1944-02-17

[Stage Direction]
Mr. SAMUEL FACTOR (Spadina) presented the second report of the special committee on the Dominion Elections Act, 1938, (armed services), and moved that the report be concurred in.
Mr. SPEAKER:: By leave of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I ask for leave under standing order 31 to move the adjournment of the house for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the urgent need for government financial measures to stimulate greater production of sugar beets and beet sugar in Canada during the j'ear 1944.
Sugar Beets


Thomas Vien: Will the hon. gentleman let me see his statement?


John Horne Blackmore: Certainly, Mr. Speaker.


Thomas Vien: 

QUESTIONS

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

Mr. HATFIELD:: 1.	What is the quantity of tea stored in Saint John, New Brunswick?
2.	What is the quantity of tea stored in Halifax?


Mr. ABBOTT:: For security reasons it is not considered in the public interest to publish information regarding stocks of an imported commodity like tea, on the basis of which it might be possible for the enemy to draw inferences regarding the movement of ships on the high seas. Stocks vary considerably from day to day, and release of the figures for any particular date might also lead to unwarranted and undesirable speculation as to changes in consumer rations.
i Mr. Blackasore.]


CARS OP GRAIN ON TRACKS AT FORT WILLIAM TERMINAL
Mr. BENCE:: How many cars full of grain were on the tracks in both the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific Railway terminals at Fort William on February 1, 1944?


Mr. MICHAUD:: On the tracks of the Canadian Pacific Railway:	For unloading,
561 cars; for movement east, 165 cars; total, 726 cars.
On the tracks of the Canadian National Railways: For unloading, 192 cars; for movement east, 143 cars; total, 335 cars.


DOMINION PUBLIC BUILDINGS, OTTAWA- WINDOW-CLEANING
Mr. STOKES:: 1.	Is the cleaning of windows in public buildings in Ottawa done by contract?
2.	If so, what is the name of the contractor, were tenders called for, and what is the contract price or cost, (a) per window; (b) in total?
3.	What was the total cost of window-cleaning of public buildings in Ottawa when done by day-labour?


Mr. FOURNIER (Hull):: 1.	The cleaning of windows is done partly by contract and partly by day labour.
2.	The Elgin AVindow Cleaners were the contractors for 1943, spring and fall cleaning. Tenders were called for in each case, (a) No cost per window was furnished in tenders as windows vary in size, (b) For the year 1943 spring and fall cleaning, the cost of work by contract was $16,160.05 and by day labour $17,065.10.
3.	The total cost of window cleaning in 1938 when the windows in all government buildings in Ottawa, with the exception of the national research building, were cleaned by day labour was $15,229. The cost of cleaning windows in the national research building was $200 done by contract. The number of public buildings in Ottawa requiring window cleaning has been greatly increased since 1938, due to the number of large temporary buildings constructed as well as other buildings acquired for war purposes.


SOLDIER SETTLEMENT-RED DEER CONSTITUENCY
Mr. SHAW:: 1.	How many soldier settlers under contract to the soldier settlement board of Canada were there in the federal constituency of Red Deer . as at September 1, 1939?
2.	How many such settlers were there in the same area as at January 1, 1944?
3.	How many of those soldier settlers who were located upon soldier settlement farms in the Red Deer federal constituency on September

Questions
1,	1939, (a) have since that date completed payment for the farms and now hold title;
(b)	had their contracts cancelled by the board;
(c)	surrendered their contracts and left the farms?
4.	How many of those soldier settlers in that area who are still under contract to the board are in good standing in that all payments have been made up to date under the terms of the contract?


Mr. CRERAR:: I desire to say a word on this question. To get the information asked for in the question would take weeks, if not months, of searching through the individual files of the soldier settlers in the province of Alberta. These record's are not kept by constituencies. I therefore must say that the question is not one which I think should be asked in this form. If my hon. friend is interested in any particular case I should be very glad to see him and give him the information. I suggest that the. question be dropped, and perhaps he could have a word with me about it and see if we cannot meet his wishes in some other way.


Mr. SHAW:: May the question be permitted to stand, and I can consult with the minister?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Well, the question may stand, but I can only reiterate that it would take weeks if not months to get the information.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I desire, Mr. Speaker, to redraft the question. I would not want to see it dropped, unless the minister insists.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: May I suggest to my hon. friend that he drop it and redraft it, and perhaps he would be good enough to have a word with me. There is no desire to withhold any information.
Question dropped.


R.C.A.F.-CONTRACTS WITH NORTHERN PETROLEUM COMPANY
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	Has the Northern Petroleum Company of Kamsack, Saskatchewan, any contract with the air force?
2.	If so, what is the nature and date thereof?
3.	What payments have been made to the said company to date thereunder?


Mr. MACMILLAN:: 1.	Yes. Two contracts.
2.	(a) To purchase used aero engine oil and used cleaners fluid accumulating at the various units of Nos. 2 and 4 training commands and southern units of western air command, arranged by the salvage officer, (b) The Department of Munitions and Supply have
arranged contracts on behalf of the R.C.A.F. for the purchase of re-refined aero engine oil for use in M.T. vehicles.
3.	Payments to date, according to chief treasury officer (air), amounted to S14.337.83.


MERCHANT SHIP &quot;PORT ROYAL PARK&quot;
Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	Where was the merchant ship Port Royal Park built?
2.	Who built it?
3.	What did it cost?
4.	When was it chartered, and who was it chartered to?
5.	Were repairs or replacements made to it at the port of Saint John in 1943, and if so, what repairs or replacements were made, who made them, and how much was paid each person or corporation for such repairs or replacements?


Mr. CHEVRIER:: 
CANADIAN AIRMEN IN BRITAIN-UNIFORMS
Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: 1.	Does the Canadian government supply the uniforms for the Canadian airmen in Great Britain?
2.	If not, by whom are they supplied?
3.	Is the quality of the cloth in these uniforms as good as the quality of the cloth supplied for the uniforms in Canada?


Mr. MACMILLAN:: 1.	No, with the exception of raincoats,, cap badges and buttons.
2.	With the exception of the items mentioned in No. 1 above, all clothing required
Questions

by R.C.A.F. airmen in Great Britain and in other overseas theatres of war, is supplied by the R.A.F. and is paid for by annual capitation payment from R.C.A.F. funds.
3.	No official comparison or test has been made.


GOVERNMENT-OWNED COLD STORAGE PLANT, QUEBEC CITY
Mr. SENN:: 1.	Is there a government-owned cold-storage plant and warehouse located in Quebec city or adjacent thereto?
2.	If so, how long has this plant been in operation under government ownership?
3.	What are the names of the several managers who have been in charge of this plant since its inception; giving dates of appointment and release?
4.	What is the name of the manager in charge during the months of January and February, 1944 ?
5.	"When was he appointed, what are his qualifications, what was his previous experience, and what is his present salary?


Mr. MICHAUD:: 1.	Yes, the national harbours board plant.
2.	From 1924 to 1936 operated by Quebec Harbour Commission-1936 to date by National Harbours Board.
3.	Name-title-appointment-release:
Arthur H. DeRome, supt., Oct. 1, 1924-
March 27, 1931.
J. Herve Baribeau, supt., May 1, 1931-Dec. 2, 1935.
Alex. Chaumette, acting supt., Dec. 3, 1935.
Alex. Chaumette, supt., March 1, 1937-March 15, 1943.
J. E. Lafrance, supt., March 1, 1943.
4.	J. E. Lafrance, superintendent.
5.	Employed since 1925 in various capacities at Quebec harbour and promoted to superintendent, cold storage warehouse, March 1, 1943, at salary of $2,700 per annum; education commercial course and normal school, Laval university and employed as teacher prior to employment in 1925.


GOVERNMENT-OWNED COLD STORAGE PLANT, QUEBEC CITY-BEEP
Mr. SENN:: .
1.	Was a large quantity of fresh beef stored in the government cold-storage plant at Quebec withheld from public sale?
2.	Was this done on instructions of the health authorities?
3.	What is the total quantity involved?
4.	Was this beef owned by the government or by private firms or persons?
5.	If by private parties, is the government liable for any losses?
6.	Was a portion of this beef stored in a cooling warehouse commonly used to store fruit*
7.	At what temperature was this cold-storage warehouse kept while the beef was in storage?
[Mr. Macmillan.!


Joseph Enoil Michaud: 
Mr. LOCKHART:: 1.	Under the Veterans' Land Act, has the government appointed to any board, any members of returned soldiers' organizations, and if so, how many such appointments have been made, and on whose recommendation were such appointments made?
2.	Has the advisory board, provided for in section 16 of the Veterans' Land Act, any power to prevent recession or resale of property acquired under the act by any veteran?
3.	Has an advisory committee appointed under section 34 of the Veterans' Land Act any power to reverse or otherwise control a decision of the director?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: - 1. No boards have yet been appointed under section 16 of the act. Twenty-five regional advisory committees have been appointed under section 34 of the act. The committee personnel total 107 members, 72 of whom are returned soldiers. It is not known how many of these returned soldier committee members are members of returned soldier organizations. Appointments were made on the recommendation of the director, the Veterans' Land Act.
2.	Yes.
3.	No. In actual operations under the act advisory committees are required to consider and render written opinion in respect to the qualifications of veterans, the selection of lands and generally in respect to such other matters as may be referred to them by the director.


PRODUCTION AND MARKETING OP CATTLE
Mr. CARDIFF:: 1.	How many cattle, (a) beef; (b) dairy, were produced in Canada in each year, 1939-1943 inclusive?
2.	How many cattle were marketed through the stockyards in Canada in each year 1939-1943 inclusive?
3.	How many cattle were delivered directly to packers' yards in Canada in each year, .1939-1943 inclusive?
4.	How many cattle, (a) beef; (b) dairy, were shipped to the United States in each year, 1939-1943 inclusive?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	Cattle Population
	Beef	Dairy
1939 ....	.... 4.601,100 ....	.... 3.873,5001940 ....	.... 4.670,600 ....	.... 3,894,7001941 ....	.... 4.911,700 ....	.... 3,886,1001942 ....	.... 5.264.200 ....	.... 3,680,5001943 ....	.... 5,870.500 ....	.... 3,794,700
2.
Cattle Marketed Through Stock Yards in
Canada
1939		 789,149
1940		 812,405
1941		 875,542
1942		 861,082
1943		 812,493
3.
Cattle Delivered Direct to Packing Plants in Canada
1939		 278,389
1940		 317,556
1941		 374,472
1942		 336,184
1943		 382,980
4.
Cattle Shipped to the United States From Canada
	Beef	Dairy
1939 	
182,209 	
9,0441940 	
131,330 	
9,8131941 	
160,773 	
13,5801942 	
124,077 	
18,9611943 	
36,944


FIFTH VICTORY LOAN
Mr. NOSEWORTHY:: 1.	What is the cost to the government of raising the fifth victory loan for, (a) publicity; (b) canvassers; (c) banks and investment dealers, commissions, etc.' (d) other expenses?
2.	What was the total amount subscribed?
3.	What was the total number of subscriptions?
4.	What was the amount subscribed and the number of subscribers in each denomination in which subscriptions were received?


Mr. NOSE WORTHY:: Mr. Speaker, I
understand that some of this information is not yet available, and would suggest that the question be dropped for the time being.
Question dropped.


SHIPMENTS OF CANADIAN BEER
Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	How much Canadian beer was shipped to the United States in 1943?
2.	How much of this beer was shipped in bond for transhipment overseas?
3.	How much Canadian beer was shipped to Egypt in 1943?
4.	How much of the beer was received by Canadian units operating in Egypt and the western desert?
5.	How much Canadian beer was shipped to Ceylon in 1943?
6.	How much of this beer was received by Canadian units operating in Ceylon?
Questions


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: 2, 4 and 6. No information.
1,	3 and .5. Canadian exports of "ale, beer and porter" to the United States, Egypt and Ceylon, during the calendar year 1943.
Country	Gal. Value
United States	
2,322,108	$2,038,226Egypt	
1,058,610	922,176Ceylon	
229,160	198,920
It is understood that the greater proportion of the beer shipped to the United States is transhipped elsewhere for the use of the fighting forces.


CHARTERED BANKS-PAYMENTS FOR HANDLING VICTORY LOANS, ETC.
Mr. NICHOLSON:: 1.	How much has been paid to the chartered banks of Canada since September, 1939, (a) in connection with ration coupon banking; (b) in connection with the sale and handling of victory bonds, war savings certificates and stamps?
2.	What was the total amount of victory bonds purchased by the chartered banks of Canada during the victory loan campaigns since September, 1939?
3.	What is the total value of victory bonds owned by the chartered banks as at January 1, 1944?


Mr. ABBOTT:: 1.	(a) In the period from September 1939 to February 16, 1944, S460,618.51 has been paid by the wartime prices and trade board to the chartered banks of Canada for their services in connection with ration coupon banking for the period March 1, 1943 to November 30, 1943.
(b)	Commissions and service fees paid to chartered banks of Canada and banks incorporated under Quebec Savings Banks Act in connection with the issue and sale of war loans and victory loans, amounted to $10,197,745.88 (service fees for fifth victory loan not yet paid). No remuneration paid to banks in connection with sale of war savings stamps
and certificates.
2. Cash subscriptions
First war loan	 $2,300,000*
Second war loan	 741,000*
First victory loan		6,740,000
Second victory loan	 Nil
Third victory loan		500,000
Fourth victory loan		500,000
Fifth victory loan	 Nil
Estimated.
3. No information. The monthly returns of liabilities and assets of the chartered banks of Canada show total amount of dominion and provincial direct and guaranteed securities held by each bank.


PUBLIC DEBT
Mr. NICHOLSON:: 1.	What was the total net debt incurred by the dominion government as at, (a) March 31, 1943; (b) March 31, 1939; (c) March 31, 1919;
(d)	March 31, 1914?
2.	What was the total interest payable by the dominion government for each of the above years?
3.	What was the	per capita, (a) debt; (b)
interest payment for each of the above years?


Mr. ABBOTT:: 1.	(a) March 31, 1943-$6,182,849,101.10
(b)	March 31, 1939-$3,152,559,314.48
(c)	March 31, 1919-$1,574,531,032.44
(d)	March 31, 1914-$ 335,996,850.14
2.	Fiscal Year	Interest	on
ended March 31	Public Debt
1914	
$	12,893,504.951919	
$	77,431,432.101939	
$127,995,616.751943	
$188,556,249.393.	(a)	Per	capita
net debt
March 31, 1914	
$	42.64March 31,	1919	
189.45March 31,	1939	
278.62March 31,	1943	
523.44(b) Fiscal year	Per capita expenended	diture on interestMarch 31	on public debt1914	
$ 1.641919	
9.321939	
11.311943	
15.96


C. H. CAHAN, JB.
Mr. KNOWLES:: Have any steps been taken by the Minister of Justice to order a new trial in the case of C. H. Cahan, Jr., now of Agassiz, British Columbia?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: It was decided, after this case had been fully considered, not to order a new trial.


INTERNMENTS-RELEASE OF AMIGHETI
Mr. LACOMBE:: 1.	Has a non-naturalized Italian named Amigheti been discharged from an internment camp?
2.	Was Amigheti interned pursuant to section 25 of the defence of Canada regulations as an enemy alien?
3.	If not, under -what section of the regulations was he interned?
4.	If Amigheti has been discharged, who recommended and ordered his discharge?

Questions as Orders for Returns
5.	At what date was he interned and at what date was he discharged?
6.	Was Amigheti represented by solicitor or did any person intervene in favour of his discharge?
7.	If so, what are the names of such persons? Mr. ST. LAURENT:
1.	Yes.
2.	He was originally detained pursuant to regulation 21, and subsequently, 9th October, 1941, it having been definitely established that he was an enemy alien, he was held pursuant to regulation 25 of the defence of Canada regulations.
3.	See answer to question 2.
4.	The registrar general of enemy aliens and the Minister of Justice, respectively.
5.	10th June, 1940, and 20th March, 1942, respectively.
6.	He was represented at his hearing before an advisory committee in September 1940, by his solicitor, Joseph Jean, K.C.
7.	See answer to question 6.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. McGREGOR:: 1.	Has the attention of the government been drawn to the case of one Ewold Frigdrick, age 30, residing at 39 East Fiftieth street, Vancouver?
2.	Is the said Frigdrick of German origin?
3.	Was he naturalized, and if so, when?
4.	Was said Frigdrick convicted and sentenced to jail? If so, will his naturalization be cancelled ?
5.	Is it the intention of the government to deport persons of alien enemy origin who, though naturalized, refused to serve Canada when called to do so under the laws of Canada?


Mr. GIBSON:: Return tabled.


EMERALD MINE-SAI.MO, B.C.
Mr. ESLING:: 1.	Has the government, through the Wartime Metals Corporation or any other department or agency, acquired the Emerald mine at Salmo, B.C. ?
2.	If so, what price was paid for the property?
3.	In whose name does the title at present rest?
4.	Has the original owner been fully paid?
5.	What sum has been spent in development?
6.	How many tons of concentrate have been produced since the opening of the property?
7.	To whom have these concentrates been sold?
8.	What sum has been realized from their sale?
9.	Has this tonnage been shipped or is it still stored at the mine?
10.	When did this property cease to operate?
11.	How many employees were on the payroll at that time?
12.	For how many of these were new positions found?


SHORTAGE OF NURSES
Mr. HATFIELD:: 1.	Is there a shortage of nurses in Canada?
2.	If so, what is the government doing to overcome the shortage?
3.	Is the government offering any inducement to women to enter the nursing profession?
4.	Has the government any plan to build up a nursing service for the post-war period?


WARTIME INFORMATION BOARD
Mr. WHITE:: 1.	As of the 31st of January, 1944, what are the names of the employees of the wartime information board?
2.	What are the salaries paid to each?
3.	What allowances and expenses are paid to each?
4.	How many of these are full-time employees?
5.	How many of these are part-time employees or special writers?
6.	How are the part-time employees or special writers paid?


MOOSE JAW, SASK., AIRPORT
Mr. STOKES:: 1.	What firm or firms had the contract for construction of, (a) buildings; (b) runways, at the airport at Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan?
2.	What was the name of the superintendent on the job?
3.	Was Verne Crocket appointed as a foreman, and if so, (a) what is his age; (b) what pay did he receive; (c) what were his qualifications?
4.	Was Sidney Tuff appointed as a foreman, and if so, (a) what is his age; (b) what pay did he receive; (c) what were his qualifications?
5.	Was George Denny appointed as a foreman, and if so, (a) what is his age; (b) what pay did he receive; (e) what were his qualifications?
6.	Did the three men named in questions three, four and five work directly under the authority of the superintendent?
7.	Was Albert B. Wyley a foreman on this work, and if so, (a) what pay did he receive; (b) what were his qualifications?
8.	How many men were on the payroll under the foremanship of Mr. Wyley during July and August, 1940?
9.	How many additional men were placed on the payroll under Wyley during September, October and November, 1940?


SUBSIDIES TO PRODUCERS OF FOOD PRODUCTS
Mr. SENN:: 1.	What amount was paid out in subsidies to producers of food products during each of the fiscal years, 1941-1942, 1942-1943, and the present fiscal year to date?
2.	On what food products were subsidies paid in each year as above?
3.	How- much wa.s paid on each particular product in each year as above?
Questions as Orders for Returns


WARTIME PRICES AND TRADE BOARD-BUILDINGS
Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: 1.	In what places in Canada have buildings been erected for the use of wartime prices and trade board?
2.	What is the completed cost of such buildings and property?
3.	At what points in Canada have premises been leased for the use of wartime prices and trade board?
4.	What are the rental charges for each such property, stating period and date of expiration of leases?
5.	What has been the cost of alterations and improvements to each such rented premises?
6.	What has been the cost of furnishings and equipment supplied in, (a) special constructed premises; (b) each of the leased premises?


NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
[Stage Direction]
Mr. NICHOLSON;
1.	What were the total expenditures for the national research council for each of the fiscal years ending March 31, (a) 1933; (b) 1938; (c) 1943?
2.	What percentage of the total governmental expenditures for each of these three years, namely 1933, 1938 and 1943, do the amounts spent for the national research council represent?
CANADIAN FORCES-PROHIBITION OF LETTERS TO NEWSPAPERS	.
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Has an order been issued by the government or any member thereof, to the military forces, prohibiting members thereof writing letters to newspapers or giving any information or criticism of any conditions arising in the forces or camps within Canada?
2.	If so, by whom, and to whom does it apply, and is it limited to within Canada?
3.	On whose recommendation was it issued in the three forces?
4.	Does it cover numerous speeches across Canada by headquarters and other officers?


CANADIAN FORCES-CHAPLAINS
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	How many chaplains have been appointed in each of His Majesty's forces since the war began, by provinces or military districts?
2.	On what basis are they appointed; what is the unit of soldier population for each denomination per chaplain per unit; who authorized it, and what is their pay and all other allowances or emoluments?
3.	Is each chaplain who enlists required to go overseas later, and what military experience is required before their appointment?
4.	Are there senior or chief, or head chaplains in each military district; what are such officers' rank, pay and other emoluments, and are they required to go overseas by rotation after a certain period?
5.	Are all these chaplains required in the various services for home training purposes, where in cities there are so many clergy not of the enlisted forces, who are willing to help in chaplain work in their denominations?



CANADIAN FORCES


Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Is the hospital accommodation for Canada's military forces adequate in the various military districts of Canada for those in training, or is there a shortage of accommodation?
2.	At what distance from the various camps established under the present system, are there civilian hospitals, and have they all adequate equipment to take care of any cases that occur that cannot be dealt with at the various camps?
3.	What hospital accommodation in the various military districts of Canada has been or is to be established by the government to take care of those now overseas, if sick or wounded when they return to Canada?
4.	Has any hospital accommodation survey been made since the survey dated December 5, 1940? If so, what survey?
5.	What has been done to go ahead with the new hospital at Sunnybrook (Toronto), since last November 11, and when will any units thereof be started or constructed?



RADIO BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. G. ROSS (St. Paul's):: On Tuesday last the Minister of National War Services, in answer to a question of the leader of the opposition as to when the vacancy on the board of governors of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation would be filled, was somewhat indefinite. Can the minister give any definite information as to when we may expect the announcement of this appointment?
Hon. L. R. LaFLECHE (Minister of National War Services):	May I express
appreciation for the advance notice kindly sent me by the hon. member for St. Paul's? The other day I spoke as definitely as it was possible for me to do. I hope to be able to give the news of an appointment before long, and as soon as I can I shall inform the hon. member and this honourable house.



INQUIRIES OF THE MINISTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frederick Davis Shaw: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Munitions and Supply, or, in his absence, to his parliamentary assistant. I may say that notice has been given. Have steps been taken to prevent the threatened collapse of the mine prop industry in Alberta, a condition brought about by the recent cancellation of the subsidy on mine props and government sale of props produced by prisoners of war at Banff and

War Appropriation-Army
Kanaskis to the mines below the figure at which they can be produced and sold by private industry?


Thomas Vien: That question must be placed on the order paper.


Frederick Davis Shaw: May I say that this is of urgent importance to the industry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Thomas Vien: As I understood the hon. member's question, it is one which has to do with the policy of the government, and in the circumstances might not be answered to-day. Even if the minister were willing to reply I would say he was not entitled to do so, because it is a question dealing with government policy. In view of what I said yesterday I think the hon. gentleman will have to place it on the order paper.



PROCEDURE IN QUESTIONS ON THE ORDERS OF THE DAT

Hon. H. A. BRUCE (Parkdale):: May I
direct a question to the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: -regarding a telegram I
have received-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: *-about the concern that is felt over the delay in sending corvettes out of Quebec.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Thomas Vien: I did not hear the
question.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: It is a very simple question.


Thomas Vien: But I did not hear it.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: The question is this:	Will
the minister say whether corvettes have been delayed in their departure from Quebec because of the prevalence of venereal disease?


Thomas Vien: The hon. gentleman will
have to place that question on the order paper.



WAR APPROPRIATION BILL


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, February 16, 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.

The CHAIRMAN:: We are considering
item 1.


Mr. POULIOT:: Will the minister tell us
the bearing of the amendments to the order in council referred to yesterday?


Mr. RALSTON:: I have not had an opportunity to look that up. I will have it put in hand to be looked up.


Jean-François Pouliot: What I complain of is
that the amendments to the army regulations, by virtue of the mobilization act, are not, I would say, self-supporting. They refer to other pieces of legislation which are not included in the draft of these amendments. I have one here, P.C. 9372 of December 7, amending PC. 7989 of October 14, 1943. It refers to the N.SjS. mobilization act regulations and changes section 26. What I complain of further is the drafting of section 26 in the original order in council, P.C. 7989. It reads:
A man reporting at a centre in consequence of an order-military training or who has been taken thereto in consequence of an order made pursuant to section 28 (1) N.S.S. mobilization regulations shall, until such time as he is enrolled or shall have been dispatched to his destination be deemed to be a person as is mentioned in subsection 10 of section 176 of the Army Act, not otherwise subject to military law, who is a follower of or accompanies His Majesty's troops or any portion thereof when employed on active service. The Army Act, to the extent that it forms part of the law of Canada, shall apply to such a man, and he shall be subject to military law' accordingly. Such a man shall be deemed to be under the command of the officer commanding the centre, provided always, however, that, notwithstanding the provisions of subsection 2 of section 184 of the said Army Act, such a man may be punished by such commanding officer in like manner and to the same extent as if he were a private soldier serving on active service under the command of that officer.
It is dated December 7 of last year. Who understands a word of it? No one. Here is the Army Act referred to in that order in council. Let me quote two sections of it. The minister knows better than anyone else that the Army Act is a piece of English legislation that dates back more than half a century. The first reference is to subsection 10, the definition of "person". Subsection 10 of section 176 reads:
All persons not otherwise subject to military law who are follow'ers of or accompany His Majesty's troops or any portion thereof, when employed on active service, subject to this qualification, that, where any such persons are employed by or are followers of or accompany any portion of His Majesty's forces, consisting partly of His Majesty's Indian forces subject to Indian military law, or consisting partly of His Majesty's Burma forces subject to Burma



OTISES EDITION

[Stage Direction]
War Appropriation-Army
[Stage Direction]
military law, and such persons are natives of India, or as the case may be, natives of Burma they shall be subject to the Indian military law or, as the case may be, to Burma military law.
In the amendment it is specified that that section applies to the Canadian order in council in so far as it is possible. It would be absurd to suggest that our men should be subject to the Indian law or the Burma law.
Here is subsection 2 of section 184 of the Army Act, which in my opinion is very bad drafting:
Any person subject to military law who does not belong to His Majesty's forces shall, for the purposes of this act relating to offences, be deemed to be under the command of the commanding officer of the corps or portion of a corps (if any) to which he is attached, and if he is not attached to any corps or a portion of a corps under the command of any officer who may for the time being be named as his commanding officer, by the general or other officer commanding the force with which such person may for the time being be, or of any other prescribed officer, or. if no such officer is named or prescribed, under the command of the said general or other officer commanding, but such person shall not be liable to be punished by a commanding officer:	provided
that a general or other officer commanding shall not place a person under the command of an officer of rank inferior to the official rank of such person is there is present, at the place where such person is, any officer of higher rank under whose command he can be placed.
If anyone understands that, he deserves a reward. Let me summarize my point in this way. This is very bad legislation, very bad drafting, but it will be accepted by the Tory party at once. A very clever man once told me it is sufficient to say that it comes from the British war office and the Tories will adopt it at once. They will adopt it without question provided it comes from the B.W.O. It was ever thus. How is it that the bright brains of the judge advocate general's branch cannot draft legislation for this country without reference to such legal instruments? That kind of legislation has a purpose. It is similar to the plebiscite question, a question that was understood by none and which could be inter-[DOT]preted in many ways. It is nebulous. It is purposely foggy and nebulous. I want something clear. It seems to me it is reasonable to press for clear legislation, legislation that is complete and understandable. One should not have to go over all the shelves of the library to find out the meaning.
Now sir, there are some points that I wish to bring to the attention of the minister and the committee. It is impossible to carry on an orderly discussion without clear legislation; but I try to speak in the plainest possible English in order to be understood by all. Hon.

members have the right to agree or disagree with me, but I want my colleagues at least to understand the point I am trying to make. I said yesterday that if the army is given priority over essential industry, national selective service is through. We have heard a lot about essential industry. Some time ago, last year or the year before, the Minister of National Defence said that he tried to urge the employer to replace men in essenfial industry by men who are unfit, and even by women, to release men for the army. I deny that the army is the only essential industry. I am not opposed to the army. There is no one who tries to do more to help the returned man, to help those who are in the army, who looks after them, who listens to them, who has the honour of their confidence when they come to him, than I. It is precisely for the underdog, for the one who has not the right, to call upon his superior officer to speak about his grievances, that I act now. I do it in order that we may have a well-balanced war effort in this country. The idea of the imperialist Tories is to see a soldier without uniform, without shoes, without food, without weapons and without ammunition, who would swim across the Atlantic and then find some Irish confetti on Irish soil to fight the enemy. There would be no clothes for him, no transportation, no food, no arms and no ammunition for him. That is the ideal state of the soldier as seen by the Simon-pure imperialist Tories. Is it not absurd?
There has been a decrease of thirteen billion dollars in the estimates of the United States army. We have a reduction of about two hundred million. But there are very strange things happening. If anyone happens to go to the central station of the Canadain National Railways in Montreal he will see a plate inscribed with the number 17,035. That is the number of men connected with the railway, who have enlisted-men from an essential industry, carrying passengers, military and civil, food and ammunition throughout the country; and I am informed the number now is 21,000; twenty-one thousand experienced men who have been taken from an essential industry and placed in the army, and the army is not yet satisfied. What, has been done? I want to have complete information, not only from the Minister of National Defence, but also from the Minister of Labour, as to the understanding that has taken place between the army and the Canadian National Railways regarding the appointment of a man named Edge, who was promoted from superintendent of personnel to the fat job of director of labour relations, and without whose signature a man who has not had ten or more years' experience has to join the colours if he has

War Appropriation-Army
been in a training camp for a month. What happened? To my personal knowledge officials of the railway who are right there on the spot in the division, who know the work of all the men in key positions of the railway, on the trains as operators, certify that the men are essential to the railway; but this man in Montreal, who does not answer any letters, keeps all these recommendations from responsible officials on his desk. Because he does so, because that single man, who is well paid for it, does not return the application for an extension of leave for the men to military headquarters, it is said that the men have filed no application for extension of leave and therefore they have to join the army. There is another man who does the same job on the Canadian Pacific Railway. If we are to have total war as preached by the jingoes and as preached by some other people, I will agree with them, provided that the war effort is well balanced, and provided that the soldier can rely upon the help of essential industry and of men who have particular experience in certain key positions in essential industry. I do not take this stand because we are against the war effort; not at all. I. take the stand because we want the war effort to be well balanced. We want everybody to do his very best in the successful prosecution of the war. My contention is that a man with years of experience on the railway is doing more for the war effort by continuing to work on the railway than he would by going into the army, for which he has no technical experience. The man at the throttle of his locomotive, the fireman, the brakeman or the conductor, can better help his country along the road to victory by continuing in that work than by going into the army as a private, a non-commissioned officer or an officer. That is my point. I have some cases to bring to the attention of the minister. I shall not mention them now, because it would take too long, but I shall write his parliamentary assistant and give each case.
I want this system changed; I want a decentralization of this control in connection with the railways. Is not the local superintendent in each part of the country, each division, in a better position than one man in Montreal to say that Tom or Joe or Jim is essential to the railway business? The understanding between the army and the railways has gone so far that the divisional superintendents have been notified by Mr. Edge in Montreal that in future they are not to recommend anyone for postponement, that all men who have had a month's training, whatever may have been their experience on the railway, were bound to go back to the 100-374
army and become soldiers. Why speak of selective service after that? If that is not disguised conscription, if it is not sabotage of our war effort, what is it? It is just as clear as spring water that it is going to have a disastrous effect. These men who are in good health, and who have had enough experience to hold these responsible positions, cannot be replaced on the railways by new men unfit for military sendee.
Last year, in the Hong Kong debate, thirty-four hon. members voted for reform in the Department of National Defence, while ten others who were paired said that if they had voted they would have supported the motion, meaning that in their opinion reform was needed in the department. It is all right to allow the department the number of men that essential industry can dispense with, but on the other hand it would prove most disastrous to this country if essential industry were disorganized in order to have more men in the army. I hope that in the course of this discussion the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Labour will give a full explanation as to the understanding that has been arrived at between the army and our two great railways, and also as to what has been done by selective service in regard to the appointment of Mr. Edge and the gentleman who occupies the same position' with the Canadian Pacific Railway company.
That having been said, and my time being short, I cannot allow to pass unnoticed the dispatch that appeared in today's newspapers from the pen of Mr. Shapiro. Yesterday I said I could not understand why just a few hon. members had been called in by the government to be informed as to the correspondence exchanged in regard to the resignation of Lieutenant-General McNaugh-ton. I will ask the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services to speak behind the curtain if they are not interested in what is being said in the house. Frequently at the opening of the house, on the order for motions or on the orders of the day, a minister makes a reservation in connection with the adoption of a motion for papers by a private member. Every time that happens, some hon. members opposite, particularly the leader of the opposition and the leaders of the other groups, protest and ask how it is that the minister should be able to make his own reservations, since we are entitled to know everything. That is a democratic stand. But how can they say they are being logical with themselves-and I speak of all of them now-when they meet together to discuss matters in which we are all interested, and as to which we might be all
War Appropriation-Army
[Stage Direction]
informed in a secret sitting? And how is it that we cannot be told here in Ottawa what is published in London and the press of this continent? It could not be told to members of parliament yesterday. It appeared this morning in all the Canadian papers. Is it not an anomaly?
There is more to it than that. If something secret comes up at a meeting of cabinet council in the east block, it must be for the members of the cabinet alone; if I am well informed they take an oath to keep all matters secret, in regard to what happens behind those doors. Then how is it that the leader of the official opposition should be called in by the government, to be told in confidence things that cannot be told to other hon. members?
An hon. MEMBEK: Union government.
Mr. POULIOT; Yes, union government. How is it that the union government goes further, and that the leaders of two other groups are called in to be told things they are not supposed to repeat to other members? It seems to me if those gentlemen were imbued with a real democratic spirit, if they had not the soul of Mrs. Lot, who was the victim of her curiosity and was changed into a pillar of salt, they would have told the government: This is public business, and we alone shall not be told what it is; every member of the house has the same right as we have to be told the whole thing, and we invite you to have a secret sitting for general information of members of parliament.
If the hon. member who now leads the opposition, who represents the county of Peel, and who, outside of politics, is a personal friend of mine, sits in the house, it is not at all in the capacity of leader of the oppsi-sition, because the leader of the opposition is an absentee; he is not a member of the house. If the hon. member who leads the apposition in the house has a right to use his desk, or to write a note, it is because he has been elected by the constituents of the county of Peel, as I have been elected by the people of Temis-couata, and all other hon. members who sit in this exclusive gathering have been elected by their own constituents. Therefore it is only in his capacity as a member of parliament that the government can call upon the leader of the opposition to inform him about secret matters. Yet the Prime Minister invites him, to the exclusion of all of us; and I may add that two other group leaders are enjoying favours from the government. I am reminded of Kemal Pasha who, in Turkey, chose his own leader of the opposition; and he was considered a very great man-both of them. Is it not a humiliation for the leader of the 
official opposition, and for the leaders of the C.C.F. and New Democracy groups to be considered by the government as pets who can be trusted when no other members can be trusted? I regret that my hon. friends, those leaders, have not shown a spirit sufficiently democratic to tell the government that all the members of the house should be informed about what has been going on overseas.
What about the Canadian Army? It is a veiy great thing. If Lieutenant-General McNaughton retired from the army because of his personal illness only, it is a very sad event, but it is the departure of one man only. But if he resigned on a question of principle, then we have a right to know.
Last year I spoke about a man who had sold the same coat three times. Nobody was scandalized; it was considered very smart. Then, what about the disaster at Bari? We have to know about that. We have to know who was responsible for the lack of protection for a convoy of allied ships carrying supplies essential to the 8th army and 5th army. Who was responsible for that? Nobody cares to know. I said that at five o'clock yesterday afternoon, but no one supported me. No one seems to be interested in that disaster, one which is probably responsible for the slow advance of our troops on Italian soil. I have revealed no secret, but I have tried to help hon. members not to forget certain essential matters.
I had occasion to discuss Lieutenant-General McNaughton at a time when as a civilian he was head of the national research council. But as soon as he took command of the army, as a loyal Canadian citizen I did my best to give my support to him, so far as I could. Last year when I asked why he had not been promoted to the rank of full general, I was told, in parliamentary language, to mind my own business. What is the use of having insignia for full generals or field marshals when they are not used? Whatever may be the disagreement between the Minister of National Defence and Lieutenant-General McNaughton in respect of military tactics, I express the feelings of many people, if not of many members of the House of Commons, when I suggest to the government that at last it should give him his full generalship, something he deserves, for the work he has done in creating an army now being dismantled.
I do not wish to quote the minister incorrectly, but if the British authorities did not ask Canada to send part of our troops to Italy, and if he undertook upon his own responsibility to send them there, against the advice of the commander in chief of Canadian

War Appropriation-Army
forces overseas, then it was a tremendous responsibility. It will be up to hint to explain to us why our troops should suffer from the destruction of a whole convoy in an Italian port.
I leave the matter there. I do not wish to monopolize the time of the house, and I shall give hon. members the opportunity to say all they may wish to say. But in these matters let them understand well that they cannot complain about the government, and then make themselves the instruments of the Department of National Defence as it is now. There will be no reform unless they come out of the abstract and point their fingers to the reforms that are necessary. That is something which has not yet been done. I hope theii remarks will be constructive and that they will tell, if not the government, then the committee where the reform of a bureaucracy shall begin. I am sick of the pronunciamentos of the Tory leader, who is stating his policy everywhere-"We will do this; we will do that." How will he do it? What will be the work of his party in the House of Commons to improve the Department of National Defence? If someone is to be fired, who is he? Let them say that, or not speak about reform at all. How often, when I complained of certain people, did I see the previous leader of the opposition rise in his place and complain that I was attacking faithful civil servants. He was speaking the same language as the minister. I want reform. But I cannot bring it about alone. I need some help, and there are other members who need some help. If hon. gentlemen opposite have not the support of the leader of the opposition, let them rise and make their suggestions just as I do, and then we shall get somewhere. I do not say that in any unfriendly way. I say it for the good of the country; I say it for the protection of the soldiers, and I say it for the winning of the war.
Mr. MacNICOL:: Can the minister now
answer the question I asked yesterday with reference to the calling up of boys of eighteen from the schools of Toronto for active service?


James Layton Ralston: I have looked up the
order in council, and the proclamation under which the age class in fixed designates:
.	.	. every man who was born in the year
1925 . . . and all such men are required to Eubrnit themselves for medical examination and report at a military training centre or district depot to undergo and perform such military training, service or duty . . . but men born in the year 1925 shall not be served with orders-medical examination until they reach the age of eighteen years and six months.
This is an order in council that was passed on the recommendation not of the Minister of National Defence but of the Minister of Labour. In a word, they are required to submit themselves for medical examination and report at a military training centre, but until they reach eighteen years and six months they cannot be served with orders-medical examination. In the case my hon. friend mentioned was the boy under eighteen years and a half?


John Ritchie MacNicol: Eighteen years and two months.


James Layton Ralston: Under the order in council they were not required to serve him with an order for medical examination.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Do I understand that boys just over eighteen are subject to call for examination?


James Layton Ralston: No; they are not subject until they reach eighteen years and six months. The proclamation designates those born in the year 1925, some of whom might be just eighteen years of age, but then it limits it by saying that no one shall be served with an order for medical examination unless he is eighteen years and six months of age.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Is a boy who comes within that age class and is attending a collegiate institute or university allowed any exemption to continue his educational course?


James Layton Ralston: Yes, but he is liable to call at eighteen years and six months unless he comes within certain provisions of the national selective service regulations with respect to education. I have not those before me, and I cannot give my hon. friend the exceptions or the privileges which are permitted to boys who are continuing their education. I could bring them down here, or I could get them and send them to my hon. friend.


Mr. CHURCH:: I rise to support the hon. member for Davenport in this matter. I have frequently during the past two years raised this question of calling up boys of sixteen, seventeen and eighteen who are attending school. The time has come to call a halt on this practice, because it is disorganizing the whole school system of the province of Ontario. I do not say that the matter is altogether in the hands of the Minister of National Defence. He seems to be answering on his estimates questions -which belong to selective service, the navy, and the air force, ns well as to the army. But as a humble representative of the city of Toronto, on whose school board I served. I must say that
War Appropriation-Army


Mr. FACTOR:: I should like to make a few remarks with reference to the observations of the hon. member for Broadview and the hon. member for Davenport. I assume that this discussion is really not in order, because it relates rather to national selective service regulations than to the Department of National Defence. I think I know the situation in Toronto pretty well, and I am astonished that the hon. member for Broadview is concerned about a disruption of the educational system in Toronto. He cited the leading public schools there as being affected. I know of no eighteen or eighteen and one-half year olds that are in the public schools unless they are mentally defective. The public schools are not affected at all by the order which calls for men of eighteen years subject to the draft. They are not called until they are eighteen years and six months old.
So far as the situation of the university of Toronto is concerned, I have studied it very carefully, and I want to congratulate the government upon the system which prevailed up to this year. All faculties except arts trained in the Canadian Officers' Training Corps, the university training companies. The engineering faculty is not subject to the draft. They take their basic training in the university companies but they cannot enlist without consent. So far as the medical profession is concerned, the hon. member for Parkdale knows the system which prevails under the medical procurement and assignment board, whereunder students are very grateful to this university for the opportunity extended to them of joining the army medical corps while they are taking their medical training at the university. They are getting paid around, I believe $75 or $80 a month, which enables them to pursue their studies, and immediately after their intemeships are enlisted in the army medical corps. I want to congratulate the government up.on the arrangement which was made.
So far as the arts course is concerned the system prevailing is this, that all the students take their basic training in the university
War Appropriation-Army

training companies. Those who are successful in their examinations are permitted to complete their full arts course, that is three years pass course or four years as an honour course in political science. Those who fail in the commencement examinations have their names submitted to the mobilization board and they are called up for service. Could there be any fairer system? In other words, what earthly use is there to permit a student who is a complete failure at the examination to go on at the university, perhaps to fail again the next year? I think he could do his duty far better in some branch of the services.
The hon. member for Broadview talks about competition at the universities. So far as the training companies are concerned, there is no competition at all at the university of Toronto. We have a Royal Canadian Air Force training company, an army training company, and a naval company. The students are given the option of joining any of the services. For instance, my boy, who is in his third year at the university of Toronto, has joined the Royal Canadian Air Force company and is taking his training, which will enable him to gain sufficient knowledge to expedite his initial training at the school.
In my opinion the statements on this matter made by the hon. member for Broadview are very much exaggerated. I have heard of no complaints. There may be the odd pupil in the high school who is somewhat backward at eighteen and one-half, who is still in the high school and is subject to the call; but so far as my experience in the city of Toronto is concerned the system which prevails was one of the best.
I want to say a word about the new regulations. I have seen them only in the press, but I have heard some objections to the regulation which lays down that fifty per cent, I think, of the successful pupils may continue their courses. It is said that the university authorities are going to have great difficulty in administering that regulation. I suggest to the government that this phase of the problem be reviewed.


Thomas Langton Church: The hon. gentleman is altogether wrong in his statement as to what I said. I did not refer to those of eighteen years in the public schools. I myself went to the public schools long before he lived in the city. What I said was that the public schools had cadet corps which had existed since confederation. The hon. member knows that; for he was on the board himself, and he knows that in the riding of ward 4 there used to be a parade of public school cadets, several thousand of them, down University avenue on
IMr. Factor.]
Empire day. But unfortunately the cadet services were abolished about 1937 when the pacifists got control of the board. The hon. member has been in the air force and may be out of touch with local school matters as they are to-day, but I may tell him that there are many young people getting into the secondary schools at fourteen, fifteen, sixteen, seventeen and eighteen. This is true of the collegiates in his own riding and of many other schools in the district where he lives.
What I object to is this. The cadet services were under the board of education in former years; they were there from confederation until 1937. In 1942, however, there began a duplicate practice of outside cadet corps, to which I strongly objected, as did some of the trustees. These new cadet corps officers were forming separate corps in the schools with drill after school and week-ends, and parades on Sundays, usurping the usual work of the school, physical and military. These children were taken out and put into an organization to which the government contributes $25,000, a private cadet organization, the government supplying the uniform and paying for these young people for two weeks at summer camp. All this has been done over the head of the board of education and over the school board. I object further to this duplication of services. We should leave the schools alone. Hands off the public schools and the secondary schools in the province, and the same goes for the separate schools. De La Salle has one of the finest cadet corps in Canada. Why not leave them to fulfil their own functions? Some amendment should be made to take care of these young people of fifteen, sixteen, seventeen and eighteen who belong to school cadet corps and are getting physical drill, sports and military training in the high and public schools. We should leave that work where it belongs. There are too many recruiting officers for the 'teen age students. Mr. Busybody and Mr. Highbrow have been urging these new cadet services. It is a pity they go into the schools and interfere with the young people, getting them into the air force or the army or navy too early to play on sporting teams, and I have heard complaints about this matter.
I do not need any lectures from the hon. member for Spadina. Thank goodness for that. Far from it; I was here before he was and I shall be here long after he has gone. I do not say that in criticism of the hon. member because he and I have been friends for years, but he has been away at camp, where he has done good work, and has missed some of what has been going on in respect to education in Toronto. Evidently he does not

War Appropriation-Army
know much about the duplication of the service and the interference in education to which I refer. At any rate, he does not know as much as he used to know, because I used to see him once in a while at the parades on University avenue when he was on the board. In the old days, at the time of the South African war and again in the great war, these young school cadets were the backbone of the militia in Toronto, and we would not have had the trouble we have to-day if the cadet movement to which they belonged had been fostered.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There are two matters to which I wish to call the attention of the Minister of National Defence. The first is with reference to the 13th Canadian Infantry Brigade, particularly in relation to the expedition last summer to Kiska. Before dealing with the matter that is on my mind, may I say in passing that we in Winnipeg are very proud of the part played in that expedition by the reconstituted 1st battalion of the Winnipeg Grenadiers, which was part of that brigade. As the minister knows, a great many of those included in the brigade were home defence or N.R.M.A. personnel. Credit should be given to them-and this is a chance of offsetting some of the remarks made in this house-by reference to their part in a dangerous expedition which might have resulted in serious losses if the Japanese had not left just before these men arrived. It should not be forgotten that even though the Japanese had left, owing to mines that were left behind there were casualties in the landing, and there were also casualties because of the kind of landing that was made in view of the expectation that it was a real invasion that was being effected. The point I wish to discuss relates to something which it might be said concerns another department, but I am told that this matter has been passed back and forth from one department to another, and I feel that it is the concern of the Department of National Defence to protect the interests of the men. I refer to the income tax deductions from the men in the 13th Canadian Infantry Brigade during the time they were in Kiska.
I asked certain questions on the order paper the other day and they were answered in Hansard of February 11, 1944, on pages 399400. These answers simply confirmed the information which had already been communicated to me, namely, that these men while in Kiska were taxed under the terms of a rule that is to be found on page 75 of the 1943 office consolidation of the Income War Tax Act. On page 75 one will find, under schedule 1, section 3, rule 3, provision for exempting 100-38
service personnel fifty per cent of their tax when serving in places in the western hemisphere other than in Canada. It is under this rule that these men were taxed while in Kiska. My contention is that they should have been taxed under the provision found on page 12 of this office consolidation. As I see it, the appropriate section on that page would be section 4 (t) (i), which is supposed to grant full exemption to personnel on the strength of overseas units outside the western hemisphere. I would point out first of all the geographical fact that Kiska is outside the western hemisphere. When I asked that question on the order paper the other day, whether Kiska is outside the western hemisphere, the official government answer was no; but according to the Encyclopaedia Britan-nica, Kiska lies between 177 and 178 degrees east longitude-in other words, two or three degrees beyond the line that geographically divides the western from the eastern hemisphere.


James Layton Ralston: My information is that the answer to that question was based on the fact that there was a jog in the international dateline, and Kiska is in the western hemisphere.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I was pointing out to
the minister that geographically it seems to me there was no argument.


James Layton Ralston: I do not know what the
hon. member means by "geographically". It is quite true it is over a continuous line of longitude, but that does not necessarily make it in the western hemisphere.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My understanding is
this. The western hemisphere can be looked at two ways, geographically and politically. Geographically the logical thing would be to take a line of longitude around the globe and regard that as dividing east from west, but governments have their own way of arbitrarily doing things. I understand that the Canadian government is following the United States government in this matter.


James Layton Ralston: I do not think so in the Atlantic.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I proceed for a
moment? I understand the Canadian government, following the United States government, which has ruled arbitrarily that because Kiska is a possession of the United States it is regarded as in the western hemisphere-


Mr. MACDONALD (Brantford City):: Was that ruling made before the present w:.r began?

War Appropriation-Army


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am sorry; I do not
know. A moment ago when I made the point that Kiska is two or three degrees beyond the line which I say geographically separates the hemispheres, I was conscious of the fact that some might say that was a very short distance; that one should not try to make too much of a case out of that. However, I would point out not only is it a matter of Kiska being two or three degrees beyond the 180t.h degree of longitude; it is a considerable distance from Canada. If hon. members will look at a globe they will discover the distance from the Pacific coast to Kiska is greater than the distance from our Atlantic coast to Britain; and as the minister knows better than I do, it was a hazardous voyage that these men had to make. When they came home it was emphasized that the distance from Kiska to Victoria was such that it took a very great length of time to traverse it. I am emphasizing the fact that not only is Kiska beyond the western hemisphere, as I see it, but it is a great distance from Canada, definitely outside of Canada, and that these men were not only going into a theatre of war but embarked on an expedition that did involve casualties and might have involved much more serious loss. It also involved their living under very great hardships during the time they were there. I understand that-


Mr. EVANS:: Did the hon. member not
want them to go to Kiska?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I did
not say anything of the kind. I am discussing one matter related to the expedition to Kiska, namely, what I regard as unfairness to the men in not giving them the full exemption of income tax as specified in rule 3 on page 12 of the office consolidation to which I have referred, and I was about to point out that the answers which had been communicated to the men as to the reasons why they were treated in this way are, first of all, that politically the United States government does not regard Kiska as outside the western hemisphere. It seems to me that is an arbitrary decision, and that in dealing fairly with the men, the government ought not t stand on an arbitrary technicality.
Another argument that has come bade to the men is that the Income War Tax Act in its 'egal terminology makes no reference to a theatre of war as having any bearing on income tax exemptiqns. In that connection I should like to read a few sentences from the speech of the Minister of Finance delivered when he brought down the budget on March 2, 1943. It will be found in volume 1, page

858, of Hansard for 1943. He was discussing the changes that he was proposing in the income tax regulations with respect to service personnel. One sentence will make my point clear. This is what he said:
Because of the way in which the war has developed I think it is reasonable to make a distinction between those who are in the United Kingdom or elsewhere across the ocean and those who are in Newfoundland, the West Indies, Labrador or Alaska.
The point the minister was making at that time was that some consideration should be given in the light of the circumstances, the dangers and the conditions under which the men were living or fighting at the time. He was trying to keep away from previous distinctions which did not seem fair. The spirit of the exemption provisions in the Income War Tax Act should certainly apply to men who went as far as these men went, who ran the risk of suffering casualties, as they did, and of enduring hardships, as they did. The spirit of this provision should be made to apply in this case, and I have already tried to point out to the minister it seems to me a case could be made for giving them full exemption even under the letter of the Income War Tax Act as it stands at the present time; because the Income War Tax Act, when it. speaks of the western hemisphere, makes no reference to a definition of the eastern or western hemisphere. Apparently that had to be found afterwards. I repeat, the intent of the act was surely to provide special consideration in income tax matters to men who went overseas to Britain, Europe, Italy, et cetera, and it should apply to the men who went an equal distance the other way in the war against Japan.
The fact that these men were sent out of Canada is underlined by the necessity of the special order in council P.C. 5011, dated June 18, 1943, which provided for authority to the Minister of National Defence to dispatch N.R.M.A. personnel not only to the territory of Alaska but to the Aleutian islands as well and other United States islands adjacent thereto. The provisions of the N.R.M.A. were such that in order to send home defence personnel to Kiska a special order in council had to be passed. I can assure my hon. friend across the way that I am not complaining about the passing of this order in council. I feel that complaints can scarcely be registered even with regard to the passing of the order in council after the men were away from British Columbia. I have heard protests registered in that regard. But after all, as the order in council itself says, such a decision could not be made public; for if such had been done it would

War Appropriation-Army
have given information to the enemy. But I am quoting the order in council to emphasize the fact that these men were sent beyond the shores of Canada, for the defence of Canada. I repeat, they went a considerable distance; they suffered casualties; they endured very great hardships during the months they were there, and it is only fair that they should be given the full exemption. I hope the minister wilt make a further effort on behalf of the men to see what can be done in this connection.
There are other islands beyond Kiska. One never knows what plans may be arranged, or what they may call for in the way of further expeditions to the next island or to islands farther on. Just where is the line to be drawn between the men who get fifty per cent exemption and the men who get one hundred per cent? It seems to me to be quite a question. I feel that it is perfectly in order, both in the spirit and in the letter of the Income War Tax Act, that these men who went to Iviska should be regarded as having gone over the line into the eastern hemisphere.
I said there were two matters that I wished to draw to the attention of the Minister. I should like to say a word or two about the second one. It relates to the problem that arises when men are discharged from the services at their own request on compassionate grounds and find that they are some considerable distance from their home or wherever they may have to go. I have in my hand correspondence relating to a particular case, that of a naval rating, which I took up with the Minister pf National Defence for Naval Services, who of course pointed out to me that the regulations affecting naval ratings were the same as those affecting men in the other services, so that I feel it only right I should raise the question now, while we are discussing general matters relating to national defence. I would point out to the minister also that the case I have before me was brought to my attention by a former solicitor of the city of Winnipeg who is now living in retirement in Victoria, but who is doing voluntary work for the Navy League of Canada. It was in connection with his work out there that this case was brought to his attention. He wrote me about it, feeling that while this man had been looked after on a charitable basis some effort should be made to change the regulations so that this sort of thing would not happen again. In this case it became necessary for this rating, because of the condition of his wife's health, to return home to London, Ontario; but when he was discharged at Victoria he was given only S59.ll. of which $35 was the allowance 100-38J
for clothing, leaving him $24.11, which was all the money he had to get back to London. This man was looked after through the kindness of the Navy League of Canada.


James Layton Ralston: Did he have a clothing allowance?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, of $35; this was before the allowance was increased, and he was instructed that this money should be spent for clothing.


James Layton Ralston: He was discharged where?


Stanley Howard Knowles: He was discharged at Victoria on his own request, because of the condition of his wife's health. She was in London; Ontario. As I say, this case was taken care of charitably, but that is hardly a desirable situation. I know other hon. members have drawn similar cases to the attention of the minister, and I repeat that I took up this matter with the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services, who pointed out that to make any change in his department would require that a change be made in all three services, and he went on to mention our good friends of the treasury board. So I bring this matter to the attention of the minister in the hope that he may give some consideration to an endeavour to change the regulations so that this sort of thing may not happen again. When it is said that men are discharged at their own request, sometimes that language implies that the onus rests entirely upon the man; yet the very fact that, as in this case, the navy agreed to the request for discharge indicates that in their opinion it was justified and in fact necessary. In such cases it does seem to me that a man should not be left stranded, as this rating would have been in Victoria but for the kindness of the Navy League of Canada. I would appreciate it if the minister would say something in reference to the two matters I have drawn to his attention.


James Layton Ralston: Taking the last case first, I do not think it has been brought to my personal attention before, but I am instructed that whatever the regulations were they have been amended, and provision has been made that a man is discharged from the depot at which he enlisted. I do not know whether or not there is any catch in that, but I assume that the man to whom my hon. friend refers would not have enlisted in Victoria.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is exactly the point; this man enlisted in London and was discharged at Victoria.


James Layton Ralston: This will not be of much comfort to him, but if he were to be discharged under the present regulations he would receive transportation to London.
War Appropriation-Army


Stanley Howard Knowles: If I may just press the point a little further, the letter I received from the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services was dated February 7.


James Layton Ralston: I beg pardon; I am talking about the army.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But the minister's colleague tells me that the same regulations apply in the navy.


James Layton Ralston: I am told not. Here is a copy of a memorandum on the regulations which states that an officer or soldier of the Canadian army on discharge therefrom is entitled to transportation and travelling allowances as shown hereunder, except as provided in paragraph 2. If he was residing in Canada immediately prior to becoming a member of the forces, he is entitled to transportation and travelling allowances to the place in Canada where he was residing immediately prior to his appointment or enlistment. I cannot tell my hon. friend how long that has been in force.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In case I did not get it straight, may I ask the minister if this applies when a man is discharged at his own request?


James Layton Ralston: I just looked to see, but I understand it applies whether or not he was discharged at his own request; there is no limitation in the regulations I have before me.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What is the date of that new order?


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend is talking about a man in the navy, and telling me that the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services said the rule in the navy was the same as in the army. I do not like to give evidence which is not in line with that of my colleague, but the information I am given is that in the army the man is discharged at the depot at which he enlisted; in other words that he is given transportation home.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That being so I shall bring this case to the attention of the minister by correspondence, and we will see if we cannot get the naval department in line with the army.


James Layton Ralston: That is a change in the army regulations; it has not been so always. Now with regard to the matter of income tax for the Kiska force. I must say to my hon. friend that I have been impressed by the same considerations he has urged, and at present the matter is under serious, active consideration, meaning that it is not settled by any means at the present moment. I think my

hon. friend has put the case correctly; that is, whatever authorities there are on these matters suggest that geographically Kiska is outside the western hemisphere, but, as my hon. friend says, politically it is within the western hemisphere. By that they mean that Kiska is a possession of the United States; the United States says the island is in the western hemisphere, and we think we ought to take the statement of the country which owns the island as to what hemisphere it is in, since there is no overriding authority in the world, that I know of to argue that it is not. That is the reason for the ruling that has been given. That is in reply to my hon. friend's argument, which he has put very clearly, with regard to the question of whether or not Kiska is in the western hemisphere.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister will recall, of course, that I pointed out that the Income War Tax Act gives no definition of eastern or western hemisphere. Surely, the United States government notwithstanding, our income tax authorities have a right to decide what constitutes the western and eastern hemispheres.


James Layton Ralston: They have the right to decide, but I think it is fairly good practice to take the evidence of the country which owns the island, and which says it is in the western hemisphere. So far as I know there is no one who should know better, unless it is some resident of Mars who is altogether outside the discussion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The boys who have been there know.


James Layton Ralston: And of course a resident of Mars would be a very appropriate person to decide this case. The point that impressed me was the point which has also impressed my hon. friend; that is, the matter of the engagement of this force in active operations. In addition one must consider whatever weight may be gained from the fact that it was a very long distance from home, even though politically it may have been in the western hemisphere. Do not let my hon. friend misunderstand me by thinking that I am making any pledge or promise that any exception will be made to the present ruling. What I am indicating to my hon. friend is that for some time I have been interested in the same thing. Notwithstanding the fact that it is not my department, as I said yesterday I regard these men as being to some degree wards of the Department of National Defence, and that we certainly ought to do whatever we can to see that they are dealt with justly in a matter of this kind. I have not done with it by any means.

War Appropriation-Army
Mr. MoDONALD (Pontiac): Mr. Chairman, I have two or three questions I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence:
1.	What counties in the province of Quebec are comprised within military district No. 3, with headquarters at Kingston, Ontario?
2.	What number of men in these counties have enlisted for service overseas?
3.	Are those men reported officially as having been recruited in Quebec?


James Layton Ralston: The answer to the first question is that the counties in Quebec which are included in military district No. 3 are Hull, Gatineau, Pontiac, and Temiscamingue.
I am sorry I cannot give an answer to the second question, and I do not know whether it can be compiled. However, I shall see if it can be.
The hon. member asks the number of men from those counties who have enlisted for overseas service. He will know that a request for that information is made often. The hon. member for Broadview has asked for it repeatedly, as it applies to Toronto, and I do not think that information has been given. The compilation of the numbers of men from any particular counties would require an enormous amount of work. However, I have made a note of the question.
The third question was as to whether the figures for enlistments from those counties are included in the report of recruitment for Quebec. The answer is no; the figures are not compiled by provinces, but rather by military districts. These men are shown as being recorded in military district No. 3.


Mr. McDONALD (Pontiac):: I thank the minister for his answers. My questions have been prompted by the fact that certain hon. members on the opposition side of the house are making it a point to use what they call official figures in an attempt to prove that Quebec has fallen behind in enlistments. As the representative of Pontiac I am in the unfortunate position to-day of not being able to stand in my place and1 say that so many thousands have been recruited from that county. But I can say, officially or unofficially, that in proportion to the enrolable population of men in my county, enlistments have been in as great numbers as in any other county in Canada.
Figures can be used for any purpose. If the background is not given they can be most deceiving. I recall that during the last war a certain parliamentary correspondent put a question to a gentleman who was then much in the public eye. He asked for a direct yes
or no, because, he said, "Figures lie, and liars figure." In the present instance, if the figures are accepted as official they are not in accordance with the facts.
I do not wish to impute motives to anyone, but to me it is a source of deep regret that the people of Pontiac and of other adjoining counties in Quebec should be described here as having sent practically no recruits. This argument is directed particularly against French-Canadians. I represent a county which is seventy-five per cent French-Canadian; and again, having regard to the enrolable population I have no hesitation in saying that those French-Canadians have done their full duty so far as enlistments are concerned. It must not be forgotten that in Quebec we have many families in which there are great numbers of children. If I may refer to myself as an example, I am the father of ten children. Of these only one is of military age, and I am proud to state here-and I am not boasting-that he is overseas doing his duty. There are hundreds, maybe thousands of families in my county in which there are from ten to fifteen children. In many of those families none are of military age, and in others only females who are not supposed to enlist have reached that age.
When it is said that French-Canadians do not enlist I. know that such is not the case. I hold in my hand a picture of six young men of a family of nine sons. Their father, Mr. Guertin, is a messenger in this building, and those boys are all serving overseas

French-Canadians, all of them. The last to enlist was only eighteen years of age, and enlistment in the navy had been previously refused him. As a member for the county of Pontiac I feel it my duty to state in this chamber, publicly, so that statement may be placed on the record, that the men enlisting from those counties of Quebefe, comprised within military district No. 3 with headquarters at Kingston, Ontario, are not so officially reported. Nevertheless the young men from those counties have done their full duty.
About Christmas time the sad news reached a mother in my home village that her son had been killed in Italy. Four of the five boys in that family are now overseas. Yet there are hon. members in the house and others outside who try to make people believe that the French-Canadians in Quebec are not doing their duty.
I have before me an article which only recently I clipped from a newspaper, headed with these words, "Last Letter of French-Canadian Soldier Hero". This article is from
War Appropriation-Army

Arthabaska, the representative of which constituency is not in the house this afternoon, and is as follows:
Arthabaska, Que., Jan. 31.-A farewell message from their son, received several months after he had been presumed killed in a flight over Italy, is cherished by Sheriff and Mrs. Maurice Maheu of this town. It is a simple but feeling story of courage, loyalty and patriotism.
The letter is from Sergeant Francois Gabriel Maheu, a member of the French-Canadian Alouette Squadron of the Royal Canadian Air Force.
On June 28, 1943, on his thirteenth raid over Italy he failed to return and in due course was officially presumed dead. Sergeant Maheu was twenty years of age.
Some months later his farewell message was received by his parents.
"When you receive this letter," he wrote, "do not grieve over my fate. I shall already have given my life for all of you whom I love so much and for my country."
I would ask the members of the Bioc Populaire to take particular note of this, that the only thought of this young French Canadian serving in the air force was to give his life for his country. I continue the quotation.
"You will have nothing but pride and honour that one of your sons has died for the shielding of his country.
"I offer my life and my sufferings to God to make up for all the trouble I may have caused you. I have made mistakes in the past, but I repent with all my heart. Rest assured that my thought has always been with you and that it will be with you until the last moment, because from day to day I have thought of what you have been to me, and never will I be able to prove all of my affection for you. The sacrifice of my life alone, in order to assure your freedom, will be the price of what you have done for me.
"I have no money to leave you. My bequest is faithfulness to duty."


Mr. GREEN:: With regard to the income tax levy against the men in the Kiska force, there is this further feature, that the United States declared Kiska a combat zone, and also that these men went there to fight, and not to act as garrison troops. There is considerable concern about the matter on the Pacific coast. The ruling already made is based on a technicality, as to which there is much doubt, and I suggest that the troops be given the benefit of the doubt.


James Layton Ralston: That was really the point "that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre made, I think, that it was a theatre of war and a combat zone, and I myself have taken that fully into consideration. But it did not need to be declared a combat zone. I think it was one without any question at all.


Mr. GILLIS:: There is a matter on which I should like some clarification from the

minister. I refer to order in council No. 5830, passed in August, 1941, and conferring certain wide powers on the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) with respect to the use of troops, militia and so forth in a given situation such as strikes, lock-outs, and so on. The order in council is lengthy and I shall not read it. It puts the Minister of Munitions and Supply in a position where, if he anticipates any disturbance, he may requisition troops from the Minister of National Defence merely by asking for them.


James Layton Ralston: Having first exhausted the possibilities of using the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.


Clarence Gillis: The order in council does not state that.	It states that they may be
utilized too.
In addition, I notice that the Winnipeg Free Press of February 10 has an article headed "Stream-lining policy adopted for the Reserve Army" and it sets out five or six points, the third point of which refers to supporting the civil authority responsible for law and order, if required.
What I want the minister to clarify is this. I have seen considerable of this kind of action in the past, where the civic authorities lost control of the enforcement of law and order in a given area and requisitioned troops in the regular way, and the community or province that asked for the aid of the troops to maintain law and order had to pay the cost of the maintenance of the troops.


James Layton Ralston: You mean, the bill was rendered.


Clarence Gillis: Yes. There were, I agree, times when it was not paid. What I want to know is just where the Department of National Defence fit into that picture. You might have a jittery kind of chap as Minister of Munitions and Supply; it may not be the present minister. The civic authorities somewhere may wire him, "We anticipate trouble here"; then without any consultation or investigation he may, under that order in council, requisition troops from the Department of National Defence, and according to my interpretation the Minister of National Defence has no alternative but must give him the troops required. I want to find out how much control the Minister of National Defence has under that order in council with respect to the sending of troops, and in the event of troops being sent into an area for the purposes stated in the order in council, who pays the cost of maintenance of the troops in that area?

War Appropriation-Army


James Layton Ralston: I have not the order in council before me. It was passed in July, 1941. I am surprised to hear my hon. friend say that the order in council does not contain a provision with regard to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I thought it did.


Clarence Gillis: No.


James Layton Ralston: The order in council was passed for the purpose of preventing the possibility of destruction of our war effort, particularly in respect of the production of armament and munitions. My hon. friend will remember that a very serious situation did arise with respect to the production of aluminum, at a time when that material was exceedingly scarce, exceedingly valuable and very much needed in the allied war effort, and it took some weeks to repair the damage that was done. It was felt that this was not a situation which could be imposed upon the attorney general of the province, who would not have the same information as the federal authorities would have with regard to war necessities and any emergency which arose. Obviously, the Minister of National Defence would not be fully acquainted with the conditions of production and the effect which any disturbance might have on that production. It was therefore considered that the Minister of Munitions and Supply, who, under the Munitions and Supply Act, is responsible not only for the actual production but for the planning and the maintenance of that production, was the one in the best position to assess the situation and determine whether or not it was necessary to have the assistance of troops in order to prevent a disturbance.
I am still wondering whether my hon. friend has read the order in council carefully; I am sure he generally does read things carefully. At all events the practice is that the Minister of Munitions and Supply, finding a situation which is getting out of hand and which requires assistance in preserving order which cannot be furnished by the local authorities, applies to the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. It is only after the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police indicates that they are not in a position to supply the necessary constables or officers to take care of the situation that the Minister of Munitions and Supply has the right to call on the Minister of National Defence to furnish troops for that purpose; and that is the authority of the Minister of National Defence to send troops to the particular area.
Answering my hon. friend's question, the Minister of National Defence himself under
the order in council is not, perhaps, called on to exercise any discretion in connection with the matter. If he refused he would assume a very grave responsibility, in view of the fact that the governor in council has placed upon the shoulders of the Minister of Munitions and Supply that responsibility. At the same time, I know the committee will believe that the Minister of National Defence, by consultation and such examination or such verification as he can make without in any way questioning the authority of the Minister of Munitions and Supply, endeavours to assure himself as far as he can that the step which is being taken is a right one and is necessary under the circumstances.
My hon. friend referred to the militia and to the announcement which had been made as to the role of the reserve army'. The role of the reserve army, as my hon. friend knows, is as old as the reserve army of the N.P.A.M. They have always been subject to be called in aid of the civil power, and that is exactly what the paragraph which my hon. friend read means. There is no addition there at all. That is what it is intended for. I suppose there might be a case when the reserve army itself would be called out under this order in council to which he has referred, with respect to the production of munitions. That has not been used, as far as I remember, in connection with the reserve army.


Clarence Gillis: I am not quarrelling with the purpose for which the order was intended when it was passed in 1941; in that particular situation perhaps it was necessary. But I am rather loath to approve an order in council that gives to one minister the amount of power and latitude, with respect to the use of troops as police, that this order places in the hands of the Minister of Munitions and Supply. I think the time has come when there should be a reexamination of that order, because if it is maintained in its present form in the future it can be used for other purposes than those for which it was intended. My object in bringing the matter up is to focus the attention of the Minister of National Defence upon it so that there may be reconsideration of the desirability of maintaining it in its present form in the future.


James Layton Ralston: I will take note of my hon. friend's remarks, as a member of the government rather than as Minister of National Defence, because as Minister of National Defence I must recognize that the order in council is there. As I say, it was passed for a particular purpose, and having regard to the possibility of situations arising
War Appropriation-Army

which are contemplated in the recital. With deference to my hon. friend, I feel that the Minister of Munitions and Supply is the one in the government who is best qualified, and perhaps the only one qualified, to speak of the seriousness and the extremity of the emergency which calls for the exercise of these powers.


William Ross Macdonald: May I again refer to the question of payment of income tax by the troops who served in Kiska? I am inclined to agree with the remarks made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I thought he presented his case fairly and logically and with due emphasis. From the remarks of the minister I take it that he had been giving this matter consideration even before the question was raised in the house. When the amendment to the Income War Tax Act was passed providing that men who served outside Canada but in the western hemisphere should pay only half the income tax, I do not think it was ever contemplated that men who were going into a battle zone should pay half; I think at that time it was contemplated that any man going into a battle zone would pay no income tax. My recollection is that when that section was added to the Income War Tax Act, places such as Newfoundland and Bermuda were in the minds of those responsible. For instance, soldiers in those places are beyond the borders of Canada and in some places, particularly in Newfoundland, they are under greater hardships than in Canada itself. I think it was in those places, Newfoundland and Bermuda particularly, that it was contemplated that soldiers would pay half income tax.
With regard to Kiska, it was always my understanding that Kiska is not in the western hemisphere. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre stated that geographically it was not considered to be in the western hemisphere, but politically it was.


Stanley Howard Knowles: By the United States.


William Ross Macdonald: By the United States, he said. He did not know and I did not know when it was declared by the United States to be in the western hemisphere. That declaration may have been made since this war started. I do not think this government should be bound by a declaration of the United States which had been made for political purposes as to the location of Kiska.


James Layton Ralston: High political purposes!


William Ross Macdonald: I
said, "political". I did not intend to say

"political 'purposes' ". I do not think the word "political" has anything to do with party; I think "political" is used to distinguish from "geographical".
In my view the government should take into consideration only the fact that these men were expected to go into a battle zone, and they should be given the same consideration as any men who are going into a battle zone in any part of the world. I trust the government will see fit to give them full exemption from income tax payment. The payment of income tax for the year 1943 has not been finally adjusted. No doubt a certain percentage of their pay was deducted, but the final return has not been put in, and I suggest to the government that it be made abundantly clear that when they put in their return for the year 1943 they will be allowed full tax exemption.
Mr. MaoINNIS: I should like to refer for a moment to the question raised by the hon. member for Cape Breton South, and to ask the minister if this order has been invoked at any time since it was passed. The date, I believe, is July 9, 1941. Has the Minister of Munitions and Supply requested that troops be sent into any place where there was trouble, or anticipated trouble; have troops been sent into such location; on how many occasions, and to what places?


James Layton Ralston: I have in mind that on
one occasion a requisition was made, but I do not think the troops were moved at that time. I have not the record here, but I believe that is the only occasion.
For the benefit of the hon. member for Cape Breton South I think it is well to put this order on the record. My hon. friend missed something in the order. It is numbered 5830 and dated July 29, 1941: I will not read the heading, if my hon. friend will permit Hansard to include it:
At the Government House at Ottawa
Tuesday, the 29th day of July, 1941.
Present:
His Excellency the Governor General in Council
Whereas the Minister of Justice reports that in order to insure without interruption the flow of supplies and munitions of war and the construction of all defence projects it may in some circumstances become necessary to authorize the Minister of National Defence to call out and employ the Active Militia to prevent or suppress riots, disturbances of the peace or other actions likely to impede or obstruct the production or delivery of munitions of war or supplies or the construction of defence projects;
Therefore, as a measure for the security, defence, peace, order and welfare of Canada, His Excellency the Governor General in council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Justice-

War Appropriation-Army
Hon. members will recall that the Minister of Justice has jurisdiction over the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
-and under and by virtue of the powers conferred by the War Measures Act, chapter 206, R.S.C. 1927, is pleased to amend the Defence of Canada Regulations (consolidation) 1941. established by order in council P.C. 5295, dated 15th July, 1941, and they are hereby amended as follows:
1.	By adding the following to subsection 1 of section 2:
(ii) "strike" means a lawful strike.
2.	By inserting immediately after regulation number 51 the following:
51A (1) The active militia or any corps thereof shall be liable for service as hereinafter in this regulation provided.
(2)	In any case where a riot or disturbance of the peace or without limitation by the foregoing any other action whatsoever occurs or is anticipated as likely to occur which in the opinion of the Minister of Munitions and Supply threatens to obstruct or delay the production, transportation, storage or delivery of munitions of war or supplies or the construction, remodelling, repair or demolition of a defence project, the minister may request-
I call this to the attention of the committee.
-the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to take such measures as in the opinion of the said commissioner are necessary to prevent, suppress or terminate such riot, disturbance or other action as aforesaid, actual or anticipated, and the commissioner shall take such measures accordingly.
(3)	If the municipal and provincial police forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police available for the purpose are, in the opinion of the commissioner-
Not the minister.
[DOT]-inadequate or ineffectual to prevent, suppress or terminate such riot, disturbance or other action as aforesaid, the commissioner shall immediately notify the Minister of Munitions and Supply accordingly.
(4)	Thereupon the Minister of Munitions and Supply may notify the Minister of National Defence of the circumstances aforesaid and the Minister of National Defence shall thereupon issue a direction that the active militia take such measures as may be necessary to prevent, suppress or terminate such riot, disturbance or other action as aforesaid and the active militia shall take such measures accordingly.
(5)	The officers and men of such active militia when so employed, shall, without any further authority or appointment, and without taking oath of office, be held to have and may exercise, in addition to their military powers and duties, all the powers and duties of special constables, so long as they remain so employed, but they shall act only as a military body, and shall be individually liable to obey the orders of their military superior officer.
(6)	Every officer and man of the active militia, at all times and while so employed, shall obey the orders of his military superior officer.
(7)	A strike or the peaceful persuasion of a person by another to take part in a strike shall not be an action to be prevented or suppressed under this regulation.
There is a penal provision having to do with those who attempt to obstruct or delay the transportation, storage or delivery of munitions and supply. Then there is the proviso:
Provided, however, that, a person shall not be guilty of an offence under this regulation by reason only of his taking part in or peacefully persuading any other person to take part in, a strike.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I wish to refer for a moment to a subject which I raised earlier in the afternoon. It intimately affects the welfare of our armed forces and might therefore, I believe, be appropriately dealt with for a moment at this time. I refer to the subject of venereal disease. In order to indicate at the outset that, in asking the question, I had no desire to cast reflection upon any particular location in Canada, I would simply say that the whole subject was raised at a conference in Montreal in the early part of this week, as reported in the Montreal Star of Tuesday, in which Major-General Renaud, the officer commanding military district No. 4, made a statement with reference to the seriousness of venereal disease which was affecting the forces stationed in or around Montreal or who were passing through Montreal. I am aware that the defence department established, a little over a year ago, I believe, a venereal disease control department which since then has been doing excellent work under the direction of Lieutenant-Colonel D. H. Williams. I understand that the other services have each an officer associated with Colonel Williams to take care of the work in their respective fields. Since that time there has been a great improvement in the incidence of venereal disease in the three defence services. On the other hand, there has been a steady rise in the incidence of venereal disease among the civilian population, and it will be quite clear to everyone that this must also be controlled or the efforts of the army will be unavailing, because obviously the source of disease is in the communities in which the soldiers reside.
I had intended asking the minister if he would make a statement, but he has indicated his intention of doing so later on with regard to the whole venereal situation as it affects the army. I think it very desirable to call public attention to the situation that prevails throughout Canada in many communities, because it is only in this way that any cleaning-up will take place.
After I received to-day the telegram to which I referred earlier in the session, I telephoned to the chief venereal disease officer, Colonel Williams, and asked him about the situation in the city of Quebec, and he gave
War Appropriation-Army

me this interesting information, that the municipal authorities there had recently closed the various bawdy houses and that-five days after that action had been taken there was a reduction of fifty per cent in the incidence of venereal disease in the forces in that area. Therefore Quebec may very well be an example for other communities in Canada to follow.


An hon. MEMBER:: Toronto.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I mean Quebec city, in this respect, at any rate. I am sure the members for Quebec city will be pleased to have me make this statement.


Mr. POWER:: All these stories are not about Quebec city; they are about Montreal. The hon. member read the wrong paper.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: About what city? The
stories I referred to a moment ago in the early part of my remarks were about Montreal. Mr. POWER: I beg your pardon.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: My statement referred to the holding up of corvettes because of the prevalence of venereal disease. Perhaps the minister did not hear that statement made earlier in the day. I made an inquiry in regard to that situation and the chief venereal officer gave me the reply which I gave a moment ago.


Charles Gavan Power: May I ask my hon. friend a question? Does the telegram infer that venereal disease is among civilians or workers on these corvettes or among members of the navy who would be taking the corvettes out to sea?


Herbert Alexander Bruce: If I may, I shall read the telegram:
Monday's papers state service civilian conference reveals corvettes delayed sailing Quebec through prevalence venereal disease my son volunteer for navy goes there Sunday imagine our and other parents' feelings. What is being done re situation.


Charles Gavan Power: Vessels could not leave Quebec in the winter anyway. We do claim there is winter navigation out of Quebec, but I think it is only theoretical; therefore I hardly think the vessels would be leaving Quebec. In any event I think the ice probably had more to do with it than the disease.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I did not want to interrupt the hon. member for Parkdale, but I believe that this discussion should take place under item 5:
5. Personnel. Supplies and services:	food,
medical and dental stores, clothing and personal equipment.
Yesterday the Minister of National Defence and the acting leader of the opposition mentioned the fact that it was difficult to keep 
the members of the committee in order on the general discussion. I want to follow implicitly the lead the committee will give me with regard to discussion under this item. We have had a general discussion for pretty nearly a week, and I believe the temper of the committee would be to pass item 1 in order to proceed with the other items. I do not want to curtail discussion in any way, but I should like to make the position clear.


Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: Mr. Chairman, you say that this discussion could very well take place under item 5. Item 5 deals with medical and dental stores, it is true, but it does not say anything about medicine, disease or anything else. It is difficult for the committee to know just what item the different matters should come under.


James Layton Ralston: I do not blame my hon. friend for finding it difficult. I must confess to the committee that if this item is taken in the broadest sense almost anything in the Department of National Defence could be discussed thereunder, because there must be civil salaries or wages paid to clerks in connection with this matter as in others. To this I have no objection whatever, Mr. Chairman. In the first place let me say I appreciate your difficulty in endeavouring to keep the committee in line in questions and discussion on the various items. The hon. member for Parkdale began this discussion, and I for one am only too pleased to have him continue it. I intend to say something about the subject this evening, if I may, because it seems to me there are many things important in the army and in the armed services, and this is one of the most important. With your consent, Mr. Chairman,
I would suggest that the hon. member for Parkdale continue.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Just one moment. I wish to make the position very clear. I followed quite closely the remarks of the leader of the opposition yesterday afternoon. As the committee knows, this is really not an itemized summary, but it was accepted last year. I know you will appreciate my difficulty in trying to synchronize items and so on. It is not my desire to stop discussion.


Mr. SINCLAIR:: As a member in uniform I think I should intrude on this discussion.
I had not intended saying anything on the minister's estimates, but the hon. member rises in his place and makes a statement which may be used by Lord Haw Haw and Doctor Goebbels in German propaganda that the Canadian navy could not put to sea out of Quebec because it was riddled with venereal disease. I say that is a shameful thing. If

War Appropriation^-Army
it is true, the hon. member should have gone to the minister and given him that information rather than alleging all across the country that the Canadian navy could not put to sea because of venereal disease. It is a shameful thing.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: Mr. Chairman, I do not
agree with the hon. member who has just spoken. I think this is a public question and one that could very well be ventilated here.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: This
is the proper place to ventilate it.


John Ewen Sinclair: Get the real facts.


Mr. TUCKER:: An allegation is made that
may mot be borne out at all.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: We shall know what the
facts are very soon, when the minister for the navy replies to my question.


Walter Adam Tucker: Why put it on the records of parliament until you know?


Herbert Alexander Bruce: The fact remains, Mr. Chairman, that the country is very much disturbed about the increase in the incidence of venereal disease.


John Ewen Sinclair: That is a very different
matter.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: Therefore I think it is a
very proper matter to call to the attention of the committee at this time, because it may seriously interfere with the efficiency of our armed forces. If allowed to become rampant, it certainly will interfere with their efficiency. If the excellent work that is being done by the venereal disease control department is to be a hundred per cent effective, or nearly so, then it is necessary for the various communities throughout Canada to do their part by closing bawdy houses, as I believe has been done in Montreal and Quebec. I await with interest the report of the minister on this subject, but should like to call the attention of the committee to the way venereal disease has been handled in other countries, particularly in the Scandinavian countries. The incidence of syphilis in Denmark has been reduced to -2 per thousand and in Sweden to -07 per thousand.


John Ewen Sinclair: What is Sweden doing in this war?


Herbert Alexander Bruce: That is to say, one Dane in five thousand suffers from this disease and one Swede in 14,000. In twenty years they have been able to cut down venereal disease in these countries to the status of a rare disease. I believe that this should stimulate our people to greater activity in the hope that we may be able to stamp out this serious disease in this country to a very large extent.


Clarence Gillis: I do not intend to occupy
very much time. I also like to get the facts.
I did not want to take up the time to put the order in council on record, but I do not interpret it as the minister does. In the first place, this order in council states that some strikes are legal. The minister will remember that under P.C. 9384, the last wage order, no strikes are legal. Therefore this order conflicts with the other.


James Layton Ralston: You are not complaining about that.


Clarence Gillis: I am not. Secondly, the
authority to decide whether a community has lost control of the administration of law and order is placed exclusively in the hands of the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Surely that is usurping the powers of the civic governments.


James Layton Ralston: No. It has the authority to state not that they have lost control, but that the police forces are not efficient.


Clarence Gillis: That is interfering with the powers which are vested in the municipalities, towns and cities. The mayor or council decided whether that situation prevailed.


James Layton Ralston: I take issue with my hon. friend there. I know they have the right to decide it, they control the forces; but at the same time, where there is a federal interest, and when the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, who ought to know something about the strength of the measures which must be taken to deal with a particular situation, is given that responsibility, it seems to me that my hon. friend cannot say that control is taken away from the municipal authorities. The commissioner simply appraises the ability of the municipal police force to handle the situation as it affects the federal project.


Clarence Gillis: I have no objection to the commissioner doing that when he is utilizing his own forces, but I definitely do not see the matter as the minister sees it with respect to the use of troops. It is an entirely new departure; otherwise this order would not have been necessary. If in a given area, the city of Toronto, for example, or in Montreal or anywhere else, troops are necessary, it was and should be the prerogative of the city council to call them in. I think the minister will remember the last time troops were used in Nova Scotia. The town of Glace Bay refused to do what many of the other cities and municipalities did; that is, it refused to requisition the troops, and as a result they were not brought to our town. Our mayor refused to sign the requisition, and as a result
War Appropriation-Army

they were not called in. I think this matter requires an examination. The order may have been necessary when it was passed, but it contains unlimited powers which override civic powers in the matter of the use of troops. I know the minister cannot deal with the point to-day, but I merely want to focus attention upon it because it conflicts with the existing set-up. There are no more legal strikes, but under this regulation if the commissioner or the person responsible in a particular district desires to utilize the troops instead of his own forces he is at liberty to do so. Personally I am skeptical about a number of the people who are administering the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, when it comes to the question of deciding whether or not troops should be used under this order. I am not satisfied to leave that decision with them.


Mr. GRAHAM:: I was interested in the discussion that took place between the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the minister with regard to an individual who was discharged from the navy at Victoria and was faced with the difficulty of securing transportation home. The minister dealt with that case as far as his department is concerned, but it happens that I, together with a group of my colleagues on this side of the house, have been attempting to study these matters in order to enlighten our own minds as to what is actually being done with regard to the demobilization and rehabilitation of the men and women in our armed services. Accordingly I thought it might be profitable to give hon. members the information we have been able to obtain in regard to such cases. I think hon. members and the people of Canada generally will be very much interested in securing full information as to the policy of the government in this regard, and it is our duty to give those who are interested all the information we can. So, that, if the minister will correct me in the event that I am wrong, I propose to put on record just what is done now with regard to a person who is discharged from any of our armed services. He is given a clothing allowance of $65, which is a decided improvement over the amount mentioned by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in connection with the individual he was discussing. In addition, the man is allowed to retain certain articles, such as underwear, shoes et cetera. He is also entitled to a rehabilitation grant consisting of one month's pay, with the dependents' allowance continued for that period, and finally he is provided with transportation and travelling expenses-


Mr. GRAYDON:: That is on discharge?
[Mr. Gillis.l


Roy Theodore Graham: Yes.


Gordon Graydon: Only one month's pay.


Roy Theodore Graham: Yes, one month.


Gordon Graydon: No matter how long he has served.


Roy Theodore Graham: Well, of course I am dealing with what the defence department is doing. The man will be entitled to certain other things when he comes under the new department of veterans' affairs. I am speaking now of what happens at the time of discharge.


Gordon Graydon: That is not enough.


Mr. NOSEWORTHY:: Does that apply to those who are discharged at their own request?


Roy Theodore Graham: The minister dealt with that, and I noticed he said that in his department it applies to those discharged at their own request; at least that was what I understood.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


James Layton Ralston: I should correct my hon. friend there. I was referring to transportation home, which is granted to those discharged at their own request.


Roy Theodore Graham: One of the reasons that moved me to speak was the fact that the regulation is a little more generous than even the minister gave himself credit for.


Mr. WRIGHT:: How long must a man
serve in the forces before he receives the grant of one month's pay?


Roy Theodore Graham: I have not been informed as to the limitation of time.


James Layton Ralston: He must serve six months, 3r 1S3 days.


Percy Ellis Wright: My hon. friend should put all the information on record if he is going to give any of it.


Roy Theodore Graham: I have not occupied very much of the time of this house so far this session, but I propose to place this information on record and if my hon. friend wishes more he can secure it or I can secure it for him. As I was saying, the department is a little more generous than the minister indicated. Not only is the discharged man entitled to transportation and expenses to the point of enlistment; at his own choice he is provided with transportation to the place of bona fide residence or to any other point in Canada that can be reached without additional expenditure. That is a rather important provision, because we all know that the point of enlistment may not be the point of residence, or where the man really wants to go. Through marriage, or for some other reason, his place of residence

War Appropriation-Army
may have been changed during his period of enlistment. So that I am delighted to learn that the department has taken that possibility into account and has provided a choice as to the place to which the discharged man may be given transportation.


Mr. QUELCH:: Only if it is without additional expenditure.


Roy Theodore Graham: Yes.


Mr. BOUCHER:: Would the hon. member explain what is really meant by those words, ''without additional expenditure"?


Roy Theodore Graham: I think the statement I made is easily understandable. The discharged '.nan can choose transportation to the point of enlistment, or to a place of bona fide residence which may be farther away than the point of enlistment, or to any other point in Canada, provided that it does not entail greater expense than transportation to his bona fide residence.


Joseph William Noseworthy: But if that point is farther away it will entail greater expense.


Roy Theodore Graham: I placed this information on record because I thought it might be of some assistance to those hon. members who are interested in these matters rather than in the mere political value they see in criticizing the attitude of the government. That was the sole purpose I had in mind, to give certain information not only to hon. members but also to Canadians generally who are very much interested in the welfare of the men and women enlisted in our armed forces.


Mr. McIVOR:: I do not like to change the subject, but when I think of the work our doctors are doing at the head of the lakes, which includes Fort William, Port Arthur and the surrounding district; when I think of the work of Doctor Walter Hogarth, who has said that these diseases are definitely on the decrease, I think it is my duty to rise in my place and say that the doctors, both military and civilian, w7ho are attending the air force in Fort William, the navy in Port Arthur and the soldiers in both cities, have been doing a dandy job in keeping these men clean and fit. '


Mr. RAYMOND:: I wish to get some information from the Minister of National Defence, and at the same time register a protest against the attitude of the Departs ment of National Defence in calling up farmers for a second medical examination. In view of the shortage of labour in the farming communities, is it the intention of the minister to continue to call up farmers for a second medical examination, particularly when they have been classified in category "E"?
I should like to cite an example. Last * September I learned about a farmer who owned 160 acres of land. This man was married, but had to look after his farm by himself. He was called to Montreal for a second medical examination. Although he had been very busy at his farm work, he had to leave his farm and go to Montreal. It is true that the trip had been made at the expense of the government, but they were useless expenses. This man had been classified in category "E".
What is the purpose of calling farmers when we need them so badly? This man was alone, and had to look after 160 acres; yet he was called for a second medical examination, despite, his classification. Does the minister intend to continue this practice?


James Layton Ralston: Once more I must explain that I do not call the farmers. I have no more to do with calling farmers than I have with calling men engaged in any other occupations. I ask my colleague the Minister of Labour, through national selective service, for so many men. National selective service provides the machinery under which those men are called up. A provision was made, one which I believe has been pretty well eliminated now, whereby men could be examined by civilian practitioners. I do not know the case to which my hon. friend refers, but I shall be glad to refer to my colleague, the Minister of Labour, what has been said, if the hon. merrier will give me the information. We may then ascertain if we have a record of what has been done. I do not know whether the man in question was examined by a civilian practitioner.
However, it was found-and it was bound to be so-that there is a difference among doctors as to whether a man is or is not fit, and as to what degree of disability he may have from a symptom he exhibits. The result was that a board of revision was constituted. This board consisted of doctors who had a knowledge of army requirements. They have worked under national selective service and, although I cannot give the exact title of the director, I can say that a medical officer from national selective service has in each district gone over examinations made by civilian doctors. A doctor will see what a layman would not see, and in this, that or the other case he might find it questionable whether a man should have been placed in category "E", o.r whether he might not have been placed in a category eligible for military service. In those instances the director issued an instruction that such men be called in
War Appropriation-Army

again, a procedure which was carried out in every province, irrespective of where it might be.
In one province I have in mind-and it was not Quebec-I saw figures which showed that of 2,100 men turned down and found physically unfit, medical revision disclosed that 700 were eligible for military service. I am not casting any reflection upon members of the medical profession; I am simply stating' a fact. It is quite possible that these examinations have been made when there was not the same general knowledge of army requirements.
If a man were called, whether or not he was a farmer, and was entitled to exemption under the act, then of course he should not have been called for an examination. On the other hand, if he was not entitled to exemption he would have to be called for his first examination. The medical director or registrar-I am not sure as to what his correct title is-who conducted the revision might quite possibly consider that the man in question had not been thoroughly examined, and might direct that he be called up for examination by the board of revision. That is all I can say to my hon. friend on the matter, except to emphasize once moTe that it has been found that this screening process, in which a reexamination is conducted, has disclosed cases on both sides of the line. Sometimes men who were overseas and who had been placed in categor3r "A" upon entering the army, have been discharged. On the other hand many more were found who, in the first instance, had been turned down by a civilian practitioner, but who later were found to.be medically eligible.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: In what province was that?


James Layton Ralston: It was in Manitoba. However, I am not picking it out particularly. I might have chosen Ontario, Prince Edward Island or any other province, because it was the same in all.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It would appear that under this item we are to be allowed to ask questions respecting medical subjects. Can the minister tell us how many psychiatrists are engaged in the army. I am asking the question because I know of some who have been checked by psychiatrists, and as a result have received satisfactory treatment.
I have, however, a complaint to make. In my view too many are shoved through the offices in a short space of time. The examinations are made too hurriedly. I understand there is an allotted time for each man, and I
fMr. Ralston.]
do not think that is a proper procedure. I do not know whether the minister agrees with me or not, but I believe the army would have fewer desertions if the psychiatrists had a better chance to check up on some of these men. I say that because many men in the army do not know where they are going, or what it is all about. In many cases they feel that it is not worth while, at all.
I shall not give any specific cases, but I do know of instances where psychiatrists have put these men on their feet, when a check was made, and it was learned what was required. In such instances good advice has been given. It is my opinion that psychiatrists should have more time to make their checks on the boys in the army.
I should like to know how many of those psychiatrists there are, and the length of time given to check each case. In many instances I understand the check is not made until it is almost too late. In my view it should be made when they come in or shortly thereafter.


James Layton Ralston: 
Gordon Knapman Fraser: This afternoon the minister was going to left us know about the number of psychiatrists in the army.


James Layton Ralston: I am sorry that I have been busy since I left here at six o'clock, and I have not been able to get the figures. I shall have them to-morrow .


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Another matter respecting the health of men in the army about which I should like to speak is the service of chiropodists. I understand that the air force is recognizing these people and they are doing good work, and I wondered what the army was doing to provide for chiropodists to look after the feet of the men. I understand that the army is trying to create chiropodists by a three or four weeks' course of their own, and that, of course, is causing dissatisfaction among the registered chiropodists in Canada.


James Layton Ralston: I am afraid I cannot give my hon. friend at this stage much information. From what I know from personal knowledge, the army has chiropodists; I know some who were practising in Ottawa who are in the army, and their services are regarded as not only useful but necessary. They are not taken in as officers; they are taken in as non-commissioned officers, and the men get the benefit of their services. Is there any particular question which my hon. friend has in mind?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Just the two matters I mentioned. The subject of diabetes has been referred to before, but could the minister tell us the different tests which the men have to go through for diabetes when they are taken into the army? Is there just, one test, or are they given a blood test also?


James Layton Ralston: I cannot tell my hon. friend now. I might point out to the committee that this is where difficulty arises in endeavouring to cover all subjects under one item. I expect to have the medical officers here when the medical item comes up, but one can see that- there are a good many ramifications in .the organization and one cannot have all these people here at one time. I shall have that information. I just have now the statement that there are sixty-three psychiatrists in the Canadian army in Canada and overseas.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Does the minister think that number is sufficient? Is there any chance of getting any more?


James Layton Ralston: All I know is this, that in addition to his qualifications as a medical practitioner, the director-general of medical services is himself a psychiatrist.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I
know that.


James Layton Ralston: I do not think there is anybody who recognizes more the usefulness of psychiatrists in connection with army work, particularly personnel selection. As probably the hon. member knows, Major-General Chisholm was in charge of personnel selection before he was appointed director-general of medical services. We were fortunate in that, so fortunate that although sometimes personnel selection is in some way an entirely different branch, we felt that personnel selection should be taken over by the medical services, and it is one of the branches of the director-general's functions. I am sure that if more psychiatrists are needed and are obtainable, Major-General Chisholm will be the first one to see that they are employed.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The
reason I asked if we have enough is that I understand, whatever is the case now, that some few months ago a psychiatrist would go into one training camp, stay there perhaps a day or two days, then proceed to some other place, and then on to another point, but never at any time did he stay long enough in one place to do a job thoroughly. He did not have time to check on these men thoroughly. Perhaps he would see a man. in the training camp to-day, a man who might be moved out of there in a week's time, before the phychia-trist got back. That was not fair to the psychiatrist or to the man. Perhaps if that man had had a little more attention from a psychiatrist he would make a better soldier. All these men in the army have good stuff in them, and it is up to the psychiatrist to try to bring out the good in the men, and they are doing it. I think this is a matter which should be looked into.


James Layton Ralston: My principal satisfaction
is that not only the officers and other ranks but the minister himself are getting in a state of mind where they are not afraid of psychiatrists.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: There is a lot in that.


James Layton Ralston: It was regarded for a while as a rather fearsome profession with a fearsome name. I did not like the sound of psychiatric tests, myself; but we seem to have advanced considerably in science in this particular war, and I have foupd, as my hon. friend suggests,
War Appropriation-Army

that the services of psychiatrists have been highly useful, not simply from a professional and scientific, but also from a practical point of view. Regarding what my hon. friend has said, I am thanking now of a reception centre where there is not a psychiatrist all the time; in that particular province he does have to move around; and I quite agree with my hon. friend that if we were able to have the personnel selection officer and a psychiatrist constantly there to consult-not in every case, because you do not need a psychiatrist in every case-it would be an advantage. I will make a note of the. matter and see whether the D.G.M.S. thinks there is a possibility of increasing the number of psychiatrists. I would agree with my hon. friend. I know the work they are doing and the size of the job, and I think that more psychiatrists would be useful.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I was glad to hear the minister say that we are not afraid of the name "psychiatrist."


James Layton Ralston: I was-


Gordon Knapman Fraser: We
all were perhaps at one time.


James Layton Ralston: -but I am getting over it.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The
psychiatrists really take the place of mother and father of the men in the army because they are there to listen to the troubles of these men, and also of the girls, because they need such advice as well as the men.


Howard Charles Green: In the course of the discussion on this resolution the minister made significant statements on two questions wrhich I think are of great importance, not only to this house but also to the Canadian people. First is the man-power policy of the government, having reference more particularly to the callup system under the National Resources Mobilization Act, and, secondly, the policy of the government in the war with Japan.
To deal first with the call-up system, it would appear from the statements the minister has made that that system is being allowed to die out. For example, the minister has shown that the numbers called up have dropped from 60,000 in the fiscal year 1942-43 to 25,000 in the fiscal year 1943-44, and in fact in the present year there have been only 19.000 called in the first nine months.


James Layton Ralston: Enrolled, not called.


Howard Charles Green: I am dealing throughout
with enrolment figures. That was to the end of December, 1943, and as against that enrolment about 3,000 have gone active, 6,500 have been discharged, which by the way seems a

very nigh percentage, and I would ask the minister to explain the reasons for which they were discharged; then there have been 1,500 deserters in the first nine months of the present fiscal year. That is a total wastage of 11,000. The minister announced that for the coming fiscal year 1944^45 there would be only 12,000 enrolled under the National Resources Mobilization Act; in other words, less than half of the number asked, for in the present fiscal year.


James Layton Ralston: What was the last word?
My hon. friend said, "in other words".


Howard Charles Green: In other words, less than
half the number that the government required during the fiscal year 1943-44. The minister told us last year that he was asking for 25,000 under the National Resources Mobilization Act and 75,000 for general service. Then he said yesterday that the N.R.M.A. army is now on a maintenance basis, that there will be no increase in the numbers in that army; that there will be about 50,000 fighting men fit to be sent overseans to fight, and that was the same figure he gave last year and the year before. As I say, he admitted yesterday that the N.R.M.A. army is now purely on a maintenance basis.
In the course of his statements on this resolution he has said further that there is an extensive feeding out from the N.R.M.A. army to different industries, agriculture, forestry, and so on, the total at present being about 5,300, which is done by a system of extended leave. Men are given six months' leave with the option of renewing it for a further six months and so on, which really amounts to indefinite leave.


James Layton Ralston: That does not apply to
the N.R.M.A. alone.


Howard Charles Green: No; that is quite true. But the minister said that there are 5,300 N.R. M.A. men . out on extended leave-8,000 altogether of whom 5,300 are N.R.M.A. men. If I am incorrect I would ask the minister to correct me. He said also that some men have been detailed for work in industry; in other words, they arfe not on leave-they had not that privilege-but have been detailed to go and work in an industry. I suggest to him that there will be more and more a demand from industry for these men in the N.R.M.A. army, particularly if those troops are not fighting and there appears to be little prospect that they will be doing any fighting. I think it is a reasonable forecast that a year from now there will be a force of fewer than 50,000 of these men who are fit for fighting. This means that the N.R.MiA. army is gradually

War Appropriation-Army
dropping out of sight and that eventually we shall reach the position where we have no effective N.R.M.A. army at all. This means further that Canada is getting back to a purely voluntary basis for raising troops, which means, of course, that we are getting back to all the inequalities which a voluntary system entails.
I suggest to the minister that there should be a clear-cut statement of policy on the part of the government with regard to this call-up system, telling us just what the intention is and where wre are heading. It is one of the most important questions in the whole of our war effort and we should have a more clear-cut statement from him.


James Layton Ralston: I do not know what my
hon. friend means by a clear-cut statement. We are calling up men for the needs we have. What more does my hon. friend want? Will he particularize?


Howard Charles Green: I am suggesting that the
government policy as it has been enunciated by the minister during the last few days shows that the call-up system is gradually being allowed to die out and that we shall be back on a purely voluntary basis.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend wants
me to correct him. I will do so now. I will record here that I have not said anything that I know of which justifies that statement.


Howard Charles Green: I should like to have a clear-cut announcement from the minister so that the Canadian people will know what the government has in mind.


James Layton Ralston: I have been as clear-cut as possible.


Howard Charles Green: The call-up system has a direct bearing on the second question, which is this: what is Canada's policy in the war against Japan? That is another question which needs clarification by the government. The two questions are related because the bulk of the N.R.M.A. army has been on the Pacific coast from the start and these N.R.M.A. men comprise the bulk of the Canadian forces out there. They were sent to replace active service men, who in turn were sent to Europe as reinforcements. This has gone so far that units which were raised originally in British Columbia have now been depleted of British Columbia men and the replacements are practically all from other parts of Canada. Eventually some of these N.R.M.A. men on the Pacific coast got to Kiska in a task force brigade, a special task force which went there with the Americans and which by the way made a very good name for itself. They are
now back on the Pacific coast along with two other brigades organized in the form of task forces, the three of them making up the sixth division. In the meantime, according to the United States press, some of the American troops who took part in the occupation of Kiska have been fighting in the Marshall islands, and have been partly responsible for the victories there. As I pointed out, Canadian troops are back in Canada.
The minister said on February 14, as reported in Hansard at page 466, the policy of the government in regard to the war against Japan is:
. . . that no commitments have been made at the present time as to the nature or extent of Canada's participation in the war against J apan.
He went on to say that the army recognized that there is a war on with Japan, and he made much the same statement last year. Here we have the policy of the government duly announced that Canada has no commitments whatever with regard to the war against Japan.


James Layton Ralston: I did not say that.


Howard Charles Green: I shall read it again:
. . . that no commitments have been made at the present time as to the nature or extent of Canada's participation in the war against Japan.


James Layton Ralston: "As to the nature and extent". I want my hon. friend to realize what I am saying. I said, "as to the nature and extent". My hon. friend in the statement he made before he read the passage the second time said, "no commitments had been made with regard to the war against Japan". I said that was incorrect. I said, "that no commitments have been made at the present time as to the nature and extent of our participation".


Howard Charles Green: I do not want to be unfair to the minister; I admit that he said that.


James Layton Ralston: I do not care about my hon. friend being unfair. I want him at least to be direct.


Howard Charles Green: Well, the minister seemed to be caring a whole lot; I do not know what is the matter with him. At any rate we can all agree on this one fact, that sooner or later Canadians will be fighting in the Pacific. There should be a clear-cut policy on this question and it should be announced by the government. We should not be stood off with a statement that we have no commitments at the moment as to just how, when and where we are going to fight the Japanese. There are certain features with regard to Canada's position in the Pacific which should be considered very carefully by the govern-
War Appropriation-Army

ment. First of all there is this fact that steadily the united nations are closing in on Japan. For example, it has been announced in the press that British troops either are now in Australia or will be there shortly. Canada, of course, has her own job of work to do in the Pacific war. I think it should be borne m mind that Canada cannot wait until the war in Europe is over before she does anything about the war against the Japanese. Take, for example, the question of what troops are to be used against the Japanese. I suggest to the committee that it is unfair to expect our men to come back after fighting and defeating Germany and then go out to fight the Japanese. After all, our army is a citizen army. When the men come back to Canada they will not be very keen about being rushed right to the other end of the country and sent to fight the Japanese. Furthermore, they are not trained for that type of warfare; they are not trained for jungle fighting or the type of fighting they would face in that part of the world.
Another side of the picture is that this N.R.M.A. army is available here in Canada. Certainly the units on the Pacific coast are trained and equipped for fighting the Japanese. Actually, as the minister admitted the other day, some of the units there have volunteered to fight the Japanese, although under present government policy they cannot be sent abroad to fight either the Germans or the Japanese. If some of these troops were sent out across the Pacific there are ample reinforcements among the N.R.MA. troops to keep the units up to strength.
Another feature is this: the minister made quite a play the other night about not wanting to send to Great Britain any troops who were not volunteers. He did not want to mix the volunteers and the N.R.M.A. men. If the government persists in that policy it means that none of these N.R.M.A. men will ever go to Europe. On the other hand, if they are sent to the Pacific there need be no reason to mix the two forces. I realize, and the other members of the committee realize that for the government to send the N.R.M.A. forces to the Pacific it would be necesasry first of all for the government to decide to do this, and then under the present policy to ask parliament for approval of such action. I believe that N.R.M.A. men should be made available for service anywhere in the world; that is my personal belief, but I suggest that the government should give further consideration, at least, to making these men available for fighting against the Japanese. These are the two questions on which I should like to

have some further information from the minister. They are of vital importance. They go to the root of our whole war effort in the coming year, and I would ask him to give us a clear-cut announcement as to what the government has in mind on these two questions.


James Layton Ralston: With regard to the last question my hon. friend referred to, namely, Canada's participation in the war against Japan, I repeat, what I said before, that Canada as a Pacific power will remain in the war until Japan is subjugated. My hon. friend knows perfectly well, and the committee knows, that we cannot make any statement to him as to the nature and extent of Canada's participation of air forces, navy and army. I am not making any statement about that; my hon. friend would not expect it. I really do not see just what he is driving at. The point is that three brigades are on the west coast, as my hon. friend says. There, they have alternative roles; one role is to train for any necessity which may arise in connection with the Pacific situation; another role is to be, as I mentioned the other night, a backlog for reinforcements for overseas should the necessity arise and action be taken. Another role is-and it is a lesser role, it is true, just now, but a role which my hon. friend himself was most vociferous in advocating only one and a half years ago-for the defence of the Pacific coast.


Howard Charles Green: That was quite right. I do not think the minister would question the wisdom of that.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend has a very short memory. Now he says that these people are absolutely useless.


Howard Charles Green: I did not say they are absolutely useless.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend has suggested it-


Howard Charles Green: I rise to a question of privilege.


James Layton Ralston: There is no question of privilege at all. My hon. friend was suggesting that they were absolutely useless and that they ought to be sent somewhere.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a questior of privilege.


James Layton Ralston: Mr. Chairman, I have the floor.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Order. The minister has the floor and it is up to him to-


Gordon Graydon: The minister has not the floor when a question of privilege is raised.

War Appropriation-Army


James Layton Ralston: There is no question of privilege.


Gordon Graydon: A question of privilege
has precedence over everything else.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Will the hon. member
explain his question of privilege?


Gordon Graydon: The hon. member rose to a question of privilege.


Howard Charles Green: The question of privilege is this. The minister says that in the course of my remarks I said that these N.R.M.A. men were useless. I did not say that at all; I said just the opposite. I said that they had made a name for themselves at Kiska and I advocated the government changing its policy so that these men could be sent to fight against the Japanese. The minister has no right whatever to say that I stated they were useless.


James Layton Ralston: I had a right to say what the effect of my hon. friend's statement was, namely, that out there they were useless. My hon. friend wanted them sent either against Japan or overseas. That was the effect of what my hon. friend said. I am calling his attention to the fact that they are on the Pacific coast, the place where he was so anxious to have twice as many troops or three times as many troops a short time ago.


Howard Charles Green: I did not say they were useless there.


James Layton Ralston: That was the effect of it; that we had better send them somewhere. I say they have that possible role of activities in the Pacific. They also have another role, as I said the other night, of constituting a backlog for the purpose of reinforcing the troops overseas should the occasion arise and the necessary action be taken.


Howard Charles Green: And should the government change its policy.


James Layton Ralston: They have a third role; that is, the defence of the Pacific coast, and a fourth, which is always possible for troops in Canada, namely, in aid to the civil power. My hon. friend knows perfectly well that these men are training to be used wherever they may be needed.


Howard Charles Green: They are trained already.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend seems to know a great deal more about the army than I do. I know about their training; I have reports from the general officer commanding-in-chief of the Pacific command in regard to it. If my hon. friend knew anything about soldiering, as I think he does, he would realize perfectly well that a man is never fully
trained, that in soldiering you go on and on, and that if a man does not keep on training, in a very short time he can become stale and require a good while to get into shape for soldiering again.
That is all I have to say about the Japanese situation. With regard to the N.R.M.A., my hon. friend rose to correct me when I sdid that in effect his statement was that these troops on the Pacific were useless. I did not rise to correct him when he made the statement that I had admitted the other night that the N.R.M.A. army would gradually go out of sight. I never said anything of the kind. I do not look for the N.R.M.A. men in the army to "die out" as he put it. I said yesterday that at the end of this year we shall still have about as many men as we have at the present time, which is between sixty and seventy thousand. That is a fairly sizable lot of men. It certainly does not show much shrinkage.


Howard Charles Green: Does that include-


James Layton Ralston: Perhaps my hon. friend will permit me to finish. As I say, that is not a very great shrinkage. And I said with regard to them, as I said with regard to the general service men in Canada, that our army in Canada is on a maintenance basis, just as the munitions and supply programme is on a maintenance basis both here and in the United States. That is what is happening all over; we have built up our capital commitments; we have formed our units; we have provided our initial equipment; from now on the maintenance is what is necessary, and by "maintenance" I mean taking care of reinforcements and wastage. I have not any clear-cut statement to make with regard to the N.R.M.A. beyond what I have already said. That is to say, we expect to get about twelve thousand men this year for the purpose of relieving general service personnel in order that they may be released to go overseas, if required, as reinforcements; and the N.R.M.A. personnel in Canada will be used for the duties we have for them here and any other duties for which they are trained and which it may be decided to assign to them. So far as I know there is nothing more to be said in that connection.
My hon. friend said something else that I did not quite understand. He spoke of N.R.M.A. men being released or discharged to industry, and he said the minister knew there would be more and more demand from industry for these men. My own idea is that probably there will be less demand from industry this year than previously. From what I hear, industry is not going so full out as it
War Appropriation-Army

was, by any means, and it is quite possible that men may be released from industry instead of more men being taken on. I did not quite follow my hon. friend's meaning when he made that statement.


Mr. DUPUIS:: I should like to mention another fact which was brought out by the hon. member for Vancouver South and which I find very hard to understand; perhaps he can explain it or perhaps the minister will clarify the situation. The hon. member said that the N.R.M.A. men on the west coast are willing to go to Europe but are prevented from doing so because they belong to that portion of our army which is made up of those recruits. I understood the hon. member to say that the government is preventing these men from going to Europe. I always understood that a recruit who belonged to the N.R.M.A. was at liberty to sign for overseas, and that as soon as he did so he became part of the active army and no one could prevent him from going overseas. I should like to be clear as to that.


Howard Charles Green: I am afraid the hon. member misunderstood me. I said that at least some of the N.R.M.A. units-I think those that went to Kiska-have volunteered to go and fight in the Pacific. They did not volunteer to fight in Europe, but were willing to fight in the Pacific; but that because they would not volunteer to go and fight in Europe, therefore they could not be sent to the Pacific unless the government changed its present policy, under which these N.R.M.A. men cannot be sent abroad without the formal approval of this house. Now does the hon. member understand?


Vincent Dupuis: I do not understand why these men could not be sent anywhere in the world if they signed for. service in the active army.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This afternoon the minister and I were discussing, among other things, the question of transportation to the place of residence in the case of men discharged at their own request. It seemed to me that considerable confusion developed and that, as the record now stands, that confusion might go beyond this house. I feel that I should place on the record a portion of the letter I referred to this afternoon, which came to me from the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services, who is now in his place, and perchance we can see whether or not there is any difference in the regulations as among the three services.


James Layton Ralston: I would appreciate that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I quote from the letter I received from the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services under date of February 7 of this year:
.	.	. I may say that our Canadian naval
regulations jirovide that when a rating or officer is discharged for reasons other than "at his own request" he may be granted transportation and subsistence to the place at which he was living in Canada at the time of entry, or to his intended place of residence in Canada, if the conveyance thereto costs no more.
However, when an officer or rating is discharged "at his own request" no transportation is granted.
I call attention to this sentence:
Similar regulations apply in the other two services.
I quote further:
*In addition to this he also receives a clothing allowance to provide him with civilian clothing. The amount of this allowance was formerly $35 but was raised to $65 by a naval order passed on the 25th of December, 1943. A rehabilitation grant, amounting to one month's pay and allowances, is also provided on discharge, except m cases where the discharge is made at the rating's own request. All these regulations are general in the three services.
I call attention to the next paragraph:
I do not think treasury board would approve of a change in the regulations to provide for the paying of transportation in cases where the application for discharge was made by the rating himself.
That is signed by the minister. As I understood the Minister of National Defence this afternoon, however, he said that, under a recent regulation affecting the army, transportation is provided to the original place of residence, or in some cases to a newly chosen place of residence, even for men discharged at their own request. I should like some reconciliation between the statement that this has been done in the case of the army, and the statement by the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services doubting whether treasury board would agree to such a request. I hope the Minister of National Defence was correct in what he told me this afternoon and, that being so, that the same regulation will be made to apply in the other two services.


Mr. MACDONALD (Kingston City):: I can only say to my hon. friend that, as to the army regulations on this or on any other point, what I say cannot be taken as against the view of the minister of that department. My impression was that the three services had the same regulation with regard to men discharged at their own request, and that transportation was not provided in -such cases. But if the Minister of National Defence now says that the army does provide transportation in those

War Appropriation-Army
cases, then that settles the matter so far as the army is concerned, and I was in error in my statement of what was army practice.


Stanley Howard Knowles: When those regulations were changed with respect to the army, since we are dealing in general terms with national defence, may I ask whether the regulations were also changed with respect to the navy and the air force, and, if not, why not?


James Layton Ralston: I shall have to answer that, because we have a solemn agreement between the three services that none of us shall put forward any recommendation for a change in pay and allowances, or benefits of that kind, without consulting the other.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I would expect that.


James Layton Ralston: And if it was not done in this case, then it must be the fault of the army. This change is made effective on January 26, 1944, and appears in section 210 of financial regulations and instructions. It provides what I read to my hon. friend this afternoon, namely:
210 (1) An officer or soldier, other than one who is a member of the permanent active militia and in respect of whom provision is made by article 208 of these regulations shall, on ceasing to serve with the force or on being discharged therefrom be entitled to transportation and travelling expenses, except as provided in paragraph (2) below.
(a) If residing in Canada immediately prior to becoming a member of the force.
(1)	To the place in Canada where he was residing immediately prior to his appointment or enlistment, or
(ii) To any other place in Canada if the cost of the journey does not exceed the expenses authorized in (a) (i).
It will be noted that it states "except as provided" in paragraph 2. Paragraph 2 says:
(2)	An officer or soldier who leaves the force for the purpose of joining any other of His Majesty's forces or an allied force shall not be entitled to transportation or travelling expenses.
So that exception does not cover the case of a man who was discharged at his own request.


Stanley Howard Knowles: So far as the army is concerned it is perfectly clear that the man discharged at his own request is covered.


James Layton Ralston: He is not excepted, to put it in another way.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And did that request receive the approval of the treasury board?


James Layton Ralston: Of the privy council, yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I take the opportunity at this time of calling it to the attention of the other two defence ministers.


Charles Gavan Power: In all probability it went into effect for the air force when it did for the army, unless we had some particular or very special reason against it. The Minister of National Defence has said there is a sort of agreement among the ministers that no service will give greater advantage by way of pay and allowances to its personnel. Then there is an inter-service committee. It is a very complicated matter. This interservice committee is sitting almqst constantly, and all those things must go to the committee of the three services. Normally there is a joint submission made to council and treasury-board by the three services.
I cannot say off hand whether we have adopted that regulation, which the army seems to have put into effect on January 26. But I would be very much surprised if we have not. And if we have not there must be a very good reason for our not doing it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the minister look into it?


Charles Gavan Power: Yes.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I
should like to make a short statement concerning a matter raised this afternoon by the bon. member for Parkdale. Let me say first of all that the hon. member endeavoured to raise this question before the orders of the day were called. Mr. Speaker, however, ruled that he would have to place his question on the order paper, and I assumed he would follow Mr. Speaker's direction and place his question on either the order paper for tomorrow, or that of some subsequent day.
I was not in the house this afternoon at the time the hon. member returned to the question he had attempted to raise earlier in the afternoon. He returned bo it while the estimates of the Minister of National Defence were under discussion, and read a telegram to the effect that corvettes were delayed in sailing from Quebec, on account of the prevalence of venereal disease. I doubt if my hon. friend was in order in bringing up the matter under army estimates, and I doubt if, strictly speaking, I am in order now in making reply to it. But I do feel that the suggestion the bon. member has made should be corrected, at least so far as the navy is concerned.
From the fact that the question was adress-ed to me I should gather the suggestion to be that corvettes could not sail because of the prevalence of venereal disease among members of the naval service. If that is the suggestion I should like to say I have been in touch in the last hour or two with those in the naval department who are in charge of operations, who direct the operations of our ships,
War Appropriation-Army

and I found that the last corvette sailing from Quebec sailed on December 26, or nearly two months ago. I also asked the operations branch whether they had any knowledge of any corvettes being delayed at any time at Quebec for the cause mentioned by the hon. member for Parkdaie, and I was informed definitely that no delay at Quebec could be attributed to this cause.
But, in order to make assurance doubly sure I instructed the operations branch to go further and to communicate by telephone with Surgeon-Lieut-Commander C. M. Kirk, who is senior medical officer at Quebec. Doctor Kirk is a medical man of mature years, a man of wide experience and, I think, of very great ability. He has been at Quebec since January 15, 1943-now more than thirteen months. Therefore he must be taken to be fully familiar with medical conditions among navy personnel at that point, at least for the last thirteen months.
The direct question was put to Doctor Kirk, the Surgeon-Lieutenant-Commander, in these words: "Were any ships delayed at Quebec because of venereal disease?" To this question Doctor Kirk replied categorically, "No".
I hope that this disposes of the suggestion, one which in a certain measure I regard as reflecting upon the navy personnel at Quebec. If that was the suggestion, I hope it is disposed of now. I wish to say that, so far as I know, neither at Quebec nor elsewhere has any ship at any time had to delay its sailing for the reason referred to in the telegram read to the house this afternoon by the hon. member for Parkdaie.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: Mr. Chairman, may I thank
the minister for his statement, which I am pleased he has been able to give, in which he denies the newspaper report that evidently inspired the telegram to which I referred in the house. This newspaper report will be found in the Montreal Star oi February 15, and it oecured to me that I was doing a distinct service in giving the minister an opportunity of replying to this at the earliest possible moment, instead of allowing it to stand for a couple more days.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Gordon Graydon: Let him finish his statement; he has the floor.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: Are you running this house?


Gordon Graydon: No, but you are not going to run it either. No more interruptions.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: You sfapnfl the interruptions.


Charles Gavan Power: Why should we not interrupt? My hon. friend does not rise from his seat.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: He never gets up when he interrupts. If he wants it, he can have it.


Gordon Graydon: That goes double, for over here.


Mr. ROWE:: The government must be getting pretty jittery' when two ministers have to keep bobbing up and down.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Order. I would as* that the hon, member be allowed to make his statement.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I quote:
Lengthy reports-


Mr. GOLDING:: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order. There is a rule of this house which prevents the reading of articles from newspapers, and I want to read to you what happened-


William Earl Rowe: What is the point of order?


William Henry Golding: I want to read what happened-


Gordon Graydon: The member has a right to raise a point of order, but he must state what the point of order is.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The hon. member has raised a point of order.


William Henry Golding: The ruling was given in a debate in this house on March 17, 1933. Mr. Woodsworth had read an article from the Montreal Herald of January 19, 1933, and also an article from the Montreal Gazette of the same date. Mr. Bennett took exception to the reading of such articles from the press, and in his argument Mr. Bennett, at page 3105 of Hansard, contended that there were 245 members of the house and that by the reading of articles from magazines and newspapers an attempt was made to introduce the 246th member, and this voice had no place in this assembly.


Charles Gavan Power: Cheers for Bennett.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My Lord I


William Henry Golding: After a full discussion, the Speaker ruled it was not permissible to read articles from newspapers and magazines.


William Earl Rowe: Your leader has been reading speeches ever since.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: On the point of order, as I understand the statement made by the hon. member for Huron-jPerth (Mr. <''r.!ding),

War Appropriation-Army
the ruling had reference to something that occurred on the orders of the day. The hon. member for Parkdale to-night was asked to give the source of his information, which he has a right to do.


Samuel Factor: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order. As the minister for naval services indicated, the hon. member for Parkdale is utterly out of order.


Gordon Graydon: What is the point of order, Mr. Chairman?


Samuel Factor: Just a minute. Since he has become a big shot the leader of the opposition does not want anyone else to speak.


Gordon Graydon: Thank you for the
compliment.


Samuel Factor: I submit, Mr. Chairman, that a discussion of naval affairs is entirely out of order in this debate, but the hon. member for Parkdale made a statement dragging in the navy. The minister has replied, and I submit that no further discussion of that matter should be allowed.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: On the point of order, the committee realizes that we are dealing with matters having to do with this war. All I have before me is the resolution covering the activities of the army, navy and air force. It was decided that wide discussion should be allowed. I have, however, on various occasions tried to confine the discussion to what is before the chair, but it has been difficult because evidently it was the committee's wish to have a general discussion,


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I continue to quote:
Lengthy reports, including statistics, were submitted by representatives of the navy, army and air force, naval representatives on two occasions referring to the fact that infection of naval personnel in Quebec city twice had resulted in preventing corvettes going to sea to take their places in convoys sailing from Halifax.


Victor Quelch: May I ask the Minister of
National Defence if any steps have been taken to establish convalescent homes in western Canada? I ask because I understand that the government of Alberta offered the use of government house free of charge for the duration of the war and six months afterwards to the Department of Pensions and National Health as a convalescent home. I understand that the Department of Pensions and National Health referred the matter to the Department of National Defence. Has the minister any information on that?


James Layton Ralston: I do not know that the
name makes any difference, but we endeavour
to give a name that comes more closely to describing the functions of these establishments. The army has established a casualty retraining centre, which is in the nature of a convalescent home, in British Columbia. The army has no other retraining centre that I remember until we get down to the one at Oakville, Ontario. The army has found it quite impracticable to establish convalescent homes in each province. It is felt that these retraining centres must be able to give an opportunity not only for treatment but for training as well, and it is not only much more economical but much better, from: an administrative and training point of view, as well as from the point of view of morale, to have large concentrations in a few places rather than a number of small, scattered' convalescent homes. The rule we have made is that there should be no fewer than two hundred at any retraining centre.
I want to say here that the department appreciates very much indeed quite a number of offers which have been made by private citizens to place their homes at the disposal of the department for use as convalescent homes. These offers have not been accepted for the reason that we believe, because of the overhead and lack of training facilities, greater efficiency is obtained by concentrating more patients at one point, that that is much more desirable from the point of view of the service itself and the morale of these men.


Victor Quelch: What is the size of the
home in British Columbia?


James Layton Ralston: It has over two hundred. It is the Harrison Hot Springs hotel.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: In the last two years some questions have been asked, when the minister's estimates were before the house, with reference to the Wassermann test. The minister said that this was under consideration. First, is the test being given to men entering the army? Second, is it being given periodically to men after they enter the army-every six months, or every year? Third, can the minister give the rate per thousand men, or on whatever basis the army keep their statistics, of venereal disease in Canada and in Great Britain? The reason why I particularly ask the question is that I was somewhat perturbed in reading British medical journals to see that there is concern in Great Britain about the increase in venereal disease. I should like to know if that has affected the rate as regards Canadian troops in Britain; if so, what steps are being taken to combat it; and are Wasser-mann tests being given to men in Great Britain?
War Appropriation-Army


James Layton Ralston: I have not the figures for Great Britain. As a matter of fact, the hon. member for Parkdale asked me with regard to the steps which were being taken in the army to combat venereal disease, and I said that I would make a statement. I only had an opportunity for a very few minutes before I came into the house to get together a few facts. I am not giving them to the committee as at all complete, but perhaps the committee would be interested in the activities in which we have engaged. I am giving figures only as far as the army is concerned, but I believe that very shortly statistics will be available for all the three services.
May I say at the beginning that the three armed services are determined in every way possible, if not to stamp out, at least to minimize the incidence of this disease. It certainly causes more loss in man-days than any other one cause in the armed forces, and a determined attempt has been made, particularly during the last year, and I am speaking of the whole of last year, to deal with this matter. The lid is off. We use films with the troops, and I will indicate to the committee some other steps which we take in this regard.
I wish to preface what I say with the remark that the most important factor in connection with combatting this disease is, as hon. members understand, getting at the source of infection in civilian communities. It is of no use for the army alone to take preventive or curative measures; the point is that we have to obtain the cooperation of the civilian authorities; and, as indicated in this report, there has been a marked improvement this year in that respect.
The army took the matter up in a special way-I mean, made it a separate study altogether-in December, 1942. We then procured the services of Lieutenant-Colonel D. H. Williams, whom we appointed army venereal disease control officer. Colonel Williams had organized a very successful four-year campaign in British Columbia against venereal diseases. An officer trained in this particular branch of medicine was placed in each military district with a sub-staff of other ranks who were trained specially for the organization. That is to say, it was not left solely to the regular medical staff, but Colonel Williams had divisional officers in each district with a sub-staff for the purpose of dealing with this matter. They gave attention to setting up a basic policy of treatment. Colonel Williams consulted with the national research council of the United States, with the American army, and a specialist at Johns Hopkins university, to set up standards of treatment for the

Canadian army. The ordinary treatment was too cumbersome to fit in with army activities.
For instance, the standard time for the treatment of syphilis had been eighteen months. A system of intensified treatment was instituted, which could be completed in one-third of that time. Before this programme, all gonorrhea patients had been going into hospital with a tremendous loss of duty time and cost of hospitalization. Under the new programme all patients are initially treated while on duty; they continue on duty training and, speaking generally, excellent results are obtained. There are, of course, a certain proportion of patients who do not respond to this type of treatment and who require hospital treatment and attention, and this is being provided to all who need it.
Until the system was revised, there was always the possibility of a VD.S. patient, that is a syphilis patient, missing his treatment on account of being transferred or moved from one post to another, with the result of delaying the cure and prolonging the disability, with the consequent loss of time, and, what was much more important, the possibility of a permanent disability being incurred.
Under the revised system a rigid control was put into force by a system of records and supervision, so that, wherever the man went, the venereal disease control officer at that station had notice of his arrival and of his condition, and the system of treatment was continued without interruption there.
Previously-and this answers my hon. friend's first question-as I have indicated to the committee before, a blood test on entering the army was not mandatory. That was changed and every man entering the army is now given a blood test immediately after enlistment. This afforded a means for detecting infected cases immediately and instituting the regular regime of treatment.
The result of these tests has been perhaps more gratifying than would be expected. It has shown-and I may say that the mandatory test has not been in effect very long, because we had to make arrangements with all the provincial laboratories to cooperate with us before this could be done-that less than one per cent of the number that have been tested are suffering from V.D.S. when entering the army.
What I have said indicates very sketchily some of the measures taken to improve conditions. The results are already evident. The rate of venereal disease for the army as a whole during 1942 was 38 per 1,000. For the whole year 1943 it was reduced to 32 per 1,000. This may not sound to the public like a very striking decrease, but I am advised

War Appropriation-Army
by the officers concerned that it is in their opinion extremely significant; it is a reduction of about sixteen per cent, and marks a genuine improvement in conditions.
So far I have spoken of the activities in the army. The committee will realize, however, that the real work has to be done among the civilian population, since that is the source of infection.
Steps were taken to investigate in every case the source of infection and to turn over immediately to the civilian health department the information obtained, for action by them. Obviously the problem could not be solved by the armed services alone. It was a joint task of civilian authorities and of the armed forces.
As part of the programme, close liaison has been established among the armed services, the Department of Pensions and National Health and the provincial health departments; and each of the three services and these federal and provincial health departments is pooling its resources and experience to put into effect and carry out measures worked out in collaboration to deal with the disease in the communities where it has its source.
Obviously, the major target against which this campaign was directed was the brothels and other unsavoury community conditions. There is no doubt that there has been a marked increase in the attention given to this matter by the civilian authorities, and it is hoped and believed that the records and information which the armed services have been able to furnish have given stimulus to their efforts and helped them to focus attention on the conditions which were perpetuating the scourge among the civilian population.
I have spoken here only of the activities of the army, of the one service, but I can say that the resources of all three services have been put forward as a team, with what I regard as very gratifying success.
My hon. friend asked me as to whether the Wasserman test is given again. I cannot give my hon. friend that information at the moment.
The third question which I think he asked was, what were the figures in Great Britain? I shall have to get that for my hon. friend, and I shall do so.


Mr. ADAMSON:: For a few minutes I wish to discuss casualties other than venereal. The annual army debate centres on two fundamental issues: first, our reinforcements, and, second, the use of the N.R.M.A. army, The minister has stated, and the committee will accept the statement, that the reinforcement situation is satisfactory, and that the 100-39
use of the N.R.M.A. army is also satisfactory so far as he is concerned. All I can say is that I trust his hope is justified. The casualties for the campaign in Italy came out tonight, 36,626 British and 28,741 Americans, or a total of approximately 65,400 in five and a half months. That just about equals the total casualties the British army suffered the first day of the Somme.
The point I want to make is this. We must be prepared to find the attack on the western defences of Germany a great deal tougher than anytnmg we have yet experienced, and we must also be prepared to find that the core of German resistance will be considerably toughened. It is extremely dangerous not to be prepared for these casualties, and I hope that the minister, when he says that the reinforcement situation is satisfactory, has really given great thought to this matter. I hope that he has not glossed over the most serious part of the task ahead of us.
There are two or three things which I think should be brought up at this time. The first is the immediate problem of the district depots, the demobilization and repatriation of the troops in the disposal wings of the district depots. It is one of the most serious problems facing the country to-day. There is no place where the soul of a man decays as much as where he is waiting around a district depot with nothing to do awaiting discharge. There develops a condition of anhedonia where every fatigue becomes a burden and every parade is an irritation. Furthermore, if these men are not put to work reasonably soon we shall be faced with a problem where a great many of them will not work again. I am not alone in that statement. That is the opinion of a great many people who have made a study of this very question.
I suggest to the minister that some immediate thought should be given to the establishment, possibly at one of the R.A.F. centres which will be closed, of a civilian training centre so that, instead of keeping these men in the district depot, they be sent where there will be an opportunity for them to study a civilian trade. And that should be done at once. We are up against it. This is a very serious matter, particularly in No. 2 district depot. This is one of the things that should be done immediately.
Next the minister brought up the case of a number of surplus officers. Admittedly there are a number of surplus officers. I do not know Whether it is true, but I have heard that there are 700 spare majors around Canada. That is the common story. If you have no use for an officer it is unfair to keep him with nothing to do. I believe these extra

War Appropriation-Army

officers should be given an opportunity now- I do not suggest that this should be retroactive-so that those who are willing to leave the army should not be penalized by being disallowed their bonus or army-leaving grant. That is an essential matter at this time.
There is much opposition from officers in the army who are thinking of getting out because they feel there is nothing for them to do. They do not want to leave because, if they leave on their own request, they do not come in for the bonus payment which is given to the man who is normally retired. I suggest that the minister should consider that point. That is my second point.
I' would ask the minister a question with regard to the function of certain parts of the army overseas. We have a corps with headquarters in Italy; we have a corps with headquarters in England; we have an army headquarters in England. But besides that we have a Canadian military headquarters in England. In other words, we have three headquarters in England. I do not know whether it is possible, but it would seem to me that if there is any possibility of reuniting the two corps of the Canadian army, an army set-up will be needed. If there is a chance of reuniting them, then the Canadian military headquarters in London is the fifth wheel to the coach. We could deal through national defence headquarters direct with the army and C.M.H.Q. would become for a great many purposes redundant and merely an extra establishment in connection with the overseas army set-up. A great deal of money could be saved by dealing directly with the army, because after all Great Britain is an operational field still, and if the two corps are not united we could deal dirgctly with them. That is a suggestion regarding which I would ask the minister for his opinion.
There is a third question which concerns a matter that I have brought to his attention. Perhaps it should be taken up under pay and allowances, but I bring it up here because I think it should be aired in the house. If a soldier of the Canadian army personnel is undergoing detention, after a period of six months the dependents' allowance is cut off from his dependents. We are unique in Canada in this respect. No matter how long a man is in detention in Great Britain, Australia or New Zealand, dependents' allowances continue to be paid. The situation in Canada is one of the greatest hardships that the dependents can possibly face. Through no fault of theirs the man is kept in the army gaol and their whole source of sustenance is cut off. I have seen a number of cases. I have one in my hand now and it is one of the most tragic

cases I have known. The entire family has been forced virtually to go on relief because of a misdemeanour of the husband. It was a simple act of striking a military policeman, which, of course, must be punished, but the consequent hardship imposed on the family constitutes one of the greatest injustices Canadians are suffering under the present act. I ask the minister to consider amending the regulations so that the penalty imposed on men justifiably, because of some crime they have committed, will not reflect itself on their dependents. It is extremely bad for the morale of the people at home as well as the soldiers overseas.
I had intended to bring up the question of hospital allowances, but I shall wait until the next item comes up because it is rather long and involved.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Shall the item carry?


Clarence Gillis: No. I shall not take more
than a minute. Last evening someone discussed with the minister the fact that in most of the depots there is an accumulation of men awaiting discharge. May I make a suggestion to the minister? My information is that it is not national defence that is at fault in discharging men. The trouble is with pensions and national health. That department is understaffed. National defence is handling the men satisfactorily, but because pensions and national health are not able to take them as they are boarded out through the depots there is a backlog piling up. Is there a possibility of using in the Department of Pensions and National Health some of the examining personnel in the Department of National Defence in order to break the jam that apparently is developing in some of the depots. That would partly solve the problem that the member for York West raised, that there is a large number of officers in the depots with apparently [DOT] nothing to do, who are considering the possibility of getting out. It seems to me that is one place where the minister might be able to use them to advantage by lending them to the Department of Pensions and National Health in the meantime. I merely offer that as a suggestion.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
2. Pay and allowances, $547,256,061.
Gordon Knapman Fraser: I
should like to mention a matter that has been mentioned before. I feel very strongly about this. I refer to the fact that when men are away without leave in Canada as well as overseas their wives have been getting along with the pay and allowances and have made certain commitments, and all of a sudden, without any
FEBRUAiRY 17, 1944
War Appropriation-Army
notice whatever, the allowance is cut off. It means that their children have to go without clothes and without food. If it had not been for the children's aid societies throughout Canada many of these children would have suffered and some would have starved. These people hesitate to go on relief because they feel it is a disgrace to have perhaps a husband or a son absent without leave. Some of these cases run for months. In fact, I know of one that is over a year old. That family is still being taken care of by the children's aid society. I believe that when men are away without leave some means should be found for looking after the family, giving them something to carry on with.


James Layton Ralston: Does that mean, absent
without leave.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Yes, absent without leave. There are many such cases, as the minister knows. Dependents' allowances are immediately cut off. There are also cases where a husband is overseas and there is a child bom in the family here. The allowance is then cut off and the other children naturally suffer. There should be some adjustment there. At the present time the mother's allowance is cut off immediately.


James Layton Ralston: I do not follow my hon. friend. I thought he was speaking of cases of dependents' allowances paid to dependents of those who were A.W.O.L.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Yes.


James Layton Ralston: I think my hon. friend knows what the practice is. I discussed it last year. .The practice is that if a man goes absent without leave, dependents' allowance, plus the assigned pay, is continued for twenty-one days. If the soldier was in Canada payment then ceased. My hon. friend is right about that. Overseas the dependents' allowance board have taken advantage of a pretty general sort of section and they have felt that they could do more than that. What they do is this. When a man overseas is absent without leave they give dependents' allowance for three months. Then they make inquiries, but three months is the limit. Overseas they give dependents' allowance for three months in the case of a man absent without leave. If he goes absent without leave longer than that, dependents' allowance ceases to be paid.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: What I am getting at is this. The wife at home does not know anything about the husband being absent without leave. She continues to get her cheque, but perhaps does not hear from her husband and suddenly the cheque is cut 100-39J
off. There should be some way of notifying the wife. I know it is an awfully ticklish job and something that is pretty hard to do. But the wife should be notified that her allowance will be cut off unless the husband is found, or the son in the case of a mother. I know it is something that the minister hesitates about. I do not know how it could be worked out, but there should be something there to look after the family. Does the minister understand what I mean?


James Layton Ralston: Yes, it is a case of the humanities. One would not want to notify her at once because of the hope that he might turn up, or for fear she might get the idea that something had gone wrong domestically, or something of that sort, but I agree with my hon. friend that there must come a time, and not too late, when she should have some waning of the fact that this allowance is not going to continue forever. I am told that the dependents' allowance board does make an effort. I shall inquire'into it; I think it is just a human touch that might be carried out. I am not quite sure how it could be done; I think it would have to be done differently in individual cases.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Yes; each case would have to be handled separately. Then how about the illegitimate child; how about the dependents' allowance in that case, where the husband is overseas and there is an illegitimate child born to the wife? The allowance is cut off.


James Layton Ralston: No; there is no allowance granted if the husband is overseas.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It is cut off.


James Layton Ralston: It is not given. I understand my hon. friend to refer to an illegitimate child born while the husband is overseas?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Yes. In that case the mother's allowance is cut off.


James Layton Ralston: It is not automatic; there is always an inquiry into the case. I just happen to remember that, because I had a case on my desk the other day in which the dependents' allowance board wanted to find out about the mother's reputation in the community. Representations were made by responsible citizens that the time had come when they thought the allowance should be paid, and finally the allowance was paid.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Is that done in every case now?
War Appropriation-Army


James Layton Ralston: The investigation is made in every case. I am informed also that the husband is consulted; that is, if he knows about it and condones the situation, of course that is an important contributing factor.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: In some cases naturally the husband overseas objects, and- then I understand the mother does not get the allowance.


James Layton Ralston: I am sorry I cannot say what the board does in circumstances of that kind. I know it investigates the merits of the case, not only from the point of view of morals but from the point of view of the need, and that in a number of cases payments are made.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: In some cases there are other children in the family and it works a hardship on them. The children get their allowance, of course, but the mother does not get hers.


James Layton Ralston: The children, of course, do get the allowance.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Their allowance keeps on, but the mother's $35 is immediately cut off.


James Layton Ralston: The other children get the allowance; that is to say the children who were in the home when the husband went away, and some increase is made in their allowance.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Not in all cases.


James Layton Ralston: In some cases. It may be done; the board has discretion.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: But the minister will look into the question of men overseas who are away without leave?


James Layton Ralston: A note has been made of that.


Mrs. NIELSEN:: I do not altogether agree with the remarks of the hon. member for Peterborough West. In the case of a woman whose husband overseas is absent without leave it seems to me a most unfair proposition that the woman who is left in Canada should be told after a while that her cheque will not be forthcoming any more. After all is said and done, if that man had not had to go to war perhaps he and his wife would have lived together in this country for many years, in fact all their lives. Many of our men who have had to live in England for two or three years now may find themselves in the position that they are seeking other companionship, and it is a terrible situation for all concerned.
IMr. G. K. Fraser.]
But I do not see why the woman left in this country should be penalized on that account. In my opinion any woman whose husband is in that position should at least receive her cheque until the war is over and her husband is brought back again, when the army authorities can find out what relationship is to be maintained in the future. It may be that these men will resume living with their wives in this country. They may not, but in the interval those women are certainly entitled to protection because this country needs their men somewhere else, in England or some other theatre of war, and they should have their cheques until the war is over.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I agree with what the hon. member has just said: I think it would be wonderful if the dependents' allowance board would do that.


William Ross Macdonald: But she does not agree with you.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I know that; some ladies do not agree with me. My idea was that if the dependents' allowance were not going to be continued, they should let the wife know some time before the cheque was to be stopped, and I think the hon. member will agree with that.


Dorise Winifred Nielsen: Quite so.


James Layton Ralston: She does not want that time to come, though.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The hon. member is quite right; I agree that the dependents' allowance board would be doing a wonderful thing if they would continue the payment of those allowances until the end of the war.


Gordon Graydon: When I made way for the hon. member for North Battleford I realized that she would make a much more eloquent appeal in this matter than I could, but I think we should lend whatever emphasis we can to the plea made by the hon. member and supported by the hon. member for Peterborough West. I think this is a matter to which the minister should give attention as soon as possible. I have never been able to see why, because a soldier or a sailor or an airman is absent without leave, the wife at home should have to suffer. It is not her fault; it cannot be traced in any way, directly or indirectly, to her. In our regulations with respect to dependents' allowances we recognize that while a man is away from home in the forces, this country has an obligation to look after his wife and family, meagre though that assistance may be in some instances. The principle has been

War Appropriation-Army
adopted under which she is taken care of financially to a certain extent. Surely that principle is not interfered with because of something the husband does. I could readily understand that something the wife might do would interfere with her allowance being granted, but surely we could not argue that something the wife did here should interfere with the pay of the man overseas. If that be a sound argument, then of course we ought to apply it in reverse as well. Therefore I am going to ask the minister if he will not give consideration to some change in the regulations so that the wives of those men who have gone absent without leave may have their allowances continued until the end of the war, as suggested by the hon. member for North Battleford. I cannot make that plea too emphatic at this time. I think most hon. members have had some distressing cases brought to their attention in this regard, and I should be surprised if most hon. members would not lend their support to this suggestion. I do not wish to labour the point at the moment, but I should like to impress upon the minister as strongly as possible that this is one change in the regulations to which the government ought to give immediate consideration.


James Layton Ralston: I do not want to be on the defensive in connection with this matter but, as is usual in cases of this kind, it is not quite as obvious as it may appear. I have been affected in the same way as my hon. friend has by the apparent merit of a case of this kind, and it has merit. It is an appealing case; there is no doubt about that. In the first place, however, we have to come back to the theory of dependents' allowances. Dependents' allowance is not granted as compensation to a wife because she has lost the comfort of or association with her husband. It is paid to the wife in order to promote the well-being of the service, and to relieve the anxiety which husbands overseas would have, if such payment were not being made. Instead of the payment being made to him over there, he knows it is getting to her, and the provisions in the dependents' allowance regulations sets that out. It states:
A dependents' allowance may not be claimed as a right. The allowance is for the purpose of promoting the well-being and efficiency of the military forces of Canada by providing a means to alleviate the financial anxieties of temporarily enrolled members with respect to the domestic welfare of dependents while they are in the service of His Majesty.
That is the first point. The second1 point that the committee does have to remember is that if a man can just go absent without leave, not having any worries at all about his
family, then certainly there is no disciplinary effect whatsoever. He just simply goes. There must be some deterrent effect, encouraging his staying, or causing him to stay, in the service if he knows his family will suffer if he goes out. If a man could simply walk out and say, "Oh, I know the government will take care of my family anyway, notwithstanding the fact that I am not serving", he is no good to the service. He will take dependents' allowance, go absent without leave, avoid the provost corps, and his family be looked after, and he will think, "Well, I am all right."


Gordon Graydon: If we take the principle the minister has now stated, are we not really using the condition in which a wife may find herself as a means of disciplining a man in the armed forces'?


James Layton Ralston: No.


Gordon Graydon: Actually there are penalties and regulations within the armed forces to take care of the very situation, without penalizing the wife and children at home.


James Layton Ralston: No, it is not that, at all. I am saying the argument the other way is that it makes the position entirely too easy for the man, and that is not quite fair to the service which, after all, is the thing of paramount importance. If the provision were that a man could simply go absent without leave and be assured that the dependents' allowance would nevertheless be kept on for his family, it would almost be putting a premium on delinquency or at least it removes a deterrent.
There is one other feature I am surprised someone has not mentioned. I noted it a year ago. Perhaps you may think I have not worked very hard at it, or I should have had something done about it. However, there is a certain inconsistency in this respect that I never could understand. I am saying this in the presence of the chairman of the dependents' board of trustees, namely, that the wife of a man who goes absent without leave will continue to get three months' dependents' allowance at the most, but the wife of the man who is in detention will continue to get the allowance for six months. I never could quite understand why there should be that difference. That caused me to look over United States regulations, and when I have looked at the regulations for that country and for Australia, I find there is a distinct difference in those cases. The theory may be that at least it is positive in the case of the man who is in detention, that the man will come back to the army some day, whereas in respect of the man who is absent without leave he may never turn up again.
War Appropriation-Army

I wish I could promise the committee favourable consideration, but I will say that I shall study it again. It might be pointed out, however, that we in the army are just a little bit careful in considering these provisions, particularly in a case of this kind, where a man is not serving, and where he has offended against regulations with the result that we have lost the benefit of his training, and everything else that has been done for him. There is a tendency to break down discipline if one were to act too leniently in these cases. This may sound hard-hearted, because it will be said that the wife is concerned. At the same time it is for the good of the service that we are acting, and it is not much encouragement to the good soldier to "stick it" when he knows that another man can quit and still have his dependents' allowance continued to his family. However, I shall look into the matter again, to see if anything further should be done about it.


Mr. LOCKHART:: Would it not be possible for the minister to devise some way whereby the penalty would be imposed against the man?


James Layton Ralston: If we could find him.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: There must be military discipline which would make him feel his obligations, rather than penalize those who are at home, who are totally innocent. I cannot see the argument which has been made.


James Layton Ralston: We are not penalizing. We are not supporting them; that is all.


Mr. TUSTIN:: May I add something to what has been said. I have one case in my *own constituency concerning a man who has been overseas since 1939. Possibly a year or fifteen months ago he was supposed to be away without leave. His wife received dependents' allowance for ninety days. She has three small children,, and since that time has had to depend upon relief payments from the municipality. That man has been absent for much more than a year. He has not yet been apprehended, and, as I have said, his family are now on relief. Surely he should have been apprehended in less than twelve or thirteen months. I point out to the minister that a case of that kind should receive favourable consideration, for the simple reason that this woman believes her husband may have been killed in the blitz over England, and that he has never been a deserter. Perhaps the minister might give consideration to a case of that kind.


Frederick Davis Shaw: There are one or two matters I would draw to the attention of the committee. and in doing so I agree whole-heartedly 
with the hon. member who has just taken his seat. A couple of cases have been brought to my attention in which soldiers are presumed to have deserted in England. It becomes extremely difficult for one who is probably not personally familiar with the type of organization existing over there to prevent the landing of subversive aliens and to prevent sabotage, to understand how these desertions can continue for so long. We have always been led to believe it would be extremely difficult for a man to be at large in England for a period of eight or nine months or a year, and not be apprehended. I should say a good deal of responsibility must rest upon the military authorities for a man's not having been apprehended in less than ten or twelve months.
Several branches of the legion are keenly concerned about this matter. I would ask the minister to indicate to the committee the' number of desertions presumed to have taken place in England, the number of such deserters who have been apprehended, the number who have not been accounted for, and the number who have been discovered dead either through suicide or, as another hon. member has suggested, through the blitz.
Two or three cases have come to my attention where a man, who married a widow with a family, has enlisted. For a period of two or three months that man has not been able to secure dependents' allowance. In each case he was told there was every possibility that those children were illegitimate. That is a most unfair suggestion. I am very much afraid my personal reaction would have been one leading to violence, under conditions of that kind. One soldier who came to me was extremely bitter, as a result of the officer telling him point-blank that there was every reason to believe the children were probably illegitimate. Three months elapsed before that case was cleared up.
Then the minister indicated that where the wife at home has probably not conducted herself as it is believed she should have, inquiries are made in the community. I do not know just what that implies, but I do know that in many instances it is virtually impossible for a soldier's wife to appear at a dance without having some of the community talking about it for a week afterwards. I am very much afraid that if you go into a community and try to secure an impression from some of the people there how a soldier's wife is conducting herself, you may in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred not get a very favourable impression.


James Layton Ralston: I do not believe anything of the kind. I do not agree with that at all.

War Appropriation-Army


Mr. MUTCH:: I would have moved if I lived in a community like that.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I base myself on a case in the district of Red Deer.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend bases his statement about ninety-nine people on one particular case.


Frederick Davis Shaw: That is not fair at all. I said to the minister that I would refer to one case that comes to my mind. I am not basing my assertion on the one case at all.


James Layton Ralston: If my hon. friend will permit me, I want to take issue with him at once when he states that in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred the reports given by neighbours about a soldier's wife would give an unfavourable impression.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: This will make nice reading in England.


James Layton Ralston: I do not believe anything of the kind. I think it is a slander on the wives of the soldiers.


Mrs. CASSELMAN:: It is a slander on the whole community.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I am not particularly impressed by the remarks which I am hearing because they are improperly interpreted. I was a bit concerned when the minister said that we can go into a community and make inquiries. Why should the minister not be more explicit? If I am wrong as to the type of inquiry that is made, I am the first one to admit it. But in cases of this kind where a wife is accused perhaps of not conducting herself as she probably should, I ask, what type of inquiry is made? Who carries on the investigations and what constitutes proof? If a soldier disclaims paternity of a child, do they accept that as evidence? I have a case where that was done. The soldier simply refused to claim the child and the mother has been deprived not only of an allowance for that child but of the separation allowance also. The soldier is stationed within approximately eighty miles of where the home is located. Would the minister comment on the situation with respect to desertions in England?
Mr. RALSTON I have not the figures here. I do not think I should give the figures with regard to desertions in England and the number apprehended; I do not think it would be in the interest of the state to give them. I am sure it is a very small number compared with the desertions in Canada, but I do not think it is a figure I should give in the house. I do not mind giving it to my hon. friend or to any other hon. member privately.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: The whole question of pay and allowances for the forces overseas introduces one aspect about which I should like to say a few words, particularly since the question of soldiers serving detention is linked up with it.
I have had an opportunity to see and interview a considerable number of soldiers under sentence for military crimes, to some extent in this country, but more so on the other side.
I wonder if the minister would not be inclined to agree that one of the strong contributing factors to habitual delinquency in the forces is the system of pay deductions, under financial regulations and instructions which have been adopted almost holus-bolus from the British army, and which, so far as I am able to discover, go back to pre-Wellington days in some respects at least, when soldiers were regarded hardly as citizens of the country but were pressed-men and, generally speaking, were less . well regarded than they are to-day.
I am satisfied from what observations I have been able to make myself and from conversations with senior officers in the service, particularly in the army, that the problem of habitual delinquency in the army ties up with the system of pay deductions. It is possible for a soldier to go absent without leave, let us say for purposes of illustration, for fourteen days. When he is apprehended he loses his pay for those fourteen days. If he is sentenced by a court-martial, as he is likely to be, if his desertion takes place in the field, he may be fined some additional days pay as part of his punishment, and of course he loses his pay during all the time he is undergoing his court-martial sen-fence. I do not suggest for a moment that a soldier who, having made a contract with His Majesty to serve in the forces, deserts and fails to perform his duties should be paid for the days he is absent. I do not suggest that a soldier who is punished by undergoing detention, during which time he is unable to perform his military duties, should be paid during the period of his detention. But I do think that some more modern and equitable system could be worked out in the interests of the service itself than the present system under which the soldier, when he has served his sentence and expiated his crime in that manner, comes out of detention owing considerable sums of money so that when he begins to draw pay again he can draw, if he is in England, only thirty shillings a month, whioh is scarcely enough for cigarettes if the mail is held up, as it often is. And so, finding that he cannot hold up his end with his fellows he commits some army crime again, perhaps steals a pair of army boots or a tin of butter, knowing full
War Appropriation-Army

well that he will get it in the neck if he is caught, as eventually he must be. I interviewed in England' one man who lost 1,191 days' pay for army crimes, and he deserved it. This war will not last long enough for him ever to get what he owed .paid) off.
If a soldier commits a civilian crime to-day and he is apprehended by the civilian authorities-I know one man who served twelve months in Wormwood Scrubs, which is a rather unpleasant prison-when he comes out he may properly be charged1 with being absent without leave; being absent as a result of a felony; and, if he is sentenced to serve an additional ninety days by court-martial, that would cause him some further financial difficulties. So that the man who embarks on a career of army crimes is considerably handicapped in his chances of reform by the present archaic system of pay stoppages. I do not wish to labour that point. The minister and the department are fully aware that many highly placed personages in the army, who have never been in detention and are not likely to be, are not sympathetic to the present system and feel that a system more in the interests of the service itself could be devised.
There is another type of thing which I would mention, not as a criticism, but simply to bring it to the attention of the authorities with a view to a remedy being found which would be to the improvement of the service. I know a man personally who at the time he enlisted stated that his wife was his common-law wife and that he had lived with her and supported her for two years, and that as such she was entitled to separation allowance, and he also made over to her assigned pay. About the time I went to England last fall his legal wife, having discovered that he was in the service and that the government might be approached with a view to assisting her financially, did make such a request. I understand that the request was turned' down; that she then attacked the arrangement with the common-law wife, on the basis that they had not lived together for the required period of time and that consequently, in this particular case, they had received the assigned pay and separation allowance fraudulently. An investigation was carried on-I am sorry I am not able to say by what agency it was carried on -but I understand that the approach as to whether or not this chap had lived with his common-law wife publicly as such, was made through the near relatives of the man himself, and if so, I am not surprised that they should deny the allegation, since he comes from an exceedingly good family who are very proud of their reputation and would not condone such a thing.

In any event, what I began to take exception to was that, when this sergeant was brought before his commanding officer, under instructions, he was informed that he, having received separation allowance for his common-law wife for a period of two years or thereabouts, obtained it fraudulently, and now owed thirteen hundred and some odd dollars which he would have to pay back out of his share of his pay. When I investigated this matter-(I can give my hon. friend the name and the particulars if he wishes, but I choose not to at the moment)-a little further, as to whether it would be possible to waive.this sum already in excess of $1,300-I was told-not by a member of the government, for I have not brought it to the attention of the department, since at the moment I only want to use the episode to illustrate the inequities of the system-that it was no use, that nothing could be done about this because the government could not condone a fraud, and could not forgive the money he owed, so that consequently nothing could be done about it. And this, even though I pointed out that in 1936 it was established as government practice that with regard to a pension received fraudulently or in error, while it could be stopped, there could be no recovery. The man did what I think I would have done, although I think I would have done it better than he did. Under those circumstances, with a load like this around his neck, and reduced to the ranks, realizing that this war will not last long enough to enable him to pay back this money, and that he could not soldier on thirty shillings a month, he "went over the hill". He did not make a good enough job of it, because he was subsequently arrested, and at the time I last saw him was undergoing a sentence. When he comes out of detention he will have an additional load of financial debt, and his situation is increasingly hopeless. The man was an excellent sergeant. I am satisfied that he made the contract in good faith, and even if that could not be established, I think that a system of stoppages, which permits that type of penalty to be hung on that man, after a period of two years, a man who as a soldier must have cost the people of Canada $3,500 as an absolute minimum to train to be an efficient sergeant; a man who to-day is and for some months to come will be in detention and lost to the service, simply does not make sense.
While we are on this subject of detention and of people who are absent without leave, I might remark that there are people in England belonging to the Canadian army who have been absent without leave longer than

War Appropriation-Army
twelve months, who have not been apprehended, who have not been blitzed, and who, indeed, have been occupied1 in lucrative positions in civilian life during that time, I know of one case which I may cite by way of illustration to allay the fears of my hon. friend here, of a young lad who "jumped ship" in the city of Halifax. He joined the Canadian army and was sent overseas shortly afterwards on a draft. When he got overseas with the draft they said to him, "You are too young to fight; you will have to wait-" I think it was a year at 'that time, or a year and one-half. He had been a sailor before; so he went to London and soon got a job on a merchant ship, and for thirteen months he plied the seas. He was at Dunkirk, and he was in and out of the Mediterranean a number of times during that period. He came back to England to visit his parents and they said to him, "You plan to go to Canada after the war. What kind of future will you have as a deserter? Give yourself up." He went to Canada House to give himself up. They said, "Go away; you are crazy"; they would not believe him. Finally he convinced them, went back to camp, asked to take some courses when in camp, but he could not get them, and decided that he might as well fight at sea until he was old enough to fight on land. So he went away for eleven months, and then again surrendered himself formally to Canada House, did his punishment for being absent without leave, and did it proudly, because he carries from the shipping authorities a very fine record of service at sea. He was, as I said, at Dunkirk, in the Mediterranean and to Russia; he has seen more war than most of our senior officers, or for that matter anybody else in any army. The last time I saw him he was waiting to get out of the "clink" to go to Italy, where I expect he is to-day. I hope he survives to come back to Canada, because he is the kind of man we need.
I have not said this to condone absence without leave but to illustrate the fact that it is not particularly difficult to get away and be away for long periods of time. The English people are very hospitable. They treat our boys very well. They treat them too well. You can live longer in England without money if you are absent without leave than anywhere I know of-and you do not have to-swim the Irish channel to find security, as was suggested to us sometimes in the last war.
If we are concerned about the problem of army crime, and I think we are, we ought to adopt a system of pay stoppages a little more in line with the sort of equity we hand out in the courts in Canada andi as they do in 100-40
other countries. I suggest to the minister that if he wants anybody or anything to strengthen his hand when he puts this matter before the military council, I know where he can get somewhere between five and six hundred cases to establish for him the cumulative effect of pay stoppages as one of the great influences in making fellows into habitual army criminals.
On the subject of army criminals I have had some experience with cheeky young fellows who have had detention time after time. When I was engaged in the job of salvaging some of these fellows, most of whom are young lads, one of them remarked to me that he did not have any great consciousness of sin. I spoke to him firmly and inquiringly, with a straight face. I said, "What are your crimes?" He said, "They are all absence without leave." I spoke to him of the seriousness of that. He said, "I have a brother a little older than I am. He has been trying to get into the army for four years, but he was an automotive worker, and he cannot get into the army because they will not release him from the plant where he works in Canada. He is living comfortably at home, making good money. If he gets drunk on Sunday night and doesn't feel like working Monday and doesn't go back until Tuesday, the boys there simply say, 'I guess Bill is working out his income tax'. So there he is, nice and secure at home. I am a volunteer. It is not my fault that I was not killed or wounded three years ago. Yet if I take a day off I become a criminal." That argument does not make sense, and you cannot control an army on the basis of condoning that type of thing. But when you come to examine into why a lad like that takes months off and he feels he is not a criminal when he does that sort of thing, I think you will find, back of a great number of these so-called habitual cases, the fact that he went "on the loose" two or three times and came back in debt.
In the case of every man in detention whom I have had an opportunity to examine, I have demanded particulars, and got them from the commanding officers in every case. I have asked, "How much money will this man owe when he comes out of detention?" And the number of men whom I found that would not owe money-I am talking about married men-I believe I can count on my fingers. When a married man deserts and is caught and punished, not only the separation allowance but his own assigned pay are paid to his wife for a period not in excess of six months. We continue to pay $20 a month to his dependents in the case of a private. I differ a little from some of my friends, who see no reason why we should not continue

War Appropriation-Army

to pay to the family even though the man has deserted. I conceive it to be the responsibility of the government, when it takes a man out of his job, away from his family and his environment, and puts him into the service, to look after his wife and children until such time as it is determined what has happened to him. But in my opinion that is not properly chargeable to the army. If a man has a, job in civil life and he quits that job, or if he goes to gaol in consequence of a felony, his pay is stopped and any contribution he makes to his family is also stopped. If the cutting off of the allowance that is given in the army is to be made a deterrent, I suggest it would be a better deterrent if the man knew that, in the event of his quitting the army in this manner, the allowance to his family would be stopped. If it is intended to be a deterrent, let us make it a real deterrent and cut off his pay the day he quits. I would not relieve the Canadian people, through their institutions, of the responsibility of looking after a man's dependents until I knew whether or not something in the military history surrounding that man had contributed to his delinquency.
Sometimes, I think, we do contribute to such delinquency by this obsolete system of pay stoppages, and sometimes we contribute by bad man-management. I do not suggest for one moment that it is possible for the Canadian people, through the government, to escape some measure of responsibility for the man's family, but I would not pay a nickel of his straight army pay from the minute he was in detention or absent without leave. If the minister wants support for that view I am ready to give that as my opinion. I would not say that these people should not be subject to care and welfare, but that is not a charge which is properly chargeable to the army, when a man has ceased to function in the army, with which he has a contract, unless it can be shown that the army has contributed to his delinquency. Sometimes that can be shown. There are cases of men who were unsuited to the service through no fault of their own. They should not have been there. There are numerous situations that enter into this question, contributing to the desertion of many men. In such cases the family would not have been deserted if the soldier had not left home, and we should treat the man's wife and family just as if he were the good soldier he promised to be when he enlisted. We cannot escape responsibility for looking after these dependents until such time as we can find out the degree to which we have contributed to the man's delinquency through our institutions, selection and management.
fMr Mutch 1


James Layton Ralston: I appreciate my hon. friend's contribution to the debate. He has first-hand knowledge of the subject, acquired both in Canada and in England. On the first point, there are at the present time before the department certain recommendations from Canadian military headquarters with regard to the cumulative effect of charging assigned pay in respect of a soldier who is in detention.


Mr. NEILL:: I wish the minister could give me an explanation about the discrimination shown between the mothers of soldiers and their wives. I have no doubt the matter has often been brought to his attention, and I have applied to many officials for an explanation that would square not only with my sense of justice but with anyone else's, an explanation that one could fairly put up to the woman concerned. The soldier's wife gets S35 a month and an allowance is made for children. The soldier's mother who is a dependent gets at most $20.


James Layton Ralston: 


Alan Webster Neill: Call it $25. For a long time, three years at any rate, it was $20 as against $35. Various reasons have been given me by different officials. On one occasion I was told that the same thing was done in Britain. Well, in my opinion, that is a poor reason. Another time I was told that a man had a greater responsibility to his wife than to his children. I cannot see that. Another reason was given, namely, that the wife was looking after the children. Yes; hut the wife is paid extra for looking after the children. They get the children's allowance.
Here is the point as people, as the women and as I see it. The soldier's wife is generally a young woman and she has around $70 in the way of ordinary allowances. She is able to do her own chores, her own housework, chop her own firewood perhaps, and keep a garden, and on occasion I have known them to work in plywood factories getting seventy cents an hour. But the mother is probably an old woman. She is not able to work and needs medicine, which is expensive. She needs doctoring, and that, too, is expensive. In my opinion she is in more need of support from the government than the wife, because she is less able to take care of herself.
As regards the argument that a man's responsibility is greater toward his wife than it is toward his children, the answer is this. It is not a question of responsibility; it is a question of dependency. If they are both dependent they are dependent to the same extent. You cannot make a distinction between the dependency of the one woman and the dependency of anothe-. and in fact. R takes

War Appropriation-Army
more to keep a dependent mother than a wife. I have never been able to see any justification for the principle. I have been corrected; I have been told they are getting $25 but the mother cannot demand even $25. It is at the decision of the committee. Well, why was it made $25? That was done as a belated attempt to justify the low amount that was given before. The thing is either right or wrong and $25 is not enough as compared with $35, even if the amount has been raised from $20. I should like to have something that I can tell these people who want information on the subject. They ask this question: Why do I get $25 as compared with the soldier's wife who gets $35? I have never been able to obtain from any official or anyone else an answer that would jibe with anyone's common sense and sense of justice, and I would be very much obliged if the minister could give me something satisfactory that I could pass on to these women as fair and reasonable.


James Layton Ralston: I have tried several times to tell my hon. friend all I know about this, and that does not take very long. The relationship is different legally as between the wife and the mother. As a matter of fact, we have said, and have stated in the house, that regardless of the fact that dependents' allowances are not payable as of right, we regard the dependent's allowance to the wife as being payable as of right to the full amount. The mother's allowance is based on dependency. That is why what is sometimes called the means test is applied. The mother is entitled to dependents allowance up to $25. In order to get that $25 the son has to assign fifteen days' pay to her which would amount to about $23. The two together come to $48.


Alan Webster Neill: The mother is not entitled to demand even $25; it is only possible at the whim of a committee.


James Layton Ralston: It is possible, but my point is this: if she does not establish her right or her need for $25, does my hon. friend suggest she ought to receive it. She must establish her need. She may get up to $25, but she only gets that provided the son assigns pay. There is one exception to that. I said the son assigns fifteen days' pay.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Is it the same for the wife?


James Layton Ralston: If the son has assigned fifteen days' pay to his wife, he must assign an additional five days' pay to his mother in order to qualify the mother to get dependents' allowance. The reason for the difference between wife and mother allowances is that there is a different relationship. I have mentioned 100-40J
that on previous occasions. Secondly, there is the fact that the mother is put in the dependent class. But she has to show dependency, whereas the wife normally receives the $35 allowance automatically. If she were a millionaire or had an income of her own, she would still get the S35 allowance. On the other hand the mother does not get any dependents' allowance unless she is in need of it. The third point which does not apply to dependents allowances only, but it applies to pensions under the Pension Act is that somehow or another our pension people from the very beginning have always made a distinction between the mother and the wife. Under the Pension Act dependency in the case of the mother has to be shown, as must be done in the case of any relative other than the wife. It may be that that rule is wrong too, that these acts are wrong. They have been revised in this house many times, but that provision has always stood, the provision for the mother being based on actual dependency and the provision for the wife being based on need. I do not think I can add anything more to what my hon. friend has said.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: How many days' pay would a girl in the army have to assign to the mother?


James Layton Ralston: It is on the'same basis as for the men.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Would the minister indicate-


@Acting Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Order.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: May I ask one question?


@Acting Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: The hon. member for Bow River has the floor.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: I should like to ask one question while it is fresh in my mind. Is the dependents' board of trustees entitled by regulation to deal with mothers?


James Layton Ralston: Yes, if the mothers are in receipt of dependents' allowance. The dependents' board of trustees, as the committee knows, is empowered to supplement allowances in meritorious cases, and the board is entitled to deal with mothers as dependents just the same as children or wives.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: There are two things I should like to mention to the minister. I want to join with those who have already spoken with regard to wives of soldiers who are away without leave. A year ago I had occasion to have one of those cases brought to my attention. I brought it to the attention of the department, but was unable to have any satisfactory arrangement arrived
War Appropriation-Army

at in regard to that particular case. I think it is very unjust that a wife, whose husband has served in the armed forces for probably a year or two and then deserts the army, is thrown absolutely on the mercy of charity. I believe the army or the government-I will put it in that way so that I shall not get at variance with the hon. member for Winnipeg South-should pay the allowance. I do not care who pays the allowance so long as somebody does. I think the government has the responsibility in a case like that. The case that was drawn to my attention in Calgary a year ago was that of a young girl only nineteen years of age. They both agreed that the husband should join the armed forces and do his share in the defence of this country. He did it and spent about a year and a half overseas in the armed forces. If my memory serves me alight he served for nearly a year in England on active service. Then for some unknown reason he went away without leave. He was never heard of by either the army or his wife. She was left absolutely on charity, on the hospitality of the Salvation Army. She had two little children. She arranged in some way or another to have those children taken care of by one of the neighbours and she went to work. Then the child welfare authorities came around and made her quit her job and go home to take care of her children. That woman was in a terrible position. I think the government has a definite responsibility. I do not think that woman should be allowed to depend on charity. That is only one case of many that hon. members have had brought to their attention in this house. I think it would be well worth the government's while, and the minister's as well, to give this some very, very serious consideration to see what could be done. I know the minister does not like to see these cases. I am quite convinced of that. The thing is to bring pressure to bear upon those who are responsible, to alter this regulation and see if some assistance cannot be given to those wives whose husbands are away without leave.
The other matter I wish to bring to the attention of the minister is that of dependent mothers. I brought this up the other day. The minister said he was going to make a statement about it, but he has not yet done so. According to regulation 101, section (c), subsection (iii):
Mother or foster mother, whose husband is alive but totally incapacitated from earning a living if the officer or soldier is her "sole or partial support."
The case I brought to the government's attention just about a week ago has a direct bearing on this clause. Because of the word-

ing of the clause the dependents' allowance board takes the stand, and rightly so, that the mother is not entitled to any dependents' allowance whatsoever unless the husband is
totally incapacitated. The words "totally incapacitated" should be changed. If the father gets an amount as small as $5 a month
the mother is not entitled to dependents' allowance because the father is not totally incapacitated. I do not think that was the intention of the government; nevertheless the regulation is there, and the dependents' allowance board, interpreting the regulations, must refuse the mother any assistance. I think that is wrong. I ask the minister if he will make a statement in regard to the assigned pay in a case like this. A soldier is on active service and assigning a portion of his pay to his mother or to his wife in the hope that when he comes back he will have sufficient laid aside for him to take advantage of the rehabilitation plan whereby he can take up a farm, if he has ten per cent of the cash value to put up. He hopes that his wife or mother will take this assigned pay and put it in the bank for him and not use it as a means of livelihood. But if that assigned pay were used it would make it decidedly unfair. I do not think the assigned pay should necessarily have to be used in order to keep the wife or mother. I think the dependents' allowance should take care of that. There should be a distinction as to whether or not the dependents' allowance must be classed as income. I do not think it is clear in the regulations, and certainly there should be some clarification of the regulations with regard to total incapacitation. The minister promised to make a statement on that matter, but I suppose it has slipped his mind.


James Layton Ralston: The only statement I can make is that at the present moment we have under consideration an amendment making thgt definition of "totally incapacitated" less restrictive, and dealing also with the amount of income which the mother and father jointly may be permitted to receive.


Charles Edward Johnston: I think that is a good thing.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: I should like to support the remarks of the last speaker, and also those of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. I think a widowed mother who has in the armed forces a son who has been her sole support should be entitled to the same amount of allowance that is given a wife. As one hon. member pointed out, in many cases the mother is not able to earn a living as easily as a wife without children might. I

War Appropriation-Army
know of many such cases, and I trust that the minister wiH use his influence to have these allowances increased. When we discussed this matter last year the allowance was only $20; now it has been increased1 to $25, and I hope it may be increased still further. As I have said, many widowed mothers are in greater need of this allowance than are many young wives who are able to work and support themselves. I realize the force of the reasons given by the minister, but I hope he will use his influence to have the amount increased.
I should like also to support what has been said by other hon. members, that the state is responsible for the wife and children of a soldier who goes absent without leave. Certainly it is no fault of the wife and children, but in many cases a distinct hardship results, and I hope some changes will be made in that respect.
There is another question I should like to ask the minister, dealing with the case of a man who enlists at a time when there is some domestic or family trouble. His wife happens to be of a very independent nature, and he does not assign any pay or ask for the dependents' allowance for his wife and children. She goes on working for many months, but finally illness overtakes her and she is not able to keep on providing for herself and the children. Is there any means by which the dependents' allowance may be put through in such cases? I know of such instances, and at the present time these people are finding it very difficult to get along. I have one or two other questions to ask, but perhaps the minister would clear up these matters first.


James Layton Ralston: As I understand it, even though the man has not assigned bis pay in the first place he may do so at any time. In addition, there is a provision under which the board in effect can bring about a compulsory assignment and give the wife the status of a dependent for the purpose of receiving the dependents' allowance.


James Arthur Ross: There is no time limit?


James Layton Ralston: No.


James Arthur Ross: Could the minister tell us approximately what it costs to clothe an individual soldier? This has a bearing on the clothing allowance. If there is anything that has gone all out of kilter under the wartime prices and trade board set-up, it is the cost of clothing. I am sure no one would rise in his place in this house and say that to-day you oan purchase clothing of the same quality or
at the same price as when we entered this war. In order to give some comparison, I think the minister might tell us what it costs in dollars and cents to clothe a soldier to-day, because that has some bearing on the allowance given the soldier when he is discharged.


James Layton Ralston: I do not think that is quite relevant. My hon. friend does not want to find out the cost of military clothing; he wants to find out the cost of civilian clothing, and it seems to me he would know as much about that as I do. The fact that a man gets a uniform, an outfit and certain equipment in the army does not prove anything in regard to the cost of getting a civilian outfit.


James Arthur Ross: I think it would be well to have those figures anyway, because I have an article before me which states that clothing now costs 121 per cent of what it cost formerly, and I think the minister will agree that you cannot fit a man but for $65. A step has been taken in the right direction by increasing the clothing allowance, but it is still not nearly enough.


Joseph William Noseworthy: There is one other point with regard to the mothers' allowance that I wish to bring to the attention of the minister, though probably it has been mentioned already. I refer to the ceiling that is placed upon the earnings of a dependent mother. I understand that a mother may receive up to $25, provided she is not earning more than $40 in addition.


James Layton Ralston: That is $40 exclusive of the assigned pay.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Yes, so that the ceiling is $65.


James Layton Ralston: Plus the assigned pay.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Yes, but that means
she cannot work at a job paying more than $10 a week. If she is to receive the dependents' allowance she must earn less than $10 a week, which in most cases means that she cannot work at all.


James Layton Ralston: Oh, no; the $25 would be reduced, that is all.


Joseph William Noseworthy: She would get $15, $10 or even $5, making $65 the maximum she may receive, with her allowance. There must be thousands of mothers across the country who are supporting younger children. The son in the army is perhaps the oldest, and she has come to depend almost entirely upon, his income. I have personal knowledge of numbers of such cases, where the mother still has to support younger children. There is a
b22
War Appropriation-Army

feeling that there should be no ceiling, that the mother should be permitted to earn what she can and still receive her allowance. I am also told that the mother gets no cost-of-living bonus, which is paid to wives. I should like to know the basis for that discrimination. In the first place thie mother gets an allowance of $10 less than the wife; in the second place there is a ceiling placed on her income, and in the third place the mother is not given the cost-of-living bonus. I think that is discrimination.


James Layton Ralston: Of course the ceiling
placed on earnings is because of the feature of dependency which is required to be shown in the case of a mother and which does not need to be shown in the case of a wife. The idea is that the country does not contribute if the mother is earning $65 a month; that means she is not in a dependent condition, and that is the reason. I tried to explain to the hon. member for Comox-iAIberni-I am afraid not very successfully-why there is a difference in principle between the allowance to the mother and the allowance to the wife. The one has what is not very popular, the means test, while the other has not. I think perhaps in that one sentence I have dealt with the question of the ceiling and the matter of dependency. What was the other distinction?


Joseph William Noseworthy: The cost of living bonus.


James Layton Ralston: I cannot tell my hon. friend why that is not given; I do not know.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Do the wives of all members of the armed forces, except those who are also members of parliament, receive the dependents' allowance?


James Layton Ralston: Yes; all wives whose husbands assign pay and who are living in the usual marital relations receive dependents' allowance.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I want to support what has just been said in regard to mothers' allowances. Although the minister has said something about it just now, I protested last year by stating that I never could quite see why a mother who is absolutely dependent upon her son, a mother perhaps with two or three children, did not come in the same category as a wife. However, I hope something may be worked out in that connection.
I should also like to support the hon. member for Souris and several other hon. members who have spoken respecting wives whose husbands have been absent without leave.

There are one or two other questions I should like to ask the minister. The first refers to a man Who has been discharged from the army, at his own request, because of sickness, or some other reason along those lines. Is such a man entitled to clothing allowance?


James Layton Ralston: He is entitled to clothing allowance, but not to rehabilitation allowance.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: That would seem unfair in some cases. I have in mind a man who was discharged because his wife was unable to take care of his family. Perhaps he should not have been in the army, to start with, but 'the fact is that he was in the army. I was wondering if those cases are reviewed, or if there is a hard-and-fast rule concerning it. Are they ever given an alternative?


James Layton Ralston: No. My hon. friend will understand that the rehabilitation grant is exactly what it states, namely a grant for the purpose of refitting a man into civilian life. The assumption is that if he takes the option and requests a discharge, he has somewhere to go, some occupation at which he may be engaged. Otherwise he would not be asking for the discharge.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Under the circumstances, when he comes back he has to find somewhere to go. Is that a hard-and-fast rule, or would those cases be reviewed? In such cases I should think the few dollars he would get as rehabilitation allowance would be very acceptable to his family, in fact, would be a godsend.


James Layton Ralston: Could he earn more monpy out of the army than in it?


Douglas Gooderham Ross: He did not earn any money for a couple of months after he came back.


James Layton Ralston: Why was he discharged, then? Was it just a matter of having to keep a house?


Douglas Gooderham Ross: He had to come back to look after his family. His wife was suffering from a heart condition.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend will understand that, generally speaking, a discharge at his own request is for the purpose of taking a job.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: 
James Layton Ralston: I think while he is
hospitalized.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: He would be there for a considerable time, perhaps extending into a year. It seems very unfair that a man coming from the army and hospitalized is discharged as soon as possible from the army when it is learned he cannot go back to the army because of a disability. True, he will receive a small pension, but it is pretty hard on his family. Certainly he should receive consideration during the time of his initial hospitalization.
While I am on my feet may I point out to the minister the difficulty we had in connection with those soldiers who were discharged after the last war, after having received wounds. They wanted to get out of the army as quickly as possible and in leaving the army they did not care about anything. They did not find out whether anything was physically wrong with them. After the expiration of some time difficulties would develop. I have no doubt all members of parliament have had many cases of that kind to take up with the pension authorities, and we have had much difficulty in such cases. We would receive the reply, "Disability not accounted for by active service."
To-day men are being discharged from the army every day because of disabilities. They do not know where to go or what to do, and are not familiar with their rights. They do not realize that at some time in the future they may be pensionable, and may need that pension. I am wondering if a full record of the reasons for discharge is made, or whether a history of each case is kept and given to them upon their discharge, so that they will know where they stand. I have in mind the case of a young man who was supposed to be in A-l condition. Examinations, however, are not always correct because, while this man was entered in the army as A-l, it was found upon X-ray that he had a congenital deformity of the spine. This condition showed up on service.
In fairness to this man, and in view of the difficulties members of parliament have had in connection with pensionable cases, I say that the very fullest explanations of reasons for
discharge should be given to each man who is discharged.


James Layton Ralston: To the men themselves?


Douglas Gooderham Ross: They should also receive histories of their cases, setting hut the reasons for their disability, and the immediate cause of such disability. For instance, a man might be sent to perform duty in pouring rain, and following that might catch cold. Bronchitis, developing into a chronic bronchitis might be the result. If possible, there should be an attempt to pin it down to the reason for disability, thereby providing a full history of the man in question. Surely in fairness that is the least that could be done. I tell the minister that if such action were taken we would rid ourselves of endless troubles. Then, if a man were told that his discharge was for such and such a reason, and that he would probably be entitled to a pension, he could then be informed where to go, how to make his application, and be given all necessary details. The man would not be placed in the position where he would say, "Oh well, I will forget all about it." His disability may be a serious thing for him in future life, and it is not fair to neglect taking a full history.


James Layton Ralston: The hon. member complains that in the cases to which he has referred discharges were made quickly. Then, in the last case he pointed out that sufficient information was not given at the time of discharge.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: That is right; it was not given to him.


James Layton Ralston: I understand that. May I repeat to the committee what I said last night, namely, that the hon. member has touched upon one of the most sensitive times in a man's army life, that is the time he is discharged. I have tried with all my power to impress that upon my officers. We have had liaison with the Department of Pensions and National Health, in an effort to have an officer from that department and one of our own officers at a hospital, or a board room, or wherever it may be, so that a soldier may be advised' of his rights, and where he ought to go. This is most important. This is one of the many things the R.C.A.F. do particularly well, in connection with their repatriated men. When they bring them back, they try to look after them. Anything that I can do to meet that situation I assure my hon. friend will be done. A case occurred quite a while ago of an officer that I found in hospital who had been discharged and had not been told either by the army or by the Department of Pensions and National Health what his rights were.
War Appropriation-Army

The case was brought to my attention imme-dately, and I saw that everything was done in order to make up for what was, in my judgment, crass indifference. We are doing everything we can to tighten that up and see that the men are given information promptly, particularly as to what their rights are and where they can go. My hon. friend is quite right in saying that when a man gets out of the army he does not know where to go next. He expects somebody to send for him, and they are apt to send for him after the papers have been signed and he has gone away.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: The reason why I brought the matter to the minister's attention is that I do not think as much care is taken as should be taken. I had a case within the last month.


James Layton Ralston: Is my hon. friend thinking of the case of an officer from Hamilton?


Douglas Gooderham Ross: No; of two or three cases from Christie Street hospital, Toronto. I do not want to go into the details because it is not necessary. But I wish to impress upon the minister that greater care should be taken to inform the men what their rights are.
Mr. RALSTON The system is no good unless it works. I will look into it.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I have been in
touch, as many of the Toronto members have, with the pension advocates in Toronto. I know them well and they are very good men. They have impressed upon me the necessity of getting all the information out to the soldier promptly so as to save a whole lot of trouble later on.
There was another case of a man at Christie Street hospital for observation. He really did not know why he was there until he was discharged. He never was told why he was there. He was discharged, and then he came back later on for a pension.


Victor Quelch: I wish to add my voice to those that have been raised in protest against the stoppage of pay and allowances. The minister did not, I think, make out a very good case in defence of the present practice. He may have so far as the army is concerned, but from the point of view of the people I do not think he did, because in reality what he was saying was that the army is holding the wives and children of the soldiers as hostages against the soldiers' good behaviour. In the case of a soldier serving a sentence for desertion, the practice is to stop the pay and allowance at the end of six months. I do not think the minister could possibly 
defend that, for this reason: The army has the body of the soldier, and as long as it has the body of the soldier it can get enough work out of him to pay for the dependents' allowance.
The argument has been made that it is no different from similar cases in civilian life, where a man is put in gaol, and his salary stopped. But industry has not the body of the soldier. The army has the body of the soldier, and the army can get enough work out of him to pay for the dependents' allowance, or wait until he is out of gaol and then take it out of his pay. At least in cases where the soldier has been captured and sentenced to gaol, the dependents' allowance should be paid continuously.
I want to refer to article 102 (d) of the financial regulations and instructions respecting dependents in T.B. sanatoria and mental institutions. This memorandum is marked "confidential" in big type. Am I at liberty to quote from it?


James Layton Ralston: Is it from the department?


Victor Quelch: Yes, a memorandum from the dependents' allowance board. It reads:
Dependents in T.B. sanatoria and mental institutions
1.	Article 102 (d) of financial regulations and instructions provides-"No allowance shall be granted to a person who is maintained in an institution at the expense of a public authority."
2.	In order that dependents who become patients of these institutions may be eligible for dependents allowance the board has an arrangement with most of these institutions whereby they agreed to accept $20 per month for the maintenance of an adult dependent and $12 a month for the maintenance of a child of a member of the armed forces.
I have in mind the cases of several wives of soldiers who are in T.B. sanatoria in Alberta and S20 a month is being deducted from their dependents' allowance and paid to the T.B. institution. But in Alberta, T.B. treatment is free, and so the provincial government are prepared to return the S20 to the soldier's dependent. But if the provincial government returns that $20 to the dependent the Department of National Defence takes the stand that they would have to deduct another $20 from the dependent. Surely provision should be made whereby the provincial government is able to return that money, because otherwise you have this peculiar situation, that while T.B. treatment in Alberta is free to the people at large, the only one who has to pay for it is the wife of a soldier. For everybody else the treatment is free. That is a very undesirable situation. The dependents' allowance

Wednesday Adjournments
board have told me that the only way to get around it would be for the provincial government to pay the money to the dependent and not tell the dependents' allowance board that it had done so. I was not quite satisfied with that because I could not get it in writing. I then took it tip with the Minister of Finance, and he referred me to the comptroller of the treasury. I wanted to know whether the government would guarantee, that in case the provincial government returned the money to the dependent, no inspector would be sent out to try to find out if the money had been repaid. The Minister of Finance said that the comptroller of the treasury was the only person who could guarantee that, and he would not do it. When you have an absurd situation of that kind the regulations should be amended. The minister must agree that it is a most undesirable situation when the soldier's wife is the only person in Alberta who cannot get free hospital treatment for the soldier patient.


James Layton Ralston: Strangely enough, a case of that kind came to my attention last Sunday afternoon when I was clearing up a few matters. There was a letter from the Hon. Mr. Cross of Alberta, making the offer which my hon. friend has just mentioned. The solution appeared easy to the dependents' allowance board, namely, that the province would just pay back to the person in the institution the amount which had been paid to the province for maintenance. I must say that I generally try to cut red tape, but I saw a little difficulty in doing that under the regulations. I immediately inquired from the board if there were not some other way of working the thing out. I am thoroughly in accord with my hon. friend's objective that we must find a way of working it out. It is a case of the soldier's dependents being discriminated against to the extent that they do not get the benefit of the provincial contribution. I am trying to work it out and I think I can do it.


Mr. HANSELL:: Will the minister make an announcement when he has worked it out? We
have some cases pending.


James Layton Ralston: I am in correspondence with the Hon. Mr. Cross and perhaps I should correspond with him first. I shall make an announcement to the committee as soon as possible.
Item stands.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, February 18 1944