1944-02-29

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I notice that Premier Drew has tabled certain correspondence which has taken place between himself and myself respecting the wartime alcoholic beverages order. I should like to table the correspondence in this house.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Who is
right?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not know that there is any difference between us in the correspondence.



REPORTS OF COMMITTEES


Hon. CYRUS MACMILLAN (Queens) moved:: That the first report of the special committee on social security, presented to the house on the 24th instant, be now concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. HUGHES CLEAVER (Halton) moved:: That the first report of the special committee on war expenditures, presented to the house on the 24th instant, be now concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Munitions and Supply):: Alaska, be developed on the basis of the plans then being carried out by the Canadian government. A month later, funds were released for the completed project, the Canadian government undertaking the work at its sole expense. Firm orders for necessary equipment, and contracts for the work itself, were placed without delay.
The rapid construction of facilities at Fort Nelson and Watson Lake involved movements of supplies and equipment for both airports through very difficult country, a distance of hundreds of miles. By the beginning of September, 1941, seven months after contracts were authorized, and three months before the United States entered the war, the airway from Edmonton to Whitehorse was usable by daylight. By the end of 1941, radio range stations had been built, and the radio beam was in operation from Edmonton to the Alaska boundary.
Later, the United States decided to build the Alaska highway, following the general route of the airway, and connecting the main landing fields along the airway. The fact that the airway was then operating greatly facilitated the construction of the highway, and, similarly, the existence of the highway has greatly aided the operation of the airway. The two projects, one being carried out by Canada, and the other by the United States, are complementary to each other.
While the Canadian airway facilities were in operation at the time of Pearl Harbor, it soon became apparent that war traffic would necessitate substantial additions to the original programme, involving longer landing strips, improved hangar facilities, and extensive living and office accommodation. The need for the larger project arose almost entirely out of the requirements of the United States military forces.
When the United States proposals for more extensive facilities were under discussion in the early months of 1942, the Canadian government informed the United States government that it felt Canada should properly pay for the construction of new landing strips, or other permanent works of continuing value to the airway, and that the United States should pay for such additional facilities as were required by the United States forces, over and above Canadian standards and requirements.
Recently, the Canadian government has reviewed the probable future requirements of air transport in this area, and has come to the conclusion that the standards required for a permanent installation are very substantially above those first considered necessary. In con-
	! J .i
sequence the Canadian government has recently informed the United States government that it will not expect payment from the United States government for the construction of any permanent facilities or improvements, which have been carried out by the Canadian government at the request of the government of the United States, and for the account of the latter government. Further it has been decided that the Canadian government will reimburse the United States government for its expenditures on construction of a permanent nature, carried out and paid for by the United States government, on air routes in this area.
This decision applies to all air fields on the northwest staging route, including work in the 1943 construction programme undertaken by the United States government, using its own contractors and its own labour. Early in 1943, it was decided that to Complete the project in a manner that would satisfy Ignited States requirements, both equipment and labour from the United States would be needed.
The decision to pay the United States for all permanent improvements built by that government also applies to the fields and landing strips on the Mackenzie River route, and all other airfields, landing strips, and permanent air route facilities constructed by the United States government in northwest Canada, in accordance with arrangements made from time to time, between the two governments, for the joint defence of this continent.
The total cost to the Canadian government of the staging route from Edmonton to Alaska will be about forty-six million dollars. In addition, other war-time development for aerodromes in the Canadian northwest cost about eight million dollars, of which six million dollars covers the cost of flight strips along the Alaska highway, and two million dollars covers the cost of flight strips along the Mackenzie River route. Canada has also spent about four and a half million dollars, during the past two years, on improvements to aerodromes and airways from the United States border to Edmonton; this on three airways, one passing through Kamloops and Prince George, another through Lethbridge, and a third through Regina.
In September, 1942, control of the aerodromes along the northwest staging route was transferred from the Department of Transport to the R.C.A.F., and the latter now operates the chain of airports, from the headquarters of the northwest staging route at Edmonton. The Department of Transport continues to provide meteorological services, and operates and maintains the radio range stations and

War Appropriation-Army
certain communication facilities. The Department of Transport engineers also coordinate any new work, and for this purpose continue to be stationed at each aerodrome along the route. The control towers of the airway are staffed by R.C.A.F., which force is responsible for maintenance and repair work at all aerodromes, including snow removal. The R.C.A.F. is solely responsible for security, and operates a system of airway traffic control for all aircraft using this route.
In brief, the northwest staging route is Canadian property, owned and operated by the Canadian government. It was built and developed by Canada, with the cooperation of the United States army engineers and workmen. The cost of the project is to be borne wholly by the government of Canada. The total cost of the northwest staging route alone up to the end of 1943, will be about forty-six million dollars, while the total cost of war-time development of the airways of the Canadian northwest will be about $58,500,000.
The route is the main artery for air traffic between the United States _ and Alaska, and beyond Alaska to northeastern Asia. Its aerodromes, hangars and communications facilities are suitable to accommodate the maximum amount of traffic that can be foreseen at this time. The route is one of the most important in the world, both in relation to the war against Japan and, subsequently, as part of an international air route.
In arranging for the post-war use of the northwest staging route, the government of Canada will pursue a liberal policy of cooperation with other nations. We hope that the right to use the route will become part of a general scheme of international cooperation in air transport matters, which will provide greater freedom of movement of aircraft, and of air traffic, within a suitable international framework.
It is my intention to give hon. members a statement of Canadian policy with regard to such an international development, and this at an early date.



WAR APPROPRIATION BILL

[Stage Direction]
PROVISION FOR GRANTING TO HIS MAJESTY Ain FOR NATIONAL DEFENCE AND SECURITY
The house resumed from Monday, February 28. consideration in committee of a resolution to grant to His Majesty certain sums of money for the carrying out of measures consequent upon the existence of a state of war-Mr. Ilslev-Mr. Bradette in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
Sundry services, $22,315,827.
Mr. POULIOT:: Mr. Chairman, I have
just a few cases to bring to the attention of the committee and of the minister. If he can answer now, I shall be thankful to him; if he cannot answer me now, I hope that he will do so at the earliest possible opportunity.
I have the case of a young man from the military district of Toronto; the Toronto file is T-30-S-521 (Res.) It is the case of a young artist who joined the militia before the war and got his commission by working his way up from the ranks. He offered his services in the active army in September 1939, being then under thirty years of age. He was not needed then; he was told that he would be called when needed. He was called in 1943, being then thirty-two. After being wrongly drafted as a private he protested, in order to be given his rank as an officer, under king's regulations; he was discharged as a veteran after ten days of active service. He bought his uniform and incurred other expenses. He was ordered to Three Rivers to follow an officers' course, and then was ordered back to his military district for disposal because he was then considered too old for overseas duty as an officer. He was then redrafted for service overseas as a private. I would ask the minister to look into this case and decide whether Major General Potts has been fair to this man.
There is another case that will perhaps surprise the minister; I refer to G-49086, who is in the "clink" at Petawawa. He deserted the first time and was sentenced to eight months, and that was the knowledge he had of the army; it is far from surprising that he jumped again, to use the language of the camp, for twenty-six days, whereupon he was sentenced to two years in the "clink". This again seems to me an exaggerated punishment. AVhat is the use of keeping a man for two years in the "clink" for jumping only twenty-six days? Here is the case of another fellow who is now at Longueuil. He is in the "clink" too. He complains of bad treatment and the answer that is given to the department in the matter is that everything is rose-pink. He is not well. He underwent a medical examination. His number is D-635718. I was told by someone in the department that unless authority were given by that man it would not be possible to have a copy of the medical report that was made in his case. I prepared a draft letter which I sent to his brother to be signed by him, the soldier. The brother went to the place of detention but was not admitted to
War Appropriation-Army

see him. This is a case where we should have a copy of that medical examination, with the signature of the man concerned, but the brother cannot reach him to get that signature. This again I bring to the attention of the minister as an instance of abuse.
There are men in the ordnance corps who are qualified mechanics and who receive supplementary pay of 25. 50 and 75 cents. Thev work at their own trade and are therefore helpful in repairing trucks and all that. But in Newfoundland, and I presume it is the same in other places, the practice has started of pushing aside the older men who have done their work for years and who are skilled. They know their trade well and are thoroughly experienced but they have to give way to new men and they are returned to the ranks. If the army has too many mechanics, let the minister say so. They are needed everywhere. They are needed in the making of munitions and arms in civilian life, and there is plenty of room for them.
Here again it is wrong to keep in the army as a foot private a man who is skilled and who can render service to the army, but who is unable to do so because of some decision made by the commanding officer.
With regard to the guards at Valcartier and St. Malo, there are guard rooms at the arsenals, and those are the only two places in the whole country which are not heated. The winter is not over yet and I would ask the minister to be kind enough to look into this matter. He will appreciate the grounds of my complaint.
Hon. gentlemen who are listening to me now probably know that the regulations of the civil service do not apply to the army and what was said by the Minister of Labour concerning the draftees who have not undergone any training yet, the number, and so on, does not apply to the draftees who had some previous, training even for a month, and if the number of experienced men in the forest is not large enough I could give the Minister of Labour quite a number of names of good lumberjacks who are retained in the army and are not working in the forest.
You know very well, Mr. Chairman, that our task here is not always pleasant. It was far from pleasant for me to rise in my place to-day and speak of these cases, but if we want reform we must facilitate the work of the government by pointing out what is wrong so that there may be redress. There are two schools of thought in this country, one of them comprising absentee voters and the knights of silence, and for those people silence is golden! So far as they are concerned, members of

parliament should not have the right to voice the grievances either of their constituents or of any citizen who may come to them in all confidence seeking the redress of any wrong. That is one point of view.
The other point of view is that of other members of parliament, who are listening to their electors, to the difficulties that they have, whp observe the effect of the application of the wrong, and who do their best to improve the condition of everyone as much as it is humanly possible to do. We are rewarded. I hold in my hand the file of P-100585, H-25405, F-2505. This is the file of a young man who suffered from sinus trouble. He was classified category "A" before leaving for England. When his father wrote to me about him I told him to obtain sworn certificates from the specialists who had examined him. He obtained three certificates from specialists attached to the Quebec hospital. I sent them to the Department of National Defence. The certificates were sent to England and the man has come back. I do not complain,to the minister about that. The right thing has been done, but I do complain about the carelessness of the medical doctors who classified that man as category "A" when he should have been category "E". It is clear the country has paid for the trip of that man overseas, for his return, for his care in the hospitals there. We need reform. When I ask for reform it is not a matter of personal votes; it is not a matter of being in the limelight; it is not a matter of having a grudge against anybody. It is a question of fulfilling a sacred duty, not only to my constituents but to any citizen of this country who comes for help.
Having said that I shall add some more. Here is the case of a young man-I have not his regimental number, but I have his registry number F-144428. He is a fine looking fellow but is in delicate health. The army doctors did not pay any attention to the medical certificates of the family doctors. He went to the army, contracted pneumonia, was looked after in a civilian hospital and then returned to the camp. He remained in cold quarters, was very ill and finally he was discharged. I hope the minister will see to it that definite instructions are given to the army doctors to pay some attention to the certificates, especially when they are sworn certificates, from family doctors. Those certificates should be and must be most valuable to the army medical corps as far as the medical history of any recruit is concerned.
I was greatly surprised this morning to read in Hansard what the hon. member for Port-

War Appropriation-Army
neuf (Mr. Gauthier) said about his humility.
I wonder about his humility, when I consider that he did nothing for the recruits while he was in the army. If I judge correctly what he said, after he resigned as captain a little more than a year ago he started to look after cases of a type similar to those that I have already mentioned in the house. If his efforts were rewarded by the Department of National Defence, was it not precisely on account of what members other than those of his group had done to help the physically unfit in the army? While they were busy collecting funds for the Bloc Populaire on St. James street, we were doing our duty here as members of parliament, and we were fighting the cause of the privates in the army. While they were getting funds to pay for blackmail that was coming from a rascal who is their mouthpiece and their loud speaker,- a man whom I kicked out of my office 'and who is practising blackmail to a high degree in their paper, who was so bad that once he was banging the door of my office in the house, so much so that I had to call a constable of the house to take him to the press gallery-we were doing our duty towards the privates in the army. That is the kind of man who teaches the people how to behave, who passes judgment on the. members of parliament. It is time that the readers of Le Devoir knew who is the parliamentary correspondent of that paper, and that I kicked him out of my office for cause. I tell you, sir, that there is no inducement, no blackmail, no brutal force which will persuade me to change the kind of work that I am doing for the underdog in this house.


Mr. RALSTON:: In the first place may I point out to the committee that I thought when the hon. member rose he was speaking of cases under the item which we are considering here, such as the dependents' allowance item. The cases he has referred to are all medical cases which come under item 5. In view of the fact that the hon. member had started on them I did not interrupt. I am as anxious as anybody to get on with the business, but I am just as anxious to see to it that the reform which my hon. friend suggests is effected, if reform is needed. He spoke of the case of an artist. I have no particulars with regard to that, but I shall look into it. He spoke of a man in Petawawa who had been a deserter, a man who was first sentenced to eight months and afterwards to two years. He suggested that the punishment was too heavy. I say to him in the first place that the sentence is not determined with regard to the
individual alone. Punishment has to be exemplary as well as disciplinary. According to the hon. member's statement, that man was guilty of two instances of desertion. Petawawa camp contains thousands of men, and it is necessary that substantial punishment be meted out. That does not mean that there is no opportunity for remission of the punishment in the case of good behaviour.
The hon. member referred to the case of the brother of a man in Longueuil. He said the brother was refused admission to secure the signature to a letter authorizing the hon. member to get access to medical documents. I say to the hon. member that rules with regard to detention camps are necessary, and provision is made as to when visitors are allowed. We do not allow anyone to go and see those who are in detention, whenever they like. That is so even in institutions of a very much gentler type such as hospitals; it is the same, and enforced much more rigorously, in regard to those who are under detention. If the hon. member desires to have any communication sent to this man, or to arrange that the brother may see him, I shall certainly see that the opportunity is afforded.
The hon. member spoke of the case of a man who was a qualified mechanic and who, he said, was returned to the ranks. I take it that the man was in the ranks from the start, and that my hon. friend was referring to the fact that he was getting a mechanic's pay for a while, and was then cut off the mechanic's pay because there was no employment for him as such. May I tell the hon. member that we pay mechanic's pay to the full number of mechanics allowed for in the establishment. In addition there is a quota for mechanics, even though they are not provided for in the establishment, under which so many men may be paid mechanic's pay, in order to encourage men to keep up their training in mechanical work, as the hon. member suggests. I presume the suggestion of the hon. member is that this man should have been returned to civil life the moment he1 could no longer be employed as a mechanic. That is not the practice. He may be needed as a mechanic at any time, and when he is so needed he will be put at the work of a mechanic and given the pay of a mechanic; and if he comes within the quota he can be given a mechanic's pay even though there is no room in the establishment for him.
Then the hon. member spoke of a man with sinus trouble who was sent overseas. I am not a medical man; I do not know anything about sinus or these other diseases. I understand that this boy was sent overseas, that later representations were made as to his sinus trouble, and according to the hon. member
War Appropriation-Army

he was sent back. Whether he came back as a result of the sinus trouble I do not know, but I understand that it is quite possible for a man with sinus trouble to have it apparently completely cured so that he may be placed in category "A" and considered fit for overseas service, and that later a situation may arise in which the sinus trouble flares up again, in which event he may be considered unfit for service and returned to Canada. That may be the explanation in the case mentioned by the hon. member. I have not been given the number of that man, but I shall get it from the hon. gentleman and look up the case.
Then the hon. member said no attention was paid to the certificates of civilian doctors. I say to him that the army doctors do examine the certificates of civilian doctors, but after all, the army doctors are responsible for the examination and it would not do for them to say, "We took the certificate of a civilian doctor." They are there to conduct these examinations; and in carrying out their responsibility I take it that they accepted this man who later was discharged, as the hon. member says, after he contracted a cold while at camp.
I think those are the cases to which the hon. gentleman referred. In this same connection, since he discussed medical matters, I want to deal with just one other matter he mentioned a day or two ago. He made what I considered to be an entirely unjustified attack on a very efficient officer and on the officers of this department as well, when he referred to the medical officer of military district No. 5 and suggested that he was kept there because of political considerations. The service of the officer in question dates from November 1, 1920, when he was appointed a provisional lieutenant. He became a lieutenant on December 1, 1922, a captain on May 1, 1925, and a major on October 18, 1935. In August, 1938, five years ago and a year before the war, he was recommended by the district officer commanding military district No. 5 for appointment as deputy district medical officer.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Was he a permanent officer?


James Layton Ralston: No; he was in the militia at the time, I understand. The report on him reads:
Major J. Mercier is an active officer, popular with all the other medical officers. He takes a keen interest in the training of the nonpermanent active militia and has a valuable experience in administrative work in military hospitals, having been employed as acting officer in command, Quebec military hospital, for six months in 1937-38. His service during the present war dates from the 2nd September, 1939. 
In December, 1939, it was recommended that he be appointed district medical officer, effective 8th January, 1940. The report I have on him is that he is spoken of very highly by the district officer commanding district No. 5. There is no suggestion anywhere that his appointment was influenced in any way, or that his retention in his position is influenced in any way by political considerations of any kind, nor is there any suggestion that his work has been affected by political considerations. I may add that the director general of medical services has always held a high opinion of the services of this officer. I happen to know the officer in question, as a matter of fact; I met him on one or two occasions while on inspection trips to Quebec, and I want to pay tribute to Lieutenant-Colonel Mercier as a conscientious, efficient and loyal officer, absolutely detached in his work and doing everything possible for the good of the services, with no other motive whatever in mind.
There is another matter on which I may speak, since I am dealing with the remarks of the hon. member. The other day he asked me to give him the reference to the Army Act which was included in order in council P.C. 9372 of December 7, 1943, and any other amendments to the order in council. The part of the Army Act to which he refers is section 176, which lists all persons subject to military law as soldiers and to whom the Army Act applies. Among those persons described in subsection 10 of the order in council are the following:
All persons not otherwise subject to military law who are followers 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 Burma military law, and such persons are native of India or, as the case may be, natives of Burma, they shall be subject to Indian military law or, as the case may be, to Burma military law.
The reference to that section is for the purpose of indicating that persons who are called up under the National Resources Mobilization Act and have not yet been enlisted are, for the time being, subject to military law; and particularly included as persons not otherwise subject to military law are followers of or those accompanying His Majesty's troops. The hon. member asked the effect of this amendment. I endeavoured to point out while he was speaking-


Richard Burpee Hanson: Would the minister say something more about that?
I found it very difficult to follow. What is the subject matter?

War Appropriation-Army


James Layton Ralston: The subject matter is the National Resources Mobilization Act and regulations, and the question is: what do you do with a man, and under whose jurisdiction is he, when he has reported for training but has not been actually sworn in. For the time being he is made subject to military law by this section, by the incorporation of a reference to the Army Act. The effect of the amendment to which the hon. member referred is very slight, as I endeavoured to point out. It is merely to delete the word "training" in two places in section 26 of order in council P.C. 7989, so that the references therein to training centres are made to apply to centres generally. The inclusion of that paragraph gives the army control of the individual during the time he is at a military establishment pending enrolment or rejection.
While I am on my feet, Mr. Chairman, I should like to put on record the answers to some inquiries which have been made, and which I think should be answered before we conclude the discussion of these-estimates. The hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) asked that we put on record a table similar to the one put on record last year, showing the rates of pay in the corresponding ranks of the army, navy and air force. I have had a copy prepared and, with the consent of the committee, I would ask that it be placed on Hansard. It is useful for the purpose of reference, because there are changes from year to year.


The CHAIRMAN:: With the unanimous consent of the committee it may be placed on the record.
The statement follows:
War Appropriation-Army

Rates of Pay and Allowances-Canadian Army (Active)
Rank	Rate	Allowance per Diem	Single per Diem	Married per Diem	Pay per diem	Sub- sistence	Dependents' allowance for wife	Dependents' allowance for 1 child	In quarters	Out of quarters	In Quarters	No children	One child	Two childrenMajor-General	$20.00	$1.70	$2.07	$ .46	$20.00	$21.70	$22.07	$22.53	$22.93Brigadier	16.00	1.70	2.07	.46	16.00	17.70	18.07	18.53	18.93Colonel	12.00	1.70	2.07	.46	12.00	13.70	14.07	14.53	14.93Lieutenant-Colonel	10.00	1.70	2.07	.46	10.00	11.70	12.07	12.53	12.93Major	7.75	1.70	1.90	.46	7.75	9.45	9.65	10.11	10.51Captain	6.50	1.70	1.74	.46	6.50	8.20	8.24	8.70	9.10Lieutenant	5.00	1.70	1.57	.46	5.00	6.70	6.57	7.03	7.432nd Lieutenant	4.25	1.70	1.57	.46	4.25	5.95	5.82	6.28	6.68Warrant Officer Class 1	"A"	4.20	1.25	1.40	.46	4.20	5.45	5.60	6.06	6.46Warrant Officer Class 1	"B"	3.90	1.25	1.40	.46	3.90	5.15	5.30	5.76	6.16R.Q.M.S., S.Q.M.S.,	Q.M.S	3.10	1.25	1.24	.46	3.10	4.35	4.34	4.80	5.20Sqdn., Bty. or Coy. Sgt.-	Major	3.00	1.25	1.24	.46	3.00	4.25	4.24	4.70	5.10Sqdn., Bty. or Coy.	Q.M.S	2.50	1.25	1.24	.46	2.56	3.75	3.74	4.20	4.60Staff Sergeant	2 50	1.25	1.24	.46	2.50	3.75	3.74	4.20	4.60Sergeant	2.20	1.25	1.24	.46	2.20	3.45	3.44	3.90	4.30Lance Sergeant	1.9C	1.25	1.24	.46	1.90	3.15	3.14	3.60	4.00Corporal or Bombardier	1.70	1.25	1.24	.46	1.70	2.95	2.94	3.40	3.80Lance Corporal or Lance	Bombardier	1.6C	1.25	1.24	.46	1.60	2.85	2.84	3.30	3.70Trooper, Gunner, Pte.,	etc., (after 6 months	service)	1.5C	1.25	1.24	.46	1.50	2.75	2.74	3.20	3.60Trooper, Gunner, Pte.,	etc., (after 4 months	(service)	1.4C	1.25	1.24	.46	1.40	2.65	2.64	3.10	3.50Trooper, Gunner, Pte.,	etc., (on enlistment)...	1.30	1.25	1.24	.46	1.30	2.55	2.54	3.00	3.407C	1.25	.7C	1.95	
Note:-
Officers-Command Pay at $1.00 per diem and Additional Pay at $0.50 per diem for Adjutants and Officers
Other Ranks-Warrant Officers, N.C.O's and men employed as tradesmen in capacities and under such limita-the Unit to which they belong, are entitled to receive tradesmen's pay at .25^ or ,50fi, or ,75p per diem
Note:-
Dependents' Allowance (Officers)-Dependents' Allowance to wife is payable monthly, Major-General to Lieutenant $47.20 per month. Dependents' Allowance is also payable on a monthly basis at the following fourth, fifth and sixth child $8.00 each per month.
Dependents' Allowance (Other Ranks)-Dependents' Allowance is payable monthly, for W.O. 1 $42.20 per Officers.
Office of the Paymaster-General, Ottawa, Ontario,
February, 1944.

War Appropriation-Army
Rates of Pay and Allowances-Canadian Army (Active)
Married per Diem	Single per Annum	Married per Annum	Out of Quarters	In	Out of	In Quarters	Out os Quarters	No	One	Two	quarters	quarters	No	One	Two	No.	One	Twochildren	child	children	children	child	children	children	child	children$23.77	$24.23	$24.63	$7,300.00	$7,920.50	$8,046.40	$8,213.44	$8,357.44	$8,666.90	$8,833.94	$8,977.9419.77	20.23	20.63	5,840.00	5,460.50	6,586.40	6,753.44	6,897.44	7,206.90	7,373.94	7,517.9415.77	16.23	16.63	4,380.00	5,000.50	5,126.50	5,293.44	5,437.44	5,746.90	5,913.94	6,057.9413.77	14.23	14.63	3,650.00	4,270.50	4.396.4C	4,563.44	4,707.44	5,016.90	5,183.94	5,327.9411.35	11.81	12.21	2,828.75	3,449.25	3,515.15	3,682.19	3,826.19	4,135.65	4,302.68	4,446.699.90	10.36	10.76	2,372.50	2,993.00	2,998.90	3,165.94	3,309.94	3,619.40	3,786.44	3,930.448.27	8.73	9.13	1,825.00	2,445.50	2,391.40	2,558.44	2,702.44	3,011.90	3,178.94	3,322.947.52	7.98	8.38	1,551.25	2,171.75	2,117.65	2,284.69	2,428.69	2,738.15	2,905.19	3,049.196.85	7.31	7.71	1,533.00	1,989.25	2,039.40	2,206.44	2,350.44	2,495.65	2,662.69	2,806.696.55	7.01	7.41	1,423.50	1,879.75	1,929.90	2,096.94	2,240.94	2,386.15	2,553.19	2,697 195.59	6.05	6.45	1,131.50	1,587.75	1,577.90	1,744.94	1,888.94	2,034.15	2,201.19	2,345.195.49	5.95	6.35	1,095.00	1,551.25	1,541.40	1,708.44	1,852.44	1,997.65	2,164.69	2,308.694.99	5.45	5.85	912.50	1,368.75	1,358.90	1,525.94	1,669.94	1,815.15	1,982.19	2,126.194.99	5.45	5.85	912.50	1,368.75	1,358.90	1,525.94	1,669.94	1,815.15	1,982.19	2,126.194.69	5.15	5.55	803.00	1,259.25	1,249.40	1,416.44	1,560.44	1,705.65	1,872.69	2,016.694.39	4.85	5.25	693.50	1,149.75	1,139.90	1,306.94	1,450.94	1,596.15	1,763.19	1,907.194.19	4.65	5.05	620.50	1,076.75	1,066.90	1,233.94	1,377.94	1,523.15	1,690.19	1,834.194.09	4.55	4.95	584.00	1,040.25	1,030.40	1,197.44	1,341.44	1,486.65	1,653.69	1,796.693.99	4.45	4.85	547.75	1,003.75	993.90	1,160.94	1,304.94	1,450.15	1,617.19	1,761.193.89	4.35	4.75	511.00	967.25	957.40	1,124.44	1,268.44	1,413.65	1,580.69	1,724.693.79	4.25	4.65	474.50 255.50	930.75	920.90	1,087.94	1,231.94	1,377.15	1,544.19	1,688.19711.75	
extra-ropi men tally employed is also payable.
tions and conditions as authorized by the Minister, if qualified and approved by the Officer Commanding in addition to rates shown above.
Lt.-Colonel $62.20 per month; Major $57.20 per month; Captain $52.20 per month; Lieutenant and 2nd rates-for the first child $13.92 per month; second child $12.00 per month; third child $10.00 per month;
month, W.O. XI and below $37.20 per month. Allowances for children are same as listed above for
War Appropriation-Army

Pay and Allowances-Royal Canadian Navy-Army-Air Force
-	Allowance per Diem	Single per Diem	Married per Diem	Pay per Diem	Subsis- tence	Depen- dents	Two Children	In Quarters	Out of Quarters	In Quarters	No Child	One Child	Two ChildrenCaptain	(N) Colonel.	(A) Group Captain	(AF)	$15.00 12.00 13.00	$ 2.10 1.70 1.70	$ 2.07 2.07 2.07	$ 0.86 0.86 0.86	$ 15.00 12.00 13.00	$ 17.10 13.70 14.70	$ 17.07 14.07 15.07	$ 17.53 14.53 15.53	$ 17.93 14.93 15.93Commander	(N) Lieutenant-Colonel	(A)1 Wing Commander	(AF)/	10.00 10.00	1.85 1.70	2.07 2.07	0.86 0.86	10.00 10.00	11.85 11.70	12.07 12.07	12.53 12.53	12.93 12.93Lieutenant Commander.. (N) Major	(A)\ Squadron Leader	(AF)/	7.50 7.75	1.70 1.70	1.90 1.90	0.86 0.86	7.50 7.75	9.20 9.45	9.40 9.65	9.86 10.11	10.26 10.51Lieutenant	(N) Captain	(A)1 Flight Lieutenant	(AF)/	6.00 6.50	1.70 1.70	1.74 1.74	0.86 0.86	6.00 6.50	7.70 8.20	7.74 8.24	8.20 8.70	8.60 9.10Sub-Lieutenant	(N)l Lieutenant	(A)} Flying Officer	(AF)J	5.00	1.70	1.57	0.86	5.00	6.70	6.57	7.03	7.43Prob. Sub-Lieutenant... (N)l 2nd Lieutenant	(A)} Pilot Officer	(AF)J	4.25	1.70	1.57	0.86	4.25	5.95	5.82	6.28	6.68Navy Officers	Army OfficersAllowances to Officers specialized in certain	Command Pay at $1.00 per diem and Additionabranches of the service and Command and Staff	Pay at $0.50 per diem for Adjutants and Officerspay are authorized in addition to basic pay. Rates	extra-regimentally employed, is also payable,
vary according to the rank of the Officer and degree of responsibility and qualifications.
Paymaster-General's Branch, Ottawa, Ontario,
February, 1944.

War Appropriation-Army
Pay and Allowances-Royal Canadian Navy

Army-Air Force
Married per Diem
In Quarters
Out of Quarters
Three children	Four children	Five children	Six children	No child	One child	Two children	Three children	Four children	Five children	Six children$18.26 15.26 16.26	$18.52 15.52 16.52	$18.78 15.78 16.78	$19.04 16.04 17.04	$19.17 15.77 16.77	$19.63 16.23 17.23	$20.03 16.63 17.63	$20.36 16.93 17.96	$20.62 17.22 18.22	$20.88 17.48 18.48	$21.14 17.74 18.7413.26	13.52	13.78	14.04	13.92	14.38	14.78	15.11	15.36	15.63	15.8913.26	13.52	13.78	14.04	13.77	14.23	14.63	14.96	15.22	15.48	15.7410.59	10.85	11.11	11.37	11.10	11.56	11.96	12.29	12.55	12.81	13.0710.84	11.10	11.36	11.62	11.35	11.81	12.21	12.54	12.80	13.06	13.328.93	9.15	9.41	9.67	9.44	9.90	10.30	10.63	10.89	11.15	11.519.43	9.69	9.95	10.21	9.94	10.40	10.40	11.13	11.39	11.65	11.917.76	8.02	8.28	8.54	8.27	8.73	9.13	9.46	9.72	9.98	10.247.01	7.27	7.53	7.79	7.52	7.98	8.38	8.71	8.97	9.23	9.49
Air Force Officers
The above rates for Air Force Officers are for Non-Flying List; General List $2.00 per diem more.
Command Pay at $1.00 per diem and Additional Pay at $0.50 per diem for Adjutants and Officers extra-regimen tall y employed, is also payable.

War Appropriation-Army
Pay and Allowances-Royal Canadian Navy-Army-Air Force
		Allowances per Diem				Single per Diem		Married per		Diem
		Pay						In Quarters		
			Sub-	Depen-	Two	In	Out of			
		per diem								
sistence	dents	children	quarters	quarters	No	One	Twochild	child	childrenWarrant Officer	(N)	$4,75	$1.70	$1.40	$ .86	$5.75	$7.45	$6.15	$6.61	$7.01W.O. 1st Class "A". W.O. 1	(A) 1 (AF)/	4.20	1.25	1.40	.86	5.45	5.45	5.60	6.06	6.46Chief Petty Officer..	(N)	2.80	1.25	1.24	.86	2.80	4.05	4.04	4.50	4.80Quarter Master Sgt.. W.O. II	(A) 1 (AF)/	3.10	1.25	1.24	.86	3.10	3.35	4.34	4.80	5.20Petty Officer	(N)	2.40	1.25	1.24	.86	2.40	3.65	3.64	4.10	4.50Staff Sergeant	
Flight Sergeant	(A) 1 (AF)/	2.50	1.25	1.24	.86	2.50	3.75	3.74	4.20	4.60Leading Seaman....	(N)	2.10	1.25	1.24	.86	2.10	3.35	3.34	3.80	4.20Sergeant	
Sergeant	(A) 1 (AF)/	2.20	1.25	1.24	.86	2.20	5.45	3.44	3.90	4.30Able Seaman	(N)	1.85	1.25	1.24	.86	1.85	3.10	3.09	3.55	3.95Corporal	
Corporal	(A) 1 (AF)/	1.70	1.25	1.24	.86	1.70	2.95	2.94	3.40	3.80Pte., etc. (after 6	months)	(A) 1 Leading Aircraftsman (AF)/	1.50	1.25	1.24	.86	1.50	2.75	2.24	3.20	3.60Pte, etc. (after 4	months)	(A) 1 Aircraftsman, Classl. (AF)/	1.40	1.25	1.24	.86	1.40	2.65	2.64	3.10	3.50Ordinary Seaman. .. Pte. etc. (on enlist-	(N)	1.25	1.25	1.24	.86	1.25	2.50	2.49	2.95	3.35ment)	(A) \ Aircraftsman, Class 2. (AF)J	1.30	1.25	1.24	.86	1.30	2.55	2.54	3.00	3.40(N) (A) 1 (AF)/	.50	1.25	.50	1.75	Boy	.70	1.25	.70	1.95	Boy	
Navy Other Ranks
Non-substantive pay and miscellaneous allowances for special duty are authorized for certain ratings. Rates vary from 5c. per diem to 50c. per diem according to rating, qualification and experience. Skilled tradesmen are entered in their own branch on rates of pay which exceed the Seaman's rate by from 10c. to $1.00 per diem.
Army Other Ranks
Warrant Officer, N.C.O's and Men employed as tradesmen in capacities and under such limitations and conditions as authorized by the Minister, if qualified and approved by the Officer Commanding the Unit to which they belong are entitled to receive tradesmen's pay .25c., .50c. or ,75c. per diem, in addition to rates shown above.
Office of the Paymaster-General, Ottawa, Ontario,
February, 1944.

War Appropriation-Army
Pay and Allowances-Royal Canadian Navy-Army-Air Force
Mauri;:d Pee Diem
In Quarters
Out of Quarters
Three children	Four children	Five children	Six children	No child	One child	Two children	Three children	Four children	Five children	Six children$7.34	$7.60	$7.86	$8.12	$7.85	$8.31	$8.71	$9.04	$9.30	$9.56	$9.82e.79	7.05	7.31	7.57	6.85	7.31	7.71	8.04	8.30	8.56	8.825.23	5.49	5.75	6.01	5.29	5.75	6.15	6.48	6.74	7.00	7.265.53	5.79	6.05	6.31	5.59	6.05	6.45	6.78	7.04	7.30	7.564.83	5.09	5.35	5.61	4.89	5.35	5.75	6.08	6.34	6.60	6.864.93	5.19	5.45	5.71	4.99	5.45	5.85	6.18	6.44	6.70	6.964.35	4.79	5.05	5.31	4.59	5.05	5.45	5.78	6.04	6.30	6.564.63	4.89	5.15	5.41	4.69	5.15	5.55	5.88	6.14	6.40	6.664.28	5.54	5.80	6.06	4.34	4.80	5.20	5.53	5.79	6.05	6.314.13	4.39	4.65	4.91	4.19	4.65	5.05	5.38	5.64	5.90	6.163.93	4.19	4.45	4.71	3.99	4.45	4.85	5.18	5.44	4.70	5.963.83	4.09	4.35	4.61	3.89	4.35	4.75	5.08	5.34	5.60	5.863.68	3.94	4.20	4.46	3.74	4.20	4.60	4.93	5.19	5.45	5.713.73	3.99	4.25	4.51	3.79	4.25	4.65	4.98	5.24	5.50	5.76
Dependents' Allowance
Dependents' Allowance for the three Services is the same. Payable on a monthly basis the allowance to wife of a W.O.I and similar rank in the Navy is $42.20 per month. From W.O.II to Private, and corresponding ranks in the Navy and Air Force, the allowance is $37.20 per month. Allowances for children is the same for all three Services- First child $13.92 per month, 2nd child $12.00 per month, 3rd child $10.00 per month, 4th, 5th and 6th child $8.00 each per month.
War Appropriation-Army


Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: Does that take in members of the C.W.A.C.?


James Layton Ralston: I do not think it does, but I can have that information looked up. As the hon. member knows, they receive eighty per cent of the pay received by the men.
A question was asked by the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. Castleden) as to the facilities for military hospitals in Canada. He asked how many cases are being dealt with under the army system, and the facilities for increase. If the committee will permit, I shall file a list of the military hospitals in Canada. I am not filing a list of the individual bed capacity. I am saying to the committee however that the aggregate bed capacity is about 12,000.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is a ratio of about five per cent.


James Layton Ralston: About six per cent.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: That is exclusive of the Department of Pensions and National Health.


James Layton Ralston: Yes. This paragraph will be noted:
Recent surveys of several camps and training centres in Canada have been undertaken to find1 where hospital bed space could most satisfactorily be provided in case the existing resources should become overtaxed. The five casualty retraining centres presently being developed can. quickly and easily be taken into hospital accommodation if that should become necessary and the soldiers under casualty retraining moved to other quarters which can be made available. Sufficient hospital facilities can be made available for any likely need.
The detailed answer to the question of the hon. member for Yorkton, which with unanimous consent will be placed on Hansard, is as follows:
A-Camp Hospitals Military district-Hospital:



M.D. No. 1

[Stage Direction]
Kitchener M.H., Woodstock M.H., Chatham M.H., Ipperwash M.H.
M.D. No. 2-Niagara M.H., Camp Borden. M.H., Brantford M.H., North Bay M.H., Newmarket M.H., Brampton M.H., Orillia M.H., Simcoe M.H.
M.D. No. 3-Barriefield M.H., Petawawa M.H., Brockville M.H., Cornwall M.H., Peterborough M.H.
M.D. No. 4-St. John's M.H., Longueuil M.H., Farnham M.H., Joliette M.H., Sherbrooke M.H., St. Jerome M.H., Sorel M.H.
M.D. No. 5-Valcartier M.H.
M.D. No. 6-Aldershot M.H., Sydney M.H., Debert M.H., Mulgrave M.H., Shelburne M.H., Yarmouth M.H., New Glasgow M.H., Charlottetown M.H., Dartmouth M.H.

[Stage Direction]
Sussex M.H., Edmundston M.H., Utopia M.H.
M.D. No. 10-Brandon M.H., Shilo Camp M.H.

Pacific Command-Nanaimo M.H., Vernon M.H., Gordon Head M.H., Prince George M.H., Chilliwack M.H., Alberni M.H., Terrace M.H.
M.D. No. 12-Dundurn M.H., Prince Albert M.H., Maple Creek M.H.
M.D. No. 13'-Calgary M*.H., Red Deer M.H., Camrose M.H., Peace River M.H., Suffield M.H., Wetaskiwin M.H., Vermilion M.H.
B-Internment Camp Hospitals
M.D. No. 2-Internment Camp No. 20, Internment Camp No. 23.
M.D. No. 3-Internment Camp No. 30, Internment Camp No. 33.
M.D. No. 4-Internment Camp No. 42.
M.D. No. 7-Internment Camp No. 70.
M.D. No. 10-Internment Camp No. 101.
M.D. No. 13-Internment Camp No. 130, Internment Camp No. 132, Internment Camp No. 133.
C-Casualty Retraining Centres
No. 1 Casualty Retraining Centre.
No. 2	"	"	"No. 3	"	"	"No. 4	"	"	"No. 5	"	"	"
D-Other than Camp Military Hospitals
M.D. No. 1-London M.H.
M.D. No. 2-Hamilton M.H., Chorley Park M.H.
M.D. No. 3-Kingston M.H., Rideau M.H.
M.D. No. 4-Montreal M.H.
M.D. No. 5-Quebec M.H., Arvida M.H.
M.D. No. 6-Halifax M.H.
M.D. No. 7-St. James M.H., Gaspe M.H., Fredericton M.H.
M.D. No. 10-Fort Osborne M.H.
Pacific Command-Vancouver M.H., Victoria M.H., Prince Rupert M.H., York Island M.H.
M.D. No. 12-Regina M.H., Saskatoon M.H.
M.D. No. 13-Edmonton M.H.
E-Facilities for Increase of Hospital Beds
Recent surveys of several camps and training centres in Canada have been undertaken to find where hospital bed space could most satisfactorily be provided in case the existing resources should become overtaxed. The five Casualty Retraining Centres presently being developed can quickly and easily be taken into hospital accommodation if that should become necessary, and the soldiers under casualty retraining moved to other quarters which can be made available. Sufficient hospital facilities can be made available for any likely need.
GS-SD3-258 29 Feb. 44
Of course that is hospital accommodation for those in the army. The accommodation for those discharged is provided by the Department of Pensions and National Health.
George Hugh Castleden: I thank the minister
for his answer.

War Appropriation-Army


James Layton Ralston: The hon. member for Yorkton referred to another matter, and I mention it now only because it occasioned some public interest, and I do not wish the record to remain as it is without indicating what the facts were. This referred to a man who had been prosecuted in Montreal for appearing in uniform.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There was a case of the kind in Halifax, was there not?


James Layton Ralston: I shall not go into the matter extensively, except to say that the record shows the man enlisted a first time and, upon discharge, received the $35 clothing allowance for which provision was then made. He enlisted again, and had sixteen months' overseas service. He was discharged again and received $65 clothing allowance. When discharged in January, 1944, he was wearing civilian clothes and had actually turned in his uniform. When arrested he was wearing army battle dress, which had been made for him by some local firm and decorated with R.A.F. wings, cadet shoulder badges, and signal corps overseas patches. So that there was not much he had missed. He had represented himself as being overseas for four years, and being in Canada to take an officer's training course. Actually he had been overseas sixteen months, and of course he was not in Canada to take a course. He is reported to have been charged by the military authorities on two different occasions with the impersonation of warrant officers, while in civilian clothes, and several other minor charges were laid against him. This, of course, was a civilian case. The hon. member for Yorkton was attracted by the newspaper publicity which was given, in which it was suggested that this was a case in which a man who had been a soldier was being persecuted by the civilian authorities. Of course the prosecution was not brought by the army at all; it was brought by the civilian authorities.
The hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) referred to a man in Camp Borden whose case was being dealt with by the provincial police. I believe the hon. member felt that the soldier in question was being harshly treated. I suggested at the time that it sounded to me as if the charge would be one of theft under the criminal code. I find that that is so. The charge was that he did on or about January 14, 1944, steal one 38-calibre Smith and Wesson revolver, the property of the Department of National Defence. The case was investigated and the charge was laid by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. A military charge by court-martial might have
been made against him. But when a case is referred to the R.C.M.P. and they intimate a desire to prosecute, it is customary to leave it to them if the offence is civil. That principle is recognized in the manual of military law. I believe I gave the committee my judgment with regard to that principle the other night.
The paragraph in the manual of military
law is:
But in the United Kingdom, in the dominions, and in most of the colonies, where there are regular civil courts close by, it is, as a general rule, desirable to try by a civil court a civil offence committed by a person subject to military law if the offence is one which relates to the property or person of a civilian, or if the civil authorities intimate a desire to bring the case before a civil court.
In this case, as a matter of fact, the R.C.M.P. did not refer the case to the military authorities. If they had done so, and intimated the desire to bring the case before the civil courts, the suggestion would have been concurred in, because the investigation had been handled by the R.C.M.P. and they had obtained the evidence. The case had a definite civil aspect. On the hearing of this charge, as on the hearing of any other criminal charge, the witnesses, whether they be civilian or members of the armed forces, are represented to the civil authorities, and attend and give evidence, and can be compelled to do so.
In this instance the hon. member indicated he did not see any officer present. My information is that the officer of Corporal Pavlov namely, Lieutenant J. A. McPhail, did attend at the trial. Under the provisions of K.R. & 0. 484, it is provided that in case of a civil offence, where a trial takes place anywhere in the vicinity of where a man's unit is situated, the commanding officer shall detail an officer to attend. The officer does not attend for the purpose of defending the man, but rather attends for the purpose of giving the court all possible information. I believe the practice is that officers who attend help to see to it that the man is informed of what his rights are. I know the provisions of K.R. & O. are such that an officer is forbidden, for instance, to give any information with regard to minor offences which an accused might have committed, because such information might prejudice his case. That information is regarded as privileged.
It is not the policy to employ civil counsel at the expense of the public for a soldier charged with committing a civil offence, but my information is that this corporal was defended by a civilian lawyer whom he himself

War Appropriation-Army

employed. No request was made by him for assistance from his commanding officer to obtain counsel.
The hon. member for Yale asked with regard to men who had taken an army course, and who had either been selected or not been selected as potential officer material. I indicated to him that men who were not selected as potential officer material were informed of the fact, but were considered for technical or specialist training, and would be given the opportunity to take that training if possible. I said I did not find in the regulations the same provision with respect to those who were selected. I find that the regulation has been amended. I cannot tell my hon. friend whether I was reading the amended regulation or not.
In the statement that was given me I find that that phrase was omitted. It is the fact that those who are selected may be considered for technical or specialist training in such work as surveys, radio direction finding, signals, et cetera, and they will be given the opportunity, if selected, of commencing or continuing such training. I said that I did not find that in the statement I read to my hon. friend, but it is there.


Mr. STIRLING:: That covers army training courses Nos. 1 and 2?


James Layton Ralston: Yes. The hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling) also asked for a breakdown by districts of deserters. I will put it on the record:
Breakdown of Deserters by Districts
Military district M.D. No. 1		General service	N.R.M.A.	C.W.A.C.	Total 838 1,392 600 3,794
M.D. No, 2					
M.D. No. 3					
M.D. No. 4					
M.D. No. 5					
M.D. No. 6					
M.D. No. 7					
M.D. No. 10					
Pacific Command 					
M.D. No. 12				o	
M.D. No. 13					
United Kingdom 					1
Total			4,784	80	11,094
Note-The above figures do not include those employed under G.O. 139/39.
The hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) asked me with regard to the Edmundston training centre. I told him I did not think it1 had been closed, and I was correct in that. It was reduced from a two-company training centre, with a capacity of 500, to a one-company with a capacity of 250 in October, 1943, as part of the general reorganization.
Somebody asked last night in regard to dental treatment accorded to officers vis-a-vis other ranks. The particular question was whether porcelain inlays were provided. My information is that where porcelain inlays are indicated the standard treatment in the army is to use synthetic porcelain, which is what is generally used in civilian practice. I also confirm what I said last night, that there is no difference between the treatment given to officers and to other ranks. In certain cases alternative treatment is obtainable, but that is open to all ranks.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Chairman, I have not taken up much time on these estimates and I do not intend to do so at this stage, but there are a few inquiries I want to make. First, what steps are being taken by the medical services of the army to see that such an occurrence as took place last autumn in the city of Fredericton is not repeated? I do not intend to go over that particular case again. The damage has been done; the man is dead; he left no dependents, and it would not do any good to rake up the situation to-day. It would only harrow the feelings of his relatives. But if nothing better comes out of it than that there has been a reorganization of the medical services in connection with the induction of volunteers and draftees into the army at Fredericton, I shall have been at least in some degree rewarded for the trouble I took in connection with this matter. The fact of the matter is, I think, that there were not sufficient medical men on duty, and I have

War Appropriation-Army
grave doubts as to the calibre of some of those who were there. I should like the minister to tell me whether the position has been corrected so that there is no possibility whatever of any repetition of what I consider-I was going to say gross negligence, but I will not use that term; I will say negligence in connection with the reception of men into the army at Fredericton. If the minister is not able to answer to-day he can do so at a later stage.
The second inquiry I desire to make of the minister is in connection with Camp Sussex. This is an old military camp in New Brunswick. It has been in the ownership and operation of the department for annual drill and that sort of thing since the days of Sir George Foster, which go back prior to 1896. Sir George Foster was member for Kings when the camp was established. When this war came on, Camp Sussex, of course, was greatly extended and over a period of time a large number of troops were stationed there. It was used as a depot, I suppose, for the eastern command, where the men would be readily available to be sent here, there and everywhere in case of invasion, and also could be used as an embarkation point for overseas. It served a useful purpose. In recent months the army has been pretty well evacuated from Sussex; I understand that there have been very few troops there. My attention was called to an article in a Saint John morning paper of yesterday in which it is stated that the army is starting up a new officers' school at Camp Sussex. I thought we had a great many of these schools all over the country and that some of them were being closed. It is information I am seeking. It may be of interest to hon. members to know that the newspaper in question states that Brigadier Gregg, sergeant-at-arms of this house, is to be the commander of that school, which so far as I am concerned is quite all right.
The third question I desire to ask, and I am curious that it has not been asked before, arises out of the enlistment of so many women in the armed forces, in the army, the navy and the air force. It seems to me that the custom has grown up, in Ottawa at all events and in other centres, of buying at the public expense some of the largest and most expensive residences in the city for barracks for these young ladies, on the theory, I suppose, that nothing is too good for the Waacs or the Wrens or the Waves or the Spars, or whatever they may be called. But it is a curious policy, it seems to me, for the government to make capital expenditures of that kind on buildings which cannot possibly be of any great benefit to the country in the 100-631
post-war period. My suggestion to the minister is that if these quarters are required, and I quite agree that quarters, and respectable quarters are required, they should be taken over under the authority* of the government for the duration only, and compensation paid. The country should not have loaded on it these expensive homes at high prices. That is a policy that has always struck me as being, shall I say, extravagant. We have had the spectacle of the winter club at Winnipeg being taken over by one branch of the service. We had the spectacle of a life insurance company in Montreal being bailed out in connection with the Winter club there when the government took over a bankrupt institution and saved the bondholders from loss, when all the government had to do was to say they wanted the Winter club in Montreal and take it over, pay compensation for it and hand it back to the owners when the war was over. That, it seems to me, would have been business, but instead of that we have these expensive buildings on Peel street, Montreal, for instance. I might tell the minister that a very prominent business man and, I think a friend of his, was shocked about that transaction.
I can name a number of others of the same kind. There is an ancient place of residence in Halifax that the minister and I and his associates know well, which forty odd years ago was a boarding house called Hillside Hall. It must be at least a hundred years old. It was taken over by one of the army services. If it was necessary to have that building, why was it purchased? Why was it not just rented for the duration, and then handed back? But now we are to have Hillside Hall off the assessment rolls of Halifax, just as is happening with properties here at Ottawa and elsewhere that have been taken over by the government. That policy is bad policy, I suggest to the minister, and there ought to be some explanation of why such a policy is pursued. I am not suggesting that these young women, many of whom, indeed all of whom, come from good homes, do not need good barrack room and living conditions. But I might contrast what is being done for them with what I understand is the plight of thirty young men, every one of whom is a potential flying officer now under training in this city at either Rockcliffe or Uplands- I am not sure which-for whom no barrack room has been provided. This is not in the minister's department but ini that of his colleague.


James Layton Ralston: I have got 900 of them in Ottawa.
War Appropriation-Army


Richard Burpee Hanson: For whom no barrack room is provided?


James Layton Ralston: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, that is a sad situation. I do not know what the minister is going to do about it. These young men should not be brought here if you have not proper living accommodation for them.


James Layton Ralston: We have to have them.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I will tell the minister what happens in this case. These young men, all of whom of course are volunteers, get the per diem allowance which every enlisted man receives. There is no place for them to eat or sleep, as there should be under the regulations and in accordance with what this country is supposed to provide, but they have a sustenance allowance of 551.25. How can any respectable young man live in Ottawa and pay for a room and three square meals a day on $125? It just cannot be done. What is the result? One of these lads told me personally that the allowance is so small that for the last four days in the month they have one meal a day, and they double up, perhaps treble up, in their rooms. I do not think that that is creditable-really I don't.


James Layton Ralston: This is the air force.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbuiy):: This is the air force; but I am satisfied from what the minister said that there must be conditions of the kind in the army.


James Layton Ralston: None of my officers has told me that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Perhaps the minister will find out if he makes inquiries. This may have a reecho from some person who is in that condition. I am not apologizing for bringing the matter forward, because I was shocked to find that a fine young man, a potential flying officer, one who will probably do a grand job, who perhaps is going to give his life for this country, is asked to live on $1.25 a day and find board and lodging in Ottawa. It just cannot be done. I verified the facts through the minister himself, and he did not offer any explanation. I am going to call public attention to these conditions; for I know that the people of Canada, who give so willingly in taxation and in loans, do not want this sort of thing to happen. I am not finding fault, but somebody is responsible. I do not suggest for a minute that the minister is; probably he did not hear of it until I called his attention to it, but somebody down below knew about it and has not corrected it. I think I know what the answer is,
JMr. Ralston.]
that this is the standard allowance for the living out ration-I do not know whether I am using the right term-


James Layton Ralston: Subsistence.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The subsistence allowance for living out. A boy might, although I doubt it, get along on $1.25 a day in a country town, but he could not get along on it in Fredericton or in Ottawa and live respectably. That is that; I am not going to say any more about it.
The other matter I have is a case which has puzzled me in connection with the dependents' allowance, and I am not sure that I should take up time to deal with an individual case; it might be better for me to go to the dependents' allowance board, as has been my practice. In this case I cannot identify the soldier by his number. I have here a letter from a woman who lives in the small town of Devon, opposite Fredericton. She represents that she was the daughter of an Indian squaw by a white father. I knew the father. They resided on the reserve, but under the Indian Act she is not an Indian-I believe that is correct. If the father is an Indian and the mother is white, she would be an Indian, but under the law she is not an Indian; she married an Indian, but he was not on the reserve; he was an Indian from the United States. She has an illegitimate child. I am putting this on record so that it may be understood. It is the most complex situation I have, yet run up against in connection with dependent's allowance, and when I get through you will see that it will take more than the proverbial Philadelphia lawyer to unravel it. The woman had an illegitimate child a year prior to her marriage-I am not sure whether it was by the man she married or by somebody else. But when the husband married her, he, she says, legally adopted this child and the appropriate regulations were complied with. I am sending the minister a copy of the letter so that he can hand it over to his officials. The child is adopted. But she cannot get dependent's allowance. She is ill; she cannot get medical attendance from the Indian department because technically she is not an Indian although her mother was an Indian and she is married to an Indian and her child, surely, is an Indian.
What are we going to do about this case? Surely it calls for the exercise of common sense. Her husband is a signaller and is about to proceed overseas. If the facts are as I have stated them-as yet I have had no opportunity of verification, but they may easily be verified through the Indian agent or

War Appropriation-Army
through the department-she is entitled to dependent's allowance for herself, also to medical treatment from the Indian department and anything else that this government may properly give her. That is all I have to say, and here is the letter.


James Layton Ralston: I will deal with the different points which my hon. friend has made. First, with regard to the Fredericton case. I share fully the concern expressed by my hon. friend with regard to that case. I took a personal interest in it. I saw to it that the president of the court martial and at least two of the members were men who had nothing to do in any way with the district or with the administration of medical services. The president of the court was Colonel Gilbert S. Stairs, of Montreal, king's counsel, and formerly of the 87th battalion. One member of the court was Colonel C. M. Edwards, of Ottawa, formerly of the 38th, an Ottawa battalion; and another member, Colonel K. R. Marshall, was one of the staff officers of the 4th division in the last war. I think that is sufficient assurance to those who know these gentlemen that they brought to the trial of this case a detachment, a fairness and an unbiased judgment which would commend itself to everyone.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Will the minister answer one question?


James Layton Ralston: Certainly, if I can.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Was there .any man on the court martial who ever tried a lawsuit in his life or knew anything about the law of evidence?	*


James Layton Ralston: I think Colonel Stairs does.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not think he ever did try a lawsuit, and he would probably tell you so.


James Layton Ralston: I believe Colonel Stairs has been practising law for thirty years.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes, but I do not think he ever tried a lawsuit.


James Layton Ralston: He has a very large practice.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not want to reflect on him at all; he is a friend of mine. But what I could say about these courts martial would not be fit to print, and that is why I am refraining.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend has said about all he can when he has said that. I do not think he has restrained himself very much.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Oh well, I am restraining myself.


James Layton Ralston: What I would say to my hon. friend about Colonel Stairs, and I say it in the presence of a good many barristers, is that no barrister in Canada stands higher at the bar in point of professional accomplishment or personal integrity.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Oh, I agree with that. But as to his experience in-


James Layton Ralston: And I do not think there is any question in connection with those courts martial of the admission or nonadmission of evidence. The matter was one of reasonable doubt which is to be given in these cases to the accused, and my hon. friend is not quite fair to the court, to the officers charged or to the administration of justice if he suggests anything else. These were cases of very grave concern to me and I myself directed the courts martial in all three instances.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I asked the minister to do so.


James Layton Ralston: That has been done. The court has been held and the verdict rendered. I wish that something more could be done. There was only one possible avenue of further activity on the part of the department and I am considering that now.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not suggest that the minister can do anything more, except to correct the situation.


James Layton Ralston: As regards the correction of the situation, all I can say is this. If there is anything that can be done by correction on the part of the administration, it is in the way of allocating as definitely as possible to each officer, in connection with the examination of men who are coming into the army, specific responsibility so that his particular job may be discharged and he may be chargeable if that job is not properly done.
Let me say to my hon. friend, that it is not the easiest thing in the world to get medical men to take on this job. Many of them come from exceedingly good practices, but they are doing the job in the interests of their country, and you cannot keep on attacking prominent men in the medical profession and expect the profession to stand for that sort of thing. It was done in Toronto, and there again I personally directed the court martial in connection with a case that was brought up against a medical officer. I believe the medical profession generally and some of the officers in the service, felt that it was pretty harsh. As a matter of fact the medical officer was discharged in that case, and I felt it was absolutely necessary in order
998	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Army
to promote confidence in our medical services that the public might realize that we were not attempting to hide anything in connection with the medical administration, so that it was gone through in the full light of day, with the floodlight of publicity and newspaper reporters present. That officer was also tried by a court which was eminently fair and the case was dismissed. The same is true in the Fredericton case. I have nothing more to say about it, except this. I hope that the house will temper its judgment with consideration for the fact that we have in this country a system of justice which has worked reasonably well in civilian cases and in the army as well. I know some medical men, prominent, reputable and skilled in their profession, who consider that these courts martial at Fredericton should not have been held; nevertheless they were brought because it was considered that the medical men engaged in that matter, the man having died, would have at least to be put on their trial so that all the facts might be investigated and justice done.
In the first place, steps have been taken to see that the responsibility of every man who has anything to do with the examination of men on admission to the army is distinctly and clearly defined. I may say to my hon. friend further that we have officers travelling continually from headquarters meeting with the officers on the boards and instructing them with regard to their responsibilities and with regard to the requirements of the army as well as regarding the care, skill and thoroughness they must exercise in the examination of these individuals. My hon. friend says he thinks there should have been more men.


Richard Burpee Hanson: More
medical men.


James Layton Ralston: From my examination of the case I do not think I agree with him. That is only an opinion-


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is all mine is.


James Layton Ralston: -and probably the medical officers will agree with him. But it seems to me there were enough medical officers there at that time to look after that case.


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: Does the minister
have to confirm the findings and did he agree with the finding in this court martial?


James Layton Ralston: You do not confirm the
finding of not guilty, but where the finding is "guilty" that finding and the sentence have to be confirmed on the recommendation of the minister by the governor in council.


Richard Burpee Hanson: May I
observe that I never thought there was the slightest negligence on the part of the commanding officer of the hospital, and I was astonished w-hen I learned that he was charged. I want to have it quite clear that in my opinion there was no justification for the charge against him, except possibly in the minds of the administrators of the department, that, as the head of the hospital, he may have had- some responsibility for treatment. But I never for a moment visualized negligence on his part.


James Layton Ralston: Summaries of evidence
were taken in every case, as is the practice in a civil case where evidence is taken on preliminary examination. The accused had the opportunity to be present at the taking of the summaries of evidence. These summaries were very carefully considered, and it was on these summaries that the charges were formulated on which the three officers were charged and later found not guilty.	.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: When the men are checked up on going into the army is there just one test, a urine test, or is a blood test taken also to determine diabetes?


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend asked me that question before.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Yes;
I believe I did ask that question before.


James Layton Ralston: I have here a note:
1.	All G.S. recruits, as well as N.R.M.A., have urinalysis performed before enlistment or enrolment. The test used is that which is tendered in all up-to-date hospitals and medical centres. If the test is positive for sugar, it is repeated with a view to determining whether the case is one of true diabetes, or is the result of overindulgence in sugar, or due to some other extraneous factor. If it is felt after recheck to be a case of true diabetes the recruit is rejected and advised to see his family physician.
2.	In case of doubt, a specimen is submitted to the nearest provincial laboratory for confirmation.
3.	If the cause of the presence of sugar in the urine cannot be determined, the recruit is advised to consult his family physician, and is asked to return at a later date for reexamination.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: But
no blood test is taken for sugar in the blood?


James Layton Ralston: Not for sugar-does the
hon. member mean a blood test for sugar?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Yes.


James Layton Ralston: 
Richard Burpee Hanson: I suppose that is a matter of mathematical calculation; but let me tell the minister what they do in the United States. This came under my observation. In the city of St. Petersburg, which is a resort city, there are a large number of hotels. After Pearl Harbor they got rolling down there, so to speak. They commandeered the leading hotels. The same thing happened elsewhere. They did not make any great capital expenditure. They walked in and used the hotels.


James Layton Ralston: Certainly.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They
walked in and used them.


James Layton Ralston: That is very different.


Mr. McCANN:: Hotels are different.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I agree they are somewhat different, but the principle is the same.


James Layton Ralston: No.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I saw one hotel used as a bakery and cooking school. They had all the equipment in that hotel for the purpose. They made no capital expenditure. I went through the place. They used the hotel rooms for dormitories and the diningroom for eating purposes. Another hotel was used for dormitory and living accommodation for merchant seamen in training. They did not need any capital expenditure. The hotel 1 lived in was used largely as a dining-room. When the army moved out the proprietor took it over and all he had to do was redecorate the place. There were no capital changes at all. What I am afraid of now is this-and I leave this with the minister; I am not going to labour the question at all-that some people-and Ottawa is one place where they do it as well as any place I know- will take advantage of the opportunity offered to unload on the government property that is no longer required for their own personal purposes. That is an old game in Ottawa. I know I shall get whacked on the shoulders for saying that, but I know there is more truth than untruth in the statement. People buy property to unload on the country sooner or later. I have watched it for twenty years. They hope to unload it on the government. I see the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) laughing; he knows there is a large element of truth in what I have said. I think the policy of buying these houses is wrong. I may be wrong. It is a matter of judgment. That is all I have to say about it at the moment. I suppose the minister takes the advice of his expert adviser, and that is his justification. I cannot prove he is wrong. I am giving an expression of my own opinion. I have to go to a committee and therefore must leave.


James Layton Ralston: I put the situation to the committee. I shall take the city of Halifax. In the city of Halifax we purchased the Hillside hotel.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And how many more?


James Layton Ralston: Let us stick to the Hillside hotel for the moment, because that is the one my hon. friend spoke of. In the city of Halifax we purchased the Hillside hotel and we leased the Waverley hotel.


Richard Burpee Hanson: You bought
the-


James Layton Ralston: I am advised that the use of the Waverley hotel will cost us much more than we shall ever lose in connection with the Hillside hotel.


Richard Burpee Hanson: You bought the Halifax hotel, one of the worst things that ever was done.
War Appropriation-Army


James Layton Ralston: I know we bought the Halifax hotel, but I had nothing to do with it. I want to say to my hon. friend-


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have to go; I am sorry.


James Layton Ralston: I do not think the dying declaration of my hon. friend as he leaves the chamber is quite fair.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I could
come back and discuss the Halifax hotel. Let me tell the minister this: the people of Halifax know about that deal and they do not approve of it.


James Layton Ralston: The person who took the Halifax hotel will discuss it. This is something new. We have the committee addressed from the back benches by an hon. member on his way out of the chamber. In the case of the Waverley hotel there were very strong representations from the city of Halifax. They did not want it taken off the tax roll. The result was-and I say it frankly-what may prove to be an improvident bargain made in connection with the Waverley hotel, not because of the amount paid, but I believe it was the wrong way to take it. At the same time so many representations were made on the part of the city of Halifax that it was felt by the department in this case they should lease the hotel and attempt to try out the two methods side by side. One method was to purchase the Hillside hotel, and the other was the leasing or taking the possession and the use of the Waverley hotel.
The hon. member mentioned the city of Montreal. I say to him that I think the crown will come out well in connection with the investment he mentioned in the city of Montreal. The investment in the city of Montreal was in connection with a house for the C.W.A.C.'s I would very much rather take that house under the terms under which we have it, the terms of purchase, than under a lease to use it and then have to return it at the end of the war, and to pay claims which would be made in the exchequer court for the use of the property, plus the cost of the capital expenditures necessary in order to make it livable for the purposes for which we want to use it.
My hon. friend mentioned subsistence allowance. May I say that the subsistence allowance was increased from $1 to $1.25 for other ranks not very long ago. The officers' allowance was $1.50 or $1.55. It was increased to $1.70. The hon. member was speaking of the officers of the air force. The army has a large number of young officers here. Some of these young officers are finding it hard to make ends meet so far as their subsistence is 
concerned. They are probably contributing something out of their pay in order to provide board for themselves. The situation is that in Ottawa it has been impossible to provide barracks for officers. It is a temporary situation. There will not always be that number of officers in Ottawa. The question was what was the best way to meet the situation as far as subsistence is concerned? I have had under consideration representations which have been made for an officers' mess. As 'a matter of fact active attention is being given to that matter at the moment. It was hoped that the situation would right itself but it has not happened. When we bring a young officer here we feel that something should be done. To provide barracks means capital expenditure and the purchase of a building or the erecting of one. The hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) complained about it; but we have to do either one thing or the other. I say to my hon. friend that I am just as fully alive to the difficulties of the younger officers as he is, particularly with regard to the subsistence allowance and to the fact that very often they have to go into their pockets to a certain extent. That applies to the C.W.A.C.'s who do not get as much pay as the men do.
With regard to the grotesque cases that my hon. friend has referred to in connection with dependents' allowances, I shall be glad to look into them. He has just touched the fringe of the many grotesque cases which the dependents' allowance board has. There are generally reasons or circumstances which members may not know and which explain the decision given. Let me say that these men on the board who are dealing with these matters all the time are men who have had experience, and men who have judgment. They are men who try-to give consideration not simply to the letter of the law but to the merits of the case as well; and in instances where the allowance is not sufficient there is always the dependents' board of trustees to go to. I shall, of course, look into this case to which the hon. member for York-Sunbury has referred, and I shall bring it to the attention of the dependents' allowance board.


Mr. LACOMBE:: I wish to make a few remarks concerning the second item.
(Translation): I notice that the estimates covering the operations of internment camps are $4,700,178 less than those of last year. Such a decrease is no doubt due to the fact that a considerable number of interned people have been released since last year. It may not be the only reason, but it is certainly one of the reasons. However, one man is still the victim of a deliberate persecution which is

War Appropriation-Army
tantamount to a scandal. That man has had a hearing before an advisory committee in Fredericton. During the last session I requested the hon. the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) to table all documents pertaining to that hearing. My request was turned down. Mr. Camillien Houde has asked the department of justice for a typewritten copy of the evidence he gave at that hearing.


James Layton Ralston: I think my hon. friend is speaking of a matter which does not come under this item at all. He is speaking with regard to the rights and wrongs of the internment of an individual who happens to be in an internment camp, which is a matter that does not come within my jurisdiction. All that is covered by this item is the guarding of those in these camps. The Department of National Defence has nothing to do with the question of the merits or the reasons for internment. My department provides the buildings, the establishment, the administration and the guards, and I think my hon. friend is out of order in discussing that matter on this item.


Liguori Lacombe: I submit respectfully that I am discussing internment operations, and that I am in order in doing so.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The minister has raised a proper objection. We are dealing with internment operations, and this item has nothing to do with the Department of National Defence. What I have heard discussed so far by the hon. member is a matter wThieh pertains to the Department of Justice, so that I would ask him to abstain from discussing that subject under this item.


Liguori Lacombe: I respect your decision, Mr. Chairman, and I shall have occasion to speak of this question later.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: I have a matter I wish to bring to the attention of the minister. The only reason why I mention it in the committee is that it involves a principle and I should like to know wThat is being done about it. This is the case of an officer and his wife who have rented a house in the city of Toronto for nine and a half years. The owner of the house died, the property was sold by a trust company and later resold to a woman whose husband is living. She is the owner of the house, though her husband actually put up the money. This officer is in the 48th Highlanders. He joined in January, 1940, and went overseas in August of that year. He was wounded and invalided to Malta but is back with his unit again in Italy. As I say, these two people have lived in this house for nine and a half years. It is their home; it is
what he is fighting for. He wants to come back to that home, and if he is lucky he will do so, but now his wife has been given notice to vacate.
The man who brought this matter to my attention has spoken to the husband of the owner, but this man has shown no sympathy whatever. Quite frankly he said that they had bought the place so that they would have a more comfortable home in which to live. When it was pointed out that there was a certain amount of uncertainty in connection with the service of this officer he simply replied that this woman was quite capable of buying a home of her own, which is not the case, and he further went on to say, "Well, he might be killed by an automobile any day." This man and his wife have bought this house in order that they may be a little more comfortable, and for that reason are going to turn out this soldier's wife who has made her home there for the past nine and a half years.
There must be some process that can be followed which would give protection to our soldiers who are overseas, and I would ask the minister if something cannot be done in cases of this kind. Surely there should be some protection for that woman whose husband is overseas fighting for us, fighting for the man who bought that house, the man who is going to take possession of the house because he and his wife want to be a little more comfortable. There must be some appeal from the rental control regulations of the wartime prices and trade board. I shall be glad to give the minister the particulars of this case; I do not want to read the letter because I do not desire to bring personalities into the discussion, but surely something can be done to protect that home.


James Layton Ralston: On a number of occasions, in dealing with the matter of housing for soldiers, I have indicated that the dependents' allowance is paid for the purpose of putting the wife and family in funds to pay rent or meet any other expenses.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Just a moment,
Mr. Chairman.


James Layton Ralston: Perhaps my hon. friend
will permit me to finish. I have indicated that the department and indeed the federal government have not undertaken to provide housing. I have indicated more than once that this is considered to be a municipal and provincial responsibility, and my hon. friend's appeal would be more properly directed to those authorities. The hon. gentleman asks whether something can be done, but this is a

War Appropriation-Army

matter concerning local rental laws. Let me say to the hon. member, as I have said to this committee on more than one occasion, that notwithstanding the fact that this is a matter of municipal and provincial responsibility, as the Minister of Finance indicated to the city of Hamilton and the city of Windsor, and as has been indicated to the city of St. Catharines, houses have been placed at the disposal of these cities from time to time in order that they might be used for the purpose of housing dependents of soldiers until other accommodation could be found. That is as far as the federal government has gone in that connection. It is all very well for my hon. friend to talk about this matfer here, to ask if something cannot be done, and to speak of the plight of these worthy people, I am quite ready to take my share and more than my share of responsibility to help as far as I possibly can, but I do submit that there is some responsibility on my hon. friend, on the provincial government and on the municipal authorities. I do not think it should be all simply brought in here and put on the desk, and for us to be told that something should be done about it, regardless of the circumstances. We are doing something about it and have done something about it in a great many cases. Just here I should like to pay tribute to the community organizations in various cities which have done their level best to assist in finding housing accommodation for soldiers' dependents in these times when housing is so short. The attention, the thoroughness, the generousheartedness with which they have gone into those cases have been remarkable, and I wonder if my hon. friend has referred this case to any of these organizations.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: For the benefit of the minister I may say that this has gone all through the process. It is not a question of getting another place in which to live; it is a question of breaking up a home which this man and his wife have had for nine and a half years. That is the situation.


James Layton Ralston: I think I am just as
sympathetic and just as open to any suggestions for. assistance to a soldier or a soldier's dependents as my hon. friend is. He does not suggest that there should be a law under which a soldier's dependents would be entitled to keep the same house all the time. Surely that is not his suggestion?


Douglas Gooderham Ross: We have at the present time a rental control order. Why can it not be extended to the soldiers? ,


James Layton Ralston: Because, as I understand it, the rental control order provides for one
[Mr. Ralston. 1
exception, namely the case where the owner desires to use the house. Of course if there is any fraud or evasion of the act or the regulations, it may be dealt with. But it would be dealt with in any event-not only in the case of a soldier, but in those of others as well. It is a matter of general regulation; it does not apply only to dependents of soldiers.


Mr. BENCE:: The observations a short time ago of the hon. member for York-Sunbury, and the answers given by the minister were of much interest to me. I am referring particularly to those which had to do with accommodation in Ottawa, and the lack of accommodation for air force recruits.
I would take this opportunity to reiterate the stand I have taken in the past, and would request the minister now before the committee and other ministers concerned with the housing of service men, and the providing of training facilities and that kind of thing, to see that ' they effect more decentralization than obtains at the present time. Answering me last year on a similar question, the minister stated that it is all very well to make a suggestion of this kind. He pointed out that each department agrees with the principle of decentralization, but that he has found it difficult to have any of them agree that a particular department is the one which should be removed.
In Canada to-day we find ourselves in a position of cutting down in matters of training and administration. It seems to me, however, that as far as Ottawa is concerned there is a tendency to bring into this already overbulging city more and more men for training and for purposes of administration. An example was given by the hon. member for York-Sunbury with respect to air force men who could not go into barracks, but who are in training for pilots. While this may not come within the minister's department, the same principle applies.
In other parts of Canada, and I refer particularly to Saskatchewan, steps are being taken to cut down training, and to cut down the number of training centres. In the same way, a decrease is being made in the number of training centres over which the minister now before us has supervision. For example, in Saskatchewan the training centre at Maple Creek has been cut out. My information is that the number of recruits at the basic training centre at Prince Albert, which at one time handled large numbers, has been cut down so much that there are practically no recruits there at all.
In connection with the matter of cutting down training centres in Saskatchewan I should like to ask the minister one or two questions, and to give consideration to a point which

War Appropriation-Army
I believe to be of the utmost importance. As I said before, the training centre at Maple Creek has been closed down, and the one at Prince Albert is not being used to any great extent. At the same time the suggestion has been made that the vocational training centre in Saskatoon should be moved to Prince Albert. I would ask the minister to give this matter careful consideration before this step is finally taken. I would ask, too, that not only questions of cost and efficiency be considered, although I agree that if cost is very much different, and if efficiency could be greatly improved .the possibility of changing would have to be considered.
I would ask the minister, however, to consider the matter from this point of view. It is all very *well to close down some of these centres, but I do not think this should be done if there are other types of work which could be done at those points. If the minister takes a vocational centre from one city and moves it to another, there will be a great deal of consternation among the people in the locality from which the training centre is being moved. I know that, because I feel this matter personally. As soon as a move like this is noised around, immediately the civilians in the particular locality have the impression -and I am not saying they are justified- that there is something more than military expediency behind such a move. I have heard the rumour, and understand there is substantial belief as to its accuracy, that a move is contemplated. I suggest that the minister and his department should consider the matter carefully, when it comes to cutting out a training centre in any particular locality, and moving it to another.


James Layton Ralston: Was the hon. member referring to Calgary?


Alfred Henry Bence: No; Saskatoon. I am talking about the suggested move of the vocational training centre from Saskatoon to Prince Albert. I will be frank to say, as I have said to the minister privately, that this affects me. It is suggested that the training centre be moved from Saskatoon, represented in the house by a member in the opposition, to a constituency represented by a member of the government-in this particular instance by the leader of the government. The feeling develops in the constituency that there is some reason other than that of military expediency, and it is suggested that the situation should be examined very carefully before any move is made. It is pointed out that if a move must be made because of military necessities it should be made clear what the reasons are.
Would the minister give the committee a statement covering the set-up of these training centres across Canada, and the policy that is to be laid down with respect to the matter of closing them down, and switching them from one city, or from one particular part of Canada to another, and particularly in connection with the matter of recruiting in various parts of Canada?
It does seem to me that we should consider the methods that must necessarily be used in the building of civilian morale, not only for the purpose of raising funds necessary to carry on the war, but also for the purpose of obtaining the necessary recruits.


James Layton Ralston: I have not before me the information with respect to the three locations to which my hon. friend has referred. I would refer him only to this, that basic training centres have been closed at thirteen different locations in Canada. Naturally someone's constituency has to be hit-and I say that seriously. I know of one hon. member in whose constituency there were two training centres, both of which have been closed.-
No decision has been arrived at with respect to the training centres to which my hon. friend has referred. Possibly I am remiss in my duty, but I had not heard, until my hon. friend brought it to my attention, of the suggestion of moving the vocational training centre from Saskatoon. I know that the Prince Albert and Maple Creek training centres were established at the time of a peak load. A good many men have gone through those centres, and as a result of a reduction in intake there is less need for training centre capacity in Saskatchewan. As my hon. friend knows, the centre at Regina was closed some time ago. At Regina they had a training establishment and a district depot.
As I said, there have been thirteen cases in which training centres have been closed. Some of them are used for other purposes. In addition to that, there are eleven cases in which training centre capacity has been reduced. All I can say to my hon. friend is that the matter will be studied. I am just as aware as he is of the suggestion which would be made if a training centre were changed from Saskatoon to Prince Albert. Someone would suggest that it was done for other than military purposes. Although my hon. friend may not believe it, that would make the departmental officers concerned lean back in their efforts to avoid a move of that kind. However, I think military considerations must dominate, regardless of the effect in any particular constituency.
War Appropriation-Army

My hon. friend) will understand exactly what will happen when air training centres are closed down, and we shall have to proceed with army training centres as well. All I can say to my hon. friend is that I will take his very reasonable, and-if I may say so-very moderate, representations into consideration when coming to any decision with respect to these particular army establishments.


John George Diefenbaker: Under this omnibus item, there is a matter on which I should like to secure information. It has to do with the political activities and candidature for parliament or legislative assemblies of members of the armed forces. The reason why I bring this up at this time is that last evening the press carried an item to the effect that new regulations had been passed with regard to the candidature of members of the armed forces for municipal office.


James Layton Ralston: That was municipal?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes. Under P.C.
3205 of May 31, 1943, certain provisions were made whereby members of the armed forces could secure leave for the purpose either of attending nominating conventions and being nominated or of participating in election campaigns. The specific sections dealing with the matter state that a member of the armed forces may:
. . . subject to the exigencies of the service, be granted leave of absence by the appropriate service authorities for a period not exceeding one month preceding the election.
Leave is also granted for the purpose of attending conventions and the like. Up until the time that order in council was passed, if I understand the law correctly, no man in the armed forces was permitted to secure leave to be a candidate for parliament or a legislature. In Great Britain to-day provision is still made under the war service regulations that while members of parliament may address public meetings in their own constituencies, they are not allowed to speak outside their own constituencies during an election campaign. I can very well understand that when an election, either provincial or federal, occurs, quite a number of men and women serving in the armed forces may be desirous of knowing their rights and what opportunities will be accorded them to attend nominating conventions and to be nominated. I have no doubt that there will be members of the armed forces overseas who will be desirous of returning to Canada to participate in election campaigns should they receive the nomination in a constituency.
[Mr. Ralston. 1
The questions I would ask in regard to this order in council are these: Is provision made whereby application for leave by a man in the armed forces and desirous of becoming a candidate for parliament is entirely restricted to application through the regular military authorities, or will the minister himself exercise a supervisory position in regard to such applications for leave to participate as a candidate in an election campaign?
Second, have any applications as yet been made by members of the armed forces overseas for leave to return to Canada to participate in an election, and have any members of the armed forces been returned to Canada to permit them to participate in an election as candidates?
Finally, what is the attitude of the government in regard to the rights of members of parliament who are in uniform and in the service to address public meetings outside their own constituencies?
This order in council provides an opportunity which I think should be provided for men in the armed forces to serve not only in the armed forces but also in the parliament and legislatures of the country. It is a matter of interest to know that in this parliament there is a greater number of ex-service men, according to the information I have, than in any other parliament since the last war, and I know there are numbers of men overseas who might very well be expected to become candidates if the regulations were clarified. According to the order in council as it now stands, leave can only be granted depending upon the exigencies of the service. Some provision should be made whereby a man in the service who is nominated for parliament should have an opportunity to participate in an election campaign, with the procedure being an appeal direct to the minister himself. I would ask the minister to make a statement in regard to this order in council and to answer the questions I have asked.


James Layton Ralston: In reply to the first question, as to whether provision for application for leave is restricted to the military authorities or whether the minister exercises a supervisory jurisdiction, no ruling has been given in that connection. As the order in council stands, the application would come in the regular way to the military authorities. If the case is of some importance I would think it quite possible that it would be referred to national defence headquarters, and quite possibly to the minister. I would not want to give an undertaking at this stage that the minister would exercise any greater super-

War Appropriation-Army
visory jurisdiction in this matter than over any other. I would want to consult my colleagues, the heads of the other armed services, because it affects them all, and endeavour to see that some uniform practice was observed.
My hon. friend asked if any applications had so far been made. So far as I know, no applications have been made, but that does not necessarily mean there have not been any. I have none in mind, and I do not remember any coming to my attention. I have not in mind anyone who has been returned from overseas under leave of this kind. If my hon. friend has any case" in mind and wishes to bring it up, I shall be glad to hear of it.
With regard to the right to address meetings outside the constituency, the order in council provides that leave may be granted for the specific purpose of campaigning as a candidate. I take it that that would limit the candidate to campaigning in his own constituency.


John George Diefenbaker: That is what I wanted to find out.


James Layton Ralston: I am just reading the order in council. I never believe in offering a judicial opinion on the interpretation of a legal document without having it carefully examined, but those words strike me at the moment, as I read the order in council-and I do not pretend that it is my conclusion of the matter-that the leave intended here is for the purpose of campaigning as a candidate in his own riding.


Mr. ROWE:: It does not say that, does it?


Mr.   R A US TON@: Campaigning as a candidate must be in his own riding, I would think. It could not be anywhere else.


William Earl Rowe: The minister was a candidate campaigning in other places.


James Layton Ralston: Not as a candidate in the other places. I endeavoured to support a candidate, and I think my hon. friend did, too, from the same platform.


William Earl Rowe: The minister had been
nominated.


James Layton Ralston: I endeavoured to support a candidate, and I remember my hon. friend did the same, and on the same platform, too. He was supporting another candidate, I might say-lest there be any doubt. I think those words would rather indicate a restriction to campaigning in a candidate's own constituency. I will take that up and see if any clarification is needed; if so, I shall be glad to give it attention. I take it that my hon. friend is
really making a representation that it should be extended beyond the bounds of a candidate's constituency.


John George Diefenbaker: What I am doing is endeavouring to have the minister give publicity to this order so that it will be known to the services overseas. I have had a number of letters asking what the regulations are, and while an order in council was passed many (months ago, very few of the men overseas, apparently, understand the contents of the regulations as they are now.


James Layton Ralston: I am sure that the regulations have been published in orders. Of course my hon. friend knows that we do not always read orders and sometimes when we have read them we forget them.


Grote Stirling: And do not understand them, too.


James Layton Ralston: And do not understand them; but certainly the regulations will be given appropriate publicity in every way possible.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weybum):: I should like to suggest, following what the hon. member for Lake Centre has said, that not only should the minister give some publicity to the regulations but the statement ought to be clarified so that men in the service may know exactly what they ought to do. I know that the position, for instance, with reference to provincial elections is one which bristles with difficulties. At the present time the group with which I am associated has two members of the Saskatchewan legislature on active service overseas. The space of time between the writs for the election being issued and the polling day is, I believe, only twenty-three days. It is manifestly impossible for these men to be brought back from overseas in that time unless some special arrangements are made to fly them back.


James Layton Ralston: Many candidates, as my
hon. friend knows, do not come back.


James Lester Douglas: I know that, but there ought to be some understanding that if some are allowed to come back all should be permitted to do so. The minister is going to face quite a problem if some are brought back and special arrangements are not made to bring others back. I think the situation should be faced now instead of waiting until it happens and having the minister bombarded with wires and cablegrams asking that this man or that man be brought back. I believe that if arrangements can be made-and not many men will be affected-they ought to be brought back.
War Appropriation-Army

I have in mind another candidate for the provincial legislature of Saskatchewan who is stationed on the Pacific coast and who wrote me wanting information just exactly along the same lines. As he understands it, he must make application to his commanding officer. If the commanding officer does not feel that he can release him, or if the application lies around, or has to go to military district headquarters and then to national defence headquarters, there will not be many of the twenty-three days left by the time he gets to his rural constituency, and a very large rural constituency at that. I think the minister ought to make very clear what the exact modus operandi is to be. Will the man make application to his commanding officer; will it go straight to national defence headquarters, and can it be dealt with immediately? Or, will the political party concerned make application on behalf of the man as soon as writs are issued? It would be preferable, I think, that each political party should notify national defence headquarters of the men who are candidates, and national defence headquarters would decide whether these men could be released and arrange the releases right away. Otherwise, as the minister knows, considerable delay could occur between the time a man makes application to his officer commanding, with all the channels and red tape through which it may have to go, before he is finally released.
I think the minister ought also to clarify the position of a man seeking election as a candidate. That raises the question whether or not he can speak on the radio. When he speaks on the radio, not only the people in his awn constituency hear him but the people within the entire area covered by that particular radio station may hear him. Does that preclude him from speaking on the radio? I think the minister ought to make that very clear, because that question will come up, and it is better to clarify it now than to wait until some situation arises when the minister or anybody else may be accused of partisanship or of showing favour to one candidate as against the other.
Early in the discussion of the minister's estimates I raised the question of the regulation which forbade men in the armed services writing to the newspapers, and pointed out to the minister the case of a member of the legislature of the province from which I come being forbidden to address a forum. The minister said that the regulation was under consideration with a view to modifying it. I wonder whether sometime before this discussion closes the minister could let us know if the department in the past two weeks have agreed as to what the regulation will be.

I also asked the minister earlier in this discussion if he could give us information with regard to the various camps across Canada and the various military districts and set out the number of men in the A. and T. staffs as against the number of men who are being trained as students or recruits, because I am even more disturbed about the matter now than when I rose to discuss it a couple of weeks ago. Wherever I have gone; wherever I have met men from various parts of Canada in the armed services, they kept stressing to me the fact that so many of them, as they claim, are sitting around without enough work to do, that they are in some cases overstaffed, that there seems to be a tremendously large home war establishment, out of all proportion to the number of recruits to be trained and the amount of work to be done. I do not think the solution is to do what I heard was suggested in one place. They telephoned one office and said, "You will cut your staff twenty-five per cent." Later on it did not materialize, but that was the order. I do not think you can do it in that way. There may be some places where the staff is not twentyffive per cent too large; there may be others where it is half as large again as is needed. I believe the paring-knife should be used-if my information is not entirely incorrect-on this very large home war establishment which was built up at a time when many more recruits were being trained than there are at the present time.
I asked the minister some time ago-he may have answered it, and if he did I will not pursue the matter further-with reference to the question of venereal disease. I was very glad to hear the minister say that the Wassermann test is now being made compulsory. I ask the minister if his department would give some consideration to the matter of periodic Wassermann tests. It seems to me that the danger of a man becoming infected is as great or greater after he is in the services than before, and that it would not be a difficult or cumbersome job to have a Wassermann test taken once every six months, or once every year, for the protection of the men; it is merely a matter of lining them up and taking a little blood out of each man's arm. If these tests were made I think the proceeding would pay for itself in the protection which these men would have in the years that lie ahead.
Would the minister give the committee some information regarding the dependents' allowance board and the other item, the dependents' supplementary grants fund? I take it for granted, with regard to these last two

War Appropriation-Army
items, that the dependents' allowance board item is the expenses of operating the board, and that the dependents' supplementary grants fund item is the money expended by that board. Is that correct?


James Layton Ralston: The last item represents the estimate of the money to be paid out plus cost of administration of the dependents' board of trustees. In the item covering the dependents' allowance board it is cost of administration only.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: Will the
minister give the committee a break-down in regard to the dependents' board of trustees? How much money has been spent by the dependents' board of trustees in each province or by military districts, whichever way the minister has it, the number of cases handled in each province or military district, and how was this money, spent for the dependents' board of trustees last year, divided as between administration and the amount spent in giving some benefit to the dependents of the men in the services? I should be glad to have that information.


James Layton Ralston: First, with regard to the matter of participation in elections, I can only say that I will discuss that with my colleagues, the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power) and the Minister of National Defence for Naval Service (Mr. Macdonald). I will take up with them the points the hon. member has brought up with regard to procedure, and if clarification can be given, or further details furnished, we shall be glad to give the information, because we are endeavouring to make the order in council effective and useful.
The hon. member suggested that we should face up now to what will be before us when these applications come in. He knows there is one thing to which we cannot face up, and that is the exigencies of the service. They will depend upon conditions at the time which we cannot foresee. I believe, however, that what the hon. member is asking is that as far as possible the exigencies be determined by someone who really knows what they are, instead of being left to the discretion of some junior officer to be dealt with.
In reference to the regulation about which he spoke, with respect to writing articles, that regulation has been repealed and the provisions of King's Regulations and Orders, which already exist, have been substituted. The objectionable words in that regulation with regard to prohibited articles were, "on military subjects or otherwise". Those words "or otherwise", are repealed.


Mr. ADAMSON:: There is still a ban on writing military articles.


James Layton Ralston: The ban is contained in King's Regulations and Orders and nothing more.
As regards the proportions of A. and T. staff, I am almost prepared to offer my hon. friend a reward for information which he can give me as to anyone in training centres who says that they are overstaffed, because that is what this committee, about which I have spoken so often, is checking. It is travelling across Canada to find these cases and it cannot get anyone to give evidence to that effect. The members of the committee have to dig the evidence out for themselves.
I thought I had information with regard to the exact proportion of A. and T. staff, but I may be able to give it before the committee rises. There are training centres where there is a low population at the moment, and any of these training centres may be closed and the A. and T. staff reduced or the training centre amalgamated with some other centre. Hon. members will understand that the lower the capacity of the training centre, the higher the percentage of the A. and T. staff. It is necessary, for example, to have one commanding officer, one chief instructor, and one quartermaster. I can only say what I have said time and again, that literally ruthless steps are being taken to cut down staffs wherever possible.
My hon. friend complained of the idea of cutting off a certain percentage. I agree, generally speaking, with that view, but sometimes you have to do that in order to bring home to those who are administering a particular establishment the fact that a reduction is required. What is much more desirable, of course, is to do it in a much more logical and business like way, and that is to have a committee go on the ground and find out what each man is doing and endeavour to cut the cloth according to the necessities of the particular case.


Agar Rodney Adamson: That is the Whitelaw committee.


James Layton Ralston: Yes, In reference to the dependents' board of trustees, I have a long table here which I think is probably the most informative that I could file. The columns show expenditure from January 1, 1942, to November 31, 1943, and regional dependents committees, with locations. The different committees are given at their different locations, beginning with Charlottetown and ending with Victoria. There are twenty-one different committees shown. Administration expenses are shown and single grants are given, divided
War Appropriation-Army

between the three services-army, navy and air force; the total grants appear, with the combined total of administration costs and total grants for each committee. The total expenditures are given in the right hand column. Then there is shown the total of recurring grants, that is to say, grants which have been authorized, in the same manner as pensions for definite periods at the rate of so much a month. That total is shown for the dominion as a whole. The total of the recurring grants is $131,000.
If the committee is satisfied I will file this statement, which will give the information
needed. To give an idea of what has been disbursed in grants, the amount from January 1, 1942 to November 31, 1943, is $2,054,920.38. The total expenditure for that same period, including administration expenses as well, is $2,548,707.36. That is for two years less one month. It includes only cases actually settled or, as the chairman says, put through the books; but it does not include the many cases in transit which are being dealt with currently, or the grants paid locally and not yet recorded at headquarters. The table follows:
Department of National Defence The Dependents' Board of Trustees
Statement Showing Expenditures-January 1, 1942, to November 31, 1943
Regional Dependents' Advisory Committees	Total Adminis- tration	SINGLE GRANTS	Total Expendi- turesNavy	Army	Air Force	Total Grants	Charlottetown	$ 4,705.49	$ 3,208.14	$20,461.78	$ 6,453.88	$30,123.80	$ 34,829.299,198.45	2,059.53	53,498.26	8,737.21	64,295.00	73,493.45Halifax	19,051.29	11,477.18	82,468.74	8,748.78	102,694.70	121,745.99Quebec	36,697.77	4,009.24	111,167.01	8,667.53	123,843.78	160,541.5534,362.67	3,035.85	89,980.48	13,112.01	106,128.34	140,491.01Kingston	8,746.00	609.37	24,111.35	3,171.90	27,892.62	36,638.62Ottawa	16,789.04	1,661.05	70,035.73	9,664.82	81,361.60	98,150.64Toronto	58,618.61	6,651.99	177,248.18	34,621.16	218,521.33	277,139.9423,252.89	2,931.52	90,123.19	23,229.95	116,284.66	139,537.55Peterborough	7,756.80	476.52	33,585.61	4,125.92	38,188.05	45,944.85London	16,027.04	2,326.64	74,491.20	22,088.80	98,906.64	114,933.68Windsor	6,469.26	1,538.13	38,746.72	5,796.65	46,081.50	52,550.76Sudbury	5,962.32	411.50	44,694.23	3,210.20	48,315.93	54,278.25Port Arthur	4,198.47	1,790.74	16,003.77	2,021.34	19,815.85	24,014.32Winnipeg	25,198.29	2,123.75	83,930.26	26,292.28	112,346.29	137,544.58Regina	7,125.14	1,323 63	74,656.55	21,422.37	97,402.55	104,527.69Saskatoon	9,227.42	3,333.48	79,241.51	26,198.59	108,773.58	118,001.00Calgary	9,944.08	2,410.76	84,660.35	25,002.04	112,673.15	122,017.23Edmonton	7,708.70	2,134.50	60,851.80	18,901.84	81,888.14	89,596.84Vancouver	30,091.11	7,218.77	134,672.67	35,529.67	177,421.11	207,512.22Victoria	12,302.36	26,008.42	71,965.93	12,665.68	110,640.03	122,942.39Sub-Totals	353,433.20	86,740.71	1,516,595.32	319,662.62	1,922,998.65	2,276,431.85Recurring Grants-	Analysis by Commit-	4,586.00	113,066.07	14,269.66	131,921.73	131,921.73Head Office, Ottawa...	140,353.78	140,353.78Totals. 	$493,786.98	$91,326.71	$1,629,661.39	$333,932.28	$2,054,920.38	$2,548,707.36
* Includes R.A.F., R.A.A.F. and R.N.Z.A.F.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Is any further consideration being given the matter of a periodic Wassermann?


James Layton Ralston: I will take it up with the director general of medical services. I believe the medical opinion is that there is not very much benefit to be derived from that. At least
IMr. Ralston.]
that is the view held at the moment. That is to say, that the disease will manifest itself, if it exists. The periodical testing of an army of between 400,000 and 500,000 men is no light task, as my hon. friend knows. That applies not only to the men themselves, but to the laboratory equipment and services which are required in connection with it. The provincial

War Appropriation-Army
laboratories of this country are assisting very materially. As a matter of fact, they are providing most of the facilities.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I asked the minister a question last night about fever-therapy in connection with venereal diseases. I should like to know if it is satisfactory and what the results have been. I asked a question also about psychiatric reports at the induction centres. The minister said he would get the information.


James Layton Ralston: What was the last question?


Agar Rodney Adamson: What percentage of the men rejected on psychiatric tests were classed as of low mentality? I think the term "moron" was used.


James Layton Ralston: The information I have with reference to fever-therapy is as follows:
1.	Fever-therapy has been used chiefly in
the treatment of sulfa-resistant gonorrhoea patients.
2.	An analysis of 500 case records, of patients suffering from gonorrhoea, revealed
that' approximately nine per cent require fever-therapy.
3.	The results of this treatment are not available at the present time as this treatment is carried out in DP & NH hospitals. Consultation with doctors in charge of this therapy indicates that it is very effective treatment.
4.	In the treatment of syphilitic infections, fever-therapy is used principally in the treatment of central nervous system complications. Soldiers suffering from this complication are discharged from the army to DP & NH hospitals.
For the benefit of the unlearned of the committee may I say that fever therapy simply means that a man's temperature is raised to a very high point with the intended effect, as I understand it, of destroying the germ. That is a very crude explanation of it, but perhaps it will do.
The figures that I have with reference to rejections on account of psychiatric conditions are based on a very small cross-section. The figure is 12-4 per cent.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Of the total?


James Layton Ralston: As I understand it, that is of the total.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Is that a recent sampling?


James Layton Ralston: For the month of January.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Twelve point four per cent were rejected for psychiatric reasons.


James Layton Ralston: Yes.


Mr. MacNICOL:: A short time ago a situation was brought to my attention in Toronto by a relation of a service man recently returned from overseas. I thought I should bring it to the attention of the committee and the minister. It may be one case of many others. The young man to whom I have reference was highly educated. He had successfully passed his matriculation examinations and had passed through his air force training as a pilot. In due course he was sent overseas. Apparently, while flying over there something happened to him and he was taken out of his flying position. He was then trained as an observer. Altogether he trained overseas for three years. He was then sent home. I do not know what happened to him as an observer, but apparently he was not fit for the air. Recently he was sent to barracks in Toronto to join the army.


James Layton Ralston: Called up?


John Ritchie MacNicol: Called up, yes. He was thrown out of the air force and sent to the army. He is a highly educated man. According to what his relations tell me his training has cost the country many thousands of dollars. I was told it was $27,000, but I do not know whether that is right or wrong. However, he was in training for three years, and now he has been sent to the barracks in Toronto and given the job of scrubbing floors just as if he had not had any training whatever. It does not seem sensible to me for anyone who has been training for three years in the air force to be given that position. Could he not be put in some other position in the air force on the ground where the air force could make use of his training instead of sending him to the army? What is going to happen to him in the army?


James Layton Ralston: All I can say to my hon. friend is that he is discussing a case that does not happen very often. However, there are cases of that kind. I am not making any reflection on this particular young man because I do not know anything about him. There are cases of men who are what are called waverers, and who are not suitable for air training. There are cases of men who do not try too hard in the air force, having enlisted there, with the result that they are discharged. Obviously that does not exempt them from being called up for army service.
With regard to the matter of scrubbing floors, I suppose that some of us black our own boots and do odd things like that. I do not suppose it is regarded as menial. If this is a serious case I shall look into it at once,
War Appropriation-Army

but I would think that quite possibly there is a fatigue to be done or something of that kind, and since this chap is able-bodied and it was his day for the fatigue, that is why he scrubbed the floors. Floors have to be scrubbed by somebody.


John Ritchie MacNicol: He likely went through that three years ago.


James Layton Ralston: Yes, I know. If he had stuck with the air force he would not have to go through it again. Would my hon. friend give me the name?


John Ritchie MacNicol: Yes. I shall first ask permission from his people, and if I get it I shall give the minister the name.


Jean-François Pouliot: These are cases of fatigue duty or K.P. duty. That is the title of those who do the work of scrubbing floors and washing dishes. That is all right, but it is unfortunate that in many places many of the boys who have completed their classical courses have to do that work all the time because they are supposed not to know English.
Before the minister replies to the hon. member for Davenport, I should like to ask him several questions about the pulhems system. In the first place I am sure hon. members know that "P" is for physical ability, "U" for upper limbs, arms, "L" for lower limbs, "H" for hearing, "E" for eyesight, "M" for mentality and "S" for stability. The matter of emotional stability was discussed at great length last year. Each one of those seven divisions is subdivided into classifications numbered from 1 to 5, except division "M", or the mentality test, which does not include classification 3, and division "S" which does not have classification 2. That information was given to me some time ago and I wonder if it is up to date.
I should like to ask the minister a question in this connection. If he cannot answer me today I shall be satisfied to receive the answer to-morrow. My first question is, what is each one of those classifications and each one of the seven divisions; second, why does not division "M" include classification 3; third, why does not division "S" include classification 2? My fourth question is, what is the third classification under "M" and the second classification under "S", if any? It seems there is only one classification under "S" for stability. There should be only one classification for mentality, because one is either mentally fit or mentally unfit; one is normal or not. There are no degrees of abnormality or mental unfitness; surely one cannot be partly mentally unfit. I hear that in the holy city of Toronto many boys were found mentally unfit because of the

answers they gave to certain questions. I was told that they were shown a picture of an automobile with flat tires, and were told to say quickly what was wrong with the car. Instead of "flat tires" one boy said "no gas", and he was declared mentally unfit. Another question was, "What is a pudding made of?" When a boy answered, "Salt and pepper" he was declared mentally unfit. It is all very childish; they are shown pictures and asked questions. The results do not reflect upon the intelligence of the boys who have been found mentally unfit in Toronto, though the number who have failed in these tests is quite astonishing.
As my fifth question I will ask the minister to tell the committee, first, the number of officers and, second, the number of non-commissioned officers and men who have been found mentally unfit under the pulhems test, in each military district, and I would ask also for a list of the questions that are asked in order to ascertain the mental fitness of these men.
I have another series of questions. Under the pulhems system recruits are supposed to be examined by six specialists. First, there is a specialist in internal medicine; second, a specialist in the chest; third, a surgeon; fourth, a psychiatrist; fifth, a specialist in the eyes, ears, nose and throat, and, sixth, an army examiner. In each division recruits are supposed to be classified by a specialist, but the number of specialists does not equal the seven letters of the word "pulhems"; there are seven letters and six specialists. I should like to know what specialists are supposed to pass judgment in each of the seven divisions. My next questions are as follows: first, who is the specialist, already mentioned, who classifies a recruit in each division, "P," "U," "L," "H," "E," "M," "S"; second, how many pulhems boards are there in the country, and where are they located; third, who are the specialists on each board; fourth, what are the qualifications of each specialist? I will ask the minister also to be kind enough to summarize for the committee all orders, instructions and regulations concerning the "M" test.
Then we come to the "S," which means stability of the mind or of the body. Stability must be defined, since there is a test for it. We have stability of the mind and we have stability of the body, which sometimes is acrobatics. We need more information about mental stability. Here we have a fellow who is all right; all the doctors except the psychiatrist find him in good condition. We do not know much about pulhems; it is something that has been imported into this country, but everyone should know what it is. Last year

War Appropriation-Army
I complained that there were not enough ablebodied men for the defence of the country, and the minister was very indignant. He said my statement was unwarranted and unfair and unjust and untrue. Well, the idea behind pul-hems is that they are keeping in the army men who are not physically fit, but who could do much more for the war effort if they were not in the army. So that I hope the minister will be kind enough to give us the information for which I have asked, as he has answered questions asked by other hon. members since his estimates came under discussion, and I hope he will let us know what is behind the whole thing.


James Layton Ralston: I api going to deal only with one or two of the hon. member's questions which I think can be answered quickly. Of course the hon. member is not serious when he says there are no degrees of abnormality. I have heard of people being half-crazy or halfwitted, and have always thought there were different degrees of mental disability just as there are different degrees of physical disability. Then the hon. member asks what are the five divisions for each of the classifications into which a pulhems examination falls. They simply represent the rating given to the particular candidate in the particular realm indicated by the letter. For instance, "P" or physical is divided into five classes; 1 means perfect; 2 means fit for overseas service; 3 means fit for base service; 4 means fit for service in Canada, and 5 means that the man should be discharged. It is simply a question of degree. The same would apply to a disability of the upper limbs; 1 means perfect, 2 means fit for service overseas, and so on. The same applies to a disability of the lower limbs, to a heart disability, to an eye disability, and so on.
Then the hon. gentleman asks why division 3 is left out under classification "M". This is because a classification of fit for base service, as far as mental capacity is concerned, is too fine a distinction to make when you are measuring a man's mental capacity. The figure 2 means that the man is fit for overseas service, while the figure 4 means that he is fit for service in Canada. It is too fine a distinction to attempt to put another division in between and call it 3, when you are discussing this mental classification. The hon. member asks also why division 2 is left out in reference to stability. That is because the stability required for base service and for service in Canada is regarded as practically equal to the stability required for service overseas. There is no mystery about this matter at all, and there is no doubt about the
different divisions. They refer to the different classes of service for which a man may be regarded as fit or otherwise.
Then the hon. member asked for the number of men in each district rejected as mentally unfit. If the hon. member will put that on the order paper, or I will take it now as a notice, I shall deal with it in the regular way. He will understand that it might be three or four weeks before I could bring down that information. The same will apply to a number of other questions he asked. I shall look over them and advise him; and if the questions cannot be answrered I shall tell him so.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank the minister, but I would ask him to be kind enough to tell us what is meant by "stability".


James Layton Ralston: I am afraid the hon. member will have to refer to the Oxford dictionary. There is a very good classification there.


Jean-François Pouliot: They give special meaning to words, and when I look at the dictionary it is not the meaning they have in the army.


James Layton Ralston: I will answer the hon. member's next question, where he asked about army doctors. He said there are only three specialists, and yet there are seven divisions. I can tell him that the physician examines with regard to physique, which is "P." The surgeon examines with regard to upper and lower limbs, which are "U" and "L," and the specialists-there may be one or two specialists, as the case may be-examine with regard to "H" and "E," which have to do with the eye, ear, nose and throat. The army examiner examines with respect to mental capacity, and the psychiatrist examines with respect to stability.
Then, with regard to the hon. member's further question respecting the classification of stability, my reply is that it simply means a man's ability to adjust himself satisfactorily to the life of a soldier.


Jean-François Pouliot: Now, here is the point: It is exactly the same thing in the civil service examinations. There were points allowed for personality. When I asked Mr. Bland, the chairman of the civil service commission, and the chief examiner, and all other witnesses, what was meant by personality, or how they defined it, they were unable to do so. But the examiner was allowed to give marks to the person examined, just for personality.
Here we have "mentality." It is the army examiner who decides upon mentality. Who is that army examinert There is mystery in that, just as there was in the civil service examinations. We fought against it, and all hon. members complained about it. Members
War Appropriation-Army

of the committee, who now sit on the treasury benches, were one with us in complaining about it. It was just a catch for the examiners to do what they pleased with the candidate, through examination. Imagine that! We were discussing those matters. The matter came before the committee. There was not a single member of the twenty-five who did not protest against that "personality" business. Personality and appearance-imagine! If a man was to the liking of the examiner, he got all his marks for personality. But if the examiner had something against him, he got no marks at all. They were asked what it was, but no one could answer. A reference to a dictionary is no answer, either. We should know more about it.
Hon. members will be surprised by that. In the first place when I fought for the common civil servant in Ottawa, I was not alone. I was with the other members of the committee. But what trouble did I have at first to open the eyes of the House of Commons to what was going on in the civil service commission! We did not have much success in our recommendations. However, at least we opened the eyes of some of our colleagues as to what was going on around there.
Before we undertook that work no one had mentioned the word "bureaucracy." Now it is in the programme of one of the major parties, namely, the correcting of bureaucracy. Whether they will do it or not, I do not know. But there is bureaucracy in the army, as there is in the civil service. That is the kind of reform we want to have. To members of parliament nothing of that kind should be secret. We should be informed about it. We should be informed, so that we might prevent injustices being done. The minister renders no service to the army and renders no service to the personnel to his department by covering up what is done there, and by saying that everything is Tight.
It is hard at times to rise and protest, and always be told that we are wrong, and always that the other fellow is right. The minister praises the district medical officer of Quebec. Was he not a son-in-law of the former mayor of Quebec, who was under the mobilization board? And the old man was unjust to the draftees, just to boost his son-in-law. Everybody knows it in Quebec. The minister does not know the politics of Quebec city. Let me tell him that the old father-in-law was a key man in Quebec East, and he was appointed there at a time when the present minister was not minister. But he was a key man there. And now-now the boss of the board in Quebec city is precisely the daughter of one of the key men of the political clubs of Quebec 
East. When I speak of political strings I know of what I speak. I know that one has to make obeisance to that person in order to have service from her.
May I submit more than that, that even when the national selective service headquarters in Ottawa wrote to. the chairman of the board in Quebec city, he did not answer. I had to direct their attention to the fact that Quebec did not answer when an answer was requested by Ottawa.


James Layton Ralston: Would the hon. member permit me-


Jean-François Pouliot: It is not the same thing; I am not blaming the minister for it; but I am informing the committee of the many reasons I have to say that there were political strings; and even if the minister canonizes them I will so express myself.


James Layton Ralston: Is the hon. member charging that the medical board at Quebec is bossed by some young lady?


Jean-François Pouliot: No, I did not say that. And I am not talking of flirtations, but of office routine.


James Layton Ralston: The hon. member cannot laugh that off. I want to know whether or not he is charging the medical board in Quebec with being bossed by a certain young lady, of whom I have never heard at all? It is gross calumny, if he is suggesting any such thing.


Jean-François Pouliot: Once again the minister does not understand what I say, or know that the person is secretary to one of the members of the mobilization board in Quebec. There is no love affair between them. It is not that I insinuated, at all.


James Layton Ralston: No one suggested it.


Jean-François Pouliot: If no one suggested it, so much the better. But what I say is that when we have a man in charge, he should be running the business, and the business should not be run by a secretary.


James Layton Ralston: Does the hon. member charge that the medical officer is run by his secretary?


Jean-François Pouliot: No, not a bit of it.


James Layton Ralston: Then I suggest to the hon. member he should stick to the item, instead of talking of national selective service.


Jean-François Pouliot: I told the minister five minutes ago I was not speaking of his department, but by way of comparison.

War Appropriation-Army


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Order; surely we cannot have a discussion of that matter before the committee. If so, we shall never finish.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. BRUCE:: I have a certain amount of
sympathy for the minister who has been under questioning for so long, and) I would not intervene at this moment except to clear up if possible, the confusion which seems to exist in the minds of many people, even among members of this house, as to the real situation in regard to our armed forces, their dispositions, and the available reinforcements which will be very much needed as soon as we open a western front.
There has been a certain amount of discrepancy between the figures given out by the minister and by the wartime information board. The minister stated in September last that the intake of the draft boards between January 1 and) September 30, 1943, totalled 30,796. But according to the wartime information board's release, the total number of men obtained during that period by conscription was only 17,264, or 13,332 short of the minister's claim.


James Layton Ralston: What were the dates?


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I have the statement made
by the minister in September, 1943, and those were his figures. In other words, only about fifty-seven per cent of the number claimed by the minister were taken in by draft. I have a good many other figures here -which show a similar discrepancy, but I dio not intend to take up the time of the committee in referring to them because they will be found in the records of Hansard and the press.
I was under the impression that, to maintain an army overseas, eight divisions will be necessary. I think three divisions have already been broken up. Have the men so released been used as reinforcements overseas?
The minister stated a little time ago that there was a shortage of tradesmen in the army. If this is so, does it not stem back to the shortage of man-power? If there were sufficient man-power it would not be difficult to train tradesmen.
The idea of Canada being able to create and maintain an army overseas without conscription will prove to be a fantasy. It is difficult to understand how a government which would
not countenance conscription would make commitments which it should have known it could not fulfil without conscription.
The situation briefly would1 seem to be that many of these young fit men called up under the N.R.M.A.-and I understood the minister to say last night that there were 73,000 of them in Canada-are holding non-active jobs which could equally well be filled by returned men now being boarded out. I wonder why the minister does not use these returned men to replace the fit ones now holding non-active jobs, and send the latter overseas where they will soon be needed urgently for reinforcements.
Again I would ask, what about the men who are being freed from industry? I understand that these men are under call, and therefore that is another source for reinforcements for overseas.
The minister stated the other evening that if the time arrives when it will be necessary to bring into force the conscription act by removing its restricting clauses, he would do so. I would ask him if he thinks he is justified in waiting until reinforcements are urgently needed before taking the preliminary steps to make it possible to secure them. It does not require expert army staff officers to tell us that an assault against a highly fortified position such as our troops will have to face on the western front, a position prepared over a period of three years by a resourceful enemy and fortified, I understand, for many miles in depth, will be very costly in casualties. Have we not had sufficient information of the cost in casualties that our troops have already experienced at Dieppe, at Salerno and at the present moment are experiencing at the Anzio bridgehead. Surely, therefore, we should realize what will happen when the second front is opened in western Europe. An officer of experience told me recently that in his opinion the casualties within the first two weeks of the opening of the second front will amount to fifty per cent of those engaged, and that within another two weeks the rest of our troops might have to be replaced. This would necessitate a very large number of reinforcements being available in a position from which they could easily get to the front.
I asked the hon. minister the other evening if he thought he had sufficient reinforcements in the pool in England to take care of the situation. I ask him again if, after further consideration, he thinks that reinforcement pool will be amply sufficient. If not, will it not be imperatively necessary to take steps at the earliest possible moment to have the
War Appropriation-Army

restricting clauses in the National Resources Mobilization Act removed so that this idle draftee army of some 73,000 men may be available for reinforcements overseas. It has been estimated that these men are costing the country $2,000 a year each, which would mean a total of $146,000,000. I presume that is a fair estimate. I believe that the minister will be recreant to the trust that is now reposed in him if he does not take immediate steps to provide the necessary reinforcements by the only possible method, the one to which I have just referred.


Mr. LECLERC:: Is the hon. member
favouring conscription?


Herbert Alexander Bruce: We already have a conscription act on the statute books. I am favouring the removal of the ham-stringing clauses of that act.


Joseph-Hermas Leclerc: Is the hon. member
speaking for his party or for himself?


Mr. CASSELMAN:: Where does the hon. member stand?


Richard Burpee Hanson: We all know where he stands.


James Joseph McCann: At six o'clock the matter under discussion had to do with the pulhems system of examination of recruits and draftees coming into the army. I think it is generally conceded that the system in vogue is the best one that has been devised with reference to examinations. However, it has one shortcoming which I should like to point out to the minister, namely, that it is based entirely upon any objective symptoms which the draftee may exhibit. I understand that the directions to medical officers consider only those objective symptoms. Another type of symptom which may arise with reference to any abnormal condition which a draftee may have, is what is known as the subjective symptoms, and known, perhaps, only to the man who is being examined.
Take, for instance, the case in point which was referred to by the hon. member for York-Sunbury, of the man who was a diabetic and who, upon his own statement, so stated. All the evidence was there that he was a diabetic, but his word was not taken by the examining officers, and they gave no consideration as to whether or not what he said was the truth.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They were put on notice.


James Joseph McCann: Exactly, but they did not pay any attention to it. I submit that, in examining, a medical man can tell almost by intuition whether or not the truth is being told. More consideration ought to be given

to the statements of the man who is being examined than is given at the present time. I have in mind a young fellow who was admitted to the army, and his examination put him in as A-l and he served a month in one of the training camps. He was called up under the National Resources Mobilization Act. That man was what is commonly known as a "bleeder", a haemophiliac, and there was no way of testing him. At the present time he is absent upon deferment because he is doing farm work, but he has received notice that he will be expected to return on the 1st of May. It is absolute nonsense to take back into the army a man of that type because, should any accident, even of a minor nature, happen to him, it is probable that it would be fatal. In addition to that, if he were there for six months or a year, and at a very considerable cost to the country, he would probably have to be discharged from the army, and it is quite probable that if he met with some accident while on duty he would be a pensioner, and this country would pay a pension for the rest of his life to a man who should never have been admitted to the army.
I should also like to ask the minister if further consideration has been given to the suggestion which was made in this house some time ago with reference to the amalgamation of the medical services in the armed forces; whether or not we are to continue to have three different groups of medical men, one in each branch of the armed service, or whether government policy in that regard has been changed. I would ask the minister, too, if the report of the assignment and procurement board has been given to the government and whether it is his intention to table it, and I invite him to make any comments which he may see fit at the present time with reference to whether he thinks that report should be acted upon, or whether, if that were done, it would be to the detriment of the service.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Does the minister want to answer those questions now.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: The minister on
Febj-uary 14 made some statements which are worthy of considerable attention. May I read brief records from Hansard, at page 442? First, speaking of the soldiers:
They do not want charity, but they want to know how they are to be assisted and how they are to be recognized, having regard to the fact that they have been away from employment conditions in this country for a number of years.
And again, speaking of the three defence services:
... all three services intend to take and are now taking a definite and positive interest in the prospective rehabilitation of soldiers, sailors and airmen.

War Appropriation-Army
And again:
. . . but the services want to determine what shall be a fair method of rehabilitation and demobilization; to help the men, who remain in the service for a considerable time due to military duties, but duties which may not be as pressing as the duties we see before us this year; to help these men to prepare themselves, looking forward to the time when they will be discharged and return to civilian life.
And again, speaking of the men whom he proposes to put in charge of the affairs of the returned men:
. . . men who will understand the problems, the aspirations, the needs and the ambitions of these boys.
These remarks touch a responsive chord in all hearts of soldiers and soldiers' friends everywhere. The question everyone is asking is, what chance will the soldier have after the war? Will he be able to get a job? Will he be able to live in comfort if there are too few jobs to go around; that is, if he cannot get a job? Will he be able to go into production as farmer, manufacturer, businessman, and sell his product at prices covering cost of production plus enough remuneration to enable him to live and to support a family? The minister has been too vague in his expressions. Soldiers of the last war had plenty of promises-in general. They were to have "homes for heroes", and the like. Soldiers of this war ought to have commitments more specific than those. Let the minister be more specific.
Let me ask him several questions. Let him answer those questions straightforwardly, painstakingly, and precisely, as he has done the numerous other questions already asked of him.
As a plain common man, father of soldiers, and representing fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, friends and sweethearts of soldiers, I desire to put these questions to the minister and to ask that he shall answer them in this parliament before this debate is finished.
As long as the minister may be charged with ministerial responsibility in this or in succeeding governments, first, will he here and now pledge himself to insist that his colleagues adopt such measures for stimulating and distributing production of Canadian goods and services as will guarantee, first, that every member of the armed forces of Canada shall have a job; or, being denied a job, shall have freedom from want and fear; second, that every returned man or woman, having a job, shall have a stable income, ample to provide for abundant living; third, that every producer shall be able to sell his goods at stable and equitable prices such as will render readily available to that producer prosperity and security with freedom; fourth, that Canada's national income be maintained at not less
than $8,500,000,000 after the war; fifth, that these desirable results shall be achieved without additional taxes or public debt?
Again, will the minister, for the sake of those who have given their lives and those who now risk their all for freedom, pledge himself to insist that Canada, to the extent found needful to attain the desired objectives I have mentioned, shall use debt-free money, money that can be spent, not lent into circulation, debt-free money by spending which the Canadian government can, first, establish and maintain stable and equitable price and wage structures; second, stimulate production; and, third, provide adequate markets to consume Canadian production?
Will the minister pledge himself to the use of such debt-free money? I maintain that if the minister does not dare or docs not feel himself free to rise in his place in this house and answer yes to every one of these questions, then he is not prepared to make good the promises which he implied in the fine passages which I quoted at the beginning of my remarks.


Jean-François Pouliot: At six o'clock we were speaking of the mobilization board. It comes under this item because, very often, matters are submitted by the army to the mobilization board which are under the Minister of Labour, and the mobilization board makes a ruling which is asked for by the army, so that the board is used as an army board. Of course, there are cases of recruits sent by the district magistrate to the camp, and their case is not settled by the mobilization board. But if the recruit, the N.R.M.A. soldier, puts his application before the board for a postponement and the board declines it, he then goes to the camp and asks his commanding officer for leave, and the commanding officer may say, "We will refer the matter to the board," so that the board is the appeal court with respect to its own decisions. That is not sense.
I have received letters from headquarters in which it is stated that if farmers and lumbermen are denied leave from the army it is because the mobilization board has refused to give it. I would prefer the decision to be made by the commanding officer and the matter not submitted to the board only pro forma when the army is not bound to follow the recommendation of the board, as it was before. It is only a farce. It is better for the army to take its own responsibility, and then the matter would be divided between two classes of recruits, those who have already been doing some training in the camp, and those who had no training.
That being said, I come to conscription as it is understood by different people. By the
War Appropriation-Army

word "conscription" some people understand conscription for overseas only, while others understand conscription for overseas and for the home front, and still others-those who believe that Elliott Little was right-understand by conscription national selective service which has been established in virtue of our mobilization act.
Conscription cannot be one-sided, and the hon. member for Parkdale has been persistent in this matter. We need reinforcements for the army. Undoubtedly the more exposed the army is, the more reinforcements will be asked for. But that is not all. The idea of national selective service is this-and I am the more at ease in speaking of it because many hon. members have' indulged in great praise of Mr. Little. The understanding of Mr. Little is that the war effort to be complete should be well balanced; and if it is one-sided, if conscription is only for the army, it will always be one-sided and will never be well balanced.
It is very simple; it is elementary. Many people have played on words and left others under a false impression, and that is why I have asked a question which is quite clear. Indeed, I am much surprised that it was not answered at once yesterday, because, although it seemed lengthy, all the information that was asked for in that question should have been given to each member of parliament at the beginning of each session, in order that we might have been in a position to understand the working of national selective service.
Although I have many friends in the army and some relatives, too, and I try to do the best I can for them while they are there, I have the deep conviction that national selective service is doomed unless all draftees, N.R.M.A. soldiers, whether they have had previous training or not, should be put under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Labour. And unless the Minister of Labour is the big boss of the whole show and is in a position to tell the farmer, the fisherman or the railwayman, and ail others in essential industry, "You are called by the army, but you shall not go because you are required where you are now"; if conscription had been explained in that way to the Canadian people there would have been no friction or national disunity; we would have had unity.
The people are not afraid to work; they are willing to work. But they do best in jobs in which they are experienced, and when you take them away from essential war-time jobs, where they are rendering good service to the state, and put them in the army to drill the whole day, they do not give the same service.

This is the point I make, and I hope the hon. member for Parkdale, who is a leading citizen of this province, will understand our point of view in that regard. I say the same thing to hon. gentlemen on all sides of the house who are not affected by prejudice, who are open-minded enough to consider the best interests of this country. That is why I insist once more to-day that all men who have some practical experience in any essential industry, and who are not needed in a technical capacity in the army, be put under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Labour as a judge to put them wherever they will serve the country the better. Otherwise national selective service would be a farce. Would it be impossible to have useful reinforcements for the army overseas?
With regard to the reinforcements for the army overseas, what is the eighth army? It is made up of Canadians and Hindus. What is the fifth army? It is made up of Canadians and Americans. It is time that the English people brought reinforcements to the Canadian forces who are fighting overseas. I do not want to scandalize anybody, but I ask you, Mr. Chairman, how is it that Canada has to do the whole thing and the other people look from their ivory tower upon us?


William Earl Rowe: That is laughable.


Jean-François Pouliot: My hon. friend laughs.


William Earl Rowe: Who would not laugh at that?


Jean-François Pouliot: That shows how biased
and how prejudiced the hon. member is; how blind he is, and how it is impossible for him to understand matters as they should be understood. I remember what he said about farmers. He said that farmers should be exempted, yes. He has spoken exactly as I have done in a speech he made in this house. He has spoken a lot for the farmers; but when there was a demand to act, shoo, he was voting against the farmer, and the same applies to all hon. members who have declared themselves as true friends of the farmers. The hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe and the others were all for the farmer in words when they were speaking in this committee, just the same as they have been for the farmers before; but when 'there was a vote on an amendment that I moved along with an hon. friend of mine; when the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains brought in an amendment supported by another hon. member, and when the hon. member for Gaspe brought in an amendment, they all voted against it. They were all for the plebiscite, all for the mobilization act. They

War Appropriation-Army
were afraid to act and vote for the defence of the farmer, for the defence of everybody who is engaged in an essential industry. That is why the people of this country will not believe in Bracken. They will say: "If his promises are no better than what is done by his supporters in the house, what can we expect of him? We will drop him as we have dropped Bennett, Meighen and all the others." But I want my party to do better than that. I want my party to understand the troubles of the farmers and to do something for them. That is why I make an earnest appeal to the government. If the Minister of National Defence does not accept my views now, I hope there will be a majority of the members of the cabinet who will do so in due course and1, it is to be hoped, in the near future.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I
should like to ask the minister a question. I have just opened a letter which I received this afternoon and which is addressed to myself and dated February 26, 1944. It reads as follows:
Dear sir,
At the meeting of the Peterborough active army auxiliary, Thursday of this week, one of the members brought to the attention of those present the fact that the wounded in hospital in Italy and in England were not receiving their mail or parcels from home until they were discharged from hospital and had rejoined their unit. This was confirmed by other members in attendance and it was put in, the form of a motion that a letter be written to you asking if you would be kind enough to bring this matter of the distribution or delivery of mail to the boys in hospital in Italy and England to the proper authorities in the hope that something could be worked out to improve this situation. The members felt that their sons and husbands had greater need of cheerful letters and consoling parcels when they were confined in hospital than when they were with their companions in camp. It was with this in mind that I was authorized to write this letter to you.
E. Alda Ovens, Corresponding secretary of the Peterborough Active Army Auxiliary.
I know the Postmaster General spoke on matters of this kind yesterday, but I do not think he mentioned letters going into hospitals. I wondered if it was a fact that the mail was held up and kept in the unit until the man returned. Will the minister answer that?
With regard to internment operations, last year the expenditures were about $8,430,000. This year the estimate is about $3,730,000. There is a difference there of over $4,000,000. Will the minister tell us why there is that difference and if it is caused partly by the fact that some of those prisoners are working in different camps and projects throughout this country?
The next item has to do with the inspection board of United Kingdom and Canada. Last year the amount was $10,600,000. This year it is reduced by only $11,000. I understand that production has been cut considerably in the plants. Why is the figure held as high this year?
There is another item further down that has to do with the dependents' allowance board. I know of a soldier overseas who married a woman a few years ago. This woman had a daughter by a husband who had died. At the time of the woman's second marriage her daughter wras four years old. The woman is receiving assigned pay from her husband and dependents' allowance for herself. She is not allowed anything for her daughter. The dependents' allowance board say it is not the soldier's daughter, but the wife's daughter. They will not allow anything for that child. Can anything be done in a case like that?


James Layton Ralston: I shall take my hon. friend's questions in reverse order. With regard to dependents' allowance, as I understand the regulation the board are authorized to award an allowance in the case of a child- in this case it is the daughter of the wife- if the husband has been supporting the child or has adopted the child. If I remember correctly, it is in the discretion of the board. Apparently they have exercised their discretion and for some reason they have not granted dependents' allowance on account of this child. If my hon. friend will give me the case I shall look into it.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The soldier is overseas. It would be pretty hard for him to adopt the child now, although he has been supporting the child for eight years or more.


James Layton Ralston: Section 97 (e) is the governing section:
. . . and shall, at the discretion of the board, include a child, even though not legally adopted, providing a married applicant has assumed in his own home the care and maintenance of said child for a reasonable period prior to his appointment or enlistment, during which period he has continuously wholly maintained such child and was so maintaining such child at the date of his appointment or enlistment, and continues to do so after his appointment or enlistment.
The discretion is there. If my hon. friend will send me the details of the case I shall look into it.
My hon. friend asked a question with regard to the inspection board and pointed out that there is no real reduction in the estimates of the inspection board, notwithstanding the fact that, as he suggests, production is down.
War Appropriation-Army

The estimate has been made at approximately the same figure as last year. That is simply precautionary. It is quite true that production will be down, although my hon. friend will understand that a great many things which are produced in this fiscal year will be inspected in the next fiscal year. All I can say to my hon. friend is that it is simply for the purpose of making ample allowance for the board.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Then there is a chance that the expenditure will be considerably less than this?


James Layton Ralston: There is a chance that it may be less. Then the reason for the reduction in the estimate for internment operations and refugee camps is the fact that pay and allowances, amounting to something like $3,000,000, for the camp staff are included this year under section A, army services, under the pay and allowances item, and the further fact that the number of civilian and Japanese internees is considerably reduced this year.
My hon. friend asked with regard to letters to soldiers in hospitals. I can tell him that the practice is not to retain letters in the unit when it is possible to find the address of the soldier. The committee will understand that the soldier may be wounded and evacuated either to a British hospital or perhaps eventually to a Canadian hospital. Returns are made from that hospital first to the second echelon and then back to the unit, and it takes some time for them to get to the unit. I do not know how long this boy was in hospital; but it may be quite possible that he would not get his mail until he came out, subject to this, that if the relatives had followed the instructions which are given in the casualty telegram which is sent out, and had marked the letters to the soldier "in hospital", the mail would not go to the unit but would go direct to the second echelon or to the records office, where it would be readdressed immediately to the hospital. In any event I can assure my hon. friend that it is not the practice to hold mail in the unit.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: In the case suggested yesterday by the Postmaster General some mail took ninety days to get to the soldiers in Italy. That mail would have left here before the casualty occurred, and the persons sending it could not be guided by the casualty telegram. What would happen to that mail; would it be held in the unit?


James Layton Ralston: No. After the man has become a casualty the unit immediately forwards the mail to the second echelon, or at least to the central record office, where they would find out where the soldier is actually situated. The Postmaster General mentioned

ninety days, but he was illustrating the possibility of mail taking, that long when it proceeded by slow convoy from here to the United Kingdom and from the United Kingdom to the Mediterranean. I would hope there were not very many cases of that kind.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I believe that included parcels also.


James Layton Ralston: That would be so in the case of parcels.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Will
the minister look into the matter further and see that there is no undue delay in having the mail forwarded to these boys?


James Layton Ralston: I certainly will keep after it. Last night the Postmaster General mentioned that preference is given, as my hon. friend knows, to casualties in hospitals, but of course he was referring, as my hon. friend points out, to mail actually marked "in hospital"; otherwise it would go to the unit.


Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: I was informed by Colonel Underwood, who has the responsibility for overseas mail, that it is necessary for the service man when he is transferred from one camp to another to sign a card stating where his mail is to be forwarded; perhaps that had special reference to air force personnel. If that applies to the air force, however, I presume it would apply also to the army; and if a man fails to do that, the mail continues to pile up at his last designated address. It seems to me that the service, the air force or the army if this applies there, should assume responsibility with respect to every individual at a particular address, to see that the mail is forwarded to the new address. The members of the air force are not allowed to tell their families their new addresses; they are prohibited from giving the address of the station at which they are located, let alone giving any advance notice as to where they are to be transferred. According to my information the whole responsibility rests upon the individual service man to state where he is to be moved and where his mail is to be readdressed.
Mr. RALSTON I shall leave my colleague the Minister of National Defence for Air to deal with the air force regulations, because I know nothing about them. As far as the army is concerned, as my hon. friend knows a man is entitled to give his relatives his new address, that is to say the name of the new unit to which he is going, so that that situation does not apply. Further than that, the postal corps attached to that unit will forward1 the mail if they find that the man has moved, so that the

War Appropriation-Army
mail will chase the man- around until it finally reaches him. It does not pile up in the unit to which he was attached.
There are perhaps one or two other points I should mention while I am dealing with these matters. I would refer to only one point in connection with the remarks of the hon. member for Temiseouata. I do not want this house or this country to get any idea that Canadians form the majority or any large part of the fifth army. There are a certain number of Canadians attached to the fifth army, but that army is composed of British and United States soldiers, while the eighth army is composed of British and Canadian soldiers. I think the remarks of the hon. member, which would suggest that the British are not in this war in Italy, do a grievous wrong to a people who have been in this war from the very beginning, a country which has given more than any other country, I think, to help make success possible.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Are there
no Canadians in the fifth army?


James Layton Ralston: A few; one unit. At a
time when Britain was short of everything she sent her men and her equipment to different fronts, though she could ill afford to do so. We Canadians are proud of the fact that the first Canadian division was in Britain and was the key of the force which was holding that citadel; but that citadel was not held simply by the Canadian forces alone. It was held because of the stout-heartedness and fortitude of the British people at that time, because of their willingness to run risks in order to see to it that the enemy was not allowed to come closer but was kept at bay on different fronts; I am thinking particularly of the Mediterranean fronts, in Greece, in Crete and in North Africa.
Then the hon. member for Lethbridge put certain questions which he wanted me to answer specifically and categorically. I only wish to say that in the first place I think the hon. member knows that the questions with which he was dealing were not germane to the items before the committee. There will be a time to discuss rehabilitation. In the remarks I made the other afternoon I was dealing with the effort which the forces themselves were putting forward in order to see to it that while men were in the army they were made as fit as possible to take up civilian avocations, and I was indicating the kind of machinery, the committees and the sort of administration being set up by the forces for that purpose. I only say to my hon. friend that if he will read the speech from the throne he will find
indicated there the scope of the measures which the government intend to bring down in connection with the matter of rehabilitation. As I said the other night, I am not in a position, nor do I propose to make any announcement with regard to the extent of that policy, but the measures will speak for themselves when they are before the house.
The hon. member for Renfrew South spoke of the pulhems system. I know what he said, and when he speaks in connection with a matter of this kind I regard what he says as being entitled to special attention. He said that more consideration should be given to the man's statement. As a physician of very long standing himself, I am sure that that advice comes from his own experience in diagnosing the condition of patients. I know nothing about it, but it sounds like common sense that attention should be given to the history given by the patient. I will also agree that that history has to be checked up, having regard to the clinical treatment.
The hon. member asked whether consideration had been given to an amalgamation of the medical services of the armed forces. Further consideration is not being given to it. It has been considered many times, and it is considered that that action would not contribute to efficiency or economy in personnel. Consideration might be given to a revision of the organization of all federal medical services when the war is over. But the special needs of the three armed services make it essential that the medical officers be trained in methods of examinations and treatment peculiar to the disabilities and personalities to be served.
Another point which the committee must consider is the geographical consideration contributing to the need for a separate type of service. For instance, air force personnel are widely scattered from military camps. You cannot make a combination of those services, because it is simply geographically and physically impossible to do so. In the field of hospitalization, and the common use of medical services, the duplication of services-and I think my hon. friend will agree in this-has to a large extent been successfully avoided by means of the wartime hospitalization committee. My hon. friend knows consultant and specialist services are used in common by all four medical services.
Then, he asked with regard to the report of the medical assignment and procurement board. There is a misapprehension with regard to that matter. The report which has been handed to the government, and to me, because I happen to be the minister through whom the board reports, is not a report of the medical assignment and procurement board, but is, as
War Appropriation-Army

my hon. friend probably knows, a report of regional committees, appointed to make surveys on different subjects. That is, they are committees of physicians throughout the dominion.
In the document which was handed in there is no report of the board, as a board. This report consists of surveys which contain a very great deal of valuable information, and consists of a great number of recommendations which have been made by the various subcommittees or regional committees appointed to deal with each particular subject. There is a committee, I think, on nursing, a committee on hospitalization, a committee on war-time manpower and so on.


James Joseph McCann: Were those reports of the different regional committees coordinated?


James Layton Ralston: I do not know just what my hon. friend means by "coordinated."


James Joseph McCann: Integrated.


James Layton Ralston: The central board itself has never had each of those reports and said, "We approve this, and we do not approve that." They are all separate reports. The question as to whether they shall be tabled is under consideration. I am strongly disposed to have them tabled, because I think they contain information which will be of general value not only to the services, but also to the medical profession which has contributed in their preparation, and in gathering the data. They would also have a great value to the public.
As a' matter of fact, I can tell the committee that I asked the secretary of the board if he would have prepared for the board a summary Df these reports in order that they might be in readable form, with the idea that, after consideration was given, and if the decision was made to table the reports, they could be tabled in full. The summaries would be there for people to read, for the use of the press, or for anyone who cared to read them. That matter is under consideration, and I expect it will be determined shortly.
The hon. member for Parkdale spoke with regard to reinforcements. I do not think I can add anything to what I said as reported at pages 440 and 441 of Hansard. We have long since gone past those items. My hon. friend has brought it up to-night. I say to him I have nothing to add and nothing to take back from the information I gave the committee at that time. I shall not take the time of the committee to read what I said, but I put it as succinctly as I possibly could. It is plain, and I think it is clear. I think the only

doubt my hon. friend has is as to whether or not sufficient provision has been made for casualties. On that I can only refer him to what I have already said, namely, that after consultation with those who, I think, know best, and having regard to the circumstances which are likely to arise, it is thought that the provision for casualties is sufficient. I have told him, as I told the committee, that at the present time the pool in the United Kingdom is well up to the plan, to full strength, and that that pool will be reduced as casualties unfortunately occur. In order to maintain that pool, or to replenish it, we are budgeting for 4,000 men a month during the year, and if those 4,000 men a month are realized it will mean that at the end of the year after casualties have been incurred-if they are casualties of not more than the scale which has been laid down-the pool overseas will be maintained at adequate strength, and the number in Canada will remain practically undiminished.
There is a number in Canada, as I have told the committee, of some 60,000 general service personnel suitable for overseas service, in training centres and in units as at the end of March this year. That is our estimate.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Are those volunteers?


James Layton Ralston: Yes, those are volunteers. Then, as I say, those men will be withdrawn and gradually sent overseas at the rate of approximately 4,000 a month. We are budgeting for an intake of something like a similar amount. If that intake is realized it will mean that the pool overseas-if the estimate of casualties is not exceeded-will remain, and the number in Canada will remain exactly the same. If that intake goes down, that is to say if there is a falling off toward the end of the year, it will mean that toward the end of the year that pool overseas will be maintained but the pool in Canada will be reduced by the deficiency. I think that is as frank as I can be with regard to that.
I also add that there still remain in Canada about 50,000 N.R.M.A. personnel who would be available for reinforcements^ provided the emergency arose, and the necessary action were taken. The hon. member's quarrel was that action was not taken immediately, and of course that is where he differs from some of the rest of us.


Mr. GRAYDON:: May I ask one question? The minister said in connection with a question I raised last night almost at the conclusion of the sitting that there were 73,000 of N.R.M.A. men in Canada. He now says

. War Appropriation-Army
there are 60,000. I presume there is an explanation for the difference between the two figures?


James Layton Ralston: There is, I said 60,000, and that is a low figure. I should have said that in mentioning the number which might be available to send overseas I was counting only 50,000 of them.


Gordon Graydon: That is, 50,000 of the
73,000?


James Layton Ralston: Yes, 50,000 of the 73,000. My hon. friend asked about the 73,000, and1 I have the figures here to give him. About mid-January there were practically 73,000 N.R.M.A. personnel on strength. Of that number forty-seven per cent were in operational troops in Canada; fifteen per cent were in non-operational troops, twenty per cent in training, eight per cent in depot reselection and disposal units and seven per cent on leave. That means that they are on extended leave, in connection with forestry, mining and so on. That seven per cent is about 5,000, so that the net number in Canada apart from those on leave is something like 68,000. Of these 68,000 I am suggesting that about 50,000 would be medically fit for overseas service.


Gordon Graydon: Not all of the 73,000
are A-l.


James Layton Ralston: I should have said also,
and I am now reminded that this number of which I am speaking is not simply in Canada alone. It is in the north American area, in the western hemisphere. There are some in Labrador, some in the Caribbean, some in Newfoundland and a few in Alaska.


Gordon Graydon: The minister has mentioned troops in other parts of the world, and in that connection there is a matter I wish to bring up before his appropriations are passed. In the newspapers of Canada this morning the Associated Press carried an interview with an army intelligence officer of the United States, on which the minister may have some information. The news item is as follows:
A United States army intelligence officer said to-night loose talk, mostly radiating from Seattle, enabled the Japanese to withdraw thousands of men and vast quantities of material out of Kiska last August to leave invading United States and Canadian forces "with a hollow victory tantamount to defeat."
He went on to say:
Common was the knowledge in Seattle that we planned to attack Kiska and, prior to the invasion, unauthorized persons, both military and civilian, openly disclosed the date, August 15.
As a result the Japs got out, voluntarily. Not one remained on the island when our troops arrived at three o'clock in the morning. Some scattered machine-gun fire the day before, reported by our reconnaissance fliers, indicated presence of hostile troops then. Even these were gone when we got there.
They knew we were coming-and when. So accurately and so far in advance were the Japs tipped off that, had they chosen to implement their forces, they might have annihilated us.
I raise the question at this time because it is apropos of this appropriation, though I was particularly pleased to note that no reference was made to any leaks as far as our Canadian people are concerned. Leaks are a matter of great concern; and I would ask the minister if he has any comment to make in connection with this dispatch, because it does seem to me that this is a good time for the minister and the government to caution the Canadian people on this particular point which is perhaps more important at the present time than any other because, not so much on account of what we are saying in Canada, but because of incorrect statements made by people in high positions outside Canada that this war will be over in 1944 so far as Germany is concerned, it is important that the Canadian people should realize that we are a long way yet from winning this war, and therefore we should as a people realize that loose talk cannot be tolerated now any more than it could be tolerated two or three years ago. I am not so sure but that people in this country are a little prone to treat the whole question of the war a little more lightly now than we as the Canadian people should. Here is a case in point of what loose talk can do. I can quite understand that loose talk may be just thoughtlessness. Nevertheless, whether it be merely thoughtlessness or by design, loose talk has the same result, and I was astounded to realize that because of loose talk in another country we might have had a very serious situation facing the Kiska expedition.
I shall have accomplished my purpose in rising to-night if I can bring to the attention of the government and of the house and of the Canadian people the importance of seeing to it that we maintain our war fervour, if you like, at this particular time because I realize, as I think hon. members and the government and the people generally do, that we are a long way from the end, and that this is no time for us to relax in our efforts. I think it is time the people of Canada recognize our responsibility in the matter of loose talk, and I should like to hear from the minister on that because I think it is important from the point of view of our morale and from the point of view of our national security as well, because
War Appropriation-Army

the more optimistic our people become, and perhaps without proper justification, it is only natural that the looser their talk, the more careless their utterance tends to become.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend and I very often do not agree, but I should like to go on record now as supporting everything he has just said.
In the first place, with regard to the dispatch which he has read, while I do not wish that we should pat ourselves on the back, I think we have done a particularly good job, and here I am speaking not only for the army, but for all the staffs and for the Canadian people generally, and particularly the people of. western Canada, when I say that I do not think security was ever more loyally observed than it was in connection with the Kiska operation. I mean that the people who saw the boats being loaded and knew that troops were being withdrawn and who were bound to get some idea of the direction in which those troops were going, kept their mouths shut. At least it never got to the ears of our intelligence branches that there had been any leaks in connection with that expedition. That went for the relatives of the boys who missed their mail and knew that something must be doing, and for the boys themselves who loyally observed security regulations. I do think that Kiska was an example of staff work and team work by the army, the navy and the air force, because they were all in it, and civilians, too, which could well be emulated in operations of the future.
With regard to my hon. friend's other point, I endeavoured when I was making my opening statement to the committee to emphasize as strongly as I could my own conviction that the idea that the war is over is perhaps the one factor that will be the strongest in lengthening the war of any factor of which one can conceive. When people get the idea that the war is over, there is sure to be, as my hon. friend says, a relaxation, a feeling that we do not need to work quite as hard to win. That is exactly what our enemies are working for and playing for, to get us in a state of complacency or to get us tired out and tired of it all, which might give them an opportunity to force or exact or obtain some better terms than the terms now facing them of unconditional surrender. As I said at the opening of the last war loan, if I were giving a motto to the people of Canada for 1944-there used to be a preacher in our church who gave his people a text for the year on New Year's day -my text to the people of Canada in the year 1944 would be: Don't let up. I agree

with my hon. friend that we can only keep up the pressure in connection with men, equipment, and money if we don't let up, and if we restrain ourselves in the matters we would like to talk about, restrain ourselves from giving any inside information that we may have and would like to communicate to somebody else to convince them that we are in on the know. We should endeavour at all times to restrain ourselves from indulging in that very agreeable form of self-exultation, and just keep any information we have to ourselves until this show is over. I do not think there is any time in history when coming events have been foreshadowed in the headlines the way they have been in this war. Sometimes I feel like deploring the amount of publicity which is given to what are regarded as future events. Of course it is so, in these days of rapid communication, and when so many people have to be "in on it", that a great many people do know, and a democratic people, particularly, demand information and consider that they ought to be "let in" as far as their leaders can let them in. I only hope that the desire to satisfy that legitimate longing to have information in a war in which people have everything invested, not only their money but their men as well, will not lead anybody to go too far and endanger lives and the success of operations by giving more information than is absolutely necessary to accomplish the purpose which I have suggested.


Percy Chapman Black: There are two matters which I should like to place before the committee and, perhaps, have a statement with regard to them from the minister. The first has to do with a man in my constituency of Cumberland who was called up and placed in C category; who lived on the farm with his brother, his father being dead; who had a postponement, and who worked in the woods cutting wood and getting some logs, which he was anxious to have hauled out while the snow was still on the ground. He was called to Halifax, and it would now appear, under another number and in the name of another person. He was accepted by the army and placed in the service under the name of Harry Blake Fraser, number G15883, his real name being Harry Brenton Fraser and his number G15419. He is now in the army under this other name, although he had exemption as a farmer and, as I said, was working in the woods getting out logs and lumber. The question is whether he is under military authority, whether he must remain there or

War Appropriation-Army
whether he can. go home. His mother writes me a pitiful letter; she herself is in ill health; there are two other brothers in the services; he has been retained in Halifax for some weeks and, as far as I know, is still there.
The other matter to which I wish to refer is that of hotel accommodation in Halifax. I have information that the Hillside hotel, which was mentioned this afternoon by the minister and the hon. member for York-Sunbury, has been vacated by the Canadian Women's Army Corps and is just barely occupied at the present time. In view of the scarcity of hotels and stopping places in Halifax, and the fact that the Halifax hotel and the Waverley hotel have also been taken over and that the King Edward hotel is used for military purposes, could not Hillside Hall be made available for the use of the public and transients, to accommodate private citizens? People who have business in Halifax, people who are going to Halifax to see members of their family sail, have no place to stay. Many of them have to stay up all night, and some are ordered not even to come to Halifax. If the facts are as represented to me, this Hillside hotel was taken over by the department at an initial cost of $50,000, plus additional expenditures bringing the total at the present time up to $89,868.63; and as I said, the information I have is that it has been practically vacated as regards the purpose for which it was first secured.


James Layton Ralston: In reference to the case to which my hon. friend has referred, I would think that the only thing the young man can do is to make application in the regular way. It happens to be a different name, but it is the same individual.


Percy Chapman Black: No; another individual and another number.


James Layton Ralston: I did not catch it, then.


Percy Chapman Black: His real number is G15419, and the number under which he is being held is G15883.


James Layton Ralston: As I understood the matter, it was the same individual.


Percy Chapman Black: I assume it is two men. He has his own number. He is not in the army with a uniform. The man is being held under another name and another number.


James Layton Ralston: If my hon. friend will send me particulars of the case I shall look into it.
With regard to Hillside Hall, I do not know how many people it accommodates; I would think perhaps fifty at the outside.


Percy Chapman Black: I think it accommodates more than that.


James Layton Ralston: One hundred, say?


Percy Chapman Black: My return says, ten officers and 200 C.W.A.C.


James Layton Ralston: It would not accommodate 200 civilians. I can say to my hon. friend that I do not think there is the slightest chance in the world of the department being able to give up that property. We have searched the city and done everything we possibly could in order to get accommodation for the personnel which is required there. We had a great many protests at the time this was done, but the war was on and the accommodation was needed, so that we just had to take it. My hon. friend knows we built on the cathedral grounds huts to accommodate personnel, rather than take more property of that kind. I generally try to hold out hope of consideration, but I am afraid I would not be justified in raising hopes in this case.
.Mr. ADAMSON:	The question came up
just now about complacency. I think that is the term for it. We had a statement this afternoon in this chamber that thirteen basic training centres had been closed. Yet we are told by the Prime Minister, who goes into histrionics about it, that the war is certainly a long way from being won. I am prepared to agree, certainly, that most of the fighting is yet to come, but the statement that thirteen basic training centres have been closed simply defies analysis if we are yet to have our greatest number of casualties. It seengs to me that some further statement as to the reason for the closing of these basic training centres is needed. Presumably we are to attack the fortress of Europe. This will be tough, tougher than we probably imagine at the present time. Yet we have decreased our recruiting in, I think, all three services. I am not sure about the navy, but certainly the air force has stopped recruiting aircrew. And we have closed thirteen basic training centres. It seems to me that there must be a further explanation of this very important point.
With reference to the question of internment operations, which comes under this item, the minister has given an explanation as to why we have a reduction in costs. The cost of operations is reduced five million dollars. Actually it is not reduced five million dollars, but the item is reduced by that amount because of the transfer of salaries. Are prisoners of war paid-the ones working in the lumber camps and those engaged in manufacturing operations? There are several plants in my riding-I am thinking of one in particular- where prisoners of war are actually working in industry. What base rates are they being paid, and what regulations under the Geneva convention does this come under?
War Appropriation-Army


James Layton Ralston: I am talking of pay and allowances of guards.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I know; that is why this item is reduced. I realize that. I know, however, these men are working in industry and presumably receiving civilian rates of pay. I came across a case the other day where prisoners of war actually had to pay dues to a union because they were working in civilian occupations. This is a United States item and it is reported in a New York paper. I quote from an editorial:
Almost anybody would at first give way to the impulse to condemn such a situation as that in Bridgetown, New Jersey, where German prisoners are expected to pay dues to an A.F. of L. local of amalgamated meat cutters and butchers' workmen. On second thought, however, that policy has bright possibilities.
I will not read the rest of the story, but here we have a situation where German prisoners of war are actually paying dues.


Mr. MITCHELL:: That is not in Canada?


Agar Rodney Adamson: No.


Humphrey Mitchell: Stay back home.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Nevertheless I think we should have some clarification of the method of paying prisoners of war in Canada.


James Layton Ralston: I would ask my hon. friend, as I did the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains, to be good enough to defer these questions until the Department of Labour .appropriation comes up. This has nothing to do with the item before us. This item has to do with the administration of the camps. It has no reference to employment of prisoners of war, nor has it anything to do with the policy as to why they are there. It is not under the Department of National Defence at all.


Agar Rodney Adamson: The prisoners I speak of are actually in an internment camp.


James Layton Ralston: All we are interested in is supplying the guards. The internees are sent out under order in council, and the Minister of Labour is making the necessary arrangements with regard to the matter. I only ask the committee to keep to the subject.


Agar Rodney Adamson: But does that apply to men in special camps cutting wood-the forestry camps? There are special forestry camps, I understand.


James Layton Ralston: I think so.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Do they come under the Minister of Labour or under the Department of National Defence?


James Layton Ralston: If they are receiving pay they come under the Minister of Labour; that is to say, the rate of pay comes under him. I believe my colleague will remember some discussions with regard to this matter, which has to do with external affairs and the Department of Labour. [DOT]


Agar Rodney Adamson: I am glad it has been brought up because we at least have that clarification of it.


Humphrey Mitchell: There are to my knowledge no prisoners of war in Canada paying dues into any union. The secretary of labour in the United States will take the onus for that situation. When this item comes under my estimates I shall be glad to satisfy my hon. friend with reference to the work done by prisoners of war in Canada.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is the question of the cost of these prisoners of war camps a matter altogether under external affairs?


James Layton Ralston: As a matter of fact, the arrangement is made through external affairs with the British government. The actual money spent for the building of the camps was spent by my department.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And the manning of the camps?


James Layton Ralston: Yes.


Agar Rodney Adamson: One more question. This was discussed at some length this afternoon. I refer to the question of clothing allowance for the soldier, sailor or airman leaving the service. I was in receipt to-day of a communication from the Toronto rehabilitation committee giving what they considered the cost of adequate clothing for a soldier leaving the army, and I think it would be interesting to the committee to have that information now. One paragraph of the letter reads:
As to clothing, you will notice the committee recommend $35 for men with less than six months' service-


James Layton Ralston: I hate to interrupt my hon. friend again because he generally sticks closely to the text, but this has nothing to do with dependents' allowance. It is a clothing allowance.


Agar Rodney Adamson: But the clothing allowance was brought up this afternoon.


James Layton Ralston: I did not hear it
brought up.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Yes; it was discussed at some length.

War Appropriation-Army


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend is mistaken. I was filing an answer to one hon. member with regard to a case in Montreal, the complaint being that the man had been arrested and was being persecuted by the civil police. But there was no discussion of clothing allowance.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I will bring this up under the estimates of the Minister of Pensions and National Health. There is, however, one further thing I would suggest to the minister. It directly affects both ministers, and it is so important I feel it should be taken up on the estimates of the Minister of National Defence. A man in Italy is permanently wounded; he loses a foot. He is taken into a military hospital in Italy until he is well enough to travel. He is then put on a hospital ship and brought back to military hospital in Canada, and all that time he is receiving the pay and allowance of his rank. Then, after a pertain period, he is boarded out of the army and sent to a Department of Pensions and National Health hospital where he is put on hospital allowance. The air force does not do that. When he is put on hospital allowance-


James Layton Ralston: The air force has nothing to do with it.


Agar Rodney Adamson: What happens is this. While still incapacitated, while still in hospital, the man is transferred to the Department of Pensions and National Health hospital and his pay is drastically reduced, particularly if he is an officer. I submit that a man, no matter how long he is in hospital, should be paid the full pay of his rank until such time as he is discharged as a walking case. You treat a man as a hero when he is overseas and when he is in a Department of National Defence hospital, but when you send him to the Department of Pensions and National Health hospital you cut his pay. If you are going to cut his pay when he is sent to that hospital it is logical that it should be stopped immediately he is wounded. I make this plea to the minister, and I make it seriously, until the man is completely discharged, well and able to enter into civilian life, keep him on the pay and allowances of his rank. Do not cut him off when you transfer him from-


James Layton Ralston: Is my hon. friend suggesting he be kept on the strength of the army?


Agar Rodney Adamson: No; I suggest his pay should be continued.


James Layton Ralston: That is quite a different
matter. My hon. friend, I am sure, admits he should be struck off the strength of the army.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Yes.


James Layton Ralston: May I remind my hon. friend that he was mistaken when he made a statement the other night on this subject, having overlooked the change which had been made in the hospital allowances given to a man hospitalized after he is discharged. I read those rates into the record at that time. I think most of the committee feels that the subject has been pretty well discussed under this item, even though it does not fall under my department. I would ask my hon. friend for the sake of regularizing the proceedings to bring this matter up under the appropriate item in the Department of Pensions and National Health estimates.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I should like to say this as a final word. I feel that it is the function of the Department of National Defence to see to it that until the man is completely discharged to civilian life he should not be penalized after he has passed out of their hands into the Department of Pensions and National Health.


Mr. KNOWLES:: Apropos of the well deserved compliment which the minister paid a few minutes ago to the men in the Kiska forces, I should like to take just a few minutes to ask a question. If the minister will recall my remarks of some time ago he will remember that on February 17 I discussed with him the matter of income tax deductions from these men. I was grateful for the studied hearing he gave to our representation at that time. Since I discussed the matter in the committee I have made additional representations to the minister by letter. I have also been in touch with the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Revenue. My question is: have developments in this matter reached such a stage that the minister can tell us whether the men to whom I refer will have their full exemption in regard to income tax while they were in Kiska?


James Layton Ralston: I repeat to my hon. friend what I said the other night, when the matter was under discussion, that full attention and full consideration was being given to the matter. When it has been decided upon, an announcement will be made. I do not think it will be very long before the announcement is made.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: Early in the discussion I asked a question about the cost of clothing for soldiers. I thought the minister was going to bring down the answer. I think the cost of clothing a soldier when he joins the army should be figured out.
After the lengthy discussion on this department I am still very much confused about our man-power problem. I read in the press

War Appropriation-Army


Richard Burpee Hanson: They
cancelled it.


James Arthur Ross: I said, "You know what I think about our-"


Richard Burpee Hanson: That was a faux pas.


James Arthur Ross: "-Prime Minister as a war leader. I cannot credit that statement.
I am happy to think that before very long another message came over the air which was -as a result of a statement from Washington that President Roosevelt had said that this was certainly no time for celebration-to the effect that the celebration was off. I am happy to think that occurred before we, as Canadians, had been humiliated.
I think it is the duty of every public official in this country, and especially those in the
rMr. J. A. Ross.]
government, to avail themselves of every opportunity to impress upon our citizens that this war is far from won, as the minister has himself said. I feel rather frustrated about the whole situation, as I must confess. I cannot see the end of this war in sight in the near future. I think it is bad that our people are led to believe that it is nearly over. As I stated, we must keep before our people that we have a long, dark, hard pull ahead of us.
I hate to think of the heartaches that I fear will take place in this country as a result of great casualties if we win this war as we should. I think that should be impressed upon the public.	_
As I say, the man-power situation, the recruitment for the various armed services and the draft system do not portray the seriousness of the situation. I am not able to get to the bottom of it. I am more befuddled, after listening to the remarks of the Minister of National Defence, than I was before I started, and I certainly was in a deep mystery then.


An hon. MEMBER:: You always are.


James Arthur Ross: That may be. I do not profess to be an armchair strategist or anything of that kind. But I have had a little experience in war, and I am prepared to take up arms again if the opportunity should arise. But I say I am quitfe confused. I say we are not impressing the seriousness of this whole business on the people of Canada as we should.


An hon. MEMBER:: John Bracken is.


James Arthur Ross: I trust that we shall not need any further recruitment, either by the draft system or voluntarily. But, as I say, it does not add up, as far as I am concerned. Along with what has been said by the minister, the leader of the opposition, and others on various occasions, I want to impress upon the people that we have a very serious task ahead of us. I am afraid it will cost this country a lot in lives. We should be impressing that seriously upon the people. I repeat, what we have learned here in the last few weeks has not borne that out.


Mr. LOCKHART:: I was out of the house for a few minutes. Did the minister take cognizance of the note I sent him across the floor, and will he let me have the information about the proving ranges?


James Layton Ralston: I shall.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: There is quite a lot of damage being done.


Mr. JACKMAN:: Will the minister tell the committee how many officers have graduated from the allied military school at Kingston, how many are being trained there at the present time, what the purpose of it is, and where these officers are to be sent afterwards?

War Appropriation-Air Services


James Layton Ralston: The school is being conducted in collaboration with the British war office. I think there have been three classes so far. I am speaking from memory. As I indicated to the committee the other night I think there were twenty-four in the first class. The purpose of the training of these officers is in connection with the occupation of enemy countries. I know of some officers who are already engaged in connection with that work in Italy, and who were in Sicily. My hon. friend wants to know the type of officers. I can tell him generally speaking they are of the sort who would have some knowledge of municipal government or the management of municipal public utilities. They are men who would be engineers, people of that class. Linguistic requirements are not so much a necessity. There are also some teachers, as I understand it, in connection with some special lines. Their use, generally speaking, is in connection with occupied territories.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: How many officers does
the minister- intend to train in that school altogether?


James Layton Ralston: I w-as in error a moment ago in my reference to these classes; the first group has just graduated and the second is just going in now.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: How large is the scheme
intended to be?


James Layton Ralston: There is a school in England, a school in Canada and a school in the United States.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: But how many men does the minister intend to put through this school?


James Layton Ralston: It depends upon the
supply in England. Our officers are going from the Canadian army in England to the school over there, and it will depend upon how many are required altogether. We are collaborating with the British in that respect. I cannot tell
my hon. friend ; it may be that this school will not continue. It just depends upon how many are needed, for all we know the school in England can take all that we have available.


Agar Rodney Adamson: What is the length of
the course?


James Layton Ralston: Two months.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Hon. C. G. POWER (Minister of National Defence for Air):: Mr. Chairman, I propose to-night to give perhaps a more detailed and comprehensive statement of the affairs of the Royal Canadian Air Force than has been my custom in past years. That is for two reasons. AVe have reached a phase in our war-time existence, as far as the air force is concerned, which marks the end of one part, and an important part, of our work, namely the air training, and we . are on the threshold of beginning the more important part of the work, the fruition, the fulfilment of what has been going on for the past three years, namely the -well prepared attempt-and I am almost sure the successful attempt-finally to wrest air supremacy over Europe from our enemies.
I have certain financial statements here. I do not wish to trouble the committee 'by reading them; if I have consent I will place them on Hansard and see to it that the members of the groups opposite receive copies at once. The first statement deals with the cash estimates for 1944-45, and shows that the total cash requirement of the Royal Canadian Air Force for the fiscal year 1944-45 is
81,090,000,000.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is it broken down?
Mr. POAArER: Yes, very much. The statement is as follows:	,
Royal Canadian Air Force
Cash Estimates 1944-1945
1.	Total Requirements.-Total estimated cash requirements of the Royal Canadian Air Force
for the fiscal year 1944-1945, is:	$1,090,000,000.
2.	Probable expenditure for the fiscal year 1943-1944 is:	$1,189,402,327.
3.	Detailed requirements for 1944-1945, compared with probable expenditure for 1943-1944, are:
British commonwealth air training
plan	 $ 474,200,502
Western hemisphere operations ...	309,900,000
Overseas	 405,301,825

War Appropriation-Air Services
I also have a statement indicating the manpower strength of the Royal Canadian Air Force each year since the beginning of the war, as follows:
Man-power Strength
Strength
Royal Canadian Air Force strength for each of the following years on the dates stated, were,-
31st August, 1939	 4,061
2nd April, 1940	 10,598
31st March, 1941	 47,920
31st March, 1942	 112.759
2nd April, 1943	 170,366
18th February, 1944	 206,548
Man-power requirements for the next year, that is April 1, 1944, to March 31, 1945, are
26,000.
This reduction from requirements of previous years, is largely due to the fact that groundcrew requirements have been stabilized *and we have again this year, owing largely to the intensive recruiting campaign of last October, a substantial aircrew reserve in hand. In addition remustering to aircrew trades from groundcrew will yield a considerable number of aircrew. Last year 6,192 groundcrew were remustered to aircrew. This, together with the fact that there will be a reduction during the course of the year of entrants into training, lowers our aircrew requirements for the year.
Now I propose to divide this review of last year's operations into three parts:
Part 1. British commonwealth joint air training plan,
Part 2. Western hemisphere operations,
Part 3. Overseas operations.
With regard to the British commonwealth air training plan, the cash expenditures from inception are:
Fiscal year 1939-1940	
$	3,298,747Fiscal	year-1940-1941	
124,354,624Fiscal	year	1941-1942	
244,060,067Fiscal	year	1942-1943	
401.556,818(9 months)	Fiscal year 1943-1944	339,521,105Total for above period	
$1,112,791,361Estimated additional to March 31, 1944	!...	134,679,397
Total estimated expenditure from
inception to March 31, 1944....	1,247,470,758
Estimated cash 1944-1945	 387,937,507
Total estimated expenditure from
inception to March 31, 1945.... $1,635,408,265
These figures represent the cash which has been found and estimated still to be found by the Canadian government and are additional to contributions in kind by the United Kingdom government.
fMr. Power.]
The decrease in estimated cash requirements during 1944-45, for the British commonwealth air training plan from the anticipated 1943-44 expenditures amounting to approximately
886,000,000, is chiefly attributable to reductions in capital expenditures and pay and allowances. The plan has now passed its ultimate and capital expenditures have been reduced to the practical minimum.
Certain reductions in the scope of the training organization were anticipated and these estimates give effect to these reductions. Since preparation of the estimates, however, decisions have been made which will ultimately reduce the plan still further. These further reductions cannot have an early effect on recurring expenditure as training establishments must keep in operation for the completion of the training of aircrew and groundcrew now in training. It may be noted that most aircrew courses are of approximately twelve months' duration and it is obvious that the better part of the fiscal year 1944-45 will elapse before curtailment to any worthwhile extent can be accomplished in the operation of advanced schools, which, besides being the most numerous, are also the most costly to operate.
The British commonwealth air training plan has this year reached the zenith of its development, and its effect has been felt around the world. Wherever our allied airmen fly, will be found graduates of this plan: from the antipodes to the bleak wastes of Greenland, from India to Alaska, our Canadian-trained aviators perform their daily tasks as they were so well taught to do by the thousands of men in the instructional, technical and administrative staffs of our training plan.
The spectacular and more publicized part of this plan, the production of our fighting aircrew, lias continued at full flow. No demands for men of the various flying categories have been unheeded, and the continuous development of this plan has kept abreast of the requirements of the fighting fronts.
The original agreement for the British commonwealth joint air training plan entered into December 13, 1939, has been amended by supplementary agreements in June, 1942, and April, 1943. A further change was made in the agreement in December, 1943, and again in February, 1944. These changes were announced to the house in a statement made on February 16, appearing at page 535 of Hansard. I quote:
At the present time we have the capital and the necessary immediate replacements.
Our long-term war plans entail certain reductions in the numbers of entrants to aircrew training.
Consequent upon the reduction in intake of trainees, there will be a gradual and progressive

War Appropriation-Air Services
closing of a certain number of training units, and schools in Canada, beginning with the Royal Air Force transferred schools. The process will be deliberate and extended over many months, and the reduction of training facilities will be geared to the requisite flow of pupils through the plan.
These changes indicate that we have reached the end of our air training expansion.
To quote General George Marshall, chief of staff of the United States army, in his report to the secretary of war, in his explanation of somewhat similar changes made in the United States army organization-
Another factor is now operating to our advantage. We are reaching the end of the expansion; already it has been possible to reduce many training installations to a purely maintenance basis to furnish replacements for the present strength of the army. It also has been practicable, and it is highly desirable to lengthen the basic training period for soldiers and to extend the period of training for officer candidates; and most important of all, it is no longer necessary to drain units of their best officers and men to furnish trained cadres for new organizations or students for the officer candidates and technical schools.
This quotation refers to the United States army generally, but perhaps more particularly to the United States army air force, which has only recently closed seventy air training establishments.
The partners in the joint air training plan have agreed to modify our training programme so as to bring the greatest possible weight of air strength to bear on the German enemy during the critical year of the war.
Let it be well understood the expansion of training has been completed, but the expansion of the forces on the fighting fronts is still going on. That expansion will be provided for by the thousands now in the training scheme, the reduced training capacity being amply sufficient to look after the replacements when the front line cadre is filled.
We are not proposing a winding-up of the air training plan, even progressively, on the contrary we are providing, and have agreed with the United Kingdom for a continuation of the plan after March, 1945, the date on which the 1942 agreement expires, but a continuation with a reduced output, which reduced output will not be noticeable or in effect before eighteen months hence.
We are rolling up our training forces as we would a carpet. By this process of rolling from the rear, personnel will be automatically massed forward to increase the striking power of the fighting front.
Now, I certainly will be asked as to what schools will be closed and when. I have already stated that the Royal Air Force transferred schools will be the first to close,
beginning about midsummer and running well into next year. With respect to others, there are many factors to be taken into consideration. Whether the property is leased or owned. Whether it is required for civilian purposes. A school in Quebec city, located in a leased property, for instance, will be closed this month. Another school located in an institution kindly placed at our disposal by the government of Ontario, and now required for agricultural purposes, will be returned as soon as possible.
Other factors to be considered will be travelling expense between types of schools; costs of operation, disturbance to civilian economy, geographical location; air training conditions, fog area or obscure visibility, air congestion, etc.
There are two methods which might be followed in bringing about this reduction. We might reduce our production by simply cutting down the number of trainees in each school and so keeping them all or nearly all open. On the other hand we might close and place on a care and maintenance basis a certain number of schools. The first course only brings about a postponement and besides is far more costly and less effective in our war effort. It keeps up overhead, staff, instructors, travelling expenses, etc., and holds people in Canada who would be better employed overseas. We have chosen the second alternative as being honest and efficient, even if, for the moment, less popular.
As to the use to which these can be put in the future, four government agencies are interested,-
(1) The post-war civil aviation committee, and from the standpoint of the public it is the most interested because the first question to be asked will be what use can be made of these expensive facilities in the development of postwar civil aviation. This committee, under the cabinet war committee, has already been charged with the study of possible post-war civilian utilization of aerodromes constructed for service purposes, when they are no longer required by the service.
(21 The second government agency is the Department of Labour, which has on several occasions written to ask that it be notified when any schools or institutions become vacant so that it may plan their use for vocational training and accommodation of trainees, and other purposes.
(3) Then there is the Department of Pensions and National Health, which may require accommodation for vocational training and perhaps for convalescent homes or rehabilitation purposes generally.

War Appropriation-Air Services
(4) Further, there is the crown assets allocation committee and the War Assets Corporation, Limited, charged with the disposal of assets, including lands and buildings no longer required by the sendees. As soon as a decision is reached as to the closing of individual schools, these various agencies will be notified.
During the past year, and since I made my last report to this house concerning these matters, a considerable change has taken place in the requirements of the flying services at the fighting fronts. We have now achieved a position of air superiority in men and machines, and are carrying the war to the enemy by way of our heavy bombers. This has caused the Germans to emphasize the defensive, and accordingly our ratio of losses in the lighter aircraft categories such as fighters, fighter-bombers, and medium bombers, has dropped. This has reflected itself in a change in the requirements for the production of different types of aircrew, in that an increasing proportion of our aircrew is now being diverted into the heavier types of aircraft, where they will make their blows on Hitler's Europe felt in the most effective way. '
Last year, when making my report, I told you that we had already trained over 50,000 aircrew in Canada. I can tell you now that this number has risen to over 86,000. Similarly, the number trained in ground trades is now above 114,000 men and we have practically reached saturation in our requirements for ground trades, both for training establishments and for operational requirements in the western hemisphere of operations. In addition to the men required by the Royal Canadian Air Force, we have enlisted and trained over 15,000 in the women's division. Here again we have reached our peak and no further personnel are needed to bring our establishments to full strength beyond what have already been enlisted and are awaiting training, and accordingly, enlistment for the women's division of the Royal Canadian Air Force has been curtailed to the comparatively small numbers required for replacements.
We have had less trouble in the past year obtaining training aircraft than in any time in the past. In elementary trainers we have all we need and the same applies for the training aircraft used in our service schools. Operational aircraft used in training, are still in relatively scarce supply due to the requirements of the various operational theatres of war and the demands from our ever-increasing overseas participation.
There has been a practical completion of all construction necessary for the continuance of the plan, and from now on, relatively little in

the way of further construction is to be expected. The requirements for repair and storage continue to increase and as the aircraft get larger, these requirements will continue to grow. This tells the story of the point the air training plan has reached to-day.
Now that the air training plan has reached its peak, I think I should say a word of thanks to all those who have contributed to its undoubted success. To officer and airman, to staff and trainees, to service and civilian personnel, and to the people of Canada who supported it. It was a truly national effort. Its fulfilment was the expression of the nation's will.
I now come to another phase of our operations, namely, western hemisphere operations; and again I ask consent of the committee to lay on the table of the house a statement of cash expenditures on western hemisphere operations since the outbreak of the war, indicating that the total estimated expenditures from September, 1939, to March 31, 1945, will be 8963,053,377, and I would also explain how the reduction in expenditures of $71,000,000 this year as compared with last year is being brought about. The table and the explanation are as follows:
Western Hemisphere Operations
Cash expenditures from the outbreak of war are,
Fiscal year 1939-1940	
Fiscal year 1940-1941	
Fiscal year 1941-1942	
Fiscal year 1942-1943	
(9 months) Fiscal year 1943-1944

Total for above period		$655,862,762
Estimated additional to March 31,
1944	 68,285.264
Total estimated expenditure from September, 1939, to March 31,
1944	 $724,148,026
Estimated cash 1944-1945	 238,905,351
Total estimated expenditure September, 1939 to March 31, 1945.

This decrease in estimated cash requirements for 1944-1945 for western hemisphere operations from anticipated expenditures for 1943-1944 amounting to approximately $71,000,000, is also mainly due to reductions in capital expenditures. The improved strategic situation has already permitted the transfer overseas of operational squadrons previously considered an essential part of the air defence of Canada. Furthermore, all major construction projects have been reviewed and, where economically feasible, they have been reduced or brought to a halt. Also, where operational possibilities warrant, certain units have been placed on a care and maintenance basis. Such curtailment in operations will eventually release man-power for overseas operations, either direct or through the training facilities of the British commonwealth air training plan.
FEBRUARY 20, 1944	K>31
War Appropriation-Air Services
Since I last reported to the house in May of last year the situation with respect to western hemisphere air operations have undergone considerable change. The enemy has been driven, or has been forced to withdraw his forces, to a more comfortable distance from our shores. The Japanese have been chased out of the Aleutian islands on our western flank, and a greater concentration of naval and air strength, together with new and improved weapons have forced the withdrawal of German submarine raiders to a considerable distance from our Atlantic coast line and from the gulf of St. Lawrence.
I have already explained on various occasions that the Royal Canadian Air Force engaged actively in operations against the enemy in the western hemisphere theatre is a complete and separate entity distinct from the Royal Canadian Air Force overseas and the British commonwealth air training plan.
It is history now that Royal Canadian Air Force squadrons composed of British commonwealth air training plan graduates and commanded by air veterans of the battle of Britain and the battle of Europe, operated under American command in the Aleutians coastal shipping and watching for Japanese foothold on our Pacific approaches. Blinded by the eternal fog and buffeted by the fierce and whimsical gales of that bleak comer of the continent, Royal Canadian Air Force fighter bomber pilots, with their American air' comrades, developed new technique in blasting the Japanese on Attu and Iviska so that United States and Canadian naval and ground forces could move in and take over those barren bits of rock away out in the Pacific.
The successful air operation in the Aleutians was pressed to a conclusion in the face of great difficulties, not only of weather but of supply and communication. Living conditions were, of necessity rather primitive and our boys suffered at times, considerable physical discomfort. A point which is not generally realized is that the personnel of our Aleutians squadrons, were more than 2,000 miles from their home bases, in other words as far from home as if they had been serving in the European or Mediterranean theatre, and the facilities of communication and supply were nothing like those connecting the home front with the latter theatre of war.
The units in the Aleutians were the only ones in the western air command who were fortunate enough to get in their own personal punch at the Japanese but there were thousands backing them up in less glamourous activities. There were squadrons patrolling the sea lanes of the Pacific coast protecting coastal shipping and watching for Japanese
raiders. There were fighter squadrons poised to repel air attacks. There was a vast construction organization, very often composed exclusively of service personnel, engaged in building new air bases in British Columbia and in the Yukon. Behind this again was a vastly improved communication and administration organization. Land line and radio communications were installed on a large scale. The Royal Canadian Air Force took over the control of all flying, civil as well as military, in the entire western region as well as throughout the busy northwest staging route north and west from Edmonton to Canol and on to Whitehorse and Alaska.
Probably hon. members and the public are more familiar with our Atlantic operations, particularly those concerned with the protection of troops and supplies moving to European theatres of war and with the unrelenting hunt for enemy submarines.
From the first Royal Canadian Air Force attack on a U-boat in October of 1941 up to the end of the calendar year, 1943, Royal Canadian Air Force operational aircraft have made a total of sixty-three attacks on enemy submarines in the Atlantic including one machine gun attack by a fighter aircraft. Of the sixty-three attacks, one half were made in 1943.	_
Through the acquisition of 4-engine Liberator long-range bombers, we have been able to extend the radius of air-cover from Canadian bases by something more than 200 miles. Of course, it will be understood that the primary purpose of our long-range squadrons in eastern air command is to protect the valuable convoys traversing the Atlantic.
The monotony of flying protection for convoys and hunting for submarines is indicated by some figures compiled by our research office. They tell us that late in 1942 the average flying time productive of a U-boat sighting was 840 hours and that our aircrew sighted a submarine on an average of once in 140 sorties. In the first half of 1943 the average remained about the same but in the last six months of the year it took an average of 1,700 hours of flying time for a U-boat sighted or an average of 230 sorties per sighting. Of course, the U-boats may still be there, but at least they keep submerged and thereby reducing their effectiveness.
Our increasing success on the anti-U-boat campaign is due in part to improved weapons, more modern aircraft and the greater experience of our aircrews. We are constantly improving our aircraft. For instance we have now the 4-engine Liberator and we have quite a number of Vega Ventura reconnaissance

War Appropriation-Air Services
bombers which the United States Navy call the PVI. Then there are of course, the Catalinas and Canso long range flying boats and still a few of the old faithful and almost obsolescent Lockheed Hudsons.
All in all, we had engaged in western hemisphere operations almost as many squadrons as we have Royal Canadian Air Force squadrons overseas. The departure of the Japanese from the Aleutians and the improvement in the U-boat war situation in the Atlantic have so improved the general situation that we have been able to release a number of western hemisphere operations squadrons for service overseas. On the west and east coasts our western hemisphere operational squadrons, during 1942 flew 62,500 operational hours compared with 86,000 hours in 1943. This flying time is equivalent to something like 7,500,000 nautical miles in 1942, compared with 10,000,000 nautical miles in 1943. In 1942 our aircraft flew 3,579 sorties escorting shipping compared with 2,097 sorties in 1943, but of course the aircraft range was greater. In addition to this, there were 9,649 miscellaneous sorties in 1942, such as sub hunts, reconnaissance, etcetera, as compared with 21,874 miscellaneous sorties in 1943.
In order to round out still more our Atlantic coverage, one of our anti-submarine patrol squadrons has been detached from the east coast and is now operating from a base in Iceland. It can be recalled should the enemy return to his attacks on shipping or close proximity to our coasts. Whilst we rejoice in the fact that no enemy submarine was sighted from our coast line during 1943, and no attacks were made in Canadian territorial waters, we do not propose to neglect our defences. The submarines may find it more profitable to return to narrow waters, there may be a recurrence of the intensive activity near our coasts as in 1942, when they attacked convoys leaving our shores rather than in mid-Atlantic, as they did in 1943. For that reason we cannot afford to denude ourselves of convoy protection and anti-submarine patrols in home waters. Our job is to hunt submarines wherever they are to be found, and we will hunt them, whether close in shore or far out to sea.
I now come to a discussion of the overseas operations of the Royal Canadian Air Force units, and again I would ask the consent of the committee to place on Hansard a statement of the expenditure since the outbreak of the war on overseas operations. The total estimated expenditure September, 1939, to March 31, 1945, is $910,819,643. There is also an explanation attached to the statement 
showing how there has been a substantial increase in the expenditure overseas as compared with last year's expenditure. The statement is as follows:
Overseas Operations Overseas War Establishment:
Cash expenditures from the outbreak of
war, are:
Fiscal year	1939-1940	 Nil
Fiscal year 1940-1941	 $ 4,995,360
Fiscal year	1941-1942	
13,699,336Fiscal year	1942-1943	
23,665,980(9 months)	Fiscal year 1943-1944 252,351,727Total for above period	
$294,712,403
Estimated additional to March 31,
1944	 152,950,098
Total estimated expenditure, September, 1939, to March 31, 1944. $447,662,501
Estimated cash 1944-1945	 463,157,142
Total estimated expenditure, September, 1939, to March 31, 1945. $910,819,643
The increase in estimated overseas cash requirements for 1944-1945 over estimated expenditures for 1943-1944 of approximately $58,000,000 is attributable to the increase in maintenance of overseas squadrons and increased personnel costs. Capital expenditure for overseas squadrons will continue as our squadrons are reequipped and rearmed with more up-to-date and more costly equipment. Provision has *been made for the maintenance of forty-four Canadian squadrons overseas as against thirty-eight in the previous year.
The continued posting of aircrew and ground-crew graduates overseas, together with promotions, will continue to reflect increases in overseas pay and allowances and this item alone accounts for approximately $39,000,000 of the increase over 1943-1944.
Overseas Operations. Before speaking of the record of the Royal Canadian Air Force overseas, I shall endeavour to make a cleat distinction between the various classes of Canadian air representations overseas. There has, I find, been a great deal of confusion in the minds not only of Canadians generally but also of members of this house as to just what classes of Canadians come under the jurisdiction of the Royal Canadian Air Force.
First in chronological order, though small in numerical importance, are Canadian nationals who are members of the Royal Air Force. There are men and some few women who joined the Royal Air Force in the years before the war, or in the months immediately after the outbreak of the war. Most of them were enlisted in England. A few are Canadians who have remained with the Royal Air Force in the years since the last war. None of these men whose numbers are not available but who at a rough guess might be about 2,000 have any connection with the Royal

War Appropriation-Air Services
Canadian Air Force. We exercise no authority over them, we do not pay them. They are not identified in any way as Canadians. They belong to a different service from the Royal Canadian Air Force.
It is in connection with these personnel that there has been a demand that they be permitted to transfer to the Royal Canadian Air Force. I promised last year to take it up with the air ministry, and after long negotiations, air ministry has consented to the transfer to our forces if these men and women so desire. Instructions have recently been issued by us covering such transfers.
Since they are not identified with the Royal Canadian Air Force, I do not refer to them when reviewing our overseas operations.
Another and the most important class from the standpoint of numbers, and from the standpoint of Canada generally, are the thousands of Canadians, mostly aircrew, but with a goodly number of radio mechanics who were enlisted, trained and are paid by Canada, but are now on loan to the Royal Air Force and are serving with Royal Air Force units or formations.
Let me make myself perfectly clear. These personnel to whom I referred a moment ago joined the Royal Canadian Air Force in Canada, were trained by us and are entirely paid for by us. They still retain their Canadian identity. They wear Canadian shoulder badges, and as I said before, are paid by Canada. Their welfare, promotion, repatriation, and their interests are our duty and responsibility for they are only temporarily attached to Royal Air Force. They are located all over the world. They are not in Royal Canadian Air Force squadrons because with respect to radio mechanics they are specialists and do not by the nature of their occupation readily form themselves into units of any size. These radio mechanics are spread all over southeastern Asia, Africa and the United Kingdom individually or in small detachments. My information is that they compose 45 per cent of the strength of the Royal Air Force mechanics establishment.
With respect to the other category of Royal Canadian Air Force airmen attached to the Royal Air Force, namely aircrew, they are not in Royal Canadian Air Force squadrons because there are not now, nor likely ever will be, enough Royal Canadian Air Force squadrons to fit them into. These aircrew, flying men, are widely dispersed throughout Royal Air Force squadrons. It is because they are so widely scattered, in so many different units, that we meet with some difficulty in carrying out our responsibilities and duties towards them. Nevertheless' by means of
liaison officers, and during the past year through pay officers, through more elaborate records, even though in some cases it means duplicating Royal Air'Force records, through Royal Canadian Air Force sub-headquarters in various sections of the United Kingdom, in Italy, and in the middle east, and in India, we endeavour to keep in touch and to the best of our ability to keep track of their commissioning, rights to repatriation, and tours of duty.
The recent agreements, and better understandings with the air ministry, and more particularly with the more subordinate officers of the Royal Air Force, will go a long way to improving the situation of both aircrew and ground radio mechanics.
I believe it is better understood now that we undertake our responsibilities to these men, not with any desire to interfere with Royal Air Force organization, but because the parents of these boys, and the people of Canada generally, expect us to do so. Canadian parents have neither the channels open, nor the desire to approach the Royal Air Force and air ministry, with respect to the matters in which their boys are interested. Canadian people look to the Royal Canadian Air Force and the Royal Canadian Air Force must be organized to meet their demands.
Thirdly, and finally, we come to our own men in our own Canadian Royal Canadian Air Force squadrons. Originally there were three Canadian squadrons which went overseas as units. The number has now risen to forty-two in actual operations overseas. There are bomber squadrons, fighter squadrons, reconnaissance squadrons, coastal command squadrons, night fighter and intruder squadrons. In these forty-two squadrons identified as Canadian squadrons nearly all the aircrew are Canadian, the commanding officers are Canadian, the groundcrew are Canadian. The entire cost of the squadrons, including aeroplanes is borne by Canada, and their upkeep as Canadian units makes up a goodly part of our overseas expenditure. There are not nearly so many Canadian aircrew in Royal Canadian Air Force squadrons as there are scattered throughout the Royal Air Force. I have been asked many times why all Canadians are not in Canadian squadrons. The answer is that if all Canadian flying men were in Canadian squadrons we would require not thousands, as we have, but well over a hundred thousand groundcrew for the maintenance and service of these squadrons and their equipment. You cannot properly call a squadron a Canadian squadron, even though the majority of the aircrew were Canadians, if the ground-

War Appropriation-Air Services
crew necessary to oare for, repair and maintain the aircraft were other than Canadians, for normally these groundcrew number many times more than the aircrew who actually fly the machines.
There is a story told by a newspaper correspondent of having visited a Royal Air Force squadron in Africa, and on entering the officers' mess he found a placard posted up with these words, "Canadian spoken here; English understood."
Besides, the joint air training plan was intended only for the purpose of. producing aircrew. It was never intended under the original agreement that we should send any groundcrew over to the United Kingdom. It was considered that if Canada set up the ground establishment in Canada to train flyers, and that meant employment of over 150,000 people on the ground, it would have done its share in the air war effort by sending the trained flying personnel overseas to fight as member of the commonwealth air forces in any of the commonwealth units anywhere. But, because we desired further identification of our forces, and because we had some of the best mechanics and groundcrews in the world, eager and ready to proceed overseas, we set up these overseas air squadrons, and personally I am exceedingly proud of the action we did take.
To judge by the paucity of public information carried in the British and American press, and in official statements and communiques with respect to the thousands of our men in the Royal Air Force, I should judge that if we had not had these squadrons of our own, even the people of Canada, not to speak of our allies and partners, would have been almost totally ignorant of the large and important part Canada is playing in the air war and the defeat of Germany.
I am often asked, when I speak of Cana-adians in the Royal Air Force, what proportion of our men compose the Royal Air Force strength. In groundcrew our proportion is small since we have only, supplied groundcrew for our own squadrons, the remainder of Canadian groundcrew being kept in Canada for the purposes of the joint air training plan which trains flyers for all the allies and the commonwealth forces.
With regard to aircrew, that is men who fly, the situation is different, and our proportionate strength to that of the Royal Air Force is very much higher. I have not the exact figures for overseas. I know, however, that Canada is now, and has been for many months, the largest and principal producer of aircrew for all the commonwealth forces. I know that, of the aircrew of all the partners produced in Canada, Royal Canadian Air Force graduates
[Mr. Power.!
make up considerably more than one-half of the total. All others combined, including Aus-aralian, New Zealand and British, and all the peoples who make up the Royal Air Force quota of trainees, make up less than half the graduates.
I know how many thousands of pilots, observers bombaimers, wireless operators and air gunners we have overseas. I am fully informed as to the number of such aircrew there are at any given moment in Royal Canadian Air Force squadrons. I have not figures of the numbers of these graduates in Royal Air Force squadrons at any given time. They vary with commands, with postings, with casualties, with sickness, with leave and numerous other factors.
But with the best information I can obtain, I should say that from 22 per cent to 25 per cent of all the aircrew in the European and Mediterranean areas under British tactical command-and this includes British, New Zealanders, Australians, Poles, Czechs, Norwegians, Belgians and Free French-are Canadian boys, enlisted in Canada, trained in Canada, paid for by Canadians. That proportion will tend to increase rather than decrease as the men whom we have overseas proceed through their final courses to the operational squadrons, until Canadians comprise about one-third of the total content of these British-Dominion-allied aircrew strength.
I have deliberately omitted reference to the Indian theatre of operations; I know how many Canadians are there, but I do not know their relative strength compared to other allied forces. I have also omitted reference to the south Pacific where we have practically no representation, but where Australia and New Zealand, with very little publicity on this continent, are heroically bearing the burden on land, sea and air, along with United States forces.
Necessarily I have not the details of the operations to which Canadians loaned to Royal Air Force squadrons took part. Suffice to say that they are in almost every formation of the Royal Air Force and have been in every sortie, every raid, every operation undertaken by the Royal Air Force. I have, however, the details of the work of our men who are grouped together in Royal Canadian Air Force squadrons and this work I now propose to review.
Operations of Royal Canadian Air Force units overseas. The Royal Canadian Air Force entered the year 1944 with forty-two squadrons overseas, operating under the direction of the Royal Air Force bomber command, coastal command, fighter command, allied

War Appropriation-Air Services
expeditionary air force, Mediterranean command and India command. During the year 1943 we grouped these squadrons together [DOT]within each command as far as their operational role permitted. As a result of this move we have a bomber group, fighter wings, reconnaissance wing, and a number of auxiliary units.
The following statistics will give you a general idea of the Royal Canadian Air Force squadrons' participation overseas in the war against the enemy during 1943 and to the middle of February, 1944:
Sorties flown	 38,544
Operational hours flown	 129,461
Tons of bombs dropped	 21,990
Enemy aircraft destroyed	 208
Enemy aircraft probably destroyed
and damaged	 162
Locomotives destroyed	 150
To which must be added enemy U-boats,
merchant vessels, tugs, barges, military installations, motor vehicles, transports of all kinds, et cetera.
A very large number of operational sorties were flown and a large tonnage of bombs dropped, bearing in mind that seventeen squadrons were converted from obsolescent to modern aircraft during the year, during which period they were of necessity out of the line. For example, at the beginning of 1943 the majority of our bomber squadrons were equipped with two-engined medium bombers of the Wellington class and before the end of the year had been converted to heavy four-engine aircraft. You will readily appreciate that it is a considerable undertaking to convert a squadron from Wellington to Halifaxes or Lancasters, involving as it does additional crew members and the necessity of making old crews conversant with and competent on the new equipment. Due to these conversions to larger aircraft a substantial increase in the tonnage dropped was shown during the later months of 1943. An increase which is each month being exceeded as the Royal Canadian Air Force's participation with the Royal Air Force in the round the clock attack on Germany is speeded up.
Fighter squadrons. Our day fighter and fighter reconnaissance squadrons, operating from bases in the United Kingdom under the command of the allied expeditionary air force and fighter command, are grouped together into Royal Canadian Air Force fighter wings and a Royal Canadian Air Force reconnaissance wing.
These wings are employed on offensive sweeps over the continent against the enemy. They provide protection to bombers of the air forces of the British empire and of the
United States army air force on daylight
attacks against continental targets. They also undertake close escort duties, convoy patrols, air-sea rescue flights, interception patrols and general reconnaissance flights.
During the period 1st January, 1943, to 11th February, 1944, these wings and squadrons flew 21,965 operational sorties, destroyed 158 enemy aircraft and probably destroyed or damaged 135 others. In addition to these successful attacks on enemy aircraft, many locomotives, railway yards, enemy ships, motor vehicles, military installations, trains, et cetera, were damaged.
Intruder and night fighter squadrons. Royal Canadian Air Force intruder and night fighter squadrons are operating under the operational control of the Royal Air Force fighter command. These squadrons are employed on offensive duties against enemy targets on the Continent and on the defensive protection of Great Britain against enemy day and night raiders.
These squadrons have carried out 2,056 operational sorties, during which they have destroyed forty-two enemy aircraft and probably destroyed or damaged twenty-four others, to say nothing of some eighty-one locomotives.
Bomber squadrons. At 0001 hours, 1st January, 1943, the Royal Canadian Air Force assumed responsibility for a bomber group within the Royal Air Force bomber command. As I have already mentioned, the majority of these squadrons were equipped with medium twin-engined aircraft at this time, and during the year converted to and are now operating on heavy four-engined aircraft.
Shortly after the formation of the Royal Air Force pathfinder force, the Royal Canadian Air Force assumed its share of responsibility in this group. The purpose of the pathfinders, is to mark the route of the main body and then to indicate the target with special flares to enable the main force to drop its bombs in the correct spot. This particular work is highly specialized and the Royal Canadian Air Force is making a name for itself in this field.
Some idea of the extent to which the Royal Canadian Air Force bomber group has participated in bomber command's devastating offensive against the enemy's vital centres of war industry may be gathered from a list of the main targets attacked during the first thirteen months of the group's existence. The effect of the high explosive and incendiary loads released by its aircraft was felt by more than forty important manufacturing and communications centres, seaports, shipbuilding yards, submarine bases, et cetera, in Germany, Italy and occupied France.

convoys and we hunted the submarine. We have stretched our coverage far beyond our own shores, and in conjunction with our Canadian navy have assumed responsibility for the northwest Atlantic. Our land planes and amphibians and flying boats sweep the north Atlantic from Labrador to Greenland and beyond. And lastly, farther overseas we have contributed thousands of our men to the global war. We are in Iceland. We are in the Hebrides. We are in Burma. We are in India. We are in Egypt. We are in Italy. We are nightly over Europe. We are attacking and beating Germany in the very heart of nazi might. This is what Canada is doing in the air war.
Canada is doing her share equal to that of any nation of the commonwealth, and in proportion to its population, equal to that of any of its allies.
That is what the world should realize.
That is what the people of Canada should know.
Canada has a right to be proud of its air war.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



SUSPENSION OP RATIONING-STATEMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY ASSISTANT TO THE MINISTER OF FINANCE

Mr. D. C. ABBOTT (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, with the permission of the house I should like to make a statement with respect to meat rationing.
Three weeks ago the question of the need for continuing meat rationing was raised in the House of Commons and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) stated that the whole question would be reviewed in the light of current conditions.
The basic reasons for meat rationing in Canada should be clearly understood. Our production of meat has always been ample for our domestic requirements. The reasons for meat rationing were to create an increased exportable surplus to meet the urgent and essential requirements of the United Kingdom and to ensure equitable distribution of the supplies remaining in Canada. May I point out that our purpose is not only to help to feed the population of the United Kingdom but also the total armed forces supplied through the United Kingdom which include all the Canadian forces overseas. We intend to continue to meet these urgent and essential requirements.

During recent weeks, however, unusually large surpluses of meat have been developing in Canada. The mere existence of such surpluses would not be a good reason for suspending rationing provided that such surpluses could be moved to seaboard and overseas.
A careful review of the present position has satisfied the government that for the time being the excess supply of meat coming to market, over and above the amount needed to meet domestic requirements at the present rate of consumption, is in excess of our physical capacity to move it into export channels, and that the sensible and proper course to take is temporarily to suspend meat rationing.
The facts can be summarized briefly, as follows:
1.	There have been unusually heavy marketings of all types of live stock during recent months, and it is expected that heavy marketings will continue for the next two or three months. During the first eight weeks of 1944 the inspected packing plants in Canada have slaughtered 780,000 more hogs, 50,000 more cattle, 10,000 more calves and 30,000 more sheep and lambs than in the corresponding weeks of 1943. These figures represent an increase over 1943 of eighty per cent in hogs, fifty per cent in cattle, twenty per cent in calves and thirty-five per cent in sheep and lambs. It has been only with the greatest difficulty that the packing plants have been able physically to handle this great increase in volume.
2.	As a result of these very heavy runs of live stock j.he storage and transportation facilities have become acutely congested. The latest available statistics indicate that there are over 102,000,000 pounds of meat in cold storage which is nearly twice as much as at this time a year ago and 65 per cent greater than is normal at this time of year. In addition to meat storage we have to provide for the cold storage of other important products. There is at present no reserve of cold storage space to take care of any unforeseen backing up due to unpreventable delays in shipping.
3.	Not only are we having a continuance of heavy live stock marketings and an acute congestion of storage space, but we are also faced with limitations on our physical capacity to move meat to seaboard and overseas. During the past eight weeks we have moved record quantities overseas-more than we have ever moved in a similar two-month period. If everything moved with clock-like precision we believe we might just be able to handle the present volume of product, but with no reserve of storage space and with a continued

Unemployment in Alberta Coal Mining Areas
heavy flow of marketings we are in a position where any serious accident or delay whether caused by weather or by the exigencies of war would put us in a very difficult position. The shipping authorities have been able to schedule sufficient tonnage to move the present supplies, but there is always the risk of accidents or other delays upsetting these schedules. But even if sufficient tonnage is put into our ports, there are physical and human limitations on the rate of loading at these ports and there is a very definite limitation on the total available supply of refrigerator cars.
Three weeks ago the whole situation was difficult and congested. Every department of this government and of other governments concerned have done their utmost to improve the position but, while not seriously worse, the position is definitely not improved and there are very real dangers of a backing up of supplies and movement to a point where actual spoilage of meat might occur.
For these reasons it has been decided to suspend meat rationing, including meatless Tuesdays, until the congestion in both storage and transportation is cleared up. However, the government is fully determined that to the extent of our ability the essential requirements of the United Kingdom and our overseas forces shall be met and it is, therefore, intended that meat rationing be resumed as soon as such a course will be helpful. I want to make it perfectly clear that meat rationing is being suspended, not abandoned.
In this connection I should emphasize that in order to facilitate the resumption of meat rationing the system of slaughter permits and the requirement that all carcasses be stamped with the permit holder's licence number will remain in full effect. It is proposed, however, for the duration of the suspension of rationing to permit individual farmers to slaughter their own live stock for sale directly to consumers without the necessity of their getting a permit or stamping the meat so sold.


Gordon Graydon: If I may ask one question, having in mind the information which must be available to the government alone, has the parliamentary assistant any idea as to how long we may expect this suspension to continue in operation?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No; I am afraid I cannot give any indication as to how long it may be. That will depend upon any changes in the conditions which I indicated in my statement.


Mr. COLDWELL:: May I ask if the present price structure is to remain?


Douglas Charles Abbott: There is no change in the price ceiling.



LABOUR CONDITIONS-UNEMPLOYMENT IN ALBERTA COAL MINING AREAS-STATEMENT OF HON. MEMBER FOR BOW RIVER

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. E. MICHAUD (Minister of Transport) moved that the house go into committee of supply.
Mr. C. E. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: 
Mr. E. G. HANSELL (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, coming from a constituency in which there is a good deal of coal mining, I wish to support the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston) in what he has said. For the most part, however, my constituency is engaged in mining bituminous coal, and perhaps the situation there is not as acute as it is in the Drumheller mines. Nevertheless in certain parts of my territory we find mines producing domestic coal. It has been brought to my knowledge that many of those local mines have closed down, and the miners have either moved away or had to seek some other type of employment.
I know the problem is not an easy one, particularly when the weather has a habit of playing pranks on us. But the fact that we have had a mild winter does not make any difference to the situation described by the hon. member for Bow River. The fact is that conditions are such, for one reason and, I believe, one reason only, namely, that the government have not yet determined on an adequate and proper national fuel policy. They never have had one; they have never seemed to be trying to get one, and I do not know that there is much hope of the present government ever getting one.
We have unemployment in a time of war. The telegrams referred to by the hon. member reminded me of depression days. That was the kind of telegrams we used to get in those days, and it seems strange that in a time of war, when industry should be working at full capacity, there should be such unemployment in those industries. I support the hon. member, and I say the time is long past due when the government should have announced something of a permanent nature in respect of a fuel policy for Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the house went into committee of supply, Mr. Bradette in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
359. Departmental administration, $425,590.
Item stands.

[Stage Direction]
258. Departmental administration, $191,595.
Item stands.
Charles Edward Johnston: May I ask through 5'ou, Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Labour will make a reply to the questions I raised?
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, until Thursday, at 3 o'clock p.m., pursuant to special order made Monday, February 21, 1944.