces from munitions plants that will be closed down when they return from overseas? What provision will be made to assure these men of employment? What about the thirty thousand men who were not employed before they joined the armed services? The British government has announced its plan, under which the order of demobilization will depend upon age and length of service, with preference of course being given to service overseas. The local employment office here in Ottawa has done a particularly good job in a survey it made with a view to ascertaining whether jobs will be available when the war is over, and the order in which those jobs will become available. According to the information I have been given, the Ottawa employment office made a survey of 57-8 per cent of all war-time A and B priority industries in this area in order to ascertain how the industrial structure has been changed and whether after the war the demand and supply in connection with workers will be near balance. They found that as far as A priority industries are concerned, 6-6 per cent of the men will be released immediately upon termination of the war contracts; 37 per cent will be released one month later, 45 per cent three months later and 40 per cent six months later. In other words a vast army of men will be discharged from class A industries within a period of six months after the termination of their war contracts. So far as B priority industries are concerned, 2-4 per cent of the men will be released on the termination of war contracts, 3-7 per cent one month later, 4-7 per cent three months later and 6-5 per cent six months later. This means that hundreds of thousands of men and women now employed in A and B priority industries will be released within a few months after the end of the war. What about the employment of these people? I understand a survey has been made by the industrial mobilization survey board for the purpose of ascertaining how many positions will be available, and how many men can be combed out of industry for military service.
I think we should have a report by the 
minister on the result of that survey. How many men may expect to be combed out of industry within the next sixty days under the findings arrived at by this organization?
There can be no disagreement in this house, of course, with the commendation expressed by the minister of the men and women in the armed services, and I am sure hon. members in all parts of the house will concur in his remarks concerning the contribution to the war effort made by the women of Canada. We have 235,000 women in industry, in addition to thousands in the armed forces and the hundreds of thousands in their own households, engaged in patriotic work and doing their part in sacrifice and service.
Now, however, I come to a phase in connection with which there is some disagreement. I accept as a premise in connection with the operation of selective service, and I do not think it can be denied, that the foundation of unity in Canada depends upon equality of sacrifice and equality under the law without regard to any outside considerations whatsoever. We have declared for total war, but total war is impossible unless there is full partnership between our citizens, both military and civilian; and there can be no unity in this country unless there is a willingness and determination on the part of our citizens to serve equally in this war effort. Canadian citizenship is meaningless unless it implies a single standard of duty and responsibility everywhere in this dominion. I accept that as a principle upon which the organization of the war effort of this dominion must take place. To-day we have heard of another instance of gallantry and sacrifice on the part of those who served on the warship that was lost, and greater tests are ahead. The war now enters a period during which stern and ruthless determination must characterize the efforts of all the united nations.
So, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that at a time like this we must have effective administration of national selective service in order to support the men in the forces and to gear up our production in all its phases, agricultural, industrial, mining and forestry. I find it difficult to understand why, after all the declarations that have been made, civilian industries not directly necessary in the war effort still continue to employ many thousands of men and women. I selected a number of these industries indiscriminately with a view to placing the matter before the government, in order to indicate that in this country we have various civilian industries employing more men than they employed before the war began, from which man-power has not been combed. I remember reading an article by

War Appropriation-Labour
Mr. Dexter in April, 1943, in which he dealt with these various industries. The inquiry he then put was, as to why should there be such numbers engaged in civilian industries not directly necessary in the war effort? I now place the various statistics on the record:
Index numbers of employment (1926=100)
Dee. 1,	Dec. 1,	Dec. 1,Industry	1938	1939	1943Furs 	96-5	114-2	125-6Furniture	88-4	91-6	110-2Musical instruments.. Personal services	50-3	56-2	33-8(laundries, etc.) .. .	141-4	142-3	197-6Retail trade	147-8	151-8	181-8Wholesale trade	119-7	125-9	139-4
I might add that the number of employees in the fur industry stood at 2,336 in 1938, 2,765 in 1939, and 3,040 in 1943. And so I can go through the record showing that since 1939 there has been, in civilian industry, a material increase in the number of employees-with one exception, namely, musical instruments- in spite of the fact that within the last year some seven orders have been passed requiring compulsory transfer from non-essential to essential industry.
The man-power situation in general is in a precarious position to-day in this country. This is admitted by Mr. MacNamara himself, in an interview given in the Financial Post of April 29, 1944. It is pointed out there that the situation generally is most serious; 15,000 men a month are required for the armed services, and have been since December of 1943, according to the information contained in "Canada At War."


Mr. HOMUTH:: For the home army.


John George Diefenbaker: Civilian production goods are not being reduced. Canada still goes on with increasing civilian production. I have the figures here which, because of my limited time, I cannot put all on the record. They show a tremendous increase, to the extent of hundreds of millions of dollars, in civilian requirements in Canada. The -total sales of all departments of Canadian department stores in 193S was 8280,799,000; in 1939 it was $291,593,000 and in 1940 it was $326,696,000. In 1943 the sales were $417,495,000. In other wards, civilian production is continuing to increase over what it was before the war, and has not been decreased in order to meet the demands of the army and the services.
In base metals, lumbering and agriculture there is a shortage of man-power. There has been a considerable transfer of men from Quebec to Ontario to work in industry. All these factors point to one thing -that the
problem of man-power is the outstanding problem of 1944. It -is the problem upon the solution of which the war effort of this nation will either continue or diminish. It is the problem upon the solution of which price control must depend; for a balance must be secured between production of civilian goods, sufficient partly to meet -the demand, and the production necessary to the war effort. Underproduction of lumber, base metals and coal will lower war production. That is the problem we face, and none is of greater importance at this time.
The minister has pointed out, and properly so, that a great organization has been set up. Many laws have been passed and many regulations have been promulgated. But, Mr. Chairman laws and regulations will not prove effective unless they are effectively enforced. I wish particularly to -refer to the failure on the part of the government to enforce the law to the end that man-power shall be adequate for the armed services as well as for agriculture, transportation and industry in general. The problem, as we all admit, consists in assurance of reinforcements, assurance of food production, and assurance of the necessary supplies for the munitions of war. The Prime Minister enunciated the policy of the government on March 24, 1942, in these words:
Compulsion will -be applied without fear or favour, wherever in the opinion of the government its use will aid in the achievement of a maximum war effort.
That was the promise. To-day we have a record of the performance.
I repeat -that the keystone of unity upon which this country must be built is that of equality -of service. I do not blame the minister for the present condition of affairs; for I do not think he has received the cooperation of the other members of the cabinet -to -the end that there should be equality of service. I pointed oht a year ago that unless the regulations were uniformly applied, antagonism would be built up. I suggested the setting -up of an appeal board to the end that from the Atlantic to the Pacific there should be uniformity of application of the law of selective service.
We come now to a period when the manpower situation is serious. We were given a great many statistics the other day in connection with this matter. But, Mr. Chairman, there is no statistician who can analyse the figures on man-power which have been laid before this parliament and the country. The figures given as of January, 1943, were full and complete. We analysed that statement; so they changed the set-up and detail. During
War Appropriation-Labour

the 1943 session various returns were brought down, all based upon dissimilar hypotheses, all based upon different foundations.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And none of them agreeing.


John George Diefenbaker: They could not be
expected to agree. In 1944, at this session, the same procedure is followed-one type of return, then another, then a third, but all so arranged that unless one devoted many years to a study of them it would be impossible to analyse the figures.


Mr. MITCHELL:: We answered the
questions as asked by the hon. member. Naturally it changes from day to day, as the hon. member must realize.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Oh yes, but obliquely.


John George Diefenbaker: I have taken the trouble to put some of these statement side by side, and the answers given were so oblique that one does not fit with the other at all.


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend admitted he was not a statistician.


Richard Burpee Hanson: He did not say that; he said no statistician could do the job.


Gordon Graydon: He is in good company, if he is not.


John George Diefenbaker: 
Mr. McNIVEN:: Is not that men and
women?


John George Diefenbaker: That may be perfectly .true.


Donald Alexander McNiven: And only a temporary
condition.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, the minister could not say that, because the record shows that the number of 11,500 unemployed in the month of January increased by some 500 in the month of February. There was nothing temporary about that.


Humphrey Mitchell: I will say it is temporary.


John George Diefenbaker: Furthermore, at a time when we are short of men, when men are required, for instance, in the pulpwood industry, and the Department of Labour allowed 3,500 men to go to the United States, and the period during which they may remain in the United States has been extended beyond April 1, 1944.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And is
indefinite.


John George Diefenbaker: It has been made indefinite. If ever there was a time when it was necessary to take out pulpwood and to assure the press of this country of its fair and proper share of paper, it is now. Yet, on the one hand, the government admits having a shortage of man-pawer in the woods; so short indeed is that man-power that they have to take in Japanese and prisoners of war. On the other hand they allow 3,500 men to be sent across the line into the United States.
Here, then, is the situation: For 1944, 96,000 men are required for the armed services; 72,000 men are required for industry; men are required in the woods to cut pulpwood, where our production was 200,000,000 feet less than it should have been last year, and yet 3,500 trained men are given permission to leave Canada and cross into the United States to help in the war effort of that nation.
I come to the next question, the administration of the call-up. I want to speak as dispassionately as I can on this subject. The minister has stated that this year the number of delinquents is only some 49,000, and that the position has improved very much as a result of what has been done during the last year. Well, I have the various reports regarding the call-ups under N.R.M.A. before me, and I placed them together in order to see what, the picture is. I have taken the returns which were brought down to the house; I have taken the various issues of "Canada at War"; and they, together with the answers to questions that have been-asked in regard to

War Appropriation-Labour
man-power, are evidence of the practice of mathematical sleight-of-hand in order to secure credit for the government.
"Canada at War'' shows that there is no equal enforcement of the law across Canada. I said that before, and I am not going to go into it in detail again; for no attempt has ever been made by the government to deny it. But I will repeat that in this country to-day there is a spread, with respect to callups and voluntary enlistments, of from 9-8 per cent of the male population between the ages of eighteen and forty-five to 42-7 per cent in the Toronto district, which according to the latest returns has the highest record, followed by Victoria, Halifax and Saint John.
What of the record of enforcement? I shall refer to return 142E, brought down on April 27 in answer to certain questions I asked. I refer also to what the minister said at page 4039 of Hansard of June 23, 1943. As a result I find that in this country a great legion of men between eighteen and forty-five years of age have disappeared without a trace. The minister said that only 49,001 are now unaccounted for, as compared with 67,674 a year ago. But that favourable statement is not borne out by the records. The records on this question cannot be balanced, and in many cases they show a fictional disregard of the actual facts. Take the return I mentioned a moment ago. It shows that the number of men called up was 1,449,417, and that the number who reported was 979,569. That means that 469,848 are unaccounted for, less 71,545, who, according to return 142A, enlisted, on receipt of the order. There is still a balance of some 390,000 missing men.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is
the lost army of Canada.


John George Diefenbaker: And the serious
part of it is that this number is increasing. Last year the explanation given for this tremendous spread was that the machinery was not in operation. The statement given by the minister a year ago showed that 998,475 had been called up and that 608,642 had reported. Last year, as of June 23, 379,833 were unaccounted for. Deducting the numbers of those who must have enlisted, we find that there has been an increase within the past eight months of approximately 60,000 in the number of men unaccounted for.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Four
divisions.


John George Diefenbaker: Where are the men of this lost legion?


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: In the bush, like the
government.


John George Diefenbaker: The figures seem
like an intentional jumble of inconsistency. Where is this army of the vanished-the unfound-the undiscovered? I want the minister to explain that, and not by statements such as he made before, that no doubt some volunteered and got into the army and some went into the merchant marine.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Where are the records to show it?


John George Diefenbaker: They say they have their records, and very detailed records, today. All we ask is that they account for approximately 360,000 missing men. A year ago they said that the reason for inequality in the call-up was that in some provinces the. number of fit men was higher than in others. But however good that explanation may have been, the statistics I have given have nothing at all to do with the state of health of the men. They show the number of men called up for medical examination and the number who reported for medical examination.
But that is not the end of the picture; it is just the beginning. We have lost about 360,000 now. Then military training orders went out, no doubt on the instructions of the Minister of National Defence; to the various military districts. These are to be found in return No. 142A, showing the number of military training orders sent out to January 31. They lost 300,000; then they sent out 433,453 orders for military training; and again what happened? There were 220,762 reported; and again there is a disappearance of 19,857 between the time the military order was sent out and the time the men reported, less the number of postponements.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Took to the woods.


John George Diefenbaker: There has been as yet no endeavour to answer that, as there was no serious endeavour to answer the charge I made last year, and repeated, that there is no equality of call in the various provinces.
Next, not only is there no equality in call for training, but there is no equality in the call for medical examination. Let me refer again to the return which I mentioned. The number called for medical examination to January 31, 1944 was 1,449,417. The number called up to June 23 last was 988,000. In other words, 469,942 have been called up for medical examination since June 23, 1943-


Richard Burpee Hanson: To
January.
War Appropriation-Labour


John George Diefenbaker: Up to the 31st of January, as the hon. member for York-Sunbury says. Here is how they called them up. They called up a total from the various military districts of the number I have given. In Quebec military district, division F, they called up 8-6 per cent of the total population, or, in that period of time, only 8,724 out of some 460,000 men. I would like an explanation of why so few calls for medical examination were sent out in this district. The proper number on an equal percentage basis would be 39,000. I am giving the picture with regard to the unfairness of the call-up and the vast army which wanders about this dominion, free of any serious threat of prosecution. The total number of men found has been 22,000, at $2.50 per head. I say without fear of contradiction, after reading the records of the United States of America, of Great Britain, of New Zealand and of Australia, that the record as to call-up in this country reveals an appalling condition of default and disobedience unknown anywhere else among countries having any system of military call-up. It shows that either the departmental statistics are wrong-and they cannot be Wrong, because they have been checked and cross-checked, and we have been assured of their correctness-or the enforcement is all wrong, and that is the conclusion to which any reasonable person must come under the circumstances. It shows that political expediency dictates the policy of the state and paralysis results.


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend speaks of political expediency dictating the policy. Let me say without fear of contradiction that as far as my department is concerned there is no political expediency.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Does the minister say that for the government?


John George Diefenbaker: I ask the minister to explain the reason for this. Where are these men? Why the break-down in the prosecutional facilities? Why the necessity, with police forces everywhere, to call in the credit agencies, the Associated Credit Bureaus and the Hooper firm, in order to find these men, the records regarding whom are in the possession of the government and have been since national registration? I repeat that none of the countries to which I made reference- and I have the statistics here-can show such an appalling record of default and disobedience in the administration of man-power as can this country. Three hundred and fifty thousand is the minimum that have gone; 22,000 have been picked up by the credit agencies; and f.Mr. R. B. Hanson.]
the total number of prosecutions has been 4,214. What about penalties? Promises of immunity were made, and a few thousand turned up. Prosecutions-a paltry one or one and a half per cent-have taken place; and now the employers are called in and asked to cooperate with the government to ensure that those who are in default shall be identified and brought forth to the light of day.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Using
employers as a club.
Mr . DIEFENBAKER:	What of the
penalties? They are an invitation to disobedience of the man-power regulations of this country. I have here return No. 142, dated January 28, 1944, which was brought down in answer to a series of questions by the hon. member for Red Deer. What does it show? The question is asked: WKat was the average fine imposed in each administrative division, and what was the average gaol sentence imposed? The answer is that the average fine runs as follows, by administrative divisions: A. London, $25; B, Toronto, $105; C, Kingston, $50; D, Port Arthur, no fines, always a gaol sentence; E, Montreal, $25; F, Quebec, $21; G. Halifax, $25; II. Saint John, $22; I, Charlottetown, no report; J. Winnipeg, $25; K. Vancouver, $50; M. Regina, $50; N. Edmonton, $75. In default of payment of the fines the gaol sentences run from twenty-one days to ten months.
I suggest that the realization by defaulters that, if they are picked up, they will not be penalized beyond a small monetary payment, is an encouragement to default. How much more money a man can make in two weeks outside the army than if he is in the army, knowing that if he is caught and fined the penalty will be only a matter of twenty-five dollars or thereabouts.
The number of prosecutions is ridiculously out of line with the number of offences committed. The record with regard to conscientious objectors shows that there were 8,600 registered. No one has any objection whatever to conscientious _ objectors receiving the consideration that every British country grants them, and I would say that in Saskatchewan and in the western provinces there are large bodies of Mennonites who came to Canada in the period from 1873 on, to whom I .pay my tribute. These people's sons have played a remarkable part in the armed forces of the country. The Mennonites came here believing that it was wrong to participate in war, and! yet to-day, if you look at the daily casualty lists, you will find records of young men.

War Appropriation-Labour
professing the Mennonite faith revealing deeds of gallantry which have won them decorations in the service of their country.
As regards the Doukhobors, the minister says that everything is fine in Saskatchewan, but I intend to ask him a few questions about them. How many of the Doukhobors in Saskatchewan are doing their alternative service on their own farms? Under the regulations as they originally stood, a conscientious objector was required to go to an alternative service camp and to stay there for the period of the war or engage in other alternative service. Well, the Doukhobors in Saskatchewan decided that they were not going to any alternative camp for the rest of the war; they just said that they were not going. A number of them were prosecuted, and then an arrangement was made between the Department of National War Services and the leaders of the Doukhobors whereby they were promised that if they would go to a park and stay there for three months in the summer time-


Richard Burpee Hanson: On
vacation.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, in as fine surroundings as any person in a summer tent ever enjoys, at the end of three months they were free for the rest of the war. That promise was made and carried out, and the minister says that everything is all right in Saskatchewan.


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


Humphrey Mitchell: Does my hon. friend want another five minutes? I enjoy listening to him.


John George Diefenbaker: Let me finish this one subject. May I?


An hon. MEMBER:: He has spoken for forty minutes.


Humphrey Mitchell: First of all I want to thank my hon. friend for his very kindly references to the Department of Labour. Of course I appreciate the fact that he has had a difficult job in building up a case.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No trouble; anybody could do it.


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend, if he is ever fortunate, or perhaps unfortunate enough to be a minister of the crown


Karl Kenneth Homuth: No question about that; he will be.


Humphrey Mitchell: Let my hon. friend speak for himself. Goodness knows the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Homuth) has tried hard enough with many political
parties.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Had I been a minister I would have quit my job before I would let them make a mess of my department the way they did with yours.


Humphrey Mitchell: When my hon. friend talks about statistics, he will understand that it will be necessary for him to have a statistical branch of his department. When I took over the Department of Labour I saw to it that we expanded and developed the statistical branch of the department. I will endeavour as far as I can to answer my hon. friend's questions one by one, following the sequence in which he spoke this afternoon.


Richard Burpee Hanson: You would not tell us first about the lost legion, would you?


Humphrey Mitchell: I will do that too, if my hon. friend from the good old province of New Brunswick can be patient. With regard to demobilization, as I have said before, I am not one of those members who think that this war is over-not by a long way.


Mr. BRUCE:: Neither do we.


Humphrey Mitchell: I think that first things should come first. First of all we have to defeat Hitler and the people in the Pacific. That is the primary job confronting this house and the people of Canada.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is why we want the lost legion.


Humphrey Mitchell: As I say, first things should come first. The hon. member for Lake Centre spoke of demobilization. We have a special committee of the Department of Labour dealing with the question of demobilization, and associated therewith, of course, is the Department of Pensions and National Health. I do not know, however, nor do I think any member of this house knows, what kind of world we shall live in when the war is over.


Richard Burpee Hanson: You ought to ask Paul Martin.


Humphrey Mitchell: You can put all these things down on paper, and we have done a great deal of that; we have a good many plans under consideration at the present time; but until we know what kind of country, or rather what kind of world-not so much the country
War Appropriation-Labour

as the world-we shall live in when the war is over, our plans and all the rest of it will be of no avail.
I have a vivid recollection of what I wanted most when I was going through the last war, and I have no doubt other hon. members had the same experience. I took the position, as did thousands of others, and I am sure the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) also took that position, that we were concerned not so much about plans as about getting back into civilian life. The British government has taken the same view, and we have to a certain extent, with regard to the gradual demobilization of the armed forces.
It is difficult to expect young men after the war to stay in the services when the war is over. At least I am speaking as an individual. Be that as it may, the department is continually surveying the dominion from the standpoint of a change-over in industry and labour requirements at that time.
My hon. friend spoke of civilian consumption. I think he will agree with me that it was only logical and inevitable that with the increase in the tempo of employment the consumptive ability of the Canadian people- I am speaking of civilian goods-would increase, comparing conditions in 1939 with those that exist to-day. Just over a week ago I was in Philadelphia and New York and I saw something of the vast mass consumption of the people in those two great communities -much greater than our own, may I say. I have always held the opinion that war in its very essence demanded sacrifice. I have always felt that there should be regard for those conditions on the home front. I wish to say to my hon. friend that I do not take second place to any nation of the united nations, except Great Britain, as far as the machinery of selective service is concerned. Do not forget that in Great Britain they have the compelling force of the blitz, which we have not in this country. That may have something to do with the demand for consumption on the part of the people in this country. It is one thing to be in the immediate shadow of war and another thing to be three thousand miles away from it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What the minister is saying is that we have not the war fervour here that they have over there?


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend will agree with me that if the enemy were knocking at the gates of Quebec, or if the enemy were in Burrard inlet in British Columbia, there
might be a different outlook toward the prosecution of the war from that which is expressed in certain quarters in this country. I mean, that is a practical thing; you have to recognize it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is true enough.


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend spoke of the laundries. Of course there has been an expansion in laundries. There are tens of thousands of men in the armed forces of Canada whose clothes are kept clean by the ordinary commercial laundries of the country. It is a little bit different from what it was when I was in the navy. We then had to wash our own clothes.


Mr. NOSEWORTHY:: They have two shirts now to keep clean; we had one in the last war.


Humphrey Mitchell: We were lucky to have one in the last war-and I do not say that to cast any reflection on the good fellows who are fighting this war, either. In connection with these civilian undertakings may I say that we have moved tens of thousands of women into them. As I said the other day, had it not been for the women in Great Britain and in Canada-and possibly in the United States, but they can speak for themselves-I do not think we could have reached the point in this war that we have reached to-day.
My hon. friend quoted figures from the unemployment insurance commission to show the amount of unemployment in Canada. That I think is a very unstable position to take. In a seasonal country like Canada, where you get inevitable changes from season to season, unemployment conditions, by the very nature of things, particularly in the construction trade, vary. You get those pockets of unemployment that we have experienced in the last six months. May I say also that we are not alone in that regard. Our good friends to the south of us have experienced the same condition, and notwithstanding the magnitude of the organization in Great Britain they are more or less in the same position.
My hon. friend talked about conscientious objectors. I thought we had that section of the administration fairly well organized. There is this to be said when you compare the position to-day with conditions two years ago. At the moment those conscientious objectors are engaged in productive employment. I am not offering any criticism of what went on before. You take those leaps in the dark; you try a thing, and if it does not work you try something else. That is inevitable under our form of government. I am frank to admit

War Appropriation-Labour
that the old policy of having all the conscientious objectors in camps has been changed and changed considerably. We felt, in view of the shortage of man-power, in agriculture particularly, that those men would be far better off engaged in that important undertaking in our national life than they would be working in those camps in the Rocky mountains. My hon. friend said they would be very nice places in which to spend a holiday. I agree with him.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister spoke about parks.


Humphrey Mitchell: I should like to spend next summer in the parks, but I shall have to sit and listen to my hon. friends day in and day out.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister adopted a policy of appeasement. That is what this government always does.


Humphrey Mitchell: Let me say this to my hon. friend; there was no adoption of a policy of appeasement. We did the practical and sensible thing.


Richard Burpee Hanson: You forgave them. You said, "Go home and be good boys".


Humphrey Mitchell: We made the maximum earning power of those conscientious objectors $25 a month. Any amount in excess of that was paid over to the Red Cross. While I have not the figures in front of me at the moment, I think over the first eight months' period of that policy those people made a contribution of about one quarter of a million, dollars to the Red Cross society in the Dominion of Canada. I think that is a constructive way to move in that regard. I think it is far better to have a man. on a farm doing something that he understands, that he has been brought up to do, than to have him waste his time in some camp in, the parks of this country. I have had some experience with those camps.
My hon. friend spoke about figures. I do not think he said we cooked the figures, but the implication was there. I do not want to take him too harshly to task on that, but I think that observation might be made in reverse, and I say that in a kindly way. I mean the figures my hon. friend quoted were all staggered.


John George Diefenbaker: They were the
minister's figures.


Humphrey Mitchell: Of course they were,
but they were for different times and different conditions. I am not the keeper of the members of this committee wlmn they sit down
with a pencil and a piece of paper and try to write out a question. I have tried it myself. I know how difficult it is sometimes to try to catch the minister.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: It was far easier in our time.


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes. I think the hon. member will agree with me when, I say this: while he quoted figures to suit himself, figures probably emanating from my department-[DOT] and I am not being critical about that-I can see how his mind would be confused when he was trying to plead a bad case. I say to the hon. member that I will stand' by the figures in table No. 7 which I submitted when I spoke on Friday. They are up-to-date figures and are from reliable sources.
My hon. friend from New Brunswick talks about the lost battalion. I know it looks nice on Hansard.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The lost
legion.


Humphrey Mitchell: Nevertheless it is not true, and he knows it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Pretty
nearly true, and the country knows it.


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend is trying to convince the country of something that does not exist.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is all right; the minister will see when he goes out to meet the country.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Order.


Humphrey Mitchell: I think I should say something about prosecutions. I am not responsible for prosecuting or adjudicating a case that comes before some judicial tribunal in this country. I am not responsible for that That is in the hands of the courts.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister has left out a very important matter, namely, the allocation of the call-ups. Why the low percentage in one place and the very high percentage in another?


Humphrey Mitchell: If my hon. friend will wait, I will come to that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Don't
forget it. It is important; that is all.


Humphrey Mitchell: As my hon. friend for
Lake Centre knows, I have not reached the stage where I would give direction to the courts of this country when a case comes before them. They adjudicate those cases in a manner which I think has been to the credit of the British people. I speak of "British people" in the broad sense. The hon.
War Appropriation-Labour

member for York-Sunbury has asked: Why the difference in the approach to the different military districts? I am frank to admit that there are no two military districts alike. Some military districts are largely rural in their make-up; some are largely industrial. I think it is a fair observation to say that up to now the great mass of recruiting in this dominion, speaking now of the call-ups, has been in the more industrialized or urban communities of the country.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The volunteers came from Prince Edward Island and the rural parts, of New Brunswick.


Humphrey Mitchell: If my hon. friend will wait a moment, I think I made that clear; they have come more largely from the urban centres. The hon. member for Lake Centre raised the question of using these private agencies for tracing people. On Friday I gave him an approximate figure; the actual number of these men to date is 25,670. I would use any agency to trace a missing individual whom I thought owed an obligation to the state. In a vast country like Canada the police force necessary to do this work would have to be so large as to be almost beyond the imagination of most hon. members, and would create a great strain on the man-power of this country. If these people can be located through the simple device of using an agency, it is much more economical; and, if it answers the same purpose, I think it is a sound policy to pursue. That is all I have to say in that regard. I have endeavoured to answer all. the points raised by my good friend from Lake Centre, and if he has any others in mind I should be glad to endeavour to answer them as well.


Richard Burpee Hanson: You had better revise your opinion when you look *over Hansard to-morrow.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The item before us deals with a sum of money to provide for the national selective service programme, one of the functions of which is to make certain that all of Canada's available man-power will be *utilized in the national interest. In this connection I should like to refer to one particular group of men in the city of Winnipeg who have gone back to work. I refer to men over sixty-five years of age who were formerly. employed by the Canadian Pacific Railway company in the Weston shops, who have been given extensions and have gone back to work in order to assist in all-out production. Naturally among men of that advanced age only those physically able to return to work are so employed, which focuses attention on the fact that many other men of the same age and *circumstances have not been able to accept

extensions for further employment, and find themselves in a difficult position because of the fact that in many cases no pension is available to them. This raises a question of labour relations which I should like to draw as forcibly as I can to the attention of the minister and the government in the hope that.it may be given serious consideration.
As from January 1,1937, the Canadian Pacific Railway company instituted a new pension scheme for its employees on a contributory basis, as distinct from the non-contributory plan which had been in existence for many years. Into that new plan was written a provision which has created a serious problem for many men, the effects of which are now being felt. I refer to section 8(a) of the rules of that pension plan, which reads in part as follows:
Only those employees of the company shall be eligible for pension whose names are entered on its staff records, whose last entry into its service has or shall have occurred before attaining the age of forty years-
When this new plan was set up in 1937 the employees of the Canadian Pacific Railway company, at the Weston shops and elsewhere in Winnipeg, realized what it would mean a few years hence and, as I say, the effects of this plan now are being felt very keenly by hundreds of employees. To go for a moment into the background of this situation, I would remind the minister that in 1919 a serious strike occurred in the city of Winnipeg, in which many thousands of men participated. Of those who went out during the course of that strike, four thousand were employees of the Canadian Pacific Railway. When the railway company instituted this new pension plan it ruled that employees who had been out of work during the course of that strike should be regarded as having terminated their employment. In other words, no matter for how many years prior to 1919 these men might have worked for the company, their employment was dated as of the date of their return in that year. When this new plan was first studied by the men affected it was found that there were still in the employ of the Canadian Pacific Railway at Winnipeg, in 1937, 2,500 men whose employment had been interrupted during the strike of 1919. Of these some 2,100, when they returned to work in 1919, were still under the age of forty; in other words it was their right, when the new plan came into effect in 1937, to become participants in that plan since they were under the age limit prescribed when they returned to work. However, many of these 2,100 men had put in quite a number of years of sendee prior to 1919, so that even in their case the benefits of those years of service

War Appropriation-Labour
have been lost under the new pension plan. The other four hundred who were still in the employ of the company in 1937 were men who had been over forty years of age when they returned to work in 1919, so when the new plan came into effect they were denied the right to enter into it or participate in any pension scheme whatsoever. Hon. members will recognize at once that as a result many men who have given twenty, thirty or forty years of their lives in the service of the company in Winnipeg, upon retirement at the age of sixty-five are not eligible to receive pensions from the company.
As hon. gentlemen will expect, this matter was carefully considered by the unions affected, and in due course in 1937 they took it up with their general chairmen. Later a subcommittee of these general chairmen took the matter up with the president of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, the late Sir Edward Beatty. The matter was under consideration from, roughly, December, 1937, until well into 1939. The last conference between the subcommittee of the general chairmen and the officials of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company took place on July 3, 1939. On October 18 of that year the subcommittee reported on their efforts to the unions affected, and I should like to quote briefly from the report given at that time. This is from the report of the subcommittee of the general chairmen back to1 the unions affected:
After going very carefully into tile matter at issue it was stated by Mr. Coleman that, apart altogether from the fact that the strikes in question were in violation of the law of the land, viz., the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, and were further unauthorized by the organizations now making a plea on behalf of these men-many of whom had gone on strike after the recognized representatives of the unions had . advised against such action

the company was now being asked to find more than $1,250,000 in addition to the amount already required to meet normal expenditures for pension purposes. He made it very clear that the earnings of the company made such a task quite impossible, and regretted very much that, in such circumstances, he had to deny the request of the committee.
Further in this same report I find this:
We have kept in close touch with this matter over a considerable period of time, always encouraged by the hope that sufficient improvement might take place in the financial condition of the company as to enable us to realize a firm conviction which we have always held that, in such improved conditions at least, some relief might be forthcoming.
Later I find the general chairmen saying this:
We are still of the unanimous view that, had the financial conditions of the company been different, we would have made progress.
I have read those quotations to emphasize what appeared to be the view of the committee which met the officials of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, namely, that the chief obstacle so far as the company was concerned was the expense involved in meeting the request of the men. It will be noted that the official concerned, Mr. Coleman, stated there were two matters involved, first, that the strike in 1919 had


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The hon. member will
realize that we are discussing an item having to do with national selective service, and I do not think what the hon. member is saying comes under the present item. I believe the discussion might more properly be had when the civil estimates of the Department of Labour are before the committee. I cannot see any connection between what the hon. member is saying and the item now before the committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As I have already tried to indicate, this is a matter affecting men employed and others laid off at the present time, including men who are being retired from time to time. My contention is that this is a matter of labour relations, one which is very much to the fore in these days, and closely connected with the carrying out of our war effort. It is a matter which in my opinion should now be discussed. Further, unless the discussion may now continue when we are dealing with general matters connected with labour relations, I do not know where it might take place. My submission is that we have not before us a schedule of items but rather a resolution on the war appropriation measure. For the sake of convenience we have consented to discuss items in committee as they come along, and in view of our having agreed to that arrangement we should be given the privilege of dealing with matters such as this, which seem to us to be related to the problem before us.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The only objection I
would have is that it is repetitious. I have sat as chairman of the committee at nearly all committee sittings, and the greatest complaint would seem to be that there is repetition, day after day. If there were not that repetition the same objection might not be lodged.


Stanley Howard Knowles: So far as I know this
matter has not been raised before and I do not see how the suggestion of repetition is involved. It seems to me I should be permitted to continue, because this is a matter of great concern. I believe I should be allowed to proceed under the general heading of labour relations in time of war.
War Appropriation-Labour

I should like to emphasize that Mr. Coleman's reply to these men was twofold; first, that in his view the strike was illegal, and second, that from the standpoint of the company the money could not be found to finance the pensions these men were requesting. In reply to the argument that the strike was illegal I would point out that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company is the only large employer in Winnipeg which, so far as a programme of pensions is concerned, still takes cognizance of the 1919 strike. The Canadian National Railways were in the picture at the time. Later on they likewise instituted a new pension scheme, dating I believe from January 1, 1935; but no discrimination is levelled against any employees of that company who were out in 1919, as has happened in the case of the employees of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. The same holds true with respect to the dominion government. It took back its postal employees and other government employees in Winnipeg, and did not cut into their pension rights at all because of the events of that year. The same is true of the Manitoba provincial government, and of the city of Winnipeg, having special reference to the police of that city who were out during the course of the strike. It seems to me the commendable attitude all these other large employers have taken, including the dominion government itself, both as a government and through its connection with the Canadian National Railways, is the best answer to that argument.
The suggestion that the strike was illegal implies that the company feel that they lost money as a result thereof. Actually that is not so. There had been built up, through the fact that these men would have qualified for a pension on a non-contributory basis, had they stayed on, an equity which in fact was theirs. The company says it would cost them $1,200,000 to pay that equity to these men. It is admitting that it has made $1,200,000 out of the strike whereas, as I have already pointed out, other large employers have not taken advantage of their men in that way.
Answering the argument that the company cannot afford to pay these pensions, first of all I emphasize the fact that these men had an equity which belonged to them in the period prior to 1919. In connection with every -wage negotiation which took place during that period, when the men were seeking higher wages, the company always pointed to the non-contributory pension plan as a factor which should be taken into consideration. In other words it assumed there was an equity under the former plan which belonged to the men.
I would point out, too, that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company have had a great deal given to them by way of land grants, grants of money and tax exemptions right across this country, and that they have a responsibility not only to individual employees, such as those on behalf of whom I speak, but to the community as a whole.
I well remember during the depression years of the thirties, because I was living in Weston at the time in the home of an employee of the company, how these men agreed to a reduction in the number of their working days to as few as ten a moltth in order that there might be a minimum of actual lay-offs in the Weston shops. I would point out that the men by accepting this course and thus avoiding widespread lay-offs saved money for the taxpayers of the country and also saved the Canadian Pacific Railway Company from demands that would undoubtedly have been made upon it to provide funds to 'keep these men going had they been laid off.
There is one other point that should be emphasized when the company is insisting that it cannot pay these pensions, and that is to be found in the financial reports which the company has been making in the last two or three years. I find that the net railway earnings of the company in 1941, for example, were $45,957,536; in 1942, the net railway earnings were $48,187,689, and in 1943, $49,211,567. After making certain deductions and adjustments which appear in the figures listed in the company's own reports which I have before me, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company was still able in 1943 to add $37,939,936 to its profit and loss account, with the result that at the end of 1943 the credit balance in its profit and loss account was $239,190,419. I suggest that in the face of those figures the argument that the company cannot afford to pay the pensions which belong to these men is utterly ridiculous.
I have before me the details of a number of these cases. I shall not take time to go into them but I should like a few minutes to tell the story of one employee of the company, the file on whose case I have in my hand.
This employee entered the service of the company in 1912 and was with the company until 1942, a total of thirty years. In 1923 he had an accident while at work and lost a leg. In 1942, when he was 64 years and 3 months of age, his health became so poor that it was impossible for him to continue at work, and so the company wrote him a nice letter giving him leave of absence because of his illness, without pay. Nine months later he received another letter telling

War Appropriation-Labour
him that now he was sixty-five years of age he would be retired. But of course there was no pension because this employee was out of the service for a time in 1919.
When this employee wrote to the company and asked for consideration in view of his distress and his need, the reply that was sent to him, and which I have before me, said that the company were sorry but that nothing could be done under the rules as they stood, and the company were also very sorry that the man's health was such that he could not avail himself of an extension and go back to work, and keep himself alive in that way. . Hon. members will see the position in which that man was put. He gave thirty years of his life; he gave a leg; he gave his health to the company, and all the company had to say in return was: We are sorry your health does not permit you to carry on and work beyond the age of sixty-five and thus keep yourself alive. And that at a time when the company is making the profits which I have already indicated.
These men, as I have already said, have taken this matter up repeatedly through their unions and through the chairmen of their organizations, and they have also endeavoured to take the matter up as individuals with the officials of the company. A short while ago, when Mr. Coleman was passing through Winnipeg, one of these men wrote him a personal letter stating the position in which he found himself and stating that others were in the same circumstances. He wrote this, in part, to Mr. Coleman:
While we are aware of the failure of our general chairmen on this question, we think that the case might be placed in a more appealing way by some of the men affected. Hoping, sir, that you will pardon our presumption and grant us this privilege. . . .
In reply to this letter from an individual, Mr. Coleman under date of July 3, 1942, said in part:
I was in charge of western lines at the time [DOT] of the 1919 strike and am familiar with all the circumstances, and conducted the negotiations with the labour representatives. I have never felt that there was any injustice involved in the decisions then made.
I emphasize to the committee, Mr. Chairman, that the decisions made by the Canadian Pacific were wholly at variance with the decisions made by the Canadian National, the dominion government, the provincial government and the city of Winnipeg. I am satisfied that in Winnipeg to-day, despite the feelings of the past about the 1919 strike, all would agree that this matter should be
reconsidered and that these men should be given their pensions. Mr. Coleman went on to say:
There would, therefore, be no advantage in having a discussion with me. If there are any special circumstances surrounding your case, which may have been overlooked, I suggest that you communicate with Mr. Mather.
Regretting that I am unable to write you in more encouraging terms, I remain,
Yours very truly,
D. C. Coleman,
. President.
All of this, as matters now stand, apparently seems to be under the complete control of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. The unions and their general chairmen have done their best in the matter, but the company has turned them down. I suggest that the argument that the company could not finance the pensions for these men, even if it had any merit years ago when it was made to the general chairmen, certainly has no validity to-day.
In addition to these efforts by the general chairmen, the individuals themselves have made efforts such as those to which I have just referred, but without avail.
We are forced back to the terms of the Railway Act, by which the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and other railways apparently were given power to set up their own pension schemes without having to submit them to review by the federal government. The appropriate section of the Railway Act is section 122, which reads in part as follows:
The directors may make by-laws or pass resolutions, from time to time, not inconsistent with law, for
(c) the retirement of such of said officers and servants, on such terms as to an annual allowance or otherwise, as in each case the directors, in the interest of the company's service, and under the circumstances, consider just and reasonable.
I submit, Mr. Chairman, that if it is necessary for the government to submit an amendment to the Railway Act in order to take care of this matter, the government should give consideration to such a course. If, on the other hand, it can be taken care of as a matter of labour relations where improvement is necessary for the war effort, I hope that the Minister of Labour will look into the matter. The section of the Railway Act which I have just quoted seems to have given the entire say over to the company. In other words, the employees concerned, who give their health and their lives in the manner I have indicated have no redress through their government, through the people whom they democratically elect to represent them.
War Appropriation-Labour

I would urge that the government take this matter under consideration in an effort to see whether something cannot be done for these men. Whatever the views may have been about the 1919 strike; whatever ideas with respect to pensions and social legislation may have prevailed in those days, we are living now in a different era, when the country as a whole feels that working men are entitled to a proper share of the wealth they produce, and entitled in their old age to decent pension. I submit that these men have been dealt with most unjustly, that they have been discriminated against as compared with employees of the other large organizations to which I have referred, and I hope that this matter will be given consideration by the minister, or by the government.


Mr. MAYBANK:: I have considerable
familiarity with the facts dealt with by the last speaker. I know that the problem concerning the Canadian Pacific railway's fund is not, strictly and technically a government matter. Prior to the time that it changed its superannuation plan the Canadian Pacific had one which was non-contributory. It was not a bad scheme, when one considers that no direct contribution by the employees was required. Later the Canadian Pacific changed over to a plan which is quite similar to that of the Canadian National; at least there are many points of similarity. This change occurred not very many years ago. I do not think that at the time they were drawing up the by-laws for the new plan they had in mind particularly the 2,500 employees-if 2,500 is the right figure, in the Weston area who had been on strike in the big general strike of 1919. However, the result was that most of these men, or at any rate a large number of them, could not acquire pension rights, because of the break in their service in 1919. As I have said, I realize that it is not strictly a government matter, but I know the Department of Labour took a hand in it at some times in the past and endeavoured to effect changes beneficial to the men. While I do not think it is feasible to pass a law to coerce the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, I would urge that the department be astute to try to discover some way of influencing the Canadian Pacific.
I may tell the committee a story with reference to this sort of thing, the facts respecting which I know personally, because of the source from which they come. There was a strike on the Grand Trunk railway back in 1907 or 1908. The men lost that strike. When it wras coming to am endi, the

then deputy minister of labour, the present Prime Minister of this country, made a bargain with Mr. Hays, who wTas the president of that railway, that, despite the men having lost, he would restore them to work as fast as opportunity offered. Notwithstanding everything that the then deputy minister, Mr. King, could do, Mr. Hays welshed on his bargain and did not take the men back to work, and they were scattered all over Canada working for other railways. I myself met many of them in the ten or fifteen years of railroad work that I did. All of them lost their jobs in spite of what was done by [DOT] the man who later became the Prime Minister of this country.
The sequel to that story is as follows. In 1911 the president of that railway was looking for money from the Canadian government, The then deputy minister of labour had become a minister of the crown, and he said to Sir Wilfrid Laurier at that time, "Unless Hays acts differently from what he has done in the past-and he is not entitled to this consideration-I would not grant it to him." As a matter of fact the minister took the position that he would resign from the cabinet if Hays, without keeping his undertaking, got consideration to which he was not legally entitled. Sir Wilfrid Laurier delivered an ultimatum to the president of the railway, and parliament was dissolved in 1911 without his obtaining the government aid which he sought. Mr. King, the minister at that time, was defeated in that election. The next time he had to deal with the problem was after he became Prime Minister of this country, when Sir Henry Thornton was being appointed. At that time conversations were held with Thornton, and the Prime Minister, as Mr. King then was, after telling him the whole story, said, "I do not make it a condition of your appointment that these men will even yet get such measure of justice as can be given them, but I do make it a condition of the appointment that you will personally look into it". It was not more than six or seven months later that every one of the sixteen hundred men who had behn discriminated against in 1907 or 190S had been hunted up, and eveiy one of them received whatever compensation could be given in lieu of those that had been taken away. In many cases moneys were paid to their estates. I know these facts to be as I have stated them, and if any minister of the crown is not familiar with the circumstances his best source of information is his own Prime Minister. This measure of justice was effected in this manner by the present

War Appropriation-Labour
Prime Minister. Incidentally, it is altogether too bad that the story is not better known.
I do not know what the Department of Labour can do in a case of this kind, but I submit that it should concern itself to find a way to help these C.P.R. men. I know the minister and his department would desire to do anything that is possible. I do not make any specific recommendation about changing the law; indeed, I do not think a specific recommendation at this moment would be worth while, because it might turn out not to be feasible. But the time may come when the Minister of Labour can find 'a way of helping.
I wish to add just a few further words. The hon. gentleman who has just spoken did, it is true, point out that the pension law of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company is out of line with that of the Canadian National Railways. I think it might have been a little more generous on his part had he drawn attention in a very special way to that fact. It was glossed over; it was mentioned but not stressed to any degree. The grievance was brought out into the open and stirred around a good deal, but praise was not given in the generous manner which might have been expected to the Canadian National Railways as an instrument of this government for the fair sort of pension scheme which it has. I suggest to the committee not to overlook, when a grievance is being told, the fact that this government and the instrument of this government have acted in an eminently fair way and have instituted what is probably the best pension scheme on the north American continent. This government has done not merely that which is right but that which is indeed generous, and I think it is no more than fair, when dealing with the subject, to draw attention to it.
There is only one other part of to-day's debate to which I wish to make reference. My comments arise from the speech made this afternoon by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker). He was endeavouring to make something out of what he called an unemployment problem, calling attention to the fact that there had been certain payments made from the unemployment insurance fund and trying from that to show that we have a real unemployment problem in this country. The fact of the matter is that when you have unemployment insurance you are bound to have a statistic on unemployment. There has never been a year in any country which had unemployment insurance, no matter how prosperous that country was, when they did not have what some might choose to call an unemployment problem; but the right expression
to use is an unemployment statistic, because when you have unemployment insurance, obviously every person who has paid a premium comes to get his benefit.
In substantiation of what I have said, 1 wish to call attention to this fact. In the two countries whose reports up to the end of last year are at present before us, unemployment insurance benefits have regularly been paid. I refer to Great Britain and New Zealand. The latest reports from Australia are not here, but I am confident that you will find a statistic from Australia. That country, right down into the middle of the war, has been paying unemployment insurance benefits from day to day.


John George Diefenbaker: Have those payments more than doubled in a period of one year, as from January, 1943, to January, 1944?


Ralph Maybank: No. They have not more than doubled in that period of time, as far as I know.


John George Diefenbaker: They have here.


Ralph Maybank: I permitted a question, but I do not think the hon. member should continue to mumble and grumble over there after he has asked the question. I have no objection at all to being asked questions and I will sit down for the purpose, as I did on this occasion; but, the question having been asked, the hon. member should remain silent. I do not think the figures, as he says, have doubled in that length of time. I shall deal with them in a moment. However, the point I am getting at is this, that you cannot get away from unemployment payments when you have unemployment insurance, and you are bound to have a statistic on the question. For the hon. member, therefore, to say that by reason of the fact that we have been making payments, not very large payments, there is a real unemployment problem is, of course, just to make a complete mockery of logic.
His approach to every subject is well illustrated by that old adage about one swallow or even two swallows not making a summer. I am quite sure the hon. gentleman has heard that saying before, but he has not paid any attention to it as applying to himself or to his method or lack of method in logic. I also sometimes think he is a little like the old charwoman who, when asked by her mistress whether such and such was not after all just a rumour, took the attitude. " Well, if it is just a rumour my motto is to make the most of it."
In order that you may see the situation in Great Britain over the last two or three years, that country which, as the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Massey) told us the other
War Appropriation-Labour


Mr. McIVOR:: How many years must a worker on the Canadian National Railways serve before he receives a pension?


Ralph Maybank: Fifteen, I think it is, but I am not quite sure.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: And how many years must a man work on the Canadian Pacific before he gets a pension?


Mr. MAI  BANK@: I cannot answer that.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I understand it is twenty-five. The reason why I ask these question is that I have known men to have served for nearly 
twenty-five years and they have failed to get their pension by a margin of a month or two. That is something the Minister of Labour and the department should take into consideration. I suggest that when a man has served for twenty years he should have a scaling of his service, after the manner of the civil service,, so that he would receive a pension, because if a man serves* for twenty-four years and ten months on the railroad and is not fit for very much afterwards he should get some consideration.


Humphrey Mitchell: While this particular matter does not come under selective service I wish to thank the hon. members for Winnipeg North Centre, Winnipeg South Centre and Fort William for the remarks they have made. I have a clear understanding of the background of this dispute over pensions with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. I have a vivid recollection of the strike of 1919 and the things that happened after that strike. I shall be very glad to do whatever lies within the power of my department to bring to the attention of the railway concerned the observations made by my hon. friends this afternoon.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to say a further word, if I may.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I must repeat I believe this discussion is out of order. I should have ruled it out of order a while ago. I do not believe it has anything to do with the Department of Labour and certainly on the war appropriation resolution it has nothing to do with the item before us at the moment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to say a word or two because of one observation made by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. I believe the hon. member slipped out of the chamber for a few minutes while I was speaking and consequently did not hear all that I said. I believe if he looks up Hansard he will find that I made fairly generous remarks about the attitude of the Canadian National Railwa3's in this matter, and that I referred specifically to the Canadian National as an instrument of the government in this situation. While I am on my feet may I say to the Minister of Labour that the provision requiring continuous service commencing before the age of forty is still in the pension rules of the railway concerned, and some of the men now in the employ of the company feel that if there is any kind of interruption in work which the railway feels comes under this rule then they might in the future be adversely affected.
However, I appreciate the minister's offer to look into the matter as far as his department is concerned.

War Appropriation-Labour


Mr. RALSTON:: May I say just a word? I appeal to the committee, in the interests of getting on with the work, to try to keep within the item which is under discussion. We have tried to lay down a plan of procedure which we can all follow and understand and which gives opportunity for the application of rules of order. I am sure that the committee itself is not satisfied with the desultory sort of discussion that takes place on subjects which are far removed from the actual item which is before the committee. We want to get this war appropriation resolution moved forward just as fast as we possibly can. I would therefore ask that all hon. members take all the care they can to see that the discussion is kept within the bounds of the item which is before them. There will be an opportunity to discuss these other items. It simply means a duplication if we do it now.
4 Mr. WHITE: I wish to speak briefly on the man-power question, which I think the Minister of National Defence will agree comes under this item. This question has been most capably covered this afternoon by the hon. member for Lake Centre. I followed his remarks very closely, as I did the reply of the Minister of Labour. In his reply the Minister of Labour referred to the various tables and figures quoted by the hon. member for Lake Centre, and pointed out that these returns and figures all applied to different dates, which is correct. He referred to his table No. 7, which he placed on Hansard last Friday, as setting out the complete picture. But I would point out to the minister that table No. 7 follows a different set-up from what has been given in the various returns. I ask the minister if he will be good enough to place on Hansard during the course of this debate a table taking in any date he wishes in 1944? I believe that the figures are available down to some date in March, 1944. I should like that table to contain the following 'nformation:
1.	The number of men available for military call-up in the various districts. This information could be given either by military districts or by administrative districts.
2.	The number of men called for medical examination.
3.	The number of men who reported for medical examination.
4.	The number of men found medically fit.
5.	The number of military training orders or notices sent out.
6.	The number of men who reported for military training.
7.	The number of men who enlisted on receipt of order.
8.	The number of orders returned undelivered.
9.	The number of postponements granted.
10.	The number of men exempt under certain statutory regulations and exemptions.
If the minister will be good enough to give us that statement I think it would clear up the confusion.


Humphrey Mitchell: Would my hon. friend send me over the list when he is through?


Mr.   A@: I shall make another one. I do not think the minister could read my shorthand. If the minister would give us a statement setting out these different items as a certain date, it would get over the somewhat confused picture that has been presented to us by the various returns filed in the house.
Apparently the question of man-power is to be an acute one this year, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Lake Centre. I know that at least in military district No. 3, which includes the city of Ottawa, there is a very great shortage of man-power. During the past month many young men who had obtained exemptions on account of living and working on farms have received notices, when applying for further extension, that they are to report to district depot No. 3 at Kingston, where they are to be reexamined and reclassified. That may be because of some change in the regulations, or it may be the usual routine procedure. But I do know in the past once a man who has been called for military service has satisfied the divisional registrar that he is a genuine farmer and is actively engaged in agricultural production he is granted a postponement, which is automatically renewed, or he is granted a postponement which reads: "Until further notice." If there is to be some change in this procedure, and if any of those men who are on farms are to be called and taken into the army, I think the minister should tell the committee.
Only to-day I received a letter from Kingston in regard to an extension I wrote about for a cheesemaker who is in charge of a cheese factory in the county of Hastings producing well over 200,000 pounds of cheese a year. His postponement runs out on June 1. The letter was to the effect that he would have to report at Kingston on June 1, when the exemption runs out. If there is to be any change I would point out to the minister that it is unfortunate to call these men off the farms at this particular time of the year, because in the district where I live mixed farming is carried on. The farmers there, in response to requests from the government, have increased the number of stock they carry on the farms; they
War Appropriation-Labour

have brought into cultivation quite a large amount of new ground. If those farmers are now to be deprived of those men who have received exemptions they will be left in a very unsatisfactory position.
I would refer the minister to a statement which appeared in a Belleville newspaper last week. This statement was given by Mr. H. H. Reed, manager of the local branch of the national selective service division at Belleville. The statement reads as follows:
Wages as high as $75 and $80 per month are being offered by the occasional Hastings county farmer for experienced farm help for the coming season, it was stated here to-day by H. H. Reed, *manager, local branch of the national selective service. Demand for farm help is quite steady with the office at present having thirty-six unfilled applications.
That figure may not appear very high to some of the farmer members from the west, but it is in eastern Ontario. As I said a moment ago, I hope that the minister will tell the committee if there is to be any change, or whether this is just the routine procedure and that those men who now have farm postponements will receive a further extension.
I agree with what was said by the minister at the close of his remarks, that the needs of the armed forces must come first, put the armed forces first and agriculture second. At the same time, however, the minister is a member of this government and must realize that the responsibility for securing men for the armed forces and for agriculture rests upon his shoulders and those of the other members of the cabinet. The minister presented a long report, but I would point out that as yet his department has not put into effect in Canada a real policy of selective service under which everyone in this country will be put in the place he is best suited to fill; nor has he yet put into operation a policy under which all men eligible for military service may be sent to any part of the world. How can the minister be consistent when he refers to the shortage of man-power that exists to-day, while at the same time he supports a policy under which, according to figures supplied by the government, there remains in this country a home defence army of from
75,000	to 100,000 men, who under present regulations cannot be sent out of the country? As was so well pointed out by the hon. member for Lake Centre, if we are to have unity in this country there must be equality of service and sacrifice. One has only to examine the various reports and returns published in "Canada at War" to see the unfair quotas filled by voluntary enlistment in the various provinces. I have said before in this house, and I repeat, that I could never understand

why one province should be expected to contribute a much larger number of men to the armed forces than any other province.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: In relation to population.


Mr. WHITE:: Yes, in relation to population. I say the policy of the government in obtaining men for the armed forces is one of political expediency; and I do not understand how they can expect to run a political war and at the same time create national unity. We all remember the great fuss that took place in this house at the time of the plebiscite. I was a member of the committee which revised the rules in that connection; the matter was so urgent that the committee was required to complete its work in two days. They were obliged to sit in the morning, the afternoon and until late at night in order that the bill might be brought into the house and rushed through. Well, we had the plebiscite; eight provinces voted "yes" and one province voted "no", but the conditions which existed before the plebiscite was taken exist to-day, and the regulations are exactly the same. The government continues its policy of attempting to induce men in the home defence army to go active. As I have said before, the responsibility for obtaining these men rests upon the shoulders of the government; it is a responsibility which cannot be delegated to any officers of the army. It is most humiliating for any officer, no matter what his rank may be, to have to appeal to men in the home defence army to go active. During the course of his remarks on Thursday last, as reported at page 2383 of Hansard, the minister said:
It seems to me that the army is not only entitled to see to it, ibut it is the duty of the army to see to it, that the needs of the volunteer army are put before the people of Canada in exactly the same way.
I think the minister is wrong in that statement, because it is his department and the government who decide what are to be the needs of the army and how these men are to be obtained. It would be very nice for the minister and his department to pass the responsibility for securing recruits for the active army over to the officers. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that it all results from the failure of the government to adopt a policy under which men eligible for military service could be sent outside Canada. During the course of his remarks on the same occasion, at the same page, the minister went on to say:
. .	. I deprecate more than I can say the
attempt which has been made to disparage recruiting activities in Canada.

War Appropriation-Labour
The minister did not refer to any particular person or body of people, but I would draw to his attention the motion that was adopted in the Quebec legislature only last week. By a vote of some fifty-four to four the house approved a motion stating that they were opposed to sending any conscripted men overseas. The minister belongs to' the same political party that is in power in Quebec, but as yet I have not heard any hon. member of this house repudiate or condemn the motion in question. Does the minister think a motion of this kind, on the very eve of the invasion, is in the interests of national unity, that it is in the interests of recruiting or that it will help the troops overseas? Are they going to feel that the citizens of Canada are behind them when they read of such a motion being passed by the Quebec house? Several members of the cabinet come from Quebec. If they do not approve that motion I think it is their duty and responsibility to say so in this house and to repudiate the motion that was adopted by such a huge majority.


James Layton Ralston: If my hon. friend will permit me, I said I deprecated the efforts being made by some people to discourage recruiting activities. The hon. member is talking about some motion passed by a provincial legislature which opposed the sending of conscripted men overseas. Those are two different things. I say that my hon friend is not only absolutely unjustified in his remarks but that he is doing something which is harmful to Canada's war effort when he suggests that it is humiliating to request officers to ask men to enlist, or to endeavour to see that they do enlist. I say that part of the job we have to do is to get men. My hon. friend has not suggested that there is anything objectionable when we are asked by the national war finance committee to bring back officers and men from overseas to ask me and him and all other hon. members of this house as well as the public in general to subscribe their money for the purpose of supporting those men. That is perfectly all right, but when officers of the army ask men to enlist, that is humiliating. I say that my hon. friend is making a statement derogatory to the war effort and absolutely unjustified, and one which comes from just the sort of attitude I mentioned the other day, namely, not so much a desire to see men come into the army but rather a desire to see that men come into the army through conscription.


George Stanley White: I can only say to the minister I repeat that it is humiliating for any officer, no matter what his rank may be, to have to plead with men whom he is supposed to lead, 100-158
to enlist in the active army. Those men are already in the home defence army, and it is the duty of the minister and the government to get them into the army. The minister and the government are the ones to set the policy. It is not up to the officers, and they have no authority-I will not say they have no authority, but the government is not right in trying to shove off on to the shoulders of officers the responsibility of obtaining men for service overseas.	.


James Layton Ralston: What does my hon. friend think this house has been voting money for, for recruiting officers and recruiting organizations, for the last two or three years? Has my hon. friend any objection to that? Does my hon. friend think the vote is wrong? We have had recruiting staffs in every part of the country-and so has the navy, and so has the air force. Does my hon. friend suggest that those procedures are wrong on the part of the officers of the navy or the air force? These staffs are employed for that very purpose; these officers are employed for that very purpose. Is there any humiliation in working in that particular job? The air member for personnel in the air force and the officer dealing with personnel in the navy, have as part of their responsibilities the getting of men to enlist in the navy and the air force. The adjutant-general in the army has the same job. Does my hon. friend suggest that that is a humiliating activity?


George Stanley White: I say again it is a humiliating activity-and the minister is not cross-examining me. While the minister speaks that way about obtaining recruits for the army I should like to refer him to the record of a recent meeting of the Ontario command of the legion. I am sure that no one will even suggest that members of the legion would do anything in the slightest degree to hinder or to harm the welfare of the armed forces of Canada. This was the motion passed at a recent meeting in Toronto of the Ontario command:
This convention reaffirms the legion's mandate of 1941-"The legion's call for total war," and strongly asks the federal government for its immediate implementation in the matter of calling men for service anywhere.
The editorial continues:
The legion does not believe in bludgeoning the draftees on to active service. They, the men who fought in the last war, refuse to be part of the campaign of shaming, of coercing men to go active. They realize that the fair way, the honest way, is for the government to pass the order in council which would send anywhere those who are in the home defence army. And in that course the legion is in keeping with the view of the majority of Canadians who voted "yes" in the plebiscite.

War Appropriation-Labour

At the game meeting Mr. Alex Walker, dominion president of the Canadian legion, is reported in the press as speaking as follows:
I don't think the government should have officers going around and telling men to do their duty. Why couldn't the government put into power the authority it has and tell these men (in the home defence army) they are going wherever required? No one need fear the Canadian Legion. Our feet are on the ground, and in whatever we do we think first of Canada and then of ourselves. If more people would think of the country first and then of their political fences, it would be a better Canada to-day.
And the legion speaks not only for nearly all members of the armed forces of the last war, but also for a very large number of other citizens in Canada.


James Layton Ralston: If my hon. friend's attitude is correct, then what should be done is to take off the road all mobile recruiting units of the whole three services, and simply wait for the men to volunteer. That was not done in the last war, and it has not been done in this war so far in any of the three services. I do not propose that it shall be done, so far as the army is concerned, and I believe my colleagues feel the same way about the navy and the air force.


George Stanley White: You would have recruiting centres all over Canada, of course.


James Layton Ralston: But my hon. friend says it is humiliating 1


George Stanley White: The exhibition that we have had out west of General Pearkes having to plead with the men to go on active * service, stating-or at least he is quoted as saying:
_ I tried principally to appeal to their pride in Canada, and to the fact that the outcome of the second front might rest upon the number of home defence men who are ready to back up the troops already overseas.
I say to the minister that you can only take the inference from those remarks that there are not sufficient reinforcements overseas. I know the minister has said in this house-his exact words were:
Provision has been made for reinforcements on a scale which is regarded as adequate.
That statement was made, I believe, on February 14. If the minister is of the same opinion, to-day, then General Pearkes was wrong in what he said to the troops out west, when he said that the outcome of the second front "might rest upon the number of home defence men who are ready to back up the troops already overseas."


James Layton Ralston: It is absolutely ridiculous for my hon. friend to say anything of the kind.


George Stanley White: Now-


James Layton Ralston: Will my hon. friend permit
me a word?


George Stanley White: You are not always so willing when I wish to interrupt you.


James Layton Ralston: I believe I have allowed my hon. friend to interrupt me. I have said repeatedly that there is a necessity for maintaining the Canadian army overseas. I am doing all I can, and my officers are doing all they can, just as are the officers of the other services, to see to it that the men are ready for overseas when the need comes. And we propose to keep on doing that.


George Stanley White: The minister might proceed to tell us what he intends to do with the home defence army. He says that they are going to be ready to go overseas when needed. I say to the minister that if what General Pearkes says is correct the men are needed for overseas, and it is the duty of the minister and the government to see to it that all the home defence men, the men in the home defence army, are pnade available for overseas service immediately.
The government wishes to pass over to the officers the job of coercing, forcing, bullying and pleading with these men. "Get so many men to go active, and we will give you leave, we will give you days"-or we will give you other things.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend is drawing on his imagination.


George Stanley White: Well, all right.
In conclusion, I should like to say simply this to the minister, that if the men are needed for overseas service it is up to the minister to see that they are made available. It is time that the government stopped this farce, this back-door system of recruiting. It almost compares with the brilliant thirty-day training scheme which was introduced by the government. I wonder what the Minister of National Defence would say now if he rose in his place to uphold the thirty-day training scheme.


James Layton Ralston: I would say exactly what I said at the time.


George Stanley White: I am sure you would be very proud of it! And the officer who drafted and introduced the scheme I see has gone a long way up the military ladder.


James Layton Ralston: And that will help the war effort a lot!

War Appropriation-Labour


James Arthur Ross: There is a difference between being on the front bench and being in the front line. You see things differently.


James Layton Ralston: I was on the front bench then, as I am to-day.


James Arthur Ross: It is far different.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Charles Edward Johnston: Mr. Chairman, I listened with a great deal of care the other day as the Minister of Labour made his statement to the committee, and I have since had an opportunity of reading his statement. I realize, as I have said in the past, that he has a tremendous job on his hands. There are many things that go to magnify the troubles of the Department of Labour. As I listened to the minister and as I have watched his work over the years, he seems to me a very conscientious, sort of fellow who is working under great difficulty. He has to have two objectives always before him. He has to administer national selective service so as to ensure that there will be a sufficient supply of labour on the farms and in industry, and at the same time he has some responsibility for seeing that a sufficient number of men are left available to enter the home defence forces. So that he is really working at cross-purposes. Not only is he compelled to satisfy the Department of Labour and ensure that the demands of labour for better wages and better working conditions are met, but he has also to satisfy the three branches of the Department of National Defence, and has to satisfy also the Department of Finance. All this tends to magnify the difficulties of the position in which the minister finds himself. All these different aspects of his work have to dove-tail into one another as well as they can, and in some respects the minister is doing a very well worth-while job.
One notable feature of the minister's statement to the committee the other day was the educational training that is being given to civilians in war industry and to those who are being rehabilitated. That is commendable, but in that connection it must be borne in mind, and I am sure that the people of Canada will have this in mind, that there is not much use in training people for different jobs, especially civilians and those engaged in the war industries, if there are to be no jobs for them after the war. One of the big things which this country has to do after winning the war, which I think we all agree is our first objective, is 100-1581
to see that there will be jobs for our men after they return home, and jobs that will be remunerative-not the kind of job that was going during the depression when a man could hardly make a living for himself and family. The returned man will expect a great deal more than that after this war, and rightly so. I could hardly conceive of the men being satisfied if, after they got home, they found the same conditions that prevailed during the depression years. Yet I have noticed a great deal of political propaganda that is going out all over the country and to the armed forces, some of it broadcast over the air, all to the effect that great preparations are being made in this country for the post-war period. I just do not believe that. Some measures are being taken, but very few. Actually we are not doing a great deal to ensure that when our men return from overseas they will find Canada a really well worth-while country.
There has been a great deal of talk here this afternoon about the war effort and the necessity for getting recruits. But if we are in a position to assure our people that this Canada of ours is to be a really well worthwhile place after this war is won, we shall not have so much difficulty in getting recruits. Now you cannot ensure that, merely by putting out a lot of propaganda. To-day I received a bunch of pamphlets from the Liberal organization. They were addressed to J. A. Johnston but they came to me and I opened them by mistake. These pamphlets were on post-war reconstruction-what is to be done for the soldiers after the war. I could not see that there was a great deal in the pamphlets that was true, as I glanced over them, because really we have not done a great deal. We have a social security measure before us, but it is a long way from being put into effect, and I doubt whether the whole of it will ever be put into effect, though parts of it may be.


Mr. MacNICOL:: Who sent the pamphlets?


Charles Edward Johnston: The Liberal organization. I have not that in mind alone. A great many pamphlets have been got out by the government themselves and sent to members of the active forces, giving the idea that great preparations are being made in Canada for the post-war period. Those boys are going to be badly mistaken if when they come back they find that actually very little has been done to prepare for the post-war period. That is one of the difficulties in which the Minister of Labour finds himself.
The minister in his statement to the committee the other day referred to certain industries in Canada, and I was particularly
War Appropriation-Labour

interested in what he said about the coal industry, because there is a coal industry in my part of the country. I know very well that the minister might say that that is a purely local question, that the conditions there apply in only one area of Canada. But that would not be true. 'It is true that in Nova Scotia there are not the same difficulties in coal mining that there are in Alberta. But conditions in Alberta are not just a temporary thing. They demand attention and have done so for a long time, and they call for planning to carry us over a crisis. It is summertime now and perhaps our coal requirements do not seem so pressing at the moment, but winter will come again, and as the minister stated in his speech some weeks ago, now is the time to start planning. But no planning with regard to the coal industry has been done apart from the announcement that a royal commission is to be set up to investigate conditions in the coal industry, with a view, I suppose, to creating a national fuel policy. We have needed a national fuel policy for a number of years now. I have advocated such a policy ever since I came into this house in 1935. That is a long time, and I am not very hopeful that the royal commission which is to be set up will have any far-reaching effects in the establishment of a permanent fuel policy for Canada. Why? Because we have had these things in the past, and up to the present no action has been taken as a result.
Speaking on Friday last, the minister said, as reported in Hansard at page 2438:
The situation of the coal mining industry was declared to be a national emergency in May, 1943. . . .
It was a national emergency at that time. We remember what a desperate need there was in all parts of Canada for coal, and drastic measures were taken at that time to overcome the emergency. In my opinion we are drifting right now to the same position we were in last winter. We are depleting the mines of their help; the miners are being scattered again here and there, and it would not surprise me if we found ourselves in a much worse position than before. It will be recalled that on the last occasion we were able to alleviate the shortage by having soldier miners sent back to the mines. We may not be able to repeat that operation this coming winter because a great number of these men may have gone overseas. We cannot foretell conditions as regards the defence of this country and whether we shall be able to send soldier miners from the home defence army for occupation in the mines if an emergency should arise. Certainly we shall not be in any better
TMr. C. E. Johnston.]
position this coming winter to obtain the services of miners who are seasonally occupied in agriculture. It follows that by every indication the condition will be worse this coming winter than it was last winter.
The minister went on to say:
Last May, order in council P.C. 4092 was [DOT]passed, and directed that men with coal-mining experience then engaged in other industry, and who were physically fit, should 'be returned to the mines.
From the point of view of emergency that policy was all right, and it did assist in overcoming the emergency. I have never criticized the principle of selective service; in fact, I thought it was the proper thing as soon as the war began, and our group was the first in the house to advocate it. But the administration in many of the local areas was extremely faulty, as I have pointed out to the minister on other occasions.
One instance which I recall, and which I do not think I have brought to his attention before, was drawn to my attention by the words he used which I have just quoted, "who were physically fit". Five men were sent from Ontario to the Drumheller area by national selective service. It may be a regulation, in accordance with the minister's reference to men "who were physically fit", that there should be a medical examination by competent authority to ascertain that they are physically fit; but the five men sent from Ontario, who were supposed to be miners, were too old to do the job, and were proved by medical inspection in Drumheller to be physically unfit for it. They could not stand the work, and after working two or three shifts they were compelled to quit their jobs. This was an unfortunate occurrence not only from the point of view of the cost to which the state was put in sending these men three thousand miles or more and withdrawing them from the armed forces, but because of the inconvenience and disturbance to which the mining company itself was put. All five men returned, and it is definitely known that the return fares of three of them had to be paid. The unnecessary expense was incurred of transferring these five men from Ontario to Drumheller, taking up valuable space on the trains, and transporting them back again. Altogether eight men were sent. Three others who came from Camp Borden had had no experience in coal mining, though they had had hard rock mining experience in Ontario. The minister says that they were physically fit. Probably they should have been, but definitely they were not. There has been no effort to overcome such situations as that.

War Appropriation-Labour
Matters have now gone to the other extreme, and in both Calgary and Edmonton districts coal mines are having to shut down. When last I spoke on this question, a few weeks ago, having reference in particular to the closing of the * mines at Edmonton, I was assured by the minister that national selective service was operating so wonderfully that, should the mines close down, these men would immediately be taken care of; in fact the minister thought I was unduly pessimistic about that situation. As the facts have developed, it does not seem that I was, because, I am informed, the mines did close down and some of these men are not yet reemployed and are still receiving unemployment insurance. That is not a satisfactory condition when we are supposed to be having an all-out war effort in which everyone is taking his place.
In the Drumheller area the same situation prevails, possibly to a greater extent. I am informed by a letter recently received that in that mining area a great deal of trouble is occurring with national selective service in the payment of men who are receiving unemployment insurance. Since the mines closed, large numbers of men have been forced to apply for unemployment insurance, but have had difficulty in getting their pay. Sometimes it is delayed two or three weeks, or even longer, and the situation is coming to a point where the miners are about ready to take drastic action unless something is done. These conditions, which are directly related to selective service and unemployment insurance, require considerable attention by the minister.
There is one other item to which I wish to refer, because I think it too touches on this problem of national selective service. There has been some talk this afternoon about the defence army, and since this comes under the man-power policy, I would refer to a few remarks made by the minister himself. When he was speaking the other day he had this to say, as reported at page 2430 of Hansard, with reference to the man-power policy:
In my opinion the true yardstick of a successful man-power policy is the degree to which the armed forces are mobilized for the job of fighting, and the material resources organized for maximum output of munitions, food and all the other things necessary.
I will agree with him in that statement, that the true yardstick is the result of policy. I wonder how true that has proved to be? Let us see what he said further on, because under the minister's department comes the duty of getting men for the defence army.
He has to supply them and, after they are in there, they are out of his department. We have been given so many pictures of our mobilization effort that it is exceedingly difficult to know just where we stand, but as reported at page 2445 of Hansard the minister said, in the same speech:
We are now finding it more difficult to fill the army requisitions. As the war progresses, it is evident that we will soon have to rely largely upon those at present deferred and the young men coming of age.
I said at the opening of my remarks that the minister was between two fires: he had to supply men for the defence plants, civilian occupations, and also get men for the home defence army. He goes on to say:
The proportion of fit men in the higher age classes is becoming increasingly smaller. This entails a greater effort for smaller returns.
There is another point I would like to mention. Recently my colleague, the Minister of National Defence (army), made the statement in the house that he would require 60,000 men in the year commencing the first of April. In further correspondence with me, he has stressed the absolute necessity of obtaining these men, particularly bearing in mind the requirements of operations which are in. prospect.
I would call your attention, Mr. Chairman, to the fact that there is a great deal of concern about the man-power problem in the arm3r in the very near future. Here we have a statement about the absolute necessity of obtaining these men, particularly bearing in mind the requirements of operations in prospect. There cannot be any fooling about that. The Minister of National Defence has pointed out to the Minister of Labour the great danger that lies ahead and the great need for sufficient recruits for the army. He is taking great care to point that out. I quote further:
In the last six months, September 1943 to February 1944, there actually have been more than 5,000 men per month who were enlisted' and enrolled in the army alone. However, the monthly average has been decreasing, and at times enlistments and enrolments have fallen below the numbers required by the army. For this reason I think it is only fair to state in the house that further postponements in industry generally will have to ibe curtailed. This policy should not adversely affect industry; for, as I have already stated, Its maximum demand has been passed. I mention this in order that all members will realize that the retention of young men of military age and fitness in industry can only be justified under very exceptional circumstances.
That brings me to the question which has been partly discussed this afternoon, of getting men from the farms and from industry to meet this shortage of man-power in the army. When the Minister of National Defence was speaking I was surprised at some of the things lie had to say with regard to the method of
War Appropriation-Labour

getting these men, and I doubt very much whether the Minister of Labour agrees with the present policy of obtaining men for the armed forces. He may, though I am inclined to think he does not. The duty of the Minister of Labour is to see wherever possible that men are made available for the defence army. I recall apearing before the board in Edmonton a couple of years ago when I was endeavouring to get some farm lads postponed. As a matter of fact, I got the postponements because the board was very reasonable and saw the necessity. But this was the situation as they put it up to me: Here we have received an order from Ottawa directing us in this district to obtain 25,000 young men; we are not told where to get them but we must go and get them. The chairman of the board said to me, "Where would you get them? You are a westerner and you know that we have got nearly all the boys in the towns. Where shall we get these 25,000? Yet we have received an order from Ottawa to get them." Obviously there was only one place where they could be got, namely, out of industry or from the farms The minister's problem, therefore, is becoming more and more magnified as the situation to which he refers becomes more acute. I do not know where he will get men, but I am opposed to the method that is used now. I am wholly against the method used to obtain these men from the draft army into the active army, and I am amazed at the attitude taken by the two old line parties in this house over this question.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What is the matter with ours?


Charles Edward Johnston: Yours?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes.


Charles Edward Johnston: Its policy is just as despicable as the Liberal party's, for the reason that when the war started you sat over there in this house and the then leader, Doctor Manion, made it definitely clear where your party stood.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It was not I that stood there and made it clear.


Charles Edward Johnston: But you did not change it after you came in.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I can show you where I changed it.


Charles Edward Johnston: The only time there has been a change has been in the last year or so, and then it is only the younger members of the party who have had judgment and foresight to see the necessity of a change.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I must ask hon. members to address the Chair.
I Mr. C. E. Johnston.]


James Arthur Ross: The younger members did not wait until last year.


Charles Edward Johnston: I will give the younger members credit for this, that they had different views though they did not express them when the war came on. That was the proper time to lay down policy. That was the proper time to lay down a national policy on selective service in regard to man-power, and we were the only ones of all the parties in this house who took that stand. We were the only ones that did not have political views in mind when advocating it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Never had.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Not even on the twenty-five dollars per month programme?


Charles Edward Johnston: We never had political ambitions. The member for York-Sunbury says we never had political ambitions and I am glad he recognizes that. I am sorry that I cannot say the same for his party. When the plebiscite was on, the same thing happened. It was a political issue. There again we stood out differently from all the others. But when you advocate a policy such as that you cannot expect to have any better results than you are having right now. In fact I am surprised that you are having as good results as you are.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Everybody is out of step but "Our Willie."


Charles Edward Johnston: I have not seen any great contribution made by the Conservative party when my hon. friend, the member for York-Sunbury was the leader. In fact I have not heard him make much of a contribution to the house since he has been here. He may have at times. I do not mean to belittle the hon. gentleman; but I would not do that. I think he has been doing his best; but you see where his best has landed us, because his best on the mobilization problem was exactly the same as the Liberal party's best. They were both in accord. Well do I remember seeing the late Doctor Manion rising in his place in this house and patting the government on the back for the policy they were pursuing in regard to the raising of man-power for this war. I will say that there were some members of the Liberal cabinet who objected to the practice being used then, and are no doubt objecting now, but they are not getting very far with it.
When I see the method being used to get the boys out of the defence army into the active army I think it is nothing short of shameful. If I were the government I would be absolutely ashamed to have any officer

War Appropriation-Labour
in the active army go out to intimidate or coerce these men who have complied in every degree with the government's request and have joined the defence army. They are trying to coerce or shame them into going active.


James Arthur Ross: They are good and ashamed too.


Charles Edward Johnston: If they are not, they should be. The government should get out and speak to some of these boys in the defence army. You do not need to think for one minute that all these boys in the defence army are yellow; they are not by any manner of means. I have had them tell me this, and I think they are quite justified in the stand they take. They say: We joined the defence army because that was the government's policy and they asked us to do so. They sent us a call and we complied with it. We have joined the defence army, and we will join the active army when the government makes that their policy so that everybody has to go. Instead of that the government has agreed with army officers who go out and speak to the defence army in the way in which Major General Pearkes did the other day.
May I quote from the Canadian Veteran of April 30, 1944? This is what Major General Pearkes is reported to have said:
Major General G. R. Pearkes, V.C., general officer commanding-in-chief, Pacific command, in an address to a group of soldiers at Vernon, B.C., training camp recently said:	"Cease
wavering, play the man's part, and join the active army of Canada."
What kind of language is that to use to men in the defence forces who have complied with the government's regulation and the government's policy? That language should be addressed to the Minister of National Defence and the Prime Minister. The article goes on:
General Pearkes said later: "I tried principally to appeal to their pride in Canada."
Why appeal to their pride? Why not appeal to the pride of the government? They were the ones who put this policy into operation. They were the ones who asked these boys to join the defence army. Why take it out on these boys? The government sends out officers to tell these boys they should be ashamed of themselves to be in the defence army of Canada. What kind of hypocrisy is that? Then the article goes on to say:
. . . and to the fact that the outcome of the second front might rest upon the number of home defence men who are ready to back up the troops already overseas.
What is the import of that statement? He says that the very existence of our Dominion of Canada may depend upon the willingness of the defence army to go active. Those words
should be applied to the government of this country and never to a man in uniform in the defence army.
Where are we to get the men for our active army ? As the Minister of Labour pointed out, he was cautioned by the Minister of National Defence that there was a great danger of our not getting enough men for the active army. It is the job of the Minister of Labour to see to it that these men are forced into the defence army, and forced from there into the active army. Can one find anything more despicable than that? It is almost subversive; I think it is. We have young men in industry or in agriculture receiving calls. They have to go before the selective service board, and the very first thing the selective service board asks them is: "Why are you not in the army?" Or they send them to some job to which the boys do not want to go, and they say: " If you do not go we will push you into the army." That was done in the selective service office in Calgary and I brought it to the attention of the minister. When they are in the defence army, by using that method we then send honourable gentlemen, worthy army officers who have served their country overseas, among these men, and we put the shameful task on such officers of going out to these men who have complied in every way with the government's law and the government's regulations, to induce them to join the active army.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I rise to a question of privilege.
Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River). We say to them-


Richard Burpee Hanson: I rise to a question of privilege. The hon. member who has had the, floor up to this time this evening has, I submit, totally, wilfully and knowingly misrepresented my position on the question of national selective service. I desire to call the attention of this committee and the country to the amendment which I moved in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne on January 26, 1942. In that debate I moved, seconded by the hon. member for Yale, the following amendment to the motion then before the house:
This house regrets _ that Your Excellency's advisers, instead of giving to the country the leadership so essential at a time properly described in the speech from the throne as the greatest crisis in the world's history, on the contrary, have sought to evade their responsibility by holding a plebiscite, which, in the view of this house, is the negation of responsible government.
And this house regrets that Your Excellency's advisers have not seen fit to recommend to parliament without delay additional measures designed to
War Appropriation-Labour

(a)	completely mobilize the wealth and material resources and, on a selective basis, the full man and woman power of the nation, to the end that the nation may wage total war in any theatre of war;
(b)	supply the imperative needs of agriculture, industry and the fighting forces of the nation; and
(c)	prepare for the post-war period.
I call upon the hon. member to recall the statements he made with respect to myself, deliberately, falsely, ignorantly and, I say, maliciously.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: On a point of order I respectfully submit that this is not a question of privilege. I also submit that the words used by the hon. member for York-Sunbury in regard to another hon. member of this committee are absolutely out of order and unparliamentary according to the well-known examples in Beauchesne and should be immediately withdrawn, Mr. Chairman.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I must state, of course, that this is not a question of privilege. The remarks made by the hon. member for York-Sunbury about the hon. member for Bow River of wilful misrepresentation are out of order.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: According to Beauchesne, second edition, an hon. member cannot make those remarks about another hon. member.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Order.


Charles Edward Johnston: Mr. Chairman, I think your point of order is well taken. Since the hon. member for York-Sunbury has made those direct accusations about me and he cannot substantiate them-and he knows that-I have not Hansard of that date before me-I think he should, if he is a gentleman, recall those statements, particularly where he said that I had done so deliberately and intentionally.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am a gentleman, all right, and I do not recall anything that I have said. I may take back the word "malicious", but that is the only thing I will take back.


Charles Edward Johnston: I am surprised that the hon. gentleman should take back that much.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am rather surprised myself, to tell you the truth.


Charles Edward Johnston: Well, we were at war for three years before the hon. member for York-Sunbury rose in his place in this house and moved the amendment he has just read, and that was the first time he ever

put on record anything like that. That was opposed to the stand he took in 1939. Go back and look up the records.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Are you sure about that, now? I think I could find plenty before that.


Charles Edward Johnston: I am sure of that. Then what stand did the hon member take on the plebiscite?


Richard Burpee Hanson: There is no doubt where I stood on that.


Charles Edward Johnston: No, and there is no doubt where the hon. gentleman has stood throughout in regard to the war; his party is well on record. I could go back and quote for an hour or more from speeches made by members of the Conservative party when the war first broke out.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The hon. gentleman has spoken for forty minutes.


Mr. BRYCE:: I should like to get some information from the minister in regard to naval personnel. Naval general order No. 3098, entitled "discharge for return to essential industry or to agriculture," has this to say in paragraph 5:
A notation is to be made on t'he service certificate of any rating discharged under this order to the effect that he is discharged "at own request to return to essential industry or to agriculture," as applicable. The Department of Labour have given assurance that selective service mobilization 'boards will grant deferment from army call-up to persons who present service certificates so inscribed, until such time as t'he circumstances which warranted discharge have altered materially.
We have these young men who have been in the navy for some considerable time, perhaps a year or more, and have been trained at the expense of the nation. For some reason or another they are discharged at their own request, perhaps following the death of the father, and they return to civilian life. But in paragraph 6B, page 7 of "Canadian War Orders and Regulations" dated March 4, 1944, I read this:
1. When a registrar receives a notice in prescribed form from a representative of the Department of National Defence that a designated man has ceased or will soon cease to -be a member of His Majesty's Canadian naval or air forces on active service and is considered fit for military training, the registrar may, whether the man resides in the registrar's division or not, serve him or cause him to be served, either personally or by registered post, *with an order, in prescribed form, requiring him to report at a military centre, at a time and place indicated therein, to be dealt with in accordance with the orders and regulations of,

War Appropriation-Labour
or relating to the Department of National Defence, and any man to whom an "order-military training" is sent under this subsection shall comply therewith and shall submit to the medical examination for which provision is made in the National Resources Mobilization Act (army) regulations, 1943.
2. Where an "order-military training" has been served pursuant to this section, the provisions' of these regulations shall apply mutatis mutandis as if it had been served pursuant to section six.
Here you have a man who has served in the navy for perhaps twelve months and has been trained as a stoker or a seaman. He returns to take his place on the farm, as authorized by the naval department. Then he is immediately called up; the man who has been a volunteer becomes a conscript and is taken into the army. I want the minister to look into this matter and straighten it up. I consider it very unfair that a man who volunteered but who, because of conditions recognized by the navy, has been allowed to return to the farm, should be called up again by the war services board and put into the army as a conscript.


Humphrey Mitchell: With all the noise on both sides of the chamber I have not been able to follow the hon. member very well.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Could you understand him?


Humphrey Mitchell: I could understand him very well; I spent two of the happiest years of my life in Scotland during the last war. If I might answer my hon. friend, if he is through-


William Scottie Bryce: I have another matter to bring up.


Humphrey Mitchell: Let us get rid of this one first. I do not know of any case of the kind mentioned by my hon. friend, and if he has one of that description I wish he would turn over the details to my department or to me; I should be very glad to look into it. To be perfectly honest with my hon. friend, I am quite unaware that such a condition does exist.


William Scottie Bryce: I can assure the minister that it does exist, and I shall be pleased to let him have further information.
Then on Friday evening the minister referred to the packing industry, which he said was employing twice as many people as in 1939. That is quite reasonable, because in 1939 we killed 5,389,000 animals, while in 1943 we killed 8,572,000, an increase of sixty per cent In addition, we must remember that more women and more unskilled labour are being employed. I should like to impress upon the minister that the packing plants require the 100-159
extra ten per cent of man-power at this time. It is estimated that the weekly run of hogs will be 140,000 for the next six weeks, and the packing plants have not the people to kill them. This means that the farmers will have to take it in the neck again; the hogs will be sent from Edmonton right through to Toronto to be killed, and there is a tremendous shrinkage when that trip has to be made. According to the Department of Agriculture the weekly run of cattle will be 16,200, and the plants will be able to kill only 13,800 with the men they now employ. If you could give them ten per cent more help they could always work a few hours extra and cope with the situation. Will the minister be good enough to look into that matter, because it means a great deal to the farmers of the west? If cattle and hogs have to be shipped from Edmonton and Calgary to Toronto for killing, the loss through shrinkage is tremendous.


Humphrey Mitchell: I think it is some achievement that we have been able to double the number of employees in the packing plants of this country. I am not trying to wish myself out of a difficult position; there are not enough men and women in our packing plants, particularly in western Canada. I know something of the contribution made by the farmers of that part of Canada, and we are well aware of this condition. I think it can be truthfully said, notwithstanding some of the expressions of opinion here this evening, that we oi selective service have measured up to our responsibilities. As I said this afternoon, the man-power of this country is organized as well as or better than in any other of the united nations with the exception of Great Britain. Let those people who sit behind editorial desks in some of the larger centres of this dominion repeat that statement, if they will. We are alive to this situation in western Canada. We are doing everything humanly possible to meet the labour requirements of the packing industry there. Only to-day meetings were held in Winnipeg, Regina and Edmonton, and I feel confident we can put the necessary man-power into the packing industry in that part of the country within the next two weeks.
Perhaps I should not say this, but I have no control over the number of cattle or pigs bom in this country every year. I was not there when that was decided, and you cannot blame selective service for it. But once the fact exists, and we are conscious of it, we can move man-power into the packing plants to do the necessary slaughtering and to make preparation either for consumption in the home market or for shipment overseas.


William Scottie Bryce: I was not criticizing.


Humphrey Mitchell: I understand that.

War Appropriation-Labour


William Scottie Bryce: If arrangements can be made for that ten per cent, the way it was arranged last fall, we shall be able to help the farmers who have produced the cattle and hogs that were wanted. They have never fallen down on the job. They have continued the supply, and the government has not made arrangements to take care of it.


Mr. QUELCH:: I should like to ask a question somewhat similar to that asked by the hon. member for Selkirk. I have had drawn to my attention a number of cases respecting men who have served overseas, in some cases for several years, and who, upon being returned to Canada and being discharged because of medical unfitness, have been called up by local mobilization boards. I am not certain whether these are mistakes, or form part of the government's policy. It is done, apparently, with the full knowledge that these men have served overseas, because a letter I have received from the Canadian Legion states:
Whoever is in charge of the calling up in this city is taking a very dictatorial attitude by calling these men up, and when it is pointed out that these men have already served, simply remark, "We do as we please."
So that it is not done in ignorance, when these men are called up. The mobilization board must know full well that they have served overseas.
One case brought to my attention concerns a man who was discharged as recently as April 3. Now he is called by selective service. I am asking the minister to clarify this situation. I understand that in January of this year regulations were passed which, in effect, excuse a man with overseas service from being called up. I have in mind a man named Coyle who, apparently, has been released again. Apparently when the matter was referred by selective service to the Department of National Defence, that department took the attitude that they did not want to have the man called up. Is that just one isolated case, or will that apply in regard to all men who have served overseas? What is the general policy?


Humphrey Mitchell: First of all may I offer an apology to the hon. member for Selkirk. I spoke loudly only so that he could hear; I was not being critical.
We do what the hon. member for Acadia has suggested, namely, make reexaminations. Men who are discharged from the navy for seasickness-and there are some cases of that kind-are quite capable of serving in the army. With the exception of crossing the ocean on a transport, the soldier does not 
have much opportunity for seasickness. I have suffered from seasickness, and I do not treat the matter lightly.
Then there are cases of colour-blindness of men at sea or in the air, where it is necessary that they should not be colour-blind. Anyone with any knowledge of the sea will understand the reason for that.


Victor Quelch: Are those exceptions? I
am more interested in the men who, after having served oVerseas probably for a number of years, are discharged because of medical unfitness, not because of colour-blindness or seasickness. They are discharged because their health has deteriorated on account of overseas service. I think it is very wrong that men who have seen overseas service should now be drafted. These men have a real right to feel that they suffer a grievance against the country. Surely after a man has volunteered to serve, has served for three years overseas and has been discharged on account of his health, he should not be drafted. It is something we should be thoroughly ashamed of, and certainly it should not be done.


Humphrey Mitchell: To be perfectly frank,
these men are designated by the military authorities, and we do the examining. It is quite true that we have reached almost the bottom of the man-power barrel, so far as able-bodied men are concerned. As I said before, we have to examine six in order to get one man for the armed forces; that is the position we are in at the present time. There are some who say that there is almost total mobilization in Canada. When we reach that position I think we have reached a position on a par with almost any country in the united nations groups. That is the position we find ourselves in to-day, namely, that we have to examine six men to get one for the services.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Where this policy has to be carried out, I wonder if it still would not be possible to do something to take care of ' two kinds of grievances of which I happen to know. I have in mind a case into which, in response to my request, the minister's deputy is examining. I dare to hope that it may be taken care of. The case is that of a young man who had served three years and seven months in the air force and was discharged as being medically unfit for further service in the air force. I was permitted to look into his file by one of the senior officers, and I discovered that while his medical condition upon discharge was such that he could not continue in the air force, still it was clear that he could be of some use in the army. The young man did not object to going into the army, but he had two grievances. The first was that he would now be a conscript, despite

War Appropriation-Labour
the fact that he had served as a volunteer for three years and seven months. His second grievance was that, although upon being discharged from the air force he held the rank of sergeant, upon entering the army he would have to start again at the bottom.
Is there anything that can be done about these two grievances? The information I have received confirms what the minister has said, namely, that it is a matter of policy. I was told by an officer in the air force, with whom I was in contact, that when the air force discharges a man as being medically unfit selective service is notified and, in most instances, these men are handed their call-up slips at the time they are given their discharge papers. Can these grievances be looked into?


Humphrey Mitchell: I shall be glad to do that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I should like to ask the minister some questions in connection with national selective service. My questions are based upon two paragraphs in the minister's speech of Friday last. At page 2431 of Hansard he is reported as follows:
Next is the national selective service administration board, over which the director of national selective service presides. This board is composed of the associate directors of national selective service and carries the burden of the day-to-day administrative problems. As members of the administration board are also members of the advisory board, coordination of advisory and administrative functions is as complete as possible.
Of course that is a very general statement.


Humphrey Mitchell: Certainly.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Then, this is the important paragraph, and the one upon which I shall base the questions I shall ask the minister:
Decentralization has been provided for by the appointment of regional directors and regional national selective service advisory boards in Quebec, Ontario, the prairies and the Pacific. An advisory board for the maritimes will be constituted in due course.
I want to know why there has not been an advisory board appointed heretofore for the maritime provinces. I express this fear to the minister, that unless great care is taken, while war work is still going on actively in Canada- and that may be for the next two years-we are going to be denuded of our population down there. That would not be a good thing for the maritimes or for Canada. That is not decentralization; it is centralization. We must watch out to see that labour is not drawn off from the maritimes and other parts to the central provinces, where they may stay when the war is over and so denude us of our 100-159i
population. But that process is going on. I know, for instance, that the production of certain plants is being curtailed. I have one in mind at the moment, where the workers are being offered positions in upper Canada, and a good many of them are going. Is there any board whose function it is to watch that situation and see that too much of our population, perhaps a very fine part of our population, is not being depleted for the benefit of the central provinces?
The minister knows as well as I do that there is a tremendous cry in Canada, in the east and in the west, against so much centralization of industry in central'Canada. I do think that is a bad thing for the body politic. I would think there are a good many contributing factors. I know this, that geography, which we cannot overcome except by means that are perhaps uneconomic, has had a tendency to drain off our industries to central Canada. I remember discussing this very problem with the late A. 0. Dawson, who was for many years head of Canadian Cottons Limited. We have several cotton factories in New Brunswick, and all the raw material has to be brought in by rail. It comes up, I learned much to my surprise, all the way by rail from New Orleans in the south to Fredericton and Saint John and Milltown. I had thought that it would be brought by water, pre-war, but they tell me that that is not the case. Then, because we have such a limited population in the maritime provinces the finished product has to be sent back and marketed in central or western Canada. So that geography is distinctly against that industry in the maritimes.
I know that industries have a tendency to move to where the demand for their goods is, to where there is more money and more consumption. I have in mind a candy manufacturing establishment, very well known, producing a nationally known product. I am afraid that if that industry were damaged by fire or what-not, it would not be started up again in the maritime provinces but probably would be established in Toronto.
And hon. MEMBER: Is that Moir's?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am not mentioning any particular firm. We all have our favourites; they are all good, and I am not here to advertise any nationally known product. The point I am making is that, so far as I know, national selective service has not yet set up any administrative board to take care of that situation and prevent what I fear may become quite a heavy drain of our population, denuding us perhaps of the very
War Appropriation-Labour

best part of our people. I should like to have some reassurance from the minister on that point because it is important.


Humphrey Mitchell: I am a great believer in decentralization. I think it is the greatest stabilizer that one can have in a country as large as Canada, which in area is a continent in itself, not a country. Selective service, moving along in progressive stages, reached the point where we thought there should be a measure of decentralization, and so we are setting up five regional boards, one for the maritimes, one for Quebec, one for Ontario, one for the prairie provinces and one for British Columbia. These boards resemble the national board in make-up but have fewer representatives. They help to take the weight off the national selective service board, and by their familiarity with the peculiar problems of different parts of this dominion are able to have a bearing on the policies of the national board. We hope to set up such a board in the maritime provinces in the course of the next week.
Might I say to the hon. member for York-Sunbury that while there has been some movement of population from eastern Canada, there has also been a movement into the maritime provinces from other parts of Canada, and if one looked into the figures I think they would show that more people have moved into the maritimes than have left those provinces during the war.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Those
figures would be very interesting; I should like to see them. I know that a large population of women has been moved from the maritimes to Toronto.


Humphrey Mitchell: At Halifax and Truro-


Richard Burpee Hanson: They are populated by an influx of the armed forces, the navy particularly.


Humphrey Mitchell: I had in mind shipyards, which come directly under my jurisdiction, also the construction industry, and when you take these into account you will find that the balance is fairly even, as between the movement of labour from one part of the dominion to another.
Coal mining has been mentioned. I had a delegation to see me the other day in connection with an industry in the city of Amherst. It turned out that there was an agreement between the trades union and the employers containing a seniority clause that in any reduction of personnel the rule should be: the last man on, the first man off. Now- it so happened that many of the men and women working in that plant had come in there from
TMr. R. B. Hanson.]
upper Canada, as it is called in those parts, and in view of this clause in the agreement, many of the people first laid off were the local people, being the last ones taken on. I will not say what they called the workers from upper Canada who retained their jobs in Amherst.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They did not call them out of their name, I hope.


Humphrey Mitchell: Labour men do not always make their language conform to the rules of order we have in this house.
Mr. HANSON i(York-Sunbury): Will the minister give us some assurance the situation I have spoken of will be watched carefully, and will he tell us who will compose the board for the maritimes?


Humphrey Mitchell: There will be a chairman, a representative of the wartime prices and trade board, a representative of munitions and supply, a representative of agriculture, and representatives of employers and labour.


Richard Burpee Hanson: You have
not named them yet?


Humphrey Mitchell: No.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The minister knows very well why so many large industries have centred in his own riding. It is because they get the cheapest electrical power there in all of Canada. Would he suggest that these industries should decentralize and move out of Welland to somewhere else, just for decentralization? Business is not made that way. Business goes where it can get cheap power as well as for other reasons.


Mr. BENCE:: I should like to pay a compliment to a very large body of workers in this country, the largest single body of workers in the country, namely, the railway men and women of Canada. In the wrangling that sometimes goes on in some parts of the country and amidst all the disturbances that sometimes arise, we are apt to forget the tremendous contribution which these railway men and women are making to Canada's war effort. They have had to overcome almost insurmountable odds in the way of lack of help and obsolete equipment such as I think no other body of men have had to face in this dominion. Everyone who travels the trains must realize the difficulties with which our railway men have to cope, and I think the patience, courtesy and restraint with which they go about their work is a remarkable example to the rest of Canada that might well be emulated by those who use the facilities which the railways provide. One of the reasons why in my opinion the railroads have been able to do the remarkable job they have

War Appropriation-Labour
done in Canada during the war is because of the strength and the sanity of the great railway brotherhoods of this country and the good understanding they have with their members. They have applied themselves in a way that commands the admiration of all Canadians, and it seems to me that when we are discussing labour and the men who toil we should say a word of commendation for our railway men.
i In a statement the other day the minister referred to vocational training, something in which I am very much interested. As reported in Hansard at page 2440, he stated as follows:
As the demand of war industry and the armed forces for tradesmen diminishes, steps are being taken to adapt the training centres to provide rehabilitation training along vocational lines for men and women discharged from the forces. The Department of Pensions and National Health has asked the Department of Labour to assume responsibility for training of this type.
To my mind this is one of the very important activities of the Department of Labour, and it should be given every encouragement. I suggest to the minister that in his consultations with the Minister of Pensions and National Health he should also call in the Minister of National Defence for the purpose of determining wherein the methods _ which are now being used may be best adapted for transition into the peace-time period. I know that the vocational branch of the Department of Labour has cooperated with the Department of National Defence, and I understand that it has supplied in the main the instructors for most of the army trade schools in this country. The thing I am concerned about is that we shall miss an opportunity if the department does not discuss with the Department of National Defence the question of endeavouring to dove-tail vocational training in with army trade training for the purpose of ensuring that we shall have the maximum set-up, one which will be as completely efficient as possible when we arrive at that peace-time period.
I have particularly in mind something which arose a short time ago when the Department of National Defence items in the war appropriation resolution were up for consideration. At that time I raised the question with the Minister of National Defence and asked him, when it came to the matter of the retention of army trade schools in certain centres, or of the transfer of these schools, to give consideration to the post-war period. I know that in my own city of Saskatoon, where we have, in my opinion, better facilities than will be found anywhere
else in Saskatchewan, we are very well equipped to perform this work, and we have been doing it in conjunction with the army and with the Department of Labour, vocational training school branch, but I find there is not as close a liaison between the army and the Department of Labour as there should be.


Humphrey Mitchell: If I might correct my hon. friend, there has been for some time what we call an interdepartmental committee on the problem, my hon. friend is discussing at this very moment. It has been in existence for some months, and includes representatives of the three defence departments, the Department of Labour and the Department ef Pensions and National Health.


Alfred Henry Bence: I am very glad to hear that. The only thing that concerned me was that I did not think the committee was working as closely together as, in my view, it should, and I made some investigations in this connection.


Humphrey Mitchell: The hon. member will be amazed at what we are doing.


Alfred Henry Bence: If the minister would only listen to me and investigate the particular case I have in mind, I would be very grateful to him indeed. I have discussed it with the director of vocational training, whom I found to be very cooperative in this connection, and I was hoping I might appeal to someone higher up, such as the minister, to ensure that there shall be that cooperation between the departments of national defence and the Department of Labour that I hope and believe should exist.
In his remarks the other day, the minister mentioned a yardstick of success which he regarded as applicable to matters of man-power. It seemed to me to be a very peculiar one; he suggested that it should be the number of men and women who are employed in industry or are in the armed forces. He pointed to the fact, for example, that we had more people employed to-day either in industry or in the armed forces than we ever had before. Well, I should hope to goodness we have, because, after all, this is the fifth year of the war, and one would not want for a moment to have it suggested that we should be in the unfortunate position in which we found ourselves in- 1939 or the few years succeeding 1939. We would be in a very peculiar position if it were not the fact that to-day more men and women are employed than were employed a few years ago. That is not my idea of the yardstick which should govern when we determine whether or not there has been -a successful man-
War Appropriation-Labour


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend is not suggesting that political influence is brought to bear on the question of calling men for military service or granting leave?


Alfred Henry Bence: What I am suggesting is that where a person is in a position such as a Liberal member of a legislature and is also in a position of passing on the question whether a man shall be allowed leave or not, then there is great suspicion in the minds of the public that political considerations may be involved, and I suggest that this kind of thing should be avoided.


Humphrey Mitchell: It cuts both ways. Why talk about Liberals? Why not talk about Conservatives or the C.C.F.?


Alfred Henry Bence: Well, take the Progressive Conservative party, or the C.C.F.-


Humphrey Mitchell: I always take this stand: I think all men are honourable until I find otherwise.


Alfred Henry Bence: The minister either does not get my point or he does not want to, I do not know which. What I am concerned about is this. Where a man applies for leave and is turned down and he believes he has every reason for getting leave, and he happens to be a well known supporter of the party to which I belong, or the Social Credit party, or the C.C.F., he will naturally jump to the conclusion that because the man who refused him that leave is a Liberal member of a legislature there was political influence. I submit that even a suggestion of that kind of thing should be entirely avoided.


Mr. EVANS:: Who. is the political member of the legislature?


Alfred Henry Bence: The hon. member knows it is Captain J. C. Knowles. He is the member of the legislature and has been renominated.


James Arthur Ross: Is that factual enough?


Alfred Henry Bence: I do not know why the hon. member for Maple Creek wants to ask that question. He knows as well as I do. The point I was trying to make was that we should avoid the possibility of a man being placed in the position where he has the right to say whether or not leave should be granted. Suppose an applicant came from this man's constituency. The officer might be leaning over backwards as far as he could; nevertheless the suspicion remains and it should be removed.
Whenever this matter of man-power is discussed, or when it comes to my mind, I cannot help thinking about the man who was appointed a few years ago by this government for the purpose of dealing with the manpower question. I refer to. Mr. Elliott Little, a man who had great vision and courage. I believe that if he had been given an opportunity he would have done a good job long ago and we would not find ourselves now where we are, with many mistakes having to be rectified. I wonder to what extent the present set-up, which has come about only piecemeal, differs in any major detail from the plan produced by Mr. Little a few years I suggest that except for a few minor details it is not much different from the plan that was originally suggested, and if that plan had been adopted, then we would not find ourselves in this position to-day. We would not be sending men back to vocations from which they were allowed to go a year or two ago. Certainly men and women would not have been shifted around to the extent that they have had to be shifted.
252S
War Appropriation-Labour


Mr. HANSELL:: I wish to ask the minister a question, to make a short observation and then to give him a suggestion. I am not altogether satisfied that the selective service boards are turning out in the way in which they were first expected to operate. I am going to ask the minister to consider making the situation such that when men and women go to the selective service offices seeking employment they will have a certain amount of freedom. The picture as I see it is this. The employer has an opening for a man, perhaps in a store or an office. He applies to the selective service offices. I do not know what is done there, but a man who wants a position goes to the selective service offices. He does not know who his employer may be. The employer does not know whom he may have to employ. Instead of the selective service offices being a sort of clearing house to keep the records straight and attempt to supply and satisfy all industry and all employers, it becomes a sort of bureaucratic institution which has a tendency to push men here and there, and to push on to an employer perhaps somebody with whom he is not altogether satisfied. That is the picture as I see it, and I believe I am right in giving that picture.
I am reminded of what seemed to be the situation last fall. I bring this to the minister's attention, but I do not want him to think what I am about to say is all hearsay, because in this case I happen to know what I am talking about. Last fall the Royal Canadian Air Force put on a campaign to induce women to join the R.C.A.F. I know there was an attempt on one or two occasions by the selective service officials to persuade, very carefully and very cleverly, certain young women to join the R.C.A.E. when they went to the selective service boards looking for employment. I know that happened. I know what took place. The conversation goes along something like this: "What sort of work do you wish?" says the official. The reply is: "Well, I would like anything I can get. I am willing to work hard. I do not want to go out minding children, but I do not mind working in a store." The next question is: "Would you like a stenographer's job?" The answer is, "Well, I cannot do stenography." Then eventually the conversation gets down to the place where the official says, "Well, you know, if you join the forces you can get a job there, and they will teach you. They will train you and you can receive pay while you are training." I know that is what happened. I am not making any drastic accusations or anything of that kind, and I do not want to be unkind. But I should

like to know whether the duties of the selective service officer call for him to do that or whether he is to satisfy the employer and the person who is looking for employment. The thing seems to be a bit shrouded in mystery. A man or a woman goes into the office. They do not know what they are to get. They do not know what is open. They are not told what is open. They say, "I do this", or "I do that", or "I do something else". "I can do so many things. I should like to get employment". Then they are told where they should go. The same situation applies to the other side of the picture with the employer.
I suggest to the minister that when a man goes to the selective service offices there should be some way by which he can choose his position. I do not mean that the selective service officers should be turned into the oldtime labour office where men went and paid so much and saw all sorts of positions put up on big cards on the side of the wall somewhere; but I believe that the selective service officers should be more open in this respect. I suggest that there should be a bulletin board where all those positions that are open should be displayed so that a man could look them over and say to the selective service officers: "I can do this; I want to apply for this position." The employer's name should be displayed as well so that the man has some measure ' of freedom in seeking the work he wants to do. The employer should be able to put an advertisement in the paper. I do not mean that he should be allowed to handle the whole thing himself, although I would not be adverse to that. The individual could then apply through selective service for the position, giving the name of the firm, and as far as that goes, the individual could go to the firm and say, "I am looking for this job; am I competent?" They should be able to say: "Yes, we will take you; go and clear with the selective service officials."
I make this suggestion to the minister, namely, that all the positions that are open should be open to the observation of the men and the women who want the jobs, and that the employer should have some measure of freedom in choosing the man or the woman that he wants to employ. Would the minister give some consideration to that? I think it would tend to satisfy the employer and the employee, much more than the system does at present. I have always thought that water would find its own level; that is, nature, if it is left alone, will do very well. I think the same principle applies in a world of free men. I do not believe that you can begin to push men around, regiment them, put them here and

War Appropriation-Labour
there against their will, or against their knowledge, and expect the most harmonious relationship between employers and employees and the middleman, which is the selective service board.
I believe that the minister will find all kinds of trouble and criticism if there is not a little more freedom among employers and employees in relation to the selective service board. Would the minister give some consideration to having these positions either on a bulletin board or exhibited in some way so that men seeking employment would know where they could go and have some choice in the matter?


Humphrey Mitchell: I appreciate the suggestions that my hon. friend has made, and while I am conscious that there is a measure of criticism of the Department of Labour and the minister, yet this is one of the few opportunities that the minister gets to meet his peers when we are discussing the policies in connection with the different departments of government. The first point raised by my hon. friend was that of the recruitment of women for the navy, the air force and the army. I want to be perfectly frank with him. This is the policy of the labour department. When France fell I was one of the strongest advocates of taking women into the fighting forces, because every woman you take in frees a man for a more active part in the three services. We are proud of the contribution that we have made to'the fighting forces through the instrumentality of selective service as a recruiting agency for the young women who have joined the three departments of our armed forces. It is absolutely voluntary. There is persuasion, it is true, but let me say very frankly that there is no coercion.
On the question of selective service, at the top we have what we call the national selective service advisory board on which are represented all the armed services, the prices control board, munitions and supply, labour, agriculture and the various employers' organizations. On any major question of high policy no move is made until this board is consulted. May I say this to the hon. gentleman, who is not in his seat at the present time: Those of us who take our minds back to twelve or eighteen months ago realize you cannot solve a problem by running away from it; you have to stay with the ship. No one appreciates more than those in the labour department the difficulties and complexities of organizing the measure of selective service that exists in this country to-day. We have had to issue plenty of shalls and do's and don'ts and won'ts; but I want to say to the committee-and this is in line with the thought of my hon. friendthat when this war is over I hope it will be said of me that nothing I did had the effect of impairing the fundamental principles of freedom that have made this country what it is to-day. We have passed through many difficulties, including the poaching of labour when employers were stealing the employees of other employers. I remember the questions asked in that connection in this house before I came into the ministry. The real core of our manpower policy is the control of man-power. I was in Philadelphia a week ago. I picked up the Sunday Inquirer and found seven pages of "help wanted" advertisements, which is an indication that they are passing through the same uncontrolled condition in regard to industrial, farm and commercial labour that we passed through two years ago. I want to say to the committee that without the controls we have in operation at the moment, such as the priority of industries and control over the movement of men and women, we would have complete chaos in Canada.
The fundamental fact we must keep in mind is that to-day the per capita production of this country is the largest of any nation in the world. Do not take my word for it; Madame Chiang Kai-shek made that observation right in this chamber when addressing members of the Commons and the Senate. That is the result not only of the genius of the Canadian people but also of the measure of labour control we have in this dominion. I want to pay a tribute to employers, employees and farmers, and to their various organizations. We sometimes like things to reflect to our own glory, but these results would not have been possible without the active cooperation of those forces in the life of this nation. I cannot and would not promise any hon. member-and goodness knows I get enough pressure from all directions-that there will be any slackening of these controls until the labour situation is much easier than it is at the moment. I remember that last fall certain members of this house went up and down the country saying there would be an unemployment situation in Canada this spring, with 100,000 people out of work. I do not know why they said those things, whether it was for political reasons or to embarrass the government, but in my judgment it does not reflect credit upon any responsible member of this house to express in public a thought of that kind when we are facing the most desperate hour in the history of this nation.
. Mr. TUSTIN: Who made that statement?


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend knows who made it.


Ernest George Hansell: Do not look at me.

War Appropriation-Labour


Humphrey Mitchell: I am not looking at my hon. friend.


Mr. TUSTIN:: Who made it?


Humphrey Mitchell: The leader of the C.C.F.
party made -the statement.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: Does the minister know the number of unemployed at the present time?


Humphrey Mitchell: I can get that figure, but I can tell my hon. friend that I could put 160,000 people at work to-morrow morning if h? could find them for me.


George Hugh Castleden: I suggest that there are a good many around that the minister has not found.


Humphrey Mitchell: I was trying to answer the very kindly suggestions offered by the hon. member for Macleod, and now I am going to sit down. Let us be frank and honest; I believe selective service works in a scarce market. When the market is freer there should be a measure of choice on the part of the employer as to those he employs, and on the part of the employee in search of a job; but while the present tight situation exists I cannot give any guarantee at all that t*he present measure of control will be relaxed one iota. I can go that far.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I listened with a great deal of interest to the comprehensive report the minister gave us the other evening, which contains very much that is extremely commendable. I was particularly interested in the features pertaining to education, and when those matters come up for review I shall have something further to say. This afternoon I was very much interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Lake Centre. I am not nearly so disturbed about the increased purchase of civilian goods in 1944 in comparison with 1939 as the hon. member appears to be.
I think he loses sight of the fact that in 1939 large numbers of our people had been without purchasing power for many years. Now that they are in possession of some purchasing power it is only natural that they should spend part of it to acquire goods which they were forced by economic conditions to go without for many years prior to the war. The hon. member for Lake Centre also had a good deal to say about equality of service and sacrifice. On some occasion I should like the hon. gentleman or someone in his party to explain to the house just what they mean by that expression, which I have heard them use many times. Just what do they mean when they refer to equality of service as between different parts of the country or as between different classes within the country? I think 
it would avoid considerable confusion if we knew just what meaning they attach to the term.
In connection with selective service I should like to endorse the statement made on Friday evening by the hon. member for Cape Breton South as to the importance, in the selective service machinery, of those who make the first contact with people seeking employment. As the minister has just pointed out, it is very difficult to undertake to direct men from one industry to another, or to tell Canadians, who all their lives have been free to choose jobs to their own liking when they could get them, where they must work. I think a good deal of the criticism I have heard in regard to selective service arises from the lack of understanding and courtesy on the part of those who have the first interviews with people coming to selective service for positions. I realize that the minister has had to make use of untrained, unskilled people. Any effort that can be spent on training those people to make that first contact with the public, so that a man or woman who comes to discuss the question of a job with selective service is not given to feel that the selective service officer is looking down upon the unemployed person, would be worth while. Anything of that kind should be avoided, wherever possible.
As I have seen the long queues of unem-. ployed, or those seeking to transfer from one job to another, as I have seen them lined up in some of the Toronto offices, particularly on Spadina avenue, I have wondered if there is not some way of avoiding some of that complicated procedure which is followed. It seems to me that when a man registers with selective service, and selective service have his card on file, they must know what he is capable of doing, and what his experience and qualifications are. They have the whole case history on their cards, and it seems to me it should be possible for selective service, upon being ' notified by an employer that he wants a certain type of employee, to notify such employee who might be qualified for the job, and to instruct him to go directly to that job. It should not be necessary for him to make a trip, sometimes of many miles, to the selective service office, and stand in line possibly for hours-and in many cases have to go back more than once to make contact with the job. Even then, a person may be sent to a job that has been filled by the time he gets there. I am wondering if there cannot be some shortcut whereby some of that inconvenience .and annoyance may be avoided. Is it not possible to notify the employee direct as to where he may apply for a job for which he is fitted? Any study that can be given to that phase of the programme would help.

War Appropriation-Labour
I have noticed from time to time that there appears to be little coordination between different offices of selective service. A man comes into a selective service office, and they have nothing that fits his qualifications. They appear to have no record of vacancies which would suit him, but which might be on file in other offices. I recall, for instance, a graduate druggist going into a selective service office, and the only job the office could offer him was one in a lumber camp. They had not a single opening on their files for a graduate chemist. I am sure there were other offices that had on their files vacancies for a man with those qualifications. I am wondering just what coordination there is among different offices within selective service.
As I have moved from province to province I have noticed that there is considerable lack of uniformity, particularly in the manner of getting those men from industry, temporarily employed on farms, back into their original jobs, or back into industry. I find that in Ontario the practice appears to be that of sending a registered letter to the employer, a similar letter to the employee, and a registered letter to the farmer for whom he has been working. That appears to be a good deal of duplication and waste of time. An enormous number of clerks must be employed as stenographers to write those three letters and to register them. Yet all this must be done to get a man back from a temporary farm job into his original job in industry. It seems to me there should be some shorter cut to effect that transfer.
Then I am wondering what cooperation the minister and his department are getting from employers in the matter of lay-offs. I was in Amherst, Nova Scotia, when a considerable lay-off took place from the Canadian Car and Foundry company, and I discovered that the men were on the streets before selective service knew anything about the lay-off. I am wondering if the department is getting the cooperation to which it is entitled. Certainly employers can assist in this whole business by keeping selective service informed well in advance with respect to lay-offs about to take place, and also as to what their needs will be, in order that selective service may have an opportunity to fill those needs. I have heard selective service officers in different towns complain that often men were thrown upon them, from industry, without very much notification, and that demands were made upon them by industry without much advance notice.
Certainly the minister or his department cannot be blamed for that; but it is one feature in which this whole business of selective
service can be improved. I hear unofficially that the minister's department is now making a job survey across Canada. If that is so, I wish to commend the minister. It is something I am sure he should have done long ago, and something which is certainly most timely to-day. I would say simply this to the minister, that I have heard that those who are entrusted with this important task are greatly understaffed, and cannot be expected to make a really efficient survey, or to do an efficient job unless more assistance is given to them. In my opinion this is a very important job, and every possible cooperation and assistance should be given to those who are to undertake the task.
This afternoon I listened to the debate between the hon. member for Lake Centre and the minister with respect to all those missing men. ' I believe the hon. member for Lake Centre placed on record the estimated figure at 350,000. I believe the. figures showed by the minister's department are to blame for the conclusion reached by the hon. member. I am surprised, however, that he kept the figure down to 350,000. I have before me three returns tabled by the minister's department, and I can prove conclusively from those figures that there are at least 700,000 men missing.
Mr.. MITCHELL: You must be a statistician.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I am not a statistician, but I can add and subtract figures. It can be shown conclusively from three separate sets of figures issued by the minister's department that there must be at least 700,000 men unaccounted for. That, of course, cannot be the fact. But the tables published by the minister's department justify one in reaching that conclusion. I wonder if the minister is not the victim of circumstances in this case. Probably he has inherited something there. I wonder if the minister or any other department of government has a record or whether there is a cross-check between the Department of National Defence and his department thar would show clearly just how many men of those called up had, prior to their call, or immediately upon their call, or between the time they were called and the time they were supposed to report, voluntarily enlisted. Without those figures one can only guess at how many men are unaccounted for. One cannot possibly estimate the number unless he has an accurate record. I should like to know if there is any such a record in the minister's department or in any other department, going back over the years.
War Appropriation-Labour

There is another matter on which I have heard some criticism. This does not come directly under the minister's department, although it affects it. There is considerable confusion over the medical examination.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Order. The hon. member cannot discuss the medical examination under this item.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Very well, Mr. Chairman, I will bring my remarks on that subject to the attention of the committee at some other time.
It is quite evident that there is a lack of uniformity across the country in the penalties inflicted for default. I think that was brought out quite clearly this afternoon. I would suggest to the minister that if the man who refuses to respond to his call is to be let off with a twenty-five dollar fine one may very well expect a great many men to shirk their call. The lack of uniformity in the penalty as between different provinces and different parts of the same province is a serious matter, and some check should be made of it.	%
The minister in his statement dealt with conscientious objectors. There is some confusion regarding the figures given. There are something over 8,000 conscientious objectors listed in the table given by the minister, and only about four or five thousand of them are accounted for by the minister's figures. I do not know where the others are, whether or not most of them are at Chalk River. I do not think the minister gave us the number of conscientious objectors in the camps.


Humphrey Mitchell: Five thousand is a cumulative figure.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I have had enough correspondence with conscientious objectors to realize the difficulty that the minister and his officials are running into, particularly with the class of conscientious objectors who refuse to submit to selective service regulations in any way or form. I just want to offer this caution. I am satisfied that some of these conscientious objectors are taken off farms and sent into work camps who, if they were not conscientious objectors, would be left on the farm.


Humphrey Mitchell: It is just the reverse. May I make this observation. If it were not for the fellows up in the air, or serving in the army or on the sea, there would not be any conscientious objectors left in this country. I always keep that thought in mind.


Mr. NOSE WORTHY:: I always keep it in mind, too, but my point is that the moment a man gets a deferment on the ground of being a conscientious objector, automatically he comes under the regulations of the labour department. If a man is granted deferment on the ground that he is essential to industry or agriculture he is left at his employment there. But conscientious objectors are taken off- the farms. I do not know what the solution is. I can see the difficulty, but there is that point I have made and I think something could be done about it. Unquestionably there are men at Chalk River and at other camps who could contribute more to the war effort on the farms or in the industries from which they were taken.
I think the minister gave us, or I received from somewhere, an indication that some provision is being made or contemplated for the dependents of conscientious objectors. I have met with a large number of these dependents who have to depend upon monthly relief for the support of their family because the conscientious objectors are in work camps. If some provision is being made for these dependents I would say it is praiseworthy.


Humphrey Mitchell: We have already made that suggestion to the provinces.


James Arthur Ross: Mr. Chairman, I desire to ask a question or two on these estimates. But first let me say that the hon. member for Lake Centre this afternoon proved, I think to the satisfaction of the committee, that Canada has the most embarrassing man-power situation of all the countries of the united nations. The minister will agree-


Humphrey Mitchell: You are just kidding yourself, trying to wish us into that position.


James Arthur Ross: Let me say to the minister that I take second place to no member in trying to get recruits for the armed forces. When the minister of National Defence asked in this house for the assistance of hon. members in getting recruits, I will venture to say that no supporter of the government from any province did as much as I tried to do in getting recruits for the army, the air force or the navy.
In the debate this afternoon between the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough and the Minister of National Defence I interjected: What a difference it makes whether one is on the front benches or in the front line! The minister said that he had always been on the front benches.


James Layton Ralston: I said I was on the front benches at the time of the thirty days training.

War Appropriation-Labour


James Arthur Ross: I realize that, but that is not what I had in mind. I pay compliment to the minister on his very fine record in the last war. That is what I was referring to when I said what a difference it makes when one is in the front line, because when the minister was in the front line serving as a gallant soldier and officer he wrote back to Canada urging national government and conscription. But now he occupies a position on the front bench- and that makes a difference! May 1 add that a good many members who are ex-service men and members of the armed services to-day did think they would have a very much better friend at court than they apparently have in regard to the man-power policy necessary for this country. I think that is a true statement. I want to make it quite clear that I have always taken every opportunity to assist recruiting for the three armed services. True enough, I may have been elected in 1940 as opposed to conscription. I made my stand very clear immediately upon the fall of France and other European countries; it will be found recorded in Hansard of November 10, 1941, at page 4210; and I have never veered from that stand at any time. I do not think we have national selective service in operation in this country yet.
Let me give the committee one or two examples. A young chap, a neighbour of mine, volunteered for service in the air force, hoping he would "make" the aircrew He did not make aircrew; he is now in groundcrew. He has clear title to a section of the best land in Manitoba, and it was a splendid farm. In recent months his father-in-law, who was operating the farm, has been told by his medical adviser that he cannot work any longer on the farm. This young chap thinks that, rather than be in groundcrew, he can render better service by operating that farm, but so far his efforts to get back to the farm have been fruitless.
I can take hon. members to another constituency over the border, in another province, and point out a somewhat similar case, a Y.C. of the Boer war who is farming, who has only one son, that son being in the armed services, and has been unable to get him out of the service to assist him on the farm. A farmer next to him has six sons of military age, all exempt upon the pretext of assisting in farm work, though the story the neighbours tell is to the effect that they are not making any great contribution to the war effort, either on the farm or anywhere else.
I give those two cases as concrete examples. If there is no coercion, no conscription in respect of this recruiting system for home defence, I wish to ask the Minister of
National War Services, are these officials instructed to advise a young man who answers the call as to where he can best serve? My understanding is that no young man is granted postponement or exemption unless he asks for it. Many young men to-day, under the patriotic urge, will not ask for postponement or exemption; and I say that this government are taking advantage of that fact in order to raise an army. National selective service is not functioning as it should As I see it, officials of that board should be in a position, after hearing the evidence of these young men, to advise them whether they can render the best service back on the farm, in some cases as executives in industry, or in the armed services; and I do not believe that that is being done, nor do I think that it is provided for in the regulations.


James Layton Ralston: I may tell my hon. friend that-


James Arthur Ross: I believe it comes under the Minister of Labour. These services should be closely coordinated. After all, their work is interlocked. I deprecate the entire policy of the government in the matter of raising an army on that basis, and I say that national selective service is not operating as it should for the good of our war effort and in the national interest. I should like the minister to answer the question I have put to him. If I am wrong I want to be so informed. When a young man appears, the onus should not be upon him to enlist if in the opinion of the board he can render greater service in industry or agriculture. I do not know how the Minister of National Defence can argue that there is no coercion, because you are distinctly playing on the feelings of these young men, first to conscript them in the home defence army, and then, by sending V.C.'s and other officers with decorations to the camps, to try to coax these chaps into believing that it is their duty to volunteer. That is not a manly policy to have in effect in a country such as this.


Humphrey Mitchell: On a voluntary basis the only man who cannot join the army is the coal miner. At this moment he cannot enlist in any of the services. I thought that was generally known. In agriculture, all a young man has to say is, "I am in agriculture," and that is the end of the story.


James Arthur Ross: Without asking for postponement?


Humphrey Mitchell: Certainly, he does not have to ask, if he says he is in agriculture.


James Arthur Ross: He is granted postponement?
War Appropriation-Labour


Humphrey Mitchell: Absolutely-automatically.


George James Tustin: It is not as simple as that.


James Arthur Ross: It does not function in that way in our province, and we have an efficient board.


Humphrey Mitchell: Of course there is a measure of investigation. Take the case of the hon. member; I happen to know he is a good farmer; but a man might come to me and say that he is a farmer and yet be the only man on earth who thinks he is a farmer. In industry, the application has to be made by the individual and supported by the employer, and the employer of course does not have to support the application if he does not want to. It is just as simple as that. We do not call up coal miners and they cannot join on a voluntary basis. The farm situation is that if a man is a genuine farmer he is automatically postponed.


James Arthur Ross: Without asking for it?


Humphrey Mitchell: If there is any doubt-


James Arthur Ross: Certainly, there is always a doubt.


Humphrey Mitchell: Then you get the third point, that in industry the man himself makes the application for postponement and he is supported by the employer.


James Arthur Ross: The minister is not telling me that when a young man appears before that board and states he is an agriculturist he is granted extension without asking for it?


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Order. I will ask the hon. member to address the Chair.


James Arthur Ross: I am sorry.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: It is a rule which should be followed.


James Arthur Ross: I understood the minister to say that when a young man appeared and said he was an agriculturist he was automatically granted a postponement or an exemption. My understanding is that he must ask for a postponement or exemption.


Humphrey Mitchell: That is quite true.


James Arthur Ross: And then he does not always get it. But he must ask, in any event.


Humphrey Mitchell: I think that follows. If you went before a board, what is the first thing I would ask if I were chairman of the board? My first question would be, "What is your occupation?" The applicant says he is a farmer. It is just as simple as that.


James Arthur Ross: The point I was trying to make is that this is a policy of playing on a young man's feelings to get him in the armed services, and the minister states he must ask for postponement or exemption. This board in no case advise the young man that he should be back on the farm or be in industry; they want him to enlist in this draft army, and every effort is put forward to achieve that end. I think the minister will agree that that is right.


Humphrey Mitchell: No. I cannot agree with that, and I cannot keep on explaining.


James Arthur Ross: Under the regulations the young man must make application in writing for postponement.


Mr. RAYMOND:: I desire to make a very few observations, and the first one will be with respect to the order in which the items of this department are discussed. When, on February 11, the Minister of Finance introduced his resolution to provide for the sum of $3,650 millions, he made a break-down of the estimated war expenditure and indicated the order in which the various items should be discussed. I do not know why there has been this inversion of the order which was indicated by the Minister of Finance for the discussion of the estimates. Is it because the minister wanted to pass his estimate on a Friday evening or on a Monday? To-day we were supplied with a sheet showing a statement of estimated amounts required by the Department of Labour, and instead of having as the first item, as indicated by the Minister of Finance, the war emergency training programme, we find the national selective service programme. I am at a loss to know why this change has been made. The leader of the opposition has time and again complained about not knowing what was going on, what was to be discussed after we come here. We do not know what discussion will take place or what the order will be. In this case the minister has seen fit to change the order indicated, which we were entitled to believe would be adhered to. Moreover, we were supplied this afternoon with a statement printed in English only. I asked for a French copy of it but I was told there was none. The French language has a right in this house, and I am one of those who believe that, if it has, it is high time we were entitled to a French copy of everything printed. Last week we were discussing amendments to the standing orders of the house and were supplied only with an English copy. An hon. member opposite asked for a French copy and could not get it and to-day again we cannot get a French copy. We have only an

War Appropriation-Labour
English copy, which is different, as indicated on February 11 by the Minister of Finance.
And now I intend to continue my observations in French.
(Translation):	I wish to bring to the
attention of the committee the obviously absurd manner in which the provisions of the mobilization act are carried out. I do not know whether conditions are the same in the other provinces, but such is the situation in the province of Quebec. On February 8, 1943, *the minister sent us a copy of some directions given in connection with the growing shortage of farm labour. Here is one passage which I wish to quote:
Owing to the growing shortage of farm labour, it becomes increasingly important to encourage essential farm workers to remain on the land.
That is the direction which the Minister of Labour was giving with a view to keeping farm labour on the land. Unfortunately, those instructions were not followed, and I am going to give many examples. The other day, during the discussion of the estimates of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston), I brought some facts to his attention and he referred me to the Minister of Mobilization, adding that all he has to do is to ask the Minister of Mobilization for a certain number of recruits, and he undertakes to call them.
Well, it has happened many times that a farmer who had already been examined and placed in category E, and who was accordingly unfit for military service, was called again for a new medical examination in Montreal. The other day, the Minister of National Defence pointed out that it may sometimes be important that a new examination be made of recruits or of men liable to be called.
That was the case of a farmer who had already been called for medical examination and who, therefore, had applied for postponement as a farmer. The Department of Mobilization was aware of all the facts; they knew that the man was a farmer, that as a result of the first medical examination he had been put in category E, but they were calling him again for a new medical examination, at the very time when farmers were requested to remain on their farms. And I could mention several cases. There is, for instance, the case of a young married man who owned a 160-acre farm which he operated alone. He had to lose one or two days to undergo a new medical examination in Montreal and during his absence his neighbours had to take care of his herd of cows. That was an unnecessary expense, in the first place, and a loss of time for that farmer.
I would ask the minister to tell us how many farmers have been called for a second
medical examination. I would ask him when opportunity allows, to kindly give me this information, and to tell me the cost of this second examination of farmers in the circumstances I have just mentioned. There are also other cases. A number of men were called for medical examination and although they applied for a postponement, they were ordered to report to a military training camp two or three days after undergoing the examination. This was a violation of the mobilization regulation which reads as follows:
T'he registrar shall not, while an application for a postponement order is pending before the board, send the applicant an "order-military training."
After submitting to the medical examination,, the applicant had fourteen days in which to apply for a postponement, and he had done so. And there is a large number of similar cases. I do not claim, however, that all this was done since the present minister is in charge of the department. However, I have in my files numerous cases where a called-up man who had applied for a postponement two or three days after receiving the first notice, received an "Order-Military Training". What was the consequence? A good many farmers went to training camps, under the impression that their request for a postponement had been rejected. And it took not only days and weeks, but often months to get them out of the camps after they had proved that they were farmers' sons and were entitled to deferments. During that time farms were neglected.
I recall the case of a 72 year old farmer, whose only son was railed up. The old man was left alone to look after the farm and a herd of dairy cows. The son's postponement *was not granted and he had to go to a training camp, where he had to stay for months before being released. The neighbours had to tend the cows and look after the other farm work. Farmers are asked to increase production; rationing has been resorted to; a shortage of farm help is being experienced; crops are rotting on the field and, nevertheless, farmers' sons are still being called up. Last week, a creamery operator who processes the cream of the farmers of the township, and -who makes butter for which there is such an acute need, saw with great dismay his buttermaker called up for a medical examination although he had been given a postponement until next July. Can anyone imagine such a way of carrying out the provisions of the act? That man had been granted a postponement until July and he -was called for a new medical examination. He was kept away from his farm during three
War Appropriation-Labour

days, and meanwhile there was an accumulation of cream because no one there could make his butter.
And what about the recruits who are called and who suffer from tuberculosis. The following question was recently asked:
How many members of the armed forces on duty in Canada only have been discharged on account of tuberculosis of the lungs?
The answer was that 2,489 persons had been discharged from the army because they were suffering from, tuberculosis. And it was further stated:
Most of the cases had the disease on enlistment and were discharged as soon as the result of the X-ray plates was known.
How is it that they had been accepted in the army if they were suffering from tuberculosis? 2,489 men were suffering with this disease and were nevertheless kept in the armed forces, thereby exposing the others to possible contamination. Had ordinary care been taken, this would not have happened. I shall say nothing of the expense this represented for the taxpayers who always pay the bill in the end.
In spite of statements to the effect that fewer men are required, within Canada, for the defence of the country, more men are being called. I asked a question from the minister last March and, on the 27th of that month, he gave me his reply. Here is my question:
How many persons were called for their medical examination under the mobilization act, (a) during the month of January, 1944; (b) during the month of February, 1944; (c) from March 1 to March 15, 1944?
The answer was:
January, 1944, 26,007; February, 1944, 23,119; March 1-15, 1944, 8,174.
To a second question worded as follows:
How many persons received a notice to report 'or military training under the mobilization act, (a) during the month of January, 1944; fb) during the month of February, 1944; (c) from March 1 to March 15, 1944?
The following answer was given:
January. 1944, 14.766; February, 1944, 12,172; March 1-15, 1944, 6,950.
And it is stated that fewer men are required within Canada, for the defence of the country. Well, let us stop fooling the public by insinuating that the men called for defence of Canada within Canada are really brought into the army for this purpose. It is to train recruits for overseas service, as the minister admitted the other day. It is a method of disguised conscription for overseas.
I come now to the order issued a few weeks ago by the Minister of Labour and which

compels every employer to report his employees who might not be complying with the Mobilization Act. This order even compels the father to report his son, the brother his brother, under penalty of a fine or imprisonment.
Male employee comprises any man in your employ, including those related to you.
And in a set of instructions, later supplied to employers, the same definition appears:
The expression "employer" also comprises any farmer operating a farm and who has a male employee even if he be his son or a relative.
I state without hesitation that, in this order the government is resorting to methods unworthy of a civilized country. To my mind, nothing is more inhuman, more antisocial than to compel parents to denounce their own children. In the name of the mogt elementary principles of justice and charity, I ask the government to remove this shameful order from our statutes. In this, I simply echo the numerous protests that have come from all parts of the country. All our public bodies have expressed their disapproval. In spite of all this, such an order is maintained.
I also wish to call the ministers' attention to order in council C.P. 1355, of March 4, 1940, which reads as follows:
The minister, upon 'being informed by the Department of National Defence that a specified number of men are required for military training, may instruct any registrar to apply these regulations to a specified number of _ men from his division, and may inform a registrar how many French-speaking men are required.
I ask the minister why he has inserted in this order in council a special provision relating to French-speaking Canadians. I thought that in this country of ours we were all Canadians and that when men are called into [DOT]the army there should be no distinction between French Canadians or English Canadians or Canadians of any other race, because we are all Canadians. I fail to see the object of this special distinction applying to French Canadians. As long as the Minister of Labour has not given a satisfactory explanation, I shall take it that this provision has been aimed at the French Canadians.
I shall have other remarks to make on this department's estimates. For the present, I call the minister's attention to he facts I have indicated to [DOT] the house, in the hope that he will give them due consideration and that he will take steps to remedy the difficulties I have mentioned.


Mr. HLYNKA:: I would not have risen at this time had not the minister stated that

War Appropriation-Labour
"all a young man has to do when called up is to say that he is engaged in agriculture and he is automatically granted a postponement." The minister is entirely wrong. In practice the onus of proof at all times falls upon the man applying for postponement. As a matter of fact, the applicant is sent a questionnaire which must be filled out and signed by a mounted policeman if there is one within a radius of twenty miles; in most cases applicants send in sworn affidavits setting out the facts. I should like to tell the minister also that even many of those who have been granted postponements are advised from time to time that their postponements are cancelled, and that they must make new applications if they wish their cases reconsidered. In most of these cases conditions have not changed; yet the men are told that their postponements cannot be extended indefinitely. Why, then, should the minister make the statement in the house that agricultural postponements are readily granted when applied for, when he should know that such is not the case?
The point I wish to stress is that we know that men are needed for the armed services and that pressure is being applied to obtain men engaged in agriculture. They are told that their postponements cannot be carried on indefinitely and that sooner or later they will have to report for duty. We should be frank about the situation and state it in clear terms. The man-power policy of the government is that if a mobilization board finds that a man can be persuaded to enter the armed services, everything possible is done to get him to do so, even though he may be absolutely necessary on the farm. He cannot obtain his postponement unless and until he can prove beyond doubt that his parents could not possibly carry on without him. Statements like the one the minister made do not clarify the situation. When touring my constituency I was asked by many of my constituents, "Why does the government continue to announce over the air and in the press that postponements are being granted, while applications for postponement are in many cases flatly refused?" I think the minister should tell the house and the country that our man-power pool is being exhausted, and that pressure is being applied to get as many men as possible for the armed services, wherever they may be obtained.


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not think my hon. friend should put up a straw man just in order to knock him down again. The hon. gentleman has suggested that I have not been frank. Perhaps I was too simple. Some people think that if they make a statement so complicated
that they do not understand it themselves, other people should understand it. I told the hon. member for Souris it was as simple as this. A man goes to the board and asks for a postponement. If on investigation he is proven to be a farmer, the application is granted.


Anthony Hlynka: Not so easily.


Humphrey Mitchell: Let us look at the record of postponements. The figures are as follows:
Farming	
Fishing	
Lumbering	
Mining	
Essential industries and services..
Students	
Conscientious objectors	
Merchant marine	
Compassionate	
All others	
145,529
2.317
5,382
2,562
52,341
14,497
8,285
2,729
2,443
16.540
Total	 252,625
Most of the conscientious objectors are farmers as well. It will be seen from these figures that over fifty per cent of the postponements covering all industry in Canada are granted in connection with agriculture. I think that should be an indication that the boards across this country have given due regard to the directives or regulations concerning the protection of the industry of agriculture.


Anthony Hlynka: I am not saying anything
about the boards. The boards are placed in an impossible position. They are told to get the men.


Humphrey Mitchell: They are not told to
get the men contrary to regulations. Probably my hon. friend wants to go out and make a speech when he gets back home, but I cannot let a statement like that go by.


Anthony Hlynka: In my office upstairs_ I
have a number of applications and affidavits concerning cases where there is only one son left at home, with two or three quarter-sections of land to look after. The father may well be up in his late sixties or early seventies; yet the application for postponement is refused. I am speaking from the practical point of view; I have taken up many of these cases. To say in this chamber that "all a man has to do is to say that he is needed in agriculture and he is granted a postponement" is not in accordance with facts. I did not find that to be true in the part of the country from which I come.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: Did I understand the minister to say that one out of every six men called was rejected?
War Appropriation-Labour


Humphrey Mitchell: No. We have reached
the point where we have to call six men in order to get one; five of the six are either postponed or rejected.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Then I should
like to refer to table No. 11 which the minister placed on Hansard during the course of his remarks. I have before me sonie of the percentages in class A. We find that in London it is 49 per cent, Toronto 49-6 per cent, Kingston 49-2, Port Arthur 52-8, Montreal 30, Quebec 29-3 per cent-and there are others at 45, 48-8, 51-9, 48-6, 49-7, 55-5 and 56-1 per cent. Is the health of the province of Quebec as bad as that figure would indicate?


Humphrey Mitchell: I cannot express an
opinion upon that.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I did not hear
the answer.


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not think it is
fair to express an opinion on that. However, he who runs may read. There are the figures which have come to my department.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Have those figures ever been investigated?


Humphrey Mitchell: There are the figures.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I do not see how there could be that much discrepancy.
I should like to ask the minister a question in connection with the reinstatement of returned men, those getting their positions back upon discharge. I imagine that would come under this item. They return to their jobs, and to positions not worse than they would have had, if they had not enlisted. What is done about that? Is there anything done so that these men are put back in jobs not worse than they would have had, had they not enlisted?
I have several cases here about which I wish to make some inquiry. I do not intend to mention names, but I would point out one or two cases in point. Here is one case-and there is a series of them. I think in some cases there is a lot of buck-passing in connection with taking these men back, and that is very bad for morale in the factories. If anyone should have consideration, certainly it should be those men who have been overseas and are returned again to civil life.
Here is one example. Before enlistment this man was a lead hand in a sheet metal department, and was receiving seventy-five cents an hour. He was wounded at Dieppe, and was discharged on April 3, 1944. Upon application for reinstatement he was told that there

were no vacancies. He was later reinstated in the sheet metal department at the rate of seventy-five cents an hour. A good deal of kicking went on. That amount included cost of living bonus. This man has the right at the present time to a wage of eighty-five cents.
Here is another case. This man was employed in September, 1941; enlisted in August, 1942; was discharged in February, 1944, and was reinstated at fifty-five cents an hour as a junior store clerk. The rate is still fifty-five cents, plus cost of living bonus. Employees who started after him are now receiving ninety cents an hour. They are all lead hands.
Those are just a couple of cases, but there are a great many others I could place on record. Could the minister explain just what is being done to see that men who are returned are getting their rights upon reinstatement, according to the laws of the land?


Humphrey Mitchell: Obviously I do not know the details of the cases to which the hon. member has referred. One cannot get down to individual cases in committee, because we are dealing with tens of thousands of men. But we have veteran welfare officers in all the larger centres of the dominion, and it seems to me that if these men have proper cases- and I think they are informed of that fact when they leave the army-


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I might say that these cases have been given to me by the man who represents the legion.


Humphrey Mitchell: We do not know anything about them. We have welfare officers, and the law is clear in the matter. I understand that when these men leave the forces or are discharged they are informed as to their rights, and the machinery that exists for the assistance of men who have served in the fighting forces. Obviously on the floor of the house I cannot say what the facts are in connection with the cases my hon. friend has mentioned. However, of course I appreciate his having brought these to my attention.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I do not think the minister has understood me correctly. I brought up these cases only as examples.


Humphrey Mitchell: I appreciate that.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I want to know what the department is doing in matters of this kind-because these are only two; there are lots of others, and in various places. There is the greatest difficulty in some cases in connection with having these men reinstated in their position, or in a position which would not

Bank Act
be worse than they would have had, had they not enlisted. It is all very well to put them back into their jobs, but they must be not worse than they would have been, had they not enlisted. That is my point, and I think it is a serious matter.


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend will understand that the mere fact that something is written on a piece of paper does not mean that such alleged facts are as set out. It does not mean that an investigation might not show the facts otherwise. However, if the hon. member will be good enough to turn the correspondence over to myself or to the Minister of Pensions and National Health, I shall be glad to look into the facts.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I have a few more cases, but perhaps the Chairman might call it eleven o'clock.
Item stands.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, May 2, 1944